Excuse me if the question in the title is a too big simplification, but I suppose the pattern exists.

        • NABDad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Exactly.

          Trickle-down economics doesn’t work, and everyone who isn’t an idiot knows it whether they say it works or not.

          Trickle-up economics would work, because if money gets into the hands of the people at the very bottom, they buy the things they need to live.

      • QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        22 hours ago

        No it is not supply side economics. If everyone equally got a 10% bump in wealth that would be a rising tide and would not be trickle down.

          • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            21 hours ago

            This article makes no sense, the entire thing does that the phrase was used to garner support for broad reaching support and economic policy that helps a large swath of people, but then at the bottom they stick in a subdivision of trickle down which is effectively the opposite of that (helping a small subsection would magically help everyone else)

        • Maeve@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          22 hours ago

          That’s not how it works in practice. In practice, crapitalists get tax breaks, everyone else gets less infrastructure, services, etc and pays more for the wealthy to enjoy a luxury liner while trying to run us over on whatever scraps we have.