• marcos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 days ago

    If you are asking this seriously, trickle-down economics is an absurd nonsense theory, there are no examples of it.

    Also, money changing hands is not what creates wealth, and those security details would be just an artificially maintained middle-class that can never be large.

    • w3dd1e@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      13 days ago

      Trickle down economy is a thing….but only in costs, not in profits.

    • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      12 days ago

      […] trickle-down economics is an absurd nonsense theory […]

      Would you mind defining exactly what you mean by “trickle down economics”?

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        12 days ago

        If it had a definition, it wouldn’t be nonsense, would it?

        “Trickle down economics” is a rhetoric instrument by which people try to convince the public that taxing poor people and fiscally spending in rich people will increase the poor people’s quality of life.

        • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 days ago

          If it had a definition, it wouldn’t be nonsense, would it?

          It would depend on the definition in question. The term in a vacuum is just a collection of words — what those words mean is rather important, imo.

          • marcos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 days ago

            Well, ok, turns out I wrote a definition of the next line.

            It’s a nonsensical economical theory, with no definition on the context of economics.

            • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 days ago

              […] It’s a nonsensical economical theory, with no definition on the context of economics.

              Hrm, if it has no definition in the context of economics, how could you know argue that, by its definition, it is a nonsensical economic theory? That seems to fail modus ponens.

            • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 days ago

              […] no definition on the context of economics.

              Do you mean that, in your opinion, it has definitions in other contexts? If so, what would it be, and what would the contexts be?