Sowell: The 'Trickle-Down' Lie

[Plasmaball]

yawn sowell....how boring

Sowell is an academic. Academics are often boring to nonacademics. For those of us with functioning minds we tend to discredit those we disagree with utilizing facts as opposed to discounting them as "boring." But carry on, "boring" it is.

sowell speaks in generalities...naturally the right is drawn to him.

 

[oldfart]

I've been saying for years that the term "trickle down" is simply a libturd epithet meaning "capitalism." No one ever calls the libturds on their fabrications (lies, for those of you in Rio Linda)

http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/thomas-sowell/the-trickle-down-lie.html

New York's new mayor, Bill de Blasio, in his inaugural speech, denounced people "on the far right" who "continue to preach the virtue of trickle-down economics." According to Mayor de Blasio, "They believe that the way to move forward is to give more to the most fortunate, and that somehow the benefits will work their way down to everyone else."

If there is ever a contest for the biggest lie in politics, this one should be a top contender.

While there have been all too many lies told in politics, most have some little tiny fraction of truth in them, to make them seem plausible. But the "trickle-down" lie is 100 percent lie.

It should win the contest both because of its purity — no contaminating speck of truth — and because of how many people have repeated it over the years, without any evidence being asked for or given.

Years ago, this column challenged anybody to quote any economist outside of an insane asylum who had ever advocated this "trickle-down" theory. Some readers said that somebody said that somebody else had advocated a "trickle-down" policy. But they could never name that somebody else and quote them.

Mayor de Blasio is by no means the first politician to denounce this non-existent theory. Back in 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama attacked what he called "an economic philosophy" which "says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else."

Let's do something completely unexpected: Let's stop and think. Why would anyone advocate that we "give" something to A in hopes that it would trickle down to B? Why in the world would any sane person not give it to B and cut out the middleman? But all this is moot, because there was no trickle-down theory about giving something to anybody in the first place.​

I take it that your and Thomas Sowell's objection is that no one has given an etymology of the term "trickle down economics". I shall remedy that.

The first use of the term I can find is by Will Rogers during the Great Depression. It's noted in Giangreco, D. M.; Kathryn Moore (1999). Dear Harry: Truman's Mailroom, 1945-1953. ISBN 0-8117-0482-3. Will Rogers said ""money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."

Economist George Reisman, a proponent of tax cuts, said the following:

Of course, many people will characterize the line of argument I have just given as the 'trickle-down' theory. There is nothing trickle-down about it. There is only the fact that capital accumulation and economic progress depend on saving and innovation and that these in turn depend on the freedom to make high profits and accumulate great wealth. The only alternative to improvement for all, through economic progress, achieved in this way, is the futile attempt of some men to gain at the expense of others by means of looting and plundering. This, the loot-and-plunder theory, is the alternative advocated by the critics of the misnamed trickle-down theory." ("The General Benefit from Reducing Taxes on the 'Rich'". Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics. p. 308. ISBN 978-0915463732.)

So the phrase "trickle-down" was in use by Will Rogers in the 30s to refer to this idea and acknowledged by economist George Reisman who objected to the name.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary notes that the first known use of trickle-down as an adjective meaning "relating to or working on the principle of trickle-down theory" was in 1944, while the first known use of trickle-down theory was in 1954. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary (online edition) entry for "trickle-down." Accessed September 17, 2010; entry for "trickle-down theory." accessed same day).

After leaving the Presidency, Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, alleged "Republicans [...] simply don't know how to manage the economy. They're so busy operating the trickle-down theory, giving the richest corporations the biggest break, that the whole thing goes to hell in a handbasket." (The Atlantic | July 1973 | The Last Days of the President | Janos).

All this is before Reaganomics. So what happens after 1980 to the term?

David Stockman, Reagan's budget director, in an interview with journalist William Greider, stated, "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." (William Greider. The Education of David Stockman. ISBN 0-525-48010-2)

When confronted with the Greider interview, Thomas Sowell (The "Trickle Down" Left: Preserving a Vision. June 2, 2006) Sowell replied in his newspaper columns that Stockman himself had not proposed or advocated the alleged theory, so Sowell rejected him as an example of someone who had done so. Additionally, Stockman had not specifically named anyone who, or quoted a source that, advocated the theory although he did claim that the theory was being adhered to by the Reagan administration. Sowell replied that Stockman "was not even among the first thousand people to make that claim" but that "not one of those who made the claim could provide a single quote from anybody who had advocated a 'trickle-down theory.'"

By this point it is apparent that Sowell has retreated into semantics. He acknowledges that a theory exists that has been advocated by the Reagan administration, and apparently agrees with Stockman's argument that calling it "trickle-down" was bad politics so the name was changed to "supply-side". Sowell splits hairs that Stockman did not call it "trickle-down while advocating it, using the term to refer to the policy only later; and acknowledged that at least a thousand writers were using that name for that theory before Stockman! So what is Sowell's point?

In fact, in the early 1990s Congressional Records, non-pejorative uses of the term are rare but do appear. (Lane Evans. Congressional Record, March 13, 1990; Helen Delich Bentley. Congressional Record, July 24, 1989; Jay Rockefeller. Congressional Record, July 26, 1991; Sam Farr. Congressional Record, July 21, 1994.)

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory." He wrote, "Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: 'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'" Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896. (Galbraith, John Kenneth, "Recession Economics." New York Review of Books Volume 29, Number 1.)

I rather like Galbraith's progression; from ""horse and sparrow" to "trickle-down" to "supply-side", all the same theory!

In passing, while the term was not exactly the same, this issue was the primary issue in the 1896 Presidential campaign. The Democratic Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan made reference to trickle-down theory in his famous "Cross of Gold" speech:

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.

 

[Kimura]

I liken trickle down to a clown car with Jude Wanniski, Art Laffer, and Robert Mundell on their way to crazy town.

 

[rdean]

How about you earn your money and others earn theirs, and what anyone spends it on is up to their voluntary choices. Hey, there's a unique concept!

Or do you feel somehow entitled to other people's money?

Code for...

I don't want to contribute to society

So in other words, you DO feel entitled to other people's money. Got it.

Code for...

Stealing is a-okay with me as long as I get the loot.

Pathetic.

Like Mitt Romney said, 'You Didn't Get Here Solely On Your Own'

 

[rdean]

Rush Limbaugh, the leader of the Republican Party, calls it "trickle down".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/333717-is-trickle-down-working.html#post8419486

 

[Indeependent]

Rush Limbaugh, the leader of the Republican Party, calls it "trickle down".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/333717-is-trickle-down-working.html#post8419486

All the Conservative commentators have been calling it Trickle Down for over a decade.
What brain power!

 

[Truthseeker420]

yawn sowell....how boring

Yes, you're a libturd. They find facts boring.

Lies and delusions are so much more emotionally satisfying, aren't they?

What facts were in your quote? I just saw the normal right wing rhetoric.

 

[Immanuel]

Stealing from and raping the middle class to enhance wealth concentrations in the top 0.5% will certainly damage/destroy the economy.

Example please.

And I'm not saying there aren't any. I'm just interested in what you consider stealing...and if you consider the redistribution of wealth from the most productive citizens to the half of us that pay no federal income taxes to also be stealing.

The most productive citizens are the laborers. The least productive ones are the very young, the retired, the disabled, and the shareholders. An inordinate amount of wealth (created by productive workers) is distributed among the very young, the retired, the disabled, and the shareholders. The fairness of this distribution ("theft," in some minds) is the gist of the American argument in our media-controlled discourse.

You forgot Congress in your list of "least productive". Congress should also be in your list of those to whom laborer's wealth is distributed.

Immie

 

[Truthseeker420]

Let's do something completely unexpected: Let's stop and think. Why would anyone advocate that we "give" something to A in hopes that it would trickle down to B? Why in the world would any sane person not give it to B and cut out the middleman? But all this is moot, because there was no trickle-down theory about giving something to anybody in the first place.

Because said person is a puppet of A and wants all the money and power, And saying B would get the money said person would not get billions in campaign money from A so said person and A fool B into voting for said person thinking trickle economics will help B with simplistic one liners like " A rising tide lifts all boats".

 

[Truthseeker420]

Those rich folks are much better off with their money than us working folks

How about you earn your money and others earn theirs, and what anyone spends it on is up to their voluntary choices. Hey, there's a unique concept!

Or do you feel somehow entitled to other people's money?

When are the rich going to pay for their trillion dollar wars, and the banker bailouts, and the number of other things done for the rich.

 

[Spiderman]

Those rich folks are much better off with their money than us working folks

How about you earn your money and others earn theirs, and what anyone spends it on is up to their voluntary choices. Hey, there's a unique concept!

Or do you feel somehow entitled to other people's money?

Hey ain't that an interesting thought. Does that mean that the corporate executive feels he is entitled to his employees money thereby justifying the moving of jobs for American workers off shore? Where those workers get paid very little.

The employer owns the job not the employee. If those employees were compensated for their time then they got their money. If the wage structure and political environment is better in another country an employer has every right to move his operation

And the executive gets a big bonus from the cutting or eliminating of wages for American workers.

Again the jobs are owned by the company if the company can be more efficient with less employees they have every right to down size

How come those executives feel that they need to take the workers pay?

They are not taking anyone's pay. Laborers sell their labor to a company. When the company no longer wishes to buy that labor they don't have to.

Tell me if you decide not to shop at Supermarket A and instead shop at Supermarket B are you taking Supermarket A's money ?

 

[Moonglow]

Then call it voo-doo economics like Bush sr. called it.

 

[rightwinger]

Then call it voo-doo economics like Bush sr. called it.

Sowell is a douche bag

He plays the "You can't show where we ever called it Trickle Down economics" so it is a liberal myth

Even David Stockman admitted that they used the term "Supply Side economic" to avoid being called Trickle Down

 

[expat_panama]

...can't show where we ever called it Trickle Down economics...

The extreme mindless left uses the term a lot because most of what they say avoids issues and sticks to mere personal attacks. I can think of three reasons I avoid personal attacks on this forum:

1. It's in conflict with consistant moral principles,
2. That's a task that's best done by experienced professionals who really know how to do it well,
3. This forum is monitored by extreme loopy lefty admin that suppress insulting the left and have already put me on notice...

 

[eflatminor]

Let me get this straight...


Those rich folks are much better off with their money than us working folks

That is why we have to be sure they have a steady supply

Thank you Mr Sowell

Key word here and thanks for using it

THEIR MONEY

Working folks aren't entitled to their money?

You guys make it so obvious

Who is taking working folk's money? Specifically please. I can cite an example. Can you?

 

[rightwinger]

Key word here and thanks for using it

THEIR MONEY

Working folks aren't entitled to their money?

You guys make it so obvious

Who is taking working folk's money? Specifically please. I can cite an example. Can you?

You really want to know?

The employers

The same employers who pay wages that their workers are incapable of supporting themselves. The same employers who expect the taxpayer to provide food and low cost housing so their employees can continue to work for them

 

[eflatminor]

Those rich folks are much better off with their money than us working folks

How about you earn your money and others earn theirs, and what anyone spends it on is up to their voluntary choices. Hey, there's a unique concept!

Or do you feel somehow entitled to other people's money?

Hey ain't that an interesting thought. Does that mean that the corporate executive feels he is entitled to his employees money

Please show an example of a corporate executive stealing his employee's money. Pretty sure there's already laws against that.

thereby justifying the moving of jobs for American workers off shore? Where those workers get paid very little.

Fail. That's NOT an example of stealing money. That's the reality of what happens when the central planners you support impose overly burdensome regulations, healthcare requirements, minimum wage laws, and the highest corporate tax rate in the world. THAT'S what forces operations overseas.

Still looking for that example of workers money being taken and given to the rich.

And the executive gets a big bonus from the cutting or eliminating of wages for American workers.

Again, no stealing. No one is entitled to their job. Do you even understand the concept of competition?

Further, what a PRIVATE company pays it's employees, whether you define those employees as workers or executives, has NOTHING to do with redistributing wealth by government force. If you don't like what a company pays it's people, don't buy from that company and don't work for that company. It's your choice, which we don't get with government forced redistribution.

Are you really this ignorant?

How come those executives feel that they need to take the workers pay?

Wow...I guess you really are this ignorant.

If an employee doesn't feel he's being compensated enough, he's free to seek employment elsewhere. Employment is a VOLUNTARY arrangement dumbass. Nobody in the private sector is "taking" anything from employees.

Geez, is this what what we can expect from a public school education these days? How sad.

 

[eflatminor]

Working folks aren't entitled to their money?

You guys make it so obvious

Who is taking working folk's money? Specifically please. I can cite an example. Can you?

You really want to know?

The employers

The same employers who pay wages that their workers are incapable of supporting themselves. The same employers who expect the taxpayer to provide food and low cost housing so their employees can continue to work for them

Oh...my...God. You collectivists really are dumb as a rock. I'm stunned at the ignorance.

Employment is VOLUNTARY. If you don't like what you're being paid, you can seek employment elsewhere. That's not "taking" anything! Taking is something done by force dumbshit.

Regarding taxpayer imposed entitlements, am I to take it that you're now against that kind of redistribution? Perhaps there is hope after all...

 

[rightwinger]

Who is taking working folk's money? Specifically please. I can cite an example. Can you?

You really want to know?

The employers

The same employers who pay wages that their workers are incapable of supporting themselves. The same employers who expect the taxpayer to provide food and low cost housing so their employees can continue to work for them

Oh...my...God. You collectivists really are dumb as a rock. I'm stunned at the ignorance.

Employment is VOLUNTARY. If you don't like what you're being paid, you can seek employment elsewhere. That's not "taking" anything! Taking is something done by force dumbshit.

Regarding taxpayer imposed entitlements, am I to take it that you're now against that kind of redistribution? Perhaps there is hope after all...

Yes it is

Workers who make substandard wages can "volunteer" because the taxpayers help pay his apartment and food stamps. We help provide a low cost workforce

The employer pockets the difference

 

[edthecynic]

TOM Sowell is himself a "Trickle-downer" except he calls it "Supply-side" economics.