Why Trickle Up Is More Plausible Than Trickle Down

Why Trickle Up Is More Plausible Than Trickle Down

Debates about the systems of economic growth rage on, but the answer lies in what we have not yet considered.
866
views

In the current mode of economic thinking, the major debate is between trickle up economics and trickle down economics, whose outcome will shape how our economy develops in the near future and may even address the underlying problems of the American economy--I alluded to in my 2017 economic outlook--such as diversification of labor and the growing crisis of inequality and the savings multiplier.

To begin, let's first take a look at what these two modes of economic thinking entail. Trickle-down economics, otherwise known as supply-side economics, is most commonly attributed to Reaganomics. The basic principle behind this system is that more money and tax breaks are given to the rich and therefore the money will flow to the bottom echelons of the economy. In theory, this sounds plausible given the way market forces operate and the nature of capitalism itself. History has, however, shown that its implementation has been flawed. More money went to the top echelons and stayed there rather than trickling to the bottom. This is primarily because of something called the propensity to save and consume. In economics, the propensity to consume is the amount of a person's disposable income they are likely to spend in the economy. Usually an average is taken, but there is a stark difference between that of the wealthiest Americans and the average of those at lower income levels. Those with less disposable income have a higher propensity to consume or spend and a lower propensity to save, meaning that the spending multiplier, or rather the rate at which the economy grows via spending, is greater in the lower levels than the higher incomes. Those who receive higher incomes save a greater portion of their income than spend it.

On the contrary, trickle-up economics is based on the principle of giving more tax breaks and compensation to those at the lower income levels, thereby bringing an increase in income to the upper levels as well. This would be in the form of subsidies, tax credits for small businesses and other means. It would also promote local job growth and development and reduce the dependence on large-scale corporations to create jobs. It might even reduce the influence of large-scale corporations in Congress by reducing their importance in the economy. Those at the top, however, do not lose in real economic terms while those at the bottom simultaneously gain and spend. More money will be spent and put into circulation, thereby greatly increasing the spending multiplier effect. This method would also significantly reduce inequality in the US, which would increase economic growth both on paper and off the record.

Although trickle-down economics would work well with proper implementation, our current legal system is ill-equipped to handle it. Trickle-down economics failed because of the propensity of those with higher incomes to save. In order for it to work; we, therefore, would need to legally compel the wealthy to spend more on investment and the lower classes. Instead of facing that legal battle, it would be more efficient to focus on trickle-up economics because the market forces governing propensity to spend and consume are much easier to work with at that level.

Cover Image Credit: www.fee.org

Popular Right Now

I'm Sick Of Politics Taking Over The Entertainment Industry

Leave the political analysis to the reporters.
844
views

People watch the news to learn about current events and form political opinions, then they watch talk shows and other forms of entertainment to relax and enjoy the program. Mixing these two worlds is, quite frankly, annoying. I understand that there are shows such as "The Today Show," and "The View" which I enjoy very much.

These programs flirt with the lines of mixing current events and entertainment. However, what I don't want is to turn on Jimmy Kimmel and feel like I'm watching CNN.

With our country being as polarized as it has been, we should not be making it worse by having politics shoved down our throats every time we try to watch a current show or movie. This is especially true since Hollywood is overwhelmingly liberal. Even in the cable news cycles, there are options; for each political ideology for late-night television and even modern sitcom, there is only one ideology and that is LIBERAL LEFT.

This is not to say that one side is better or worse than the other, however, if the entertainment industry is attempting to take on politics too, then shouldn't there be some sort of ideological diversity?

In times of political and social hostility, some people enjoy a safe haven away from politics. It would be nice to get away from the partisan news cycles for a few hours and watch a movie, or binge your favorite sitcom, however, with Hollywood's agenda that is simply not possible anymore.

I don't understand the push for having a political undertone in everything that is aired recently. It is not relevant and it is making our country more hostile towards one and other because not only are viewers getting upset over conflicting opinions on sensitive topics but, we are also being forced to hear about it at every point of the day. The average person should be able to choose if they want to watch the news or entertainment television.

I am the type of person who watches the news daily. I enjoy knowing what is going on, however, even I need a break every now and then. The entertainment industry should stick to entertaining and leave the political analysis to the reporters.

Cover Image Credit: SNL Facebook

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

10 Ridiculous Quotes From Politicians

10 silly things politicians have said.
473
views

I’m sure we have all watched the news or read an article, especially in the last couple of years, where we were shocked about what someone has said. The first thing that comes to my mind are the several crazy things said by President Trump. Anyone remember him talking about how sexy his daughter is and that he’d sleep with her if she wasn’t his daughter? I do! There are plenty of other crazy things politicians have said over the years. Let’s check them out!

1.) “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”-Then Senator Joe Biden on then Senator Barak Obama when first running for president

2.) “We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term.”-former White House Press Secretary Dana Perini

3.) “I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman.”-California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

4.) “These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”-Conservative pundit Ann Coulter, on 9/11 widows who were critical of the Bush administration

5.) “When the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.”-Richard Nixon, in a 1977 interview with David Frost

6.) “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”-2012 tweet by President Donald Trump

7.) “A lot of people who go into prison straight-and when they come out, they’re gay.”-Ben Carson

8.) “Outside of the killings, DC has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.”-former mayor of Washington, D.C. Marion Barry, 1989

9.) “By integrating women into particularly military institutes, it cripples the readiness of our defense.”-Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell, 1995

10.) “I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape.”-Idaho Senator Chuck Winder, 2012

Sometimes it’s funny to hear about the ridiculous things politicians say. However, pay close attention to exactly what they are talking about because they may be more than just stupid words. Words have meaning and the people who say them could have a huge effect on what can happen afterwards. Politician or not, you should always be careful when speaking. You could offend someone, say something you don’t mean, or cause a chain reaction that could lead to some unwanted consequences.

Cover Image Credit: The Job Radio

Related Content

Facebook Comments