Feed on

I’ve long maintained that we ought to respect people and their ideas in the most charitable light possible. At first, of course. But when naked cluelessness or malefescence is apparent, all bets are off. I’ve also long maintained that one of the “markers” of someone who is talking about religion and not economics, is to see how brutally they straw man various economic ideas. And here is the 45th President of the US, absolutely torching a tinder box of a hay field by arguing that “trickle-down” economics has been tried and failed.

Sorry Mrs. President. Sorry. No serious economist, no economics textbook worth the paper it is printed on, has EVER used the term outside of suggesting that people like YOU use the term. There is no such “theory” much less one that has been tried and failed. Furthermore, it is the clown-o-cracy that you presume to represent that invokes the “theory” yourselves – with the nonsensical talk about fiscal stimulus, the subsidies from the top-down for green jobs (which has famously failed to create jobs at any reasonable cost), etc.

I m sure Ms. Clinton means only some corporations. Does she realize that places like the U of Rochester are corporations? And that places like the U of Rochester are appallingly good at creating jobs? The Center for American Progress is a corporation, and it, too, is appallingly good at “creating” jobs.

Here is some more on the absolute dishonesty and dubiousness of those who endorse such a theory:

Trickle Down Economics is Silly

Progressive Keynesians as Reaganite Trickle Downers?

We Should Definitely Ban Fracking and LPG Plants

The Keynesian Pretzel Factory

If we were actually being civil, I’d point out that ironically Ms. Clinton DOES have a valid point. Does anyone know what it is?

7 Responses to “An Appalling Salvo of Rhetorical Artillery”

  1. Harry says:

    On the first level, this is a straw man, lying about the facts and rewriting history. Maybe Mrs. Clinton is not trying to imply anything further than to vindicate Eleanor Rooseveldt’s support for the philosophy of J. Rexford Tugwell and Harold Ickies, which embraced collectivism.

    Regardless, it is important to keep alive this lie, about trickle-down, which is more appropriate to describe Marksburg Castle in the days when waste trickled down from the royal keep to the fields below. As WC aptly puts the question, trickle-down has nothing to do with the immediate crises that confront us, free people.

    Rather, Hillary or Hillary’s advisors recognize that there is a battle of ideas here, about natural law and the derivation of our rights, specifically whether those rights come from the power of the state, be it the state embodied in a benevolent dictator on a
    white horse, or another willing to power wearing a black hat.

  2. Harry says:

    To answer your question, WC, her valid point is that “trickle-down” has not produced prosperity, but it has provided relief for Catherine the Great’s and Vladimir Putin’s guests standing near the windows in the Summer Palace.

  3. Harry says:

    So much to think about, but we also yearn for WC’s pre-Halloween research roundup tomorrow, with the view of the array of research from unusual sources.

  4. jb says:

    I suppose that her valid point is that “trickle down economics”, in the form of the “Keynesian fiscal stimulus” has been tried and has indeed failed spectacularly. It has failed in it’s implementation (based on my recollection of undergrad macro, we are supposed to cut spending during expansions, right? …has that ever happened?). It has also failed, from what I can tell, based on empirical assessment of the impact on actual growth via the so-called fiscal multiplier, though I am no expert.

    • Harry says:

      JB, it is great to read and by extension hear from you. Hillary Clinton deliberately equated Trickle-down economics with Supply-side economics, first to take a shot at what her advisors know was a success, and then to rehabilitate her economic initiatives as chief domestic officer in the first Clinton administration.

      Their first thing, before the election and after, was to trash Ronald Reagan by giving him full credit for the awful recession Jimmy Carter handed over.

      One can see how Hillary is on her heels, defensive to the point that she needs to lie, distort, and rewrite history to begin to make her case to be the perfect liberal savior.

  5. wintercow20 says:

    For those seeking an “Intro Econ” answer, while JB is surely right on, Hillary is actually right that “businesses do not CREATE jobs” at least not ipso facto. The reality is that “WE”, the consumer, create jobs by the very nature of our demanding goods and services. Without consumer desires, there are no jobs. Period. In this regard, the core of economics is much closer to “trickle-up” economics rather than the other way around.

  6. Harry says:

    There is a good example of a fresh way of thinking about a problem. Were we having a discussion of these subjects, it would lead to further understanding.

    I wonder, where are the Keynsean demand-side people, numerous as cockroaches on every campus, brave and willing to confront this question, here?

Leave a Reply