I was waiting for this topic to be discussed. And finally…there it is. I can’t count how many times one of my students brought this issue up and I had to take a deep dive into this crap not existing in the first place.
I disagree with the notion that past success doesn't determine future success because of the framing. I think if we're going to look at things objectively, you have a better chance of succeeding when you have the benefits of a previous success already. It's why we're watching monopolies form around us and if not for regulation they'd have already existed by now.
Yup he is completely wrong about it. Imagine a kid being born into a wealthy family and a kid being born into a poor family. Statistically speaking which kid will likely succeed in life ?
@yashpatel261 the one who works the hardest. If you look at the individual, most rich families do end up losing their wealth and other people overcome their wealth over time
It's sad how you dared to starve us for 6 months, please please please upload more videos, this is my best economics channel, that feeds my love for free market and Austrian Economics
The artickle named trickle down climate risk regulation is difficult to understand clearly , so i search sth about this method but i cant find explanation to this artickle still
Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget. For to take the opposite view today is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more-and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss. John Maynard Keynes
Oh my goodness. THANK. YOU. You don’t know how maddening it is to see this activist political slur being thrown around with complete nonsensical sincerity all the time. From people commenting online, in “news,” to school, and so on. Actually, you probably do absolutely know. You made this excellent video after! Thank you again!!!
If I'm poor, it's difficult to get rich. If I'm rich, it's easier to stay rich. I wouldn't argue that trickle-down economics is a straw man argument or even how to tackle poverty, but the idea the economic mobility is the same at either end of the spectrum. I'm sure the people who fall out of the top five wealthiest category aren't too concerned for the well-being.
I have actually heard the trickle down economic theory as a valid model for ecconomic development in a TEXx event. The guy was CEO of a big company and argued that his company shall receive money. When I questioned his notion, why shall taxpayers pay, he mentioned something like "but people will spend in local economy", which in effect is the trickle down economics.
of course some CEOs will argue for government subsidies, just as politicians will argue for more government power etc.; but that's exactly the "argument" criticised in the video. and still, it doesn't make for any proper economic theory - it's just people trying to invent arguments for getting rich at the expense of others. the point of the video is that CEOs should get their money by producing and selling goods and services that the consumers are willing to buy and pay for.
This video misses the point of so-called trickle-down economics. The primary debate is about social programs vs relatively low taxes, and whether lowering taxes benefits low-income people who receive assistance as a portion of this money.
Nice try (not really). You lost me at your effort to say that "there's no such thing as trickle down economics" simply because no economist will claim it. At least I saved 18 minutes of wasted time.
Nobody ever said it so it didnt happen. What an idiotic video. Look at their policies. We were being nice with the name trickle down. It doesnt actually trickle down.
When the world needed you guys the most,you returned ,Thankyou.
I thought you gave up the channel. It's great you returned and with such a good video!
I was waiting for this topic to be discussed. And finally…there it is. I can’t count how many times one of my students brought this issue up and I had to take a deep dive into this crap not existing in the first place.
First video I saw from you and it is great!
I subscribed and will more of your work
Great episode! I can’t wait to see more!
I disagree with the notion that past success doesn't determine future success because of the framing. I think if we're going to look at things objectively, you have a better chance of succeeding when you have the benefits of a previous success already. It's why we're watching monopolies form around us and if not for regulation they'd have already existed by now.
Yup he is completely wrong about it. Imagine a kid being born into a wealthy family and a kid being born into a poor family. Statistically speaking which kid will likely succeed in life ?
@yashpatel261 the one who works the hardest. If you look at the individual, most rich families do end up losing their wealth and other people overcome their wealth over time
It's sad how you dared to starve us for 6 months, please please please upload more videos, this is my best economics channel, that feeds my love for free market and Austrian Economics
thanks man, that warms our hearts:) We're back and we're here to chew bubble gum and teach economics, and we're all out of bubble gum!
When the word is trickle that means hardly any! Still waiting or mine 40 years after Reaganomics!
The artickle named trickle down climate risk regulation is difficult to understand clearly , so i search sth about this method but i cant find explanation to this artickle still
Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget. For to take the opposite view today is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more-and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss.
John Maynard Keynes
Yay, your back, the best economics channel
Oh my goodness. THANK. YOU.
You don’t know how maddening it is to see this activist political slur being thrown around with complete nonsensical sincerity all the time. From people commenting online, in “news,” to school, and so on. Actually, you probably do absolutely know. You made this excellent video after! Thank you again!!!
If I'm poor, it's difficult to get rich. If I'm rich, it's easier to stay rich. I wouldn't argue that trickle-down economics is a straw man argument or even how to tackle poverty, but the idea the economic mobility is the same at either end of the spectrum. I'm sure the people who fall out of the top five wealthiest category aren't too concerned for the well-being.
The poor you will always have with you. If for no other reason that they don’t want to be anything but poor. It’s not a concern that they have.
Classical liberalism here. Trickle down economics leads to socialism at the end.
Correct well done. Thomas Sowell has destroyed this TD nonsense time and again.
It not called Trickle-down economics.
It's called supply-side economics.
Trickle-down economics is a strawman term.
I have actually heard the trickle down economic theory as a valid model for ecconomic development in a TEXx event. The guy was CEO of a big company and argued that his company shall receive money. When I questioned his notion, why shall taxpayers pay, he mentioned something like "but people will spend in local economy", which in effect is the trickle down economics.
of course some CEOs will argue for government subsidies, just as politicians will argue for more government power etc.; but that's exactly the "argument" criticised in the video. and still, it doesn't make for any proper economic theory - it's just people trying to invent arguments for getting rich at the expense of others. the point of the video is that CEOs should get their money by producing and selling goods and services that the consumers are willing to buy and pay for.
But what actual economist believes in it? That’s the real question. The answer is none
Where have you seen organic, 100% pure, undistorted “Market Economy”?
That would be anything unofficial/unlicensed/unregulated/untaxed. From helping someone move in exchange for a pizza and beers, to the black market.
This video misses the point of so-called trickle-down economics. The primary debate is about social programs vs relatively low taxes, and whether lowering taxes benefits low-income people who receive assistance as a portion of this money.
Nice try (not really). You lost me at your effort to say that "there's no such thing as trickle down economics" simply because no economist will claim it. At least I saved 18 minutes of wasted time.
There are nor trickle down economic theory. This is diffrent from the possibility of a tricke down effect thst may or may not exist.
Nobody ever said it so it didnt happen. What an idiotic video.
Look at their policies. We were being nice with the name trickle down. It doesnt actually trickle down.
You couldn't expect anything more than straw man arguments when most universities teach keynsian economics