(November 30, 2016 at 3:59 pm)Aegon Wrote:

(November 30, 2016 at 3:05 pm)Drich Wrote: then educate yourself foo-

https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-...rk-3305572

Do you know what you linked me? That headline says that it doesn't work. And the article itself mentions that income inequality tripled, and not only did the income not "trickle down", it actually "trickled up." Everybody (aside from the top percent) were worse off for it.

You wanted to know how it would work, and it you got past judging a book by it's cover you would have read that there are 4 examples of trickle down economics in said article that do work, but the author wants to attribute to something else.

Sorry forgot you were one of those 'can't think for self must read article how it is frame' types.

(December 5, 2016 at 9:37 am)Drich Wrote:

(November 30, 2016 at 3:59 pm)Aegon Wrote: Do you know what you linked me? That headline says that it doesn't work. And the article itself mentions that income inequality tripled, and not only did the income not "trickle down", it actually "trickled up." Everybody (aside from the top percent) were worse off for it.

You wanted to know how it would work, and it you got past judging a book by it's cover you would have read that there are 4 examples of trickle down economics in said article that do work, but the author wants to attribute to something else.

Sorry forgot you were one of those 'can't think for self must read article how it is frame' types.

So Amadeo "wants to" attribute those results to something other than economic policy? I didn't get that from reading the article. She is suggesting that the causes for the results are more complicated and muddled than simply saying "trickle down" economics was the sole reason.