(But they won’t ever admit it)
“Trickle-down economics” and the “trickle-down theory” are terms in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided to businesses and upper income levels will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole. As an idea, it seems very simple: wealth will disperse on its own without any intervention. Liberals, in their infinite wisdom, love to write about how trickle-down economics is a fallacy of some sort or another. Here are some examples:
To examine this proposition, we must first understand what it is that liberals do, that is what tactics they use for demonization and for what reasons. This pervasive ad hominem strategy is quite problematic and has thus far led to some interesting behavioral development throughout many modern liberal groups.
Recent Examples and Victims
As of late, victims of liberal discrimination and vilification have sadly become quite common. The most prominent recent example being Brendan Eich and his forced stepping down from Mozilla as CEO. A conservative Eich, whose only crime was a nominal six-year-old political contribution, was subjected to a public flogging unheard of before late. It has been all over Twitter and the news, stirring up boycotts from both sides. The issue has taken the internet by storm, but why? Economics is about supplying the best possible product at the best possible price, not about ensuring the person that is sort of associated with said product is your friend and shares your ideology and likes long walks on the beach and is vegan. To accuse and vilify Eich is stupid because in this case it has nothing to do with the political sphere and lacks the ability to affect political change; after all, it is simply economics and is impartial. Nonetheless, liberals apply labels and vilify accordingly.
In a free market, demand is always a function of price: the higher the price, the lower the demand. Evidently most politicians today would be surprised to learn that these rules apply equally to both prices and wages. When employers evaluate their labor and capital needs, cost is the primary factor. When the cost of hiring low-skilled workers moves higher, jobs are lost. Despite this, minimum wage hikes, like the ones President Obama supports, are seen by liberals as an act of governmental benevolence. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority or banks; managing transactions and the issuing of bitcoins is carried out collectively by the network. Bitcoin is open-source; its design is public, nobody owns or controls Bitcoin and everyone can take part. Through many of its unique properties, Bitcoin allows exciting uses that could not be covered by any previous payment system.
Sounds nice, doesn’t it? Instant transfers, little to no transfer fees, valuable, almost impossible to steal… the list is seemingly endless. Why hasn’t it been adopted already? Because it is entirely useless to anyone who is serious about money management.
The market is defined as a place where buying and selling occurs. Without buying and selling, without trade, there is no market.
A person who makes something and never trades anything for it is not engaging in a market transaction. Right now I am wearing a shirt. The shirt is simply sitting on my body and is not being used as a market transaction. However, when I bought the shirt it was. Without buying and selling, without trade, without exchanging value for value there is no market.
The founding fathers, and the greater philosophical tradition to which they belong (together with such movements that influenced the French Revolution and the Magna Carta), were very intelligent men, and they build their ideas upon those of other, even more intelligent men. They didn’t decide to protect free speach, for example, because they enjoyed books. They thought very hard (and made some apt conclusions) about what free speech (or self-defense, or rights) actually means and then wrote the constitution based on whether that essence should be protected, not its manifestation that was visible to them, i.e., books.
It’s a commonly known fact that intelligence corresponds to all sorts of life outcomes at the individual level, including income, education, drug abuse, and criminality. A lesser known fact that national average IQs correspond to similar outcomes on the national level. This has been shown by psychologists Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, who have found striking correlations between national IQ and things like health, education, income, crime, corruption, and democracy.
To give you a rough idea, here are some of the findings:
Educational measures like TIMSS and PISA correlate 0.79-0.92
Number of scientists and engineers correlate 0.61
There are nearly 500 breeds of dogs.
Some are smarter, some are stronger, some are faster. Despite any differences in appearance and temperament, they are still dogs.
Because they are all dogs, effective training can mold them into desirable companions. True, some will still be deficient in particular skills, but they’ll still be worthwhile and helpful.
Training, not breed is the key.
This is a fallacy.