Because the literal majority of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck. Trickle down doesn't work.
this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
34 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22059 readers
26 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Weekly reminder that "trickle down economics" was always meant as a criticism. Coined by Will Rogers
This election was lost four and six years ago, not this year. They [Republicans] didn't start thinking of the old common fellow till just as they started out on the election tour. The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickles down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the driest little spot. But he didn't know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow's hands. They saved the big banks, but the little ones went up the flue.
Far from the only joke in American politics. Will Rogers is as relevant now as always.
Maybe they have no grasp of reality anymore?
Some economists not having a grasp of reality? 🤯
I wish whoever said that gets smacked into reality, because that is ridiculously tone-deaf.
Did The Economist ever have a grasp on reality?
I am not sure I agree with their interpretation of the numbers. Inflation is not back to 2% and is unlikely to return there. Interest rates are high on loans. Stock market is not that up... just more recovering and the next 10 year return estimates are more like 6% not like the 10 or 12% people saw in the prior decade. Gas I do not use so I do not care. Geopolitics is concerning. Climate change is concerning. Internal politics is concerning. Both news and politics truth does not seem to matter... sensationalism seems more important then constructivism.
Hard to find positives. Maybe macro employment numbers are good. Not sure about working conditions or if incomes have matched inflation. Probably not universally. We may have avoided a recession I guess that may be positive. Money Market, CD, and Bond interest rates are up which is nice for some.
Gas I do not use so I do not care.
I don't own a car and don't use gas either. But my food, clothes, toiletries, mail, and lots of other things I need all probably required gas in order to get to me. If you live in a city, especially a US city, chances are high that you rely on gasoline a great deal just to get food, even if it's only indirectly.
Sure I agree that inflation is linked to the cost of carbon fuels. We need to eliminate 80% of that but it will be painful and difficult.
Yo, is The Economist purely rage bait articles?!
Doing better than the rest of the world only says so much...
When the lion's share of increase in wealth went to the richest 1%....