The substance of my comment is a simple model that explains why trickle-down doesn't work.
If it helps, I'll add some references to support my argument:
[1] TFA
Thank you for the effort you put into providing your feedback.
I know asking to read the article is too much, but maybe read the title?
Also, is the word "offshore" not in your vocabulary?
Otherwise agreed. Bailouts, of course, are atrocious. Investment should be a risk.
Speaking of which, reminder: bankruptcy doesn't clear away student loans, making them an effectively risk-free investment for the banks. Yay.
There's nothing in the article that actually refutes the notion of trickle-down economics. It is little more than a summary of a summary of the actual report[1].
The actual report is even worse than the summary when you dig into it. For example, the report notes on page 63 that taxes and transfers did nothing to change inequality. That's precisely what you'd expect in an economy where labor is specialized to produce different things, with some producing greater value, and some producing lesser. Increasing taxes doesn't change that fact. It's also what you'd expect from some populations having greater literacy and education than others, and greater infrastructure to facilitate investment and trade. Taxes won't change that. Investment will.
As a further example, page 168 "Lessons from failed trickle-down economics" falsely claims that when taxes were reduced, GDP growth did not increase, pointing to the period of the 1980s which was in the middle of the dot-com boom. This is a sleight-of-hand on their part where they use figures showing a lack of growth in GDP per capita and attempt to imply this means there was no GDP growth whatsoever. However, GDP in that period did in fact increase, as did the population.
The real point of this report lays further in where they finally drop the mask and begin discussing "global redistribution" and "ending center-periphery imbalances" between the "Global North" and "Global South". Put simply: This entire report is agitprop intended to convince people that because some people dodged their taxes in the 1980s-2020s period that means we should all accept "redistribution" to even things out... except, of course, they're not talking about tax evaders having to pay their fair share, but rather justifying theft from those who produce the real value in the world. This is nothing more than a sham attempt to legitimize greed and theft.
> Also, is the word "offshore" not in your vocabulary?
Moving money offshore and not paying taxes on it because it's still technically not "earned", and hence not their money, is certainly a problem... but the solution then is to treat that money as earned and subject to taxation immediately, even if you have to take out a loan against that money which you haven't really received yet. That said, the money sitting offshore isn't just sitting there: it's invested.
> Speaking of which, reminder: bankruptcy doesn't clear away student loans, making them an effectively risk-free investment for the banks. Yay.
Ah yes, how dare those banks invest in your future. They should've spent it all on hookers and blow in Vegas. Clearly that's a better investment. :D
[1] https://wir2022.wid.world/www-site/uploads/2021/12/WorldIneq...
While I vehemently disagree with what you wrote, I thank you for providing basis for them, referencing the article, and giving food for thought.
Student loans aside, let's start:
>they're not talking about tax evaders having to pay their fair share, but rather justifying theft from those who produce the real value in the world.
So, what's the basis for making the distinction? Large corporations like Amazon and Apple both produce "real value", and also evade taxes, as do people who own and fun them. This is not a dichotomy.
The evaders aren't outliers.
When we get to the point money is easily converted in political power, you can see not only the finger tipping the scale, but a whole foot firmly planted there. Good luck convincing the rich, who actually convinced themselves they earned their money fairly, to stop doing it.
We missed the opportunity of making them useful this way.
laying out a persuasive argument and while withholding facts that materially relevant to the transaction to fool individuals without the time, resources or expertise to deal with the transaction.
Seriously, though, I wish HN would go full Usenet, so we could track people we like.