Hey, don’t shoot the messenger. I’m with you on this. I think Pope Francis has engaged in straw man arguments. But the straw men that he is choosing to employ are those of the left. Let’s see wait and see what he says when he writes more formally, i.e. in his first encylical.
“Trickle-down economics” is a perjorative term for supply-side economics, which is largely in contrast to “demand-side” economics (also known as Keynsian economics).
The main difference between “supply-side” or Austrian economics and “demand-side” or Keynesian economics is the belief on what grows the economy and, in turn, increases the wealth of individuals. Keynesian economists believe that consumer spending and government spending are what drive economic growth. Hence, their focus on the demand side of economics. Austrian economists believe that rising productivity of workers, through saving and investing, is the true engine of economic growth. Hence, their emphasis on production, or the supply side of economics.
Did you know that Reagan’s budget director used the phrase himself? theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/12/the-education-of-david-stockman/305760/?single_page=true
Politcal spin my eye: dictionary.reverso.net/spanish-english/derrame%20cerebral
This is getting ridiculous. According to your “logic”, the Pope was talking about a burst blood vessel in his eye. At no point have you even tried to respond to any arguments; rather you create straw men which are easily defeated (though even those straw men make more sense than your use of literal translation).
I guess those countries that have people advocating or implementing"trickle down" economics should take special heed to his words. Since this has never been the case in the US perhaps we should concentrate on his exhortation against abortion and for helping the poor.
I got some interesting insights on this from an Irish missionary priest who spend 30+ years in South American, including the last 15 in Argentina. He read the exhortation in the original Spanish
I would say that this guy probably needs to heed the pope’s words.
An altrnative postulate is that interest rates are not exclusively controlled by the Fed but that they are, rather, subject to international fluctuations in the amount of demand for dollar-denominated assets, and that when the dollar is “strong” because of a “tight-money” policy, high demand relative to a smaller number of dollars bids up the “price” of such asssets (interest rates, in other words).
I don’t know I’d agee that it’s never been the case in the US. The growth of money-market and T bill investment during (and since) the Reagan era as an alternative to riskier, more productive economic investment has tended to confine its benefits more tightly toward investors, and away from the overall economy. The theory, of course, is that there’s nothing wrong with this, and that everybody will eventually benefit. “A rising tide…”
Yes.
That actually wasn’t my claim. What I said was that there was no such thing as a trickle-down theory of economics; the term is merely derogatory, which, by the way, is just what your reference says:Theory Spill (trickle-down theory, in English)* is not an economic *theory but an ironic or derogatory manner currently used in Argentina to discredit the claims of some economists, especially neo-liberals, that economic growth alone is sufficient to alleviate poverty. (Google Translate)
You’ve done a poor job of interpreting my comments. I have at no time cited the opinion of anyone other than those of a professional translator. Beyond that it is a trivial thing to determine for yourself that the Vatican translation is wrong at least in part. I’ll say this for a third time: the phrase “por si mismo” which means “by itself” appears in the Spanish version but not in the English version. Whether or not you believe the missing phrase is meaningful, what is meaningful is that it is missing, and if something so obvious has been changed then red flags ought to be raised about the accuracy of other passages.
What is inconceivable is that the Vatican would set itself up as a judge of economic theories. I would no more expect that than I would expect to hear them pass judgment on the laws of physics.
If you can’t debate with me in good faith, or even provide a working link, or refer to someone other than Krugman
as your source, please, quit.In this debate you’ve not countered any arguments, only created straw men, and misunderstood a great number of things. Your strange link to a dictionary is a story in itself, as stated earlier.If you can’t debate with me in good faith, or even provide a working link, or refer to someone other than Krugman
I am not sure what this has to do with the Pope’s message. As Catholics, we are required to be concerned about and give to help the poor. That by it’s very nature reduces inequality and there is nothing wrong with that.
Perhaps no logical nonsequitor has led to so much human misery as that which you offer us here.
If I am wealthy and give to the poor, how does that not reduce inequaliity? In other words, how does not result in me having less and the poor having more?