• Skullgrid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      that it’s based on the scientific method, and there’s repeatable experiments/steps to take with proven and proveable outcomes.

      “Trickle down economics” is a fucking lie, yet we have zillions of (economic) liberals.

      • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        there’s repeatable experiments/steps to take with proven and proveable outcomes

        Is astronomy a science?

        Some sciences rely more on analysis & indirect observation. Direct experimentation can be intractable making testing of hypotheses & theories less straightforward.

        Academic economics resources I’ve read (decades ago) are dismissive of trickle-down/supply-side economics.

      • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Ok so you might want to look that definition up because it’s not great.

        No one who is educated in economics who is attempting to have an informed discussion of economics uses the term “trickle down economics”. Theproper term is supply side economics.

        Trickle down is proposed by politicians not by economists because economists know it isn’t effective in most situations except things like housing eg (it’s easier to build more homes than convince people they don’t need one of their own)