• 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)