The term "trickle-down" originated as a joke by humorist Will Rogers and today is often used to criticize economic policies which favor the wealthy or privileged while being framed as good for the average citizen.
However, it goes on to say:
David Stockman, who as Ronald Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, later became critical of them and told journalist William Greider that "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea:
With a quote by David Stockman:
”It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory.”
— David Stockman, The Atlantic
I’m sure the video touches on this, but do you have a summary for why it’s a straw man mischaracterisation?
Help rich entity; rich entity will help the rest of the economy?
Inequality is not as bad as it is made out to be. With our current level of automation for goods and services consumed by the masses, a high degree of equality would already result in mass unemployment since only so many people are needed to operate the highly automated production that would benefit an equal society.
Inequality on the other hand creates a LOT of diversity in demand for goods and services and this in turn drives a lot of job creation.
You need a LOT of people to build a $350 million yacht for example. If no one could afford something like that, it wouldn't be built and those jobs would no longer exist.
Furthermore, besides helping the economy via investments and spending on things that only they can afford, they also help in philanthropic ways that no government would be capable of helping:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio...
Or is there a different step in this “giving rich people more money means it finds its way to poor people” s/rich people/investors/ s/poor people/jobs/ ?