This is a strawman. Austerity isn't a cure, it's a consequence. If you spend too much and have too much debt, you can't borrow more to make the problem go away; you're just delaying the inevitable.
The debate is maybe best exemplified by the debate between Krugman ("against austerity") and Reinhart/Rogoff ("pro austerity").
> Nobel laureate Paul Krugman refused to back down in a dispute with Harvard University economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff over a 2010 paper they wrote that’s been used to justify austerity in the U.S. and Europe.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-28/krugman-f...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr...
There are consequences for overspending and overborrowing. We don't have a way to paper over that. You can pay today or you can tomorrow with interest.
You can pay today or you can have the next generation pay for it tomorrow with interest.
This is what we are seeing right now. Previous generations lived on public debt and funded their infrastructure, their services, and their retirements and pensions with debt which has to be paid out of current tax payers revenues. This has left us in a situation where so much tax money is being used to pay back debt in the form of bonds, pensions, etc. This has seen a reduction in school quality, in infrastructure maintenance, public services, etc because the money isn't there to pay for these things.
And then I see young people today cheering for Warren's plan to increase benefits for the elderly, unaware that this comes out of their pocket. That this will take away their services and their infrastructure and their future.
> You can pay today or you can tomorrow with interest.
Yes, that's how it works with individuals or households. For countries, it's a bit more complicated than that.
Finally, note that Trump's uncalled for tax cut has significantly increased US debt for basically no benefit (except enriching corporations and the very rich), while those arguing against austerity would want to incur some debt for productive purposes, enhancing growth down the line.
EDIT to add:
I'd also assume any show that bills itself as "Paul Krugman's column refuted, week after week!" is more of an ideological security blanket than real intellectual engagement or critique.
I believe you'd find the intellectual engagement and critiques within the podcast, not the subtitle.
No, I doubt it. If they think they can refute [1] like clockwork future columns they've never seen, it's almost certain they're just rehashing dogmas for the faithful. I have better things to spend my time on than that.
[1] a very strong word, by the way
Far as I'm aware, "trickle down" is a pejorative association made by people who disagree that supply-side factors are the primary determinant of economic growth; and not an actual group of actual people.
Something to back this, other than personal experience/opinion, would be nice.
A = better paid workers
B = better paid executives
Your point seems to be that A => ¬B. Which, even if statistically accurate, seems a bit weird as a causation.
I didn't even consider the time-axis myself (implicitly assuming zero-sum) so that's a good objection.
The economy grows when people can afford to spend. (If this spending is based on credit as was largely the case during the Bill Clinton years, then there is a later cost to pay - no doubt.) But the fact remains that when people can afford to buy things, the economy grows.
Better paid workers spend more money. People who cannot afford basic necessities actually do not blow their money on luxuries as is commonly promoted. Instead, they spend their money on housing, car gas and insurance (since there's been a perpetual movement against public transportation), and food. They're not out gambling and buying drugs in general.
What is not in doubt is that better paid workers means not quite as well paid executives. If you look at the US history, executive pay is at or near the highest multiple relative to workers compared to any time.
And while this is my speculation as I have not experienced living on 1 million dollars vs 100 million dollars (per year), I am inclined to believe that the difference in quality of life is not really terrible. Therefore, executive pay levels are not really a valid reason to suppress worker pay.
We have not even ventured into the tax avoidance that has occurred in the last 40 years. Somehow corporations and executives (and workers!) managed to survive quite ok in the 1950s and 60s, even while corporate taxes were effectively much higher.