News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility by scythe on Friday January 29, 2021 @11:55AM (#25959436)
>Or how trickle down economics is also endorsed by experts.

Trickle-down economics is not explicitly endorsed by anyone, because it's a pejorative. That's like saying "totalitarianism is popular in some countries"; you might think those countries are totalitarian, but they don't.

Re:Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility by mjburgess on Friday January 29, 2021 @12:46PM (#25960087)
Indeed. Even then, as a term, it refers to a specific regan-era tax policy.

What many on the left assume it means, is a sincere description of growth "raising the tide"; and how ridiculous an idea that is.

Of course the tide has risen to an unprecedented degree in human history both since the term "trickle down" was invented; and moreso, over the last 40 years.

Re:Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility by mikestew on Friday January 29, 2021 @02:33PM (#25961333)
Even then, as a term, it refers to a specific regan-era tax policy.

The term was coined by Will Rogers about 90 years ago.

Re:Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility by opo on Friday January 29, 2021 @04:17PM (#25962660)
The usage goes further back then that. The first use was in 1896 by William Jennings Bryan in his Cross of Gold speech:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

Re:Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility by stonogo on Friday January 29, 2021 @01:37PM (#25960700)
Except the tide you're describing is global, and the policy in question was domestic, and wages and assets within the middle and lower economic classes have indeed stagnated in relation to almost every other economic indicator within the country, which is why "many on the left" consider this argument to be invalid.
Re:Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility by mjburgess on Friday January 29, 2021 @02:00PM (#25960944)
This just isn't the case. And it dramatically isn't the case.

This is a side effect of using the same category terms, but not talking about the underlying distributions.

Eg., in the UK, 80% of the country were industrial working class or poorer until 1980s; and middle class only started at top 5%.

Today, the "industrial working class" level of wealth, is the bottom 20% at the very most.

So if you hold the class terms fixed, "middle class" it seems the 80s top 5% has "stagnated", only to fail to mention, it now 60% of the country.

If you hold the distributions constant, the wealth level acheived in the top 5% in 1980s is now a majority of the population.

Re:Statement of SEC Regarding Recent Market Volatility by PaulDavisThe1st on Friday January 29, 2021 @12:02PM (#25959531)
> you might think those countries are totalitarian, but they don't.

"You" in the above is a specific individual.

"They" in the above is undefined and extremely imprecise.

For various definitions of "they", your statement could be true, false or somewhere in between.