Deficit spending IS 'trickle down' economics

Of course it is! It just dawned on me. Most of the people who say the bailouts, deficit spending etc. are required to 'save the economy from the failures of capitalism', are the same people who claimed that free market capitalism was a delusion about wealth trickling down from the rich to the poor.


(Image: Ronald Reagan is the figure most commonly associated with 'trickle down'/supply side economics. Considered a hero in some circles, a villain in others, kind of like Thatcher. But the point is, 'supply side' and 'capitalism' aren't the same thing.)

They claim that tax cuts for the rich constitute giving them money, and that the ostensible purpose of the excercise was that the wealth would flow down to everyone else, but it was actually a huge scam because the rich kept their 'ill-gotten gains'. (Just providing insight to an alternative perspective)

What's wrong with that?

The reason I find that to be an absurd framer on how an economy should be, is firstly because it contains some big presumptions, which I will get to, but secondly because it isn't based on individual rights and sovereignty.

Each person is born free and equal. They ought to be able to do as they wish (yes it's called "freedom"), save in cases of actions which violate the sovereignty of others.

This philosophy doesn't mysteriously stop working when we look at trade. Each individual is sovereign, and nobody has special right to pre-emptive control over the actions of others, government or otherwise. Why should they? What is so grave that we must suspend freedom in the name of safety?

“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?" - Thomas Jefferson

Myths about capitalism and 'trickle down'

Frankly I don't see why it is that some anti-capitalists link the two terms, but let's deal with this distortion.

"Trickle down" is a name given by detractors to the theory of supply-side economics. And they are right, in my opinion, to be detractors of that theory, which indeed has been a justification for a lot of theiving; though it isn't a core reason for our economic problems, which are more fundamentally caused by having fiat money systems, central banks, and the fraud of generating artificial growth by inflating the money supply.

I guess it goes back to the phase of deregulation and tax cutting during the 80s, which might cause capitalism to be associated with supply side economics and 'trickle down'. Hence, capitalism is theft, right? Of course, I just demonstrated some supremely wise logic and totally overlooked the fact that capitalism is based on voluntary trade and not fraud, coercion or theft. In fact, capitalism is the complete opposite of theft. (Socialism, however, is based on theft.)

Deficit spending/stimulus IS 'trickle down'

Ironically, the people who believe capitalism failed and so we need to rescue our economy with huge deficit spending, bailouts, etc. are cheering for a 'trickle down' philosophy, the very thing they say is capitalism. I can't believe I didn't point this out before! Think about it. We're giving huge amounts of capital to banks, in the hope that it will trickle down and get to smaller businesses, thus in theory stimulating the economy. What a joke!


(Image: The Onion tells us what the US bailout money is going towards. The thing is, their guess is as good as ours, with all the secrecy)

Of course 'trickle down' economics is merely a nice way of saying 'give everything to us and we might give some of it back', but whatever it is, it certainly isn't, wasn't, and never will be capitalist in any way.

We shouldn't be 'trickling' wealth anywhere, that's not a proper function of government; morally it is a gross violation of individual sovereignty and property rights, and pragmatically it is always abused to allow a wealthy, influential few to steal more.

And remember ladies and gentlemen, capitalism is when we look after the rich, and socialism is when we look after the masses. Ahem.