Comments on: Bookblogging: the reanimation of trickle down

By: Dean

Dean — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:54:31 +0000

The best example is 28 days later

By: AaLD

AaLD — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:27:34 +0000

Isn’t that cultural relativism? Do they allow that at the Hoover Institute?

Sure, they do. In fact, Sowell wrote a whole book about it.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:46:11 +0000

@Jamey, I discuss “rising tide lifts all boats” earlier in the chapter. As you note, it’s not quite the same as trickle down.

By: Jamey

Jamey — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:33:33 +0000

At Jim Harrison:

“plenty of lumpen billionaires in our society”

That’s hyperbole. We have plenty of lumpen millionaires, I’m not so sure about lumpen billionaires—maybe I still retain a little residual faith in captitalism—I believe that it’s possible for idiots to get rich, just not spectacularly rich, and not without recognizing that they occupy a peculiar space in our society, and by exercising political power all the while denying that they exercise political power . And by denying they have political power, I mean verbally denying it, not in some sort of Freudian denial sense.

Apparently, lumpen bourgeouisie is a term in current use. Thanks for the verbal coupling. It’s put me on a new train of thought. Not sure if it’ll lead to anywhere.

By: Jamey

Jamey — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:00:19 +0000

I’m not really sure that this is something you can use, but semi-related to trickle down theory is a misuse of the phrase that “A rising tide lifts all boats”. I actually agree with this is in the sense that social mobility is actually good for the wealthy, as well as for those who are increasing their acquisition in material wealth. The word “redistributionist” gets routinely misused by conservatives as if liberals were saying “take from this guy, and give to this guy”. Actually, policies that allow for poor people to increase their productive capacity, are both good for poor people, and good for the investing class , in that the increase in consumer demand (I would throw in the environmental caveat, and this isn’t a minor issue, that when it comes to scare resources, the “rising tide lifts all boats” arguments founders. In such a scenario, there are winners and losers and there is no conceivable benefit to being a loser.)

But take the example of tax credits to help poor people to afford insulating their homes. Well, maybe the phrase should be, a rising tide helps to lift all boats that deserve to be lifted. Not all boats will be lifted. The energy industry’s boats will not be lifted. But it will increase the wealth of poor people and it will increase the purchasing power for them to buy other things. But helping poor people to not waste energy will benefit society as a whole, in the rising tide lifts all boats sense, even if it doesn’t benefit particular companies.

But my point being, amateur linguist that I am, “rising tide lifting all boats” should not automatically mean trickle down. Though in conventional usuage, it gets translated that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_rising_tide_lifts_all_boats

By: roac

roac — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:32:00 +0000

A footnote regarding “All Things Bright and Beautiful”: the verse quoted (no. 3) has been excised from the current hymnal of every mainline denominati0n. The words are by Cecil F. Alexander, who was married to an Anglican bishop. She also wrote “Once in Royal David’s City,” a piece of Victorian sludge preserved from obsolescence by its use in the King’s College Lessons and Carols. The third verse of that one is:

And through all His wondrous childhood
He would honour and obey,
Love and watch the lowly Maiden,
In whose gentle arms He lay:
Christian children all must be
Mild, obedient, good as He.

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:16:38 +0000

So let me get this straight. Sowell thinks that the reason social mobility is low is because the American poor “are not willing to make the necessary efforts and sacrifices” (as you describe his views). Well this is interesting. Because I doubt Sowell would deny that social mobility is higher in other countries, this means the poor in those countries are “willing to make the necessary efforts and sacrifices”. Isn’t that cultural relativism? Do they allow that at the Hoover Institute?

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:51:37 +0000

Thanks for all these comments, and to ‘libertarian’ for a bit of innocent diversion. I’m paying attention and will make some changes when I get a free moment.

By: aaron

aaron — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:12:08 +0000

“What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

By: bianca steele

bianca steele — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:29:29 +0000

John Q.:
Your 3rd paragraph: Taking the final sentence first: I thought biological metaphors of society as an organism had been discredited long ago. And the hymn—”All Things Bright and Beautiful”—says the bright and beautiful can be found in every “estate,” not only with the lord in the castle, but also with the very poorest of the poor who must beg at his gate in order to keep body and soul together. The hymn does not say that bright and beautiful things are being gathered up into the castle keep because the poor are not godly and can only have stolen them.

4th: So what? Kudzu (rabbits) hasn’t been killed but it hasn’t taken over either.

By: Current

Current — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:49:32 +0000

Ah, a link.

I may argue about this when the book comes out.

By: djr

djr — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:39:27 +0000

He immediately contradicts himself with the observation that Harlem was formerly a middle-class Jewish community, and appears unaware of the recent (re)gentrification process in which blacks have again become a minority group in greater Harlem.

The observation that some areas change from middle-class to poor isn’t really a contradiction of the idea that some areas remain poor. You might also want to consider rephrasing the second half of the sentence, to avoid the obvious racist misinterpretation.

By: Kevin Donoghue

Kevin Donoghue — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:23:41 +0000

Current, this thread isn’t about the failure of trickle-down, but its reanimation.

By: Current

Current — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:02:02 +0000

Exactly where in this thread has the idea of “trickle down” been demolished?

The quotes from Plutarch are lovely, but they aren’t economics.

By: Jim Harrison

Jim Harrison — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:45:51 +0000

Many middling people are tolerant of great disparities of wealth because they can readily identify with the rich who, after all, only differ from the others because of their possession of money. There are, after all, plenty of lumpen billionaires in our society; and everybody is one lottery ticket away from a mansion. By contrast, intellectual elites are hated because one cannot identify with them so easily. You can’t win cultural capital on a game show. Hence the universal complaint “they think they are better than us.” Of course the presumption of merit is understandably offensive to people, but what really offends our vanity is merit itself.