n. The most absurd economic theory that ever existed. It includes giving the rich large sums of money. Accordingly, the wealthy will then hoarde the money into banks and there will therefore, be less money in circulation.
Herbert Hoover used trickle down economics, taking money from the poor and giving it to the wealthy. He is responsible for the Great Depression.
by SpacePope March 5, 2004
Trickle Down Economics is a blatant strawman of supply-side economics used to demonize supporters of said system.
Those using the term assert that Republicans intend to cut taxes on the rich people, which will then, by some undefined mechanism, cause money to trickle down to the poor.
However, not one economist has ever published a theory on the mechanism behind this so called Trickle Down Theory.
This strawman mainly serves to demonize the Republicans for cutting taxes on the rich. The actual position of the Republicans, supply side economics, asserts a well known phenomenon, wherein cutting taxes on rich people will cause them to invest more money, thus opening new markets or expanding existing ones, creating jobs and generating wealth.
The origins of the term lie in a speech by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, wherein it is asserted that there are two economic theories, one according to which "If we make the rich people richer, somehow they will let a part trickle down to the rest of us.
The second theory ... is that if we make the average of mankind comfortable and secure, their prosperity will rise upwards, just as yeast rises up, through the ranks."
Roosevelt, a democrat ironically enough, mocked this idea himself, however, it has somehow become a staple in politics to claim that this nonexistant theory is somehow the economic position of the Republicans.
Those using the term assert that Republicans intend to cut taxes on the rich people, which will then, by some undefined mechanism, cause money to trickle down to the poor.
However, not one economist has ever published a theory on the mechanism behind this so called Trickle Down Theory.
This strawman mainly serves to demonize the Republicans for cutting taxes on the rich. The actual position of the Republicans, supply side economics, asserts a well known phenomenon, wherein cutting taxes on rich people will cause them to invest more money, thus opening new markets or expanding existing ones, creating jobs and generating wealth.
The origins of the term lie in a speech by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, wherein it is asserted that there are two economic theories, one according to which "If we make the rich people richer, somehow they will let a part trickle down to the rest of us.
The second theory ... is that if we make the average of mankind comfortable and secure, their prosperity will rise upwards, just as yeast rises up, through the ranks."
Roosevelt, a democrat ironically enough, mocked this idea himself, however, it has somehow become a staple in politics to claim that this nonexistant theory is somehow the economic position of the Republicans.
Trickle down economics has not worked even once.
By cutting the taxes for the rich, the money they save, so they claim, will some how trickle down to the poor.
By cutting the taxes for the rich, the money they save, so they claim, will some how trickle down to the poor.
by chrischi3 September 14, 2018
A government ecomomic plan in which taxes are lowered on the wealthy so that they have incentives to do things with the extra money they would have would lead it to 'trickle down' to the middle and lower classes.
For example, the wealthy might use the extra money to expand their businesses or buy more shares in the stock market, thus expanding the economy and providing more jobs for those in the middle and lower classes.
The wealthy might also spend the extra money on more goods and services, thus providing the middle and lower classes with more work.
Probably the most significant stream of money trickling down is from the extra money that the wealthy put in banks. Because there is more money in banks, there is more money for the middle and lower classes to borrow for buying houses and starting and expanding businesses.
Many liberals like to attack trickle down economics as an unfair benefit to the wealthy. Their mistake is that they ignore the idea of the "invisible hand" that is implicitly behind the idea for such an economic policy. Trickle down economics is good because it inevitably leads to more jobs and money for the middle and lower classes and to an expanding economy.
For example, the wealthy might use the extra money to expand their businesses or buy more shares in the stock market, thus expanding the economy and providing more jobs for those in the middle and lower classes.
The wealthy might also spend the extra money on more goods and services, thus providing the middle and lower classes with more work.
Probably the most significant stream of money trickling down is from the extra money that the wealthy put in banks. Because there is more money in banks, there is more money for the middle and lower classes to borrow for buying houses and starting and expanding businesses.
Many liberals like to attack trickle down economics as an unfair benefit to the wealthy. Their mistake is that they ignore the idea of the "invisible hand" that is implicitly behind the idea for such an economic policy. Trickle down economics is good because it inevitably leads to more jobs and money for the middle and lower classes and to an expanding economy.
Liberals should actually take a class in macroeconomics before they start complaining about trickle down economics.
by rustyshackleford December 11, 2007
What's that foul-smelling yellow liquid trickling down my neck? Oh shit, more trickle-down economics. Thanks, Australian Liberal Party / Republicans / British Conservative Party / insert fascist right-wing party here.
by Cynical bloke November 4, 2021
The theory that a male standing in front of a urinal--no matter how much he squeezes, pulls, pushes, wipes, or waits--has a 100% probability of urinating after he has already pulled up his pants and finished relieving himself. Being a theory, it is impossible to prove, but the experience of billions of men of all ages and throughout all time have almost made the statement a truism.
Alex (while relieving himself in front of a urinal): Hey, didn't Reagan say taxing the rich less would mean more jobs and economic opportunities for simple folk like us?
Ken (while relieving himself in an adjacent urinal): I think so. Well, hey, he gave it his best shot. Now hurry up, we're going to be late for the foreclosure hearing. (Zips up.)
Alex: Alright. (Zips up, then feels a trickle of liquid go down his leg.) WTF?? Damn you trickle down theory (non-economic theory)!!!
Ken: Haha. Got you again, huh? Looks like I was one of the lucky ones. (Feels a trickle down his leg) MOTHER#$%^*@!!!!!!!!
Ken (while relieving himself in an adjacent urinal): I think so. Well, hey, he gave it his best shot. Now hurry up, we're going to be late for the foreclosure hearing. (Zips up.)
Alex: Alright. (Zips up, then feels a trickle of liquid go down his leg.) WTF?? Damn you trickle down theory (non-economic theory)!!!
Ken: Haha. Got you again, huh? Looks like I was one of the lucky ones. (Feels a trickle down his leg) MOTHER#$%^*@!!!!!!!!
by Ryno247 October 20, 2013