Trickle-Down Economics Debate

The cluster debates the effectiveness of trickle-down economics versus redistributing wealth to lower-income people, arguing that poor individuals spend more to stimulate growth while the rich hoard or invest less productively.

➡️ Stable 0.7x Politics & Society
3,575
Comments
20
Years Active
5
Top Authors
#6643
Topic ID

Activity Over Time

2007
1
2008
16
2009
31
2010
58
2011
70
2012
80
2013
151
2014
149
2015
124
2016
232
2017
267
2018
183
2019
309
2020
408
2021
366
2022
286
2023
269
2024
207
2025
348
2026
20

Keywords

e.g IT NVIDIA XYZ HN SF i.e GDP economy money trickle spend rich wealth income economic people spend rich people

Sample Comments

pope_meat Aug 23, 2021 View on HN

"it's good for the economy"How could we keep funneling all the money to the top if there's no scarcity?

yowzadave Apr 30, 2024 View on HN

Poor people spend a larger share of their income (and therefore put it to productive use stimulating the economy, hiring people, etc). Rich people tend to hoard their pile, and spend a smaller portion of it.

JKCalhoun Sep 25, 2020 View on HN

Well, it stands to reason if you make the rich wealthier and everyone else poorer, there is no one to buy goods and stimulate the economy.

scotty79 Apr 13, 2016 View on HN

It's not wealth. It's just money. Trickling it down would just cause inflation. Just take a look what money trickling down through IT companies did to SF housing market.

posguy Apr 19, 2017 View on HN

Seems like basic economic theory, the more capital you have flowing through the economy at a lower level, the more opportunities there are. Whereas these 8 people are siloing their wealth in investments, that same money divided up among people of low income would be spent upwards of 3x, and given to the middle class iirc it was something around a 2x factor. Both are much better for our economy than having that wealth sit siloed as an investment.

pkaye Dec 17, 2020 View on HN

Wouldn't trickle up economics work better? Poor people have more unmet needs and more likely to spend any extra they get into the economy.

BriggyDwiggs42 Dec 23, 2024 View on HN

What we’ve done is change who makes the decision for how to spend a certain amount of money from wealthy investors to fast food workers, right? The thing is, we know that fast food workers are generally not doing too well financially. A surprisingly large portion even need to draw on government assistance like food stamps to get by. Like most poor Americans, we can also expect them to be in a degree of debt. If you give these people a bit more money, you reduce strain on taxpayer-funded assistan

kenster07 Oct 26, 2013 View on HN

Yes, that is a good thing. The bad part is that they aren't using the other 99.99..% of their wealth, essentially taking everyone else's labor and ending the cycle of trade that would otherwise help keep an economy going.And that's not to mention broader macroeconomic issues which are more worthy of essays than HN comments.

disordinary Jan 27, 2015 View on HN

Trickle down effect doesn't work.

meowtimemania Dec 19, 2023 View on HN

seems like giving people money drives up prices more than giving money to big co's