So do %s/trickle-down/supply-side/g , then, if it's the term that's bothering you. Doesn't "debunking" trickle-down economics then, by extension, debunk supply-side economics? I'm not clear on the meaningful difference
I don't know regex, but to be clear: trickle-down economics and supply-side economics are very different things. I don't blame you for conflating them since they are intentionally very confusing.
One is a policy and the other is basically the name of a common criticism for that policy.
For example, the Cartesian circle does not refer to any of the many mathematical advancements Rene Descartes discovered. Instead, it's the name of a common criticism for an argument he made. You can think of it like that.
What's the actual difference, because you haven't actually supplied one. You've just said "They're different. One is a thing, and one is a criticism of a thing".
So, does the criticism not hold value? Because a large part of "supply-side economics", a term coined in the 70s, is reduction of taxes and regulations. With the idea that that extra capital will then be used to create jobs.
And if that is not what's happening, then I don't care about the semantics of whether or not "trickle-down" is the appropriate term of art to be applied here. The core concept of "giving rich people more money spurs job growth" is apparently false.
Tilting the scale towards capital is a good idea when capital is the limiting factor on economic growth. A dollar invested rather than consumed brings two dollars in a few years time. Here's the thing: this is only really true in developing economies because, well, they develop. Inevitably, the amount of available capital outgrows the available investment opportunities. Expected rates of return and interest rates fall. At this point, subsidizing capital is every bit as foolish as subsidizing demand in any other ~fixed supply market. However, the enormous incentive to pretend otherwise remains.
Foolish: policies that favor capital are good
Smart: let's check interest rates to see if policies that favor capital are good
You know enough about it to misidentify that obvious string replacement command as an example of it.
Your comments are incoherent and disingenuous. Saying that trickle down economics is "an entirely pejorative term created by detractors of supply-side economics" is very much saying that they refer to the same thing ... and it's the thing they refer to that TFA argues only helps the rich. You say that "the policies of supply-side economics, however, are much more defensible" but you offer no defense, and no rebuttal to TFA.
> For example, the Cartesian circle does not refer to any of the many mathematical advancements Rene Descartes discovered. Instead, it's the name of a common criticism for an argument he made.
This is the most inept attempt at an analogy that I can recall seeing.
I have a thing about people who act in bad faith, or argue so ineptly that it looks like it ... I won't be responding further.
> You know enough about it to misidentify that obvious string replacement command as an example of it.
I figured the syntax was like an either-or thing, but I wasn't sure.
> Saying that trickle down economics is 'an entirely pejorative term created by detractors of supply-side economics' is very much saying that they refer to the same thing...
I don't think it is. What I'm _not_ trying to say is that trickle-down economics is a nickname for supply-side economics. More, trickle-down economics is a strawman. Not the same thing or a different name, but an inaccurate version--a caricature which doesn't even resemble policy. Also I'm not sure what "TFA" stands for.
> This is the most inept attempt at an analogy that I can recall seeing.
It was kind of rough.
Regardless of the incompetence of my arguments though, I promise I am not being intentionally dense. I really do try to act in good faith here on HN, and I'd appreciate it if I could hear more of your perspective and continue this civilly.
You are right. I should be more forthright; I was answering elsewhere. Here's another comment I made that's relevant.
"""
I think supply-side economics deserves more nuance than simply thinking we need to make the tax rate arbitrarily low. The Laffer curve isn't the only thing you should look at, since where you tax can be just as important as how much you tax.
Take corporate taxes for example. If one were to advocate to get rid of corporate taxes, you might think that person unabashedly biased. What kind of person would want to give tax breaks to the richest people (corporations) when everyday people are the most in need of those kind of cuts, right?
But the reality is that when you tax corporations, that is one of the most economically damaging taxes you can do. How about then, rather than taxing corporations, you tax the benefactors of those corporations directly? When you tax Walmart, sure you tax the C-suite, but you also make it so that Walmart can hire less people, and invest less in the economy. Rather than taxing the corporation, what if you just taxed the C-suite directly? Tax the Walton family, or the highest earning employees directly, and you get to have your cake and it too since you get similar amounts of tax revenue without damaging the economy nearly as much.
You'll see this often in the social democracies of Scandinavia, like Sweden or Denmark. These are countries with strong welfare states, and yet, the corporate tax rates are often lower than the U.S., even if you look at the most red states. This is supply side economics at work, and an example of how supply-side economics can be easily misrepresented.
> You'll see this often in the social democracies of Scandinavia, like Sweden or Denmark. These are countries with strong welfare states, and yet, the corporate tax rates are often lower than the U.S., even if you look at the most red states.
This is only true if you look at the standard tax rate. The effective tax rate of a lot of US corporations is appreciably lower.
It works in places like Scandinavia because they don't give corporations ways to lower their tax burden
My point still stands though. Taxing income and consumption directly (hopefully the income/consumption of rich people) is preferable to indirect corporate taxes.
In other conversation though, am I curious to know where you got your data. As far as I'm aware the Scandinavian countries do in fact have a robust system of corporate tax incentives. This is part of the reason they boast such high productivity.
I very well might be wrong here though, and the topic is interesting. Would you care to share a source?
How do you compare a criticism, with a policy? Trickle-down economics doesn't have any legislative appropriations. It's not taught in economics classes. Like saying "what's the difference between a boat and a car?" I can tell you that a boat is not a car, but I can't compare the wheels of a car with a boat, nor the keel of a boat with a car. They are different things is all I'm trying to say.
Now as for why I didn't expand with nuance earlier, in my defense I was expanding, but elsewhere in the thread. I foolishly thought this was enough.
You can't call "trickle-down economics" a strawman without actually naming what is different between it and "supply-side economics". Otherwise I have to assume that people are just calling the same policy by two different names. Like how proponents of DRM call it "Digital Rights Management" and critics call it "Digital Restrictions Management" but both people are referring to the same technology.
tl;dr: If you could name me differences you would name me differences
My above comment helps with the distinction. If you missed it:
"""
I think supply-side economics deserves more nuance than simply thinking we need to make the tax rate arbitrarily low. The Laffer curve isn't the only thing you should look at, since where you tax can be just as important as how much you tax.
Take corporate taxes for example. If one were to advocate to get rid of corporate taxes, you might think that person unabashedly biased. What kind of person would want to give breaks to the richest people (corporations) when everyday people are the most in need of those kind of cuts, right?
But the reality is that when you tax corporations, that is one of the most economically damaging taxes you can do. How about then, rather than taxing corporations, you tax the benefactors of those corporations directly? When you tax Walmart, sure you tax the C-suite, but you also make it so that Walmart can hire less people, and invest less in the economy. Rather than taxing the corporation, what if you just taxed the C-suite directly? Tax the Walton family, or the highest earning employees directly, and you get to have your cake and it too since you get similar amounts of tax revenue without damaging the economy nearly as much.
You'll see this often in the social democracies of Scandinavia, like Sweden or Denmark. These are countries with strong welfare states, and yet, the corporate tax rates are often lower than the U.S., even if you look at the most red states. This is supply side economics at work, and an example of how supply-side economics can be easily misrepresented.
Assuming, of course, that one's body _does_ naturally produce insulin. I'm glad it and other artificial sweeteners exist and are as prevalent as they are.
To add on to this, there's no standardized way of indicating what needs to be typed out and what needs to be replaced. `foo --bar <replace me>` might be a good example command in a README, but I had to help someone the other day when they ran `foo --bar <test.txt>`, not realizing they should have replaced the < and > as well as just the text.
Normally yes, but the L1 Lagrange point always would have an unobstructed view of the sun. Granted, L1 is a lot further away than LEO (~3x the distance to the moon), so that makes it harder and more expensive to get to
They also somehow broke scrolling via the scroll bar, swipe to go back, and jumping to text search results on iOS! This is the first site that I’ve seen break so many browser features.
oncontextmenu and ondragstart are preventDefault'ed _unless_ you are in a input/textarea e.g. leaving a reply. Truly bizarre and pointless. I've done something similar in a nonsense corporate context to stop people copying certain sensitive date, but at least I knew it was pointless.
In Firefox you can shift+rightclick to bypass that (disables the event), or completely disable the event by changing "dom.event.contextmenu.enabled" in about:config.
Very perplexed about this too. The only reason I can come up with is to prevent people from copying the content?
But that doesn't make much sense either TBH. The page's content is not obfuscated, so this does nothing to stop a content scraper script. Plus, even a not particularly technical user can just turn on reading mode and get at the text anyways...
Disabling highlighting and right clicking is common in some places in East Asia such as Korea.
As to why this is done I have no idea. Especially since you can circumvent the disabling of these abilities. Although you have to resort to OCR when a site decides to render the text as an image.
I typed "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog", clicked "Check Everything", I get a brief spinner, and
[plugin:vite:import-analysis] Failed to parse source for import analysis because the content contains invalid JS syntax. If you are using JSX, make sure to name the file with the .jsx or .tsx extension.
or nothing happens
Edit: if I open the editor, type the same text, and then click "Fact Check", I get the same error
Oh, it is because we set a global check limit, 1 per second (we didnt think we would get so many users, got 500 in the last 30 minutes) We will fix that. But a simple reload should suffice
reply