this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2025
37 points (97.4% liked)
Asklemmy
51663 readers
417 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"New study finds 'Trickle Down Economics' has not trickled down in any way over the last ~~30~~ ~~40~~ 50 years"
Some economist please corrcxt me if I'm wrong, but: Trickle down may not work. However, trickle up should.
If you do say, UBI, people will spend the stuff. And the money will go to the big players. They'll buy their food at Walmart. Or meds at Target Pharmacy. Or get a loan at JP Morgan.
Unlike, say Walmart, who won't buy their huge private jet collection from the swathes of less-than-well-off people across all of America.
So even if UBI made people lazy, even if it made people less productive, the money will still disproportionately end up in the hands of the rich.
Trickle down is based on the mistaken assumption that rich people will spend all their money in the local community. When often they don't spend their money at all and just save it, and when they do spend it it's on expensive yachts in Monaco. They're not contributing to the economy in which they live.
The millionaire class were delighted when they saw this idiotic take and pushed its narrative knowing full well that it would be to their advantage.
I don't think I've ever heard it called a trickle up economics but yeah, it would work because most people have no choice but to spend locally. If I got some money from the government I would buy food in the local supermarket or get my house redecorated by a local tradesman.
Various tests of UBI have shown that it doesn't really increase laziness beyond the base level it was already at, after all it's mostly the rich who are lazy anyway, as they're the only ones who have the resources. All it really happens is people want more time off work because they can subsidise their income with UBI, but that is an expected and desired outcome as it means more people will be employed to cover the difference which gets more people in work and therefore paying taxes.