It’s a good thing that was invented by a comedian and not an economist (easier to refute it that way).
> “’Trickle down’ has been a characterization and rejection of what somebody else supposedly believed.” But “no recognized economist of any school of thought has ever had any such theory or made any such proposal. It is a straw man. It cannot be found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories.”
One of the things I like most about HN is that, by and large, people tend to assume at least a fair or reasonable interpretation of others’ arguments.
In your case, you’re trying to drill down on a semantics issue to discredit this guy. It is reasonable to assume most people on HN know that “trickle down” economics is “supply side” economics. Just like when people say “Obamacare” instead of “the ACA” and everyone knows what’s being said.
In both cases yes, the moniker is generally seen as a critique on its own, but to act as if that person is incorrect or “using the wrong term” is disingenuous at best.
I don't think anyone would care if they used "Reagonmics" instead, or something like Obamacare, those are more usefully descriptive than partisan.
Regardless using a term that purposefully misrepresents the economics behind it is not a good way to start any online discussion or make a critique. And if it's not purposeful then is just demonstrates a poor grasp of the concept.
Why else would people take issue with it so often? I've seen that term discredited on HN many times, I'm not the first.
>Obamacare, those are more usefully descriptive than partisan
Obamacare is pretty partisan, but at the very least meant as a derogatory name. It’s definitely not primarily descriptive. It’s also a callback to “Hillarycare.”
What does trickle down have to do with Musk losing money to others though? Right now, it's trickle down hoping he'll do something with it. Like you said, it's a failed hypothesis.
