Whether in the United States or in India, and whether in the past or in the present, ‘trickle down’ has been a characterization and rejection of what somebody else supposedly believed. Moreover, it has been considered unnecessary to cite any given person who had actually advocated any such thing.
The phrase ‘trickle down’ often comes up in discussions of tax policies. Tax revenues have in a number of instances gone up when tax rates have been reduced. But any proposal by economists or others to cut tax rates, including reducing the tax rates on higher incomes or on capital gains, can lead to accusations that those making such proposals must believe that benefits should be given to the wealthy in general or to business in particular, in order that these benefits will eventually ‘trickle down’ to the masses of ordinary people.
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.
What is sought by those who advocate lower rates of taxation or other reductions of government’s role in the economy is not the transfer of existing wealth to higher-income earners or businesses but the creation of additional wealth when businesses are less hampered by government controls or by increasing government appropriation of that additional wealth under steeply progressive taxation laws. Whatever the merits or demerits of this view, this is the argument that is made – and which is not confronted, but evaded, by talk of a non-existent ‘trickle down’ theory.
More fundamentally, economic processes work in a directly opposite way from that depicted by those who imagine that profits first benefit business owners and that benefits only belatedly trickle down to workers.
When an investment is made, whether to build a railroad or to open a new restaurant, the first money is spent hiring people to do the work. Without that, nothing happens. Even when one person decides to operate a store or hamburger stand without employees, that person must first pay somebody to deliver the goods that are being sold. Money goes out first to pay expenses and then comes back as profits later – it at all. The high rate of failure of new businesses makes painfully clear that there is nothing inevitable about the money coming back.
Even with successful and well-established businesses, years may elapse between the initial investment and the return of earnings. From the time when an oil company begins spending money to explore for petroleum to the time when the first gasoline resulting from that exploration comes out of a pump at a filling station, a decade may have passed. In the meantime, all sorts of employees have been paid – geologists, engineers, refinery workers, and truck drivers, for example. It is only afterward that profits begin coming in. Only then are there any capital gains to tax. The real effect of a reduction in the capital gains tax is that it opens the prospect of greater future net profits and thereby provides incentives to make current investments that create current employment.
Nor is the oil industry unique. No one who begins publishing a newspaper expects to make a profit – or even break even – during the first year or two. [note: Sowell was writing at a time when newspapers were profitable] But reporters and other members of the newspaper staff expect to be paid every payday, even while the paper only shows red ink on the bottom line. Similarly, Amazon.com began operating in 1995 but its first profits did not appear until the last quarter of 2001 after the company had lost a total of $2.8 billion over the years. Even a phenomenally successful enterprise like the McDonald’s restaurant chain ran up millions of dollars in debts for years before it saw the first dollar of profit. Indeed, it teetered on the brink of bankruptcy more than once in its early years. But the people behind the counter selling hamburgers were paid regularly all that time.
In short, the sequence of payments is directly the opposite of what is assumed by those who talk about a ‘trickle down’ theory. The workers must be paid first and then the profits flow upward later – if at all.
On June 30, 2021, Edward Ring published his first of nine articles on “Fixing California” on the Conservative American Greatness website, titled “The Themes That Make America Great.
Edward Ring is a contributing editor and senior fellow with the California Policy Center, which he co-founded in 2013 and served as its first president. He is also a senior fellow with the Center for American Greatness, and a regular contributor to the California Globe. His work has also appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, Forbes, and other media outlets. Ring’s undergraduate degree is in Political Science from UC Davis, and he has an MBA in Finance from USC.
I urge you to read them as time permits. Links to these very informative articles are provided below:
- The Themes That Make Anything Possible – Optimism, which the Golden State’s ruling class has abandoned, is nonetheless in California’s cultural DNA.
- The Electric Age – Affordable, abundant, sustainable energy is a realistic, moral choice. It is an example California can set that the aspiring nations of the world will emulate instead of resist.
- Achieving Water Abundance – Environmental considerations should not preclude the state from launching new projects that increase the Golden State’s annual supply of water. Conservation is simply not enough.
- The Transportation Revolution – Spending precious government funds on light rail that nobody wants to ride is a fool’s errand. Declaring war on the car is shortsighted cruelty. We can do so much more.
- How to Make Housing Affordable Again – It is possible for ordinary Californians to be able to realize the dream of homeownership in upgraded, modern, glorious, sprawling, glittering cities, and suburbs.
- Finding Homes for the Homeless and Cleaning Up the Streets – Compassion, properly tempered with common sense, and properly balanced with the other fundamental moral values, may seem harsh, but the results are what matter, not the rhetoric.
- Seeing the Forests for the Trees – The Golden State’s ruling elites may prove they care about the environment by sitting down with representatives from California’s timber, biomass energy, and cattle industries.
- Restoring Quality Education – Government unions, government contractors, powerful nonprofits, monopolistic corporations, and Big Tech companies rely on a thoroughly indoctrinated electorate to support their dysfunction.
- The Prosperity Economy – To change hearts, facts are useless without the power of optimism, the belief that abundance is possible, and the suggestion that ideology matters, but sometimes practical solutions matter more.