Trickle- Down Economics Doesn't Work But Build Up Does- Is Biden Listening? Robert Reich
'Trickle-down economics doesn't work but build-up does – is Biden listening?' Robert Reich, The Guardian, Dec. 20, 2020. A new study confirms tax cuts for the rich do not benefit the rest. Recovery from the pandemic is a chance to change course.
How should the huge financial costs of the pandemic be paid for, as well as the other deferred needs of society after this annus horribilis? Politicians rarely want to raise taxes on the rich. Joe Biden promised to do so but a closely divided Congress is already balking. That’s because they’ve bought into one of the most dangerous of all economic ideas: that economic growth requires the rich to become even richer. Rubbish.
Economist John Kenneth Galbraith once dubbed it the “horse and sparrow” theory: “If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.” We know it as trickle-down economics.
In a new study, David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King’s College London lay waste to the theory. They reviewed data over the last half-century in advanced economies and found that tax cuts for the rich widened inequality without having any significant effect on jobs or growth. Nothing trickled down. Meanwhile, the rich have become far richer. Since the start of the pandemic, just 651 American billionaires have gained $1tn of wealth. With this windfall they could send a $3,000 check to every person in America and still be as rich as they were before the pandemic. Don’t hold your breath...Oh, and tax rates are historically low.
Yet at the same time, more than 20 million Americans are jobless, 8 million have fallen into poverty, 19 million are at risk of eviction and 26 million are going hungry. Mainstream economists are already talking about a “K-shaped” recovery – the better-off reaping most gains while the bottom half continue to slide. You don’t need a doctorate in ethical philosophy to think that now might be a good time to tax and redistribute some of the top’s riches to the hard-hit below. The UK is already considering an emergency tax on wealth. The president-elect has rejected a wealth tax, but maybe he should be even more ambitious and seek to change economic thinking altogether.
The practical alternative to trickle-down economics might be called build-up economics. Not only should the rich pay for today’s devastating crisis but they should also invest in the public’s long-term wellbeing. The rich themselves would benefit from doing so, as would everyone else. At one time, America’s major political parties were on the way to embodying these 2 theories. Speaking to the Dem. national convention in 1896, populist William Jennings Bryan noted: “There are 2 ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them.”
Build-up economics reached its zenith in the decades after the 2nd world war, when the richest Americans paid a marginal income tax rate of between 70% and 90%.
That revenue helped fund massive investment in infrastructure, education, health and basic research – creating the largest and most productive middle class the world had ever seen.
But starting in the 1980s, America retreated from public investment. The result is crumbling infrastructure, inadequate schools, wildly dysfunctional healthcare and public health systems and a shrinking core of basic research. Productivity has plummeted...
Read More, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/20/joe-biden-trickle-down-economics-build-up
= new reply since forum marked as read
I've been an adherent of Modern Monetary Theory for more than ten years now because it starts from universally accepted accounting equations for GDP, then only moves in steps that are provable. The upshot is that governments of fiat-currency economies (as opposed to commodity-backed, e.g. "gold standard"
can spend whatever they like, and as long as they buy value they will not cause inflation. "Buying value" often looks like putting unemployed people to work manufacturing something that is currently in wide demand. The whole "government borrowing to 'finance debt'" just ends up as a support to banks so the overnight lending rate stays above zero, and the terrifying inflation predicted only happens if the government makes massive (compared to GDP) expenditures that do not buy value.
And artificial scarcity crypto-currencies are a total scam. They will fold to nothing as soon as the Fed builds a secure, free blockchain system denominated in American dollars.