Final nail in the coffin of "trickle down theory"

Remove all ads!

You'll discover that the people on SP in general are a bit more educated than what you find on your typical message board. We have a bunch of people on these boards with post graduate degrees or prefessional certifications. We have lawyers, CPAs, PEs, and yes, scientists (although no medical doctors as far as I'm aware). But to answer your question, I believe T2 is a chemist. I am a biochemist, and yes, I have published work in peer reviewed scientific journals. I'm guessing T2 has as well - at least while doing his graduate work.

 

This seems to have been a case of youthful indescretion.

 

Can we be sure that damedog is really an 18 year old naive kid? I mean, in light of recent events?

 

No, but we can be sure that we have little choice but to think he is what he says he is until we know different.

 

I don't believe anyone is "pulling a martaug" - so to speak - if that's what you're getting at.

 

Weird, I assumed "damedog" is a "she," for some reason.

As the old saying goes, we need to trust each other. If we don't we'll start checking up on each other... and if we do that, we'll end up catching each other . What does it say that this is my one of my father's favourite quotes on marital relations?

 

That first quote was because that's what I assumed what was being said. It seemed like he was saying it was wrong, and so in the next sentance I asked for an argument. But doesn't not rigourous essentialy mean false or wrong?

Actually, like I said before, the previous arguments were for a study that was the wrong one due to a mistake. And after I posted the real one, no updated argument was made. The only refutation that came up next was you quoting the degree, and the "appeal to authority" fallacy says that an expert in a field not related to the field being talked about is an invalid opinion with no other supporting evidence or argument. Since no argument was made on the real study, I quoted the appeal to authority fallacy.

I don't have to be an expert to see the definition for a fallacy, see the similarities in the current context, and then call them out.

But holy crap, when did this discussion become about me? This whole thread has been littered with accusations and personal attacks. I've been called clueless, obnoxious, naive, and apparently a liar on who I really am. And you claim i'm using ad hominem? If this is how this board treats an honest attempt at discussion than you may as well consider this my final post. But saying that I wouldn't be suprised at another personal attack coming saying that I wasn't open to any discussion in the first place.

 

The way you're making your argument is rubbing people up the wrong way I would think. The essential problem is that you're not used to dealing with academic articles and the language they use. It's very specific and not like a newspaper article. Now, I only really got used to dealing with them when I was doing my postgrad, not even my degree. Very, very few 18 year olds (or people of any age really) would be familiar with them. That's not the problem. The problem is that you're very strident with what you're saying when you're talking to some people who are used to dealing with them. You've picked some things up wrong and you'd be much better off trying to learn from others rather than getting defensive. I'll list some of the areas you're getting confused:

1) This is a working paper rather than a full academic article. A working paper is essentially the half way stage when the article is written. The goal would be to have it "peer reviewed" (some other independent economists will go over it with a tooth comb to make sure it's ok) at which stage it might get published in a scientific journal if it's deemed important enough.

2) It's not the "final nail" by any means. In the likes of economics it's almost impossible to prove things definitively. The article refers to previous studies done in the area and says that they're mixed with some agreeing with the theory and others not. This is just one more study not agreeing.

3) By referring to "trickle down" I'm presuming you mean government policys to improve the lot of all by giving rich folk incentives to invest. Academic studys are very, very specific in what they are studying. This study is only attempting to measure whether increases in inequality has been accompanied by decreased incomes for poorer folk. It does not attempt to find out the cause. There are many theories as to the cause and the study summarises some of the main ones towards the end.

The danger is that there could be other reasons for the incomes of the poor going down. They may be more vulnerable to globalisation or to obsolesence as technology improves. Trickle down theory may actually be working and improving the lot of the poor but these other factors may be dragging them down faster than trickle down can bring them up. An academic study into trickle down theory would have to factor in all these other causes before it can come up with a conclusion. Hence why it's pretty much always impossible to get a definitive conclusion in economics.

4) "Not rigorous" does not mean false. It means it's not been done thoroughly. I'm not fully qualified to give an opinion on the matter but I've read fair few academic studies and this doesn't strike me as being a very deep and thorough one. Not by comparison to what I'd be capable of but in comparison to the type that gets published in the major journals. I'd be surprised if this is a major breakthrough as opposed to a useful study.

5) Claiming T2 would need to be an economist to be an authority on this is way off the mark. The way academic studies are carried out and written have a fairly standard best practice no matter what the discipline is. I've read non-business studies and the "feel" of them is the same. I mightn't understand the detail but I could probably pick up if the basics of how it was carried out was wrong. T2 is merely saying that it doesn't give the impression of being a major article and I'd agree with him.

 

No excuse for the plethora of insults. If I, a naive clueless obnoxious 18 yr old, can make an argument without adding personal attacks, even when made to me, than people many years older than me can surely do the same thing. Such attempts at belittlement are an enemy to intellectual progress and a desire to debate at all.

For example, when I first made this thread I planned to bring in further points as the debate when on, like the fact that roughly 25% of our revenue came from corporate taxes in 1950, to roughly 5% today. All the while the deficet skyrocketed and wages stagnated.

But, like I said, who wants to talk ideas when it can't be done without insults?

 

No. The data can be as pure as the driven snow. But if the study that uses that data is flawed or incomplete, any conclusions drawn from it are meaningless. Hence, T2's point about it lacking peer review, a basic and commonly-accepted standard for any credible study. But like I said - what T2 stated was as clear as a bell, and please don't take this personally, but it appears you quickly read and carelessly responded to him, as I'd suspected. It happens from time to time, and it's not a big deal... please stop making it one by compounding the error and continuing to argue what you assumed he meant long after it's been explained otherwise.

True, but an expert would take care not to commit several logical fallacies himself before calling out the perceived "classic examples" of the logical fallacies committed by his opponents. I could have pointed out more than just the two of yours that I did (and there were several others), but I felt I'd made my point.

Look - I don't want you to stop posting here. None of us do, I'm sure. As I said, I've enjoyed your posts. But if this is enough to get you to leave then you've got to be the most thin-skinned poster I've seen in the 8 years I've been here. Please - you've hardly been subjected to a "plethora of insults." One person half-suggested you weren't who you said you were, based on this recent episode, and you'll notice no one else agreed. Still, apologies for that. Because he had to repeat himself, T2, out of obvious frustration, said you were either clueless OR you weren't listening - and it seems we've established in this case it was at least closer to the latter. I never said you were obnoxious; I said the tactic you were using - the quoting of fallacy definitions while committing them yourself - was obnoxious, and that you should cut it out. I challenge you to find an internet politics forum more civil than this one. As for you being an 18 year old - frankly, you didn't seem like one until just now.

Bottom line, as it pertains to this thread - the claim of "Final Nail in the Coffin of Trickle-Down Theory" is a very bold, big-nuts-swinging kind of claim. The evidence to support such a claim had better be pretty rock solid. What you provided was decidedly less than rock solid. There's no shame in that, but have the respect for yourself and those you mean to convince to admit that you really ought to come up with something better, or back off such a bold premise. I'm already on your side and even I couldn't support the argument you've put forth here.

 

Hah, fair enough. If you saw the post I just put up I had other things to back it up, that was just the closest to empircal data i've seen on the subject. But as for the thin skin, it could possibly be true. I've spent very little time on internet debates, and the sites i've been on have been pretty anal on keeping the subject matter on the subject and not the person.

But anyways, I still don't understand why I would be considered a sock puppet. How have I not acted like an 18 yr. old?

 

You've not acted like one up to now by showing an obvious intelligence, command of at least a cursory knowledge of national and international politics, and a decent understanding of socratic method. Most 18-year-olds aren't quite as mature or bright, but they do tend to pick fights/cop attitude over trivialities and lack self-awareness. That's why I found the turn you took this time around so surprising. Up to now I've enjoyed your posts and, frankly, thought you were lying about your age (you struck me as at least late twenties at first).

But anyway - now we're way the f*ck off topic, so - point made, eh?

 

Nope, all teenager all the way. Just graduated high school, in fact.

But anyways, I want to add more to this discussion, and leave that dirty bit of buisness behind us. (I had a rather long argument typed up, then one mistake deleted the whole thing. I'll get back to it in the morning)

 

The second article was much better than the first, but without listing causes the article becomes a weak argument. The authors decided to pick and choose ecomonic indicators to give their result (not uncommon in all research) but did not show why other common indicators should be excluded -- this would tend to imply the other indicators would have detracted from their findings. Once again, such things are vetted during peer review.

Interesting article even if I'm on the fence about the conclusions. I still think the term "final nail in the coffin" is a bit of a stretch.

Aside: Let me get this straight -- you post the wrong article. I state the article posted is weak and does not support your conclusions. You take offense the wrong article is being attacked. You finally post the correct article while still arguing the merits of the wrong article. You got to admit that's pretty funny.

 

This is very common in the field of economics when there are a lot of potential indicators which can possibly influence the results. You more or less have to make some ceteris paribus assumptions in order to get any research done at all. As Deise pointed out it's a working paper, meaning the research is probably ongoing and the final results could be very different from what they are now.

Still whatever the results of this study will be I doubt they'll produce any "final nail" since that's not really how economic research works. The potential causes are too many to nearly ever make any absolute conclusions. Correlation does not equal causality. That's the first thing they taught us at my first economics class.

I haven't really had the time to check the article and it's not really my field of interest anyway but I might give it a look and comment on the substance later.

 

Okay, so for some reason I got logged out as I was typing everything up, losing it again. So i'm just gonna list my other sources and you can have a go at em. Cutting high corporate and personal income taxes obviously lead to greater inequality, which research has shown has a negative correlation to growth:

Journal of Public Economics: http://www.aiecon.org/advanced/suggestedreadings/PDF/sug334.pdf

United Nations University, World Institute for Development Economics Research: http://www.wider.unu.edu/publicatio.../pb4/_files/78807311723331954/default/pb4.pdf

 

I'm not sure where you're going with your arguments. The first article actually states cutting corporate tax rates leads to greater ecomonic growth rates. The second article is really on the global scale; basically that third-world countries are being taken advantage of by industrialized nations (which is not a surprise to anyone).

A statement you made earlier:

This is something of a red herring in economics. Taxes to a corporation are part of the cost of doing business and those expenses are rolled into the products the corporation provides. Except businesses don't just roll in the tax expense and give an incremental increase in price. For every dollar spent by a company they want a margin of profit. Whether the cost comes from materials, employee expenses or taxes the actual price of the product provided will go up by the expense multiplied by the profit margin the company wants.

This is compounded when the company then sells their product to Best Buy or Home Depot or any other store and that store adds another layer of margin. This means for every dollar of tax the corporation pays we as consumers pay two to four dollars (depending on the margins -- it could be lot more).

Hence the real issue for the average tax payer is do we pay the dollar to the government by having higher income taxes or do we pay four dollars to the business so they can pay the dollar. Income taxes are relatively new and I think we as a nation have learned a lot about improving the efficiency of tax collection and minimal impact of the tax payers. I believe this is the reason we see the shift from corporate tax revenue to income tax revenue.

 

huh- you're right about the first one. When I heard "negative correlation" I thought it meant that it was detrimental. Which means that contradicts the U.N one, since it's not just about global inequality since it speficially states high inequality is a detriment to growth, even in first world countries.

So it seems I still have things to learn, the data is mixed. I hereby revoke my claim of "final nail in the coffin". But as for what you're saying T2, i've always had a problem with buisnesses power to just pass on liabilities onto their customers, it seems like there is a global imbalance of power when it comes to buisness and workers/consumers- but that's a whole other debate.