Everyone here believes in trickle-down economics to the extent that they agree with the statement, 'mass starvation is bad,' or to the degree that they believe in benefits from specialization of labor or the economic vibrancy of cities.
I would expect, in this 'debunking' paper, to find conclusions based on short timelines (certainly less than one generation) and no compelling analysis of taxes paid beyond income and payroll taxes, meaning that the overall taxes paid are not dealt with. It's doubtful that the data explains regional variations.
In reality, upon skimming the paper, the authors make the unstated assumption that income inequality has a static equilibrium. Much like psychology papers, where most conclusions should be appended with, "... for social science undergrad students in Western universities," this one should be given the caveat, "..in rich Western countries that have below-replacement fertility." The longest horizon of analysis is 5 years.
This paper attempts something unachievable, fails, and then proclaims success.
Opening statement is going to need significant explanation to not sound like a like half of a strawman or slippery slope fallacy. Not even a complete one.
It’s hard to tell which fallacy it is because it doesn’t attempt to explain why the things are analogous. Even then assuming the analogy is made clearer, it doesn’t explain why it’s relevant to take things to ultimate extremes and judge based those unrealistic extremes.
>Everyone here believes in trickle-down economics to the extent that they agree with the statement, 'mass starvation is bad,' or to the degree that they believe in benefits from specialization of labor or the economic vibrancy of cities.
>Opening statement is going to need significant explanation to not sound like a like half of a strawman or slippery slope fallacy. Not even a complete one.
Agreed. To do that, you would replace Tax cuts with Marginal income tax rate cuts, replace only benefit the rich with are correlated in OECD nations with increased income disparities in 1- and 5-year windows, and debunking trickle-down economics with suggesting imprudence of income tax cuts. But it would be a pretty long title to do all that.
I meant your comments opening statement. That reply did not clarify at all. At a minimum there is a major disconnect in what the comment tried to convey vs how people perceive it. Now that’s two comments like that.
Everyone here believes in trickle-down economics to the extent that they agree with the statement, 'mass starvation is bad,' or to the degree that they believe in benefits from specialization of labor or the economic vibrancy of cities.
I would expect, in this 'debunking' paper, to find conclusions based on short timelines (certainly less than one generation) and no compelling analysis of taxes paid beyond income and payroll taxes, meaning that the overall taxes paid are not dealt with. It's doubtful that the data explains regional variations.
In reality, upon skimming the paper, the authors make the unstated assumption that income inequality has a static equilibrium. Much like psychology papers, where most conclusions should be appended with, "... for social science undergrad students in Western universities," this one should be given the caveat, "..in rich Western countries that have below-replacement fertility." The longest horizon of analysis is 5 years.
This paper attempts something unachievable, fails, and then proclaims success.