Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
That trickle-down economics quote. There's studies about it [not working] published but it's just studies.
The original quote is "If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows" from Galbraith.
I imagine people are not yet ready to learn this "promise" ain't holding water.
If my goal is to feed sparrows that's a very costly and inefficient method. I also end up with an overweight horse.
... and a lot of horse shit.
Checks out with economics results
So we all get to eat shit? Is that the point of the quote?
I don't understand how that is meant to be supportive of trickle-down economics.
"horse and sparrow" discourse was intended to be a criticism of supply side economics, not supportive of it.
I don't think the original quote is what they use. I just found the relatively more glorified version commonly used:
apparently also called "supply-side doctrine."