Does Trickle-down Economics Embody an Option for the Poor?
My expertise in economics matches my proficiency in dentistry: I can tell you something hurts, but I’ve no competence to diagnose what’s causing the pain or to administer procedures that will result in relief. It is therefore with some trepidation that I pose the following question. Putting aside whether or not the theory actually works in practice, a question I don’t here wish to debate, does trickle-down economics embody what has been called in Catholic circles the preferential option for the poor?
I’m inclined to answer that it does not, that while helping to generate pools of capital at the top may benefit the poor through a process of “trickling down,” the theory itself embodies a preferential option for the rich. The theme of the theory seems to be that the best way to help the poor is to help the rich accumulate more of their wealth so that they can spend more money in the marketplace and invest their wealth in infrastructure and markets.
Again, I’m not interested here in whether this theory works in practice, but whether it is compatible with a preferential option for the poor. Does the process of “trickling down” establish such compatibility?