system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Has "trickle-down" economics ever worked?
gpt
First we're going to have to actually define what it means besides some kind of political soundbite.

It can mean a few things including:

1. If wealthy people get a tax cut or accrue more wealth, they will spend it in their community and thus everyone will become better off as there will be more jobs for poorer people. This doesn't really work in practice as it gives a small number of people much larger financial leverage over the entire system. Basically it allows the 1% to screw the 99%.

2. It can mean that if a society makes itself attractive to innovators and wealth creators, such as by having lower taxes, then those innovators and wealth creators will want to join that society and thus innovate and create wealth within that society. This does work to some extent, but if it is overdone then that society screws itself. Also taxes are just one consideration for innovators and wealth creators. High taxing societies such as Sweden have their fair share of innovators. America attracts more innovators due to it having a large economy and several important centers of innovation than it does due to having a light tax regime. What's more, if a society is too oppressive to those in the lower classes in order to benefit the higher classes then innovation can be hampered (i.e. smart poor people might not be able to go to school and therefore their potential input is lost).

**tl;dr** the idea of "trickle down" isn't really defined. Yes it is important for a society to enable innovation and wealth creation and yes it is important to attract innovators and wealth creators, but it doesn't pay off in the long run to bend over backwards furthering the interests of the privileged few.