TED Conversations

Andres Aullet

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed.

Trickle down vs. trickle up

The more businesses are left alone to do what they do best (sell a product or service), free from regulations, external influences and excessive taxation, the better they will be.

Loans and extra profits can be then used for more business creation and business growth, which in return drive more economic prosperity for investors, and that also "trickles down" to workers (as jobs and better salaries) and consumers (as lower prices) and everybody benefits in the end.

Or so the story goes.

Although the theory says that when investors gets richer, they use this extra wealth to promote more businesses, and in the process creating more jobs and driving prices down through specialization; there are many examples where the extra wealth is either just accumulated, or it is invested in ways that do not create jobs nor drive prices down.


Would things work in reverse?

What if individuals rather than businesses were the recipients of loans (micro), left alone to do what they do best (which i contend is creativity), as free from regulations, external influences and excessive taxation as possible.

They would then require raw materials and more people to put their ideas into action, they would need products and services offered by bigger businesses. In the end, everybody would benefit and the economic prosperity would trickle up

Obviously, this is an idealization.

But, could we benefit from a balance of both approaches?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 5 2012: John, I guess your not able to connect the dots. Let me help.
    35 years toward sustainable forestry adopting the wisdom of Gifford Pinchot to provide the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time. The exact opposite of paracitic capitalism which is robbing future generations blind.
    30 plus years in renewable energy and conservation from sales of solar hot water, diagnostics blower doors and duct blasters, to designing a sponsor designed conservation project. All focusing on the transition and implementation of an energy future that is sustainable and affordable, if the parasites don't poison the culture beyond any ability to find meaningful limits and use significantly less on all fronts. Which I do on a daily basis.

    To exploring affordable housing concepts and prototypes and how that can integrate with forestry as well.

    So if that doesn't connect your dots, Mr John. I'm afraid I can't help you.

    Good day..
    • Nov 5 2012: Thanks to your elaborating, I can now point out the dots you missed.

      "30 plus years in renewable energy and conservation from SALES of solar hot water, diagnostics blower doors and duct blasters, to designing a SPONSOR designed conservation project."

      Do you think you would have managed to SELL or find SPONSORS in anything but a relatively free market? The people who bought from you had a good idea of where they wanted to spend their money. No one compelled them. The same goes for the people who chose to sponsor you. Since you believe that being environment friendly is good for us all, you probably find it part of your self-imposed duty to educate others about it. That's approximately what I'm doing too.

      Now imagine living in Soviet Russia or East Germany, and trying to convince the government that they must buy the kinds of products you're selling (if not from you, then from anyone who makes similar products), or imagine trying to convince those government officials to sponsor your schemes. Sure, you might have succeeded in finding the favor of some official, purely by luck, but without market-driven feedback, do you think such schemes would do justice to the effort and money spent on them?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.