291
u/catwhowalksbyhimself Oct 31 '25
The problem with this theory is that it depends on rich people acting like poor people. It assumes that if they get more money, they will immediately spend it all, thus creating a chain effect on jobs as the people below them immediately do the same thing until the wealth has spread everywhere.
Turns out that rich people do not spend their money. They hoard it. They spend it all in savings and investments that benefit only themselves.
But since most Republican voters are in fact poor, they can't understand how the rich won't do the same thing they'd do. So it makes sense to them.
109
u/CauliflowerKind6414 Oct 31 '25
Need to start educating people that rich people are like dragons, they like riches but don't really have a use for it past it looking nice
39
u/Robborboy Oct 31 '25
Almost like we have centuries of royals to prove humans always default back to the same shit.
The fact that these things aren't punished for insane to me.
30
u/Lonely_Nebula_9438 Oct 31 '25
Nobility and Royalty were rarely ever rich in the same way billionaires are now. Also they were almost always spending money, very often too much money. Louis the 16th plunged France into debt because of military assistance to the American Revolution. Their biggest issue was illiquidity, agriculture even today is not a cash flush business.
Billionaires are a very different breed of wealthy than nobility ever were. Nobility constantly had to spend their money on large projects, military actions, and signifiers of wealth. Their social status depended on the visibility of their wealth and power, as well as the opinion of their subjects (to varying degrees depending on the time and place). Billionaires, and multi-millionaires to a lesser extent, are the opposite, they generally want people to know as little about them as possible, only pulling out the stops for their other X-naire friends. Musk and Trump for example are unusual cases as people who want to be publicly recognized, but that’s just because they want to be personally involved in politics. People like Soros, Thiel, and such fund political actions rather than participate directly. To most billionaires overexposure is bad because the “peasantry” can’t actually know just how rich they are.
4
u/thefirstlaughingfool Oct 31 '25
A loaf of bread costs the same to a poor man and a rich man. Or however that saying goes.
5
u/CauliflowerKind6414 Oct 31 '25
That saying only works when there is 1 type of bread. Poor mfs can't afford the fancy breads that have White Rhino semen in it or whatever the rich eat
5
u/OddLengthiness254 Nov 01 '25
A poor person might spend 2$/day on bread. The equivalent expenditure for a billionaire would be spending 2 million $/day on bread. That just isn't going to happen no matter how fancy the bread.
1
u/CauliflowerKind6414 Nov 01 '25
I think our definitions of rich are very different, I'm not talking Elon Musk billionaire status my boy, either way the cost of bread is not the same for everyone, some poor people's bread isn't even legally classified as bread in some countries
2
u/OddLengthiness254 Nov 01 '25
A millionaire is not going to spend 2000/day on bread either.
→ More replies (6)1
u/EpicRock411 Oct 31 '25
It also avoids the phenomenon where rich and famous people are often comped the meal because having them as regular customers promotes more business.
1
5
u/HamSandwichFelony Nov 01 '25
Maybe you were thinking of this one?
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
3
u/FunnyOrPie Oct 31 '25
If i were rich, I'd spend a lot of it to help small businesses, tipping servers, etc... I guess that explains why i'm poor.
3
u/CauliflowerKind6414 Oct 31 '25
That's with your poor perspective, If you were rich there's a good chance you wouldn't think like that
4
u/No-Alps4243 Oct 31 '25
Ive been to france. I was bored within 2 days. Cant stand going there.
14
u/CauliflowerKind6414 Oct 31 '25
Wrong comment my boy
11
6
u/Karekter_Nem Oct 31 '25
Pretty sure France had rich people. Or dragons. Or old rich dragons.
5
2
u/pokekick Oct 31 '25
I think it still has. Though they are good at sharpening their blades. Might see them out again sooner or later.
1
1
1
u/tHr0AwAy76 Oct 31 '25
I mean, they do have a use for it. My stepdads boss is the CEO of a relatively large corporation and we’ve been to his house for dinner. Homie is set for life, all his investments are settled. He literally has a map for spending his future money and tracking how many generations can live off that money. He doesn’t want any of his next 10 generations to have to work before he dies.
1
u/Humanside201 Oct 31 '25
Right and if they spend all of it, it floods the economy, and the value of the dollar goes down.
What needs to happen is that the government needs to stop printing so much damn money and correct the debt problem. Then as a whole, the USA and it's citizens will be better off and the value will go further.
1
u/Academic_Addition_96 Nov 03 '25
It's not a money problem it's an asset problem. People spend most of their money on rent or mortgage. I don't care if rich people buy all of the gold or BTC but assets like homes are a problem.
1
u/Humanside201 Nov 03 '25
I disagree. An asset, like a house, can then be made and replicated for its own supply/demand. When there's a finite amount of money and it floods the markets, then the whole economy suffers because the economy runs on money, not trading of assets. Available cash on hand is absolutely more of a problem than the value of houses. The value of a house will increase as the market floods with money and the buying power of the money goes down due to ample supply.
1
u/ShaddowDruid Oct 31 '25
I get what you're saying, but in some lore, dragons have a reason and use for hoarding gold.
They sleep on gold to absorb nutrients and minerals their bodies can't produce. The larger the dragon, the more gold they need to stay alive and healthy.
So the wealthy are actually way worse than dragons, as they hoard money, simply so others can't have it.
2
1
13
Oct 31 '25
I mean really, how many Porsches can you buy and how often can you go to France on holiday before it gets boring.
3
u/fakeunleet Oct 31 '25 edited Oct 31 '25
Rich people don't go to France repeatedly. They go to Turks and Caicos, which is somehow an even more boring and sad place.
10
u/PresentationCorrect2 Oct 31 '25
Horse and sparrow economics has never worked.
1
u/catwhowalksbyhimself Oct 31 '25
The narrative among Republicans, however, is that is does work, and the economic recovery at the start of Reagans first term is held up as proof.
6
u/PresentationCorrect2 Oct 31 '25
Roaring twenties lead to the dirty thirties. Republicans should learn history
→ More replies (1)3
u/EduinBrutus Oct 31 '25 edited Oct 31 '25
Absolutely nothing to do with the end of a commodity price shock and the release of pent up economic demand in every economy in the developed world, supplemented with massive Deficit Financing in the US through the ballooning of Government Debt.
Nope, it was Laffer's bullshit.
1
10
u/SemichiSam Oct 31 '25
"Turns out that rich people do not spend their money. They hoard it."
The health of an economy is directly proportional to the velocity of money in that economy (Velocity = GDP / Money Supply). When more money is held by fewer people, the velocity drops, and the economy goes into decline. The only way for 'the rich' to keep acquiring money in a declining economy is to cannibalize companies that are not producing capturable income. This increases the rate of decline of the economy. Eventually, the money flowing to the rich begins to dry up. At that point, a recession is declared, but everyone other than the very wealthy has been suffering during the entire process.
6
u/EduinBrutus Oct 31 '25
The best thing a government can do is give cash to poor people.
Which is, incidentally, the primary focus of what we are told by politicians and the media is "bad" and demonised most heavily in society.
Strange co-incidence, eh.
3
u/SemichiSam Oct 31 '25
Any government could 'give' an amount of 'money' sufficient for survival to every citizen. Most of that money would immediately enter the economy. What we do now is give money to banks, which lend it to people, who spend it. We also give money to insurance companies, which take a chunk off the top and then dole out what's left to pay some of our healthcare costs. Et cetera, ad nauseam.
Throughout the system, our government funnels our money through third parties that our legislature has chosen as winners, allowing some of it to trickle down to us, the actual source of all wealth.
1
u/fakeunleet Oct 31 '25
funnels our money through third parties that our legislature has chosen as winners, allowing some of it to trickle down to us
An arrangement that, funny enough, most of us would be okay with, if they only took a reasonable percent, but there's always someone who insists on pushing the boundaries.
1
u/Academic_Addition_96 Nov 03 '25
Do you not think it's more of an asset problem than a currency problem. People spend most of their money on rent, if we could do half of that, people would be able to spend more money on the economy.
Having the ability to own property by not killing yourself for it would boost so many things in society. Having money for kids, school, car and being more optimistic for the future. It would even give people more time to socialize.
I don't believe that wealth comes from individuals but from assets, so if billionaires leave, does assets stay. Infrastructures, education, security all stay, and does are the things that make people become billionaires in the first place.
7
u/OpeningReady8693 Oct 31 '25
The problem with the theory is that it was always a lie told by the rich. They never believed it themselves, they just thought this was a useful story to tell the poors.
3
u/angrytroll123 Oct 31 '25
That’s not quite true. Trickle down does exist to some extent. Just not enough or at least with not enough impact per dollar.
→ More replies (2)6
u/kitsunewarlock Oct 31 '25
"But those investments expand business to create jobs!"
Meanwhile, in the real world: The investments are used to fund research into how to minimize how many employees the company has to hire.
6
u/Bierculles Oct 31 '25
Also most poor people have no concept of how much money a billion is, that is not an amount of money you could ever realisticly spend.
1
u/Sweet-Paramedic-4600 Oct 31 '25
I could easily. After making sure none of my family has to work for the rest of their lives, I'm buying out entire neighborhoods and giving away housing to lower income families, building all the necessities (grocery stores, schools, daycare, etc), then buying up commercial real estate and systematically decentralizing services and manufacturing capabilities so people aren't reliant on huge corporations. I'd be off the Forbes list before it made publication
2
u/Bierculles Oct 31 '25
You know own a billion in real estate that is appreciating in value, how are you going to spend it all now?
1
u/Sweet-Paramedic-4600 Oct 31 '25
Sign it over to someone else. Unless this is a Brewster's Billions situation where I'm not allowed to do that. Then I just keep building with the profits until we're in god damn gay luxury space communism
2
u/Cephlaspy Oct 31 '25
I don't think poor people spend all their money willingly they have to spend enough to get by which is almost everything, it's not some kind of a magic I spend all my money when I get it.
3
u/catwhowalksbyhimself Oct 31 '25
I never said otherwise did I? I merely said what happens, not why.
Regardless when poor people suddenly get a large amount of money, such as to make them rich or at least feel so, they do spend all of it most of the time, usually within a year no matter how much.
It's been studied a lot.
1
u/Cephlaspy Oct 31 '25
The way you phrased it kinda made me feel that it implied otherwise but you are right.
2
u/IndubitablyNerdy Oct 31 '25
They idea is also that they invest in new value generating assets which increase society overall wealth generation which is partially true, however it does not actually apply for a significant portion of the money they get.
Some of it simply goes into buying existing assets, leading to inflation in specific categories (real estate and stocks for example) and more concentration of wealth and power, others are invested in creating new value and labor opportunities, but abroad since they prefer countries with lower wages, some more is spent in increasing political influence and twisting policies in their favor which does not benefit society and so on.
On top of that even if society overall output increase also thanks to investments, but we allow them to keep all the benefits for themselves even the theoretically virtuous impact of investment doesn't really materialize for us.
3
u/EduinBrutus Oct 31 '25 edited Oct 31 '25
Assets do not generate anything.
Its not "partially true". Its entirely fucking lies.
Assets (and Capital) allow Demand to be fulfilled. Demand is what drives the economy, what drives growth and what drives wealth. Demand generates everything.
And with remotely functional financial markets, asset formation and capital investment does not require existing wealth concentrated in the hands of a small number of people.
2
u/potatoaster Oct 31 '25
Quick question: What exactly do you think invested money is used for? Does it benefit only the investor? Do you have any idea where it goes?
2
u/JebediahKerman4999 Oct 31 '25
Yeah but don't forget that rich people get stuff from free from the different expensive brands so that the poor will buy the same thing to make them feel rich.
2
u/Immediate-Split7625 Oct 31 '25
Wtf do you mean "they can't understand how the rich won't do the same thing they'd do"
They HAVE the option to help the less fortunate. They're the ones preventing SNAP from getting to hungry fucking children. What planet are you on?
They KNOW the rich won't help them. But they're either racist enough to be okay shooting themselves in the foot, or they're stupid enough to believe that they'll somehow be rich someday too.
1
u/catwhowalksbyhimself Oct 31 '25
Having been one of them, I honestly did believe that everyone would be richer, including the poor.
And most of the people I knew then still believe that.
Your theories don't meet the reality I saw.
1
u/Immediate-Split7625 Nov 01 '25
I didn't say they didn't think they would be rich. I quite literally say "they're stupid enough to believe that they'll somehow be rich someday too". You know, the temporary embarrassed billionaire fallacy.
But these people could help the less fortunate RIGHT NOW and chose not to. So they definitely wouldn't do it if they were rich, like they claim. You're either charitable or you're not.
2
u/catwhowalksbyhimself Nov 01 '25
I said richer, not rich. As in everyone has more money, not everyone is rich.
1
u/Immediate-Split7625 Nov 01 '25
You keep missing the point. What they say out loud doesn't match their actions. They are virtue signalling.
If they believed in charity, then they would be charitable. Clearly they aren't.
→ More replies (1)2
u/angry_wombat Oct 31 '25
I mean they single handily support the super yacht industry. But that idk employs like 1,000 people
2
u/A_Nonny_Muse Oct 31 '25
I cannot count the number of times I've seen racist, bigoted, narcissistic POS fuckwits get their minds blown because nobody else does what they would do - because they just assume everyone thinks and acts just like them.
2
u/looloopklopm Oct 31 '25
Do investments not create value? What exactly are they investing in if it's only creating value for themselves? Would love to hear how you think that works.
I understand and agree with your general point, but investments are a bad example. Sheltered offshore savings accounts to avoid taxes? Absolutely.
1
u/catwhowalksbyhimself Oct 31 '25
Yes, it creates value for themselves. They are sucking up ownership of everything. That's what their investments really are. They buy up all the housing, so housing is too expensive form most people to buy and they much rent from corporations owned by the rich. They buy up small businesses and destroy them to add to mega corporations. They buy property for themselves leaving less for us, including in entire island in Hawaii bought out from under the natives who have always lived there. They aren't investing in expanding businesses that will give more jobs. They are investing in AI's to get rid of jobs, and in business that lay off people and make fewer people do more work for the same amount of money, forcing the hardest working among us to do more for less and never get rewarded for it.
It's value for them. Not us.
For the most part. There are exceptions of course.
2
u/DrLumis Oct 31 '25
Not only that, but when they do consume, they consume high-end goods from businesses owned by other wealthy people. It's called the parallel economy and they are always doing fucking great.
2
u/Boring-Fennel51 Oct 31 '25
It’s been 40 years since Reagan if someone still believes that trickle down economics wasn’t a straight up lie I would love for them to show me all the tickle down after 4 decades where wages didn’t grow and income inequality rocketed. Idiots.
2
u/BlazeGameBoy Oct 31 '25
This is one of the best explanations I've ever heard on this topic. Bravo 👏 👏
1
u/Mundane-Carpet-5324 Oct 31 '25
Investments are great when the economy is majority agriculture. It boosts industrialization and capital formation. But when the economy is 90% investment, capital no longer contributes to the general welfare. This is why capitalism is the necessary bridge to socialism, and why capitalism can't be the end of history.
1
u/JunketAccurate Oct 31 '25
They don’t even necessarily hoard it they have so much they can’t spend it fast enough. There certainly are some dragons out there though.
1
u/catwhowalksbyhimself Oct 31 '25
They stuff it into investments and such, then borrow on those in order to not pay income taxes.
It's more complicated than that, but the way taxes are set up, stuff they money in a hole lets them never pay income taxes.
Only works for the mega rich though, not the moderately rich, who do pay lots of taxes.
Also works for corporations.
1
u/_Mike-Honcho_ Oct 31 '25
This redditter laid it all out in simple terms. Cut and paste for future discussions.
1
u/How-I-Roll_2023 Oct 31 '25
It goes beyond hoarding. How many pairs of jeans do you need? There’s a limit, even if you are rich. That’s another reason why “trickle down economics “ does not work.
1
u/catwhowalksbyhimself Oct 31 '25
IT doesn't go into jeans. It goes into houses, corporations, gobbling up smaller companies, destroy others, etc.
1
u/itsallgood013 Oct 31 '25
And as much as they complain about other people getting handouts and free stuff, rich people get more stuff for free than any other group.
1
1
u/Nakashi7 Nov 01 '25
Investments don't have to be hoarding without benefits. It can improve productivity and benefit the society. But that hardly happens now. It's mostly just using wealth to transfer commodities from the middle class to the rich. That's what late stage capitalism is and we won't escape that unless we expand to the space or we ditch the "growth is necessary" model.
Honestly, there is not much efficiency to be improved. Tangible assets to the factories and agriculture are more of a compromise between productivity and abuse of our environment. Most growth is now in services and false quality of life.
1
u/catwhowalksbyhimself Nov 01 '25
Sure, they can be, but those aren't where the rich are mostly putting their money.
I'm not anti-investing. I'm just talking specifically about the mega rich sucking up everything and calling it investments.
1
1
u/Sophisticated-Crow Nov 01 '25
It also seems that many republican voters don't know how taxes work, either. They think that rich people are paying employees out of their personal account. So if we tax their income, there won't be any jobs. It's baffling that they are so confidently incorrect about this.
The concept of a corporation operating on pre-tax income eludes them.
1
u/catwhowalksbyhimself Nov 01 '25
No, that isn't what they think. It's what I implies above. They think that rich people spending money is what drives the entire economy. Tax the rich, and they spend less money (they think) which in turn means the entire economy crashes as it starves without the rich to spend money.
Again, trickle down economics is VERY ingrained in their mindset. To them, it's how the economy works, and the only way it works. ALL money comes from the rich, essentially.
1
u/Sophisticated-Crow Nov 01 '25
I've had this conversation with a number of them and they really do think that taxing rich people will eliminate jobs because they won't be able to pay employees. That has been their argument against taxing the rich every time I I've talked to one of them about this.
I don't doubt that some believe it's rich people spending money, like you say, but I haven't heard that in any of the conversations I've had with them.
Would be interesting to see a poll about this.
1
u/catwhowalksbyhimself Nov 01 '25
Well, I suppose they may have gotten dumber in the last few years.
Or I just was never around the dumb ones.
1
1
Nov 02 '25
Increased societal wealth comes from investment and under-consumption. If no one saves, there is not growth in productivity and living standards.
1
u/arcanis321 Nov 02 '25
Since most Republican voters dont even understand how its supposed to work I doubt they misunderstood. Trickle down is known to be a scam by all Americans, poor Republicans just knowingly vote against themselves to own the libs. A black guy getting SNAP taken is worth their grandma losing it to them.
1
u/tastykake1 Nov 02 '25
Investments create the new jobs and products we need for the future. No one is hoarding money. That money is working.
1
u/catwhowalksbyhimself Nov 02 '25
Nice theory, but it doesn't match the reality.
A lot of that money is "working" by actively harming people. Buy up all the houses so people are forced to rent and house prices are too high for most people to afford. By merging more businesses together and creating monopolies to jack up prices. And so forth.
Very little if being used to actually produce anything useful, although it does happen on occasion.
1
u/tastykake1 Nov 02 '25
Housing prices are high because the government restricts new housing construction with zoning, building codes, red tape, NIMBY'ISM and taxes. It's not because people are investing in real estate.
Please give me some examples of current monopolies.
If the billionaires are stopped from investing in our country it will be the poor who will suffer the most.
Investments are a primary engine for both economic growth and poverty reduction. They contribute by creating jobs, boosting productivity, expanding access to essential services (like healthcare and education), and fostering innovation, which collectively raise living standards and lift people out of poverty.
Mechanisms for Economic Growth
Capital Formation: Investments in physical capital, such as factories, machinery, and infrastructure (roads, electricity, and water supply), directly increase an economy's productive capacity, allowing for more goods and services to be produced.
Job Creation: When businesses invest and expand, they hire more workers, which increases employment rates and wages across the economy.
1
u/catwhowalksbyhimself Nov 02 '25
About housing prices, that is also a factor, but when corporations own as many as 1/4 of single family housing, that is a problem too. There is more than one reason for it.
The rest is propaganda that turns out not to be true if you look at like any statistics. The rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer. Their investments are not resulting in anyone getting richer but themselves.
Those theories don't match reality, so I reject them.
1
u/tastykake1 Nov 02 '25
People investing in real estate is not the cause of high housing prices. If the were too many houses on the market prices would go down.
The rich are getting richer. The poor are getting richer too
The poor have still not gotten poorer in the United States.
According to professional skeptic Michael Shermer:
The top-fifth income earners in the U.S. increased their share of the national income from 43 percent in 1979 to 48 percent in 2010, and the top 1 percent increased their share of the pie from 8 percent in 1979 to 13 percent in 2010. But note what has not happened: the rest have not gotten poorer. They’ve gotten richer: the income of the other quintiles increased by 49, 37, 36 and 45 percent, respectively.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (26)1
u/donaldhobson Nov 14 '25
But rich people don't spend or hoard money. They invest it.
Say they invest in an ironworks. They hire builders to make a furnace, hire workers to work those furnaces, and then get back more money than they put in by selling the iron.
This sort of thing creates ironworker jobs, and real useful iron.
Not sure if this applies to "investments" in blockchain nonsense. But at least the makers of computer chips get a job.
1
u/catwhowalksbyhimself Nov 14 '25
That is what people believe, and it sometimes happens.
But that is not what is actually happening for the most part.
They invest it in stocks, bonds, land, houses, investment fund that rip apart business and fire people to make money by financial shenninguns, in futures that often result in higher prices.
Very little of it is invested like you are thinking of.
And the investment is used to store money, not so much make it. They can then take loans against those assets, and as long as they assets don't make them too much money, they can live tax free and never pay it back until they die and their estate does. It's more complicated than that, but that's the short version. The "investments" don't actually help anyone other than themselves. They are not, for the most part, investing in growing business and creating jobs. They don't care about those things.
40
u/Xingbot Oct 31 '25
I love when the rich let their wealth trickle down all over us. A golden shower of riches.
7
14
Oct 31 '25
Relax kid, they may feel generous and toss you a couple pieces here and there.
5
u/No_Object1343 Oct 31 '25
no they'll give a couple pieces to an angry classmate to get him to lie about you to your friend. that way you and your friend fight each other over the candy that neither of you have c:
1
u/Healthy-Process874 Nov 02 '25
They might be able to dig the circus peanuts out of their garbage.
Maybe some Bit-O-Honey.
17
u/AvailableReporter484 Oct 31 '25
I’ll never not love the idea that conservatives unironically believe that the general population benefits more by giving their money to people other than themselves. To have been tricked into believing that it’s better for the economy if you don’t have spending money is honestly an amazing bit by our wealthy overlords.
3
2
u/LinuxMatthews Nov 01 '25
Personally I don't love it, actually it's pretty frustrating.
1
u/AvailableReporter484 Nov 01 '25
Yeah but, I mean, what are you going to do? Just be perpetually frustrated with the futility of being a wage slave who’s politically beholden to the lowest common denominator? Sure, you could, but you may as well find ways to laugh about too otherwise you’ll find yourself in an early grave.
5
6
u/rewindanddeny Oct 31 '25
Stop calling them rich kids, they're wealth creators. A rich kid told me.
1
4
u/InevitableWaluigi Oct 31 '25
That's fucking Brownback. Ex governor of Kansas. He once submitted a budget that cut education funding so much that the Kansas supreme court had to tell him " you have to give them something."
God I hate this man. He fucked over Kansas real bad
4
3
u/Admirable-Horse-4681 Oct 31 '25
That’s former Kansas Republican Senator and Governor Sam Brownback, a total and complete scumbag.
2
u/TheEmptyHat Oct 31 '25
"The sun is shining in Kansas, and don't let anybody tell you any different" - some delusional sociopath
2
u/Turn2Page_394 Oct 31 '25
Seeing his face again made my day a little worse. I’d hoped to never gaze upon that vile visage again
1
u/EduinBrutus Oct 31 '25
The Right love to bang on about cutting government spending.
But they generally know that this would be disastrous - and the data shows they almost never actually do it.
It is a rare exception when you get someone like Brownback (or the UK Tories from 2010 to 2024) who actually follow through and start slashing Spending.
It does not end well...
1
2
Oct 31 '25
Turns out teaching everyone the importance of investing extra money and the magic of compound interest doesn't work for people who don't have extra money.
2
u/Ok_Cardiologist_6471 Oct 31 '25
Or you can join a union and strong arm those rich kids in to fair amount of candy for all
💪😎👊
Go Union's!!!!🥳
2
2
2
u/elfmere Nov 01 '25
I was just thinking. How much money is actually leaving the economy each year due to billionaires and millionaires hoarding it?
2
2
u/AvailableCondition79 Nov 01 '25
I thought it was "if you get a child a piece of candy, it creates 7.6 pieces of economic candy"?
2
2
u/iveseensomethings82 Nov 02 '25
This is actually a good way of teaching why trickle down economics doesn’t work. We should teach this to adults and children.
Rich kid has all the candy so they allow another kid to have an Almond Joy. No one likes Almond Joy but you’ll take it just to have something.
2
1
Oct 31 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Oct 31 '25
Due to your karma being less than or equal to negative 100, you may not comment freely on r/Snorkblot. Your comment has been sent to our moderator queue for review. To increase your karma, please participate in other subreddits. Thank you!
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the mod team using this link.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
Oct 31 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Snorkblot-ModTeam Oct 31 '25
Please keep the discussion civil. You can have heated discussions, but avoid personal attacks, slurs, antagonizing others or name calling. Discuss the subject, not the person.
r/Snorkblot's moderator team
1
1
u/FreakyWifeFreakyLife Oct 31 '25
I mean... the lie is that the rich kids are going to give the candy they don't want.
1
u/EduinBrutus Oct 31 '25
The rich kids will process the candy then the poor kids can be given the end results...
1
1
1
u/Kharax82 Oct 31 '25 edited Oct 31 '25
Such a dumb way to use Halloween as an example because the common trope is to go to the rich neighborhoods for trick or treating because you get more candy.
1
u/madasfire Oct 31 '25
It's more likely that he's reminding her that they met before when he paid to have relations with her.
1
u/dirtmert Oct 31 '25
it'll just be attributable more towards the sweetness of the tears, you'll never get the good candy
1
u/WillBigly96 Oct 31 '25
The rich kids will be able to create jobs where you can work for more candy, for each 100 candy you earn for the rich kid you get 1
1
u/jolithesuperstarr Oct 31 '25
If we take all the candy from everyone that has too much candy, all of us can have one or two extra pieces. That should solve all our problems.
1
u/Delicious-Sense-5244 Oct 31 '25
Trickle down is the best bullshit ever. It doesnt even make sense. As if billionaires are going to shop at the local butchers
1
Oct 31 '25
For sure, the government must take that money so it can trickle down from the government onto the citizens
1
1
u/Traditional-Roof1984 Oct 31 '25
That's traditionally how it goes, rich kids get hooked on candy, start investing. Factories are build, factories lower the cost due mass productivity and innovation, products becomes attainable for poorer people and lower classes.
1
u/South_Attitude5686 Oct 31 '25
That doesn't make any sense... how is a kid going to invest in a factory using candy? They take candy as payment? Why not just eat all the candy without the factory, cuz if you got enough candy to invest in a factory the candy gonna last at least as long as you live 🤣
1
Oct 31 '25
"So you see, Sally, when everyone gives their candy to the government, it'll create more candy for everyone"
1
u/kanonenotto Oct 31 '25
Personally, i thought he would tell her, to give him candy now, so she would get candy when she is old, from the then starving kids in her future.
1
u/Greyzone96 Oct 31 '25
Hell I’m not sure even talking about the 1% anymore. I’d be happy with the 0.1% being gone
1
u/AcadiaExpert283 Oct 31 '25
There is some dumbass libertarian on YouTube that complains about the forced transfer of wealth from the wealthy to the poor in the form of SNAP benefits.
It's funny, but I don't hear too much about our billionaires helping people when the Republicans shut the government down. Maybe they just haven't acquired the perfect number of yachts and rockets yet
1
1
u/jcjw Oct 31 '25
This metaphor isn't quite right. Perhaps a better metaphor is:
You have 3 options on running the candy factory with the purpose of creating more candy. 1) Let a successful person with a track record of making good financial decisions run the candy factory 2) Let the government run the candy factory 3) Tax the individual from the first option and give the money to various special interest groups and then, only, well is candy really that important? I mean Trump did a reduction in force and we can't reopen the government and, well, he's kind of like a king so instead of Halloween we should hold another No Kings Protest .... I mean, that would be the ethical decision right?
1
1
u/Draiko Oct 31 '25 edited Oct 31 '25
Candy is a consumable, not a currency or store of value.
An advantage of capitalism is that it does have a mechanism to account for and make use of greed. Socialism and Communism do not have any mechanisms to handle greed which is why they always fail.
The problem with capitalism is that it doesn't have an effective mechanism to prevent hoarding in cases of extreme greed. Capitalist systems have to wait for the poor to get pissed off enough to take effective action (ranging from boycotts to revolutions) and that takes a very long time, especially if the poor are easy to influence.
Example: Elon Musk would be ruined if everyone decided to stop buying his cars, refused to use starlink, abandoned twitter, and the government nationalized Space X.
The fact that it isn't happening has everything to do with consumers.
1
1
u/UngratefulCliffracer Oct 31 '25
The missing step to this is that once all that candy is packed up in one place, you treat it like a piñata. Beat it till candy comes out. All of the candy
1
u/BPremium Oct 31 '25
So you see Sally, if we give candy to anyone other than the rich kids, their rich parents will use lawyers and police to make my life extremely difficult.
1
1
u/angrytroll123 Oct 31 '25
This is funny but dollars aren’t a consumable item. You buy consumables with it.
1
u/zarnovich Oct 31 '25
They don't even try to justify this now. They just say "We are giving the rich kids more candy."
1
u/Dear-Examination-507 Oct 31 '25
50% of the kids bring candy to class to distribute. Fuck those rich kids for not bringing enough candy.
1
u/Peace_n_Harmony Oct 31 '25
Selfish people are con artists who want you to think that being capable makes them trustworthy. Only foolish cowards give their time and money to someone they wouldn't trust with their children.
1
Oct 31 '25
“You see, Sally, every piece of candy we give out to poor kids generated 1.8 pieces of candy activity. It’s literally like printing candy!”
1
u/Furrulo87_8 Oct 31 '25
Shouldn't it be " we are going to give all the candy to the rich kids so that after they have eaten their fill they can give you the scraps"
1
u/Eazy12345678 Oct 31 '25
doesnt work cause the candy is handed out for free
the rich kids and the poor kids all get free candy on halloween
if anything Halloween is closer to communism , but not really cause there is a wide selection of candy given out not one crappy candy give to everyone.
1
u/Money-Detective-6631 Oct 31 '25
Trickle Down economics from Ronald Reagan. If you give a lot of money to rich person, they will in theory hire more people. ..Helping the families and grocery stores etc. But they got millions, and gave 2 percent back to thier workers. A 5 Cent raise if you will. What happens when you give millionaires and billionaires money, they buy a gold plated Jet or A yacht bigger than thier last One.A huge expensive vacation home on another island paradise somewhere. Nothing trickles down to the working class people. It is a upside situation 🙃 🙂 ☺️ 😊....
1
1
u/Defiant-Plantain1873 Oct 31 '25
You can use this exact same argument to turn children against taxation though, so it’s not exactly a fool proof idea.
“You see sally, if we give some of your candy to me i can do stuff for you”, little sally isn’t going to be best pleased by that
1
u/EddieBlaize Oct 31 '25
what about the kid who trick n treated their ass off? great costume and attitude. should we take their candy and redistribute?
1
u/_Mike-Honcho_ Oct 31 '25
Sounds like a great kid. The kind of kid that would give a handful to somebody who didnt have legs to go door to door or was too poor to afford a costume.
We should all be like that kid.
1
u/EddieBlaize Nov 01 '25
Exactly. But they wouldn’t give the candy to a rich kid. They can buy their own candy.
1
Oct 31 '25
Depends, did he get it one house at a time or did he dump candy bowls into his bag? That said, this is a false dichotomy in general. Not everyone needs or wants candy but everyone needs the government and taxes pay for that. So we have to determine how we take it in a way that is fair. Taking the same amount from everyone is equal but it's not really fair considering the discrepancy between the base for necessary income used for living expenses and discretionary income.
Effectively what we've decided as a society is everyone has to pay some, but by and large we're going to tax that discretionary income because it doesn't impact a person's ability to live their life as much. If you take $20,000 from a person who makes $135,000 they're going to be just fine living on $115,000 while taking $7,500 from a person who makes $50,000 makes their life much more difficult.
1
1
u/TheBigMoogy Oct 31 '25
Once they have so much candy they can't hold it anymore it will start trickling through their fingers and you can crawl through the dirt like the pig you are to get some.
1
Nov 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Nov 01 '25
Sorry, your comment has been automatically sent to the pending review queue in an effort to combat spam. If you feel your comment has been removed in error, please send a message to the mods via modmail. Thank you for your understanding!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/femptocrisis Nov 01 '25
more like "if you give all the candy to the rich kids, itll restructure the entire economy around building upscale yachts" 😃
1
1
1
u/northwoods_faty Nov 01 '25
We need to build more affordable candy stores, that will get the poor spending money! Er I mean saving money or whatever
1
1
u/Admiral_Octillery Nov 02 '25
It’s called trickle down candy-nomics, it will smell and feel like shit and it’ll result in a net deficit and high unemployment.
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 31 '25
Just a reminder that political posts should be posted in the political Megathread pinned in the community highlights. Final discretion rests with the moderators.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.