Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[wufwugy]

That's assuming that building a luxury yacht is better for the society than shopping groceries for the same amount. It also assumes that the highest economic growth rate, regardless of who directly reaps the benefits of it, is the most favorable option. There is no evidence of a trickle-down. Savings by definition is income minus consumption.



Not really a misunderstanding, more like my personal opinion of the outcome. Not everyone has equal ability to choose due to lack of resources. Security works a bit like vaccinations, there's herd immunity if you live among people with high security. The opposite is true for lower security areas, which would lead to ghettofication. I'll leave out the whole conversation of knowing on a personal level what the most practical and cost-effective security measures to invest in are, and assume all people would become security experts.



Then why is the distribution that way, which regulation is cockblocking the trickle-down?

When you say things like "there is no evidence of trickle-down", you're rewriting economics by your own parameters. Earlier I tried explaining why the misnomer "trickle-down" has been pulled out of consensus economic theory of growth.

Us going back and forth isn't going to yield any fruit. Your points are reasonable from several logical perspectives, but that doesn't mean they are reasonable from an economics perspective. For example, you say "That's assuming that building a luxury yacht is better for the society than shopping groceries for the same amount." The answer to this statement is that the incentives behind this spending is what makes one better or worse. To the non-economist, groceries obviously look more productive than yachts, but because the behavior is economic in nature, groceries aren't always more productive than yachts, and the non-economist perspective is simply wrong. This is why I have often said "economics doesn't care about our morals". Economics is a science just like physics. Physics doesn't give a fuck what we think it should do. It does what it does and that's the bottom line and we just have to conform. Economics is no different.

Physics is a more obvious experimental science than economics, so it's easier to not disagree with physics and economics has more unknown holes than it otherwise would. But they're both still sciences dependent on the same type of methods of discovery and theory development.