>You make it sound like there is money "lost". The dollars that are spent end up in the economy
This trickle down economics argument was used commonly in the Reagan era, and could be heard frequently in the 90s in conservative media.
While it is correct that the money does not disappear (which in theory would generally just be a transfer of wealth too all money holders), the problem with the argumenr is that it is wilfully ignorant of the introductory economics lesson of 'guns vs butter,' as well as other lesons.
Yes the money 'stays in the economy,' but what is it buying/producing? Someone just replied to me in another thread about the propensity to which Wall St bankers buy prostitutes and drugs. Leaders have bought us wars and domestic surveillance.
An arguable reason to spend on basic science would have to do with money multipliers and a great reason would be return on technological investment, which you touched on.
TL;DR good arguments exist for this spending, but probably not the trickle down economics one
This trickle down economics argument was used commonly in the Reagan era, and could be heard frequently in the 90s in conservative media.
While it is correct that the money does not disappear (which in theory would generally just be a transfer of wealth too all money holders), the problem with the argumenr is that it is wilfully ignorant of the introductory economics lesson of 'guns vs butter,' as well as other lesons.
Yes the money 'stays in the economy,' but what is it buying/producing? Someone just replied to me in another thread about the propensity to which Wall St bankers buy prostitutes and drugs. Leaders have bought us wars and domestic surveillance.
An arguable reason to spend on basic science would have to do with money multipliers and a great reason would be return on technological investment, which you touched on.
TL;DR good arguments exist for this spending, but probably not the trickle down economics one