Ideology and trickle down economics

Today's New York Times has an article about why Liberal Hopes Ebb in Post-Storm Poverty Debate. The article opens like this.

As Hurricane Katrina put the issue of poverty onto the national agenda, many liberal advocates wondered whether the floods offered a glimmer of opportunity. The issues they most cared about - health care, housing, jobs, race - were suddenly staples of the news, with President Bush pledged to "bold action."

But what looked like a chance to talk up new programs is fast becoming a scramble to save the old ones.

Conservatives have already used the storm for causes of their own, like suspending requirements that federal contractors have affirmative action plans and pay locally prevailing wages. And with federal costs for rebuilding the Gulf Coast estimated at up to $200 billion, Congressional Republican leaders are pushing for spending cuts, with programs like Medicaid and food stamps especially vulnerable.

The Republicans have also renewed their argument for continuing tax cuts to the wealthy on the basis of the idea that the tax cuts promote a growing economy and support the poor via the vehicle of trickle down economics. As the Times article points out neither proposition is true. Trickle down economics is an idea that has been discredited by the economics profession for decades. However, trickle down economics still charms Republicans with a seductive allure that does not square with the fact that trickle down economics is like putting lipstick on a pig.

All of this leads into questions about the nature of political belief and ideology. Let's fasten onto trickle down economics and it's position within the conservative ideology.

We first note that trickle down economics is a metaphor for an abstract notion. For it to be of any inferential use it should be anchored within a web of other apt metaphors. By itself it explains nothing.

Part of the idea goes like this. Give money to the ever busy, savvy, and enterprising rich and they'll put the money to good use. Give the money to the poor and homeless and they'll just piss it away on drugs and abortions. Furthermore, the jobs created by the rich will lift all the boats (once again an unanchored metaphor that explains nothing).

The results of deep tax cuts for the wealthy have been stagnant job creation, real wage growth that lags productivity growth, a large Federal deficit, and money seeking shelter in personal financial investments rather than entrepreneurial activity.

How does the falsity of the idea survive the scrutiny of so many people? One can impute cynicism and hypocrisy to those who espouse trickle down economics because they merely use the idea as a means to further their economic interests. We find many of the pundits on the left subscribing to this notion. The question remains as to why so many people believe it even when their economic interests are not served by the idea.

Consider the statement, "I know trickle down economics does not work, but I act as though it does work." On the surface and by itself the statement sounds absurd. However, belief trumping knowledge is a common occurrence.

In the political realm this leads into how ideology functions which leads into how the mind works. The question that needs to be answered is how a person can know something yet believe and act contrarily to that knowledge.

I will leave it right there. However,

"The truth is out there."

"I want to believe."