I know exactly what I’m arguing and it isn’t the same thing you are arguing.
Still haven’t a clue how it is remotely relevant to the example I provided. 
I’ve got a pretty good idea of how Keynesian’s define trickle down, which is why they can make the claim that it doesn’t work.
Ahhhhh!!!
But it doesn’t say how. 
You’re arguing that building hospitals creates jobs through multiplier effects. Well no kidding
Define it then because so far you’ve been waaay off
I’m confused. Did my statement have no basis in reality or not?
Seems you switched gears on me pretty hard right there.
You again confuse multipliers with trickle down. Trickle down is the theory that more wealth in the hands of the rich creates larger multipliers. You’re confusing the sword with the bleeding.
Keynesians define “trickle down” the same way everyone else defines “trickle down”.
Economics isn’t like partisan politics. Each side uses the same terms, with the same definitions.
You are continuing to double down on your Keynesian multiplier argument.
And yet ImRightYoureWrong continues to define trickle down as a Keynesian multiplier.
You’ve been doing a good job with your Keynesian multiplier argument.
Multipliers arent strictly “Keynesian” lol
No I am not. I am saying what you are describing is a general multiplier. NOT trickle down economic policy. Damn dude…
You’re out of your league bud, turn the radio back on
Ok, But it is about tax cuts supplying capital. Your examples don’t include those tax cuts, which are NECESSARY for it to be an example of this supply side, or “trickle down”, theory at work.
Not true at all.
I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to a radio, but I’m doing just fine thank you.
Define “trickle down”
Saying it doesn’t make it true.
