We, as citizens of our various countries, need to identify, point out, and ridicule instances of "trickle down economic" policies and practices in our governments. Just about every case where the taxpayer funds private businesses is an example.
The best investment in business a government can make is to minimise the friction of compliance for all businesses. But I think that gov't subsidies and startup funding (incubators, etc.), and even tax breaks for some businesses, are just a form of trickle down economics. It won't trickle down, because that shit's not a thing.
Sorry @lightweight but in this case you've got it exactly backwards. Trickle down economics is the idea that it's best to let The Market™ redirect income into the pockets of the 1%, because from there it 'trickles down' to everyone else (in the form of goods+services, wages+salaries etc). By this logic, govts taxing and spending on social and environmental goals distorts The Market™, because that's money the 1% don't get, so it can't then 'trickle down' from them to benefit everyone else.
@lightweight As a specific example, let's take journalism. The NZ government funds salaries for journalists working in the public interest, eg local democracy reporting. Some of them are employed by businesses, but that's ok for two reasons. One, the funding is tied to outcomes, not organizational forms, so social enterprises and cooperatives companies aren't excluded from funding. Two, because the policy doesn't discriminate against businesses, nor favor them, it's more politically neutral.
@lightweight "friction of compliance for all businesses" sounds too much like deregulation to me. I can't imagine you intended it that way.
Deregulation tends to put more money in owners pockets; money that mostly comes from reduced environmental and worker protections.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!