Optimizing The Trickle Down Effect Policy (1)

The discourse about trickle down effect policy often headed to a social stigma in which proclaims unanimous decision. Every topic about this policy must have lead to an unfair trial. The one who lean towards this policy would be condemned by the post development activists and to be judged inappropriately.

Words contain abusive meaning such as pro status quo and anti poor are becoming day to day activity.

This reaction might be a rational justification since the history has told us about the incapability of the policy to make leverage towards people well being. Instead of creating the distribution of income, the policy creates a large sum of capital accumulation towards an elite group which is widely known as the conglomerates. The fact creates another term of the trickle down effect policy: conglomeration. The term used in political rhetoric to classify economic policies perceived to benefit the wealthy and then "trickle-down" to the middle and lower classes. Efforts to lead people opinion are justifiable as log as it has some basic proof. The efforts would be unjustifiable if it is only based from sentiments.

The ideas derided as "trickle-down economics" are often seen as a major rhetorical variant of "what's good for business and the rich is good for the country." In this form they have been ridiculed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt as "toryism." The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory": "if you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows." Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896. In the principle, the policy places the haves as the main class to be considered to accelerate economic growth. The theory states that if the top income earners invest more into the business infrastructure and equity markets, it will in turn lead to more goods at lower prices, and create more jobs for middle and lower class individuals

This scheme operates from a basic idea in which describes that income can be functioned from three main aspects: tax, domestic demand and savings. Income empowerment through tax would accelerate public investment sector. The public investments could have the form as tourism development, social capital stock enrichment (roads, railways, ports, and electricity), agricultural investment (irrigation, consolidation, mechanization) and energy resource development. Investment in these sectors would attract investors to join the development activity due to the complete temptation from the industries in which being supported by advanced facilities that will boost business activities.

Meanwhile from the other side, the increase in income would raise the proportion of domestic demand that would contribute to the economic growth. This functions naturally as we already recognize that consumption is the major supporting actor in promoting economic growth in Indonesia over the last decade or so.

Aside from tax and domestic demand another aspect from the policy scheme is saving. The increase in income would have a positive relationship with an increase in saving due to the increasing proportion of income that can be saved. As a result the funds from the saving could be functioned by the banking system to be channeled for the private investment needs. The increase in private investment will accelerate economic growth through the increase in business activities.

As a conclusion, the transmition mechanism explicitly accounts the merit of the conglomerate in supporting the economic growth. Thus, in a trickle down economics context, the economic growth would increase the total welfare of the people.