But in reality the theory largely has not gotten support by evidence. In other words, the theory does not work nor is supported by facts. Hence it has been wrong. The theory might have worked if the rich practice "Noblesse Oblige" (meaning that the rich is required to fulfill social responsibilities). But the practice of the "Nobility obligation" is hardly done. Instead, many companies with large profit have chosen to move the money to overseas to evade tax. So much for social responsibilities.
Economic "Trickle down" does not work because there is no incentive or merit for the rich or the companies to trickle down. It is much easier to get the capital to work to generate more capital. "Noblesse oblige" was practiced by the kings and nobles as a moral obligation. Asking companies social moral? Apparently such request is futile, uphill battle in capitalism.
There is a similar, but working, "trickle down" in fashion and dance industries.
In fashion industries, a small number of designers have shows that present their collections, such as New York Fashion week or Tokyo collection.
Their ideas for upcoming seasons are picked up by top-tier clothes designers and producers. They make clothes for a select few, like party-attending celebrities.
Then the ideas and products are imitated (or "creatively copied") by brands targeting upper tier fashion, like brands in high class departments.
If the products and ideas are liked by many, next tier brands targeting middle class-mass market start producing similar items. They sell many, and the products become cheap.
So the men's dark skinny pants originated from 2005 Dior collection is now everywhere in $30.
[This "trickle down" process in fashion industry was neatly explained in "The Devil wears Prada" movie with a Cerulean sweater.]
It looks like a process in which an art becomes a mass-market product. Unique becomes ubiquitous.
Now, trickle down in dance industry.
There are a few dance pros who show their routines in national competitive events.
People watch the routine, and pick up and imitate some impressive moves of theirs.
Instructors who teach social dancers also pick up the new and cool moves and teach them.
In some months, the new moves become a shared knowledge among social dancers in the dance community.
If you are avid watcher of the dance, you can even trace back the move to the original.
In the dance trickle down, deterioration is inevitable. Poor copies are everywhere. But we do recognize the move with the original.
Trickle down in fashion and in dance work, because these industries benefit from the "trickle down" process itself. Apparel makers can introduce fashionable-looking new clothes that sell. Dance teachers get new moves to teach and in teaching they make money.
When the dissemination process itself has merit, people who benefit will support dissemination process. Thus "trickle down" will occur with people who are willing to perform.
Now, ....do you notice the difference in fashion trickle down and dance trickle down?
Fashion industries "trickle down" apparels. That is, things and products that take maker's efforts to produce. You probably do not want to produce them by yourself. The makers will just sell them to you, and you can get the apparel. The makers made money for their efforts, and you get the apparel you wanted. Fair exchange and both are happy.
On the other hand, in dance move "trickle down", you need no middleman. You watch the original performance, and you can just try the moves. Dance moves are information product that no one can patent. How well you can imitate and dance the moves is up to you, though.
There are different kinds of trickle down. Some work, others don't. In case of dancing, whether you can reproduce high quality moves is up to you.
[BTW I like this Pope with his rational take on many subjects]
