> But lowering prices creates jobs. People pay less for a dress or a phone case and then spend the money on something else. New jobs are created doing the something else.
Isn't this the principle supposedly behind trickle down economics just by another name?
There are a lot of economic theories that are correct under a particular set of constraints and completely invalid under a different set of constraints.
So for example, if you lower property taxes, theory says that rents should go down. At the existing rents it's now more profitable to own property because the ownership costs have gone down, so more buildings will be constructed as people take advantage of the opportunity, until the increase in supply brings rents down to account for the reduction in operating costs. This theory is invalid if you prohibit new construction because then supply can't increase so rents never go down and the existing landlords just pocket the money.
The problem isn't that theory doesn't work, it's that you have to satisfy its constraints. You have to get rid of monopolies and artificial scarcity or they capture the gains that were supposed to go to ordinary people.
Isn't this the principle supposedly behind trickle down economics just by another name?