Observations On Perception

Ricardo F. Morín

January 4, 2026

Oakland Park, Fl.

Wannabe Axiom III

*

This essay examines trickle‑down not as an economic theory but as an axiom.  It asks when a contested hypothesis ceases to require demonstration and begins to operate as a standing justification.  At that point, it no longer explains outcomes.  It authorizes them.  

Trickle‑down is commonly presented as a mechanism through which accumulation generates general benefit.  Concentration is framed as provisional, inequality as temporary, and reward as ultimately shared.  

These claims shift attention away from verification and toward expectation.  Promise substitutes for proof.  What is described as distribution depends on prior withholding.  Benefit is said to flow only after it has been secured elsewhere.  

A mechanism that requires inequality in order to justify equality contradicts itself.  The logic depends on deferral.  Those positioned to wait are not those positioned to decide.  The contradiction becomes ethical when patience is assigned unevenly.  Those asked to trust the longest are those least able to absorb delay.  Those who benefit earliest are not exposed to failure in the same measure.  Risk is not shared.  Time is not reciprocal.  

Trickle‑down does not compel through force.  It governs through assurance.  It asks that inequality be endured in the present in exchange for a benefit that cannot be demanded.  

What trickle‑down is, then, is a narrative that stabilizes concentration by postponing accountability.  What it is not is a distributive mechanism or a mutual ethic.  

When promise replaces demonstration, trickle‑down ceases to be examined and begins to function as an axiom.