President Joe Biden is framing his new, vaguely defined “Bidenomics” as an alternative to what is widely referred to on the Left as “trickle-down” economics. CNN has gone right along with this, writing that Bidenomics “rejects the idea of ‘trickle-down’ policies in favor of focusing on the middle class,” and the Financial Times describes it as an “antidote to failed trickle-down policies.”

But they are arguing against a theory that, among their opponents, does not actually exist.

Biden explained “trickle-down” economics in the following way: “The idea was — it’s the belief that we should cut taxes for the wealthy and big corporations ... [but] I’m tired of waiting for the trickle-down. It doesn’t come very quickly. Not much trickled down on my dad’s kitchen table growing up.” In short: If you cut taxes for businesses and high-income individuals, some of that extra money will eventually “trickle down” to the masses.

But the problems with this characterization are numerous. For starters, the phrase “trickle-down” economics has never been used by actual economists or the people who purportedly believe in it. The reason is simple: It is a phrase coined by Democrats sometime in the mid-1900s to attack conservative policies.

“Trickle-down” economics is a caricature of supply-side economics, which indeed posits that economic growth is most likely to occur within an environment of low taxes and regulation. However, the idea that the wealth will merely “trickle down” to the rest of the population (an idea designed to make it seem as though conservatives are just trying to devise ways to benefit those who are already well-off) is nowhere to be found. So when liberals attack it, they are attacking a made-up version of their opponents' views. Nobody ever promised the money would eventually “trickle down.”

Rather, economist Thomas Sowell explains : "What is sought by those who advocate lower rates of taxation or other reductions of government’s role in the economy is not the transfer of existing wealth to higher income earners or businesses but the creation of additional wealth when businesses are less hampered by government controls or by increasing government appropriation of that additional wealth under steeply progressive taxation laws."

This is correct. It is a repudiation of the fixed pie fallacy , which suggests 1.) the amount of wealth in the economy is essentially unchanging, 2.) the only question is how we ought to distribute it, and 3.) one party’s gain is inherently another's loss.

We must approach economics with a different mindset entirely. The lesson of the past 200 years should be that with innovation and entrepreneurship comes better jobs, more wealth, and better material conditions for everyone — not just those who themselves innovate. Free enterprise is what has brought the world into the modern era, in which we live longer, have access to technology only dreamed of a few generations ago, and operate in a world literally impossible to imagine for the thousands of years that preceded us. We are living in an absolute anomaly within the context of human history.

That was only able to happen because the pie itself was able to expand .

So, next time you hear Biden, a member of the press, or a liberal activist attack so-called “trickle down” economics as being ineffective, keep in mind that they are obfuscating the legitimate philosophy of their opponents by arguing against a straw man that they know has faulty premises.

In doing this, Biden has made “trickle down” economics a faux bogeyman. It’s time that we call it out.

Jack Elbaum is a summer 2023 Washington Examiner fellow.