Only infrequently is it named so far (ego investment paints one into a corner) but the result-chickens of "Supply Side Economics" are coming home to roost. Also known as 'voo-doo economics' --but what kind of name-caller would dub it so?-- the 'trickle down' idea is not an authentic economic model so much as a political philosophy and strategy. It's been marketed hard for 30+ years. It's only real proponents have been those exceptionally wealthy to begin with, and the 'movement' conservatives. Now we see 'movement' droppings have trickled down all around us and the first batch of scooping shovels will cost us $700billion... metaphorically speaking, of course. ;-)


>Mayhaps, back in the 50's or 60's when businesses actually DID look out for their stockholders/investors that may have been true, but once the business paradigm rolled over to "the bottom line is all that matters, as long as it goes up - we're golden"....no.
>
>And before someone jumps in with the whole 'weren't they always looking out for the bottom line" argument, I'll expand on my statement.
>
>This is my opinion only
>
>Somewhere in the 80's, the 'bottom line', as defined by making a profit, became the be-all and end-all for big business. Does the bottom line need to be bigger? Lay off the expensive experienced (older) workers and hire younger workers that will work cheaper. Cut benefits while you're at it. Then someone figured out that the more money that is loaned out, the bigger the bottom line looks - 'cuz, after all, these people are going to pay interest, which means more money, doesn't it? And if they don't pay it back, we can charge interest on the interest and make MORE money. Sound familiar? Sound like a good way to run a business/bank? Anytime you hear something that a bank/business/lending institution does that sounds kinda hinkey, stop and think..."Did it make the bank/business/lending institution more money?". If the answer is 'Yes', then that's why they did it.
>
> End of opinion
>
>And before Bill jumps in asking if I'm un-American because I don't think these bank/business/lending institutions should make a profit, I'll go ahead and state now: I don't mind you making a profit, but I DO mind you making an obscene profit.
>
>
>>>Greenspan admits 'flaw' in ideology
>>>http://english.aljazeera.net/business/2008/10/20081023161043967668.html
>>
>>Interesting which of his quotes were focused on in that article and the overall message they interpret from it :o) He did indeed find a flaw, but according to his testimony (I watched it live):
>>
>>Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says the current financial crisis has uncovered a flaw in how the free market system works and that has shocked him.
>>
>>Greenspan told the House Oversight Committee on Thursday that his belief that banks would be more prudent in their lending practices because of the need to protect their stockholders had proven in the latest crisis to be wrong.
>>
>>...
>>
>>In his testimony, Greenspan put the blame for the subprime collapse on over-eager investors who did not properly take into account the threats that would be posed once home prices stopped surging upward.
>>
>>"It was the failure to properly price such risky assets that precipitated the crisis," Greenspan said.
>>
>>
>>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jSSJzC1UNusL4eW21xsZ7HJcM8WQD9409R0O4
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?hp
>>
>>You can watch the his entire testimony before the committee here (cspan always films it and broadcasts it live on tv):
>>http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=281958-1
>>
>>It will be interesting to see how it all changes (or if it does) in the future...
>>
>>I foresee heavy regulation.