>
"Trickle-down" -- 30 years later there is still no basis for this cheery pablum. >
>Mike, the first thing to understand is that "trickle-down" economics is NOT the same as free market economics.
>
>The theory behind trickle-down is very simple, but generally misunderstood - to provide economic incentives that will ultimately lower unemployment and therefore ultimately INCREASE the amount of collected revenue. Most supply-side activists don't want to tackle the REAL issue, and that is reducing the size of govt.
>
>As a matter of fact, when you get beyond the superficial economic views of the general media, history shows that Reagan was far more of a Keynesian than most realize.
That is the theory. We have yet to see it borne out in fact.
Reagan a Keynesian? That is a mystifying statement to me. Maybe you can enlighten us. IMO Obama can far more accurately be described as a Keynesian, using government action as a tool to smooth out stumbles or outright debacles in the private sector.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_KeynesThe economist who was seriously wrong, and is still used as a fig leaf for greed, is Adam Smith. He said markets are essentially self regulating, ensuring "perfect competition." There is no such thing. Give a group of businesses totally free reign and they will have about as much social conscience as wild hogs closing in on a rabbit. It's not in their nature.
I am actually not for huge government. But it does play an essential role. Rolling it all back is like giving backrubs to the pirates of the business world.