>>"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_Keynes
>
>The 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.

If the free market had been allowed to apply many banks would have collapsed and the banking sector would have been "cleaned up". I my view that should have been allowed to happen.