I am curious...it appears the global consensus is that Reaganomics, based upon the Laffer Curve...also referred to as supply side or trickle down economics has been proven to not work. Economists appear to be quite open about it when interviewed, teaching, etc. I even saw Laffer himself talk about how elements weren't true.
So, if the statistics and experts disagree with it, think it didn't work and we have had enough time to find out, then has it slipped into the world of climate change, in that, nearly every single academic authority across the world, all climate linked institutions, are in agreement while the Republicans bring out the same few "scientists" they used for coal, acid rain and big tobacco to claim it isn't real?
If so, we have an addition to the pattern of being locked in political battle with a group of people who appear to live in a world inside of their heads, ignoring actual evidence. The birth certificate, the literal word of the Bible including talking donkeys and snakes, ignoring the Founder's actual words on Separation of Church and State, climate change, trickle down economics, on and on. Is the fight really about people struggling with acknowledging that the world is larger and more complicated than they can "narrow down"? Just curious of your thoughts.
Let me summarize it concisely:
Art Laffer, for whom the Laffer Curve is named, still owes the Austrian Economist Peter Schiff a symbolic penny for Peter's proper prediction of the housing crash.
The authority is money and power. All logic proceeds from that. Anybody can believe anything. The authority is first, the argument is created second to support it.
I don't think you even need to prove that trickle down doesn't work.
Think about it, give a billionaire a $100 dollars and it does nothing except perhaps get put into stocks or shares or whatever, or spend it on a cigar.
Give a poor man $100 and he will immediately spend it all, and spend it all on basics like food and clothes.
You don't need to be a genius to work out which benefits the economy more.
Thatcher was a great believer in trickle down. She also said that to motivate the rich you had to give them more money, but to motivate the poor you had to give them less money!
Holden, you've argued for the "trickle down" argument before.
You've argued that "if we don't mandate a living wage, then people can't buy things from stores".
It's the same thing, the only difference is where the "top" is. With "the rich", the money trickles down through banks and long term investments. With the "middle class", the money goes towards things like home improvement and more short term investments. With "the poor" the money goes to very short term investments.
But the concept is supposed to be that money pumped into the richest class will make it into the hands of the middle or lower classes. It doesn't get past the banks and investments. The money stays with the rich.
Rogers, I've argued for trickle up, a big difference.
"She also said that to motivate the rich you had to give them more money, but to motivate the poor you had to give them less money!" Great one.
by Moderndayslave5 years ago
With the income gap between the wealthiest American's and the soon to be decimated middle or working class ever increasing. How much more proof do you need that tax cuts for the wealthy isn't creating jobs or supplying...
by My Esoteric2 years ago
The bottom line of President Reagan's Right-wing endorsed economic policy is that "if you put more money in the hands of the wealthy, it will, 1) Expand the economy, 2) Let the boat rise with the economy, and 3)...
by Mike Russo4 years ago
The next time someone tells you that Obama is destroying the economy, remind them that the stock market and corporate profits are at all-time highs.When they tell you that this hasn't helped them, remind them they've...
by rhamson4 years ago
The CBO recently released a study on the trickle down economics Reagan through both Bushes espoused as the be all end all of economic growth. It seems as though the only ones that really made a dent in their bottom line...
by JaxsonRaine4 years ago
Really, the 0.1%...Anyway, should the 0.1% be spending their money, or saving it?I've seen people criticize the wealthy for not spending their money...I've seen people criticize Mitt Romney for:Buying a dressage...
by Deforest2 years ago
poor" by Gore Vidal. He added that the rich are living off the federal government (contracts and tax breaks...).I definitively agree with him. Your opinion?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.