09-07-2016, 04:59 PM
(09-07-2016, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:Reaganomics worked great for me in the 1980s and I was making less than median income. Or perhaps your definition of "rich" is "anyone above poverty level"?(09-07-2016, 12:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:Correct as far as that goes; although the Bush/Obama bailouts were loans that were paid back.(09-06-2016, 02:05 AM)taramarie Wrote: Have you perhaps heard of the Appolonian/Dionysian double saeculum theory I wonder?
No, I haven't. Are there threads discussing it here?
(09-06-2016, 02:18 AM)taramarie Wrote: Yes, from what I have learned from you [Eric the Green] with Reagan and trickle down economics.
If you're calling it "trickle down economics" it hasn't been explained to you very well. "Trickle down economics" was the approach Hoover used, which involved giving money to large corporations in the hopes that it would "trickle down" to ordinary people, which it didn't. The closest things to "trickle down economics" that have happened in the U.S. since the 1960s have been bailouts of large corporations like the Bush/Obama banking and auto industry bailouts.
Quote:Reagan's economic theories were almost the exact opposite: they involved giving more money back to the people by cutting taxes on wage earning individuals, and hoping the benefits would "trickle up" to the corporations who employed them. That in fact worked well enough to produce a two decade economic boom in the 1980s and 1990s, interrupted only by a relatively brief recession when Bush the elder tried to "soft land" a healthy, growing economy.
Giving money back to the people, that is a serious laugh! Reagan gave money back to the rich, ONLY!
The government took a huge loss on the auto equity; that will never be paid back. Frankly, though, economic stimulus is not about being paid back; the problem with the bailouts is that they didn't actually help the economy.