Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JonLP24

(29,722 posts)
3. As someone who went to school for economics
Sat Jan 24, 2015, 09:21 PM
Jan 2015

I prefer textbook terms but it is interesting you mention "trickle down" economics which is actually a phrase from the Hoover era Republicans. Reagan actually renamed it "supply-side economics". Truman accurately described the fallacy of "trickle down" economics theory in his 1949 State of the Union address. He was also pushing for farm subsides & other things like strong unions to counter the under consumption that doomed the Great Depression. The ironic thing is you could tell from his statements he thought the theory was completely discredited with the well known example of the Great Depression. His prediction of universal health care coming soon which he mentions the Republican (who he would often mention Wall Street in the same sentence) House on why it won't come during his administration.

It actually has been tried even before that and often claimed to be responsible for the panic of 1896 which would be yet another recession that happened as a result.

A reason why the 1% likes it so much even though it bottoms out consumer spending is that it increases the power of monopoly while the alternative would open the door to competition. Truman also urges businesses to resist the vices of monopoly in talking about his economic plan going forward in that 1949 address. Naomi Klein describes the mentality well in that for the most part the eventually crash & burn but like an addict, always want that next fix.

On edit -- the word you're looking for is Keynesian Economics which may not have that marketable phrase but it is a well-respected and supported by more economists than not though economists would also understand why the other would be preferable depending on who they work for or who they're advising.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Talking Point Alert: Can ...»Reply #3