Difference between revisions of "Talk:Supply-side economics"
(genesis of the term "trickle down") |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
I'd go back to "demand creates supply", which has both theoretical underpinnings and '''centuries''' of evidence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:49, 30 March 2007 (EDT) | I'd go back to "demand creates supply", which has both theoretical underpinnings and '''centuries''' of evidence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:49, 30 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Let me see what i can do--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 14:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 18:50, March 30, 2007
If there is an expert who can help me clean this up, great. I hope to avoid editorializing here, so I added no irrelevancies about the ideologic battles surrounding this. I hope others can also avoid stirring the waters here, and keep it to the talk page.--PalMDtalk 14:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- Nice effort, and it looks fairly neutral. But aren't there critics of the idea? Or of Reagan's policies based on it?
- I'd hate to have a one-sided article, what with the election coming up and all. --Ed Poor 14:15, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Of course there are plenty of critics, and I am one of them, but I wanted to keep that out. However, I could try to draw something up.--PalMDtalk 14:24, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- Wealth would be given to the wealthier producer class, and would then "trickle down" to the poorer classes.
I don't think that's it. But that may be how opponents perceived it, and that may be the genesis of the term "trickle down".
I'd go back to "demand creates supply", which has both theoretical underpinnings and centuries of evidence. --Ed Poor 14:49, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Let me see what i can do--PalMDtalk 14:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)