Creating Prosperity For All With Trickle Up, Demand Side Economics

THE STANDARD AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE worships at the first church of Ronald Wilson Reagan. Why not? They haven't had a savior since. Unless, of course, you include Roger Ailes, who designed the right wing media propaganda machine, was largely responsible for the current degree of media fed right wing extremism in the country, brought mini skirts and cleavage to the newsroom, but has lately been occupied with other matters, again, pertaining to sex. Reagan was starting to suffer from Alzheimer's disease as early as early in his second term, and very shortly after he left office, went downhill rapidly. We escaped real embarrassment by he skin of our proverbial teeth. George H.E. Bush probably should have taken over sooner, rather than later. Today's neo conservative revisionist historians glorify the prosperous eighties, and give Reagan credit, leaving out the democratic congress, leaving out the fact that the prosperity was enjoyed only by those at the top of the economic mountain, leaving out the fact that the American president is always given too much praise and blame for complex societal economic trends over which he or she has little control. Obama, say the neo cons, presided over a dreary economy, all his fault. The republican congress is left out. Somehow you sense that had Reagan been a flop, congress would have been credited, as it would have had Obama had more success. During the Clinton prosperity, not surprisingly, the republican congress was indeed included in the credit giving. Reaganomics, which in Europe is called "neo-liberalism", presupposes that by inducing enhanced supply, prosperity for all will follow, trickling down. President Reagan carried a book by neo-liberal champion Milton Friedman in his back pocket, and he, like Friedman, firmly embraced the dubious concept that societal economic prosperity begins at the top, and trickles down. But how will it help to increase supply if there is no commensurate inducement to enhance demand? If the producers invest more in production by keeping their would be taxable money at home, where does the new money for new demand come from? Trickle up demand side economics is the better way. Raise the wages of workers, thus increasing demand, and supply will follow. If the wealthy corporate producers need investment capital to provide supply in response to increased demand in a larger market of better paid people at the bottom of the economic pyramid, they know where they can borrow it.