They Said That Reaganomics Would Deliver A Trickle Down Wealth To Everyone. Do You Think That These

Does trickle-down economics work?

A Short Version of the Debate: The bottom of this wikipedia entry makes Cato Institute's case for Reaganomics (in the perspectives section):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rea...In other places, Cato talks about how economics doesn't trickle down, but rather cascades* (this idea of cascading economic growth is pretty interesting and its unfortunate that I haven't found anything else about the concept).Trickle-down in the absence of other policies targeted at the poor arguably does not address the issue of poverty (the statistical increase of around 2 million during the Ronald Reagan presidency at least suggests this). Whether it helps the middle class or not is another question.Moreover, these charts demonstrate that the economy and the stock market perform better during democratic administrations:http://crooksandliars.com/jon-pe...Admittedly, the data was compiled by The New York Times, the The Washington Post, and the liberal blog Crooks and Liars.Whats the Deal with the Wage Gap? Much of this debate seems to happen at the level of increasing income and/or wage gaps over time. The nature of economic growth is that the rich are better able to use increased growth and income as a multiplier (experience, access, and knowledge and other priviledges associated with being rich). Therefore, if you increase economic growth, it's going to increase wage differences. So reducing wage gaps aren't an end unto themselves because they will always exist in good times and bad.Democrats & Trickle Down Economics. Also, Keynesian Economics as it has been recently been practiced seems to be a trickle-down type model. Whether it was better than simply giving $30k or so per household remains to be seen.* Economic Growth and Poverty: In Search of Trickle Down, Cato Institute.

If many would agree that "trickle down" doesn't work what is the justification for the Trump tax cuts?

Everybody doesn’t agree. Economics is divided by “supply-siders” who believe that trickle down works and “progressives” who think that the Reagan Supply-Side experiment has been a miserable failure. There is a disconnect between the two groups on whether “efficiency theory” economic models or historic gdp growth evidence should be taken as a better indication of which viewpoint is better. Add to that, many universities have economic endowments that they receive in return for emphasizing the supply side approaches that make the University Donors wealthy. The news also likes to include guests who take this supply side approach with surprising frequency as well, and many of these people don’t even have the economic models.I am part of the progressive group that would say that “reliance on trickle-down” doesn’t work, but leakage from capital dollar savings into consumer spending via inflation of assets owned by the middle class can be one of the most powerful forces in economics. IMO, this is pretty much the exclusive reason we didn’t go into Great Depression II in 1989 during our downturn after Reagan stacked the odds in favor of capital accumulation.Ultimately we all live in the world that we want to live in instead of the world we that is actually there. Self honesty is one of the rarest traits in our species simply because in most cases the benefit of being optimistic outweighs the benefit of being factually accurate. Until we can settle our arguments outside of this inherent bias, or until the next New Deal looks as much like the optimistic approach as it did in 1933 we will always disagree.