HEY! Did anyone catch Thomas Sowell on C-Span's Q&A tonight?

[Montauk6]

First off, the guy looks GREAT for 75 years old.

OK, so now I see why these conservative go on C-Span so often; it's not that the channel is necessarily biased toward their view (though I'm sure it's been argued otherwise); it's that it MUST be policy (I'm assuming) that the interviewer refrains from clarifying follow-up questions.

So, I forget the original question but Sowell was recounting how he received a lot of nasty letters taking him to task for denying trickle-down. According to him, there's no documentation supporting the existence of trickle down economics, at least none forwarded by any Goopers.

OK, let's think about the ramifications here, shall we?

If Sowell's curious position is widely shared amongst his brethren on the right, does this not blow the entire cover for upward redistribution of wealth? After all, isn't this preferred ratiocination? I know, when I was "in the life," I bought into it schook, whine and stinker.

(me in the 80s): "It's BRILLIANT, what OTHER incentive would rich folks and corporations have for keeping the economy afloat. MORE TAX CUTS, MORE LOAN/INVESTMENT GUARANTEES!!! They'll use that windfall to help the poor in the private sector because THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO JACK!" and so on (oh, I was a true believer, all right)

But what have you folks heard on this; the notion that trickle-down economics is a figment of the left's imagination?

I think the notion is right-wing think tank mule muffins m'self.

[TheFarseer]

1. Trickle down is on par with creationism

as far as PROVEN theories. The reason the economy was good in the 80's was because of massive borrowing. The reason the economy isn't a disaster right now, is because of massive borrowing. Trickledown doesn't work because rich people often instead of spending their money and putting it into the economy stick it in the stock market. That would be OK, except often that money goes overseas to start up a factory in India instead of building a factory in Michigan or what have you. IF the money really did go to create jobs IN AMERICA, it might work, but as it is, trickledown just plain doesn't work for ordinary Americans. I think it's alot like Communism in that it looks good on paper but doesn't work in reality.

[Erika]

2. It was a book review on C-Span

The very title of his book turned me off. He said he was a democrat until McGovern? Sure. Since then he considers himself as "independent" because he was so turned off by the Nam war. He talked in pointless circles.

[Montauk6]

3. Also, he's typical of these Aussie-inspired e-cons

Always bring up the disastrous Soviet economy to show the perils of a PLANNED ECONOMY. With these folks, there's no middle ground. Government is a absolute failure at everything other than defense, ergo laissez faire or as close to it as possible is the way to go. The problem is that it's a basic denial of what this country's economic history is all about, namely a mixed economy, without which the US would never have become such a dominant world power.

[Spider Jerusalem]

4. "Supply-side" economics = pure, unadulterated hogwash.

A simple look at history ought to be enough to reveal that. In the so-called "Gilded Age" (1870's-1890's or thereabouts), the US government took an almost totally unfettered laissez-faire economic approach. The result was tremendous inequality, mass poverty of industrial employees forced to live in disease-ridden slums while slaving for $2-5 a week, and a bloated plutocracy that was more interested in using their money to build gargantuan faux French chateaux on Fifth Avenue and at Newport than in alleviating any of the suffering of the great unwashed masses. The "rising tide" hardly lifted all boats then; no reason for things to be any different NOW.

[soupkitchen]

5. A rising tide lifts all yachts

Which will swamp you in their wake as they imperviously and imperially race on past you.