In several threads around the board, debates rage regarding the superiority of "Trickle Down" or "Demand Side" economics on a macro scale. What becomes rapidly clear is that most people arguing these positions don't know what the terms mean. What is "Trickle Down Economics?" What is "Demand Side Economics." Let's start with "Demand Side." The first thing to understand is that it doesn't exist. There is no "demand side" school of thought, there never has been one. Most of those who claim to support "demand side" do so based on complete ignorance. A thought process of "supply side is Reagan, we hate Reagan and want the opposite, which is demand side." They couple this with a fuzzy misunderstanding of the theories of Lord John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was NOT an idiot, Keynes did NOT claim that demand drives markets. Whether one agree or disagrees with Keynes, the foundation of Keynesian theory is sound. Keynes did not promote the idiocy that most of those using his name as justification claim that he did. Then there is "Trickle Down." As with demand side, there is no such thing a trickle down. It is a name that demagogues coined to deride the theories of Arthur Laffer. Laffer created a fusion of Austrian and Classical economics coupled with a spin on Keynes where tax cuts, even with rising deficits, were used to stimulate business cycles. The theory being that cuts in corporate taxes would create more jobs and that the benefits would trickle down to all levels of society. So most of the "debate" we see is based on myth and ignorance. Should public policy be based on myth and ignorance? This thread is created in hopes that debate on the real economic schools of thought, Classical, Austrian, Keynesian and Chicago will be discussed in a more accurate manner. So that those who speak so loudly may glean some semblance of knowledge regarding the subject they pontificate upon. Standard Disclaimer: My bias is Rothbard, for those who know who he was.