"Top Down vs. Bottom Up" (The American) [It's the economy, stupid]

[courseofhistory]

Top Down vs. Bottom Up

Trickle down economics:

As vivid as that image may be, it is a false depiction of what really happens in a properly functioning private sector. But once the false image captures the attention of enough voters, it’s a simpler step for political entrepreneurs to sell themselves as the better alternative—simpler, that is, than having to compete against the way a vibrant private sector actually works.

Entrepreneurs cause money to gush outward, not to ‘trickle down’

There is little disagreement that today’s economy needs more private-sector jobs, and there should be little disagreement that private-sector entrepreneurs are more effective creators of new jobs than politicians are. But entrepreneurial success requires three ingredients: New ideas, sufficient drive, and adequate funding. With all three, entrepreneurs can develop new products and bring them to market, creating lasting new jobs when that process succeeds.

It depends on whether or not trickle down as Romney and the repulicans want vs. bottom up is best. Learning from history shows us that trickle down doesn't work partly for some of the reasons mentioned above. And if republicans vote for the trickle down Romney, they'd better be prepared for plenty of government regulation because the government can't just leave it to the good hearts of corporations and others to create jobs instead of stashing away the savings for a rainy day or to pay its CEO's and top executives more money!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Top Down vs. Bottom Up

Trickle down economics:

As vivid as that image may be, it is a false depiction of what really happens in a properly functioning private sector. But once the false image captures the attention of enough voters, it’s a simpler step for political entrepreneurs to sell themselves as the better alternative—simpler, that is, than having to compete against the way a vibrant private sector actually works.

Entrepreneurs cause money to gush outward, not to ‘trickle down’

There is little disagreement that today’s economy needs more private-sector jobs, and there should be little disagreement that private-sector entrepreneurs are more effective creators of new jobs than politicians are. But entrepreneurial success requires three ingredients: New ideas, sufficient drive, and adequate funding. With all three, entrepreneurs can develop new products and bring them to market, creating lasting new jobs when that process succeeds.

It depends on whether or not trickle down as Romney and the repulicans want vs. bottom up is best. Learning from history shows us that trickle down doesn't work partly for some of the reasons mentioned above. And if republicans vote for the trickle down Romney, they'd better be prepared for plenty of government regulation because the government can't just leave it to the good hearts of corporations and others to create jobs instead of stashing away the savings for a rainy day or to pay its CEO's and top executives more money!

It takes real genius to post a link that contradicts your point in an attempt to prove your point.