The presidential election is a contest between two opposing philosophies for economic recovery: demand side and supply side (trickle down). In a demand-side economy, the government raises revenues, primarily from the wealthy, puts more money in the hands of the middle and lower classes. Those classes and the government spend money in the private sector buying goods and services. Companies then, I believe, have the incentive to produce those goods and services. With supply-side economics more money is put into the hands of the upper classes who then, the theory goes, hire more workers to produce more goods and services that the lower classes can then purchase with the money I don't believe they have.

A powerful example of trickle down is China's attempt at expansion by erecting huge cities where nothing existed before. The theory was build it and they will come. Companies will move into those cities and add to continuing growth. What has happened? Precisely nothing. Large construction companies benefited, but nothing else. Growth has decreased. Other examples of supply-side economies: Italy under Mussolini, Spain under Franco, Cuba under Battista, Argentina under Peron, and every monarchy, empire, emirate and principality you could mention. In all of these the bulk of the money is/was in the hands of the wealthy, middle classes died, and wealth disparity was obscene. I see that as the Republican dream.

Steven Aronoff

Bellingham