# Middle Out Economics: The Trickle Down Killer **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 11, 2013, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985 "2013-02-11T16:31:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/21 "2013-02-11T22:23:47Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I find it amazing that people wanting to improve the lot of the working class keep going back to protectionism. Of all the hundreds of things you could do, “Don’t buy stuff from the damn foreigners” just keeps coming up again and again, despite it being such a stupid idea. Really, it’s time to get off that dead horse. _It doesn’t work_. I oppose protectionism. I support tax incentives to hire Americans. I see no contradiction. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2013, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/22 "2013-02-11T22:39:32Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > That’s why TV debates and debates on other fora go more for a club approach, no subtlety at all, you just name your position and glower. “Job creators, RAWRRRRRR!!!” You have not explained your position in details, but most people have a general understanding of it. The problem has been, there has been no simple, identifiable label for the idea that the middle class is the bellwether of economic health for a society. So the much inferior Job Creators meme won out not because people believed it but because there was no counter to it. > > Now there is: Middle out, RAWRRRRRRR!" It can be used like a club as easily as Job Creators and it has two major advantage: it has not been thoroughly discredited like Trickle Down/Job Creators, and most Americans identify as middle class, even upper class and poor Americans. RAWRRRR! These two paragraphs are all I need to make me want to sign on to this idea. Let the 2014 Midterms be known as the LOLCats Election Cycle! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2013, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/23 "2013-02-11T22:52:37Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I oppose protectionism. I support tax incentives to hire Americans. I see no contradiction. The latter won’t go anywhere. There are basic economic constraints that make it a complete waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2013, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/24 "2013-02-11T23:08:12Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > But there is no reason federal tax law should contribute to making foreign jobs more competitive than domestic jobs. Create tax incentives that favor domestic jobs, and suddenly the foreign worker is not so attractive. I think that is what is being advocated here. Sure, don’t encourage outsourcing. I’d go further and get rid of all corporate welfare, letting the jobs fall where they may. It’s unfortunate that a lot the “evils” of capitalism are caused by cronyism, corporate subsidies and regulatory capture. It would go a long way towards fixing our problems if we made companies compete with each other for customers rather than for government favors. And protectionism is definitely in the category of harmful government favors/corporate welfare. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2013, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/25 "2013-02-11T23:20:09Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I oppose protectionism. I support tax incentives to hire Americans. I see no contradiction. Tax incentives aren’t going to turn a worker whose hiring makes no economic sense into one whose hiring does. All it does is to have the taxpayers subsidize jobs which would have been created anyway. It is the same thing as states giving tax incentives for businesses to relocate. They spend more on more on nothing more, and when the business folds anyway they are left holding the bag. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2013, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/26 "2013-02-12T00:38:26Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > For the Bush decade worker productivity rose, but worker wages did not. The value of work performed may or may not have a big impact on wages, depending on the power of unions versus management. Rapidly increasing profits which take most of the benefits of productivity tied to stagnant wages.. The “Bush decade” huh? How about the Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter years. Real [wages](http://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/productivity-and-real-wages.jpg) have been stagnant since before 1975 while productivity has soared. Care to blame supply side economics for that? Or GWB? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2013, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/27 "2013-02-12T01:31:20Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The “Bush decade” huh? How about the Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter years. Real [wages](http://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/productivity-and-real-wages.jpg) have been stagnant since before 1975 while productivity has soared. Care to blame supply side economics for that? Or GWB? See [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States) the section household income over time. Your link says real wages of goods producing workers - I don’t know what that means. In looking for a good table I found lots of links with odd views. The problem isn’t supply side economics. (That has plenty of problems itself.) It is loss of worker power except in times of severe labor shortages, so that management can take most of the productivity gains. What is your solution to the problem of expecting growth through increased demand at the same time cutting or freezing the wages that drive that demand? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2013, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/28 "2013-02-12T03:04:26Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > No, that is not what incentivize means. Tax breaks don’t give money to employers to hire workers. Tax breaks reduce the taxes paid when employers hire Americans instead of foreigners. If you cannot see the difference, you need to brush up on economics. Oh, I understand Economics just fine. But your 2nd and 3rd sentences there make no sense whatsoever. They are exactly the same thing. Maybe you can flesh that argument out better. If you are going to argue that a tax break, after the fact, is not the same as money up front, then you need to brush up on, well, money. Sure, there is a time value to money, but not so much as to make a difference here. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2013, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/29 "2013-02-12T03:35:09Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The problem isn’t supply side economics. (That has plenty of problems itself.) It is loss of worker power except in times of severe labor shortages, so that management can take most of the productivity gains. > > What is your solution to the problem of expecting growth through increased demand at the same time cutting or freezing the wages that drive that demand? I know that raising wages above the market level will only drive prices higher, offsetting any gains in wage increases, leaving purchasing power unchanged. Isn’t that kind of what Hoover attempted by begging managers to keep wages high after the depression set in? And a few weeks ago Japan tried the same approach, I doubt it will turn out better this time. Could you elaborate on the first paragraph I quoted here? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2013, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/30 "2013-02-12T04:31:04Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The point of conservative economics is that good jobs come from businesses trying to make money. You can not be anti-business and pro-job any more than you can be pro-apple and anti-apple tree. Wherever did I say I was anti-business? Middle Out economics predicts that businesses will do well, because there will be demand for their goods and services via a healthy middle class. Unless you think a yacht-based economy will do the trick … > [@](#): > > You seem to have no idea why people are hired and jobs performed. Jobs are created to add value to a business. The amount of wages is due to the value of the work performed and the availibility of workers able to perform the work. Employers presently hire workers because they HAVE to. Individually most employers would PREFER to automate workers of all types out of existence, or pay them slave wages because automation is cheaper than people, but as you say, marketplace forces prevent slave wages, though you have to wonder if a person making less than a living wage is really a free person in any meaningful sense. Employers HAVE succeeded in keeping wages stagnant while productivity rises, which has CRIPPLED the demand for their goods from US consumers because, you know, no money. So individual employers acting in their own best interests have, as an aggregate, done great harm to their own economy. So government needs to step in and sort things out. The marketplace can’t and won’t handle it, that’s not how the marketplace works. > [@](#): > > Middle Out economics is a campain slogan designed to appeal to voters who know nothing about economics it is not a serious plan or a serious theory. Au contraire. It appeals to people who understand how capitalism works better than you … because they don’t have any illusions about how capitalism will solve all problems. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2013, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/31 "2013-02-12T04:37:06Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > I agree with your entire OP except for this. If somebody else can do a job cheaper and/or better than us, it is better for everyone that they do it. I think there are a lot of Americans who would happily work in a factory if it paid a good wage. Why are WE giving Mexicans and Chinese these jobs? We built these jobs with our infrastructure and now we let our wealthy elite give them to others because it saves them a buck an hour after all the transport and so forth is taken in to account. Fuck them. They just don’t want to pay the social costs of their company’s success. > [@](#): > > We need to work on becoming competitive in the market versus other countries, not on discouraging competition. There are things Americans can do better and cheaper. Let’s do those and stop yearning for the glory days of American sweatshops. Maybe not sweatshops, but factory jobs can be decent. > [@](#): > > Also, you mention UHC, but I think we need free or highly subsidized education as well (both vocational and university) to promote freedom of movement among the workforce. If people could quit the job they hate, and either train for a new job or start their own business, without worrying about starving or going bankrupt from an injury or illness in the mean time, our workforce would be vastly better off, both economically and in terms of liberty. We’d be more productive and competitive to boot. I’m down with not putting students under a crushing burden to get an education. > [@](#): > > ETA: I prefer the term “demand side economics”. Much better than Middle Out, but kind of stiff. It needs to be a term that people might reasonably yell “Fuck Yeah!” after saying it. Middle Growth! Fuck Yeah! Demand Side Economics … nope, don’t get it. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2013, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/32 "2013-02-12T05:01:08Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Au contraire. It appeals to people who understand how capitalism works better than you … because they don’t have any illusions about how capitalism will solve all problems. Meh. Based on this thread, and many others, it doesn’t seem like you know how _anything_ works. These issues that you’re having with capitalism? It’s what happens when government is corrupted by rich business people. Your solution to it? Give government more power over rich business people because, y’know, power never corrupted anybody. The government that rules over capitalism has been tried. Many times, in many places. It has always failed spectacularly, not least in my country (India). Benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent social planners don’t exist unfortunately. The problem you should be trying to solve is governance, not capitalism. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2013, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/33 "2013-02-12T06:25:16Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The point of conservative economics is that good jobs come from businesses trying to make money. You can not be anti-business and pro-job any more than you can be pro-apple and anti-apple tree. There’s a bit more to the conservative approach than just businesses trying to make money. For years I’ve been hearing how “job creators” need incentives from the government, in the form of lower taxes and less regulation (compared to current rates and levels) as a form of encouragement. They seem to ignore that turning a profit already has an incentive built in, namely, the profit itself. > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > You’d have to make American labor two or even three times more productive than it currently is - which is a huge whopping change and quite probably impossible over any reasonable length of time. Maybe more, but there’s some advantage to having your supply nearby. I ran across [this article](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-insourcing-boom/309166/) (also in _The Atlantic_, from December of last year) a while ago which describes just such an occurrence. It describes General Electric’s move to bring some appliance manufacturing back to its in-house facility in Kentucky. The collaboration between engineering and manufacturing, and streamlined design and turnaround times make it economically sound to bring those jobs back to the U.S. I hope it’s the beginning of a trend. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The “Bush decade” huh? How about the Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter years. Real [wages](http://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/productivity-and-real-wages.jpg) have been stagnant since before 1975 while productivity has soared. Care to blame supply side economics for that? Or GWB? Considering that the term “supply-side economics” was coined in 1975, and it has influenced policy since early in Reagan’s first term, I have no problem blaming it for most of what has happened since then. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2013, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/34 "2013-02-12T06:34:07Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Considering that the term “supply-side economics” was coined in 1975, and it has influenced policy since early in Reagan’s first term, I have no problem blaming it for most of what has happened since then. Of course the fact that, according to the graph, productivity was decoupled from real wages well before Reagan wouldn’t cause you to hesitate. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2013, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/35 "2013-02-12T06:40:41Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Trickle down economics is a myth, no one believes in it, and so no one can use it like a club. I am not sure how one can use a economic theory like a club, but that is not the point. > The point of conservative economics is that good jobs come from businesses trying to make money. You can not be anti-business and pro-job any more than you can be pro-apple and anti-apple tree. > You seem to have no idea why people are hired and jobs performed. Jobs are created to add value to a business. The amount of wages is due to the value of the work performed and the availibility of workers able to perform the work. > Thus to create good jobs with good pay you have to improve the economy so that workers are in demand and improve things around the job so that workers are more productive in the job. Capital investments in things like machinery make people more productive and thus increase wages. None of the things you want to happen will make jobs easier to get or workers more productive. Middle Out economics is a campain slogan designed to appeal to voters who know nothing about economics it is not a serious plan or a serious theory. And if we just give it another fifty years, we should start seeing the predicted results. The OP’s ideas actually make more sense. Wealth doesn’t trickle down, it trickles up. This even matches conservative dogma - the rich have wealth because they’re good at accumulating wealth, not just because they’re lucky. And if the rich are the people who are best at accumulating wealth, why should we think that the wealth they have will go anywhere? It’ll tend to stay in the hands of the rich. So if you design an economic system that gives money to the rich right from the beginning, you have a stagnant economy with no wealth circulating. A better plan is to work on getting wealth to the non-rich. That money will circulate through the economy before it ends up in the possession of the rich. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2013, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/36 "2013-02-12T07:07:25Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Of course the fact that, according to the graph, productivity was decoupled from real wages well before Reagan wouldn’t cause you to hesitate. Not significantly. The 1970s saw a lot of economic turmoil (for lack of a better word) in the U.S. There were (roughly in order) an oil shortage, a recession, and high unemployment and inflation. I think the economy is far too complex to point to any one thing and say that it, and it alone, caused everything that followed. But trickle-down seems to have been the predominant government philosophy for more than 30 years.[sup]\*[/sup] Oil prices, unemployment, and inflation have come back to more normal levels (with fluctuations, of course), but the stagnating wages have continued. Do you have an alternate hypothesis? Is there something that you think happened to decouple real wages from productivity, and that policies influenced by the trickle-down theory had nothing to do with it? - It could certainly be debated exactly how much influence the government really has on the economy, but I think that’s a topic for another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2013, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/37 "2013-02-12T15:38:16Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Post snipped:: > > Small correction, Rich People (All evil of course)TM do not keep money. They \*invest \*it. At least in normal economic times. > > That is how most of them get rich. > > Slee Yeah, like Mitt Romney invested his money in those oh, so productive Cayman Islands! ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2013, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/38 "2013-02-12T15:55:49Z")
> [@XT](#): > > And how would you propose to do this? It’s a great sound bite, but let’s see some meat. Stop signing all these dumbass “free trade agreements” where all we do is export jobs to Third World countries that do thinks like peg their currency to the value of ours to artificially maintain an imbalance of trade. Give tax breaks to companies that build new facilities inside the U.S., give tax penalties to companies that export jobs. > [@](#): > > So, you want to pay the lo end, unskilled labor even more than the market will support for their work, and you expect this to do, what? Bring even more people back to work? The result of this (depending on how you mean to do number 1) would be more automation, more outsourcing and offshoring, more unemployment at the low end, etc. Assuming you decided to legislate by fiat the wages and force US and other companies located with plants in the US to have to use this high cost labor, the result will also be higher prices and more automation, but still not the cornucopia of new high paying (for low or unskilled labor) jobs. Well given that productivity has been decoupled from wages, I think it can be argued that wages in the US are artificially depressed. And with people making enough money to buy things, economic growth will occur, creating more demand for workers, perhaps leading to further increases in wages. As for the specter of inflation … how to put this nicely? … so many of the things that economists have been predicting of late (or not predicting, most missed the housing bubble) have been … so WRONG … that I don’t have much faith in your predictions. Well .. any faith. I suspect that there may be some price hikes, but not huge ones. In any case, the candle may well be worth the game. > [@](#): > > 😛 Sorry, this is just ridiculous. What are you, a neo-Luddite or something? The idea behind tax breaks for buying equipment is that it encourages economic growth. Right now, we need companies to hire people to encourage economic growth, not buy machinery. So give tax breaks to companies for hiring people. It’s not rocket science, dude. > [@](#): > > Ok, I’m cool with this, though the devil would be in the details, and I think the transition would be seriously ugly. Agreed, devil will be in the details. > [@](#): > > And how would you determine this? Sacrifice a goat and read it’s entrails? Some other completely arbitrary measurement pulled out of some liberals ass in an effort at some sort of ‘fairness’ thingy? Oh, take the average multiple of CEO pay in some other successful economy, like, say, Japan or Germany, and make it our standard, too. > [@](#): > > Same answer basically as number 2 in it’s actual, real world effect. You’d be further killing the US labor market that you are so obviously trying so hard to protect and nurture. Yeah, ending gross exploitation, disastrous! Not buying it, dude. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2013, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/39 "2013-02-12T16:01:16Z")
> [@bump](#): > > The point in the context of this thread is that with current US labor rates, it’s really, really hard to compete with offshore competitors on labor-intensive production. And, raising the minimum wage is only going to widen that gap. This is absolutely a case of not being able to have your cake and eat it too. > > —elision mine - EC– > > I am however, all for #6. This temporary/part-time/contract labor business has its place, but ideally it should be for contingency type situations- you need someone to fulfill a specific role for a specific time period, or you need someone to pick up a few shifts. It should most emphatically not be used as a dodge by companies to not pay benefits, or to easily manipulate payrolls, which is exactly what it’s used for these days. So, you are willing to throw unskilled workers under the bus but not temp workers. Gotcha. How about this: some economists have said that in times of very low employment, it’s acceptable to hire some workers to dig holes and other workers to fill them in, in order to keep the economy going. Why not take the same approach to minimum wage? Take the hit in terms of economic efficiency in order to give people at the bottom a decent standard of living and create a new class of consumers? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2013, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985/40 "2013-02-12T16:03:40Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > There is investment and investment. There is investment that is productive, and then there were people who created a massive demand for high yield mortgage bonds which in turn created a demand for crappier and crappier mortgages to be written. > If there is little demand, then there are few productive investment opportunities and money gets parked in cash or other not very useful places. I definitely think coupling Middle Out economics with reform of investment banking to encourage that it produces financial instruments that lead to Real World economic growth instead of phony paper growth would be an excellent idea. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/middle-out-economics-the-trickle-down-killer/649985.md?page=3)