Some rich folks in the early 1980’s decided to hand tons of money to themselves and their associates. The idea was that they would live lavish lifestyles and it would ultimately benefit the lower classes. Well, their idea was half right.
Sure, if a billionaire buys a luxury car, someone has to sell them that car. Someone has to build the car and its components. Someone will have to service the car, valet park it, and so on down the line. In theory the idea works.
In theory, the rich would use their hand outs to start, build and operate companies and organizations. Those organizations would employ many Americans and pay them a living wage.
Except, it turned out to be a lot more profitable to ship those jobs overseas, and to pay poverty-level wages to those jobs that remained in the US. Then the rich could stand on their soapboxes,congratulate themselves for all of their well-deserved success, and castigate everyone else for their failure to ‘lift themselves by the bootstraps.’
What about trickle up economics? What if we gave hand outs to the lowest, allowing them to buy the goods and services they require? Surely that money would eventually rise as profits to the rich.
What good does it do to subsidize the 1% and trust them to help the rest of us? Haven’t they proven that they are only looking out for themselves? Yes, yes they have. If the rest benefit, it’s only because the 1% benefits more.