What are you talking about?!? Supply side economics is NOT 'trickle-down' theory. Trickle-down is trickle-down. Please don't confuse the two.
It is a joke you are tying to teach me economics and I have a business degree. Keep drinking republican kool aid. All we have to do is cut taxes for the wealthy and everything will be fine. This does not fly for great many nations that have a TINY slice of rich and a lot with nothing. Take former soviet union. Wealth from the oligarchs is not trickling down to anyone. You dream of an aristocracy and it is inherently incompatible with a robust economy.
I love how you are belittling me because you took a couple economics classes for your business degree. I just recently received my bachelors in economics and I have been accepted to University of Pennsylvania for their doctorates program. But you are correct sir, I'm just a republican zealot.
Regardless of whether you are indeed going to be attending upenn, you parrot empty slogans polished by the republican party. Investing needs pre existing demand, otherwise you will simply go into debt or spend cash and go bankrupt. I don't hear best buy going on a building spree. Cutting taxes deeply now will only make US go into more debt and potentially result in a default (could happen as well through obama's plan) Actual wealth of people depends on growth of money supply vs growth in inflation. Tax cuts simply redistribute existing bank notes (or digital currency). That is why tax cuts the way people imagine on the republican side will never work.
Now, you're introducing "gemness" into public policy. There's another assumption. You assume that Berkley is a gem and worthy of nonsustainable public spending. What makes Berkley a gem while the local community college is not a gem? Does Harvard deserve more nonsustainable public spending than Yale because Harvard is perceived to have more gemness? Here's an analogy. I go to a restuarant, I pay for food and I eat it. Why can't education be the same thing? I go to an educational institution, pay for intuition and get a degree. Why does public spending need to be involved in education? Nothing in the Constitution requires our Nation and our States to support and pay for public education. In the very beginning of our Nation, we did not have public education. We had private education. Harvard was a private institution before it was a public institution.
Harvard is a private institution so is Yale wtf. Why UC berkley is a gem? I don't know, pay a visit to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Berkley Why does government need to be involved in education? i don't know something about investing in your future.... Otherwise you will get thoroughly owned by countries that do. And just because the founding fathers did not think of something does not mean we can't do it.
But again this makes our economy dependent on consumer spending. It is healthier to have an economy of less consumerism and more investment in the future. Things like research and development which will keep our country at the forefront of the world for years to come. Simply increasing consumer spending is too short sighted. Its treating the symptoms of the disease and not the actual problem.