h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What is the real difference between Socialism and Communism then?
The two guide entries read as very similar..

In both cases the government owns everything. I think the distinction is that in Socialism the government is then owned by the people, and in Communism the government is the supreme owner, but there's a good chance I'm wrong on that.
As long as our government here in the US is based on campaign contributions, capitalism will rule over socialism and social programs. 'Trickle down' or 'Supply side' economics are still embraced even though they've been proven false many times over.

You're right on the difference between socialism and communism.
communism is more of facism in a left-wing guise. many noted
thinkers are embracing socialism, including Pope John Paul II (!)
As a handy reference, try this: Socialism was what Karl Marx thought
of, and Communism was what Stalin and Lenin turned it into. That's
not completely accurate, but it's close enough.

Communism is a special case of socialism. The actual defenition has varied over time, but is often refered to as being the revolutionairy form of socialism, in difference from socialdemocratism which tries to apply socialism through democratic reforms.

What is "trickle down" and "supply side"?

In the late 70's or early 80's a couple of economists were having dinner together and started discussing ideas. On a paper napkin they drew out a plan called "Trickle Down Economics". In theory you give the upper class more money and they invest it causing economic growth and allowing the money to 'trickle down' to lower income people. When Reagan was elected president he put the (untested and unproven) theory to work to the delight of the wealthiest people in our country. When the economy started its decline and the only thing keeping people out of poverty was massive military spending, trickle-down economics got a (deserved) bad reputation.

The reality was that rich people invested the money and expected short term gain, which means the money would return to them and in larger quantities, not tricle down to others. In order for them to make short-term gains banking and investment regulations were relaxed, hence the Savings and Loan crisis, where thousands of banks across the US over-extended themselves and folded, requiring billions of tax dollars to set straight.

Now proponents of trickle-down economics call it "Supply Side Economics" to avoid the stigma that comes with "Trickle Down". It is still the same theory.

The main problems with trickle-down/supply-side are:

1) Wealthy people invest, and when investing they expect to get more money back than they put in.
2) They do not use their disposable income in a disposable way, i.e. they don't spend as great a percentage on groceries, rent, gas (investments that have no return) as lower income people).

President Bush backed away from some of the policies when the economy started into a recession (the military cutbacks at the end of the cold war took away the economic basis that supported trickle-down) and President Clinton stepped further away from trickle-down policies, but it's still there (congress keeps cutting taxes for the rich faster than for the middle class).

The upper ten percent of the US has a total tax burden of about 10%, the lower ten percent has a total tax burden of about 20%, while those of us in the middle class are taxed at about 30%. Over 60% of US corporations will pay no taxes for 1999. The national debt could be paid off in three weeks if corporate taxes were returned to their level in 1960. Watch out when politicians say they're cutting taxes, ask whose taxes are getting trimmed.

I like your description of trickle down. I think of it in simple terms like this:
If we give rich people more and more food to put on their tables eventually some of it will fall off and then the poor might get a meal.
Unfortunatley in practice the rich have good cold stores and the surplus food gets saved by them.

"Let them eat cake." - Marie Antoinette

Most farmers are familiar with the trickle down theory as: "If you feed the horses you need not feed the chickens"
For you non-farmers: The chickens scratch through the horse manure and eat the undigested grain

Wonderful! So the poor really should search through... no, sorry I can't continue.

trickle down was very popular here, and in a lot of ways still is, although now we have a new govt it will be interesting to see what happens (virtually the first thing they did was raise taxes for high income earners, although not enough imho)

tax cuts were regularly given to the rich under the previous govt, with the poor getting little or nothing in cuts at the same time, although of course benefits and funding were being cut, in real terms - in one infamous case, just before christmas benefits were cut drastically in the early 90s

trickle down has not worked at all here - there has been an increase in food banks, kids going to school with no food, diseases of poverty, ppl living in cramped conditions, fewer ppl from poor backgrounds going onto uni, etc - unfortunately the right here have been in power for 15 years and have completely changed the public service environment - it used to be based on a contest of ideas, where free and frank advice would be given, without fear of dismissal - the public service was full of ppl with different political ideologies - treasury (where the rot started) have slowly but surely replaced many of those who have dissented to their views with what are called treasury clones here (only half-joking) - this is particularly bad in the Ministry of Education, resulting in a trickle down effect of sorts ie that this kind of thinking has infected large sections of the curriculum etc

span

Where do you live?