[SpicyLemonZest]

I don't think it's fair to call it a trickle-down experiment. We're bailing out companies because we think it would be bad for society if they all went bankrupt, not because we expect that money to trickle down as such.

[kitotik]

How is propping up the “top” of the economy not a trickle down approach? It’s the definition. The opposite approach would be “bottoms up” aka propping up the workers.

It will be bad for society if the companies at the top all go bankrupt.

It will likely be worse for society if the results are even remotely similar to the previous crisis: further concentration of assets/wealth resulting in increased income disparity and loss of workers rights.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I'm not sure there's a clear definition of "trickle down". When people say that, I normally imagine something like a huge tax cut for the rich, and people arguing "well maybe they'll use that money to create jobs or something". It's a very different story to say "you know, many businesses are being legally mandated to shut down, let's give them some life support so they'll be there for all the workers they employ".

[kitotik]

There is a fairly clear definition. You either support the supply-side, and hope their prosperity ‘trickles down’ to the proletariat, or you support the demand side, and let supply meet the needs.

[SpicyLemonZest]

It's not about prosperity, it's about jobs. Giving everyone in Tuscon a pile of money won't help them find a job if all small businesses and the Raytheon factory are forced to close down.