The phrase "trickle down economics" on the surface sort of made sense to me. If the 1% are spending money to have their pets groomed then the pet groomer can go out to dinner and pay the baby sitter, and the baby sitter has more money for weed, and then the local pot dealer can place a larger order with his supplier, who can then afford to send his under-sized poodle, Mimi, the one with the yip-yip bark, sent to the pet groomer. Everybody wins. Right?
Wrong. The basic problem with trickle down economics is that there are too many greedy hands in the way. There is nothing left to trickle by the time it gets to those who at the bottom of the food chain. If you want to build a sustainable economy you need to build it from the ground up. You probably also have to have a monetary system that is based on something real, but that's another story.