In Support of 'Trickle-Up' Economics

The following commentary comes from an independent investor or market observer as part of TheStreet's guest contributor program, which is separate from the company's news coverage.

By Benj Gallander

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- With Hanukkah and Christmas swiftly approaching, I decided to trash some old economic principles while presenting one that if adopted, could dramatically improve the economy and people's quality of life. To begin, I head back to my university days where there were many dubious but accepted wisdoms that young minds had to learn and regurgitate.

One that was popular in the Business 20 course I took at The University of Western Ontario was that money was not a motivator. Yep, you read that right. This followed the work of Frederick Herzberg, who believed that the key factors to motivation were achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, promotion and growth. Pay was a "Hygiene Factor," with an improvement potentially reducing dissatisfaction. Well it can indeed, but still there is conviction here that it can indeed inspire.

At Dalhousie University, there was the wonder of "perfectly efficient markets." This idea states that stock markets cannot be outperformed, because all information is out there and baked into stock market prices. Therefore, it is not possible to beat the market. I had a rather vociferous debate with a professor. We ended up at loggerheads and later when I came back after an MBA he asked, "Gallander, why do you bother?" Maybe today my old professor wouldn't ask again given the contrarian market bettering career I have enjoyed by ignoring the "Perfect" hype.

Another brainstorm that was common was the idea of "trickle-down economics." The idea here is basically that by putting more money in the hands of the rich, their investments in productive enterprises will ultimately mean more for the poor. So tempting and delightful, especially for the rich! Why not just give the people at the top all of the money, while the laboring and unfortunate masses obtain just enough to get by? Taken to its extreme, it is evident that if the vast majority of people do not have much, they will not be able to stimulate the economy with their spending.

I am a huge advocate of "trickle-up economics." Under this model, placing more money in the hands of the poor and those of lower income, and decreasing the current ridiculous income disparity will lead to economic stimulation and a more stable society. This will not only create jobs, but save them, essential in an economy where layoffs are rampant.