I suspect that I don't understand the economy

[Eileen]

I suspect that I don't understand the economy. I have these vague notions, which I think are my own opinions and not ones foisted upon me, but I don't have very cohesive arguments for or against economic viewpoints. I would like to hear some economic opinions that aren't necessarily meant to sway me but are reasoned and intelligent in any case.

Things that I kind of vaguely think, related to the economy:
-the idea that a free market is some kind of curative agent or stabilizer for a shitty economic environment is bullshit
-the idea that "wealth trickles down" also seems like bullshit to me, though to a smaller degree than the previous. It seems to me that it may, marginally, but that the majority of wealth stays right where it is (and that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor)
-we (as a community--large or small) are responsible for our poor members, and this means that we should have social programs that help them pull themselves up... which I think really has to include some kind of educational/vocational component in addition to meeting housing/food needs
-taxes are good for funding social programs, though I think that there needs to be more frugality and less waste in government spending (it's just--I don't think that taking care of the poor is wasteful)
-outsourcing is bad
-a lack of "trade" education in public schools is bad for the economy
-a lowering of standards for college entrance and encouraging all students to go to college is both harmful to the educational system and to the economy


Now, I don't think that my opinions are ignorant--they're just vague and not part of a systematic understanding of the economy.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I'll see if I can post more later, but I just want to put this quick thought in here.

The truth is that most people don't understand the economy including economists. There are several different prominent viewpoints on macroeconomics and these views often contradict each other. Generally most people agree on the majority of microeconomic principles and even some macroeconomic principles, but there is large disagreement about a lot of macroeconomics even by the experts.

So a lot of times, someone will try to convince you that one specific economic policy is the smart one and all the others are dumb, but they are only ascribing to one economic theory, and there are plenty of knowledgable people who will disagree.

[ajblaise]

Eileen, most economists agree with you. I don't even think "trickle down economics" is taken seriously in the field.

[Enyo]

You don't have it all wrong.

-the idea that a free market is some kind of curative agent or stabilizer for a shitty economic environment is bullshit

Mm, not so much. It follows a kind of natural flow. Things get far worse when government agencies to "help". Kind of like when a little kid helps you clean the house... sure, eventually, it will get right, but it takes far longer than it would have taken if you'd just been left the hell alone.

-the idea that "wealth trickles down" also seems like bullshit to me, though to a smaller degree than the previous. It seems to me that it may, marginally, but that the majority of wealth stays right where it is (and that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor)

It's part of that "you have to spend money to make money" principle, combined with a disposable income thing. The money trickles down in the form of employment opportunities and increased disposable spending (which someone else profits from).

-we (as a community--large or small) are responsible for our poor members, and this means that we should have social programs that help them pull themselves up... which I think really has to include some kind of educational/vocational component in addition to meeting housing/food needs
-taxes are good for funding social programs, though I think that there needs to be more frugality and less waste in government spending (it's just--I don't think that taking care of the poor is wasteful)

As long as it's a hand UP and not a hand OUT, it's all good. But I'm not too keen on it when my tax dollars give food stamps to the lady who buys fillet mignon at the grocery store and is dripping in gold and Tommy Hilfigger. I used to see that when I worked at a grocery store in the 'hood, and it pissed me off to no end.

-a lack of "trade" education in public schools is bad for the economy
-a lowering of standards for college entrance and encouraging all students to go to college is both harmful to the educational system and to the economy

Agreed. A plumber and a mechanic is just as important as a doctor and a lawyer.

[ajblaise]

please ignore the nutty libertarians in this thread.

[Enyo]

please ignore the nutty libertarians in this thread.

You know, you're welcome to disagree with someone, rather than cast aspersions on their sanity.

BTW, I *explained* the trickle-down principle. I didn't say it was an effective or great thing.

[Magic Poriferan]

Well, Eileen, you are sure to get a front seat view of what Liquid Laser was talking about.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Ok let me give some of my ideas on some of these things.


Things that I kind of vaguely think, related to the economy:
-the idea that a free market is some kind of curative agent or stabilizer for a shitty economic environment is bullshit

For the majority of goods and services I think markets are awesome. It's true that command/communist economies really suck. However there are a few goods and services that markets don't handle very well. These are usually the goods and services that we hear discussed in political circles.

For example when a gallon of gas increases by $1, and the overall consumption drops by 1% that is an example of a free market in action. This isn't necessarily desirable though. In fact this is technically efficient according to the economic definition of efficiency. Most people don't want to see gas prices skyrocket while consumption stays basically the same, but that is what an efficient market does without outside intervention.

Overall I think markets are great, but in a few cases I like to see government intervention. For example if the government provided funding or subsidies for alternate fuel sources, then overall fuel supply would increase and that would keep fuel prices down.


-the idea that "wealth trickles down" also seems like bullshit to me, though to a smaller degree than the previous. It seems to me that it may, marginally, but that the majority of wealth stays right where it is (and that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor)

No one believes in Trickle Down Theory as long as you call it "Trickle Down Theory". ;) This has proven to be a bad idea, so people change the name and try to pass it off as something else. Ironically sometimes the same people will say "money tends to return to its rightful owner". I tend to agree more with this idea, and it is actually the exact opposite of Trickle Down Theory.

If you believe the second idea (which I do), then it makes more sense for the government to get involved and redistribute wealth in some way. The wealthy will get their money anyway, but the poor will get their hands on it long enough to buy necessary goods and services. The poor are better off while the wealthy are no worse off. (Btw this is essentially what efficiency means in an economic sense.)


-we (as a community--large or small) are responsible for our poor members, and this means that we should have social programs that help them pull themselves up... which I think really has to include some kind of educational/vocational component in addition to meeting housing/food needs

For the most part I agree with you, but I can also see the other side. It is true that the government is usually less effective than a business, so some will see this as a waste of money. On the other hand if these people don't get housing, food and education from somewhere they will tend to cause a lot of problems for society, so in general I think it is worth some tax dollars to have some program in place for them.

-taxes are good for funding social programs, though I think that there needs to be more frugality and less waste in government spending (it's just--I don't think that taking care of the poor is wasteful)

I agree, but the devil is in the details as they say.


-outsourcing is bad


I disagree. In the long haul workers will adapt to produce goods and services where we have the highest comparative advantage. (I.e. either we will make stuff that is good to trade, or stuff that is just as easy to buy at home than import.) In the long haul everyone benefits from free trade and specialization and outsourcing. I understand though that it can suck in the short term as workers have to learn new skills or get worse jobs or move or something else... waiting for the economy to adapt.


-a lack of "trade" education in public schools is bad for the economy
-a lowering of standards for college entrance and encouraging all students to go to college is both harmful to the educational system and to the economy

I probably don't know enough about these issues to comment on them. :)

[C.J.Woolf]

Eileen, I think economics is doomed to be hard to understand. An economy is a complex system like the weather, where everything affects everything else. Furthermore, I think we can never understand an economy in isolation from politics. People don't agree on a basic question like: What is an economy for? Your answer depends on your political views.

-the idea that a free market is some kind of curative agent or stabilizer for a shitty economic environment is bullshit
I agree. The free market is a good basis for an economy, but it is not a panacea and it must be regulated to be fair -- and to be most effective. Conservatives make the free market into a dogma. (Even the slightest tampering with the free market is BAD!!!)

-the idea that "wealth trickles down" also seems like bullshit to me, though to a smaller degree than the previous. It seems to me that it may, marginally, but that the majority of wealth stays right where it is (and that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor)
Actually, it's greater bullshit than the previous. Paul Krugman wrote that Arthur Laffer's theory utterly failed peer review. Trickle-down economic policy was the result of a successful propaganda campaign in the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal. George H.W. Bush called it "voodoo economics " until he lost the 1980 primaries and he drank the conservative kool-aid. Trickle-down theory was an excellent excuse for cutting taxes on the very rich, that's all.

The thing with trickle-down is that the very rich do not dispose of extra money the way the rest of us do. They might buy another house or a jet or give it to Harvard, but they save or invest the rest. Lower-income people tend to spend extra money, which in turn is spent. All that circulation is better for the economy overall.

Conservatives will say, "What about investment?" Sure, it's a good thing, but the fact remains that giving the many a little more has a greater impact than giving the few a lot more. And the money tends to trickle back up anyway.

-we (as a community--large or small) are responsible for our poor members, and this means that we should have social programs that help them pull themselves up... which I think really has to include some kind of educational/vocational component in addition to meeting housing/food needs

-taxes are good for funding social programs, though I think that there needs to be more frugality and less waste in government spending (it's just--I don't think that taking care of the poor is wasteful)
I agree, and I think it is at least as much a political issue as an economic issue. Kurt Vonnegut once responded to criticisms that social programs were just pissing money away, saying "What is money for, if not to piss away?" Heh.

[booyalab]

-the idea that a free market is some kind of curative agent or stabilizer for a shitty economic environment is bullshit I don't know that any economists consider a free market to be a curative agent. Every economy experiences highs and lows. It's just like Enyo said, government intervention usually just prolongs the low times. The stock market crash of 1987 was just as big as The Great Depression but, unlike Roosevelt, Reagan refused to intervene and the economy worked itself out much faster and less painfully.


-the idea that "wealth trickles down" also seems like bullshit to me, though to a smaller degree than the previous. It seems to me that it may, marginally, but that the majority of wealth stays right where it is (and that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor)
It's a straw man. You wont find it in any economics textbook and 99% of the time it's used with derogatory connotations.
The sequence actually works in the opposite direction. The first money from investments is spent on hiring people to do the work. Profit comes later.


-we (as a community--large or small) are responsible for our poor members, and this means that we should have social programs that help them pull themselves up... which I think really has to include some kind of educational/vocational component in addition to meeting housing/food needs
I guess the economic answer to this sentiment is "what is the most cost-effective way of reaching that goal?" My personal philosophical answer is "isn't that mighty presumptuous of you?"

-taxes are good for funding social programs, though I think that there needs to be more frugality and less waste in government spending (it's just--I don't think that taking care of the poor is wasteful)
Anticipation of profit (because, remember, profit comes last) has been shown to be the only reliable predictor of cost efficiency.


-outsourcing is badMass trade restrictions all over the world, with the intent of saving jobs, occurred during the Great Depression. Everyone got poorer. Outsourcing is good.


-a lack of "trade" education in public schools is bad for the economy
I'm not sure what you mean here. Although I think a better educated population does tend to increase the number of people in the professional sector which should improve the average standard of living.


-a lowering of standards for college entrance and encouraging all students to go to college is both harmful to the educational system and to the economy

I don't know how it effects the economy, but I do agree that not everyone is suited for college.

[pure_mercury]

Eileen, I think economics is doomed to be hard to understand. An economy is a complex system like the weather, where everything affects everything else. Furthermore, I think we can never understand an economy in isolation from politics. People don't agree on a basic question like: What is an economy for? Your answer depends on your political views.

Bad question to ask. An economy isn't "for" anything. It exists, and trying to "use" it for political or social benefits is a fool's errand.


I agree. The free market is a good basis for an economy, but it is not a panacea and it must be regulated to be fair -- and to be most effective. Conservatives make the free market into a dogma. (Even the slightest tampering with the free market is BAD!!!)

False. You will hear very few conservatives arguing consistently for free markets. In fact, outside of Ron Paul and one or two other members of Congress, there aren't any consistent proponents of a free market economy in Washington at the present.


Actually, it's greater bullshit than the previous. Paul Krugman wrote that Arthur Laffer's theory utterly failed peer review. Trickle-down economic policy was the result of a successful propaganda campaign in the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal. George H.W. Bush called it "voodoo economics " until he lost the 1980 primaries and he drank the conservative kool-aid. Trickle-down theory was an excellent excuse for cutting taxes on the very rich, that's all.

Paul Krugman is not a particularly good person to mention as an authority, but the Laffer curve is pretty silly, although there are points at which raising marginal tax rates would actually lower the tax receipts. Of course, lowering taxes in order to try to raise the amount of money the government takes in is stupid, anyway. If you are a true fiscal conservative, you should be cutting taxes, cutting spending, and balancing the budget.


The thing with trickle-down is that the very rich do not dispose of extra money the way the rest of us do. They might buy another house or a jet or give it to Harvard, but they save or invest the rest. Lower-income people tend to spend extra money, which in turn is spent. All that circulation is better for the economy overall.

Spending money is better than saving or investing it? Since when? Investing your money is one of the best things you can do, for both yourself and the rest of society. That's how we get long-term economic growth: through new businesses and expansion and technological innovation. It's also why our corporate income tax rates are outrageous in the United States (the second-highest in the industrialized world, in fact; we tax corporations at the same rate we tax individual millionaires, which no one else really does).


Conservatives will say, "What about investment?" Sure, it's a good thing, but the fact remains that giving the many a little more has a greater impact than giving the few a lot more. And the money tends to trickle back up anyway.

This doesn't even make sense. What are you trying to say here?


I agree, and I think it is at least as much a political issue as an economic issue. Kurt Vonnegut once responded to criticisms that social programs were just pissing money away, saying "What is money for, if not to piss away?" Heh.

Nice attitude. :steam: What if someone turned it around and said, "What are civil rights for, except to make minorities stop complaining?" Economic freedom and social freedom are interrelated parts, and you can't smoke-and-mirror your way to a good economy by taking half (or more) of the country's GDP through taxes and then throwing it around.

[Lateralus]

Paul Krugman is not a particularly good person to mention as an authority\, but the Laffer curve is pretty silly, although there are points at which raising marginal tax rates would actually lower the tax receipts...
Nice pun! Mind if I borrow that sometime?

[pure_mercury]

Nice pun! Mind if I borrow that sometime?

Go right ahead. It's tough even to say "Laffer Curve" and take it seriously.

[Jack Flak]

Re: Eileen "Thank you, Senator Obama. Senator McCain, you have the floor."

[Magic Poriferan]

Bad question to ask. An economy isn't "for" anything. It exists, and trying to "use" it for political or social benefits is a fool's errand.


I essentially believe that the opposite is true. The economy barely really exists. Its existence it really more the product of arbitrary concept and definition. And when we develop "things" out of arbitrary concepts or definitions, why do we do it? To meet out some kind of purpose. The economy, when defined as one thing (the way the phrase "the economy" does) only exists to be used. The economy is just the product of our usage. No society, no economy. It is puddy in the hands of human beings, it only exists because we make it exist.

[ygolo]

I essentially believe that the opposite is true. The economy barely really exists. Its existence it really more the product of arbitrary concept and definition. And when we develop "things" out of arbitrary concepts or definitions, why do we do it? To meet out some kind of purpose. The economy, when defined as one thing (the way the phrase "the economy" does) only exists to be used. The economy is just the product of our usage. No society, no economy. It is puddy in the hands of human beings, it only exists because we make it exist.

In a way this is true. Because there are billions of people in the world trying to meet their own objectives. I don't really think we are going to get all 6.8+ billion people to ever agree on what the economy "is for."

I go to my local grocery store to get food, and sometimes I go to fast-food, or sit-down restaurants instead. These are all part of this abstract thing called the economy.

When I go to the gas station to get gas, this is part of "the economy."

When I go to work to get a pay-check this is also part of "the economy."

Unfortunately, when a beggar on the street goes around asking for change, this also part of "the economy." When impoverished children go without food, this is part of "the economy." Or when a newly graduated college student fails to find a job, this is part of "the economy." These (and many others) are things I certainly wish we could do without.

Economics is not rare in the phenomenon that it seems to be studying nearly everything. Consider physics:when anything happens in the world something physical is happening, and you can study the physics of that something. Consider biology:when anything related to life is happening there is biology to be studied there as well. Consider psychology:it studies anything related to people's thoughts, behavior, or feelings.

These are simply pursuits to elicit principles from careful study of some incredibly pervasive phenomena.

What Is Economics? (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AEA/students/WhatIsEconomics.htm) Economics is the study of how people choose to use resources.

Note the position as an observer in the aspect of study. However, this is strange because when one goes to use the principles of economics it is mainly to choose how to use resources (and therefore quickly affects itself on scale more fundamental than any other). You guys remember the "psychohistorian," Hari Seldon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hari_Seldon), from The Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Foundation_Series)?-an economist has a similar problem.

The "market" is an abstraction used by economists to describe how many people are willing to supply or demand goods at particular prices (and a host of other factors and conditions).

Real "markets" are simply places/ways to buy and sell stuff, and they take on different flavors. There is your local flee-market, your supermarkets, your Mall, and strip malls. There is E-bay, and you can think of all the online stores or all the places to get food as "markets" in conglomeration. Even if you hold a garage sale, you have a "market" for a short time.

The "stock-market" (often shortened "market") is nothing but a bunch of exchanges where people can buy and sell equities and derivatives. They have similar things for commodities, currencies and (it seems) almost everything.

"Utilitarian" supply and demand are the seed for these markets, but the liquidity and availability is largely paid for by "speculators" (keep in mind many speculators loose money also, and that is a big part of the equation).

The main reason we allow speculation (and buying Apple stock 20 years ago because you believed it would go up is a prime example) is to allow people to do things on a much larger scale than they could have otherwise. Really, would a company issue a bunch of common-stock, and would you buy any company stock right now if it meant real partial ownership of a company, and that you could not sell to other people unless they wanted to take over partial ownership?

In essence, the speculators are the "supply-chain" that allows people to buy and sell in large quantities from almost anywhere. Otherwise, we would have to scrounge around to find people willing to sell "right now" when we want to buy something, or we would have to go door-to-door, or only to your local town, to find people willing to buy "right now" the things we produced. We cannot really afford to be that inefficient when its comes to commodities or currencies. We rely too much on speculation. There are still kinks in the system, but going back purely utilitarian supply and demand (called spot markets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spot_market)) is bad idea in my opinion.

My dad once said that psychology and economics are two things that everybody needs to study to be a well-functioning human being. He said it but only once, but that phrase has stuck with me my entire life.

The only advice I can offer people trying to form their beliefs about economics is to find out how things actually work on the level of buying and selling (or more fundamentally trading). Think about how you would react when put in a situation of trading a particular thing for another. Think about how people you know would behave, and how people in general will behave. How would the behavior change if it was your day-to-day job to make this form of exchange, and if you relied on it to put food on your families table or pay of your mortgage (remember there are a lot of people losing money out there too, its not all profits).

[FDG]

Macroeconomics, for the level of evolution the human brain has reached, is quite useless in the sense that the extreme number of equations that need to be simultaneously solved to reach a trusteable macroeconomics result is simply impossible to handle for us, right now. It would be akin to trying to predict how dropping a ball from a window affects all the rest of the universe.

Microeconomics is different. Given that it deals with simplified problems that generally have a day-to-day application, I would say that microeconomics can be compared to a form of engineering (while macroeconomics could be akin to string theory). So we can safely affirm that some results of microeconomics hold true for everybody.

My advice then is to distrust everybody that claims certainty in macro issues. At best, people may have opinions. The argument for the "free market" is not so much a modus ponens but rather a modus tollens: given that we do not understand how the market at large works, then it's very likely that many types of intervention will cause more harm than good.

Spending money is better than saving or investing it? Since when? Investing your money is one of the best things you can do, for both yourself and the rest of society.

Spending money can be better than saving or investing, when the demand for savings is very low due 'cause the firms aren't selling enough (because citizens aren't spending enough). Is this Keynesian? Yes.

[Magic Poriferan]

To go further down the rabbit hole, Ygolo, we must consider the fact that even the concept of "purchasing" is itself built on abstractions like monetary wealth. :D

It is obviously true the human beings will never come to one solid agreement on what the economy is or what it is for (at least, it is extremely unlikely that this will happen), and while that makes it more difficult to use as a tool, it certainly does not legitimize its existence as a force outside of our usage. If it is hard to use, then it is unfortunately hard to use, but it is still for our use. If it is not for our usage, then it is simply nothing at all.

Economics exists in the same way that politics or religion exists.

[pure_mercury]

To go further down the rabbit hole, Ygolo, we must consider the fact that even the concept of "purchasing" is itself built on abstractions like monetary wealth.

Is it? Barter and voluntary exchange predate the monetary economy, and one could argue that they even predate fixed property rights. If I help you build a bigger hut in exchange for shelter and food, I have "purchased" (or rented, at least) those amenities.

[Eileen]

this is all quite interesting. :) carry on, carry on.

[Magic Poriferan]

Is it? Barter and voluntary exchange predate the monetary economy, and one could argue that they even predate fixed property rights. If I help you build a bigger hut in exchange for shelter and food, I have "purchased" (or rented, at least) those amenities.

Okay then... to chart out your definition of purchasing, when do you believing purchasing started in the history of the whole, wide, world?

[ygolo]

To go further down the rabbit hole, Ygolo, we must consider the fact that even the concept of "purchasing" is itself built on abstractions like monetary wealth. :D


Indeed. But that is why I think "trading" (barter) is more fundamental still. Money just makes trading much more efficient. Now you can essentially negotiate trades of money for something else. Imagine if you had to wait specifically for someone who had rice and wanted to trade it for fixing a computer (for example). This money abstraction was created ages ago. It happened quite naturally, and in a lot of different places. Over the years, the intrinsic use-value of money (you can burn the paper for heat, for instance) has become less and less. Now, a good deal of money is in the form of bits in databases somewhere.

I guess we can go more fundamentaly, to the idea of ownership. When did we decide someone owned something, and others owned something else? (These notions are needed for trading).

This seems to me, so fundamental, that we cannot really talk about the allocation of resources at all without there being some form of "ownership." The allocation scheme, whatever it may be, creates the ownership of the resources.

This is not just a matter of semantics, but psychology. Let's say the official allocation scheme is that everyone get an equal amount of all the resources (untenable since the resources are being consumed at different rates, but will use it for illustration purposes). Now lets say some guy, say Forest, schemed a way to get more than his official share during allocation, and consequently someone down the line, say Sharon, got less than the official share. Then it would certainly be possible that if Sharon figured out that Forest got "extra," that she could claim he stole "her" share.

Ownership seems fundamental to the human psyche.


It is obviously true the human beings will never come to one solid agreement on what the economy is or what it is for (at least, it is extremely unlikely that this will happen), and while that makes it more difficult to use as a tool, it certainly does not legitimize its existence as a force outside of our usage. If it is hard to use, then it is unfortunately hard to use, but it is still for our use. If it is not for our usage, then it is simply nothing at all.

Economics exists in the same way that politics or religion exists.

I think it is similar to the distinction between political science and politics, or religous studies and religous practice. There is economics and economic policy. Closely related endevours, with different attitudes.

[reason]

The owner is usually the person who has the legal right to make decisions with regard to whatever resource is owned. Everyone has different plans about what they would like to do with different resources, but not all those plans can be satisfied at once. The decisions and plans of the designated owner trump every other, thus preventing the inevitable chaos and conflict which would ensue otherwise. There needs to be some form of ownership, simply because decisions need to be made somehow.

Buying and selling involves the voluntary transfer of those decision-making rights, transferring the ability to trump every other plan, so to speak. The framework of property acquisition and transfer rules arose to solve problems of peaceable coexistence, resolving conflicting claims and interests. The current rules may not be perfect, and perhaps better rules can be discovered, but care should be taken before pursuing such an experiment, or else old problems may return.

[htb]

It's a straw man. You won't find it in any economics textbook and 99% of the time it's used with derogatory connotations.Good, someone addressed it.

"Trickle-down" is a negative mischaracterization of supply-side economics, which is generalized as low rates of taxation to stimulate risk, investment, and the creation of wealth and jobs. Simply using the term "trickle-down" indicates a somewhat antiquated view of upward mobility and accessibility of both capital and wealth. It's not zero-sum. As PJ O'Rourke put it, "Wealth is not a pizza, where if I have too many slices you have to eat the Domino's box."

One look at the yearly rates of GDP expansion for Hong Kong and Singapore (twice that of the United States) against the countries' tax rates for income and corporate earnings (each is, respectively, roughly half of the United States') should provide some demonstration of the forces at work.

Eileen, I recommend you compare this correlation of economic liberty with prosperity (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm). You'll find a remarkable pattern, and some surprising policy exceptions.

[IlyaK1986]

Trickle down economics--aka give the rich tax breaks and give those that need the breaks little. I say this: look, if you make so much money that you can fly around in private jets, buy whatever the hell it is you want, live like a king, etc..., then you DON'T need the tax breaks. IMO all of this tax break stuff to stimulate risky investments isn't going anywhere. If you're a good firm, you're not going anywhere either, no matter what the tax rate. Goldman Sachs is not going to shut down because of more taxes. Nor is google, JPMorgan, Lockheed, Boeing, yadda yadda yadda.

Donald Trump also will not be in front of his own tower with a cup in his hand.

Furthermore, just because you're rich doesn't necessarily mean you're SMART. Think about it. Think about all of those people who got some token degree from an Ivy League college and just managed managed managed their way to the top. In fact, the rich hire poor smart and hungry kids to actually do the work FOR them. It's those people that want that good life for themselves that are the ones producing--NOT the rich people who just shake hands and smile and act as talking heads.

This is why I will never be in favor of "supply side" economics. If you have enough money to buy a private jet and live in a penthouse flowing with gold etc. etc. etc..., you have more than enough cash to pay some more taxes. You're not working till your eyes bleed or your joints creak or your head nods from sleep deprivation to make ends meet unless you want to. It's those that HAVE TO that need it.

Look, I'm no Robin Hood. I hate welfare. I believe that those "shooting hoops" or "fucking bitches and hos" or buying "bling and threadz" and otherwise burning whatever money they can come up with to impress the Joneses should receive nothing. But as an immigrant that came into this country with $15 and 2 suitcases between himself and two parents, I'd be damned if I supported the fact that the ultra-wealthy get more money to themselves at the expense of those people that actually CREATE the wealth in this country.

That said, poor is poor. You can be poor for any number of reasons. Sadly, we cannot differentiate between poor because of lack of opportunity, and poor because of stupidity, be it on buying useless trinkets, or flouting a backwards religion created by a pedophile warlord. (Hint: if I ever have a hiring decision, and I probably will, anyone that can't think for themselves and question something made up by some guy more than a thousand years ago probably can't think independently enough to solve current problems)