Some people hate trickle-down economics. They speak of its “failure,” its “victims,” and they claim that it “doesn’t work.” On the other hand, some people like and endorse it. Before we get into the arguments for and against it, the question is: what is it?
Sometimes the arguments people make cut both ways. What is especially amusing is when they seem completely oblivious to the irony of it.
Everybody is talking about the new soda rules in New York. It seems you are no longer allowed to serve sodas of more than sixteen ounces, though you may serve more than one soda at a time. The reported aim of this rule is to decrease soda consumption, which theoretically will decrease the incidence of certain health problems. Unfortunately, I believe this rule will actually cause an increase in consumption.
I just came across a very interesting article in Yes Magazine that describes a way to meet everyone’s needs, achieve financial independence of individuals and communities, and halt (or even reverse) the growing concentration of effective wealth in the hands of the very few – and it does all this without erecting a supersized government or engaging in economic terrorism. This is an economic paradigm that virtually everybody of all ideologies should be able to get behind – and I almost missed it. Why, you ask? Well, it was packaged very poorly.
I have some points for us all to ponder to aid us in understanding why some people were against the health insurance mandate from the beginning and why relabeling it a “tax” doesn’t change the underlying issues people have with it.
Capitalists and Socialists debate over them, but which side are they really on? The labels we use don't make a lot of sense.
Some people support unions but greatly fear monopolies, fretting over every merger. Others care little about monopolies, but despise unions, pointing out every flaw they can find. Both unions and monopolies are centralizations of power formed from the act of collusion. Is there much of a difference?
Hi, I'm Dan. I like chocolate, hiking, and politics.