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.
Recently, Governor Walker of Wisconsin, who has a reputation of being anti-union, won a recall election against him, keeping his seat. Those opposed to Walker claimed that democracy had lost and those supporting Walker responded that democracy should have lost because republics are safer and more stable. Even before the election took place, Walker supporters lamented the use of recall elections, preferring to limit voting only to the end of terms. When people realize they will be stuck with the same guy until next cycle, they will make decisions more carefully, they reasoned.
Sometimes political activists lie - but not always. Sometimes history is just more complicated than you thought.
History is complex. Economics is also complex. The history of the economy is extremely complex. In order to understand it, some relevant facts must be left out and a narrative must be imposed to sift patterns out of the chaos. Add partisanship to the mix, and you will end up with (at least) two very different stories.
Jobs are down. Housing prices are down. Credit is hard to get. Companies are going bankrupt. It's all over the news. What are the causes of this latest recession, and who - if anyone - is to blame? One of the barriers to reaching consensus on how to move forward is that liberals and conservatives are imposing very different narratives on recent history.
Hi, I'm Dan. I like chocolate, hiking, and politics.