What the GOP Calls "The Economy" Isn't Really the Economy

[SecularMotion]

If Democrats want to limit their losses in November, it might be a good idea to start pointing out that, of the two parties, Democrats are the ones who give a damn.

Because Republicans clearly don't. Faced with massive unemployment and a sluggish economy, the Republican's plan is worse than nothing -- do everything that hasn't been working, but do more of it. According to Laura Bassett of the Huffington Post, "The Economic Freedom Act of 2010 -- introduced by Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) -- proposes deep tax cuts favoring the wealthiest in America, a reduction in regulatory oversight and the elimination of a federal tax on the estates of millionaires, which will allow wealthy investors to escape taxes entirely on a significant portion of their income." I guess if there's one group in America who really need a handout right now, it's those Kurt Vonnegut once described as the "fabulously well-to-do." If you need a refresher course on how Republican supply-side economics works, Stephen Colbert recently explained it -- pretty damned accurately, by the way. Put less comedically, supply-siders believe that everyone other than the wealthy live off the crumbs the rich leave at the table, so the rich need a huge banquet every night. The unspoken assumption is that, unless you're a captain of industry, you're not actually doing anything for the economy. Big People who do Big Things are the sole drivers of employment and economic growth.

Where has this thinking gotten us? Well, Bush subscribed to this idea and, as a direct result, had the worst record of jobs growth since jobs numbers began being tracked. So, of course, Republicans argue we have to do more of that. It may not have worked at any point up until now, but this time for sure.

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/125/476/Wisco_What_the_GOP_Calls_The_Economy_Isnt_Really_the_Economy.html

[RandomThoughts]

1. What I find really fascinating is the concept of serving the economy.

The economy is a system that has effects, and conditions some actions above others, and rewards some actions above others.

It really isn't much more then that. As far as job creation, that is done either by demand or stimulus, you could argue that wealthy people crate jobs by discretionary spending when they want to expand with investment, but that is no different then government stimulus if not driven by demand.

However it is different by who decides where spending occurs, should it be people that are capable of making money in a system, including what the system requires to make money, or should where spending occurs be from consensus of society.

That is really much of the debate. If you argue that people have much money because they are suppose to, or because it means they have the some talent that allows them to better decide where that money should go, then you support private sector oligarchy.

If you think a consensus of many people in all of society should decide where money is spent then you support some form of societal government.

There are some arguments about efficiency since the profit motive makes more production per unit of business, but that would only matter in a world with more demand then supply. But the profit motive can also add a higher level of corruption into that sector.