I can't see anything in this thread...is there something wrong with the forum?

October 1, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Democrats Work the Factory Floor
By DAVID BROOKS

Hillary Clinton is the front-runner for the next Democratic presidential nomination, but suddenly this is John Edwards’s party. If you look across the states where the party is being defined in 2006, you find candidates who sound a lot more like him than her.

Democrats are running strong Senate campaigns in the upper South (James Webb in Virginia, Harold Ford in Tennessee), in the big job-loss states (Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Claire McCaskill in Missouri) and even in a few places out West (Jon Tester in Montana). And in each case, the candidates are running as factory-floor populists who would throw up if they had to sit through a Renaissance Weekend.

Senator Clinton is a well-educated professional who was influenced by the values politics of the 1960’s and 70’s. But most of today’s strong Democratic candidates are traditionalist manly men who give the impression that if they had been involved in the Chicago riots, they would have been on the side of the cops, not the hippies. The Claritas research firm segments the country into different psychodemographic clusters. Today’s most prominent Democratic candidates are more Mines and Mills than Towns and Gowns.

The Democrats were once a free trade party. But Sherrod Brown wrote a book called “Myths of Free Trade: Why American Trade Policy Has Failed” and most of this year’s strong Democratic candidates rail — like John Edwards — against outsourcing and trade agreements. Their core issue is the economic resentment of the struggling middle class. Brown recently explained the political strategy to a gathering of liberal journalists: “I know that trade issues work with white male, nonunion, culturally conservative voters because they know how anxious trade issues have made them and their families.”

Many of this year’s prominent candidates are also surprisingly nationalist on immigration, playing off concerns about declining wages. “I do believe we must gain control of our borders,” Webb said during a debate. “We also must gain control over corporate America’s use of illegals. This, along with the Iraq war, has been the major failure of this administration.”

On social issues, most of them are not exactly singing from the hymnal of the highly educated coastal elites. “I believe marriage should only be between men and women,” Ford declares on the stump. “I don’t know any better; that’s how I was brought up. We didn’t have any choice. Where I grew up, when you awakened on Sunday, you went to church. ... I learned the faith thing the old-fashioned way.”

On Iraq, most are leaning toward the Edwards position. Unlike Senator Clinton, Edwards has disavowed his earlier support for the war. He calls for an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 troops and complete withdrawal within a year or so. But several candidates are careful to show they are not in the pocket of the A.C.L.U. Both Sherrod Brown and Harold Ford voted with President Bush on the military tribunal bill.

In sum, their message is a long way from the globalized Third Way politics Bill Clinton and Tony Blair exemplified in the 1990’s. It’s also a long way from the secular, multicultural liberalism that has alienated religious voters in droves.

Will it work politically? There’s some evidence that it can. Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report has noticed that so far Democrats are doing surprisingly well in rural America, where this economically progressive, socially traditionalist populism goes down well. Moreover, if Brown’s economic populism can’t win in a factory-decimated state like Ohio in a political climate like the one we have now, then it can’t win anywhere, ever.

And yet Democrats have reason to worry long term. This message is based on a sort of economic nostalgia, what The Economist called a “rose-tinted version of the 1950’s and 1960’s” — when the middle class prospered, families cohered, America dominated, unions thrived, Islam was invisible and immigrants were Irish and Italian.

This nostalgia is certainly common today. In their must-read book, “Applebee’s America,” Doug Sosnik, Matt Dowd and Ron Fournier quote an anxious Michigan voter: “This is going to sound silly, but I wish things were like they were when we were growing up. ... I wish I could go back in time. We had stable lives. Mom could stay home, and we could afford it. Life was slower.”

But nationwide, and in the decades ahead, can a politics that evades the modern realities of Islamic extremism and the skill-based global economy really be the basis of a majority movement? I doubt it.

And yet Democrats have reason to worry long term. This message is based on a sort of economic nostalgia, what The Economist called a “rose-tinted version of the 1950’s and 1960’s” — when the middle class prospered, families cohered, America dominated, unions thrived, Islam was invisible and immigrants were Irish and Italian.

It's paragraph's like this that make me like David Brooks even if he is a Republican. 

This nostalgia is certainly common today. In their must-read book, “Applebee’s America,” Doug Sosnik, Matt Dowd and Ron Fournier quote an anxious Michigan voter: “This is going to sound silly, but I wish things were like they were when we were growing up. ... I wish I could go back in time. We had stable lives. Mom could stay home, and we could afford it. Life was slower.”

Democrats' Risky Strategy:
Trumpeting the Wealth Gap

Candidates Blame Republicans
For Economic Inequality,
Woes of the Middle Class
Tactic Could Alienate Voters
By DEBORAH SOLOMON
October 2, 2006; Page A1

WENTWORTH, N.C. -- Many Democratic politicians, shrugging off lessons of recent political history, see this as the year when the widening gap between the rich and the rest of America will help win them votes.

As a group of his constituents munched on pot roast and buttered green beans in a school cafeteria here, Rep. Brad Miller -- a two-term Democrat seeking re-election in a district spanning rural, suburban and urban communities -- launched into what he believes is a winning pitch.

"People who are doing well are doing very well," he said into a handheld microphone, his tie loosened as he walked among the tables. "The rich are doing just fine. But wages aren't budging for the majority of Americans."


The congressman's words resonate here. Although some voters are prosperous suburbanites, others in this district along the Virginia border have lost textile-mill jobs. They've been forced into lower-paying positions with fewer benefits and scant prospect for raises. Pamela Tucker, a mental-health worker from nearby Reidsville, says she can barely keep up. "Things are worse. The taxes, the price of health care, gas," she says. "People don't have the means."

Other Democrats -- including Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow in a tough re-election fight and Claire McCaskill in her challenge to Missouri incumbent Republican Sen. Jim Talent -- are sounding similar themes: The U.S. economy is growing, but the poor and especially the middle class aren't benefiting. The rich are. And President George W. Bush and a Republican Congress are to blame, they argue.

It's a risky bet. Government data do show an unambiguous trend toward a widening gap between the rich and everyone else, a trend that pre-dates Mr. Bush's election in 2000. And yet U.S. electoral history is littered with Democrats who tried to use the inequality issue only to find voters unswayed and Republicans accusing them of "class warfare" or business-bashing.

"The language of income distribution and income inequality is rarely effective in American politics," says political scientist William Galston, a domestic-policy adviser in the Clinton White House now at the Democratic-leaning Brookings Institution. While Americans may be unhappy that the rich are getting ahead while they're not, most still aspire to be rich and are turned off by candidates who demonize wealth, he says.

"There is little doubt that there has been a 25-year trend of a growing gap, sometimes called income inequality, between the wages of the skilled and the unskilled," says Edward Lazear, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. "While that trend shows no obvious signs of abating in the near future, by some measures inequality has slowed a bit in recent years."

Former Vice President Al Gore touched upon a "people versus the powerful" theme in his unsuccessful 2000 presidential bid. Some strategists say it failed because he didn't push it hard enough. Others say it failed because voters found the message polarizing. During a Democratic Leadership Council forum in 2002, Mr. Gore's running mate, Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, said the strategy made it "more difficult for us to gain support of the middle class, independent voters who don't see America as 'us versus them.'"

Four years later, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's running mate, then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, spoke frequently about "two Americas" in which "one America does the work, while another America reaps the reward." They lost, too.

The one recent Democratic candidate to tap economic angst most successfully was Bill Clinton. He talked often in the 1992 campaign about how well the top 1% were doing while others were falling behind. After winning office, he persuaded Congress to raise taxes on the rich. But even his administration divided on how hard to push the issue after Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994. Two close advisers, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Labor Secretary Robert Reich, sparred over the populist message.

"I had sat in on enough discussions about swing voters to feel that this crucial section of the electorate reacted badly to anything that sounded like class warfare," Mr. Rubin wrote in his book, "In an Uncertain World." Terms like "corporate welfare," a favorite of then Labor Secretary Reich, could inflame voters, Mr. Rubin said.



Many Democrats say this year the message could draw voters. "This is an issue they [Democrats] are talking about and should be talking about," says Stan Greenberg, a Democratic pollster.

While the war in Iraq continues to be a big issue, Mr. Greenberg and other strategists are advising Democratic candidates to talk often about the economic squeeze on their middle-class base. "Most people are seeing continuing financial pressure -- gas prices, health-care costs -- symbols that, when contrasted with the perception that the macro-economy is doing great and CEOs and others are doing very well, help to underscore what's happening and what's not happening," says Mr. Greenberg.



Some Republicans try to debunk the statistics Democrats cite, arguing that they overstate the income gap by looking at wages, while ignoring health and retirement benefits and tax breaks that help the working poor. Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the Republican-leaning American Enterprise Institute, points to an increase in consumer spending as evidence that Americans are doing better than Democratic campaign themes suggest.

Winning Argument

But other Republicans concede that Democrats may have a winning argument when it comes to economic issues this year -- inequality included. "We get clobbered among economy voters," says Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio. "The reason [Democrats] are doing this is they see the people who are uncomfortable about the economy as people who are more likely to vote for them in real numbers."

Since the last recession ended in 2001, the U.S. economy has grown nearly 15%, after inflation. Corporate profits have skyrocketed and the stock market has rebounded. Yet many Americans haven't seen paychecks grow fast enough to keep up with rising prices. While incomes at the top rose, adjusted for inflation, the median household income fell for five years in a row before turning up in 2005. It remains below its 1999 peak. The Census Bureau reports that the top 20% of households claimed 50.4% of all the income in 2005, up from 45.6% in 1985.

Even Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has acknowledged the gap. "Amid this country's strong economic expansion, many Americans simply aren't feeling the benefits. Many aren't seeing significant gains in their take-home pay," he said in an August speech. In another talk, in September, he added, "I believe it is the responsibility for all nations to search for ways to moderate income disparities."

Voters are beginning to take notice of the trend. In early September, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found the "gap between rich and poor" ranked as the No. 2 economic issue -- after "gas prices and energy costs." Voters most often blamed the gap on "excessive salaries and bonuses" and competition from companies and workers overseas. More than half said they disapproved of the way President Bush was handling the economy.

Economists cite a variety of factors for widening inequality. Technology has favored the most skilled and most educated, and hurt the less qualified.

Globalization has brought competition from millions of new workers around the globe, crimping wages for some workers while boosting demand for others. American unions have grown steadily weaker. And social mores have changed, tolerating much wider pay disparities within the same workplace, be it a manufacturer or a law firm.

Figuring out how to reverse the trend poses a problem for policy makers. Most Democratic candidates favor an increase in the minimum wage, modest proposals for college and child-care tax credits, rolling back some of Mr. Bush's tax cuts, and finding ways to shield Americans against rising gas prices. But beyond that, Democrats candidates haven't fleshed out a program for reversing inequality.

The centrist Democratic Leadership Council is pushing what it has dubbed the American Dream Initiative to counter the "mistaken belief that when the wealthy do even better, the middle class will eventually get their share." The plan, championed by New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, among others, also calls for giving every child a $500 savings bond at birth so every American adult will have a nest egg.

While most candidates aren't citing income statistics on the stump, stagnant paychecks are a subtle, yet constant, thread in many campaigns. To skirt accusations of class warfare and business-bashing -- and to court swing voters -- Democrats focus not on the plight of the poor, but on the notion that middle class workers, despite being more productive than ever before, aren't being rewarded for their hard work.

"Unemployment has been low for some time now and it's pretty clear that the working man and woman is pretty unhappy with their lot and it's not because they're unemployed," says Alan Blinder, a Princeton University economist who worked in the Clinton White House and later was vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. "It's a combination of wages aren't going anywhere, people are losing health insurance and their pensions are under threat. And people are feeling it. At the same time, they're reading about this CEO or that CEO walking off with $100 million for managing their company badly."

Most Outspoken

Among the most outspoken on the issue of inequality is Rep. Miller, a 53-year-old lawyer and former North Carolina state legislator. He has seized on the issue in stump speeches. He has peppered Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and former Chairman Alan Greenspan with questions about inequality at House hearings. He frequently mentions the names and salaries of highly-paid CEOs in speeches and on the House floor.

Mr. Miller told the Wentworth crowd, for instance, that CEOs make an average of $14 million a year. "Do we see the world through the eyes of Lee Raymond, who just left Exxon Mobil, making $145,000 per day or do we see it through the eyes of the guys working for $545 per week?" he asked. "That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats."

While Mr. Miller is talking about wages, the conservative Republican underdog, Vernon Robinson, a former Winston-Salem city councilman dubbed by the local press as "the black Jesse Helms," is focusing on social issues -- particularly illegal immigration and making English the official U.S. language. He says he hasn't heard much concern from voters about wages, and terms Mr. Miller's focus on CEO pay "pretty esoteric," adding, "He's saying 'vote for me. I'll make sure your boss gets paid less.' "

Other Democratic candidates are doing much the same as Mr. Miller, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest, where the economy is a big issue. In central Ohio, Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy, challenging Republican incumbent Rep. Deborah Pryce, talks frequently on the stump about gas prices, health-care costs and the minimum wage.

"I know how parents feel trying to put their kids through college. I hear all the time how it costs $60 a week to fill up my car and how health care is an enormous cost for all people," Ms. Kilroy, a Franklin County commissioner, said in an interview. Ohioans, she said, are "upset with the economy and Congress and their willingness to give these tax breaks for the super wealthy and burden future generations with the deficit."

At a rally at Ohio State University earlier this year, Ms. Kilroy accused Ms. Pryce of "supporting deep cuts to student loans that will put college out of reach for some lower- and middle-class students."

Ms. Pryce's office says she has never supported cuts to student-loan programs. "Kilroy's campaign has been consistently negative on everything," says her spokesman, George Rasley. "So the fact that they would be negative on the economic situation in Columbus -- by some measures the seventh-best economy in the country -- is no surprise even though it's a big lie." Polls show Ms. Kilroy and Ms. Pryce neck-and-neck.

On the stump in Missouri, Ms. McCaskill, in a stiff race to unseat Sen. Talent, railed against Washington policies that protect "millionaires" at the expense of the middle class. She has proposed a middle-class tax-relief package, arguing that "Missouri's middle class has been overlooked while the Bush administration has given billions in tax cuts to big corporations and millionaires." She has called for an increase in the minimum wage, and criticized Republicans' eagerness to cut the estate tax.

Her campaign rhetoric sums up her message. "Washington should stop taking care of millionaires and start taking care of the middle class."

Write to Deborah Solomon at deborah.solomon@wsj.com1

  URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115974952102879543.html

Does populism necessarily equal protectionism?

I think that it would be hard to be populist and for free trade at all costs, but I would say no to this question.  It seems pretty clear that any good populism would have to rely on a lot more than protectionism, and I think that free trade with protections for labor rights and environmental protections could go along with a populist program. 

So I reject Brooks' premise.  The key point of populism is to oppose inequality.  And even the moderate conservative economic columnist Robert Samuelson wrote a recent column worrying about inequality, so I think that this is a very live issue. 

As far as Brooks' smug last sentence goes, he starts off by sneering at things we should value, like a strong middle class, thriving unions, and strong families, and ends by taking what I frankly think are racist cheap shots, implying that Latino and Muslim immigrants are somehow more of a problem than those of ethnicities that "look more like us" and demonizing Islam, probably alluding to that fraudulent bogeyman, "Islamofascism."

Republicans win and steal elections based on racist cheap shots.

Personally it should be a global society, with global trade and worrying about the pay and rights of all worldwide, not just this country. You can't bottle the country up after opening it up. You have to find solutions to the problem

You also can't build fences and think the problems disappear, just wastes money on fences people climb over or cut through

Woah! I'm agreeing with Graham for a change.

But it's not just Republicans that use race. It's the upper class against populism. It's used to divide the poor. Although the upper class is smart enough to know that racism is ignorant, they use it in the hope that other ignorant people will respond. They use it against each other in the reverse, that is, accuse each other of being racists. They use it to confuse issues that have little to do with race, like the border crisis, to make the poor conservatives feel threatened by race while at the same time making poor liberals feel ashamed for being in sensitive to race.

OMG! Graham has taken off the individualist's goggles and is seeing the holism of the matter.

I agree with this too. There is three camps in this conflict, Global Socialists, Global Fascists and Isolationists.

Global Socialists accept that globalization is inevitable, but want it to slow down so they can build unions and pass laws for fair and humane global use of labor.
Global Fascists accept that globalization is inevitable and want to speed it up so they can build privatized power structures and exploit underdeveloped nations (even own them), before global socialist can get laws or unions in place to prevent global fascism.
Isolationists deny that globalization is inevitable, and think they can stop both. It's the isolationist who want to build fences.

Fences work if the community is self-sustaining and isolated, meaning no entry or exit. But if you add the port to the fence, you are looking for a gated-community. This is what global fascists want, a gate that they can close for protection, but open when ever they need to exploit the people and resources outside the gate. They don't want a global community. They want a country-club community that takes advantage of the larger poor community surrounding the club.

But if you understand that the world is one big society, a gated-community is an oxymoron.

But nationwide, and in the decades ahead, can a politics that evades the modern realities of Islamic extremism and the skill-based global economy really be the basis of a majority movement? I doubt it.

Should the Democrats use class-based rhetoric?  Would they be serious about class issues if they did?  What income level do you consider "the poor?"  "the middle class?" "the wealthy" or "the elites?"

Another question:

How do you use class-based rhetoric without making it sound like you hate rich people?

This will always be relative. People for the most part know who falls in what category, including themselves.

BTW, the "elites" are a social class more than an economic class. I wouldn't put them in with the previous three you mentioned.
We do need to avoid demonizing the rich or even the ruling class. For the most part, we are talking about a class of people who wouldn't admit to being a part of that class. Maybe we should call them the oppressive class.

I wouldn't call them oppressive because I don't think they are necessarily trying to oppress people.  They are just pursuing their own self-interest.

Another question:

How do you use class-based rhetoric without making it sound like you hate rich people?

Whether they try or not, the effect is the same.

Their self-interest often requires oppressing people to achieve the level of success they desire.

Whether they try or not, the effect is the same.

Their self-interest often requires oppressing people to achieve the level of success they desire.

Like this:
America has always been a nation that cares for for all of its citizens. The principle is enshrined in the Consitution as "promoting the general welfare."  but some among us don't want to promote the general welfare, they are greedy and refuse to pull their part of the load, expecting other to do their work for them. They want to ride for free on roads that YOUR taxes pay for. They want THEIR kids to get the best education for YOUR tax dollar, but they want YOUR kid to learn nothing at all.  We do not hate any american.  But we expect every american to pay his fair share.  We do not want to balance our budget on the backs of the poor and downtrodden, we want to lift up the poor so that they too can share in the abundance of America.

So, you want to use a fairness argument?  Your last sentence though will never fly because you're trying to appeal to the altruism of people in the middle class who will have to pick up the bulk of the burden and they don't want to pay for the poor, who they quite often feel are freeloaders.

So, you want to use a fairness argument?  Your last sentence though will never fly because you're trying to appeal to the altruism of people in the middle class who will have to pick up the bulk of the burden and they don't want to pay for the poor, who they quite often feel are freeloaders.

Many people in the middle class drive SUVs even though they use more energy and have more emissions, thereby increasing global warming.  Poor people in developing countries burn rain forests to make farms so they can survive, depleting vital natural resources and also increasing global warming.  Aren't these people engaging in similar behavior to the wealthy?

that sounds elitist to me.

I don't think the poor are freeloaders. I don't buy the whole crap that anyone "wants" to be on welfare

that sounds elitist to me.

I don't think the poor are freeloaders. I don't buy the whole crap that anyone "wants" to be on welfare

Well, you may be more generous than some people.  I know of many people who think people on welfare and who don't have jobs are freeloaders.

beamer619:

To respond to your latest inquiry---

I think you adopt a populist theme which is inclusive of everyone...a theme which promotes economic prosperity for all people --- but an economic theory which I believe is more Keynesian focusing on increasing demand rather than supply ---

You increase demand by giving the non-savers more money --- thus tax policy should favor giving a greater amount of tax cuts to the lower and middle classes who have less of an ability to save in the present economoic climate --- they will purchase stimulating demand --- the upper class will get rich from sales --- and the expansion of the economy from increased demand --- so they do not need the tax cuts to stimulate their investment --- their returns will come in terms of dividends and creating supply to meet the demand...

Trickle down economics does not work...I think that has been clearly demonstrated with the Bush tax cuts and the Reagan tax cuts...

You increase demand by giving the non-savers more money --- thus tax policy should favor giving a greater amount of tax cuts to the lower and middle classes who have less of an ability to save in the present economoic climate --- they will purchase stimulating demand --- the upper class will get rich from sales --- and the expansion of the economy from increased demand --- so they do not need the tax cuts to stimulate their investment --- their returns will come in terms of dividends and creating supply to meet the demand...

Appeasement of the rich...by taking away their tax cuts as Kerry proposed --- that's appeasement of the rich...and making permanent middle class tax cuts --- that appeasement of the rich...

How do you propose creating an economy which creates more high quality private sector jobs with health benefits than the present one? for them which is better than what a tax cut might give them...

What do you call what happens if you give more tax cuts to the lower and middle classes who need all the money they can get to get by because of the economic stresses they are suffering under?

They do not save the money --- they spend the money ---- and what does spending the money do --- if they buy products and services --- it increases demand...which results in the need to increase supply...which increaes the bottom line for small and large businesses creating a boon for them which is better than what a tax cut might give them...

When you reduce supply --- demand does not increase --- demand is constant --- there is just the same demand and a lesser supply...and selling products that aren't needed would likely not be purchased so I do not see how you think a demand will be increased for a product which is unnecessary...

I can agree with you that tax cuts take money out of the system for programs --- but that is why any new cuts for the middle class i suggest would be paid for by allowing the cuts to the wealthy to expire --- while making them permanent for the middles and lower class --- and additional cuts would come out of a portion of the tax cuts that expire for the wealthy ---

As far as privatization goes --- I just do not see where this comes into the discussion --- if we are cutting the tax cuts for the wealthy unless you are trying to suggest that any private sector purchases constitute some sort of privatization which is a quite unique definition of the term...

The middle class and the poor do need more money --- you might not think so --- but as you state we can not protect them from price increases which the owners of the products and services can raise at will --- and unless you expect government to get into the business of providing alternatives products and services I do not see how in a capitalist/corporatist economy you think that government can provide the level of relief you suggest is necessary unless it adopts a much more socialist approach...

I don't know if you're just pulling my leg and love engaging in verbal gymnastics with me or what --- but you and I will never see eye to eye on the increasing demand issue...

Demand shifts when more people want something and they can afford it --- if you give people more money --- and they are not going to save it --- then they are going to spend that --- and it will have the result of increasing demand --- the response of an increase in demand is a need for greater supply by the marketplace ---

To increase demand you can either reduce the price (or provide the consumer who desires a product a substitute for a reduced price --- more money to purchase it....

When more people want something, the quantity demanded at all prices will tend to increase. This can be referred to as an increase in demand. The increase in demand could also come from changing tastes, where the same consumers desire more of the same good than they previously did. Increased demand can be represented on the graph as the curve being shifted right, because at each price point, a greater quantity is demanded. An example of this would be more people suddenly wanting more coffee. This will cause the demand curve to shift from the initial curve D0 to the new curve D1. This raises the equilibrium price from P0 to the higher P1. This raises the equilibrium quantity from Q0 to the higher Q1. In this situation, we say that there has been an increase in demand which has caused an extension in supply.

Conversely, if the demand decreases, the opposite happens. If the demand starts at D1 and then decreases to D0, the price will decrease and the quantity supplied will decrease—a contraction in supply. Notice that this is purely an effect of demand changing. The quantity supplied at each price is the same as before the demand shift (at both Q0 and Q1). The reason that the equilibrium quantity and price are different is the demand is different.

(I am against interference in businesses unless they are doing something dangerous

then they should be brought to the courts and made to conform to the rule of law.

Pro-life.
Anti-capital punishment.
Equality of opportunity for all.
Live and let live
Separation of the state from religion, and also from interference in the home.

Taz, don't take this as an insult. I usually find your posts intelligently rational. But this one seems to be the least rational of your posts. Before you take it as an insult, just consider that it's only relative to your posts. Relatively speaking, one of them has to be the least rational of yours. This may be the one:You are equating wants with needs. How many things do you have, that you didn't need, that you thought you needed or just  bought because you wanted them?

You say demand does not increase when supply is reduced? Demand is relative to supply or the lack thereof. Demand is never constant unless you are thinking statically. But we live in a dynamic reality. Demand is the sum of wants and needs at any given time. Wants fluctuate even when needs are constant. Even when want's do not fluctuate, population does.

When want's increase, demand increases. Wants are maid to increase by advertising. That's why we are buying so many things that we don't need now.

When demand is lower than supply, the rate of consumption and price goes up, if not both. When supply meets need, people still want more. The rate of consumption and prices will only drop after much surplus and waste has been inflicted on the economy.

Tax cuts for the middle class and lower class are better than tax cuts for the wealthy. But neither are good for the governing of either if it's at the expense of a needed government program. Republicans cut taxes by cutting needed programs. We can prioritize tax cuts all day. But considering the programs that are underfunded in the government, there shouldn't be any tax cuts at all.

I can see talking about tax-breaks on a case-by-case basis (e.g. tax breaks for single parents, tax breaks for businesses that don't outsource), but not tax breaks for the sake of putting money into hands that may just blow it on wasteful spending. If it's not targeted to stimulate a particular part of the economy, it's just buying votes at the expense of government programs. It doesn't help the middle-class or the poor.

Tax breaks should only occur if all of government is operating efficiently enough to create a surplus of money. If any part of government is operating inefficiently due to underfunding, there shouldn't be any tax breaks, only reallocation of funds. If you remember the budget surplus debate in 2000, that was a debate over where funds should be reallocated. Instead, fools bought into GWB's "it's your money" position and took it out of government. And then programs like NCLB were underfunded. Hmmmmmm

Think about it. Government programs are to fulfill recognized public needs. Taxes are the only way government programs are paid for. If you take the money out of the government programs, those programs will most-likely fail. Putting the money back into private hands doesn't mean that money will go to better use. And if corporations know that there is an influx of what they perceive as "disposable income", they will most-likely raise prices to negate the effects of a stimulated economy. Just because American businesses make money, doesn't mean the American general public will benefit. Our economy is bad, but our richest 1% owns more than small countries abroad. Go figure.

Now supposing those public needs are fulfilled, a surplus is generated,  and the program is cut. It's a question of what to do with the money. The government should first ask if there are other underfunded programs that need the money and only consider tax cuts if all programs are sufficiently funded.

Now supposing a program is not working. Is the answer to cut it or fix it? If you cut it when there is still a public need, only the private sector businesses or non-profit agencies are left to fulfill the need. Neither has access to the resources of the government. So it is less likely that either has the  potential to operate as efficiently or cost effectively as the government. And if the for-profit businesses are left to fill the need, it will become secondary to making a profit. It may even be more-profitable (on paper) to let the general public believe that a need is being fulfilled than actually fulfilling it. That's why we have things that are built to break-down after the warranty. There's a risk that a for-profit company will "create demand" by creating an artificial crisis that only they can resolve. A drug company can spread a disease that they have a patented cure for.

Do you like that Diebold owns a big chunk of our election system? Do you like no-bid contracts to the Haliburtons, Enrons, and Chevrons of the world. That's what privatization gets you.

That's why it needs to adopt a more socialist approach.

I'm not just pulling your leg. If we never see eye-to-eye, it's because you are a capitalist and I am a socialist. The fine line difference between a capitalist and a socialist is where they look first to solve problems. A capitalist looks to money first, everything else second. A socialist looks at using everything else before money because they know that money corrupts.

I'm sure big business owners would like you to believe that spending is a sign of a good economy, but it's not.

As I mentioned before, there are two parts of a demand. Giving people money doesn't necessarily increase needs, but most-likely increases wants. The economy that wants more than it needs is not spending as wisely. It's not the increased supply or increased spending that makes an economy good. It's wise spending of any amount that makes a economy good, no matter how big or small the economy is. Having a large economy is nothing to brag about if the economy is not self-sustaining.

A good economy is self-sustaining. A great economy exports more than it imports. An economy that spends a lot, especially one that exports more than it imports, is a bad economy. An economy that has to borrow to sustain it's spending habit is even worse.

Reducing prices may increase demand by increasing wants through exposure. But that only means one of two things. Either the product was overpriced and people knew it, or the product was fairly priced and people didn't know it. In either case the product probably wasn't needed as much as it was wanted if people didn't buy it at the original price.

Now if its a product that was needed and didn't get the exposure it needed, that's a different story. That is a marketing problem, not an economics problem. The demand was already there, just disconnected from the supply. The solution is not to increase supply or reduce prices. The solution is better marketing.

That's why I say increasing demand is not healthy. It's just making wants exceed needs unnecessarily. Meeting demand is healthy if the demand is based on needs.

This says nothing about how increasing demand would help an economy. My original point to you was that deliberately increasing demand doesn't help an economy. It's just inefficient.

This is not to say that efficiency is always the goal. Extravagance is not efficient, but it's part of enjoying life. But if you can enjoy life without extravagant indulging, than you are more efficient than most. In either case, people in failing economy such as ours should be striving for efficiency more than extravagance.

Do you think that it is possible that people in the lower and middle class are putting off infrastructure repairs to their homes and businesses, health care appointments, buying a new car, getting braces for their kids, and many other things that they need to have done -- things that are needs more than wants because of a down economy --- a lackluster economy --- an economy where they have not seen appreciable wage increases?

I will grant you that when you reduce supply demand for that supply increases...but I think you have to grant me that if a company has been selling 100 widgets for 5 years and then reduces its supply to 50 --- and there is a demand still for 100 widgets --- demand has remained constant --- despite a reduction in supply...the scarcity of the supply will cause prices to go up --- but the demand has not increased...relatively speaking...true?

Your wants and needs discussion I believe supports my point and perhaps I was not clear in my language --- we live in a materialistic society with a ton of wants and needs --- and any new money that comes into a household in a lower and middle class family --- tends to go right out again and is spent...

You mention how when the supply is reduced -- the price goes up --- well as people get more money from tax cuts and their wants and needs increase -- doesn't business increase supply to meet demand if that is possible without diminishing returns -- to increase profits...

Well, if they do --- then that may require more raw materials and resources... and thus the need for jobs...etc.

The whole idea between supply side economics is to have those at the top receiving the greatest tax cuts reinvest their tax cuts in the economy --- granted its a theory and it is a defunct theory because there comes a point when owners of production decide to save and not invest in increasing the means of prodction --- which is part of what happened with the last round of Bush tax cuts where little job growth occurred...at least very little compared to the amount of revenue the federal government pumped into the economy...

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that it can work the other way ---

And in our materialistic society --- it can particularly work well --- since there is so little saving...

Thanks for the economics lesson. I think everything you're saying here is also consistent with a Democratically Regulated Market Economy and avoid calling it Socialism, which tends to set off a round of name calling. Socialistic shouldn't be considered a dirty word--any more than Liberal should be, but it is.

Precisely why the word should be used. Fear of using the word makes it dirty along with it's concept.

If you just let the right-wing reframe our language, it doesn't just kill the language. It kills the concepts. If I were to convert the word "sex" into a dirty word, the effect wouldn't lead to a better word to describe sex. The effect would be more people pre-conditioned to believe that sex is dirty under any circumstances.

As long as the concepts of liberalism and socialism are not dirty, I refuse to let the words be made dirty.