"The Fine Print", by Michael Schrader

<span style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>"The Fine Print", by Michael Schrader

<o:p></o:p></span>

<span style='font-size:14.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Whwhat Is the Rust

Is The Trickle Down Theory Just A Fairy Tale?

(Written and posted 05 August 2008)<o:p></o:p>

Okay, let’s play make-believe for a few minutes here. Suppose I am a wealthy dude, and I have more than enough money to live very comfortably for the rest of my life. Suppose that suddenly I receive a $40 million windfall. What should I do with the money? I already have plenty of money, enough to live very well, so I really don’t need any more, as the extra money will not really enhance my lifestyle. How about I give it away? I don’t really need the money, so the right thing to do would be to give it to those who do. I could give 40 people $1 million each. Why stop there? I could give 400 people $100,000 each, and to most people, $100,000 is a lot of money. That would be 400 people who would be able to enjoy a better life; kind of makes you feel good inside, knowing you have helped other, you know? But why stop there? I could give 4000 people $10,000. That’s not a huge chunk of money, but to most people, $10,000 is still not chump change. So, one person took a windfall, and because it wasn’t needed, gave it to 4000 people who did, and those 4000 spent it on various necessities, and because they spent it, merchants got some of it, and they gave some to other merchants or their employees, and so on, resulting in a big economic chain reaction, with the result being many many people’s lives are improved. This is what is called the “Trickle Down Theory”, and it is just that, a theory. While this scenario does sound great, it does not reflect reality. The reality is that even though I do not need the $40 million windfall, I keep it all for myself, thereby helping no one else.

You will hear conservatives drone on and on about Ronald Reagan and his trickle down theory, that if I cut taxes on the rich, they will take that extra money and give it to those less fortunate, the economy will be stimulated, and everybody wins and we will all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. Of course, in retrospect, we know that that never happened and that the trickle down theory is nothing but a fantasy. After Reagan cut taxes, there was indeed a boost in economic activity – in Mexico, India, China, and a host of other countries. When the big corporations got tax breaks, they invested it – overseas. Or in oil futures. Or in the stock market. It was invested in ways that the money grew, but the growth only benefitted the select few who got the tax breaks, not the many. Sure, there were some who were altruistic, and gave the money back to the poor, but they were very few and far between. The rest kept it all for themselves. Let them eat cake!

Do you remember Enron? The corporation took its money and sent it into overseas accounts, out of the reach of Uncle Sam. Then, the executives, in cahoots with Wall Street, drove the price of the stock into the stratosphere. For good measure, the executives stole from their own employees through 401k and stock investment programs, assuring the poor schmucks that they’d be rich beyond their wildest dreams because the stock was worth so much, all the while looting the company of all of its assets and transferring them to those overseas accounts. When they were done thieving from their employees (who gave the company money through stock purchases as part of their retirement plan), they dumped their shares of stock, causing to value the plummet. Boom! That was the end of Enron! Of course, many of the culprits are living the high life, while the employees were left with nothing. Some trickle down, eh?

Trickle down only works if those who have and get more are altruistic and compassionate. They aren’t. Look around you. There are people who could make such a difference in a lot of lives. There are people who own things they don’t really need, they own them just for the sake of owning them, and many times they just lock them away under lock and key in a warehouse somewhere, while at the same time there are people who need those things who are denied them because of the greed and gluttony of those few. While I don’t advocate socialism in the least bit (if you are lazy you don’t deserve to eat, period), I don’t advocate needless greed and gluttony and hoarding of resources just because you can; there must be a balance. If you do your research, you will find that Barack Obama advocates socialism, the forced redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have-nots, and given the pointless greed, gluttony, and narcissism of the haves, this message has a very very strong appeal. Socialism leads to Zimbabwe, where the government has thrown land owners off of their land and giving it to others. If we want to preserve capitalism and property rights then it behooves the haves to take long hard look at themselves, exercise self-restraint, and make the trickle down theory a practical reality. The choice is yours – self restraint or the forced confiscation of property by the government. If we end up with the latter, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

<span style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>BACK TO "THE FINE PRINT" INDEX</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><o:p></o:p></span> <span style='font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> <o:p></o:p></span> <span style='font-size:12.0pt'></NOSCRIPT><o:p></o:p></span></div><script language="JavaScript" src="http://hostingprod.com/js_source/geov2.js"></script><script language="javascript">