It’s trickle down macroeconomics. The basic tenet of capitalism is that the free movement and expansion of capital and resources is necessary for production, for job creation, etc. The more brakes you put on, the slower money moves, innovation is discouraged, everyone loses. Only that understanding doesn’t analyze the relative efficiencies or fairness of resource allocation to begin with. In capitalism, the foundational belief of economics is amoral - we don’t analyze how people acquired the resources they have, and we don’t consider whether they deserve them, or if they could be better used elsewhere. We just move forward - what are they going to do with their resources?
It's a religion at this point. Way too many Americans will root for growth that doesn't help them and often harms them.
plama how is your CT not even 3/4 done after almost two weeks
How’s the new album
I'm not trying to be purposefully incomplete, but I am trying to be realistic about what can be accomplished. The wealthy aren't going to just give it all away, so I suggest finding strategies that allow everyone to benefit from growing the pie. (Yes, that's the thinking that got us to where we are, but that's because it was poorly executed.)
One thing that I think isn't well captured in the well-being metrics is economic security. Our middle class is incredibly rich relative to the rest of the world, and metrics that show living standards are generally going to reflect that. But I think it's much easier for the bottom to fall out for someone here. One big mistake or unexpected illness and you can end up pretty fucked. That kind of thing isn't going to show up in metrics looking at aggregate data.
