I make my living off of rich people's spending. They give me an opportunity to practice my particular craft, which gives me a great deal of satisfaction. It is the work not the money that gives me satisfaction. Being happily employed is the important thing. I don't want to live an ostentatious lifestyle. If the rich man wants a yacht, that will employ naval architects, metal workers, engine builders, radar builders, uphostery workers, deck hands, captains, marinas and all their workers. The multiplier effects that yacht purchase are countless. Many people are employed, hopefully getting fulfilled by a sense of satisfaction in their work. I am anyway. It's obvious that this is good for humanity.
Would it be better to prevent the rich man from acquiring enough money to buy a yacht and handing that money out to people who don't work? They miss out on something that can make us very happy - using one's skills to accomplish something. Even menial work for a paycheck occupies the time and prevents the boredom and the feeling of worthlessness that leads to depression and addiction.
This completely misses the point. Your life could be so much better. Just because you like being a subordinate follower, doesn’t mean everyone else should be trapped in that same situation. I’m a serial entrepreneur that hates being employed by wealthy people and large corporations. Your life sounds boring as fuck.
You are disregarding that wealth is currently distributed along an exponential curve, with the lowest 50% of people collectively having 2.4% of all wealth. That’s an absurd ratio and not good for almost all people.
You also assume that people that oppose your views don’t work hard and would just take handouts. What about those born to the labor class that bust their ass and get almost nothing in return? Plenty of us are entrepreneurs that are stuck in a system where they can’t build innovative businesses without having to beg or borrow from the ultra wealthy.
For example, I’ve dedicated my life to decreasing the prevalence of neurodegenerative diseases and generational trauma. It’s some of the most valuable and challenging work a person could do. Despite that, it’s incredibly difficult to get funding to work on these important problems. And if I do decide to work with investors, they are often far less brilliant than I am, don’t know anything about the emerging technology I’m working with, and want to exploit my labor to get a far greater return than I would get. I’m the one working hard and knows how to solve these problems. They were almost always just born with wealth or privilege.
Please trust me that wealthy people are not smarter or harder workers than the labor class. That is a fallacy. I’ve met many of them. Most super rich people remind me of arrogant brats that think they are evolutionarily superior. It’s gross.
You are on point; those who are born in the labor class that bust their ass and get almost nothing in the end. They cannot get even enough to get out of the hole to make life better. Love your comment!
While wretched excess may be both disdained and at the same time envied, it seems to me that the vacuum left by those who might mend their trickle down ways will only be filled by government. An exchange lacking betterment.
Horse and sparrow presupposes two extremes. The elite horses are blinded by self interest to the plight of the hapless sparrows. But what of the many of us in the middle ground? Does "sufficiency" make us innocent bystanders, or culpable through inaction?
I don't recall ever encountering an advocate of "trickle down" economics. The term seems only ever to be used by people who wish to criticise a tax cut (or similar) by saying the cut was motivated by the "trickle down" theory. This language seems to lend moral credence to the critic because the notion of wealth "trickling down" is so offensive.
Wealthy people get wealthy by selling something to everyone else. In order to make those sales, "everyone else" needs to have money to buy more. Governments who supposedly favour the wealthy know that. That is why no government - least of all those on the right - advocates policies in the belief that they will benefit the economy by trickling down.
I am writing this a few weeks after the article was written. The Labour Party has recently said that it won't raise the top rate of income tax or impose wealth taxes. So there is a bit of a cross-party agreement (once again) that there is a limit to how much one can make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.
I am glad that I found this brilliant essay. We as a society are moving in another direction by taking out the social sciences not to produce more thinkers but blind followers. I am truly grateful for putting this out for the poverty stricken people who cannot afford to buy the real books. ❤️
I am honestly not well versed in economics but so appreciate this article. It highlights history and human vulnerability specifically in relationship to financial systems . I look forward to reading more of your work. It was truly an engaging read .
Yet if one small sparrow falls to the ground our Creator knows all about it! How do you thinks he feels when sees the death of his creation Humans being killed by the Evil Elites in any why they can? They are in deep trouble I can’t hide from what’s going for them!
Yes, but ... A well-written essay, however it assumes that wealth is hoarded all for the benefit of the wealth-maker. Some of us try to accumulate as much as we can, still living an “average” lifestyle, all the while knowing that we can’t take it with us. So what’s the point? The answer is that we see the way the “average” people are constantly getting squeezed, and we want to help our children be in a position to weather that situation when we’re gone. Changing economic policies to help alleviate this might actually work, but certainly not in the short-term. If someone decides I have “too much”, I can give them the finger and move on; if they tell me I have to let my kids live a difficult life (than they would without my help) when I’m gone, that’s a non-starter.
I think the word trickle is the one to focus on. It’s what Howard focuses on. Trickle. The idea that accumulated wealth goes down in miniscule amounts, unfocused, eventually finding its way to where it may be most needed.
I make my living off of rich people's spending. They give me an opportunity to practice my particular craft, which gives me a great deal of satisfaction. It is the work not the money that gives me satisfaction. Being happily employed is the important thing. I don't want to live an ostentatious lifestyle. If the rich man wants a yacht, that will employ naval architects, metal workers, engine builders, radar builders, uphostery workers, deck hands, captains, marinas and all their workers. The multiplier effects that yacht purchase are countless. Many people are employed, hopefully getting fulfilled by a sense of satisfaction in their work. I am anyway. It's obvious that this is good for humanity.
Would it be better to prevent the rich man from acquiring enough money to buy a yacht and handing that money out to people who don't work? They miss out on something that can make us very happy - using one's skills to accomplish something. Even menial work for a paycheck occupies the time and prevents the boredom and the feeling of worthlessness that leads to depression and addiction.
This completely misses the point. Your life could be so much better. Just because you like being a subordinate follower, doesn’t mean everyone else should be trapped in that same situation. I’m a serial entrepreneur that hates being employed by wealthy people and large corporations. Your life sounds boring as fuck.
You are disregarding that wealth is currently distributed along an exponential curve, with the lowest 50% of people collectively having 2.4% of all wealth. That’s an absurd ratio and not good for almost all people.
You also assume that people that oppose your views don’t work hard and would just take handouts. What about those born to the labor class that bust their ass and get almost nothing in return? Plenty of us are entrepreneurs that are stuck in a system where they can’t build innovative businesses without having to beg or borrow from the ultra wealthy.
For example, I’ve dedicated my life to decreasing the prevalence of neurodegenerative diseases and generational trauma. It’s some of the most valuable and challenging work a person could do. Despite that, it’s incredibly difficult to get funding to work on these important problems. And if I do decide to work with investors, they are often far less brilliant than I am, don’t know anything about the emerging technology I’m working with, and want to exploit my labor to get a far greater return than I would get. I’m the one working hard and knows how to solve these problems. They were almost always just born with wealth or privilege.
Please trust me that wealthy people are not smarter or harder workers than the labor class. That is a fallacy. I’ve met many of them. Most super rich people remind me of arrogant brats that think they are evolutionarily superior. It’s gross.
You are on point; those who are born in the labor class that bust their ass and get almost nothing in the end. They cannot get even enough to get out of the hole to make life better. Love your comment!
While wretched excess may be both disdained and at the same time envied, it seems to me that the vacuum left by those who might mend their trickle down ways will only be filled by government. An exchange lacking betterment.
Horse and sparrow presupposes two extremes. The elite horses are blinded by self interest to the plight of the hapless sparrows. But what of the many of us in the middle ground? Does "sufficiency" make us innocent bystanders, or culpable through inaction?
Happy Anniversary Howard...!
Speaking truth to power. Thanks for this insightful essay!
We're far too human for our own good.
The Moral to the Story is “ High and Mighty Horse Asses don’t really care about us little sparrows!”
The strength of a ruler is determined by the weakness of the ruled.
I don't recall ever encountering an advocate of "trickle down" economics. The term seems only ever to be used by people who wish to criticise a tax cut (or similar) by saying the cut was motivated by the "trickle down" theory. This language seems to lend moral credence to the critic because the notion of wealth "trickling down" is so offensive.
Wealthy people get wealthy by selling something to everyone else. In order to make those sales, "everyone else" needs to have money to buy more. Governments who supposedly favour the wealthy know that. That is why no government - least of all those on the right - advocates policies in the belief that they will benefit the economy by trickling down.
I am writing this a few weeks after the article was written. The Labour Party has recently said that it won't raise the top rate of income tax or impose wealth taxes. So there is a bit of a cross-party agreement (once again) that there is a limit to how much one can make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.
I am glad that I found this brilliant essay. We as a society are moving in another direction by taking out the social sciences not to produce more thinkers but blind followers. I am truly grateful for putting this out for the poverty stricken people who cannot afford to buy the real books. ❤️
I am honestly not well versed in economics but so appreciate this article. It highlights history and human vulnerability specifically in relationship to financial systems . I look forward to reading more of your work. It was truly an engaging read .
Yet if one small sparrow falls to the ground our Creator knows all about it! How do you thinks he feels when sees the death of his creation Humans being killed by the Evil Elites in any why they can? They are in deep trouble I can’t hide from what’s going for them!
Yes, but ... A well-written essay, however it assumes that wealth is hoarded all for the benefit of the wealth-maker. Some of us try to accumulate as much as we can, still living an “average” lifestyle, all the while knowing that we can’t take it with us. So what’s the point? The answer is that we see the way the “average” people are constantly getting squeezed, and we want to help our children be in a position to weather that situation when we’re gone. Changing economic policies to help alleviate this might actually work, but certainly not in the short-term. If someone decides I have “too much”, I can give them the finger and move on; if they tell me I have to let my kids live a difficult life (than they would without my help) when I’m gone, that’s a non-starter.
I think the word trickle is the one to focus on. It’s what Howard focuses on. Trickle. The idea that accumulated wealth goes down in miniscule amounts, unfocused, eventually finding its way to where it may be most needed.
Fabulous piece of writing, thank you.
Just beautiful!