There's no sin, obviously, in making a profit. It's 'what' some people do to obtain it and do with it that's the problem. People progressively down the 'profit' ladder have to put their money straight back into the economy without a chance of hanging onto it with promises of spreading their 'profit' how they see fit. Where, exactly, are all of these jobs globally that have been created with endless 'incentives' to the corporate pocket? Anyone!? Profit to reinvest in jobs and the economy my arse.

<I prefer to call them undocumented entrepeneuric Obama supporters.>

Let's see what that means in practice:

-- An equal chance to grow up safely.

-- An equal chance to get proper nutrition.

-- An equal chance at an excellent education.

-- An equal chance to get the best medical care.

-- An equal chance to work in a good job.

Are you still with me? OK, how about these:

-- An equal chance to have competent legal and financial advice.

-- An equal chance at convenient, comfortable means of transportation.

-- An equal chance to enjoy domestic bliss and harmony.

-- An equal chance to achieve spiritual well-being (whatever that means).

-- An equal chance to share the full cultural patrimony of the human race.

By now I can practically hear the groans and jeers. This sounds like a recipe for a lifestyle that tycoons and tyrants don't always achieve. Even the first few items may be a little controversial. After all, if the poor enjoy the same diet, schooling, healthcare, etc., as the rich, then what's the point of being rich?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_W... <<Earlier in his career, Wolfe was a member of the collective that put out the Marxist-oriented journal, Kapitalistate, whose pages featured articles by such writers as Poulantzas, Claus Offe, Ralph Miliband, and Bob Jessop.>>

Wolfe is now supposed to be more "centrist," but the attack by this sociologist (not an economist) on Sowell demonstrates that he hasn't moved away from extreme left wing positions. Like many here he resorts to adhominem attacks as a substitute for reasoned argument.

Professor Thomas Sowell makes two convincing arguments:

1. There is no such thing as "trickle down economics" in the academic literature or text books written by professional economists.

2. The benefits of business tax cuts (i.e. capital gains tax cuts) that spur investment first benefits the workers hired to operate the new enterprise, and only later "trickles back up" to owners and investors if the business makes a profit.

Sowell is right. Liberals have it backwards about how wealth is created and distributed in the private sector.

I also read this from, Wiki:

<Thomas Sowell has stated that he was a Marxist “during the decade of my 20s"; one of his earliest professional publications was a sympathetic examination of Marxist thought vs. Marxist-Leninist practice>

He changed his views and so did Wolfe:

<Wolfe: I do not fear a future Tim Russert combing my early books to find words in blatant contradiction to my present ones: good luck in even finding the young out-of-print me. Sure, some of the stuff I once wrote embarrasses me now, even down to my choice of titles. But better that than sentences never exposed to the air of experience.>

Saying that Wolfe is not an economist and therefore not qualified to comment on Sowell's work sounds reasonable.

There are people here who do understand something about economics,(you amongst them) and while they do not have the title next to their name, their opinions certainly have value.

Wolfe understands economics to a reasonable extent, (probably beyond that) so why shouldn't his opinions have merit as well?

Besides, it's really not relevant in this case.

The book in question is called:

<Intellectuals and Society>

She played Elaine, the girlfriend of Jerry Seinfeld on <Seinfeld>. Not a bad show, tries to take you into the hypothetical sleazy world of big time politics. The players are as ethical as used car salesmen. Probably inspired by the almost VEEP asendency of Sarah Palin.

Which is the better high??

Airplanr glue, cough syrup, mouthwash, or hand sanitizer???

http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...

Well, I'll just reiterate the part you left out then... Where, exactly, are all of these jobs globally that have been created with endless 'incentives' to the corporate pocket? Anyone!? Profit to reinvest in jobs and the economy my arse.

Airplanr glue, cough syrup, mouthwash, or hand sanitizer???>

1. There is no such thing as "trickle down economics" in the academic literature or text books written by professional economists.>

"Trickle down", "Reaganomics", "voodoo economics" are all slang expressions for supply side economics. Sowell is correct in that very few professional economists take it seriously.

<The specific set of foolish ideas that has laid claim to the name "supply side economics" is a crank doctrine that would have had little influence if it did not appeal to the prejudices of editors and wealthy men.>

Supply-side says that lowering tax rates raise productivity by so much that tax revenues will go up.