>> The vast majority of the economy is driven by consumer spending. Innovation is nice, it sparks competition and that causes money to flow to different hands, but it doesn't create money like you are pretending.
When we talk about innovation we're not just talking about iPhones, iPads, and iPods. Innovation may include a change in packaging or distribution; it may include a new kind of TV dinner or GM corn that makes the end product less expensive for [poor] consumers. It may include the ability to control water pumps by cell phone which make the farmer's life more productive. Or LED light bulbs which, though too expensive for the poor today, will eventually be cheap enough for them to use and will ultimately save them energy costs. It may include specially designed furniture which can make life more comfortable for those in small apartments.
The point is that investment leads to innovation, and innovation leads to consumption that makes the lives of the poor better. That, and no other reason, is why the poor in America today are better off than they have ever been -- even though they don't have "wealth".
When you confiscate the wealth from those who earned it, you are providing money to consume items at the expense of innovation. That does not grow the economy.
This is fairly basic, simple stuff, and for the life of me I don't know why liberals cannot comprehend it; but they can't -- whether it is Krugman or Bartlett, or just CJ, none of you gets it.
Redistribution of wealth is NOT an economically healthy activity. |
