<Please don't tell me that the economy is driven by business and investors. It is driven 100% by consumers.

Looping the $ all the way through business before it gets back to the consumers who can spend it, is only one approach to tax cuts...



I'm not sure there is any nice way to say this, but this is dead, flat wrong.

Economic growth is driven by production, the creation of wealth, which (to grossly oversimplify) is done by adding human effort--mental and/or physical--to raw materials and the environment.

You can't have growth unless wealth is being created. "Consumers" don't do this.

If I gave you a million dollars, and set you down in an uninhabited section of the Sahara desert, you could "consume" all you liked, and a few days later you would be a dead person in the desert with a million dollars. Unless you applied your intelligence and skills to coming up with a source of water--became productive--you get nowhere.

Anyway, it's a bogus issue, illustrating the problems involved in accepting someone else's premise before starting a debate.

The whole idea of "producers" vs. "consumers" is incorrect. In real life, there are "producers" and, for want of a better word, "parasites." Producers create wealth by their intelligence and/or labor. They are from ALL income levels. Parasites simply take wealth that others have produced without their specific consent. If you wanted to get technical, you could create a third category of "charity cases," where someone takes wealth from others with their consent. Parasites are also from all income levels. Someone who sits on a blanket on a street corner, making a living selling jewelry she has made herself from old scraps, is a producer. The head of a billion-dollar corporation that takes taxpayer money for corporate welfare, is a parasite.

What you see as "producing" and "consuming" is usually actually two producers trading with each other. When an ironworker goes to a farmers market and buys groceries, the uninformed person would place the farmer in the "producer" category while the ironworker is the "consumer." In fact, both are producers. The use of money for trade instead of barter makes this difficult to see sometimes, but it is true.

So why try and create the category of "consumer?" One theory: The ideal utopia of the leftist is a world where the state provides everything for the citizen--the "consumer"--and the businessman or "producer" is magically written out of the scenario. The fact that this is physically impossible is only a minor impediment to the leftist.

By the way, don't take it personal. By "Democrats" I was referring to the pros in Washington, not necessarily to anyone who happens to vote Democratic in elections.