I will stand corrected that I may be blurring the term "consumer" too much. Obviously, there must be a specific definition of "consumer" in standard economics (although I haven't been able to find a strict one. How do you define "consumer spending" as opposed to "non-consumer spending?").

I guess I am leery of economic models that separate the purchasing power of a person from the source of his wealth, splitting the world sharply into "people who make and do things" and "people who buy things and services." Obviously, as I have pointed out, most people fall into both these categories at different times.

To the modern purveyors of the welfare state, it makes no difference whether a "consumer" buys a refrigerator with money he has received as welfare from the taxpayers, or with money he has earned from productive activity*. The important thing is that money has been spent on a refrigerator, and that some economic activity has taken place. Obviously the refrigerator company is not going to complain either way.

However, in free market economics there is a difference, which is why welfare states don't work very well in the long run. My position is that the producers are the fountainhead of wealth, and the wealth created by productive activity moves into the rest of society in the form of jobs, better products for less money, and other such things. Others feel that the consumer drives economic growth by buying products that put money into the hands of producers. Unfortunately, this tends to overlook where the wealth actually comes from.

I find thinking in terms of "trade" gives a more realistic picture of the engine of capitalism than thinking in terms of "consumer" and "producer." And if this puts me out of step with modern economic thought, well, I haven't been all that impressed with modern economic thought lately.

Oh, well. Arguments over this kind of thing could fill pages, and I don't want to fill this one.

I am not at all sure about much of the "economic stimulus" packages flowing freely out of Washington and the Bush administration. Tax breaks are one thing, but there is a lot of other money being poured out right now in all directions with seemingly little restraint. I have not studied the details of all the packages, and I am having a hard time telling the legitimate business relief from possible pork. Granted that we are in an emergency situation, and allowances must of course be made for this, but I'm afraid we're going to come out the other end of this with a lot of old government free-spending habits back in place. It does seem to me that a lot of industries are discovering "hardships" related to the attack, and are lining up with their hands out.

*It goes without saying that a tax rebate is not welfare, but simply a return of money productively earned.