Recently, Marilyn Vos Savant, who I'm told is reputed to be the smartest person in the world and who writes for Parade magazine (as if that wasn't a contradiction), was asked (in her 21 July 2002 column for that magazine) whether she thought a person irresponsible for purchasing expensive luxury goods while others starved. Her answer? No, because that money goes to an employer, who will employ more people as a result.

What a stupid bitch. But it's not just her -- one hears this argument all the time. It's basically supply-side (or "trickle-down") economics, the voodoo economics the elder Bush denounced when campaigning against Reagan for the 1980 presidential nomination -- but later, as Reagan's vice-president, embraced. The idea is that it's the rich who employ people and that, if one wants to stimulate the economy and help everyone, one should give money to the rich, to the companies, to the employers -- because they will, in turn, create more jobs. It's an idea that's not only been denounced (itself meaningless) but that has been totally disproven. Yet one still hears it today -- and not only in columns in thoughtless magazines. It was part of the rhetorical basis for the younger Bush's tax cuts, which disproportionately favored the wealthy, who, it was said, are the ones who promote the economy.

In reality, it's not the big corporations that steer the economy -- it's the millions of people who pay five or twenty dollars for a product who propel that corporation into the big numbers that give it the appearance of steering the economy. In reality, it has been shown that giving money to corporations does not automatically equal new jobs -- often it means higher salaries and bonuses for the men at the top. The question, essentially, is what is done with profit: if a business makes money, where does that money go? Does it go into the creation of new jobs? Not necessarily. In fact, studies have shown that corporations suddenly finding themselves with many millions of dollars, due perhaps to a change in tax laws, spend only a fraction of that windfall on new hiring.

If a store has a rich person walk in and purchase a pair of thousand-dollar shoes, that store will likely have some extra profit for that month. Such purchases do maintain the jobs that already exist at that store to the extent that, if the store made less money, they would tend to fire people (or go out of business) -- itself an assumption. But if a store makes more money, it usually simply makes a greater profit. That money may get invested, but if you ran a store that saw a greater profit, you wouldn't automatically run out and hire more people for the same store. And even when one finds oneself understaffed and hires someone, one doesn't usually hire the poor, who tend to be undereducated and underskilled, much less the homeless or those starving.

There is a certain philosophy that says that all spending is good, that the more times the same dollar changes hands the better. That is to say, if person X pays person Y for something and person Y buys something from person Z with the same money, et cetera, that money sees more use; more people benefit from it, and the gross domestic profit for the nation rises accordingly as more and more economic traffic is created. And there's something to this. But a poor person given a hundred dollars is more likely to spend it than a rich person, for whom that money is a drop in the bucket and whose necessary expenditures are easily met. So if one wants to promote the economy, to see the most people benefit from a single dollar, one gives money to the poor and encourages them to spend it at small stores with proprietors who budget month to month and who are more likely to spend the money.

This sort of supply-side economics, then, is really an excuse and a rationalization. It's an excuse for corporate welfare, to pay off those who made donations to one's campaign, to increase the power of the powerful, who are, after all, those who put people in office and keep them there. And it's a rationalization for those who wish to purchase luxury items while people starve; instead of saying "I gave [to charity] at the office," one can say "I gave [to the economy] at the diamond store."

But let's be clear on this: while the Republicans at present are those by far most likely to advocate trickle-down economics, to actually argue that one helps the poor by giving money to the rich, the Democrats are hardly spotless in this matter. One can hear both parties talking rather incessantly about "job creation," as in "this new social program" or "this move of a company to our town" or anything one supports "will mean 10,000 new jobs" -- or some such hypothetical number likely to change from press release to press release. And who, after all, opposes new jobs?

Me. Or, rather, I oppose new jobs for the sake of new jobs. The question isn't whether there are jobs, the question is what kind of jobs? Jobs for whom? For the unemployed? Better jobs for the already employed? This is a serious question because, if one is talking about, say, creating 1000 new jobs in computer networking, one is talking about a field where demand already far outstrips available workers; in such a case, those 1000 new employees have to be taken away from other similar positions, or found overseas. The gross result for the nation might be 1000 new jobs, but the net result might be zero after 950 people quit their jobs elsewhere to fill these new positions and the other fifty people are found overseas, which I think a good thing but one that does nothing to alleviate unemployment and the social ills the 1000 new jobs sound like they're solving. Moreover, the salaries for such jobs are likely to rise since the demand has just been increased by 1000, meaning that all the other places hiring such people will have to pay more in order to remain competitive.

Even if the jobs are not as skilled, the effects are rather dubious. If 500 new secretarial jobs are created in a metropolitan area, there might be 500 out-of-work secretaries in that area who could fill this need. But those hiring these 500 new secretaries do not only hire out-of-work secretaries. In effect, most of those new positions will be filled by people presently in other positions, who will leave their jobs in need of being filled. More demand might mean that the salaries for secretaries rise, costing everyone more and potentially hurting their businesses. At least one business would likely find themselves in chaos as one of their secretaries who understands their computer filing system departs and another must be found and trained. Some businesses, particularly during a financial crunch, might choose not to replace their departing secretaries. And if the 500 new secretaries are being hired for a temporary public works project, or for a new business that fails or a business expansion that must subsequently be retracted, those touted 500 new jobs don't mean much. And, of course, none of this shifting around of employers and salaries does anything to alleviate the plight of the real poor, who typically lack the training or education demanded of secretaries.

Even a new construction project, touted to provide millions to local companies, might not be such a good thing. Not only might other construction jobs in the area become more expensive as supply is sucked into the new project, but local companies would likely have to hire more workers and would see an infusion of cash, but only for as long as the project lasts. These businesses, which might need to purchase more equipment to complete the jobs, would likely expand for the duration of the contract, only to find that they had to lay off workers and maintain equipment they didn't need once the contract was over. That's not to say that this employment would not still be a good thing, but it's hardly a panacea; all one has to do is look at towns that have grown to accommodate local factories which have subsequently closed, leaving the town radically over-expanded, to see that temporary expansions of employment sometimes come at high prices, even potentially disastrously high ones.

"Job creation" functions, then, much like voodoo economics. Like saying one is helping the poor or society in general by helping the rich, job creation, in and of itself, appears to target unemployment and social ills -- although it may have no effect or actually hurt such problems as money is spent elsewhere. One cannot predict with certainty the social ripples that such actions will have; at best, one can speak of probable, generalized outcomes.

If one wants to help the poor, give money to the poor. If one wants to help unemployment, train the unemployed for the job market and encourage entrepreneurship.

I'm sickened by the frequency with which one hears of the benefits of a company moving to one's city or of hypothetical new jobs, the social consequences of which are unexamined, or of how good certain companies and their stocks are doing -- as if these things meant a better, healthier society.

Cities will give corporations millions in tax breaks to relocate there on the basis of job creation, never having imagined how many of these employees will come from elsewhere and where they will live, or whether that city can support the demand for these particular jobs, or what the consequences will be for other businesses in the area with additional demand for such workers. But the same cities won't give millions to house their poor, or create buildings for them other than massive concrete skyscrapers with paper-thin walls in undesirable locations.

Cities will do the same for sports teams, build stadiums and compete to subsidize the teams, all the while talking of massive revenue from attendees -- as if those attendees will, while in the neighborhood, shop at all the nearby stores instead of getting in their cars and going home after giving the team's corporate ownership their money. Any thought of what else these attendees might have done in the city with the same money, such as use their disposable income on other events or on various purchases, goes utterly ignored. The economic result is utterly questionable, but corporations and sports are subsidized while museums have their hours and budgets for new purchases cut, schools get new budget constraints, and the poor are still poor.

But Marilyn Vos Savant, and a million like her, will imply that it will all trickle down.

I just love hearing people -- normal people -- talking about how the economy's doing as if it means something. Sitting at a table, at home or at the restaurant, discussing the news of major corporations, their health and the health of their stocks, or their involvement with the area, as if it means anything to their lives, to their hopes and their dreams, to their families and children eating genetically modified food without knowing it, breathing polluted air, paying off student loans while corporations crash and burn, leaving rich executives and pension-less ex-employees. Bloody amusing comedy, this is. Mixed copiously with pathos.

There's a remarkable disconnect going on here. Our televisions and newspapers tell us of the economy, measured by the GNP, by the stock markets, by our prominent corporations. Yet bad economic times and good economic times frequently feel the same. As we hear of soaring stock markets, the gap between rich and poor yet widens. As we hear of a souring GNP, most people retain their jobs and, at worst, get lower raises. The "economy" is a myth, a set of false figures measuring little that is substantial to the overwhelming majority of people.

It's time to stop purchasing luxury items while people starve in the richest nation in the world. We talk badly of that sort of thing about the czars, the emperors, the shahs, and the aristocracy; it's time to talk badly of such behavior from the American and Western rich as well. It's time to use money not to subsidize the wealthy and the corporations out of discredited theory and instead to create housing, sources for affordable and healthy food, and centers for education. These are things we can do if we get our collective head out of our collective ass, in which it is presently firmly lodged.

Or, at least, to be honest. To say we're giving the rich money because they already have money, because money means power, and because politicians like pleasing those with the real power. To say we're subsidizing corporations by building sports stadiums, by privatizing or bailing out industries like the airlines or banks which we might otherwise socialize, and by contracting corporations to fulfill governmental operations, from aircraft production to the manufacturing of paper forms.

I think it's time to change our values, to strip "help the economy" of its automatic positive connotation and focus instead on the median income -- or the price and availability of heath care or education. On the good instead of on something that we assume, erroneously, to signal the good as an after-effect.

I'd prefer that. But I'd vote for a politician who, when asked about the plight of the poor, said, "Fuck the poor. They don't contribute to my campaign or my family's well-being." At least he'd be honest. At least he wouldn't be whispering sweet nothings during the anal rape.

YOUR ASSIGNMENT THIS WEEK

This column may be considered a substitute for one of the six weeks that were missed during this column's hiatus, or it may be considered five days early. We'll see.

As usual, a number of small updates have occurred within The Continuity Pages in general.

Your assignment for this week is to tell someone, if you have not already, about this column or about persiancaesar in general. I consider this column, and this site in general, a public service. Or, if you prefer another assignment for this week, arrange to get me on Hardball with Chris Matthews to discuss this column.