In response to Craig's somewhat "pedestrian" question...

I tease my friend about his constant walking. He pondered a question on his face book acct. I recommend that you look it up. Regardless here is the only worthwhile anwer: The question belay's the point. It doesn,t matter which is better when confronting the issues of human greed and poverty, irrationality is the weapon of choice. It gets to the lowest common denominator of the human experience and motivation - happiness and fear. This is the place were every economist since Adam Smith has argued ultimately for an inaccurate mathematical equation supposed to predict both the problem and the solution. In this they all have failed miserably. Because we have yet to quantify large collective movements of malleable human behavior driven by undeniably emotional variables as it effects a stable empirically consistent tangible or ideal.


We are decades away from understanding even the entire nature of the problem although many well read persons with their swollen agendas espouse to own the answer. the question is still in flux. Economics are the respective processes and procedures, a vague blueprint of an engine in motion. it is measurable and somewhat predictable in that aspect, Although when it intersects with the emotionalism of the collective, lets say voters, it takes on its own uniquely unforgiving mercurial quality; as predicable in the short term as man's unrealized potential is in the long term. 


Damn that was the Sheeeztz