Quote:


If the proletariat has some scratch, they will evidence a need to buy shit, and thus, the proletariat will respond accordingly to create the shit the proles wanna buy, and the aristocrats will profit by bankrolling the bourgeoisie!



For a consumer-oriented economy like the US that's right, but looked closely:

In order for the proletariat to buy shit, the bourgeoisie must first make shit for them to buy. The proletariat does not buy empty shelf space: shit must be there before they'll spend their scratch.

Making shit is actually pretty expensive. The bourgeoisie must build a factory, buy raw materials, pay proletariat to transform raw material into shit, pay a shipper to ship it to retailers and often pay much of the retailer's costs or even finance the retailer's inventory. All that, several months before being paid. If an aristocrats bankrolls the bourgeoisie then not only is it much more likely to happen at all, but growth is at a far faster pace than if the bourgeoisie used retained earnings (savings). Important: rapid growth means many more employed proletariat much sooner, who will then have more scratch to buy shit.

(in other words, consumers create demand but do not finance production)

Without aristocrats bankrolling the bourgeoisie it might take ten times as long for the bourgeoisie to employ the same number of proletariat, and without the bourgeoisie the proletariat never get hired at all.

Raising taxes in a recession will lengthen the recovery no matter where the taxes are taken out because the growth engine in the economy depends on activity at all levels. Raising taxes on aristocrats and lowering them on the proletariat may sound nice but it slows the pace of hiring and results in less proletariat with jobs. If anything carefully targeted tax cuts or deductions are the best thing to do: give the aristocrats tax deductions for bankrolling bourgeoisie (who also get deductions) for employing a lot of proletariat. Congress isn't nimble enough to do that precisely but that's the idea.

(in other words the unemployed don't care about tax cuts or increases! Anything that gets them hired is a good thing, and anything that delays a job is bad thing, and if tax policy doesn't focus on getting them hired they get hurt)

This is fairly standard Keynesian economics, not conservative dogma, although Keynes believed that in some rare cases there were *too few* aristocrats and bourgeoisie able to jumpstart the recovery process and that in such cases the government should directly act as an aristocrat or the bourgeoisie to get things moving towards full employment.

The time to raise taxes is as at the top of the cycle when employment is in good shape and a few lost jobs won't hurt.
_________________________
"If they can't picture me with a knife, forcing them to strip in an alley, I don't want any part of it. It's humiliating." - windsock