Pam,
I was sad to see your post devolve into a polemic. I had such high hopes, but then I read this sentence: “This is why I believe Economics 101 should be a required class in either high school or college.” I read that sentence, not as support of expanding economics curricula, but instead as a way to paint economic disagreement as economic ignorance.
After all, if it was required (and I supect most schools do have some requirement), would that disagreement suddenly evaporate and everyone would become true free-market disciples of Adam Smith?
No.
As for your hard-working, sacrificing brother-in-law who earns every penny…I can say the same about my father, about his father, about my mother, about everyone in my family and many of my friends. None of them ever made a million bucks or negotiated a golden parachute package. Maybe they’re just unlucky? Not as smart? Didn’t work as hard? Please…generalize some more.
As for your laughable list of other entities to investigate…..your inclusion of Al Gore as a separate category proves with some conclusiveness that you have no interest in discussing this subject seriously, and instead will settle for weak gibes against political opponents. High paid celebrity entertainers? CEOs of “politically correct” companies? Officeholders running for higher office? Al Gore qualifies for all 3? And yet you give him his own category…
It’s redundant, which is just dumb, but what makes it two times as annoying is that it’s a shamelessly partisan and wholly unnecessary redundancy.
Your sarcasm is clever though. Persuasiveness? Not so much.
