Bits assembled into 2 halves of different rants

Just a few comments:

When will the majority of folks wake up to the insults "job creator" and "trickle down economics" (otherwise known as "supply side")?

1. "Job creator" is generally recognized to mean folks with more money than almost everyone else who, it is presumed because they apparently have lots of money and thus naturally do these things because having lots of something always motivates one expend even more effort to get lots more of it (you know, like some sort of behavioral perpetual motion machine), then use their money to create jobs. Set aside the assortment of questionable assumptions therein in order to appreciate the consequent implication that those who are not "job creators" are then "job consumers". Personally, I more accurately describe myself with terms fitting my God-given dignity: I am a worker and a citizen. Why do we accept the indignity, implied but patently there, of the term "job creator"?
2. "Trickle down economics". Why should most people happen upon the fruits of the economy to which they contribute (in the US at ever increasing levels of record-breaking productivity) through a process resembling the flow of unconsumed or un-absorbed liquid down a hill, chin, or ditch? Why accept the implication that wealth growth for the majority depends on the construction of reservoirs of wealth from which economic gain flows to most via a leak, seepage, opening of a spill gate, or some other form of structural incontinence?

I caught a bit of some European pundits on the BBC discussing austerity measures tonight. (I love you, internet radio.)

1. The host was seeking responses to his assertion (perhaps as a devil's advocate) that economic downturns are good for the economy, what with the ensuing creative destruction and all. His metaphor (note: metaphors are rhetorical tools, and can be used just as easily to construct false equivalencies (or arbitrary intraverbal relations) as easily as they can be used to point out actual functional relations in the world) was that economic upswings are akin to having extra cash and spending that cash on food and drink, resulting in unhealthy weight gain. Then (the host disingenuously guides us on down the false path) the recession is like going to the doctor, being advised to lose weight, and joining a gym.
2. Poor metaphor. Joining a gym (or, more correctly, exercising regularly), while perhaps resulting in weight loss, is supposed to build capacity through changing fat into muscle, increasing aerobic capacity, and establishing a routine leading to continued exercise in the future. The austerity measures we are seeing in the current recession, especially in Europe and perhaps in US states, run the risk of being more akin to going on a starvation diet, in which weight is lost and no capacity is gained. At worst, capacity is lost as skilled workers and/or the firms which would put their skills to work creating wealth are lost, along with a loss of knowledge and capitol investment -- that is, the potential for future growth. I suppose one positive outcome of continued austerity measures (in light of the experience of implementing austerity measures at the onset of the Great Depression and again in the 30's before the Depression was finished) will be choice: the choice of using the little rope one has left to either tie up one's newly roomy pants or using it to hang oneself.

Please note the disclaimer at the top of this blog. One may also wish to look up the term "rant" and note that my comments are clearly labeled as being incomplete, even for ranting.