Last Friday, some of us CAP interns took a break from our grueling work to attend a meet-and-greet with interns from the CATO institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Both of these organizations are libertarian, although CEI is a bit more on the conservative side on issues such as Global Warming and Trade. My first impression was not good. For an organization like CATO, which advocates no government involvement in the market so that we can all accumulate as much wealth as possible, I was very disappointed that the best they could give us was Domino's Pizza. The interns, though, were very welcoming and willing to talk to us, which was greatly appreciated. After mingling for awhile, we went into a conference room to discuss the issues of the day. We started with Iraq, where there was pretty widespread agreement that the war was disastrous and that we need to pull out as quickly and safely as possible. I was heartened that these people on a different end of the political spectrum than my own shared my opinions on this disastrous war. 

     Soon, however, the agreement came to a screeching halt when discussing issues of economics, poverty and welfare. Many CAP interns (myself included) were arguing that there is an inequality of opportunity in our society, and therefore, a redistribution of wealth and resources is necessary for the common good. I also argued that it was workers who were generating the economic growth. Productivity has risen in the last 25 years, while real wages have fallen.

    Our ideas were met with scorn by these laissez-faire activists. All of them argued that the free market would actually be better for the poor, because rich people would accumulate more wealth, and therefore would create more jobs. They were perplexed that we could even be questioning these sacred ideas. I won't dignify their arguments by presenting them here, except to say that one kid seriously defended the use of sweat shop labor. Without it, he said, "workers would have NO options." They also used common red herrings about how welfare payments create a "culture of laziness" and that we are rewarding " failure."

    The main point here, is that Supply Side, You're On Your Own Economics is a fun theory that can be useful when you want to find an excuse to keep all of your money. But any analytical mind would look at what actually happens in America, and other more free market countries, and see that these policies are contributing to vast inequities that threaten our country's great goal of opportunity for all. Businesses, in a time of less regulation, actually reinvest their earnings in other businesses or their own stock. These patterns are clear from any data since Supply Side Economics took hold in the 1980's. Additionally, poverty has increased and real wages have decreased. We need to fundamentally change the structures and limitations of our country that give some people unlimited opportunity, while others, to no fault of their own, have to struggle simply to provide food for their families. This is fundamentally wrong, and no cute little theory about "trickle down" economics can change the underlying problem.  

     Even though it was fun and interesting to engage in a dialogue with these peoples, all of us CAP interns left pretty angry, wondering how people could possibly have such a narrow view of the world.