Support your s**t. I've said that quite often. Today, I think I want to share some of WHY and HOW.

Here are a few KSKD truisms:

If you can't express your beliefs using basic words where their accepted definition is common to all, then you don't really know what you believe exactly, nor do you know why.

Ignorance of this makes us nothing more than a tool. Others, aware of this reality, leverage us, just like we would a screwdriver, or wrench.

They get work done through us, while we remain unable to get our own work done in like kind.

This is not equitable.

It has been my life experience the above is true. I have to say "true enough" or use the coined phrase "truism", because I cannot say "absolutely true.".

Fair? I think so.

So then, let's talk markets and economic realities for a moment.

The state of the stock market is not a poll. It is a fallacy to look at the actions of the President, then the markets later that day, and attempt to deduce how the investor class "feels" about whatever the President, or Congress or anybody did that day.

The reason for this is simple; namely, there are many other forces regulating how "the market" is doing at any one moment in time. There is no direct causal relationship between a specific action, and market performance.

Want to rebut that? The thread is here for you man. Let's have at it. I would absolutely love to add that to the collection of truisms. Internally, I have.

Market performance at any moment in time is also NOT an indicator of how we, the American people are doing. It is a measure of how the investor class is doing. The reason again is simple: We the people, unless we choose to be members of the investor class, do not have our daily activities tied to the market directly enough for a correlation to be made.

It is entirely possible for "the markets" to be sucking wind, yet our business that we either own, or work for, is doing just fine. The reverse is clearly true, as we have seen over the last many years.

So it follows then we need to be aware of these things and avoid having "the market" color our assessment of policy decisions. They are not directly related enough for that to be true.

Over larger samples of time and decisions in aggregate, conclusions can be made, but only when many factors are considered above and beyond the simple decision to numbers over time comparisons so often falsely cited.

On Wealth: And this is the KSKD simple affirmation of why trickle up stimulus is not only the right thing to do, but healthy for us in the longer term.

What is wealth?

Put very simply, wealth is best expressed in terms of time. Wealthy people have a greater measure of their time available for their own purposes. The greater this measure, the more wealthy the person is.

Where does wealth come from?

It comes in terms of value. Where a given individual has accumulated not just value in terms of liquid dollars, but value streams sufficient to address their human needs, such a person would then be deemed wealthy.

Essentially, they don't have to work to provide for themselves, but choose to work for their own ends.

See the definition above.

So then, what are rich people?

Rich people have ownership of a lot of liquid value, but not the value streams!

Chris Rock sorted this out: Shaq is rich. The guy that writes his check is wealthy.

Wealthy people then have a keen interest in not only accumulating raw value; namely dollars, but in leveraging those to own value streams. Where value streams are captured and maintained, wealth becomes a self-sufficient thing, unless those streams are threatened.

Such a threat could be a buyout, technology innovation, social conflict, war, you name it. Stuff happens and when it does, the streams move, change flow and are not always constant.

Given this, the wealthy person then is interested in power as well. Power yields control of the streams and the ultimate ability to leverage value into wealth in the first place.

Again, Shaq is rich, but not wealthy. He has no power and does not own a sufficient measure of streams to be characterized as wealthy. He does possess the means by which to obtain these things, if he so chose however.

Because of the definition of wealth I've posted here, a person may be wealthy and not be particularly rich. They might just be powerful, or may have negotiated a position in life where their overall basic needs are low; thus, they have a majority measure of their time to do with as they see fit.

Value is realized as innovation applied to labor over time. Simple labor over time does generate value, however that value diminishes over time as others innovate.

If wealth comes from aggregating and owning both the product of labor; namely, value and streams of value (business), then wealthy people have a direct interest in the overall health of that source of value.

That's us people.

Before I say any more, it is entirely possible for wealthy people to build new streams of value so they may enhance their wealth.

With that comes risk.

It then is easier to own established and proven value streams, than it is to build new ones.

This is why trickle down will never work.

The health of us impacts our productivity. It also affects our innovation over time.

Both of these things threaten value streams and therefore threaten the wealthy.

In the end, how well they do is very closely linked to how we do. The reverse is not always true; in that we can build value on a small scale, trade in it, and prove to be sufficient.

Communities, before the global age, did exactly that.

Nothing has changed.

Wealthy people, by contrast, cannot remain wealthy if they lose their value streams. They become merely rich, or if things go very badly, become ordinary.

Trickle up ideas are aimed at both maintaining the health of those directly producing value, and for those building new value streams through innovation.

The more robust this activity is, the more potential exists for that nation and it's economy as a whole.

So there it is. Fuck the supply siders. It's a ponzi scheme, results in false bubbles, followed by crashes. Building then has to happen, so it does, then denial of the fundamental structure of things causes the next cycle to begin.

We are at the start of ANOTHER cycle of this.

Will we learn better this time, or buy into crap and do it again?

By the way, it is clear from this dynamic, that we want the wealthy people to be wealthy, but we need our communities and ordinary people to be on solid ground for that to occur.

That's managed capitalizm. Call it socialist, call it whatever you want to, but it cannot be denied that we all as a nation share an interest in maintaining these relationships in a way that is robust, sustainable, consistent and repeatable.

When we do this, all classes improve, and the nation is competitive with other nations, and if we work hard, WE as a nation are wealthy, freeing our time and raising our living standard.