Blog #7 - Brittney McLaughlin

I hate economics. I really struggled through my economics class in high school, and I've avoided any in college. I think that this is because I don't really understand any of it, and don't really have a desire to. I already have a million other things to worry about, I don't want to spend my time worrying about the impending collapse of our economy followed by the destruction of mankind. So, as difficult as it was for me to work through Economix, I can appreciate the humor and can't deny that I've come out of it feeling a bit more educated and wanting to pick a fight with a Carlson student.

I think the chapter that I found to be the most interesting was chapter 7, partially because I love that Goodwin acknowledges that his book is about to get controversial, but mostly because this section discusses a topic that I've been unsure of for a while: the inequality of wealth in America. Should we raise taxes? Lower them? Tax the rich more than the poor? The 2016 presidential election was the first that I could vote in, and as I tried to "pick a side", these were some of the opinions I had to consider. I really struggled here - I could see pros and cons for each side. Chapter 7, though, talks a lot about taxes. When Reagan raised taxes (a typically liberal view), the rich were actually the ones benefiting. While it is my understanding that the "liberal" side believes in higher taxes in order to use the money from the rich to take care of the poor, Reagan's order resulted in the rich being the only people to benefit. Obviously - this isn't helping me answer my questions. I still find it incredibly interesting, though. When it comes to politics, I've always thought of there being this two drastically different sides, although a person could fall anywhere in the middle. Chapter 7 specifically made me realize how much more confusing this political ideology really is. If one side gets their way, are they really ever going to be happy with it? Is it ever going to actually benefit themselves/others in the way they intended? It seems that there is always going to be this give-and-take, where even if one side "loses out" on a debate, they're still going to gain something pretty big from it. Why, then, are we so concerned with choosing sides when it comes to politics?