as do theoretical physicists and philosophers -- I observe this phenomenon and apply it to this framework.

Too often, economists are misunderstood. Competing schools of thought might place a premium on one particular outcome over another.

Forgive me a little rant on the economics of an old Liberal here. Your indulgence is requested.

Take my own position on free markets: regulation ought to vary directly with risk in a given market. Commodities futures markets, a market I know reasonably well, is regulated from within and without. Buys have to match sells and there's nothing sadder than the line of guys at the outtrade window, trying to make it otherwise. Regulation is written in blood, generally speaking. When so-called Free Marketeers wish to abolish a particular bit of regulation, however obscure, alarm bells ought to go off: he's already dreaming up a scam. This is not to say regulation shouldn't be constantly revisited and friction taken out of markets on an as-needed basis, but far too often, as in the Enron fiasco, the deregulators are merely well-connected gonifs intent on pillage and rapine.

I call myself a Liberal. My personal yardsticks for measuring a society look at the poorest of the poor and extend upwards. How fare the worst-off? How goes it with the insane, the prisoner, the elderly, the child, the stranger, the homeless? Conservatives build skyscrapers, Liberals build sewers, and both of us are needed.

But if the poor are to rise from poverty, should I care that the rich get richer? I don't think so. I don't care how rich anyone gets, as long as the poor rise toward the middle class. Taxing the hell out of capital gains will mostly hurt retirees who wisely invested their money and now put it back into the economy. In this I suppose I am no Bleeding Heart Liberal, intent upon taxing the hell out of the rich. The rich employ the poor. Their money makes money, and upon consideration of what I know of macroeconomics, there is no excuse for poverty anywhere in the world. Were every child given an education, especially the girl children of the world, we would live in a veritable paradise. Any girl given 12 years of education will statistically have less than 2 children. Forget all this nonsense about abortion: the best birth control pill is a schoolbook.

Conservatives and Liberals have more in common than they might first believe. Conservatives are not hard-hearted people: often they are the most generous and considerate of all. They don't condescend to the poor, tossing ducats out of the carriage window. They understand what many well-intentioned Liberals do not: the poor do want to work and the poor deeply resent handouts. This is why so many poor people naturally gravitate away from the Ivory Tower Liberals: the poor instinctively understand all they need is a goddamn job and well-run schools and good police and freedom from the tyranny of social service agencies. If there's one philosophy Liberals must evict from our thinking, it is this: that Conservatives do not care about the poor.