I first loaded this song onto my mp3 player because of its brilliant guitar play, and I have to admit that when I first heard the lyrics "Tax the rich, feed the poor, until there are no rich no more," I was a bit ticked off. A basic understanding of microeconomics will point out that punishing people for success means that nobody will strive to better themselves; and that if you don't have rich/successful people (who've earned it - I'm not talking about the nepotistic thieves that are far-too prevalent nowadays) then you're not going to have anybody who can employ the poor, and eventually you'll run out of money to actually feed them.
But then on my jog today I listened to the song a bit more closely:
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you
And then, of course, there's the rest of the lyrics. This song just doesn't come across as something prescriptive - it's merely descriptive. As eskimoslim says above, it's a dig at the newsmedia (and in a way, a dig a both myopic sides of the political divide) [he refrences Alvin Lee's website, though I couldn't find a quote].
Over all, I think it's a very mature song calling attention to the ills of the world, without trying to proclaim answers, as most musicians are far too willing to do. It's meant to be thought provoking and critical, not zealous and closeminded.
"A basic understanding of microeconomics will point out that punishing people for success means that nobody will strive to better themselves; and that if you don't have rich/successful people (who've earned it - I'm not talking about the nepotistic thieves that are far-too prevalent nowadays) then you're not going to have anybody who can employ the poor, and eventually you'll run out of money to actually feed them."
"A basic understanding of microeconomics will point out that punishing people for success means that nobody will strive to better themselves; and that if you don't have rich/successful people (who've earned it - I'm not talking about the nepotistic thieves that are far-too prevalent nowadays) then you're not going to have anybody who can employ the poor, and eventually you'll run out of money to actually feed them."
1) You're assuming that people only do great things for money. I think most people want to "better themselves" irregardless of money, and that there are even quite a few people that want to make the world a "better place" irregardless of money. If their weren't there would be no teachers, professors, researchers, aid workers, etc... All of which are underpaid positions.
2) Money doesn't directly feed the poor. Food does.
3) If there is nobody to employ the poor, then there must be huge demands that need to be met, giving the poor great opportunities to employ themselves. Employee owned and operated businesses, and co-ops are alternatives as well.
I don't think conventional economics takes into account enough things for it's theories to be considered equivalent to the laws of Newtonian Physics or something like that. I'm just a Computer Science/Math major though, and don't know what to do. So I guess I'll leave it up to you? lol
@SemperSolitasEst As soon as you try to claim your opinion is "just basic economics", you've discredited yourself. Economics are not a hard science and there are tons of economists who disagree with your opinions. You really lack the humility this song is about.
@SemperSolitasEst As soon as you try to claim your opinion is "just basic economics", you've discredited yourself. Economics are not a hard science and there are tons of economists who disagree with your opinions. You really lack the humility this song is about.
I first loaded this song onto my mp3 player because of its brilliant guitar play, and I have to admit that when I first heard the lyrics "Tax the rich, feed the poor, until there are no rich no more," I was a bit ticked off. A basic understanding of microeconomics will point out that punishing people for success means that nobody will strive to better themselves; and that if you don't have rich/successful people (who've earned it - I'm not talking about the nepotistic thieves that are far-too prevalent nowadays) then you're not going to have anybody who can employ the poor, and eventually you'll run out of money to actually feed them.
But then on my jog today I listened to the song a bit more closely:
I'd love to change the world But I don't know what to do So I'll leave it up to you
And then, of course, there's the rest of the lyrics. This song just doesn't come across as something prescriptive - it's merely descriptive. As eskimoslim says above, it's a dig at the newsmedia (and in a way, a dig a both myopic sides of the political divide) [he refrences Alvin Lee's website, though I couldn't find a quote].
Over all, I think it's a very mature song calling attention to the ills of the world, without trying to proclaim answers, as most musicians are far too willing to do. It's meant to be thought provoking and critical, not zealous and closeminded.
"A basic understanding of microeconomics will point out that punishing people for success means that nobody will strive to better themselves; and that if you don't have rich/successful people (who've earned it - I'm not talking about the nepotistic thieves that are far-too prevalent nowadays) then you're not going to have anybody who can employ the poor, and eventually you'll run out of money to actually feed them."
"A basic understanding of microeconomics will point out that punishing people for success means that nobody will strive to better themselves; and that if you don't have rich/successful people (who've earned it - I'm not talking about the nepotistic thieves that are far-too prevalent nowadays) then you're not going to have anybody who can employ the poor, and eventually you'll run out of money to actually feed them."
1) You're assuming that people only do great things for money. I think most people want to "better themselves" irregardless of money, and that there are even quite a few people that want to make the world a "better place" irregardless of money. If their weren't there would be no teachers, professors, researchers, aid workers, etc... All of which are underpaid positions.
2) Money doesn't directly feed the poor. Food does.
3) If there is nobody to employ the poor, then there must be huge demands that need to be met, giving the poor great opportunities to employ themselves. Employee owned and operated businesses, and co-ops are alternatives as well.
I don't think conventional economics takes into account enough things for it's theories to be considered equivalent to the laws of Newtonian Physics or something like that. I'm just a Computer Science/Math major though, and don't know what to do. So I guess I'll leave it up to you? lol
@SemperSolitasEst As soon as you try to claim your opinion is "just basic economics", you've discredited yourself. Economics are not a hard science and there are tons of economists who disagree with your opinions. You really lack the humility this song is about.
@SemperSolitasEst As soon as you try to claim your opinion is "just basic economics", you've discredited yourself. Economics are not a hard science and there are tons of economists who disagree with your opinions. You really lack the humility this song is about.