I'm not an economist, so please forgive me if my standards are not up to those of mature adults with advanced degrees in the subject. I recognize that by their standards, I'm about at the level of the eleven year old boy who Hillary quoted on the Jay Leno Show. (More on that later.)

However, I try to be mathematically logical, and I try to use common sense in looking at economic issues. But I thought that maybe I should try harder (see Glenn's roundup of those who do), because the conventional chatter right now is that the economy is tanking, a recession is imminently upon us as we speak, and that runaway unemployment is ruining the quality of life for American workers. (Conservatives keep screaming that the rate is actually lower than it was under Bill Clinton, yet their screams never seem to turn into headlines.)

You don't have to be an economist to recognize political realities, and I do think that right now, there's too much popular support for the Iraq War for the Democrats to feel confident about making the war the number one issue. Besides, the conventional wisdom is that McCain wins on the war issue, because he's a tested warrior, plus it can fairly be said that he was a prophet of the successful -- even victorious surge.

"OH NOOOO!," said Glenn.

In McCain's case, that news comes as an "OH YES!" (The unpleasant fact that McCain was for the surge before there was a surge, and when even Bush was dragging his feet, makes him a very tough target.)

So, the Dems' strategy seems to be, let McCain the Old Warrior run on the war, and we'll run on the economy, and paint McCain as some sort of resurrected Herbert Hoover in a military uniform. (With echoes of one of those hands-off-the-economy geriatric types who sit and watch reruns of The Sound of Music while millions of American workers starve.) Especially when coupled with tying McCain to Bush, that kind of attack can be expected to lead gullible voters into imagining that McCain is already to blame for (what do they call it?) "the economic mess that we're in."

Again, you don't need to be an economist to see how silly that is. For starters, the president does not run the economy. Whatever happens is going to happen. The Dot Com boom happened while Clinton was president, and it happened in an emergent area of the economy the government bureaucrats had never thought to regulate. Yet Clinton is remembered for good economic times, as if it's cause and effect.

I think the weakness in the Democrats' strategy is to be found in their advocacy of a government "hands-on" approach, because government solutions tend to create problems which then call for more government solutions, and then more. Because socialism creates a demand for itself, socialists not only do not care that it does not work, they want it not to work. (The government's role in forcing banks to make bad loans which now need "fixing" being a recent example.)

Quite unwittingly, Hillary Clinton illustrated how this works with her latest, um, "anecdote" involving an alleged 11-year-old boy:

I was in Indianapolis the other day and I was shaking hands after I spoke. And there was this young boy about eleven years old and he's trying to tell me something--you know the crowd was yelling--so I leaned over and he said, "You know, my mom makes minimum wage and even though it went up, her hours were cut. So we're not making any more money. Can you help her?" You know, when somebody says something like that to you, it really does kind of energize me. I think, yeah, I can, I'm going to really try to help you, because this is wrong. And everywhere I go I hear stories like that about veterans who don't get health care, about people, who are, you know, losing their jobs, and I think we can do so much better. So for me it's just get up every day and fight on because this country's worth fighting for.

OK, let me first get something out of the way. Hillary's lies excite me. In a twisted sort of way, they even turn me on. Perhaps that makes me a masochistic pseudophile. Or am I wrong? "Pseudo" is Greek for "lie" and if Hillary's lies turn me on, then I'm a Hillarypseudophile, right? I would seek treatment for my pseudophilia, except no such disease is listed. A pity, really. What gets me so turned on about Hillary is that she lies with men like a woman, and I love such abominations -- even if they are paving the way for an Obama Nation. So please excuse me if I find myself salivating over the possibility that the entire story is yet another Hillary hoax. I want her "truths" to be lies, OK? I know I'm getting distracted, and I don't want to get off topic. Fortunately, there are enough bloggers on her case that this may yet be ferreted out. Rob at Say Anything doubts that "this kid even existed in the first place."

The odds that Hillary managed to meet one of the 0.033% of American workers who actually make the minimum wage is pretty slim.

I don't believe the story. What eleven year-old boy whispers into the ear of a big shot the details of his mother's wage/hours mix? And I like how she had to lean over--no one--not even Bill Richardson or Sinbad--can contradict her.

If it did happen, why the hell hasn't the Hillary campaign posted it on YouTube? It would be, like, a lovely story.

Plus, Roberts has some free advice for him:

..if that little boy really exists, I'd like to tell him that a Senator fighting for you is a losing proposition. You have to fight for yourself. If your Mom wants more money, she needs to go back to school or work a second job. And as for you, stay in school. It's the best way to avoid earning the minimum wage.

While I was reading Greg Mankiw's blog, I also happened upon a wonderful pithy little economics witticism, which had been the Adam Smith Institute's quote of the week:

"Need" now means wanting someone else's money. "Greed" means wanting to keep your own. "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer.

I guess the quote explains the "need" part in the old "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I'm also wondering whether ability itself is increasingly being seen as an inherent a form of greed (maybe as a form of evil to be punished, or at least exploited) but that's another topic.

The war between need and greed is something most eleven year olds can understand.

MORE: Acknowledging that the United States may well be headed for a recession, Alan Greenspan has endorsed McCain -- even without knowing which Democrat will win the nomination. (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

MORE: As M. Simon notes in the comment below, John McCain is generally prettty good on economic issues, and this TCS piece by Arnold Kling (which Glenn linked earlier) is also helpful:

I feel awkward and defensive when the subject of economic inequality comes up. The fact is that I cannot say that I feel comfortable with the levels of inequality and excess that exist in our society.

However, I am loathe to call inequality a problem that requires a government solution. I do not see how it solves the problem to take power away from wealthy people who have a lot of it in order to increase the power of politicians who have far more of it.

What the American people really should feel awkward and defensive about is the level of inequality and excess of political power. Instead of asking ourselves what we can do about Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, we should be asking ourselves about what we can do about the Clintons and the Spitzers. Those who want more and more power should be our biggest concern.