It's my guess that Doug Gollan and Elite Traveler are desperate for ad revenue right about now. In a real sense, he and his magazine are just like the hypothetical florist he discusses — both rely on the occasional largesse of the super rich. His letter is nothing more than a shameless attempt at toadying to curry favor when ad revenues are plummeting for just about all publications. Elite Traveler is hurting, so it was up to Doug to try an ingratiate himself a bit more.

(This magazine, by the way, is basically given away; 650,000 "readers" does not equal 650,000 paid subscribers.)

Other readers have already pointed out the ridiculousness of Gollan's half-baked economic theories, even though Bob didn't, so I won't bother with those. I'm just looking forward to the day when no one is silly enough to argue that "trickle-down economics" is anything other than a disastrous Republican talking point.

...disappointed... Please excuse the typo.

I am so glad to see that other listeners feel the same outrage at Mr. Gollan's laissez-faire comments. I do agree with Mr. Gollan that everyone should be allowed to spend their wealth as they see fit. And, yes, I am sure the florist and caterer were happy for the work from the lavish parties. However, Mr. Gollan and his acquaintances should not be praised or thanked for doing their part to keep the economy going anymore than I should for buying a morning coffee.

If anything Mr. Gollan should be admonished for not spending even more. That wealth needs to be back in general circulation and it seems that there are two ways of doing just that: more spending on their part or higher taxes on the government's part. Hoarding it or keeping it in the stock markets indefinitely has never been part of a healthy economy.

Mr. Garfield, I am sorely disappointing that you gave a pass to so many of Mr. Gollan's comments.

Bob, I have to agree with Josh about you dropping the ball on Gollan's blaming "aspirational consumers" for the economic woes of the US. It wasn't aspirational consumers who Bernie Madoff was looking to gull with his schemes. It wasn't aspirational consumers whose portfolios were blasted by failures at Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers and other major investment houses. And it sure as hell wasn't aspirational consumers who spent the last five years in a frenzy of development projects across the country, over-building condo towers and apartment complexes and suburban outposts that they can't sell or rent.

J Wood is correct. A capitalist economy suffers greatly when the concentration of wealth slows the velocity of money – too few people spending on the day-to-day items that drive a large-scale consumer economy. The Trickle Down Economy never, never, never existed. The economy since Ronald Reagan should be called the Squeeze It Dry Economy.

In any economic model, the disproportionably rich do not serve any healthy purpose. On the contrary, the rich (concentration of wealth) undermined the public political means to protect the middle and lower class from exactly the condition we suffer today. Indeed, the Obama model for campaign fund raising was the only recourse for the middle and lower classes to achieve political balance.

Sadly, Gollan’s gauche article in the glorified taxi rag is symptomatic of the laissez faire gilded age that produced most of his Elite Travelers. The follow up interview is simply sickening.

Say you're the florist who's entire livelihood rests on one gala party that month. Which situation would you rather be in:

A.) Having to depend on a small number of wealthier-than-god patrons to keep you afloat between their birthdays and cotillions, or

B). A general population with enough steady income to purchase from the florist on a daily basis. Sure they purchase less, but more regularly, and that little adds up to a lot more than the occasional blow-out on a yacht.

This is the difference between the McCain and Obama models of fund-raising, and we know which one raises more money in the end. This isn't to say wealthy people don't have a place in the economy, but if it all depends on wealthy people in order to make ends meet, your economy is already screwed.

As for holding people at gunpoint to sign on to bad mortgages, it's important to point out that courts have required teams of lawyers to parse out some of the contracts and mortgages that were proffered to the public.

Fine, claim they weren't educated enough to make wise business decisions when they were being fed ridiculously low entry rates. But be honest enough to say one would most likely require a law degree and an MBA to really understand the ramifications of those time bomb mortgages.

Besides, if we were all smart enough avoid all that refinance hype (I never touched it), where would the financial sector be today? We'd probably be already a few steps further into the bailout process, because the mortgage lenders, credit card companies, and insurance companies would have had no buyers.

What I find really rich is that in the midst of this meltdown, my credit score suffers because I've always paid off my balance in full. I get punished for being responsible, while those who weren't responsible -- whether they were negligent or couldn't understand what they were getting into -- they can borrow more than I can hope to. Lewis Carroll couldn't have designed a better system.

I never said anyone was forced to accept mortgages. Some people who lack the education necessary to understand the financial system were certainly mislead. whether that excuses them is, of course, a matter of debate.

But that doesn't really have anything to do with my point. Which was, to claim that the economic crisis was just caused by "the aspirational" is misleading and glib. It was caused by a systemic failure in which Mr. Gollan's clients probably played at least as large a role as the people he blamed in his article.

Josh,

Forgive me, but could you let me know which consumers were forced at gunpoint to take out large mortgages, lease new cars and run up debt on their credit cards?

That said, those who "lied" and "falsified documents" should obviously be held legally accountable. My message was "if you earned it" and "have enough to afford it." I certainly did not say "if you stole it or obtained it through illegal practices."

I do understand your point, and hopefully the above provides some clarification. Cheers, Doug

Bob, I love the show, but you dropped the ball pretty badly on this one. You questioned Gollan on his argument that the rich should spend wildly and guilt-free, but let pass without comment is frankly offensive assertion that the current economic trouble is only the fault of poor people taking on unrealistic mortgages. His account left out the role that wealthy people played, from the lobbyists and politicians who deregulated without thought of the consequences to the financial wheelers-and-dealers who deliberately manipulated the financial system for their own benefit to the real estate brokers who lied to poor home buyers and falsified their documents.

But you didn't ask about any of this. Instead, you asked him a question about reality tv. His response was little more than a sneer about how these tacky nouveau riche - oh, excuse me, "aspirational" - didn't have the dignity and class of his readership. Again, you let this flagrant snobbery pass with nothing more than a chuckle.

I expect more from you guys. Media critic, heal thyself.