The conflicting economic theories from the punditocracy are giving me a headache. Late last year, it was all about "save more, spend less, be prudent with your personal finances."

Today? If you are saving more and spending less, you are personally responsible for "dragging down" the US economy.

Yes, you. Over there. With the "emergency fund" in savings just in case you get laid off?  It is all your fault.

And screw you for trying to help laid off co-workers, too.  Get out there and spend yer cash.

Larry Kudlow, who said in 2007 that the "Goldilocks economy is outperforming all expectations" needs you to prop up his valuations. Stat.  Need a laugh?  Kudlow comedy gold:

Jobs are rising over 100,000 per month and the stock market is set to turn in a respectable year despite enormous headwinds. Low tax rates, modest inflation, and declining interest rates continue to boost Goldilocks, which is still the greatest story never told.

And Grandma Verna, who left her retirement cash in the market because that nice man Larry Kudlow said everything was coming up roses?  Just got a part-time job as a greeter at the local WalMart to make ends meet.

More good news? FDIC asked for a higher lending limit from the treasury because its funds are drained.

Banks are blaming tighter capital requirements for their lack of lending, with nary a word about banking malefactors greedily creating this lending mess. Nope, it’s all that nasty regulation’s fault.  (To be fair, a lot of smaller and/or prudent banks are lumped into this and they should not be. And their stocks are tanking because idiots like WaMu and Countrywide created a big shitpile.)

Those poor darlings in investment banking mourn their pariah status.  Can’t we all feel their pain?

But all is not lost when K Street’s finest can still try to cash out a silver lining on the backs of the stimulus plan.  Oh…yay.

Lost in the shuffle?  This real world bit of history writ large:

When even these coping mechanisms were exhausted, families went into debt — a strategy that was viable as long as home values continued to rise. But when the housing bubble burst, families were no longer able to easily refinance and take out home-equity loans. The result: Americans no longer have the money to keep consuming. When you consider that consumers make up 70 percent of the economy, the magnitude of the problem becomes apparent.

What happened to the money? According to researchers Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, since the late 1970s, a greater and greater share of national income has gone to people at the top of the earnings ladder. As late as 1976, the richest 1 percent of the country took home about 9 percent of the total national income. By 2006, they were pocketing more than 20 percent. But the rich don’t spend as much of their income as the middle class and the poor do — after all, being rich means that you already have most of what you need. That’s why the concentration of income at the top can lead to a big shortfall in overall demand and send the economy into a tailspin. (It’s not coincidental that 1928 was the last time that the top 1 percent took home more than 20 percent of the nation’s income.)

Lack of consumer spending does impact the economy.  No doubt.

But what of the greedy SOBs who have been pushing this rampant consumerism and hinky accounting to fill their own trough, while not plowing that back into anything but blow and yachts? Well, that’s none of your beeswax. Now pass the domestic caviar and begone.

(YouTube — AC/DC live in 1979 — Highway to Hell.)