Beware the Soros zombies
- Thread starter Tom B
- Start date
Donald claims to have a good brain. I wonder where he keeps it.
Milton Friedman was a smart, self-confident, and convincing advocate for the concepts that form the basis of supply-side economics. Friedman's ideas*, mainly through his students, have hugely influenced American Economic Policy for over three decades. His "supply-sider" students from the "Chicago School of Economics" played a prominent role in influencing the supply-side initiatives undertaken in the 1980's.
To be sure, there were many who instinctively thought there was something a bit nutty about believing tax cuts aimed at leaving more capital with the wealthy would also result in a stronger, better off middle class.
Now, after many years of continuous supply-side economics, the long term effects are abundantly evident. It turns out that the proof of the pudding really is in the eating, and the economic pudding cooked up by the Friedman's Chicago School students turned out much less tasty than anticipated.
______________________
"Friedman insisted that "inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon" in the macro sense of course. This turned out to be a generalization carried a bit to far. When the Federal Reserve, based on Friedman's ideas, briefly experimented with controlling inflation directly via the money supply, rather than indirectly via interest rates, they failed..
To be sure, there were many who instinctively thought there was something a bit nutty about believing tax cuts aimed at leaving more capital with the wealthy would also result in a stronger, better off middle class.
Now, after many years of continuous supply-side economics, the long term effects are abundantly evident. It turns out that the proof of the pudding really is in the eating, and the economic pudding cooked up by the Friedman's Chicago School students turned out much less tasty than anticipated.
______________________
"Friedman insisted that "inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon" in the macro sense of course. This turned out to be a generalization carried a bit to far. When the Federal Reserve, based on Friedman's ideas, briefly experimented with controlling inflation directly via the money supply, rather than indirectly via interest rates, they failed..
Not to mention:
...there is no evidence whatsoever supporting Gov. Pawlenty’s view of the Reagan tax cuts or Sen. McConnell’s view of the Bush tax cuts. They didn’t pay for themselves and there is no reason to think that further tax cuts will, either. Republican economist Alan Greenspan confirmed this fact last year on “Meet the Press.” Asked whether he thought that tax cuts pay for themselves, as Republican leaders had said, Greenspan replied, simply, “They do not.”
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/06/17/No-Gov-Pawlenty-Tax-Cuts-Dont-Pay-for-Themselves
LOL, what kind of a nut thinks the last nine years have been supply side economics.
That is some very serious denial there.
Last edited:
Freddie, just like Soros, has a God complex. Freddie thinks that the things he has to say are so important that they should be highlighted in red.
A real God just won't do when you think so highly of yourself, isn't that right Freddie. I think we've found the source of the disdain for God.
like a good lefty I noticed you failed to discuss the issues I illustrated.
nevertheless...
when it comes to what had worked for the west... I go with milton friedman and capitalism.
you of course will go with Soros, his strawmen and failed central bankster views.
nevertheless...
when it comes to what had worked for the west... I go with milton friedman and capitalism.
you of course will go with Soros, his strawmen and failed central bankster views.
another spokesman for the failing central banksters...
how many time do I have to show you in the actual receipts that after the Reagan Bush Kennedy and Melon tax cuts revenues went up.
Do I really have to show it for the 50th time?
how many time do I have to show you in the actual receipts that after the Reagan Bush Kennedy and Melon tax cuts revenues went up.
Do I really have to show it for the 50th time?
How many times do we have to explain to you that revenues go up when the government increases spending at times other than when the economy is in a recession? And how many times do we have to explain to you that you can not determine the effect of changes in tax rates on revenue by looking only at revenue if other factors are not held constant?. Reagan took office during a recession , the economy recovered fairly quickly in part due to record deficit spending. Under those condition revenues will rise as the economy recovers from recession.. The Reagan cuts were designed to be revenue neutral, at Congress's insistence. Revenue increases in the later part of his Presidency were due to massive government spending. There was virtually no change in revenue due to the drastic cuts in the upper brackets because the loss of revenue was made up with a small increase in the lower bracket(s). The changes in revenue during Reagan's Presidency were due to the government pumping massive amounts of money into the economy simultaneous with recovery from recession.. Record deficits resulted.
The Kennedy cuts which, in contrast to the Reagan cuts, were demand-side cuts. These are the only tax cuts for which there is some evidence supporting the idea that the cuts were partly responsible for revenue increases.
Tax revenues going up and taxes paying for themselves are not synonymous. For the 51st time. Let me explain it to you in baby terms so that even you will understand. If tax cuts total $5 but the resulting tax revenue increases over the previous year by only $2, then there is a negative effect of $3. See? The those tax cuts didn't pay for themselves even though revenues went up. This is what history has shown for the most part and what Greenspan was saying. All better now?