Halftime in America
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
This is a bunch of crap, as it assumes that growth in the economy results from efficient government spending - a fallacy that cannot be captured in regression analysis or a spreadsheet.
In fact, historical numbers do not match up on the Kimel curve either, and in the example used in the angry bear blog you used, was off 27% to what actually occurred.
Try again, moonbat.
Do you even know what supply-side economics is? Does anyone here?
Seriously. Answer me that without googling and we'll talk.
Ok, I went directly to wikipedia (bypassed google):
"Supply-side economics
"Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.[1]
"The Laffer curve embodies a tenet of supply side economics: that government tax revenues are the same at 100% tax rates as at 0% tax rates. The tax rate that achieves highest government revenues is somewhere in between. At typical tax rates prevailing in the United States currently, higher tax rates generally lead to some increase in government tax revenue.[citation needed] Whether it is worth the corresponding decrease in economic growth that is often assumed by supply-side economists to accompany such a rate increase is a policy question.[2] In 2003, a Congressional Budget Office study was conducted to forecast whether currently proposed tax cuts would increase revenues. The study used dynamic scoring models as supply side advocates had wanted and was conducted by a supply side advocate. The majority of the models applied predicted that the proposed tax cuts would not increase revenues.[3]"
Continues:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
Quote from Ricter:
Ok, I went directly to wikipedia (bypassed google):
"Supply-side economics
"Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.[1]
Continues:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
hahah correct!
Supply-side policies work. And they work via "trickle-down", as stated.
Entry barriers come down (taxes and regulation) > more competition enters the market > prices come down > wages stay the same > consumers buy more per dollar spent = living standards go up.
This process explains the rise in living standards, for every country, for every economy, that ever existed on earth, regardless of what name we call it, or when the process itself was first observed. Interesting, that humans didn't invent "supply-side" economics. It's simply a consequence of self-organization for individual benefit. Adam Smith's "invisible hand", as it were.
So when people blast "supply-side" economics as bullshit, what's clear is they have no idea what they're talking about.
In my opinion what makes the numbers messy is when you mix supply side with monetary policy and start drawing correlations from that which is what the left does. For example, if we expand the money supply and create a bubble and then a crash, of course the crash is going to skew the data from lower taxes and less regulation. The only way to truly measure the effect of supply side economics is to do so in an economy with no Fed intervention. The Fed creates volatility around the data that makes it hard to read for those who are Keynesian based. Absent of the Fed manipulating our money supply and interest rates, lower taxes and less regulation will indeed lead to more tax revenue and higher GDP.
So businesses are turning down sales today because their taxes are too high, and there are too many regulations? If we lowered their taxes, giving them more cash, and reduced regulation, letting them keep more cash, then they'd be able to begin filling all the orders they are currently rejecting?
Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. The deficit will not be narrowed with tax cuts because tax cuts do not pay for themselves. They do not. This is a matter of historical and economic fact. There is nothing to debate. If you are concerned about the deficit, then you cannot be concerned with lowering taxes, which are lower than they have been in decades. Again: tax cuts do not pay for themselves. They do not. Everything else is only so much fluff and fold.