HILLARY

fhl said:
One more thing to add to the above.

The left has gotten into the habit of calling tax cuts for the poor a form of demand side economics. But is it?

No.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/13/obama-tax-cut-refunds-those-who-dont-pay/

When you send a check to people who aren't paying taxes and call it a tax cut for the poor rather than gov't spending, it is just an adventure in dishonesty. It is gov't spending. Back to where we started from. Demand side economics is gov't spending. Real tax cuts are supply side economics.
More...
And--just to add one item to your salient posting---- The poor need to pay their fair share as well. Everyone needs to pay the same percentage. Tax rates need to be increased on those paying nothing (about 50 percent of the populace)
 
When people have skin in the game, they are more likely to take stock and try to improve their lot. When they are spoon fed ( ie not paying their fair share), there is little incentive for ambition.
 
Buy1Sell2 said:
When people have skin in the game, they are more likely to take stock and try to improve their lot. When they are spoon fed ( ie not paying their fair share), there is little incentive for ambition.
More...


Yes. The people who pay no taxes also couldn't care less about such things as fiscal restraint and wasteful, inefficient gov't spending. It allows spending to get out of control.


But back to the point of supply side Reaganomics. The left is put in a position of trying to refute it, but they only way they can is by also refuting one of the lead tenants of their demand side theory.
When they say that supply side economics under Reagan didn't work and that the country was really just subjected to a large dose of keynesian demand side stimulus through the deficit, (as peizoe claims), how does that square with the rest of Keynesian theory? They are at once claiming that the rich spent their newly found money to grow the economy, (because their theory claims that only increased demand causes growth), and also hold to their theory that 'the rich' are much less likely to spend money from a tax cut and so tax cuts need to go to the 'poor' who have a higher propensity to spend. Add to that the 'rich' grew wealthy from 'investing' and the great bogeyman of inequality increased.
Put it all together and they claim tax cuts for the rich made the rich richer because they just hoarded money from investment profits, and also that tax cuts for the rich were just a great demand side stimulus plan. Tilt. Can't have both. The tax cuts either spurred investment or they created demand. Not both.
 
Last edited:
fhl said:
I thought you said you were putting kidding aside.


"At the core of demand side economics is the focus on aggregate demand. Aggregate demand is the combination of consumption of goods, industry investment in capital goods, government spending and net exports. When other elements of aggregate demand are weak, the government can mitigate their impact by increasing its spending. The government can intervene to generate demand for goods and services.

Demand side economists support heavy government spending during a national recession to overcome the short-term low aggregate demand. Raising the market's aggregate demand will reduce unemployment and encourage economic activity, according to this theory. The government increases demand through spending on public goods and services as well as through its control of the money supply through altering interest rates or trading on government-issued bonds."



Read more: What is demand-side economics? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040915/what-demandside-economics.asp#ixzz4OKILGX4o



Keynes argued that the solution to the Great Depression was to stimulate the country ("inducement to invest") through some combination of two approaches:

  1. A reduction in interest rates (monetary policy), and
  2. Government investment in infrastructure (fiscal policy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics


Fred, you're getting your economics from too many people like Krugman. It has you very confused.
More...
Blablabla...

At its core, Keynesian fiscal policy calls for reduced taxes and increased spending during recessionary periods, and increased taxes and reduced spending during growth/inflationary periods. The problem is when Right Wing ideologists in power cut taxes during growth periods (to then justify perennial spending cuts), which is when the treasury should be replenished. That screws up the balance and ceases to be "Keynesian." Further, when tax cuts principally favor the rich, it crosses over into supply side territory. Only disingenuous assholes or economic illiterates would confuse the two.

Read a book.
 
Frederick Foresight said:
Blablabla...

At its core, Keynesian fiscal policy calls for reduced taxes and increased spending during recessionary periods, and increased taxes and reduced spending during growth/inflationary periods. The problem is when Right Wing ideologists in power cut taxes during growth periods (to then justify perennial spending cuts), which is when the treasury should be replenished. That screws up the balance and ceases to be "Keynesian." Further, when tax cuts principally favor the rich, it crosses over into supply side territory. Only disingenuous assholes or economic illiterates would confuse the two.

Read a book.
More...

I'm glad you're back, Fred. Because it's about time one of you keynesians got pummeled on this charade.

I gave you the quote right out of wikipedia. It said Keynes called for monetary ease and increased govt spending on infrastructure. That's right from the horses mouth, mr lefty knownothing. Why, oh why, won't you accept it?

Further, I want an answer from one of you keynesians. Your kind continually claim that Reagan supply side economics didn't work and the only reason that growth occurred during his term was that there were keynesian deficits that did the trick. But you keynesians have also continually claimed that tax cuts must go to the poor, because they will spend it and and the rich have no "propensity to spend." They only save it and increase wealth inequality.

In other words, you want to have it both ways. You want to say that the rich don't spend their money, they hoard it feeding wealth inequality, but in your zeal to prove supply side doesn't work, you turn right around and say the rich spent all their newfound tax benefits in the Reagan term and caused increased demand side stimulus. Because you can't bear the thought of trickle down economics working.

But you can't have it both ways. Either supply side works, and that investment increased economic growth------or the rich spent all their newfound money during the 80's and the tax cuts played NO ROLE in wealth inequality.

So which is it?

Keynesian theorists make up things out of thin air as they go along to prove their theories, no matter how contradictory they are, and then their followers scatter to colleges and the internet and chide people for not having read these so called high intellect books.
But this one time, I'm not going to let you get away with the doublespeak. You can either give a coherent answer, of which there is none, or you can slink away and give it up on the anti Reagan crap.
 
Last edited:
fhl said:
I'm glad you're back, Fred. Because it's about time one of you keynesian got pummeled on this charade.

I gave you the quote right out of wikipedia. It said Keynes called for monetary ease and increased govt spending on infrastructure. That's right from the horses mouth, mr lefty knownothing. Why, oh why, won't you accept it?

Further, I want an answer from one of you keynesians. Your kind continually claim that Reagan supply side economics didn't work and the only reason that growth occurred during his term was that there were keynesian deficits that did the trick. But you keynesians have also continually claimed that tax cuts must go to the poor, because they will spend it and and the rich have no "propensity to spend." They only save it and increase wealth inequality.

In other words, you want to have it both ways. You want to say that the rich don't spend their money, they hoard it feeding wealth inequality, but in your zeal to prove supply side doesn't work, you turn right around and say the rich spent all their newfound tax benefits in the Reagan term and caused increased demand side stimulus. Because you can't bear the thought of trickle down economics working.

But you can't have it both ways. Either supply side works, and that investment increased economic growth------or the rich spent all their newfound money during the 80's and the tax cuts played NO ROLE in wealth inequality.

So which is it?

Keynesian theorists make up things out of thin air as they go along to prove their theories, no matter how contradictory they are, and then their followers scatter to colleges and the internet and chide people for not having read these so called high intellect books.
But this one time, I'm not going to let you get away with the doublespeak. You can either give a coherent answer, of which there is none, or you can slink away and give it up on the anti Reagan crap.
More...
Seriously? You're not even reading what you're quoting. Sure Keynes said that. But it's a question of economic timing, as I pointed out in my earlier post which you quoted but did not bother to comprehend. You're trying for "gotchas" with mindless copy-and-paste? Yeah, you are a textbook Right Winger.

Speaking of textbooks, go read one. An actual book.

As for Reagan, he did nothing for the economy and for America's fiscal soundness.

Please don't bother me until you get a clue. I'll wait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top