POLL: Do you believe that supply-side economics is legitimate economic theory?

[Mav88]

Rich people consumption is not going to rise (inversely) proportionately to decrease in tax rates and even if it did, the burden of proof is on people who say money in the hands of the rich is better spent than in the hands of the government.

It's not about rich person consumption, it's about rich person investment. Poor people are not going to invest in capital, only someone with lots of cash looking to make more cash does that. The proof is easy, compare economies where capital investment is directed by government versus investment by individuals. It's a no brainer, a million individuals looking to make a buck beats a government bureaucracy every time. That's not even a point of debate, it's a no brainer.

If it were not true, then communism would have triumphed. The fact is whenever economic growth is desired, taxes are cut, that's the first thing 'enterprise zones' do.

Government is notoriusly poor at business decisions, they are a bureaucracy that is motivated by politics and critical decisions are made by a few people. Market economies on the other hand have the collective wisdom of millions and by Darwinian trial and error some real gems pop up. It's messy but far better than government where only one idea gets developed.

Poeple like to point out the internet as a government success. The fact is is wasn't made for economic reasons but for military reasons and the government geniuses saw no value in it initially. Only later when some motivated individuals saw potential did it take off.

Micheal Dell moved from Austin to Round Rock for tax reasons, the geniuses in Austin saw no reason to give him the tax breaks being offered to other entities, or they were motivated by political preference. The point is they saw no value in his enterprise.

The 90% tax rates were not the total effective rate in the 60s, and the public education system is very inefficient and fails in critical areas, I would hardly hold it up as successful.

 

[IShopAtPublix]

Quote from Mav88:

It's not about rich person consumption, it's about rich person investment. Poor people are not going to invest in capital, only someone with lots of cash looking to make more cash does that. The proof is easy, compare economies where capital investment is directed by government versus investment by individuals. It's a no brainer, a million individuals looking to make a buck beats a government bureaucracy every time. That's not even a point of debate, it's a no brainer.

If it were not true, then communism would have triumphed. The fact is whenever economic growth is desired, taxes are cut, that's the first thing 'enterprise zones' do.

Government is notoriusly poor at business decisions, they are a bureaucracy that is motivated by politics and critical decisions are made by a few people. Market economies on the other hand have the collective wisdom of millions and by Darwinian trial and error some real gems pop up. It's messy but far better than government where only one idea gets developed.

Poeple like to point out the internet as a government success. The fact is is wasn't made for economic reasons but for military reasons and the government geniuses saw no value in it initially. Only later when some motivated individuals saw potential did it take off.

Micheal Dell moved from Austin to Round Rock for tax reasons, the geniuses in Austin saw no reason to give him the tax breaks being offered to other entities, or they were motivated by political preference. The point is they saw no value in his enterprise.

The 90% tax rates were not the total effective rate in the 60s, and the public education system is very inefficient and fails in critical areas, I would hardly hold it up as successful.

Thanks for repeating republican viewpoints. And you addressed absolutely nothing from what I said about investment.

Public education not successful? How about 99% literacy rate? You think it could have been done with private education? Not a chance. Public education is an unqualified success. Just because some inner city school in the most depressed economic part of a city is not a feeder for harvard does not mean the idea is bad.


I reiterate my point: public spending is not necessarily inferior to private spending.

Spending on science, education, infrastrucutre>spending on hotels, yachts, whores and strippers.

 

[Mav88]

Just because a 17 year old can read Dr. Suess does not mean a good education, and if it is such a smashing success then tell me why is there so much holler from the left for more spending on education? Why was there even a no child left behind act if it was so good?

Everyone with a critical mind knows that public schools are shitty.

You got your response addressing public versus private investment, whether it comes from republicans or not doesn't matter, it's still true. Communism would have worked if you were right and your strawman examples of yacht spending are kind of pathetic.

 

[Trend Following]

Quote from Thunderdog:

I believe it is an excuse to enrich the already entitled...

Drivel. The "already entitled"? As defined by who? You?

 

[IShopAtPublix]

Quote from Mav88:

Just because a 17 year old can read Dr. Suess does not mean a good education, and if it is such a smashing success then tell me why is there so much holler from the left for more spending on education? Why was there even a no child left behind act if it was so good?

Everyone with a critical mind knows that public schools are shitty.

You got your response addressing public versus private investment, whether it comes from republicans or not doesn't matter, it's still true. Communism would have worked if you were right and your strawman examples of yacht spending are kind of pathetic.

No, not everyone "knows" public schools are shitty. It depends on what public school you take. The school I went to owns every private school in that city. It was AP/IB magnet school that "fed" people into Ivies/MIT on a regular basis.

You are disputing things which are indisputable, which any sane person would acknowledge. The benefits of having 99% literacy (as opposed to 20%) are overwhelming.

The reason the left cares about education is because if it did not some people would fall through the cracks and not have a fair shot at life.

Communism failed for great many reasons, but in large part because it denied private property and because it tried to manage the whole economy itself.

Governments are uniquely suited to do things for public benefit such as carrying out things for public benefit. Without FDA, CDC, we could all be owned by a rogue virus.

There is very little benefit to the country from discretionary spending i mentioned. Spending on infrastructure, education, etc. benefits everyone. The Interstate highway system is one of the things that makes US great.


Btw, it is kind of silly to trumpet the absolute superiority of the private sector right now considering that "expertly managed" enterprises in the financial sector and automotive sectors are facing oblivion. That is capitalism at its best.

 

[MGB]

Quote from IShopAtPublix:
public spending is not necessarily inferior to private spending.

But is public spending/investment consistently superior to private spending/investment?

 

[IShopAtPublix]

Quote from MGB:

But is public spending/investment consistently superior to private spending/investment?

Can't you people read? It depends on what money is being spent on.

 

[bkveen3]

Quote from thedewar:

You somehow imply that the rich people would spend a large portion of their money. However we see rich actually continuing to horde wealth and increase their value. If the rich spent the same % of their money as your average american would (i suppose it would be more then they made, but even if it was only 80% or so), then you would see trickle down economics have some real word implications [/QUOTE


Its marginal propensity to consume vs. marginal propensity to invest. The higher income bracket the higher mpi they have. By giving tax breaks to higher income we spur investment spending and thus create more jobs for those at the bottom. But your right, blame the rich. They do everything.

 

[MGB]

Quote from IShopAtPublix:

Can't you people read? It depends on what money is being spent on.

Exactly.

Public spending on:
1) Police
2) Firefighters
3) Court system
4) Jail system
5) Roads and freeways
6) Border Patrol
7) Military
8) Oversight and enforcement on health issues (e.g. CDC, etc)
9) Oversight and enforcement on interstate commerce
10) Oversight and enforcement of public land and parks

Private investment for everything else.

 

[IShopAtPublix]

Quote from bkveen3:

Quote from thedewar:

You somehow imply that the rich people would spend a large portion of their money. However we see rich actually continuing to horde wealth and increase their value. If the rich spent the same % of their money as your average american would (i suppose it would be more then they made, but even if it was only 80% or so), then you would see trickle down economics have some real word implications [/QUOTE


Its marginal propensity to consume vs. marginal propensity to invest. The higher income bracket the higher mpi they have. By giving tax breaks to higher income we spur investment spending and thus create more jobs for those at the bottom. But your right, blame the rich. They do everything.

Let me use my accounting knowledge to illustrate an important principle.

Microsoft has some cash and no long term debt, yet it recently LAID OFF people. It laid off people becuase the demand was not there. If you cut microsoft's tax rate it would still not expand any more because people are not going to buy marginally more xboxes, windows, office etc. This is not "build it they will come" situation.

You can give all the tax cuts to the rich you want, their investing will be limited by SUSTAINABLE PURCHASING POWER OF OTHER PEOPLE It is that simple.

Republican party will trumpet tax cuts for the rich as a "stimulus" measure to the naive and easily influenced individuals.