Great let's abolish UC Berkley because it is not a private institution.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
POLL: Do you believe that supply-side economics is legitimate economic theory?
- Thread starter Thunderdog
- Start date
Great let's abolish UC Berkley because it is not a private institution.
Quote from IShopAtPublix:
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.
You used an analogy of a company to explain the behavior of a wealthy person? That is an apples to oranges comparison.
Microsoft laid off people to reduce their cost structure. If you reduced corporate taxes so that their overall cost structure was lower, then Microsoft may not have laid off people.
(And, by the way, Microsoft is no longer debt free. They've been involved in commercial paper so they now have debt obligations.)
How do you increase the sustainable purchasing power of other people? Reduce their taxes in all tax brackets.
Quote from MGB:
You used an analogy of a company to explain the behavior of a wealthy person? That is an apples to oranges comparison.
Microsoft laid off people to reduce their cost structure. If you reduced corporate taxes so that their overall cost structure was lower, then Microsoft may not have laid off people.
(And, by the way, Microsoft is no longer debt free. They've been involved in commercial paper so they now have debt obligations.)
How do you increase the sustainable purchasing power of other people? Reduce their taxes in all tax brackets.
Tax rates are not some magic wand because there is no free lunch. You make deep tax cuts and the federal budget goes into red. Paying interest on national debt fits nobody's definition of economic efficiency. You make it sound like the country can eat its cake and have it too. Can't happen.
Quote from Thunderdog:
I think that supply-side, trickle-down "economics" is more voodoo than legitimate economic theory. I believe it is an excuse to enrich the already entitled by adopting a top-down approach, rather than a demonstrably more inclusive bottom-up approach. And as I had occasionally quoted Galbraith in these forums regarding his views on supply-side economics, "After feeding oats to the horses, one should not gaze too closely at what trickles down to the sparrows."
And so, I'd like to know what you think.
Supply-side has some holes, but it's certainly better than Keynesian pseudo-mathematical econo-trash.
Quote from IShopAtPublix:
Tax rates are not some magic wand because there is no free lunch. You make deep tax cuts and the federal budget goes into red. Paying interest on national debt fits nobody's definition of economic efficiency. You make it sound like the country can eat its cake and have it too. Can't happen.
We don't like paying interest on national debt.
Let's reduce public spending which will reduce public debt which will reduce interest payments on national debt.
Quote from IShopAtPublix:
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.
You make you're claims based on the assumption that an economy can be sustained by consumer spending alone. The point is that we must produce more than we consume. Who says we need to sell those products to americans.
GDP = C + I + GT + E - I
consumption, investment spending, government transfers, exports imports.
The consumption portion of this equation has become much to large. Why give tax cuts to those who will only make it bigger. The "I" portion is the one that has slipped substantially over the last couple decades. Tax cuts to those with high mpi's is one way to increase it. I'm sorry but your arguments are fairly naive.
Quote from MGB:
Public spending on public universities has been rising faster than the rate of inflation.
Is public spending on public universities sustainable?
No, it is not.
The point I was making is that Berkley is a gem. It is sustainable if you make it a priority (less "liberating" around the world, fewer aircraft carriers, etc.)