What are you talking about?!?
Supply side economics is NOT 'trickle-down' theory. Trickle-down is trickle-down. Please don't confuse the two.
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
What are you talking about?!?
Supply side economics is NOT 'trickle-down' theory. Trickle-down is trickle-down. Please don't confuse the two.
Quote from bkveen3:
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.
It is a joke you are tying to teach me economics and I have a business degree.
Keep drinking republican kool aid. All we have to do is cut taxes for the wealthy and everything will be fine. This does not fly for great many nations that have a TINY slice of rich and a lot with nothing.
Take former soviet union. Wealth from the oligarchs is not trickling down to anyone. You dream of an aristocracy and it is inherently incompatible with a robust economy.
I love how you are belittling me because you took a couple economics classes for your business degree. I just recently received my bachelors in economics and I have been accepted to University of Pennsylvania for their doctorates program. But you are correct sir, I'm just a republican zealot.
Quote from bkveen3:
I love how you are belittling me because you took a couple economics classes for your business degree. I just recently received my bachelors in economics and I have been accepted to University of Pennsylvania for their doctorates program. But you are correct sir, I'm just a republican zealot.
Regardless of whether you are indeed going to be attending upenn, you parrot empty slogans polished by the republican party.
Investing needs pre existing demand, otherwise you will simply go into debt or spend cash and go bankrupt. I don't hear best buy going on a building spree. Cutting taxes deeply now will only make US go into more debt and potentially result in a default (could happen as well through obama's plan)
Actual wealth of people depends on growth of money supply vs growth in inflation. Tax cuts simply redistribute existing bank notes (or digital currency). That is why tax cuts the way people imagine on the republican side will never work.
Quote from IShopAtPublix:
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.)
Now, you're introducing "gemness" into public policy.
There's another assumption. You assume that Berkley is a gem and worthy of nonsustainable public spending.
What makes Berkley a gem while the local community college is not a gem?
Does Harvard deserve more nonsustainable public spending than Yale because Harvard is perceived to have more gemness?
Here's an analogy. I go to a restuarant, I pay for food and I eat it. Why can't education be the same thing? I go to an educational institution, pay for intuition and get a degree.
Why does public spending need to be involved in education?
Nothing in the Constitution requires our Nation and our States to support and pay for public education.
In the very beginning of our Nation, we did not have public education. We had private education. Harvard was a private institution before it was a public institution.
Quote from IShopAtPublix:
Regardless of whether you are indeed going to be attending upenn, you parrot empty slogans polished by the republican party.
Investing needs pre existing demand, otherwise you will simply go into debt or spend cash and go bankrupt. I don't hear best buy going on a building spree. Cutting taxes deeply now will only make US go into more debt and potentially result in a default (could happen as well through obama's plan)
Actual wealth of people depends on growth of money supply vs growth in inflation. Tax cuts simply redistribute existing bank notes (or digital currency). That is why tax cuts the way people imagine on the republican side will never work. [/QUOTE
You assume that we maintain the same amount of government spending and cut taxes. My assertion is that it spending is unsustainable in any scenario. One third of the country is employed by the government in some fashion. That is absolutely ridiculous. The best scenario is to cut spending(drastically), cut taxes and start letting markets step in where the government had previously been functioning. We got along fine before the government did everything for us. But to raise taxes, increase spending, AND run a deficit of over 4% yearly GDP, well that's just not a good idea no matter what school of thought you subscribe to.
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.
Or cut the rates on lower, middle class to stimulate spending which in return creates new jobs from the increase in demand for products and services.
Trickle down fails because in the end, the business owner is not going to increase the amount employees just because he pays less tax. He will only increase labor when demand is rising or in anticipation of it.
Quote from MGB:
Now, you're introducing "gemness" into public policy.
There's another assumption. You assume that Berkley is a gem and worthy of nonsustainable public spending.
What makes Berkley a gem while the local community college is not a gem?
Does Harvard deserve more nonsustainable public spending than Yale because Harvard is perceived to have more gemness?
Here's an analogy. I go to a restuarant, I pay for food and I eat it. Why can't education be the same thing? I go to an educational institution, pay for intuition and get a degree.
Why does public spending need to be involved in education?
Nothing in the Constitution requires our Nation and our States to support and pay for public education.
In the very beginning of our Nation, we did not have public education. We had private education. Harvard was a private institution before it was a public institution.
Harvard is a private institution so is Yale wtf.
Why UC berkley is a gem? I don't know, pay a visit to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Berkley
Why does government need to be involved in education? i don't know something about investing in your future.... Otherwise you will get thoroughly owned by countries that do. And just because the founding fathers did not think of something does not mean we can't do it.
Quote from volente_00:
Or cut the rates on lower middle class to stimulate spending which in return creates new jobs from the increase in demand for products and services.
But again this makes our economy dependent on consumer spending. It is healthier to have an economy of less consumerism and more investment in the future. Things like research and development which will keep our country at the forefront of the world for years to come. Simply increasing consumer spending is too short sighted. Its treating the symptoms of the disease and not the actual problem.