Why are Hussein Obama and Kamala Harris On My Youtube feed begging for money

[El OchoCinco]

when losing an argument...simply change the subject haha

 

[spy]

The supply side only invests when there's demand to justify it. Taxes only come into play as a comparison between two options. For example a company might compare the after tax profits of building a plant in Ireland vs California. But the decision to build a plant at all will come from demand.

I have never seen anyone make a business decision just because overall taxes are lower. Consumers do, but they aren't the supply side. They are the bottom of the trickle

I read about Says law. I think it only works in areas of innovation: we didn't know we needed an internet search engine until Yahoo made one.

It doesn't work for car manufacturers. We won't buy more sports cars just because Porsche makes more of them.

As my dad put it once: Capitalism is about there always being too much capacity. If there isn't enough capacity and someone can charge high prices as a result, then someone else will come in to undercut the incumbent.

You're contradicting yourself. On the top you say "supply side only invests when there's demand" on the bottom you say "it only works in areas of innovation". Can't have it both ways.

As you mention, producers are always competing and trying to improve. They shouldn't be constrained. I'm starting to think you're just playing devils advocate but don't actually believe what you say.

If socialism were a great solution we'd be buying all the stuff we need from government run stores. We don't, there's a good reason why... the free market works far better.

Now go away and stop bothering me, this horse has been beaten way beyond death

 

[vanzandt]

euphemisms don’t change what it is.

tax cuts for the top and the money trickles down to the bottom.

He makes a good point sir newwldmn

That's a gross oversimplification... and why I referred you to Say's law.

It's not the "top" that are getting tax cuts, it's the supply side that is being unrestricted. And it's not the "bottom" that benefits, it's everyone who participates in the market.

I've got some other things to do now. We can pick this up later if you really want.

And you never provided me a response btw... in that other thread... when I explained to you how Joe and The Dem's "hoodwinked" Democracy.

Did you vote for Kamala in the primaries?
~case closed

 

[newwurldmn]

You're contradicting yourself. On the top you say "supply side only invests when there's demand" on the bottom you say "it only works in areas of innovation". Can't have it both ways.

As you mention, producers are always competing and trying to improve. They shouldn't be constrained. I'm starting to think you're just playing devils advocate but don't actually believe what you say.

If socialism were a great solution we'd be buying all the stuff we need from government run stores. We don't, there's a good reason why... the free market works far better.

Now go away and stop bothering me, this horse has been beaten way beyond death

innovation is a tiny part of the total production. Tesla didn’t start making 1mm electric cars until they knew 1.1mm people wanted to buy electric cars. They made 50 roadsters.

Innovation comes from all sources including increased constraints. We have super efficient cars because of government regulations on emissions. Show me one story of innovation coming from overall lower tax rates. Don’t confuse this with comparative tax credits like the EV credit because that would prove my point.

 

[newwurldmn]

He makes a good point sir newwldmn



And you never provided me a response btw... in that other thread... when I explained to you how Joe and The Dem's "hoodwinked" Democracy.

Did you vote for Kamala in the primaries?
~case closed

which thread?

 

[wildchild]

which thread?

Did you vote for Kamala in the primary?

 

[exGOPer]

Did you vote for Kamala in the primary?

Keep crying.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

If you feel that way, ok. Some folks still think there is nuance in the language of prose. The term "trickle-down" is pejorative while "supply-side" is more clinical IMHO. Like I said, I'm not in the mood for bullshit today so I prefer to use more clinical nomenclature. You can agree w/ the ideas or not, but I'd rather appeal to reason than emotion.

Oh, and speaking of nuance (again), tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/tax-cut-extension-only-pays-1-14-itself

Even Big Al agrees:

https://money.cnn.com/2017/11/10/investing/greenspan-tax-cuts-mistake-debt/index.html

So much for all that trickle and supply, eh?

Reminds me of what John Kenneth Galbraith observed about your trickle supply (side) economics:

“...the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.”

 

[vanzandt]

which thread?

which ever one you used the word hoodwinked.

 

[vanzandt]

Keep crying.

How's he crying? He's making a legit point. Biden won the primaries, and then he was pushed out. They knew all along. Had Biden not run, and had it been an open primary, no way Kamala would have won. But here we are. We have a two party system, where one candidate was picked by party elites, and not the voters. It is what it is. You can babble on and on, all day, but facts don't lie. Case closed.