Anti intellectualism...

Southern Man said:
'm not sure what that means. I'm an advocate of capitalism and free markets.
Click to expand...
Then you don't believe in a failed economic theory, such as, supply side economics? Which is really a form of reverse socialism in drag used as psuedoscience to funnel wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer persons which in turn creates an Aristocracy of money. In short, if you want to create an oligarchy, supply side economics is the way to go.

I'm often amazed at peoples ability to see the obvious failures of the Supply Side theory. Supply side theory in public policy has failed on all of it's expectations and promsises.

It has created massive budget and account deficites (meaning supply side policy makers are on the wrong side of the Laffler curve).

It has created great income inequalities, indicating Supply Siders political motivation over economic motivation.

It has failed to deliver economic growth.

It rewards investment over production.

Supply Side economics is really a cover up for "Horse and Sparrow" economic theory. That is, you feed all the oats to a few horses and some of the oats will pass though for the sparrows. (which is why I call it reverse socialism). In that respect it works. A few at the top obtain most of the wealth leaving a trickle for the rest to live on.

The supply siders are irresponsible and have done huge damages to our nation with runawy debt and spending using a disproven economic theory that only funnels prosperity towards the top.

Supply Side Theory can best be summed up as "From those according to their ability to he according to his greed." which is why it's accurately described as reverse socialism.
 
The main problem with modern conservatives is that they think 1. tax cuts 2. reduce the deficit. If you can't do number 2 do number 1 anyway. And when asked what cuts to government they'd make to accommodate their tax cuts, they're always very vague and dishonest about it. When they do point out a program it's usually one that makes up an insignifigant amount of the budget. So, when a conservative proposes a tax cut, we always need to ask them, WHAT specifically do you want to cut? And how much money is that? How much revenue will the tax cut take away?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Then you don't believe in a failed economic theory, such as, supply side economics? Which is really a form of reverse socialism in drag used as psuedoscience to funnel wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer persons which in turn creates an Aristocracy of money. In short, if you want to create an oligarchy, supply side economics is the way to go.

I'm often amazed at peoples ability to see the obvious failures of the Supply Side theory. Supply side theory in public policy has failed on all of it's expectations and promsises.

It has created massive budget and account deficites (meaning supply side policy makers are on the wrong side of the Laffler curve).

It has created great income inequalities, indicating Supply Siders political motivation over economic motivation.

It has failed to deliver economic growth.

It rewards investment over production.

Supply Side economics is really a cover up for "Horse and Sparrow" economic theory. That is, you feed all the oats to a few horses and some of the oats will pass though for the sparrows. (which is why I call it reverse socialism). In that respect it works. A few at the top obtain most of the wealth leaving a trickle for the rest to live on.

The supply siders are irresponsible and have done huge damages to our nation with runawy debt and spending using a disproven economic theory that only funnels prosperity towards the top.

Supply Side Theory can best be summed up as "From those according to their ability to he according to his greed." which is why it's accurately described as reverse socialism.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Deficits are caused by too much government spending and has nothing to do with supply side. Reduce taxes and regulation and economic growth is always the result. It rewards investment and production.
 
Southern Man said:
Bullshit. Deficits are caused by too much government spending and has nothing to do with supply side.

Reduce taxes and regulation and economic growth is always the result. It rewards investment and production.
Click to expand...

Halliburton, JP MorganChase, and the rest of the Wall Street Robber Barrons love you, and send their warmest regards.


:room:
 
he gave supply side tax cuts to 95% of the people.
Sold out the uber rich, but it's supply side none the less. You won't see many dems besides me admitting it as they were sleeping during the Reagan boom years.
 
Southern Man said:
Bullshit. Deficits are caused by too much government spending and has nothing to do with supply side. Reduce taxes and regulation and economic growth is always the result. It rewards investment and production.
Click to expand...
Oh no! Tax cuts reducing revenue would never, ever have anything to do with that! LOL Come on. Be honest. Either you supply siders are purposefully misrepresenting the Lafler curve or your dumber than shit.
 
Watermark said:
The main problem with modern conservatives is that they think 1. tax cuts 2. reduce the deficit. If you can't do number 2 do number 1 anyway. And when asked what cuts to government they'd make to accommodate their tax cuts, they're always very vague and dishonest about it. When they do point out a program it's usually one that makes up an insignifigant amount of the budget. So, when a conservative proposes a tax cut, we always need to ask them, WHAT specifically do you want to cut? And how much money is that? How much revenue will the tax cut take away?
Click to expand...
BINGO! And then when you back one of the supply siders into a corner with their faulty logic then you have to listen to some damn diatribe about dem librals and all their spending, not recognizing that won't give up on the major spending programs either.

Supply side economics is smoke and mirrors and has no more validity as an economic philosophy then socialism does.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh no! Tax cuts reducing revenue would never, ever have anything to do with that! LOL Come on. Be honest. Either you supply siders are purposefully misrepresenting the Lafler curve or your dumber than shit.
Click to expand...
The Laffer curve is revenue vs rates and has nothing to do with deficits. I guess the chocolates didn't work?
 
Southern Man said:
The Laffer curve is revenue vs rates and has nothing to do with deficits. I guess the chocolates didn't work?
Click to expand...
Chocolates did great. That and I rented a cabin for a romantic getaway to Hocking Hills.

The Laffler curve has everything to do with deficits. That's what I mean about so called supply siders misrepresenting the Lafler curve. According to the Lafler curve if tax cuts places taxation to the left of the Lafler curve, deficits will occur.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Chocolates did great. That and I rented a cabin for a romantic getaway to Hocking Hills.

The Laffler curve has everything to do with deficits. That's what I mean about so called supply siders misrepresenting the Lafler curve. According to the Lafler curve if tax cuts places taxation to the left of the Lafler curve, deficits will occur.
Click to expand...

Maybe you had too much luck then and your mind's elsewhere. :clink:

Here's the Laffer Curve:

loader.cfm


Show me where deficits are graphed.
 
Southern Man said:
Maybe you had too much luck then and your mind's elsewhere. :clink:

Here's the Laffer Curve:

loader.cfm


Show me where deficits are graphed.
Click to expand...
By definition, if you decrease taxes to the bottom half of the curve in this graph you will decrease revenue and thus create deficits.

What is controversial about the Laffer curve is that Laffer does not define where the peak of his curve is at. Is it 40%? 50%? 60%? That's controversial because according to his own graph, if you fall on either side of "T" you decrease revenue. Well that's just plain rediculous with out defining quantitatively what "T" is. That's why almost all serious economist give Supply Side economics and the Laffer curve the ridicule it so richly deserves.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
By definition, if you decrease taxes to the bottom half of the curve in this graph you will decrease revenue and thus create deficits.

What is controversial about the Laffer curve is that Laffer does not define where the peak of his curve is at. Is it 40%? 50%? 60%? That's controversial because according to his own graph, if you fall on either side of "T" you decrease revenue. Well that's just plain rediculous with out defining quantitatively what "T" is. That's why almost all serious economist give Supply Side economics and the Laffer curve the ridicule it so richly deserves.
Click to expand...

Now I know, my friend, that you are FOS. There are many curves in basic economic that don't have numbers assigned to them. It's the basic shape that is important, and in this case that basic shape is unarguable.

Again, deficits are due to spending more than revenue, totally independent of where we are on the Laffer curve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top