Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Economy

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old 03-01-2018, 07:43 AM
Chicks Chicks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 13,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Recycling this goofy line of reasoning again. I thought we dealt with this in post 109. What is "just" - like there's some standard that even the left agrees on about what "just" actually looks like - is the the change in tax policy spurs continued economic growth that benefits everyone for the long term.
Amusing how you believe your simpleton analysis “deals with” anything.
__________________
"In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -
George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 03-01-2018, 07:44 AM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
It means exactly that. Supply side theory says that tax cuts pay for themselves or actually increase tax revenue, thereby obviating the need and fervor for spending cuts. It was so under Reagan, Dubya and now Trump. Dispute it all you want, but it is as true as it ever was.
Supply side economic theory has nothing to do with government spending. Nothing. In simplest terms, its an economic theory that supports the idea that if the cost of an activity is lowered, you get more of that activity.

Applied to government, if you lower the cost of economic activity (i.e. taxes) you get more economic activity. If you tax investments, you get less investment. If you tax capital, you get less conversion of capital to goods and services. I don't think any of this is even arguable.

Nowhere does supply side economic theory advocate for or argue against increases or decreases in government spending. Period. The failure of the Reagan administration to reign in spending has been well documented. But lost in that argument was that Treasury revenues increases nearly every year. If you want to argue about the magnitude of those revenue increases and what drove them, fine. But yapping about Reagan and Bush era spending is a separate discussion from the virtues - or lack thereof - of supply side economic theory.

Of course, if you want to continue to yap about "spending" as part of a critique of supply side economic theory, go right ahead. It'll just make me laugh harder when you turn around and tell me I know nothing about economics.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 03-01-2018, 07:45 AM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicks View Post
Amusing how you believe your simpleton analysis “deals with” anything.
I try to keep things simple for you Chickie, but I see even the simple stuff goes right over your head.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 03-01-2018, 08:05 AM
donquixote99's Avatar
donquixote99 donquixote99 is offline
Ready
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 19,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Your debate tactic of building a straw dog just so you can kick it down is really getting tiring.
I do not for one second validate your claim that Finn makes 'straw dog' (sic) arguments. But I assure you that only in your dreams do most of us care if you find anything about our arguments disagreeable or tiring. In this way we reciprocate your often-demonstrated tender concern for our sensibilities.

But actually, I must see your protest as great news! Perhaps you're so tired you'll need a nice long rest?
__________________
If you Love Liberty, you must Hate Trump!
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 03-01-2018, 08:32 AM
Rajoo's Avatar
Rajoo Rajoo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sierras
Posts: 14,151
whell, the Whit House communications director's job is vacant and you are eminently qualified. Compile your Trump worship posts from this forum and you will be a shoo in. You may come up way short on looks considering the current outgoing director.
__________________
White Christian Nationalism:
Freedom for us, order for everyone else, and violence for those who transgress.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 03-01-2018, 08:35 AM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is offline
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Supply side economic theory has nothing to do with government spending. Nothing. In simplest terms, its an economic theory that supports the idea that if the cost of an activity is lowered, you get more of that activity.

Applied to government, if you lower the cost of economic activity (i.e. taxes) you get more economic activity. If you tax investments, you get less investment. If you tax capital, you get less conversion of capital to goods and services. I don't think any of this is even arguable....
Actually, supply-side theory says what you say up to a point (i.e., the point of Art Laffer's maximum tax revenue). However, it says exactly the opposite on the other side of this peak. The fundamental weakness of Laffer and supply-side theory (other than the ridiculous notion that tax rates are the only meaningful variable in predicting economic activity) is that neither the X or Y axis has values assigned to it and, to the extent it actually models real economic behavior (it can't and it doesn't), you have no idea where our economy is on the X-axis (will a tax cut increase or decrease revenue?).

Republicans always assume that we are permanently on one side of the peak, where tax decreases will always increase revenue. The real-life experiences of Reaganomics, Dubya's tax cuts, and the states of Kansas & Oklahoma reveal the fallacy of this one-independent variable model, not to mention the fact that we have no idea where our economy falls on the curve, even if this over-simplified and discredited model were valid. On the only side of the Laffer curve that the GOP ascribes to (right of center), my assessment of conservatives' sales pitch on supply-side theory is absolutely true (i.e., decreases in taxes will increase revenue and obviate the need to decrease spending due to this increased revenue).

If you had a shred of economic education or knowledge, you'd understand that a model that tries to model the behavior of an $18.5 trillion economy based upon only one variable is ridiculous on its face. Your model predicts that Chad, Djibouti, the Congo and Belize have more vibrant and successful economies than the UK, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. How's does that work out for you?

__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.

Last edited by finnbow; 03-01-2018 at 09:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 03-01-2018, 08:39 AM
Dondilion's Avatar
Dondilion Dondilion is offline
Jigsawed
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,559
What is obvious is that US economy is trending to monopoly and will tend to distribute its less of its profit and thus engenders more inequality.

Big Companies Are Getting A Choke Hold On the Economy

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...to-u-s-economy

Last edited by Dondilion; 03-01-2018 at 09:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 03-01-2018, 09:48 AM
Pio1980's Avatar
Pio1980 Pio1980 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: NE Bamastan
Posts: 11,049
Govt spending going to contracts pays enployees, it's still gainful employment, and commerce moving money, which is how commercial activity works. Moving money is how the economy lives, otherwise, it founders.
The problem with this for some folks is that govt is the effective enployer moving the money, not private enterprise.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

Last edited by Pio1980; 03-01-2018 at 09:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 03-01-2018, 10:11 AM
barbara's Avatar
barbara barbara is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pio1980 View Post
Govt spending going to contracts pays enployees, it's still gainful employment, and commerce moving money, which is how commercial activity works. Moving money is how the economy lives, otherwise, it founders.
The problem with this for some folks is that govt is the effective enployer moving the money, not private enterprise.


Well.... not exactly.
The government is not the employer. The government is the grantor. The agency receiving the funds is the employer.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 03-01-2018, 10:15 AM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is offline
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by barbara View Post
Well.... not exactly.
The government is not the employer. The government is the grantor. The agency receiving the funds is the employer...
...As are government contractors. Republicans love government contractors, even when they're ripping off the government, but hate government employees even if they're the ones trying to prevent the government from being ripped off. Go figure.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:10 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.