Supply-Side Economics

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Uh huh. You're still posting in this thread after being shown to be wrong time after time, Mr. Anecdote. Now THAT's irony.

Keep holding on to your discredited supply-side nonsense. It goes well with all the other mythology and nonsense you're fed by your fake news sources.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Keep holding on to your discredited supply-side nonsense. It goes well with all the other mythology and nonsense you're fed by your fake news sources.

Will do, Mr. Anecdote.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Uh huh. You're still posting in this thread after being shown to be wrong time after time, Mr. Anecdote. Now THAT's irony.

When did that happen?

You are seriously delusional, Mike. Get help.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Will do, Mr. Anecdote.

You're the clown who uses singular anecdotes (e.g., Carrier Corp) to try to assert a trend. I doubt that you ever studied statistics, but one data point doesn't establish a trend.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

Amusing, coming from someone who brought the "fake news" forward in your post #59.

You never cease to amuse. I thought you were getting your nonsense from Limblow, but I’m beginning to think it’s from an even more disgusting source, like InfoWars. You’re delusional.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You're the clown who uses singular anecdotes (e.g., Carrier Corp) to try to assert a trend. I doubt that you ever studied statistics, but one data point doesn't establish a trend.

You're the clown who called it an anecdote when a company passed some of the gains from the tax reduction along to employees. You're the clown who still stubbornly and stupidly won't admit that - over 370 examples later - its no longer anecdotal.

And yeah, I think over 370 data points probably establishes a trend. Don't you?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

You're the clown who called it an anecdote when a company passed some of the gains from the tax reduction along to employees. You're the clown who still stubbornly and stupidly won't admit that - over 370 examples later - its no longer anecdotal.

And yeah, I think over 370 data points probably establishes a trend. Don't you?

370 out of 6 million companies (.006%) doesn't remotely approach statistical significance, once again showing that you have no understanding whatsoever of statistics. Moreover, even if it were statistically significant, causation for these specific wage increases and bonuses is not clear. The economy was already at or near full employment with upward wage pressure already in place before the tax cut (and one of many reasons that this tax cut was ill-timed).

With your limited to non-existent understanding of economics and statistics, one would think you'd refrain from trying to debate such matters at the risk of exposing yourself as an uninformed and gullible lemming. I guess it's too late for that.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

370 out of 6 million companies (.006%) doesn't remotely approach statistical significance, once again showing that you have no understanding whatsoever of statistics. Moreover, even if it were statistically significant, causation for these specific wage increases and bonuses is not clear. The economy was already at or near full employment with upward wage pressure already in place before the tax cut (and one of many reasons that this tax cut was ill-timed).

With your limited to non-existent understanding of economics and statistics, one would think you'd refrain from trying to debate such matters at the risk of exposing yourself as an uninformed and gullible lemming. I guess it's too late for that.

Dude, now you want to change the topic because you don't like being wrong. Either that, or your understanding of your own words is screwed. Let me remind you what you said:

Originally Posted by finnbow

Again, Whell uses a single anecdote to try to prove a larger point, just as he did with the Carrier deal in Indiana (where Trump "saved" hundreds of jobs, only to have Carrier move all the jobs to Mexico anyway). The only thing this anecdote proves is the existence of an anecdote.

I added the bold highlights, but the point is now you want to talk about statistical significance where you originally never invoked the use of statistics. You used the word anecdote, and not once but twice. The anecdotal scenario you referred to has now grown into over 370 scenarios where employees have directly benefited.

So, if you want to change the subject now and try to talk about statistical significance, by all means do so. It'll be the next slippery slope that you'll be climbing. Why?

Well, you want to make the point that "370 out of 6 million companies (.006%) doesn't remotely approach statistical significance." And then you tell me that I don't understand statistics. Well, one of the first things a statistician would likely tell you is that the statistical model that you're trying to build is screwed up because its not appropriately weighted. The way you're doing it, Wallmart would have the same weighting as a mom and pop burger joint.

So, hey, keep swinging. You might eventually make contact.

[Chicks]

An examination of the Walmart story from, you know, actual economists.

https://www.cfr.org/blog/did-tax-ref...mployees-raise

As economists, we are admittedly prone to being cynical. But when a CEO whose compensation depends on happy shareholders says he’s giving more of their profits to employees just because those profits are about to get bigger, we go beyond cynicism. We go for the data.

As shown in the graphic above, this is the third wage hike that Walmart has announced in the past two years. Each one was preceded by a period of accelerating private retail wage growth—which is precisely what a cynical economist would expect. Firms raise wages when they need to attract and retain workers.

But that makes for crummy PR. Much better to share credit for rising wages with lawmakers who cut your taxes. Gives them motivation to keep the goodies coming.

[Rajoo]

Voodoo Economics, as George H.W. Bush named it in 1980, is what caused most of our national debt. It came from Wall Street and goes by the name “supply-side economics.”

Nothing has changed since except two more massive tax cuts, two more massive deficits, and the full effect of the second one compliments of the Dotard yet to be felt by the economy.

http://zfacts.com/p/voodoo.html