Consumers create jobs.

[Rshermr]

Trickle down was not, as you believe Sowell said, coined by critics. It was coined and developed by repubs in 1981 to justify tax decreases that were heavily toward the wealthy. The middle class was not at all thrilled. The term was not derogatory to the general public. But it has become so. As the promise of the repubs has not been met by supply side econ. And your continual quoting of Sowell is getting just a tad thread worn, don't you think oldstyle. You were off to find a referable supporting statement of the Sowell definition of trickle down. Remember. You sort of almost had one, but you do not want to reference it apparently. So, still only a libertarian economist with very, very close ties to Cato and the Koch bros. So, you keep pushing a definition of trickle down that so far only you and the economist you worship believe. Odd, oldstyle. Very, very odd.

To which Oldstyle says:

You know what's pathetic about progressives like you, Rshermr? Someone points out a very obvious flaw in the liberal notion that profits flow downward under supply side economics when in fact they flow upwards and always have...but rather than refute that simple concept you start shoveling "dogma", "libertarian" and "Koch Brothers" at the wall hoping you can get something to stick.

So you and your libertarian economist say. But you are unable to find any references who will back up your very very very odd definition, provided by a completely prejudiced right wing economist. He does not meet the standards for a sourse by your own definition, but you keep using his statement time after time after time. So, you were off trying to find some new source. No luck, eh.
No luck because what you are quoting is dogma, not truth. It is what you would like to believe, and what you would like others to believe. But it is not truth. That is dishonest, oldstyle, though you apparently do not want to believe that.

Thomas Sowell isn't some Libertarian nutcase living out in the woods with a stash of guns and some anti government manifestos...he's a well respected conservative economist who has taught at some of the finest institutions of higher learning in the country as well as writing dozens of books on economics.

Well, that is great. I know of no one who ever said he lived in the woods, etc. I simply stated that he is a libertarian with close ties to CATO and the Koch bros. Which is very very very very easy to confirm. Relative to libertarian, that is what your economist admits he is, and what you have also admitted he is. As to Koch bros, they are associated with Sowell over and over and over again on the web. So, it just goes further to asking why the hell you are posting a definition of trickle down that you can find no one but Sowell as a reference?? [/quote]

He's pointed out in a very common sense manner that trickle down theory does not exist because workers are ALWAYS paid first, no matter if a profit is realized or not...and that investors and owners get paid last, if they ever get paid at al[

Which has, as you would see should you care to actually study the subject, nothing at all to do with anyone's definition of trickle down except yours. That would be because you and Sowell are trying to redefine trickle down to your wishes. Very, very, very dishonest. If it were true, there would be many references to back it up. Not just one very very very agenda driven economist.

..... Barry continues to scratch.....

Interesting, oldstyle. Barry, eh. I mention bush and reagan all the time. Never use disrespectful names ever. Because I would not be disrespectful and stupid. But you are. Both. And it shows what you are. A con tool. dipshit.

 

[Oldstyle]

Trickle down was not, as you believe Sowell said, coined by critics. It was coined and developed by repubs in 1981 to justify tax decreases that were heavily toward the wealthy. The middle class was not at all thrilled. The term was not derogatory to the general public. But it has become so. As the promise of the repubs has not been met by supply side econ. And your continual quoting of Sowell is getting just a tad thread worn, don't you think oldstyle. You were off to find a referable supporting statement of the Sowell definition of trickle down. Remember. You sort of almost had one, but you do not want to reference it apparently. So, still only a libertarian economist with very, very close ties to Cato and the Koch bros. So, you keep pushing a definition of trickle down that so far only you and the economist you worship believe. Odd, oldstyle. Very, very odd.

To which Oldstyle says:

You know what's pathetic about progressives like you, Rshermr? Someone points out a very obvious flaw in the liberal notion that profits flow downward under supply side economics when in fact they flow upwards and always have...but rather than refute that simple concept you start shoveling "dogma", "libertarian" and "Koch Brothers" at the wall hoping you can get something to stick.

So you and your libertarian economist say. But you are unable to find any references who will back up your very very very odd definition, provided by a completely prejudiced right wing economist. He does not meet the standards for a sourse by your own definition, but you keep using his statement time after time after time. So, you were off trying to find some new source. No luck, eh.
No luck because what you are quoting is dogma, not truth. It is what you would like to believe, and what you would like others to believe. But it is not truth. That is dishonest, oldstyle, though you apparently do not want to believe that.

Thomas Sowell isn't some Libertarian nutcase living out in the woods with a stash of guns and some anti government manifestos...he's a well respected conservative economist who has taught at some of the finest institutions of higher learning in the country as well as writing dozens of books on economics.

Well, that is great. I know of no one who ever said he lived in the woods, etc. I simply stated that he is a libertarian with close ties to CATO and the Koch bros. Which is very very very very easy to confirm. Relative to libertarian, that is what your economist admits he is, and what you have also admitted he is. As to Koch bros, they are associated with Sowell over and over and over again on the web. So, it just goes further to asking why the hell you are posting a definition of trickle down that you can find no one but Sowell as a reference??

He's pointed out in a very common sense manner that trickle down theory does not exist because workers are ALWAYS paid first, no matter if a profit is realized or not...and that investors and owners get paid last, if they ever get paid at al[

Which has, as you would see should you care to actually study the subject, nothing at all to do with anyone's definition of trickle down except yours. That would be because you and Sowell are trying to redefine trickle down to your wishes. Very, very, very dishonest. If it were true, there would be many references to back it up. Not just one very very very agenda driven economist.

..... Barry continues to scratch.....

Interesting, oldstyle. Barry, eh. I mention bush and reagan all the time. Never use disrespectful names ever. Because I would not be disrespectful and stupid. But you are. Both. And it shows what you are. A con tool. dipshit.[/QUOTE]

Ah, yes...right back to the "dogma" thing! Gotta love it...

Sowell is the worst nightmare of progressives like you, Rshermr. Instead of dealing in hyperbole, he simply points out the glaring flaw in your claims that Supply Side economics is "trickle down"...pointing out that profits NEVER trickle down because the workers ALWAYS get paid first and that they get paid whether or not a profit is eventually realized. Pointing out that the term "trickle down" isn't an economic one but a pejorative political one used by opponents of Supply Side economics to denigrate it by falsely portraying how it functions.

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle says

As for who I am? I'm a Food & Beverage professional and have been for many years. My degree is in History. As for the two economics classes that I took in college...what's really sad is that it would appear I learned more about that subject in those two classes then you learned in four years as an Economics major. Could your college have really been THAT bad? Could ANY college have been that bad?

Great. Glad you are a professional at something. That and two classes in economics does not give you enough economics understanding to critique anyone, it just proves that you are ignorant. Y{ou are simply a con tool You post dogma which is untrue, every single time. And then state that you can critique someone. Makes you look like what you are. STUPID.

Your claim that I troll right wing sites is rather amusing since I was the guy who was taking his information from a "book" written by a widely respected economist and YOU were the guy quoting Irving Shishko from a blog!

What you just said makes my point, oldstyle. For the following reasons:
1. The book was written by yur conserative, libertarian economist. He does not even meet your own level of approval. He is totaly agenda driven. Associated with KATO and the Koch bros, over and over and over again. Yet you use him as your reference, over and over and over and over again.
2. You show one of my over 15 sources, and I have agreed that he was not checked out, by myself, enough. I suggested long ago, several mentions of him, by you, that you could throw him out. But, oldstyle, though he is not an economist and can not be veted properly, he is not a known agenda driven con or lib. He is simply a journalist. But you point at him, again and again, to prove something. I on the other hand, gave you over 15 references, with links, and could give you many more. They include an economist who was on site in 1981 when it all happened. And several economists who back up my contention. Get it yet, oldstyle. You have no proof of your statement at all
3. You have ONE source for your accusations. Only one, and he does not meet your requirements. He is agenda driven and totally partial. But, you can find NO MORE REFERENCES to the contentions you make. Just the one right wing professor whom you adore.

You are a con, and a tool. You waste peoples time making stupid, and totally unsuportable statements. Which makes you truly delusional.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for who I am? I'm a Food & Beverage professional and have been for many years. My degree is in History. As for the two economics classes that I took in college...what's really sad is that it would appear I learned more about that subject in those two classes then you learned in four years as an Economics major. Could your college have really been THAT bad? Could ANY college have been that bad?

Great. Glad you are a professional at something. That and two classes in economics does not give you enough economics understanding to critique anyone, it just proves that you are ignorant. Y{ou are simply a con tool You post dogma which is untrue, every single time. And then state that you can critique someone. Makes you look like what you are. STUPID.

Your claim that I troll right wing sites is rather amusing since I was the guy who was taking his information from a "book" written by a widely respected economist and YOU were the guy quoting Irving Shishko from a blog!

What you just said makes my point, oldstyle. For the following reasons:
1. The book was written by yur conserative, libertarian economist. He does not even meet your own level of approval. He is totaly agenda driven. Associated with KATO and the Koch bros, over and over and over again. Yet you use him as your reference, over and over and over and over again.
2. You show one of my over 15 sources, and I have agreed that he was not checked out, by myself, enough. I suggested long ago, several mentions of him, by you, that you could throw him out. But, oldstyle, though he is not an economist and can not be veted properly, he is not a known agenda driven con or lib. He is simply a journalist. But you point at him, again and again, to prove something. I on the other hand, gave you over 15 references, with links, and could give you many more. They include an economist who was on site in 1981 when it all happened. And several economists who back up my contention. Get it yet, oldstyle. You have no proof of your statement at all
3. You have ONE source for your accusations. Only one, and he does not meet your requirements. He is agenda driven and totally partial. But, you can find NO MORE REFERENCES to the contentions you make. Just the one right wing professor whom you adore.

You are a con, and a tool. You waste peoples time making stupidm, and totally unsuportable statements. Which makes you truly delusional.

Are we back to talking about David Stockman again? Still trying to portray him as an economist after it was pointed out to you that he went to Divinity School and was NOT an economist?

Your "15 sources"? Rather than attempt to refute Sowell's contention that "trickle down theory" didn't exist in economics what you did was Google the term, copied the first 15 hits that you found and presented THAT as proof that trickle down theory DID exist. Which is what got us wonderful sources like the two anonymous bloggers on Debate.com and Irving Shiski. That's your idea of research, Rshermr and it makes me understand why you ARE so ignorant about economics.

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle says:

Sowell is the worst nightmare of progressives like you, Rshermr. Instead of dealing in hyperbole, he simply points out the glaring flaw in your claims that Supply Side economics is "trickle down"...pointing out that profits NEVER trickle down because the workers ALWAYS get paid first and that they get paid whether or not a profit is eventually realized. Pointing out that the term "trickle down" isn't an economic one but a pejorative political one used by opponents of Supply Side economics to denigrate it but falsely portraying how it functions.

So, you post the wonders of your beloved economist AGAIN . Again, no other source. Just the one, single source. Prejudiced. According to oldstyle, economists that I quoted were all prejudiced, and I felt no need to use them again. Because there are many, many who say something quite different than Sowell. And they say it ove and over and over.
Hyperbol. What is hyperbol is the definition that your libertarian economist is posting. Though drivel may be a better description.
Nighmare. No. I never think of him, oldstyle. At all. Except when YOU bring him up. He is not my nightmare. He is your wet dream.

But oldstyle has Sowell. And only Sowell. If there was any validity to what Sowell is saying, there would be others saying the same thing. But Oldstyle, being a con tool, just post Sowell over and over and over again. Dishonest, oldstyle. But that is you.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle says:

Sowell is the worst nightmare of progressives like you, Rshermr. Instead of dealing in hyperbole, he simply points out the glaring flaw in your claims that Supply Side economics is "trickle down"...pointing out that profits NEVER trickle down because the workers ALWAYS get paid first and that they get paid whether or not a profit is eventually realized. Pointing out that the term "trickle down" isn't an economic one but a pejorative political one used by opponents of Supply Side economics to denigrate it but falsely portraying how it functions.

So, you post the wonders of your beloved economist AGAIN . Again, no other source. Just the one, single source. Prejudiced. According to oldstyle, economists that I quoted were all prejudiced, and I felt no need to use them again. Because there are many, many who say something quite different than Sowell. And they say it ove and over and over.
Hyperbol. What is hyperbol is the definition that your libertarian economist is posting. Though drivel may be a better description.
Nighmare. No. I never think of him, oldstyle. At all. Except when YOU bring him up. He is not my nightmare. He is your wet dream.

But oldstyle has Sowell. And only Sowell. If there was any validity to what Sowell is saying, there would be others saying the same thing. But Oldstyle, being a con tool, just post Sowell over and over and over again. Dishonest, oldstyle. But that is you.

And yet you've never been able to attack what Sowell claimed...have you, Rshermr? That trickle down can't exist because the worker is ALWAYS paid first? Such a remarkably common sense analysis of what happens...yet progressives blithely disregard it because it doesn't fit their narrative about greedy owners. You desperately cling to the progressive portrayal of huge profits being made by those who run businesses at the expense of their workers when the truth of the matter is that those workers get paid 100% of the time whether or not a profit is ever realized.

So explain how trickle down works on the countless number of businesses that don't turn a profit?

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle, having run completely out of references to support his untrue definition of trickle down, says:

Are we back to talking about David Stockman again? Still trying to portray him as an economist after it was pointed out to you that he went to Divinity School and was NOT an economist?

That is his title. And, nice try, but divinity school at Harvard is not his only educational background. He was also the budget director, appointed by Ronnald Reagan. So, you apparently feel that because he does not have degrees in economics, then he can not know what trickle down is. Do you see how obviously stupid that is, oldstyle. Yes, I am useing stockman. He had meetings with all of the main players in 1981 He was budget director, making him integral into what was going on from an economic and budget point of view.
So you think it would be better to find someone with an economics degree to tell us what was going on at that time, even though that economist was not there?? Another proof that you are a con tool. If the guy does not say what you want about the subject, in this case, trickle down, then attack him. In order to eliminate his voice from the topic at hand. And oldstyle looses his integrity again.

Your "15 sources"? Rather than attempt to refute Sowell's contention that "trickle down theory" didn't exist in economics what you did was Google the term, copied the first 15 hits that you found and presented THAT as proof that trickle down theory DID exist. Which is what got us wonderful sources like the two anonymous bloggers on Debate.com and Irving Shiski. That's your idea of research, Rshermr and it makes me understand why you ARE so ignorant about economics.

And you lie again. I gave you several economists, and a number of journalists. You are still hung up with trying to get people to believe that trickle down is so hard to understand that it takes an economics degree to do so. Which is completely untrue. And a complete effort at deception. No, oldstyle, trickle down is no test of economics understanding at all. It is a simple concept, or theory, or whatever you would prefer to call it. It did indeed exist in the economic lexicon, and still does. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the convoluted definition of Sowell. And the sad part, oldstyle, is that I think you know it. I think you are simply trying to support the con lie that Sowell provided you. Dishonest. Completely dishonest.
And you have the ignorance to attack my method of research. I did not spend a lot of time with the first few references. Mostly economic and web encyclopedias, and a few sources. But afterwards, when you objected, I looked for economists with good reputations. And, as any good con would, you attacked them. But not all, There are a couple that you could find nothing to attack.
And your attacks were ignorant, had generally nothing to do with anything. Then, I finaly checked your ONE SINGLE source, and found it was a libertarian with close ties to CATO and the KOCH Bros. And you actually tell me I know nothing of research. Dipshit. This is just barely research, oldsyle. It is simply looking at a few web entries. Your drivel requires no more. But YOU, on the other hand, YOU can not come up with a second source for your statements, or even ONE source that is not completely prejudiced. Get it yet, oldstyle. You are attacking anything you can, because you can not find soources for the drivel coming from the libertarian economist that you adore.

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle keeps at the lie, saying:

And yet you've never been able to attack what Sowell claimed...have you, Rshermr? That trickle down can't exist because the worker is ALWAYS paid first? Such a remarkably common sense analysis of what happens...yet progressives blithely disregard it because it doesn't fit their narrative about greedy owners. You desperately cling to the progressive portrayal of huge profits being made by those who run businesses at the expense of their workers when the truth of the matter is that those workers get paid 100% of the time whether or not a profit is ever realized.

So, oldstyle the con tool is at it again. There is absolutely nothing true in the above paragraph. Trickle down has absolutly nothing to do with who gets paid first. Nothing at all to do with the trickle down concept. No one has ever said it does. Except you, who is not an economist. And a libertarian economist with an agenda. Who does not count. Every other source says something quite different, which is why you can not come up with a single unbiased source for your definition. Very poor style, oldstyle. Tacky. And your statement that progressives "blithely disregard it because it doesn't fit their narrative about greedy owners" is just an idea in your conserative thought bubble. No truth at all. Progressives and independents, and probably most republicans, disregard it because it has no validity, and no proof of concept. It is a lie about something that is not at all the reason for trickle down, but is part of Oldstyle's dogma. Notice the lack of any links to data proving what he just said. That would be, of course, because what he just said is another lie.

So explain how trickle down works on the countless number of businesses that don't turn a profit?

Trickle down does not work on anything, oldstyle. Now pay attention. Trickle down is a theory of why the poor and middle class will gain as a result of tax cuts to the wealthy. It has nothing to do with companies that do not turn a profit. You are back in the nut case description of trickle down that you and your proff came up with. Remember, oldstyle, he has an agenda. What he says does not matter.
So trickle down is a theory. No one said it works. The idea, as the repubs who invented the theory wanted everyone to believe, was that the increased revenue resulting from tax cuts to the wealty, would flow to the poor as a result of increased hiring and increased competition for jobs. As I have told you several times. Here are a couple:

Msg. 454. It (trickle down) says, oldstyle (now pay attention this time) that tax decreases to the rich will trickle down to the less wealthy as a result of increased productivity, and resultant job increases. You know, just like reagan said.

Msg. 446. Trickle down theory says that if you place money in the hands of the wealthy, say corporations, that the effect is that it will increase sales and revenues, which will further cause hiring, increasing employment, and thereby will Trickle Down to the non wealthy. Pretty simple. Known to anyone with even a simple understanding of economics.
Next time, maybe you should pay attention, eh, oldstyle.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Msg. 446. Trickle down theory says that if you place money in the hands of the wealthy, say corporations, that the effect is that it will increase sales and revenues, which will further cause hiring, increasing employment, and thereby will Trickle Down to the non wealthy. Pretty simple. Known to anyone with even a simple understanding of economics.
Next time, maybe you should pay attention, eh, oldstyle.

Liberals prefer trickle down welfare entitlements - right?

 

[Rshermr]

Msg. 446. Trickle down theory says that if you place money in the hands of the wealthy, say corporations, that the effect is that it will increase sales and revenues, which will further cause hiring, increasing employment, and thereby will Trickle Down to the non wealthy. Pretty simple. Known to anyone with even a simple understanding of economics.
Next time, maybe you should pay attention, eh, oldstyle.

Liberals prefer trickle down welfare entitlements - right?

Ed, have you noticed that no one cares what you say???

 

[Oldstyle]

So, oldstyle keeps at the lie, saying:

And yet you've never been able to attack what Sowell claimed...have you, Rshermr? That trickle down can't exist because the worker is ALWAYS paid first? Such a remarkably common sense analysis of what happens...yet progressives blithely disregard it because it doesn't fit their narrative about greedy owners. You desperately cling to the progressive portrayal of huge profits being made by those who run businesses at the expense of their workers when the truth of the matter is that those workers get paid 100% of the time whether or not a profit is ever realized.

So, oldstyle the con tool is at it again. There is absolutely nothing true in the above paragraph. Trickle down has absolutly nothing to do with who gets paid first. Nothing at all to do with the trickle down concept. No one has ever said it does. Except you, who is not an economist. And a libertarian economist with an agenda. Who does not count. Every other source says something quite different, which is why you can not come up with a single unbiased source for your definition. Very poor style, oldstyle. Tacky. And your statement that progressives "blithely disregard it because it doesn't fit their narrative about greedy owners" is just an idea in your conserative thought bubble. No truth at all. Progressives and independents, and probably most republicans, disregard it because it has no validity, and no proof of concept. It is a lie about something that is not at all the reason for trickle down, but is part of Oldstyle's dogma. Notice the lack of any links to data proving what he just said. That would be, of course, because what he just said is another lie.

So explain how trickle down works on the countless number of businesses that don't turn a profit?

Trickle down does not work on anything, oldstyle. Now pay attention. Trickle down is a theory of why the poor and middle class will gain as a result of tax cuts to the wealthy. It has nothing to do with companies that do not turn a profit. You are back in the nut case description of trickle down that you and your proff came up with. Remember, oldstyle, he has an agenda. What he says does not matter.
So trickle down is a theory. No one said it works. The idea, as the repubs who invented the theory wanted everyone to believe, was that the increased revenue resulting from tax cuts to the wealty, would flow to the poor as a result of increased hiring and increased competition for jobs. As I have told you several times. Here are a couple:

Msg. 454. It (trickle down) says, oldstyle (now pay attention this time) that tax decreases to the rich will trickle down to the less wealthy as a result of increased productivity, and resultant job increases. You know, just like reagan said.

Msg. 446. Trickle down theory says that if you place money in the hands of the wealthy, say corporations, that the effect is that it will increase sales and revenues, which will further cause hiring, increasing employment, and thereby will Trickle Down to the non wealthy. Pretty simple. Known to anyone with even a simple understanding of economics.
Next time, maybe you should pay attention, eh, oldstyle.

What's sad is that you don't even know what Supply Side economics IS and you supposedly studied economics in college and taught the subject as well.

Take your message 446. First of all you're not "placing" money in the hands of anyone...you're simply promising not to take it away from them should they make a profit in the future. Secondly which comes first...sales and revenues or hiring? Sowell's point...the point that you've NEVER been able to rebut is that hiring always comes first, long before sales or profits or revenues. How does anything "trickle down" when the first people in line to get paid are the "non wealthy"?

You're right, some concepts are "simple" but you still can't seem to grasp them! Which brings us right back to you pretending to be something you're obviously not. Here's some good advice, Sparky...stick to vapid statements about "dogma" and the CATO Institute. When you actually attempt to talk economics? You embarrass yourself. You keep on "believing" though, Rshermr.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ]Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie... if you believe it... - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Rshermr]

What's sad is that you don't even know what Supply Side economics IS and you supposedly studied economics in college and taught the subject as well.

Yep. I did not study supply side economics in my years of college study of economics. Of course, neither did anyone else that was studying economics then. I told you on more than one occasion that I graduated in 1971. Of course, you say you did, apparently, study supply side economics. but then, you are a liar, oldstyle. See, the problem is that supply side economics did not yet exist. It was an invention of the Reagan admin. They did not come into power until 1981.
However, oldstyle. Like most people interested in what is going on in the world, I kept up with what was happening in economics in a big way. But, of course, understanding Supply Side economics took only abouit a half hour of my time. You see, oldstyle, to most people, supply side is a very

very simple concept. Only complex to you, oldstyle.

Take your message 446. First of all you're not "placing" money in the hands of anyone...you're simply promising not to take it away from them should they make a profit in the future. Secondly which comes first...sales and revenues or hiring? Sowell's point...the point that you've NEVER been able to rebut is that hiring always comes first, long before sales or profits or revenues. How does anything "trickle down" when the first people in line to get paid are the "non wealthy"?

As suspected, supply side is simply too difficult for you to understand. If you think that Sowell's definition is correct, you need a source. So far you have none. You see, my poor ignorant con, supply side economics does not and never has depended on who got paid first. That is a strawman. Not just a strawman, but a STUPID strawman. So, you are either stupid or just trying to post con dogmja. If you are just stupid, you still should be able to find ONE source for your contention. If you are posting dogma, you will simply go on posting it.

You're right, some concepts are "simple" but you still can't seem to grasp them! Which brings us right back to you pretending to be something you're obviously not. Here's some good advice, Sparky...stick to vapid statements about "dogma" and the CATO Institute. When you actually attempt to talk economics? You embarrass yourself. You keep on "believing" though, Rshermr.

Some people believe that they are really smart about economics. I am so impressed with someone who:
1. Has two whole classes in economics in his educational background, about 35 years ago.
2. Is a food services guy.
3. Believes with that background that he can critique a person on their understanding of economics.
4. Puts out a theory of trickle down and supply side that no one but he, himself, believes.
5. Can not come up with one credible source to back up his theory.
6. Ignores at all cost any sources who would say that he is wrong.
Yup, oldstyle, I would really be impressed with a person like that.

And, of course, the Castanza humor is great. I thought of you the first time you used him. This is the link to the bit that I associated with you, as you continue your tortured effort to redefine supply side and trickle down:

 

[Oldstyle]

What's sad is that you don't even know what Supply Side economics IS and you supposedly studied economics in college and taught the subject as well.

Yep. I did not study supply side economics in my years of college study of economics. Of course, neither did anyone else that was studying economics then. I told you on more than one occasion that I graduated in 1971. Of course, you say you did, apparently, study supply side economics. but then, you are a liar, oldstyle. See, the problem is that supply side economics did not yet exist. It was an invention of the Reagan admin. They did not come into power until 1981.
However, oldstyle. Like most people interested in what is going on in the world, I kept up with what was happening in economics in a big way. But, of course, understanding Supply Side economics took only abouit a half hour of my time. You see, oldstyle, to most people, supply side is a very

very simple concept. Only complex to you, oldstyle.

Take your message 446. First of all you're not "placing" money in the hands of anyone...you're simply promising not to take it away from them should they make a profit in the future. Secondly which comes first...sales and revenues or hiring? Sowell's point...the point that you've NEVER been able to rebut is that hiring always comes first, long before sales or profits or revenues. How does anything "trickle down" when the first people in line to get paid are the "non wealthy"?

As suspected, supply side is simply too difficult for you to understand. If you think that Sowell's definition is correct, you need a source. So far you have none. You see, my poor ignorant con, supply side economics does not and never has depended on who got paid first. That is a strawman. Not just a strawman, but a STUPID strawman. So, you are either stupid or just trying to post con dogmja. If you are just stupid, you still should be able to find ONE source for your contention. If you are posting dogma, you will simply go on posting it.

You're right, some concepts are "simple" but you still can't seem to grasp them! Which brings us right back to you pretending to be something you're obviously not. Here's some good advice, Sparky...stick to vapid statements about "dogma" and the CATO Institute. When you actually attempt to talk economics? You embarrass yourself. You keep on "believing" though, Rshermr.

Some people believe that they are really smart about economics. I am so impressed with someone who:
1. Has two whole classes in economics in his educational background, about 35 years ago.
2. Is a food services guy.
3. Believes with that background that he can critique a person on their understanding of economics.
4. Puts out a theory of trickle down and supply side that no one but he, himself, believes.
5. Can not come up with one credible source to back up his theory.
6. Ignores at all cost any sources who would say that he is wrong.
Yup, oldstyle, I would really be impressed with a person like that.

And, of course, the Castanza humor is great. I thought of you the first time you used him. This is the link to the bit that I associated with you, as you continue your tortured effort to redefine supply side and trickle down:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ]Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie... if you believe it... - YouTube[/ame]

Now that's just pathetic, Rshermr! You can't come up with your own snappy put down so you lay claim to my link as your own? Look, if you're going to try and pass yourself off as something that you're obviously NOT...the least you can do is try to do it creatively. At this point you're like George Costanza without an imagination.

I notice that you still can't explain how trickle down occurs when workers actually get paid first. Funny how the "food service guy"...the one with those two economics classes from 35 years ago understands more about economic theory than you do.

 

[Rshermr]

What's sad is that you don't even know what Supply Side economics IS and you supposedly studied economics in college and taught the subject as well.

Yep. I did not study supply side economics in my years of college study of economics. Of course, neither did anyone else that was studying economics then. I told you on more than one occasion that I graduated in 1971. Of course, you say you did, apparently, study supply side economics. But then, you are a liar, oldstyle. See, the problem is that supply side economics did not yet exist. It was an invention of the Reagan admin. They did not come into power until 1981.
However, oldstyle. Like most people interested in what is going on in the world, I kept up with what was happening in economics in a big way. But, of course, understanding Supply Side economics took only abouit a half hour of my time. You see, oldstyle, to most people, supply side is a very very simple concept.
As suspected, supply side is simply too difficult for you to understand. If you think that Sowell's definition is correct, you need a source. So far you have none. You see, my poor ignorant con, supply side economics does not and never has depended on who got paid first. That is a strawman. Not just a strawman, but a STUPID strawman. So, you are either stupid or just trying to post con dogmja. If you are just stupid, you still should be able to find ONE source for your contention. If you are posting dogma, you will simply go on posting it.

You're right, some concepts are "simple" but you still can't seem to grasp them! Which brings us right back to you pretending to be something you're obviously not. Here's some good advice, Sparky...stick to vapid statements about "dogma" and the CATO Institute. When you actually attempt to talk economics? You embarrass yourself. You keep on "believing" though, Rshermr.

Some people believe that they are really smart about economics. I am so impressed with someone who:
1. Has two whole classes in economics in his educational background, about 35 years ago.
2. Is a food services guy.
3. Believes with that background that he can critique a person on their understanding of economics.
4. Puts out a theory of trickle down and supply side that no one but he, himself, believes.
5. Can not come up with one credible source to back up his theory.
6. Ignores at all cost any sources who would say that he is wrong.
Yup, oldstyle, I would really be impressed with a person like that.

And, of course, the Castanza humor is great. I thought of you the first time you used him. This is the link to the bit that I associated with you, as you continue your tortured effort to redefine supply side and trickle down:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ]Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie... if you believe it... - YouTube[/ame]

Now that's just pathetic, Rshermr! You can't come up with your own snappy put down so you lay claim to my link as your own? Look, if you're going to try and pass yourself off as something that you're obviously NOT...the least you can do is try to do it creatively. At this point you're like George Costanza without an imagination.

I notice that you still can't explain how trickle down occurs when workers actually get paid first. Funny how the "food service guy"...the one with those two economics classes from 35 years ago understands more about economic theory than you do.

Now that's just pathetic, Rshermr! You can't come up with your own snappy put down so you lay claim to my link as your own? Look, if you're going to try and pass yourself off as something that you're obviously NOT...the least you can do is try to do it creatively. At this point you're like George Costanza without an imagination.

Wow, oldstyle. You are a bit touchy, aren't you?? Must have hit a nerve. So, you seem to believe that you can copy Castanza bits and lay claim to the concept. I would suggest you look up the word delusional, oldstyle. And stop wasting everyone's time with your opinion. You know how much I respect your opinion. I suspect everyone else feels about the same.

I notice that you still can't explain how trickle down occurs when workers actually get paid first. Funny how the "food service guy"...the one with those two economics classes from 35 years ago understands more about economic theory than you do.

Yeah, sure oldstyle. You are still working on gettoing me to explain something that has NOTHING to do with supply side or trickle down theory. As a con tool, oldstyle, you have put forth a condition that has absolutly nothing to do with supply side, or trickle down. Tax savings to businesses happen whether the worker gets paid first or last. Simple enough for even you to understand. And, those savings are supposed to spark economic growth and employment.
But then I have explained that over and over to you. And it is not what you want to believe. Which is why, oldstyle, that castanza bit was so relevant to you. But you, oldstyle, are simply posting dogma. And you can not find any references for your dogma. Because, you see, oldstyle, it is a lie. As you know it is.
You push the lie, and you push it. Because you have no reference to it having any validity. You ask me why I call you a con tool?? dipshit. Stop wasting everyones time, and either put up or shut up. Find a reference for your definitions, if you really believe them.

By the way, if you need a definition of supply side economics, and you now like google, try a simple search. Remember the quotation marks this time, oldstyle. and you will get results like the following:

An economic theory which holds that reducing tax rates, especially for businesses and wealthy individuals, stimulates savings and investment for the benefit of everyone. also called trickle-down economics.
What is supply-side economics? definition and meaning

And oldstyle, save me the "but it is not an economist saying this". You do not need to be an economist to understand supply side. Even you could, if you wanted to.

 

[Oldstyle]

When did I ever state that I studied Supply Side economics in college or that you did for that matter? I simply pointed out how inconceivable it is that someone who supposedly taught economics at the college level can't grasp the most basic economic principles now nor understand basic economic principles that were being taught back then. I DID study Keynesian economics and your idiotic claim that raising taxes in a down economy is something that was advocated by Keynes is laughable.

 

[Oldstyle]

 

[Rshermr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DUPfQCvHXw&feature=related

And away goes Oldstyle. Unable to prove his heroes' theory of trickle down, and his distorted and vacuous definition of supply side, Oldstyle leaves us a video of why one should not tell people that he understands something that he does not.
In the interim, he has left untended his vacuous definitions, of both supply side and of trickle down. Having posted con dogma, he is, unsurprisingly, unable to find any proof supporting his definitions. So, off to dream more about his beloved professor.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

vacuous definition of supply side,

George Gilder really defined it in Wealth and Poverty, back in the 70's as I recall. Its just another term for capitalism. Capitalism supplies more goods than liberalism or socialism because it provides the incentives to do so while liberalism does the opposite.

Is it still over your head?? Of course it is since a liberal lacks the IQ to understand capitalism and so must turn to government magic!

 

[Rshermr]

vacuous definition of supply side,

George Gilder really defined it in Wealth and Poverty, back in the 70's as I recall. Its just another term for capitalism. Capitalism supplies more goods than liberalism or socialism because it provides the incentives to do so while liberalism does the opposite.

Is it still over your head?? Of course it is since a liberal lacks the IQ to understand capitalism and so must turn to government magic!

Ed, do you wonder why you are being ignored?

A new study has found that the lower a person's level of intelligence the more likely they are to be drawn to conservatism
New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

vacuous definition of supply side,

George Gilder really defined it in Wealth and Poverty, back in the 70's as I recall. Its just another term for capitalism. Capitalism supplies more goods than liberalism or socialism because it provides the incentives to do so while liberalism does the opposite.

Is it still over your head?? Of course it is since a liberal lacks the IQ to understand capitalism and so must turn to government magic!

Ed, do you wonder why you are being ignored?

If you disagree with Gilder you must say why or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so!! Sorry.