Of Trickle Down - and Demand Side.

[DSGE]

US exports are marketed in foreign "free-trade zones"; foreign FTZs are "economic extensions" of domestic markets ? et vice versa ?

what about buying Chinese DVDs on Ebay ? US consumers pay via PayPal; Chinese sellers collect in Yuan (after PayPal exchanges Dollars for Yuan [and "skims fees"]) ? i.e. "PayPal handles the ForEx for Ebay'ers (behind the scenes)" ?

Doesn't really matter where the currency exchange is done, the point is that the purchase of final export goods has to be done with US dollars.

meanwhile, the demand-for-US-Dollars, on the 4XM, implies demand-for-US-Exports; nominal US "trade deficits" account only Consumer (C) & Capital (K) goods & services. Ergo, "un-recognized" demand-for-US-Exports must embody foreign purchases of "other things" un-accounted as "foreign trade":

US exports isn't the only reason foreigners would want to buy US dollars. They may want to buy US dollar denominated assets (stocks, bonds, etc). This is how trade deficits happen. When we buy imports (I'm actually Australian, but assume for argument's sake that "we" means "the US") we send ownership of US dollars overseas. They could use those to buy US exports (which would mean balanced trade) or they could loan them to the US by purchasing financial assets. If you ignore the money, this is just plain old credit. They send us goods now, sometime in the future we return to them the value of those goods plus interest.

if Chinese loan USD back into the US; loans = credit; credits ---> Money supply (funding purchases of C/K/G)...

Errr, yes and no. If it's done electronically, the money never really leaves the US banking system. No net reserves change during the transaction. So the money supply doesn't change (I'm using base money). However if they decide they want to hold physical currency, say in their bank vaults or at their central bank or whatever, then yes sending that currency contracts the money supply. And if they take that currency and deposit it in a US bank that increases the money supply. Not that it really matter because the Fed will offset that.

if i understand, economically, domestic purchases (C/K/G), made with foreign-loaned USD, are de facto "Exports", i.e. "if you bought the widget, with China's USD; then you bought the widget, for China; China bought the widget; the widget is a de facto Export (which the Chinese have yet to retrieve)". or, if the US Government borrows USD from China, to pay for Social Programs in the US; then the recipients of those Entitlements re-spend the borrowed-back USD; then whatever "widgets" they buy, are de facto Exports ?

I don't follow you here.

variations in V suggest un-accounted Black-Market spending ?

Or just the number of transactions people engage in changes or people decide they want to hold on to more liquid money because of uncertainty/confidence.

what if China opted to hold USD, i.e. "China begins accepting USD for its products" ? if i understand, if all USD are returned to US markets, then:

MV = PQ = GDP = C+K+G + (X-I)
(X-I) = 0
"nominal (X-I)" + "un-recognized X" = 0
"some C+K+G" = "un-recognized X" ("everything bought on borrowed-back USD [considerable as collateral]")​

but if some USD are not returned to US markets, then:

MV = PQ = GDP = C+K+G + (X-I)
(X-I) < 0
"un-recognized X" = 0
"some C+K+G" = "un-recognized X" = 0 ("credit dries up, purchases plummet")
C+K+G ---> c+k+g
PQ ---> pq
MV ---> mv​

i.e. if China opted to "bury dollars"; then flow of USD, to China, for their products, would "drain down" the US Money supply, "drawing down" US GDP ?

I don't quite understand your notation (I don't know what going from capital to lower case means?) but I think I see what you're getting at.

If the money supply is fixed, then yes. Remember back under the gold standard the money supply was constrained by the quantity of gold the central bank held. If we bought an import, physical gold would be shipped from the US to, say, France. So the quantity of money in the US would fall and the quantity of money in France would increase. The relative price of US goods would fall and the relative price of French goods would rise meaning those in the US would switch from import goods to domestic goods and those in France would substitute to US goods. The movements in gold basically meant that the balance of trade was self correcting. If you ran a trade deficit, you're exports would quickly become competitive and the deficit would shrink automatically (and vice versa).

So if the money supply were fixed, yes. That's not the case now though. If money moves from the US to France contracting the money supply, the Fed will just offset this by expanding the money supply (since they can print money as they please). This lets countries run persistent trade deficits/surpluses.

 

[Widdekind]

US exports isn't the only reason foreigners would want to buy US dollars. They may want to buy US dollar denominated assets (stocks, bonds, etc)... they could loan them to the US by purchasing financial assets... this is just plain old credit. They send us goods now, sometime in the future we return to them the value of those goods plus interest.

in some sense, if China loans USD to some US business or Government; then anything purchased with those USD becomes "collateral to the loan", i.e. "an Export to China, that the Chinese haven't retrieved yet" ? in some similar sense, whoever purchases with those USD does so as a "purchasing agent of the Chinese Government" ("granted discretionary spending authority") ?

When we buy imports ... we send ownership of US dollars overseas... If it's done electronically, the money never really leaves the US banking system

the physical money remains in the US; the ownership of the physical money & associated electronic-deposit-account transfers to China...

if they decide they want to hold physical currency, say in their bank vaults or at their central bank or whatever, then yes sending that currency contracts the money supply.

Chinese-owned deposits, in US banks, are Chinese "holdings" of physical currency, which remain "frozen" (V=0), i.e. de-circulated (M-->M), until further notice ?

I don't know what going from capital to lower case means?

"decreases", e.g. "M-->M" means "Money-supply decreases (from a bigger-to-smaller amount)"

 

[sealybobo]

In several threads around the board, debates rage regarding the superiority of "Trickle Down" or "Demand Side" economics on a macro scale. What becomes rapidly clear is that most people arguing these positions don't know what the terms mean. What is "Trickle Down Economics?" What is "Demand Side Economics."

Let's start with "Demand Side." The first thing to understand is that it doesn't exist. There is no "demand side" school of thought, there never has been one. Most of those who claim to support "demand side" do so based on complete ignorance. A thought process of "supply side is Reagan, we hate Reagan and want the opposite, which is demand side." They couple this with a fuzzy misunderstanding of the theories of Lord John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was NOT an idiot, Keynes did NOT claim that demand drives markets. Whether one agree or disagrees with Keynes, the foundation of Keynesian theory is sound. Keynes did not promote the idiocy that most of those using his name as justification claim that he did.

Then there is "Trickle Down." As with demand side, there is no such thing a trickle down. It is a name that demagogues coined to deride the theories of Arthur Laffer. Laffer created a fusion of Austrian and Classical economics coupled with a spin on Keynes where tax cuts, even with rising deficits, were used to stimulate business cycles. The theory being that cuts in corporate taxes would create more jobs and that the benefits would trickle down to all levels of society.

So most of the "debate" we see is based on myth and ignorance. Should public policy be based on myth and ignorance?

This thread is created in hopes that debate on the real economic schools of thought, Classical, Austrian, Keynesian and Chicago will be discussed in a more accurate manner. So that those who speak so loudly may glean some semblance of knowledge regarding the subject they pontificate upon.

Standard Disclaimer: My bias is Rothbard, for those who know who he was.

Someone give this guy a straight jacket yet?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

US exports are marketed in foreign "free-trade zones"; foreign FTZs are "economic extensions" of domestic markets ? et vice versa ?

what about buying Chinese DVDs on Ebay ? US consumers pay via PayPal; Chinese sellers collect in Yuan (after PayPal exchanges Dollars for Yuan [and "skims fees"]) ? i.e. "PayPal handles the ForEx for Ebay'ers (behind the scenes)" ?

Doesn't really matter where the currency exchange is done, the point is that the purchase of final export goods has to be done with US dollars.

meanwhile, the demand-for-US-Dollars, on the 4XM, implies demand-for-US-Exports; nominal US "trade deficits" account only Consumer (C) & Capital (K) goods & services. Ergo, "un-recognized" demand-for-US-Exports must embody foreign purchases of "other things" un-accounted as "foreign trade":

US exports isn't the only reason foreigners would want to buy US dollars. They may want to buy US dollar denominated assets (stocks, bonds, etc). This is how trade deficits happen. When we buy imports (I'm actually Australian, but assume for argument's sake that "we" means "the US") we send ownership of US dollars overseas. They could use those to buy US exports (which would mean balanced trade) or they could loan them to the US by purchasing financial assets. If you ignore the money, this is just plain old credit. They send us goods now, sometime in the future we return to them the value of those goods plus interest.

if Chinese loan USD back into the US; loans = credit; credits ---> Money supply (funding purchases of C/K/G)...

Errr, yes and no. If it's done electronically, the money never really leaves the US banking system. No net reserves change during the transaction. So the money supply doesn't change (I'm using base money). However if they decide they want to hold physical currency, say in their bank vaults or at their central bank or whatever, then yes sending that currency contracts the money supply. And if they take that currency and deposit it in a US bank that increases the money supply. Not that it really matter because the Fed will offset that.

if i understand, economically, domestic purchases (C/K/G), made with foreign-loaned USD, are de facto "Exports", i.e. "if you bought the widget, with China's USD; then you bought the widget, for China; China bought the widget; the widget is a de facto Export (which the Chinese have yet to retrieve)". or, if the US Government borrows USD from China, to pay for Social Programs in the US; then the recipients of those Entitlements re-spend the borrowed-back USD; then whatever "widgets" they buy, are de facto Exports ?

I don't follow you here.

variations in V suggest un-accounted Black-Market spending ?

Or just the number of transactions people engage in changes or people decide they want to hold on to more liquid money because of uncertainty/confidence.

what if China opted to hold USD, i.e. "China begins accepting USD for its products" ? if i understand, if all USD are returned to US markets, then:

MV = PQ = GDP = C+K+G + (X-I)
(X-I) = 0
"nominal (X-I)" + "un-recognized X" = 0
"some C+K+G" = "un-recognized X" ("everything bought on borrowed-back USD [considerable as collateral]")​

but if some USD are not returned to US markets, then:

MV = PQ = GDP = C+K+G + (X-I)
(X-I) < 0
"un-recognized X" = 0
"some C+K+G" = "un-recognized X" = 0 ("credit dries up, purchases plummet")
C+K+G ---> c+k+g
PQ ---> pq
MV ---> mv​

i.e. if China opted to "bury dollars"; then flow of USD, to China, for their products, would "drain down" the US Money supply, "drawing down" US GDP ?

I don't quite understand your notation (I don't know what going from capital to lower case means?) but I think I see what you're getting at.

If the money supply is fixed, then yes. Remember back under the gold standard the money supply was constrained by the quantity of gold the central bank held. If we bought an import, physical gold would be shipped from the US to, say, France. So the quantity of money in the US would fall and the quantity of money in France would increase. The relative price of US goods would fall and the relative price of French goods would rise meaning those in the US would switch from import goods to domestic goods and those in France would substitute to US goods. The movements in gold basically meant that the balance of trade was self correcting. If you ran a trade deficit, you're exports would quickly become competitive and the deficit would shrink automatically (and vice versa).

So if the money supply were fixed, yes. That's not the case now though. If money moves from the US to France contracting the money supply, the Fed will just offset this by expanding the money supply (since they can print money as they please). This lets countries run persistent trade deficits/surpluses.

I suppose a liberal Fed would be inclined to do that but in doing that they mask the inferiority of American goods and thus distort pricing signals and the efficiency of the economy thus contributing to the 2% growth we have today. For the novice this is easily understood by imagining it happening with trade between two people or two states within the United States . You can see how it would make wise shopping much much more difficult.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In several threads around the board, debates rage regarding the superiority of "Trickle Down" or "Demand Side" economics on a macro scale. What becomes rapidly clear is that most people arguing these positions don't know what the terms mean. What is "Trickle Down Economics?" What is "Demand Side Economics."

Let's start with "Demand Side." The first thing to understand is that it doesn't exist. There is no "demand side" school of thought, there never has been one. Most of those who claim to support "demand side" do so based on complete ignorance. A thought process of "supply side is Reagan, we hate Reagan and want the opposite, which is demand side." They couple this with a fuzzy misunderstanding of the theories of Lord John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was NOT an idiot, Keynes did NOT claim that demand drives markets. Whether one agree or disagrees with Keynes, the foundation of Keynesian theory is sound. Keynes did not promote the idiocy that most of those using his name as justification claim that he did.

Then there is "Trickle Down." As with demand side, there is no such thing a trickle down. It is a name that demagogues coined to deride the theories of Arthur Laffer. Laffer created a fusion of Austrian and Classical economics coupled with a spin on Keynes where tax cuts, even with rising deficits, were used to stimulate business cycles. The theory being that cuts in corporate taxes would create more jobs and that the benefits would trickle down to all levels of society.

So most of the "debate" we see is based on myth and ignorance. Should public policy be based on myth and ignorance?

This thread is created in hopes that debate on the real economic schools of thought, Classical, Austrian, Keynesian and Chicago will be discussed in a more accurate manner. So that those who speak so loudly may glean some semblance of knowledge regarding the subject they pontificate upon.

Standard Disclaimer: My bias is Rothbard, for those who know who he was.

Someone give this guy a straight jacket yet?

Translation: I am a typical illiterate liberal and lack the IQ to respond substantively

 

[sealybobo]

In several threads around the board, debates rage regarding the superiority of "Trickle Down" or "Demand Side" economics on a macro scale. What becomes rapidly clear is that most people arguing these positions don't know what the terms mean. What is "Trickle Down Economics?" What is "Demand Side Economics."

Let's start with "Demand Side." The first thing to understand is that it doesn't exist. There is no "demand side" school of thought, there never has been one. Most of those who claim to support "demand side" do so based on complete ignorance. A thought process of "supply side is Reagan, we hate Reagan and want the opposite, which is demand side." They couple this with a fuzzy misunderstanding of the theories of Lord John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was NOT an idiot, Keynes did NOT claim that demand drives markets. Whether one agree or disagrees with Keynes, the foundation of Keynesian theory is sound. Keynes did not promote the idiocy that most of those using his name as justification claim that he did.

Then there is "Trickle Down." As with demand side, there is no such thing a trickle down. It is a name that demagogues coined to deride the theories of Arthur Laffer. Laffer created a fusion of Austrian and Classical economics coupled with a spin on Keynes where tax cuts, even with rising deficits, were used to stimulate business cycles. The theory being that cuts in corporate taxes would create more jobs and that the benefits would trickle down to all levels of society.

So most of the "debate" we see is based on myth and ignorance. Should public policy be based on myth and ignorance?

This thread is created in hopes that debate on the real economic schools of thought, Classical, Austrian, Keynesian and Chicago will be discussed in a more accurate manner. So that those who speak so loudly may glean some semblance of knowledge regarding the subject they pontificate upon.

Standard Disclaimer: My bias is Rothbard, for those who know who he was.

Someone give this guy a straight jacket yet?

Translation: I am a typical illiterate liberal and lack the IQ to respond substantively

I just quickly looked through all the libertarian retard threads this guys started over the years. Where to begin. You're all losers and idiots or greedy liars. I don't know you so its hard to say which you are. Or both???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In several threads around the board, debates rage regarding the superiority of "Trickle Down" or "Demand Side" economics on a macro scale. What becomes rapidly clear is that most people arguing these positions don't know what the terms mean. What is "Trickle Down Economics?" What is "Demand Side Economics."

Let's start with "Demand Side." The first thing to understand is that it doesn't exist. There is no "demand side" school of thought, there never has been one. Most of those who claim to support "demand side" do so based on complete ignorance. A thought process of "supply side is Reagan, we hate Reagan and want the opposite, which is demand side." They couple this with a fuzzy misunderstanding of the theories of Lord John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was NOT an idiot, Keynes did NOT claim that demand drives markets. Whether one agree or disagrees with Keynes, the foundation of Keynesian theory is sound. Keynes did not promote the idiocy that most of those using his name as justification claim that he did.

Then there is "Trickle Down." As with demand side, there is no such thing a trickle down. It is a name that demagogues coined to deride the theories of Arthur Laffer. Laffer created a fusion of Austrian and Classical economics coupled with a spin on Keynes where tax cuts, even with rising deficits, were used to stimulate business cycles. The theory being that cuts in corporate taxes would create more jobs and that the benefits would trickle down to all levels of society.

So most of the "debate" we see is based on myth and ignorance. Should public policy be based on myth and ignorance?

This thread is created in hopes that debate on the real economic schools of thought, Classical, Austrian, Keynesian and Chicago will be discussed in a more accurate manner. So that those who speak so loudly may glean some semblance of knowledge regarding the subject they pontificate upon.

Standard Disclaimer: My bias is Rothbard, for those who know who he was.

Someone give this guy a straight jacket yet?

Translation: I am a typical illiterate liberal and lack the IQ to respond substantively

I just quickly looked through all the libertarian retard threads this guys started over the years. Where to begin. You're all losers and idiots or greedy liars. I don't know you so its hard to say which you are. Or both???

Translation: I'm a typical illiterate liberal without the IQ to respond substantively

 

[sealybobo]

In several threads around the board, debates rage regarding the superiority of "Trickle Down" or "Demand Side" economics on a macro scale. What becomes rapidly clear is that most people arguing these positions don't know what the terms mean. What is "Trickle Down Economics?" What is "Demand Side Economics."

Let's start with "Demand Side." The first thing to understand is that it doesn't exist. There is no "demand side" school of thought, there never has been one. Most of those who claim to support "demand side" do so based on complete ignorance. A thought process of "supply side is Reagan, we hate Reagan and want the opposite, which is demand side." They couple this with a fuzzy misunderstanding of the theories of Lord John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was NOT an idiot, Keynes did NOT claim that demand drives markets. Whether one agree or disagrees with Keynes, the foundation of Keynesian theory is sound. Keynes did not promote the idiocy that most of those using his name as justification claim that he did.

Then there is "Trickle Down." As with demand side, there is no such thing a trickle down. It is a name that demagogues coined to deride the theories of Arthur Laffer. Laffer created a fusion of Austrian and Classical economics coupled with a spin on Keynes where tax cuts, even with rising deficits, were used to stimulate business cycles. The theory being that cuts in corporate taxes would create more jobs and that the benefits would trickle down to all levels of society.

So most of the "debate" we see is based on myth and ignorance. Should public policy be based on myth and ignorance?

This thread is created in hopes that debate on the real economic schools of thought, Classical, Austrian, Keynesian and Chicago will be discussed in a more accurate manner. So that those who speak so loudly may glean some semblance of knowledge regarding the subject they pontificate upon.

Standard Disclaimer: My bias is Rothbard, for those who know who he was.

Someone give this guy a straight jacket yet?

Translation: I am a typical illiterate liberal and lack the IQ to respond substantively

I just quickly looked through all the libertarian retard threads this guys started over the years. Where to begin. You're all losers and idiots or greedy liars. I don't know you so its hard to say which you are. Or both???

Translation: I'm a typical illiterate liberal without the IQ to respond substantively

1. His record on jobs. When it comes to jobs, Trump has added 317,000 in two full months so far. His pace of job gains is almost exactly the same as what happened last year under President Obama. It's early days, but the economy has yet to be turbocharged like Trump promised.

2. His executive orders. Trump says he is saving the coal industry and enacting "Hire American" policies. He has signed several executive orders along those lines, but just about everyone -- even coal executives -- agree the coal jobs aren't coming back.

3. His trade deals. Perhaps the biggest surprise in Trump's first 100 days is how much he has toned down on trade. Yes, his administration has already slapped tariffs on Canadian lumber, but he isn't ripping up NAFTA, the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico that he says "destroyed" America.

4. His tax plan. As promised, the White House tax plan includes cuts for middle and moderate income folks, but the rich and corporations get even more goodies. "The majority of the benefits go to high-income people,

A typical middle class family would save about $1,000 on their taxes, according to a Tax Policy Center analysis of the tax plan Trump pitched on the campaign trail. In contrast, a family in the top 1% would save about $215,000 and family in the top 0.1% would save over $1 million.

Not very impressive at all.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In several threads around the board, debates rage regarding the superiority of "Trickle Down" or "Demand Side" economics on a macro scale. What becomes rapidly clear is that most people arguing these positions don't know what the terms mean. What is "Trickle Down Economics?" What is "Demand Side Economics."

Let's start with "Demand Side." The first thing to understand is that it doesn't exist. There is no "demand side" school of thought, there never has been one. Most of those who claim to support "demand side" do so based on complete ignorance. A thought process of "supply side is Reagan, we hate Reagan and want the opposite, which is demand side." They couple this with a fuzzy misunderstanding of the theories of Lord John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was NOT an idiot, Keynes did NOT claim that demand drives markets. Whether one agree or disagrees with Keynes, the foundation of Keynesian theory is sound. Keynes did not promote the idiocy that most of those using his name as justification claim that he did.

Then there is "Trickle Down." As with demand side, there is no such thing a trickle down. It is a name that demagogues coined to deride the theories of Arthur Laffer. Laffer created a fusion of Austrian and Classical economics coupled with a spin on Keynes where tax cuts, even with rising deficits, were used to stimulate business cycles. The theory being that cuts in corporate taxes would create more jobs and that the benefits would trickle down to all levels of society.

So most of the "debate" we see is based on myth and ignorance. Should public policy be based on myth and ignorance?

This thread is created in hopes that debate on the real economic schools of thought, Classical, Austrian, Keynesian and Chicago will be discussed in a more accurate manner. So that those who speak so loudly may glean some semblance of knowledge regarding the subject they pontificate upon.

Standard Disclaimer: My bias is Rothbard, for those who know who he was.

Someone give this guy a straight jacket yet?

Translation: I am a typical illiterate liberal and lack the IQ to respond substantively

I just quickly looked through all the libertarian retard threads this guys started over the years. Where to begin. You're all losers and idiots or greedy liars. I don't know you so its hard to say which you are. Or both???

Translation: I'm a typical illiterate liberal without the IQ to respond substantively

1. His record on jobs. When it comes to jobs, Trump has added 317,000 in two full months so far. His pace of job gains is almost exactly the same as what happened last year under President Obama. It's early days, but the economy has yet to be turbocharged like Trump promised.

2. His executive orders. Trump says he is saving the coal industry and enacting "Hire American" policies. He has signed several executive orders along those lines, but just about everyone -- even coal executives -- agree the coal jobs aren't coming back.

3. His trade deals. Perhaps the biggest surprise in Trump's first 100 days is how much he has toned down on trade. Yes, his administration has already slapped tariffs on Canadian lumber, but he isn't ripping up NAFTA, the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico that he says "destroyed" America.

4. His tax plan. As promised, the White House tax plan includes cuts for middle and moderate income folks, but the rich and corporations get even more goodies. "The majority of the benefits go to high-income people,

A typical middle class family would save about $1,000 on their taxes, according to a Tax Policy Center analysis of the tax plan Trump pitched on the campaign trail. In contrast, a family in the top 1% would save about $215,000 and family in the top 0.1% would save over $1 million.

Not very impressive at all.

Supply side got us from the Stone Age to here as Republicans supplied new inventions. If we want to keep growing we need more and more Republican supply side economics

 

[sealybobo]

Someone give this guy a straight jacket yet?

Translation: I am a typical illiterate liberal and lack the IQ to respond substantively

I just quickly looked through all the libertarian retard threads this guys started over the years. Where to begin. You're all losers and idiots or greedy liars. I don't know you so its hard to say which you are. Or both???

Translation: I'm a typical illiterate liberal without the IQ to respond substantively

1. His record on jobs. When it comes to jobs, Trump has added 317,000 in two full months so far. His pace of job gains is almost exactly the same as what happened last year under President Obama. It's early days, but the economy has yet to be turbocharged like Trump promised.

2. His executive orders. Trump says he is saving the coal industry and enacting "Hire American" policies. He has signed several executive orders along those lines, but just about everyone -- even coal executives -- agree the coal jobs aren't coming back.

3. His trade deals. Perhaps the biggest surprise in Trump's first 100 days is how much he has toned down on trade. Yes, his administration has already slapped tariffs on Canadian lumber, but he isn't ripping up NAFTA, the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico that he says "destroyed" America.

4. His tax plan. As promised, the White House tax plan includes cuts for middle and moderate income folks, but the rich and corporations get even more goodies. "The majority of the benefits go to high-income people,

A typical middle class family would save about $1,000 on their taxes, according to a Tax Policy Center analysis of the tax plan Trump pitched on the campaign trail. In contrast, a family in the top 1% would save about $215,000 and family in the top 0.1% would save over $1 million.

Not very impressive at all.

Supply side got us from the Stone Age to here as Republicans supplied new inventions. If we want to keep growing we need more and more Republican supply side economics

U.S. income inequality is comparable to other developed countries before taxes and transfers, but is among the highest after taxes and transfers, meaning the U.S. shifts relatively less income from higher income households to lower income households.

That means after the loopholes and unfair tax breaks the rich get, we have a big problem in this country. So the rich don't need more money. They have plenty. In fact if you tax income over $10 million dollars then that would limit the greed. Then they would reinvest the money rather than stockpiling it.

And a good idea doesn't need a tax break. And a tax break doesn't get a company to hire anyone they don't need. Trickle down doesn't work. Supply side economics don't work.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Translation: I am a typical illiterate liberal and lack the IQ to respond substantively

I just quickly looked through all the libertarian retard threads this guys started over the years. Where to begin. You're all losers and idiots or greedy liars. I don't know you so its hard to say which you are. Or both???

Translation: I'm a typical illiterate liberal without the IQ to respond substantively

1. His record on jobs. When it comes to jobs, Trump has added 317,000 in two full months so far. His pace of job gains is almost exactly the same as what happened last year under President Obama. It's early days, but the economy has yet to be turbocharged like Trump promised.

2. His executive orders. Trump says he is saving the coal industry and enacting "Hire American" policies. He has signed several executive orders along those lines, but just about everyone -- even coal executives -- agree the coal jobs aren't coming back.

3. His trade deals. Perhaps the biggest surprise in Trump's first 100 days is how much he has toned down on trade. Yes, his administration has already slapped tariffs on Canadian lumber, but he isn't ripping up NAFTA, the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico that he says "destroyed" America.

4. His tax plan. As promised, the White House tax plan includes cuts for middle and moderate income folks, but the rich and corporations get even more goodies. "The majority of the benefits go to high-income people,

A typical middle class family would save about $1,000 on their taxes, according to a Tax Policy Center analysis of the tax plan Trump pitched on the campaign trail. In contrast, a family in the top 1% would save about $215,000 and family in the top 0.1% would save over $1 million.

Not very impressive at all.

Supply side got us from the Stone Age to here as Republicans supplied new inventions. If we want to keep growing we need more and more Republican supply side economics

U.S. income inequality is comparable to other developed countries before taxes and transfers, but is among the highest after taxes and transfers, meaning the U.S. shifts relatively less income from higher income households to lower income households.

That means after the loopholes and unfair tax breaks the rich get, we have a big problem in this country. So the rich don't need more money. They have plenty. In fact if you tax income over $10 million dollars then that would limit the greed. Then they would reinvest the money rather than stockpiling it.

And a good idea doesn't need a tax break. And a tax break doesn't get a company to hire anyone they don't need. Trickle down doesn't work. Supply side economics don't work.

If supply side does not work then all the inventions supplied by Republican Capitalists since the Stone Age must be of no value.

Would the liberal like to go back to the Stone Age and see what it's like to live without all the inventions that were supplied and trickled down thanks to Republican supply side capitalism??