Someone explain this NeoCon Supply side argument to me

[Jomama]

Does it work on a micro scale? Private Investors had zillions sitting idle through 2008 - 2012. Could they have stuffed all that cash into companies and created demand for their product? Could Private Equity have stuffed billions into their portfolio companies and seen growth? Could industries have chosen to spend a lot in that time period and made premium profits? If so, why didnt they?

Or somehow, is it only on the macro scale? Only big Federal levers can accomplish supply side growth? This is because supply siders say cut taxes, leave more money with business owners and they will hire more people, buy more equipment and create a virtuous cycle. (the same thing i suggested above at a portfolio or industry level). Supply drives demand? And we know this as fact because it worked a few times at a Federal level.

So, if, nationwide, we put a lot of money into the hands of private business owners, we would have Reagan-esque type growth, not Obama growth? OK. I'm with you so far. But what if we did that by a mechanism other than the Federal Govt? That should still work, money's money, right?

I like economic models and theorize a lot about placing bets. If I could get Reagan type growth with a fixed formula, I'd like that. This is why supply siders push their policies politically, they like Reagan type growth. We all do.

But let's look at it from an investor's view; what if US industry took all it's cash and invested it in privately held Canadian companies in 2008 - 2012 and it was as impactful as a Reagan type tax cut - would that have delivered a massive premium to Canadian GDP? Would it have spread to the US?

If you're right about stimulus/response nature of supply side tax cuts, then we should be able to create demand through supply and make all the right bets. And if not Canada, how about Mexico or New England, there are plenty of small economies. Or does it have to be US size economy and why?

 

[Mr. H.]

Those "Zillions" haven't been sitting idle. They've been invested in the stock market.
When Obama prints $85 billion per MONTH of funny paper, and drives interest rates to near-zero, where else is there to invest?

 

[Jomama]

Money never sits still, it seeks best return. That's the point here - wanna take a shot at my topic?

 

[Mr. H.]

You like economic models and formulas?

Analyze Carter's Windfall Profits Tax formula.

Get back to me with your results.

 

[Tehon]

Does it work on a micro scale? Private Investors had zillions sitting idle through 2008 - 2012. Could they have stuffed all that cash into companies and created demand for their product? Could Private Equity have stuffed billions into their portfolio companies and seen growth? Could industries have chosen to spend a lot in that time period and made premium profits? If so, why didnt they?

Or somehow, is it only on the macro scale? Only big Federal levers can accomplish supply side growth? This is because supply siders say cut taxes, leave more money with business owners and they will hire more people, buy more equipment and create a virtuous cycle. (the same thing i suggested above at a portfolio or industry level). Supply drives demand? And we know this as fact because it worked a few times at a Federal level.

So, if, nationwide, we put a lot of money into the hands of private business owners, we would have Reagan-esque type growth, not Obama growth? OK. I'm with you so far. But what if we did that by a mechanism other than the Federal Govt? That should still work, money's money, right?

I like economic models and theorize a lot about placing bets. If I could get Reagan type growth with a fixed formula, I'd like that. This is why supply siders push their policies politically, they like Reagan type growth. We all do.

But let's look at it from an investor's view; what if US industry took all it's cash and invested it in privately held Canadian companies in 2008 - 2012 and it was as impactful as a Reagan type tax cut - would that have delivered a massive premium to Canadian GDP? Would it have spread to the US?

If you're right about stimulus/response nature of supply side tax cuts, then we should be able to create demand through supply and make all the right bets. And if not Canada, how about Mexico or New England, there are plenty of small economies. Or does it have to be US size economy and why?

Good luck getting anyone to defend supply side theory. History has proven it a failure, it hasn't been proven to work on any scale. The economic growth experienced during the Reagan years should rightly be attributed to declining oil prices. The timing of his presidency was rather fortuitous for Reagan and unfortunately for the rest of us it created an army of wrong thinking automatons that we must still endure.

 

[Jomama]

Bump. Hmm, must not be any supply side blowhards on this forum? Seems like someone would have responded, they always seem to have all the answers.

For the record, I studied economics in college during the Reagan administration and believed the whole ball of wax. It's only 30 years as an entrepreneur that makes me realize how suspect much of what I used to believe actually is.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Good luck getting anyone to defend supply side theory. History has proven it a failure, it hasn't been proven to work on any scale..

100% stupid and 100% liberal of course. Red China failed and slowly starved 60 million to death when libcommie demand side govt taxed, spent, and controlled the economy. The second they stopped, switched to Republican supply side capitalism, and put resources in private hands those private hands supplied enough goods and services to instantly eliminate 40% of world poverty.

Do you have the IQ to understand??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

and make all the right bets. And if not Canada, how about Mexico or New England, there are plenty of small economies. Or does it have to be US size economy and why?

I think you misunderstand the nature of capitalism. The bets have to made by millions of capitalists over time in a sink or swim free market environment before you see consistent 5-10% growth. Bets or guesses by libsoviet central planners are doomed to failure.

Do you understand?

 

[Mr Natural]

100% stupid and 100% liberal of course. Red China failed and slowly starved 60 million to death when libcommie demand side govt taxed, spent, and controlled the economy. The second they stopped, switched to Republican supply side capitalism, and put resources in private hands those private hands supplied enough goods and services to instantly eliminate 40% of world poverty.

In the world of Special Ed, Chinese Communism = Republican supply side capitalism

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

100% stupid and 100% liberal of course. Red China failed and slowly starved 60 million to death when libcommie demand side govt taxed, spent, and controlled the economy. The second they stopped, switched to Republican supply side capitalism, and put resources in private hands those private hands supplied enough goods and services to instantly eliminate 40% of world poverty.

In the world of Special Ed, Chinese Communism = Republican supply side capitalism

I think you misunderstand the nature of capitalism. The bets have to made by millions of capitalists over time in a sink or swim free market environment before you see consistent 5-10% growth. Bets or guesses by libsoviet central planners are doomed to failure.

Do you understand?

 

[Jomama]

Ed, simple Ed, answer the question Ed.

Can it work on portfolio or industry level? If not, why? Specifically why?

Can it be done on a national level with direct investment vs. tax cuts? Where are the real leverage points Ed?

No more of your simple minded; you cut taxes, entrepreneurs do their thing and, voila, growth happens. If it's a formula, spell it out - without the fuzzy bits in between. If some part of this wont work, explain why.

You see Special Ed, this is where your dogmatic bullying runs upon the rocks of reality.

 

[Jomama]

Red China ... switched to Republican supply side capitalism, and put resources in private hands those private hands supplied enough goods and services to instantly eliminate 40% of world poverty.

Explain how China used Republican supply side capitalism? Did they cut taxes? Russia put "resources in private hands", is that the same as what China or Reagan did?

Go ahead Ed, take your time and explain this to us. Or just answer the OP.

 

[Mr. H.]

Red China ... switched to Republican supply side capitalism, and put resources in private hands those private hands supplied enough goods and services to instantly eliminate 40% of world poverty.

Explain how China used Republican supply side capitalism? Did they cut taxes? Russia put "resources in private hands", is that the same as what China or Reagan did?

Go ahead Ed, take your time and explain this to us. Or just answer the OP.

Ed just waxed you ass even before you replied.

Take a back seat, Cub Scout.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Can it work on portfolio or industry level? .

dear, if it works for economy it works for firms within economy.
For example, in VC we say the more money we have the more shots on goal we can take. The more money libturds take away from us the fewer Googles Apples and Amazon's we can fund.

Do you understand now??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Explain how China used Republican supply side capitalism? .

Dear, it started in 1979 and it eliminated 40% of world poverty.
If you want to read the 3 best books to learn about it and apparently to learn what capitalism is:


"Capitalism With Chinese Characteristics"


"How China Became Capitalist"

In his new book titled Markets over Mao: The rise of private businesses in China, Lardy argues that even though SOEs still enjoy monopoly positions in some key sectors in China, such as energy and telecommunications, their role in the overall economy has diminished significantly over the years. Here are some of the facts he presents to back his thesis: in 2011, China’s state-controlled firms only accounted for about a quarter of the country’s industrial output; and their share in exports has dropped to about 11% today; in 2012, state firms were only responsible for about one-tenth of fixed investment in manufacturing. And in terms of employment, SOEs employed about 13% of China’s labor force in 2011, a dramatic decline compared with the 60% figure recorded in 1999.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance??