Supply Side Economics is a failure and makes no sense

[IDNeon]

If more supply of something meant more demand then all a business would have to do to be successful is "make anything" and it would be able to sell it.

Obviously supply side economics is a total failure.

All it does is give the rich more money with no where to put that money so they drive the price of the stock-market higher as that is their preferred holding of value ('wealth').

Meanwhile cutting taxes for the rich does NOTHING for the working-class.

 

[eagle1462010]

Supply and Demand are related. Without a demand a supply is useless........Any new items offered to sell that are new to the public have to be supplied to see if the demand will follow.........

i.e. inventions..........Unless you try to market the product, you'll never know people will want it.

Both are necessary.

 

[IDNeon]

Supply and Demand are related. Without a demand a supply is useless........Any new items offered to sell that are new to the public have to be supplied to see if the demand will follow.........

i.e. inventions..........Unless you try to market the product, you'll never know people will want it.

Both are necessary.

That has nothing to do with "Supply side economics".

The argument of supply side economics is if you make money more available to the rich they will have to invest it in NEW businesses, NEW production.

 

[Staidhup]

The proof that our educational system is failing is well demonstrated by IDNeons enlighten rant. Apparently innovation and advancement in technology should come from the government sector or better yet cronyism? Which leads me to conclude risk tolerance, reward, punishment should be dictated by those serving our country in Washington.

 

[MikeK]

If more supply of something meant more demand then all a business would have to do to be successful is "make anything" and it would be able to sell it.

Obviously supply side economics is a total failure.

All it does is give the rich more money with no where to put that money so they drive the price of the stock-market higher as that is their preferred holding of value ('wealth').

Meanwhile cutting taxes for the rich does NOTHING for the working-class.

Well said.

 

[bendog]

Supply and Demand are related. Without a demand a supply is useless........Any new items offered to sell that are new to the public have to be supplied to see if the demand will follow.........

i.e. inventions..........Unless you try to market the product, you'll never know people will want it.

Both are necessary.

That has nothing to do with "Supply side economics".

The argument of supply side economics is if you make money more available to the rich they will have to invest it in NEW businesses, NEW production.

well, not to speak for eagle, but I think the facts are pretty clear that in 1980 supply was increased, which coupled with the technological revolution that made producing stuff more efficient, increased the number of "stuff" people could buy, and at that time the middleclass had disposable income, so more stuff got sold.

Imo the facts today are maybe more in dispute, but I think the overall consensus is we got plenty of supply but not enough demand.

 

[Staidhup]

Supply and Demand are related. Without a demand a supply is useless........Any new items offered to sell that are new to the public have to be supplied to see if the demand will follow.........

i.e. inventions..........Unless you try to market the product, you'll never know people will want it.

Both are necessary.

That has nothing to do with "Supply side economics".

The argument of supply side economics is if you make money more available to the rich they will have to invest it in NEW businesses, NEW production.

And apparently this has not been the case over the past 35 years? One easy case in point, back in 1980 a cell phone cost in excess of $1,500.00, to day less than $100.00. A mainframe IBM system 38 computer, computing at a fraction of current lap top or droid, sold for $25,000, today less than $1,000 with multiple times the speed, capacity, and memory. So how did that happen?

 

[eagle1462010]

Supply and Demand are related. Without a demand a supply is useless........Any new items offered to sell that are new to the public have to be supplied to see if the demand will follow.........

i.e. inventions..........Unless you try to market the product, you'll never know people will want it.

Both are necessary.

That has nothing to do with "Supply side economics".

The argument of supply side economics is if you make money more available to the rich they will have to invest it in NEW businesses, NEW production.

All supply is related to demand, even for new stuff...........If no one likes your new gadget you don't sell any of them whether it be to rich people or the poor.

 

[Siete]

lease a giant wear house, hire dozens of employees to build a product, pack the giant wear house with said product ... you're instant rich.

why doesn't everyone think of that ?

because everyone isn't a DUMBASS.

just supply siders.

 

[bendog]

Not to argue for socialism, but steve jobs and bill gates didn't build it by themselves (nor did either ever claim they did)
Apollo 11 The computers that put man on the moon

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's amazing how easy it is to tell when someone has absolutely zero experience with capital markets or the private sector

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not to argue for socialism, but steve jobs and bill gates didn't build it by themselves (nor did either ever claim they did)
Apollo 11 The computers that put man on the moon

Correct, they made millions of people rich right alongside them

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's not a failure to a select group at the top.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Meanwhile cutting taxes for the rich does NOTHING for the working-class.

Clearly then, The Obama lied when He said that extending GWB's tax cuts was "a substantial victory for middle-class families across the country" and that they were "a package of tax relief that will protect the middle class, that will grow our economy and will create jobs for the American people"?
Obama signs bill to extend Bush-era tax cuts for two more years

 

[bendog]

Meanwhile cutting taxes for the rich does NOTHING for the working-class.

Clearly then, The Obama lied when he said that extending GWB's tax cuts was "a substantial victory for middle-class families across the country" and that they were "a package of tax relief that will protect the middle class, that will grow our economy and will create jobs for the American people"?
Obama signs bill to extend Bush-era tax cuts for two more years

Well, cutting taxes on the middle class is increasing demand .... which btw was part of the W plan all along.

It's a question of definitions. Supply side does not necessarily deny the govts' role in affecting how much supply or demand is in play at a given time.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's amazing how easy it is to tell when someone has absolutely zero experience with capital markets or the private sector

Or girls, past what they see on Sesame Street.

 

[Manonthestreet]

If more supply of something meant more demand then all a business would have to do to be successful is "make anything" and it would be able to sell it.

Obviously supply side economics is a total failure.

All it does is give the rich more money with no where to put that money so they drive the price of the stock-market higher as that is their preferred holding of value ('wealth').

Meanwhile cutting taxes for the rich does NOTHING for the working-class.

Doesnt make sense to you because you misstate or dont understand.......you can have all the supply of something you want....doesnt guarantee one buyer

 

[Manonthestreet]

Know what reaally works well I've heard 5yr plans where govt decides what gets made and how much.......and or price controls........

 

[MikeK]

Demand side economics is predicated on the existence of wealth within the prospective consumer category.

Demand has nothing to do with desire, because without money to spend demand goes wanting -- along with the Supply side.

Simply stated, the Nation's wealth resources must be equitably distributed or the Economy will stagnate and eventually will collapse.

For America to remain economically healthy the massive money hoards of the greedy One Percent must be equitably redistributed.

By any means necessary!

 

[MikeK]

Well, cutting taxes on the middle class is increasing demand .... which btw was part of the W plan all along.

[...]

W's plan was a deceptive scam. His tax cuts put $500 in the pocket of the average worker -- but the same rate of reduction put $500,000 to $5,000,000 in the pockets of his "base," the average multi-millionaire and billionaire.

George W. Bush is a criminal sonofabitch who belongs in prison!