Supply side economics work...just not how we would like

Go ahjead and explain your position. You've failed to show any ill effects from Japanese companies putting American TV makers out of business. What is the issue here with free trade and globalization?

Yeah... That would be due to the advances in automation and miniaturization that have been achieved in the interim.

Just like a Computer is no longer the size of a tractor trailer and doesn't cost 5 billion dollars to build...

It doesn't matter if Martians are making them, they're still going to cost less...

Though I imagine shipping costs from Mars would be pretty steep.

BSSSTTTT wrong answer.. (as Vidi would say)..

Today's TVs have MORE PARTs, more capability, and are infinitely harder to assemble than ever before. OF course the only difference isn't JUST cheap labor.

But -- what DIDN'T happen was that the market was cornered by unfair marketing practice and THEN --- someone has their way with you.. That's just a fantasy for leftists that never seems to play out.

HECK -- there are more choices in the market today, and there is some valuable AMERICAN content in each of those TVs.

Like the DLP projection system from Texas Instruments that is popular. Or Dolby Sound. Or various technology for touch screens or recording devices.
 
Go ahjead and explain your position. You've failed to show any ill effects from Japanese companies putting American TV makers out of business. What is the issue here with free trade and globalization?

Yeah... That would be due to the advances in automation and miniaturization that have been achieved in the interim.

Just like a Computer is no longer the size of a tractor trailer and doesn't cost 5 billion dollars to build...

It doesn't matter if Martians are making them, they're still going to cost less...

Though I imagine shipping costs from Mars would be pretty steep.

BSSSTTTT wrong answer.. (as Vidi would say)..

Today's TVs have MORE PARTs, more capability, and are infinitely harder to assemble than ever before. OF course the only difference isn't JUST cheap labor.

But -- what DIDN'T happen was that the market was cornered by unfair marketing practice and THEN --- someone has their way with you.. That's just a fantasy for leftists that never seems to play out.

HECK -- there are more choices in the market today, and there is some valuable AMERICAN content in each of those TVs.

Like the DLP projection system from Texas Instruments that is popular. Or Dolby Sound. Or various technology for touch screens or recording devices.

I would then argue that liscensing the use of technology to foriegn companies doesnt create American jobs.
 
Yeah... That would be due to the advances in automation and miniaturization that have been achieved in the interim.

Just like a Computer is no longer the size of a tractor trailer and doesn't cost 5 billion dollars to build...

It doesn't matter if Martians are making them, they're still going to cost less...

Though I imagine shipping costs from Mars would be pretty steep.

BSSSTTTT wrong answer.. (as Vidi would say)..

Today's TVs have MORE PARTs, more capability, and are infinitely harder to assemble than ever before. OF course the only difference isn't JUST cheap labor.

But -- what DIDN'T happen was that the market was cornered by unfair marketing practice and THEN --- someone has their way with you.. That's just a fantasy for leftists that never seems to play out.

HECK -- there are more choices in the market today, and there is some valuable AMERICAN content in each of those TVs.

Like the DLP projection system from Texas Instruments that is popular. Or Dolby Sound. Or various technology for touch screens or recording devices.

I would then argue that liscensing the use of technology to foriegn companies doesnt create American jobs.

It's not a GREAT source of jobs in general. But it does allow income to continue development and innovation. In the case of Texas Instruments DLP -- they provide the hardware and sometimes the whole "optical engine" for the TV set. I have one -- built by Toshiba and they are great. Same tech used in most multiplex theatres.. Would take a decade for the CHinese to copy that..

Vidi -- you were spot in the OP.. We're wasting time casting blame on old theories of economics that got blown up in the past 20 years. And you have to immediately ask why we're not hearing about HOW to really maintain an American standard of living..

We're being stirred and distracted by politics. And the answers aren't in taxes and import duties. THey aren't in Keysian stimulus because our economy doesn't even reside within the national boundaries anymore. It's really sad that most Americans think we can stop the carnival and go backwards..
 
BSSSTTTT wrong answer.. (as Vidi would say)..

Today's TVs have MORE PARTs, more capability, and are infinitely harder to assemble than ever before. OF course the only difference isn't JUST cheap labor.

But -- what DIDN'T happen was that the market was cornered by unfair marketing practice and THEN --- someone has their way with you.. That's just a fantasy for leftists that never seems to play out.

HECK -- there are more choices in the market today, and there is some valuable AMERICAN content in each of those TVs.

Like the DLP projection system from Texas Instruments that is popular. Or Dolby Sound. Or various technology for touch screens or recording devices.

Yeah.... no.

While today's televisions are in fact much more complex than their older counterparts, the technology to create them has progressed exponentially.

That is why, even though a tiny laptop is infinitely more complex than the computer of the 1960's (which filled an entire room), it is in fact much cheaper to make, and much easier to make.

The difference is, a computer makes most of the system board on a laptop. There isn't some guy with a really tiny soldering gun making all the connections on the motherboard.
 
BSSSTTTT wrong answer.. (as Vidi would say)..

Today's TVs have MORE PARTs, more capability, and are infinitely harder to assemble than ever before. OF course the only difference isn't JUST cheap labor.

But -- what DIDN'T happen was that the market was cornered by unfair marketing practice and THEN --- someone has their way with you.. That's just a fantasy for leftists that never seems to play out.

HECK -- there are more choices in the market today, and there is some valuable AMERICAN content in each of those TVs.

Like the DLP projection system from Texas Instruments that is popular. Or Dolby Sound. Or various technology for touch screens or recording devices.

Yeah.... no.

While today's televisions are in fact much more complex than their older counterparts, the technology to create them has progressed exponentially.

That is why, even though a tiny laptop is infinitely more complex than the computer of the 1960's (which filled an entire room), it is in fact much cheaper to make, and much easier to make.

The difference is, a computer makes most of the system board on a laptop. There isn't some guy with a really tiny soldering gun making all the connections on the motherboard.

Thanks for the lecture.. I'll remember that while I'm designing complex electronics tonight.

So -- what's the point? You're not getting hosed. You IMAGINE you're getting hosed -- but you're really not.. The only hosing goin on here is that you've TOLD we can ignore globalization and bring back the 60s.. We NEED to push on. And it takes MORE American kids in our graduate schools for science and engineering. This economy is no longer growable by consumption of hard goods or "stimulus". The Stimulus we need is to create, innovate and invent. And it's actually OK to let others do the easy stuff for us..

When the era of "cheap labor" is over (very shorty now -- probably in your lifetime) those manufacturing jobs are STILL not all coming back. Because Automation and Artificial Intelligience and Materials research is gonna drive a stake into "cheap labor". And there will be jobs at ALL levels in that regime. But MOST of the good jobs are gonna require a much better prepared workforce than we have now.
 
Ever since I came to this forum, whenever economics, taxes and jobs are brought up, I see the same arguments.

From the Right: Cutting taxes alllows for the job creators to invest that money and create more jobs

From the Left: The Bush Tax cuts have been in place for a decade, Where are the jobs?


Which is always followed by the usual round of the Blame Game.


Well enough of that.

Supply Side economics WORKS. It works exactly as the Right claims it does. Its just that simple.

But wait says the Left, if thats true WHERE are the jobs?

Excellent question. Heres the answer: Singapore, Guatamala, Equador, Thailand, China, Viet Nam, Mexico and a host of other countries.

You see, if America were a closed system, where tax breaks could ONLY be spent/reinvested within the system. Then it would create jobs.

But unfortuinately, our economic borders are wide open. Money can pretty much move freely both in and more importantly OUT of the country. So tax breaks here translate into more jobs for certain, but not AMERICAN JOBS.

That is the fundamental flaw with the Pro Supply Side argument. It MAY create American jobs, but its just as likely to create CHINESE jobs.

Discuss.

I think it isn't just that.

It's when it's appropriate.

One could make the argument that Supply SIde made sense in 1981. The Fed was tightening the money supply to control inflation, and there was an ongoing drawdown after Vietnam's Keynesian surge. So a 70% upper limit didn't make sense. Putting money back into the system made sense.

Supply side in 2001, not so much. The problem there was that there was too much inventory and too much capacity.
 
Ever since I came to this forum, whenever economics, taxes and jobs are brought up, I see the same arguments.

From the Right: Cutting taxes alllows for the job creators to invest that money and create more jobs

From the Left: The Bush Tax cuts have been in place for a decade, Where are the jobs?


Which is always followed by the usual round of the Blame Game.


Well enough of that.

Supply Side economics WORKS. It works exactly as the Right claims it does. Its just that simple.

But wait says the Left, if thats true WHERE are the jobs?

Excellent question. Heres the answer: Singapore, Guatamala, Equador, Thailand, China, Viet Nam, Mexico and a host of other countries.

You see, if America were a closed system, where tax breaks could ONLY be spent/reinvested within the system. Then it would create jobs.

But unfortuinately, our economic borders are wide open. Money can pretty much move freely both in and more importantly OUT of the country. So tax breaks here translate into more jobs for certain, but not AMERICAN JOBS.

That is the fundamental flaw with the Pro Supply Side argument. It MAY create American jobs, but its just as likely to create CHINESE jobs.

Discuss.

I think it isn't just that.

It's when it's appropriate.

One could make the argument that Supply SIde made sense in 1981. The Fed was tightening the money supply to control inflation, and there was an ongoing drawdown after Vietnam's Keynesian surge. So a 70% upper limit didn't make sense. Putting money back into the system made sense.

Supply side in 2001, not so much. The problem there was that there was too much inventory and too much capacity.

Supply side works when capacity CAN be built out. In 81 that capacity was located here. In 2001 -- not so much. Since 81 a lot of the domestic has converted to Service Sector. Expanding capacity in the Service sector is FAR MORE capital intensive and risky than it was in manufacturing.

When you needed to double manufacturing -- you built ONE new factory. You could serve the entire world from those few locations.

To double a retailer or service franchise you might need 50 new stores. All with land, taxes, buildings, etc. And each of those locations serves a very limited market. So the return per store is much less and your service area is much less.

Expanding virtual presence is the only thing that's prevented conversion to the service economy from imploding the economy. And policy makers better be aware that attempts to feed from that channel are gonna have dire effects..
 
Ever since I came to this forum, whenever economics, taxes and jobs are brought up, I see the same arguments.

From the Right: Cutting taxes alllows for the job creators to invest that money and create more jobs

From the Left: The Bush Tax cuts have been in place for a decade, Where are the jobs?


Which is always followed by the usual round of the Blame Game.


Well enough of that.

Supply Side economics WORKS. It works exactly as the Right claims it does. Its just that simple.

But wait says the Left, if thats true WHERE are the jobs?

Excellent question. Heres the answer: Singapore, Guatamala, Equador, Thailand, China, Viet Nam, Mexico and a host of other countries.

You see, if America were a closed system, where tax breaks could ONLY be spent/reinvested within the system. Then it would create jobs.

But unfortuinately, our economic borders are wide open. Money can pretty much move freely both in and more importantly OUT of the country. So tax breaks here translate into more jobs for certain, but not AMERICAN JOBS.

That is the fundamental flaw with the Pro Supply Side argument. It MAY create American jobs, but its just as likely to create CHINESE jobs.

Discuss.

I think it isn't just that.

It's when it's appropriate.

One could make the argument that Supply SIde made sense in 1981. The Fed was tightening the money supply to control inflation, and there was an ongoing drawdown after Vietnam's Keynesian surge. So a 70% upper limit didn't make sense. Putting money back into the system made sense.

Supply side in 2001, not so much. The problem there was that there was too much inventory and too much capacity.

Isn't it part of the responsibility in supply side economics to competantly control one's inventory?
 
Of course that's not really what "supply side" is all about. A high school dropout like Joe can only think two dimensionally so that's what he gets out of it.
The truth is that helping to make the economy more efficient by removing dead-weight loss issues in regulation and taxation helps both producers and consumers. And that's more what supply side means.
 
Ever since I came to this forum, whenever economics, taxes and jobs are brought up, I see the same arguments.

From the Right: Cutting taxes alllows for the job creators to invest that money and create more jobs

From the Left: The Bush Tax cuts have been in place for a decade, Where are the jobs?


Which is always followed by the usual round of the Blame Game.


Well enough of that.

Supply Side economics WORKS. It works exactly as the Right claims it does. Its just that simple.

But wait says the Left, if thats true WHERE are the jobs?

Excellent question. Heres the answer: Singapore, Guatamala, Equador, Thailand, China, Viet Nam, Mexico and a host of other countries.

You see, if America were a closed system, where tax breaks could ONLY be spent/reinvested within the system. Then it would create jobs.

But unfortuinately, our economic borders are wide open. Money can pretty much move freely both in and more importantly OUT of the country. So tax breaks here translate into more jobs for certain, but not AMERICAN JOBS.

That is the fundamental flaw with the Pro Supply Side argument. It MAY create American jobs, but its just as likely to create CHINESE jobs.

Discuss.

I think it isn't just that.

It's when it's appropriate.

One could make the argument that Supply SIde made sense in 1981. The Fed was tightening the money supply to control inflation, and there was an ongoing drawdown after Vietnam's Keynesian surge. So a 70% upper limit didn't make sense. Putting money back into the system made sense.

Supply side in 2001, not so much. The problem there was that there was too much inventory and too much capacity.

Isn't it part of the responsibility in supply side economics to competantly control one's inventory?


Certainly is. There is a cost to maintaining an inventory, and the longer something sits on a shelf somewhere the lower it's value tends to be. Depreciation I think it's called.
 
I think it isn't just that.

It's when it's appropriate.

One could make the argument that Supply SIde made sense in 1981. The Fed was tightening the money supply to control inflation, and there was an ongoing drawdown after Vietnam's Keynesian surge. So a 70% upper limit didn't make sense. Putting money back into the system made sense.

Supply side in 2001, not so much. The problem there was that there was too much inventory and too much capacity.

Isn't it part of the responsibility in supply side economics to competantly control one's inventory?


Certainly is. There is a cost to maintaining an inventory, and the longer something sits on a shelf somewhere the lower it's value tends to be. Depreciation I think it's called.

yes, exactly.

Supply is COST. Inventory is COST.

Demand is PROFIT.
 
Isn't it part of the responsibility in supply side economics to competantly control one's inventory?


Certainly is. There is a cost to maintaining an inventory, and the longer something sits on a shelf somewhere the lower it's value tends to be. Depreciation I think it's called.

yes, exactly.

Supply is COST. Inventory is COST.

Demand is PROFIT.


Not necessarily. Demand is revenue, which may or may not exceed cost. Kinda depends on the price, if it's too high then demand will find alternatives.
 
Certainly is. There is a cost to maintaining an inventory, and the longer something sits on a shelf somewhere the lower it's value tends to be. Depreciation I think it's called.

yes, exactly.

Supply is COST. Inventory is COST.

Demand is PROFIT.


Not necessarily. Demand is revenue, which may or may not exceed cost. Kinda depends on the price, if it's too high then demand will find alternatives.

Someone never worked in business.

Inventory is asset
Demand is sales
Sales less cost is profit.
 
Well what's the Democrat plan...
High unemployment for 4 years
Record number of people on disability insurance,unemployment insurance,food stamps...
What a mess...

We want to do this for another 4 years?
 
Isn't it part of the responsibility in supply side economics to competantly control one's inventory?


Certainly is. There is a cost to maintaining an inventory, and the longer something sits on a shelf somewhere the lower it's value tends to be. Depreciation I think it's called.

yes, exactly.

Supply is COST. Inventory is COST.

Demand is PROFIT.

Not necessarily.
 
yes, exactly.

Supply is COST. Inventory is COST.

Demand is PROFIT.


Not necessarily. Demand is revenue, which may or may not exceed cost. Kinda depends on the price, if it's too high then demand will find alternatives.

Someone never worked in business.

Inventory is asset
Demand is sales
Sales less cost is profit.

Too many Assholes out there that won't even factor in cost of service or even getting the item to market, when determining value or price control mandates. Hint the more you sell at a loss, the bigger the debt you end up with. Too many with pie in the sky expectations and entitlements, at Someone Else's expense.
 
Well what's the Democrat plan...
High unemployment for 4 years
Record number of people on disability insurance,unemployment insurance,food stamps...
What a mess...

We want to do this for another 4 years?
\

No we dont. But we elect Romney and well get another 20 of it
 
Certainly is. There is a cost to maintaining an inventory, and the longer something sits on a shelf somewhere the lower it's value tends to be. Depreciation I think it's called.

yes, exactly.

Supply is COST. Inventory is COST.

Demand is PROFIT.


Not necessarily. Demand is revenue, which may or may not exceed cost. Kinda depends on the price, if it's too high then demand will find alternatives.

Supply without Demand is Inventory. Inventory is COST.

If your selling things below cost, you wont stay in business long.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top