The greatest supply-sider in recent history is....

[Uncensored2008]

UI, EIC, programs like this create demand

Unemployment and the Earned Income Credit create demand?

Have you been drinking?

which would tend to favor a company in the consumer space, like Apple. Microsoft works in the corporate space, so lowering corporate income taxes, for instance, should help them.

Microsoft neither rose nor fell on taxes or tax breaks.

You seem to be old enough to have lived through the 80s, but you seem to not remember them. There was this thing called "Reaganomics" which involved lowering CGT and the higher marginal tax rates.

Capital gains has absolutely nothing to do with corporate taxation. Lowering the marginal rates was based on the Tax Reform act of 1986, which INCREASED the total taxes paid by the overwhelming majority of American corporations through the closing of over 2,000 loopholes in the tax code.

This was very good for the stock market and for fledging companies like Microsoft and Apple who both went public in the Reagan era (Apple slightly before, but no matter).

Microsoft taxes rose significantly after the tax reform act.

So, to answer the "what the hell are you talking about" screed - These economic policies put real money in people's pockets (as we all know, corporations are people too)..... you choose to belive that doesn't happen if you want, but it does.

I understand that you have a political agenda, but what you are posting is pure fiction, it is not based on fact.

The first thing to understand is that there is no such thing as "demand side" economics. When someone uses the term, it's a clear indicator that they are abysmally ignorant of the subject. Even Krugman isn't stupid enough to call his polymorphic brand of Keynesian nonsense "demand side."

Even among those who have enough knowledge to label themselves "Keynesians," I find mostly ignorance, Query the meaning of NPV, FV or other common concepts and generally one finds nonsensical diatribes regarding Reagan. Few have ever heard of Friedman, Von Mises or Hayek, much less have a grasp of what they taught, thinking that Ronald Reagan created the theories and methods that the 25 years of growth enjoyed from 1982 through 2007 were based upon.

I suspect further that you've never read Keynes, nor do you grasp his ideas, relying on pundits and partisans like Krugman, rather than on knowledge.

Apple and Microsoft's growth in the 80's are irrelevant. Apple's growth over the last 10 years and Microsoft's comparable poor performance show that companies can make and lose money in all economic climates.

Then your claims of the taxes of the 80's causing growth is at best, spurious.

"Lowering taxes" is not "supply side economics"..... lowering taxes on corporations and financiers is "supply side economics".

Yet the 1986 tax reform act INCREASED taxes on corporations. How do you rectify they two statements?

I can hardly see how a company like Apple Computer would need or should receive tax incentives. They already have more money than Satan. The best thing for Apple is to keep handing out UI money so people will blow it on those stupid apps.

You think it's Apple who hands out unemployment checks?

Stick to tech, economics is not your subject.

 

[Uncensored2008]

it takes more money than Satan to take over the cell phone market or TV market or home entertainment market. The more they have the more they can try and fail. Letting liberal bureaucrats waste it is absurd.

Given that Apple is pure evil, they probably are Satan.


I mean, Algore is on the BOD, so there is definitely a connection between the management of Apple and the minions of hell.....

 

[regent]

So that's what supply side economics concerns marketing, not government taxation? Maybe Shumpeter the economist should have some credit here?
Incidently Say's Law was pretty much put to rest by Keynes.
In any case, wasn't Reagan the ultimate supply sider? I mean sure he tripled the debt, raised taxes but what an impish little smile, almost made one feel good as America changed from a creditor nation to a debtor nation.

 

[DSGE]

Incidently Say's Law was pretty much put to rest by Keynes.

Keynes showed that a monetary economy can deviate from Say's law in the short run. So we can have demand-side business cycles. In the long run, wages and prices adjust to restore equilibrium and Say's law applies again. In the long run, economic growth is entirely determined on the supply-side. Every economist recognises the importance of increasing aggregate supply. However, that's not the same as being a "supply-side economist".

 

[editec]

You're misapplying the term SUPPLE SIDER, here, Ed.

I suspect you know it, too.

no idea why you say that? Why is the liberal so afraid to share? Jobs and supply siders in Congress are devoted to increasing the supply of new goods and services llike the kind that got us from the stone age to here.

Those that encourage demand for existing goods are merely churning the economy to make it look productive.

Why I say that?

Because the premise of your post makes no sense, that's why.

 

[samjones]

UI, EIC, programs like this create demand

Unemployment and the Earned Income Credit create demand?

Have you been drinking?

They sustain demand. Part of the supply/demand equation is "demand" and if people don't have money to buy products then that can cause certain kinds of economic unpleasantries.... like Depression, for instance.

I can hardly see how a company like Apple Computer would need or should receive tax incentives. They already have more money than Satan. The best thing for Apple is to keep handing out UI money so people will blow it on those stupid apps.

You think it's Apple who hands out unemployment checks?

Stick to tech, economics is not your subject.

This has come up a few times recently, usually with DSGE and Ed, and I've stayed silent, but not any more.

This is *NOT* an economics message board. This is about economic policy and wall street. This is *NOT* a message board for designated for economists to debate economic principles.

I don't write, interpret, or enforce the rules of this board, so as far as I'm concerned use the space to talk about whatever you frickin want. But if you think you have some kind of special right up here because of your studies of economics then you are just too stupid to realize where you are. If you're such and economics genius then write a paper. If it's good you'll find all kinds of smart people to debate with you.

In fact, I actually took Econ 101. We didn't talk about any of this bullshit in that class. You had, like, a text book and you learned, like, definitions of terms.

 

[regent]

UI, EIC, programs like this create demand

Unemployment and the Earned Income Credit create demand?

Have you been drinking?

They sustain demand. Part of the supply/demand equation is "demand" and if people don't have money to buy products then that can cause certain kinds of economic unpleasantries.... like Depression, for instance.

I can hardly see how a company like Apple Computer would need or should receive tax incentives. They already have more money than Satan. The best thing for Apple is to keep handing out UI money so people will blow it on those stupid apps.

Well Milton Friedman and I went to school together, he as a professor of economics, me as a student, a student that never went near the good professor. But I did learn that you are absolutely correct about 101, all about terminology, economists, a little economic history and theories. But I stick to the one that said: lay economists end to end and they still couldn't reach a conclusion. It is probably the most inexact of the social sciences, ergo heavy on the terminology.
Well Milton Friedman and I went to school together, he as a professor of economics, me as a student, a student that never went near the good professor. But I did learn that you are absolutely correct about 101, all about terminology, economists, a little economic history and theories. But I stick to the one that said: lay economists end to end and they still couldn't reach a conclusion. It is probably the most inexact of the social sciences, ergo heavy on the terminology.

You think it's Apple who hands out unemployment checks?

Stick to tech, economics is not your subject.

This has come up a few times recently, usually with DSGE and Ed, and I've stayed silent, but not any more.

This is *NOT* an economics message board. This is about economic policy and wall street. This is *NOT* a message board for designated for economists to debate economic principles.

I don't write, interpret, or enforce the rules of this board, so as far as I'm concerned use the space to talk about whatever you frickin want. But if you think you have some kind of special right up here because of your studies of economics then you are just too stupid to realize where you are. If you're such and economics genius then write a paper. If it's good you'll find all kinds of smart people to debate with you.

In fact, I actually took Econ 101. We didn't talk about any of this bullshit in that class. You had, like, a text book and you learned, like, definitions of terms.

You got that right, economics is probably the softest of the soft sciences, and what more is there but terminology, theories, economists famous and otherwise and some hopes some know what they are talking about. As, I think Shaw said, lay economists end to end and they couldn't come to a conclusion. In the who cares catagory Milton Friedman and I went to school together, he as a professor and I as a student, and never did we meet, his loss.
Incidently another Chicago economist impressed me more, Thorstein Veblan, a little kooky, hard to read, but his conspicuous consumption still stays with me.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This is *NOT* an economics message board. .

sure it is. There are certain economics truths now established that the liberal, being nearly brain dead, needs to be taught. Don't forget, in the old days Samuelson, a communist, had the best selling economics text in the world by far. He taught that the USSR proved that a planned economy could outperform a capitalist economy. This was back in the days when liberals spied for Stalin and were sure "they had seen the future and it worked". Now we know that the USSR had about 30% of our GDP and would have had 15% if not for stealing know how from the West.

More examples:
East/West Germany, Cuba,Fla., North/South Korea, Israel before/after 1999, Ghana/Ivory coast, Red China before and after communism, Hong Kong/Red China, Taiwan/Red China, El Salvadore before and after Funes . The list is endless. The more capitalism the better. Liberals lack the IQ to grasp what is simple for conservatives to grasp.

 

[regent]

This is *NOT* an economics message board. .

sure it is. There are certain economics truths now established that the liberal, being nearly brain dead, needs to be taught. Don't forget, in the old days Samuelson, a communist, had the best selling economics text in the world by far. He taught that the USSR proved that a planned economy could outperform a capitalist economy. This was back in the days when liberals spied for Stalin and were sure "they had seen the future and it worked". Now we know that the USSR had about 30% of our GDP and would have had 15% if not for stealing know how from the West.

More examples:
East/West Germany, Cuba,Fla., North/South Korea, Israel before/after 1999, Ghana/Ivory coast, Red China before and after communism, Hong Kong/Red China, Taiwan/Red China, El Salvadore before and after Funes . The list is endless. The more capitalism the better. Liberals lack the IQ to grasp what is simple for conservatives to grasp.

The problem with capitalism is keeping it capitalistic.
America, as most countries, found out pretty early in our history that pure, or laissez faire, capitalism cannot be maintained, it breaks down.
Most nations today have a mixed economy, regulated capitalism and socialism.

 

[DSGE]

This is *NOT* an economics message board. This is about economic policy and wall street. This is *NOT* a message board for designated for economists to debate economic principles.

Yeah that's true. But in fairness, it takes some knowledge of economic principles to assess policy.

 

[samjones]

This is *NOT* an economics message board. This is about economic policy and wall street. This is *NOT* a message board for designated for economists to debate economic principles.

Yeah that's true. But in fairness, it takes some knowledge of economic principles to assess policy.

Around here people make up their own economic principles and then invent facts to support them and then devise cockamamie policies to implement these fantastic principles and then accuse politicians of being corrupt and incompetent for not following their advice.

This is no country for economists and rational thinkers.

 

[DSGE]

This is *NOT* an economics message board. This is about economic policy and wall street. This is *NOT* a message board for designated for economists to debate economic principles.

Yeah that's true. But in fairness, it takes some knowledge of economic principles to assess policy.

Around here people make up their own economic principles and then invent facts to support them and then devise cockamamie policies to implement these fantastic principles and then accuse politicians of being corrupt and incompetent for not following their advice.

This is no country for economists and rational thinkers.

Not with that attitude there isn't! Maybe we should be holding arguments here to a higher standard, rather than tolerating idiocy.

 

[regent]

This is *NOT* an economics message board. .

sure it is. There are certain economics truths now established that the liberal, being nearly brain dead, needs to be taught. Don't forget, in the old days Samuelson, a communist, had the best selling economics text in the world by far. He taught that the USSR proved that a planned economy could outperform a capitalist economy. This was back in the days when liberals spied for Stalin and were sure "they had seen the future and it worked". Now we know that the USSR had about 30% of our GDP and would have had 15% if not for stealing know how from the West.

More examples:
East/West Germany, Cuba,Fla., North/South Korea, Israel before/after 1999, Ghana/Ivory coast, Red China before and after communism, Hong Kong/Red China, Taiwan/Red China, El Salvadore before and after Funes . The list is endless. The more capitalism the better. Liberals lack the IQ to grasp what is simple for conservatives to grasp.

So what nations have pure capitalistic economies today? What countries have or ever had Marxian communism? What nation on this planet has the best economic system?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So what nations have pure capitalistic economies today?

none of course but the USA has had the most and is the richest plus is the moral policeman of the world

What countries have or ever had Marxian communism?

East Germany Cuba Cambodia China USSR are closest

What nation on this planet has the best economic system?

USA of course we are the richest and the moral policeman too

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The problem with capitalism is keeping it capitalistic.

just make liberalism illegal as Constitution intended. BO's crony capitalist corporatist liberal socialist health care makes that clear, very very clear,

America, as most countries, found out pretty early in our history that pure, or laissez faire, capitalism cannot be maintained, it breaks down.

it would not break down if liberalism was made illegal as the Constitution intended

Most nations today have a mixed economy, regulated capitalism and socialism.

this is something you learn in Econ 101 ,class one, day one. You'll like college if you ever get out of HS,

 

[Toro]

Yeah that's true. But in fairness, it takes some knowledge of economic principles to assess policy.

Around here people make up their own economic principles and then invent facts to support them and then devise cockamamie policies to implement these fantastic principles and then accuse politicians of being corrupt and incompetent for not following their advice.

This is no country for economists and rational thinkers.

Not with that attitude there isn't! Maybe we should be holding arguments here to a higher standard, rather than tolerating idiocy.

Good luck with that.

 

[samjones]

Around here people make up their own economic principles and then invent facts to support them and then devise cockamamie policies to implement these fantastic principles and then accuse politicians of being corrupt and incompetent for not following their advice.

This is no country for economists and rational thinkers.

Not with that attitude there isn't! Maybe we should be holding arguments here to a higher standard, rather than tolerating idiocy.

If by "we" you mean you and me then there is no "we". Furthermore, this half of the non-existant "we" tolerates all manner of things on this highly redundant routed cesspool, including idiocy. As long as the moderators aren't destroying the board through rampant assfuckery and as long as net-thugs aren't threatening to come burn down my trailer I'm pretty happy.... 10 times better than 90% of the other message boards out there...

I just think some of you (itfitzme, I'm talking to you) think that this is some afternoon study group. It isn't. This message board isn't really about "economics" - it's about policy and Wall Street. You go ahead and talk about whatever you want as far as I'm concerned, but don't think that you and you alone have the right to post here.... (I'm talking to you Ed).

End of story.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This message board isn't really about "economics" - .

Of course that's pure lunacy since we are free to post an OP on anything we'd like.

Also, its a very good idea to stick to the OP topic so people can find topics they are interested in and knowledgeable about.

 

[samjones]

This message board isn't really about "economics" - .

Of course that's pure lunacy since we are free to post an OP on anything we'd like.

Also, its a very good idea to stick to the OP topic so people can find topics they are interested in and knowledgeable about.

I don't even think you attempted to read my posts on this... You almost seem to try to not understand what people write. There are people who will tell you what you can say and what you can say it about. I am not one of them. I just think you really only make an ass of yourself when you continue to go on about Econ 101 and B-School when this board is obviously not intended for economists to talk about econmics or MBA's to talk about business.

It just isn't. You're free to go on as much as you'd like but I see zero reason why you think you have some right to tell others what they should or should not say. It's just strikes me a particularly stupid and either uneducated or a total waste of an education.

Just thought I'd share those thoughts with you, Ed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I don't even think you attempted to read my posts on this... You almost seem to try to not understand what people write.

actually I responded to exactly what you said, point by point too which is why you are ranting rather than confronting anything specific I said

There are people who will tell you what you can say and what you can say it about. I am not one of them. I just think you really only make an ass of yourself when you continue to go on about Econ 101 and B-School when this board is obviously not intended for economists to talk about econmics or MBA's to talk about business.

its about teaching and learning the truth, mostly. If not it serves no purpose whatsoever.

It just isn't. You're free to go on as much as you'd like but I see zero reason why you think you have some right to tell others what they should or should not say.

of coure if I did that you would not be so afraid to present your best example for the whole world to see. I don't tell people what to say, I merely present the Republican/libertarian view to them and explain why it is superior to the contrary view.

It's just strikes me a particularly stupid and either uneducated or a total waste of an education.

socratic debate is not a waste it is socratic!!!

Just thought I'd share those thoughts with you, Ed.

and it was worth while too!! If you're not interested in knowing the essential difference between liberalism and conservatism there must be 10 000 other threads to comment on. Think!!