Trickle-Down Economics Began...

[Dugdale_Jukes]

That's about all the clues the superior conservative mind should need .

dear, I'm not looking for clues. Please say how capital and credit prove that supply side economics is mistaken or admit as a typical liberal that you lack the IQ to do so.

Oh my, Ed. Have any of your pals ever suggested you might be, well, senselessly cruel? Associating me with a filthy god damned ReagaNUT like Clinton or a fool like Obama? Jesus, Ed, is that really fair just because of my contempt for the white trash scum of the earth who elected Reagan and the Bushes? Let me begin the healing by apologizing for asking if you felt the metaphoric "click" under your boot . It was the ruffian in me did that; should have written Birkenstock or white-socked-sandal. My apologies.

Again, I digress...

And again generosity of spirit impels me to provide a clue. If the superior nutball element will please examine the chart below closely, the more superior of the superior nutball element shall notice a a change that coincides with the application of debt-fueled supply-side economics into US policy.

Okay, here is another clue. Success is when the line over the solid color goes down. Failure is when it rises. Brutal, undeniable failure by every standard known to humanity is when it spikes up.

Examine the chart closely with all those superior nutball minds, then tell us what the superior nutball minds observes starting to become alarming around, SAY, 1982 or so, please.

Capital is being held at the top. It got there in the same way squirrels put acorns aside.

Credit is cheap and easy to get but no one is borrowing.

If Say's Law worked, capital would be flowing and individuals and businesses would be borrowing.

Did I mention that the blue area would be at or below 1980 levels?

So much for supply side bullshit. This is not copyrighted. People with sense should please cut and paste this into a word doc for use to inform the nutter cocksuckers you know claiming supply side economics ever worked. It didn't. It can't. Demand is to economics what "location" is to real estate. Demand is the basis for all major economies today. It always was. It always shall be.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Again, I digress...

you mean as an illiterate liberal you hide from subjects you lack the IQ to discuss

If Say's Law worked, capital would be flowing and individuals and businesses would be borrowing.

too stupid by 100% and prefectly liberal. You assume we are applying Say's law in today's Obama crony socialist economy when we are not even close!!!!

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??? You make basic mistakes that you try to hide behind your illiterate ranting

Demand is to economics what "location" is to real estate. Demand is the basis for all major economies today. It always was. It always shall be.

dear, people demanded stuff for thousands and thousands of years as a natural process like breathing, so demand does not need to be encouraged, again, it is natural like air.

Supply is the exact oppposite. It is very very rare and needs to be nurtured with the greatest care of all as it is at the Republican heart of human progress.

Get it now??

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Again, I digress...

you mean as an illiterate liberal you hide from subjects you lack the IQ to discuss

If Say's Law worked, capital would be flowing and individuals and businesses would be borrowing.

too stupid by 100% and prefectly liberal. You assume we are applying Say's law in today's Obama crony socialist economy when we are not even close!!!!

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??? You make basic mistakes that you try to hide behind your illiterate ranting

Demand is to economics what "location" is to real estate. Demand is the basis for all major economies today. It always was. It always shall be.

dear, people demanded stuff for thousands and thousands of years as a natural process like breathing, so demand does not need to be encouraged, again, it is natural like air.

Supply is the exact oppposite. It is very very rare and needs to be nurtured with the greatest care of all as it is at the Republican heart of human progress.

Get it now??

Yes, Ed. It seems safe to say every honest human with an IQ over about 60 has at least a rudimentary understanding of your knowledge of Say's Law and economics in general.

Thank you for providing the shovel with which to bury the degenerate economic horseshit the filthy god damned scum of the earth celebrated as "supply side" while malfeasant government worked with corporate criminals to loot the United States Treasury.

As a gesture of thanks, here is that picture of you and Junebug again...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Again, I digress...

you mean as an illiterate liberal you hide from subjects you lack the IQ to discuss




too stupid by 100% and prefectly liberal. You assume we are applying Say's law in today's Obama crony socialist economy when we are not even close!!!!

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??? You make basic mistakes that you try to hide behind your illiterate ranting

Demand is to economics what "location" is to real estate. Demand is the basis for all major economies today. It always was. It always shall be.

dear, people demanded stuff for thousands and thousands of years as a natural process like breathing, so demand does not need to be encouraged, again, it is natural like air.

Supply is the exact oppposite. It is very very rare and needs to be nurtured with the greatest care of all as it is at the Republican heart of human progress.

Get it now??

Yes, Ed. It seems safe to say every honest human with an IQ over about 60 has at least a rudimentary understanding of your knowledge of Say's Law and economics in general.

Thank you for providing the shovel with which to bury the degenerate economic horseshit the filthy god damned scum of the earth celebrated as "supply side" while malfeasant government worked with corporate criminals to loot the United States Treasury.

As a gesture of thanks, here is that picture of you and Junebug again...

typical liberal who lacks the IQ for any substance whatsoever but will stick to his feelings with all the irrationality, passion, and anger of a brain dead Nazi.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Trickle-down, supply side, and the Laffer Curve are different things. albeit related.

• Trickle-down says wealth in the hands of the upper class (aka the job creators) will trickle down to the middle and poor classes through upper class spending. Therefore, tax cuts for the wealthy will help the economy and, thereby, everyone.
  
• Supply side says you can improve the economy as a whole by lowering taxes. If you give people more money, they'll spend more money, thereby improving the economy. Therefore, tax cuts for everyone will help the economy and, thereby, everyone.
  
• The Laffer Curve says you can maximize government tax revenue by finding the "sweet spot". Tax too little, and you don't get the highest tax revenue. But tax too much and you reduce economic activity and thereby don't get the highest tax revenue either. Therefore, taxes should be too high or too low in order to get the highest tax revenue.

As far as I can tell, the OP's argument is that 1) trickle-down works as evidenced by the historical example and 2) the Laffer Curve worked way back when.

#1 is incorrect. The quote shows that Anastasius lowered taxes on workers and/or small business owners, not the wealthy. Therefore, it's supply side and not trickle-down.

#2 may be correct. It's hard to make a decision without knowing more about the situation, such as what government expenditures were like before and after the tax cuts and if there were any unusual events (such as a looting after a war) that increased revenues.

I don't doubt the Laffer Curve works for the most part, but that's how to get more money to the government through taxes, not how to grow the economy. The data here (Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue? - Forbes) shows the Laffer Curve works but the data doesn't seem to take inflation into account, making the data suspect.

As this data shows (Growth vs. Tax Rate), economic growth, GDP growth, and job creation happen more under high taxes for the rich. Tax cuts on the middle and lower classes are uncorrelated; they can help or hurt.

Therefore, trickle-down definitely doesn't work. Supply side and the Laffer Curve might work.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Therefore, trickle-down definitely doesn't work.

Of course its very very stupid to say trickle down does not work when we all use the products Edison Ford Gates and Jobs invented that trickled down to us.

Does someone think that poor people ought to be given tax breaks and incentives so they will invent stuff to raise our standard of living??

The subject is way over a liberals IQ. What their simple minds always lead them to in every situation is more and more trickle down welfare entitlements!

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Trickle-down, supply side, and the Laffer Curve are different things. albeit related.

• Trickle-down says wealth in the hands of the upper class (aka the job creators) will trickle down to the middle and poor classes through upper class spending. Therefore, tax cuts for the wealthy will help the economy and, thereby, everyone.
• Supply side says you can improve the economy as a whole by lowering taxes. If you give people more money, they'll spend more money, thereby improving the economy. Therefore, tax cuts for everyone will help the economy and, thereby, everyone.
• The Laffer Curve says you can maximize government tax revenue by finding the "sweet spot". Tax too little, and you don't get the highest tax revenue. But tax too much and you reduce economic activity and thereby don't get the highest tax revenue either. Therefore, taxes should be too high or too low in order to get the highest tax revenue.

As far as I can tell, the OP's argument is that 1) trickle-down works as evidenced by the historical example and 2) the Laffer Curve worked way back when.

#1 is incorrect. The quote shows that Anastasius lowered taxes on workers and/or small business owners, not the wealthy. Therefore, it's supply side and not trickle-down.

#2 may be correct. It's hard to make a decision without knowing more about the situation, such as what government expenditures were like before and after the tax cuts and if there were any unusual events (such as a looting after a war) that increased revenues.

I don't doubt the Laffer Curve works for the most part, but that's how to get more money to the government through taxes, not how to grow the economy. The data here (Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue? - Forbes) shows the Laffer Curve works but the data doesn't seem to take inflation into account, making the data suspect.

As this data shows (Growth vs. Tax Rate), economic growth, GDP growth, and job creation happen more under high taxes for the rich. Tax cuts on the middle and lower classes are uncorrelated; they can help or hurt.

Therefore, trickle-down definitely doesn't work. Supply side and the Laffer Curve might work.

While you are 100% correct that economic growth occurs with greater frequency when taxes on high earners are high, according to the people who coined the term "supply side" to mask its Keynesian roots, and more amusingly, to hoodwink halfwit taxpayers, "supply side" and "trickle down" are one-and-the-same identical (see, Stockman et al).

The facts on Reagan's program is 100% of the capital (tax proceeds) injected was borrowed, very little of the net leverage has been paid back (see chart) and that instead of fixing anything voodoo economics set a standard that risks bankrupting the nation.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Further, would be interesting to know of a single example of supply side policy jump starting a nation's economy

dear, this is Econ 101!! Ever think of going to college???
An economy can only restart and grow when the government gets out of the way and lets the market supply goods and services.

Indeed, a recession is the time period during which an economy recovers from liberal interference.

For example, a carpenter who was building houses, thanks to liberal interference, has to retrain to work doing something real and sustainable that the free market demands.

Simple enough? Why not print it out and put it on your fridge??

 

[Ringel05]

Trickle down economics is when I discover I have a hole in my pocket and all the money has trickled down for others to pick up.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Trickle down economics is when I discover I have a hole in my pocket and all the money has trickled down for others to pick up.

actually when the rich get tax cuts that they use to invent new products that make us all rich!