Consumers create jobs.

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle says: What you "did" was Google trickle down theory and then regurgitate everything you found there...here. Which is why we GOT references like the renowned (eye roll) Irwin Shishko and two anonymous guys debating the pros and cons of trickle down theory on Debate.com. So, as unimpressive as those two references are, oldstyle, there are still another 13 plus more than you have offered.. And you still have none. See the difference yet, oldstyle. People like you armed with a Google search app actually think you're presenting an intelligent rebuttal. In the meantime you can't formulate an original thought that counters someone else's contention. Do you know WHY you have to denigrate Thomas Sowell's contention that it's impossible to have "trickle down" occurring when it is workers that get paid BEFORE business owners? Because you can't refute what he's saying. It's such a common sense concept that you don't have a come back for it other than to accuse him of (gasp!) being a libertarian!!!Now, if you are saying your dear proff told you the above, and you believed it, then you are both fools. According to the theory of trickle down, there is NO Concern as to when the income trickles down, that is, whether it is before or after employees are paid. You see, oldstyle, it is not a one time payment. Trickle down assumes that businesses get extra income, almost always in the form of tax decreases, that they will increase production and the increase in demand for workers will increase wages. You need to get out of that old text, and find an actual intilectual discussion of what trickle down is SUPPOSED to be. I do agree that trickle down has proven that it does not work, but the convoluted version you just gave is apparently th (oldstyle) theory. Oh, and by the way...my cite wasn't from a "right wing site"...it actually came out of a book sitting on my lap. You see unlike you...I actually read things like economics text books and get my information from sources like THAT instead of Wikipedia. Now, oldstyle, isn't that convenient. So you CAN't post a link to your quote. So, if I get this right, you expect us to believe that you actually have the source quoting what you said it did. Oldstyle, me boy, I have a degree in economics and I have spent over 40 years reading books about economics. Your supposed reference was from your econ prof, from whom you had a class in the early '70's. If you are still reading basic economic books published 40 years ago, great. Have a ball. But it is not in the least impressive. If I use your dates, from when you had your ONE macroeconomics class, it was in the 70's You see any problem there. Trickle down, in the vain that we are now discussing it, did not come about until 1981. So, what you are saying is, I read books, I do not get my info on the internet. So I can not prove anything I say. To which, oldstyle, I say you have no proof of that. And having proven you a liar before, I certainly do not believe you now. Nor would I expect anyone to believe anyone who made such claims, or any claims. So, again, you have no proof of anything. Just your word. Your claims are so rediculous as to not pass the giggle test.There is plenty of proof that trickle down is a theory, and that the concept on which that theory was built originated with the repubs trying to sell supply side econ in 1981.

So what am I this time, Rshermr...a liar or a dip-shit? I have proven you to be a liar. I can bring it back, as it in this thread, if you would like me to. But, in my humble but correct opinion, you are both.

You can always tell the person who's getting their ass handed to them in an argument on this board.
I so respect your opinion, oldstyle. I will keep an eye on my ass. By the way, that was a really juvinile statement. They are the one who has to resort to name calling. You piss me off, oldstyle, with posts like this that completely waste my time.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle says: What you "did" was Google trickle down theory and then regurgitate everything you found there...here. Which is why we GOT references like the renowned (eye roll) Irwin Shishko and two anonymous guys debating the pros and cons of trickle down theory on Debate.com. So, as unimpressive as those two references are, oldstyle, there are still another 13 plus more than you have offered.. And you still have none. See the difference yet, oldstyle. People like you armed with a Google search app actually think you're presenting an intelligent rebuttal. In the meantime you can't formulate an original thought that counters someone else's contention. Do you know WHY you have to denigrate Thomas Sowell's contention that it's impossible to have "trickle down" occurring when it is workers that get paid BEFORE business owners? Because you can't refute what he's saying. It's such a common sense concept that you don't have a come back for it other than to accuse him of (gasp!) being a libertarian!!!Now, if you are saying your dear proff told you the above, and you believed it, then you are both fools. According to the theory of trickle down, there is NO Concern as to when the income trickles down, that is, whether it is before or after employees are paid. You see, oldstyle, it is not a one time payment. Trickle down assumes that businesses get extra income, almost always in the form of tax decreases, that they will increase production and the increase in demand for workers will increase wages. You need to get out of that old text, and find an actual intilectual discussion of what trickle down is SUPPOSED to be. I do agree that trickle down has proven that it does not work, but the convoluted version you just gave is apparently th (oldstyle) theory. Oh, and by the way...my cite wasn't from a "right wing site"...it actually came out of a book sitting on my lap. You see unlike you...I actually read things like economics text books and get my information from sources like THAT instead of Wikipedia. Now, oldstyle, isn't that convenient. So you CAN't post a link to your quote. So, if I get this right, you expect us to believe that you actually have the source quoting what you said it did. Oldstyle, me boy, I have a degree in economics and I have spent over 40 years reading books about economics. Your supposed reference was from your econ prof, from whom you had a class in the early '70's. If you are still reading basic economic books published 40 years ago, great. Have a ball. But it is not in the least impressive. If I use your dates, from when you had your ONE macroeconomics class, it was in the 70's You see any problem there. Trickle down, in the vain that we are now discussing it, did not come about until 1981. So, what you are saying is, I read books, I do not get my info on the internet. So I can not prove anything I say. To which, oldstyle, I say you have no proof of that. And having proven you a liar before, I certainly do not believe you now. Nor would I expect anyone to believe anyone who made such claims, or any claims. So, again, you have no proof of anything. Just your word. Your claims are so rediculous as to not pass the giggle test.There is plenty of proof that trickle down is a theory, and that the concept on which that theory was built originated with the repubs trying to sell supply side econ in 1981.

So what am I this time, Rshermr...a liar or a dip-shit? I have proven you to be a liar. I can bring it back, as it in this thread, if you would like me to. But, in my humble but correct opinion, you are both.

You can always tell the person who's getting their ass handed to them in an argument on this board.
I so respect your opinion, oldstyle. I will keep an eye on my ass. By the way, that was a really juvinile statement. They are the one who has to resort to name calling. You piss me off, oldstyle, with posts like this that completely waste my time.

Well of COURSE trickle down theory doesn't work...how could it...since it doesn't exist. As Sowell correctly pointed out...trickle down doesn't exist if workers get paid first, which they do. If you REALLY wanted to give Supply side a "cute nickname" than a more appropriate name would be "trickle up" theory...but that doesn't fit in with your progressive theme...does it?

And only a complete buffoon would call someone "dip shit" ten times in one post and then whine about someone else being "juvenile" for pointing out that they are getting their ass handed to them.

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle says: What you "did" was Google trickle down theory and then regurgitate everything you found there...here. Which is why we GOT references like the renowned (eye roll) Irwin Shishko and two anonymous guys debating the pros and cons of trickle down theory on Debate.com. So, as unimpressive as those two references are, oldstyle, there are still another 13 plus more than you have offered.. And you still have none. See the difference yet, oldstyle. People like you armed with a Google search app actually think you're presenting an intelligent rebuttal. In the meantime you can't formulate an original thought that counters someone else's contention. Do you know WHY you have to denigrate Thomas Sowell's contention that it's impossible to have "trickle down" occurring when it is workers that get paid BEFORE business owners? Because you can't refute what he's saying. It's such a common sense concept that you don't have a come back for it other than to accuse him of (gasp!) being a libertarian!!!Now, if you are saying your dear proff told you the above, and you believed it, then you are both fools. According to the theory of trickle down, there is NO Concern as to when the income trickles down, that is, whether it is before or after employees are paid. You see, oldstyle, it is not a one time payment. Trickle down assumes that businesses get extra income, almost always in the form of tax decreases, that they will increase production and the increase in demand for workers will increase wages. You need to get out of that old text, and find an actual intilectual discussion of what trickle down is SUPPOSED to be. I do agree that trickle down has proven that it does not work, but the convoluted version you just gave is apparently th (oldstyle) theory. Oh, and by the way...my cite wasn't from a "right wing site"...it actually came out of a book sitting on my lap. You see unlike you...I actually read things like economics text books and get my information from sources like THAT instead of Wikipedia. Now, oldstyle, isn't that convenient. So you CAN't post a link to your quote. So, if I get this right, you expect us to believe that you actually have the source quoting what you said it did. Oldstyle, me boy, I have a degree in economics and I have spent over 40 years reading books about economics. Your supposed reference was from your econ prof, from whom you had a class in the early '70's. If you are still reading basic economic books published 40 years ago, great. Have a ball. But it is not in the least impressive. If I use your dates, from when you had your ONE macroeconomics class, it was in the 70's You see any problem there. Trickle down, in the vain that we are now discussing it, did not come about until 1981. So, what you are saying is, I read books, I do not get my info on the internet. So I can not prove anything I say. To which, oldstyle, I say you have no proof of that. And having proven you a liar before, I certainly do not believe you now. Nor would I expect anyone to believe anyone who made such claims, or any claims. So, again, you have no proof of anything. Just your word. Your claims are so rediculous as to not pass the giggle test.There is plenty of proof that trickle down is a theory, and that the concept on which that theory was built originated with the repubs trying to sell supply side econ in 1981.

So what am I this time, Rshermr...a liar or a dip-shit? I have proven you to be a liar. I can bring it back, as it in this thread, if you would like me to. But, in my humble but correct opinion, you are both.

You can always tell the person who's getting their ass handed to them in an argument on this board.
I so respect your opinion, oldstyle. I will keep an eye on my ass. By the way, that was a really juvinile statement. They are the one who has to resort to name calling. You piss me off, oldstyle, with posts like this that completely waste my time.

Oldstyle says: Well of COURSE trickle down theory doesn't work...how could it...since it doesn't exist. As Sowell correctly pointed out...trickle down doesn't exist if workers get paid first, which they do. If you REALLY wanted to give Supply side a "cute nickname" than a more appropriate name would be "trickle up" theory...but that doesn't fit in with your progressive theme...does it?
And only a complete buffoon would call someone "dip shit" ten times in one post and then whine about someone else being "juvenile" for pointing out that they are getting their ass handed to them.

Well of COURSE trickle down theory doesn't work...how could it...since it doesn't exist. Yeah, right, oldstyle. Except that every source that I provided you says it did, indeed, And there are hundreds more that say the same. And none that I can find that say it is not. You are really trying to make a case for it not existing, but it did. I gave you four highly respected economists, several journalists, and could give you another hundred or so. Even Allan Greenspan, reagans guy, has admitted trickle down exists. You say Sowell says it was not a theory. I have seen no proof of that. Apparently you are not going to provide it. But even if he did, he is a libertarian economist who just might lie about something like that. As Sowell correctly pointed out...trickle down doesn't exist if workers get paid first, which they do. If you REALLY wanted to give Supply side a "cute nickname" than a more appropriate name would be "trickle up" theory...but that doesn't fit in with your progressive theme...does it? Oldstyle, what it does not agree with is reality. You say Sowell says it does not exist as a theory, and says dems came up with it. Though you seem to have no proof of that. And Reagans Budget Director, who was there and meeting with all of the repub players of the reagan admin, and reagan himself, says you are completely wrong. So, was Sowell there??

And only a complete buffoon would call someone "dip shit" ten times in one post and then whine about someone else being "juvenile" for pointing out that they are getting their ass handed to them.
So, in my humble but correct opinion, it is stupid to say someone is getting their ass handed to them, when it would be you doing the handing. You just may be prejudiced. You know, you who can produce no sources for his accusations. Understand why someone may think of you as a dipshit. You are wasting anyone reading this post's time, by posting opinion but being unable to back it up with any actual provable references. You know, like a link. You see, oldstyle, no one has any reason to believe either you, I, or anyone else without some sort of proof. And you provide NONE.

Relative to you handing me my ass, lets consider what you said and I responded to in your last post:
Oldstyle says: Do you know WHY you have to denigrate Thomas Sowell's contention that it's impossible to have "trickle down" occurring when it is workers that get paid BEFORE business owners? Because you can't refute what he's saying. It's such a common sense concept that you don't have a come back for it other than to accuse him of (gasp!) being a libertarian!! Now, if you are saying your dear proff told you the above, and you believed it, then you are both fools. According to the theory of trickle down, there is NO Concern as to when the income trickles down, that is, whether it is before or after employees are paid. You see, oldstyle, it is not a one time payment. Trickle down assumes that businesses get extra income, almost always in the form of tax decreases, that they will increase production and the increase in demand for workers will increase wages. You need to get out of that old text, and find an actual intellectual discussion of what trickle down is SUPPOSED to be. I do agree that trickle down has proven that it does not work, but the convoluted version you just gave is apparently the (oldstyle) theory.

So, I noticed that you did not reply. Your description of trickle down was the stupidest one that I have ever seen. So, I educated you. I assume that you feel educated, since you did not respond to my critique. So, what was that about handing someone their ass???

 

[Rozman]

August jobs report due in a few minutes....
Let's see how that works out.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle says: What you "did" was Google trickle down theory and then regurgitate everything you found there...here. Which is why we GOT references like the renowned (eye roll) Irwin Shishko and two anonymous guys debating the pros and cons of trickle down theory on Debate.com. So, as unimpressive as those two references are, oldstyle, there are still another 13 plus more than you have offered.. And you still have none. See the difference yet, oldstyle. People like you armed with a Google search app actually think you're presenting an intelligent rebuttal. In the meantime you can't formulate an original thought that counters someone else's contention. Do you know WHY you have to denigrate Thomas Sowell's contention that it's impossible to have "trickle down" occurring when it is workers that get paid BEFORE business owners? Because you can't refute what he's saying. It's such a common sense concept that you don't have a come back for it other than to accuse him of (gasp!) being a libertarian!!!Now, if you are saying your dear proff told you the above, and you believed it, then you are both fools. According to the theory of trickle down, there is NO Concern as to when the income trickles down, that is, whether it is before or after employees are paid. You see, oldstyle, it is not a one time payment. Trickle down assumes that businesses get extra income, almost always in the form of tax decreases, that they will increase production and the increase in demand for workers will increase wages. You need to get out of that old text, and find an actual intilectual discussion of what trickle down is SUPPOSED to be. I do agree that trickle down has proven that it does not work, but the convoluted version you just gave is apparently th (oldstyle) theory. Oh, and by the way...my cite wasn't from a "right wing site"...it actually came out of a book sitting on my lap. You see unlike you...I actually read things like economics text books and get my information from sources like THAT instead of Wikipedia. Now, oldstyle, isn't that convenient. So you CAN't post a link to your quote. So, if I get this right, you expect us to believe that you actually have the source quoting what you said it did. Oldstyle, me boy, I have a degree in economics and I have spent over 40 years reading books about economics. Your supposed reference was from your econ prof, from whom you had a class in the early '70's. If you are still reading basic economic books published 40 years ago, great. Have a ball. But it is not in the least impressive. If I use your dates, from when you had your ONE macroeconomics class, it was in the 70's You see any problem there. Trickle down, in the vain that we are now discussing it, did not come about until 1981. So, what you are saying is, I read books, I do not get my info on the internet. So I can not prove anything I say. To which, oldstyle, I say you have no proof of that. And having proven you a liar before, I certainly do not believe you now. Nor would I expect anyone to believe anyone who made such claims, or any claims. So, again, you have no proof of anything. Just your word. Your claims are so rediculous as to not pass the giggle test.There is plenty of proof that trickle down is a theory, and that the concept on which that theory was built originated with the repubs trying to sell supply side econ in 1981.

So what am I this time, Rshermr...a liar or a dip-shit? I have proven you to be a liar. I can bring it back, as it in this thread, if you would like me to. But, in my humble but correct opinion, you are both.

You can always tell the person who's getting their ass handed to them in an argument on this board.
I so respect your opinion, oldstyle. I will keep an eye on my ass. By the way, that was a really juvinile statement. They are the one who has to resort to name calling. You piss me off, oldstyle, with posts like this that completely waste my time.

Oldstyle says: Well of COURSE trickle down theory doesn't work...how could it...since it doesn't exist. As Sowell correctly pointed out...trickle down doesn't exist if workers get paid first, which they do. If you REALLY wanted to give Supply side a "cute nickname" than a more appropriate name would be "trickle up" theory...but that doesn't fit in with your progressive theme...does it?
And only a complete buffoon would call someone "dip shit" ten times in one post and then whine about someone else being "juvenile" for pointing out that they are getting their ass handed to them.

Well of COURSE trickle down theory doesn't work...how could it...since it doesn't exist. Yeah, right, oldstyle. Except that every source that I provided you says it did, indeed, And there are hundreds more that say the same. And none that I can find that say it is not. You are really trying to make a case for it not existing, but it did. I gave you four highly respected economists, several journalists, and could give you another hundred or so. Even Allan Greenspan, reagans guy, has admitted trickle down exists. You say Sowell says it was not a theory. I have seen no proof of that. Apparently you are not going to provide it. But even if he did, he is a libertarian economist who just might lie about something like that. As Sowell correctly pointed out...trickle down doesn't exist if workers get paid first, which they do. If you REALLY wanted to give Supply side a "cute nickname" than a more appropriate name would be "trickle up" theory...but that doesn't fit in with your progressive theme...does it? Oldstyle, what it does not agree with is reality. You say Sowell says it does not exist as a theory, and says dems came up with it. Though you seem to have no proof of that. And Reagans Budget Director, who was there and meeting with all of the repub players of the reagan admin, and reagan himself, says you are completely wrong. So, was Sowell there??

And only a complete buffoon would call someone "dip shit" ten times in one post and then whine about someone else being "juvenile" for pointing out that they are getting their ass handed to them.
So, in my humble but correct opinion, it is stupid to say someone is getting their ass handed to them, when it would be you doing the handing. You just may be prejudiced. You know, you who can produce no sources for his accusations. Understand why someone may think of you as a dipshit. You are wasting anyone reading this post's time, by posting opinion but being unable to back it up with any actual provable references. You know, like a link. You see, oldstyle, no one has any reason to believe either you, I, or anyone else without some sort of proof. And you provide NONE.

Relative to you handing me my ass, lets consider what you said and I responded to in your last post:
Oldstyle says: Do you know WHY you have to denigrate Thomas Sowell's contention that it's impossible to have "trickle down" occurring when it is workers that get paid BEFORE business owners? Because you can't refute what he's saying. It's such a common sense concept that you don't have a come back for it other than to accuse him of (gasp!) being a libertarian!! Now, if you are saying your dear proff told you the above, and you believed it, then you are both fools. According to the theory of trickle down, there is NO Concern as to when the income trickles down, that is, whether it is before or after employees are paid. You see, oldstyle, it is not a one time payment. Trickle down assumes that businesses get extra income, almost always in the form of tax decreases, that they will increase production and the increase in demand for workers will increase wages. You need to get out of that old text, and find an actual intellectual discussion of what trickle down is SUPPOSED to be. I do agree that trickle down has proven that it does not work, but the convoluted version you just gave is apparently the (oldstyle) theory.

So, I noticed that you did not reply. Your description of trickle down was the stupidest one that I have ever seen. So, I educated you. I assume that you feel educated, since you did not respond to my critique. So, what was that about handing someone their ass???

You educated me? By doing what? When have you ever refuted Sowell's observation that trickle DOWN doesn't exist because profits actually trickle up? Workers get paid first...they don't get paid last. Even when there is ZERO profit realized in the end...workers still get paid. Trickle down theory doesn't "work" because it doesn't EXIST except in the confused minds of people that don't understand economics...like yourself.

The Sowell book that I quoted from was not published 40 years ago...it was published in 2007. So tell me why it is that a non-economics major like myself (who still has his history texts from college) owns books dealing with economics that he CAN quote passages from...and YOU...who supposedly "is" an economics major has to use Wikipedia and Google for all of his arguments? You actually have the gall to denigrate me for getting my information from original source material like a person's book rather than from the internet? Are you kidding me? There is more garbage on the internet at any given time than in any town "dump". It's mostly garbage with some factual material included. I give you an actual quote FROM Sowell's book and you give us Irwin Shisko and the anonymous guys from Debate.com and you think that your sources are viable and mine aren't? That's hilarious.

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle says: Well of COURSE trickle down theory doesn't work...how could it...since it doesn't exist. As Sowell correctly pointed out...trickle down doesn't exist if workers get paid first, which they do. If you REALLY wanted to give Supply side a "cute nickname" than a more appropriate name would be "trickle up" theory...but that doesn't fit in with your progressive theme...does it?
And only a complete buffoon would call someone "dip shit" ten times in one post and then whine about someone else being "juvenile" for pointing out that they are getting their ass handed to them.

Well of COURSE trickle down theory doesn't work...how could it...since it doesn't exist. Yeah, right, oldstyle. Except that every source that I provided you says it did, indeed, And there are hundreds more that say the same. And none that I can find that say it is not. You are really trying to make a case for it not existing, but it did. I gave you four highly respected economists, several journalists, and could give you another hundred or so. Even Allan Greenspan, reagans guy, has admitted trickle down exists. You say Sowell says it was not a theory. I have seen no proof of that. Apparently you are not going to provide it. But even if he did, he is a libertarian economist who just might lie about something like that. As Sowell correctly pointed out...trickle down doesn't exist if workers get paid first, which they do. If you REALLY wanted to give Supply side a "cute nickname" than a more appropriate name would be "trickle up" theory...but that doesn't fit in with your progressive theme...does it? Oldstyle, what it does not agree with is reality. You say Sowell says it does not exist as a theory, and says dems came up with it. Though you seem to have no proof of that. And Reagans Budget Director, who was there and meeting with all of the repub players of the reagan admin, and reagan himself, says you are completely wrong. So, was Sowell there??

And only a complete buffoon would call someone "dip shit" ten times in one post and then whine about someone else being "juvenile" for pointing out that they are getting their ass handed to them.
So, in my humble but correct opinion, it is stupid to say someone is getting their ass handed to them, when it would be you doing the handing. You just may be prejudiced. You know, you who can produce no sources for his accusations. Understand why someone may think of you as a dipshit. You are wasting anyone reading this post's time, by posting opinion but being unable to back it up with any actual provable references. You know, like a link. You see, oldstyle, no one has any reason to believe either you, I, or anyone else without some sort of proof. And you provide NONE.

Relative to you handing me my ass, lets consider what you said and I responded to in your last post:
Oldstyle says: Do you know WHY you have to denigrate Thomas Sowell's contention that it's impossible to have "trickle down" occurring when it is workers that get paid BEFORE business owners? Because you can't refute what he's saying. It's such a common sense concept that you don't have a come back for it other than to accuse him of (gasp!) being a libertarian!! Now, if you are saying your dear proff told you the above, and you believed it, then you are both fools. According to the theory of trickle down, there is NO Concern as to when the income trickles down, that is, whether it is before or after employees are paid. You see, oldstyle, it is not a one time payment. Trickle down assumes that businesses get extra income, almost always in the form of tax decreases, that they will increase production and the increase in demand for workers will increase wages. You need to get out of that old text, and find an actual intellectual discussion of what trickle down is SUPPOSED to be. I do agree that trickle down has proven that it does not work, but the convoluted version you just gave is apparently the (oldstyle) theory.

So, I noticed that you did not reply. Your description of trickle down was the stupidest one that I have ever seen. So, I educated you. I assume that you feel educated, since you did not respond to my critique. So, what was that about handing someone their ass???

You educated me? By doing what? When have you ever refuted Sowell's observation that trickle DOWN doesn't exist because profits actually trickle up? Workers get paid first...they don't get paid last. Even when there is ZERO profit realized in the end...workers still get paid. Trickle down theory doesn't "work" because it doesn't EXIST except in the confused minds of people that don't understand economics...like yourself.

The Sowell book that I quoted from was not published 40 years ago...it was published in 2007. So tell me why it is that a non-economics major like myself (who still has his history texts from college) owns books dealing with economics that he CAN quote passages from...and YOU...who supposedly "is" an economics major has to use Wikipedia and Google for all of his arguments? You actually have the gall to denigrate me for getting my information from original source material like a person's book rather than from the internet? Are you kidding me? There is more garbage on the internet at any given time than in any town "dump". It's mostly garbage with some factual material included. I give you an actual quote FROM Sowell's book and you give us Irwin Shisko and the anonymous guys from Debate.com and you think that your sources are viable and mine aren't? That's hilarious.

Your coveted economist has only said what you say he has IN YOUR MINE. I have asked you for proof of what you are saying several times. You can not produce it. So, one more time, lets see what trickle down says:
Trickle down theory says that if you place money in the hands of the wealthy, say corporations, that the effect is that it will increase sales and revenues, which will further cause hiring, increasing employment, and thereby will Trickle Down to the non wealthy. Pretty simple. Known to anyone with even a simple understanding of economics.

Oldstyle says:

So, you saidThomas Sowell's contention that it's impossible to have "trickle down" occurring when it is workers that get paid BEFORE business owners? Because you can't refute what he's saying. It's such a common sense concept that you don't have a come back for it other than to accuse him of (gasp!) being a libertarian!!

So, that is some new theory. I doubt that your beloved proff ever said that. I think it is the new oldstyle theory. But it has nothing to do with trickle down theory. If I am wrong, produce some facts. Which you can not. Because you are wrong. And I, and the rest of the world, are correct. And you just want to continue lying. About trickle down, and about your beloved proff.
So, oldstyle, I say you are a lying con pushing dogma. You have no proof of your definition of trickle down. And I have explained it. Whether or not you are educated depends on whether you understand what trickle down is, as I have explained it. But then, lets understand. Cons are stupid. dipshit.

 

[Oldstyle]

Well of COURSE trickle down theory doesn't work...how could it...since it doesn't exist. Yeah, right, oldstyle. Except that every source that I provided you says it did, indeed, And there are hundreds more that say the same. And none that I can find that say it is not. You are really trying to make a case for it not existing, but it did. I gave you four highly respected economists, several journalists, and could give you another hundred or so. Even Allan Greenspan, reagans guy, has admitted trickle down exists. You say Sowell says it was not a theory. I have seen no proof of that. Apparently you are not going to provide it. But even if he did, he is a libertarian economist who just might lie about something like that. As Sowell correctly pointed out...trickle down doesn't exist if workers get paid first, which they do. If you REALLY wanted to give Supply side a "cute nickname" than a more appropriate name would be "trickle up" theory...but that doesn't fit in with your progressive theme...does it? Oldstyle, what it does not agree with is reality. You say Sowell says it does not exist as a theory, and says dems came up with it. Though you seem to have no proof of that. And Reagans Budget Director, who was there and meeting with all of the repub players of the reagan admin, and reagan himself, says you are completely wrong. So, was Sowell there??

And only a complete buffoon would call someone "dip shit" ten times in one post and then whine about someone else being "juvenile" for pointing out that they are getting their ass handed to them.
So, in my humble but correct opinion, it is stupid to say someone is getting their ass handed to them, when it would be you doing the handing. You just may be prejudiced. You know, you who can produce no sources for his accusations. Understand why someone may think of you as a dipshit. You are wasting anyone reading this post's time, by posting opinion but being unable to back it up with any actual provable references. You know, like a link. You see, oldstyle, no one has any reason to believe either you, I, or anyone else without some sort of proof. And you provide NONE.

Relative to you handing me my ass, lets consider what you said and I responded to in your last post:
Oldstyle says: Do you know WHY you have to denigrate Thomas Sowell's contention that it's impossible to have "trickle down" occurring when it is workers that get paid BEFORE business owners? Because you can't refute what he's saying. It's such a common sense concept that you don't have a come back for it other than to accuse him of (gasp!) being a libertarian!! Now, if you are saying your dear proff told you the above, and you believed it, then you are both fools. According to the theory of trickle down, there is NO Concern as to when the income trickles down, that is, whether it is before or after employees are paid. You see, oldstyle, it is not a one time payment. Trickle down assumes that businesses get extra income, almost always in the form of tax decreases, that they will increase production and the increase in demand for workers will increase wages. You need to get out of that old text, and find an actual intellectual discussion of what trickle down is SUPPOSED to be. I do agree that trickle down has proven that it does not work, but the convoluted version you just gave is apparently the (oldstyle) theory.

So, I noticed that you did not reply. Your description of trickle down was the stupidest one that I have ever seen. So, I educated you. I assume that you feel educated, since you did not respond to my critique. So, what was that about handing someone their ass???

You educated me? By doing what? When have you ever refuted Sowell's observation that trickle DOWN doesn't exist because profits actually trickle up? Workers get paid first...they don't get paid last. Even when there is ZERO profit realized in the end...workers still get paid. Trickle down theory doesn't "work" because it doesn't EXIST except in the confused minds of people that don't understand economics...like yourself.

The Sowell book that I quoted from was not published 40 years ago...it was published in 2007. So tell me why it is that a non-economics major like myself (who still has his history texts from college) owns books dealing with economics that he CAN quote passages from...and YOU...who supposedly "is" an economics major has to use Wikipedia and Google for all of his arguments? You actually have the gall to denigrate me for getting my information from original source material like a person's book rather than from the internet? Are you kidding me? There is more garbage on the internet at any given time than in any town "dump". It's mostly garbage with some factual material included. I give you an actual quote FROM Sowell's book and you give us Irwin Shisko and the anonymous guys from Debate.com and you think that your sources are viable and mine aren't? That's hilarious.

Your coveted economist has only said what you say he has IN YOUR MINE. I have asked you for proof of what you are saying several times. You can not produce it. So, one more time, lets see what trickle down says:
Trickle down theory says that if you place money in the hands of the wealthy, say corporations, that the effect is that it will increase sales and revenues, which will further cause hiring, increasing employment, and thereby will Trickle Down to the non wealthy. Pretty simple. Known to anyone with even a simple understanding of economics.

Oldstyle says:

So, you saidThomas Sowell's contention that it's impossible to have "trickle down" occurring when it is workers that get paid BEFORE business owners? Because you can't refute what he's saying. It's such a common sense concept that you don't have a come back for it other than to accuse him of (gasp!) being a libertarian!!

So, that is some new theory. I doubt that your beloved proff ever said that. I think it is the new oldstyle theory. But it has nothing to do with trickle down theory. If I am wrong, produce some facts. Which you can not. Because you are wrong. And I, and the rest of the world, are correct. And you just want to continue lying. About trickle down, and about your beloved proff.
So, oldstyle, I say you are a lying con pushing dogma. You have no proof of your definition of trickle down. And I have explained it. Whether or not you are educated depends on whether you understand what trickle down is, as I have explained it. But then, lets understand. Cons are stupid. dipshit.

Why is that you can't refute what Sowell has pointed out? Do workers NOT get paid first? Do profits NOT actually "trickle" up? It's quite obvious that they DO and you don't have a response to that fact.

 

[Oldstyle]

My Sowell quote comes from his book "Basic Economics", published by Basic Books, copyright 2007, pages 515 through 517. It's a commonly available text that's on it's 4th printing so I'm quite sure you can find a copy in your local library. You DO know what a library is? That big building with all the books inside? Check it out for yourself, you might (gasp) learn something!

 

[Rshermr]

You educated me? By doing what? When have you ever refuted Sowell's observation that trickle DOWN doesn't exist because profits actually trickle up? Workers get paid first...they don't get paid last. Even when there is ZERO profit realized in the end...workers still get paid. Trickle down theory doesn't "work" because it doesn't EXIST except in the confused minds of people that don't understand economics...like yourself.

The Sowell book that I quoted from was not published 40 years ago...it was published in 2007. So tell me why it is that a non-economics major like myself (who still has his history texts from college) owns books dealing with economics that he CAN quote passages from...and YOU...who supposedly "is" an economics major has to use Wikipedia and Google for all of his arguments? You actually have the gall to denigrate me for getting my information from original source material like a person's book rather than from the internet? Are you kidding me? There is more garbage on the internet at any given time than in any town "dump". It's mostly garbage with some factual material included. I give you an actual quote FROM Sowell's book and you give us Irwin Shisko and the anonymous guys from Debate.com and you think that your sources are viable and mine aren't? That's hilarious.

Your coveted economist has only said what you say he has IN YOUR MINE. I have asked you for proof of what you are saying several times. You can not produce it. So, one more time, lets see what trickle down says:
Trickle down theory says that if you place money in the hands of the wealthy, say corporations, that the effect is that it will increase sales and revenues, which will further cause hiring, increasing employment, and thereby will Trickle Down to the non wealthy. Pretty simple. Known to anyone with even a simple understanding of economics.

Oldstyle says:

So, you saidThomas Sowell's contention that it's impossible to have "trickle down" occurring when it is workers that get paid BEFORE business owners? Because you can't refute what he's saying. It's such a common sense concept that you don't have a come back for it other than to accuse him of (gasp!) being a libertarian!!

So, that is some new theory. I doubt that your beloved proff ever said that. I think it is the new oldstyle theory. But it has nothing to do with trickle down theory. If I am wrong, produce some facts. Which you can not. Because you are wrong. And I, and the rest of the world, are correct. And you just want to continue lying. About trickle down, and about your beloved proff.
So, oldstyle, I say you are a lying con pushing dogma. You have no proof of your definition of trickle down. And I have explained it. Whether or not you are educated depends on whether you understand what trickle down is, as I have explained it. But then, lets understand. Cons are stupid. dipshit.

Why is that you can't refute what Sowell has pointed out? Do workers NOT get paid first? Do profits NOT actually "trickle" up? It's quite obvious that they DO and you don't have a response to that fact.

.Because, oldstyle. You are a lying con. That is the stupedest definition of trickle down I have ever seen. A really tortured way to perpetuate a lie. You say you have asingle sourse for your statement, but can not produce it on the web at all. You lie, and you lie, and you lie. If you would take the time, and open your mind, you would find that I gave you the definition of trickle down, and that what you are posting is drivel. But of course, you will not. I hate liars. And you are a liar.

 

[Rshermr]

My Sowell quote comes from his book "Basic Economics", published by Basic Books, copyright 2007, pages 515 through 517. It's a commonly available text that's on it's third printing so I'm quite sure you can find a copy in your local library. You DO know what a library is? That big building with all the books inside? Check it out for yourself, you might (gasp) learn something!

So, you are suggesting that I spend the time to go to the library to read Sowell's text book?? You are kidding of course. Sowell is all over the internet. So, you can not find it there. And I am sure that if I spent the time, for a food services guy, who says his only source can ONLY be found at the local library, I would find you to be lying again. Get a grip, oldstyle. Your definition is stupid, and makes you look stupid. Stop wasting my time. Come up with a web source, dipshit. If he actually said it it will be there.
But here is the problem. You want me to go to the library. But you will not find another source anywhere on the internet. Does not pass the giggle test. You are a liar. And wasting everyone's time with your lies. You have no grasp of a simple, really simple, concept, trickle down, but want me to believe some quote from one economist that you say is at the library, but you can not produce the proof from the net. Dipshit. Total dipshit.

 

[Rshermr]

You educated me? By doing what? When have you ever refuted Sowell's observation that trickle DOWN doesn't exist because profits actually trickle up? Workers get paid first...they don't get paid last. Even when there is ZERO profit realized in the end...workers still get paid. Trickle down theory doesn't "work" because it doesn't EXIST except in the confused minds of people that don't understand economics...like yourself.

The Sowell book that I quoted from was not published 40 years ago...it was published in 2007. So tell me why it is that a non-economics major like myself (who still has his history texts from college) owns books dealing with economics that he CAN quote passages from...and YOU...who supposedly "is" an economics major has to use Wikipedia and Google for all of his arguments? You actually have the gall to denigrate me for getting my information from original source material like a person's book rather than from the internet? Are you kidding me? There is more garbage on the internet at any given time than in any town "dump". It's mostly garbage with some factual material included. I give you an actual quote FROM Sowell's book and you give us Irwin Shisko and the anonymous guys from Debate.com and you think that your sources are viable and mine aren't? That's hilarious.

Your coveted economist has only said what you say he has IN YOUR MINE. I have asked you for proof of what you are saying several times. You can not produce it. So, one more time, lets see what trickle down says:
Trickle down theory says that if you place money in the hands of the wealthy, say corporations, that the effect is that it will increase sales and revenues, which will further cause hiring, increasing employment, and thereby will Trickle Down to the non wealthy. Pretty simple. Known to anyone with even a simple understanding of economics.

Oldstyle says:

So, you saidThomas Sowell's contention that it's impossible to have "trickle down" occurring when it is workers that get paid BEFORE business owners? Because you can't refute what he's saying. It's such a common sense concept that you don't have a come back for it other than to accuse him of (gasp!) being a libertarian!!

So, that is some new theory. I doubt that your beloved proff ever said that. I think it is the new oldstyle theory. But it has nothing to do with trickle down theory. If I am wrong, produce some facts. Which you can not. Because you are wrong. And I, and the rest of the world, are correct. And you just want to continue lying. About trickle down, and about your beloved proff.
So, oldstyle, I say you are a lying con pushing dogma. You have no proof of your definition of trickle down. And I have explained it. Whether or not you are educated depends on whether you understand what trickle down is, as I have explained it. But then, lets understand. Cons are stupid. dipshit.

Why is that you can't refute what Sowell has pointed out? Do workers NOT get paid first? Do profits NOT actually "trickle" up? It's quite obvious that they DO and you don't have a response to that fact.

What is obvious, oldstyle, is that you are a fool. Get me the proof. And do not try to say go to the library. You are lying. If I go to the library, and say it is not there, you will say I am lying.
But you see, oldstyle, I do not lie. And you do, over and over and over and over.

 

[Oldstyle]

Your coveted economist has only said what you say he has IN YOUR MINE. I have asked you for proof of what you are saying several times. You can not produce it. So, one more time, lets see what trickle down says:
Trickle down theory says that if you place money in the hands of the wealthy, say corporations, that the effect is that it will increase sales and revenues, which will further cause hiring, increasing employment, and thereby will Trickle Down to the non wealthy. Pretty simple. Known to anyone with even a simple understanding of economics.

Oldstyle says:

So, that is some new theory. I doubt that your beloved proff ever said that. I think it is the new oldstyle theory. But it has nothing to do with trickle down theory. If I am wrong, produce some facts. Which you can not. Because you are wrong. And I, and the rest of the world, are correct. And you just want to continue lying. About trickle down, and about your beloved proff.
So, oldstyle, I say you are a lying con pushing dogma. You have no proof of your definition of trickle down. And I have explained it. Whether or not you are educated depends on whether you understand what trickle down is, as I have explained it. But then, lets understand. Cons are stupid. dipshit.

Why is that you can't refute what Sowell has pointed out? Do workers NOT get paid first? Do profits NOT actually "trickle" up? It's quite obvious that they DO and you don't have a response to that fact.

.Because, oldstyle. You are a lying con. That is the stupedest definition of trickle down I have ever seen. A really tortured way to perpetuate a lie. You say you have asingle sourse for your statement, but can not produce it on the web at all. You lie, and you lie, and you lie. If you would take the time, and open your mind, you would find that I gave you the definition of trickle down, and that what you are posting is drivel. But of course, you will not. I hate liars. And you are a liar.

LOL...what's the problem here, Rshermr? I ask you to do something very simple...explain the fallacy in Sowell's observation that "trickle down" theory is a misnomer because profits ALWAYS trickle up not the other way around...but instead of doing that you start ranting about my being a "liar".

You're supposedly an economics major who taught the subject yet you can't argue the basic premise behind trickle down theory...that supposedly profits trickle down from owners to the workers? How can that be?

Google

Gee, little buddy for something you seem to think doesn't exist...there sure does seem to be a ton of hit's when you Google it!!! Almost 16,000 hits. Yeah, I'm just making the whole thing up! Sowell never wrote the book and I don't own a copy. It's all a "lie". (eye-roll)

It's pretty obvious that the BIG LIE being told in this string is that you taught economics at the college level. You don't even understand the topic at it's most basic levels.

 

[Oldstyle]

August jobs report due in a few minutes....
Let's see how that works out.

95,000 jobs, Rozman...another miserable jobs report to add to Barry's collection.

 

[Rshermr]

Why is that you can't refute what Sowell has pointed out? Do workers NOT get paid first? Do profits NOT actually "trickle" up? It's quite obvious that they DO and you don't have a response to that fact.

.Because, oldstyle. You are a lying con. That is the stupedest definition of trickle down I have ever seen. A really tortured way to perpetuate a lie. You say you have asingle sourse for your statement, but can not produce it on the web at all. You lie, and you lie, and you lie. If you would take the time, and open your mind, you would find that I gave you the definition of trickle down, and that what you are posting is drivel. But of course, you will not. I hate liars. And you are a liar.

LOL...what's the problem here, Rshermr? I ask you to do something very simple...explain the fallacy in Sowell's observation that "trickle down" theory is a misnomer because profits ALWAYS trickle up not the other way around...So you want me to explain why some libertarian outlier economist has an invalid definition of trickle down??? Probably because he is a libertarian. Explain that one. Not a single libertarian economy has ever lasted, all turned into garbage, and you want me to explain why his theory is wrong. It is wrong because it is not addressing what trickle down is meant to say and do, but rather what he would like it to do.but instead of doing that you start ranting about my being a "liar".

You're supposedly an economics major who taught the subject yet you can't argue the basic premise behind trickle down theory...that supposedly profits trickle down from owners to the workers? How can that be?

Google

Gee, little buddy for something you seem to think doesn't exist...there sure does seem to be a ton of hit's when you Google it!!! Almost 16,000 hits. Yeah, I'm just making the whole thing up! Sowell never wrote the book and I don't own a copy. It's all a "lie". (eye-roll)

It's pretty obvious that the BIG LIE being told in this string is that you taught economics at the college level. You don't even understand the topic at it's most basic levels.

Oldstyle, you are posting sowells ideas. Great, you finally came through with the actual info. Sorry to ask the person who made the statement prove the statement. Most people do not ask someone to go find a book, dipshit.
So, you post:
LOL...what's the problem here, Rshermr? I ask you to do something very simple...explain the fallacy in Sowell's observation that "trickle down" theory is a misnomer because profits ALWAYS trickle up not the other way around...but instead of doing that you start ranting about my being a "liar".

You're supposedly an economics major who taught the subject yet you can't argue the basic premise behind trickle down theory...that supposedly profits trickle down from owners to the workers? How can that be?

so, finally you do call trickle down a theory. So we have dispensed with that bit of your fallacy. I have explained it. You have an idiot libertarian economist redefining the term. But you will find him outnumbered at least 100 to 1 by economists saying just what I told you. If you want to believe what the clown says, go ahead. I would much prefer to believe what the rest of the sane world believes, and how they have defined trickle down. the theory, as you have said.

How can that be? You are completely redefining the theory, of course. As I am sure you know. If that was what trickle down said, then you may have some argument. But what trickle down said has nothing to do with this idea, which is stupid. What it says is in definition of supply side econ. It says, oldstyle (now pay attention this time) that tax decreases to the rich will trickle down to the less wealthy as a result of increased productivity, and resultant job increases. You know, just like reagan said. Before he tried it and drove the unemployment rate to the highest point before or sinced Hoover and the great depression. So, you see, that is why I do not know about your convoluted description of trickle down. Only a libertarian clown would teach such crap. That is what you get when you work with libertarians. fantacy. Libertarians believe in a society and an economy that has never worked, and never will, and support their fantacy with untruths. And you buy it. dipshit. By the way, I studied economics before trickle down was being pushed by the repubs. That did not start until around 1980. But I have kept up with the subject, way more than you. You now have one source. I gave you 15. Keep trying me great economics expert who has one sourse, a libertarianS, for christs sake, and no understanding of what the theory said.

It's pretty obvious that the BIG LIE being told in this string is that you taught economics at the college level. So again, that was no lie. We have covered this over and over, as you would not let it go. So, when i said that you were wasting everyones time with your continued dogma about me not teaching, you laid down a deal, which I took. Actually met your conditions for proof. And you said you would not question it again. So, you agreed. But you prove again that you have no integrity. So we shall see, oldstyle, if you are the dishonest person I believe you to be. You don't even understand the topic at it's most basic levels. Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. But I do not believe wacko libertarians. So I believe what the people who were there confirm, and what everyone except clowns who post con dogma believe.

 

[Oldstyle]

.Because, oldstyle. You are a lying con. That is the stupedest definition of trickle down I have ever seen. A really tortured way to perpetuate a lie. You say you have asingle sourse for your statement, but can not produce it on the web at all. You lie, and you lie, and you lie. If you would take the time, and open your mind, you would find that I gave you the definition of trickle down, and that what you are posting is drivel. But of course, you will not. I hate liars. And you are a liar.

LOL...what's the problem here, Rshermr? I ask you to do something very simple...explain the fallacy in Sowell's observation that "trickle down" theory is a misnomer because profits ALWAYS trickle up not the other way around...So you want me to explain why some libertarian outlier economist has an invalid definition of trickle down??? Probably because he is a libertarian. Explain that one. Not a single libertarian economy has ever lasted, all turned into garbage, and you want me to explain why his theory is wrong. It is wrong because it is not addressing what trickle down is meant to say and do, but rather what he would like it to do.but instead of doing that you start ranting about my being a "liar".

You're supposedly an economics major who taught the subject yet you can't argue the basic premise behind trickle down theory...that supposedly profits trickle down from owners to the workers? How can that be?

Google

Gee, little buddy for something you seem to think doesn't exist...there sure does seem to be a ton of hit's when you Google it!!! Almost 16,000 hits. Yeah, I'm just making the whole thing up! Sowell never wrote the book and I don't own a copy. It's all a "lie". (eye-roll)

It's pretty obvious that the BIG LIE being told in this string is that you taught economics at the college level. You don't even understand the topic at it's most basic levels.

Oldstyle, you are posting sowells ideas. Great, you finally came through with the actual info. Sorry to ask the person who made the statement prove the statement. Most people do not ask someone to go find a book, dipshit.
So, you post:
LOL...what's the problem here, Rshermr? I ask you to do something very simple...explain the fallacy in Sowell's observation that "trickle down" theory is a misnomer because profits ALWAYS trickle up not the other way around...but instead of doing that you start ranting about my being a "liar".

You're supposedly an economics major who taught the subject yet you can't argue the basic premise behind trickle down theory...that supposedly profits trickle down from owners to the workers? How can that be?

so, finally you do call trickle down a theory. So we have dispensed with that bit of your fallacy. I have explained it. You have an idiot libertarian economist redefining the term. But you will find him outnumbered at least 100 to 1 by economists saying just what I told you. If you want to believe what the clown says, go ahead. I would much prefer to believe what the rest of the sane world believes, and how they have defined trickle down. the theory, as you have said.

How can that be? You are completely redefining the theory, of course. As I am sure you know. If that was what trickle down said, then you may have some argument. But what trickle down said has nothing to do with this idea, which is stupid. What it says is in definition of supply side econ. It says, oldstyle (now pay attention this time) that tax decreases to the rich will trickle down to the less wealthy as a result of increased productivity, and resultant job increases. You know, just like reagan said. Before he tried it and drove the unemployment rate to the highest point before or sinced Hoover and the great depression. So, you see, that is why I do not know about your convoluted description of trickle down. Only a libertarian clown would teach such crap. That is what you get when you work with libertarians. fantacy. Libertarians believe in a society and an economy that has never worked, and never will, and support their fantacy with untruths. And you buy it. dipshit. By the way, I studied economics before trickle down was being pushed by the repubs. That did not start until around 1980. But I have kept up with the subject, way more than you. You now have one source. I gave you 15. Keep trying me great economics expert who has one sourse, a libertarianS, for christs sake, and no understanding of what the theory said.

It's pretty obvious that the BIG LIE being told in this string is that you taught economics at the college level. So again, that was no lie. We have covered this over and over, as you would not let it go. So, when i said that you were wasting everyones time with your continued dogma about me not teaching, you laid down a deal, which I took. Actually met your conditions for proof. And you said you would not question it again. So, you agreed. But you prove again that you have no integrity. So we shall see, oldstyle, if you are the dishonest person I believe you to be. You don't even understand the topic at it's most basic levels. Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. But I do not believe wacko libertarians. So I believe what the people who were there confirm, and what everyone except clowns who post con dogma believe.

Let me get this straight...you CAN find Irwin Shiski on line...he of the one article...but you CAN'T find Thomas Sowell's book...he of the decades of scholarly work in economics...the guy with 16,000 internet hits on his book "Basic Economics"? You needed ME to Google it and show you that it existed somewhere other than on my bookshelf? Is that what you're telling me? You're either incompetent or the world's laziest man...

I'm quite aware of how Supply Side economics is supposed to work, Rshermr. A reduction in marginal tax rates makes the potential for profits increase which draws capital investment into the economy spurring growth. Sowell's point about why"trickle down" theory, as progressive like to portray it with workers supposedly getting paid the "leftovers" of profits is nonsense because workers are ALWAYS paid first, completely separate from whether there even IS a profit realized.

Sowell explains it quite rationally. If a reduction in tax rates DOES induce, say an oil exploration company, to invest it's capital in the hopes of making a future profit...the very first thing that occurs is that WORKERS are hired and those workers are paid a wage. So geologists are hired, oil field managers and roughnecks are hired, money is spent on pipe and drill bits, roads are built to access the site...all this has to happen at the onset. There can be the passage of YEARS before a dime of profit is returned to investors or the owners of that oil exploration company and yet during ALL of that time workers are STILL getting paid a wage. It's only after paying all of THOSE expenses that a profit might be realized. Sowell makes the point...and it's self evident!...that it is not a trickle DOWN scenario that takes place but a trickle UP scenario. If no profit is realized then do those workers have to give back what they were paid? Obviously not...yet progressives have convinced themselves that supply side economics IS a trickle down thing when that is completely not the case.

 

[Rshermr]

LOL...what's the problem here, Rshermr? I ask you to do something very simple...explain the fallacy in Sowell's observation that "trickle down" theory is a misnomer because profits ALWAYS trickle up not the other way around...So you want me to explain why some libertarian outlier economist has an invalid definition of trickle down??? Probably because he is a libertarian. Explain that one. Not a single libertarian economy has ever lasted, all turned into garbage, and you want me to explain why his theory is wrong. It is wrong because it is not addressing what trickle down is meant to say and do, but rather what he would like it to do.but instead of doing that you start ranting about my being a "liar".

You're supposedly an economics major who taught the subject yet you can't argue the basic premise behind trickle down theory...that supposedly profits trickle down from owners to the workers? How can that be?

Google

Gee, little buddy for something you seem to think doesn't exist...there sure does seem to be a ton of hit's when you Google it!!! Almost 16,000 hits. Yeah, I'm just making the whole thing up! Sowell never wrote the book and I don't own a copy. It's all a "lie". (eye-roll)

It's pretty obvious that the BIG LIE being told in this string is that you taught economics at the college level. You don't even understand the topic at it's most basic levels.

Oldstyle, you are posting sowells ideas. Great, you finally came through with the actual info. Sorry to ask the person who made the statement prove the statement. Most people do not ask someone to go find a book, dipshit.
So, you post:
LOL...what's the problem here, Rshermr? I ask you to do something very simple...explain the fallacy in Sowell's observation that "trickle down" theory is a misnomer because profits ALWAYS trickle up not the other way around...but instead of doing that you start ranting about my being a "liar".

You're supposedly an economics major who taught the subject yet you can't argue the basic premise behind trickle down theory...that supposedly profits trickle down from owners to the workers? How can that be?

so, finally you do call trickle down a theory. So we have dispensed with that bit of your fallacy. I have explained it. You have an idiot libertarian economist redefining the term. But you will find him outnumbered at least 100 to 1 by economists saying just what I told you. If you want to believe what the clown says, go ahead. I would much prefer to believe what the rest of the sane world believes, and how they have defined trickle down. the theory, as you have said.

How can that be? You are completely redefining the theory, of course. As I am sure you know. If that was what trickle down said, then you may have some argument. But what trickle down said has nothing to do with this idea, which is stupid. What it says is in definition of supply side econ. It says, oldstyle (now pay attention this time) that tax decreases to the rich will trickle down to the less wealthy as a result of increased productivity, and resultant job increases. You know, just like reagan said. Before he tried it and drove the unemployment rate to the highest point before or sinced Hoover and the great depression. So, you see, that is why I do not know about your convoluted description of trickle down. Only a libertarian clown would teach such crap. That is what you get when you work with libertarians. fantacy. Libertarians believe in a society and an economy that has never worked, and never will, and support their fantacy with untruths. And you buy it. dipshit. By the way, I studied economics before trickle down was being pushed by the repubs. That did not start until around 1980. But I have kept up with the subject, way more than you. You now have one source. I gave you 15. Keep trying me great economics expert who has one sourse, a libertarianS, for christs sake, and no understanding of what the theory said.

It's pretty obvious that the BIG LIE being told in this string is that you taught economics at the college level. So again, that was no lie. We have covered this over and over, as you would not let it go. So, when i said that you were wasting everyones time with your continued dogma about me not teaching, you laid down a deal, which I took. Actually met your conditions for proof. And you said you would not question it again. So, you agreed. But you prove again that you have no integrity. So we shall see, oldstyle, if you are the dishonest person I believe you to be. You don't even understand the topic at it's most basic levels. Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. But I do not believe wacko libertarians. So I believe what the people who were there confirm, and what everyone except clowns who post con dogma believe.

Let me get this straight...you CAN find Irwin Shiski on line...he of the one article...but you CAN'T find Thomas Sowell's book...he of the decades of scholarly work in economics...the guy with 16,000 internet hits on his book "Basic Economics"? You needed ME to Google it and show you that it existed somewhere other than on my bookshelf? Is that what you're telling me? You're either incompetent or the world's laziest man...

I'm quite aware of how Supply Side economics is supposed to work, Rshermr. A reduction in marginal tax rates makes the potential for profits increase which draws capital investment into the economy spurring growth. Sowell's point about why"trickle down" theory, as progressive like to portray it with workers supposedly getting paid the "leftovers" of profits is nonsense because workers are ALWAYS paid first, completely separate from whether there even IS a profit realized.

Sowell explains it quite rationally. If a reduction in tax rates DOES induce, say an oil exploration company, to invest it's capital in the hopes of making a future profit...the very first thing that occurs is that WORKERS are hired and those workers are paid a wage. So geologists are hired, oil field managers and roughnecks are hired, money is spent on pipe and drill bits, roads are built to access the site...all this has to happen at the onset. There can be the passage of YEARS before a dime of profit is returned to investors or the owners of that oil exploration company and yet during ALL of that time workers are STILL getting paid a wage. It's only after paying all of THOSE expenses that a profit might be realized. Sowell makes the point...and it's self evident!...that it is not a trickle DOWN scenario that takes place but a trickle UP scenario. If no profit is realized then do those workers have to give back what they were paid? Obviously not...yet progressives have convinced themselves that supply side economics IS a trickle down thing when that is completely not the case.

So, if you look at Sowell and cato, you get some interesting hits.

Let me get this straight...you CAN find Irwin Shiski on line...he of the one article...but you CAN'T find Thomas Sowell's book...he of the decades of scholarly work in economics...the guy with 16,000 internet hits on his book "Basic Economics"? You needed ME to Google it and show you that it existed somewhere other than on my bookshelf? Is that what you're telling me? You're either incompetent or the world's laziest man...

Sometimes I get a bit too trusting. I expect people to be honest. And I expect that they are doing as they say. That is always a mistake with you, oldstyle. First, on any post, if you make a statement it is YOU that needs to provide the proof, as in a link, oldstyle. You have been telling me that you information did not come from google, and that google was a poor choice. Then you suggested I go to the library. Get the problem, oldstyle. More dishonesty. You could have posted the info you just did, to support your accusation, twenty posts ago.

But then, you made the rules. You will not consider the info from any economic source that I post that you consider partial. So, consider this. CATO IS AS PREJUDICED A SITE AS EXISTS. And if you google cato and Thomas Sowell, you get a whole gaggle of interesting hits. Every opinion that cato has is listed among the hits that pop up.
And there he is supporting the Koch bros.
So, sowell, your only source, is in bed big time with CATO. And the Koch bros. The very guys that pay professors big bucks to preach their dogma. How about that, oldstyle. And I am sure that this is no surprise to you.

So there we are, OLDSTYLE. Here you are standing behind a totally bullshit source. Saying that you are not a libertarian. But you are, oldstyle. CATO. The libertarian think tank founded and run by the Koch brothers. Defending statements by a prof who is most likely owned and run by the cato group. A fucking libertarian nut case just like you.

Your reprint of Sowell's dogma and statemens are simply like everything posted about him on the web. In lock step with the crap that comes out of the Koch brothers and CATO. Just simply intent on owning the gov and making the rich more so. And they are just like your posts, oldstyle. Always, always, always conservative dogma. Just dogma.

yet progressives have convinced themselves that supply side economics IS a trickle down thing when that is completely not the case.

And your proof for this statement is??? Because the statement is a lie. What most conservatives and all progressives believe is what Stockman, who was there, said trickle down was. Which was a theory to convince those not liking the benefits of supply side all going to the rich, that they would reap rewards from increase employment, etc. But then, you should know that. But is probably hard for you to see with your head so far up Sowell's ASS.

 

[Oldstyle]

All that "bluster", Rshermr because you can't refute Sowell's premise that you can't HAVE trickle down if in fact the workers are the ones that are getting paid first...which they obviously ARE.

When did I make a deal with you that I'd let you off the hook with your obvious lie about teaching economics in college if you finally relented and told us where that occurred? I know you'd LIKE for me to not bring up how ridiculous a claim that is given your obvious total ignorance of basic economic theory but I never agreed to any "deal".

If you really WERE well versed in economics you'd have known exactly who Thomas Sowell was and that he was a conservative economist right from the start...it's like someone telling you that they are an architect but then they don't know who Frank Lloyd Wright is and have never heard of "organic architecture". You'd look at them and laugh...which is exactly what I'm doing with you and your bogus claim of teaching college level economics.

http://www.superscholar.org/features/20-most-influential-living-economists/

 

[Rshermr]

All that "bluster", Rshermr because you can't refute Sowell's premise that you can't HAVE trickle down if in fact the workers are the ones that are getting paid first...which they obviously ARE.

So, you provide a libertarian source who spends a whole lot of time with CATO. And you consider this a non partial source who makes statements that should be taken seriously. I have answered your question above numerous times, and will not try to educate you again. So, you have your head thouroughly up your single source for explaining trickle down. Good for you oldstyle. You are so well versed in economics. On prejudiced professor, who you believe. But I will spend no more time on it, because by your very rules, impartial sources should not be considered. I gave you 15 sources, you gave me one. Yours is no better than any of the ones I gave you, because he is a totally prejudiced libertarian with a really obvious agenda. CATO, the organization that expouses libertarian beliefs and was founded and is run by the Kock bros. So, that tells us where you stand, oldstyle.

When did I make a deal with you that I'd let you off the hook with your obvious lie about teaching economics in college if you finally relented and told us where that occurred? I know you'd LIKE for me to not bring up how ridiculous a claim that is given your obvious total ignorance of basic economic theory but I never agreed to any "deal".

Yes, you did. But it makes no difference. I never expected you to be honest. And relative to your opinion of my economic background, please know that I am so hurt because I do so value your opinion. You know, from a guy who took two econ classes, and has one source for his contentions, who is A LIBERTARIAN WITH HUNDREDS OF HITS IN CONTENTION WITH CATO.

If you really WERE well versed in economics you'd have known exactly who Thomas Sowell was and that he was a conservative economist right from the start...it's like someone telling you that they are an architect but then they don't know who Frank Lloyd Wright is and have never heard of "organic architecture". You'd look at them and laugh...which is exactly what I'm doing with you and your bogus claim of teaching college level economics.

Sorry, I do not read info from CATO. Nor do I read text books. And, oldstyle, me boy, I know Sowell is your hero. That is all that you talked about for the past twenty posts or so. So here is a news flash: There are many economists more famous than Sowell. This drivel of yours is like the "my dad is tougher than your dad argument". Childish, oldstyle. So, here is a bit of education for you. You learn a lot more if you read info from multiple economic sources. Not just one. And not just conservative dogma.
And, relative to your expressed opinion of me, oldstyle, again, I am so hurt. You know how much I respect your opinion.
A Libertarian Economist with close, close ties to CATO and the Koch Bros. You have to be kidding. I have stopped laughing now, oldstyle. Now I just feel sorry for you.

 

[Oldstyle]

What I feel sorry for is a man who is SO insecure about himself that he has to make up stories about how he taught economics in college so people will take his opinions seriously.

A man who supposedly graduated with a degree in economics but can't explain basic economic theory and doesn't know who one of the preeminent economists of our time is.

You know what you are, Rshermr? You're the real life George Costanza of this board...someone who lies about who they are to try and win an argument on the internet. What are you going to be next week...a "marine biologist"?

Not A Lie | Shirtoid

http://shirtoid.com/18014/george-costanza-marine-biologist/

 

[Rshermr]

What I feel sorry for is a man who is SO insecure about himself that he has to make up stories about how he taught economics in college so people will take his opinions seriously.

A man who supposedly graduated with a degree in economics but can't explain basic economic theory and doesn't know who one of the preeminent economists of our time is.

You know what you are, Rshermr? You're the real life George Costanza of this board...someone who lies about who they are to try and win an argument on the internet. What are you going to be next week...a "marine biologist"?

Not A Lie | Shirtoid

George Costanza Marine Biologist | Shirtoid

Oldstyle, what is interesting is that it is you who believe that I am trying to impress people by telling you that I taught economics for a year. That was true. I believe that you know that. But, I am not in the least impressed. Teaching economics to economics non majors for a prof who did not want to do so is less than impressive. You see, oldstyle, I was teaching a based on a proffs lesson plan, to mostly freshmen who had to take econ but really did not care much. And grading papers and tests. So, you seem to think that is impressive. Though you keep saying it is a lie. But it is true, oldstyle, i gave you the info you wanted to get you off the subject.
But, oldstyle, when you have no game, you go back to this issue. Because you have no backing for the economic argument that you are stating, EXCEPT for one very questionable economist who you have been talking about for the past thirty posts. Just one. Over and over and over and over. If your definition of trickle down has any validity, find more sources. Mine has hundreds. Yours so far has ONE. The reason it has one is that it is untrue. It is dogma. It is drivel. The definition I gave you of trickle down is not my definition, but the definition of every source I can find.
So, if you think telling you I taught economics for a year was to make myself look good, then what does it say about you, oldstyle. As I told you, you are talking about something that happened in 1969 and 1970. If you understand math, that is over 40 years ago. And it is nothing that I feel any pride about, just part of my history. Not at all impressive. So, the idea that you find such a thing impressive tells me that you must be a very unimpressive person. So, yes, oldstyle, I do feel sorry for you. All that you can do is attack.
So, are you out of excuses, now. I have provided you with the definition of trickle down multiple times, and all you have done is to go back to what your favorite (and only) source has to say, over and over and over and over. No other source. You are pathetic.