ROFL
You're like the guy who doesn't know what a "variable" is, telling us all that he is a professional programmer. Your ignorance is self-evident. Perhaps you had a job as an AP clerk or accountants helper, but you certainly do not have a background in economics.
You’re funny. You’re the one who seemed confused about nominal vs real variables. I actually participated in research as an undergraduate. I also have an MS in Economics. I’m trying to be cordial, you’re making it increasingly difficult.
Quote:
I'm talking about the Laffer Curve. It's pretty basic: you cut taxes, government revenue increases, thus improving the economy. Tax cuts are the fiscal equivalent of spending increases. This is textbook Keynes, Art Laffer knows this for sure.
Again you demonstrate that you have no grasp of Keynes. You don't know anything about turns or multipliers and think that Keynes merely promoted redistribution of wealth - which is not at all what Keynes proposed.
Yes, Laffer advocates freeing capital as a means of initiating market activity. Keynes advocated deficit spending to put capital in the market as a means of initiating market activity. Same thing, right?
No, not even close.
Let me put this in really simply terms so that you might grasp it.
A field is on fire, two men, Mr. K and Mr. A both claim they can put the fire out. Mr. K says he needs to put water on the fire. Mr. A says he needs to put water on the fire. AHA you say, both advocate the same thing..
Well no, Mr. K says he should dump buckets of water in the center of the fire. Mr. A says he want to use a hose and spray the base of the fire inward. In fact, the two have vastly different approaches.
I’ve intimately familiar with the General Theory. If you read it, or didn’t any type of marginal study of the material, you’d realize it’s broken up into multiple books.
I’ll give a brief introduction – or an overview – so you can spare us with any more of your enlightening examples about Mr A and Mr. K.
First of all, he turned classical economic economics on its head. He introduced concepts such as liquidity preference, effective demand, consumption function, and marginal efficiency of capital among other things.
His central thesis in the General Theory being that the overall level of employment is directly related to aggregate demand. This throws the neoclassical view out the window. He basically said it was incorrect to assume that economies are capable of delivering full employment. His idea being that underinvestment and underemployment are the norm in an economy and that wage cuts will only exacerbate the problem.
As I pointed out before - your complaint is that while you got more, others got even more than you - so NO FAIR.
And your graphs - even slanted as they are by including the 08' crash and the Obama depression of 9-10 shows that all saw at least modest gains
It’s irrefutable that real wages have been declining over the three decades while productivity has increased. It’s not even arguable point among economists.
You're not "pointing it out," you making an erroneous claim based on your partisan bias in direct contradiction of established fact.
Oh really. So tax cuts that help increase aggregate demand isn’t out of the Keynes playbook? I suggest you call the chair of every econ department on earth. They’ve all been duped.
Here’s something that may help you: tax cuts are the fiscal equivalent of spending increases. This is why it’s disingenuous to say you support deficit reductions but not tax increases. They both remove income from the economy, except they affect different income groups.
Thank god for Wiki, huh?
For fun, here is the top ten economic performers - in inflation adjusted, 2005 dollars;
1. Clinton, 1993-2001, $2.7 trillion.
2. George W. Bush, 2001-2009, $1.7 trillion.
3. Reagan, 1981-1989, $1.6 trillion.
4. Johnson, 1963-1969, $741 billion.
5. Nixon, 1969-1974, $628 billion.
6. Eisenhower, 1953-1961, $484 billion.
7. Carter, 1977-1981, $461 billion.
8. George H.W. Bush, 1989-1993, $401 billion.
9. Obama, 2009-2012, $325 billion.
10. Kennedy, 1961-1963, $310 billion.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/s...over-biggest-/
Funny thing, the top three all used Supply Side theories...
FDR sits at 31 - yeah, he was a ******* disaster.
__________________
And, what’s your point?
As I tried to point out, the entire supply-side era was distorted and terribly distributed throughout the economy. Those policies negatively affected wage earners. The data is freely available: the real incomes of wage earners decreased during the 1980s. If supply-side was such a resounding success, and this magnificent macroeconomic template, we should have seen an increase in real incomes from the very people producing the supply.
Where I do agree with Laffer is that inflation is a supply-side deal. For example, if the supply of real goods and services is abundant, then we won’t have an inflation problem. It’s not a byproduct of money or bank reserves. In point of fact, increased levels of bank reserves tend to lower interest rates and are deflationary.
This supply side nonsense is where this Administration has made a huge mistake. They don’t understand the monetary system and are pursuing policies which will decrease our ability to produce the real goods and services we require as a society. The end result will be shortages in the stuff we need, such as cars, homes, skilled workers, etc.
Yeah, FDR the satanic President, the President who defeated the Nazis and Axis Powers, was clearly a disaster. The continued historical revisionism about the New Deal continues to amuse me on daily basis. Sure, he made mistakes, mostly by listening to austerity ghouls back in 1937, but he wasn’t ideologically wedded to their ideas. Thanks to FDRs’ polices, the middle class become a numerical majority for the first time in US history. The Social Security Act, the Wagner Act, minimum wage laws, the government as employer of last resort, all came about under FDR.
