5 ms·

What do you mean? That 'Trickle Down' was a satirical term coined to disparagingly talk about supply-side economics? Sure, I know. That doesn't mean that there

by esarbe 5y ago

What do you mean? That 'Trickle Down' was a satirical term coined to disparagingly talk about supply-side economics? Sure, I know. That doesn't mean that there aren't more than enough people still clinging to supply-side economic theories as if their undeserved wealth depended on it. Because it does.

refurb 5y ago
Supply side is a valid economic theory. Give people more money and they spend it. You disagree? “Trickle down” was a Democratic ploy to disparage the policy of reducing tax rates. Apparently we are still talking about it despite the economic expansion of the 1980’s in contrast to the “malaise” of the 70’s.
- temp10298385 5y ago
  Giving people more money (i.e tie wages to increase in productivity) is demand side economics. Supply side economics is increasing the amount of available goods regardless of demand. The lagging wages are mitigated by credit, i.e. debt.
  - refurb 5y ago
    You’re taking the words to literally. “ Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory that postulates economic growth can be most effectively fostered by lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade”
    - esarbe 5y ago
      No, you are being fallacious. There are many thousand ways of "giving people money". Supply-side economics prescribes exactly one way of "giving people money", that's by lowering taxes. You cannot claim that because supply-side economics supports one way of "giving" people money that every way of giving people money is supply-side economics. You see that, right?
      - refurb 5y ago
        Grandparent said “giving people money is demand side economics”.
        esarbe 5y ago
        Fair enough.
- esarbe 5y ago
  > Supply side is a valid economic theory. I presume that actually think that this is the case and that you didn't just forget the /s. Supply-side economics has been thoroughly debunked, again and again[0]. Just look the current state of the US. > Give people more money and they spend it. It depends. It depends how much money they have, how much money they already have and what your definition of 'spending' is. Not every kind of 'spending' is of economic and social value. Give a billionaire a dollar and they'll forget it with the lint in their pocket, will get thrown out with the trousers and incinerated along with the trash. Give a billionaire a million dollars and they'll put it into NFT or crypto or something else of questionable social or economical value. It's only when you give a poor person some money that they will spend it in a 'useful' way that actually increases productivity. But "Give people more money and they spend it" not supply-side economics, actually, is it? In all actual actuality, supply-side economics is about lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade, with a heavy emphasis on lowering taxes. You could say that it's primarily about lowering taxes, because 'decrease regulation' and 'promote free trade' is not exactly a supply-side original. SSE is about lowering taxes, primarily for the 'job creators'. That's what the Laffer curve is for. And only the beginning of the issues with supply-side economics ... > Apparently we are still talking about it despite the economic expansion of the 1980’s What good is economic expansion if no one but a very small and exclusive group of very exclusive and already very rich people profits said economic expansion? Do larger number make you happy? if so, here's a big number for you: 10↑10. If you are not more happy now, then you are in the same boat as most US workers since 1979. Just because there was economic expansion, it doesn't mean their lives got better. Worse, in fact. Wages stalled, living expenses increased, social support networks were cut and cut and cut again. Why exactly? Yes, exactly. Supply-side economics, or "voodoo economic policy", as George H. W. Bush famously described it. Presumably because it thrives on the corpses of exsanguinated workers. > a Democratic ploy [...] To my knowledge, one of the mayor reasons for the '70ies economic downturn was the "Nixon shock" where prices and wages were frozen and import taxed increased. It's named after Richard Nixon. He was a Republicant President[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%931975_recession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%931975_recession
  - 5y ago

by esarbe 5y ago

refurb 5y ago

Supply side is a valid economic theory. Give people more money and they spend it. You disagree? “Trickle down” was a Democratic ploy to disparage the policy of reducing tax rates. Apparently we are still talking about it despite the economic expansion of the 1980’s in contrast to the “malaise” of the 70’s.

temp10298385 5y ago
Giving people more money (i.e tie wages to increase in productivity) is demand side economics. Supply side economics is increasing the amount of available goods regardless of demand. The lagging wages are mitigated by credit, i.e. debt.
- refurb 5y ago
  You’re taking the words to literally. “ Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory that postulates economic growth can be most effectively fostered by lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade”
  - esarbe 5y ago
    No, you are being fallacious. There are many thousand ways of "giving people money". Supply-side economics prescribes exactly one way of "giving people money", that's by lowering taxes. You cannot claim that because supply-side economics supports one way of "giving" people money that every way of giving people money is supply-side economics. You see that, right?
    - refurb 5y ago
      Grandparent said “giving people money is demand side economics”.
      - esarbe 5y ago
        Fair enough.
esarbe 5y ago
> Supply side is a valid economic theory. I presume that actually think that this is the case and that you didn't just forget the /s. Supply-side economics has been thoroughly debunked, again and again[0]. Just look the current state of the US. > Give people more money and they spend it. It depends. It depends how much money they have, how much money they already have and what your definition of 'spending' is. Not every kind of 'spending' is of economic and social value. Give a billionaire a dollar and they'll forget it with the lint in their pocket, will get thrown out with the trousers and incinerated along with the trash. Give a billionaire a million dollars and they'll put it into NFT or crypto or something else of questionable social or economical value. It's only when you give a poor person some money that they will spend it in a 'useful' way that actually increases productivity. But "Give people more money and they spend it" not supply-side economics, actually, is it? In all actual actuality, supply-side economics is about lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade, with a heavy emphasis on lowering taxes. You could say that it's primarily about lowering taxes, because 'decrease regulation' and 'promote free trade' is not exactly a supply-side original. SSE is about lowering taxes, primarily for the 'job creators'. That's what the Laffer curve is for. And only the beginning of the issues with supply-side economics ... > Apparently we are still talking about it despite the economic expansion of the 1980’s What good is economic expansion if no one but a very small and exclusive group of very exclusive and already very rich people profits said economic expansion? Do larger number make you happy? if so, here's a big number for you: 10↑10. If you are not more happy now, then you are in the same boat as most US workers since 1979. Just because there was economic expansion, it doesn't mean their lives got better. Worse, in fact. Wages stalled, living expenses increased, social support networks were cut and cut and cut again. Why exactly? Yes, exactly. Supply-side economics, or "voodoo economic policy", as George H. W. Bush famously described it. Presumably because it thrives on the corpses of exsanguinated workers. > a Democratic ploy [...] To my knowledge, one of the mayor reasons for the '70ies economic downturn was the "Nixon shock" where prices and wages were frozen and import taxed increased. It's named after Richard Nixon. He was a Republicant President[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%931975_recession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%931975_recession
- 5y ago