Corporate Profits At All Time High: - Page 6

thaiboxerken · 4th December 2012, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

The trickle down is on its way. It's just warm, wet, yellow, and stinky.

Seriously though the whole concept of trickle down is about as sound as trying to fund a soup kitchen by overfeeding the rich and hoping they throw out enough edible garbage to make soup.

This is the most accurate description of supply-side economics I've read. Can I use it?

thaiboxerken · 4th December 2012, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

I think if the rich (no capitalizatiion) paid more in taxes the deficit would be decreased. Everybody thinks that is a good idea.

The conservatives want to build a strawman here. They are trying to claim that liberals think that simply taxing the wealthy more will make the economy better.

thaiboxerken · 4th December 2012, 09:14 PM

So far, in this thread, I've seen conservatives claiming that RandFan's facts dont' disprove supply-side economics. What hasn't been shown is any evidence to support the claims of supply-side economics.

lupus_in_fabula · 5th December 2012, 03:39 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

The problem with your analysis is that the bulk of the military budget is not in weapons, but in personnel. Something the people who like to pull out charts comparing US military spending with China and Russia and such either don't understand or understand but wish to deliberately mislead.

eta: lol, I didn't even see before I wrote that that RandFan had pulled out the infamous chart. So predictable!

More charts then:

Skeptical Greg · 5th December 2012, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

So far, in this thread, I've seen conservatives claiming that RandFan's facts dont' disprove supply-side economics. What hasn't been shown is any evidence to support the claims of supply-side economics.

The OP was a claim that ' trickle down ' is not working, with no one here ( that I noticed ) claiming that it is.

I think you will have to wait for a thread where someone is advancing the benefits of supply-side economics..

RandFan · 5th December 2012, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

The problem with your analysis is that the bulk of the military budget is not in weapons, but in personnel. Something the people who like to pull out charts comparing US military spending with China and Russia and such either don't understand or understand but wish to deliberately mislead.

eta: lol, I didn't even see before I wrote that that RandFan had pulled out the infamous chart. So predictable!

How is it misleading WildCat. This isn't a valid argument. It's assertion. A fallacy. So, how is it misleading?

RandFan · 5th December 2012, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Quote:

So far, in this thread, I've seen conservatives claiming that RandFan's facts dont' disprove supply-side economics. What hasn't been shown is any evidence to support the claims of supply-side economics.

The OP was a claim that ' trickle down ' is not working, with no one here ( that I noticed ) claiming that it is.

The purpose of the OP is to show the apparent lack of evidence for supply-side economics. I would agree with you that no one has claimed that they could defend it. But here is the thing, how many people who have responded in this thread want to raise taxes? Of those that don't, why not? I would submit it's that they have a religious like faith in supply side economics or something akin to it. There has to be some reason why people are so ardently opposed to going back to rates when we were more prosperous, even if you do not believe a cause and effect between low tax rates and a flourishing economy.

My other purpose of the OP was to question the propriety of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and so far I've not seen one iota of evidence to justify them. None.

RandFan · 5th December 2012, 08:07 AM

We know that supply side economics is alive and well.

Originally Posted by Kaosium

One reason for the low tax rates was to promote economic growth in order to make the entitlements Armageddon more manageable, 'grow our way out of it.'

lupus_in_fabula · 5th December 2012, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

My other purpose of the OP was to question the propriety of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and so far I've not seen one iota of evidence to justify them. None.

Many economists were against the Bush tax cuts form the start. Over 450 economists including 10 Nobel prize laureates (in memory of A.N.) signed a petition. Here’s a snip from the statement.

Quote:

Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income.

But let’s not forget the 250 economists who supported it.

Quote:

We enthusiastically endorse your economic growth and jobs proposal. It is fiscally responsible and it will create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans. Moreover, it will improve corporate accountability and strengthen the nation’s international competitiveness.

Now, in light of today’s economic situation, which group has the credibility in their side?

RandFan · 5th December 2012, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

Many economists were against the Bush tax cuts form the start. Over 450 economists including 10 Nobel prize laureates (in memory of A.N.) signed a petition. Here’s a snip from the statement.

But let’s not forget the 250 economists who supported it.

Now, in light of today’s economic situation, which group has the credibility in their side?

It's a good question.

Skeptical Greg · 5th December 2012, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

...

My other purpose of the OP was to question the propriety of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and so far I've not seen one iota of evidence to justify them. None.

Since that is water under the bridge so to speak, the real question is whether or not increasing taxes will improve the economy; particularly for those waiting on their share of trickle...

respect · 5th December 2012, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

The purpose of the OP is to show the apparent lack of evidence for supply-side economics. I would agree with you that no one has claimed that they could defend it. But here is the thing, how many people who have responded in this thread want to raise taxes?

All serious schools of economic thought believe that there are positive effects that stem from tax cuts and negative consequences from raising them, although the arguments advanced for why in supply side theory are faulty. Of course there can be negative consequences from cuts as well, particularly those associated with deficit spending and long term inflation.

If you wish to point out that supply curves do not shift as a result of tax cuts when all else is equal or that tax cuts do not always pay for themselves as is often promised by conservative politicians then you have a point. If you wish to argue that tax cuts do not generate additional consumption then it is Keynesian theory that you wish to argue against.

RandFan · 5th December 2012, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Since that is water under the bridge so to speak, the real question is whether or not increasing taxes will improve the economy; particularly for those waiting on their share of trickle...

I honestly don't know. I don't think anyone does. I do think given that Bush put two wars and lots of social services on the credit card that perhaps the responsible thing to do now would be to pass a comprehensive package of tax rate increases and spending cuts. IOW: I think the Norquist Pledge is complete nonsense and I think it needs to be abandoned. I think the dems have to give something on spending cuts but I think cuts should be phased in and perhaps some more stimulus spending in the short term.

I don't know what the specifics should be but I know that the last 10 years have largely been **** and I don't trust that we can solve our debt problems by lowering taxes as Kaosium does. I see no evidence for that.

respect · 5th December 2012, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Since that is water under the bridge so to speak, the real question is whether or not increasing taxes will improve the economy; particularly for those waiting on their share of trickle...

The real question is how long the government can maintain an environment where fiscal spending can be a positive.

thaiboxerken · 5th December 2012, 10:03 AM

Still no evidence to support supply side....

RandFan · 5th December 2012, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Still no evidence to support supply side....

Not yet, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

respect · 5th December 2012, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Still no evidence to support supply side....

Originally Posted by RandFan

Not yet, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What precisely is it that you want evidence for? Supply side economics is not one simple thing. It advocates numerous fiscal and monetary positions and makes predictions about how their views will work. Some of their predictions are highly dubious and amount to nothing but a repackaging of some defunct classical ideas. Those that are more supportable are generally incorporated into other schools of thought.

If you would like to discuss the evidence for and against their ideas it would be helpful if you identified which idea(s) specifically you want to discuss.

respect · 6th December 2012, 02:22 PM

Crickets eh? No surprise.

WildCat · 6th December 2012, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by respect

Crickets eh? No surprise.

He probably has you on ignore, like he does me. Randfan doesn't like to be called out on his tactics. Plus then he can convince himself/pretend that no one has refuted any of his "arguments".

respect · 6th December 2012, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

He probably has you on ignore, like he does me. Randfan doesn't like to be called out on his tactics. Plus then he can convince himself/pretend that no one has refuted any of his "arguments".

The odd part of this is that supply side theory does have real problems but he hasn't demonstrated that he knows anything about the actual theory and/or its dubious predictions, rather it appears he is only familiar with a strawman variation of it that comes from political talking points and talking head soundbites.

jj · 6th December 2012, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by respect

The odd part of this is that supply side theory does have real problems but he hasn't demonstrated that he knows anything about the actual theory and/or its dubious predictions, rather it appears he is only familiar with a strawman variation of it that comes from political talking points and talking head soundbites.

It's amazing how you claim to read people's minds in order to know where they learn what they know.

The fact that many of us who are mathematically enabled, and who understand stoichastic systems very well reject the absurd, disproven models that lead to things like "corporate profits at all time high" in the middle of a depression that the same people want to turn into a double dip doe snot mean that I do not know anything about any particular theory, OR that I grant a cockamamie theory any meaning at all.

Just because people who work in the testable, verifiable domain do not agree with cockamamie theories does NOT mean that they don't know something. Rather, it most often means that they know something the people pushing the cockamamie theories don't.

Skeptical Greg · 6th December 2012, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by respect

The odd part of this is that supply side theory does have real problems but he hasn't demonstrated that he knows anything about the actual theory and/or its dubious predictions, rather it appears he is only familiar with a strawman variation of it that comes from political talking points and talking head soundbites.

Not to mention equating supply side to trickle down, and claiming this is something eeeeevil Republicans advocate.

respect · 6th December 2012, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by jj

It's amazing how you claim to read people's minds in order to know where they learn what they know.

The fact that many of us who are mathematically enabled, and who understand stoichastic systems very well reject the absurd, disproven models that lead to things like "corporate profits at all time high" in the middle of a depression that the same people want to turn into a double dip doe snot mean that I do not know anything about any particular theory, OR that I grant a cockamamie theory any meaning at all.

Just because people who work in the testable, verifiable domain do not agree with cockamamie theories does NOT mean that they don't know something. Rather, it most often means that they know something the people pushing the cockamamie theories don't.

He has a strange way of never mentioning what predictions he has a problem with, as do you apparently.

Companies shedding costs and investing in productivity enhancing technology while having nowhere to expand to is not somehow limited to a "supply side" environment.

ETA-Loosening up "idle" assets is something Keynes sought to find ways to accomplish, it is not something he claimed could be prevented.

respect · 6th December 2012, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Not to mention equating supply side to trickle down, and claiming this is something eeeeevil Republicans advocate.

That's what I meant by talking points and soundbites.

I will repeat that I do not accept supply side economics as being particularly compelling, it takes numerous positions that I believe are easily refuted. But this "trickle down" nonsense is a strawman.

RandFan · 6th December 2012, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Not to mention equating supply side to trickle down, and claiming this is something eeeeevil Republicans advocate.

Boy, you sure got me Greg. I disparaged supply side economics by calling it "trickle down".... eeek! OMG. But you can spare me the straw man. I never used the word "evil" or anything close to it. That's a lie.

Thing is, I never made any claims about what supply side economics was. I simply said I didn't see any evidence of it and no one, not you or anyone else provided said evidence. You never told me why I was wrong to even ask the question. You even said something about you not believing in supply side economics or something to that effect, and here you are bitching that I ask people for evidence of supply side economics. What the hell is wrong with that? And if you don't believe in or advocate (whatever) supply side economics then what the hell are you so butt hurt about?

More than any other thread I think I really hit a nerve.

And for that I'm grateful.

respect · 6th December 2012, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Boy, you sure got me Greg. I disparaged supply side economics by calling it "trickle down".... eeek! OMG. But you can spare me the straw man. I never used the word "evil" or anything close to it. That's a lie.

Thing is, I never made any claims about what supply side economics was. I simply said I didn't see any evidence of it and no one, not you or anyone else provided said evidence. You never told me why I was wrong to even ask for it why I didn't understand what supply side economics was. You even said something about not believing in supply side economics or something to that effect, and here you are bitching that I ask people for evidence of supply side economics. What the hell is wrong with that? And if you don't believe in or advocate (whatever) supply side economics then why the hell are you so butt hurt?

More than any other thread I think I really hit a nerve.

Again, you are going to have to be more specific.

There is little evidence that the government can cause independent supply curve shifts by lowering taxes.

However, there is considerable evidence that removing barriers to entry in markets does in most cases increase competition and lower consumer prices.

Supply side monetary policy is probably the most dubious aspect, they call for a return to the gold standard and can be refuted along many of the same lines that Austrians can.

RandFan · 6th December 2012, 05:37 PM

Is anyone going to explain why after 10 years of low tax rates we have little to show for it? Is anyone going to provide a model of supply side economics that explains why we should not expect it to work when most of us thinks it should?

I'm guessing "no".

respect · 6th December 2012, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Is anyone going to explain why after 10 years of low tax rates we have little to show for it? Is anyone going to provide a model of supply side economics that explains why we should not expect it to work when most of us thinks it should?

I'm guessing "no".

If one wanted to advocate reducing taxes and/or not raising them they would be better off citing standard Keynesian modeling, it makes more sense.

thaiboxerken · 6th December 2012, 06:30 PM

Still no evidence presented that supply side economics works, at all. Nice.

RandFan · 6th December 2012, 06:36 PM

Trickle-down economics

Quote:

"Trickle-down economics" and "the trickle-down theory" are terms in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.[1] The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."[2] The term is mostly used ironically or as pejorative.[3]

Proponents of tax cuts often claim that savings and investment are essential to the economy, and thus less taxes (for any and all income brackets) need not harm any other income bracket. It has been referred to as a straw-man argument.[4] Economist George Reisman, a proponent of tax cuts, said the following: "Of course, many people will characterize the line of argument I have just given as the 'trickle-down' theory. There is nothing trickle-down about it. There is only the fact that capital accumulation and economic progress depend on saving and innovation and that these in turn depend on the freedom to make high profits and accumulate great wealth. The only alternative to improvement for all, through economic progress, achieved in this way, is the futile attempt of some men to gain at the expense of others by means of looting and plundering. This, the loot-and-plunder theory, is the alternative advocated by the critics of the misnamed trickle-down theory."[5]

Today, "trickle-down economics" is most closely identified with the economic policies known as Reaganomics or laissez-faire. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."

respect · 6th December 2012, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Still no evidence presented that supply side economics works, at all. Nice.

Okay then, evidence for a prediction from supply side economics, sugar prices are higher here than the rest of the world because of restrictions on suppliers from entering the market.

WildCat · 6th December 2012, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by jj

The fact that many of us who are mathematically enabled, and who understand stoichastic systems very well reject the absurd, disproven models that lead to things like "corporate profits at all time high" in the middle of a depression that the same people want to turn into a double dip doe snot mean that I do not know anything about any particular theory, OR that I grant a cockamamie theory any meaning at all.

Here's a question for you jj: Which hypothetical modern industrial country (assume they are identical as far as prosperity goes) would you expect to have higher corporate profits?
1. Country A, pop. 10,000,000
2. Country B, pop. 12,000,000

Skeptical Greg · 6th December 2012, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Is anyone going to explain why after 10 years of low tax rates we have little to show for it?

Are you suggesting raising taxes will make things better?

( Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not hurt about anything. I just found your rhetoric about trickle-down indefensible, and continue to wonder what your point was/is.. So far, it appears to be trolling.. )

RandFan · 6th December 2012, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

( Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not hurt about anything. I just found your rhetoric about trickle-down indefensible, and continue to wonder what your point was/is.. So far, it appears to be trolling.. )

What rhetoric? What do you mean indefensible? And I'm sorry but it sounds awfully butt hurt. I never attacked anyone or called anyone names. So what the hell did I say that has you so ~~butt hurt~~ righteously indignant?

Quote:

Are you suggesting raising taxes will make things better?

I'm suggesting that it's the responsible thing to do given that we put two wars and tons of social spending on credit. But since you don't believe in supply side economics what the hell difference does it make?

SezMe · 6th December 2012, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by jj

....same people want to turn into a double dip doe snot mean that I do not know anything about any particular theory, OR that I grant a cockamamie theory any meaning at all.

An absolutely delightful typo.

respect · 6th December 2012, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by respect

Okay then, evidence for a prediction from supply side economics, sugar prices are higher here than the rest of the world because of restrictions on suppliers from entering the market.

More crickets eh? No surprise. Proving that supply side theory is correct is quite easy to do. Also, proving that supply side theory is wrong is quite easy to do. It depends on which position we wish to look at.

RandFan · 6th December 2012, 08:31 PM

10 years of low tax rates and nothing to show for it.

RandFan · 6th December 2012, 09:46 PM

respect · 6th December 2012, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

He probably has you on ignore, like he does me. Randfan doesn't like to be called out on his tactics. Plus then he can convince himself/pretend that no one has refuted any of his "arguments".

It looks like you called it, how embarrassing for him.

WildCat · 6th December 2012, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by respect

It looks like you called it, how embarrassing for him.

Yep, put the posters replying to your posts on ignore, then declare victory because you can't see the replies.

It's the OWS thread all over again.

I only put one person on ignore ever in my nearly 9 years here, and that was parky because I probbaly would be banned if I kept replying to him.

I've never put someone on ignore because I disagree with them.

4th December 2012, 09:05 PM	#201
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,947	Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin The trickle down is on its way. It's just warm, wet, yellow, and stinky. Seriously though the whole concept of trickle down is about as sound as trying to fund a soup kitchen by overfeeding the rich and hoping they throw out enough edible garbage to make soup. This is the most accurate description of supply-side economics I've read. Can I use it?
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

4th December 2012, 09:10 PM	#202
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,947	Originally Posted by SezMe I think if the rich (no capitalizatiion) paid more in taxes the deficit would be decreased. Everybody thinks that is a good idea. The conservatives want to build a strawman here. They are trying to claim that liberals think that simply taxing the wealthy more will make the economy better.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

4th December 2012, 09:14 PM	#203
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,947	So far, in this thread, I've seen conservatives claiming that RandFan's facts dont' disprove supply-side economics. What hasn't been shown is any evidence to support the claims of supply-side economics.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

5th December 2012, 03:39 AM	#204
lupus_in_fabula Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,046	Originally Posted by WildCat The problem with your analysis is that the bulk of the military budget is not in weapons, but in personnel. Something the people who like to pull out charts comparing US military spending with China and Russia and such either don't understand or understand but wish to deliberately mislead. eta: lol, I didn't even see before I wrote that that RandFan had pulled out the infamous chart. So predictable! More charts then:
	__________________ ...Forever shall the wolf in me desire the sheep in you...

5th December 2012, 07:12 AM	#205
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken So far, in this thread, I've seen conservatives claiming that RandFan's facts dont' disprove supply-side economics. What hasn't been shown is any evidence to support the claims of supply-side economics. The OP was a claim that ' trickle down ' is not working, with no one here ( that I noticed ) claiming that it is. I think you will have to wait for a thread where someone is advancing the benefits of supply-side economics..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

5th December 2012, 07:38 AM	#206
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,084	Originally Posted by WildCat The problem with your analysis is that the bulk of the military budget is not in weapons, but in personnel. Something the people who like to pull out charts comparing US military spending with China and Russia and such either don't understand or understand but wish to deliberately mislead. eta: lol, I didn't even see before I wrote that that RandFan had pulled out the infamous chart. So predictable! How is it misleading WildCat. This isn't a valid argument. It's assertion. A fallacy. So, how is it misleading?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th December 2012, 07:48 AM	#207
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,084	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg Quote: So far, in this thread, I've seen conservatives claiming that RandFan's facts dont' disprove supply-side economics. What hasn't been shown is any evidence to support the claims of supply-side economics. The OP was a claim that ' trickle down ' is not working, with no one here ( that I noticed ) claiming that it is. The purpose of the OP is to show the apparent lack of evidence for supply-side economics. I would agree with you that no one has claimed that they could defend it. But here is the thing, how many people who have responded in this thread want to raise taxes? Of those that don't, why not? I would submit it's that they have a religious like faith in supply side economics or something akin to it. There has to be some reason why people are so ardently opposed to going back to rates when we were more prosperous, even if you do not believe a cause and effect between low tax rates and a flourishing economy. My other purpose of the OP was to question the propriety of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and so far I've not seen one iota of evidence to justify them. None.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th December 2012, 08:07 AM	#208
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,084	We know that supply side economics is alive and well. Originally Posted by Kaosium One reason for the low tax rates was to promote economic growth in order to make the entitlements Armageddon more manageable, 'grow our way out of it.'
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th December 2012, 08:15 AM	#209
lupus_in_fabula Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,046	Originally Posted by RandFan My other purpose of the OP was to question the propriety of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and so far I've not seen one iota of evidence to justify them. None. Many economists were against the Bush tax cuts form the start. Over 450 economists including 10 Nobel prize laureates (in memory of A.N.) signed a petition. Here’s a snip from the statement. Quote: Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income. But let’s not forget the 250 economists who supported it. Quote: We enthusiastically endorse your economic growth and jobs proposal. It is fiscally responsible and it will create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans. Moreover, it will improve corporate accountability and strengthen the nation’s international competitiveness. Now, in light of today’s economic situation, which group has the credibility in their side?
	__________________ ...Forever shall the wolf in me desire the sheep in you...

5th December 2012, 08:17 AM	#210
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,084	Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula Many economists were against the Bush tax cuts form the start. Over 450 economists including 10 Nobel prize laureates (in memory of A.N.) signed a petition. Here’s a snip from the statement. But let’s not forget the 250 economists who supported it. Now, in light of today’s economic situation, which group has the credibility in their side? It's a good question.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th December 2012, 09:10 AM	#211
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Originally Posted by RandFan ... My other purpose of the OP was to question the propriety of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and so far I've not seen one iota of evidence to justify them. None. Since that is water under the bridge so to speak, the real question is whether or not increasing taxes will improve the economy; particularly for those waiting on their share of trickle...
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

5th December 2012, 09:31 AM	#212
respect Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Bohemian Grove Posts: 3,504	Originally Posted by RandFan The purpose of the OP is to show the apparent lack of evidence for supply-side economics. I would agree with you that no one has claimed that they could defend it. But here is the thing, how many people who have responded in this thread want to raise taxes? All serious schools of economic thought believe that there are positive effects that stem from tax cuts and negative consequences from raising them, although the arguments advanced for why in supply side theory are faulty. Of course there can be negative consequences from cuts as well, particularly those associated with deficit spending and long term inflation. If you wish to point out that supply curves do not shift as a result of tax cuts when all else is equal or that tax cuts do not always pay for themselves as is often promised by conservative politicians then you have a point. If you wish to argue that tax cuts do not generate additional consumption then it is Keynesian theory that you wish to argue against.

5th December 2012, 09:47 AM	#213
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,084	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg Since that is water under the bridge so to speak, the real question is whether or not increasing taxes will improve the economy; particularly for those waiting on their share of trickle... I honestly don't know. I don't think anyone does. I do think given that Bush put two wars and lots of social services on the credit card that perhaps the responsible thing to do now would be to pass a comprehensive package of tax rate increases and spending cuts. IOW: I think the Norquist Pledge is complete nonsense and I think it needs to be abandoned. I think the dems have to give something on spending cuts but I think cuts should be phased in and perhaps some more stimulus spending in the short term. I don't know what the specifics should be but I know that the last 10 years have largely been **** and I don't trust that we can solve our debt problems by lowering taxes as Kaosium does. I see no evidence for that.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th December 2012, 09:50 AM	#214
respect Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Bohemian Grove Posts: 3,504	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg Since that is water under the bridge so to speak, the real question is whether or not increasing taxes will improve the economy; particularly for those waiting on their share of trickle... The real question is how long the government can maintain an environment where fiscal spending can be a positive.

5th December 2012, 10:03 AM	#215
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,947	Still no evidence to support supply side....
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

5th December 2012, 10:15 AM	#216
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,084	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Still no evidence to support supply side.... Not yet, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th December 2012, 10:55 AM	#217
respect Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Bohemian Grove Posts: 3,504	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Still no evidence to support supply side.... Originally Posted by RandFan Not yet, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What precisely is it that you want evidence for? Supply side economics is not one simple thing. It advocates numerous fiscal and monetary positions and makes predictions about how their views will work. Some of their predictions are highly dubious and amount to nothing but a repackaging of some defunct classical ideas. Those that are more supportable are generally incorporated into other schools of thought. If you would like to discuss the evidence for and against their ideas it would be helpful if you identified which idea(s) specifically you want to discuss.

6th December 2012, 02:22 PM	#218
respect Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Bohemian Grove Posts: 3,504	Crickets eh? No surprise.

6th December 2012, 04:59 PM	#219
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,976	Originally Posted by respect Crickets eh? No surprise. He probably has you on ignore, like he does me. Randfan doesn't like to be called out on his tactics. Plus then he can convince himself/pretend that no one has refuted any of his "arguments".

6th December 2012, 05:07 PM	#220
respect Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Bohemian Grove Posts: 3,504	Originally Posted by WildCat He probably has you on ignore, like he does me. Randfan doesn't like to be called out on his tactics. Plus then he can convince himself/pretend that no one has refuted any of his "arguments". The odd part of this is that supply side theory does have real problems but he hasn't demonstrated that he knows anything about the actual theory and/or its dubious predictions, rather it appears he is only familiar with a strawman variation of it that comes from political talking points and talking head soundbites.

6th December 2012, 05:10 PM	#221
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,465	Originally Posted by respect The odd part of this is that supply side theory does have real problems but he hasn't demonstrated that he knows anything about the actual theory and/or its dubious predictions, rather it appears he is only familiar with a strawman variation of it that comes from political talking points and talking head soundbites. It's amazing how you claim to read people's minds in order to know where they learn what they know. The fact that many of us who are mathematically enabled, and who understand stoichastic systems very well reject the absurd, disproven models that lead to things like "corporate profits at all time high" in the middle of a depression that the same people want to turn into a double dip doe snot mean that I do not know anything about any particular theory, OR that I grant a cockamamie theory any meaning at all. Just because people who work in the testable, verifiable domain do not agree with cockamamie theories does NOT mean that they don't know something. Rather, it most often means that they know something the people pushing the cockamamie theories don't.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

6th December 2012, 05:12 PM	#222
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Originally Posted by respect The odd part of this is that supply side theory does have real problems but he hasn't demonstrated that he knows anything about the actual theory and/or its dubious predictions, rather it appears he is only familiar with a strawman variation of it that comes from political talking points and talking head soundbites. Not to mention equating supply side to trickle down, and claiming this is something eeeeevil Republicans advocate.
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

6th December 2012, 05:17 PM	#223
respect Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Bohemian Grove Posts: 3,504	Originally Posted by jj It's amazing how you claim to read people's minds in order to know where they learn what they know. The fact that many of us who are mathematically enabled, and who understand stoichastic systems very well reject the absurd, disproven models that lead to things like "corporate profits at all time high" in the middle of a depression that the same people want to turn into a double dip doe snot mean that I do not know anything about any particular theory, OR that I grant a cockamamie theory any meaning at all. Just because people who work in the testable, verifiable domain do not agree with cockamamie theories does NOT mean that they don't know something. Rather, it most often means that they know something the people pushing the cockamamie theories don't. He has a strange way of never mentioning what predictions he has a problem with, as do you apparently. Companies shedding costs and investing in productivity enhancing technology while having nowhere to expand to is not somehow limited to a "supply side" environment. ETA-Loosening up "idle" assets is something Keynes sought to find ways to accomplish, it is not something he claimed could be prevented.
	Last edited by respect; 6th December 2012 at 05:20 PM.

6th December 2012, 05:22 PM	#224
respect Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Bohemian Grove Posts: 3,504	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg Not to mention equating supply side to trickle down, and claiming this is something eeeeevil Republicans advocate. That's what I meant by talking points and soundbites. I will repeat that I do not accept supply side economics as being particularly compelling, it takes numerous positions that I believe are easily refuted. But this "trickle down" nonsense is a strawman.

6th December 2012, 05:28 PM	#225
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,084	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg Not to mention equating supply side to trickle down, and claiming this is something eeeeevil Republicans advocate. Boy, you sure got me Greg. I disparaged supply side economics by calling it "trickle down".... eeek! OMG. But you can spare me the straw man. I never used the word "evil" or anything close to it. That's a lie. Thing is, I never made any claims about what supply side economics was. I simply said I didn't see any evidence of it and no one, not you or anyone else provided said evidence. You never told me why I was wrong to even ask the question. You even said something about you not believing in supply side economics or something to that effect, and here you are bitching that I ask people for evidence of supply side economics. What the hell is wrong with that? And if you don't believe in or advocate (whatever) supply side economics then what the hell are you so butt hurt about? More than any other thread I think I really hit a nerve. And for that I'm grateful.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 6th December 2012 at 05:35 PM.

6th December 2012, 05:32 PM	#226
respect Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Bohemian Grove Posts: 3,504	Originally Posted by RandFan Boy, you sure got me Greg. I disparaged supply side economics by calling it "trickle down".... eeek! OMG. But you can spare me the straw man. I never used the word "evil" or anything close to it. That's a lie. Thing is, I never made any claims about what supply side economics was. I simply said I didn't see any evidence of it and no one, not you or anyone else provided said evidence. You never told me why I was wrong to even ask for it why I didn't understand what supply side economics was. You even said something about not believing in supply side economics or something to that effect, and here you are bitching that I ask people for evidence of supply side economics. What the hell is wrong with that? And if you don't believe in or advocate (whatever) supply side economics then why the hell are you so butt hurt? More than any other thread I think I really hit a nerve. Again, you are going to have to be more specific. There is little evidence that the government can cause independent supply curve shifts by lowering taxes. However, there is considerable evidence that removing barriers to entry in markets does in most cases increase competition and lower consumer prices. Supply side monetary policy is probably the most dubious aspect, they call for a return to the gold standard and can be refuted along many of the same lines that Austrians can.
	Last edited by respect; 6th December 2012 at 05:33 PM.

6th December 2012, 05:37 PM	#227
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,084	So, page 6. Is anyone going to explain why after 10 years of low tax rates we have little to show for it? Is anyone going to provide a model of supply side economics that explains why we should not expect it to work when most of us thinks it should? I'm guessing "no".
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

6th December 2012, 05:46 PM	#228
respect Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Bohemian Grove Posts: 3,504	Originally Posted by RandFan Is anyone going to explain why after 10 years of low tax rates we have little to show for it? Is anyone going to provide a model of supply side economics that explains why we should not expect it to work when most of us thinks it should? I'm guessing "no". If one wanted to advocate reducing taxes and/or not raising them they would be better off citing standard Keynesian modeling, it makes more sense.

6th December 2012, 06:30 PM	#229
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,947	Still no evidence presented that supply side economics works, at all. Nice.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

6th December 2012, 06:36 PM	#230
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,084	Trickle-down economics Quote: "Trickle-down economics" and "the trickle-down theory" are terms in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.[1] The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."[2] The term is mostly used ironically or as pejorative.[3] Proponents of tax cuts often claim that savings and investment are essential to the economy, and thus less taxes (for any and all income brackets) need not harm any other income bracket. It has been referred to as a straw-man argument.[4] Economist George Reisman, a proponent of tax cuts, said the following: "Of course, many people will characterize the line of argument I have just given as the 'trickle-down' theory. There is nothing trickle-down about it. There is only the fact that capital accumulation and economic progress depend on saving and innovation and that these in turn depend on the freedom to make high profits and accumulate great wealth. The only alternative to improvement for all, through economic progress, achieved in this way, is the futile attempt of some men to gain at the expense of others by means of looting and plundering. This, the loot-and-plunder theory, is the alternative advocated by the critics of the misnamed trickle-down theory."[5] Today, "trickle-down economics" is most closely identified with the economic policies known as Reaganomics or laissez-faire. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts at first but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

6th December 2012, 07:13 PM	#231
respect Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Bohemian Grove Posts: 3,504	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Still no evidence presented that supply side economics works, at all. Nice. Okay then, evidence for a prediction from supply side economics, sugar prices are higher here than the rest of the world because of restrictions on suppliers from entering the market.

6th December 2012, 07:20 PM	#232
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,976	Originally Posted by jj The fact that many of us who are mathematically enabled, and who understand stoichastic systems very well reject the absurd, disproven models that lead to things like "corporate profits at all time high" in the middle of a depression that the same people want to turn into a double dip doe snot mean that I do not know anything about any particular theory, OR that I grant a cockamamie theory any meaning at all. Here's a question for you jj: Which hypothetical modern industrial country (assume they are identical as far as prosperity goes) would you expect to have higher corporate profits? 1. Country A, pop. 10,000,000 2. Country B, pop. 12,000,000

6th December 2012, 07:39 PM	#233
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Originally Posted by RandFan Is anyone going to explain why after 10 years of low tax rates we have little to show for it? Are you suggesting raising taxes will make things better? ( Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not hurt about anything. I just found your rhetoric about trickle-down indefensible, and continue to wonder what your point was/is.. So far, it appears to be trolling.. )
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

6th December 2012, 07:50 PM	#234
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,084	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg ( Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not hurt about anything. I just found your rhetoric about trickle-down indefensible, and continue to wonder what your point was/is.. So far, it appears to be trolling.. ) What rhetoric? What do you mean indefensible? And I'm sorry but it sounds awfully butt hurt. I never attacked anyone or called anyone names. So what the hell did I say that has you so ~~butt hurt~~ righteously indignant? Quote: Are you suggesting raising taxes will make things better? I'm suggesting that it's the responsible thing to do given that we put two wars and tons of social spending on credit. But since you don't believe in supply side economics what the hell difference does it make?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 6th December 2012 at 07:53 PM.

6th December 2012, 07:58 PM	#235
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,366	Originally Posted by jj ....same people want to turn into a double dip doe snot mean that I do not know anything about any particular theory, OR that I grant a cockamamie theory any meaning at all. An absolutely delightful typo.
	Last edited by SezMe; 6th December 2012 at 07:59 PM.