Corporate Profits At All Time High:

[jj]

Originally Posted by respect

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.

In your opinion.

Supply side economics: "How much can we charge and get away with it".

Full stop.

No, that's not the theory, that's the practice. That's why all of this hateful blithering about pie in the sky theories is nothing more than obscuring the simple fact that that's not what actually happens.

It's starting to have the same fanatical kind of support creationism has, and from the same side of the aisle.

[respect]

Originally Posted by WildCat

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.

Yeah, I only have one poster on ignore, a certain allegedly redheaded female went so far as to proclaim that suppliers do not participate in markets to justify the idiocy it was spewing, at that point it became evident that trolling was afoot and that it wasn't possible that she/he/it isn't an elaborate troll out to make liberals look stupid.

[jj]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

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

This isn't about reality, Ken, this is about "theory", albiet falsified theory that has self-discredited itself and led to a plutarchy.

[respect]

Originally Posted by jj

In your opinion.

Supply side economics: "How much can we charge and get away with it".

Full stop.

No, that's not the theory, that's the practice. That's why all of this hateful blithering about pie in the sky theories is nothing more than obscuring the simple fact that that's not what actually happens.

It's starting to have the same fanatical kind of support creationism has, and from the same side of the aisle.

No, that isn't the theory. For ****'s sake, a simple Google search would teach you about the theory.

[respect]

Originally Posted by jj

This isn't about reality, Ken, this is about "theory", albiet falsified theory that has self-discredited itself and led to a plutarchy.

The theory as a collective group holds many theories smaller is scope, some hold up, some do not. I have provided evidence that one of their views is correct, I can provide evidence that others are not, but you don't seem interested in that.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by respect

... at that point it became evident that trolling was afoot and that it wasn't possible that she/he/it isn't an elaborate troll out to make liberals look stupid.

I have noticed that this idea is frequently posted. The notion that someone has gone to the effort to construct an elaborate trolling response when the responder does not agree and worse, does not engage the poster on his/her own grounds.

Occam's razor leads me to believe that both parties simply had no common ground upon which to discuss a topic. Calling "troll" is just a self-satisfying way to say, "neener, neener, I'm right and you're wrong and you're too dumb to know it. I win."

*dismounts soapbox*

[respect]

Originally Posted by SezMe

I have noticed that this idea is frequently posted. The notion that someone has gone to the effort to construct an elaborate trolling response when the responder does not agree and worse, does not engage the poster on his/her own grounds.

Occam's razor leads me to believe that both parties simply had no common ground upon which to discuss a topic. Calling "troll" is just a self-satisfying way to say, "neener, neener, I'm right and you're wrong and you're too dumb to know it. I win."

*dismounts soapbox*

I don't put leftysergeant or Robert Prey on ignore so that ought to tell you something.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

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

Go ahead. Pretty sure it's not original though. I think I saw it on a thirties union poster at one point.

[RandFan]

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.

I love that. Yes.

And let's be clear. To date no one in this thread has done anything to defend supply side economics other than express their hurt feelings over the OP. How about that?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by SezMe

Calling "troll" is just a self-satisfying way to say, "neener, neener, I'm right and you're wrong and you're too dumb to know it. I win."

IMO: such claims are like godwin. Clearly there is no basis for an argument so you must attack the opponent personally. Accusing someone of being a troll is much easier than formulating an argument. Am I right? Someone please repost the arguments in favor of supply side economics? What's that? There aren't any? There are just posts from people butt hurt over the fact that I dared disparage trickle down economics?

[Belz...]

RandFan:

Originally Posted by respect

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

Personally I'd like to see more actual discussion. If Wildcat is correct about the you having Respect on ignore, perhaps you'd consider reversing that ?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Belz...

RandFan:

Personally I'd like to see more actual discussion. If Wildcat is correct about the you having Respect on ignore, perhaps you'd consider reversing that ?

I have respect on ignore. Did he address anything? Did he explain supply side economics or offer a valid argument as to why it was wrong to question the silly notion at all? Why do you think I should reconsider my decision to put him on ignore? I trust you Belz I'd just like a bit more info. I suspect there isn't a single logically valid argument in favor of supply side economics. I suspect no one has provided a single valid argument for the Bush tax cuts.

I don't put people on ignore lightly. It takes a significant degree of boorish behavior and/or lack of intellectual honesty. In short, it takes an unwillingness to have a discussion. Browbeating and ad hominem. Which appears to be what respect is trying to do in the post you quoted. Right?

[respect]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I have respect on ignore. Did he address anything? Did he explain supply side economics or offer a valid argument as to why it was wrong to question the silly notion at all? Why do you think I should reconsider my decision to put him on ignore? I trust you Belz I'd just like a bit more info. I suspect there isn't a single logically valid argument in favor of supply side economics. I suspect no one has provided a single valid argument for the Bush tax cuts.

I don't put people on ignore lightly. It takes a significant degree of boorish behavior and lack of intellectual honesty.

The simple fact that sugar prices are higher in America than the rest of the world demonstrates that you are wrong.

ETA-I presumably am on ignore for suggesting that he is an economic illiterate for claiming free market principles allow for slavery, the farthest from free markets that you can get.

[psionl0]

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.

Or, as Robrob once put it:

Originally Posted by Robrob

“The "trickle-down" theory: the principle that the poor, who must subsist on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals.” ― William Blum

[respect]

Also, in actual discussions among economists, Keynesianism is dead again, Scott Sumner is the big winner, market monetarism is the winner, Krugman lost.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by respect

I don't put leftysergeant or Robert Prey on ignore so that ought to tell you something.

While my post was prompted by your calling troll, I certainly don't think you own the epithet exclusively nor does it always apply. That said, I stand by my derail.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by respect

The simple fact that sugar prices are higher in America than the rest of the world demonstrates that you are wrong.

Comparing retail prices for cane sugar at Walmart and its UK subsidiary...

U.S. 5lbs, $2.88
U.K. 1kg, 88p --> 5lbs ~ $3.20


From a wider perspective here's an article from a very partial source

http://www.sugaralliance.org/images/...urvey-2012.pdf

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Why do you think I should reconsider my decision to put him on ignore?

Because if he does post an argument that you might find valid in this or another thread, you'll miss it.

Did you have BAC on ignore? Do you have sir-drinks-a-lot on ignore? Balrog666? Robert of the House of Prey? You'll be more likely to get a cogent argument from respect than you will from that lot.

[RandFan]

Calling people trolls is the kind of BS and boorish behavior I can't stand. I don't like Robert Prey but I don't have him on ignore. Know why? I can have a civil discussion with him without him browbeating and acting in a boorish fashion. A troll is one who insincerely seeks an emotional response. I apologize on this forum all of the time because I sincerely care about others. If I've made a mistake I'll own up to it. Try searching the forum some time using the advance search option for my name and the key words "sorry" or "apologize".

I have more posts on this forum than pretty much everyone. I don't mind being challenged and I don't mind engaging people. I like debate but I can't stand it when people can't act like adults and have a reasonable discussion.

That's all I ask. I don't think it is too much.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by SezMe

Because if he does post an argument that you might find valid in this or another thread, you'll miss it.

Did you have BAC on ignore? Do you have sir-drinks-a-lot on ignore? Balrog666? Robert of the House of Prey? You'll be more likely to get a cogent argument from respect than you will from that lot.

BAC is banned. I honestly don't remember why I put respect on ignore but I can assure I didn't do it lightly. I never have. I'll take him off of ignore and give him a shot on the advice of you and Belz.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by respect

The simple fact that sugar prices are higher in America than the rest of the world demonstrates that you are wrong.

Wrong about what?

Quote:

ETA-I presumably am on ignore for suggesting that he is an economic illiterate for claiming free market principles allow for slavery, the farthest from free markets that you can get.

I've no idea when I put you on ignore but this is silly. A market isn't a monolithic thing. There can be mixed markets. Once a group of individuals are perceived as sub-human then they are simply no different than any other commodity and the trade of slave can be free or regulated.

Making a determination of the entire market based a single variable make zero sense. Of course you could have a free market of slaves and of course a free market could include slavery. In that case there wouldn't even be a labor market. Your broad brush assertion that slavery would invalidate an otherwise free market is wrong.

But I note that an argument isn't enough. You obviously had to take a personal jab at me and call me illiterate. Are you really not sure why I put you on ignore?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I have respect on ignore. Did he address anything? Did he explain supply side economics or offer a valid argument as to why it was wrong to question the silly notion at all? Why do you think I should reconsider my decision to put him on ignore? I trust you Belz I'd just like a bit more info. I suspect there isn't a single logically valid argument in favor of supply side economics. I suspect no one has provided a single valid argument for the Bush tax cuts.

I don't put people on ignore lightly. It takes a significant degree of boorish behavior and/or lack of intellectual honesty. In short, it takes an unwillingness to have a discussion. Browbeating and ad hominem. Which appears to be what respect is trying to do in the post you quoted. Right?

Well I don't know if it's evidence or not but he did try to give you what you asked for here:

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.

And now he's apparently suspended for a few hours.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by respect

Also, in actual discussions among economists, Keynesianism is dead again, Scott Sumner is the big winner, market monetarism is the winner, Krugman lost.

This is just an assertion but that said, how is market monetarism so different from Keynesian economics as to declare Keynesian economics dead? Please to show this is the consensus of experts if you are going to appeal to authority? In any event, it seems that market monetarism, like Keynesian economics is opposed to Laissez-faire. I'm fine with that. If there were a term for non-laissez-faire capitalism that encompassed Keynesian and other terms I would be fine with using that.

Quote:

Advocates of Keynesian economics argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, particularly monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.[2] The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented by Keynes in his book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936. Keynes contrasted his approach to the 'classical' (more commonly 'neoclassical') economics that preceded his book. The interpretations of Keynes that followed are contentious and several schools of thought claim his legacy.

Okay, so America and many other nations have fiscal and monetary policies and a central bank to stabilize the output of the business cycle. Raising and lowering interest rates and controlling the printing of money.

I don't claim classical Keynesian economics BTW.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Belz...

And now he's apparently suspended for a few hours.

And how is that evidence for supply side economics? It doesn't even make sense. I posted the wiki article. What does high sugar prices have to do with the theory?

I understand it's not your thesis (you did make clear that you don't know if it is evidence) and I guess he has been suspended (like it was my fault the guy was on my ignore list) but if you thought it was worthy for me to take him off of ignore for that then I'm just guessing you might have an idea. I don't mean to put you on the spot btw. You are without doubt on of my favorite posters.

[RandFan]

What do we have in defense of supply side economics? Sugar prices? Seriously?

Look, why can't someone simply provide a definition of supply side economics and then make an argument for it? Is that really so difficult? What is the point of simply asserting that high sugar prices in the US proves SSE? How? If you are going to define supply side economics as simply low prices for consumers then you haven't much of a theory.

Originally Posted by Wiki

However what most separates supply-side economics as a modern phenomenon is its argument in favor of a low tax rate for primarily collective and notably working-class reasons, rather than traditional ideological ones.

Originally Posted by wiki

The Laffer curve embodies a tenet of supply side economics: that government tax revenues are the same at 100% tax rates as at 0% tax rates. The tax rate that achieves highest government revenues is somewhere in between. Whether it is worth the corresponding decrease in economic growth that is often assumed by supply-side economists to accompany such a rate increase is a policy question

Originally Posted by wiki

Yet, supply-siders such as Jude Wanniski have argued for lower tax rates to increase tax revenues....

If respect and others want to disown Laffer and Wanniski then perhaps they need to find a different name for their theory.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by RandFan

And how is that evidence for supply side economics? It doesn't even make sense. I posted the wiki article. What does high sugar prices have to do with the theory?

I understand it's not your thesis (you did make clear that you don't know if it is evidence) and I guess he has been suspended (like it was my fault the guy was on my ignore list) but if you thought it was worthy for me to take him off of ignore for that then I'm just guessing you might have an idea. I don't mean to put you on the spot btw. You are without doubt on of my favorite posters.

Likewise. I just at least wanted your opinion on it.

I only ever put posters on ignore for a short period. You never know when they might say something worthwhile.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Likewise. I just at least wanted your opinion on it.

I only ever put posters on ignore for a short period. You never know when they might say something worthwhile.

Cool.

IMO: Many conservatives (I was one for nearly 50 years) have a religious like faith in things like lassiez-faire capitalism and in an ad hoc fashion will search for any reason to justify their belief. In my 50 years (nearly 30 of it) defending lassiez-faire I never ever was compelled by example or philosophical argument. IMO it's entirely bankrupt. Interestingly nothing speaks to the bankruptcy of the idea more than the 10 years since the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. I can't find anything in that time that supports the theory (not even low sugar prices).

But I do very much find it interesting that folks take offense to questioning the validity of the concept without a defense beyond the fact that Americans pay higher sugar prices? FTR: I'm very much against protectionism. Period.

ETA: Laissez-faire and supply side economics are not necessarily the same. Sorry for any confusion.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Originally Posted by respect

No, that isn't the theory. For ****'s sake, a simple Google search would teach you about the theory.

What’s the point? You already mentioned the relevant parts here:

Originally Posted by respect

Supply side economics has never been accepted as a serious school of thought in the field of economics. It takes an idea that pretty much everyone agrees with, that cutting taxes can spur growth by stimulating additional consumption, and turns it on its head by arguing that it can increase supply first and the additional competition will lower prices and increase consumption. This is of course nonsense, supply reacts to changing demand, not the other way around. Also, various factors in different markets affect the ability of competition to enter them. Simply giving them money will not make a difference in some cases and it won't be attempted at all if they don't expect to see necessary consumer demand. Tax cuts can encourage growth but it happens in a different way than supply side economics predicts.

…which is why many textbooks in macroeconomics merely mention the school of though as a curiosity, or like Mankiw, tosses it far away in the section Charlatans and Cranks. The theoretical representation is dubious (to say the least) and a good deal of empirical data speaks against much it.

Some people here, including you I suppose, appear to want to separate the “pure” economics part (discussion) of SSE from the politics (or policy side). I see little reason for that. It’s the policy side that still walks forward like a zombie (or a kind of Trojan horse, as Reagan’s budget director David Stockman probably would have said).

So why not focus on that dimension then? The three general pillars of SSE policy pertain: (1) tax policy; (2) regulatory policy, and (3) monetary policy. The monetary policy is fairly uninteresting here (as you already mentioned by the gold standard stuff). The regulatory policy is a little bit more interesting, but also somewhat irrelevant to this thread, which has the Bush tax cuts as the context. Deregulation can help in some areas and become a disaster in other areas (the financial sector for example). And frankly, I’m at loss to understand why you would cross over to free trade policy in order to validate supply-side theory; you might as well take the arguments for free trade to validate most proper economic theorizing. It is not a sole domain for SSE, not even close. I also hope you’re not arguing for SSE to be the first school of thought to bring up the beneficial sides of free trade.

So we’re left with the most interesting pillar of SSE (I think), tax policy. The most recognizable part of SSE therein is the general argument that reducing taxes, especially marginal tax rates, will increase revenue over time; or that they pay for themselves over time through a higher tax revenue base (greater employment and productivity). These are empirical questions. But what they purport only work if the rates are already overly burdensome. And since we’re talking about the Bush tax cuts here, the prior rates weren’t overly burdensome, not even close. So, in that context, the arguments were bunk, plain and simple. Only a tiny minority seems to have benefitted greatly – disproportionately some would say. Most haven’t benefitted that much at all. Income inequality has risen. The government has certainly lost revenue, for no valid economic reason it seems. Here’s an interesting read by the CBO: Sources of the Growth and Decline in Individual Income tax revenues Since 1994.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by respect

No, that isn't the theory. For ****'s sake, a simple Google search would teach you about the theory.

Yes, thanks, the theory is proven by high sugar prices in the U.S. Because THAT'S the theory (or it somehow demonstrate the theory, you just don't bother to tell us how).

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

So we’re left with the most interesting pillar of SSE (I think), tax policy. The most recognizable part of SSE therein is the general argument that reducing taxes, especially marginal tax rates, will increase revenue over time; or that they pay for themselves over time through a higher tax revenue base (greater employment and productivity). These are empirical questions. But what they purport only work if the rates are already overly burdensome. And since we’re talking about the Bush tax cuts here, the prior rates weren’t overly burdensome, not even close. So, in that context, the arguments were bunk, plain and simple. Only a tiny minority seems to have benefitted greatly – disproportionately some would say. Most haven’t benefitted that much at all. Income inequality has risen. The government has certainly lost revenue, for no valid economic reason it seems. Here’s an interesting read by the CBO: Sources of the Growth and Decline in Individual Income tax revenues Since 1994.

Yeah but we have high sugar prices... er, or, well, whatever.

[allanb]

Originally Posted by RandFan

http://imageshack.us/a/img831/866/incomegap.jpg

Charts like that don't mean much because so much depends on which base year you choose. Why 1979?

Would you like to publish a chart showing the same data, but with 1986 instead of 1979 as your base year?

You might be amazed.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Yeah but we have high sugar prices... er, or, well, whatever.

Yeah, I know. Weird! Although, high sugar prices might not be that bad if we consider long term health costs for the society as a whole.


As a side point: go ask the Mexican corn farmers how much they have benefitted from the free trade agreement with the U.S.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by allanb

Charts like that don't mean much because so much depends on which base year you choose. Why 1979?

Would you like to publish a chart showing the same data, but with 1986 instead of 1979 as your base year?

You might be amazed.

Really? 1986 is on the chart. I'm curious, what exactly do you think changes by making 1986 the base year? If your argument is to pick a time frame where there is more disparity to start with then I'm not sure what the point of that is.

If anything 1979 was a period of time when there was not as much disparity. Isn't that itself significant?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

Yeah, I know. Weird! Although, high sugar prices might not be that bad if we consider long term health costs for the society as a whole.

As a side point: go ask the Mexican corn farmers how much they have benefitted from the free trade agreement with the U.S.

I worked for an import/export company when NAFTA was passed and everyone had such great expectations for it. I honestly believed we would see the end to protectionism. Boy was I naive.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by RandFan

What rhetoric?

Are you kidding?

After you blasted me twice for not understanding what rhetoric is?

[The Don]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Yeah but we have high sugar prices... er, or, well, whatever.

Except you don't even, at least retail sugar prices.

[jj]

Originally Posted by respect

No, that isn't the theory. For ****'s sake, a simple Google search would teach you about the theory.

What part of "that's what actually happens" are you unable to understand?

Once again, you continue to religiously worship a theory that has not only discounted itself, but utterly disgraced itself in every way possible, by insisting that all of the results of the piddle-down theory are in fact not the results of the theory.

And, as well, you quite dishonestly selectively quote people and then make unsubstantial and very serious accusations about those people's knowledge, with no justification or evidence whatsoever.

In short, you engage in routine ad-hominem behaviors, and you relentlessly defame people who do not share your religious belief in suppy-side economics.

[jj]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Did he explain supply side economics or offer a valid argument as to why it was wrong to question the silly notion at all?

No, he just continues to fail to admit the results of his religiously held "theory".

When the obvious, tested results are pointed out, he explodes into fury, defaming those who point to the evidence as "ignorant" or worse, and refuses to admit that the RESULTS are what matters, and the RESULTS of the theory (which he continually demands others learn, but does not state himself) are "not part of the theory".

Continually failing to restate a theory that includes the results of that theory rather speaks for itself.

[Lithrael]

OK quick derail question for the 'for crap's sake!' posters here

For those who ARE economically illiterate what are the basics someone would need to know; what are they called so that they can be looked up, and where does it require more than a layman's understanding to discuss? Also how can I find out what any basic disagreements among experts are, and why they hold them?

In the way you'd explain to someone who knows nothing about evolution how to find out enough to understand the heck is going on by telling them the areas they'd need to check out for a good basis of understanding rather than just linking them to the wiki article. Why Behe would believe his ideas and why nobody else would.

Also in the way you'd explain quantum type theories in layman's terms and explain at what points you have to either give up and trust the metaphors or learn twenty years worth of advanced mathematics.

Because every time I try to improve my knowledge in this area I run into the problem of not knowing enough to know who to believe whilst trying to learn about it...

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by The Don

Comparing retail prices for cane sugar at Walmart and its UK subsidiary...

U.S. 5lbs, $2.88
U.K. 1kg, 88p --> 5lbs ~ $3.20


From a wider perspective here's an article from a very partial source

http://www.sugaralliance.org/images/...urvey-2012.pdf

Can you say "value added tax"?

The comparison should be the wholesale, pre-tax cost. The price paid by those who buy it by the boxcar. The US (and especially Chicago) has lost almost its entire candy industry to Canada and Mexico because of the protectionist sugar tariffs. We lost many jobs in industries that use sugar in order to protect a few jobs for sugar producers.