Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank Predicts 5.4% gdp growth for Q1 2018

Well then Krugman it is.

 

How can someone teach economics who knows nothing about what supply side economic policies are ?? Baffling.

 

Arthur Laffer, Robert Mundell (Reagan advidor) tied cutting taxes to legitimate ideas around increasing supply to provide a rationale for taking the GOP from being the party that cut spending to the party that presented voters with the tax cut free lunch.

People like you lap up this stuff.

 

Supply side economics is not defined by academics. It’s a combination of policies designed to reduce prices by reducing the government imposed costs on production resulting in wealth creation by moving up the supply demand curve. This increase in wealth funds desire creating economic demand. Decreasing personal income tax rates allows consumers to spend or invest more of their income. There’s no free lunch involved with people keeping more of their income. That’s supply side economics in the real world. Definitions created by academics are meaningless in the real world. Academics mock Reaganomics which actually works unlike for example Obamanomics which produced the worst recovery and weakest economy of any President.

People like me lap it up because it produces superior economic growth. Academics are fond of playing with their partial differential equations which assume functional relationships between human behavior and economics stimuli. This works well in ivory towers but as Christine Romer found out not so well in the real world.

 

Of course, it is.

There's no such thing as the "supply demand curve." Supply-side is about shifting the supply curve.

This makes no sense.

The "free lunch" are government services people say they want without paying for them with their taxes. It's an absurd fraud to claim tax cuts pay for themselves.

Economic growth has declined every decade since WW2.



Reagan didn't make any difference.

You only think it does because the proof (see above) is that it doesn't.

We're not going to get sustained faster growth if we don't increase spending. both public and private, in plant and equipment, infrastructure, R&D, and worker training. We need to reform health care and K-12 education. We need to end discrimination against women and minorities to better use their talents. These are real supply-side changes.

 

Well, glad I could enlighten you. Fannie and Freddie guarantee most Mortgages in the US

 

Another Trumpite short on facts?



During the period we were talking about...

 

My claim wasn't limited to those "held" by Fannie and Freddie. I said guaranteed. Just the first thing I see in a google search on point.

• Though the Government Sponsored Enterprises the government either owns or insures 3 of every 5 mortgage loans currently outstanding in the country.

Moreover, the government is increasing its ownership and control every quarter.
https://www.valuewalk.com/2016/03/fannie-mae-who-owns-the-u-s-mortgage-markets/

 

Lol...here is the definition from the NASDAQ

'Supply-side economics
Definition:
A theory of economics that reductions in tax rates will stimulate investment and in turn will benefit the entire society.
https://www.nasdaq.com/investing/glossary/s/supply-side-economics

You are/were supposedly a teacher of economics and you are claiming to know what the definition of supply side economics better than the friggin' NASDAQ (and many other respected sources)?

I shutter to think what economic ideas you put into your students heads if you are just going to ignore economic reality to suit your own agenda.

We are definitely done here as clearly you are just ignoring facts now (on this subject).

Have a nice day.

 

Your claim was indeed limited to Fannie and Freddie. (See the top of this message.)

So, you were wrong about Fannie and Freddie, but now want to make a point about the government guaranteeing mortgages. What's your concern?

My take? The government should tighten lending standards in those real estate markets reinflating on the cheap money we've had for the past decade.

 

The compensation of non-supervisor workers relative to increased productivity of these workers has been stagnating since the very early 1970's, and capitalism not only has not dealth with this, but now runs on it, and it's continued manipulation.

Furthermore, the FED has never been anything BUT a private banker cartel.

 

And the above shows the misunderstanding of the academics don’t understand what supply side economics means in the real world which is to reduce prices by reducing government imposed costs which results more units sold and greater economic growth. Couple that with tax reforms to do the same, increase take home pay, and allow capital to flow more freely. That’s supply side economics.

 

The government loosened lending standards. What could go wrong ?!

 

Do you have anything even half-intelligent to say about real supply-side issues? Cutting taxes doesn't increase supply per unit of input.

Typical Trump type--you have no compunction about commenting on what you know not.

Exactly what you're doing.

As long as you stop spreading BS about economics, we're done.

 

Not the sharpest crayon in the box. MY CLAIM wasn't limited to Mortgages "HELD" by fannie and Freddie and instead included Mortgages guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie, even if they weren't "HELD" directly by the two GSAs

 

Congrats. You avoided discussing the issues I raised.

You put forward a Trumpite argument about the "real world" and then restate the propaganda you've peddled in message after message. Cutting taxes, depending upon which taxes, impacts the trade-off between capital and labor inputs. It doesn't improve output per unit of input.

Your comments about a nonexistent "supply demand curve" and moving along the supply curve show you don't understand economics. What we need to do (again)...

"We're not going to get sustained faster growth if we don't increase spending. both public and private, in plant and equipment, infrastructure, R&D, and worker training. We need to reform health care and K-12 education. We need to end discrimination against women and minorities to better use their talents. These are real supply-side changes."​

 

The points you raise have nothing to do with supply side economics. The points you raise have to do with productivity growth which has more to do with the advancement of the human condition (standard of living) and is the reason we drive cars today instead of ride horses. Technology improves output per unit input not economic policy. And supply side provides a superior economic system for investments in the future and technology to be made which results in a greater rate of increase in the standard of living.

What is so hard to understand about "if the price of a product is reduced more of that product will be sold" ?? That's Econ 101.

 

I despise Trump as POTUS and I disagree with trickle down economics (in so far as cutting taxes only for the wealthy). AND I am not talking about how effective supply side economics is - I am talking SOLEY about it's definition now.
You should probably stop making assumptions...you are - apparently - not very good at them.


True or false...the definition of supply side economics DOES INCLUDE personal and corporate tax cuts?

True or False only.

 

There's a world market for labor and it has been effectively joined by China, India, Brazil, Indonesia (and others) with those governments becoming capital friendly. If immigration was unlimited, we'd be making even lower wages.

We're now in a dogfight for resources and there's no way to protect our workers with tariffs.

I don't know if the Fed can rightly be called a "cartel," but it isn't the workers' friend.

 

Now, you're becoming obnoxious. You don't understand the mortgage market, the banking system, or the economy. Give it a rest.

P.S. Tell your buddy Trump that Joe Biden could kick his ass. I don't think fat wuss Trump ever had a school yard scrap as a kid.

 

I understand that Fannie and Freddie guarantee most mortgages in the US, linked to a source to confirm that fact and you've not presented anything to contradict that fact.

 

We cant protect our workers from competition from cheaper labor in other countries with tariffs. We can use tariffs to protect them from unfair trade practices.

 

"We" served up our workers to global capitalism long ago. On purpose.

 

Unfortunately, there isn't very much to protect them against. Most of the unfair trade practices are protecting their markets against our goods.

 

Well, we entered into trade agreements long ago on purpose.