And that would be fib! Trickle down is an example of how easy it is to manipulate the gullible right wing. We saw that when we had military keynesianism chucked at us in the 80s. In contrast, we know that economists tend to be liberals and the vibrant schools of thought are heterodox. Crikey, even the Austrians have to accept that the socialist calculation debate has been won by the left (with Hayekian information problems bypassed by market socialism that rejects neoclassicalism and embeds successfully within the Austrian school)
Even the rich Republicans either buy the spin or fear great economic success for fear of losing control of the means of production. They do worse under Republican leadership too: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php
I see, the last year and 3 months the debt increased by $1.6T, there ws a 700B for TARP paid for under Obama, unemp grew by 3% in GWB's last calendar year, the housing market was dying, teh mortgage industry dea, the banks were folding. So you say it's Obama's fault, huh? Brilliant. China is Socialist/Communist, I guess that would be one big one considering as we were becoming the biggest debtor they were becoming the biggest creditor. Canada as compared to us, they're kicking our ass in that they don't have anywhere near the debt we do and are doing better. Look at Australia, they are kicking azz all around. W.E. is in trouble due to a couple bad seeds like Greece and Italy, but countries like Germany are kicking azz. Your arguments fail.
The stimulus spending was a kickstart, w/o tax increases it runs ut's course and dies. Obama was an idiot for not bumping taxes 5% when he had the chance.
Buzz words are definitly their strong suit. My favorite was changing the name of the estate tax to the DEATH tax. Death panals are nice too, but cap-and-tax is a runner up (because they were for it 10 minutes before they were against it).
Denmark does quite well. I think their unemployment it 4% - ish. and everyone has healthcare everyone has education opportunities (higher) Low government debt 11% in '08 Able to give more foreign aid (per capita) then the US virtually no poverty (in contrast with America which has recently been announced to have 1 in 15 living in extreme poverty [which means <50% poverty line or <6k/year for an individual or <12k/year family of 4) And they pay high taxes for all this but are consistently regarded as the happiest population on the planet (US ranking in the 20s) I have my convictions but I'm more interested in what works. I think there are lessons to be learned from other peoples successes. It's a shame people prefer convictions over facts. And at the moment I'm not convinced in the trickle-down theory but I'm willing to be wrong with the right evidence.
I would be willing to vote a straight democrat ticket, if a more energetic chief magistrate would faithfully execute the laws and doctrines of the United States.
well dcaddy , Hell NO trickle down economics ain't worked .. That's a large part of why we're in the mess we're in now ... Trickle Down : the benovelent and magnumonious Wealthy 1 % gonna give the peons subsistance ,,, the only problem is that jobs in China now ... they moved the plant there to exploit slave wages , but yet they complain yep , a few more of such wealthy patriots will see the USA go the way of the USSR ,,, and I hope whatever private country they buy has an outbreak of fleas and ticks as a reward for their economic treason .
Confusing macroeconomic error (such as the folly of supply side economics) with the economic gains available through trade and capital mobility isn't cunning! All it does is lead us to inappropriate policy (from the nonsense of economic nationalism to standard conservatism)
In my opinion, trickle down economics is not a form of supply side economics due to the more anarchic fashion of the "trickle effect". Truer supply side economics should be able to supply us with better governance at lower prices in a manner more analogous and consistent as a rising tide lifting all boats.
What does supply side econ have to do with low-price-better-government? This theme has been repeated, but no where in the supply side econ do I see any opportunity to "improve" (whatever we mean by better governance) government or lifting all boats. It's seems strictly concerned with private enterprise. The lifting of all boats would be a positive consequence of supply side of which I'm questioning.
Supply side economics can end the need for the expense of our wars on abstractions via market friendly means. Being able to end our war on poverty, for example, could reduce some of that cost and provide that form of better governance at potentially lower prices. The same could be said of our other wars on abstractions, if supply side economics can end the phenomena of a natural rate of unemployment under Capitalism. What excuse could a person who is not in official poverty have, to not do as well as they are able in any market-based political-economy? Supply side economics could also supply us with public sector means of production which can lower the tax burden for real persons, in the manner of Hoover Dam and the Fed.
Would you say the post Civil War era was a supply side economy (1865-1900)? I think the only taxes collected were import tax and excise tax.
I don't subscribe to that limited view of supply side economics, since in my opinion, supply side economics should be able to supply us with better governance at lower prices. A form of supply side economics also gave us Hoover Dam and the Fed.
Can you explain that? i. what was the econimic policy (what made it a supply side policy) ii. how was the Hoover Dam and the Fed a consequence of this policy
I wouldn't say supply side economics never works but in this crisis it is not the right tool. If supply can't meet demand, then supply side economics can make sense because if there are prohibiting factors like regulations, taxes or simply market failure, it can spur production and create more jobs and higher wages and growth. But if demand is down no supply side measure will help there is just no incentive to produce more if it isn't bought. So the companies are happy to accept tax cuts and subsidies but because they have no need to produce more, this will not result in more Jobs only in higher income for those companies.
From my perspective, anything done on the macroeconomic level could be considered a form of supply side economics, such as in the provision of public goods and services. Hoover Dam and the Fed meet that criteria of being "profit centers" for the general welfare.
What objection is there to supply side economics simply ensuring full employment of resources in human capital whenever possible?
What if the former Soviet Union had engaged us in an industrial automation race instead of an Arms Race and a Cold War?
Couldn't we say that both trickle-up and trickle-down ideas are macroeconomic. They are both concerned with the general economy. If your supporting supply side I'm not sure how your are distinguishing yourself between the 2. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
