Why Does Socialism Always Fail?

Yeah, Canada, where people flock to the states to get decent medical treatment.

 

Really? Prove that they come in large numbers. They LOVE their system

 

Medical treatment is great in Canada. A few friends of mine are Canadian and they all rave about it, except for cancer treatment and if you insist on prompt treatment for a sore wrist or a recurring tummy ache. Then treatment in the U.S. is available within a few days usually. But there is no waiting for serious complaints and treatment is great they say.

 

Could you summarize those arguments? There will always be innovation. But the staggering efforts that go into something like drug design... the decades of expensive and demanding research that go into pushing medicine forward. I'd like to hear how Stephen argues that will still occur if there is another drug company can simply analyze, reproduce and undersell you when you bring it to market.

Without IP protections, how would anyone recover the tremendous expense needed to make innovative imaginings into useful products?

I'm not saying he couldn't be right with some products. I can see it being true in hardware design maybe software too... where that original work gives you a couple extra years in the market before competitors can get up to speed and start eroding your ability to recover development costs. If we're talkign about modest or incremental advances, you probably don't need IP protection. But I don't think that would be true in all markets or with all innovation.




​

 

I don't think I can summarize Kinsella's arguments 'cause they're still new to me. I'll try to explain the way I see it though.

I'll start a new thread because this one may get closed any time, and we're off topic anyway.

 

But that IS what you are doing.

Again Reagan submitted less spending in his budget request that Congress authorized and they refused to pass all the spending recessions he submitted yet even with the Congress and in particular the Congressional Democrats wanting higher spending the deficits fell to $150B. Had they accepted Reagan's submissions they would have fallen to under $100B.

Gingrich and Kasich brought it down, Clinton inherit a strong recovery and rising tax revenues, his tax increase slowed that down.

He threatened and they compromised, spending was higher than he wanted but less that what the Democrats wanted. Are you saying your voted for him and Republicans are just trying to blame him for not stopping what you and your guys wanted?

I take it support Republicans now when they refuse to go along with the Democrats spending and they shut down the government? If I search back will I find you supporting them?

What on earth are you talking about and trying to say? Are you saying at lower rates businesses and investors did not invest?

Not income taxes, many MAKE money off the income tax system, the federal system of which we are talking./

He did NOT cut tax RATES, learn the difference and that was merely inflation adjustments to the tax tables.

That canard the best you got? He got everything he wanted his first two years and never submitted anything substantial. His trickle up plan failed and he refused to at least do as Clinton did and admit it and then work with Republicans. Remember he told them first meeting to take a hike HE won and elections have consequences.

Nope they went in more than willing to work with him, he sent them to the back of the bus and even at the mid-terms said they would be more than willing to work with him of reasonable legislation to get the economy moving.

Actually no, the Democrats made their bed and refused to deal with the economic situation doubling the debt with their spending that failed to get the economy going again into a full recovery.

Sorry that meant to say

Tell you what compare the max CAPITAL GAINS tax revenues pulled in under the Clinton 29% rate, the Gingrich/Kaisch 20% rate and the Bush 15% and get back to me with what you find.

As all three had different rates and that is what and goal of supply-side. So here I will post the data

Clinton rate 29% realizations $260B revenue $66B
Gingrich/Kasich rate 20% realizations $644B revenue $127B
Bush rate 15% realizations $924B revenue $137B


And total tax revenue growth


1994 9% Clinton pass tax increase new revenue deferred to tax years 1996 and 1996
1995 7% Tax revenues drop even with deferred tax revenues
1996 7%
1997 9% Gingrich and Kasich force tax rate cuts and the economy gets back on track
1998 9%
1999 6%
2000 11%
2001 -2% Bush and Republicans pass tax rate cuts to counter recession rates to slowly phase in through 2006
2002 -7%
2003 -4%
2004 5% Tax rate cuts accelerated and fully implemented
2005 15%
2006 12%
2007 7%


So where exactly does supply-side not work?

 

"The supply-siders keep saying tax cuts will cause so much economic growth that it will reduce the debt. And it keeps not working. But they’re half right. It has long been know that tax cuts can stimulate the economy, especially in a recession. Here’s how that works.

Say the government reduces taxes by $1 billion per year, but does not fire anyone and does not stop buying anything. Then no one that sells to or works for the government loses their job. But taxpayers have an extra $1 billion in their pockets and they spend most of it. Businesses sell more and so they hire more workers.

But how can the government keep spending without that $1 billion in taxes? Simple, they borrow the $1 billion. So yes, tax cuts cause growth and INCREASE the debt, if the government keeps spending. And that’s what’s been happening."

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

 

Supply side is shown to fail when there is no spin to the data. https://www.americanprogress.org/is...ven-graphs-that-show-supply-side-doesnt-work/

 

Post limit thread closure

Shangrila
Moderator

 

Supply side is not about cutting tax rates, it's about reducing the gov imposed costs of production, free trade, sound money, and cutting gov spending. Cutting tax rates is actually a Keynesian idea.

 

The 1990's were supply side years. Joe Stiglitz, Clinton's chief economic advisor, so indicated after Clinton's economic policies were announce in his second term. Your link fails at the first chart.