|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 28 2013 07:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 07:17 FallDownMarigold wrote:On November 28 2013 01:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 27 2013 23:54 FallDownMarigold wrote:On November 27 2013 03:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 27 2013 02:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:
quote]...some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.
--Pope Francis
What a guy. Seems vaguely relevant to US politics. The media is continually spinning an image of this new Papacy, which if not fundamentally dishonest, is at least insufferably ignorant. They either commit the sin of omission, or because they lack a proper understanding of the teachings of his predecessors, therefore they gratuitously spin the image of a "revolutionary" Pope, bending to the winds of modern opinion. For those of us who entertain respect for Rerum Novarum, it is obvious that it does not muddle its feet in the waters of the tired and feeble debate of capitalism vs socialism. Yes, it teaches that there is an explicit duty by the wealthy to consider the human ends of his actions, beyond certain assumptions justified by the exercise of impersonal forces. In Catholic doctrine, even if trickle-down theory worked as the most efficient form of uplifting the material conditions of the poor, it would still not be sufficient to consider the cultivation of greed as an acceptable moral practice. Salvation does not come by secondary, depersonalised virtues. As the same time, the Catholic Church has unambiguously condemned the cultivation of envy among the poor, or the destruction of private property. The hypocrisy of the demagogue who destroys the greedy rich by inciting greed among the poor, whose intellect is stranded by the mere appearance of inequalities rather than the ethical orientation of rich and poor alike, who robs humanity of its moral agency by painting one class of men as innately corrupt, and another as innately helpless, who regards himself and his fellow ideologues as the only exceptions to the rule that all men are inherently venial and incapable of altruism, is an almost unspeakable banality in our hubristic age. Catholic doctrine criticises aspects of both materialistic philosophies, but the journalistic community, relatively ignorant and disinterested in diverging from the prefabricated ping-pong of their profession, rushes in like a pack of mandarins, and cherry-picks itself into the delusion that "the Pope agrees with me." Interesting. Wasn't expecting one to read that far into it, heh. The excerpt was taken directly from his piece and no 'journalistic spin' was included. Just thought it rang with the notion floating around these days in US politics that 'trickle down' happens, while data says it doesn't Trickle down is a criticism of supply side policies. No one should be advocating trickle down directly  advocating 'supply side' = advocating 'trickle down' Yeah, in the same sense that helping the poor is propping up welfare queens.
lol
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."
--David Stockman, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Reagan
|
On December 02 2013 02:14 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2013 07:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 28 2013 07:17 FallDownMarigold wrote:On November 28 2013 01:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 27 2013 23:54 FallDownMarigold wrote:On November 27 2013 03:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 27 2013 02:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:
quote]...some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.
--Pope Francis
What a guy. Seems vaguely relevant to US politics. The media is continually spinning an image of this new Papacy, which if not fundamentally dishonest, is at least insufferably ignorant. They either commit the sin of omission, or because they lack a proper understanding of the teachings of his predecessors, therefore they gratuitously spin the image of a "revolutionary" Pope, bending to the winds of modern opinion. For those of us who entertain respect for Rerum Novarum, it is obvious that it does not muddle its feet in the waters of the tired and feeble debate of capitalism vs socialism. Yes, it teaches that there is an explicit duty by the wealthy to consider the human ends of his actions, beyond certain assumptions justified by the exercise of impersonal forces. In Catholic doctrine, even if trickle-down theory worked as the most efficient form of uplifting the material conditions of the poor, it would still not be sufficient to consider the cultivation of greed as an acceptable moral practice. Salvation does not come by secondary, depersonalised virtues. As the same time, the Catholic Church has unambiguously condemned the cultivation of envy among the poor, or the destruction of private property. The hypocrisy of the demagogue who destroys the greedy rich by inciting greed among the poor, whose intellect is stranded by the mere appearance of inequalities rather than the ethical orientation of rich and poor alike, who robs humanity of its moral agency by painting one class of men as innately corrupt, and another as innately helpless, who regards himself and his fellow ideologues as the only exceptions to the rule that all men are inherently venial and incapable of altruism, is an almost unspeakable banality in our hubristic age. Catholic doctrine criticises aspects of both materialistic philosophies, but the journalistic community, relatively ignorant and disinterested in diverging from the prefabricated ping-pong of their profession, rushes in like a pack of mandarins, and cherry-picks itself into the delusion that "the Pope agrees with me." Interesting. Wasn't expecting one to read that far into it, heh. The excerpt was taken directly from his piece and no 'journalistic spin' was included. Just thought it rang with the notion floating around these days in US politics that 'trickle down' happens, while data says it doesn't Trickle down is a criticism of supply side policies. No one should be advocating trickle down directly advocating 'supply side' = advocating 'trickle down' Yeah, in the same sense that helping the poor is propping up welfare queens. lol Show nested quote +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." --David Stockman, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Reagan
I assume you pulled that from Wikipedia? From the same entry:
The term is mostly used ironically or as pejorative
Both R's and D's as well as governments all over the world use a wide variety of supply side policies with varying levels of success and failure. Trying to label the policies you don't like as "trickle down" is about as valuable as labeling a government program you don't like as "socialist".
|
Where was supply side economics a success?
|
On December 02 2013 03:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2013 02:14 FallDownMarigold wrote:On November 28 2013 07:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 28 2013 07:17 FallDownMarigold wrote:On November 28 2013 01:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 27 2013 23:54 FallDownMarigold wrote:On November 27 2013 03:08 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 27 2013 02:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:
quote]...some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.
--Pope Francis
What a guy. Seems vaguely relevant to US politics. The media is continually spinning an image of this new Papacy, which if not fundamentally dishonest, is at least insufferably ignorant. They either commit the sin of omission, or because they lack a proper understanding of the teachings of his predecessors, therefore they gratuitously spin the image of a "revolutionary" Pope, bending to the winds of modern opinion. For those of us who entertain respect for Rerum Novarum, it is obvious that it does not muddle its feet in the waters of the tired and feeble debate of capitalism vs socialism. Yes, it teaches that there is an explicit duty by the wealthy to consider the human ends of his actions, beyond certain assumptions justified by the exercise of impersonal forces. In Catholic doctrine, even if trickle-down theory worked as the most efficient form of uplifting the material conditions of the poor, it would still not be sufficient to consider the cultivation of greed as an acceptable moral practice. Salvation does not come by secondary, depersonalised virtues. As the same time, the Catholic Church has unambiguously condemned the cultivation of envy among the poor, or the destruction of private property. The hypocrisy of the demagogue who destroys the greedy rich by inciting greed among the poor, whose intellect is stranded by the mere appearance of inequalities rather than the ethical orientation of rich and poor alike, who robs humanity of its moral agency by painting one class of men as innately corrupt, and another as innately helpless, who regards himself and his fellow ideologues as the only exceptions to the rule that all men are inherently venial and incapable of altruism, is an almost unspeakable banality in our hubristic age. Catholic doctrine criticises aspects of both materialistic philosophies, but the journalistic community, relatively ignorant and disinterested in diverging from the prefabricated ping-pong of their profession, rushes in like a pack of mandarins, and cherry-picks itself into the delusion that "the Pope agrees with me." Interesting. Wasn't expecting one to read that far into it, heh. The excerpt was taken directly from his piece and no 'journalistic spin' was included. Just thought it rang with the notion floating around these days in US politics that 'trickle down' happens, while data says it doesn't Trickle down is a criticism of supply side policies. No one should be advocating trickle down directly advocating 'supply side' = advocating 'trickle down' Yeah, in the same sense that helping the poor is propping up welfare queens. lol 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." --David Stockman, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Reagan I assume you pulled that from Wikipedia? From the same entry: Both R's and D's as well as governments all over the world use a wide variety of supply side policies with varying levels of success and failure. Trying to label the policies you don't like as "trickle down" is about as valuable as labeling a government program you don't like as "socialist".
Well, I think it is in the eye of the beholder. Labeling something as socialist would not by itself be a pejorative here without some negative framing. Communism would.
Trickle down economy is likely a negative thing given the denial among economic science. Doesn't stop some positive mentions in the same veins as "drill baby, drill", pro life, free drugs or high taxation.
|
On December 01 2013 22:39 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 20:35 hummingbird23 wrote:On December 01 2013 19:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 01 2013 05:16 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2013 05:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 01 2013 04:58 Djzapz wrote:On December 01 2013 04:53 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2013 04:33 Nyxisto wrote:On December 01 2013 04:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Both the EPA and IEA think that fracking is safe enough with reasonable regulations in place. Yes and it's so incredibly regulated that fracking-companies don't even have to tell which chemicals they're using! It's pretty hard to prove that fracking is dangerous if you can't even establish a baseline because no company will tell you what crap they're pumping into the ground. It would do you well to have a better understanding of fracking before posting stuff like this. What's pumped into the wells is benign compared to the hydrocarbons that are extracted, which is why oil CEOs chug the fracking fluid as a publicity stunt. So you take water, you add chemicals in it, call it benign so that you don't have to make an argument and call it a day. Nice. The chemicals shouldn't be touching the ground water at all. So you're a geologist ? You can prove to us that, no matter the type of soil, rock or whatever, the chemicals will always go where you want to. Of course, trust Jonny. The bottom line is that you can both throw arguments that only specialist would be able to assess. And since you can always find fake specialists to support the side you want, the argument is endless. The question is why in the first place would one naturally trust the interest of big multinational companies, or why would one trust the people that are victims of those methods and scientists that shows evidences days after days of the damages done by fracking. What I was saying puzzles me is that someone like Jonny will always take the side of private economic interest. Climate change, fracking, international policy: he will always believe what goes into the interest of big businesses. It makes no sense whatsoever to me. It seems absolutely obvious that a businesses will take the side that is the most profitable for them, whatever the consequences, while I don't see why the general public or scientists would oppose a technique like that just for the sake of it. See also: GMO opposition, antivaccination movements etc. People can be against things that merely sound scary, as opposed to actually dangerous. The problem is regulatory capture, or the threat of such by the very businesses that are supposed to be regulated. Edit: And also the problem that a large corporation is both powerful and a psychopathic entity by design. The examples you listed are not good examples. The whole anti-vaccination movement was not supported by science, and scientists were at the forefront of debunking it. There are legitimate concerns regarding genetically modified organisms (their escape into the wild/gene transfer to wild populations, potential effects on ecosystems, etc.), but a lot of it is fear-mongering and not rational (their immediate consequences on human health consumption which, for the most part, are probably non-existent). Again, there is science addressing that issue that is still being debated. I know you can find "specialists" to testify against anything, but for the most part science works pretty well and specialists who tend to testify against what the evidence presents tend to get found out in the long run. Scientists LOVE to find smoking guns, as it tends to make them pretty famous and respected in their fields. As an honest question, what do most academic researchers say about the effects of fracking? I honestly don't know. If there is not a well-studied body of literature on the topic, then I would say that the precautionary principle should come into play, and would tend to be against it given potential concerns. Seems like it'd be a well studied topic, though.
Antivax and anti-GMO movements may not be supported by science, but would you care to put it to a popular vote? I wouldn't. I have to debunk antivax very regularly among people I know and it's not an uncommon opinion. They're great examples of how a slickly made documentary or a press release gone viral can create enduring fears that have little, if anything to do with reality.
|
On December 02 2013 04:21 Roe wrote:
Where was supply side economics a success?
As examples in the US, railroad deregulation and alternative energy tax credits have both worked as intended.
|
On December 02 2013 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2013 04:21 Roe wrote:
Where was supply side economics a success? As examples in the US, railroad deregulation and alternative energy tax credits have both worked as intended.
railroad deregulations? when? how are they better now?
|
On December 02 2013 05:08 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2013 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 02 2013 04:21 Roe wrote:
Where was supply side economics a success? As examples in the US, railroad deregulation and alternative energy tax credits have both worked as intended. railroad deregulations? when? how are they better now?
Back in the 80's. Cheaper, more productive.
![[image loading]](http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/Staggers%20act%20picture%201.20.jpg)
|
On December 02 2013 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2013 04:21 Roe wrote:
Where was supply side economics a success? As examples in the US, railroad deregulation and alternative energy tax credits have both worked as intended.
I need a causation up in dis here place, not correlation.
|
On December 02 2013 06:33 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2013 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 02 2013 04:21 Roe wrote:
Where was supply side economics a success? As examples in the US, railroad deregulation and alternative energy tax credits have both worked as intended. I need a causation up in dis here place, not correlation.
God i fucking hate this, although correlation!= causation is technically correct, it doesn't matter, as basically every scientific field takes a positivist and experimental approach, meaning that correlation is indeed viable evidence if you want to prove something.
And regarding the supply side vs demand site debate. I don't like the supply side approach either(because i think it's pretty obvious that all the trickle down stuff is not really working and inequality is super high) but you have to admit that it keeps unemployment low, and seems to produce somewhat of reliable growth.
|
On December 02 2013 08:04 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2013 06:33 Roe wrote:On December 02 2013 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 02 2013 04:21 Roe wrote:
Where was supply side economics a success? As examples in the US, railroad deregulation and alternative energy tax credits have both worked as intended. I need a causation up in dis here place, not correlation. God i fucking hate this, although correlation!= causation is technically correct, it doesn't matter, as basically every scientific field takes a positivist and experimental approach, meaning that correlation is indeed viable evidence if you want to prove something. And regarding the supply side vs demand site debate. I don't like the supply side approach either(because i think it's pretty obvious that all the trickle down stuff is not really working and inequality is super high) but you have to admit that it keeps unemployment low, and seems to produce somewhat of reliable growth.
what are you talking about? supply side neoliberalism intentionally implements policies that result in higher unemployment. see reagan's US, thatcher's UK, pinochet's chile, etc.
|
On December 02 2013 08:26 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2013 08:04 Nyxisto wrote:On December 02 2013 06:33 Roe wrote:On December 02 2013 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 02 2013 04:21 Roe wrote:
Where was supply side economics a success? As examples in the US, railroad deregulation and alternative energy tax credits have both worked as intended. I need a causation up in dis here place, not correlation. God i fucking hate this, although correlation!= causation is technically correct, it doesn't matter, as basically every scientific field takes a positivist and experimental approach, meaning that correlation is indeed viable evidence if you want to prove something. And regarding the supply side vs demand site debate. I don't like the supply side approach either(because i think it's pretty obvious that all the trickle down stuff is not really working and inequality is super high) but you have to admit that it keeps unemployment low, and seems to produce somewhat of reliable growth. what are you talking about? supply side neoliberalism intentionally implements policies that result in higher unemployment. see reagan's US, thatcher's UK, pinochet's chile, etc.
The theory that it will cause an increase in lower wage employment is that you will hire more low wage workers then high wage ones thus driving down unemployment. Granted, they don't make enough to live off of so really having just one full time job isn't enough to survive but they do count as employed.
|
On December 02 2013 06:33 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2013 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 02 2013 04:21 Roe wrote:
Where was supply side economics a success? As examples in the US, railroad deregulation and alternative energy tax credits have both worked as intended. I need a causation up in dis here place, not correlation.
The causation for alternative energy tax credits would be that without the credits, the projects wouldn't be financially viable.
For railroads I'd have to do some homework. Do you have a plausible alternative explanation or are you just being a pain?
Edit: On December 02 2013 08:26 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2013 08:04 Nyxisto wrote:On December 02 2013 06:33 Roe wrote:On December 02 2013 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 02 2013 04:21 Roe wrote:
Where was supply side economics a success? As examples in the US, railroad deregulation and alternative energy tax credits have both worked as intended. I need a causation up in dis here place, not correlation. God i fucking hate this, although correlation!= causation is technically correct, it doesn't matter, as basically every scientific field takes a positivist and experimental approach, meaning that correlation is indeed viable evidence if you want to prove something. And regarding the supply side vs demand site debate. I don't like the supply side approach either(because i think it's pretty obvious that all the trickle down stuff is not really working and inequality is super high) but you have to admit that it keeps unemployment low, and seems to produce somewhat of reliable growth. what are you talking about? supply side neoliberalism intentionally implements policies that result in higher unemployment. see reagan's US, thatcher's UK, pinochet's chile, etc.
Unemployment went down during Reagan's presidency and the employment-population ratio went up.
If you want to bask in pre-neoliberalism bliss, head to Japan and hope that Abe's third arrow goes missing.
|
On December 02 2013 08:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2013 06:33 Roe wrote:On December 02 2013 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 02 2013 04:21 Roe wrote:
Where was supply side economics a success? As examples in the US, railroad deregulation and alternative energy tax credits have both worked as intended. I need a causation up in dis here place, not correlation. The causation for alternative energy tax credits would be that without the credits, the projects wouldn't be financially viable. For railroads I'd have to do some homework. Do you have a plausible alternative explanation or are you just being a pain?
Don't you know that if conservative policies produce growth and prosperity, its correlation but not causation. If any Democrat presides over a booming economy, it's serious causation. The clear thrust to argumentation here is demand a why, assert that the response given can't be causally implied, and then change the subject. I seriously question what unknown FACTOR X was really responsible for a railroad upturn after the act was passed.
|
On December 02 2013 08:26 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2013 08:04 Nyxisto wrote:On December 02 2013 06:33 Roe wrote:On December 02 2013 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 02 2013 04:21 Roe wrote:
Where was supply side economics a success? As examples in the US, railroad deregulation and alternative energy tax credits have both worked as intended. I need a causation up in dis here place, not correlation. God i fucking hate this, although correlation!= causation is technically correct, it doesn't matter, as basically every scientific field takes a positivist and experimental approach, meaning that correlation is indeed viable evidence if you want to prove something. And regarding the supply side vs demand site debate. I don't like the supply side approach either(because i think it's pretty obvious that all the trickle down stuff is not really working and inequality is super high) but you have to admit that it keeps unemployment low, and seems to produce somewhat of reliable growth. what are you talking about? supply side neoliberalism intentionally implements policies that result in higher unemployment. see reagan's US, thatcher's UK, pinochet's chile, etc.
You claim you know the results and proceed to quote conservative leaders that used sound economic thought to decrease unemployment. The liberal Carter and Labour's Callagan made such a superb mess that it took a couple years to reverse the damage, but a turnaround was accomplished. The Left then fled to other topics like income inequality, the environment, and other bastions of socialist thought.
|
On December 02 2013 08:26 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2013 08:04 Nyxisto wrote:On December 02 2013 06:33 Roe wrote:On December 02 2013 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 02 2013 04:21 Roe wrote:
Where was supply side economics a success? As examples in the US, railroad deregulation and alternative energy tax credits have both worked as intended. I need a causation up in dis here place, not correlation. God i fucking hate this, although correlation!= causation is technically correct, it doesn't matter, as basically every scientific field takes a positivist and experimental approach, meaning that correlation is indeed viable evidence if you want to prove something. And regarding the supply side vs demand site debate. I don't like the supply side approach either(because i think it's pretty obvious that all the trickle down stuff is not really working and inequality is super high) but you have to admit that it keeps unemployment low, and seems to produce somewhat of reliable growth. what are you talking about? supply side neoliberalism intentionally implements policies that result in higher unemployment. see reagan's US, thatcher's UK, pinochet's chile, etc.
Sorry, but what are you talking about? Supply Side economy, at least by following the general accepted definition, means getting taxes down, getting rid of regulations and thus stimulating job creation, consumption and economic growth. The whole idea is based on the fact that the lack of tax income is compensated by job creation. (At least regarding "newschool" supply side economics. "Oldschoolers" just disliked the state and thought taxes were evil)
Also at the end of the Reagan era, unemployment was at 5.4%, which seems pretty low.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Unemployment_rates
Another example would be Germany in the last 10 years. Tax cuts and a deregulated job market lead to a TON of jobs. We actually are practically at full employment. As i said before there are hundreds of things wrong with this kind of economic policy, but job creation is probably the one thing that's working pretty well.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not sure if the railway thing was supply side, unless you want to call every liberalisation move supply side
|
On December 02 2013 09:41 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2013 08:26 IgnE wrote:On December 02 2013 08:04 Nyxisto wrote:On December 02 2013 06:33 Roe wrote:On December 02 2013 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 02 2013 04:21 Roe wrote:
Where was supply side economics a success? As examples in the US, railroad deregulation and alternative energy tax credits have both worked as intended. I need a causation up in dis here place, not correlation. God i fucking hate this, although correlation!= causation is technically correct, it doesn't matter, as basically every scientific field takes a positivist and experimental approach, meaning that correlation is indeed viable evidence if you want to prove something. And regarding the supply side vs demand site debate. I don't like the supply side approach either(because i think it's pretty obvious that all the trickle down stuff is not really working and inequality is super high) but you have to admit that it keeps unemployment low, and seems to produce somewhat of reliable growth. what are you talking about? supply side neoliberalism intentionally implements policies that result in higher unemployment. see reagan's US, thatcher's UK, pinochet's chile, etc. Sorry, but what are you talking about? Supply Side economy, at least by following the general accepted definition, means getting taxes down, getting rid of regulations and thus stimulating job creation, consumption and economic growth. The whole idea is based on the fact that the lack of tax income is compensated by job creation. (At least regarding "newschool" supply side economics. "Oldschoolers" just disliked the state and thought taxes were evil) Also at the end of the Reagan era, unemployment was at 5.4%, which seems pretty low. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Unemployment_ratesAnother example would be Germany in the last 10 years. Tax cuts and a deregulated job market lead to a TON of jobs. We actually are practically at full employment. As i said before there are hundreds of things wrong with this kind of economic policy, but job creation is probably the one thing that's working pretty well.
That's not focusing on the supply side though. Which would be for ex. getting taxes down only on the rich/corporations. Lowering taxes doesn't stimulate growth, it might stimulate expenses but that's not the focus if you care about real progress. Only way to increase jobs is if there is work that needs to be done, which happens if there is something people want that they can't have on their own. Lowering taxes doesn't make people want or need things more.
On December 02 2013 08:04 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2013 06:33 Roe wrote:On December 02 2013 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 02 2013 04:21 Roe wrote:
Where was supply side economics a success? As examples in the US, railroad deregulation and alternative energy tax credits have both worked as intended. I need a causation up in dis here place, not correlation. God i fucking hate this, although correlation!= causation is technically correct, it doesn't matter, as basically every scientific field takes a positivist and experimental approach, meaning that correlation is indeed viable evidence if you want to prove something. And regarding the supply side vs demand site debate. I don't like the supply side approach either(because i think it's pretty obvious that all the trickle down stuff is not really working and inequality is super high) but you have to admit that it keeps unemployment low, and seems to produce somewhat of reliable growth.
...What? No scientist worth anything would say correlation proves a causal relationship. And nothing meaningful ever comes from correlational studies either.
|
On December 02 2013 09:56 oneofthem wrote:
not sure if the railway thing was supply side, unless you want to call every liberalisation move supply side
Good point, I think it fits though. Deregulation is a usual supply side go-to and it mainly impacted the B2B sector.
|
On December 02 2013 09:41 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2013 08:26 IgnE wrote:On December 02 2013 08:04 Nyxisto wrote:On December 02 2013 06:33 Roe wrote:On December 02 2013 05:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 02 2013 04:21 Roe wrote:
Where was supply side economics a success? As examples in the US, railroad deregulation and alternative energy tax credits have both worked as intended. I need a causation up in dis here place, not correlation. God i fucking hate this, although correlation!= causation is technically correct, it doesn't matter, as basically every scientific field takes a positivist and experimental approach, meaning that correlation is indeed viable evidence if you want to prove something. And regarding the supply side vs demand site debate. I don't like the supply side approach either(because i think it's pretty obvious that all the trickle down stuff is not really working and inequality is super high) but you have to admit that it keeps unemployment low, and seems to produce somewhat of reliable growth. what are you talking about? supply side neoliberalism intentionally implements policies that result in higher unemployment. see reagan's US, thatcher's UK, pinochet's chile, etc. Sorry, but what are you talking about? Supply Side economy, at least by following the general accepted definition, means getting taxes down, getting rid of regulations and thus stimulating job creation, consumption and economic growth. The whole idea is based on the fact that the lack of tax income is compensated by job creation. (At least regarding "newschool" supply side economics. "Oldschoolers" just disliked the state and thought taxes were evil) Also at the end of the Reagan era, unemployment was at 5.4%, which seems pretty low. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Unemployment_ratesAnother example would be Germany in the last 10 years. Tax cuts and a deregulated job market lead to a TON of jobs. We actually are practically at full employment. As i said before there are hundreds of things wrong with this kind of economic policy, but job creation is probably the one thing that's working pretty well.
unemployment goes up, drives wages down, and then employers benefit from lower wages. employment went back up as 80s america forced the rest of the world to deregulate and provide investment opportunties for american capital to come in and reap profits.
thats how it works. unemployment goes up. surplus labor grows and is hired back at cheaper wages. unemployment was down at the very en of reagans term because america was better able to exploit world markets not because of domestic supply side economics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
