EPTOn June 08 2018 05:49 ticklishmusic wrote:
laffer curve, are you really peddling supply side economics now?
laffer curve, are you really peddling supply side economics now?
yes he is, as evidenced by his considerable posting on the topic so far.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 269
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
yes he is, as evidenced by his considerable posting on the topic so far. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
Trickle-down page does mention that "supply-side" was basically the lie that was created so that people would swallow trickle-down, so there's that. It's also kind of obvious when you consider the consequences of what supply-side is advocating. I find the best argument against supply-side economics is the simplest. The theory is based on the notion that when you give money to people who already have tons of money, that extra money will cause them to create new jobs and benefit the economy in various ways, which means that you're going to benefit more than if you had kept the money in the first place. It is pretty clear that this makes no sense. If it didn't, you wouldn't need to lie about what you're doing to sell it to an electorate. You'd just go full trickle-down rather than pretend that you're there to cut taxes for everyone. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On June 08 2018 06:16 ticklishmusic wrote: yeah, this just happened (sooner than expected): https://twitter.com/dominicholden/status/1004806495136043010 Yeah, not really sure why the SCOTUS was so quick to punt on the issue. You just know it would come straight back to them. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16706 Posts
On June 08 2018 06:10 Nebuchad wrote: I find it amusing that Wikipedia has a page on Reaganomics, a page on supply-side economics and a page on tricke-down economics. Reaganomics page mostly free from criticism, supply-side kind of neutral and trickle-down very critical. Trickle-down page does mention that "supply-side" was basically the lie that was created so that people would swallow trickle-down, so there's that. It's also kind of obvious when you consider the consequences of what supply-side is advocating. I find the best argument against supply-side economics is the simplest. The theory is based on the notion that when you give money to people who already have tons of money, that extra money will cause them to create new jobs and benefit the economy in various ways, which means that you're going to benefit more than if you had kept the money in the first place. It is pretty clear that this makes no sense. If it didn't, you wouldn't need to lie about what you're doing to sell it to an electorate. You'd just go full trickle-down rather than pretend that you're there to cut taxes for everyone. for a deeper look at Reagan's economic policies and why they worked both short and long term check out Paul Craig Roberts' National Review article "Death, Lies and Inflation" published in August 1992. its unfortunate he sticks some partisan rhetoric in the middle of his article because its got lots of solid info. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
Does that make sense to you? Can you think of another circumstance where you would believe that this is true? If your boss came at you and said "Okay, we're going to cut your salaries a little bit and use that extra money to give me a bigger salary, and this is going to be good for you because it's possible that I use that money to create more opportunities for our society and that would benefit you in the long run", would you think he's making a solid argument? | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On June 08 2018 01:28 KwarK wrote: Well Canada, Germany, and the US were there at D-Day. Canada is now the enemy so presumably Germany were the good guys. Logic. Britain no longer exists beyond being a proto-Canada. It doesn't make sense from any perspective, many germans do remember that it wasn't just the US that liberated berlin. In fact, half of germany is inherently suspicious of the US. The US had good relationships with west germany. I feel like the US "Ambassador" is a pretty moronic, uneducated dickhead. It's kinda sad (but expected) that the US sends someone as Ambassador that has no idea of actual history, and more importantly, actually tries to influence politics. I wonder how trump would react if the german ambassador to the US (whoever that is) starts touting around that he absolutely is supporting social liberals, that they should be empowered, and that trump is a shithead. Oh, and of course, invites Mexicos president to a dinner with him in the US. Like, i don't think people really grasp how much of an affront that person is. Literally the first thing he did in office was to threaten the country he's supposed to be an Ambassador in. That's of course a very trump-ish choice, but over here we haven't lost any sense of reality/common sense. Also, Britain isn't proto-canada, it's Australia Source. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 08 2018 06:16 ticklishmusic wrote: yeah, this just happened (sooner than expected): https://twitter.com/dominicholden/status/1004806495136043010 Yes. Even a ruling like this might help justices decide to take the Washington Florist's case. Fresh from siding with a baker who declined to make a cake to celebrate the wedding of a same-sex couple, the Supreme Court met behind closed doors on Thursday to consider a similar case concerning a florist in Washington state who declined to make a floral arrangement for a customer's same-sex wedding. How the justices act on the petition in the case, called Arlene Flowers v. Washington, could offer hints about how quickly other such challenges pitting religious liberty versus LGBT rights return to the high court. If, for example, the justices vote to take up Arlene Flowers for next term, then they could reignite a raging debate that wasn't resolved in the narrow opinion they issued last Monday. AZ CentralIn siding with the baker, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a 7-2 majority, tailored his opinion to the specifics of the case at hand instead of issuing a broad ruling that could have impacted businesses across the country. Kennedy focused on the fact that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had shown animus toward the baker's religious beliefs during an early proceeding in the case. "The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy said. But before the ink was dry, the ACLU, representing the gay couple behind the challenge, claimed that they had lost the battle but won the war. Writing an op-ed in the Washington Post, David Cole, the national director of the ACLU, emphasized that the court's holding was specific to the case at hand, and that the justices did not rule on arguments put forward by the baker arguing that Colorado had violated the baker's rights by compelling him to make one of his custom cakes in violation of his free speech rights. Cole wrote he had feared a much broader ruling. Kennedy, "could not have been more clear in rejecting the argument that there is a First Amendment right to discriminate," Cole wrote. But a lawyer for the baker, Kristen Waggoner, praised Kennedy's opinion and believes it could apply to another one of her clients, Barronelle Stutzman, whose case is pending before the Supreme Court. Stutzman refused to make a floral arrangement for long-time client Robert Ingersoll's same-sex wedding. In a statement, she said that while she serves everyone, she cannot "create a custom floral arrangements that celebrates events or express messages at odds with my faith." She has lost at the lower court level, but following the Masterpiece ruling on Monday, Waggoner said that Stutzman's case also touches on similar animus by the state. She accused the Washington Attorney General of "repeatedly and overtly" demeaning her client's faith. "In Masterpiece Cakeshop, the US Supreme Court denounced government hostility towards the religious beliefs about marriage held by creative professionals like Jack Phillips and Barronelle Stutzman,"she said. "Such hostility exists when the government treats those people of faith worse than other business owners." One interesting facet is that the customers were long time customers. They had no idea that the florist possessed such strongly-held religious views, because she was always loving in her interactions with the gay customer. She did great work. Then she wouldn't create a floral arrangement specifically for the wedding, and the whole thing soured. It will be very tough to argue this is hateful discrimination directed at a protected class of person, particularly in the court of public opinion. Of course she will claim the same kind of overt hostility to religion to try and get a nice win. Yet, it will take a while for the Arizona bakers and other predominantly Christian people to have their cases work their way to the Supreme Court, so they could reach a decision on the overall religious liberty, 14th amendment, and free speech points. If Brush and Nib was mass-producing generic announcements, that would be one thing. But each of their creations is hand-painted and hand-lettered after a long meeting with the clients. Even worse than the city’s compelled artistic expression, the Phoenix law also forbids them from publicly expressing their beliefs on the matter of marriage. So much for free speech. Since Phoenix’s sweeping ordinance violates their right to free expression, both artistically and on matters of faith, Koski and Duka took their concerns to the justice system. AZ Central The city of Phoenix also prohibits their speech on this matter. If you ask me, it further debases points others have raised that Christians and other religious faiths aren't threatened by this and aren't subject to impositions on their civil rights. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23228 Posts
On June 08 2018 08:51 Danglars wrote: Yes. Even a ruling like this might help justices decide to take the Washington Florist's case. Fresh from siding with a baker who declined to make a cake to celebrate the wedding of a same-sex couple, the Supreme Court met behind closed doors on Thursday to consider a similar case concerning a florist in Washington state who declined to make a floral arrangement for a customer's same-sex wedding. AZ Central One interesting facet is that the customers were long time customers. They had no idea that the florist possessed such strongly-held religious views, because she was always loving in her interactions with the gay customer. She did great work. Then she wouldn't create a floral arrangement specifically for the wedding, and the whole thing soured. It will be very tough to argue this is hateful discrimination directed at a protected class of person, particularly in the court of public opinion. Of course she will claim the same kind of overt hostility to religion to try and get a nice win. Yet, it will take a while for the Arizona bakers and other predominantly Christian people to have their cases work their way to the Supreme Court, so they could reach a decision on the overall religious liberty, 14th amendment, and free speech points. AZ Central The city of Phoenix also prohibits their speech on this matter. If you ask me, it further debases points others have raised that Christians and other religious faiths aren't threatened by this and aren't subject to impositions on their civil rights. Is it that you genuinely feel these people are victims of an abusive and overbearing government or are you trying to compare your sensationalizing to the real and significant threats minority and oppressed groups face in the US? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 08 2018 09:02 GreenHorizons wrote: Is it that you genuinely feel these people are victims of an abusive and overbearing government or are you trying to compare your sensationalizing to the real and significant threats minority and oppressed groups face in the US? I'm not interested in debating how you characterize "real and significant threats", or the hierarchy of infringement of civil rights. You may believe these to be insignificant compared to this or that instance of injustice. I don't think it's comparable in import to the black civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s, if you thought "sensationalizing" is up to that. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23228 Posts
On June 08 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote: I'm not interested in debating how you characterize "real and significant threats", or the hierarchy of infringement of civil rights. You may believe these to be insignificant compared to this or that instance of injustice. I don't think it's comparable in import to the black civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s, if you thought "sensationalizing" is up to that. I'm taking that to mean you're not sensationalizing this but sincerely think an overbearing government is oppressing people and denying them their civil rights, and this is an example you find important. I think the whole argument is pretty ridiculous, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't ascribing some seriousness/sincerity to your concern that you weren't intending. I just imagine it being pretty nice if this is the kind of thing one worries about in that context. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On June 08 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote: I'm not interested in debating how you characterize "real and significant threats", or the hierarchy of infringement of civil rights. You may believe these to be insignificant compared to this or that instance of injustice. I don't think it's comparable in import to the black civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s, if you thought "sensationalizing" is up to that. I'd say 'real and significant threats' would be the regular physical and social abuse, sometimes (though these days not as often, thankfully) up to murder that LGBT people suffer constantly. Often from religious people, coincidentally, explicitly for religious reasons (or at least they cite them as their reason). On June 08 2018 07:00 m4ini wrote: It doesn't make sense from any perspective, many germans do remember that it wasn't just the US that liberated berlin. In fact, half of germany is inherently suspicious of the US. The US had good relationships with west germany. I feel like the US "Ambassador" is a pretty moronic, uneducated dickhead. It's kinda sad (but expected) that the US sends someone as Ambassador that has no idea of actual history, and more importantly, actually tries to influence politics. I wonder how trump would react if the german ambassador to the US (whoever that is) starts touting around that he absolutely is supporting social liberals, that they should be empowered, and that trump is a shithead. Oh, and of course, invites Mexicos president to a dinner with him in the US. Like, i don't think people really grasp how much of an affront that person is. Literally the first thing he did in office was to threaten the country he's supposed to be an Ambassador in. That's of course a very trump-ish choice, but over here we haven't lost any sense of reality/common sense. Also, Britain isn't proto-canada, it's Australia Source. Hell yes. Where else to send our criminals but to a place designed to kill them? PERFECT LOGIC!!! I still think that we're the only Empire in history who managed to conquer half the world, have our empire collapse, and still somehow be kind of liked by almost everybody we conquered, despite clearly screwing them up on the way out. I suppose we were very polite about it, or something. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7888 Posts
On June 08 2018 06:10 Nebuchad wrote: I find it amusing that Wikipedia has a page on Reaganomics, a page on supply-side economics and a page on tricke-down economics. Reaganomics page mostly free from criticism, supply-side kind of neutral and trickle-down very critical. Trickle-down page does mention that "supply-side" was basically the lie that was created so that people would swallow trickle-down, so there's that. It's also kind of obvious when you consider the consequences of what supply-side is advocating. I find the best argument against supply-side economics is the simplest. The theory is based on the notion that when you give money to people who already have tons of money, that extra money will cause them to create new jobs and benefit the economy in various ways, which means that you're going to benefit more than if you had kept the money in the first place. It is pretty clear that this makes no sense. If it didn't, you wouldn't need to lie about what you're doing to sell it to an electorate. You'd just go full trickle-down rather than pretend that you're there to cut taxes for everyone. I am no economist, but I think the supply side economics favour, not so much the rich, but companies and the private sector. I think right now it has three problems: When companies make profit, they tend to simply reward shareholders rather than reinvesting. That has been the failure of french supply side oriented measures in the last fifteen years: tax breaks on the private sector have been redistributed to shareholders instead of creating new jobs. The second problem and the reason for the first one is that in the US or in Europe, the main issue companies face is a lack if demand. It is only natural they don’t reinvest generous tax breaks when they have no clients. The cuts in social programs and public sector that finance those measures only make the matter worse. In theory, again that’s no problem because the money given to shareholders is reinvested (here is the trickle down part), but again, the thing is that caputal nowadays is often not invested in the real economy and that speculation has never created any job. Altogether it is obvious to me that, if supply side makes sense on paper, it is completely misguided in the current economic and social climate. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On June 08 2018 18:20 Biff The Understudy wrote: I am no economist, but I think the supply side economics favour, not so much the rich, but companies and the private sector. I think right now it has three problems: When companies make profit, they tend to simply reward shareholders rather than reinvesting. That has been the failure of french supply side oriented measures in the last fifteen years: tax breaks on the private sector have been redistributed to shareholders instead of creating new jobs. The second problem and the reason for the first one is that in the US or in Europe, the main issue companies face is a lack if demand. It is only natural they don’t reinvest generous tax breaks when they have no clients. The cuts in social programs and public sector that finance those measures only make the matter worse. In theory, again that’s no problem because the money given to shareholders is reinvested (here is the trickle down part), but again, the thing is that caputal nowadays is often not invested in the real economy and that speculation has never created any job. Altogether it is obvious to me that, if supply side makes sense on paper, it is completely misguided in the current economic and social climate. It doesn't even make sense on paper. It's assuming people will say 'I have enough money, let's pay my staff more money!' Which isn't a thought many business CEOs would have on their deathbed in the middle of a crisis of faith with a jesuit priest there reminding them gently that all that money of theirs might have been shared and doing so would be good for the soul. Even at its kindest interpretation, the on-paper consequence is that [INSERT CEO HERE] would think 'great, I can now hire more people to pay no money to, and thus expand my business and make ME even MORE money!!!!' It's fantasy land Capitalism, which forgets that greed is a thing. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7888 Posts
On June 08 2018 18:31 iamthedave wrote: It doesn't even make sense on paper. It's assuming people will say 'I have enough money, let's pay my staff more money!' Which isn't a thought many business CEOs would have on their deathbed in the middle of a crisis of faith with a jesuit priest there reminding them gently that all that money of theirs might have been shared and doing so would be good for the soul. Even at its kindest interpretation, the on-paper consequence is that [INSERT CEO HERE] would think 'great, I can now hire more people to pay no money to, and thus expand my business and make ME even MORE money!!!!' It's fantasy land Capitalism, which forgets that greed is a thing. No that’s not the reasoning of supply side economics at all. The idea is, you lower taxes on a company, it will spend this cash to expend. Open a new branch, invest in R&D, increase the production, whatever. With its fresh cash from the tax relieve, your airline will open a new route, your coffeeshop a new branch, your internet startup hire a community manager it couldn’t afford, etc. That means, new jobs, which means more demand and you are in a virtuous circle. Again I think it doesn’t work, because according to companies themselves, their main obstacle today is low demand, which states should face by investing rather than lowering taxes and whatnot. Right now, companies have no reason to invest since no one will buy the extra shit they would make if they did, and so simply give a fuckton of money to their shareholders, increasing the already grotesque wealth gap, with no benefit for the economy. Now, that the GOP doesn’t sincerely care about any if that and use that inappropriate theory to reward a cast of donors, it’s self evident. They are in to redistribute money upward, period. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7888 Posts
On June 08 2018 21:12 Nebuchad wrote: If you're a good CEO you're going to expand in ways that you think will benefit you, which means you already have an incentive to do the expansions you're going to do: that you think they will benefit you. The extra money is separate from that and is only you getting some extra money. That makes no sense to me. You think the benefits (or loss) of a company and its ability to invest are not related? And again, I’m against ss economics. I just think you guys don’t understand it. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On June 08 2018 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote: That makes no sense to me. You think the benefits (or loss) of a company and its ability to invest are not related? And again, I’m against ss economics. I just think you guys don’t understand it. You're lowering taxes. People and businesses end up with more money. They're not going to look at this thing that was too risky to do before and think "Oh, now that I have more money, I can take more risks!" That's a gambler's position, not a CEO's position. They're still going to do things that they were planning to do anyway. They might do it faster if they're a developing company, but they won't do it more; and supply side doesn't target developing companies, it targets everyone and - as a result of doing that - benefits the businesses that already have enough to do whatever they want more than the others, which ultimately hurts the developing companies by reinforcing the giants. | ||
| ||
