Supply Side Economics...can we say it now, IT DOESN"T WORK

[EVDebs]

Bush's tax cuts to the wealthiest, $1.85 trillion over ten years, and no wonder there is barely an economic recovery going on four years after the recession was 'declared'.

Employment is mainly immigrants...http://www.nupr.neu.edu/01-04/immigration_jan.html

The poor and the middle class really DO have a higher 'marginal propensity to consume' than the wealthiest, who got the Bush Tax Cuts-- and on top of that, there are more of the poor and middle class out there !

Was supply side economics just an excuse to 'churn' the stock markets for commissions ? Is that what the new Social Security scare is supposed to do again like in 1981 with the ensuing 1982-3 SS reforms ?

[Capn Sunshine]

1. It appears you have found them out

It doesn't work, and this has been demonstrated over and over again.

[punpirate]

2. It was always a ruse...

... to get tax cuts and to starve the social services side of government. As I recall, Stockman admitted as much after leaving the administration, although not in quite those terms.

[BR_Parkway]

3. Don't forget that something close to 30% of the new jobs were

gov't jobs, not private companies that would make more off of a person's labor, which should increase the flow of cash in a community. A gov't job simply pays one more person without the additional local boost that private sector jobs create.

[gumby]

4. It works perfectly in the way it was/is intended.

The wealthy get the riches and the rest of us get trickled upon.

[EVDebs]

5. "The poor you will always have...." argument, I guess

there is no such thing as 'noblese oblige' anymore so why bother. This perversion of Jesus' own words seems to be Bush's new religion.

Why bother indeed.

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/insourcing.htm

[necso]

6. "Supply side economics" is

just a "cover" term for policies that truly benefit only the elite (an increasingly internationalized elite, at that).

Even the most superficial understanding of economics makes abundantly clear that supply (within any "economic unit" -- like the US) is not going to significantly increase unless demand does. For if supply increases without an increase in demand (at the "market price", or an even higher one, within that economic unit), then prices should fall -- and what producer or investor wants that? And demand (at this "market price" and in this economic unit) is unlikely to significantly increase (particularly from an already overstretched "consumer" base), unless there is additional income provided to average "consumers" (overwhelming "workers"). (However, borrowing by the government or the consumer -- especially, in this instance, on artificially inflated home equities -- or increased government spending, can easily disguise this... for a time.)

The additional funds that "supply side economics" makes available to the elite are generally going to be used to suppress costs (the costs of labor and of the products of weaker suppliers, and this through a variety of mechanisms), export jobs and assets, speculate on commodities (causing prices to rise), invest in rapidly expanding foreign economies, etc, etc -- that is, this money will go where the "smart" money usually goes -- anywhere a fast buck is to made (by fair means or foul). -- There was always very little chance that the elite would invest their money in the sort of slow-return, low-return (initial return) investments that would build the American economy... And there was almost zero chance that this money would be used to better the lives of the average American, by either chance or intention. (Sure the stock market may go up to some degree with all these elite dollars floating around, but this normally only benefits the average citizen if he has substantial funds to invest -- and is in a position to get all the inside info and assistance that the real players get -- and to act quickly and directly when the time comes. Moreover, at the very best this represents some modest "piggybacking" on corporate success, and is small recompense compared to that benefit which would accrue (to all the citizenry) if this same money (in total) was spent on the fundamental strengthening of the American economy.)

What the neocons neglect to explain to the American people is that when they talk about the "free market", the neocons are using are world market as the basis. It is no coincidence that the part of the world economy that is booming is not the American part -- it is an inevitable outcome of neocon "economic" policies -- for without some sort of constraints, money will flow where the best return is to be made (considering, to some degree, perceived risk, of course). And what better place to invest (directly or indirectly) is there than a neo-fascist, (near) slave-labor, little-better-than-starvation-wage state like China?

The neocons may scream about "national security", demonize the UN and scorn working within a truly cooperative (not coerced) international framework, but they have no problems whatsoever building the economies of countries who do not share or support American interests (or "values") -- at whatever cost to the American economy and the American people. Nor do the neocons have any problem letting foreign individuals, foreign corporations and increasingly "internationalist" (so-called) American corporations increasingly control the American economy, media and government... Not as long as the neocon elite gets their cut -- and is left free to pursue their twisted, corrupt and un-American foreign and domestic policy agendas.

There is a great price being paid for all this. There will be a much greater price to pay in the future. But the neocon elite's nest will be well-feathered, so why should they care?

[EVDebs]

7. Why supply siders should care :

"...the neocon elite's nest will be well-feathered, so why should they care ?"

Ever hear of the French Revolution ? Maybe they'd better start caring. Madame deFarge is knitting away even as we speak !

[necso]

8. They'll just run. /nt

[annabanana]

20. "the radical left"

I'll take this opportunity to steal a description of the REAL radical left that I swiped from a poster some time ago, If you are the author, kudos.

"
You claim to understand the ‘radical left’ but you have no clue who they really are. Not a single person here is a radical leftist, and that’s something the right wing doesn’t understand.

Our culture has been falsely cast so far to the right that people who tout universal health care, gay rights and alternative energy are considered “radical” when in reality we are just mainsteam liberals. You in fact seem to be a moderate conservative, not a progressive or a liberal of any flavor. The fact that you vote Democratic just underlines how far the GOP has shifted itself. Just because everyone is drinking scotch doesn’t make the liquor any less hardcore.

Truly “radical” leftists are violent anarchists with the mentality of the mobs. They are created by the spark of revolution, and they flare up like the flames of an inferno. Have you ever seen the chaos of a crowd driven mad? They don’t discuss politics with the opposition. They kill them in their beds. They beat them to death like skinheads. They are a distorted, mirror image of the worst of the far right. We haven’t seen them yet, but they are coming.

The right wing in their hubris and imperial majesty think they can control these violent radicals that are forming as a result of this far right embrace of fascism but the forces of chaos are always stronger than the forces of law, and they always will be especially now that we live in the nuclear age. It is much easier to destroy than to create. The same flawed judgment that brought us the war plans for Iraq and its current miserable state of affair and security will bring that recipe here when the storms begins.

The tighter the grip, the stronger the blow will be. This country will burn itself into radioactive glass before the right wing reaches the police state they want. Progressive liberals like myself will be the first to fall either trying to stop the mobs or gunned down by the police when the roundups begin. Caught in the middle trying to stop the fight as we have often been throughout history.

But conservatives like yourself will fall shortly afterwards, their walled communities overrun. Doors kicked in. Men shot to death defending their homes after the ammunition has run out. Wives and daughters raped and killed. Then on to the next house. Mobs don’t reason either. When chaos reaches a critical mass, it takes on a life of its own. Like Pandora’s Box, once opened, it will consume all that stands before it.

Me and you, us and them.

But, by all means, please keep pushing the country farther right. Just don’t be surprised when the door comes crashing in on you. I won’t be able to help you then. As they drag you outside in your final moments, please don’t be surprised. You had ample warning."

[FormerDittoHead]

9. With all we know about economics.. Why doesn't anyone in MSM say it's BS?

I too, learned about "says law" and how demand side economics pulled us out of the great depression, etc etc etc.

I took economics at two colleges, with 3 different instructors, but what you outlineed above was agreed upon by all my teachers and textbooks.

So, why is there in the media such a SHORTAGE of college professors, economists, etc. saying, "Hey, we teach this stuff and what these guys are saying is out and out WRONG"????

[necso]

10. If you want my opinion,

(and it is no more than that), the reason is that the entire conceptual frameworks of things like politics, economics, etc, etc, have been deliberately debased (in the common arena) to render the remaining basis (typically a "one-dimensional" basis -- yes/no -- this way or its opposite) nearly useless (as a basis for understanding or dealing with complex things) -- and easily perverted to neocon ends -- and into "one-liner" propaganda themes that the people (human as they are) will readily swallow. (In addition, it has been relentlessly hammered into people to distrust the intellectual "elite", those "ivory-tower" types, etc, etc.)

So how could these professors, etc, even begin to explain things to (and to educate) people who have been indoctrinated to reject anything beyond this superficial understanding (itself an object of indoctrination). The neocons (and their predecessors) have, essentially, made all these things into a matter of simple (and simple-minded) "faith" among (many of) the common people. Besides, sooner or later these professors would be shouted down by the hordes of neocon flunkies (in language that will often seem like a simpler form of what these professors are saying -- and that plays directly to all those years of indoctrination), if not attacked in more direct ways.

And, unfortunately, the only realistic countermeasure is to use our own "one-liners" -- many of which won't be "pretty", and are hardly the kind of things that professors, etc, are going to rush to say -- setting aside considerations of personal well being.

And yes, much of what I say is just Economics 101... This is my intention. It is a return to basics (carefully thought out, and considering various realities, including historical realities) that I believe is the best remaining hope for anything resembling a "free market" in this country -- at least a "free market" that actually benefits and strengthens this country as a whole.

And I have no faith that this will happen -- we are fighting ruthless opponents. And all sorts of "fighting talk" aside, I don't think that we are ready to say and do the kinds of things that can quickly turn this tide -- before it is simply too late.

...

In short, how can you hold a reasonable discussion and debate when your opponent controls the "language" (to his own ends) -- and the minds of those who will do the "judging". -- Can't be done.

[FormerDittoHead]

11. I agree!

As "The Former Rush Fan" I often called local talk radio shows (no chance getting on a national) and found myself having to "distill" my "message" in like a 20 second bite which the host could then answer by asking a completely red herring question.

In my "deprogramming" out of this mind-set, I asked myself, if everything *valuable* COULD be "distilled" in 20 seconds (or even 60) then why have colleges AT ALL?

But that's what they want to do - give people, who never went to college (like Rush), (or very little (like Glenn Beck)) the impression that they DON'T need to know all that stuff they teach in them fancy-pants colleges, that the people with degrees DON'T know more than they do and that THEIR judgement, as ill informed as it may be, based upon nothing but 'horse sense' is just as 'valid' as one who has actually STUDIED the topic...

[necso]

12. I think that this type of thing appeals to anyone

who is seeking an "easy way out". (It also helps if you are going through life "in neutral", or in the most short-sighted, unenlightenedly-selfish way.) Surprisingly many of these people "have education".

It is really a state of mind (closed, self-satisfied, programmed, overly egotistical, etc, etc) that we are talking about here, although education (formal or otherwise) does, generally, tend to open one's mind.

And one does not have to be unselfish (or other-seeking) to vehemently oppose the neocons. A little bit of enlightened selfishness goes a lot way in this direction. -- The neocons are screwing things up royally, and they are doing it for their own benefit, all other "thought" and "values" be damned (regardless of whether these are liberal, populist, progressive, nationalist, traditional conservative -- or whatever).

...

The "horse-sense" of which you speak is nothing that our forefathers would have recognized as being "sensible" (common sense) at all. It is just another part of the "seed" propaganda that people have had pounded in their heads.

We have slid a long way down this slope -- and we no longer have available to us the historical underpinnings of our society on which to grab to stop our slide... And this is no accident.

[necso]

13. Oh and this sort of thing also gives

one the (false) feeling of "belonging", of "participating", of being "righteous", of being "100% American", etc, etc -- with little or no short-term, easily recognizable cost.

Of course, sooner or later this will bite us on the ass -- but the neocons plan on spinning their way out of that one too ("Those damn liberal traitors kept us from doing what was necessary.", etc, etc) -- or running like hell (those that can -- which is a very small minority, certainly) -- "See ya later, losers."

[EVDebs]

18. Say's Law is erroneous !

" Roughly stated, Say's Law claims that total demand in an economy cannot exceed or fall below total supply in that economy or as James Mill was to restate it, "supply creates its own demand." In Say's language, "products are paid for with products" (1803: p.153) or "a glut can take place only when there are too many means of production applied to one kind of product and not enough to another", (1803: p.178-9.)"
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/say.htm

This is truly VooDoo economics, or restated a supply of dogcrap creates its own demand ! Republicans demand it...

[yourout]

14. Never did.....never will.

Reagonomics was the worst thing to come out of the 70s.

[DieboldMustDie]

15. Who was it that called it "voodoo economics"?

Oh right! It was Poppy. :evilgrin:

[Disturbed]

16. Voodoo.

too bad that doesn't work because if so I'd buy a few dolls and pins.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. If the rich were truly over-taxed it would be one thing

Where the GOP logic (or there lack of) fails is that the rich are not over-taxed. Under Bush, they got back more money that they don't need at the expense of children, elderly, working class people, etc.

[EVDebs]

19. It all comes down to marginal propensity to consume, and that

means the tax cuts should have been geared toward the poor and middle classes...not the richest 1 and 1/2% of taxpayers, as David Cay Johnston's book "Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else" shows us.

BTW, check out Chapter 8 on how we subsidize the rich on social security !

[many a good man]

21. The investor class

If you want to stimulate investment, you give a tax cut to the investor class. If you want to stimulate demand, you give it to the people most likely to spend it.

Stimulating investment was a ridiculous choice when everyone agrees the market is already over-inflated and has been for the last 10 years. Its stupid economics.

[EVDebs]

22. ...investor class just took it and put it under the mattress !! Yes

indeed, plus they're demographics only 1 and 1/2 % of taxpayers according to David Cay Johnston...You nailed it, Stupid Economics.