Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

aceventura3 · 10-23-2007, 10:52 AM

Complexities of theoretical arguments can be confusing. But on a base level you either have economic growth stimulated by government or by the private sector. I think that is a given, if it is wrong I am open to the other possibilities.

Given economic growth from government activity, the government taxes and then spends the money. If government spends the money people benefit. There is a long-term benefit if the government spends the money on productive things, for example building a bridge to no where helps create jobs during construction of the bridge. But building a bridge linking two commercial hubs not only gives the short-term benefit of jobs but the long-term benefit of enhancing trade between the hubs. I don't know any Supply Sider who would say tax rates should be 0 or that there is no role for government in creating economic growth.

At some point government will become inefficient at putting taxed dollars to productive use compared to the private sector. Supply Sider would argue at this point tax cuts would stimulate the economy. It seems that many of you are saying Supply Side never works, is this true?

P.S. - I am also curious about why anyone would think economic growth stimulated by government would mean that "wealthy people" would get less of a benefit compared to economic growth stimulated by the private sector? Seems to me - it won't matter where the growth comes from - "wealthy people" will get their share first. After all- in my bridge analogy - the company that gets the contract to build the bridge is going to get profits regardless of who pays the bill.

10-23-2007, 10:52 AM	#14 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Complexities of theoretical arguments can be confusing. But on a base level you either have economic growth stimulated by government or by the private sector. I think that is a given, if it is wrong I am open to the other possibilities. Given economic growth from government activity, the government taxes and then spends the money. If government spends the money people benefit. There is a long-term benefit if the government spends the money on productive things, for example building a bridge to no where helps create jobs during construction of the bridge. But building a bridge linking two commercial hubs not only gives the short-term benefit of jobs but the long-term benefit of enhancing trade between the hubs. I don't know any Supply Sider who would say tax rates should be 0 or that there is no role for government in creating economic growth. At some point government will become inefficient at putting taxed dollars to productive use compared to the private sector. Supply Sider would argue at this point tax cuts would stimulate the economy. It seems that many of you are saying Supply Side never works, is this true? P.S. - I am also curious about why anyone would think economic growth stimulated by government would mean that "wealthy people" would get less of a benefit compared to economic growth stimulated by the private sector? Seems to me - it won't matter where the growth comes from - "wealthy people" will get their share first. After all- in my bridge analogy - the company that gets the contract to build the bridge is going to get profits regardless of who pays the bill. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."