Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
ace, look the hell around you. supply side was never a coherent body of thinking. it excludes more than it includes. it's predictive value has proven to be rubbish. the regulatory actions that were implemented based on it have proven to open pathways to fiasco unheard of since before world war 2.
it is a hodge-podge of antiquated simplistic notions patched together for the purposes of allowing vast transfers of money away from the state and into the hands of...well who?...a patronage system that pulls the strings of the republican party.
|
I think the best example of its application was under Reagan. I think Reagan's tax policy laid the foundation for exceptional economic growth and innovation.
I think strong economic growth allows for more entitlement spending. It is ironic that those in favor of entitlement spending don't support policies that allow for the strongest economic growth.
Quote:
|
you and people like you have fuck all to say about job creation--except let's give more money to the patronage system that supports the republican party by way of dismantling the redistributive state---while making sure to keep the repressive state expanding and armed to the teeth---because---well why? so that patronage network can count on a well-armed police force to keep people away from their gated communities when they figure out they've been had? the bush tax cuts did NOTHING to expand employment. neither did the reagan tax cuts. NOTHING that supply side has advocated has helped. because it's not about that. it's about increasingly class stratification. taking the money and hiding out.
|
I started and I run a small business. I have first hand experience in what happens and how taxes effect my business. When my business was in California, competing against none California based companies, I was at a price disadvantage. I moved out of the state. I took my tax base, and jobs with me. This is real stuff, sometimes it gets lost in theory. I study the theory and I live the reality.
Quote:
and you have fuck all to say about the actual structure of the actual economy. you're obsessed with the hydraulics of taxes as if that were a fundamental problem. that you can devise hydraulic relations around a variable says nothing--at all--about why that variable should be central. you can't argue the case because for you it's all just part of some rigid system the operating logic of which is basically that of shampoo directions:
lather repeat, lather repeat.
you won't even address the self-evident problems of unemployment (for example) presumably because you think the people who are out of work deserve their lot or they'd get all bootstrappy and pick themselves up. because, in your world, nothing is actually wrong, it's all normal, part of ordinary bidness cycles.
|
Why not focus on what is actually written here, rather than strawman arguments. If you want to know my views on a subject, ask.