Why does supply side economics get any credence in today's debate?

[OneOfTheseDays]

It's pure voodoo economics that has never been demonstrably proven to work. As Obama has recently said, it's snake oil.

My question is why do we keep pretending and having discussions about this when it's clear it has never and will never work to stimulate the economy?

 

[nehalem256]

Instead of trying to demonize an entire economic idea why not instead explain why it will not work TODAY?

Namely, that the current problems stem from a lack of demand.

 

[Lemon law]

Instead of trying to demonize an entire economic idea why not instead explain why it will not work TODAY?

Namely, that the current problems stem from a lack of demand.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe exactly the reason supply side economics does not work. Because as more and more of the nations wealth concentrates in only the very rich, the very rich can produce the supply side products very cheaply because wages are depressed. As for the demand on the part of the now vanished middle class, the desire of demand is maybe increased, the reality is that too few can afford to purchase the products supply side economics brings.

In short the businessman that seeks to make a profit, slashes his own throat when he kills off the one thing he is totally dependent on, namely the customer.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Because it's the other side of a political argument and the media has to give it credence or its liberal bias will be showing.

That and folks that get rich from supply side economics are largely the ones having the debate anyway.

 

[Anarchist420]

Because it's Keynesian. Perhaps a better question to ask would be... "why doesn't Austrian economics get into the debate?" There is only Keynesian (which includes the classical Chicago School) and Austrian.

 

[blankslate]

Because it's Keynesian. Perhaps a better question to ask would be... "why doesn't Austrian economics get into the debate?" There is only Keynesian (which includes the classical Chicago School) and Austrian.

Think about what one of the main things that supply side economists advocate, and who that benefits.

then think about who owns the networks that political commentators appear on...

If you would benefit from the policies supply siders advocate wouldn't you make sure they get air time on shows that your network broadcasts?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Obama demonstrated that the demand side does not work.

He dumped all that money and the situation has not changed. Just put off the obvious. Public jobs are not supportable ne existing tax base. Cut off extra funding and those jobs go away. Dumping money into projects does the same. No long term work was created, just pulling the work forward in time and delaying other work because lack of resources. The amount of resource lead time did not justify the purchase.

 

[Jhhnn]

Obama demonstrated that the demand side does not work.

He dumped all that money and the situation has not changed. Just put off the obvious. Public jobs are not supportable ne existing tax base. Cut off extra funding and those jobs go away. Dumping money into projects does the same. No long term work was created, just pulling the work forward in time and delaying other work because lack of resources. The amount of resource lead time did not justify the purchase.

That's kinda like blood transfusions. Giving the patient 1 pint when he needs 3 won't have the desired effect, just like giving taxcuts & rebates to people who won't spend them won't stimulate the economy.

The fact that we are where we are today is demonstration enough that supply side economics has been a sham all along.

 

[MovingTarget]

That's kinda like blood transfusions. Giving the patient 1 pint when he needs 3 won't have the desired effect, just like giving taxcuts & rebates to people who won't spend them won't stimulate the economy.

The fact that we are where we are today is demonstration enough that supply side economics has been a sham all along.

This. President George H. W. Bush hit the nail on the head when he referred to it as "voodoo economics".

We have been living under the policies of the supply-siders for nearly thirty years. It is a failure. It is time that we get back to the modern economic policies that worked, all of which were rooted in the works of Keynes.

 

[Jaskalas]

That's kinda like blood transfusions. Giving the patient 1 pint when he needs 3 won't have the desired effect, just like giving taxcuts & rebates to people who won't spend them won't stimulate the economy.

The fact that we are where we are today is demonstration enough that supply side economics has been a sham all along.

Does that translate into needing $3 trillion deficits every year, instead of $1 trillion?

Turn on those printing presses 'boys, we're saving the economy! D:

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Obama demonstrated that the demand side does not work.

He dumped all that money and the situation has not changed. Just put off the obvious. Public jobs are not supportable ne existing tax base. Cut off extra funding and those jobs go away. Dumping money into projects does the same. No long term work was created, just pulling the work forward in time and delaying other work because lack of resources. The amount of resource lead time did not justify the purchase.

I disagree. Almost every economist out there worth his/her shit has concluded the same thing. The stimulus did not go far enough. Furthermore, you can't equate what Obama did to try and save the economy from collapse to what Keynesian policies actually are. That's a woefully inaccurate view.

So my question to you is, given that we know supply side is voodoo economics that doesn't work....why do you keep voting Republican?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Does that translate into needing $3 trillion deficits every year, instead of $1 trillion?

Turn on those printing presses 'boys, we're saving the economy! D:

Let's shrink government, throw millions of people off their jobs, increase tax cuts for the wealthy, shred regulations left and right, dismantle the EPA, defund public education, defund planned parenthood, defund NASA, etc....

Does that sound like a plan for a growing economy? If not, explain why you keep voting Republican?

 

[blankslate]

I disagree. Almost every economist out there worth his/her shit has concluded the same thing. The stimulus did not go far enough.

Not only that but a fair chunk of the stimulus wasn't so much stimulus as tax cuts.

 

[nehalem256]

Let's shrink government, throw millions of people off their jobs, increase tax cuts for the wealthy, shred regulations left and right, dismantle the EPA, defund public education, defund planned parenthood, defund NASA, etc....

Does that sound like a plan for a growing economy? If not, explain why you keep voting Republican?

Lets address what you said Thumbs up for good points, thumbs down for bad ones

1.) Let's shrink government, throw millions of people off their jobs - This will not improve the economy. :thumbsup:
2.) increase tax cuts for the wealthy - How will this hurt the economy exactly?:thumbsdown:
3.) shred regulations left and right -This probably will help the economy :thumbsdown:
4.) Dismantle the EPA - Almost certainly help the economy :thumbsdown:
5.) Defund public education - in the long run bad :thumbsup:
6.) Defund planned parenthood - has nothing to do with the economy :thumbsdown:
7.) Defund NASA - Nasa has not been important for say 30-40 years :thumbsdown:

So lets count from your points

5 :thumbsdown: 2:thumbsup:

And that is why people vote Republican.

 

[Jaskalas]

The government seizing control of the economy through spending does not create prosperity. It is easy to conflate the two, and to pretend that they are the same. You would be wrong to do so. It's hidden from you, in the doubled edged nature of this easy money.

Yes it's money, but at what cost?

First, it is under political control. This is whimsical and chaotic at best, outright corrupt and diabolical at worst. Market conditions are swept aside and handouts given to whoever you feel like. This is uncertainty. A market of this nature is inherently weaker from instability, insecurity. They cannot bet that politicians or their whims will stay constant, when in fact they can turn on a dime. This hinders investment.

Second, it is adding inflationary pressure to our money supply. Oh, it all looks fine and dandy to prevent deflationary losses now, but there comes a day when you're still dependent on that easy money - you have to keep printing, keep inflating, or drop off entire swaths of the economy - of jobs. Can you say no to it later, when it truly maters? Can you lay people off to stop inflation?

History tells us you will fail to cut the cord before it consumes you.

All you're doing is inflating a bigger bubble than before, the next dot com, the next housing. If you continue to go down this road it'll be the size of our government / currency and there will be no stopping it. The depression you wished to avoid will still happen, but it'll come back to bite much harder with much more dire consequences.

You don't see it, cause you think money is supposed to be easy. As if you can order up more of it. This is not prosperity you advocate, bubbles only lead to temporary wealth and greater disaster.

 

[LegendKiller]

Does that translate into needing $3 trillion deficits every year, instead of $1 trillion?

Turn on those printing presses 'boys, we're saving the economy! D:

Too bad a huge portion of the 1+tr deficit is because Bush tax cuts to the rich and wars in other countries with the proceeds going to defense contractors, that's not even giving it really to the people who need it.

One of the most expensive restaurants I ever ate at was in the basement of a defense company.

 

[dmcowen674]

Why does supply side economics get any credence in today's debate?

It's pure voodoo economics that has never been demonstrably proven to work. As Obama has recently said, it's snake oil.

My question is why do we keep pretending and having discussions about this when it's clear it has never and will never work to stimulate the economy?

Because the rich rule, they feed you snake oil you have to drink it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I disagree. Almost every economist out there worth his/her shit has concluded the same thing. The stimulus did not go far enough. Furthermore, you can't equate what Obama did to try and save the economy from collapse to what Keynesian policies actually are. That's a woefully inaccurate view.

So my question to you is, given that we know supply side is voodoo economics that doesn't work....why do you keep voting Republican?

It did not go far enough because it was wrongly applied.

Do you dump more money into savings GOVERNMENT jobs. How is that going to grow the private sector. Those government jobs are in jeopardy because the tax base is not demanding it.

It would have been better to turn loose the demand siders by handing a two checks to every legal taxpayer with the requirement that the purchases had to be Made In USA. First check immediately, second in 6 months.

That would have jump started the economy. The second check would convince manufacturers to add on for the second round.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I disagree. Almost every economist out there worth his/her shit has concluded the same thing. The stimulus did not go far enough. Furthermore, you can't equate what Obama did to try and save the economy from collapse to what Keynesian policies actually are. That's a woefully inaccurate view.

So my question to you is, given that we know supply side is voodoo economics that doesn't work....why do you keep voting Republican?

Because handouts do nog work.

The public sector does not grow the economy.

Every unneeded public job is a drain on taxes that belong to the people, not to some one trying to.build an empire.

Every public project done to just show that they have money to spend is s drain against other public projects that go lacking because it is not as glamorous.

Waste in public money becomes acceptable is more is always available to covet up the waste. But when the spigot is turned off, all the wailing and gnashing on how people are being hurt by cutbacks.

 

[nehalem256]

Waste in public money becomes acceptable is more is always available to covet up the waste. But when the spigot is turned off, all the wailing and gnashing on how people are being hurt by cutbacks.

I think you mean instead of people instead how this or that Representatives special interest group is being hurt.

 

[wirednuts]

i think if the 300+ million people in this country actually had any idea how much money the 1%ers have there would be another civil war... but this time it would be few million against hundreds of millions.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I actually enjoy this substantive debate we are having here. Let's focus on this, not on Romney's tax returns or any other drivel.

In my opinion, we need to look at the long term viability of this country. This means smart government investing in areas that will make a difference in the long run. Obviously this means things like education, transportation, technology and science, and public health. The areas I would start looking to make major cuts in is our bloated defense budget. To be honest I'd propose in the long run shrinking it down to historic levels never seen before. We do not need to have a large standing army when the majority of wars we are fighting involve guerrilla terrorists.

Taxes HAVE to increase, and the only sensible plan right now is to increase them on the very wealthy back to what they were under the Clinton years. Plenty of people were getting rich under Clinton and nobody was complaining about taxes.

I agree that the EPA can be a hindrance, but at the end of the day I'll settle for more environmental regulation rather than less. Human lives are stake here. I think we need to put a stranglehold on the financial services industry. This kind of crazy derivative trading needs to be put to an end and the market needs to be stabilized and not subject to the whims of moronic day traders looking for a quick buck.

All in all, the Democratic platform tends to agree with everything I've stated. They can't implement any of this due to Congress being gridlocked. I think one of the most important things we can achieve to move the economy forward is to throw out as many Republicans as possible in the coming elections.

 

[Jhhnn]

Does that translate into needing $3 trillion deficits every year, instead of $1 trillion?

Turn on those printing presses 'boys, we're saving the economy! D:

Who said $3T deficits every year, other than you?

The largest budget deficit ever was FY2009, ~$1.9T, the last budget for which GWB was responsible. Remember that pesky bank bailout thingie? Since then, they've averaged ~$1.3T.

Total debt more than doubled from 9/30/2001 until 9/30/2009 under Bush leadership, from ~$6T to ~12T.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Let's stick to the facts rather than asserting hysteria, OK?

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Why are equating what Obama had to do to avoid economic collapse to what normal Democratic spending policies actually are?

Nobody is saying it makes sense to rack up trillion dollar deficits each year. We're obviously in extreme times so you really can't take anything Obama has done thus far as indicative of what would happen with a normal healthier economy.

At the end of the day Libertarians and GOPers don't have the answers. They just have criticism and that won't work. Dismantling the government as we know it today is not an answer. It's a knee jerk reactionary move that would cripple our economy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Plenty of people were getting rich under Clinton and nobody was complaining about taxes.

The Uber rich always complain about taxes, because they see themselves as royalty. They think they shouldn't pay taxes, but rather collect taxes, the way it was in the middle ages.

Democracy is just something the rabble imposed on them 200 years ago, and they've hated every minute of it.