Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

So why post at all? I have done the research, It's ideology, not economics.

 

I've done the reading as well. And have history on my side.

 

And yet you won't share.

 

And yet you won't do your homework.

 

LOL, no, I won't do your homework. I don't ask you to go out and convince yourself of my points don't ask me to convince myself of yours.... If you don't want to take the time, that's your prerogative, but don't be surprised when I call your claims about supply side rubbish.

 

No, it's companies creating monopolies. They don't have to harass and destroy competition; they choose to do so, and without laws they would do even more to destroy competition. Monopoly is the natural goal of any business.

 

It's gov regulations which favor companies with large resources making it difficult for competition with limited resources to grow. That's why small start up companies are bought out by larger companies. Patents protect companies with the resources to develop products from competition. Patents also protect small start ups.

What are your examples of companies with monopolies ??

 

I'm not surprised at all. Plus the economic growth starting with Reagan through 43 compared to the growth of Europe and Obamanomics makes the case very well.

 

But, of course, there would be US government dollars. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution permits Congress to coin money and to regulate its value, while Section 10 denies States the right to coin or to print their own money.

So long as the ratio of government Dollars to GDP is 1:1 there is no inflation or deflation.

 

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/13/tri...hould_discredit_these_bankrupt_ideas_forever/

Trickle-down’s middle-class massacre: Failure of conservative economics should discredit these bankrupt ideas forever
Supply-side economics hollowed out the middle class. It's time to stop listening to the architects of inequality

(ie, starting with Reagan through 43 compared to the growth of Europe and Obamanomics).

Supply-side is indeed an ideology, rather than economics, as noted by Econ4Every1.

--------

Excerpted from "Hollowed Out: Why the Economy Doesn't Work Without a Strong Middle Class"

And though we may not have a kidnapping-based economy, as Stewart joked, the American middle class is so weakened that we are experiencing the kinds of problems that plague less-developed countries, including high levels of societal distrust that make it hard to do business, governmental favors for privileged elites that distort the economy, and fewer opportunities for children of the middle class and the poor to get ahead, wasting vast quantities of human potential.

 

That's ridiculous. Just how did supply side economics destroy the middle class ?? Did the real median household income decrease as it has done under Obamanomics ?? They economic growth of the supply side years is in stark contrast to Obamanomics. GDP growth has been triple. The sources you have given make the same mistake over and over again. Production precedes consumption. Policies which reduce the gov imposed costs of production (which is supply side economic policy) result in lower prices, higher employment, and a higher real median household income. It's very simple.

 

I'm referring to all the resources available to the community; including labour, technology and know-how, AND the alternative methods by which this present and
potential 'wealth' (wealth = labour + resources + know-how) might be distributed/allocated, to achieve desirable outcomes including elimination of poverty.

Obviously (mis)allocation of excessive 'wealth' to certain individuals hinders achievement of the latter goal.

Yes, in a process known as privatisation of the profits, socialisation of the losses.

The sums involved were massive; govt. debt around the world increased massively, forcing 'austerity' onto many innocent victims of the calamity, through enforced cut-back
in government services, with the effects still lingering.

Meantime, clever operators like Paulson played the corrupt and dysfunctional system brilliantly and pocketed a cool $4billion for his company.

Hey, personal responsibility is one thing; but a dysfunctional system is another thing entirely; and your dream of voluntary productive relations between individuals, in the
post industrial age is inadequate for the achievement of global prosperity and security.

 

When governments attempt to command and control economies the results are disastrous and some times tragic.

The recent housing bubble and financial crisis is an excellent example of this.

Austerity means living within your means:

Charles Dickens - Wilkins Micawber

 

(Quote)
Median household income—meaning half make more and half make less—was lower in 2013 than it was in 1989. This means that middle-class households now earn less than they did two decades ago. Similarly, incomes for poor and even upper-middle-class households have also stagnated. It is true that over an even longer time period, the middle class have seen some income gains. But these gains have been quite small: over the past four decades, median compensation, including both wages and benefits, has grown at a snail’s pace of just 0.27 percent per year—far slower than the overall economy or output per worker. The miniscule gains that households have made have largely come because women have increasingly entered the workforce—meaning families are working longer hours, as they run faster and faster to stay in place. Indeed, the hourly wage earned by a typical man is less than it was in 1974.

disputing your claims for meaningful shared 'growth in the supply side years'

You stated production precedes consumption

OK, but consumption must be paid for by the consumers, otherwise there will be no production.

 

That's the Obama economy in 2013. And please google the time series of real median household income. Also it is now 2017.

And production must precede consumption. Think it through.

 

Just one of many things I find lacking any basis in fact.

"Before the government spends (let's say for the very first time), there can be no taxes."

All government needs to do is mandate the fiat currency it makes available in the banks be used to pay taxes, requiring those who possess property or anything else government wishes to tax to acquire a loan of the governments fiat currency to pay their taxes. And to complicate matters more, some acceptable valuation of all things which were to be traded, labour, products, etc. would have to be determined relative to a newly created dollars value. Who would determine the value in dollars of an acre of land, an hours labour, a pound of chicken or beef, apples, oranges, vegetables, etc.?

 

It is true that over an even longer time period, the middle class have seen some income gains. But these gains have been quite small: over the past four decades, median compensation, including both wages and benefits, has grown at a snail’s pace of just 0.27 percent per year—far slower than the overall economy or output per worker. The miniscule gains that households have made have largely come because women have increasingly entered the workforce—meaning families are working longer hours, as they run faster and faster to stay in place. Indeed, the hourly wage earned by a typical man is less than it was in 1974.

And according to you, post 2013 up to Trump, its even worse; and please don't claim that Trump has altered these miserable stats over the past four decades (whether before 2013 or 2017) in any way.

 

Come'on man. Look up the history of the real median household income. What you see is a steady rise in the Reagan, 41, Clinton, and 43 years except for the recession years. In 2001 the dot.com and 9/11 recession resulted in a reduction of real MHI. The year 1999 was the high point of all time. The recovery from this recession showed an increases at the same rate in the real MHI until 2007 where it was slightly less than 1999. The housing bubble / financial crisis took the real MHI down again and it remained at that low level until it started to increase slightly in the last year of Obamanomics. This shows clearly the success of supply side economics and the failure of Obamanomics.

Please do your homework before attempting to put words in others mouths. The history of the real MHI has nothing to do with Trump.

 

Wealth is acquired/accumulated. Wealth is not allocated or distributed. The accumulation of wealth is the result of ones abilities, physical/mental, having been put to use productively.
Each individual among us possesses capital capable of being used to accumulate money, which is simply the medium which we use to acquire properties which unlike money have the potential to increase in value.
Just like interest bearing debt which is not repaid it grows larger.

 

Hmm. It seems real HMI is complicated by factors such as decreasing household size; however, from Wikipedia:

Median inflation-adjusted ("real") household income generally increases and decreases with the business cycle, declining in each year during the periods 1979 through 1983 (late Carter - early Reagan), 1990 through 1993 (Bush 41), 2000 through 2004 (late Clinton - early Bush 43), and 2008 through 2012 (late Bush 43 - early Obama), while rising in each of the intervening years.[19] Extreme poverty in the United States, meaning households living on less than $2 per day before government benefits, more than doubled from 636,000 to 1.46 million households (including 2.8 million children) between 1996 and 2011, with most of this increase occurring between late 2008 and early 2011 (GFC).[23]

Lots of balls to juggle there, to determine success or otherwise of 'supply-side'.
Not to mention effects of the external world with wars, energy crises, and global-trade surpluses/deficits.

Plus the other unacceptable realities already noted:
1.The miniscule gains that households have made have largely come because women have increasingly entered the workforce—meaning families are working longer hours, as they run faster and faster to stay in place. Indeed, the hourly wage earned by a typical man is less than it was in 1974.

2. Extreme poverty in the United States, meaning households living on less than $2 per day before government benefits, more than doubled from 636,000 to 1.46 million households (including 2.8 million children) between 1996 and 2011 (mid Clinton - early Obama), with most of this increase occurring between late 2008 and early 2011 (late Bush 43 - early Obama).[23]

...no doubt related to rising inequality since Reagan.

I'm not an ideologue, I'll go supply-side if you can produce the results, but the above is not encouraging at all.

 

The results are there. The comparison of supply side to Obamanomics is obvious.

 

In conversation we constantly employ statistical data such as median household income, median wage, and a great many more without giving any attention to the effect of the great many changing variables have on the figures from year to year. In the past most households were comprised of married couples with or without children, and in my youth it was the male member who was employed earning an income while the female member was occupied caring for the children, if any, maintaining the house, food preparation, etc. Today households have changed dramatically and a growing number of children are being raised in single parent households, or households where only one adult member is accountable for the income. Things like this can have a dramatic effect on the statistical data derived. As I understand, a birth certificate today need not contain a name identifying the father, even if known, therefore government cannot apply responsibility for a child to anyone other than the mother, and as such can only apply responsibility to society collectively to provide for any such children as the mother can only be held responsible for the care of the children by use of the benefits provided by government.
While statistics provide us with information, which government uses to justify its actions, it does so extremely inefficiently and often quite wastefully as a result. This, IMO is the primary cause of the eventual failure of a democratic/collectivist society.
X number of people are poor. We define poor as having means of less than $Y. Therefore government attempts to reduce X by increasing $Y being distributed to each member of X. The cause of X is either ignored completely or claimed to be caused by inadequate spending in another area, education being the primary example. How many college grads are working in a job related to the degree they hold? How many unfilled and available jobs require a degree?

The median income for statisticians is $80,500.

 

The term, "white privilege" is an anti-concept designed to divert people's attention from actual privilege and focus it instead on the phony privilege of whiteness.

I agree, anger is likely a more appropriate and fruitful approach than mere resentment.

The problem isn't inequality but the injustice that causes inequality. We could design a compulsory lottery that would produce the same unequal results as the current system, and it is not clear to me that it would be less just. That's a pretty damning indictment.

You can't make everyone better off through equity. Those who currently benefit from injustice have to be made worse off, just as slave owners had to be made worse off by emancipation. It's just that simple.

 

Except for the recession years?

Why exactly did these recession years occur at all, within these supply side periods, given your postulation of supply side efficacy in growing the economy?

 

Proving that a system based solely on individual self-interest, competition and free markets, must eventually collapse, given the widely varying abilities of individuals ( and nations).

That's why a system of national and supra-national oversight of the economy is required via managed public sector processes, to balance the (hopefully) efficient and creative production processes of the private sector.