Question for Minimum Wage supporters

and actually there is no shortage of people!!! In fact population is growing all the time. Do you have any idea what your point is?

 

yes, they confiscate wealth but in theory it could be used to grow the economy. Its just that lazy soviet bureaucrats with other peoples money have no idea where to invest and when they do invest they do it half heartedly because it is other people's money and there is no reward.

 

During the economic meltdown there was plenty of money for investment.

But, investment wasn't the issue.

SPENDING was the issue.

And, even the trickle down advocates were forced to notice that hosing down the wealthy with dollars doesn't actually fix anything.

 

you have no idea what you are talking about. If spending was the issue you pass a law mandating spending. Do you understand?

- - - Updated - - -

dear nobody was hosed down. money sat in banks doing nothing. Do you understand???

- - - Updated - - -

in fact investment is always the issue. How would you have cars planes trains phones without it??????????????????

 

No I'm not - the entire supply side economic policy ideas are founded on reducing the costs of production thereby creating wealth and low prices. As a consequence more people will be employed because more product will be consumed/purchased at the lower prices. And we all should know that production takes place before consumption.

Please - his suggestion that people continue their way of lives after 9/11 is just that. It has nothing to do with economics.

 

But gov does not use market forces to pick winners and losers after charging an ~ 20% surcharge to do so. Of course the timing and selection has adverse consequences to economic growth. (recall Solyndra as an example).

 

did I say they did use it??

 

You have no idea what supply side economic policies are all about. Try reading "Reaganomics - Supply Side Economics in Action" - Bruce Bartlett - 1981. You will be surprised on the support from the D's of that time. And of course the adoption of supply side economics by Bill Clinton in his second term where all the surpluses were generated.

Spending was not the issue in the financial crisis. The banking system was completely frozen after Bear Stearns was saved and Lehman was allowed to go bankrupt. The recession ended in 2009 and the stimulus did nothing to kick start the economy which was crippled by ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and over regulation.

 

Right. Begging people to spend money has nothing to do with economics. lol.

Production doesn't continue when people aren't buying.

I don't know where you've been, but in the world of manufacturing the line doesn't continue when the end of the belt is depositing the product in the dumpster.

 

I didn't say the Bush crash had anything to do with supply side economics.

And, your Obamacare thing is too preposterous for words. Partisan prognostications of economic disaster have NEVER panned out for them. Plus, that came well after the crash.

 

A law mandating SPENDING??? Hilarious!

I was speaking of the tax breaks for the wealthy that were supposed to stimulate the economy - at a time people had been stripped of their savings and even their homes, and thus had no interest in buying stuff.

Nobody on this thread has suggested that having money available for investment isn't important. The problem here is that making more money available for producing product isn't going to help when the population has just had its money stolen.

 

Production precedes people buying. That's economics 101.

 

Read "Side Effects and Complications - The Economic Consequences of Health-Care Reform" - Casey Mulligan - 2015. The adverse economic effects of ObamaCare are clearly spelled out in that volume plus many other sources. The Obama economy will be the first to never have a annual gdp growth rate greater than 3%. All it takes is some curiosity and initiative to do the homework.

- - - Updated - - -

Again you have no idea of what supply side economics entails. And it appears no initiative to find out.

 

Our economy is growing faster than the industrial period average for America, and has been since the economy got turned around after the Bush crash.

Picking one high point year is a ridiculous measure. The Clinton economy outperformed Reagan and the rest.

 

The problem with your interpretation of this was clearly demonstrated in the problem of our recovery.

Again, corporations know what will be purchased. And, when that is low, they aren't going to make significant new investments in increasing production. They aren't going to hire, for example. Thus, we saw the employment picture Obama inherited from the Bush "economy".

During this period, there was plenty of money available for investment. The problem was that corporations weren't going to do anything stupid when they knew full well that US families were losing their homes, having their retirement savings gutted, finding it impossible to become employed, etc.

In fact, corporations focused on efficiency, working hard to produce the same amount (or less) while laying off employees.

While US production grew, the focus was on automation, and employment efficiency, leaving Americans out of work and retail activity low.

 

Both of those statements are incorrect for non recession years. The Reagan economy averaged over 4% growth and in one month created over 1 million jobs in a period when the population was smaller. The surpluses generated in the Clinton years were the result of supply side economic policies and the peace dividend resulting from the Reagan military spending which contributed to the implosion of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war. The growth of the Obama economy is ~ 2% which is equivalent to ~ 1% per capita. The per capita number should be 2 - 3 times that.

As is your characterization of the Bush crash. The housing bubble and financial crisis were the result of gov housing, monetary, and banking regulations. The housing policy was initiated by Bill Clinton's unfortunate interpretation of the CRA.

Who is picking one year ??

 

The entire point of supply side economics is to reduce the costs of production so more products can be purchased at the lower prices. Businesses hire more people who make money from their employment and the economy takes off just as it did in the Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 years. Again production must precede consumption. That's basic economics.

The problem with the Obama recovery and economy is that the Obama economic policies increased the costs of production. His tax rate increase on the highest personal income tax rates effectively increased taxes on pass through businesses which employ ~ half of the workers in the US.

 

Post limit thread closure

Shangrila
Moderator