Trump's Economy Still Unable to Rise above 3% Growth

Don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension. I have previously defined supply side - as practices by Reagan - and in previous posts it was you who was wrong about what supply side economics is.

All you have done so far is said " supply side economics worked". In defense of this claim all you have done is repeated your premise or engaged in fallacy "there is a book that agrees with me".

You clearly have no material to back up your claim and you have no ability to respond to "Evidence" and actual arguments to the contrary.

You asked "What does supply side have to do with tax avoidance" - I answered this question in the post you are responding to.

That you lack the reading comprehension to understand a single post - your appeal to authority fallacy - "I read a book and it agrees with me" is even that much more laughable.

 

Good points

Myself, I haven't witnessed an erosion of purchasing power because in my industry, several key individuals have offered me a job that paid better, however, the guy who had my position 40 years ago most likely bought more goods and services with the same dollar I'm holding in my hand.

Productivity; The specialty equipment I've been installing since 2003 are no longer made by machinists, and they are more precise, reliable, durable, quality controlled, less expensive, and for several years, we kept them at the same price.

Back in the 50's/60's; near 70% of women were considered "out of labor force", and we had some good/long periods of expansion with a much lower Labor force participation rate.

 

Don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension. I have previously defined supply side - as practices by Reagan - and in previous posts it was you who was wrong about what supply side economics is.

All you have done so far is said " supply side economics worked". In defense of this claim all you have done is repeated your premise or engaged in fallacy "there is a book that agrees with me".

You clearly have no material to back up your claim and you have no ability to respond to "Evidence" and actual arguments to the contrary.

I worked in the chemical industry - in technical sales - for more than a decade. In the sector in which I worked there used to be 10 or more companies. This created competition for good sales people and when you made the company more money - by selling something you got paid well.

Now there are 2 corporations in that sector - big corporate bohemoths. They squeeze every penny out of the sales person and of you don't like it - too friggen bad. If you go to the one other company they do the same. The finance departments actually take courses on how to screw the sales people (not joking).

These large (and technically illegal under competition legislation) mergers then reduce labor competition which puts downward pressure on wages - via anti competitive practices.

So what is the net effect (other than the workers making less than they should in fair and free market conditions) ? If the money goes to me .. I spend it in the local economy. Instead where does this money go ?

It goes to some nameless faceless shareholder who may not even live in the country never mind spend in the local economy. A little cream is skimmed off the milk. Multiply this by 1000 and you are left with skim milk.

Fill up at Exxon and the guy selling you the gas gets not one penny from gas sales - he gets the chips and the gum. Would he be getting some of the profits he would spend in the local economy .. instead ? nameless faceless shareholder.

Buy a loaf of bread for $3 dollars and how much goes to the farmer ? maybe 5 cents. Where does the rest of the money go ? A large portion is going to the transnational food companies .. nameless faceless shareholder.

Eat at McDonalds ? same thing. "Oh but McD's creates Jobs" .. no they don't . If McD was not selling burgers some private entity would. That entity would spend the profit in the local economy. In addition, they would buy locally supporting the local economy.

Whats worse is that I am forced to pay McD's portion of the taxes. McD's can not operate without roads, infrastructure, police and so on.
Back in the 50's 60's it was roughly a 50/50 split on taxes to pay for this stuff. Now the Corp/Worker tax ratio is 80/20.

The worker is getting sodomized coming and going.

 

I'm just reporting what you said and what you are denying. And of course production funds economic demand. That's econ 101.

 

You have no idea what supply side economics is. Read "Reaganomics - Supply Side Economics in Action" by Bruce Bartlett and "The End of Prosperity" by Laffer, Moore, and Tanous for starters.

I have no idea what your point is in the last part of your post. Sounds like some communistic manifesto or something.

 

Too funny. It's the GREEDY capitalists who exploit the peasants.

 

Answer this question - what funds economic demand ?? The answer is production. Production always precedes consumption. See how simple that is.

 

How much more ?? Who decides how much more ?? In a growing economy there is completion for labor. Markets decide what labor is worth. Illegal aliens who are willing to work for very low wages, stay in dorm style motel rooms, and send money back to Mexico depress the wages of American citizens. That is what I understand.

Socialism does not work.

 

Supply side economic policies have nothing to do with tax avoidance. If anything lower rates minimize tax avoidance. Your points are absurd.

 

How does my description of what constituted supply side economics under Reagan conflict with what is said in Bartlett and Moore ?

Since the beginning of this convo you have not backed up any of your claims - I expect this will not change.

 

1) you do not know what Socialism is so quit using terms you do not understand.
2) If you had actually read my post - you would realize that I state that the problem is lack of fair and free markets - get some reading comprehension .. por favor.

 

Supply side economics under Reagan had a regulatory component - as explained to you previously - a component which allow for taxes to be avoided as explained to you previously.

Either address what I stated previously ... or shut up. Standing around crying "NO NO NO" followed by running to the sandbox to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial is not an argument for anything.

 

Read the books and learn what supply side economics is before pretending to understand it.

 

So no answers to my questions.

 

That’s complete BS.

 

Clearly you did not learn - otherwise you could state how my explanation of supply side under Reagan differed from the explanation given by the authors you cited.

You should read up on "Logical Fallacy" ... perhaps then you would stop committing so many of them.

 

What questions ? It is you that avoids and deflects from questions relevant to the topic. Quit transferring your issues on to me.

https://www.harleytherapy.co.uk/counselling/how-to-deal-with-transference-in-therapy.htm

The fact of the matter is that I did answer your question ... what is your problem ? Do you have nothing but falsehood and fallacy ?

 

No, you are lying about what I said, and you’ve been called on that numerous times.

Economic demand is not a word.

Demand precedes production. Basic Econ 101.

If you make **** nobody wants, you go bankrupt. Basic business administration. You are the poster child for why right wingers should be barred from ever holding public office.

 

You’re in denial. Your posts indicate that production funds economic demand. And you deny it.

 

You do not understand supply side economic policies. Do your homework and learn from those who developed those policies. Your explanation is made up.

 

Too funny. The guy who has not studied supply side economic policies and makes up his own definition claims to be an authority on supply side and socialism.

 

The impact of Smoot-Hawley was minimal.

The failure of 744 banks in 1930, plus the failure of several thousand banks from 1931-1933 (more than 9,000 banks failed in the period 1930-1939), plus structural unemployment, Monetary Deflation and FDR's own policies were major contributors. The Smoot Hawley Tariff had less impact than the Dust Bowl.

Consider that the first thing a receiver does for a failed bank is call all outstanding loans. Small manufacturing companies didn't have the cash to pay back loans, and couldn't borrow from other banks to cover the loan, so they closed, adding to the unemployment problem.

And the business model at the time was to have a revolving line of credit with a bank, which you used to purchase raw materials, semi-finished goods or finished goods, and then manufactured semi-finished or finished goods for sale, or re-sold finished goods, and the revenues from the sales were used to pay off the loan, pay your employees, other expenses and taxes, and hopefully have enough left over for profit.

If your bank failed, and you could not get another bank to finance you, then your business failed, or if your bank reduced your credit line, then you failed, and that added to the unemployment problem.

 

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, to start. Higher paid labor creates more in demand and pays more in taxes.

 

seems, purely partisan:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/