Good News? September Jobs Report

MichaelScarn · 2018-10-07T22:12:25.520Z

peek-a-boo:

Might not make any sense to you, but it makes perfect sense to me.

I’ve outlined a prime example of supply side economics in action. I really don’t expect a Keynesian advocate to agree.

In any case, I tire of this back and forth that won’t convince either of us to change our position.

So I’m moving on with this discussion as well.

You don’t have a position. You just don’t understand the words you’re using. You’ve repeatedly misused “Keynesian” as well. For instance, Keynes advocated cutting taxes as a way to dig out of the depression.

ImRightYoureWrong · 2018-10-07T22:29:54.887Z

peek-a-boo:

A cardiologist opens a small practice a few blocks from the new hospital. He is supplying his services with the hope that there will be a market for those services. That is supply side in action. Now multiply that by hundreds of other small medical practitioners. They aren’t responding to a demand, because none exists - for a new dentist; or a new pharmacy; or a new general practitioner; or a new gynecologist.

That makes no sense. If demand didnt exist they would go out of business. Please open a local store that sells 500lb pink crayons and tell me that “supply side” creates demand lol

ImRightYoureWrong · 2018-10-07T22:31:38.073Z

MichaelScarn:

You don’t have a position. You just don’t understand the words you’re using. You’ve repeatedly misused “Keynesian” as well. For instance, Keynes advocated cutting taxes as a way to dig out of the depression.

I dont think @peek-a-boo realized we are running $trillion deficit right now. So much for not advocating “Keynesianism” lol

MichaelScarn · 2018-10-07T22:33:27.790Z

ImRightYoureWrong:

I dont think @peek-a-boo realized we are running $trillion deficit right now. So much for not advocating “Keynesianism” lol

The dude has to be a masochist. Why would you continually pretend to know something in a room full of people who actually know things? I mean, none of us are even rising above entry level macroeconomics yet we’re running circles around him.

peek-a-boo · 2018-10-07T23:13:42.035Z

As is always the case with LIBs, they are obsessed with trying to force those who disagree to see things their way. That obsession borders on…………………

I’ll let you use you imagination.

MichaelScarn · 2018-10-07T23:16:49.098Z

peek-a-boo:

That obsession borders on…………………

trickle down derangement.

peek-a-boo · 2018-10-07T23:17:09.548Z

MichaelScarn:

The dude has to be a masochist. Why would you continually pretend to know something in a room full of people who actually know things? I mean, none of us are even rising above entry level macroeconomics yet we’re running circles around him

You LIBs are in lock step agreement on many things you really don’t understand. In regards to me daring to interact with that kind of close knit circle of like-minded LIBs, I actually enjoy it. I can assure you that I’m taking away things from these conversations that you wouldn’t begin to fathom.

peek-a-boo · 2018-10-07T23:19:03.544Z

ImRightYoureWrong:

That makes no sense. If demand didnt exist they would go out of business. Please open a local store that sells 500lb pink crayons and tell me that “supply side” creates demand lol

As I alluded to earlier it makes perfect sense to someone who understands Supply Side economic theory.

MichaelScarn · 2018-10-07T23:19:07.587Z

peek-a-boo:

You LIBs are in lock step agreement on many things you really don’t understand. In regards to me daring to interact with that kind of close knit circle of like-minded LIBs, I actually enjoy it. I can assure you that I’m taking away things from these conversations that you wouldn’t begin to fathom.

being in lock step agreement on the definition of words is a good thing, and not the least bit controversial. There’s a reason you’re on your own in this thread. Even red hatters can recognize a flawed argument from time to time.

peek-a-boo · 2018-10-07T23:20:33.894Z

MichaelScarn:

being in lock step agreement on the definition of words is a good thing, and not the least bit controversial. There’s a reason you’re on your own in this thread. Even red hatters can recognize a flawed argument from time to time.

Nahhhhhhh……………

They just don’t have the same sense of adventure I do with these kinds of pointless exercises.

MichaelScarn · 2018-10-07T23:21:36.674Z

peek-a-boo:

Nahhhhhhh……………

They just don’t have the same sense of adventure I do with these kinds of pointless exercises.

The 8 thousand post thread on Kavanaugh begs to differ. If you would just acknowledge the basic definition of well established terms then this exercise wouldn’t be pointless.

ImRightYoureWrong · 2018-10-07T23:34:25.392Z

peek-a-boo:

As I alluded to earlier it makes perfect sense to someone who understands Supply Side economic theory.

I feel sorry for you

MichaelScarn · 2018-10-07T23:35:20.649Z

ImRightYoureWrong:

I feel sorry for you

that’s because nobody has ever trickled down to you. SAD.

peek-a-boo · 2018-10-08T01:10:31.669Z

ImRightYoureWrong:

I feel sorry for you

Why because I refuse to buckle to your demands?

No need to feel sorry for me.

I got exactly what I was looking for from you.

dantes · 2018-10-08T01:17:57.990Z

No one with any knowledge of economics would agree with you.

Guvnah · 2018-10-08T12:00:14.840Z

ImRightYoureWrong:

Add another to the list of those that dont understand trickle down and why this debate kicked off

What’s your point?

Just seems like you’re here to attack people.

i already said I don’t even like (or use) the term trickle down, so your suggestion that I’m even discussing it here is trollish.

I addressed the rathole about where funding comes from on a particular initiative. Nothing more.

You simply demonstrated (quite fully) my last sentence in my post that you cited.

MichaelScarn · 2018-10-08T12:03:56.039Z

Guvnah:

What’s your point?

Just seems like you’re here to attack people.

i already said I don’t even like (or use) the term trickle down, so your suggestion that I’m even discussing it here is trollish.

I addressed the rathole about where funding comes from on a particular initiative. Nothing more.

You simply demonstrated (quite fully) my last sentence in my post that you cited.

peek a boo brought up the building of a hospital as the example of trickle down economics.

BigBear · 2018-10-08T15:17:30.335Z

peek-a-boo:

The Wikipedia entry is flawed.

Forbes

Nope, Paul Krugman’s Still Wrong About Supply Side Economics

Thus for Krugman to say as he has, that supply side just means tax cuts pay for themselves is wrong. The correct answer, as with so much of economics, is “It Depends.”

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/SupplySideEconomics.html

You found an article which takes issue only with an assertion, which it claims was made, that supply side means that tax cuts will pay for themselves.

The article doesn’t take issue with the assertion that supply side policy is concerned primarily with tax rates, and secondarily with levels of regulation. So, it doesn’t argue with the Wikipedia entry at all.

In fact, when the article gets to setting out what supply side means, it says:

Supply side is the idea that we might want to look at the taxation and regulation, the structure, of the supply side of the economy and see if we can make it work a little better. Even if you want to narrow it down to the second meaning, of a concentration upon marginal tax rates, it still only says that taxes can be high enough that a cut in the rate boosts growth sufficiently to increase total revenue.

Good find, your article supports what everyone’s been telling you, the Wiki entry, everything. Except, of course, what you’re claiming.

Guvnah · 2018-10-08T15:20:20.093Z

MichaelScarn:

peek a boo brought up the building of a hospital as the example of trickle down economics.

Cool. But that’s not what I responded to.

I clearly quoted what I addressed. And it was not a hospital being an example of trickle-down-anything.

MichaelScarn · 2018-10-08T15:30:16.532Z

ImRightYoureWrong:

Almost certainly heavily subsidized by the government as well.

The source of funding is a strawman to the point being made.

It seems from your post that you were at least partially aware of what we were talking about. The source of funding is one of the central issues with his original anecdote. He used the building of a hospital as an example of trickle down economics. If that hospital were built by private investment made possible by tax cuts then he might have an argument. In reality it’s much more likely that the hospital was built at least partially with public funds, making his example self-defeating.