I provided two clear examples.
I’ve already explained why I am saying it. You are really struggling here bud
Saying it diesnt make it true
You continue to double down on your Keynesian explanation for new businesses popping up around a new hospital. I provided a supply side explanation. We are in disagreement. Time to move on.
I never said that “Keynesian” theory explains new businesses popping up around the hospital. I said what you describe is basic economic multipliers, not “trickle down”. do you still not understand that “multiplier” isnt a Keynsian only term? Do you still not understand the difference between “trickle down” and economic multipliers? Must be tough living in a partisan world
You literally haven’t stopped saying it. Again, that doesn’t make it so.
We can do this all night or we can move on. I choose to move on.
You cant even grasp the subject outside of buzzwords.
Yes, it’s true. The central thesis of Trickle down theory is that tax cuts will stimulate capital spending. If you don’t have tax cuts in your example, then you don’t have a trickle down example.
They make the claim that it doesn’t work because they’ve seen it not work.
You’re so confused that you seem to think you’re engaged in a debate, when in fact you’re stuck at understanding simple terminology. You’re like a guy debating the merits of recipes for pork, while insisting to the audience that the technique “roast” means to boil vigorously in oil.
You provided no “supply side explanation,” you mislabel a phenomenon on which there’s NO DISAGREEMENT - building infrastructure (hospitals, stadiums, etc.) can stimulate further economic activity, call it “downstream” if you like. This is neither a “supply side” (aka “trickle down”) nor Keynesian phenomenon. That’s what you seem utterly unable or unwilling to grasp.
The key difference between what you’re calling Keynesian, and what you claim to believe as supply side theories isn’t the effect of the keystone project (hospital, stadium, new factory, etc.), it’s the mechanism that spurs that project forward from idea to reality. Supply side theory says it’s tax cuts which leave money in the private sector that will do the trick. Any example of this supply side theory must include a tax cut which caused the keystone project to spring to life (when it otherwise would not have), which then IN TURN led to the downstream economic activities. You can look it up.
your posts betray your complete lack of knowledge about economics. No wonder you’re adhering to such an odd metric to measure economic success.
lol, are you operating under the assumption that the only two theories of economics are trickle down and prime the pump? It really seems like that’s what you think.
The source of funding is a strawman to the point being made.
When money comes into a project or a business or an enterprise, money goes out to all sorts of parties directly involved with that entity, and those parties that have more money because of it also subsequently spend more, in one way or another, and that spending goes to secondary parties, etc.
That dynamic is a fact. What is NOT a fact is the extent to which that flow reaches.
All that’s going to happen in this thread is argument, and different people from opposite sides of the argument telling the other they don’t know what they’re talking about.
And yet Supply siders claim that it does work.
Only a select portion of this can be termed “trickle down” and only if you add in a lot more information.
Supply Side economics isn’t only about tax cuts. That is simply one of the tenets.
My posts simply betray my disagreement with Keynesian Economics. It is a very simple concept. Our economy is humming along. Keynesian advocates have a Keynesian explanation and Supply Siders have a Supply Side explanation.
Thus far, I have put forth two example of Supply Side economics. Keynesian advocates don’t disagree that the activity has taken place. They are simply offering a Keynesian explanation for that activity.
I understand both sides. Those of you who continue to claim that I know nothing, because I won’t accept the Keynesian explanation while abandoning the Supply Side explanation, might be the ones with the problem.
“Keynesian” economics is not simple. What do you think it means? Define it as clearly as possible.
I don’t doubt that Keynesian advocates know what they are talking about. While I disagree with them I won’t claim that they don’t know what they are talking about because they disagree with me. I only wish those who disagree with me would afford me the same courtesy.
We’re arguing nuanced economic theories and you’re trying to demonstrate that purple is a fruit.