Good News? September Jobs Report


#278

Why can’t you simply accept that we are in disagreement? What have you got to prove???

I’m moving on.


#279

I’ve moved on.


#280

I’m sure you want to move on after having demonstrate zero ability to discuss economics.


#281

They CLAIM that it works, its been seen to not work.


#282

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


#283

I see you’re running from “trickle down” now :rofl:


#284

We are running $1trillion deficits it’s totally deficit spending boosted economy :rofl:


#285

That’s what YOU think. Here’s what the rest of the world believes the term “Supply Side Economics” to mean:

Wikipedia

Tax cuts are the CENTRAL tenet of supply side economics, not just “one of” as you’d have it.
Hence, the eye-rolling you earn by offering “examples” which mention neither tax cuts, nor even new deregulation, then declaring you’ve exemplified supply side.


#286

And that’s ignoring that the whole premise was “trickle down” to begin with, which has always historically been tied to increasing the wealth of the richest in this country to benefit the least wealthy


#287

The Wikipedia entry is flawed.

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


#288

Did you bother to read your link before you posted it, or just the headline?


#289

Of course I did. Do you have a point to make?


#290

I ask because it doesn’t support your claim.

Building a hospital or football stadium doesn’t increase supply, it increases demand.


#291

Sure it does. It increases supply of 70,000 seat arenas :wink:


#292

Back to the hospital example.

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.

And I can speak from experience regarding the cardiologist. The small practice had a couple of locations around other area hospitals. My wife and I went to one of those other offices. They opened a new location close to the new hospital, which was more convenient. There was no demand for that new office. The cardiologist opened it to see if he could gain some additional business with the more convenient location.


#293

:rofl:

That doesn’t make any sense. If there was no demand for medical practitioners, why would a hospital open there in the first place?

Why would a new hospital cause all of these small, private medical practices to open up in the first place?

You’re still not wrapping your head around what the term means. Supply-side economics, as well as Keynesian economics both describe theories of government action - what the government can do to stabilize and grow the economy.

Of course there was demand for it - what do you think “more convenient” means?

If there was no demand for it, he wouldn’t have any business in his new office.


#294

Uh, there was demand for that more convenient cardiologist office. You were the demand and the cardiologist knew there would be demand before putting an office there. I don’t know if you know much about medical practice administration, but you wouldn’t undertake such a large expense (for a private practice doc) of leasing, setting up and staffing an office unless you knew about the location. They’d analyze zip codes and diagnoses for their billing, and depending on their relationship with the hospital, the same for that location.

Doctors don’t create demand. They fulfill it.

This is really silly.


#295

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.


#296

:rofl:

If it “makes sense” to you, it’s only because you don’t understand what the words you’re trying to use actually mean.

But by all means, “move on”.

You are not advocating a position, you are reveling in ignorance and making a fool of yourself. This has been pointed out to you by every other poster in this thread.

I agree that this has been an utter waste of time. I can’t force you to learn.


#297

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.