How long will it take to repair the damge to America done by the Bush regime

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Well sh1t what is your answer then Mr. Every Theory Sucks?

I'm a Copmmunist, but I can tell you that it will be some kinds of preverted conservative economics that will finally break the eocnomy for good. I doubt if it will be Keynesian fiscal policy, but I could be wrong. Trickle down economics is just more foolish than Keynesian theory. Keynes knew much more about the economy that most economists.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Capitalism was supply-side before free market theory.

What? Captalism hardly existed BEFORE free market theory!

For an great amount of time, the economic policies of countries were designed to increase demand. The main idea of tax cuts (except for Reagan's) was to stimulate DEMAND. It's mostly been about demand, and the supply side has mainly been ignored with respect to tax cuts.

Supply side economics is basically an extension of Say's Law. Increase supply and the rest of the economy will take care of itself. The only tax cut that has relied on this was Reagan's.

Say's law was just a 'law.' It was a justification for free market policy. It was Laffer who came up with tax cut deficits with Say's law in mind. However, in general, most policy in history has taken Say's law as a 'law.' Very little policy has been aimed at stimulating demand in order to stablize the economy, if any. In fact, whenever it has been used, its been used sparingly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not in fiscal policy.

Bull! Yes in fiscal policy. The whole idea of most tax cuts were to give money back to people, which would increase demand. Reagan's cuts were mostly based on companies, designed to increase supply, which would lead to hiring of more people and less unemployment.

There is a GOOD reason why in economics classes supply-side economics is dispensed with in half a class. Because it usually bears no meaning. In fact, I believe one of my profs said: I should teach you this, but you'll most likely won't come upon this.

Oh, and Keynes was an economist.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Duncan, you have little idea what you are talking about. Most economic policy does not deal with increasing supply so that demand will increase. Most economic policy is exactly the opposite: increase demand so that supply will increase.

Just about every tax cut has been about increasing demand.

Few economists believe that 'supply creates its own demand'. Go to an economics class sometime, Duncan, and you'll see how much the 'supply-side' is emphasized.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Not in fiscal policy.

Bull! Yes in fiscal policy. The whole idea of most tax cuts were to give money back to people, which would increase demand. Reagan's cuts were mostly based on companies, designed to increase supply, which would lead to hiring of more people and less unemployment.

There is a GOOD reason why in economics classes supply-side economics is dispensed with in half a class. Because it usually bears no meaning. In fact, I believe one of my profs said: I should teach you this, but you'll most likely won't come upon this.

Say's law is 'supply creates its own demand,' and 'the market always clears.' That is the logic behind the Reagan tax cuts. Keynesian fiscal policy is something different. Keynes said Say's law was bull****. Supply does not create its own supply and furthermore capitalists will not invest in business when there is no demand.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh, and Keynes was an economist.

Duh!

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Duncan, you have little idea what you are talking about. Most economic policy does not deal with increasing supply so that demand will increase. Most economic policy is exactly the opposite: increase demand so that supply will increase.

Just about every tax cut has been about increasing demand.

Few economists believe that 'supply creates its own demand'. Go to an economics class sometime, Duncan, and you'll see how much the 'supply-side' is emphasized.

Nonsense, you don't even know your Reaganomics. How can he be your hero?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Say's law is 'supply creates its own demand,' and 'the market always clears.' That is the logic behind the Reagan tax cuts. Keynesian fiscal policy is something different. Keynes said Say's law was bull****. Supply does not create its own [demand] and furthermore capitalists will not invest in business when there is no demand.

NO ****! That's exactly what I said. Reagan's cuts were based on supply creating demand. Most tax cuts have been Keynesian based.

And the true free-market does not care about Say's law at all. It says the market always clears, but supply does not always create its own demand.... instead supply must meet demand.

Duh!

It seems you didn't know this:

Keynes knew much more about the economy that most economists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

you don't even know your Reaganomics. How can he be your hero?

I know exactly what Reaganomics is, but apparently you have no idea what any other tax policy is.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
NO ****! That's exactly what I said. Reagan's cuts were based on supply creating demand. Most tax cuts have been Keynesian based.

Keynes actually proposed spending increases not tax cuts. Certainly any tax cuts that claimed to be Keynesian would have to cut taxes for the lower income groups. The Kenedy tax cuts were a bit more progressive but not much. Tax cut deficits with no significant spending increases are considered supply-side bastard Keynesianism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Tax cut deficits with no significant spending increases are considered supply-side bastard Keynesianism.

Once again, Bull. Tax cuts designed to get people spending are all demand-side policy.

Keynesianism isn't just what Keynes said. Priming the Pump doesn't necessarily mean spending increases, but can easily mean tax cuts.

I fail to see this linking with demand side to the poor and supply side to the rich. I think you need to go back to your school and get your money back for your economics education. Demand side is designed to increase demand... putting money in the hands of people will increase demand. Reaganomics is supply side, because the goal in giving tax cuts to companies and upper incomes was so that they would increase supply and thus hire more people.

Most tax cuts do not have Reagan's goals in mind. They instead have the goals of increasing demand (consumption based instead of investment based).

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And the true free-market does not care about Say's law at all. It says the market always clears, but supply does not always create its own demand.... instead supply must meet demand.

If the market always clears, than increases in supply alway result in immediate and adequate price drops. That is Say's law. Either you believe in market equilibrium or you don't. All free market economists basically believe in Say's law.

[Ramo]

Reagan, especially, was probably the President with the greatest vision since 1800.

Yes, I'm sure Ronnie had lots of visions.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Tax cut deficits with no significant spending increases are considered supply-side bastard Keynesianism.

Once again, Bull. Tax cuts designed to get people spending are all demand-side policy.

Keynesianism isn't just what Keynes said. Priming the Pump doesn't necessarily mean spending increases, but can easily mean tax cuts.

I fail to see this linking with demand side to the poor and supply side to the rich. I think you need to go back to your school and get your money back for your economics education. Demand side is designed to increase demand... putting money in the hands of people will increase demand. Reaganomics is supply side, because the goal in giving tax cuts to companies and upper incomes was so that they would increase supply and thus hire more people.

Most tax cuts do not have Reagan's goals in mind. They instead have the goals of increasing demand (consumption based instead of investment based).

The significance of Keynesian theory is that as income increases savings rates increase. People with greater income spend a smaller percent of their income, and if you increase their income they will spend an even smaller percent of that increase. When you put money in the hands of the lower income groups they will spend it instead of saving it.

Most tax cuts have been aimed at the upper income groups and have been supply side. If you want to stimulate demand its better to increase spending because lower income groups don't pay much tax, especially in a recession.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the market always clears, than increases in supply alway result in immediate and adequate price drops. That is Say's law. Either you believe in market equilibrium or you don't. All free market economists basically believe in Say's law.

Are you confusing movement along the supply line (which is when you increase supply by simply producing more) with shifts in the supply line (which results from increases in technology)?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Most tax cuts have been aimed at the upper income groups and have been supply side.

I'm glad that you really, really feel this way, but simply because it is your feeling doesn't mean that your view is true .

Most tax cuts have been aimed at the middle class, the tax cuts of Reagan (and maybe Bush II) being notable exceptions. After all, affecting upper income groups and being aimed at upper income groups are two different things. Especially when the stated goal is to increase spending.