 | | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
(...) OK, my maths is really wrong there :very embarassed: (2x0=0) Infinately better than perfect then. Tim (18 years ago, 17-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
(...) Depends on what perfect is. Could be 2x perfect (if perfect=0) Tim (18 years ago, 17-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
(...) That would be nice if it were true, but despite two administrations espousing that view, it has yet to work as promised. It fails for a number of reasons. First, you can't build a business if there isn't a demand to support it, and if the (...) (18 years ago, 17-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
(...) "Half-wit" I'd say, but that would be too easy! >:-D (...) Well, my point is that it has been consistently used through the decades and therefore is a sort of standardized snapshot of our economy, if only one part. Though it doesn't reflect (...) (18 years ago, 17-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
(...) Whoops! Not a failing of math, but of reading comprehension. I totally blew past your maximum of five and read a ten in its place. But half-perfect is nifty, too! (...) But it's accurate only inasmuch as an IQ test accurately measures IQ. (...) (18 years ago, 17-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
