Subject:
|
Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:25:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2342 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
All things considered, I’m more annoyed that you didn’t riff on my rating
system than that you questioned the methodology of the study!
|
I give your weak attempt at humor a 2.5 out of 5 (whoopie-cushions).
|
Hey, I’ll take that. That’s 25% of perfect, after all.
|
How’s that math working for you lately, Dave!? Looks like half of perfect
from here the obstructed-view seats....
|
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 is the metric by which we have consistently gauged the economy.
|
But it’s accurate only inasmuch as an IQ test accurately measures IQ. Which is
to say that the IQ test doesn’t measure intelligence; it measures how well
you do on the test. The DJA is an indication of how well stocks are trading,
and in what volume, blah blah blah. But at best it’s a short-hand means of
describing how one measure of the economy sees things.
| |
I realize that there will always be people in any boom who are not affected,
but overall, booms favor everyone, if for no other reason than the
commonwealth becomes greater, allowing even the lazy and ne’er-do-wells to
benefit.
|
Some of them even make it to the Whitehouse, despite a long track record of
miserably doomed business ventures and personal failures. Maybe this is the
land of opportunity after all.
Tim already gave a good answer, but I’d add that a booming economy doesn’t help
those in the lower income bracket, even if they’re there not out of laziness but
out of circumstance. Why is wealth-redistribution acceptable when it’s
redistributed to the wealthy, but not to the poor? The argument is that the
wealthy will put the money back into the economy. Well, what are the
impoverished going to do with it? Burn it?
Some boats rise higher on a rising tide, not because of merit but because they
started higher (and because they’re not averse to dropping their anchors (ie.,
the tax burden) onto the other boats.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
| (...) How's that math working for you lately, Dave!? Looks like half of perfect from here the obstructed-view seats.... (...) Well, that certainly was easy....:-) (...) But it is the metric by which we have consistently gauged the economy. I realize (...) (18 years ago, 16-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
