 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
|
(...) Thanks, Samarth. (...) It is out of context in the strict sense of the term. The same could be said of any of the illustrated passages from Jesus's Teachings, but the same must also be said of anyone else's quoting of Jesus's teachings, (...) (18 years ago, 17-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
--snip-- (...) But that's true in any developed country at any time since WWII. The standard of living of the developed world has increased consistently (albeit faster or slower at times) because science and technology has allowed it to. It's a true (...) (18 years ago, 16-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
(...) Hey, I'll take that. That's 25% of perfect, after all. (...) That's right--it's a disastrous policy divorced from reality and favored only by the very wealthy who understand its implications and the not-so-wealthy who don't. End of debate! (...) (18 years ago, 16-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
(...) I give your weak attempt at humor a 2.5 out of 5 (whoopie-cushions). As for the study, I was under the impression that the whole debate WRT supply-side economics was all but over. It worked fabulously for Reagan (spending did him in). It is (...) (18 years ago, 16-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
(...) 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! Dave! (18 years ago, 16-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
