Subject:
|
Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:48:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2651 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
| |
Well, let’s be honest here. If your product is too expensive for the
masses in the USA, it probably doesn’t stand much of a chance in an even
MORE empoverished world market overseas, especially with foreign
governments’ market-protection policies (tariffs, etc).
WE are THE market; we are THE CONSUMERS; WE fuel the world economy. This,
BTW, is a blessing AND a curse IMO.
|
Not quite true any more. The EU is providing a balanced offset against the
US nowadays (look at the strength of the Euro). From a world markets point
of view the US is playing less of a role.
|
What about all of this rubbish about the US being 5% of the world’s
population (300,000,000 strong now, thankyouverymuch) and yet consuming
75%-ish of the world’s resources? Balance that!
|
I’ve never heard it said that the US consumes 75% of the worlds resources. I’ve
heard it consumes 25%. Are you learning percentages from Dave Schuler?
| |
| |
And I wouldn’t whinge about tariffs. Check how much of your tax goes into
supporting large agri-business run farms in various protected areas of
agriculture. Your sugar would be a hell of a lot cheaper if it came from
Brazil or Australia and wasn’t supported.
In the “Free” trade agreement between Australia and the US there are so many
loopholes for US agri-business it would make an ardent protectionist blush.
To his credit President Bush has pushed (weakly) against this blatant
protectionism but there’s a lot of Republicans and Democrats alike who have
vested interests in preserving the status quo.
| |
| |
But if you use that money to assist those on the lower rungs,
|
How specifically? Education? We do that.
|
Not the extent of other countries. Your undergraduate university system is
innately geared towards wealth rather than intelligence and your public high
school system is regarded as poor even within the US and is considered
completely subpar everywhere else in the world. The only level where you
excel is at postgraduate and that is to a large extent due to foreign input.
|
It’s a wonder we are even able to dress ourselves in the morning!
|
To be honest it kind of is. Your rates of literacy and numeracy are incredibly
poor by developed world standards.
| |
| |
| |
| |
they will
put it back into the US economy, indirectly giving it to that same rich
guy after all, but helping out a greater portion of the population along
the way.
|
The problem is that they don’t use that help to better their situation and
become productive, but to simply secure themselves to the public teet.
Governmental help too often foils the motivation for improvement, as
manifested in worker morale in a communist society.
|
You are jumping to extremes here. A free-market social democracy provides
plenty of incentive for work.
|
I don’t see it.
|
I don’t see how you can’t see it. If you work more, you earn more. Earning more
allows you to purchase more goods and services. This is capitalism at work.
| |
| |
I would argue that a laissez fare approach
discourages the poor to work and encourages them to turn to crime as there
is minimal incentive to work when you know that you are never going to
improve your childrens chances without more money than you can earn legally.
|
So, you are implying that the poor and turning to crime to improve their
children’s chances for upward mobility? Doubtful. I don’t like your
equation of poor=criminal. Crime is perped by moral degenerates, poor AND
rich. There are millions of people who don’t possess a lot of wealth, but
are smart enough to know that they are FAR richer (in areas that matter, such
as character) than some millionaire with a hopelessly broken moral compass.
|
In no way am I equating poverty with crime. Statistically, poorer people are
more likely to be arrested for crime so we can assume that they commit more
crime, have less chance of getting away with it or some mix of both. This is not
equivalent to stating that being poor is synonymous with being a criminal.
I’m willing to bet that there are some people who turn to crime to improve their
childrens chances. That applies to the poor and the rich but I’ll bet it applies
more to the poor. If you can earn significantly more dealing drugs than you can
working for McDonalds then there is an economic impetus to deal drugs
(capitalism at work, just as you like it).
To imply that committing crime is morally degenerate is a morally degenerate
attitude. There are plenty of reasons to commit crime, some of them valid, most
of them not. Some laws are discriminatory or morally bankrupt and IMO breaking
them is quite moral.
| |
| |
--SNIP--
| |
Well, I’m ALL for tax reform. Personally, I’d like to see the IRS
abolished and a VAT installed. That way the rich get soaked, and best of
all, it is by themselves-- what could be sweeter (and fairer) than that?
A VAT is the ONLY way to truly make the “rich” pay, because they have so
many loopholes available to them that aren’t for the unwashed.
|
Actually, there’s an awful lot of impetus and evidence that flat taxes are a
great way of getting the rich to pay the tax they ought. They can even work
with redistributive policies by returning cash to those who need it.
|
What about the rich who don’t work, but live off of investments? And you
would tax everyone? It starts to get complicated fairly quickly. Even a
simple idea like a VAT has problems that must be thought through.
|
Investments are taxed at the same rate or at VAT. I should have specified that a
flat rate tax is usually accompanied by VAT at an identical or different rate.
| |
BTW, what is this idea about “returning cash”? Sounds like you think it
belonged to the proposed recipients in the first place.
JOHN
|
I assume you intend to give your children an inheritance. Do they deserve this
money? If so perhaps you can explain what they did to earn it beyond being born
and perhaps behaving well.
What people deserve is determined by ethical and moral principals. Ethically I
believe that people should be given the same start in life regardless of who
they happen to have as parents. Likewise I believe that accidents and injuries
should be insured for the common good and that (as ample evidence suggests) a
redistributive model is the best way to ensure this.
Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
| (...) I find that offensive and insulting. I've worked long and hard to foul up my understanding of percentages, and I won't have you casting aspersions on my diligent efforts! Do you think dim-wittedeness like this comes easily? No way! Besides, (...) (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!
|
| (...) What about all of this rubbish about the US being 5% of the world's population (300,000,000 strong now, thankyouverymuch) and yet consuming 75%-ish of the world's resources? Balance that! (...) It's a wonder we are even able to dress ourselves (...) (18 years ago, 17-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
|
|
|
|
