Thread: Reaganomics is a failed policy.

Originally Posted by dbelkau

You just aren't going to validate this with any empirical data or insightful commentary, correct? Once again it is so because I say it is so.

No, it's not up to me to do your homework.

I lived through the era, I read the reports in a timely manner, and I'm not baffled by socialist lying bullshit.

You're the one having the difficulties figuring out the truth. You do the work.

Those aspects of supply side ecomics that were enacted worked better than predicted.

Live with it.

Originally Posted by Ronin Tetsuro

It's no mystery why they keep succeeding, either.

Right. They breed like flies, and there's millions of them.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

No, it's not up to me to do your homework.

I lived through the era, I read the reports in a timely manner, and I'm not baffled by socialist lying bullshit.

You're the one having the difficulties figuring out the truth. You do the work.

Those aspects of supply side ecomics that were enacted worked better than predicted.

Live with it.

If any of us liberal pinko assgoblins made such wild claims without proof, you'd eat our digital lunch for wasting your time. Why do you deserve special deference? No one understands that.

Originally Posted by splansing

Here's something I don't understand.

If there are 20 people who would like to buy a new computer, and 5 of them have enough money to buy one, and you cut Dell's taxes, you've improved Dell's bottom line. But nobody has ever explained why Dell would suddenly make more computers or hire more people. There are still only 5 people who can afford those computers.

Because the tax portion of the price tag is lower and they can charge less.
Because they can invest the money in technologies to increase performance at lower cost.
Because they can invest in new production machines that cut the cost of production.
Because they like every other company could pay their workers more money.

Please explain to me how increasing taxes on a business makes it easier for them to do any of the above.

On the other hand, if you lighten the load on consumers-- the people who actually spend money and drive the economy --and you now have 7 people who can afford a new computer,

But the money, the purchasing power was merely transferred from one person to another, it was not created by the labor of those people, there is no net gain, just a transfer. You take that money away from the company or the investors (lower their return) then the price will go up.

Sure, Dell could give away its tax cuts by cutting into its profit margin, making the computers cheaper, and trying to thereby get that market up to 7 people.

Yes that's the way it works.

But first of all, I'm not bloody well counting on the generosity of corporations to give the consumers the break they need.

It's usually not a choice they have to compete to get the consumers dollar.

And all the "economy" is is money moving from one place to the next.

Where did you learn that? That is only a small part of it.

If rich people get richer and have more money, and decide they want to make more money with that money...what the hell are they going to invest in if 100 million consumers are stuffing their paychecks into their mattresses and hunkering down for the long slow grind of recession?

You should pose that question to the leftest and Democrats who have been trying to convince the workers to do just that.

As to the rest of your post you incepit use of profanities as if they make your case makes your post very unreadable and unenjoyable.

Originally Posted by Ronin Tetsuro

If any of us liberal pinko assgoblins made such wild claims without proof, you'd eat our digital lunch for wasting your time. Why do you deserve special deference? No one understands that.

That's because one can't be a liberal unless one lies all the damn time.

Lying is not compatible with libertarianism.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

That's because one can't be a liberal unless one lies all the damn time.

Lying is not compatible with libertarianism.

I never thought you'd openly renounce your religion.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

No, it's not up to me to do your homework.

I lived through the era, I read the reports in a timely manner, and I'm not baffled by socialist lying bullshit.

You're the one having the difficulties figuring out the truth. You do the work.

Those aspects of supply side ecomics that were enacted worked better than predicted.

Live with it.

What a predictably nebulous response. Just come out and say, "I don't have any data, but this is what I think."

Originally Posted by Ronin Tetsuro

I never thought you'd openly renounce your religion.

Everytime he farts, it blows that Libertopian costume right off. But he quickly puts it back on in hopes that no one notices.
FFA needs Political Beano.

Originally Posted by Feslin

How can reagonomics be a bad idea?

If the rich have more money they're going to find a way to make more money with that money.

They're going to invest it.

With all other things being equal, a dollar in the hand of an investor beats a dollar in the hand of a government bureaucrat. This doesn't mean that lower taxes for the rich is a panacea. It doesn't obviate the need for regulations or good management.

Reaganomics is infallible in its logic. But it must be applied in a balanced way.

If you honestly think that the government can create wealth, tell me how.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

Reaganomics is infallible in its logic. But it must be applied in a balanced way.

I want you to define these regulations that must be in place.

If you honestly think that the government can create wealth, tell me how.

EDIT: It's not about the government creating wealth.

I had explained that, but the way I did it was idiotic. The government can't create wealth, what it can do is allow the economy to expand at a faster rate.

A larger economy means a larger tax revenue without added burden to the individual taxpayer.