|
Why are you getting so worked up over a few percentage points? Even World War 1 only killed a few percent of the population, no big deal really, I don't see why everyone is so sad about it. Plenty more humans left.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:And this also misses a little ol thing called "inflation." If the United States Government prints a trillion trillion hundred-dollar bills and starts airdropping them into the cities of the nation, we're not going to suddenly be a trillion times wealthier than everybody else: the value of those dollars will plummet. Money is only infinite in a beep-boop quantities sort of way, not an "ability to trade for goods" way. I'm pretty sure that this, if anything, supports asdf's point. The supply of money is simply a limiting factor for people's capability to purchase goods, not their desire for the goods themselves. So when the money supply goes up, people seek to consume much more; even if they reach a limit of the number of goods/services they can consume, they start to seek higher quality (which presumably requires more resources/time to produce). But supply is limited much more stringently than the potential aggregate demand, so if you give everyone a trillion dollars the people who control the limited supply can simply use this opportunity to gouge consumers on price. Giving everyone a hundred dollars (demand-side) isn't maximally useful unless you also find a way to produce an extra trillion dollars of stuff per person, via things such as scientific research. (It's still somewhat useful because the marginal value of a dollar ensures that the poor will receive the most value, so it's basically a progressive tax via inflation.) Any sensible economic system needs to be concerned with the supply side, so that our economy is producing enough to fulfill everyone's needs and hopefully some wants. Any sensible economic system needs to be concerned with the demand side, to ensure that people are actually able to acquire the things being produced. Neither of these concerns is addressed by slashing taxes for big business, which is why that is such a terrible policy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:So you went hunting feverishly through my post history for anything you could try to use as a burn? That's not less creepy. Seek mental help. Way to let your dumb hang out all over the place. archangelwar posted:Several years ago I asked: I remember that thread. Good times.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:edit: Sweet, a new AV. More It should be noted that despite being from SA, water doesn't know that much about Allende either. He also disagrees with the CIA in regards to what the CIA was doing there. Also to be fair he doesn't love Pinochet, he just hates Allende so much he would rather have Pinochet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 00:34
|
|
redistributed from the wallets of the global 1%.
|
CharlestheHammer posted:It should be noted that despite being from SA, water doesn't know that much about Allende either. But why would you want a fascist leader in charge? Anarcho-Syndicalism is a far more reasonable system. Anyone who says total anarchy is a joke has no loving clue! I lived in total anarchy, when in 1990 soviets were driven of from Lithuania there was total anarchy for about 2-3 years, police had no resources, government was a bunch of idealists with no idea wtf to do, no taxes no law in practice. local "tough guy" would pop up, he could not be super cruel or hosed up as when intellect level of people is pretty high (unlike lets say Somalia or any other dumb country which always pops up as example why anarchy is poo poo, they would be exact same poo poo anarchy or not...) people expect certain living standards and will get mad if poo poo goes down, as local mob could not muster army like governments do they were always in check. it was very safe and taxes were at least 10 times lower, as very efficient 5-10 mobster guys ran whole town and would not take half your money like government does. back in those days there was no internet so organizing big scale stuff was hard, but now with internet, Bitcoin etc., why you would ever need government? what government does what could not be done by just people organizing poo poo on internet? Strawman fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Giving everyone a hundred dollars (demand-side) isn't maximally useful unless you also find a way to produce an extra trillion dollars of stuff per person, via things such as scientific research. There's an implicit suggestion here that supply is always driving maximum all the time. It's not. Supply is limited by available demand. People don't make more poo poo than people are willing to buy. They'll sit on their cash instead. If demand increases, then factories and stores and such can open back up to meet it. Obviously only up to a certain point, but a recession is the exact time that you want to do something like this specifically because a lot of poo poo had to close down, because the economy is lovely, because demand is lowered, because everyone is poor and can't afford to buy poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Actually supply side stuff makes tons of sense. Every business wants to hire more people to do more things and produce more/better products but is always constrained by cost. Even your small business would probably like to fancy up the window display, research new products to stock, improve their marketing material, reorganize the racks and re-paint the dingy bathroom. I know you got dog-piled, but still. This is loving stupid. In all of the cases you listed, those are actually incredibly limited tasks. For example, you're not going to need to repaint the bathroom constantly. When I was at Walgreens, I wasn't thinking "Who's going to paint the bathroom today?" That's a one and done task. Same thing with marketing materials. It's something you have to do occasionally, but you probably have a team who's dedicated to marketing to handle that side of the thing. It's not like hiring a million more people to do the marketing is suddenly going to make me an ad-campaign that will make men and women of both genders climax at the sight of our wonderful new marketing program. Same thing with reorganizing the racks. A million people won't organize the racks any better. That's also ignoring the fact that the demand for each of these tasks are not equal at all. I don't want to repaint my bathroom as much as I want to replace the glass on the front door. I don't want to redo my marketing more than I want to make sure I have product coming in. These things all happen today. We don't walk into permanently broken bathrooms with terrible paint jobs everywhere we go. Why? Because at some point, the demand to fix the bathroom gets great enough. If you're going to try to argue that demand is infinite, then you'd best not suggest a plan that would only work if there was an infinite amount of bathrooms available. Seriously. How often do you want to repaint your bathroom?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Lemming posted:There's an implicit suggestion here that supply is always driving maximum all the time. It's not. Supply is limited by available demand. People don't make more poo poo than people are willing to buy. They'll sit on their cash instead. If demand increases, then factories and stores and such can open back up to meet it. Obviously only up to a certain point, but a recession is the exact time that you want to do something like this specifically because a lot of poo poo had to close down, because the economy is lovely, because demand is lowered, because everyone is poor and can't afford to buy poo poo. I agree that the USA in general, and the USA during this recession in particular, is doing a woefully bad job of addressing the demand side of the economy, and I specifically pointed out that even such a brute-force stimulus as "give everyone an equal amount of cash" would be helpful. I think we can also agree that a stimulus more targeted toward the people with the least spending power (like increased welfare) and/or that results in increased production (such as public works) would be even better, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:I'm pretty sure that this, if anything, supports asdf's point. The supply of money is simply a limiting factor for people's capability to purchase goods, not their desire for the goods themselves. So when the money supply goes up, people seek to consume much more; even if they reach a limit of the number of goods/services they can consume, they start to seek higher quality (which presumably requires more resources/time to produce). But supply is limited much more stringently than the potential aggregate demand, so if you give everyone a trillion dollars the people who control the limited supply can simply use this opportunity to gouge consumers on price. Giving everyone a hundred dollars (demand-side) isn't maximally useful unless you also find a way to produce an extra trillion dollars of stuff per person, via things such as scientific research. (It's still somewhat useful because the marginal value of a dollar ensures that the poor will receive the most value, so it's basically a progressive tax via inflation.) All of that assumes that everyone is able to afford everything that they need, and economics is just the study of people haggling over whether they deserve high quality good C instead of slightly less high quality good B. It's completely ignorant of what supply-side and demand-side economic policies actually intend to do and how they're implemented. asdf's point is that people will always want more stuff, and when new stuff appears they'll want that stuff too. That's not a meaningful observation and does not add anything to a discussion on supply-side economic policy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Seriously. How often do you want to repaint your bathroom? Dumb question, because it costs money to repaint his bathroom so obviously not that much. But if Big Government made it free, he'd be in there repainting it all day every day, taking breaks only to get free unnecessary heart and bone marrow transplants because at those prices, you can't afford not to get cut open on a lark!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Strawman posted:But why would you want a fascist leader in charge? Anarcho-Syndicalism is a far more reasonable system. Anyone who says total anarchy is a joke has no loving clue! I lived in total anarchy, when in 1990 soviets were driven of from Lithuania there was total anarchy for about 2-3 years, police had no resources, government was a bunch of idealists with no idea wtf to do, no taxes no law in practice. local "tough guy" would pop up, he could not be super cruel or hosed up as when intellect level of people is pretty high (unlike lets say Somalia or any other dumb country which always pops up as example why anarchy is poo poo, they would be exact same poo poo anarchy or not...) people expect certain living standards and will get mad if poo poo goes down, as local mob could not muster army like governments do they were always in check. it was very safe and taxes were at least 10 times lower, as very efficient 5-10 mobster guys ran whole town and would not take half your money like government does. back in those days there was no internet so organizing big scale stuff was hard, but now with internet, Bitcoin etc., why you would ever need government? what government does what could not be done by just people organizing poo poo on internet? Ah good an ancap libertarian, we've been needing another one of those. Are you aware that almost all basic research is funded by governments and that an Internet would never develop in an ancap society?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
My god. The whole supply side thing was ridiculous. I was really confused when he was using "Blow dry bars" as an example of infinite supply. Here's a point I didn't see brought up - Just because it exists doesn't mean there is demand for it. So yes, there is a blow dry bar. Doesn't mean that there is a huge demand for it. There's lot of kitschy things out there that come and go and everyone wonders "Why would you ever do that." If you passed by 20, or an infinite amount of blow dry bars, you might have a point. But instead, you saw something stupid and said "Demand is infinite!" At least you made your absurd claims from observation, which is more than I can say for a Libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
People start dumb businesses. Therefore, there is an infinite demand for dumb things. I will now sell my own turds for 1 guinea a piece.Strawman posted:But why would you want a fascist leader in charge? Anarcho-Syndicalism is a far more reasonable system. Anyone who says total anarchy is a joke has no loving clue! I lived in total anarchy, when in 1990 soviets were driven of from Lithuania there was total anarchy for about 2-3 years, police had no resources, government was a bunch of idealists with no idea wtf to do, no taxes no law in practice. local "tough guy" would pop up, he could not be super cruel or hosed up as when intellect level of people is pretty high (unlike lets say Somalia or any other dumb country which always pops up as example why anarchy is poo poo, they would be exact same poo poo anarchy or not...) people expect certain living standards and will get mad if poo poo goes down, as local mob could not muster army like governments do they were always in check. it was very safe and taxes were at least 10 times lower, as very efficient 5-10 mobster guys ran whole town and would not take half your money like government does. back in those days there was no internet so organizing big scale stuff was hard, but now with internet, Bitcoin etc., why you would ever need government? what government does what could not be done by just people organizing poo poo on internet? Guess what, American libertarians despise all forms of collective or cooperative organization and would certainly prefer a king to them. If they can come to understand syndicalism, and if their brain isn't a conservative's brain prone to bigotry, they can certainly become anarcho-syndicalists. I did. Very interesting post by the way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Strawman posted:But why would you want a fascist leader in charge? Anarcho-Syndicalism is a far more reasonable system. Anyone who says total anarchy is a joke has no loving clue! I lived in total anarchy, when in 1990 soviets were driven of from Lithuania there was total anarchy for about 2-3 years, police had no resources, government was a bunch of idealists with no idea wtf to do, no taxes no law in practice. local "tough guy" would pop up, he could not be super cruel or hosed up as when intellect level of people is pretty high (unlike lets say Somalia or any other dumb country which always pops up as example why anarchy is poo poo, they would be exact same poo poo anarchy or not...) people expect certain living standards and will get mad if poo poo goes down, as local mob could not muster army like governments do they were always in check. it was very safe and taxes were at least 10 times lower, as very efficient 5-10 mobster guys ran whole town and would not take half your money like government does. back in those days there was no internet so organizing big scale stuff was hard, but now with internet, Bitcoin etc., why you would ever need government? what government does what could not be done by just people organizing poo poo on internet? Please remember to source your quotes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:My god. The whole supply side thing was ridiculous. I was really confused when he was using "Blow dry bars" as an example of infinite supply. Women will pay for all kinds of crazy poo poo he doesn't understand; therefore, demand is infinite. No product is too absurd to succeed in our infinite demand economy, which is why you never hear of businesses failing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Women are not rational actors because they are not content to sit with their dryer chairs arranged in an "L" pattern around an end table stocked with Reader's Digest and Globe magazine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Women are not rational actors because they are not content to sit with their dryer chairs arranged in an "L" pattern around an end table stocked with Reader's Digest and Globe magazine. Wait, he was talking about a beauty salon? Who the gently caress calls them "blow dry bars"?! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Wait, he was talking about a beauty salon? Who the gently caress calls them "blow dry bars"?! According to a quick google search, apparently blow dry bars differ from salons because they usually offer only hair styling and don't do cuts and color. Obviously getting one's hair done for a wedding is the height of absurd irrationality and proves that economic demand is unlimited since apparently those silly wimminz will spend a man's money on anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
It's hard to poo poo on cosmetology when not only is it a skilled trade, it is the industry responsible for practically all female entrepreneurs. Preening and grooming has been a thing for primates since primates, it is a very important social function. I always hear about the black woman with her nails and hair all done up in the welfare line, with the assumption that it is a wasteful use of her money, but seriously, there is nothing else you can do with ~50 bucks to improve your chances of attaining gainful employment than looking put together. The same people complain about female applicants looking like hot garbage if they aren't put together right. A derail, but I think important when discussing the old "rational actor" which usually means you, yourself, what you would personally do. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Preening and grooming has been a thing for primates since primates, it is a very important social function. Yeah but goons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:According to a quick google search, apparently blow dry bars differ from salons because they usually offer only hair styling and don't do cuts and color. Getting your hair done without color or a cut is called a "blow out." It is cheaper, requires less equipment, but many things such as straightening or heat is hard to do at home, especially in cities where space is at a premium. It is actually common as gently caress and the number one beauty concept (at least in New York and LA... Don't ask I consulted for a couple of apps). I get that a lot guys might not recognize the nomenclature, but the fact that he can't grasp this simple human thing is telling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
Heh it's amusing to watch the ideological detectors fire off unconsciously deep in other people's brains causing them to generate vague oppositional statements with buzzwords like "rational actor" to arguments they didn't read but didn't like the looks of from a distance. As an aside one problem on this topic is that people associate "supply side stuff" with helping rich people. They shouldn't. I'm a supporter of business because I work for one and because businesses "supply" all the things I use to survive. But that's utterly separate from supporting rich individuals. If there is one thing the finance industry has done well it's to create a million ways to pool and share risk, capital, ownership etc. We can have large successful busineses without super rich individuals. Personal tax rates have little to do with business (exception: when small business and personal taxes overlap, but whatever). Thus more broadly, reducing wealth inequality and having a healthy business environment are completely compatible goals. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
I don't think you have any room to be smug right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Heh it's amusing to watch the ideological detectors fire off unconsciously deep in other people's brains causing them to generate vague oppositional statements with buzzwords like "rational actor" to arguments they didn't read but didn't like the looks of from a distance. Dude, you just claimed that women getting their hair done disproves Keynes. How can there be a fall in aggregate demand, liberals, women have freshly blow-dryed hair! Can't explain that. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Dude, you just claimed that women getting their hair done disproves Keynes. Absolutely not. Nothing I said was in opposition to Keynes and the fact that you think this was perfectly captured with the phrase "didn't read but didn't like the looks of from a distance". Keynesian policy emphasizes stimulating financial demand, something which is absolutely wonderful when financial demand is lacking (yeah probably right now and every other recession). But like the turbo button in an arcade game, you can't just slam that thing down all the time. And it's other non financial fundamentals (capital/technology) which account for the bulk of economic output. The point that brought us here is that the process whereby supply side improvements like a cheaper manufacturing process translate to greater consumption/spending for everyone in the economy is well established and the thing that's responsible for post industrial improvements in standards of living. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Heh it's amusing to watch the ideological detectors fire off unconsciously deep in other people's brains causing them to generate vague oppositional statements with buzzwords like "rational actor" to arguments they didn't read but didn't like the looks of from a distance. Gee, its almost as though the words "Supply side" have a very specific meaning that has been built up over the course of three and a half decades, and that we were having a conversation about that exact meaning when you hopped into the conversation and said "Hey guys, supply side economics really aren't that stupid" and proceeded to make arguments related to the discussion we were having. You're either being incredibly loving disingenuous, or you are stupid, either way you have no room to be a smug prick about it considering you lack understanding of some of the most basic things that are being discussed. quote:Absolutely not. Nothing I said was in opposition to Keynes and the fact that you think this was perfectly captured with the phrase "didn't read but didn't like the looks of from a distance". You are continually posting in such a way that we can't have any idea of what your argument actually is because you are using definitions of words that are totally separate from any normal understanding of them. In an economic discussion you're talking about demand as some vague universal concept rather than the layman, or economic definition. The problem isn't with us not being able to understand you, its that you are intentionally or unintentionally being so obtuse as to be totally failing to get your point across. Moreover, you keep loving making arguments against thing that no one is saying. No one is saying that we need to constantly spend trillions in stimulus when we talk about Keynesianism because (surprise) that isn't how it loving works and we know it. You're tearing down strawmen in just about every post by assuming that we think 'supply' is the devil, when its 'supply side economics' that we think are retarded. For good reason!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Actually a reoccurring theme on these forums is for people to waltz into a GMI or minimum wage discussion and announce that due to economic perpetual motion, these policies will in fact pay for themselves because increased wages -> increased demand -> increased wages etc. Which, regardless of whether they understand what they're saying or not (typically not) amounts to "we should print billions of dollars, perhaps indefinitely". So yeah. That is a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Actually a reoccurring theme on these forums is for people to waltz into a GMI or minimum wage discussion and announce that due to economic perpetual motion, these policies will in fact pay for themselves because increased wages -> increased demand -> increased wages etc. Which, regardless of whether they understand what they're saying or not (typically not) amounts to "we should print billions of dollars, perhaps indefinitely". So yeah. That is a thing. lol you have no idea what you are talking about at all, look at this garbage
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
It's hysterical that you think a minimum wage is the same as the fed printing 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 dollars or whatever is gong on in your addled imagination.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:But like the turbo button in an arcade game, you can't just slam that thing down all the time. And it's other non financial fundamentals (capital/technology) which account for the bulk of economic output. asdf32 posted:Actually a reoccurring theme on these forums is for people to waltz into a GMI or minimum wage discussion and announce that due to economic perpetual motion, these policies will in fact pay for themselves because increased wages -> increased demand -> increased wages etc. Which, regardless of whether they understand what they're saying or not (typically not) amounts to "we should print billions of dollars, perhaps indefinitely". So yeah. That is a thing. So you've now retreated to making up vague imaginary posts to argue with and claiming everything you've said these last couple pages was refuting ghosts that no one posted here, but maybe in some other thread somewhere someone "waltzed in" and said something like that one time. Are you trying to prove supply-side economics empirically by supplying posts no one wants until they create their own demand? Caros posted:I can guarantee you that demand for colonoscopies is not fundamentally infinite. If supply side stuff caused the price of a colonoscopy to fall I would not get two, since I don't much roll that way. I certainly wouldn't get ten, or twenty. I'd get one. Oh hey, if you don't want all your free Obamoscopies, can I have the rest? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Heh come on VitalSigns, this thread was started to argue with people who weren't here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Actually a reoccurring theme on these forums is for people to waltz into a GMI or minimum wage discussion and announce that due to economic perpetual motion, these policies will in fact pay for themselves because increased wages -> increased demand -> increased wages etc. Which, regardless of whether they understand what they're saying or not (typically not) amounts to "we should print billions of dollars, perhaps indefinitely". So yeah. That is a thing. So what you are saying is that the post about "Ideological detectors" was actually about your own posts? I am sorry that we misunderstood your point, carry on. Though you shouldn't be so hard on yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:lol you have no idea what you are talking about at all, look at this garbage He's like margarine to jrod's butter. Still, in times of famine we should take what we can get.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Actually a reoccurring theme on these forums is for people to waltz into a GMI or minimum wage discussion and announce that due to economic perpetual motion, these policies will in fact pay for themselves because increased wages -> increased demand -> increased wages etc. Which, regardless of whether they understand what they're saying or not (typically not) amounts to "we should print billions of dollars, perhaps indefinitely". So yeah. That is a thing. Hahahahahahaha look at this poo poo. "Economic perpetual motion" Yeah, the engine that is the economy requires constant economic activity to function. And by ensuring a minimum wage, we ensure that people have enough money to actually do that. Thereby leading to a healthier economy. Also you think that a minimum wage is the same thing as the Fed cranking up the printers to print infinity dollars, but wait, what's the problem with that? You've already said infinity money exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Ah good an ancap libertarian, we've been needing another one of those. Are you aware that almost all basic research is funded by governments and that an Internet would never develop in an ancap society? Who cares, it wasn't needed in 1990 and now it exists so where is problem?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Strawman posted:Who cares, it wasn't needed in 1990 and now it exists so where is problem? It was needed in 1990 and it was also in use in 1990. As a matter of fact it was also needed and in existence in 1970 and 1980.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Heh come on VitalSigns, this thread was started to argue with people who weren't here. There is infinite demand, therefore all possible people can be shown to exist, and anyone who does not appear to be here is actually here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Generally supply-side Economics means only focusing on supply, usually by focusing exclusively on money supply controls and low taxes. It's a specific school with specific policies, not a general term.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:Generally supply-side Economics means only focusing on supply, usually by focusing exclusively on money supply controls and low taxes. ...and it's generally bad for business, at least for the kind of business asdf supports: paying people to make goods and selling the goods to the public for profit. Because it turns out the best way to support that kind of business is to make sure that, you know, people actually have enough money to buy the stuff. The only kind of business that tax cuts and austerity help is the "do a leveraged buy-out to take over the company, then slash compensation, suck out all the money, and leave the employee pension fund to get hit by creditors" kind or the "borrow free money, gamble it all on mortgage-backed securities and default swaps to rake in big short-term bonuses and who cares if it all burns down in the long run, that's on the shareholders and taxpayers" kind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:Heh it's amusing to watch the ideological detectors fire off unconsciously deep in other people's brains causing them to generate vague oppositional statements with buzzwords like "rational actor" to arguments they didn't read but didn't like the looks of from a distance. Every time that "supply side" has been brought up by a major political figure, whether it was the Bush tax cuts or voodoo economics or horse and sparrow theory, it has been for the express purpose of helping rich people, so why shouldn't it be associated with helping rich people? You keep trying to spin "supply side econoimcs" into meaning something that it doesn't mean. Sorry, that term already has a definition, and your ignorance doesn't change that. asdf32 posted:Heh come on VitalSigns, this thread was started to argue with people who weren't here. It's more of a honeypot meant to draw in libertarians with whom to argue. It gets good when jrod or one of the other ancaps shows up
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 20:36
|
|