(01-09-2017, 11:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 06:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 03:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 02:18 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 03:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Neo-liberalism (aka Reaganomics, Austrian economics, libertarian economics, trickle-down, free market ideology, etc.) is not based on facts, but on an ideological belief system promoted by those whose interests are served by it.

Human history for the last 12,000 years has been powered by a series of innovations, climaxing in our modern world over the last 200-plus years, according to the 2015 PBS documentary called Humanity from Space:





Humanity has proved that it can innovate, and explode the data availiable to us.

This documentary is far from the full human story. Indeed, it neglects the vast field of "culture" and ideas/ideologies. But it makes a great point. We have the data and the innovative ability to create a civilization for the future.

But the catch is that we need to pay attention to the data, and support the innovations we need.

But neo-liberalism is the greatest obstacle to that future. It is the greatest threat to all of our lives.

Because neo-liberals systematically deceive the people with false conspiracy theories that deny the data, and oppose innovation, and seeks to shut down the best means of coordinated action to support innovation and transmit data-- our public institutions.

Neo-liberals promote denial of climate change, ignoring and distorting the data that all our technology provides us about our future.

Neo-liberals oppose the innovations that could save us and allow us to prosper in the future, by defending the corporations that produce the kinds of energy and products that endanger us, and putting politicians in office like Donald Trump, Paul Ryan and Rex Tillerson who want to expand rather than transfer away from the industries that threaten us.

Neo-liberals deny that we are a global society, and seek to keep us enslaved to nationalist scammers like Donald Trump, at a time when peoples of the world need to work together to resolve our issues. It denies the value of people working together for the greater good, which has made us what we are; touting instead a ridiculous individualism that creates nothing.

Neo-liberalism seeks to concentrate the wealth created by human innovation in the hands of a few people, seeking a neo-medieval society in which everything is controlled by a few owners.

Neo-liberalism has been disproven by any standard imaginable. It is the worst scam of our time. No intelligent person has any business supporting or promoting it.

Hey Eric I think you are a bit off in your concept of Neo Liberalism. According to the accepted political and academic definition, many Democratic politicians are also considered Neo Liberals. In general it's a Centrist arena albeit one that promotes a light touch of government in terms of managing the economy. It was a type of "fine tuning" of the classic New Deal mixed economy model. Think the DLC. On the GOP side, think "Establishment Republicans." It sought to tweak it without throwing it out completely.

I have my own critique of Neo Liberalism due to its naive outlook regarding the ways that certain geopolitical actors exploit the West's blind faith in Neo Liberalism's reputed ability to supposedly prevent Great War (e.g. by fostering economic friendly competition). Those geopolitical actors meanwhile prepare for Great War.

What Eric really objects to is classical liberalism, which does mean he and I are almost diametrically opposed.  I think he's purposely obfuscating the differences between classical liberalism and neoliberalism because he actually approves of those parts of neoliberalism that aren't part of classical liberalism.

I get the impression that he's not a fan of all the individual freedoms and constitutional rights and protections that we represent and often find ourselves defending here.

As usual you seem particularly amazing in your ability to get the wrong ideas about me. Of course I am for individual freedoms; that's why I oppose all of Trump's appointments and his repressive slogans.

But you neo-liberal conservatives seem to think that individual freedom boils down to gun rights. You seem to think that this "right" of anyone to have a quick and easy means to kill people, along with the "right" of business to exploit and cheat others, is what "individual freedom" is. But that's Orwellian doublespeak, but that fits the totalitarian people that you are, Classic Xer. Or, at least, authoritarian (I don't want to exaggerate   )

(01-10-2017, 01:34 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 11:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 06:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 03:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 02:18 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Hey Eric I think you are a bit off in your concept of Neo Liberalism. According to the accepted political and academic definition, many Democratic politicians are also considered Neo Liberals. In general it's a Centrist arena albeit one that promotes a light touch of government in terms of managing the economy. It was a type of "fine tuning" of the classic New Deal mixed economy model. Think the DLC. On the GOP side, think "Establishment Republicans." It sought to tweak it without throwing it out completely.

I have my own critique of Neo Liberalism due to its naive outlook regarding the ways that certain geopolitical actors exploit the West's blind faith in Neo Liberalism's reputed ability to supposedly prevent Great War (e.g. by fostering economic friendly competition). Those geopolitical actors meanwhile prepare for Great War.

What Eric really objects to is classical liberalism, which does mean he and I are almost diametrically opposed.  I think he's purposely obfuscating the differences between classical liberalism and neoliberalism because he actually approves of those parts of neoliberalism that aren't part of classical liberalism.

I get the impression that he's not a fan of all the individual freedoms and constitutional rights and protections that we represent and often find ourselves defending here.

As usual you seem particularly amazing in your ability to get the wrong ideas about me. Of course I am for individual freedoms; that's why I oppose all of Trump's appointments and his repressive slogans.

But you neo-liberal conservatives seem to think that individual freedom boils down to gun rights. You seem to think that this "right" of anyone to have a quick and easy means to kill people, along with the "right" of business to exploit and cheat others, is what "individual freedom" is. But that's Orwellian doublespeak, but that fits the totalitarian people that you are, Classic Xer. Or, at least, authoritarian (I don't want to exaggerate   )

I've never exploited or cheated an employee. I don't like the employers who do. I don't exploit or cheat people in general. I've never made a serious attempt to shut you down or remove you in any way. I've never filed a complaint with a moderator. I've already shown you my ability to handle anything you've said to me directly or indirectly via nasty comments about my political association. You're not going to hurt me by slamming Republicans or slamming a Republican president. I'm not as emotionally attached and I don't place as much value on/trust in politicians as the Democrats and the progressives do. An obvious weakness that one could easily exploit. You love your individual freedoms but you hate ours and probably wouldn't care if our individual freedoms were removed. BTW, you aren't alone in your failure to recruit me. There's a pretty long list of past and present progressives who have failed to recruit me.

(01-10-2017, 01:00 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 11:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I go by the definition of socialist. You've advocated the need for more socialism but you've also made it known to me that you'd prefer to stick with capitalism yourself. I'll give you some slack understanding the political position that you're in and have been in since the progressives took control over the bulk of your party.

My dictionary came up with a list that looks similar enough to the ones we came up with above.

Quote:socialist
adjective
the socialist movement: left-wing, progressive, leftist, labor, anti-corporate, antiglobalization; radical, revolutionary, militant; communist; informal lefty, red. ANTONYMS conservative.

noun
a well-known socialist: left-winger, leftist, progressive, progressivist; radical, revolutionary; communist, Marxist; informal lefty, red. ANTONYMS conservative.

If I have to be all of the above to be a socialist, I'm not a socialist.  There seems to be one contradiction.  Some American progressives have been accused of being too much in favor of globalization.  I'll deny I'm communist, Marxist or revolutionary.  I'd like to see some big changes, but I don't think I qualify as a radical???  I think the government would benefit from a stronger labor movement, and distrust Wall Street's excessive pulling money out of corporate structures to give it to investors.  Corporate structure sure needs changed, but not destroyed.  I don't know that anti-corporate fits me.

In short, all the words in the above list aren't synonyms.  I accept that some of them apply well enough to me, but not all of them.  If you insist on lumping them all together, you'll won't be describing where I'm at.

Just for laughs...

Quote:conservative

adjective
1 the conservative wing of the party: right-wing, reactionary, traditionalist; Republican; British Tory; informal redneck. ANTONYMS socialist.

Quote:progressive

adjective
2 progressive views: modern, liberal, advanced, forward-thinking, enlightened, enterprising, innovative, pioneering, dynamic, bold, avant-garde, reforming, reformist, radical; informal go-ahead. ANTONYMS conservative, reactionary.

I'd say by these definitions, progressive describes me far better than socialist.  I won't claim that all of the words in the progressive definition apply to me, but they are a lot closer than the socialist words.
I don't particularly peg you as reactionary or a redneck.  Would you agree that these dictionary definitions don't peg either of us perfectly?

(01-09-2017, 03:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: What Eric really objects to is classical liberalism, which does mean he and I are almost diametrically opposed.  I think he's purposely obfuscating the differences between classical liberalism and neoliberalism because he actually approves of those parts of neoliberalism that aren't part of classical liberalism.

(01-10-2017, 02:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You just have to identify with/be one of them to be considered a socialist. BTW, if you identify with one of them then you're in the same bag as all of them according to your dictionary.

Simple definition of socialist....A socialist is a person who believes in socialism. A socialist is a person who advocates for or participates in socialism. According to those definition, I wouldn't peg you as being much of a socialist yourself.

(01-10-2017, 08:02 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 03:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: What Eric really objects to is classical liberalism, which does mean he and I are almost diametrically opposed.  I think he's purposely obfuscating the differences between classical liberalism and neoliberalism because he actually approves of those parts of neoliberalism that aren't part of classical liberalism.

Eric seems to conflate mainstream conservative neo-classical Monetarists like Friedman with the Austrian School wackjobs.

(01-10-2017, 01:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: "Clinging to the second turning" sounds like a pretty good description of boomers in general.

(01-10-2017, 11:16 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 08:02 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 03:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: What Eric really objects to is classical liberalism, which does mean he and I are almost diametrically opposed.  I think he's purposely obfuscating the differences between classical liberalism and neoliberalism because he actually approves of those parts of neoliberalism that aren't part of classical liberalism.

Eric seems to conflate mainstream conservative neo-classical Monetarists like Friedman with the Austrian School wackjobs.

I think he conflates everyone on the right and center; it's more than just monetarists and the Austrian school.

For example, I figured out what I probably said that he interpreted as Reagan introducing me to classical liberalism.  It was probably a statement to the effect that Reagan's success caused me to believe that supply side policies worked.

The thing is, supply side policies are neither monetarist nor Austrian school.  They're a form of fiscal intervention, not monetary intervention; the most common forms are in fact fundamentally Keynesian, albeit not neokeynesian.  And Austrians, of course, think any form of government intervention is a bad idea.

So it's easy to have been introduced to classical liberalism when I was 13, but not credit supply side policies until I was 24, and not actually understand how supply side policies work until 40 or so, and regard Austrian economics as a curiosity until I figured out what they were actually saying at 50 or so.  But Eric can't grok that, because he can't bring himself to understand that they are all different things.

Which is a pity, because if Eric did understand them, even if he didn't change his political views, he'd still be able to make more interesting arguments against each of them.

(01-10-2017, 04:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 03:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 01:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: "Clinging to the second turning" sounds like a pretty good description of boomers in general.

The 2T was the Awakening. Maybe we can describe Xers as those who refuse to be awakened by it. Some Boomers realized the Awakening, and remember that it's the key to the new world unfolding potentially in the 4T and beyond. To remember the Awakening, is to stay awake. To disparage it, is to remain asleep.

In the Awakening, many Boomers learned to live in the present, and not cling to life. So to cling to the past is also to remain asleep.

Eric, all we ever knew during at least part of childhood was the Awakening, none of us knew the High. Especially for us 1st half Atari X, the Awakening was an overwhelming thing. You would never understand, since you viewed it through adult eyes, and those adult eyes were comparing it with the High, which we X had no inkling of. In the case of the Awakening, it's all we knew from our first sentient moments. I would say most X have a love - hate relationship with the Awakening. Look at my prolific use of Sesame Street emoticons. What's not to like about that aspect of The Awakening? Look at how many X are complete music nerds (granted, you don't like all of it, but you have to admit, we X are true natives when it comes to rock and all its flavors).

What did we not like? Self absorption of adults was kinda sucky, dontcha think?

(01-10-2017, 01:27 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 11:16 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 08:02 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 03:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: What Eric really objects to is classical liberalism, which does mean he and I are almost diametrically opposed.  I think he's purposely obfuscating the differences between classical liberalism and neoliberalism because he actually approves of those parts of neoliberalism that aren't part of classical liberalism.

Eric seems to conflate mainstream conservative neo-classical Monetarists like Friedman with the Austrian School wackjobs.

I think he conflates everyone on the right and center; it's more than just monetarists and the Austrian school.

For example, I figured out what I probably said that he interpreted as Reagan introducing me to classical liberalism.  It was probably a statement to the effect that Reagan's success caused me to believe that supply side policies worked.

The thing is, supply side policies are neither monetarist nor Austrian school.  They're a form of fiscal intervention, not monetary intervention; the most common forms are in fact fundamentally Keynesian, albeit not neokeynesian.  And Austrians, of course, think any form of government intervention is a bad idea.

So it's easy to have been introduced to classical liberalism when I was 13, but not credit supply side policies until I was 24, and not actually understand how supply side policies work until 40 or so, and regard Austrian economics as a curiosity until I figured out what they were actually saying at 50 or so.  But Eric can't grok that, because he can't bring himself to understand that they are all different things.

Which is a pity, because if Eric did understand them, even if he didn't change his political views, he'd still be able to make more interesting arguments against each of them.

His schema of polity reminds me of people I ran into in college during the 80s. They were clinging to the 2T but in an over simplified way.

(01-10-2017, 11:16 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 08:02 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 03:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: What Eric really objects to is classical liberalism, which does mean he and I are almost diametrically opposed.  I think he's purposely obfuscating the differences between classical liberalism and neoliberalism because he actually approves of those parts of neoliberalism that aren't part of classical liberalism.

Eric seems to conflate mainstream conservative neo-classical Monetarists like Friedman with the Austrian School wackjobs.

I think he conflates everyone on the right and center; it's more than just monetarists and the Austrian school.

For example, I figured out what I probably said that he interpreted as Reagan introducing me to classical liberalism.  It was probably a statement to the effect that Reagan's success caused me to believe that supply side policies worked.

The thing is, supply side policies are neither monetarist nor Austrian school.  They're a form of fiscal intervention, not monetary intervention; the most common forms are in fact fundamentally Keynesian, albeit not neokeynesian.  And Austrians, of course, think any form of government intervention is a bad idea.

So it's easy to have been introduced to classical liberalism when I was 13, but not credit supply side policies until I was 24, and not actually understand how supply side policies work until 40 or so, and regard Austrian economics as a curiosity until I figured out what they were actually saying at 50 or so.  But Eric can't grok that, because he can't bring himself to understand that they are all different things.

Which is a pity, because if Eric did understand them, even if he didn't change his political views, he'd still be able to make more interesting arguments against each of them.

(01-09-2017, 11:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 07:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 06:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 05:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 08:28 AM)Odin Wrote: I find it hilarious when Libertarians think they and only they have "facts" and "proven economic theory" and think all the rest of us are just going by our feels, it reeks of projection, and Libertarians tend to be exactly the kind of technically-oriented types that have little self-awareness of their own feelings and THINK they are super-logical and rational.

I'm not a Libertarian voter/Libertarian as you say.

Classic Xer, Warren Dew, Galen; completely-typical neo-liberals/classic liberals/free marketeers/libertarian economics believers.... geez how many other names are there for what we all know what it is.........

About as many names that there are for you....blue/Green/socialist/progressive/Marxist/communist economic believers...I'll need to check out Neo Liberalism and its origin to see if there's a connection with the late great FDR.

Yes, you should. You should know more about more of the originators of your own belief system.

And that's the difference between your side and mine. We use accurate names for your side, as I did here. You do not; and that does not matter to you. Because obfuscation, deception, confusion, etc., serves your authoritarian needs and your politics of fear and hate.

The first four names for my side are fine, of course, although those names represent quite a variety of ideas, whereas neo/classical-liberal et al ideas are easily boiled down to a few pernicious beliefs. "Socialist" is not a good fit for me either, actually. A "democratic socialist" like Bernie Sanders I am likely to agree with most of the time, but socialism's main definition is government ownership of the economy, and I do believe in private enterprise; just not private enterprise uber alles as libertarian economics believers do. A mixed economy is the progressive ideal.

I note that I said "100 names for what we all know what it is" and you said "as many names that there are for YOU" (me, Eric the Green). But it's not about me; it's about a kind of belief system that you happen to uphold, Classic Xer.

If someone labels you, sometimes it's best just to accept the label. It should be understood that labels are always approximate. Anyone who doesn't understand that, is the one with the problem.

I don't even agree with Greens all the time these days. I didn't vote Green this time anyway. But, I'm still proud to be Green.

(01-10-2017, 05:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 11:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 07:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 06:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 05:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm not a Libertarian voter/Libertarian as you say.

Classic Xer, Warren Dew, Galen; completely-typical neo-liberals/classic liberals/free marketeers/libertarian economics believers.... geez how many other names are there for what we all know what it is.........

About as many names that there are for you....blue/Green/socialist/progressive/Marxist/communist economic believers...I'll need to check out Neo Liberalism and its origin to see if there's a connection with the late great FDR.

Yes, you should. You should know more about more of the originators of your own belief system.

And that's the difference between your side and mine. We use accurate names for your side, as I did here. You do not; and that does not matter to you. Because obfuscation, deception, confusion, etc., serves your authoritarian needs and your politics of fear and hate.

The first four names for my side are fine, of course, although those names represent quite a variety of ideas, whereas neo/classical-liberal et al ideas are easily boiled down to a few pernicious beliefs. "Socialist" is not a good fit for me either, actually. A "democratic socialist" like Bernie Sanders I am likely to agree with most of the time, but socialism's main definition is government ownership of the economy, and I do believe in private enterprise; just not private enterprise uber alles as libertarian economics believers do. A mixed economy is the progressive ideal.

I note that I said "100 names for what we all know what it is" and you said "as many names that there are for YOU" (me, Eric the Green). But it's not about me; it's about a kind of belief system that you happen to uphold, Classic Xer.

If someone labels you, sometimes it's best just to accept the label. It should be understood that labels are always approximate. Anyone who doesn't understand that, is the one with the problem.

I don't even agree with Greens all the time these days. I didn't vote Green this time anyway. But, I'm still proud to be Green.

I've noticed that it's not ever about you and not supposed to be about you, it's about me and it's supposed to be about me or about a belief system (ideology) that I hold/represent or the party that I'm affiliated with/ favor instead. What about your beliefs, the type of system you obviously favor (a government controlled economy/ a government controlled healthcare system/a government controlled education system and so on ) and the knowledge/understanding of your beliefs, ideas directly relating to you personally and the systems you favor that I've obtained directly from you during our many exchanges?

(01-10-2017, 04:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 03:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 01:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: "Clinging to the second turning" sounds like a pretty good description of boomers in general.

The 2T was the Awakening. Maybe we can describe Xers as those who refuse to be awakened by it. Some Boomers realized the Awakening, and remember that it's the key to the new world unfolding potentially in the 4T and beyond. To remember the Awakening, is to stay awake. To disparage it, is to remain asleep.

In the Awakening, many Boomers learned to live in the present, and not cling to life. So to cling to the past is also to remain asleep.

Eric, all we ever knew during at least part of childhood was the Awakening, none of us knew the High. Especially for us 1st half Atari X, the Awakening was an overwhelming thing. You would never understand, since you viewed it through adult eyes, and those adult eyes were comparing it with the High, which we X had no inkling of. In the case of the Awakening, it's all we knew from our first sentient moments. I would say most X have a love - hate relationship with the Awakening. Look at my prolific use of Sesame Street emoticons. What's not to like about that aspect of The Awakening? Look at how many X are complete music nerds (granted, you don't like all of it, but you have to admit, we X are true natives when it comes to rock and all its flavors).

What did we not like? Self absorption of adults was kinda sucky, dontcha think?

(01-10-2017, 05:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Greg Palast again! Ignored again, as he was in 2000. But is he right? Is that how Republicans steal elections? Taking voters off the rolls???

(01-10-2017, 05:53 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 11:16 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 08:02 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 03:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: What Eric really objects to is classical liberalism, which does mean he and I are almost diametrically opposed.  I think he's purposely obfuscating the differences between classical liberalism and neoliberalism because he actually approves of those parts of neoliberalism that aren't part of classical liberalism.

Eric seems to conflate mainstream conservative neo-classical Monetarists like Friedman with the Austrian School wackjobs.

I think he conflates everyone on the right and center; it's more than just monetarists and the Austrian school.

For example, I figured out what I probably said that he interpreted as Reagan introducing me to classical liberalism.  It was probably a statement to the effect that Reagan's success caused me to believe that supply side policies worked.

The thing is, supply side policies are neither monetarist nor Austrian school.  They're a form of fiscal intervention, not monetary intervention; the most common forms are in fact fundamentally Keynesian, albeit not neokeynesian.  And Austrians, of course, think any form of government intervention is a bad idea.

So it's easy to have been introduced to classical liberalism when I was 13, but not credit supply side policies until I was 24, and not actually understand how supply side policies work until 40 or so, and regard Austrian economics as a curiosity until I figured out what they were actually saying at 50 or so.  But Eric can't grok that, because he can't bring himself to understand that they are all different things.

Which is a pity, because if Eric did understand them, even if he didn't change his political views, he'd still be able to make more interesting arguments against each of them.

Wait "supply-side theory" is a credit theory? I thought it was a claim that supply was more important than demand as a limit to economic growth, which is why it is considered BS on the left since the demand side has been dominant since the Industrial Revolution? I always hear it claimed to be a mere justification for cutting taxes on the rich.

(01-10-2017, 09:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 05:53 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 11:16 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 08:02 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 03:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: What Eric really objects to is classical liberalism, which does mean he and I are almost diametrically opposed.  I think he's purposely obfuscating the differences between classical liberalism and neoliberalism because he actually approves of those parts of neoliberalism that aren't part of classical liberalism.

Eric seems to conflate mainstream conservative neo-classical Monetarists like Friedman with the Austrian School wackjobs.

I think he conflates everyone on the right and center; it's more than just monetarists and the Austrian school.

For example, I figured out what I probably said that he interpreted as Reagan introducing me to classical liberalism.  It was probably a statement to the effect that Reagan's success caused me to believe that supply side policies worked.

The thing is, supply side policies are neither monetarist nor Austrian school.  They're a form of fiscal intervention, not monetary intervention; the most common forms are in fact fundamentally Keynesian, albeit not neokeynesian.  And Austrians, of course, think any form of government intervention is a bad idea.

So it's easy to have been introduced to classical liberalism when I was 13, but not credit supply side policies until I was 24, and not actually understand how supply side policies work until 40 or so, and regard Austrian economics as a curiosity until I figured out what they were actually saying at 50 or so.  But Eric can't grok that, because he can't bring himself to understand that they are all different things.

Which is a pity, because if Eric did understand them, even if he didn't change his political views, he'd still be able to make more interesting arguments against each of them.

Wait "supply-side theory" is a credit theory? I thought it was a claim that supply was more important than demand as a limit to economic growth, which is why it is considered BS on the left since the demand side has been dominant since the Industrial Revolution? I always hear it claimed to be a mere justification for cutting taxes on the rich.

Sorry, "credit" is being used as a verb in that sentence.  To put it another way, I dismissed supply side policies until I was 24 and had seen them work.

But no, it's not a claim that supply is more important than demand, and it's definitely not a justification only for cutting taxes on the rich; that's propaganda from the left.

Here's a simple introduction.  There are several ways for the government to stimulate the economy.  One is monetarist stimulus, where the central bank prints money.  The other is Keynesian fiscal stimulus, where the government runs a deficit (and it's assumed that the central bank covers the deficit).

We'll ignore pure monetary stimulation for now, and just look at fiscal stimulus.  It involves running a deficit.  Keynesian theory says it doesn't matter how the government runs the deficit.  From a practical standpoint, the government can run a deficit in two ways:  it can increase spending, or it can decrease taxes.

If the government runs the deficit by increasing spending, it is stimulating demand - the spending is demand for goods and services - and so that's demand side fiscal stimulus.  If the government runs the deficit by decreasing taxes, it is stimulating supply - the decreased taxes decrease the cost of supplying goods and services - so that's supply side fiscal stimulus.

Supply side economics is about what the consequences of supply side stimulus are, and how they differ from demand side stimulus.  For example, demand side stimulus is inflationary and supply side stimulus is deflationary, which has implications for when they are most appropriately used and how they are most appropriately coordinated with monetary policy.

The purest forms of supply side tax cuts are for everyone who pays taxes:  examples are the Bush tax rebates of 2001 and the bipartisan temporary Social Security tax cut from 2011-2012 inclusive.

The whole "for the rich" thing is a red herring that is pushed by various factions for political reasons unrelated to economic theory.  The left pushes it to try to prevent the use of supply side stimulus since they'd rather have demand side stimulus to increase the size of government.  And certain segments of "the rich", specifically investors, push the myth that it's about capital gains tax cuts because they want the right to focus the tax cuts on their taxes rather than on taxes on the general population.

(01-11-2017, 08:04 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 09:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 05:53 PM)Odin Wrote: Wait "supply-side theory" is a credit theory? I thought it was a claim that supply was more important than demand as a limit to economic growth, which is why it is considered BS on the left since the demand side has been dominant since the Industrial Revolution? I always hear it claimed to be a mere justification for cutting taxes on the rich.

Sorry, "credit" is being used as a verb in that sentence.  To put it another way, I dismissed supply side policies until I was 24 and had seen them work.

But no, it's not a claim that supply is more important than demand, and it's definitely not a justification only for cutting taxes on the rich; that's propaganda from the left.

Here's a simple introduction.  There are several ways for the government to stimulate the economy.  One is monetarist stimulus, where the central bank prints money.  The other is Keynesian fiscal stimulus, where the government runs a deficit (and it's assumed that the central bank covers the deficit).

We'll ignore pure monetary stimulation for now, and just look at fiscal stimulus.  It involves running a deficit.  Keynesian theory says it doesn't matter how the government runs the deficit.  From a practical standpoint, the government can run a deficit in two ways:  it can increase spending, or it can decrease taxes.

If the government runs the deficit by increasing spending, it is stimulating demand - the spending is demand for goods and services - and so that's demand side fiscal stimulus.  If the government runs the deficit by decreasing taxes, it is stimulating supply - the decreased taxes decrease the cost of supplying goods and services - so that's supply side fiscal stimulus.

Supply side economics is about what the consequences of supply side stimulus are, and how they differ from demand side stimulus.  For example, demand side stimulus is inflationary and supply side stimulus is deflationary, which has implications for when they are most appropriately used and how they are most appropriately coordinated with monetary policy.

The purest forms of supply side tax cuts are for everyone who pays taxes:  examples are the Bush tax rebates of 2001 and the bipartisan temporary Social Security tax cut from 2011-2012 inclusive.

The whole "for the rich" thing is a red herring that is pushed by various factions for political reasons unrelated to economic theory.  The left pushes it to try to prevent the use of supply side stimulus since they'd rather have demand side stimulus to increase the size of government.  And certain segments of "the rich", specifically investors, push the myth that it's about capital gains tax cuts because they want the right to focus the tax cuts on their taxes rather than on taxes on the general population.

Thanks!