Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Magazine)   Paul Ryan and the Republicans don't let things like "facts" and "reality" and "empirical evidence" get in the way of their economic point of view   ( nymag.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Republican, empirical evidence, Yuval Levin, Carmen Reinhart, Independent Payment Advisory Board, electronic medical records, Kenneth Rogoff, National Affairs  
•       •       •

5002 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 May 2013 at 12:26 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



223 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-05-11 08:50:24 AM  
it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.
 
2013-05-11 09:45:19 AM  
Republicans talking about economics is a lot like an 8-year-old talking about sex. They have no clue what they are talking about.
 
2013-05-11 11:39:38 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Republicans talking about economics is a lot like an 8-year-old talking about sex. They have no clue what they are talking about.


An 8 year old is at least the product of sex.  So he knew something about it as early as 8 years and 9 months ago.
Whereas trickle-down economics hasn't worked for at least 30 some odd years.
 
2013-05-11 11:57:01 AM  

Karac: Whereas trickle-down economics hasn't worked for at least 30 some odd years.


It is so obviously a Feudal economic system. I can't believe how many people they swindle with it.
 
2013-05-11 12:00:28 PM  
i1282.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-11 12:04:04 PM  
Why would their economic point of view differ from any of their others?
 
2013-05-11 12:04:05 PM  
Dear Subby:

You could have ended the headline after the word "way" and it would still have been just as cromulent.
 
2013-05-11 12:22:03 PM  

Karac: Whereas trickle-down economics hasn't worked for at least 30 some odd years.


No, it has worked brilliantly for its creators.
 
2013-05-11 12:34:47 PM  
i400.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-11 12:38:02 PM  

doyner: Karac: Whereas trickle-down economics hasn't worked for at least 30 some odd years.

No, it has worked brilliantly for its creators.


Yep. Trickle down is DESIGNED to suck all the wealth from the middle class into the pockets of the wealthiest. And it's been working beautifully.
 
2013-05-11 12:39:46 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Republicans talking about economics is a lot like an 8-year-old talking about sex. They have no clue what they are talking about.


You don't know the right 8-year-old... heh, heh, [cough, wheeze]
 
2013-05-11 12:41:46 PM  
ya.. cuz Dems are all so honest about their economic bs.. they're both FOS... troll on peeps
 
2013-05-11 12:44:00 PM  
When have they ever?
 
2013-05-11 12:45:04 PM  

FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.


The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

I guess the author of the article hasn't been checking the news lately. The people behind The ACA (even one of the co-authors) have admitted it going to cost billions more than projected to get into place and increase insurance premiums by 50-60 percent.

It's ok to want to end private healthcare and install a single payer healthcare system. What's not ok is lying about and trying to it piece by piece. We voted him in! Elections DO consequences. I just wish the White House would be honest with its intentions. But more and more this White House looks like it is having trouble telling the truth.
 
2013-05-11 12:47:28 PM  

diaphoresis: ya.. cuz Dems are all so honest about their economic bs.. they're both FOS... troll on peeps


I'll take a Krugman over a Ryan every single day of forever.
 
2013-05-11 12:47:50 PM  
When Ryan was offered the VP nom I had a suspicion that he wasn't the first choice (or maybe even the third), that everyone in front of the line was heavily vetted after the Palin fiasco and disqualifications arose for each of the frontrunners.  Rob Portman has a gay family member (gasp!), BoB McDonnell is taking money under the table, Chris Christie is actually a Clinton democrat, and Marco Rubio is suspiciously tan.

And for the life of me I can't figure out how this guy got the reputation for being the "numbers guy" of the republican party.  He wasn't able to articulate his own financial position during the campaign or the debate, part of that appears to be Romney muzzling him (why select a VP candidate and keep the quiet about their singular supposed strong point?) but both before and after the election he doesn't seem to understand what he is championing.  If this guy is the smart one of the party its much less praise for the man but a condemnation of the party itself.
 
2013-05-11 12:49:05 PM  
Why should today be different from any other day?
 
2013-05-11 12:50:30 PM  

the opposite of charity is justice: When Ryan was offered the VP nom I had a suspicion that he wasn't the first choice (or maybe even the third), that everyone in front of the line was heavily vetted after the Palin fiasco and disqualifications arose for each of the frontrunners.  Rob Portman has a gay family member (gasp!), BoB McDonnell is taking money under the table, Chris Christie is actually a Clinton democrat, and Marco Rubio is suspiciously tan.

And for the life of me I can't figure out how this guy got the reputation for being the "numbers guy" of the republican party.  He wasn't able to articulate his own financial position during the campaign or the debate, part of that appears to be Romney muzzling him (why select a VP candidate and keep the quiet about their singular supposed strong point?) but both before and after the election he doesn't seem to understand what he is championing.  If this guy is the smart one of the party its much less praise for the man but a condemnation of the party itself.


Isn't Ryan also the guy that submitted a budget that didn't actually contain any numbers? Or is that apocryphal?
 
2013-05-11 12:52:35 PM  

ikanreed: diaphoresis: ya.. cuz Dems are all so honest about their economic bs.. they're both FOS... troll on peeps

I'll take a Krugman over a Ryan every single day of forever.


No, no. Diaphoresis is right. Just look at the Dow under Clinton, then the Dow under Bush, and then the Dow under Obama. Clearly both sides are the same.
 
2013-05-11 12:53:14 PM  

LordJiro: doyner: Karac: Whereas trickle-down economics hasn't worked for at least 30 some odd years.

No, it has worked brilliantly for its creators.

Yep. Trickle down is DESIGNED to suck all the wealth from the middle class into the pockets of the wealthiest. And it's been working beautifully.


Well... it seems to work at an undergraduate economics level. There are Nobel Prize winners on both sides of the econ argument.
 
2013-05-11 12:54:04 PM  
"The first is the collapse of intellectual support for the notion that immediate austerity can boost economic growth."

The argument for austerity wasn't that it would stimulate growth. It was that the debt added wouldn't alleviate the weak private growth as much as not adding it in the first place. In analogy format, "just swallow the medicine" and get the weak economy over with.

When you start off you "reality based" opinion piece with a lie, you're not going to get far.

FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.


Supply-side economics came up because an "impossibility" under Keynesian economic theory occurred. But that was the 70s so you probably don't remember it.

NewportBarGuy: Republicans talking about economics is a lot like an 8-year-old talking about sex. They have no clue what they are talking about.


"Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet. Because copyright law makes no sense. Because it's too complicated and contradictory. Do you get it?" -Mark Twain
 
2013-05-11 01:00:40 PM  

Mrbogey: "The first is the collapse of intellectual support for the notion that immediate austerity can boost economic growth."

The argument for austerity wasn't that it would stimulate growth. It was that the debt added wouldn't alleviate the weak private growth as much as not adding it in the first place. In analogy format, "just swallow the medicine" and get the weak economy over with.

When you start off you "reality based" opinion piece with a lie, you're not going to get far.

FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.

Supply-side economics came up because an "impossibility" under Keynesian economic theory occurred. But that was the 70s so you probably don't remember it.

NewportBarGuy: Republicans talking about economics is a lot like an 8-year-old talking about sex. They have no clue what they are talking about.

"Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet. Because copyright law makes no sense. Because it's too complicated and contradictory. Do you get it?" -Mark Twain


Actually, the argument for austerity was "Fark your unemployment insurance, my bank needs another round of bailouts".
 
2013-05-11 01:02:47 PM  
Nothing new here. Supply-side economics is like creationism/intelligent design. Demonstrably false, but a large percentage of the population still believes in it.
 
2013-05-11 01:02:58 PM  
Old news indeed, subby.
 
2013-05-11 01:05:00 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

I guess the author of the article hasn't been checking the news lately. The people behind The ACA (even one of the co-authors) have admitted it going to cost billions more than projected to get into place and increase insurance premiums by 50-60 percent.

It's ok to want to end private healthcare and install a single payer healthcare system. What's not ok is lying about and trying to it piece by piece. We voted him in! Elections DO consequences. I just wish the White House would be honest with its intentions. But more and more this White House looks like it is having trouble telling the truth.


It really is depressing watching conservatives, or libertarians, or whatever it is they call themselves these days retreat further and further into fantasy.
This one was a wonderful jaunt down into Neverland.
Two or three cherry picked facts followed by a complete fabrication, and just a sprinkling of Benghazi on top.
It's like watching a portal to another universe open up.
 
2013-05-11 01:05:52 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Republicans talking about economics is a lot like an 8-year-old talking about sex. They have no clue what they are talking about.



In my opinion a better analogy would be '... like an evangelical preacher talking about salvation' -- thinking the right thoughts and believing the right things is necessary and sufficient for blessings to flow from some ineffable fount. It's a way of thinking that doesn't ask for evidence to prove that it's correct and contradictory facts and evidence aren't given any consideration when they appear.

All their derp notwithstanding, this is a huge reason why I can't take today's Republicans seriously. And after they get rid of their Social Conservative crap, this naïve faith in their economic theories is still gonna be there...
 
2013-05-11 01:06:59 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?


The historical revisionism is strong in this one.
 
2013-05-11 01:08:36 PM  

Mrtraveler01: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

The historical revisionism is strong in this one.


Yow - no kidding. We were in a Great Depression before we even tried Keynesian solutions. And if there's one thing that correlates with leaving the Great Depression (which the entire world suffered), it's leaving the Gold Standard.
 
2013-05-11 01:09:21 PM  

FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.

Steal as much money as possible.

FTFY
 
2013-05-11 01:10:15 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression?


How was Keynesian economics responsible for the great depression when it was formulated largely in response to it? Did Obama lend Keynes his magical time machine?

Mrbogey: The argument for austerity wasn't that it would stimulate growth.


Utter bullshiat. Plenty of politicians and supply-side economists were claiming back in 2008-9 that the recession was largely the result of some nebulous lack of "confidence" in the markets, and austerity measures would somehow give them that confidence, leading to a recovery.
 
2013-05-11 01:12:26 PM  
Karac:

NewportBarGuy: Republicans talking about economics is a lot like an 8-year-old talking about sex. They have no clue what they are talking about.

An 8 year old is at least the product of sex. So he knew something about it as early as 8 years and 9 months ago.


Paul Ryan is the classic product of wealthy parents and government entitlement programs, so presumably he knows something about trickle-down economics.
 
2013-05-11 01:12:54 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.

The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

I guess the author of the article hasn't been checking the news lately. The people behind The ACA (even one of the co-authors) have admitted it going to cost billions more than projected to get into place and increase insurance premiums by 50-60 percent.

It's ok to want to end private healthcare and install a single payer healthcare system. What's not ok is lying about and trying to it piece by piece. We voted him in! Elections DO consequences. I just wish the White House would be honest with its intentions. But more and more this White House looks like it is having trouble telling the truth.


DUDE! Drink some coffee and for Gods Sake Proofread!

My eyes are bleeding....
 
2013-05-11 01:13:34 PM  

the opposite of charity is justice: When Ryan was offered the VP nom I had a suspicion that he wasn't the first choice (or maybe even the third), that everyone in front of the line was heavily vetted after the Palin fiasco and disqualifications arose for each of the frontrunners.  Rob Portman has a gay family member (gasp!), BoB McDonnell is taking money under the table, Chris Christie is actually a Clinton democrat, and Marco Rubio is suspiciously tan.

And for the life of me I can't figure out how this guy got the reputation for being the "numbers guy" of the republican party.  He wasn't able to articulate his own financial position during the campaign or the debate, part of that appears to be Romney muzzling him (why select a VP candidate and keep the quiet about their singular supposed strong point?) but both before and after the election he doesn't seem to understand what he is championing.  If this guy is the smart one of the party its much less praise for the man but a condemnation of the party itself.


This ^
 
2013-05-11 01:14:07 PM  
It's on the internet and more importantly it's being said by a liberal, so it must be true. It's also just what I wanted to be told, so that makes it even more true.
 
2013-05-11 01:15:52 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

I guess the author of the article hasn't been checking the news lately. The people behind The ACA (even one of the co-authors) have admitted it going to cost billions more than projected to get into place and increase insurance premiums by 50-60 percent.

It's ok to want to end private healthcare and install a single payer healthcare system. What's not ok is lying about and trying to it piece by piece. We voted him in! Elections DO consequences. I just wish the White House would be honest with its intentions. But more and more this White House looks like it is having trouble telling the truth.

It really is depressing watching conservatives, or libertarians, or whatever it is they call themselves these days retreat further and further into fantasy.
This one was a wonderful jaunt down into Neverland.
Two or three cherry picked facts followed by a complete fabrication, and just a sprinkling of Benghazi on top.
It's like watching a portal to another universe open up.


And I love the "Keynesian policy made the Great Depression worse" line of bullshiat - hyper-revisionist history based upon one of Friedman's crackpot theories has become a pillar of the right's cognitive dissonance in recent years.
 
2013-05-11 01:18:16 PM  
randomjsa:

It's on the internet and more importantly it's being said by a liberal, so it must be true. It's also just what I wanted to be told, so that makes it even more true.

What a thoughtful and well-documented rebuttal.

Thanks for sharing, little buddy! Also, a Mr. Pot is holding on line two for a Mr. Kettle, he's very agitated and seems to have some statement to make.
 
2013-05-11 01:20:01 PM  
Paul Ryan and the Republicans don't let things like "facts" and "reality" and "empirical evidence" get in the way of their economic point of view

So, nothing has changed, then?  Good to know.
 
2013-05-11 01:21:24 PM  

Gunther: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression?

How was Keynesian economics responsible for the great depression when it was formulated largely in response to it? Did Obama lend Keynes his magical time machine?

Mrbogey: The argument for austerity wasn't that it would stimulate growth.

Utter bullshiat. Plenty of politicians and supply-side economists were claiming back in 2008-9 that the recession was largely the result of some nebulous lack of "confidence" in the markets, and austerity measures would somehow give them that confidence, leading to a recovery.


I never said it caused the Great Depression. I should have added "they tried to use it to get out of the Great Depression". Which it didn't do by the way.
 
2013-05-11 01:22:15 PM  

phaseolus: In my opinion a better analogy would be '... like an evangelical preacher talking about salvation' -- thinking the right thoughts and believing the right things is necessary and sufficient for blessings to flow from some ineffable fount. It's a way of thinking that doesn't ask for evidence to prove that it's correct and contradictory facts and evidence aren't given any consideration when they appear.


I've often wondered the same thing - how otherwise intelligent conservatives (who aren't white-kinghting for the 1% and in spite of 30+ years of contradictory evidence) still contend that supply-side economics can work. Faith based economics is the most plausible explanation I've heard ta date.
 
2013-05-11 01:23:49 PM  

doyner: Karac: Whereas trickle-down economics hasn't worked for at least 30 some odd years.

No, it has worked brilliantly for its creators.


Came here to say this. I am so sick of having to do "more with less" while those who have the more cry that they can't do the same.  Sigh, the worst part is I don't think the beneficiaries of this economic policy see the damage and danger of continuing down this path.

/or they do and don't care.  "I got mine"
 
2013-05-11 01:25:25 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I never said it caused the Great Depression. I should have added "they tried to use it to get out of the Great Depression". Which it didn't do by the way.


Yep, it didn't do a damn thing at all:

chronicle.com


static.seekingalpha.com
 
2013-05-11 01:26:36 PM  
I thought that was implied with the (R) after their names.
It stands for retard right?
 
2013-05-11 01:27:17 PM  

Heraclitus: The Stealth Hippopotamus: FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.

The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

I guess the author of the article hasn't been checking the news lately. The people behind The ACA (even one of the co-authors) have admitted it going to cost billions more than projected to get into place and increase insurance premiums by 50-60 percent.

It's ok to want to end private healthcare and install a single payer healthcare system. What's not ok is lying about and trying to it piece by piece. We voted him in! Elections DO consequences. I just wish the White House would be honest with its intentions. But more and more this White House looks like it is having trouble telling the truth.

DUDE! Drink some coffee and for Gods Sake Proofread!

My eyes are bleeding....


Farking from the IPhone. Don't get me wrong my normal everyday sitting in the office at a computer level of grammar is horrible. Notice how there isn't as many Grammar Nazis around? Ever wonder why?

I've driven them to end themselves.
 
2013-05-11 01:27:56 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.

The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

I guess the author of the article hasn't been checking the news lately. The people behind The ACA (even one of the co-authors) have admitted it going to cost billions more than projected to get into place and increase insurance premiums by 50-60 percent.

It's ok to want to end private healthcare and install a single payer healthcare system. What's not ok is lying about and trying to it piece by piece. We voted him in! Elections DO consequences. I just wish the White House would be honest with its intentions. But more and more this White House looks like it is having trouble telling the truth.


Zombie Butler: doyner: Karac: Whereas trickle-down economics hasn't worked for at least 30 some odd years.

No, it has worked brilliantly for its creators.

Came here to say this. I am so sick of having to do "more with less" while those who have the more cry that they can't do the same.  Sigh, the worst part is I don't think the beneficiaries of this economic policy see the damage and danger of continuing down this path.

/or they do and don't care.  "I got mine"


As someone who taught economic history, I'm deeply curious... are you saying that Hoover was a large-scale practioner of Keynsian Economic Theory?

/Don;t feel too bad, most of the people who hate/love Adam Smith also have no friggin clue what he wrote.
 
2013-05-11 01:28:58 PM  
Apologies, Zombie Butter, I did not mean to quite you, I am having some difficulty with my mouse today.
 
2013-05-11 01:30:43 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Gunther: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression?

How was Keynesian economics responsible for the great depression when it was formulated largely in response to it? Did Obama lend Keynes his magical time machine?

Mrbogey: The argument for austerity wasn't that it would stimulate growth.

Utter bullshiat. Plenty of politicians and supply-side economists were claiming back in 2008-9 that the recession was largely the result of some nebulous lack of "confidence" in the markets, and austerity measures would somehow give them that confidence, leading to a recovery.

I never said it caused the Great Depression. I should have added "they tried to use it to get out of the Great Depression". Which it didn't do by the way.


Let me guess, you're going to argue that World War II got us out of depression.  So it wasn't government spending, it was just government spending.
 
2013-05-11 01:36:44 PM  

pueblonative: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Gunther: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression?

How was Keynesian economics responsible for the great depression when it was formulated largely in response to it? Did Obama lend Keynes his magical time machine?

Mrbogey: The argument for austerity wasn't that it would stimulate growth.

Utter bullshiat. Plenty of politicians and supply-side economists were claiming back in 2008-9 that the recession was largely the result of some nebulous lack of "confidence" in the markets, and austerity measures would somehow give them that confidence, leading to a recovery.

I never said it caused the Great Depression. I should have added "they tried to use it to get out of the Great Depression". Which it didn't do by the way.

Let me guess, you're going to argue that World War II got us out of depression.  So it wasn't government spending, it was just government spending.


Heh, I love right wing idiots who make that argument.  "The spending works programs didn't bring us out of the Depression, but the spending on military did!  Only military spending can help the economy, all other spending is just wasted!"
 
2013-05-11 01:41:04 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Sergeant Grumbles: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

I guess the author of the article hasn't been checking the news lately. The people behind The ACA (even one of the co-authors) have admitted it going to cost billions more than projected to get into place and increase insurance premiums by 50-60 percent.

It's ok to want to end private healthcare and install a single payer healthcare system. What's not ok is lying about and trying to it piece by piece. We voted him in! Elections DO consequences. I just wish the White House would be honest with its intentions. But more and more this White House looks like it is having trouble telling the truth.

It really is depressing watching conservatives, or libertarians, or whatever it is they call themselves these days retreat further and further into fantasy.
This one was a wonderful jaunt down into Neverland.
Two or three cherry picked facts followed by a complete fabrication, and just a sprinkling of Benghazi on top.
It's like watching a portal to another universe open up.

And I love the "Keynesian policy made the Great Depression worse" line of bullshiat - hyper-revisionist history based upon one of Friedman's crackpot theories has become a pillar of the right's cognitive dissonance in recent years.


It's even better - our quadrupedal friend is from one of the red state net-negatives that get more in Federal spending than they pay in taxes.  It would be fascinating to hear his explanation of why that isn't Keynesian spending in action.
 
2013-05-11 01:43:01 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I never said it caused the Great Depression. I should have added "they tried to use it to get out of the Great Depression". Which it didn't do by the way.


But that's a) a backtrack on what you said originally, and b) still wrong:

img.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-11 01:43:48 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I should have added "they tried to use it to get out of the Great Depression". Which it didn't do by the way.


and what, pray tell, did get us out of the great depression? tax cuts and less regulation?
 
2013-05-11 01:44:58 PM  

FlashHarry: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I should have added "they tried to use it to get out of the Great Depression". Which it didn't do by the way.

and what, pray tell, did get us out of the great depression? tax cuts and less regulation?


the bootstrap sector.
 
2013-05-11 01:46:15 PM  
Obvious tag appropriate.

/Really, been saying this for years.
 
2013-05-11 01:47:13 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Faith based economics is the most plausible explanation I've heard ta date.



You see the same unquestioned faith applied to a lot of issues. Space-based missile defense, just to name one.

To be fair, you'll undoubtedly find this kind of thinking all over the political spectrum if you look hard enough. (The first one that comes to mind for dirty libs like me is certain kinds of "assault weapons" bans. To my mind, even though I've never even fired a gun myself, the arguments against the ban are logical and sensible, so I'm convinced on this one point even though many of my comrades aren't. I better move on before I accidentally turn this into a gun thread...)

So, uh, anyway, even though anyone's vulnerable to this kind of thinking, I think we see it so much more on the right these days in the U.S. because they've spent the last 30 years purposely crafting Conservativism as a secular faith, and (for now at least) there's no comparable -ism anywhere else on the spectrum.
 
2013-05-11 01:47:38 PM  

heap: FlashHarry: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I should have added "they tried to use it to get out of the Great Depression". Which it didn't do by the way.

and what, pray tell, did get us out of the great depression? tax cuts and less regulation?

the bootstrap sector.


and all those billionaires who single-handedly defeated hitler, tojo and stalin while the goldbricking lower classes begged for handouts and smoked reefer rather than working the factories like they should have!
 
2013-05-11 01:53:08 PM  

Empty Matchbook: Why should today be different from any other day?


Or this topic different from any other?

/ If you can only justify your position by making ad hominem attacks on "The Reality-Based Community," you have lost the argument.
 
2013-05-11 01:53:16 PM  

firefly212: Apologies, Zombie Butter, I did not mean to quite you, I am having some difficulty with my mouse today.


It's cool, been there done that.
 
2013-05-11 01:56:56 PM  
The Stealth Hippopotamus is a Flight of the Concords reference.  I am really doubting extreme right wing Tea Partiers are watching that show and especially doubtful that they would name their handle after it.  Y'all need to stop biting on that troll
 
2013-05-11 01:57:26 PM  
Faith-based economics.
 
2013-05-11 02:00:02 PM  
Mitt Romneys Tax Return

Oh yeah -- something else I wanted to say -- re.: "clinging stubbornly to this interpretation", you'd think a good journalist would be able to nip this faith thing in the bud. When thinkers like this Levin make pronouncements that smell like they started from ideology, they need to be asked something like "What kind of future events, observed phenomena, etc. would cause you to question your propositions, or at least rethink them a little bit?".

It's perfectly honorable to be a polemicist or a hired gun, I guess, if he admits that's what he is. But if he claim he's a scientist, his theories' worth ought to depend on how they actually work in the real world.
 
2013-05-11 02:01:58 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: pueblonative: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Gunther: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression?

How was Keynesian economics responsible for the great depression when it was formulated largely in response to it? Did Obama lend Keynes his magical time machine?

Mrbogey: The argument for austerity wasn't that it would stimulate growth.

Utter bullshiat. Plenty of politicians and supply-side economists were claiming back in 2008-9 that the recession was largely the result of some nebulous lack of "confidence" in the markets, and austerity measures would somehow give them that confidence, leading to a recovery.

I never said it caused the Great Depression. I should have added "they tried to use it to get out of the Great Depression". Which it didn't do by the way.

Let me guess, you're going to argue that World War II got us out of depression.  So it wasn't government spending, it was just government spending.

Heh, I love right wing idiots who make that argument.  "The spending works programs didn't bring us out of the Depression, but the spending on military did!  Only military spending can help the economy, all other spending is just wasted!"


There is more to the different economic theories than just governmental spending.

The massive shifts in the unemployment and total labor pool had a massive effect as well
 
2013-05-11 02:06:46 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I never said it caused the Great Depression. I should have added "they tried to use it to get out of the Great Depression". Which it didn't do by the way.


imageshack.us
imageshack.us
imageshack.us

Please stop pretending that you know things.
 
2013-05-11 02:08:17 PM  
What I find alternately amusing / horrifying / absurd is that Paul Ryan, a guy who went to college on his mother's wealth and his father's death benefits from Social Security spent his time reading Ayn Rand in between coughs of dope smoke and became the darling of the "lift yourself up by your bootstraps and be a man" crowd.

It's almost like they really don't care, so long as they have a good narrative in their precious, god-bless-them heads.
 
2013-05-11 02:08:43 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: There is more to the different economic theories than just governmental spending.

The massive shifts in the unemployment and total labor pool had a massive effect as well


Silly troll, the people were employed by the government building war material and being paid to stand around with guns looking scary.  That's government spending at it's finest and what Republicans love the most!
 
2013-05-11 02:08:51 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Satanic_Hamster: pueblonative: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Gunther: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression?

How was Keynesian economics responsible for the great depression when it was formulated largely in response to it? Did Obama lend Keynes his magical time machine?

Mrbogey: The argument for austerity wasn't that it would stimulate growth.

Utter bullshiat. Plenty of politicians and supply-side economists were claiming back in 2008-9 that the recession was largely the result of some nebulous lack of "confidence" in the markets, and austerity measures would somehow give them that confidence, leading to a recovery.

I never said it caused the Great Depression. I should have added "they tried to use it to get out of the Great Depression". Which it didn't do by the way.

Let me guess, you're going to argue that World War II got us out of depression.  So it wasn't government spending, it was just government spending.

Heh, I love right wing idiots who make that argument.  "The spending works programs didn't bring us out of the Depression, but the spending on military did!  Only military spending can help the economy, all other spending is just wasted!"

There is more to the different economic theories than just governmental spending.

The massive shifts in the unemployment and total labor pool had a massive effect as well


Love how you're avoiding all those charts being posted. You know, the facts, reality, and empirical evidence. Are they getting in the way of your economic point of view?
 
2013-05-11 02:12:20 PM  
News flash, Republicans are malicious passive-aggressive authoritarian liars who think you're stupid enough to fall for the same con over and over and over and over again. This is absolutely not a repeat from every year since 1929.
 
2013-05-11 02:12:20 PM  
I don't know why I bother to keep following political news anymore. The GOP blatantly lies about everything, obstructs everything for a variety of insincere and contradictory reasons, and calling them out on it doesn't do any good because anyone who needs getting through to either won't believe the data or is out to support their team. This shiat is going to go on and on for years. 

I'm gonna go take a nap, be back in 2024 or something.
 
2013-05-11 02:13:07 PM  

phaseolus: Oh yeah -- something else I wanted to say -- re.: "clinging stubbornly to this interpretation", you'd think a good journalist would be able to nip this faith thing in the bud. When thinkers like this Levin make pronouncements that smell like they started from ideology, they need to be asked something like "What kind of future events, observed phenomena, etc. would cause you to question your propositions, or at least rethink them a little bit?".


Journalists have given up asking hard questions. It's headline news when a reporter like Anderson Cooper or Soledad O'Orien dares to challenge one of our masters.
 
2013-05-11 02:17:45 PM  

FlashHarry: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I should have added "they tried to use it to get out of the Great Depression". Which it didn't do by the way.

and what, pray tell, did get us out of the great depression? tax cuts and less regulation?


A Libertarian will tell you that freedom-based economics got us out, and we were headed out anyway, but the New Deal made it take longer than it should have. It's all explained simply in these twelve links from mises.org that I am about to spam you with.
 
2013-05-11 02:19:45 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: News flash, Republicans are malicious passive-aggressive authoritarian liars who think

know America is  stupid enough to fall for the same con over and over and over and over again. This is absolutely not a repeat from every year since 1929.
 
2013-05-11 02:24:11 PM  
Hold tight to your dreams, Libtards. Keynesian deficit spending CANNOT go on forever, and it won't. Like *every* single time its been tried long term (ref: third world, Zimbabwe, etc.) , it WILL blow up at some point.

Article fails. Propaganda. Makes two minor points, and tried to use them to attempt to refute an entire economic strategy.

/when it blows up, I've got a farm to grow food with, and friends to help me defend it
 
2013-05-11 02:24:32 PM  

SnakeLee: The Stealth Hippopotamus is a Flight of the Concords reference.  I am really doubting extreme right wing Tea Partiers are watching that show and especially doubtful that they would name their handle after it.  Y'all need to stop biting on that troll


He's not a troll, he actually believes his posts.  And where'd you get "extreme right wing Tea Party"?  He's a Paul Ryan Ayn Rand pseudo-intellectual, not a knuckle-dragging Tea Party type, probably because he's young enough to have seen some Flight of the Conchords episodes.
 
2013-05-11 02:27:48 PM  

mark12A: Hold tight to your dreams, Libtards. Keynesian deficit spending CANNOT go on forever, and it won't. Like *every* single time its been tried long term (ref: third world, Zimbabwe, etc.) , it WILL blow up at some point.

Article fails. Propaganda. Makes two minor points, and tried to use them to attempt to refute an entire economic strategy.

/when it blows up, I've got a farm to grow food with, and friends to help me defend it


it's only been 80 some years.  Any day now. . .
 
2013-05-11 02:30:03 PM  

mark12A: Hold tight to your dreams, Libtards. Keynesian deficit spending CANNOT go on forever, and it won't. Like *every* single time its been tried long term (ref: third world, Zimbabwe, etc.) , it WILL blow up at some point.

Article fails. Propaganda. Makes two minor points, and tried to use them to attempt to refute an entire economic strategy.

/when it blows up, I've got a farm to grow food with, and friends to help me defend it


While trickle-down (under various names) was the system of choice for such wonderful places as "Dark Ages Europe", "Pre-Revolution France", and "Gilded Age America". When too much wealth concentrates at the top, at the expense of everyone below, a collapse is inevitable. And concentrating that wealth at the top is the entire point of "Trickle down".
 
2013-05-11 02:32:11 PM  
mark12A:
/when it blows up, I've got a farm to grow food with, and friends to help me defend it

This is another common theme, their Economic wishes are a manifestation of common Conservative wish-fulfillment that the economy irreversibly explode and we revert to feudalism or some other system where they're not powerless nerds defending to the death the system that keeps them powerless and suddenly become avenging gun totin' Ramboesque vigilante killers.
 
2013-05-11 02:33:24 PM  
the civil war was about states rights, fdr caused or extended the depression, evolution is a myth, gays want to eat your soul, global warming is a conspiracy to get grant money, the united nations and the illuminati are after your guns want to force the country into sustainable community FEMA camps, the sitting president of the united states is a foreigner, it will trickle down eventually, no matter what the tax rate is we're always on the right hand side of the laffer curve, the WMDs are in palistinasyriranistan, the polls need unskewed, the market will regulate itself because sniff the invisible glove, the confidence fairy rules all with the exception that threatening default is fiscally sound behavior, teleprompters were invented in 2009 and as a consequence austerity somehow makes sense, and befarkingchrist if i can continue this without wanting to punch myself in the junk for having paid attention to this much stupid that it's readily available in my memory.
 
2013-05-11 02:35:29 PM  
static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com

Call me crazy, but the last time we had that sort of ratio some very bad things happened.
Bonus points... Was your first impression "Woo hoo! We're doing better than the third world banana republic Venezuala!" or the reverse?
 
2013-05-11 02:35:57 PM  
LordJiro:  When too much wealth concentrates at the top, at the expense of everyone below, a collapse is inevitable. And concentrating that wealth at the top is the entire point of "Trickle down".

No one other than weird Rothbard reading types deny this. The only controversy seems to be whether the crash is a feature, or a bug.
 
2013-05-11 02:37:39 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Karac: Whereas trickle-down economics hasn't worked for at least 30 some odd years.

It is so obviously a Feudal economic system. I can't believe how many people they swindle with it.


More like a futile economic system.
 
2013-05-11 02:37:50 PM  

diaphoresis: ya.. cuz Dems are all so honest about their economic bs.. they're both FOS... troll on peeps


You are right, I am going to go study it out.

mark12A: Hold tight to your dreams, Libtards. Keynesian deficit spending CANNOT go on forever, and it won't. Like *every* single time its been tried long term (ref: third world, Zimbabwe, etc.) , it WILL blow up at some point.

Article fails. Propaganda. Makes two minor points, and tried to use them to attempt to refute an entire economic strategy.

/when it blows up, I've got a farm to grow food with, and friends to help me defend it


media.avclub.com
 
2013-05-11 02:43:36 PM  

heap: sniff the invisible glove


The whole thing was funny, but this one - (makes kissing of fingertips gesture) - was exquisite.
 
2013-05-11 02:44:13 PM  

El Pachuco: SnakeLee: The Stealth Hippopotamus is a Flight of the Concords reference.  I am really doubting extreme right wing Tea Partiers are watching that show and especially doubtful that they would name their handle after it.  Y'all need to stop biting on that troll

He's not a troll, he actually believes his posts.  And where'd you get "extreme right wing Tea Party"?  He's a Paul Ryan Ayn Rand pseudo-intellectual, not a knuckle-dragging Tea Party type, probably because he's young enough to have seen some Flight of the Conchords episodes.


Flight of the Conchords June 17, 2007

The Stealth Hippoppotamus
Boobies: (what's this?) 2007-01-31 17:42:13, in thread number 2578047

Never watched the show

Henry Morgenthau the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. He played a major role in designing and financing the New Deal and called it a failure! The man incharge of the program admitted this.

The only thing that saved us was FDR's trust busting that lead to more competition and kept us going until the war.
 
2013-05-11 02:47:10 PM  

mark12A: Hold tight to your dreams, Libtards. Keynesian deficit spending CANNOT go on forever, and it won't. Like *every* single time its been tried long term (ref: third world, Zimbabwe, etc.) , it WILL blow up at some point.

Article fails. Propaganda. Makes two minor points, and tried to use them to attempt to refute an entire economic strategy.

/when it blows up, I've got a farm to grow food with, and friends to help me defend it


So basically what you are saying is that you don't have the slightest farking clue as to what Keynesian ecomonics actally says. Here's a hint, it does not say to continue deficit spending forever.
 
2013-05-11 02:48:15 PM  

maxheck: [static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com image 300x268]

Call me crazy, but the last time we had that sort of ratio some very bad things happened.
Bonus points... Was your first impression "Woo hoo! We're doing better than the third world banana republic Venezuala!" or the reverse?


USA! USA! USA!
 
2013-05-11 02:48:20 PM  

FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.


QE is now being called tricke-down in right-wing circles.  So, Obama loves trickle-down economics and everyone knows trickle-down is bad.  I'm not kidding.
 
2013-05-11 02:48:47 PM  
Thank you to The Stealth Hippopotimus for demonstrating once again how libertaritrons think they can logic their way through history, Praxeology style.
 
2013-05-11 02:49:16 PM  
When questioned further Ryan said, "Imagine an island where there are coconuts, fish and monkeys on pogo sticks...."
 
2013-05-11 02:49:52 PM  

mark12A: Hold tight to your dreams, Libtards. Keynesian deficit spending CANNOT go on forever, and it won't. Like *every* single time its been tried long term (ref: third world, Zimbabwe, etc.) , it WILL blow up at some point.

Article fails. Propaganda. Makes two minor points, and tried to use them to attempt to refute an entire economic strategy.

/when it blows up, I've got a farm to grow food with, and friends to help me defend it


Sounds pretty sweet.  I used to love playing fort when I was 8.
 
2013-05-11 02:50:40 PM  

randomjsa: It's on the internet and more importantly it's being said by a liberal, so it must be true. It's also just what I wanted to be told, so that makes it even more true.


The news of the sharp decrease in growth of healthcare expenditures has been in the news a lot this week. For some reason, some conservative media has avoided the story. It's almost like they don't want to talk about Keynesian economics working successfully in the real world.
 
2013-05-11 02:52:37 PM  

mark12A: Hold tight to your dreams, Libtards. Keynesian deficit spending CANNOT go on forever, and it won't. Like *every* single time its been tried long term (ref: third world, Zimbabwe, etc.) , it WILL blow up at some point.

Article fails. Propaganda. Makes two minor points, and tried to use them to attempt to refute an entire economic strategy.

/when it blows up, I've got a farm to grow food with, and friends to help me defend it


Funny, since it was Cheney who said deficits don't matter.

Zimbabwe has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.

Keynesian economics has run most of the liberal democracies, including the U.S., and it's come out on top.
 
2013-05-11 02:53:37 PM  
Mitt Romneys Tax Return"

maxheck: [static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com image 300x268]

Call me crazy, but the last time we had that sort of ratio some very bad things happened.
Bonus points... Was your first impression "Woo hoo! We're doing better than the third world banana republic Venezuala!" or the reverse?

USA! USA! USA!


The thing that struck me... That's not a minor difference, that's order-of-magnitude difference.

But hey, the feudal system worked so well!
 
2013-05-11 02:54:15 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: News flash, Republicans are malicious passive-aggressive authoritarian liars who think you're stupid enough to fall for the same con over and over and over and over again.


That's actually an effective strategy.  We are stupid enough to fall for the same con over and over again.
 
2013-05-11 02:54:41 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: News flash, Republicans are malicious passive-aggressive authoritarian liars who think you're stupid enough to fall for the same con over and over and over and over again. This is absolutely not a repeat from every year since 1929.




This joke must date back to the nineteen thirties:
The Democrat Hitchhiker

A boy is hitchhiking on a country road. A car stops for him, and the driver asks, "Are you a Republican or a Democrat?"

"Democrat," says the boy, and the car speeds off.

Another car stops, and the driver asks, "Are you a Republican or a Democrat?"

"Democrat," says the boy, and the car speeds off.

This happens two or three times, and the boy decides he's giving the wrong answer. The next car that stops is a convertible driven by a beautiful blonde. "Are you a Republican or a Democrat?" she asks.

"Republican," says the boy, and she lets him in.

But as they're driving along, the wind from the open top begins to push the blonde's skirt higher and higher up her legs. And the boy finds himself becoming aroused.

Finally he can't control himself any longer. "Stop!" he hollers. "Let me out! I've only been a Republican for ten minutes and already I feel like screwing somebody!"
 
2013-05-11 02:55:20 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: El Pachuco: SnakeLee: The Stealth Hippopotamus is a Flight of the Concords reference.  I am really doubting extreme right wing Tea Partiers are watching that show and especially doubtful that they would name their handle after it.  Y'all need to stop biting on that troll

He's not a troll, he actually believes his posts.  And where'd you get "extreme right wing Tea Party"?  He's a Paul Ryan Ayn Rand pseudo-intellectual, not a knuckle-dragging Tea Party type, probably because he's young enough to have seen some Flight of the Conchords episodes.

Flight of the Conchords June 17, 2007

The Stealth Hippoppotamus
Boobies: (what's this?) 2007-01-31 17:42:13, in thread number 2578047

Never watched the show

Henry Morgenthau the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. He played a major role in designing and financing the New Deal and called it a failure! The man incharge of the program admitted this.

The only thing that saved us was FDR's trust busting that lead to more competition and kept us going until the war.


Going off the gold standard. Countries left their depressions in the order they adopted fiat currency. The sooner they did it, the sooner they left.
 
2013-05-11 02:56:11 PM  

Karac: NewportBarGuy: Republicans talking about economics is a lot like an 8-year-old talking about sex. They have no clue what they are talking about.

An 8 year old is at least the product of sex.  So he knew something about it as early as 8 years and 9 months ago.
Whereas trickle-down economics hasn't worked for at least 30 some odd years.


Trickle-down has never worked whenever and wherever it has been implemented, and under whatever different names it used. It used to be called slavery and serfdom.
 
2013-05-11 02:56:15 PM  

Rapmaster2000: FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.

QE is now being called tricke-down in right-wing circles.  So, Obama loves trickle-down economics and everyone knows trickle-down is bad.  I'm not kidding.


So they went from one ignorant description of QE to another.

"Out of the frying pan into another frying pan."
 
2013-05-11 02:56:16 PM  

mark12A: Hold tight to your dreams, Libtards. Keynesian deficit spending CANNOT go on forever,


It isn't supposed to, do you know anything about Keynesian economics other than, "Fox NEWS says it is bad"?
 
2013-05-11 02:56:56 PM  

dericwater: Karac: NewportBarGuy: Republicans talking about economics is a lot like an 8-year-old talking about sex. They have no clue what they are talking about.

An 8 year old is at least the product of sex.  So he knew something about it as early as 8 years and 9 months ago.
Whereas trickle-down economics hasn't worked for at least 30 some odd years.

Trickle-down has never worked whenever and wherever it has been implemented, and under whatever different names it used. It used to be called slavery and serfdom.


I disagree, it is working as intended for those at the top.
 
2013-05-11 02:57:07 PM  
Reality? Your "reality", sir, is lies and balderdash, and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
 
2013-05-11 02:59:53 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.

The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

I guess the author of the article hasn't been checking the news lately. The people behind The ACA (even one of the co-authors) have admitted it going to cost billions more than projected to get into place and increase insurance premiums by 50-60 percent.

It's ok to want to end private healthcare and install a single payer healthcare system. What's not ok is lying about and trying to it piece by piece. We voted him in! Elections DO consequences. I just wish the White House would be honest with its intentions. But more and more this White House looks like it is having trouble telling the truth.


No one on the left is particularly happy with the ACA. It was, eventually, a band-aid compromise that basically took all the Heritage Foundation's ideas that went into RomneyCare in Massachusetts and federalized it. The only benefit that Obama's win with the ACA is that it's a foot in the door to make further changes, eventually moving towards a real single-payer system.
 
2013-05-11 03:01:52 PM  
dericwater:
Trickle-down has never worked whenever and wherever it has been implemented, and under whatever different names it used. It used to be called slavery and serfdom.

I for one am legitimately excited to behold the next re-branding effort for the same old bullshiat where corrupt Republicans whine and cry until they're put back in charge of the government where they can continue looting the rest of us six ways from Sunday and daring us to do anything about it.
 
2013-05-11 03:03:27 PM  

vygramul: Zimbabwe has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.


Are you telling me that having the government take the land from the farmers and giving it to politically connected people who have no idea how farming works and destroyed the farmland as a result is not Keynesian economics?

Well color me shocked.
 
2013-05-11 03:03:35 PM  
"Trickle-down" is a reasonable descriptor of what happens, but supply-side economics has some pretty solid foundations. Given some time with my notes, I can adequately explain the criticisms of Keynesian economics and deficit spending during a downturn. I can't really find a good article to explain why the criticisms are wrong (Paul Krugman tends not to get into details nor even label his axes).

That doesn't mean Keynesian economics is wrong. There are some incredibly talented economists who believe it works and there are some incredibly talented economists who do not. There are reasonable objections to raise, but usually, most Republicans don't know them - just as most Democrats don't know what the reasonable objections to supply-side economics are.
 
2013-05-11 03:04:03 PM  

houstondragon: Reality? Your "reality", sir, is lies and balderdash, and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.


And I can't wait to offer your facts and citations to back up this claim.
 
2013-05-11 03:05:44 PM  

Mrtraveler01: vygramul: Zimbabwe has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.

Are you telling me that having the government take the land from the farmers and giving it to politically connected people who have no idea how farming works and destroyed the farmland as a result is not Keynesian economics?

Well color me shocked.


Neither is printing money in obscene quantities.
 
2013-05-11 03:07:47 PM  

Mrtraveler01: vygramul: Zimbabwe has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.

Are you telling me that having the government take the land from the farmers and giving it to politically connected people who have no idea how farming works and destroyed the farmland as a result is not Keynesian economics?

Well color me shocked.


Why do you think Obama wants to take our guns?
 
2013-05-11 03:08:26 PM  
vygramul:  most Democrats don't know what the reasonable objections to supply-side economics are.

How does, "A country in which nearly all the wealth ultimately concentrates into the hands of a very few is one that will be brittle at it's foundations and headed for instability and strife. Since people who own next to nothing have no rational reason to defend a stake in the country's continued existence." strike you?
 
2013-05-11 03:08:50 PM  

vygramul: Mrtraveler01: vygramul: Zimbabwe has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.

Are you telling me that having the government take the land from the farmers and giving it to politically connected people who have no idea how farming works and destroyed the farmland as a result is not Keynesian economics?

Well color me shocked.

Neither is printing money in obscene quantities.


True.

It's always easy to tell who has no idea about economics when they bring up Zimbabwe.
 
2013-05-11 03:09:27 PM  

dericwater: The Stealth Hippopotamus: FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.

The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

I guess the author of the article hasn't been checking the news lately. The people behind The ACA (even one of the co-authors) have admitted it going to cost billions more than projected to get into place and increase insurance premiums by 50-60 percent.

It's ok to want to end private healthcare and install a single payer healthcare system. What's not ok is lying about and trying to it piece by piece. We voted him in! Elections DO consequences. I just wish the White House would be honest with its intentions. But more and more this White House looks like it is having trouble telling the truth.

No one on the left is particularly happy with the ACA. It was, eventually, a band-aid compromise that basically took all the Heritage Foundation's ideas that went into RomneyCare in Massachusetts and federalized it. The only benefit that Obama's win with the ACA is that it's a foot in the door to make further changes, eventually moving towards a real single-payer system.


Careful people around here will accuse you of wearing tin foil headwear for saying stuff like that.
 
2013-05-11 03:11:11 PM  
www.sluniverse.com

Just past this over anything any Republican says on any topic or belief, ever.
 
2013-05-11 03:11:49 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: dericwater: The Stealth Hippopotamus: FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.

The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

I guess the author of the article hasn't been checking the news lately. The people behind The ACA (even one of the co-authors) have admitted it going to cost billions more than projected to get into place and increase insurance premiums by 50-60 percent.

It's ok to want to end private healthcare and install a single payer healthcare system. What's not ok is lying about and trying to it piece by piece. We voted him in! Elections DO consequences. I just wish the White House would be honest with its intentions. But more and more this White House looks like it is having trouble telling the truth.

No one on the left is particularly happy with the ACA. It was, eventually, a band-aid compromise that basically took all the Heritage Foundation's ideas that went into RomneyCare in Massachusetts and federalized it. The only benefit that Obama's win with the ACA is that it's a foot in the door to make further changes, eventually moving towards a real single-payer system.

Careful people around here will accuse you of wearing tin foil headwear for saying stuff like that.


Only in your mind.
 
2013-05-11 03:12:16 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Careful people around here will accuse you of wearing tin foil headwear for saying stuff like that.


Sure, as long as you ignore all of the people who were grumbling in these threads during the ACA debate that the Democrats were to busy compromising with themselves to pass a good bill.  Seriously, you're like a dog with peanut butter in its mouth.
 
2013-05-11 03:12:43 PM  

randomjsa: It's on the internet and more importantly it's being said by a liberal, so it must be true. It's also just what I wanted to be told, so that makes it even more true.


Me: I'm letting go of this broken air conditioner. It's going to land on the ground you're standing on 5 seconds later. Please move
randomjsa: LIBERAL LIAR! It will land 20 seconds later. I'll be done smoking this crystal meth in 15 seconds.
Me: but the laws of physics and gravite state that--
randomjsa: Those are liberal lies, too! HURRRRRRRRRRRR,
Me: (shrugs) I'm letting go now, you better move in less than 5 seconds
randomjsa: LOL WHATEVER NOOB! It will take it 20 seconds to land
Me: I DROPPED IT, LOOK OUT BELOW!
(5 seconds later)
randomjsa: OW, THAT HURT, ASSHOLE!
Me: I told you it would hit you 5 seconds later!
randomjsa:  LOL NOOB, it hit me 20 seconds later
Me: WTF?
randomjsa: Hahahahaha I win
Me: I'm letting go of this broken refrigerator now.......
 
2013-05-11 03:12:49 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: vygramul:  most Democrats don't know what the reasonable objections to supply-side economics are.

How does, "A country in which nearly all the wealth ultimately concentrates into the hands of a very few is one that will be brittle at it's foundations and headed for instability and strife. Since people who own next to nothing have no rational reason to defend a stake in the country's continued existence." strike you?


Unfortunately, even in Keynesian economics, wealth converges on the few. It just does so more slowly the more social programs and the more progressive your taxes.
 
2013-05-11 03:13:41 PM  

jst3p: dericwater: Karac: NewportBarGuy: Republicans talking about economics is a lot like an 8-year-old talking about sex. They have no clue what they are talking about.

An 8 year old is at least the product of sex.  So he knew something about it as early as 8 years and 9 months ago.
Whereas trickle-down economics hasn't worked for at least 30 some odd years.

Trickle-down has never worked whenever and wherever it has been implemented, and under whatever different names it used. It used to be called slavery and serfdom.

I disagree, it is working as intended for those at the top.


The claim of trickle-down is that by amassing money at the top, the riches will then trickle down to everyone else. By it's own definition, it's not working as claimed. That's what I'm stating. Whether it benefits those who are amassing the money or not, that's not the claim of the trickle-down economic system.
 
2013-05-11 03:14:15 PM  

Mentat: Seriously, you're like a dog with peanut butter in its mouth.


Dubbed over with James Franco's voice.
 
2013-05-11 03:17:30 PM  
vygramul:
Unfortunately, even in Keynesian economics, wealth converges on the few. It just does so more slowly the more social programs and the more progressive your taxes.

Which is altogether a positive thing. Plus on a longer timeline it's easier for that hard earned dynastic wealth to be lost or squandered.
 
2013-05-11 03:19:19 PM  

dericwater: jst3p: dericwater: Karac: NewportBarGuy: Republicans talking about economics is a lot like an 8-year-old talking about sex. They have no clue what they are talking about.

An 8 year old is at least the product of sex.  So he knew something about it as early as 8 years and 9 months ago.
Whereas trickle-down economics hasn't worked for at least 30 some odd years.

Trickle-down has never worked whenever and wherever it has been implemented, and under whatever different names it used. It used to be called slavery and serfdom.

I disagree, it is working as intended for those at the top.

The claim of trickle-down is that by amassing money at the top, the riches will then trickle down to everyone else. By it's own definition, it's not working as claimed. That's what I'm stating. Whether it benefits those who are amassing the money or not, that's not the claim of the trickle-down economic system.


They really went for simplicity and managed to come up with the worst explanation. It's not a magical trickle-down - there are well-understood and agreed-upon economics that state WHY it "trickles down". It's really the default. Realize that Keynes didn't eschew trickle-down/supply-side economics. He argued that in economic downturns, you have to do something else.
 
2013-05-11 03:21:36 PM  
vygramul:
There are well-understood and agreed-upon economics that state WHY it "trickles down".

And they're all wrong. Because homo-economicus is a myth.
 
2013-05-11 03:21:40 PM  

vygramul: there are well-understood and agreed-upon economics that state WHY it "trickles down"


Uh, exactly what economics state this? Theory is great, but obviously in practice it doesn't work.
 
2013-05-11 03:22:05 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: vygramul:
Unfortunately, even in Keynesian economics, wealth converges on the few. It just does so more slowly the more social programs and the more progressive your taxes.

Which is altogether a positive thing. Plus on a longer timeline it's easier for that hard earned dynastic wealth to be lost or squandered.


I should be clear - social programs and progressive taxes are not definitionally Keynesian.

Ultimately, concentrated wealth only gets redistributed occasionally in great social upheaval. Of course, social upheaval tends to happen in countries with huge wealth disparities...
 
2013-05-11 03:22:32 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: vygramul:
There are well-understood and agreed-upon economics that state WHY it "trickles down".

And they're all wrong. Because homo-economicus is a myth.


NTTAWWT.
 
2013-05-11 03:22:40 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: vygramul:  most Democrats don't know what the reasonable objections to supply-side economics are.

How does, "A country in which nearly all the wealth ultimately concentrates into the hands of a very few is one that will be brittle at it's foundations and headed for instability and strife. Since people who own next to nothing have no rational reason to defend a stake in the country's continued existence." strike you?


You're describing human nature. There isn't an economic theory that will stop this. There are a couple of governmental theories that do however once you take them our of the books and try to have humans run them, well lets just say it does work the same as it did on paper.

As along as there is scarcity this will be a fact
 
2013-05-11 03:23:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Theory is great, but obviously in practice it doesn't work.


so sort of an antipodal analog to communism.
 
2013-05-11 03:24:20 PM  

vygramul: Ultimately, concentrated wealth only gets redistributed occasionally in great social upheaval. Of course, social upheaval tends to happen in countries with huge wealth disparities...


Which can be done the easy way (Massive inheritance taxes), or the hard way (Violence).
 
2013-05-11 03:24:39 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: there are well-understood and agreed-upon economics that state WHY it "trickles down"

Uh, exactly what economics state this? Theory is great, but obviously in practice it doesn't work.


Pretty much all econ. It works, even according to Keynes, but it only works in the long-run, in which we're all dead. Again, Keynes wanted to address economic downturns. Were this 1996, Keynes would say we should run a surplus and engage in trickle-down. In 2008, he would argue for abandoning trickle-down for his own solutions.
 
2013-05-11 03:25:22 PM  
Paul Ryan wants to make money for his rich friends. If you think he gives a rat's ass about the rest of us, you're nuts.
 
2013-05-11 03:25:28 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: toomuchwhargarbl: vygramul:  most Democrats don't know what the reasonable objections to supply-side economics are.

How does, "A country in which nearly all the wealth ultimately concentrates into the hands of a very few is one that will be brittle at it's foundations and headed for instability and strife. Since people who own next to nothing have no rational reason to defend a stake in the country's continued existence." strike you?

You're describing human nature. There isn't an economic theory that will stop this. There are a couple of governmental theories that do however once you take them our of the books and try to have humans run them, well lets just say it does work the same as it did on paper.

As along as there is scarcity this will be a fact


That's absolutely true. Scarcity is the issue, and it's unfixable.
 
2013-05-11 03:26:42 PM  
Years of "classic" English Literature and I'm still not clear what "hoary" means.
 
2013-05-11 03:26:49 PM  

MrEricSir: Paul Ryan wants to make money for his rich friends. If you think he gives a rat's ass about the rest of us, you're nuts.


I object to this assertion.

Most of them probably aren't actually his friends. It's more like an employer/employee relationship.
 
2013-05-11 03:31:49 PM  

vygramul: Were this 1996, Keynes would say we should run a surplus and engage in trickle-down. In 2008, he would argue for abandoning trickle-down for his own solutions.


Something tells me you aren't familiar with the entirety of Keynsianism. Running a surplus and engaging in trickle-down are mutually exclusive; as trickle-down requires massive tax-breaks for the wealthy.
 
2013-05-11 03:32:35 PM  

vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: there are well-understood and agreed-upon economics that state WHY it "trickles down"

Uh, exactly what economics state this? Theory is great, but obviously in practice it doesn't work.

Pretty much all econ. It works, even according to Keynes, but it only works in the long-run, in which we're all dead. Again, Keynes wanted to address economic downturns. Were this 1996, Keynes would say we should run a surplus and engage in trickle-down. In 2008, he would argue for abandoning trickle-down for his own solutions.


No, Keynesian economics does not say to engage in "trickle down". Where on earth do you get this idea? It in fact says just the opposite, in a boom you raise taxes to pay off the deficit and hopefully accumulate a surplus for the next downturn. It does not say to lower taxes on the rich.

You guys are doing a great job of confirming the premise of tne headline.
 
2013-05-11 03:34:02 PM  

Mrtraveler01: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

The historical revisionism is strong in this one.


I guess "simply a depression" is what plunged Europe into war in the 30's, in this iteration of history.
 
2013-05-11 03:35:28 PM  

FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has


Supply side is Keynesian.

What causes inflation?  Demand exceeding supply.  If that is true then they way to combat inflation would be for the government to increase supply.  Supply side worked for Reagan as he was able to get the inflation rate under control that had been a bugger since the early 70s.  The problem today isn't inflation.  Pricing has been flat for quite some time.  Supply side strategies combat inflation when inflation isn't the problem then it is a waste of money.  Since inflation is low, the proper strategy is to increase demand.
 
2013-05-11 03:37:50 PM  
Here's a clear way to look at why trickle-down is not a good economic policy. Suppose you have a country of 1 million people. You have $10 million and you can either give $1 million to ten people or $10 to all 1 million people. Which is better for the over all economy? The question is not whether one choice is more ethical or moral, or one choice is more fair (by whatever metric one measures fairness). The question is which choice will help benefit the economy of this country of 1 million.

If you give 10 people $1 million each, they will spend a part of that $1 million on their basic necessities. They might be able to spend on some luxuries, but for the most part, they're going to keep the bulk of the $1 million. If you give everyone $10, it will be spent. But, the benefit of a million people spending is that you get to see trends of what people like to do with $10, thereby identifying new market trends, places where innovation will be drivers for growth. That $10 also gets cycled through and people down stream earn a bit from that $10.

When I go to a Walgreens and buy a pen for $3.49, it seems unlikely that more than one entity will benefit from me buying that pen. But in reality, Walgreens benefit, the clerks and the stock boy benefit, the truck driver who brought the pens to Walgreens benefit, the company that packaged the pen benefit, the marketing agency benefit, the brand owner benefit, the people who make plastic casing benefit, the people who create ink benefit, the people who create the little springs in the pen benefit, the people who ship the little springs from their manufacturing place to the pen assembly location benefit, the people who sell gas to the truckers who ship springs benefit, the lunch lady that the gas seller buy food benefit.

There are thousands, maybe even millions of people who benefit from me buying a cheapie pen for $3.49. And along most of those transactions, there's a tax. I pay a retail sales tax. Walgreens pay an inventory tax for whatever they hold but don't sell. Same with the manufacturer. There's tax on the gas used to ship the pen. There's payroll taxes on every W-2 or 1099 employee along the way. All those taxes go to fund the government.

If 1 million people get to buy different pens, we learn which pens are better (and probably why) and manufacturers will innovate to achieve or surpass that better pen. We get so much more tax revenue than if 10 people had $1 million each, where that money is sitting somewhere doing nothing. I mean, how many pens can and do 10 people want? Would that person buy $1 million worth of pens, even over his life time? We get no market information, we get no cash flow, we get no tax revenues and no one benefits from having 10 people sitting around with $1 million. The rich can't spend their money fast enough to use up their money, and they refuse to do so in any case.

That's why it's important to have a progressive tax rate, to "redistribute" the wealth. People who claim, "Hey, those of you who received the redistribution, you didn't earn it." Well, the wealthy also didn't earn it either. They helped themselves to it through lobbying key legislators, or they benefitted from an unequal contract or agreement. Not one wealthy person became wealthy without the help of many, many people.

The rich also like to say, "Without the security of my wealthy, I would not be able to innovate." That's why they want to be "too big to fail". The security of wealth allows them to innovate and not worry about failure. There is some truth in that, but it's basically bogus. For example, most large pharmaceuticals do almost no innovation in drugs that could help many, many people, because the ROI horizon is too far away. Passing the FDA often take 10 to 15 years. They want a get rich quick solution, so they don't bother to innovate. Innovation actually comes from research labs at universities and government labs like the NIH. They're happy to buy, but they'll negotiate for a great bargain for themselves.

On the other hand, small businesses that live month-to-month, like most local restaurants, a staple of San Francisco economy, innovate like hell to keep ahead of the competition. Yet, they're not secured by infinite wealth to protect them from failure. The bottom line is innovation and financial security of a company are not correlated.

Another example is Apple and Microsoft. Apple, when they were at death's door soon after Jobs returned to the company was innovative, and they're still rather innovative now (although some would argue otherwise), when they have well over $100 billion in cash sitting around doing nothing. Microsoft, on the other hand, was never innovative: always looking at what others did, even when they were a new company in the early 80s. Now, the behemoth that they are, they're still not so innovative.
 
2013-05-11 03:37:52 PM  
On an entirely unrelated note, fark really needs to kill these malicious "mobicow" ads on mobile that hijack the browser window and open the app store. They are making mobile fark almost unusable.
 
2013-05-11 03:38:19 PM  
Capitalism is a dead-end system. The rightists understand that and are trying to steal as much as possible while they still can. Nothing confusing about that.
 
2013-05-11 03:38:41 PM  

TheBigJerk: Years of "classic" English Literature and I'm still not clear what "hoary" means.


http://bit.ly/10iCyP8
 
2013-05-11 03:39:05 PM  

Thrag: vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: there are well-understood and agreed-upon economics that state WHY it "trickles down"

Uh, exactly what economics state this? Theory is great, but obviously in practice it doesn't work.

Pretty much all econ. It works, even according to Keynes, but it only works in the long-run, in which we're all dead. Again, Keynes wanted to address economic downturns. Were this 1996, Keynes would say we should run a surplus and engage in trickle-down. In 2008, he would argue for abandoning trickle-down for his own solutions.

No, Keynesian economics does not say to engage in "trickle down". Where on earth do you get this idea? It in fact says just the opposite, in a boom you raise taxes to pay off the deficit and hopefully accumulate a surplus for the next downturn. It does not say to lower taxes on the rich.

You guys are doing a great job of confirming the premise of tne headline.


Trickle-down is a modern term, so of course Keynes didn't actually refer to it. Keynes DID say you CUT SPENDING during boom, and SPEND during bust.

And if you're raising taxes during boom, aren't you cutting them during bust?
 
2013-05-11 03:42:19 PM  
vygramul:
And if you're raising taxes during boom, aren't you cutting them during bust?

Not necessarily. Short term leveraging of the economy is perfectly possible without ever touching tax rates.
 
2013-05-11 03:42:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: Were this 1996, Keynes would say we should run a surplus and engage in trickle-down. In 2008, he would argue for abandoning trickle-down for his own solutions.

Something tells me you aren't familiar with the entirety of Keynsianism. Running a surplus and engaging in trickle-down are mutually exclusive; as trickle-down requires massive tax-breaks for the wealthy.


Trickle-down does call for tax breaks for the wealthy (well, everyone, but as with all tax cuts, even really progressive ones will have a larger impact on the wealthy).

Keynes basically said that when consumer spending falls (bust), government spending must rise. During booms you pay off the debt you collected during busts - income smoothing on a societal level. But if you have a reasonable surplus, and things are good, then his economics are indistinguishable from trickle-down.
 
2013-05-11 03:43:07 PM  
The lie that FDR extended the Great Depression is one of the worst. There is only one study, by conservative student economists, that even claimed that, it came out only a few years ago, and it has been refuted and debunked a million times. Its like citing the Heritage Foundation about the laffer curve.
 
2013-05-11 03:43:43 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: vygramul:
And if you're raising taxes during boom, aren't you cutting them during bust?

Not necessarily. Short term leveraging of the economy is perfectly possible without ever touching tax rates.


But if you always have a + during a boom but no - any other time, the + adds up until you hit 100.

When do you cut again?
 
2013-05-11 03:43:55 PM  
TeaParty supports communism. A bunch of Rich politicians and the Poor sign carrying wifebeaters who help Koch profit more.
i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-11 03:44:00 PM  

maxheck: The thing that struck me... That's not a minor difference, that's order-of-magnitude difference.

But hey, the feudal system worked so well!


I can't imagine anyone looking those numbers and not thinking that there's a serious problem with how economic rewards are allocated in the US. It's appalling, unsustainable and complete abrogation of the social contract between employers and employees. The only solution I can see is a return to the 90+ percent taxation rates for the highest earners.
 
2013-05-11 03:44:20 PM  

vygramul: Keynes DID say you CUT SPENDING during boom, and SPEND during bust.


Well here's the thing, trickle-down doesn't ONLY refer to spending; in fact its main component is tax cuts. And that is where Keynesianism and trickle-down differ.
 
2013-05-11 03:45:08 PM  
vygramul:
But if you always have a + during a boom but no - any other time, the + adds up until you hit 100.

When do you cut again?


So not adding or subtracting from tax rates will always result in rates >100?
 
2013-05-11 03:46:33 PM  

Truncks1: The lie that FDR extended the Great Depression is one of the worst. There is only one study, by conservative student economists, that even claimed that, it came out only a few years ago, and it has been refuted and debunked a million times. Its like citing the Heritage Foundation about the laffer curve.


Any assertions on what would have happened are really counter-factual anyway. The problem with economics is the number of independent variables that cannot be isolated.
 
2013-05-11 03:47:41 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: vygramul:
But if you always have a + during a boom but no - any other time, the + adds up until you hit 100.

When do you cut again?

So not adding or subtracting from tax rates will always result in rates >100?


I responded to the statement that you raise taxes during boom. If you raise taxes during boom, it follows that you then cut them at some point.
 
2013-05-11 03:50:17 PM  

vygramul: If you raise taxes during boom, it follows that you then cut them at some point.


Why?
 
2013-05-11 03:51:01 PM  

Muta: FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has

Supply side is Keynesian.

What causes inflation?  Demand exceeding supply.  If that is true then they way to combat inflation would be for the government to increase supply.  Supply side worked for Reagan as he was able to get the inflation rate under control that had been a bugger since the early 70s.  The problem today isn't inflation.  Pricing has been flat for quite some time.  Supply side strategies combat inflation when inflation isn't the problem then it is a waste of money.  Since inflation is low, the proper strategy is to increase demand.


Volker's policies that combated inflation were not in any way, shape or form "trickle down". The main thing the did was to significantly raise the federal funds rate which has zero to do with giving tax breaks and other economic benefits to the rich. You are getting your Reagan era policies confused. His "trickle down" policies came later.
 
2013-05-11 03:52:08 PM  

phaseolus: NewportBarGuy: Republicans talking about economics is a lot like an 8-year-old talking about sex. They have no clue what they are talking about.


In my opinion a better analogy would be '... like an evangelical preacher talking about salvation' -- thinking the right thoughts and believing the right things is necessary and sufficient for blessings to flow from some ineffable fount. It's a way of thinking that doesn't ask for evidence to prove that it's correct and contradictory facts and evidence aren't given any consideration when they appear.

All their derp notwithstanding, this is a huge reason why I can't take today's Republicans seriously. And after they get rid of their Social Conservative crap, this naïve faith in their economic theories is still gonna be there...


"But Brawndo's got electrolytes. It's what plants crave."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c708Rinx6hE

Sadly, this scene closely resembles debates on U.S. economic policy.
 
2013-05-11 03:52:27 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: If you raise taxes during boom, it follows that you then cut them at some point.

Why?


Because you have boom, bust, boom, bust, boom, bust... if you raise taxes each boom, and never cut them, you get to 100.

If taxes should be at a particular level at all times, then say so. Saying you raise them during boom suggests dynamic tax policy.
 
2013-05-11 03:53:51 PM  
This interesting and civil debate y'all are having in here is throwing off my rhythm. Also,

Thrag: On an entirely unrelated note, fark really needs to kill these malicious "mobicow" ads on mobile that hijack the browser window and open the app store. They are making mobile fark almost unusable.


Can you send in a farkback to our dev team. Bad ad or Hey! app category. That shouldn't be happening. Coders will take care of it.
 
2013-05-11 03:56:34 PM  

FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.


THIS. They don't really care about the debt at all-- if they did, they wouldn't call for tax cuts every day of every year. It's just an excise to go after the social safety net programs they hate so much.

No one's mind was changed by the revelations on how this study was bullshiat, because no one's minds were ever convinced by it in the first place. "Debt" is a scary word that lets them justify doing what they already were going to do in the first place.
 
2013-05-11 04:00:01 PM  

vygramul: Thrag: vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: there are well-understood and agreed-upon economics that state WHY it "trickles down"

Uh, exactly what economics state this? Theory is great, but obviously in practice it doesn't work.

Pretty much all econ. It works, even according to Keynes, but it only works in the long-run, in which we're all dead. Again, Keynes wanted to address economic downturns. Were this 1996, Keynes would say we should run a surplus and engage in trickle-down. In 2008, he would argue for abandoning trickle-down for his own solutions.

No, Keynesian economics does not say to engage in "trickle down". Where on earth do you get this idea? It in fact says just the opposite, in a boom you raise taxes to pay off the deficit and hopefully accumulate a surplus for the next downturn. It does not say to lower taxes on the rich.

You guys are doing a great job of confirming the premise of tne headline.

Trickle-down is a modern term, so of course Keynes didn't actually refer to it. Keynes DID say you CUT SPENDING during boom, and SPEND during bust.

And if you're raising taxes during boom, aren't you cutting them during bust?


No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.
 
2013-05-11 04:09:14 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: Actually, the argument for austerity was "Fark your unemployment insurance, my bank needs another round of bailouts".


Bailouts and austerity are not related. In fact, most austerity advocates were critical of bail-outs.

Gunther: Utter bullshiat. Plenty of politicians and supply-side economists were claiming back in 2008-9 that the recession was largely the result of some nebulous lack of "confidence" in the markets, and austerity measures would somehow give them that confidence, leading to a recovery.


[citation needed]

Satanic_Hamster: Heh, I love right wing idiots who make that argument. "The spending works programs didn't bring us out of the Depression, but the spending on military did! Only military spending can help the economy, all other spending is just wasted!"


The people who make that argument are called Military Keynesians for a reason. I wouldn't call them right-wing though.

Don't base your rebuttal on what you think the other side's argument ought to be. Base it on what it actually is.

Gunther: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I never said it caused the Great Depression. I should have added "they tried to use it to get out of the Great Depression". Which it didn't do by the way.

But that's a) a backtrack on what you said originally, and b) still wrong:

[img.photobucket.com image 371x480]


This may come as a shock, because you apparently didn't know this, but GDP includes gov't spending. So your actual argument is literally "If we count gov't spending, spending goes up because the gov't spends more."

GDP is a metric. Stop making it the Holy Grail. The point of the NEw Deal was to recover the economy to 1929 levels and then allow it to resume and pay for itself afterwards. That literally never happened as the cutbacks in the programs showed there was no pump priming.
  

A Dark Evil Omen: Capitalism is a dead-end system. The rightists understand that and are trying to steal as much as possible while they still can. Nothing confusing about that.


Your class struggle theory has been debunked. Even Syndicalism failed. You political hipsters and your niche politics.
 
2013-05-11 04:09:42 PM  

Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.


You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)
 
2013-05-11 04:11:03 PM  

Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.


Yep.Vygramul is pushing austerity, which has been proven false. It's been proven that when wealth goes to the wealthy, it just makes robber barons and a whole lot of poor people. It's the very opposite of Keynesian economics.
 
2013-05-11 04:11:43 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.

The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

I guess the author of the article hasn't been checking the news lately. The people behind The ACA (even one of the co-authors) have admitted it going to cost billions more than projected to get into place and increase insurance premiums by 50-60 percent.

It's ok to want to end private healthcare and install a single payer healthcare system. What's not ok is lying about and trying to it piece by piece. We voted him in! Elections DO consequences. I just wish the White House would be honest with its intentions. But more and more this White House looks like it is having trouble telling the truth.



A

The Stealth Hippopotamus: FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.

The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

I guess the author of the article hasn't been checking the news lately. The people behind The ACA (even one of the co-authors) have admitted it going to cost billions more than projected to get into place and increase insurance premiums by 50-60 percent.

It's ok to want to end private healthcare and install a single payer healthcare system. What's not ok is lying about and trying to it piece by piece. We voted him in! Elections DO consequences. I just wish the White House would be honest with its intentions. But more and more this White House looks like it is having trouble telling the truth.


About that New Deal 'failure'...

You do know that that same advisor, Henry Morgenthau Jr. didn't like the New Deal because it didn't go far enough ? Morgenthau wanted a higher tax on the rich to pay off the depression debt & stimulate the economy? To quote: "We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be..... I don't pay what I should. People in my class don't. People who have it should pay."

He's also the man who invented Social Security, and also the man who decided to fund it through a payroll tax, separate and protected from the annual federal budget.

Not exactly the ardent anti-social program economist you hoped he would be, eh?
 
2013-05-11 04:12:12 PM  

mark12A: Hold tight to your dreams, Libtards. Keynesian deficit spending CANNOT go on forever, and it won't. Like *every* single time its been tried long term (ref: third world, Zimbabwe, etc.) , it WILL blow up at some point.


There are two halves to Keynesian economics.  The other half is you pay the bills back when times are good.

Which we were doing.  We had a big farking surplus when Clinton left office.

But then george w. bush started beating the war drums and you wingnuts believed every word he said and suddenly deficits didn't matter.

Of course now they do matter, because another dagburn Dimmycrat varmint is in the White House.
 
2013-05-11 04:20:35 PM  
People are aware that they primary points outlined by Ryan are in full agreement with the bi-partisan Simpson-Bowles Plan (National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform) that outlines the exact same issues with federal spending and taxes.  The problem with Ryan's proposal is that he just wants to cut the spending and not raise taxes.  Any realistic solution in D.C. will require both.

Strangely enough the politicans from both parties have pretty much ignored the very realisitic work done by Simpson-Bowles.
 
2013-05-11 04:21:05 PM  
The thing with austerity is it fails the economic growth test from first principles. If you want an economy to grow, people need to have money to spend. If you start taking money out of people's pockets, you aren't about to have the economy grow.
 
2013-05-11 04:21:11 PM  

Muta: FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has

Supply side is Keynesian.

What causes inflation?  Demand exceeding supply.  If that is true then they way to combat inflation would be for the government to increase supply.  Supply side worked for Reagan as he was able to get the inflation rate under control that had been a bugger since the early 70s.  The problem today isn't inflation.  Pricing has been flat for quite some time.  Supply side strategies combat inflation when inflation isn't the problem then it is a waste of money.  Since inflation is low, the proper strategy is to increase demand.



One of the major problems Keynes was trying to address was  deflation. Over-production on the supply side was one of the biggest contributors the the Great Depression. Rich farks can produce as much shiat as they want, if no one can buy it, the economy still sucks.  Demand exceeding supply is equally bad as supply exceeding demand.
 
2013-05-11 04:23:03 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.

The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

I guess the author of the article hasn't been checking the news lately. The people behind The ACA (even one of the co-authors) have admitted it going to cost billions more than projected to get into place and increase insurance premiums by 50-60 percent.

It's ok to want to end private healthcare and install a single payer healthcare system. What's not ok is lying about and trying to it piece by piece. We voted him in! Elections DO consequences. I just wish the White House would be honest with its intentions. But more and more this White House looks like it is having trouble telling the truth.


Heritage Foundation stooge like typing detecting. Dispatching ground to Austrian missiles.
 
2013-05-11 04:23:27 PM  

gblive: Any realistic solution in D.C. will require both.


There's another way to solve things. Get incomes growing again, but that takes actually having a spine and leaning on the private sector.
 
2013-05-11 04:23:31 PM  

vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)


So basically, Supply Side doesn't totally work effectively, so the GOP is pushing a policy that is completely and totally ineffective. Got it.
 
2013-05-11 04:24:36 PM  

vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)


I did answer the larger question, but if you insist; Taxes on the wealthy can be lowered to where they were before increases once deficits are back under control.

I have addressed your tree, can we get back to concentrating on the forest now? The main point still stands, Keynesian economics has little to do with the idea of trickle down. They are at best concepts in opposition to each other and at worst entirely unrelated.

/to preemptively cut off any attempts to go to the "jealousy of the rich" or the "sure, you want to raise taxes on others and not yourself" arguements that always come up, I am far into the top tax bracket
//this is a general comment not directed to the poster I am replying to
 
2013-05-11 04:27:57 PM  

dugitman: This interesting and civil debate y'all are having in here is throwing off my rhythm. Also,

Thrag: On an entirely unrelated note, fark really needs to kill these malicious "mobicow" ads on mobile that hijack the browser window and open the app store. They are making mobile fark almost unusable.

Can you send in a farkback to our dev team. Bad ad or Hey! app category. That shouldn't be happening. Coders will take care of it.


First, Same to you buddy!

Second, error report sent. Though I probably should have mentioned I'm currently in Europe in case the ads are regional.
 
2013-05-11 04:28:39 PM  

eggrolls: The Stealth Hippopotamus: FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.

The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

I guess the author of the article hasn't been checking the news lately. The people behind The ACA (even one of the co-authors) have admitted it going to cost billions more than projected to get into place and increase insurance premiums by 50-60 percent.

It's ok to want to end private healthcare and install a single payer healthcare system. What's not ok is lying about and trying to it piece by piece. We voted him in! Elections DO consequences. I just wish the White House would be honest with its intentions. But more and more this White House looks like it is having trouble telling the truth.


AThe Stealth Hippopotamus: FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.

The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

I guess the author of the article hasn't been checking the news lately. The people behind The ACA (even one of the co-authors) have admitted it going to cost billions more than projected to get into place and increase insurance premiums by 50-60 percent.

It's ok to want to end private healthcare and install a single payer healthcare system. What's not ok is lying about and trying to it piece by piece. We voted him in! Elections DO consequences. I just wish the White House would be honest with its intentions. But more and more this White House looks like it is having trouble telling the truth.

About that New Deal 'failure'...

You do know that that same advisor, Henry Morgenthau Jr. didn't like the New Deal because it didn't go far enough ? Morgenthau wanted a higher tax on the rich to pay off the depression debt & stimulate the economy? To quote: "We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be..... I don't pay what I should. People in my class don't. People who have it should pay."

He's also the man who invented Social Security, and also the man who decided to fund it through a payroll tax, separate and protected from the annual federal budget.

Not exactly the ardent anti-social program economist you hoped he would be, eh?


I knew that quote as well. And I have no problem with that idea. And maybe the rich should be paying more and maybe everyone should! At this moment we have a majority of people getting government benifits and a minority of people paying taxes. Does that sound like a winning plan to you? We need more people pulling the cart than people in the cart.

Right now it's being demanded because the "rich" arnt paying their fair share. If it was phrased differently maybe it would work. As of right now a very few people are paying for most of the federal government services and then they are being told they are greedy?! And we're shocked when they get nervous and stop investing and/or pull up stakes and move their money out of the states?! It doesn't matter what economy theory you want to use you need the rich people to stay here!
 
2013-05-11 04:40:13 PM  

Wessoman: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

Yep.Vygramul is pushing austerity, which has been proven false. It's been proven that when wealth goes to the wealthy, it just makes robber barons and a whole lot of poor people. It's the very opposite of Keynesian economics.


I'm not pushing austerity. I'm trying to clarify.
 
2013-05-11 04:46:21 PM  

vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)


I should also address your parenthetical; Yes, supply side can be more than "trickle down", but trickle down is at the heart of it. People who push supply side economics often focus on lowering income and cap gains taxes justified by the trickle down concept.

While it may fit into the overall concept I honestly have never heard anyone call things like investments in basic research or education "supply side economics". Everything I have ever seen on supply side economics from its advocates is completely focused on taxes. Research usually only comes into play in the form of R&D credits for companies, not government funded research. It's usually just laffer curve all the way down.
 
2013-05-11 04:54:48 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: If you raise taxes during boom, it follows that you then cut them at some point.

Why?


During a recession, to stimulate demand.
 
2013-05-11 04:55:20 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression?


The rest of the world didn't just go through a depression, the rest of the world tried radically different systems to solve their economic problems, some of those systems being extremely hostile. They all had varying degrees of success and failure, but it should be noted that the systems that pulled themselves out of the depression the fastest were the ones that abandoned Capitalism altogether (Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia). The ones who stood fast to free market principles (Britain, France, USA) were the ones who suffered the depression the longest.
 
2013-05-11 04:56:22 PM  
Even with the data on their side, none of the advocates of Obamacare is nearly as certain the law will succeed as conservatives like Levin are that it will fail. That is a testament only to the overweening ideological certainty that pervades the right.

There's an old Peanuts cartoon I remember in which Lucy says something along the lines of "If you can't be right, be wrong at the top of your lungs".This appears to be the GOP's MO these days. Claiming for the umpteenth time that trickle down really works and that lower taxes and less regulation are the cure to all ills with the same passionate certainty of a confidence trickster or a snake oil salesman in days gone by.

I always suspected that Lucy van Pelt grew up and became a Republican.
 
2013-05-11 04:56:30 PM  
The only way one can say a majority of people are on government benefits is to include SSI and Medicare as benefits (they are entitlements, people are entitled to them because they paid in) and to include all tax credits like the mortgage interest deduction as benefits (which they are but people who get them often deny).

The only way one can say that a minority of people pay taxes is to include children, and in that case, well duh.
 
2013-05-11 05:01:58 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: We need more people pulling the cart than people in the cart.


Well if incomes hadn't been flat the last 30 years that wouldn't be an issue.
 
2013-05-11 05:04:25 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: And we're shocked when they get nervous


One if five children in America live in poverty but the rich are *gasp* feeling nervous. I'll fetch the fainting couch.
 
2013-05-11 05:06:24 PM  

Mrbogey: The people who make that argument are called Military Keynesians for a reason. I wouldn't call them right-wing though.

Don't base your rebuttal on what you think the other side's argument ought to be. Base it on what it actually is.


Actually, I regularly see that argument from "conservatives," both in real life and on the Hill.  Government spending on bridges?  Why, that's wasteful spending and doesn't help the economy at all.  But we can't cut military spending, think of all the jobs that would hurt!
 
2013-05-11 05:07:38 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: At this moment we have a majority of people getting government benifits and a minority of people paying taxes.


Well, you know why, right?

www.ishkur.com

Just what, pray tell, do you think you're going to get out of these moochers who don't pay taxes?

They don't pay taxes because they don't have any money.

There is an easy solution to this, of course: Pay people a decent wage so they actually have something to tax.
 
2013-05-11 05:10:50 PM  
Its like faith of any kind, in anything, is not a virtue?
 
2013-05-11 05:17:10 PM  

Ishkur: The Stealth Hippopotamus: At this moment we have a majority of people getting government benifits and a minority of people paying taxes.

Well, you know why, right?

[www.ishkur.com image 432x432]

Just what, pray tell, do you think you're going to get out of these moochers who don't pay taxes?

They don't pay taxes because they don't have any money.

There is an easy solution to this, of course: Pay people a decent wage so they actually have something to tax.


Socializim!!!!!
 
2013-05-11 05:26:29 PM  

vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)


Keynesian economics is not about tax rate changes. It is about affecting aggregate demand. Tax rates could theoretically be at the correct level to balance out over a period of time longer than the business cycle and therefore never be adjusted. Aggregate demand can be changed by government purchases paid by debt during a downturn and that debt paid off after an upturn.

You are stuck on tax rates and it is causing your brain to malfunction with regard to what Keynes was saying.
 
2013-05-11 05:27:25 PM  

Thrag: vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)

I did answer the larger question, but if you insist; Taxes on the wealthy can be lowered to where they were before increases once deficits are back under control.

I have addressed your tree, can we get back to concentrating on the forest now? The main point still stands, Keynesian economics has little to do with the idea of trickle down. They are at best concepts in opposition to each other and at worst entirely unrelated.

/to preemptively cut off any attempts to go to the "jealousy of the rich" or the "sure, you want to raise taxes on others and not yourself" arguements that always come up, I am far into the top tax bracket
//this is a general comment not directed to the poster I am replying to


In times when things are good and you have a reasonable surplus, Keynes has nothing against supply-side decisions.
 
2013-05-11 05:30:38 PM  

Thrag: vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)

I should also address your parenthetical; Yes, supply side can be more than "trickle down", but trickle down is at the heart of it. People who push supply side economics often focus on lowering income and cap gains taxes justified by the trickle down concept.

While it may fit into the overall concept I honestly have never heard anyone call things like investments in basic research or education "supply side economics". Everything I have ever seen on supply side economics from its advocates is completely focused on taxes. Research usually only comes into play in the form of R&D credits for companies, not government funded research. It's usually just laffer curve all the way down.


Supply side states there are four primary paths to increasing per capita GDP. Tax cuts for people and corporations are two of them. R&D and Education are the other two.

Technology improves productivity, as does education, shifting the supply curve and increasing GDP.

Tax cuts shift both curves for different reasons.
 
2013-05-11 05:34:12 PM  

MontanaDave: vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)

Keynesian economics is not about tax rate changes. It is about affecting aggregate demand. Tax rates could theoretically be at the correct level to balance out over a period of time longer than the business cycle and therefore never be adjusted. Aggregate demand can be changed by government purchases paid by debt during a downturn and that debt paid off after an upturn.

You are stuck on tax rates and it is causing your brain to malfunction with regard to what Keynes was saying.


No, I'm responding to Thrag, who brought it up. You can't bring up taxes, and when I respond to it, claim that *I* am stuck on taxes.
 
2013-05-11 05:38:31 PM  

WhyteRaven74: The Stealth Hippopotamus: We need more people pulling the cart than people in the cart.

Well if incomes hadn't been flat the last 30 years that wouldn't be an issue.


If we did increase the size and cost of government in the last 30 years it would be an issue either
 
2013-05-11 05:40:04 PM  

Ishkur: The Stealth Hippopotamus: At this moment we have a majority of people getting government benifits and a minority of people paying taxes.

Well, you know why, right?

Just what, pray tell, do you think you're going to get out of these moochers who don't pay taxes?

They don't pay taxes because they don't have any money.

There is an easy solution to this, of course: Pay people a decent wage so they actually have something to tax.


And pray tell what should federal living wage be?
 
2013-05-11 05:43:03 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Ishkur: The Stealth Hippopotamus: At this moment we have a majority of people getting government benifits and a minority of people paying taxes.

Well, you know why, right?

Just what, pray tell, do you think you're going to get out of these moochers who don't pay taxes?

They don't pay taxes because they don't have any money.

There is an easy solution to this, of course: Pay people a decent wage so they actually have something to tax.

And pray tell what should federal living wage be?


While people make some economic arguments for and against a minimum wage, the real argument is a moral one. It's immoral to pay people so little for full-time work that they cannot feed, clothe, and educate their children.
 
2013-05-11 05:51:21 PM  

vygramul: MontanaDave: vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)

Keynesian economics is not about tax rate changes. It is about affecting aggregate demand. Tax rates could theoretically be at the correct level to balance out over a period of time longer than the business cycle and therefore never be adjusted. Aggregate demand can be changed by government purchases paid by debt during a downturn and that debt paid off after an upturn.

You are stuck on tax rates and it is causing your brain to malfunction with regard to what Keynes was saying.

No, I'm responding to Thrag, who brought it up. You can't bring up taxes, and when I respond to it, claim that *I* am stuck on taxes.


Thank you for pointing that out. I will clarify my comment by saying that both you and Thrag are stuck on taxes and both of your brains are malfunctioning with regard to what Keynes was saying.

Better?
 
2013-05-11 05:54:50 PM  

vygramul: Thrag: vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)

I did answer the larger question, but if you insist; Taxes on the wealthy can be lowered to where they were before increases once deficits are back under control.

I have addressed your tree, can we get back to concentrating on the forest now? The main point still stands, Keynesian economics has little to do with the idea of trickle down. They are at best concepts in opposition to each other and at worst entirely unrelated.

/to preemptively cut off any attempts to go to the "jealousy of the rich" or the "sure, you want to raise taxes on others and not yourself" arguements that always come up, I am far into the top tax bracket
//this is a general comment not directed to the poster I am replying to

In times when things are good and you have a reasonable surplus, Keynes has nothing against supply-side decisions.


Correct, it has nothing against (or for) supply side in boom times once deficits are under control and the system is prepared for a downturn. It is as I stated entirely unrelated.

I do have to point out that this is not the arguement you started with. You were attempting to claim that Keynesian economics advocates trickle down. The larger supply side concepts only came into the conversation when I used the term supply side as a contrast my explanation that Keynesian economics says to stimulate the demand side and I was specific about saying trickle down in that same sentence.

You have also expressed some agreement that current trickle down/supply side advocates (i.e. the GOP) usually only concentrate on taxes. While it is true that an academic definition of supply side economics does include education and stimulating research, in practice advocates almost entirely ignore thkse parts and focus on taxes. So at this point I do not believe we have any points of contention, unless you plan to revert to your eariler argument.
 
2013-05-11 05:55:34 PM  
Holy shiat.  A good article and fairly decent thread.

Heap:  You made me laugh.

Thrag:  I need to get out of this job.  Call me, baby.

Dusk:  There's not a single comment from you that I don't love.  You really should post more.
 
2013-05-11 05:57:09 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: WhyteRaven74: The Stealth Hippopotamus: We need more people pulling the cart than people in the cart.

Well if incomes hadn't been flat the last 30 years that wouldn't be an issue.

If we did increase the size and cost of government in the last 30 years it would be an issue either


Not increasing the size of government for 30 years would be demographically impossible.  We've added close to 100 million people since 1980.

But maybe there's more to government spending than raw numbers...oh look...we're spending a massive 1.6 points more now than in 1981 weighed against the total size of the economy.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-11 06:06:08 PM  

MontanaDave: vygramul: MontanaDave: vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)

Keynesian economics is not about tax rate changes. It is about affecting aggregate demand. Tax rates could theoretically be at the correct level to balance out over a period of time longer than the business cycle and therefore never be adjusted. Aggregate demand can be changed by government purchases paid by debt during a downturn and that debt paid off after an upturn.

You are stuck on tax rates and it is causing your brain to malfunction with regard to what Keynes was saying.

No, I'm responding to Thrag, who brought it up. You can't bring up taxes, and when I respond to it, claim that *I* am stuck on taxes.

Thank you for pointing that out. I will clarify my comment by saying that both you and Thrag are stuck on taxes and both of your brains are malfunctioning with regard to what Keynes was saying.

Better?


No, not better. The conversation we were having was mainly about trickle down, which is largely if not entirely focused on taxes which is why taxes were a primary point of discussion. Neither of us has claimed in any way that Keynesian economics is all about taxes. In fact vygrmul early on stated the basic spend in bust save in boom concept. Since that was not a point of contention it was not necessary to keep mentioning it. In my posts I specifically stated that Keynesian economics focuses on stimulating demand during a bust. If any brain is malfunctioning here it is yours with regard to reading comprehension.
 
2013-05-11 06:25:01 PM  

Thrag: I do have to point out that this is not the arguement you started with. You were attempting to claim that Keynesian economics advocates trickle down. The larger supply side concepts only came into the conversation when I used the term supply side as a contrast my explanation that Keynesian economics says to stimulate the demand side and I was specific about saying trickle down in that same sentence.

You have also expressed some agreement that current trickle down/supply side advocates (i.e. the GOP) usually only concentrate on taxes. While it is true that an academic definition of supply side economics does include education and stimulating research, in practice advocates almost entirely ignore thkse parts and focus on taxes. So at this point I do not believe we have any points of contention, unless you plan to revert to your eariler argument.


I admittedly was intentionally vague about WHEN Keynes agreed with supply-side economics.

As far as what advocates of trickle-down economics champion, I would wholeheartedly agree that they only advocate those things that satisfy their own ideology. It's like Cafeteria Catholics. They're Flophouse Friedmans. (Well, that doesn't really make sense, but there aren't synonyms with Cafeteria that start with F.)
 
2013-05-11 07:05:32 PM  
Flipflop Friedmans?
 
2013-05-11 07:06:43 PM  
LEAVE VICE PRESIDENT DUDEBRO ALONE!!!!!
 
2013-05-11 07:08:55 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: And pray tell what should federal living wage be?


Well, if we peg it to inflation like it should be, probably $12.87 (aka the federal poverty level for a family of four).

At the very least, it should be $10.00, which would put the purchasing power of the bottom rung consumer back to 1968 levels. I would go $11.00 as a compromise.
 
2013-05-11 07:13:50 PM  
These threads are a lot better without MattStafford threadshiatting over everything.

/oh no, I just invoked him. He's going to show up, isn't he?
 
2013-05-11 07:15:48 PM  

FlashHarry: and what, pray tell, did get us out of the great depression? tax cuts and less regulation?


The nazi scientists we captured?
 
2013-05-11 07:24:32 PM  

Baryogenesis: The Stealth Hippopotamus: WhyteRaven74: The Stealth Hippopotamus: We need more people pulling the cart than people in the cart.

Well if incomes hadn't been flat the last 30 years that wouldn't be an issue.

If we did increase the size and cost of government in the last 30 years it would be an issue either

Not increasing the size of government for 30 years would be demographically impossible.  We've added close to 100 million people since 1980.

But maybe there's more to government spending than raw numbers...oh look...we're spending a massive 1.6 points more now than in 1981 weighed against the total size of the economy.


We were overbuying on 81 too.
 
2013-05-11 07:35:24 PM  

Ishkur: The Stealth Hippopotamus: And pray tell what should federal living wage be?

Well, if we peg it to inflation like it should be, probably $12.87 (aka the federal poverty level for a family of four).

At the very least, it should be $10.00, which would put the purchasing power of the bottom rung consumer back to 1968 levels. I would go $11.00 as a compromise.


Wow you actually said a number? Most don't so good on you!

11 bucks is way too much to pay a fast food worker in Tulsa, OK. If you had two McDonalds workers get married you'd be over the average household income for the state. Since we can both agree that half the state of Oklahoma isn't poor I'd say that 11 bucks is too high for Oklahoma.
 
2013-05-11 07:42:53 PM  

vygramul: Keynes basically said that when consumer spending falls (bust), government spending must rise. During booms you pay off the debt you collected during busts - income smoothing on a societal level. But if you have a reasonable surplus, and things are good, then his economics are indistinguishable from trickle-down.


Pretty much.

Keynesian: "The key to keeping your house at a comfortable temperature is turning on your air conditioner when it's hot, and turning on your heater when it's cold."
Neoconservative: "BUT LAST SUMMER I TURNED ON MY HEATER AND IT GOT EVEN HOTTER! CLEARLY HEATERS DON'T WORK AND AIR CONDITIONING IS THE ONLY SOLUTION FOR EVERYTHING!"
 
2013-05-11 07:52:18 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Wow you actually said a number? Most don't so good on you!


I'm good at what I do, and what I do is argue on Fark.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 11 bucks is way too much to pay a fast food worker in Tulsa, OK.


Why? Is the fast food in Tulsa any cheaper than it is in, say, San Francisco?

let me check: Varies from store to store, but the cost of a Big Mac meal around the country is:
Avg Price: $6.64(USD)
Max Price: $7.96(USD)
Min Price: $5.83(USD)

So even if we want to use the extreme ends of the wealthiest and poorest joints in the country, we're still only looking at $2.13 difference. And Oklahoma is far from the poorest state in the country (Mississippi is).

Would you prefer to use this as a metric for how Oklahoma pays its fast food employees? As far as I know, they all make Federal minimum wage ($7.25), despite the disparate living standards and relative costs of extra value meals. Do you think that's fair?

So $9.00 would suffice?

The Stealth Hippopotamus: If


Protip: Don't back your arguments with "If"
 
2013-05-11 08:36:34 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Ishkur: The Stealth Hippopotamus: And pray tell what should federal living wage be?

Well, if we peg it to inflation like it should be, probably $12.87 (aka the federal poverty level for a family of four).

At the very least, it should be $10.00, which would put the purchasing power of the bottom rung consumer back to 1968 levels. I would go $11.00 as a compromise.

Wow you actually said a number? Most don't so good on you!

11 bucks is way too much to pay a fast food worker in Tulsa, OK. If you had two McDonalds workers get married you'd be over the average household income for the state. Since we can both agree that half the state of Oklahoma isn't poor I'd say that 11 bucks is too high for Oklahoma.


Do you live in Oklahoma?  I do.
 
2013-05-11 09:27:40 PM  

Mentat: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Ishkur: The Stealth Hippopotamus: And pray tell what should federal living wage be?

Well, if we peg it to inflation like it should be, probably $12.87 (aka the federal poverty level for a family of four).

At the very least, it should be $10.00, which would put the purchasing power of the bottom rung consumer back to 1968 levels. I would go $11.00 as a compromise.

Wow you actually said a number? Most don't so good on you!

11 bucks is way too much to pay a fast food worker in Tulsa, OK. If you had two McDonalds workers get married you'd be over the average household income for the state. Since we can both agree that half the state of Oklahoma isn't poor I'd say that 11 bucks is too high for Oklahoma.

Do you live in Oklahoma?  I do.


Wait, since when do you live in Oklahoma?

/Thought you lived near KC for some reason
 
2013-05-11 09:40:41 PM  

Ishkur: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Wow you actually said a number? Most don't so good on you!

I'm good at what I do, and what I do is argue on Fark.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 11 bucks is way too much to pay a fast food worker in Tulsa, OK.

Why? Is the fast food in Tulsa any cheaper than it is in, say, San Francisco?

let me check: Varies from store to store, but the cost of a Big Mac meal around the country is:
Avg Price: $6.64(USD)
Max Price: $7.96(USD)
Min Price: $5.83(USD)

So even if we want to use the extreme ends of the wealthiest and poorest joints in the country, we're still only looking at $2.13 difference. And Oklahoma is far from the poorest state in the country (Mississippi is).

Would you prefer to use this as a metric for how Oklahoma pays its fast food employees? As far as I know, they all make Federal minimum wage ($7.25), despite the disparate living standards and relative costs of extra value meals. Do you think that's fair?

So $9.00 would suffice?

The Stealth Hippopotamus: If

Protip: Don't back your arguments with "If"


9 works for me.

And picking a fast food worker was more a how much do we as a society value a fast food worker? Should a person working at McDonalds be able to support a family of 4 on that pay check? Where is the starter job for the kid just leaving highschool? Should every job produce a paycheck large enough to afford a house, car, and leave a little for saving for the kids college fund?
At 9 dollars an hour in Tulsa, OK (where I live) 20k could make those things happen. In Boston? Not so much.
 
2013-05-11 10:09:57 PM  
dericwater:

Outside of a couple of missed points (like the Apple/Microsoft comparison, since both companies are large for different reasons - Apple because it has high profit margins/superb marketing and Microsoft because it developed a standard for industry and set up large barriers to entry to protect itself), it was a good post. You've earned the $5.
 
2013-05-11 10:11:40 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: And picking a fast food worker was more a how much do we as a society value a fast food worker? Should a person working at McDonalds be able to support a family of 4 on that pay check? Where is the starter job for the kid just leaving highschool? Should every job produce a paycheck large enough to afford a house, car, and leave a little for saving for the kids college fund?
At 9 dollars an hour in Tulsa, OK (where I live) 20k could make those things happen. In Boston? Not so much.


The cost of living in OK is low, but it's not that low.  And given that the Tea Bagger government is trying to destroy public education in the state, a $9 an hour McDonald's job might be the best many of these kids can hope for.
 
2013-05-11 10:12:57 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Wait, since when do you live in Oklahoma?

/Thought you lived near KC for some reason


My ass lives in Oklahoma but my heart lives in KC.
 
2013-05-11 10:13:56 PM  

Mentat: Mrtraveler01: Wait, since when do you live in Oklahoma?

/Thought you lived near KC for some reason

My ass lives in Oklahoma but my heart lives in KC.


Pooping must be one hell of a commute.
 
2013-05-11 11:50:22 PM  
This has been common knowledge for years.  It's a little hard to believe there are people who are just now figuring it out.
 
2013-05-11 11:55:52 PM  

Bucky Katt: This has been common knowledge for years.  It's a little hard to believe there are people who are just now figuring it out.


Common knowledge is kinda like common sense.

Not what it used to be.
 
2013-05-11 11:58:56 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: LordJiro:  When too much wealth concentrates at the top, at the expense of everyone below, a collapse is inevitable. And concentrating that wealth at the top is the entire point of "Trickle down".

No one other than weird Rothbard reading types deny this. The only controversy seems to be whether the crash is a feature, or a bug.


A buggy feature?
 
2013-05-12 12:22:46 AM  

Mrbogey: Gunther: Utter bullshiat. Plenty of politicians and supply-side economists were claiming back in 2008-9 that the recession was largely the result of some nebulous lack of "confidence" in the markets, and austerity measures would somehow give them that confidence, leading to a recovery.

[citation needed]


Sure, here's David Cameron claiming austerity will somehow result in a recovery through "confidence" back in 2010. There's hundreds more examples of what Keynesians dismissively call the "confidence fairy" if you bother googling.

Mrbogey: This may come as a shock, because you apparently didn't know this, but GDP includes gov't spending. So your actual argument is literally "If we count gov't spending, spending goes up because the gov't spends more."


The cost of the New Deal as a percentage of GDP is a tiny fraction of the increase in GDP we see in that graph.

Mrbogey: The point of the NEw Deal was to recover the economy to 1929 levels and then allow it to resume and pay for itself afterwards. That literally never happened as the cutbacks in the programs showed there was no pump priming.


I don't even know what you're arguing here; it's so badly worded. It sounds like "the economic recovery didn't directly pay for the stimulus which caused it", which is inherently nonsensical. If you want to know why the national debt stayed high after the country started to recover, there was a little thing called WW2. It was rather expensive.
 
2013-05-12 12:25:52 AM  

Gunther: Sure, here's David Cameron claiming austerity will somehow result in a recovery through "confidence" back in 2010.


Dammit, Fark apparently doesn't like Financial Times links. If you just google "David Cameron austerity confidence" you'll find a whole slew of articles on that article he wrote for the FT.
 
2013-05-12 03:28:07 AM  

Thrag: On an entirely unrelated note, fark really needs to kill these malicious "mobicow" ads on mobile that hijack the browser window and open the app store. They are making mobile fark almost unusable.


Use farkback on the "report error" link at the bottom. Take a screen shot so you can show the mods in a followup email.
 
2013-05-12 03:45:00 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: And picking a fast food worker was more a how much do we as a society value a fast food worker?


You tell me. I was simply pegging the wage of a fast food worker against the median value of a Big Mac extra value meal.

But it's not a question of what we value in a fast food worker (by way of education, experience, competence, protocol, etc.) but rather a question of how valuable is a fast food worker to the overall economy.

In an economy of nothing but fast food workers, the fast food worker is king.
 
2013-05-12 03:49:47 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Baryogenesis: The Stealth Hippopotamus: WhyteRaven74: The Stealth Hippopotamus: We need more people pulling the cart than people in the cart.

Well if incomes hadn't been flat the last 30 years that wouldn't be an issue.

If we did increase the size and cost of government in the last 30 years it would be an issue either

Not increasing the size of government for 30 years would be demographically impossible.  We've added close to 100 million people since 1980.

But maybe there's more to government spending than raw numbers...oh look...we're spending a massive 1.6 points more now than in 1981 weighed against the total size of the economy.

We were overbuying on 81 too.


Where are you going with those goal posts?

Well, ok, a 1.6 point drop isn't enough for you.  Let's skip right to the part where you state exactly the ideal level of government spending as a share of GDP.  Then tell us exactly what you're cutting and by how much to get down to that number.
 
2013-05-12 08:01:21 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Ishkur: The Stealth Hippopotamus: And pray tell what should federal living wage be?

Well, if we peg it to inflation like it should be, probably $12.87 (aka the federal poverty level for a family of four).

At the very least, it should be $10.00, which would put the purchasing power of the bottom rung consumer back to 1968 levels. I would go $11.00 as a compromise.

Wow you actually said a number? Most don't so good on you!

11 bucks is way too much to pay a fast food worker in Tulsa, OK. If you had two McDonalds workers get married you'd be over the average household income for the state. Since we can both agree that half the state of Oklahoma isn't poor I'd say that 11 bucks is too high for Oklahoma.


They're not?
 
2013-05-12 01:24:56 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Flight of the Conchords June 17, 2007

The Stealth Hippoppotamus
Boobies: (what's this?) 2007-01-31 17:42:13, in thread number 2578047

Never watched the show


It was one of their songs from before the TV show.  Here it is from 2006

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbbxA8a_M_s

You didn't make it up so stop lying.

Everyone should watch their actual HBO show though, it's the best.  Their standup was meh but their show was next level.
 
2013-05-12 03:52:48 PM  

Mrtraveler01: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

The historical revisionism is strong in this one.


I stopped reading when he misspelled 'simply'.
 
2013-05-12 04:14:46 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: El Pachuco: SnakeLee: The Stealth Hippopotamus is a Flight of the Concords reference.  I am really doubting extreme right wing Tea Partiers are watching that show and especially doubtful that they would name their handle after it.  Y'all need to stop biting on that troll

He's not a troll, he actually believes his posts.  And where'd you get "extreme right wing Tea Party"?  He's a Paul Ryan Ayn Rand pseudo-intellectual, not a knuckle-dragging Tea Party type, probably because he's young enough to have seen some Flight of the Conchords episodes.

Flight of the Conchords June 17, 2007

The Stealth Hippoppotamus
Boobies: (what's this?) 2007-01-31 17:42:13, in thread number 2578047

Never watched the show

Henry Morgenthau the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. He played a major role in designing and financing the New Deal and called it a failure! The man incharge of the program admitted this.

The only thing that saved us was FDR's trust busting that lead to more competition and kept us going until the war.


He also advocated for increasing taxes on the wealthy...
 
2013-05-12 04:32:56 PM  

eggrolls: The Stealth Hippopotamus: FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.

The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

I guess the author of the article hasn't been checking the news lately. The people behind The ACA (even one of the co-authors) have admitted it going to cost billions more than projected to get into place and increase insurance premiums by 50-60 percent.

It's ok to want to end private healthcare and install a single payer healthcare system. What's not ok is lying about and trying to it piece by piece. We voted him in! Elections DO consequences. I just wish the White House would be honest with its intentions. But more and more this White House looks like it is having trouble telling the truth.


AThe Stealth Hippopotamus: FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.

The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

I guess the author of the article hasn't been checking the news lately. The people behind The ACA (even one of the co-authors) have admitted it going to cost billions more than projected to get into place and increase insurance premiums by 50-60 percent.

It's ok to want to end private healthcare and install a single payer healthcare system. What's not ok is lying about and trying to it piece by piece. We voted him in! Elections DO consequences. I just wish the White House would be honest with its intentions. But more and more this White House looks like it is having trouble telling the truth.

About that New Deal 'failure'...

You do know that that same advisor, Henry Morgenthau Jr. didn't like the New Deal because it didn't go far enough ? Morgenthau wanted a higher tax on the rich to pay off the depression debt & stimulate the economy? To quote: "We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be..... I don't pay what I should. People in my class don't. People who have it should pay."

He's also the man who invented Social Security, and also the man who decided to fund it through a payroll tax, separate and protected from the annual federal budget.

Not exactly the ardent anti-social program economist you hoped he would be, eh?


His fw:fw:fw:fw:fw: email didnt go that far...
 
Displayed 223 of 223 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report