The ignorance of the left on economics is astounding

[KLATTU]

SSE is by no means 'bunk'. It's just common sense.
What is bunk is the strawman that it is some sort of panacea that fixes everything.
What also is bunk is that it increases revenue to the Treasury in the short run. It can , in some cases.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

If you haven't gotten a raise in 40 years then you are doing something wrong. I know in the past 20 years i have gotten plenty of raises and i have nearly doubled to triple my
salary in just 20 years. So your inability to earn more money is your issue and no one else's.



Your projection fallacy is your issue no mine.



Of course you don't care about facts you never have which is why the OP is correct.



Your projection fallacies are your issue and no one else's.



Then you work for some pretty terrible places but since you said you haven't had a pay increase in 40 years that could be why as well.



you are showing you know nothing again.


No i don't read whatever nonsense you do. I read facts and information on how things work.
you read conspiracy theories. you haven't correct anything or anyone. yet another projection fallacy that is your issue.

You make twice as much as 20 years ago? Congratulations, you've kept up with inflation. Well done!!

And I'm a retired Air Force officer, with a pretty big retirement pension. I'm most likely more financially successful than you are. I live comfortably, but I'm wise enough to know that rich Republicans don't give a flying **** about poor and middle class Republicans. You've been a sucker your whole life, voting against your best economic interest every single election. You simply do not get it and you may NEVER get it. Sad, but true nonetheless.

I've already corrected you multiple times on this thread. I showed you how you were wrong about Obama's tax cuts. I showed you how you were wrong about which Presidents have created the most jobs. And I'm sure I'll keep correcting you some more in the future.

 

[Bullseye]

Yes, them.Thats referring to US citizens and workers. According to the right, government has no business artificially protecting them from free market forces. It’s unconstitutional. Leaving them to fend for themselves will teach them to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and not rely on big nanny government to keep protecting them, won’t it?

"According to the right . . ." Source please.

 

[RealityNow]

Lets take the top and bottom of economics here in the US. The left and Biden want to tax the hell out of businesses making more than $400,000. If he would, they will raise the price of their product, and even the most poor will have to pay the higher price.

Then the low end. Biden and the left wingers want a $15 minimum wage for burger flippers so they can have a "living wage". What they dont understand is working in a burger joint IS NOT a life's work. It is for teenagers, and maybe old people to add to their income. If you force $15 wages on a burger joint, one of three things will happen. They will go out of business, they will fire people and go to kiosks, or burgers will cost $7.50.

Why is this so hard to understand?

LEARN SOMETHING.... it might help you... especially with what you seem overtly devoted to not understanding, because this Debt tells a story, and that story is relative to the increases in the cost of living

States Minimum Wage

Media Home Price in All 50 States

Income Necessary to Pay Rent or Mortgages and Income Necessary to Live Above The Poverty Level in All 50 States.

You don't know enough to try and engage this subject - (you would have served yourself better to have remained silent.)

 

[JasperL]

It isn't hard to understand at all.

What you are saying is that if you increase taxes on businesses, they will just pass the extra cost on to consumers, ultimately forcing people of all income levels to pay.

What you're referring to is the "incidence" of a tax, in this case income taxes on businesses. There's been a great deal of research on that, and one thing that seems pretty clear is the 'incidence' of corporate income taxes is shared mainly between investors/owners, and employees of the business/sector. Short term owners/shareholders bear almost the entire burden of income tax increases. Long term shifts in economic activity cause the incidence to be pushed downward to workers to some extent.

But competitors generally can't raise prices to offset increases in their INCOME taxes. In a given market, the marginal income tax rate of those in that market will likely vary from 0% to maybe 30%. A competitor paying 30% can try to raise prices after an increase in income taxes, but those paying 0% can then keep their prices low and grab market share. Look at the domestic online selling market - Amazon pays roughly $0 in income taxes many years. Good luck to an online retailer trying to raise prices when income taxes go up when the biggest of them all pays NOTHING. This story is common in many if not all market segments.

On the other end of things, raising the minimum wage to $15 isn't going to magically make people who are earning minimum wage more productive. Businesses that rely on minimum wages workers will go out of business if they are forced to raise wages above what they can make a profit on.

Alternatively, they will turn to kiosks and automation if it becomes more cost-effective than human labour.

Or if they are able to dramatically increase the cost without losing consumers in order to continue making a profit, the extra income that minimum wage workers earn will be offset by their increased cost of living, with no net effect other than the devaluation of the dollar.

That's also way too simplistic. The cost of living will go up mostly for goods or services with a large minimum wage workforce, but the labor component of most prices is relatively small, the MW component even smaller, and so the price increases will be in most cases small, even if the entire increase in the MW is passed through with higher prices. So restaurants will increase prices, but car makers who pay above minimum wage won't, and housing prices likely aren't affected much by wages of those at the very bottom, gas isn't dictated by how much the clerk at the convenience store makes, shoes/TVs/clothing/furniture made overseas aren't particularly impacted by the wage of the clerk at the chain store selling them, etc.

And even if MW wage increases cause a rise in inflation, it's not at all clear how that impacts the well being of those at the bottom. MW increases come at the expense of someone else, ultimately, so it's not clear that MW cause inflation, and if it does then it matters what prices go up. So you'd need to show that MW increases cause inflation in the product mix consumed by those at the bottom and I've never seen any research demonstrating that.

The bigger problem with MW increases is they are poorly targeted relief to the actual poor. If we really want to help the poor, EITC is actually pretty good because it's mean tested, and goes only to the poor. Food stamps, rent subsidies, etc. are also better targeted.

That is all pretty trivial to understand. You believe that because your 'logic' is easier for you to understand, that makes it more correct, but that is not how being correct works.

It is much more difficult to read and understand the works of Keynes, Rothbard, Schumpeter, Marx, Locke, etc. and to develop a more complex and nuanced understanding of economics beyond the primary school level. You've got nothing to prove to anyone here, but in the privacy of your own mind, ask yourself how much you have really read on the subject, Ask yourself whether you arrived at your understanding of economics through comprehensive study, or whether there might be more to it than your simplistic "why is this so hard to understand" approach.

I'd suggest the economic impacts of what you're discussing are not in fact simple at all...

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

What you're referring to is the "incidence" of a tax, in this case income taxes on businesses. There's been a great deal of research on that, and one thing that seems pretty clear is the 'incidence' of corporate income taxes is shared mainly between investors/owners, and employees of the business/sector. Short term owners/shareholders bear almost the entire burden of income tax increases. Long term shifts in economic activity cause the incidence to be pushed downward to workers to some extent.

But competitors generally can't raise prices to offset increases in their INCOME taxes. In a given market, the marginal income tax rate of those in that market will likely vary from 0% to maybe 30%. A competitor paying 30% can try to raise prices after an increase in income taxes, but those paying 0% can then keep their prices low and grab market share. Look at the domestic online selling market - Amazon pays roughly $0 in income taxes many years. Good luck to an online retailer trying to raise prices when income taxes go up when the biggest of them all pays NOTHING. This story is common in many if not all market segments.


That's also way too simplistic. The cost of living will go up mostly for goods or services with a large minimum wage workforce, but the labor component of most prices is relatively small, the MW component even smaller, and so the price increases will be in most cases small, even if the entire increase in the MW is passed through with higher prices. So restaurants will increase prices, but car makers who pay above minimum wage won't, and housing prices likely aren't affected much by wages of those at the very bottom, gas isn't dictated by how much the clerk at the convenience store makes, shoes/TVs/clothing/furniture made overseas aren't particularly impacted by the wage of the clerk at the chain store selling them, etc.

And even if MW wage increases cause a rise in inflation, it's not at all clear how that impacts the well being of those at the bottom. MW increases come at the expense of someone else, ultimately, so it's not clear that MW cause inflation, and if it does then it matters what prices go up. So you'd need to show that MW increases cause inflation in the product mix consumed by those at the bottom and I've never seen any research demonstrating that.

The bigger problem with MW increases is they are poorly targeted relief to the actual poor. If we really want to help the poor, EITC is actually pretty good because it's mean tested, and goes only to the poor. Food stamps, rent subsidies, etc. are also better targeted.



I'd suggest the economic impacts of what you're discussing are not in fact simple at all...

You're not wrong.

But I think you mistake my objective. Posters like the one I was responding to are quite proud of their ability to wrap their heads around simple concepts like the idea of costs being passed down to consumers. If confronted with things that they do not yet understand, it will be easier for them to dismiss whatever you have to say as being some leftist talking point that you are parroting, than to work at understanding what you have to say. They will have no trouble convincing themselves that if you would only think for yourself for a minute, you too would be able to grasp this simple concept that they already understand. Accordingly, they will redouble their efforts to educate you on this concept rather than put effort into trying to understand something new.

My objective with that post was not to correct the assumptions made by the poster, but rather to demonstrate that I was listening to them and that I understood everything that they are trying to say by describing the concept back to them in my own words. Once you have convinced them that you listened to what they have to say and that you really did understand everything, they will become confused as to why you would continue to disagree with them even though you understand the same things that they understand. With any luck, after they become genuinely curious as to why someone who understands the things that they understand still disagrees with them, they will become receptive to new information.

Two people competing to make the other listen will grow louder and louder with neither ever being heard.

 

[ataraxia]

RE: federal government artificially protecting American manufacturing jobs against free market forces

"According to the right . . ." Source please.

Donald Trump: "But this time, there was one big difference: Instead of an administration that sold out American workers and sold your company out and couldn’t have cared less for you, you finally had a president who stood up for the American worker. On January 23rd, 2018, at my desk in the Oval Office, I proudly signed the order to impose a 50 percent tariff on all foreign-made washing machines. (Applause.)...

Your company became a shining example. From, really, a company that was down and out, it became a shining example of what tough trade policies and smart tariffs can bring to — jobs and prosperity to communities like this one all over Ohio Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and plenty of other states."

Remarks by President Trump at Whirlpool Corporation Manufacturing Plant | The White House

Whirlpool Corporation Manufacturing Plant Clyde, Ohio 3:31 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. Please. Thank you very much. It’s a great hono

www.whitehouse.gov

So where's your outrage over big nanny government's unconstitutional overreach in the free market?

 

[ataraxia]

You're not wrong.

But I think you mistake my objective. Posters like the one I was responding to are quite proud of their ability to wrap their heads around simple concepts like the idea of costs being passed down to consumers. If confronted with things that they do not yet understand, it will be easier for them to dismiss whatever you have to say as being some leftist talking point that you are parroting, than to work at understanding what you have to say. They will have no trouble convincing themselves that if you would only think for yourself for a minute, you too would be able to grasp this simple concept that they already understand. Accordingly, they will redouble their efforts to educate you on this concept rather than put effort into trying to understand something new.

My objective with that post was not to correct the assumptions made by the poster, but rather to demonstrate that I was listening to them and that I understood everything that they are trying to say by describing the concept back to them in my own words. Once you have convinced them that you listened to what they have to say and that you really did understand everything, they will become confused as to why you would continue to disagree with them even though you understand the same things that they understand. With any luck, after they become genuinely curious as to why someone who understands the things that they understand still disagrees with them, they will become receptive to new information.

Two people competing to make the other listen will grow louder and louder with neither ever being heard.

I appreciate these efforts you are making. But there really is a very bizarre and cult-like quality to Trump supporters that make such attempts at logic and reasoning impossible. You have to remember you are talking with people who are rejecting the views of every single scientific organization on the entire planet on the reality and dangers of climate change, and the recommendations of all the doctors, scientists, and public health specialists in the country on how to contain this pandemic. The kind of minute logic chopping you are attempting with them here. A couple of "socialists" and "they are trying to take your guns away", and they will feel they still won the argument and move on.

But good luck.

 

[Bullseye]

RE: federal government artificially protecting American manufacturing jobs against free market forces



Donald Trump: "But this time, there was one big difference: Instead of an administration that sold out American workers and sold your company out and couldn’t have cared less for you, you finally had a president who stood up for the American worker. On January 23rd, 2018, at my desk in the Oval Office, I proudly signed the order to impose a 50 percent tariff on all foreign-made washing machines. (Applause.)...

Your company became a shining example. From, really, a company that was down and out, it became a shining example of what tough trade policies and smart tariffs can bring to — jobs and prosperity to communities like this one all over Ohio Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and plenty of other states."

Remarks by President Trump at Whirlpool Corporation Manufacturing Plant | The White House

Whirlpool Corporation Manufacturing Plant Clyde, Ohio 3:31 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. Please. Thank you very much. It’s a great hono

www.whitehouse.gov

So where's your outrage over big nanny government's unconstitutional overreach in the free market?

You're citing Donald Trump? That's got to be a first.

 

[braindrain]

The way I described it, which you say is incorrect is this: "If you are paying someone more than they are generating, and you don't have an expectation that they will start generating more than they cost within the timeframe you require, then you will be better off just letting them go."

So just to be clear, you are saying that you don't think an employer would be better off letting someone go if they had no expectation that that employee would ever generate more revenue than they were being paid? If that is your position, can you explain how an employer would benefit from hiring someone who cost more in wages than they actually generated for the company?

If you can't pay someone less than $15/hr because of the minimum wage, but their work only generates $12/hr for your company, how does it make any sense to keep them employed in your company?

Do you understand how if someone only generates $12/hr, you will lose money by keeping them on at $15/hr?

Does it make sense now why you can't expect employers to pay their employees more than those employees actually generate for their employer?

No where you are wrong is thinking that a 15 min wage is some kind of set in stone thing that must happen. And then basing how a business should be run of that.

I already stated paying someone more then they bring in is a stupid business idea way back in post 225 when KWO was trying to claim that businesses should pay people more then they bring in.

 

[braindrain]

That's where you're wrong -- it DOES have a bearing on how much you make. That's why the middle class hasn't seen a raise in 40 years, why CEOs get a 400% raise.

Christ Almighty, you simply know nothing.

I don't care about your lame explanations about why CEOs make so much money. And it really has nothing to do with it this debate -- the inequitable distribution of wealth between the rich and poor is what we are really discussing, not your pitiful rationalizations for filthy rich corporate executives.

I know you feel obligated as a serf to defend the wealth of your rich Repug feudal masters. After all, they are your intellectual and moral superiors. But try to have a little more dignity going forward. The way you lick their butts is truly pitiful.

The pathetic bonuses the average worker gets you when a company is doing "well" is a joke. Corporations hire exactly the number of people they need and that's all. And if you complain about your salary and benefits, you're gone. There is absolutely no loyalty in the corporate world, you will be fired and replaced at a moment's notice.

Yes, the board of directors is an inbred, back-scratching club of rich guys. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours in the future. That's how it works. Everyone gets a piece of the pie, just like the Mafia. Kind of like the Trump family, but more competent.

You just don't get it, you simply don't read enough about these things. That's why I've already corrected you multiple times in this thread.

Yeah no jealousy there at all.

Sorry you are not fooling anyone.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

No where you are wrong is thinking that a 15 min wage is some kind of set in stone thing that must happen.

I didn't say it was set in stone. But it is a policy that were are going to implement pretty soon.

I already stated paying someone more then they bring in is a stupid business idea way back in post 225 when KWO was trying to claim that businesses should pay people more then they bring in.

So you understand why a company wouldn't be able to keep someone employed at their company if that employee wasn't generating more in revenue than they were being paid in wages? Can we agree on that point or are you still confused about it?

Do we both understand the idea that companies cannot stay in business if they pay their employees more than those employees generate in revenue? Or is that still a fundamental point of contention in your mind?

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Yeah no jealousy there at all.

Sorry you are not fooling anyone.

The only one getting fooled is you...by rich Republicans and Republican politicians that have been selling you a bill of goods your entire life.

It's amusing seeing poor and middle class Republicans defend the wealth of rich Republicans. And it's also ****ing stupid as hell. What a bunch of hopeless suckers.

 

[braindrain]

I didn't say it was set in stone. But it is a policy that were are going to implement pretty soon.



So you understand why a company wouldn't be able to keep someone employed at their company if that employee wasn't generating more in revenue than they were being paid in wages? Can we agree on that point or are you still confused about it?

Do we both understand the idea that companies cannot stay in business if they pay their employees more than those employees generate in revenue? Or is that still a fundamental point of contention in your mind?

That a 15 min wage is going to be enacted soon is nothing more then your opinion. Similar to your opinion that it’s a good thing.

I am the first one that said it makes no sense to pay a person more then they bring in. That was literally my first post in this thread.

 

[braindrain]

The only one getting fooled is you...by rich Republicans and Republican politicians that have been selling you a bill of goods your entire life.

It's amusing seeing poor and middle class Republicans defend the wealth of rich Republicans. And it's also ****ing stupid as hell. What a bunch of hopeless suckers.

And how exactly am I being fooled by republicans when I am not one and haven’t voted for a republican in a very long time.

But I get that’s all you have to distract from your obvious jealousy of those who have been more successful then you.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

That a 15 min wage is going to be impacted soon is nothing more then your opinion. Similar to your opinion that it’s a good thing.

My opinion of the likelihood of a $15/hr min wage is supported by the data. You are correct that it is a good idea in my opinion. Just as it is a bad idea in your opinion.

Would you agree that you think it is a bad idea because people should be allowed to choose for themselves how much they are willing to work for? If someone decides for themselves that they are willing to work for $12/hr and an employer is willing to hire them for that amount, don't you think that the government has no business telling them that they can't do that? Is that misrepresenting your position?

I am the first one that said it makes no sense to pay a person more then they bring in. That was literally my first post in this thread.

So then you agree that it makes no sense to pay a person more then they bring in? So we don't have to pretend that is the central misunderstanding leading to our difference of opinion any longer?

 

[mrjurrs]

Lets take the top and bottom of economics here in the US. The left and Biden want to tax the hell out of businesses making more than $400,000. If he would, they will raise the price of their product, and even the most poor will have to pay the higher price.

Then the low end. Biden and the left wingers want a $15 minimum wage for burger flippers so they can have a "living wage". What they dont understand is working in a burger joint IS NOT a life's work. It is for teenagers, and maybe old people to add to their income. If you force $15 wages on a burger joint, one of three things will happen. They will go out of business, they will fire people and go to kiosks, or burgers will cost $7.50.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Perhaps because you state it so inaccurately. The Biden tax plan taxes individuals that make over $400k annually. It does also increase corporate tax rates. Minimum wage jobs for entry level are one thing, but I don't think you have looked at what working America looks like recently. There are tons of people working minimum wage jobs that are not teenagers or retirees. Wake up, the economy is automating. When was the last time you booked an airline ticket through a travel agent? Also, why stop at no minimum wage increase, wouldn't small business owners do better if they could pay them less than minimum wage? Are you interested in replicating the Plantation model? Also, if all minimum wage workers were earning $15 an hour, how many more burgers would that small business sell? Finally, as an exclamation point to your fundamental misunderstanding of how the market works. Burgers wouldn't cost $7.50, they would cost what the market will bear. If it costs you $7.50 to make a burger and the market price is $5, start planning your going out of business sale. Businesses go out of business all the time. It is sad individually, commonplace overall. Since 1895, over 1900 different companies have made automobiles in America.

 

[rickc]

Every time we start talking about America needs a raise Republicans always bring up the poor and minimum wage jobs. The truth is 90% of Americans haven't participated in the growth in incomes since Reagan and trickle down. Its not the poor and minimum wage jobs. Its the entire working/middle class. Tax cuts allowed wealthy business owners to keep all the profits and they did. Before Reagan the rising tide raised all ships.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

And how exactly am I being fooled by republicans when I am not one and haven’t voted for a republican in a very long time.

But I get that’s all you have to distract from your obvious jealousy of those who have been more successful then you.

I'm not jealous at all. It's the poor and middle class Repug suckers that annoy me a lot more than the rich CEOs.

Rich CEOs make up only a few votes on election day. Idiot poor and middle Repug voters make up millions of people, voting in support of asinine Repug economic policies that only help the rich. ****ing idiot suckers, all of them.

 

[Jack2aTee]

You can't say nothing is going to happen to amazon. It very much could come under anti-trust laws. Look at google.
the federal government just filed an anti-trust suit against google. Anything could happen to amazon.

Yes he does pay taxes on some of his money. He can't live on 82k a year with his lifestyle.
he is cashing out some of those options or he is making money in other ways. He has to pay taxes on that money.
He just bought a 165m dollar home. He isn't paying that mortgage on 82k a year. which means he is in fact cashing out
some of his stock options or other investments. which means he is paying taxes on those draws.

actually amazon just paid 162m dollars in taxes to the federal government.

Maybe he does. I tried researching it but the tax laws are just to complex at that level of ownership. I'll take the high road and agree with you.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

this folks is why the OP is correct and leftists have no clue about economics.

so i will point out the fallacies.

under democrats distorted view they think their made up trickle down economics they say republicans support is only for rich people and then the rich people money trickles to others.

this is complete bullshit if you read and actually understand supply side economics.

what supply side economics actually says that if you lower taxes and regulations on businesses and people(all people) that they will put that money to good use. lowering the costs that allow people to enter the market and open a business creates prosperity for more people.

allowing start up businesses to have access to low/ no interest loans allows and creates more businesses. this generates more jobs which creates demand for workers which increases pay as businesses now compete for workers.

this would have been explained to you had you taken an actual course in economics.

Ahem.....

Quick question.....do you actually believe in the "if you build it they will come" bullshit you are talking about?

See, here is the problem. Supply side economics operates on the premise that simply creating a product will inherently create a demand for said product. That simply isn't true. Out of that misplaced belief, conservatives have become beholden to the will of every swinging dick that wants to create a product or service, totally ignoring the viability of that product or service. The only way there are jobs created by any of these people is if there are people who want what they are producing. Ironically, simple demand for a product doesnt even guarantee that that product will move, since simply wanting something without the ability to actually purchase it means precisely nothing.

Supply side is based on a flawed premise.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

it does work what do you think has fueled the economic expansion since the 1980s?

lower taxes less regulations and easier access to markets.

making it easier on people and businesses to enter the market has cause some of the greatest economic booms in this country has seen in 40 years.

facts do not care about your feelings.

None of those things fueled shit.

Facts might not care about feelings, but they damned sure care about being used properly. You should try it sometime.

Lowering taxes on a business doesnt create a desire for thier product. Lowering regulation on a product doesnt create a market for that product.

People having money to spend and a desire for that product is what drove that economic growth. Democratic policies that ended up increasing the amount of disposable income are what made it possible for business owners to tap into that economic growth.

You are advocating for simply building more houses because eventually someone will buy it. We all know that isnt actually how it ends up working out, now dont we?

 

[bullseyelqcs]

yea because the company owns the machines so they get the greatest share of the money.

you leftists post this graph all the time but have no clue what it means.

Without someone to run that machine, how productive is it? Thought so...

The greatest CEO in the world isnt worth a tinkers damn without the frontline workers to actually produce the goods or services.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Ahem.....

Quick question.....do you actually believe in the "if you build it they will come" bullshit you are talking about?

See, here is the problem. Supply side economics operates on the premise that simply creating a product will inherently create a demand for said product. That simply isn't true. Out of that misplaced belief, conservatives have become beholden to the will of every swinging dick that wants to create a product or service, totally ignoring the viability of that product or service. The only way there are jobs created by any of these people is if there are people who want what they are producing. Ironically, simple demand for a product doesnt even guarantee that that product will move, since simply wanting something without the ability to actually purchase it means precisely nothing.

Supply side is based on a flawed premise.

What if the consumers had more money instead? Then wouldn't they be likely to spend more on products and services? And wouldn't those products and services in turn make more profit and need to expand in order to meet increasing demand, thereby creating more jobs? Wouldn't those higher levels of employment create a kind of multiplier effect that would further stimulate aggregate demand?

Don't you think supply-side economics might actually work if it started from the demand side instead?*


*That was sarcasm. I actually do realize that what I was describing was actually demand-side economics.

 

[ludin]

Ahem.....

Quick question.....do you actually believe in the "if you build it they will come" bullshit you are talking about?

See, here is the problem. Supply side economics operates on the premise that simply creating a product will inherently create a demand for said product. That simply isn't true. Out of that misplaced belief, conservatives have become beholden to the will of every swinging dick that wants to create a product or service, totally ignoring the viability of that product or service. The only way there are jobs created by any of these people is if there are people who want what they are producing. Ironically, simple demand for a product doesnt even guarantee that that product will move, since simply wanting something without the ability to actually purchase it means precisely nothing.

Supply side is based on a flawed premise.

yet another person that has no clue about what they are talking about.

that is not what supply side economics says. i suggest that you actually go look it up. i posted several links in this thread.