The ignorance of the left on economics is astounding

[Bullseye]

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.

But how does the demand side get that extra money? And won't exit money with out extra supply cause inflation?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

But how does the demand side get that extra money?

Through what Keynes calls "public works." Our nation provides a number of things to the people that reside here. It provides military protection, infrastructure, opportunities for companies to do business, etc. In exchange for all these things that we provide as a nation, individuals and companies are required to pay taxes. That tax money can be reinvested in public works that introduce money back into the demand side.

And won't exit money with out extra supply cause inflation?

If the extra money comes from printing more money, then yes. While hyperinflation is disasterous, as Germany discovered not to long ago, a little bit of inflation is a good thing. Most economists and central banks aim for inflation around 2%. Printing more currency is not the only source of more demand-side money though.

Propensities for savings and consumption both increase with income, but increases in propensity for consumption will diminish as income increases whereas increases in propensity for saving will escalate. For a given income Y and a propensity for consumption C(Y), the propensitiy for saving S(Y) can be determined by S(Y) = Y-C(Y).



As income increases, the portion of savings capital being removed from circulation increases while the amount being recirculated through consumption diminishes. Because of this, reduced taxes on higher income has the net result of less capital in circulation, compared with using increased taxes from higher incomes to pay for public works that stimulate the economy from the demand side.

 

[Bullseye]

Through what Keynes calls "public works." Our nation provides a number of things to the people that reside here. It provides military protection, infrastructure, opportunities for companies to do business, etc. In exchange for all these things that we provide as a nation, individuals and companies are required to pay taxes. That tax money can be reinvested in public works that introduce money back into the demand side.



If the extra money comes from printing more money, then yes. While hyperinflation is disasterous, as Germany discovered not to long ago, a little bit of inflation is a good thing. Most economists and central banks aim for inflation around 2%. Printing more currency is not the only source of more demand-side money though.

Propensities for savings and consumption both increase with income, but increases in propensity for consumption will diminish as income increases whereas increases in propensity for saving will escalate. For a given income Y and a propensity for consumption C(Y), the propensitiy for saving S(Y) can be determined by S(Y) = Y-C(Y).

View attachment 67301523

As income increases, the portion of savings capital being removed from circulation increases while the amount being recirculated through consumption diminishes. Because of this, reduced taxes on higher income has the net result of less capital in circulation, compared with using increased taxes from higher incomes to pay for public works that stimulate the economy from the demand side.

Great academic theories. Taxing one group to give to another is economic masturbation.

 

[Integrityrespec]

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?

The democrats are being controlled by Socialist and worse. Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production. This is what the democrats want to take over and control production at every level, private business large and small.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Great academic theories. Taxing one group to give to another is economic masturbation.

I understand that it makes you uncomfortable, but it is efficient. And its advantages over supply-side economics are empirically confirmed.

In the same way that it doesn't make sense for a company to pay someone $15/hr to flip burgers if the market allows them to fill that position for less, it also doesn't make sense for the US to let the rich pay less in taxes if we are able to squeeze them for more.

That's just the free market at work.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

The democrats are being controlled by Socialist and worse. Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production. This is what the democrats want to take over and control production at every level, private business large and small.

The Democrats definitely don't want that. Every single Democrat in both the House and the Senate is a Capitalist and a member of the bourgeoisie. Even AOC has a capital investment portfolio.

 

[Bullseye]

I understand that it makes you uncomfortable, but it is efficient. And its advantages over supply-side economics are empirically confirmed.

In the same way that it doesn't make sense for a company to pay someone $15/hr to flip burgers if the market allows them to fill that position for less, it also doesn't make sense for the US to let the rich pay less in taxes if we are able to squeeze them for more.

That's just the free market at work.

How does a free market introduce capital on the demand side? Obvious profit solves the issue from a supply side with no taxation or government interference. Profit begets growth, wage hikes, new or improved products. Taxation or mandatory wage hikes does the opposite.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

How does a free market introduce capital on the demand side? Obvious profit solves the issue from a supply side with no taxation or government interference. Profit begets growth, wage hikes, new or improved products. Taxation or mandatory wage hikes does the opposite.

History has proven that profit does not beget wage hikes. Over and over in fact.

The free market has shown that it isnt going to introduce capital to the general market....all it is motivated to do is concentrate as much wealth in the hands of those already with wealth as possible, with the rare exception.

It is NOT in a business owners best interest to pay workers as much as they can because that is less they are going to pocket themselves NOW. And being that they are the providers of those jobs, they can hold out until someone is finally willing to accept the lower than it should be wage they want to pay because they simply need the job and cant afford to hold out for a better paying wage.

Its always been that way.

 

[Bullseye]

History has proven that profit does not beget wage hikes. Over and over in fact.

And yet the growth in wages over the past three years DID raise wages, and median household income. And reduced unemployment to minuscule levels were are de facto raises.

The free market has shown that it isnt going to introduce capital to the general market....all it is motivated to do is concentrate as much wealth in the hands of those already with wealth as possible, with the rare exception.

How has it shown that?

It is NOT in a business owners best interest to pay workers as much as they can because that is less they are going to pocket themselves NOW. And being that they are the providers of those jobs, they can hold out until someone is finally willing to accept the lower than it should be wage they want to lay because they simply need the job and cant afford to hold out for a better paying wage.

But a growing economy creates a labor demand which DOES raise wages.

Its always been that way.

not really.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

How does a free market introduce capital on the demand side?

The distinction of 'governments' as somehow being separate from market forces is an artificial one. Military protection, infrastructure, public works, and business opportunities in the US are all genuine market forces. They don't exist outside of the market, they are part of the market. Just as shareholders in a company for members of a board of directors to represent their interests, the citizens of the US vote for local, State and Federal representatives to represent their interests.

Those representatives are managing an organization that is part of the market. They can leverage their services and infrastructure to negotiate terms of service with anyone wishing to do business in the US. This includes things like minimum wage and tax rates. Companies that don't find our policies acceptable will can do their business elsewhere instead.

The regulations and taxes you see as an imposition on the free market are really just another part of the free market. The pressure to increase the minimum wage and increase taxes on wealthy corporations and individuals is ultimately the work of market forces allowing citizens to leverage their capital ownership of the US in pursuit of their own interests.

Obvious profit solves the issue from a supply side with no taxation or government interference. Profit begets growth, wage hikes, new or improved products. Taxation or mandatory wage hikes does the opposite.

It doesn't solve the issue from the supply side though. You can't increase economic growth from the supply side, because increased supply does not create demand ex nihilo. Increased demand, on the other hand, will increase supply, as suppliers will expand their businesses in order to meet demand.

Suppose Taggart Transcontinental needs steel for their railway. Reardon Steel needs Taggart Transcontinental to transport their steel. If Taggart Transcontinental can't afford any more steel, Reardon Steel isn't going to hire more people, increase wages for steel workers, or come up with an even stronger, lighter steel. Reardon would only do those things if he needed to hire more people to meet demand, if he needed to increase wages to stay competitive, or if he needed a stronger lighter steel to maintain his edge in the industry.

Instead, Reardon will just be sitting on a pile of recirculating cash, and a bunch of steel that he can't transport because Taggart can't build the necessary rail, because she doesn't have any steel.

In order for this two company economy to keep circulating, Taggart needs to be able to buy more steel, so that she can transport more steel, so that Reardon can make more steel for Taggart to transport.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

And yet the growth in wages over the past three years DID raise wages, and median household income. And reduced unemployment to minuscule levels were are de facto raises.

It didnt raise wages in any manner that approached the growth of the market at large. The average increase in wages BARELY covered the cost of inflation over those same 3 years.

So businesses were turning record ****ing profits and managed to pay thier employees enough to cover the cost of inflation.....and people like you applaud like trained seals.

As for the unemployment thing....when those same jobs were coming back undet Obama, people like you bitched that they werent "real" jobs. You know, the just barely full time, but not really full time jobs that Trump and Co. are out here crowing about. Now all of a sudden, they are a sign of great things. That being the case, there is only one thing to say...

Thanks Obama.

How has it shown that?

Playing stupid, are we?

Again......wage increases havent been commensurate with increases in company profits for like the last 40 years. CEO compensation, on the other hand, has.


You do the math.

But a growing economy creates a labor demand which DOES raise wages.
not really.

How does a growing economy create a labor demand. See, supply side failing you yet again. You are assuming that because the economy shows to be strong on paper, that that has equated to higher demand for products, which it hasnt.

Simple fact is that simply having a product to sell doesnt mean you are going to sell it. See, you have to have a consumer who can actually afford to purchase that product. If you dont, no amount of tax cuts for your business is going to create that demand unless you ACTUALLY put those cuts back into the labor force.

Stats show time and again that that isnt happening.

 

[Bullseye]

It didnt raise wages in any manner that approached the growth of the market at large. The average increase in wages BARELY covered the cost of inflation over those same 3 years.

Higher than it was prior.

So businesses were turning record ****ing profits and managed to pay thier employees enough to cover the cost of inflation.....and people like you applaud like trained seals.

This is idiotic. Just LW slogans.

As for the unemployment thing....when those same jobs were coming back undet Obama, people like you bitched that they werent "real" jobs. You know, the just barely full time, but not really full time jobs that Trump and Co. are out here crowing about. Now all of a sudden, they are a sign of great things. That being the case, there is only one thing to say...

LOL, Obama himself told us slow growth was the new normal. His performance on the economy gave us the worst recovery since WW II





Playing stupid, are we?

Again......wage increases havent been commensurate with increases in company profits for like the last 40 years. CEO compensation, on the other hand, has.


You do the math.



How does a growing economy create a labor demand. See, supply side failing you yet again. You are assuming that because the economy shows to be strong on paper, that that has equated to higher demand for products, which it hasnt.

Simple fact is that simply having a product to sell doesnt mean you are going to sell it. See, you have to have a consumer who can actually afford to purchase that product. If you dont, no amount of tax cuts for your business is going to create that demand unless you ACTUALLY put those cuts back into the labor force.

Stats show time and again that that isnt happening.
[/QUOTE]

It didnt raise wages in any manner that approached the growth of the market at large. The average increase in wages BARELY covered the cost of inflation over those same 3 years.

So businesses were turning record ****ing profits and managed to pay thier employees enough to cover the cost of inflation.....and people like you applaud like trained seals.

As for the unemployment thing....when those same jobs were coming back undet Obama, people like you bitched that they werent "real" jobs. You know, the just barely full time, but not really full time jobs that Trump and Co. are out here crowing about. Now all of a sudden, they are a sign of great things. That being the case, there is only one thing to say...

Thanks Obama.



Playing stupid, are we?

Again......wage increases havent been commensurate with increases in company profits for like the last 40 years. CEO compensation, on the other hand, has.


You do the math.



How does a growing economy create a labor demand. See, supply side failing you yet again. You are assuming that because the economy shows to be strong on paper, that that has equated to higher demand for products, which it hasnt.

Simple fact is that simply having a product to sell doesnt mean you are going to sell it. See, you have to have a consumer who can actually afford to purchase that product. If you dont, no amount of tax cuts for your business is going to create that demand unless you ACTUALLY put those cuts back into the labor force.

Stats show time and again that that isnt happening.

Get back to me when you get rid of your AH attitude.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Higher than it was prior.

But nowhere near where it should have been, and certainly not in the same stratosphere as the increase executives saw over the same time.

This is idiotic. Just LW slogans.

No, they are facts. That is exactly what has happened for the last 40 years according to DATA, and you and people like you are clamoring for more of the same. Whats idiotic is that you do it time and again in spite of data that tells you that shit doesnt work on large scales.

LOL, Obama himself told us slow growth was the new normal. His performance on the economy gave us the worst recovery since WW II

So Trump having basically the same numbers over his first 4 years in office as the last 4 years of Obamas is something to be proud of? Because that is what you are here applauding.

Get back to me when you get rid of your AH attitude.

Says the guy who is more than willing to insult the intelligence of anyone he THINKS he knows more than. Pretty rich.

 

[jcgriff2]

your 22 old will graduate college and get into a career where she will work a full time job. hopefully she took a major that she can make money at.

if she isn't going to college then she better enroll at a trade school and learn a trade. i saw a girl yesterday learning ac repair etc.

if not she is going to be stuck at a bad wage the rest of her life. the only person that can improve her situation is herself.

You are 100% correct and I would never let that happen.

She graduates college in June 2021; starts graduate school in the fall; then onto her Ph.D. I paid/am paying for it all and consider it to be a wise investment!

 

[ludin]

You are 100% correct and I would never let that happen.

She graduates college in June 2021; starts graduate school in the fall; then onto her Ph.D. I paid/am paying for it all and consider it to be a wise investment!

I just depends on the field she is going into. if she is going in to higher education then yes a PHD is good.
There are some fields is it a waste of money past your bachelor's.
I have thought about going and getting my masters in project management but
I am already a certified PM through PMI.
having a degree is just a waste of money.

 

[Logical1]

If left wing socialist understood economics, there would be no socialist.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

If left wing socialist understood economics, there would be no socialist.

You are quite incorrect. Socialists understand economics much better than you do. I disagree with them on many points, but I haven't yet met anyone familiar with the works of Marx who was not also familiar with the works of Locke, Keynes, and Hayek.

You haven't demonstrated any understanding of economics beyond primary school thought experiments about companies passing on costs to consumers, going out of business or moving toward automation if there were tax hikes or minimum wage increases.

 

[jcgriff2]

I just depends on the field she is going into. if she is going in to higher education then yes a PHD is good.
There are some fields is it a waste of money past your bachelor's.
I have thought about going and getting my masters in project management but
I am already a certified PM through PMI.
having a degree is just a waste of money.

Rocket science, bombs.

She wants to develop better nuclear weapons as well as new missile systems that will leave our rivals in the dust.

 

[Bassman]

There in you would be wrong again. Worked with many. Only one or two had any handle on every day things. Many were just full of themselves.

You mean full of shit! PhDs are nothing but worthless paper pushers and cult leaders. The brain dead Left, who think college education is the end all be all to success are very ignorant of this; Most people either can't handle college, or they do not want to waste their time and money on worthless degrees because their calling was in the trades or some other vocational work. And most of these people tend to lean Conservative. that's what the Left is afraid of.

 

[Jean-s]

You mean full of shit! PhDs are nothing but worthless paper pushers and cult leaders. The brain dead Left, who think college education is the end all be all to success are very ignorant of this; Most people either can't handle college, or they do not want to waste their time and money on worthless degrees because their calling was in the trades or some other vocational work. And most of these people tend to lean Conservative. that's what the Left is afraid of.

You are mistaken if you think the left does not have the interests of working people and their trade unions at heart. Organized labor proud and free is the backbone of the socialist movement.

 

[Bassman]

You are mistaken if you think the left does not have the interests of working people and their trade unions at heart. Organized labor proud and free is the backbone of the socialist movement.

Then why are most of the unions jumping ship and endorsing Trump and the Republican Party as of late? Socialism breeds nothing BUT failure.

 

[Jean-s]

Then why are most of the unions jumping ship and endorsing Trump and the Republican Party as of late? Socialism breeds nothing BUT failure.

I did not know American trade unions are endorsing Donald Trump. Do you have a link for this, I wonder.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Why can't an "entry level job" be expected to support a family?

How is it more "realistic" to live in a country where CEOs make over 300 times as much as the average worker?

Why do entry level workers need to make such hard sacrifices, but not CEOs and high level executives?

I'm guessing the CEO didn't start off in that position. And most everyone makes sacrifices along the way. Those making money, usually are making money based on their decisions that make big money for the corporations they work for. If they don't make money they get fired.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Then why are most of the unions jumping ship and endorsing Trump and the Republican Party as of late? Socialism breeds nothing BUT failure.

They have their political agenda at heart which really means getting votes to maintain power and control of the Congress and White House.

 

[Jean-s]

I'm guessing the CEO didn't start off in that position. And most everyone makes sacrifices along the way. Those making money, usually are making money based on their decisions that make big money for the corporations they work for. If they don't make money they get fired.

It is not defensible to have executives making 300 times the wages of a worker. This gap in fortune damages the principle of equality which is important for the social cohesion of a country.