Our stimulus money given to... Microsoft?

[dusred]

They deserved it.

Discount Auto Parts

Spamming fail.

[smockers83]

Greg Mankiw, whom I think you know of charlieo, wrote this back in 2008, about cutting corporate tax rates:

Quote »Populist critics deride this train of logic as “trickle-down economics.” But it is more accurate to call it textbook economics. Students in introductory economics courses learn that the burden of a tax does not necessarily stay where the Congress chooses to put it. That lesson is especially relevant when thinking about the corporate tax.[/quote]To view the whole article, follow this link.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...print

[telcoman]

Greg Mankiw, whom I think you know of charlieo, wrote this back in 2008, about cutting corporate tax rates:

To view the whole article, follow this link.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...print

There are some here that will never be satisfied with facts.

One reason Obama got elected is because the majority including Republicans became convinced that trickle down is a myth and the Bush tax cuts only benefited the very rich.

Keep an eye on the Minnesota Senate race and the congressional race in upstate New York.

"you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

Telcoman

[Urabus GodofTraction]

There are some here that will never be satisfied with facts.

One reason Obama got elected is because the majority including Republicans became convinced that trickle down is a myth and the Bush tax cuts only benefited the very rich.

Keep an eye on the Minnesota Senate race and the congressional race in upstate New York.

"you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

Telcoman

You're funny.

Greg Mankiw, whom I think you know of charlieo, wrote this back in 2008, about cutting corporate tax rates:

To view the whole article, follow this link.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...print

See, this is where you went circular last time. You say it's just basic economics and therefor can't be called trickle down economics.

I say that trickle down economics ARE basic economics. The words are interchangeable in my head, but not in telcoman's.

[HashiriyaS14]

99% of us don't have ANY formal education in finance like you do. We simply go on what things have been called in the past and whether or not they have worked.

Note: I am NOT calling you out in particular, but you raise a good point here.

In general, in the politics section, things would run a lot smoother if people with little or no familiarity on a given subject would politely cede ground to those with formal experience.

Expertise IS worth something in this world, and "common sense" is not a trump card for it. Common sense tells us that the stars orbit the earth, and so common sense is likely not meaningfully applicable to a subject as complex and often counter-intuitive as macroeconomics.

I'm not trying to stop this thread in particular, but I've found a disturbing lack of willingness on the part of certain individuals to admit when another board member is better informed than they are. This pertains to BOTH sides of the political aisle. Smock has a more extensive econ background than anyone on NICO including myself, and likewise (to offer another example), Bud has a depth of knowledge on religion, MULTIPLE religions, that I don't think anyone else here could ever begin to duplicate. There are many more examples like these I could give, so please everyone, if you don't know much about something, and someone else does, don't pretend like they don't, or at least preface your rebuttals with "I'm no expert, but it appears to me that...".

Thanks

[OriginalWheelman]

A national troop deployment system is in everyone's best interest, be it for troops form here to get there, or vice versa. What I have a problem with is federal money being used to fund local projects. The reason these things are supposed to be done by the local government is they are much easier to dispose of if they screw things up. If they raised taxes to build that bridge, they'd have to justify it at the next election. If they get the feds to force everyone in the country to pay 4 cents they get cheered at the next election. It's BS, in my opinion.

I said that government spending creates jobs and causes those employees to spend sounds an awful lot like what is commonly known as trickle down (though this is just a political name, we are talking about the government here) giving money to corporations (via tax breaks, etc) so they hire more employees and spend more etc. In basic principle it seems similar to me, and I'm confused because you argued against this and for govt spending.

Furthermore, I understand that smockers83 knows more about this than me, but I'm not just going simply accept your (or anyone's for that matter) statements as truth without asking questions to make sure that you have a reason for arguing this, and that the reason is sound. And I just might learn something in the process. I have already learned a lot from your posts.

[smockers83]

See, this is where you went circular last time. You say it's just basic economics and therefor can't be called trickle down economics.

I say that trickle down economics ARE basic economics. The words are interchangeable in my head, but not in telcoman's.

Well, they aren't really synonymous but if you agree with Mankiw and it's synonymous in your head, then I guess we really have no issue.

But what I said, at least what I think I said, was that the trickle down economic theory doesn't exist in economic thought, which is further confused with supply-side economics, which has been defeated as well as a theory, meaning it cannot be made into a law or rule such has Boyle's laws, which started out as theory and were then proved to be true all the time.

[smockers83]

Now if it's something like a loan/mortgage, the banks would get more money to invest and stabilze the economy.

Not necessarily. Many loans won't allow you to repay early, or what I should say is that many loans charge you a fee for repaying early. This is because the bank sets an interest rate and it only earns the spread of the interest rate set forth in the loan and the bank's cost to borrow money, the interest given to depositors, when the contracted loan is repaid according to the schedule.

The money you save in interest in doing so is money lost to the bank. There is also the time-series of money that you have to factor in, but it still comes out to reduced income to the bank. Now, the bank may still make a profit on the loan if you do decide to pay it quicker but it reduces the revenues for them but at the same time reduces the risk they're exposed to. Risk and returns go hand in hand.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Well, they aren't really synonymous but if you agree with Mankiw and it's synonymous in your head, then I guess we really have no issue.

But what I said, at least what I think I said, was that the trickle down economic theory doesn't exist in economic thought, which is further confused with supply-side economics, which has been defeated as well as a theory, meaning it cannot be made into a law or rule such has Boyle's laws, which started out as theory and were then proved to be true all the time.

Defeated as a theory?

Trickle down and supply side economics exist as theories. Should we dig Friedman up and ask him?

You're acting like an economic Jacko right now.

[smockers83]

Didn't I provide evidence last time we talked about this that supply-side economics doesn't work all the time? I was pretty sure I did. Another thing I know I said was that theory doesn't always work in real life.

You make it sound like if a theory is defeated, it has absolutely no purpose. If a theory is defeated, it means it cannot become a law, as I've said. That doesn't mean it has no usefulness. Supply-side has usefulness in other societies in which it can be applied to better a situation. Its usefulness in the US has dwindled to nearly nothing, some say nothing at all.

Have you ever wondered why so much of economics is based in theory and not law (not law in the legal sense)?

You're in college, a good one at that. Didn't you learn the hierarchy of laws, theories, hypotheses, and whatever else in high school?

An economic Jacko? I think not.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Didn't I provide evidence last time we talked about this that supply-side economics doesn't work all the time? I was pretty sure I did. Another thing I know I said was that theory doesn't always work in real life.

You make it sound like if a theory is defeated, it has absolutely no purpose. If a theory is defeated, it means it cannot become a law, as I've said. That doesn't mean it has no usefulness. Supply-side has usefulness in other societies in which it can be applied to better a situation. Its usefulness in the US has dwindled to nearly nothing, some say nothing at all.

Have you ever wondered why so much of economics is based in theory and not law (not law in the legal sense)?

You're in college, a good one at that. Didn't you learn the hierarchy of laws, theories, hypotheses, and whatever else in high school?

An economic Jacko? I think not.

As I've said before: PROVE the theory has been defeated.

Prove it. Not one or two sources, I want a general consensus from the leading minds in economics.

Until then, you're just attempting intellectual brow-beating and relying on people backing down in the face of your admittedly vast knowledge.

I'll be back when you've got my proof.

[smockers83]

Which one?

Supply side economics has been disregarded in US economic policy since around the beginning of the millennium. There are many sources on it, one of which I provided was the WSJ. Another source and real world example was the Bush Tax cuts, which also falls under "trickle-down economics."

If you want to further the discussion on this topic, I suggest we do it in the one we already had going so I don't have to restart my whole argument, requoting and restating and allow the thread to continue.

And next time, don't just let it trail off. If you take issue, say so, and state an argument instead of just asking for a proof. To prove a whole theory wrong on NICO is not the place and is hard to do so without an easy way to do math.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Supply side economics has been disregarded in US economic policy since around the beginning of the millennium.

Yeah, and US economic policy is an EXCELLENT indicator of intelligence/ anything positive.

My argument:

Trickle-down and/or supply side economics is not a defeated theory. My supporting elements are the fact you cannot produce sound evidence that it is defeated. Neat!

[480sx]

Your terminology takes the cake on this one.

Trickle-down and/or supply side economics is not a 'defeated' theory.

100 percent true.

But its being so beaten up and batted down by the people who study economics(like smockers) that its not really in great shape. Not something i would put faith in at this point. If you want to keep arguing about it just for arguments sake, go for it. You still wont prove much of a point other than the fact that you cornered Smockers into a semantics fail thats irrelevant.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Your terminology takes the cake on this one.

100 percent true.

But its being so beaten up and batted down by the people who study economics(like smockers) that its not really in great shape. Not something i would put faith in at this point. If you want to keep arguing about it just for arguments sake, go for it. You still wont prove much of a point other than the fact that you cornered Smockers into a semantics fail thats irrelevant.

Heh.

Economics is full of trends. Just because something isn't popular now doesn't change the fact that it is right. We are living in an era of Keynesian economics, swimming counter to that flow is difficult, but I believe a worthy task.

The South will come again!

[smockers83]

zer...42679

Follow the link to further the discussion.

Considering that the goal of developing a theory is to prove it is true all the time any time and make it law, if a theory comes to a point that it can no longer explain things, it is defeated or failed, since it cannot explain what is going on. It can still remain as a theory and be useful in certain situations, it just can't become law which is the goal.

Last time I'm going to explain this, or so I hope.