Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (69854)	1/12/2009 2:44:32 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

WIN whip inflation now :-) remember the buttons?

To: koan who wrote (69854)	1/12/2009 4:10:04 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

Suppyside economics has this simplistic idea that as you reduce taxes revenue will increae to make up the difference. No. Supply side economics, related to taxes, is in its simplest form that if you reduce taxes, you get extra economic growth. NOT that it will always or even typically increase economic growth enough to make up the difference in revenue in the short run. Included in that would be the possibility that you can in the short or medium run, get enough extra revenue to make up the difference, but unless your also simplifying taxes, or unless your reducing taxes on investment from a moderately high or higher rate, or regular income taxes from a very high rate, this often won't be the case. In the long run its more likely to be the case, but in the long run tax plans don't stay stable, they will change multiple times. The idea is that this additional growth is a net benefit, that economic growth should be the goal, not additional federal revenue. Some politicians and commentators do indeed argue, that you will almost always (or even just plain "always"), get enough extra growth to push federal revenue to a higher level than it otherwise would have been without the tax cuts, but your taking statements by the most extreme supporters of the idea, as if those statement where the idea. Until the 60's everyone on earth lived according to whatever dogma their parents and society presented to them at birth Nonsense.

To: koan who wrote (69854)	1/13/2009 12:43:15 AM
From: JF Quinnelly	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71178

I think you have your facts mixed up a bit. It was not the Carter stimulous package that caused inflation. There was none. You have an odd habit of injecting "facts" that haven't been stated. I didn't say that Carter had a stimulus package. I said there was inflation during his tenure, which there certainly was. Suppyside economics has this simplistic idea that as you reduce taxes revenue will increae to make up the difference. No, but that is the comic-book version, and it's as inaccurate as Cheney's idea of "what Reagan taught." Supply side economics developed as response to the failure of demand management to provide economic growth in the 70s. Its goal was to shift the economy's supply curve to the right so that increased demand would result in growth and not inflation. There was never any claim that "tax cuts would pay for themselves". At least not by economists. It is a claim made by ignorant commentators on both sides of the political spectrum. The 60's was the first existential movement in the history of mankind. As such it was as important as the industrial revolution. I think you underestimate the 60s. "God-like" barely approaches the heroism of the 60s. There can be no paens sufficient to capture the glory. The 60s were nothing more than 'boomer self-indulgence on an epic scale. One drunk alone may feel regret after a binge, but put thousands of hedonistic pot addled self important brats together and you get The Sixties. But hey, at least some of the music was good.