POLL: Do you believe that supply-side economics is legitimate economic theory?

Discussion in 'Economics' started by Thunderdog, Mar 31, 2009.

Which statement is more accurate?

  1. Supply-side economics is a legitimate economic theory

    55 vote(s)
    54.5%
  2. Supply-side "economics" is nothing more than an excuse to enrich the already entitled.

    46 vote(s)
    45.5%
  1.  
    #101     Apr 2, 2009
  2. achilles28

    achilles28

    You got it.

    Wealth is created by supply-side economics. I think the OP's confusion here, is a semantic one.

    Supply-side economics is technology and innovation. Cheaper goods at static margins = higher standard of living.

    Money is just a relative scorekeeper and has no intrinsic value in and of itself.

    Its what that money can buy, which is so important.

    Technology and innovation drives down product cost while maintaining or improving profitability. Everyone wins.

    Consumption is a demand-side driver to production, although not a determinant to R&D investment.

    A good example is when "post-industrial" nations exported their manufacturing base overseas.

    There was no technological advantage to be gained by overseas production. Rather, the goal was to exploit cheap labor.

    A generation of costly R&D investment was avoided by shipping factories overseas. This was done at the behest of Multinationals who lobbied congress to surrender their protectionist ideals and remove tariffs on foreign goods. Once done, the fate of America's Middle Class was sealed.

    The problem with the political-economy is the Sheep are too stupid to know whats good for them. And the Smart Money holds the Law Makers in their pocket via Lobbying Power.

    To bring about the next Industrial Renaissance, the most powerful Corporations in the United States would take huge losses on abandoned overseas capital and reinvestment in R&D - then more capital - at home.

    They won't allow this to happen.
     
    #102     Apr 2, 2009
  3. MGB

    MGB

    Exactly. Reduce taxes AND reduce government spending.

    Agreed. Quite ridiculous.
     
    #103     Apr 2, 2009
  4. MGB

    MGB

    I would have a single tax bracket of 10% for all taxpayers.

    Then adjust the government spending to fit the expecting incoming tax revenues from the single tax bracket of 10%.
     
    #104     Apr 2, 2009
  5. MGB

    MGB

    I'm curious. Tell us more about Austrian economics.

    The Australian income tax is a progressive tax. The current tax-free threshold is $6,000, and the highest marginal rate for individuals is 45%.

    The corporate tax rate is a flat 30%.

    Capital gains are taxes at the individual's income tax rate.

    What appeals to you about the Austrian tax system?
     
    #105     Apr 2, 2009
  6.  
    #106     Apr 2, 2009
  7. MGB

    MGB

    Ok, to increase labor, we need to increase demand. What will increase the demand?

    Impose higher taxes (and less money in my pocket to spend)?

    Impose lower taxes (and more money in my pocket to spend)?
     
    #107     Apr 2, 2009
  8. MGB

    MGB

    In that case, the Austrian school of economics advocates entrepreneurship as the driving force in economic development. They see private property as essential to the efficient use of resources, and usually (if not always) see government interference in market processes as counterproductive.
     
    #108     Apr 2, 2009
  9. Cutten

    Cutten

    Ok - what is your reason for thinking production won't increase when the incentive to produce is higher?

    And what is your reason for thinking that there isn't an optimal tax rate, or at least a range of optimal tax rates?
     
    #109     Apr 2, 2009
  10. Cutten

    Cutten

    Russia cut tax rates deeply under Putin and the income tax revenues as a % of GDP increased over 20%.

    Please stop telling deliberate lies.
     
    #110     Apr 2, 2009