Jump to content

The Toddster

Members
  • Content Count

    573
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The Toddster

  • Rank
    Pro Bowler

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. To be fair, he also asked who believed something, and I replied "me." So there's that.
  2. The only thing I don't know about is how stupid you are. I have an idea, but you may be even more stupid than that.
  3. Oh, you did some googling again, did you? You almost got some of it right! The role of the fed during the demand-side days was to accommodate the demand-side increases and decreases in money supply to address the issues of unemployment and inflation, respectively. Friedman (and later Phelps) noticed early on that repeated expansions and contractions in the money supply would create problems with inflation, and later, unemployment as those expansions/contractions could only be relied upon to be effective to address short term problems. In the long run, it was argued, inflation would create a distortion between real and nominal wages that would alleviate unemployment issues until the distortion was identified, which only served to drive inflation higher. And later we were treated to both high rates of unemployment and inflation (as predicted!), though the demand-side dogma told us that both of them occurring at the same time weren't possible because the policies that could cause one would always alleviate the other. And here we are, 40 years after those policies caused a phenomenon that had never been seen before or since (high unemployment, high rates of inflation, and high interest rates all occurring at the same time), debating whether the economic theory behind it all was good or bad. Go figure!
  4. You couldn't be further from the truth. You believe that a specific act produces a specific result but you have no idea how or why - otherwise you'd have given an explanation as to how it works. It wouldn't require a lot of detail, just a basic conceptual and practical understanding, of which you have neither. Instead, you keep talking about how you can't/won't explain it. I'd trust the market estimations of fair incomes over the arbitrary standards that you seek.  LOL, no. The logic, which you call "basic bitch simple," is accurate and credible. You don't like it, that's not my problem. The ultra-rich pay their fair share.
  5. He asked yes or no question and I responded with yes or no answers.
  6. I'm not confused. I'm asking you to explain how you imagine that it would work. But keep ducking and dodging if you feel the need.
  7. LOL, still haven't named the theory that taxing large corporations heavily while cutting breaks to the small companies creates an economic boon. Don't call me names because you can't even name the dumb theory that you can't explain, you fucking uneducated halfwit. That's probably why you are so hung up on the issue of taking money from others - you aren't smart enough to earn any, you halfwit. And you can't explain how your theory works... because you're a halfwit.
  8. The problem is the idea that great levels of wealth are viewed as inherently "bad" and these solutions are presented as though they are providing a remedy that is moral. Morality cannot be imposed via tax policy. The average American understands that it's an act of vengeance against one group of people and they aren't going to support it just because you throw a bit of the plunder their way.
  9. Is that the sound the wind makes as it enters one ear and goes out the other? Don't give up on me now! I have an econ degree. I love debating those from the University of Google!
  10. I have no problem with some people being extremely wealthy because wealth isn't a crime.
  11. The long run implications? Inflation and unemployment. You know, just like I stated in the post you're quoting.
  12. As though income inequality is a bad thing. There's a reason a doctor earns a nice six figure income and a guy who dropped out of high school works for minimum wage at Burger King. I look at that and see a just and proper economic system at work.
  13. And, as we all know, demand-side economics was thought to work very well. Milton Friedman pointed out as early as the 1950s that there would be terrible long-run implications, such as high rates of inflation and unemployment, both of which demand-side economics were thought to be able to control. Everyone laughed and laughed, and then the 1970s came, and we were introduced to high rates of unemployment and inflation AT THE SAME TIME, with the added bonus of high interest rates. And yet, here you are, trying to use your Google-Fu into convincing someone that it works.
  14. " Tell me, what's the theory that jacking up taxes on large businesses and cutting taxes on small businesses will be a "boon to the economy," as you predict. I'd LOVE to hear it! What's the theory called? What's the Cliff's Notes version of how it works?" All I'm getting from you is what you Googled. You don't what you're talking about. You don't understand it, and you can't explain it.
×
×
  • Create New...