Stvn said:
Be careful Zidane1strife, of you be exposed for backing up natoma!
No he's not, his site's a POS smear-site that quotes Krugman extensivly, that should tell you something. Nowhere does it make mention of the actual revenue gains in the 80s following the cuts, instead pandering to a select audience by showing the initial losses within a year of the cuts passing. Thus, it never addresses the actual economics which follow what Laffer, et al predicted. It also bastardizes the now Nobel laureate Mundel's work, not a surprise. It's a horrible, horrible site.
Stvn said:
Anyway, the deficits incurred by those who promoted it are simply too much to make it work long term. Whatever you think of Clinton and the 90s, "Rubinomics" proved that growth can occur without incurring massive deficits, something that supply side economics has not shown.
WTF?!? Is this a joke? Number one, have you not read a single thing I said? You immediate lose the argument if your ignorent enough not to seperate the revenue gains that supply-side economics provides from the Keynesian spending policies which weighted the gains down. Do you not understand this? What I just said is beyond debate, it's intrinsic in the numbers... provable in the budgets. I can only assume you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm sorry and I mean no offense by this.
Something only reinforced by your citing of "Rubinomics" which is a joke in itself.
You and Natoma both keep talking about a Theory being nothing more than a theory... well here's your shining example. Unlike Supply-Side, there is strong empiracle evidence that the whole concept of "crowding-out" doesn't work, instead the governmental consumption of private resources retards growth and kills investment. Look no further than your 1990's to see that "Rubinomics" is an ineffective theory; to quote Jack Kemp:
Jack Kemp said:
Using the 1990s as a case study, we find that just the opposite happened from what Rubinomics predicts: Interest rates actually began to rise as the deficit declined, and as the economy began to grow in the late 1990s and deficits turned to surpluses, interest rates continued upward. Then, after the economy stagnated in the latter half of 2000 continuing through mid-2003 and surpluses turned to deficits, interest rates sank to historically low levels.
Or, here's an article with a pretty graph showing
Rubinomics ineffect on Interest rates during the '90s
Stvn said:
Btw Vince, Natoma didn't say that revenue growth didn't occur.
BTW Natoma's little helper, he implied it with his fallicious statements:
Natoma said:
Many staunch supporters of supply-side economics have long come out stating that the long held belief that you can "grow yourself out of deficits" through deep tax cuts is completely wrong. Why? Because in both instances of supply-side economic implementation, you had MASSIVE bursts in spending. There is simply no way you can implement deep tax cuts while increasing spending. It will fail every time. Unfortunately, Reagan and Bush II didn't seem to get those memos.
Perhaps your right and he's just so ignorant he can't seperate Supply-Side Economics from Keynesian Spending. I'd agree with this, perhaps this lack of understanding is why he ejected and died like the Gooseman from this topic. I'd advise you to do the same based on your preliminary comments.
Stvn said:
Now, I don't see anywhere that he said supply side economics doesn't spur growth, because it's obvious that it has. But that's not what he said is it? Or are you inventing arguments just to argue?
He's talking about the long stated belief that big tax cuts can miraculously start tremendous growth which will "pay for the deficits" in the long run. That straw man has long been given as a salve for deficit hawks and many economists who kiboshed supply side economics as unworkable in reality.
He's talking liberal talking points without a clue of what's going on. Clearly, Supply-Side Economics, as seen in the 80s, can
"start tremendous growth which will "pay for the deficits" in the long run." if spending is held in check as advocated by many Supply-Siders.
This is very simple, the argument is reduced to the infamous Laffer Curve. You cut Taxes, you'll eventually come into contact with a region of maximum revenue generation. The '80s prove that we weren't at this point of greatest intake, instread we're ineffecient with our tax system (this is what the Chinese are talking about). We cut taxes and revenues go up, ergo Supply Side Economics is vindicated.
Thus, it follows that you can "grow yourself out of debt" if you don't go on a massive Keynesian spending spree and increase your expendature way, way past what's fiscally acceptable. This is also outide the aegis of what Supply-Side Economics itself advocates. Several people in the Reagan administration did state that you can increase spending if revenues increase - duh!. But the magnitude of the spending needs to be proportional.
Stvn said:
Unfortunately for supply siders, it has never proven true either in the 80s or in the 2000s that growth can occur on a scale large enough to drown out the deficits. In both cases it spurred growth, but also massive historical deficits.
OMG! This is so painful it hurts. Don't they teach basic macroeconomics anymore? If government revenues increase - as in the '80s with the numbers I posted - how does that, in itself, create "
massive historical deficits"?
Do you not understand, revenues go up. It you hold spending static, you make more money relatively speaking. Unfortunatly, the need for added expendature in fighting the Soviets in an arms race in the 1980s and the need to fight Terrorism and create a client state in the early 2000's did coexist - but that doesn't affect Supply-Side cuts and their effect on revenue.
Stvn said:
But it definitely works in theory if spending is held in check and/or government is reduced. Unfortunately neither of those scenarios have occurred in the 1980s or the 2000s, and are probably unlikely to occur as well.
But it definitely works..... In theory.
OMG! He almost gets it. Maybe oneday he'll make the leap from understanding that Spending and Supply-Side Cuts aren't linked - they're two seperate issues.... And when he does, just maybe, he'll have the ability to see that the Supply-Side cuts did what they said they would do - raise government revenues and increase economic investment/activity.
It's not theory, it's praxis when I can look at the 1980s and see that Government Revenues followed the Laffer predictions (that whole curve thing) almost exactly. Spending is isolated from Revenues - repeat 50times and stamp on your forehead.
I sware, the American educational system is lost beyond anything I would have imagined.
