"ZerkonX"
X.net> wrote in message news:pan.2008.06.02.12.16.47@X.net...> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 04:02:18 -0400, tooly wrote:
>
>>> A:
>>>
>>> The _truth_ upsets rightards.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bret Cahill
>>>
>>>
>> That confidence stimulated investment and
>> along with Reagan tax cuts, spurred the economy on toward that lasted
>> up until 9-11 (save for a downturn due to a supply
>> pipeline disruption in auto industry in 1991 that helped oust Senior
>> Bush in 1992). Clinton also reaped a lion's share of productivity gains
>> through computerization that had been ongoing since the '70s...but
>> peaking through the 90's.
>
> Reagan's "unprecedented growth" was in fact a unprecedented growth in
> debt and corporatism. It did not 'trickle down" it did not spur
> investment outside of M&A consolidation.
Well, you're wrong here, spurred by emotion and not fact I think. Putting
tax breaks in the hands of those with the tools to create new industry
created new jobs and REAL GDP...and yes, that trickled down to everyone in
the form of those jobs and general properity of the economy itself. Even
more important, it kept confidence high for foreign investment in the USA,
which has bolstered growth for some time now, in spite of large trade
deficits.
Economics is a tricky thing of course, and even the best minds often see
things 180 degrees out of synch [ergo, Keynesian vs. Supply sider thinking].
The problem probably exists in that cause and effect is a circular system,
one thing affects the next in a continual round robin affair. Income,
therefore, always equals Output....for example, on opposite sides of the
economic flow. Do we stimulate DEMAND...or do we stimulate SUPPLY...that's
the $64,000 question [when both can be reasoned to stimulate the same thing
ultimately].
I opt for supply. The reason is that giving the next dollar resource [in
the form of tax breaks] to that guy with the most TOOLS who can make best
use of that next dollar with those TOOLS [ie, capital] probably means new
industry, and ergo new jobs [which is REAL growth]. Giving it to
householders usually means CONSUMPTION...which is not real growth, but
nomimal and usually inflationary. But nothing is so clear as to be written
in granite. Capital owners, as you point out, don't always reinvest. And
consumption can stimulate new industry in an indirect way if interest in new
products exist. If consumers 'saved' those tax breaks, new investment would
be created that way [savings are bank resources for new loans etc]. And
consumption can sustain a robust economy in the short term [but again,
usually is inflationary and not real].
The final answer is probably some integration of both thoughts...perhaps
stimulate supply as long as capacity is underused, and after that, perhaps
demand. I dunno. But there's no question, Reagan's tax cuts spurred growth
in a big way...and ultimately tax revenues which Clinton reaped. Even Bush
Jr.'s tax cuts have spurred new growth. There is a limit to this method of
course and a thing called the Laffer curve. I know, I know...makes the
liberals 'Laff' out loud, hehe.
Energy conservation and
> alternatives to oil use, which was in fact a consumer revolution, was
> systematically undermined. Form became function, thought became slogans
> and reasoning was sacrificed up to cheap emotion. America became a
> kindergarten nation lead by a play cowboy who wore too much rouge and who
> called his wife 'mommy'.
Well, this certainly convinced me, hehe. Conservation is good. But I think
what you'll be seeing in the near future is a rising population with shovels
and pitchforks demanding that we drill in ANWR and the Gulf. Long term
thinking is noble. But it is in the short term that we all must survive.
You haven't got your finger in the right place if cannot already feel the
rising pulse of the population...and gas is only $4 a gallon as of yet.
Wait until it's 5 and 6 bucks. That's not going to spur new research and
development...just panic demand to tear the planet up even more. Ah...those
long visions can be so short sighted, hehe.
>
> Saddam was a good guy. Noriega was a good guy. Crime paid. Lying was cool
> and power became it's own virtue. The right became 'tarded'.
Crime paid? Hmmm...oh...you mean how JFK got elected. Yea, guess you're
right.
[you're watching too many Micheal Douglas movies my friend]...As Sir says,
Best Regards [and not all emotionally this or that]...
