1. Was the recession not caused by an overabundance of supply? Think of the lengths producers went through in order to push their increasing supplies of houses/cars/money on people who's income was stagnant.

2. Currently, suppliers are operating below capacity. What could supply side economics offer us to remedy this situation? Theoretically, the producers could use the extra money gained from tax cuts to hire more workers, but that's becoming harder and harder to believe each time I read about a business stockpiling cash.

tl;dr: large businesses have excess capacity and stockpiles of cash; what can supply-siders offer?

7/21/2010 2:49:11 PM

good thing all the bailouts and stimulus have been supply side too.

[Edited on July 21, 2010 at 3:20 PM. Reason : a]

7/21/2010 3:20:23 PM

This recession had many causes, only one the government could do anything about now.

1. There is the reallocation shock, as the demand for large fixed goods such as houses and cars and financial services has crashed. They will not come back, whatever the government does. These industries need to shrink, dropping the regions of the U.S. that depend on these industries a long slow painful adjustment.
2. Regime uncertainty from government response to the collapses in 1. and the money shortage caused by 1., causing the growth of replacement industries to be slow to non-existent.
3. An honest to god old fashioned money shortage. Confronted with 1. and 2. and the resultant drop in expectant future income, the American populace has engaged in retrenchment, paying down debt and refraining from borrowing, sometimes involuntarily. As debt often serves as a form of money, think credit cards, this has resultant a shrinking money supply.

The solution is both easy and scary. Government intervention has slowed the shrinkage of 1. and slowed the growth of 2., making the recession longer and more uncertain, making the recession longer and more uncertain. Fixing the money supply would have been easy, we just needed to run the printing presses to fill the void left by retrenchment. How is the question. Buying government securities just produces more mal-investment as the government spends it. An actual helicopter drop or money-gram would have helped the short term, with the long term result of devaluing the dollar as consumers start spending on credit again.

7/21/2010 3:23:06 PM

its hilarious because they picked the exact wrong places to spur demand (fucking cars and houses). YEAP LETS JUST PROP UP THE DUMB GAY BAD INDUSTRIES THAT GOT US IN TROUBLE, HEH! Combine that with supply side bailouts for the bad car companies and the bad banks and its just complete laffo.

7/21/2010 3:27:37 PM

ohshit, banks aren't lending!!! lets decrease interest rates!!!

*banks all take the free money and invest it in federal bonds*

[Edited on July 21, 2010 at 3:28 PM. Reason : a]

7/21/2010 3:28:41 PM

I mean there also haven't really been any tax cuts to hire more workers. There've been increases in taxes for covering healthcare costs, but thats about it.


oh and that comedy hour 5k credit or whatever. lmao

7/21/2010 3:30:01 PM

tl;dr: the government did pretty much the exact opposite of what it should have done to fix the economy and you're right, supply side isnt the king of everything (especially when the supply is from bad companies)

7/21/2010 3:35:41 PM

Clearly we need more Keynsian deficit spending to get things back on track. The deficit isn't nearly high enough; let's see if we can get it up to $2 trillion.

7/21/2010 3:36:11 PM

lmao they even passed a motherfucking bill designed to guaran-fucking-tee hospitals get whatever money they bill and insurance companies get whatever they charge for premiums. It would be hilarious if it weren't so awful.

[Edited on July 21, 2010 at 3:38 PM. Reason : a]

7/21/2010 3:38:27 PM

heres another good one: lets tax people who use home heating oil and any coal or oil companies who dont have friends in congress, then we can give the proceeds to companies who make "green" energy products (supply side owns, right?). Which companies do we pick? oh, well our friends of course

7/21/2010 3:41:15 PM

edit your posts shaggy

7/21/2010 3:45:41 PM

There are so many wrong opinions in here, I can't keep up.

7/21/2010 4:11:49 PM

^Racist.

7/21/2010 4:33:04 PM

Quote :

"good thing all the bailouts and stimulus have been supply side too."

The bailouts were.

The Stimulus was very demand side. Bail-outs to the states (gov't employees, tax breaks to middle/lower-income families, infrastructure projects.

Quote :

"An honest to god old fashioned money shortage."

And yet most of what I hear is "OMG INFLATION"

7/21/2010 5:02:50 PM

The wars is what did it.

[Edited on July 21, 2010 at 9:50 PM. Reason : compounded with the housing crisis]

7/21/2010 9:50:06 PM

Quote :

"The Stimulus was very demand side. Bail-outs to the states (gov't employees, tax breaks to middle/lower-income families, infrastructure projects. "

I get the impression you're attempting to imply demand side is a proper way to fix the mess.

7/21/2010 10:10:00 PM

Quote :

"Supply-side makes no sense in this recession"

there, i fixed it for you

7/22/2010 11:53:18 AM

Democrats debate extending Bush tax cuts for the rich
July 22, 2010

Quote :

"The New York Times on July 16 noted, 'The economic recovery has been helped in large part by the spending of the most affluent.'"

http://tinyurl.com/36qdadb

Even The New York Times--and some Democrats in Congress--now seem to disagree with the OP's premise.

7/23/2010 12:57:08 PM

The opinion piece you linked to cites the NYT to support an argument that they weren't making.



Look at the swing. Was this supposed to last? The article gives a myriad of reasons why the rich may be holding back, but none of it was oppressive taxation.

Also-- if we're looking at this in the context of tax cuts, look at the correlation between lower taxes and increased savings among the top 5%. Yikes! It seems that the tax cuts had a much more stimulative effect on the bottom 95%.

And some Democrats?


The whole philosophy behind this stinks. "Oh please patricians, spend some of your excess money so that we plebs can make ends meet. In fact, take some of our money."

7/23/2010 2:41:19 PM

^ Yeah, I guess instead of "some" Democrats, I should've just posted "key" Democrat and others (Hoyer, Baucus, Bayh, and at least six other House Democrats) want to continue Bush tax cuts:

Key Democrat backs keeping tax cuts for rich
July 21, 2010

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100721/pl_nm/us_taxes_conrad_3

I suppose you'll now argue with Yahoo and Reuters as to whether Kent Conrad is a "key" Democrat or not. And I guess the Fed Chair is wrong, too:

Bernanke Says Extending Bush Tax Cuts Would Maintain Stimulus to Economy
July 23, 2010

http://tinyurl.com/399swcl

The only real question is whether extension of the Bush tax cuts will be temporary or permanent. One other question, of course, is how hard will Obama and Pelosi (and Geithner) work to block this effort.

Why do you think those folks want to extend the Bush tax cuts? The answer is self-evident: to continue to help stimulate the economy.

[Edited on July 23, 2010 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2010 3:09:09 PM

9 out of 253 Democrats can't be wrong.

7/23/2010 4:35:40 PM

They want to extend them because they're in districts where they're politically vulnerable.

The Bush tax cuts were retarded.

7/23/2010 4:36:25 PM

Quote :

"oh and that comedy hour 5k credit or whatever. lmao"

You can laugh about it, but it got a lot of people to buy, myself included.

Quote :

"the government did pretty much the exact opposite of what it should have done to fix the economy and you're right, supply side isnt the king of everything (especially when the supply is from bad companies)"

The companies did what they were supposed to, they weren't "bad". The system failed due to improper regulation. I know the argument you want to make, and you'd be better off making the argument that we shouldn't have made the market depend on that regulation so much.

Quote :

"The deficit isn't nearly high enough; let's see if we can get it up to $2 trillion."

I'd agree with that. Loneshark points to that by saying there was a money shortage, which is correct. Yet somehow he fallaciously says the government cannot address it and that only the FR can print money while in the same post pointing out that debt increases the money supply. So long story short, the fed can address the money supply shortage easily, just increase the federal debt, this would create money in the same way consumer debt does. If you want to pay down the debt, just have the FR print some money and pay it with that. This will help avoid the decrease in prices that has so many people worrying. We will probably suffer a bit of inflation later, but when it comes to inflation and deflation, anyone will tell you, it's better to sandbag than to come up short. Deflation has a tendency to spiral and is much more difficult to address than inflation.

Quote :

"The opinion piece you linked to cites the NYT to support an argument that they weren't making."

So much win. The affluent were spending more because they were saving less, and why were they saving less? Because you couldn't make any money investing during that time period. It's more than accepted that MPC decreases as income increases, giving the rich money will always be a less effective economic stimulus than giving the poor money.

[Edited on July 23, 2010 at 5:39 PM. Reason : ]

7/23/2010 5:38:12 PM

Quote :

"Why do you think those folks want to extend the Bush tax cuts? The answer is self-evident: to continue to help stimulate the economy."

7/23/2010 5:43:55 PM

^

Quote :

"They want to extend them because they're in districts where they're politically vulnerable. The Bush tax cuts were retarded."

then again maybe only 9 democrats care more about the actual economy than political whatever

[Edited on July 23, 2010 at 6:01 PM. Reason : ]

7/23/2010 6:00:55 PM

What district is Fed Chair Bernanke running in?

7/23/2010 6:17:34 PM

Well he just stated the obvious. These tax cuts do stimulate the economy, that's not being questioned. I think the issue is, would the money be better spent elsewhere. This was all kind of implied in my earlier post:
It's more than accepted that MPC decreases as income increases, giving the rich money will always be a less effective economic stimulus than giving the poor money.

7/23/2010 6:24:44 PM

Quote :

"These tax cuts do stimulate the economy. . . ."

Thanks. QED.

And the answer to your other question is no.

7/23/2010 6:26:41 PM

Giving a tax breaks for the number of peanuts in your shit would stimulate the economy, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. I guess you ignored the rest of my post as it was over your head. If you really want I can explain it to you.

7/23/2010 6:29:23 PM

^ No one has ever been able to make sense of not letting people keep more of their own money. In addition, no one can adequately explain how if the individual earning the money is not entitled to either all of it or the overwhelming majority of it, how is anyone else (or government through redistributive "social justice" policies) entitled to it?



[Edited on July 23, 2010 at 6:53 PM. Reason : Rational people know this instinctively.]

7/23/2010 6:52:24 PM

First off, you've completely ignored my point and derailed the thread because I started talking about shit you don't understand. But I'll play your game.

You could take two approaches, #1 "is it really 'your money'" or #2 "did 'you' really earn it".

#1 Money represents capital and labor. No one would dispute the creation of labor, but capital is a bit different. You can't make capital. You can add value to it, but it was here before any of us. Furthermore, since you didn't create capital, and you can't do labor without it, do you really ownership over something, which solely came from processes you had nothing to do with?

#2 You can't make money without the collective world around you. Without the seller and the buyer you have nothing. It's not the actual labor that makes you money, it's the selling of it, which you couldn't have without a system creating the society that is so fundamental to the modern world.

But do promise you'll get back to my original points.

7/23/2010 7:26:45 PM

Tax cuts are just a way to paper over the real problem: taxes. If the taxes collected were actually going to these grand liberal plans to help the poor and all that, maybe it could be justified. That's never what has happened and that's never what will happen, though. The money is either wasted or spent in ways that benefit select groups of people, rather than all Americans. A fuck ton of taxes just goes toward perpetuating the bureaucracy.

A tax cut is nothing more than the government saying to the people, or a specific group of people, "anything you do in life belongs to us...but we'll give you a break, in this special situation, because we think it'll be politically advantageous or it'll encourage proper behavior as determined by us."

The government can never allocate resources more effectively than the free market. People know what they want better than elected officials ever can. Modern liberals believe that the government knows how to spend money best. They would probably argue that if only we had the right Democrats in office, all the money would be spent in a good way. I'm wondering if there's anyone stupid enough to believe that bullshit.

7/23/2010 7:31:46 PM

taxes are the price we pay for effective government and the maintenance of public goods

when the government offers to slash prices taxes, keep in mind there's no equivalent of China to outsource it all to, and in fact when government does outsource its functions it usually pays more and there is less oversight and lower quality

7/23/2010 7:37:31 PM

Quote :

"taxes are the price we pay for effective government and the maintenance of public goods"

Hahahaha. I'm sure Halliburton knows all about that. Goldman Sachs, GM, and Chrysler as well. Yeah, the government is effective as all get out...if you know the right people.

Quote :

"when the government offers to slash prices taxes, keep in mind there's no equivalent of China to outsource it all to, and in fact when government does outsource its functions it usually pays more and there is less oversight and lower quality"

I think you're confused. Taxes are collected. A tax is not a price. A price is not a tax. A price is the amount of currency or goods exchanged for goods and services. Taxing is a means for the government to purchase things. If a tax didn't exist, no outsourcing would be necessary: the people would be able to keep their own wages and spend those wages on whatever they want.

7/23/2010 7:45:47 PM

Keep trying to feel superior, Kris--I hope that works out for you. But if you won't believe that I know what I'm talking about, will you believe Obama's own Council of Economic Advisers chair?

Romer's Research: Expiration of Bush Tax Cuts Will Be Highly Contractionary

Quote :

"Christina Romer, Chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley, has published an article (co-authored with David Romer) in the June 2010 issue of the American Economic Review titled 'The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks.' Unlike her statements in her role as an Obama adviser, this article is serious academic research, published in what is generally recognized as the world's leading academic economics journal. In the article, the Romers divide legislated tax changes into those undertaken in response to economic conditions and those that are 'exogenous,' by which they mean changes made for other reasons. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts clearly falls into the 'exogenous' category, because it is the result of legislation passed years ago, before anybody could have anticipated the economic conditions under which they would expire. What the Romers found is that exogenous tax increases, such as will occur with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, '… are highly contractionary. The effects are strongly significant, highly robust, and much larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes.' Here is a strong argument, based on solid academic research, for extending the Bush tax cuts, and not letting them expire, made by one of President Obama's top economic advisers. It will be interesting to see to what extent the insights of Christina Romer, economics professor, have an impact on what that same Christina Romer, adviser to the president, has to say in public about the impending tax rate increases."

http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=6958

7/24/2010 3:19:53 PM

do you ever make your own posts?

I'm beginning to think you're just a copypasta bot.
It's like someone aggregated an anti liberal rss feed and vomits it on random threads on TWW
Your posts are the single most pointless and thoughtless out of anyone one this site right now.

It's amazing you are able to get through day to day with the complete inability to think for yourself.

7/24/2010 3:44:54 PM

so, Kris, if it's not really your money, then I guess you won't mind me stopping by your place later today and taking all of it, along with all your stuff. after all, none of it is really yours anyway, right? You didn't earn it, so you won't mind me taking it. I'll see you around 2 or 3am

7/24/2010 4:40:29 PM

so, Kris, if it's not really your money, then I guess you won't mind me stopping by your place later today and taking all of it, along with all your stuff. after all, none of it is really yours anyway, right? You didn't earn it, so you won't mind me taking it. I'll see you around 2 or 3am

7/24/2010 4:40:29 PM

so, Herp, if it's not really your derp, then I herp you won't mind me derpping by your place later toderp and herping all of it, along with all your derp. after all, none of it is really herp anyway, derp? You didn't herp it, so you won't derp me herping it. I'll see you around derp or herp am

7/24/2010 5:29:35 PM

^^^^ No one cares what you're "beginning to think" about me. Address the post.

And how is Romer--a member of the Obama administration--"anti liberal"?

^ Just wow. You and your ilk are what's wrong with this forum.

7/24/2010 7:36:53 PM

I thought it was pretty funny considering everything he said was completely retarded

7/25/2010 12:27:28 AM

supply and demand though a nice thought no longer exists in many businesses

7/25/2010 2:36:24 AM

^^ I post "serious academic research" by a top Obama economics official from one of the "world's leading academic economics journal" and you respond with. . .

hooksaw's a poopyhead.

and

Herp derp!

Please just stop posting and amuse yourself elsewhere.

PS: Christina Romer is not a "he."

7/25/2010 10:08:49 AM

Quote :

"I post "serious academic research" by a top Obama economics official from one of the "world's leading academic economics journal" and you respond with. . ."

What the fuck do you expect? Any time I post any sort of response to the copypasta articles that are the only kind of argument you can provide, you immediately respond with "KRIS THINKS HE NOES MOAR THAN DR PROFESSOR HERP DERPPINGTON OF HURR DURR UNIVERSITY!!!".

Provide an original though out argument and you might start seeing more meaningful responses

PS: aaronburro is a he, otherwise he couldn't be a faggot.

7/25/2010 10:29:49 AM

^ I hardly know where to begin. The position that taxes--especially high taxes and specific taxes--are contractionary is nothing new. It's been around longer than the both of us.

And I post sources because if I didn't, some here would be howling, "LINK PLEASE?!!1" If you don't accept the positions of one of Obama's own top economics advisers, the Fed chair, and a growing number of Democrats in Congress, you'll never accept my argument no matter how well I make it.

[Edited on July 25, 2010 at 10:36 AM. Reason : .]

7/25/2010 10:35:42 AM

Quote :

"you'll never accept my argument no matter how well I make it"

You'll never make an argument, so it's irrelevant. You do not process information or put it through any sort of thought process. You google up articles that support what you want to believe and post them as what you believe to be some irrefutable evidence that what you want to believe is true.

7/25/2010 10:40:38 AM

^ I already did--I guess you missed it:

Quote :

"^ No one has ever been able to make sense of not letting people keep more of their own money. In addition, no one can adequately explain how if the individual earning the money is not entitled to either all of it or the overwhelming majority of it, how is anyone else (or government through redistributive 'social justice' policies) entitled to it?"

But feel free to disagree. I wouldn't want to come between you and your "copypasta" bit.

7/26/2010 11:22:22 AM

Quote :

" already did--I guess you missed it"

I responded, you did miss it. And I'm not really confident you even made that argument, as simple as it was. I feel like I've argued against pretty much the exact same little statement.

7/26/2010 10:56:06 PM

DR PROFESSOR HERP DERPPINGTON OF HURR DURR UNIVERSITY is awesome. I saw him present here at NCState two years ago. He had a solid gold belt buckle with Adam Smith's likeness. He believed it to be humorously ironic, and it was.

7/27/2010 2:42:09 AM