Boudreaux on Piketty

[PoliticalChic]

Each day, Donald Boudreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University, writes a letter to the editor of a major American publication. Often, he writes in response to an absurdity offered up by a columnist or politician, or an eye-catching factoid misleadingly taken out of context.
This guy is da' bomb!

Here's another of his exposés. In this one he destroys the Obama/Piketty Axis.




1. "Dear Ms. Farrar: Thanks for e-mailing to me your thoughts on Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.”
I have indeed read the book carefully. I do not, however, share your impression that Piketty has “proved that increasingly the riches [of the super-wealthy] are unmerited and dangerous” to society at large.

2. I’m now writing a review of Piketty’s volume. .... I’ll cover many of my objections more fully....But to make here one substantive point, let me ask you to look at the most recent (September 2013)Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans.* From Bill Gates at the top to Nicholas Woodman at the bottom, all are billionaires. Yet 261 of these people are self-made.

3. ... nearly two-thirds earned their fortunes through creative entrepreneurial effort and risk-taking — people such as Amazon.com’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, eBay’s Pierre Omidyar, and entertainer Oprah Winfrey.




4. These people’s efforts enrich not only themselves but also you, me, and hundreds of millions of other people.
I’m aware that Piketty dismisses such claims as being crude apologetics, but I challenge you — and him — to explain how, say, Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy amassed a large fortune if the countless people who voluntarily dine at his restaurants do not benefit from doing so.




5. ... note that many of the superrich who aren’t self-made — many who began with lots of wealth — nevertheless continue, like Charles Koch, to work hard to further enhance their wealth through entrepreneurial creativity, effort, and risk-taking.

6. ... Forbes list supplies powerful evidence against Piketty’s notions that large fortunes in market economies overwhelmingly generate themselves automatically and that today’s superrich are parasitic and idle rentiers." Competition, Job One - The New York Sun




Wondering....are the Obama/Piketty 'you didn't build that' folks merely misguided....or simply out to steal what others have earned?



BTW......the Soviet communist elite all had their own dachas in the worker's paradise.....

 

[sameech]

Each day, Donald Boudreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University, writes a letter to the editor of a major American publication. Often, he writes in response to an absurdity offered up by a columnist or politician, or an eye-catching factoid misleadingly taken out of context.
This guy is da' bomb!

Here's another of his exposés. In this one he destroys the Obama/Piketty Axis.




1. "Dear Ms. Farrar: Thanks for e-mailing to me your thoughts on Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.”
I have indeed read the book carefully. I do not, however, share your impression that Piketty has “proved that increasingly the riches [of the super-wealthy] are unmerited and dangerous” to society at large.

2. I’m now writing a review of Piketty’s volume. .... I’ll cover many of my objections more fully....But to make here one substantive point, let me ask you to look at the most recent (September 2013)Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans.* From Bill Gates at the top to Nicholas Woodman at the bottom, all are billionaires. Yet 261 of these people are self-made.

3. ... nearly two-thirds earned their fortunes through creative entrepreneurial effort and risk-taking — people such as Amazon.com’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, eBay’s Pierre Omidyar, and entertainer Oprah Winfrey.




4. These people’s efforts enrich not only themselves but also you, me, and hundreds of millions of other people.
I’m aware that Piketty dismisses such claims as being crude apologetics, but I challenge you — and him — to explain how, say, Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy amassed a large fortune if the countless people who voluntarily dine at his restaurants do not benefit from doing so.




5. ... note that many of the superrich who aren’t self-made — many who began with lots of wealth — nevertheless continue, like Charles Koch, to work hard to further enhance their wealth through entrepreneurial creativity, effort, and risk-taking.

6. ... Forbes list supplies powerful evidence against Piketty’s notions that large fortunes in market economies overwhelmingly generate themselves automatically and that today’s superrich are parasitic and idle rentiers." Competition, Job One - The New York Sun




Wondering....are the Obama/Piketty 'you didn't build that' folks merely misguided....or simply out to steal what others have earned?



BTW......the Soviet communist elite all had their own dachas in the worker's paradise.....

I have been thinking about Piketty's idea that property taxes should be based upon how much of the property one actually owns, but by and large, his analysis is little more than a ploy to provide a circus to the masses i.e. sell books by confirming bias in the largest group of people he can. Statistics show that intergenerational wealth transfers do not favor an economic dynasty in a closed wealth class. Gates' great grandchildren might be working at McDonald's and the great grandchild of someone who works at McDonald's today might be in the top 1/2%.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Editor, The New Yorker:
John Cassidy’s review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-first Century” is insufficiently critical (“Forces of Divergence,” March 31).

Here are two examples.


First, by repeatedly describing the incomes of the rich as being “taken” and “took,” Mr. Cassidy misleadingly suggests that income is a fixed-size pie. Why not, instead, describe incomes more accurately, as being “produced” and “earned”? (It’s true that some high incomes are gotten illegitimately, but surely no society can be as prosperous as ours if most high-income earners are economic predators rather than producers.)




Second and relatedly, Mr. Cassidy accepts Mr. Piketty’s explanation that a major cause of today’s rising incomes of the rich is corporate-oligarchs’ habit of simply giving each other high salaries and lucrative stock options. But if such payments serve no purpose other than to perpetuate the oligarchy, it’s very difficult to explain the rising market value of the capital that Mr. Piketty believes to play such a central role in driving increasing inequality.


A more likely explanation for patterns of executive compensation is that these salaries, bonuses, and stock options are designed, generally successfully, to incent corporate managers to improve their firms’ efficiencies and to keep their firms innovative. One result, in turn, is a growing economic pie and greater prosperity for nearly everyone.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics"
Competition, Job One - The New York Sun




"...a growing economic pie and greater prosperity for nearly everyone."

That would be capitalism, vs. 'you didn't build that.'

 

[Moonglow]

That would be capitalism, vs. 'you didn't build that.'

My bumper should enjoy that!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

That would be capitalism, vs. 'you didn't build that.'

My bumper should enjoy that!!!

You left this out:
"...a growing economic pie and greater prosperity for nearly everyone."

 

[Kimura]

Each day, Donald Boudreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University, writes a letter to the editor of a major American publication. Often, he writes in response to an absurdity offered up by a columnist or politician, or an eye-catching factoid misleadingly taken out of context.
This guy is da' bomb!

Here's another of his exposés. In this one he destroys the Obama/Piketty Axis.




1. "Dear Ms. Farrar: Thanks for e-mailing to me your thoughts on Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.”
I have indeed read the book carefully. I do not, however, share your impression that Piketty has “proved that increasingly the riches [of the super-wealthy] are unmerited and dangerous” to society at large.

2. I’m now writing a review of Piketty’s volume. .... I’ll cover many of my objections more fully....But to make here one substantive point, let me ask you to look at the most recent (September 2013)Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans.* From Bill Gates at the top to Nicholas Woodman at the bottom, all are billionaires. Yet 261 of these people are self-made.

3. ... nearly two-thirds earned their fortunes through creative entrepreneurial effort and risk-taking — people such as Amazon.com’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, eBay’s Pierre Omidyar, and entertainer Oprah Winfrey.




4. These people’s efforts enrich not only themselves but also you, me, and hundreds of millions of other people.
I’m aware that Piketty dismisses such claims as being crude apologetics, but I challenge you — and him — to explain how, say, Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy amassed a large fortune if the countless people who voluntarily dine at his restaurants do not benefit from doing so.




5. ... note that many of the superrich who aren’t self-made — many who began with lots of wealth — nevertheless continue, like Charles Koch, to work hard to further enhance their wealth through entrepreneurial creativity, effort, and risk-taking.

6. ... Forbes list supplies powerful evidence against Piketty’s notions that large fortunes in market economies overwhelmingly generate themselves automatically and that today’s superrich are parasitic and idle rentiers." Competition, Job One - The New York Sun




Wondering....are the Obama/Piketty 'you didn't build that' folks merely misguided....or simply out to steal what others have earned?



BTW......the Soviet communist elite all had their own dachas in the worker's paradise.....

Donald J. Boudreaux — Piketty: A Wealth of Misconceptions

LOL.

I just read it. It's all trickle down, we're all schmucks.

Obviously, this was published in Barron's, telling the super wealthy that everything is hey OK. Inequality is a result of social darwinism, perfectly natural, and inequality is hoax, despite the massive amount of data which tells us otherwise. Piketty is a moron that doesn't understand basic economics.


But wait, it gets better. He holds the Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair at the Mercatus Center over at George Mason.

The Mercatus Center was founded by Rich Fink as the Center for the Study of Market Processes at Rutgers University. After the Koch family provided more than thirty million dollars[4] to George Mason University, the Center moved to George Mason in the mid-1980s before assuming its current name in 1999.[4] The Mercatus Center is a 501(c)3 non-profit and does not receive support from George Mason University or any federal, state or local government, but rather is entirely funded through donations, including some from companies like Koch Industries[5] and ExxonMobil,[6] individual donors and foundations. As of 2011, the Center shows that 58% of its funding comes from foundations, 40% from individuals, and 2% from businesses.[2]

Mercatus Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

Each day, Donald Boudreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University, writes a letter to the editor of a major American publication. Often, he writes in response to an absurdity offered up by a columnist or politician, or an eye-catching factoid misleadingly taken out of context.
This guy is da' bomb!

Here's another of his exposés. In this one he destroys the Obama/Piketty Axis.




1. "Dear Ms. Farrar: Thanks for e-mailing to me your thoughts on Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.”
I have indeed read the book carefully. I do not, however, share your impression that Piketty has “proved that increasingly the riches [of the super-wealthy] are unmerited and dangerous” to society at large.

2. I’m now writing a review of Piketty’s volume. .... I’ll cover many of my objections more fully....But to make here one substantive point, let me ask you to look at the most recent (September 2013)Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans.* From Bill Gates at the top to Nicholas Woodman at the bottom, all are billionaires. Yet 261 of these people are self-made.

3. ... nearly two-thirds earned their fortunes through creative entrepreneurial effort and risk-taking — people such as Amazon.com’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, eBay’s Pierre Omidyar, and entertainer Oprah Winfrey.




4. These people’s efforts enrich not only themselves but also you, me, and hundreds of millions of other people.
I’m aware that Piketty dismisses such claims as being crude apologetics, but I challenge you — and him — to explain how, say, Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy amassed a large fortune if the countless people who voluntarily dine at his restaurants do not benefit from doing so.




5. ... note that many of the superrich who aren’t self-made — many who began with lots of wealth — nevertheless continue, like Charles Koch, to work hard to further enhance their wealth through entrepreneurial creativity, effort, and risk-taking.

6. ... Forbes list supplies powerful evidence against Piketty’s notions that large fortunes in market economies overwhelmingly generate themselves automatically and that today’s superrich are parasitic and idle rentiers." Competition, Job One - The New York Sun




Wondering....are the Obama/Piketty 'you didn't build that' folks merely misguided....or simply out to steal what others have earned?



BTW......the Soviet communist elite all had their own dachas in the worker's paradise.....

Donald J. Boudreaux — Piketty: A Wealth of Misconceptions

LOL.

I just read it. It's all trickle down, we're all schmucks.

Obviously, this was published in Barron's, telling the super wealthy that everything is hey OK. Inequality is a result of social darwinism, perfectly natural, and inequality is hoax, despite the massive amount of data which tells us otherwise. Piketty is a moron that doesn't understand basic economics.


But wait, it gets better. He holds the Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair at the Mercatus Center over at George Mason.

The Mercatus Center was founded by Rich Fink as the Center for the Study of Market Processes at Rutgers University. After the Koch family provided more than thirty million dollars[4] to George Mason University, the Center moved to George Mason in the mid-1980s before assuming its current name in 1999.[4] The Mercatus Center is a 501(c)3 non-profit and does not receive support from George Mason University or any federal, state or local government, but rather is entirely funded through donations, including some from companies like Koch Industries[5] and ExxonMobil,[6] individual donors and foundations. As of 2011, the Center shows that 58% of its funding comes from foundations, 40% from individuals, and 2% from businesses.[2]

Mercatus Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the kind of post you author when you can't dispute the truth.

 

[Kimura]

Each day, Donald Boudreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University, writes a letter to the editor of a major American publication. Often, he writes in response to an absurdity offered up by a columnist or politician, or an eye-catching factoid misleadingly taken out of context.
This guy is da' bomb!

Here's another of his exposés. In this one he destroys the Obama/Piketty Axis.




1. "Dear Ms. Farrar: Thanks for e-mailing to me your thoughts on Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.”
I have indeed read the book carefully. I do not, however, share your impression that Piketty has “proved that increasingly the riches [of the super-wealthy] are unmerited and dangerous” to society at large.

2. I’m now writing a review of Piketty’s volume. .... I’ll cover many of my objections more fully....But to make here one substantive point, let me ask you to look at the most recent (September 2013)Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans.* From Bill Gates at the top to Nicholas Woodman at the bottom, all are billionaires. Yet 261 of these people are self-made.

3. ... nearly two-thirds earned their fortunes through creative entrepreneurial effort and risk-taking — people such as Amazon.com’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, eBay’s Pierre Omidyar, and entertainer Oprah Winfrey.




4. These people’s efforts enrich not only themselves but also you, me, and hundreds of millions of other people.
I’m aware that Piketty dismisses such claims as being crude apologetics, but I challenge you — and him — to explain how, say, Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy amassed a large fortune if the countless people who voluntarily dine at his restaurants do not benefit from doing so.




5. ... note that many of the superrich who aren’t self-made — many who began with lots of wealth — nevertheless continue, like Charles Koch, to work hard to further enhance their wealth through entrepreneurial creativity, effort, and risk-taking.

6. ... Forbes list supplies powerful evidence against Piketty’s notions that large fortunes in market economies overwhelmingly generate themselves automatically and that today’s superrich are parasitic and idle rentiers." Competition, Job One - The New York Sun




Wondering....are the Obama/Piketty 'you didn't build that' folks merely misguided....or simply out to steal what others have earned?



BTW......the Soviet communist elite all had their own dachas in the worker's paradise.....

Donald J. Boudreaux — Piketty: A Wealth of Misconceptions

LOL.

I just read it. It's all trickle down, we're all schmucks.

Obviously, this was published in Barron's, telling the super wealthy that everything is hey OK. Inequality is a result of social darwinism, perfectly natural, and inequality is hoax, despite the massive amount of data which tells us otherwise. Piketty is a moron that doesn't understand basic economics.


But wait, it gets better. He holds the Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair at the Mercatus Center over at George Mason.

The Mercatus Center was founded by Rich Fink as the Center for the Study of Market Processes at Rutgers University. After the Koch family provided more than thirty million dollars[4] to George Mason University, the Center moved to George Mason in the mid-1980s before assuming its current name in 1999.[4] The Mercatus Center is a 501(c)3 non-profit and does not receive support from George Mason University or any federal, state or local government, but rather is entirely funded through donations, including some from companies like Koch Industries[5] and ExxonMobil,[6] individual donors and foundations. As of 2011, the Center shows that 58% of its funding comes from foundations, 40% from individuals, and 2% from businesses.[2]

Mercatus Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the kind of post you author when you can't dispute the truth.

The fact people continue to spout supply-side nonsense given the available macroeconomic data over the last three decades is beyond delusional. We've entered the realm of political cargo cult.

 

[Kimura]

By the way, Piketty's thesis that wealth-to-income ratios will increase isn't solely based on R > G, which Boudreaux seems to be getting at. This is simply a byproduct of the savings rate divided by growth rate (S/G).

 

[Shanty]

Each day, Donald Boudreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University, writes a letter to the editor of a major American publication. Often, he writes in response to an absurdity offered up by a columnist or politician, or an eye-catching factoid misleadingly taken out of context.
This guy is da' bomb!

Here's another of his exposés. In this one he destroys the Obama/Piketty Axis.




1. "Dear Ms. Farrar: Thanks for e-mailing to me your thoughts on Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.”
I have indeed read the book carefully. I do not, however, share your impression that Piketty has “proved that increasingly the riches [of the super-wealthy] are unmerited and dangerous” to society at large.

2. I’m now writing a review of Piketty’s volume. .... I’ll cover many of my objections more fully....But to make here one substantive point, let me ask you to look at the most recent (September 2013)Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans.* From Bill Gates at the top to Nicholas Woodman at the bottom, all are billionaires. Yet 261 of these people are self-made.

3. ... nearly two-thirds earned their fortunes through creative entrepreneurial effort and risk-taking — people such as Amazon.com’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, eBay’s Pierre Omidyar, and entertainer Oprah Winfrey.




4. These people’s efforts enrich not only themselves but also you, me, and hundreds of millions of other people.
I’m aware that Piketty dismisses such claims as being crude apologetics, but I challenge you — and him — to explain how, say, Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy amassed a large fortune if the countless people who voluntarily dine at his restaurants do not benefit from doing so.




5. ... note that many of the superrich who aren’t self-made — many who began with lots of wealth — nevertheless continue, like Charles Koch, to work hard to further enhance their wealth through entrepreneurial creativity, effort, and risk-taking.

6. ... Forbes list supplies powerful evidence against Piketty’s notions that large fortunes in market economies overwhelmingly generate themselves automatically and that today’s superrich are parasitic and idle rentiers." Competition, Job One - The New York Sun




Wondering....are the Obama/Piketty 'you didn't build that' folks merely misguided....or simply out to steal what others have earned?



BTW......the Soviet communist elite all had their own dachas in the worker's paradise.....

Donnie Boudroux's arguments have all fell apart on Piketty's.

Poor conservatives. Reality keeps slapping your silly assed ideas down.

 

[Shanty]

Donald J. Boudreaux — Piketty: A Wealth of Misconceptions

LOL.

I just read it. It's all trickle down, we're all schmucks.

Obviously, this was published in Barron's, telling the super wealthy that everything is hey OK. Inequality is a result of social darwinism, perfectly natural, and inequality is hoax, despite the massive amount of data which tells us otherwise. Piketty is a moron that doesn't understand basic economics.


But wait, it gets better. He holds the Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair at the Mercatus Center over at George Mason.

The Mercatus Center was founded by Rich Fink as the Center for the Study of Market Processes at Rutgers University. After the Koch family provided more than thirty million dollars[4] to George Mason University, the Center moved to George Mason in the mid-1980s before assuming its current name in 1999.[4] The Mercatus Center is a 501(c)3 non-profit and does not receive support from George Mason University or any federal, state or local government, but rather is entirely funded through donations, including some from companies like Koch Industries[5] and ExxonMobil,[6] individual donors and foundations. As of 2011, the Center shows that 58% of its funding comes from foundations, 40% from individuals, and 2% from businesses.[2]

Mercatus Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the kind of post you author when you can't dispute the truth.

The fact people continue to spout supply-side nonsense given the available macroeconomic data over the last three decades is beyond delusional. We've entered the realm of political cargo cult.

I'd counter that the last 80 years have proven Keynes right, generally, and supply side has been proven wrong again, as a badly gone experiment of the last thirty years.

 

[Toro]

I'd counter that the last 80 years have proven Keynes right, generally,

Stagflation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toro]

Each day, Donald Boudreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University, writes a letter to the editor of a major American publication. Often, he writes in response to an absurdity offered up by a columnist or politician, or an eye-catching factoid misleadingly taken out of context.
This guy is da' bomb!

Here's another of his exposés. In this one he destroys the Obama/Piketty Axis.




1. "Dear Ms. Farrar: Thanks for e-mailing to me your thoughts on Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.”
I have indeed read the book carefully. I do not, however, share your impression that Piketty has “proved that increasingly the riches [of the super-wealthy] are unmerited and dangerous” to society at large.

2. I’m now writing a review of Piketty’s volume. .... I’ll cover many of my objections more fully....But to make here one substantive point, let me ask you to look at the most recent (September 2013)Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans.* From Bill Gates at the top to Nicholas Woodman at the bottom, all are billionaires. Yet 261 of these people are self-made.

3. ... nearly two-thirds earned their fortunes through creative entrepreneurial effort and risk-taking — people such as Amazon.com’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, eBay’s Pierre Omidyar, and entertainer Oprah Winfrey.




4. These people’s efforts enrich not only themselves but also you, me, and hundreds of millions of other people.
I’m aware that Piketty dismisses such claims as being crude apologetics, but I challenge you — and him — to explain how, say, Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy amassed a large fortune if the countless people who voluntarily dine at his restaurants do not benefit from doing so.




5. ... note that many of the superrich who aren’t self-made — many who began with lots of wealth — nevertheless continue, like Charles Koch, to work hard to further enhance their wealth through entrepreneurial creativity, effort, and risk-taking.

6. ... Forbes list supplies powerful evidence against Piketty’s notions that large fortunes in market economies overwhelmingly generate themselves automatically and that today’s superrich are parasitic and idle rentiers." Competition, Job One - The New York Sun




Wondering....are the Obama/Piketty 'you didn't build that' folks merely misguided....or simply out to steal what others have earned?



BTW......the Soviet communist elite all had their own dachas in the worker's paradise.....

Donald J. Boudreaux — Piketty: A Wealth of Misconceptions

LOL.

I just read it. It's all trickle down, we're all schmucks.

Obviously, this was published in Barron's, telling the super wealthy that everything is hey OK. Inequality is a result of social darwinism, perfectly natural, and inequality is hoax, despite the massive amount of data which tells us otherwise. Piketty is a moron that doesn't understand basic economics.


But wait, it gets better. He holds the Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair at the Mercatus Center over at George Mason.

The Mercatus Center was founded by Rich Fink as the Center for the Study of Market Processes at Rutgers University. After the Koch family provided more than thirty million dollars[4] to George Mason University, the Center moved to George Mason in the mid-1980s before assuming its current name in 1999.[4] The Mercatus Center is a 501(c)3 non-profit and does not receive support from George Mason University or any federal, state or local government, but rather is entirely funded through donations, including some from companies like Koch Industries[5] and ExxonMobil,[6] individual donors and foundations. As of 2011, the Center shows that 58% of its funding comes from foundations, 40% from individuals, and 2% from businesses.[2]

Mercatus Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If one wished to use a similar ad hominem towards M. Piketty, it might be "He's French, what would you expect?"

 

[The Rabbi]

This is the kind of post you author when you can't dispute the truth.

The fact people continue to spout supply-side nonsense given the available macroeconomic data over the last three decades is beyond delusional. We've entered the realm of political cargo cult.

I'd counter that the last 80 years have proven Keynes right, generally, and supply side has been proven wrong again, as a badly gone experiment of the last thirty years.

I'd counter you dont your ass from a hole in the ground. ANd you prove it every day here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is the kind of post you author when you can't dispute the truth.

The fact people continue to spout supply-side nonsense given the available macroeconomic data over the last three decades is beyond delusional. We've entered the realm of political cargo cult.

I'd counter that the last 80 years have proven Keynes right, generally, and supply side has been proven wrong again, as a badly gone experiment of the last thirty years.

You appear quite the ignorant fellow.

I can help, if you can learn:


1. The benefits from Reaganomics:

a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) FDsys - Browse ERP
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116


b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush


2. The Reagan recovery:
"During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade."
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes









That's reality.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The fact people continue to spout supply-side nonsense given the available macroeconomic data over the last three decades is beyond delusional. We've entered the realm of political cargo cult.


we got from the stone age to here as people figured out how to invent or supply stuff. Demand is always constant so plays no role.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The fact people continue to spout supply-side nonsense given the available macroeconomic data over the last three decades is beyond delusional. We've entered the realm of political cargo cult.


we got from the stone age to here as people figured out how to invent or supply stuff. Demand is always constant so plays no role.

You have this minor problem with your thesis.....Reagan's policies worked like a charm!

See post #15.

But, I'm certain you won't let truth or experience stand in the way if your acceptance of Left wing propaganda.



Let me guess: you are a 'reliable Democrat voter,' of he low information variety.

I nailed it?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The fact people continue to spout supply-side nonsense given the available macroeconomic data over the last three decades is beyond delusional. We've entered the realm of political cargo cult.


we got from the stone age to here as people figured out how to invent or supply stuff. Demand is always constant so plays no role.

You have this minor problem with your thesis.....Reagan's policies worked like a charm!

See post #15.

But, I'm certain you won't let truth or experience stand in the way if your acceptance of Left wing propaganda.



Let me guess: you are a 'reliable Democrat voter,' of he low information variety.

I nailed it?

we got from the stone age to here as people figured out how to invent or supply stuff. Demand is always constant so plays no role.

if you agree or disagree with what is immediately above please say why. Thanks

 

[PoliticalChic]

The fact people continue to spout supply-side nonsense given the available macroeconomic data over the last three decades is beyond delusional. We've entered the realm of political cargo cult.


we got from the stone age to here as people figured out how to invent or supply stuff. Demand is always constant so plays no role.

You have this minor problem with your thesis.....Reagan's policies worked like a charm!

See post #15.

But, I'm certain you won't let truth or experience stand in the way if your acceptance of Left wing propaganda.



Let me guess: you are a 'reliable Democrat voter,' of he low information variety.

I nailed it?

we got from the stone age to here as people figured out how to invent or supply stuff. Demand is always constant so plays no role.

if you agree or disagree with what is immediately above please say why. Thanks

Did I miss your agreement as to the astounding effectiveness of President Reagan's economic policies?


If you were about to post same, don't hesitate to compare them with those of the wind-bag in the White House.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You have this minor problem with your thesis.....Reagan's policies worked like a charm!

See post #15.

But, I'm certain you won't let truth or experience stand in the way if your acceptance of Left wing propaganda.



Let me guess: you are a 'reliable Democrat voter,' of he low information variety.

I nailed it?

we got from the stone age to here as people figured out how to invent or supply stuff. Demand is always constant so plays no role.

if you agree or disagree with what is immediately above please say why. Thanks

Did I miss your agreement as to the astounding effectiveness of President Reagan's economic policies?


If you were about to post same, don't hesitate to compare them with those of the wind-bag in the White House.

Reagan's policies were a mixed bag of several tax increases and cuts , exploding deficits, and Fed intervention so I don't take much from them although I love the man's philosophy and think he would have done much better without having to compromise with Democrats.