If taxes go up, job creation goes down: IS DEAD WRONG

[TheCrusader]

Its an explicit contradiction of supply side economics, the economic basis of republican tax policy for 30 years.

As the focus the vast majority of their tax cuts with the wealthy, which can only purchase so many sets of headphones or new cars. Rather than with the middle class, which has far more demand. A middle class with more money improves the consumer base's capacity to buy far greater than giving a billionaire a 10 million dollar tax cut.

Fact doesn't mean truth?

Damn you are one stupid fuck!!

1. Facts are more objective when compared to the more subjective truths.
2. Facts are more permanent when compared to the more temporary truths.
3. Facts exist in reality, whereas truths are usually the things that one believes to be true, or the things that are true in the current situation.
4. Facts can also answer the ‘where,’ ‘when’ and ‘how’ questions, whereas truths answer the ‘why’ question.

Read more: Difference Between Fact and Truth | Difference Between | Fact vs Truth http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fact-and-truth/#ixzz3wJ9TevFO

Speaking of 'stupid fucks', did you even read my post? As it doesn't even use the word 'fact'. Making your entire post an awkward non-sequitur.

Would you like to try again, this time addressing what I actually did post?

Not sure how the mix up happened but I thought I was quoting crusaders idiotic post about facts not being true or some such nonsense.

The mixup happened because you're fucking stupid.

Fact:
A thing that is indisputably the case

Facts may be TRUE or FALSE.

A thing can be indisputably false. YOU RETARD.


Full Definition of fact

1. 1: a thing done: asa obsolete : featb : crime <accessory after the fact>c archaic : action
   
   
2. 2archaic : performance, doing
   
   
3. 3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
   
   
4. 4a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact>b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
   
   
5. 5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

Definition of FACT

So, something that is indisputable can be wrong?

Yes, I really don't know how you can be so stupid to not understand the difference between knowing something is true and knowing something is false?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Thanks Captain Obvious!!

View attachment 58788

Its an explicit contradiction of supply side economics, the economic basis of republican tax policy for 30 years.

As the focus the vast majority of their tax cuts with the wealthy, which can only purchase so many sets of headphones or new cars. Rather than with the middle class, which has far more demand. A middle class with more money improves the consumer base's capacity to buy far greater than giving a billionaire a 10 million dollar tax cut.

Fact doesn't mean truth?

Damn you are one stupid fuck!!

1. Facts are more objective when compared to the more subjective truths.
2. Facts are more permanent when compared to the more temporary truths.
3. Facts exist in reality, whereas truths are usually the things that one believes to be true, or the things that are true in the current situation.
4. Facts can also answer the ‘where,’ ‘when’ and ‘how’ questions, whereas truths answer the ‘why’ question.

Read more: Difference Between Fact and Truth | Difference Between | Fact vs Truth http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fact-and-truth/#ixzz3wJ9TevFO

Speaking of 'stupid fucks', did you even read my post? As it doesn't even use the word 'fact'. Making your entire post an awkward non-sequitur.

Would you like to try again, this time addressing what I actually did post?

Not sure how the mix up happened but I thought I was quoting crusaders idiotic post about facts not being true or some such nonsense.

The mixup happened because you're fucking stupid.

Fact:
A thing that is indisputably the case

Facts may be TRUE or FALSE.

A thing can be indisputably false. YOU RETARD.

" fact means evidence that is verified"

Those are your words, retard.

So using your own words, if a fact is verified by evidence, then explain how it can be false.

 

[jknowgood]

I'll let this billionaire speak for himself against his own class:

Consumers create jobs, not rich people.

Capitalists calling themselves Job Creators is a lie.

The rich earn 100s or thousands of multiples of the income of ordinary Americans, but cannot consume thousands of more times more stuff.

A rich person owns 3 cars, not 3,000. They own several outfits, or several dozen, not 20,000 pairs of pants.

Wow, you're on quite the roll today in the stuck-on-stupid department!

You have quite the obsession with

Might want to get that checked out.... just say'n.

I'm obsessed with how meaningless you are on this forum. You must be jealous I joined like a week ago and am more popular than you. More poopular.

No we are just amazed that someone could actually be more ignorant than guno and rdean. Not really the attention I would be proud of.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Its an explicit contradiction of supply side economics, the economic basis of republican tax policy for 30 years.

As the focus the vast majority of their tax cuts with the wealthy, which can only purchase so many sets of headphones or new cars. Rather than with the middle class, which has far more demand. A middle class with more money improves the consumer base's capacity to buy far greater than giving a billionaire a 10 million dollar tax cut.

Fact doesn't mean truth?

Damn you are one stupid fuck!!

1. Facts are more objective when compared to the more subjective truths.
2. Facts are more permanent when compared to the more temporary truths.
3. Facts exist in reality, whereas truths are usually the things that one believes to be true, or the things that are true in the current situation.
4. Facts can also answer the ‘where,’ ‘when’ and ‘how’ questions, whereas truths answer the ‘why’ question.

Read more: Difference Between Fact and Truth | Difference Between | Fact vs Truth http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fact-and-truth/#ixzz3wJ9TevFO

Speaking of 'stupid fucks', did you even read my post? As it doesn't even use the word 'fact'. Making your entire post an awkward non-sequitur.

Would you like to try again, this time addressing what I actually did post?

Not sure how the mix up happened but I thought I was quoting crusaders idiotic post about facts not being true or some such nonsense.

The mixup happened because you're fucking stupid.

Fact:
A thing that is indisputably the case

Facts may be TRUE or FALSE.

A thing can be indisputably false. YOU RETARD.

" fact means evidence that is verified"

Those are your words, retard.

So using your own words, if a fact is verified by evidence, then explain how it can be false.

I think there is something wrong with that one.... he undoubtedly will now remind us how popular he is as further evidence he is correct!!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Its an explicit contradiction of supply side economics, the economic basis of republican tax policy for 30 years.

As the focus the vast majority of their tax cuts with the wealthy, which can only purchase so many sets of headphones or new cars. Rather than with the middle class, which has far more demand. A middle class with more money improves the consumer base's capacity to buy far greater than giving a billionaire a 10 million dollar tax cut.

Fact doesn't mean truth?

Damn you are one stupid fuck!!

1. Facts are more objective when compared to the more subjective truths.
2. Facts are more permanent when compared to the more temporary truths.
3. Facts exist in reality, whereas truths are usually the things that one believes to be true, or the things that are true in the current situation.
4. Facts can also answer the ‘where,’ ‘when’ and ‘how’ questions, whereas truths answer the ‘why’ question.

Read more: Difference Between Fact and Truth | Difference Between | Fact vs Truth http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fact-and-truth/#ixzz3wJ9TevFO

Speaking of 'stupid fucks', did you even read my post? As it doesn't even use the word 'fact'. Making your entire post an awkward non-sequitur.

Would you like to try again, this time addressing what I actually did post?

Not sure how the mix up happened but I thought I was quoting crusaders idiotic post about facts not being true or some such nonsense.

The mixup happened because you're fucking stupid.

Fact:
A thing that is indisputably the case

Facts may be TRUE or FALSE.

A thing can be indisputably false. YOU RETARD.

" fact means evidence that is verified"

Those are your words, retard.

So using your own words, if a fact is verified by evidence, then explain how it can be false.

He's

 

[TheCrusader]

Its an explicit contradiction of supply side economics, the economic basis of republican tax policy for 30 years.

As the focus the vast majority of their tax cuts with the wealthy, which can only purchase so many sets of headphones or new cars. Rather than with the middle class, which has far more demand. A middle class with more money improves the consumer base's capacity to buy far greater than giving a billionaire a 10 million dollar tax cut.

Fact doesn't mean truth?

Damn you are one stupid fuck!!

1. Facts are more objective when compared to the more subjective truths.
2. Facts are more permanent when compared to the more temporary truths.
3. Facts exist in reality, whereas truths are usually the things that one believes to be true, or the things that are true in the current situation.
4. Facts can also answer the ‘where,’ ‘when’ and ‘how’ questions, whereas truths answer the ‘why’ question.

Read more: Difference Between Fact and Truth | Difference Between | Fact vs Truth http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fact-and-truth/#ixzz3wJ9TevFO

Speaking of 'stupid fucks', did you even read my post? As it doesn't even use the word 'fact'. Making your entire post an awkward non-sequitur.

Would you like to try again, this time addressing what I actually did post?

Not sure how the mix up happened but I thought I was quoting crusaders idiotic post about facts not being true or some such nonsense.

The mixup happened because you're fucking stupid.

Fact:
A thing that is indisputably the case

Facts may be TRUE or FALSE.

A thing can be indisputably false. YOU RETARD.

" fact means evidence that is verified"

Those are your words, retard.

So using your own words, if a fact is verified by evidence, then explain how it can be false.

So you can't have evidence that proves you did not commit a crime? By your argument all evidence proves something is true, and does not prove anything false?

YOU ARE STOOOOPID.

 

[depotoo]

Consumer demand depends on money in the pocket. Higher taxes, less money for consumers to consume with

There would be no consumers without employers, and there would be no employers without consumers. BOTH are vital. So the question is, How do we encourage the creation of more employers and employees? By sucking trillions out of the economy and giving it to the government to spend? How's that working out under Obama? Let's see: a decline in median family income, a record rise in the national debt, the worst U-6 unemployment rate since the Great Depression, the weakest recovery in modern history (a "recovery" that has included two quarters of negative GDP growth), etc., etc.

Again, it doesn't matter how much you can make. It matters how much you can *sell*. And sales require consumer demand. Which in turn requires the capacity to buy. That's the fatal flaw in supply side economics. As it assumes that an increased capacity to make shit means that there will be a greater market to buy shit.

That's just not true. Productivity increases do NOT increase consumer demand. And if the money associated with productivity increases isn't shared with the majority of your consumer base, you're going to squander your potential for economic growth.

We've seen one of the single largest increases of wealth increases among the 'supply siders'. And yet economic growth is still middling. As without real purchasing power increases to match productivity increases, there's no increase in the actual consumer market.

Which is why supply side economics has such a shit economic record. As when you focus your stimulus with the wealthy, they just keep the stimulus. There is zero impetus to pass it on. And their capacity to consume is limited by their comparatively small numbers.

When you focus your stimulus on the middle class, you're focusing on your consumer base with vastly greater numbers and vastly greater capacity for demand. And increasing their capacity to consume with more disposable income will increase sales.

Which is the actual engine of economic growth. Not merely the increased capacity to make something.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Fact doesn't mean truth?

Damn you are one stupid fuck!!

1. Facts are more objective when compared to the more subjective truths.
2. Facts are more permanent when compared to the more temporary truths.
3. Facts exist in reality, whereas truths are usually the things that one believes to be true, or the things that are true in the current situation.
4. Facts can also answer the ‘where,’ ‘when’ and ‘how’ questions, whereas truths answer the ‘why’ question.

Read more: Difference Between Fact and Truth | Difference Between | Fact vs Truth http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fact-and-truth/#ixzz3wJ9TevFO

Speaking of 'stupid fucks', did you even read my post? As it doesn't even use the word 'fact'. Making your entire post an awkward non-sequitur.

Would you like to try again, this time addressing what I actually did post?

Not sure how the mix up happened but I thought I was quoting crusaders idiotic post about facts not being true or some such nonsense.

The mixup happened because you're fucking stupid.

Fact:
A thing that is indisputably the case

Facts may be TRUE or FALSE.

A thing can be indisputably false. YOU RETARD.

" fact means evidence that is verified"

Those are your words, retard.

So using your own words, if a fact is verified by evidence, then explain how it can be false.

So you can't have evidence that proves you did not commit a crime? By your argument all evidence proves something is true, and does not prove anything false?

YOU ARE STOOOOPID.

Keep trying to convince yourself that the facts presented to you were false even though they were verified with evidence to be true.

 

[TheCrusader]

Speaking of 'stupid fucks', did you even read my post? As it doesn't even use the word 'fact'. Making your entire post an awkward non-sequitur.

Would you like to try again, this time addressing what I actually did post?

Not sure how the mix up happened but I thought I was quoting crusaders idiotic post about facts not being true or some such nonsense.

The mixup happened because you're fucking stupid.

Fact:
A thing that is indisputably the case

Facts may be TRUE or FALSE.

A thing can be indisputably false. YOU RETARD.

" fact means evidence that is verified"

Those are your words, retard.

So using your own words, if a fact is verified by evidence, then explain how it can be false.

So you can't have evidence that proves you did not commit a crime? By your argument all evidence proves something is true, and does not prove anything false?

YOU ARE STOOOOPID.

Keep trying to convince yourself that the facts presented to you were false even though they were verified with evidence to be true.

Wow you're so stupid you don't even know what you're arguing anymore.

 

[2aguy]

One day you might try dealing with the established fact that every major tax cut since the early 1900s has been followed by solid economic growth and a substantial increase in federal revenue.

The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth

Really? Even after the Reagan through Bush tax cuts? Despite you know, FLAT LINED income growth and FEWEST WORKING AMERICANS since 1973.

Yes…really……there has been huge growth after every tax cut…..you left wingers are trying to lie about it but we have the internet now…..you can't claim something, lie about it and move on expecting that the democrats at ABC, NBC and CBS will just repeat the lie.

 

[2aguy]

I'll let this billionaire speak for himself against his own class:

Consumers create jobs, not rich people.

Capitalists calling themselves Job Creators is a lie.

The rich earn 100s or thousands of multiples of the income of ordinary Americans, but cannot consume thousands of more times more stuff.

A rich person owns 3 cars, not 3,000. They own several outfits, or several dozen, not 20,000 pairs of pants.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how many widgets you can *make*. It matters how many widgets you can *sell*.

And if you want to sell more widgets, you need a consumer base with the capacity to buy them.

And if you take all of their money in local, state and federal taxes…fine them, increase all fees…they won't have any money to buy them…..but the bureaucrats will have great healthcare benefits and pensions…..

 

[Skylar]

Consumer demand depends on money in the pocket. Higher taxes, less money for consumers to consume with

There would be no consumers without employers, and there would be no employers without consumers. BOTH are vital. So the question is, How do we encourage the creation of more employers and employees? By sucking trillions out of the economy and giving it to the government to spend? How's that working out under Obama? Let's see: a decline in median family income, a record rise in the national debt, the worst U-6 unemployment rate since the Great Depression, the weakest recovery in modern history (a "recovery" that has included two quarters of negative GDP growth), etc., etc.

Again, it doesn't matter how much you can make. It matters how much you can *sell*. And sales require consumer demand. Which in turn requires the capacity to buy. That's the fatal flaw in supply side economics. As it assumes that an increased capacity to make shit means that there will be a greater market to buy shit.

That's just not true. Productivity increases do NOT increase consumer demand. And if the money associated with productivity increases isn't shared with the majority of your consumer base, you're going to squander your potential for economic growth.

We've seen one of the single largest increases of wealth increases among the 'supply siders'. And yet economic growth is still middling. As without real purchasing power increases to match productivity increases, there's no increase in the actual consumer market.

Which is why supply side economics has such a shit economic record. As when you focus your stimulus with the wealthy, they just keep the stimulus. There is zero impetus to pass it on. And their capacity to consume is limited by their comparatively small numbers.

When you focus your stimulus on the middle class, you're focusing on your consumer base with vastly greater numbers and vastly greater capacity for demand. And increasing their capacity to consume with more disposable income will increase sales.

Which is the actual engine of economic growth. Not merely the increased capacity to make something.

Depends on money in the pocket of *who*? And that's where supply side economics breaks. As they focus the overwhelming majority of their tax cuts for the wealthy.

The wealthy aren't our consumer base. Their numbers are simply too small. The middle class are our consumer base. As they have the numbers and the demand. Focusing your tax cuts with the middle class has a vastly greater effect on consumer demand. And the actual increase of sales.

That's the flaw of supply side economics. It assumes that more money in the hands of supply siders increases consumer demand.

Which just isn't true.

 

[saveliberty]

There would be no consumers without employers, and there would be no employers without consumers. BOTH are vital. So the question is, How do we encourage the creation of more employers and employees? By sucking trillions out of the economy and giving it to the government to spend? How's that working out under Obama? Let's see: a decline in median family income, a record rise in the national debt, the worst U-6 unemployment rate since the Great Depression, the weakest recovery in modern history (a "recovery" that has included two quarters of negative GDP growth), etc., etc.

Again, it doesn't matter how much you can make. It matters how much you can *sell*. And sales require consumer demand. Which in turn requires the capacity to buy. That's the fatal flaw in supply side economics. As it assumes that an increased capacity to make shit means that there will be a greater market to buy shit.

That's just not true. Productivity increases do NOT increase consumer demand. And if the money associated with productivity increases isn't shared with the majority of your consumer base, you're going to squander your potential for economic growth.

We've seen one of the single largest increases of wealth increases among the 'supply siders'. And yet economic growth is still middling. As without real purchasing power increases to match productivity increases, there's no increase in the actual consumer market.

Which is why supply side economics has such a shit economic record. As when you focus your stimulus with the wealthy, they just keep the stimulus. There is zero impetus to pass it on. And their capacity to consume is limited by their comparatively small numbers.

When you focus your stimulus on the middle class, you're focusing on your consumer base with vastly greater numbers and vastly greater capacity for demand. And increasing their capacity to consume with more disposable income will increase sales.

Which is the actual engine of economic growth. Not merely the increased capacity to make something.

Actually, if you are producing at a loss, you want to sell less. Increased costs can make that happen.

 

[saveliberty]

Increased production costs. like taxes, can increase product costs which drive down sales.

 

[martybegan]

Fact doesn't mean truth?

Damn you are one stupid fuck!!

1. Facts are more objective when compared to the more subjective truths.
2. Facts are more permanent when compared to the more temporary truths.
3. Facts exist in reality, whereas truths are usually the things that one believes to be true, or the things that are true in the current situation.
4. Facts can also answer the ‘where,’ ‘when’ and ‘how’ questions, whereas truths answer the ‘why’ question.

Read more: Difference Between Fact and Truth | Difference Between | Fact vs Truth http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fact-and-truth/#ixzz3wJ9TevFO

Speaking of 'stupid fucks', did you even read my post? As it doesn't even use the word 'fact'. Making your entire post an awkward non-sequitur.

Would you like to try again, this time addressing what I actually did post?

Not sure how the mix up happened but I thought I was quoting crusaders idiotic post about facts not being true or some such nonsense.

The mixup happened because you're fucking stupid.

Fact:
A thing that is indisputably the case

Facts may be TRUE or FALSE.

A thing can be indisputably false. YOU RETARD.

" fact means evidence that is verified"

Those are your words, retard.

So using your own words, if a fact is verified by evidence, then explain how it can be false.

He's

 

[Skylar]

There would be no consumers without employers, and there would be no employers without consumers. BOTH are vital. So the question is, How do we encourage the creation of more employers and employees? By sucking trillions out of the economy and giving it to the government to spend? How's that working out under Obama? Let's see: a decline in median family income, a record rise in the national debt, the worst U-6 unemployment rate since the Great Depression, the weakest recovery in modern history (a "recovery" that has included two quarters of negative GDP growth), etc., etc.

Again, it doesn't matter how much you can make. It matters how much you can *sell*. And sales require consumer demand. Which in turn requires the capacity to buy. That's the fatal flaw in supply side economics. As it assumes that an increased capacity to make shit means that there will be a greater market to buy shit.

That's just not true. Productivity increases do NOT increase consumer demand. And if the money associated with productivity increases isn't shared with the majority of your consumer base, you're going to squander your potential for economic growth.

We've seen one of the single largest increases of wealth increases among the 'supply siders'. And yet economic growth is still middling. As without real purchasing power increases to match productivity increases, there's no increase in the actual consumer market.

Which is why supply side economics has such a shit economic record. As when you focus your stimulus with the wealthy, they just keep the stimulus. There is zero impetus to pass it on. And their capacity to consume is limited by their comparatively small numbers.

When you focus your stimulus on the middle class, you're focusing on your consumer base with vastly greater numbers and vastly greater capacity for demand. And increasing their capacity to consume with more disposable income will increase sales.

Which is the actual engine of economic growth. Not merely the increased capacity to make something.

Actually, if you are producing at a loss, you want to sell less. Increased costs can make that happen.

So folks are producing at a loss....until they get a tax cut? Why would do this? How would they stay in business? And if they aren't, what relevance does that have to do with focused tax cuts or supply side economics?

 

[Skylar]

Increased production costs. like taxes, can increase product costs which drive down sales.

Only if taxes make your product sell at a loss. Otherwise, its irrelevant.

And your assumption of people making products at a loss because of taxes is rather....fanciful. And the only circumstance in which your scenario works.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Fact doesn't mean truth?

Damn you are one stupid fuck!!

1. Facts are more objective when compared to the more subjective truths.
2. Facts are more permanent when compared to the more temporary truths.
3. Facts exist in reality, whereas truths are usually the things that one believes to be true, or the things that are true in the current situation.
4. Facts can also answer the ‘where,’ ‘when’ and ‘how’ questions, whereas truths answer the ‘why’ question.

Read more: Difference Between Fact and Truth | Difference Between | Fact vs Truth http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fact-and-truth/#ixzz3wJ9TevFO

Speaking of 'stupid fucks', did you even read my post? As it doesn't even use the word 'fact'. Making your entire post an awkward non-sequitur.

Would you like to try again, this time addressing what I actually did post?

Not sure how the mix up happened but I thought I was quoting crusaders idiotic post about facts not being true or some such nonsense.

The mixup happened because you're fucking stupid.

Fact:
A thing that is indisputably the case

Facts may be TRUE or FALSE.

A thing can be indisputably false. YOU RETARD.

" fact means evidence that is verified"

Those are your words, retard.

So using your own words, if a fact is verified by evidence, then explain how it can be false.

So you can't have evidence that proves you did not commit a crime? By your argument all evidence proves something is true, and does not prove anything false?

YOU ARE STOOOOPID.

No, you are stupid.. that is not what he said shitforbrains.

 

[saveliberty]

There would be no consumers without employers, and there would be no employers without consumers. BOTH are vital. So the question is, How do we encourage the creation of more employers and employees? By sucking trillions out of the economy and giving it to the government to spend? How's that working out under Obama? Let's see: a decline in median family income, a record rise in the national debt, the worst U-6 unemployment rate since the Great Depression, the weakest recovery in modern history (a "recovery" that has included two quarters of negative GDP growth), etc., etc.

Again, it doesn't matter how much you can make. It matters how much you can *sell*. And sales require consumer demand. Which in turn requires the capacity to buy. That's the fatal flaw in supply side economics. As it assumes that an increased capacity to make shit means that there will be a greater market to buy shit.

That's just not true. Productivity increases do NOT increase consumer demand. And if the money associated with productivity increases isn't shared with the majority of your consumer base, you're going to squander your potential for economic growth.

We've seen one of the single largest increases of wealth increases among the 'supply siders'. And yet economic growth is still middling. As without real purchasing power increases to match productivity increases, there's no increase in the actual consumer market.

Which is why supply side economics has such a shit economic record. As when you focus your stimulus with the wealthy, they just keep the stimulus. There is zero impetus to pass it on. And their capacity to consume is limited by their comparatively small numbers.

When you focus your stimulus on the middle class, you're focusing on your consumer base with vastly greater numbers and vastly greater capacity for demand. And increasing their capacity to consume with more disposable income will increase sales.

Which is the actual engine of economic growth. Not merely the increased capacity to make something.

Actually, if you are producing at a loss, you want to sell less. Increased costs can make that happen.

So folks are producing at a loss....until they get a tax cut? Why would do this? How would they stay in business? And if they aren't, what relevance does that have to do with focused tax cuts or supply side economics?

You made a blanket statement that was wrong. Just pointing out how that is possible. A tax cut could be enough to bring a product back to profitability.

 

[saveliberty]

Increased production costs. like taxes, can increase product costs which drive down sales.

Only if taxes make your product sell at a loss. Otherwise, its irrelevant.

And your assumption of people making products at a loss because of taxes is rather....fanciful. And the only circumstance in which your scenario works.

No taxes are an increased cost, if raised, those can be passed along to consumers as a price increase which may drive down sales. Pretty basic economics.