Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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
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.
So.....no reason why anyone would ever engaged in your hypothetical. Nor any way they would stay in business if they did.
Rendering your hypothetical uselessly unlikely.
With virtually every point I raised unchallenged and uncontested. Nor should they be. As I'm right.
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.
Taxes are a known cost. A tax *increase* might result in your 'increased costs' scenario, assuming the market could bear no price increase. But a steady tax rate wouldn't. As who would go into business in order to creating a product that they'd selling at a loss?
Your scenario is uselessly unlikely. While the scenario I described is overwhelmingly likely.
As we're talking about tax *cuts* and where to focus them. And a tax cut isn't an 'increased cost'. Nor is a steady tax rate. Only a tax increase is an increased cost. And tax increases aren't what we're discussing.
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
And yet the Bush Tax cuts of '01 & '03 were passed at the same time he declared a war on terror, and later invaded and occupied Iraq without raising taxes. Then,
Seems like a lack of leadership put the damper on your theory of tax cuts and good times.
- the housing bubble,
- too big to fail
- unemployment went through the roof
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.
So.....no reason why anyone would ever engaged in your hypothetical. Nor any way they would stay in business if they did.
Rendering your hypothetical uselessly unlikely.
With virtually every point I raised unchallenged and uncontested. Nor should they be. As I'm right.
Electricity is produced at a loss at times. Often these are contracted for periods of time in which prices change and you may produce it at a loss. Hardly a hypothetical.
And yet limits of supply due to producing electricity at a loss don't occur. Nor is it taxes that make electricity sold become unprofitable. But fluctuations in supply and demand. Contradicting your entire narrative. Twice.
Supply limits are based on increased demand. Not taxes.
Nor does increasing electricity supply increase consumer use. We daily have more supply than demand: every night. And yet consumer demand doesn't rise to meet the unused supply at night. Proving the folly of supply side economics yet again.
And yet limits of supply due to producing electricity at a loss don't occur. Nor is it taxes that make electricity sold become unprofitable. But fluctuations in supply and demand. Contradicting your entire narrative. Twice.
Supply limits are based on increased demand. Not taxes.
Nor does increasing electricity supply increase consumer use. We daily have more supply than demand: every night. And yet consumer demand doesn't rise to meet the unused supply at night. Proving the folly of supply side economics yet again.
The government has increased tax on higher sulfur coal. Made it unprofitable. Utilities price electricity at different rates to smooth out supply use. You really have no idea what you're talking about.
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.
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.
It always amazes me these dweebs never heard of salesmen, commercials, product placement, credit cards and loans........
They act like a bunch of consumers got together and had a poll, we need a computer and abra cadabra they invented one.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
The 7 Worst Tech Predictions of All Time
Don't forget product development.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.
It always amazes me these dweebs never heard of salesmen, commercials, product placement, credit cards and loans........
They act like a bunch of consumers got together and had a poll, we need a computer and abra cadabra they invented one.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
The 7 Worst Tech Predictions of All Time
Don't forget product development.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.
It always amazes me these dweebs never heard of salesmen, commercials, product placement, credit cards and loans........
They act like a bunch of consumers got together and had a poll, we need a computer and abra cadabra they invented one.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
The 7 Worst Tech Predictions of All Time
These dishonest idiots going to post with a straight face millions of people still use these cell phones ? I have cow boy boots older then them.....
View attachment 58793
You people are funny, Baltimore got over a billion dollars in stimulus money guess how much the poor got for jobs training...$3 million guess where the money went? Yep right into the pockets of the public and private unions.
In their minds, fairies must drop finished new technology and products in company's laps.Don't forget product development.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.
It always amazes me these dweebs never heard of salesmen, commercials, product placement, credit cards and loans........
They act like a bunch of consumers got together and had a poll, we need a computer and abra cadabra they invented one.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
The 7 Worst Tech Predictions of All Time
These dishonest idiots going to post with a straight face millions of people still use these cell phones ? I have cow boy boots older then them.....
View attachment 58793
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.
It always amazes me these dweebs never heard of salesmen, commercials, product placement, credit cards and loans........
Don't forget product development.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.
It always amazes me these dweebs never heard of salesmen, commercials, product placement, credit cards and loans........
They act like a bunch of consumers got together and had a poll, we need a computer and abra cadabra they invented one.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
The 7 Worst Tech Predictions of All Time
Don't forget product development.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.
It always amazes me these dweebs never heard of salesmen, commercials, product placement, credit cards and loans........
They act like a bunch of consumers got together and had a poll, we need a computer and abra cadabra they invented one.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
The 7 Worst Tech Predictions of All Time
And if you develop a product that no one wants or most people can't afford to buy.....then what?
Remember, the basis of supply side economics is that supply creates demand. Which is horseshit.
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.
