Supply Side Economics is a failure and makes no sense

[CrusaderFrank]

Demand side economics is predicated on the existence of wealth within the prospective consumer category.

Demand has nothing to do with desire, because without money to spend demand goes wanting -- along with the Supply side.

Simply stated, the Nation's wealth resources must be equitably distributed or the Economy will stagnate and eventually will collapse.

For America to remain economically healthy the massive money hoards of the greedy One Percent must be equitably redistributed.

By any means necessary!

...and Equitable distribution comes with a 100% Fail Guarantee. It's failed in at least a dozen different languages and multiple hemispheres; it's failure cuts across all boundries

 

[BluesLegend]

My economic plan...hands OFF my wealth you liberal pack of communist vultures!

 

[MikeK]

Not to argue for socialism, but steve jobs and bill gates didn't build it by themselves (nor did either ever claim they did)
Apollo 11 The computers that put man on the moon

You have offended the brainwashed water-carriers of the One Percent by rebuking one of the most basic tenets of their delusion.

 

[MikeK]

...and Equitable distribution comes with a 100% Fail Guarantee. It's failed in at least a dozen different languages and multiple hemispheres; it's failure cuts across all boundries

It worked out quite nicely for FDR's New Deal.

That is unless you disagree that the years between the 40s and 80s were the most productive and prosperous decades in our history -- keeping in mind the 91% tax rate on the super-rich and the WPA and CCC programs, which commenced and facilitated redistribution of the wealthy hoards.

Then came Reaganomics, which I'm sure you embrace, and the end began.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...and Equitable distribution comes with a 100% Fail Guarantee. It's failed in at least a dozen different languages and multiple hemispheres; it's failure cuts across all boundries

It worked out quite nicely for FDR's New Deal.

That is unless you disagree that the years between the 40s and 80s were the most productive and prosperous decades in our history -- keeping in mind the 91% tax rate on the super-rich and the WPA and CCC programs, which commenced and facilitated redistribution of the wealthy hoards.

Then came Reaganomics, which I'm sure you embrace, and the end began.

New Deal? You mean 20% Average unemployment for over 7 years was a success?

 

[Iceweasel]

lease a giant wear house, hire dozens of employees to build a product, pack the giant wear house with said product ... you're instant rich.

why doesn't everyone think of that ?

because everyone isn't a DUMBASS.

just supply siders.

Only a leftard thinks that's what supply side means. The whole concept behind supply is creating something people want. If you do it well you might get rich over time but you will sweat bullets and probably hock everything you own in the attempt.

Without the product, there's no demand for it. We may want a cell phone that never needs charging but technology has no answer for that, so no demand.

Dumbass.

 

[Iceweasel]

...and Equitable distribution comes with a 100% Fail Guarantee. It's failed in at least a dozen different languages and multiple hemispheres; it's failure cuts across all boundries

It worked out quite nicely for FDR's New Deal.

That is unless you disagree that the years between the 40s and 80s were the most productive and prosperous decades in our history -- keeping in mind the 91% tax rate on the super-rich and the WPA and CCC programs, which commenced and facilitated redistribution of the wealthy hoards.

Then came Reaganomics, which I'm sure you embrace, and the end began.

No one paid 91%. If they were smart enough to make that kind of money there were ways around it. Reagan closed loopholes and lowered the rate and we pulled in more money as the economy grew. For some reasons leftists can't understand it, I guess because it doesn't fit the belief, therefore it didn't happen.

 

[Siete]

lease a giant wear house, hire dozens of employees to build a product, pack the giant wear house with said product ... you're instant rich.

why doesn't everyone think of that ?

because everyone isn't a DUMBASS.

just supply siders.

Only a leftard thinks that's what supply side means. The whole concept behind supply is creating something people want. If you do it well you might get rich over time but you will sweat bullets and probably hock everything you own in the attempt.

Without the product, there's no demand for it. We may want a cell phone that never needs charging but technology has no answer for that, so no demand.

Dumbass.

so go to the bank and tell them you want to borrow 500k and create a product. Then tell them you have no sales because your product hasn't been produced yet. Then hold on to your ass when they laugh you back out the door.

btw, your cell analogy is sophomoric at best. Have a nice day and stay away from business models.

 

[Iceweasel]

lease a giant wear house, hire dozens of employees to build a product, pack the giant wear house with said product ... you're instant rich.

why doesn't everyone think of that ?

because everyone isn't a DUMBASS.

just supply siders.

Only a leftard thinks that's what supply side means. The whole concept behind supply is creating something people want. If you do it well you might get rich over time but you will sweat bullets and probably hock everything you own in the attempt.

Without the product, there's no demand for it. We may want a cell phone that never needs charging but technology has no answer for that, so no demand.

Dumbass.

so go to the bank and tell them you want to borrow 500k and create a product. Then tell them you have no sales because your product hasn't been produced yet. Then hold on to your ass when they laugh you back out the door.

btw, your cell analogy is sophomoric at best. Have a nice day and stay away from business models.

I've been in business for over 28 years and it's near certain you've never even operated a lemonade stand.

You can't have sales without a product. I believe you are thinking about an investor. Banks aren't known for taking gambles.

Do you have anything else besides insults?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

lease a giant wear house, hire dozens of employees to build a product, pack the giant wear house with said product ... you're instant rich.

why doesn't everyone think of that ?

because everyone isn't a DUMBASS.

just supply siders.

Only a leftard thinks that's what supply side means. The whole concept behind supply is creating something people want. If you do it well you might get rich over time but you will sweat bullets and probably hock everything you own in the attempt.

Without the product, there's no demand for it. We may want a cell phone that never needs charging but technology has no answer for that, so no demand.

Dumbass.

so go to the bank and tell them you want to borrow 500k and create a product. Then tell them you have no sales because your product hasn't been produced yet. Then hold on to your ass when they laugh you back out the door.

btw, your cell analogy is sophomoric at best. Have a nice day and stay away from business models.

^ 0 capital markets experience.

Absolute zero

 

[Siete]

I provided a service to the tune of seven figure quarters, every quarter for almost thirteen years. Supply siders are dumb shits


I worked with Ronald Reagan to develop supply-side economics in the late ’70s, along with Jack Kemp and Art Laffer and Jude Wanniski and others,” Gingrich declared at a recent town hall event.

develop = invent.

idiots dreamed it up, idiots buy into it.

end of story

 

[Iceweasel]

I provided a service to the tune of seven figure quarters, every quarter for almost thirteen years. Supply siders are dumb shits

Male prostitution doesn't count.

 

[Siete]

I provided a service to the tune of seven figure quarters, every quarter for almost thirteen years. Supply siders are dumb shits

Male prostitution doesn't count.

grow up.

 

[Iceweasel]

I provided a service to the tune of seven figure quarters, every quarter for almost thirteen years. Supply siders are dumb shits

Male prostitution doesn't count.

grow up.

I did. And started making money and learned what I know now. And how I know you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Siete]

I provided a service to the tune of seven figure quarters, every quarter for almost thirteen years. Supply siders are dumb shits

Male prostitution doesn't count.

grow up.

I did. And started making money and learned what I know now. And how I know you don't know what you're talking about.

anything you say doofus.

 

[MikeK]

New Deal? You mean 20% Average unemployment for over 7 years was a success?

Are you simply misinformed? Or do you normally invent and toss out false statements to support circumstances you wish to believe?

The 20% unemployment rate occurred during the Great Depression. Note that it was down around 5% during the New Deal era I cited. Also note that it jumped up again during Reagan's term.

 

[MikeK]

]No one paid 91%. If they were smart enough to make that kind of money there were ways around it.

I stated a specific progressive maximum tax rate of 91%. Please research it if you doubt it. And please state the specific loophole rates you are referring to -- keeping in mind that FDR had applied strong pressure on the IRS to avoid such evasion.

I have no doubt that certain legitimate deductions applied, but I am quite confident they were nothing like those we are seeing today. And even with the legitimate deductions allowable you may rest assured the elevated tax rate of the FDR era produced many billions of dollars -- which contributed substantially to the phenomenal success of the WPA and CCC programs (which rescued my own parents from abject poverty during the Depression by providing my unemployed father with a job).

Reagan closed loopholes and lowered the rate and we pulled in more money as the economy grew. For some reasons leftists can't understand it, I guess because it doesn't fit the belief, therefore it didn't happen.

Ronald Reagan, the Grade-B movie actor playing the role of President, was in absolute fact the puppet of an emerging corporatocracy who commenced the economic situation referred to today as the One Percent.

 

[Billy000]

Supply and Demand are related. Without a demand a supply is useless........Any new items offered to sell that are new to the public have to be supplied to see if the demand will follow.........

i.e. inventions..........Unless you try to market the product, you'll never know people will want it.

Both are necessary.

No, the problem is that rather than investing in new products like you suggest, the employers just keep the money they saved through their breaks. They hardly invest any. Meanwhile, boosting the supply of a product already on the market does absolutely nothing to increase demand for it. If you want a true boost to the economy, you boost demand.