[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Akshay626

can we really trust corporate buisnesses with more money? i mean come on look at Enron, Microsoft and every other monoply out there.. they are all just trying to iliminate the competition and make more money, leaving them with control of the supply and higher prices.. supply side leads to monopolies and monopolies our bad.. give the money to the working people.. we'll spend the money, we have to, americans arent known to be big savers, so all the money we get is ussually spent.. that means (due to the multiplier effect).. GDP increases, as does quality of life (due to the increase in spending money)..

Where would they spend the money? Most likely at wal-mart, or some other giant. Americans are typically all about value and getting more for their money. That's why these monopolies exist. As of yet, they have not become overwhelmingly harmful, because of government regulation. The worst cases are not those that directly affect consumers, because these control the votes. The worst effects are those of large industrial plants that make factor and capital goods, because it's easier for the government to go lax on their restrictions in return for funding. Take a look at mercury emissions now if you don't believe me.

[+Donny]

Though I support the basics of supply-side economics, I find that these arguments are more epistemological than anything else. We simply do not know exactly what will happen when we start messing with supply and demand curves. Yes, we can make educated guesses and obvious generalizations (when supply increases, price drops and aggregate demand increases), but as far as applying such things, I don't think we have enough knowledge. We don't necessarily know if people know about increases in supply, if they will react rationally when they find out or if they will trust the government if told that certain inflationary/deflationary actions will be taken. I don't think man has the knowledge to go about crafting and molding the economy to maximize GDP because of our limited knowledge.

Beyond this, what gives the government the right to redistribute wealth for "moral" purposes (the rich are too rich, the poor are too poor crap from the democratic side)? Or what gives the government the right to increase spending by employing more people in the government through taxation (either inflationary or more "direct" means)? I think the question is more fundamental than what is being addressed.

Finally, historical examples, while they do carry some weight, are simply not conclusive. There are simply too many variables. Graphs fail to be precise enough because of our limited, vague knowledge of human response and the present state of any said market and historical reference fails because we cannot knowledge all the causes and effects of certain political systems on the economy.

[smhatahy]

Though I support the basics of supply-side economics, I find that these arguments are more epistemological than anything else. We simply do not know exactly what will happen when we start messing with supply and demand curves. Yes, we can make educated guesses and obvious generalizations (when supply increases, price drops and aggregate demand increases), but as far as applying such things, I don't think we have enough knowledge. We don't necessarily know if people know about increases in supply, if they will react rationally when they find out or if they will trust the government if told that certain inflationary/deflationary actions will be taken. I don't think man has the knowledge to go about crafting and molding the economy to maximize GDP because of our limited knowledge.

that is what the whole study of economics tries to explain.. by your logic we should give up on every branch of study because there really is no way to know for sure?

Beyond this, what gives the government the right to redistribute wealth for "moral" purposes (the rich are too rich, the poor are too poor crap from the democratic side)? Or what gives the government the right to increase spending by employing more people in the government through taxation (either inflationary or more "direct" means)? I think the question is more fundamental than what is being addressed.

so government shouldnt tax anybody.. and goverment spending should be 0 is that what your saying?

Finally, historical examples, while they do carry some weight, are simply not conclusive. There are simply too many variables. Graphs fail to be precise enough because of our limited, vague knowledge of human response and the present state of any said market and historical reference fails because we cannot knowledge all the causes and effects of certain political systems on the economy.

if you stuck your hand on a electric fence and got shocked would you do it again just to be sure? i mean its not really conclusive after the first time.. what if the power went out?

[josiah]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Though I support the basics of supply-side economics, I find that these arguments are more epistemological than anything else. We simply do not know exactly what will happen when we start messing with supply and demand curves. Yes, we can make educated guesses and obvious generalizations (when supply increases, price drops and aggregate demand increases), but as far as applying such things, I don't think we have enough knowledge. We don't necessarily know if people know about increases in supply, if they will react rationally when they find out or if they will trust the government if told that certain inflationary/deflationary actions will be taken. I don't think man has the knowledge to go about crafting and molding the economy to maximize GDP because of our limited knowledge.

I am not truly a proponent of supply-side economics. I don't believe in the governmental manipulation (for the most part) of monies, taxes and such in order to stimulate others, simply because the government has limited knowledge as Donny points out. Instead of telling people that here is a job, we know that this is going to make everyone in American richer, we should allow people to make rational decisions based on their partial knowledge of time and circumstance. This is the one knowledge that they can know. No government planning will ever be able to manipulate supply and demand so that everything is perfect. Take Social Security. Medicare. None of these policies are perfect, and I will affirm that they will never be. The government does not have complete knowledge that they would need to make perfect decisions and should keep their hands off the decisions that should be made by the consumer. If you would like to know more about this, search a search engine online for "The use of knowledge" by Henry Hazlitt...its good stuff.

Originally Posted by +Donny

Beyond this, what gives the government the right to redistribute wealth for "moral" purposes (the rich are too rich, the poor are too poor crap from the democratic side)? Or what gives the government the right to increase spending by employing more people in the government through taxation (either inflationary or more "direct" means)? I think the question is more fundamental than what is being addressed.

Equity vs. Efficiency. There is a fundamental argument between all economists and politicians alike about this. Who gives who what rights to control whose rights? "Let do."

Originally Posted by +Donny

Finally, historical examples, while they do carry some weight, are simply not conclusive. There are simply too many variables. Graphs fail to be precise enough because of our limited, vague knowledge of human response and the present state of any said market and historical reference fails because we cannot knowledge all the causes and effects of certain political systems on the economy.

They are not conclusive, but like any field of science, economic science uses the past experiences to affect the present thinking. Most "graphs" and ideas about economics are not policies but rather theories or conclusions that aren't really complete.

Originally Posted by +Akshay626

if you stuck your hand on a electric fence and got shocked would you do it again just to be sure? i mean its not really conclusive after the first time.. what if the power went out?

A scientist would say yes, to do it again. One experiment isnt conclusive. A series must occur. Speaking from a scientific standpoint, yes.
From a real-world perspective, no. I know better. But if you are making conclusions about a set of data, you need to take a scientific approach. Making decisions is more than just flying by the seat of your pants based on the spur of a single moment.


I'll respond to more later. This topic interests me.

[Jeff]

You're right from an epistemological stance. That's what the government thought before WWI and the great depression. The problem is that these economic problems have the potential to cause mass suffering and the weakening of america to the point that "foreign evils" could take us over to an unknown end. Imagine if the economy had not been mobilized for WWII. The government feels it has a responsibility to protect the livelihoods of its people. Ultimately a government by the people is people protecting themselves -- do we not have a right to act on our knowledge of economics to protect ourselves and advance our interests? If our nation had remained isolationist, we would not have remained isolated. If our economy had not received government intervention, it would have received outside intervention. It's likely we wouldn't have liked the results. It comes down to the instinct to protect one's self and family.

[josiah]

Originally Posted by Jeff

You're right from an epistemological stance. That's what the government thought before WWI and the great depression. The problem is that these economic problems have the potential to cause mass suffering and the weakening of america to the point that "foreign evils" could take us over to an unknown end. Imagine if the economy had not been mobilized for WWII. The government feels it has a responsibility to protect the livelihoods of its people. Ultimately a government by the people is people protecting themselves -- do we not have a right to act on our knowledge of economics to protect ourselves and advance our interests? If our nation had remained isolationist, we would not have remained isolated. If our economy had not received government intervention, it would have received outside intervention. It's likely we wouldn't have liked the results. It comes down to the instinct to protect one's self and family.

I have no problems with a government taking control when the country is threatened. It is the government's duty to protect the populace from those horrible conditions or other countries that would cause unrest among the people and cause harm to the people. I believe that the policy that was utilized during World War II and the Great Depression was good for the time. However, I believe that the government does sometimes overstep its bounds in regulating the economy too much, especially in peace time. I'm not against the government doing what it is supposed to do-- protect the populace. But I am against what the government sometimes does-- taking the role of an overprotective mother that in the end causes the child called society to become reclusive and not all that it can be. Granted, it's quite difficult to distinguish between the two.

Another interesting point for discussion is the removal of isolationism from American policy and how America wants all the benefits of being part of the world economy but none of the costs...but that is for another topic.

[Jeff]

I think that's what all units do in a situation of interaction. The costs and benefits ultimately do come though, depending on the nature of our actions.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Beyond this, what gives the government the right to redistribute wealth for "moral" purposes (the rich are too rich, the poor are too poor crap from the democratic side)? Or what gives the government the right to increase spending by employing more people in the government through taxation (either inflationary or more "direct" means)? I think the question is more fundamental than what is being addressed.

I praise the government for trying to help out the disadvantaged all while curbing the ultimate incentive for greed, so I guess I give them that right.

[Jay42]

*bump*

I want more responses, because the whole thang is still clear as mud to me. Hasn't any think tank or university come up with measurable data to see if supply-side economics is a working theory or not?

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Akshay626

can we really trust corporate buisnesses with more money?

does it matter? If they earn it, isn't it their right to keep it?

i mean come on look at Enron, Microsoft and every other monoply out there.. they are all just trying to iliminate the competition and make more money,

hello! they are businesses, the purpose of business is to make money. If I own a business I am going to do what I can to maximize my profits. To do otherwise is stupid.

leaving them with control of the supply and higher prices.. supply side leads to monopolies and monopolies our bad.. give the money to the working people..

oh so we steal the money from the corporations because them earning it is a bad thing. That makes sense.

we'll spend the money, we have to, americans arent known to be big savers, so all the money we get is ussually spent.. that means (due to the multiplier effect).. GDP increases, as does quality of life (due to the increase in spending money)..

so we punish the rich for working hard and reward the poor for being lazy? what a great idea!!!

[JerryLove]

does it matter? If they earn it, isn't it their right to keep it?

I've checked and I cannot find God declaring the rights of corporate entitites... can you point me to where the constitution guarentees it?

hello! they are businesses, the purpose of business is to make money. If I own a business I am going to do what I can to maximize my profits. To do otherwise is stupid.

Or enlightened. The monopoly is an excellent example of why government must regulate business. When a business becomes the sole source of a product, especially in a vertial market, they may gouge... particularly in industries with a high burden to entrance.

The industrial shanty-towns and endentured servants of the 19th and early 20th serve as an excellent example.

oh so we steal the money from the corporations because them earning it is a bad thing. That makes sense.

Descriminitory language fallacy... you've not made a case that taxation is stealing.

so we punish the rich for working hard and reward the poor for being lazy? what a great idea!!!

Do you feel that Ivanna Trump or Paris Hilton or any of the DuPonts work hard? Do you feel like my mother was lazy while raising 2 kids and orking 3 jobs?

How about we place a burden commenserate with the ability to bear it and give aid to those in need... or is that too unchristian?

[teb468]

Originally Posted by Bryan

so we punish the rich for working hard and reward the poor for being lazy? what a great idea!!!

so your saying that the poor guy who works 60-70 hours a week doing 2-3 jobs to support his family shouldn't be paid more for what he does?