An Economics Lesson for Democrats

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's just ignore the fact that it doesn't, hasn't and will never work in any non striclty barter based economy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why Say's Law is correct is evident from one simple consideration: if inventory doesn't sell, then prices will be cut until it does. I believe you subscribe to the laymans theroy of underconsumption. This crackpot notion is discounted by all sound economists and should be by you as well.

Your narrow concept of barter needs to be widened for you to ever understand my position.

Jimbo

[Smasharoo]

Why Say's Law is correct is evident from one simple consideration: if inventory doesn't sell, then prices will be cut until it does. I believe you subscribe to the laymans theroy of underconsumption. This crackpot notion is discounted by all sound economists and should be by you as well.

Your narrow concept of barter needs to be widened for you to ever understand my position.


Intrestingly you managed to avoid making any sort of argument about the application of Say's law other than "it's obvious".

I find that a little disturbing. If you don't understand something, it's much better just to say "I don't understand." than to attempt to bluff your way through it.

Say's law is predicated on the fact that that real prices will immediately reflect changes in relative prices, raw materials, new technology or capitial. That's clearly not the case. This is trvially demonstrated in the modern market by cmoparing consumption to inventory or manufacturing numbers.

Your assertation that "Why Say's Law is correct is evident from one simple consideration: if inventory doesn't sell, then prices will be cut until it does." leads us to belive that you Goggled "Say's Law" when someone you challanged you on it, having no idea how it actually functioned.

Taking the time to Google it myself I find the first site returned on Google has this to say:

http://www.friesian.com/sayslaw.htm


Why Say's Law is correct is evident from one simple consideration: if inventory doesn't sell, then prices will be cut until it does.


Remarkable.

Some future advice. Just be honest when you don't understand something, and credit your sources when you're going to use an entire sentance out of context from a web site and attempt to pass it off as your own.

Your credibility discussing this topic is now offically zero.

By the way, the site you plagerized is a clearing house for articles rejected by peer review journals. In one fell swoop you have not only managed to attempt to pass off a complete quote stolen from a website as yours, but the site you choose is an acedemic joke of large proportions.

I assume no one took your views on Macroeconomics seriously in the past, but should they have this should clear things up considerably

"Layman's view". So irnoic.

[andyfox]

Throwing around the words "socialism" and "low liberal political tricks" detracts from the discussion.

The government took in X in Social Security taxes and took some of that money to pay for the day-to-day operations of the federal government. Instead of buying muni's or shares of IBM, the extra Social Security taxes were spent on cruise missiles and slaries of FBI agents and running the EPA. Those things should not be paid for by Social Security taxes, which President Bush, when running in 2000, said should be in a "lockbox."


"Whereas you see this as unfair I see it as quite reasonable."

-What would be fair? Since you apparently believe progressive taxation is "socialism," would taking the same percentage from everybody be fair? Why take only one hundredth of the percentage of their income from somebody making $8,700,000 as from someone making $87,000? We recognize that those at the bottom income levels need more of their income for basics, so we exempt them from income taxes. (The 13,400 top households in America have more income than the 96,000,000 poorest Americans.) But they suffer from the payroll tax, which is not just not progressive, but regressive.

[ACPlayer]

I assume no one took your views on Macroeconomics

Bad assumption. There are some real dummies on this forum who actually think and argue this way.

There are others though who see Jimbo for the shallow mouthpiece. Free country (so far!).

[cornell2005]

jimbo i am going to go out on a limb and say that you dont know enough economics to be giving lessons. you can argue that our economy is ok, but that was a pretty weak attempt

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
How does cutting the highest tax rates hurt poor Americans?

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said that cutting the highest tax rates hurts poor Americans?

[ QUOTE ]
It helps them by creating jobs so why are the democrats opposed?

[/ QUOTE ]
It has been proven time and time again that trickle-down economics does not work. If tax cuts are targeted towards the middle class (not the $150,000+ middle class, but middle-class America), consumption increases then increased demand, production and GDP follow.

[ QUOTE ]
Is the only reason so they can cry "tax break fro the rich?"

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL....that is really funny. Are you saying that just because someone does not believe in the trickle down theory, they cry "tax break for the rich" at the mention of upper income tax breaks?

[ QUOTE ]
Class warfare works becasue the typical low income earner beleives they pay more in taxes than a high income earner.

[/ QUOTE ]
Come on, how stupid do you think the "typical low income earner" is?

[ QUOTE ]
Does the democratic party have an econmic policy other than saying "vote for us, we'll make the man pay"?

[/ QUOTE ]
HAHAHA...another good one. Does the Republican Party have an economic policy other than "lower taxes on the upper income tiers, spend and spend (we can always borrow more), don't worry about the deficit"?

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Now let's carry this over to world affairs. Now I'm not an expert here, but the same thing is often the case, especially in warfair.

A very good example was what was known as The Tokyo Express in WWII. This had something to do with the fighting around Guadal Canal and it referred to how the Japanese would try to resupply their troops late at night always at the same time."

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I misunderstand but didn't the Japanese supply lines eventually get disrupted by our Navy to the extent that we just about starved out the enemy on Guadacanal?

~ Rick

[Randy_Refeld]

It has been proven time and time again that trickle-down economics does not work

Can you give one example of supply side economics "not working?" You state it doesn't work and then give a pretty good explanation of why it works.

RR

[fluff]

[ QUOTE ]
Your assertation that "Why Say's Law is correct is evident from one simple consideration: if inventory doesn't sell, then prices will be cut until it does." leads us to belive that you Goggled "Say's Law" when someone you challanged you on it, having no idea how it actually functioned.

Taking the time to Google it myself I find the first site returned on Google has this to say:

http://www.friesian.com/sayslaw.htm


Why Say's Law is correct is evident from one simple consideration: if inventory doesn't sell, then prices will be cut until it does.


Remarkable.

Some future advice. Just be honest when you don't understand something, and credit your sources when you're going to use an entire sentance out of context from a web site and attempt to pass it off as your own.

Your credibility discussing this topic is now offically zero.

By the way, the site you plagerized is a clearing house for articles rejected by peer review journals. In one fell swoop you have not only managed to attempt to pass off a complete quote stolen from a website as yours, but the site you choose is an acedemic joke of large proportions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only one word: Bravo.