A question for DU's supply siders:

[mmonk]

What is your age and how did you come to your ideas on economics?

Just curious. Be as complete in your answer as you see fit. Include why you chose the Democratic Party as opposed to others.

[Vanje]

1. Good questions

I would add 2 more:
What is your income level?
Who do you work for?

[somone]

2. Good point

LOL

[Javaman]

3. I will be really impressed if anyone responds to your questions. nt

[lumpy]

35. Is everyone here wearing blinders?

How about some answers.

[fascisthunter]

4. great questions

[myrna minx]

5. I'm curious too. Good questions. n/t

[dionysus]

6. good luck finding one.

[robcon]

7. Pretty nosy questions. Set up for attack. Unlikely to get a response.

n/t

[Zorra]

13. Then, the question arises, why would supply siders

need to keep this information a secret?
:shrug:

[Kingofalldems]

17. I think it is an excellent question.

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. My supply

of beer and travel money is very low.

[RadiationTherapy]

9. I'm not trying to screw up your thread, but any response given by an SSer will be laughed at

by me. At home and out loud.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. Excuse me? Supply-side economics is trickle down bullshit. There are Dems that believe this shit?

You can't be serious.

[Kingofalldems]

11. Think of the candidates in Wisconsin yesterday

[Sarah Ibarruri]

26. But those were Republicans, pretending to be Democrats nt

[Enthusiast]

53. Exactly.

Some of them even end up elected by a well meaning Democratic electorate.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

66. Sad. Quite sad. nt

[Kingofalldems]

56. Winner!

[kenny blankenship]

12. Oh yes, they walk among us.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

27. You've GOT to be kidding. That's Repuke through and through. nt

[kenny blankenship]

42. Some of them admire Reagan

Others just adopted his Revolution's economic "philosophy", knowingly or unknowingly. They became bidniss friendly, tacit supply siders because it's in their class interest, and because it's in their individual interest as political careerists to take money from corporate donors and offer up their own ass for it, and those of their constituencies too.

Reaganism's penetration of the Democratic Party is above "half shaft" as they say in the trade, or somewhat over 50%.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

51. Reagan: A revolting human being who should be burning in hell nt

[Liberalynn]

59. [phone]

[xchrom]

15. modern moderate democrats. nt

[Vanje]

19. I call them.....

Stealth Republicans

[Sarah Ibarruri]

28. Republican 98% and Democrat 2%? A kind of odd milk nt

[guitar man]

22. "Reagan Democrats"

"Blue Dogs" or whatever you want to call them,yeah, we are infested with them in a lot of places.Most of them that I have ever known have never known economic hardship or struggle in their lives.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

29. Sheesh. That's not Democrat. That's confused Republican. nt

[JHB]

43. It doesn't matter what you call them...

It matters what they call themselves, and about finding ways to get them off their ideological fool's errand.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

50. True. However, GOPers have posed as Dems before. nt

[JHB]

64. Oh, that's a given. My point was more towards...

...the people who have internalized the stream of RW memes and think something "sounds reasonable" mostly because they don't understand how far everything has been dragged rightward, and no one has ever explained liberal views in ways that made sense to them. (sometimes I think liberals are so convinced that we're right that we've simply forgotten how to pitch viewpoints to people. We need more salespeople.)

They do exist, because I deal with them all the time.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

65. I see what you mean. You're right. I've forgotten how to pitch because I'm so angry at Repugs

I can't even talk to them. I have zero respect for them. I also suspect that they don't know how to reason, so oftentimes I think trying to make them reason is like trying to make a piranha reason. I don't ignore right wingnuts. I speak ugly things to them. They repulse me.

[JHB]

79. I know what you mean, but I wasn't talking about RWers either...

I mean all those people (in the "center") who make up the numbers in polls who support many things that liberals advocate, but won't support liberals because the picture of "liberal" in their head is a cartoon character drawn by 30 years of conservative drumbeat, and/or their experience with leftists is something like the occasional newbies who find DU, opine a RW talking point (and aren't trolling, they just aren't up to speed that it is a RW talking point), and get cinderized in the ensuing flames.

There are a lot of people who can be reached, but it takes patience, persistence, and paying attention to them so that you can figure out what approaches can get through and what ones will just bounce off.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

81. I like this that you said:

"I mean all those people (in the "center") who make up the numbers in polls who support many things that liberals advocate, but won't support liberals because the picture of "liberal" in their head is a cartoon character drawn by 30 years of conservative drumbeat..."

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

33. I don't know, but there are people that believe this shit and DECLARE themselves Dems.

Not exactly the same thing, you'll agree.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

36. I'd like an explanation too, given that the fin./econ aspect is the #1 biggest diff bet Dems and GOP

I don't get it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

38. I have a theory.

Espousers of this poisonous ideology aren't satisfied in completely owning one major party. They aren't even satisfied in completely owning one and 60% of the other.

They want it ALL.

(Same thing applies to entities other than political parties, of course.)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

49. So do you think these people are not really Dems, but Republicans posing? nt

[hifiguy]

37. And some of them post here

Not that they seem to be interested in answering any of the OP's questions however. :evilgrin:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

44. One did.

Kind of sort of. ;)

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DainBramaged]

14. IBTL

You KNOW they won't tolerate challenges.:popcorn:

[DevonRex]

16. Do we have supply-siders here?

[Pithlet]

32. I keep reading it as sly spiders. n/t

[DevonRex]

40. Ugh. Now I'm thinking about that Brazilian spider

that was posted here the other day. Scary dude it was.

[Pithlet]

45. Oh, I know.

I know. Not reaching into the banana bin any time soon after reading that one.

[lumpy]

18. Having grown up during the 1930s depression certainly

formed my opinions on US economics. The US economic situation was openly and continually discussed as to why we were subjected to the struggle to economically survive. People realized that the fault lay with unfetterd capitalism, lack of banking regulation as well as businss regulation. Today,add unfair taxation to the mix and the formula for for failure as a nation is apparent.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. DU has those?

Really?

Where? Never seen one.

Reagan's budget director David Stockman admitted in 1981 that "supply side was only ever a stalking horse to bring down the top income tax rate".

[lumpy]

25. Yes

The GOPees creed for capitalism. take away economic regulation and lower taxes on wealth. The big GOP lie, the whole nation will thrive. "A chicken in every pot".

[Ishoutandscream2]

67. I'm with you

Can't recall any DU supply siders.

[pampango]

21. Haven't seen many argue for lower tax rates and capital gains tax and less regulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

"Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. ... Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economics are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation."

[coalition_unwilling]

31. I argue constantly for lower tax rates for the working poor and middle class but

higher marginal rates for the wealthy. I would call my approach 'demand side' economics, if I had to label it, as lower tax rates for the working poor and middle class mean more cash in their pockets, i.e., higher demand.

[Newest Reality]

23. I am due many experiences! - NT

[LeftishBrit]

24. 'DU's supply siders'? Both of them? Or is it really common among Democrats?

I've always associated 'supply side economics' with the likes of Thatcher and Reagan.

[amborin]

54. except our prez is now practicing this; no surprise as he praised Reagan and chose Summers, an early

trickle-down, supply-side, advocate of reaganomics

[Vanje]

77. Like I said before, upthread......

Stealth Republican

[lumpy]

30. Amazing that our fellow Democrats on DU don't have any solid

ideas of why this country is in economic chaos.

[phleshdef]

34. What if you believe both supply and demand need stimulation and it depends on the situation?

[ElboRuum]

39. There are some here?

Funny, I thought that was the one thing that everyone here can agree on, that supply-side economics is a failed economic theory in practice. I mean, open your front door and you can see the damage. Who'd refute this?

[AngryAmish]

41. OK, I'll bite.

Macroeconomics is not science and anyone who tells you that they know how to manage an economy is doing something worse than lying: they are asking people to put enormous resources of money and time to the "economist"'s purposes without much valid proof that what they are proposing is a good idea or not. Also, there are few reliable metrics to tease out correlation and causation with macroeconomic interventions.

In light of that, it is not a good idea to monkey too much with an economy. With lower taxes and barriers to market entry people can generally figure out what they want and how to produce it. So, in that sense I am a supply sider.

Demand-siders always run into the knowledge problem, which is unsolvable each and every time.

[ret5hd]

48. Knowledge of what? Whether poorer people tend to spend the money they have?

Whether the money thus spent stimulates demand?
Whether the increased demand stimulates the economy?

One thing is for sure: the rich ALWAYS end up with the money, because the rich own the means of production.

The real question is why they don't want it to go thru the hands of the proles a time or two before it gets to them.

[AngryAmish]

52. "The Knowledge Problem" is a term of art in economics

wikipedia calls it the Economic calculation problem. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem>

In sum an economy is too complex for anyone or any institution to understand who wants what and who needs what. Better to have decentralized planning so more people make these decisions and the cost of failure is lower.

[ret5hd]

55. So? "Demand side" doesn't equal centralized planning.

Not even close.

In fact, i could say that supply side economics more closely resembles centralized planning, because most people end up with no money to create any demand, and no demand is pretty damned easy to plan for.

[AngryAmish]

60. By any reasonable definition "Keynesesian" or "demand-side" ecomonics centrally plans

Whatever the merits the high-speed rail networks proposed (for example) are centrally planned. We have people making decisions where the rails go and what kind of engines to buy. It costs a ton and the risk is being made by taxpayers. WPA was central planning.

I propose a more modest role for virtually every player in the economy. Nothing should be too big to fail. Taxes should be stable. We should not be giving preferred industries tax incentives. Stimulus is kinda dumb since we don't know what what we are doing with stimulus.

[Liberalynn]

61. +++++++++++

if only a very and I mean very minimal portion of society, can still afford what you are supplying what's the point of supplying?

[PotatoChip]

47. DU has supply siders?

Are they in the wrong place or am I? :shrug:

[bvar22]

57. Will you include "Free Trade", "Free Markets", and the "Invisible Hand"

..as an extension of the Supply Side Economic Philosophy?

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. I'll take the hand as written by Adam Smith for 1000 Alex

Find alk the caveats and have some fun with your local supply sider

[Marr]

58. I had no idea there was such a thing as left wing supply-sider.

It seems a contradiction in terms, like Jewish antisemite.

[Urban Prairie]

63. Supply-side economics worked out very well, if one was an investor and/or corporate executive.

But of course, those who truly have benefited from being enriched by supply-side economics, are so very much smaller in number, compared to those of the great unwashed, who were largely blind-sided by it.

Everything was humming along just fine and dandy, as long as it was only the relatively uneducated and unskilled blue-collar workers located in primarily "rust-belt" states like mine, who were losing their jobs in manufacturing and industry during the 80s Reagan era, to off-shoring as a result of "supply-side" economics permitting businesses to quickly take advantage of the "emerging" global markets. But as we all know too well now, the appearance and rapid global expansion of broadband internet made it possible for many of those businesses as well as others, to also mass-outsource white-collar jobs in the legal, technical, and medical fields, and only THEN did the shit hit the proverbial fan...heh!!


One of the major flaws in supply-side/trickle-down economics, is that it did not take into account the inevitable improvements in technology and automation, nor electronic globalization. Just like more and continued tax-cuts for the wealthy does not and will not create many if any jobs. Only increasing consumer demand along with obtainable, low interest rate credit, and sufficient spendable/discretionary income can create more jobs, but unless those jobs are nailed down here by purely physical necessity, then they ALSO are vulnerable to being "exported"...

For example, I would "like" to be able to afford to purchase a new or newer gas-stingy compact vehicle, to replace my ancient gas-hogging full-size pickup truck, upgrade to an HDTV, subscribe to cable TV, buy a new "smartphone" and subscribe to a cell provider, buy a new couch and loveseat, buy a new but compact combo washer/dryer and be able to afford a new laptop and/or a desktop computer, but I cannot obtain the necessary credit and/or certainly do not have the funds available, living month to month upon a small fixed disability income to do so, AND my long-unemployed wife who is now in her late 40s, can't/won't find or land ANY job, much less one that is better than PT minimum-wage either, and as a result, there may be at least one person out there who won't have a job or may be laid off in my area.

[KittyWampus]

68. LOL! You realize that Krugman is a Supply Sider, don't you.

[girl gone mad]

69. Total bullshit.

Supply-Side Virus Strikes Again
Why there is no cure for this virulent infection.
By Paul Krugman
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/virus.html

By now there have been hundreds of articles explaining why Bob Dole's economic plan, which relies on the magic of supply-side tax cuts, won't work. And there have been hundreds more explaining why Dole, whose contempt for people who believe in that kind of magic is a matter of public record, nonetheless chose to accept their program--and chose one of the most prominent believers as his running mate. I have nothing to add to all of that. But it seems to me that the success of the tax cutters in taking over yet another presidential campaign requires a deeper explanation. Why does supply-side economics have such durability?

It should go without saying that the supply-side idea--which is that tax cuts have such a positive effect on the economy that one need not worry about paying for them with spending cuts--does not persist because of any actual evidence in its favor. If you want, any nonpartisan economist can explain to you at length what really happened during the Reagan years, and why you can't seriously claim his record as an advertisement for supply-side policies. But surely it is enough to look at the extraordinary recent record of the supply-siders as economic forecasters. In 1993, after the Clinton administration had pushed through an increase in taxes on upper-income families, the very same people who have persuaded Dole to run on a tax-cut platform were very sure about what would happen. Newt Gingrich confidently predicted a severe recession. Articles in Forbes magazine urged readers to get out of the stock market to avoid the inevitable crash. The Wall Street Journal editorial page had no doubts that the tax increase would sharply increase the deficit instead of reducing it. Well here we are, three years later: The economy has created 10 million new jobs, the market is up by 1500 points, and the deficit has been cut in half. I'm not saying that Clinton's policies led to that result--they account for only part of the good news about the deficit, and hardly any of the rest. But the point is that the supply-siders were absolutely sure that his policies would produce disaster--and indeed, if their doctrine had any truth to it, they would have.

Nor, I would argue, do supply-side views spread because they are good politics. True, Ronald Reagan won on a supply-side platform--but one suspects he would have won on almost any platform, and that the taunts of "voodoo economics" actually cost him some votes. Today, the supply-side label is a clear liability. Even promoters of the concept shy away from the label. In 1994, Republican leaders like Gingrich and Dick Armey chose to conceal the extent of their tax-cutting fervor from the voters, who they judged would not trust an economic program based on supply-side assumptions. And the word is that even Republican focus groups--the same groups that were used to craft the Contract With America--have reacted scornfully to the idea of an election-year tax-cut promise. This is partly, of course, because they doubt it will really happen. But it is also because they doubt it would have the promised beneficial effect.

So why does the supply-side idea keep on resurfacing? Probably because of two key attributes that it shares with certain other doctrines, like belief in the gold standard: It appeals to the prejudices of extremely rich men, and it offers self-esteem to the intellectually insecure.

[KittyWampus]

71. Krugman is for Free Trade and against Protectionism. Been reading him for years.

You can pick out this and that from what he's written but the facts are the facts.

[hifiguy]

74. Um, I think you are confusing Paul Krugman with Thomas Friedman

While both write for the Times, that's where the similarities end.

[pampango]

76. If what you say is true, then Krugman doesn't realize that being for trade and

against protectionism is the same thing as being a supply-sider. He apparently does not believe in supply-side economic theory since he blasts the concept.

How do you define a supply-sider?

"From wiki: "Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economics are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation."

I haven't seen any sign that Krugman supports lower taxes for the rich and on capital gains, nor is he in favor of reducing regulation."

But what does Krugman know about progressive economics? ;)

[Forkboy]

70. LOL is right, though not for the reason you included yours.

[KittyWampus]

73. Excuse me? I am not a supply sider. Just someone who has read Krugman for years.

[Forkboy]

75. Never said you were.

But for someone who has "read Krugman for years" you should know how wrong your assertion was.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

72. LOL is right

[Vanje]

78. No

Really really wrong.
Dumb.

[applegrove]

80. DU has supply siders? I thought we all know trickle down doesn't work.

Aren't we all Keynesians?