|
Post by agito on Jul 11, 2008 19:22:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 11, 2008 21:15:29 GMT -6
No less than that liberal rag the Wall Street Journal had an article to this effect several months ago - on balance the economy and stock market performed better under democratic rather than republican administrations
I wonder if there is a connection to the tendency to lean more toward demand side economics rather than supply side?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 15, 2008 2:58:15 GMT -6
No less than that liberal rag the Wall Street Journal had an article to this effect several months ago - on balance the economy and stock market performed better under democratic rather than republican administrations I wonder if there is a connection to the tendency to lean more toward demand side economics rather than supply side? That seems reasonable to me. When demand increases, there is more incentive to invest. When the government gives away money in the form of supply-side tax cuts, there's no increased incentive to invest, and no increased incentive to produce more wealth. With supply-side tax cuts, the rich get more of the wealth without doing anything new to earn it. In contrast, if demand goes up, more production sold and/or higher prices charged are necessary for rich people to make more money. But they don't just get free handouts in the form of reduced taxes, like they do with purely supply-side tax cuts.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 15, 2008 4:04:27 GMT -6
The biggest problem I see with supply side handouts besides the economic injustice of it, is that there were absolutely no strings attached to qualify for the tax cuts - such as requiring domestic capital investment, domestic job creation, energy efficincy improvement or usage reduction, legitimate charitable giving, or any accountability or transparency
|
|
|
Post by lasher on Jul 15, 2008 7:38:20 GMT -6
I'll just let the numbers do the talking.
|
|