The problem is that, right now, is the most viable option to turn things around.
asserting something does not make it so. supply side economics has a 30 year record of failure. again, fact, not rhetoric.
that said, how does a 30 year record of failure make it "the most viable option"? you'll need to support your assertion, chief.
The only other options are:
1. Keep doing what has already been tried several times over the last three years now.
(Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein)
View attachment 1990003
you do realize that supply side economics IS what we have been doing, and that your attempt at insult just landed on YOU, right?
LOL!
so far it's already raised health care costs 9% rather than keeping it steady...
again, for someone who is such a braggadocio about his age, you sure seem to willfully ignore history, especially the part where premiums have nearly tripled over the last 20 years.
...more people whose paycheck was trimmed way down to an unemployment check size. They're not going new car shopping or even buying that 45" or 60" flat screen TV that they were planning on buying prior to being laid off. That equates to fewer items/products sold and that is part of what lower demand is. It's not all just by choice. At times it is a choice made for you.
Other workers see or hear/read about layoffs, both large and small, are taking place in businesses of all sizes and types and they begin to worry how much longer they will have a job. So in case it's not all that long they try to pay down or pay off as much debt as they can or save as much money as they can, and either way that means no pool table for the family room and it wouldn't be a smart time to use the home equity line of credit to have the kitchen or maybe the bathroom, or rooms, totally remolded because you need to lower debt rather than increase it, so the workers who would have done the job have one less job to do, and they suppliers they get everything they would have used for the job(s) aren't ordered. That's also called lower demand. It's by choice so maybe it more reflects true demand, but the two together still add up to a lot of lost sales/income for just about every single type of item or service. When that happens, what does business do? It tightens its belt a little more.
here you make an accurate observation that agrees with what i said about lower aggregate demand having an effect on the economy.
then you go on to credit lower aggregate demand not on the fact that we just got out of a massive recession, but rather on some magical uncertainty mechanism...
All because of an unfriendly business atmosphere a downward spiral occurs.
again, excellent analysis.
ignore the massive fucking recession that took place on shrub's watch, and blame it on obama instead. businesses were not bothered by all by an enormous economic collapse, but put a democrat in office and all of a sudden, it's armageddon! right. no partisan hackery there
to quote someone i know, you analysis might hold water...
...if we lived in some bizarro world where everything worked opposite of how things work here in the real world.
