Basically, we’re forty years deep into supply side economics, sometimes referred to as Reaganomics, Trickle Down economics, or Horse and Sparrow economics (the latter two are generally considered derisive by proponents of this model). The idea is that if we set our policies so that outcomes are optimized for capital holders (business owners, investors, etc), then they can generate more wealth faster, and increasing the sum total of available wealth will improve life for everyone; somebody please correct me if I have it wrong. Of course, how this has actually played out is that money’s just being funneled from everywhere into a handful of pockets to the detriment of everyone and everything else, and it’s never enough.
I’m not a Marxist, but I do appreciate his view as a historical determinist. What I think is interesting is that if you look at what Marx said would be done to fight the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, we’re doing basically everything on that list. I think Reagan was a true believer and honestly thought he was doing the best for his country that he could, even if he was incredibly wrong at practically every turn. It seems to me that supply side economics is really just a fancy way to run an extractive economy under the pretense of free markets.
Sorry but I’m having difficulty piecing what you said with why knocking 20 grand off student loans got shot down. How does it tie into a tendency for profits to fall? And targeting policies such that our business leaders generate wealth faster? If we’re to target e.g. tax deductions towards benefiting these wealth-bringers, shouldn’t we be offering tax credits to our education system to increase the total wealth of the nation? Math and Science should be absolutely FREE, and if economics courses were free I’d probably have an easier time having this conversation with you instead of trying to figure out what you’re even saying so that I could respond lol
Sorry, my dude. I just browse when I don’t have much going on, and those periods never last long. That sometimes results in kind of mangled thoughts.
What I mean to say is that ensuring your student debtors are on the hook is par for the course for how we’ve been realizing supply side economics. We’re maximizing outcomes for capital holders at the expense of consumers. Reducing student debt means that student debtors pay less to the loan servicing companies, which would not be maximizing the outcome for the capital holders.
Yes, you’re right, if we really wanted to generate wealth, we would optimize outcomes for consumers and workers, not for capital holders. You’ll find no disagreement with me there. Our economy is heavily dependent on the trading of consumer goods and services, so consumers not being able to afford goods and services is kind of dumb af. What I’m saying is that supply side economics (which I think is a steaming crock of crap) is a school of economic thought and policy that takes the view that if you maximize the outcomes for the capital holders (business owners, investors, etc), then you’ll generate more wealth than you would have under some other strategy, and that excess wealth makes everyone better off. We’ve had forty years of optimizing outcomes for asset and capital holders now, and I’m still waiting to see the cup overflow (spoiler alert: it won’t).
Thanks for the elaboration. Sounds like the supply economics is less of the issue, and forcing people into debt is an extra step on top of helping wealthy people amass wealth. And that alone has the presumption of trust and good faith embedded within in. Convincing people to vote for that is a stranger saying “trust me bro i’ll pay you back” behavior. If laws and regulations are geared towards making rich people more rich then that’s all the law is meant for, nothing else. That’s the point of taxes (allegedly) so that we can point the nation’s wealth to what we want for the good of everyone. scam/10
Basically, we’re forty years deep into supply side economics, sometimes referred to as Reaganomics, Trickle Down economics, or Horse and Sparrow economics (the latter two are generally considered derisive by proponents of this model). The idea is that if we set our policies so that outcomes are optimized for capital holders (business owners, investors, etc), then they can generate more wealth faster, and increasing the sum total of available wealth will improve life for everyone; somebody please correct me if I have it wrong. Of course, how this has actually played out is that money’s just being funneled from everywhere into a handful of pockets to the detriment of everyone and everything else, and it’s never enough.
I’m not a Marxist, but I do appreciate his view as a historical determinist. What I think is interesting is that if you look at what Marx said would be done to fight the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, we’re doing basically everything on that list. I think Reagan was a true believer and honestly thought he was doing the best for his country that he could, even if he was incredibly wrong at practically every turn. It seems to me that supply side economics is really just a fancy way to run an extractive economy under the pretense of free markets.
Sorry but I’m having difficulty piecing what you said with why knocking 20 grand off student loans got shot down. How does it tie into a tendency for profits to fall? And targeting policies such that our business leaders generate wealth faster? If we’re to target e.g. tax deductions towards benefiting these wealth-bringers, shouldn’t we be offering tax credits to our education system to increase the total wealth of the nation? Math and Science should be absolutely FREE, and if economics courses were free I’d probably have an easier time having this conversation with you instead of trying to figure out what you’re even saying so that I could respond lol
Sorry, my dude. I just browse when I don’t have much going on, and those periods never last long. That sometimes results in kind of mangled thoughts.
What I mean to say is that ensuring your student debtors are on the hook is par for the course for how we’ve been realizing supply side economics. We’re maximizing outcomes for capital holders at the expense of consumers. Reducing student debt means that student debtors pay less to the loan servicing companies, which would not be maximizing the outcome for the capital holders.
Yes, you’re right, if we really wanted to generate wealth, we would optimize outcomes for consumers and workers, not for capital holders. You’ll find no disagreement with me there. Our economy is heavily dependent on the trading of consumer goods and services, so consumers not being able to afford goods and services is kind of dumb af. What I’m saying is that supply side economics (which I think is a steaming crock of crap) is a school of economic thought and policy that takes the view that if you maximize the outcomes for the capital holders (business owners, investors, etc), then you’ll generate more wealth than you would have under some other strategy, and that excess wealth makes everyone better off. We’ve had forty years of optimizing outcomes for asset and capital holders now, and I’m still waiting to see the cup overflow (spoiler alert: it won’t).
Thanks for the elaboration. Sounds like the supply economics is less of the issue, and forcing people into debt is an extra step on top of helping wealthy people amass wealth. And that alone has the presumption of trust and good faith embedded within in. Convincing people to vote for that is a stranger saying “trust me bro i’ll pay you back” behavior. If laws and regulations are geared towards making rich people more rich then that’s all the law is meant for, nothing else. That’s the point of taxes (allegedly) so that we can point the nation’s wealth to what we want for the good of everyone. scam/10