Neoliberal/trickle-down/supply-side economics

[Politruk]

Economic libertarianism. Nobody can say it hasn't been fairly tried. It has been the go-to economic policy of most capitalist governments -- and of international organizations such as the IMF and World Bank -- since the 1980s.

And it never accomplishes anything but its true intended purpose. Which is to make the rich richer.

Can anybody demonstrate otherwise?

 

[Politruk]

And then there's the Austrian School of libertarian economics, which is literally pseudoscience -- epistemically closed, not even in principle falsifiable by data.

 

[Politruk]

What does Project 2025 say about economic policy in general? Anybody know?

 

[Politruk]

xxxx

 

[Politruk]

Nobody can defend supply-side.

 

[YDB95]

Nobody can defend supply-side.

They don't even try. That's why they routinely credit Ronald Reagan with the exact opposite of what his track record shows in so many respects.

 

[UltraChad]

Economic libertarianism. Nobody can say it hasn't been fairly tried.

Is not a thing and hasn't been tried by any modern nation state. The authoritarian and totalitarian control freaks (like yourself) have never allowed it. Economic freedom scares the fucking shit out of the parasite class......as it should, you two would fucking STARVE to death if the government didn't feed you.

And it never accomplishes anything but its true intended purpose. Which is to make the rich richer.

Can anybody demonstrate otherwise?

They don't even try.

Because it's not intended to the equity utopian bullshit that you delusional communist fuck tards think an economy is supposed to do.


When you IDIOTS stop with the "Economies are there for SOCIAL JUSTICE!!!" stupidity then you might be worth talking to about economics.

 

[Politruk]

Is not a thing and hasn't been tried by any modern nation state. The authoritarian and totalitarian control freaks (like yourself) have never allowed it.

Once again, you prove you do not post from any planet with a blue sky and are ignorant of the history actual humans have lived through.

Because it's not intended to the equity utopian bullshit that you delusional communist fuck tards think an economy is supposed to do.


When you IDIOTS stop with the "Economies are there for SOCIAL JUSTICE!!!" stupidity then you might be worth talking to about economics.

Never mind social justice. The goal of economic policy should be broadly shared prosperity -- a thing we know is possible, because America had it between WWII and the mid-1970s. Before supply-side became the prevailing orthodoxy.

 

[Politruk]

xxxx

 

[UltraChad]

Once again, you prove you do not post from any planet with a blue sky and are ignorant of the history actual humans have lived through.

Projection.

The goal of economic policy should be broadly shared prosperity ''

No, because this isn't the SOVIET states of America.

The goal is to allow people to be prosperous and let them do it for themselves.

-- a thing we know is possible, because America had it between WWII and the mid-1970s.

You mean back when we were significantly more free to engage in commerce. Yea.

Before supply-side became the prevailing orthodoxy.

A fantasy, it's never been the prevailing orthodoxy.

 

[Politruk]

A fantasy, it's never been the prevailing orthodoxy.

It has been the prevailing orthodoxy at all times since 1980.

In government and politics, that is. Among economists, a more prominent school of thought is post-Keynesianism.

 

[UltraChad]

It has been the prevailing orthodoxy at all times since 1980.

No, it hasn't been. Literally the opposite.

 

[Politruk]

No, it hasn't been. Literally the opposite.

It is the orthodoxy of the GOP and everything touched by them.

 

[UltraChad]

It is the orthodoxy of the GOP

Not even and not for some time.

and everything touched by them.

Not really because they haven't really had total control of much of anything.

 

[Politruk]

Not even and not for some time.

Is there anything in the Republican platform -- or in Project 2025 -- that is inconsistent with supply-side economics?

N.B.: Crony capitalism, with big fat government contracts, and government protection of established business interests and oligopolies, is inconsistent with a strict reading of Libertarian economics, LP version -- but it is not inconsistent with supply-side.

 

[Politruk]

They don't even try. That's why they routinely credit Ronald Reagan with the exact opposite of what his track record shows in so many respects.

Oh, yeah, about that . . .

 

[Justplainjeff]

Economic libertarianism. Nobody can say it hasn't been fairly tried. It has been the go-to economic policy of most capitalist governments -- and of international organizations such as the IMF and World Bank -- since the 1980s.

And it never accomplishes anything but its true intended purpose. Which is to make the rich richer.

Can anybody demonstrate otherwise?

All I know about economics, you can shove up a gnat's asshole, and it would rattle like a BB in a boxcar. My WORST subject in college.

 

[Politruk]

Not really because they haven't really had total control of much of anything.

They do now.

 

[Politruk]

No, because this isn't the SOVIET states of America.

Most Americans -- at all times -- would agree that a broadly shared prosperity should be the overriding goal of all government economic policy.

 

[UltraChad]

Is there anything in the Republican platform -- or in Project 2025 -- that is inconsistent with supply-side economics?

Yea, having a border and other economic restrictions on certain things for moral reasons.

N.B.: Crony capitalism,

Is not capitalism.

with big fat government contracts, and government protection of established business interests and oligopolies, is inconsistent with a strict reading of Libertarian economics,

Literally not at all....thanks for confirming you know fuck all about libertarian economics and confuse them with Democrats.

They do now.

Not even now....it's going to be a few weeks.

You're like the fat bitches on tiktok wondering why Trump hasn't fixed everything yet and don't realize Biden is still the POTUS.

Most Americans -- at all times -- would agree that a broadly shared prosperity should be the overriding goal of all government economic policy.

I don't think most Americans are communist.

 

[Politruk]

I don't think most Americans are communist.

Most Americans -- at all times in American history, including dumbass Red Scare periods -- would agree that a broadly shared prosperity should be the overriding goal of all government economic policy.

 

[UltraChad]

Most Americans -- at all times in American history, including dumbass Red Scare periods -- would agree that a broadly shared prosperity should be the overriding goal of all government economic policy.

No, again I don't think most Americans are communist morons. Most Americans want to work and better their lives, not slave away in poverty so the collective can do dumb fuck leftist virtue signaling on their dime the way you and other leftoids think they should.

 

[Politruk]

No, again I don't think most Americans are communist morons.

Broadly shared prosperity is not a "communist moron" goal. Most Americans can see that their own prosperity ain't worth much without it -- it was no fun to be rich during the Great Depression.

 

[UltraChad]

Broadly shared prosperity is not a "communist moron" goal.

Yes it is...because when someone is prosperous the first idea you and the comrades have is to go take that shit and redistribute it to yourselves.

 

[Politruk]

Yes it is...because when someone is prosperous the first idea you and the comrades have is to go take that shit and redistribute it to yourselves.

That's not how we achieved broadly shared prosperity between WWII and the mid-'70s. And even you can see that, discounting technological progress, that was in all ways a better time than what came after.