You presume much too much in terms of the compelling nature of your posts. One phony pseudo-libertarian isn't much different from the next. Mostly a bunch of former neocons trying to pretend they were never Bush-boosters.
Well there is another thing you have to prove. I was always a libertarian. The only view that I really changed as I got older was on abortion. The rest of it was as it is now.
You thought "Markets are wise enough to regulate themselves" was some sort of socialist battle cry?
I thought nothing of the sort, thank you. I have put out before in other threads what I think of regulation and how to resolve the issues that are present in the current avenue being done to that end.
That might have been more impressive had it been written in English.
It's really not my fault you can't read.
Yes, it does. Poor people tend to spend their money quickly and they tend to spend it by giving it to others who spend it quickly.
Their encouragement for advancement their ability to gain future earnings from that dollar are limited and compared to the outlook of when the higher earners spend on the economy as a whole the return on taxing them less while giving them free things does not counter the effects of higher taxes on the higher ends.
The more times a dollar turns over per unit of time, the greater aggregate demand will be and the more jobs will be present in the economy.
Not my point and that depends greatly on variables I am mentioning.
Rich people tend to spend another dollar when they get around to it. They have no pressing needs or wants, and in the end, they are just as likely to take that dollar out of the real economy altogether and stick it in the financial economy where it will produce no new demand and no additional jobs.
That is complete horse****. Rich people spend great deals of money if they are producers or people that have gained their wealth through other avenues. This spending does create jobs fair easier than when poor people spend money. You are forgetting that people don't just buy when they need, they buy when they want, and in essence the more people earn the more they not only spend but need to maintain their lifestyle.
These few sentences are why the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich performed so poorly while the tax cuts in the stimulus bill targeting the middle-class and down performed so well.
Lol, what? Considering that all the stimuluses has lower returns than otherwise would be noted without it and considering that the bush tax cuts did what they were intended to do what you said is trash.
Want to outline a mechanism by which this happens? I certainly don't think you can
.
Taxes takes wealth out of the economy and what it gives back is less than the wealth took out. Considering that wealth it takes out of the economy is on the top that includes a great deal of small businesses it hardly matters if you give more to the poor as the return for investment is not only hurt from the taxes themselves but how they are dealt out.
As for the later part, motivation for labor and advancement in general is triggered from need of labor and overall want to move forward. Considered that many of these people are already not motivated(keep in mind I didn't say majority here) giving them what they need from the start not only stops them from wanting advancement or discovering a want for advancement but needing advancement. This is basic human nature and works for rich or poor.
Actually, I'm at the back end of a very well-compensated 40-year career as an economist. This after completing training in that very field at some of our most well-known and selective institutions of higher learning. I suspect that you would be lucky to qualify as an acorn in comparison to my oak, but go ahead and try swimming against the tide anyway.
I suspect I can keep up with you and I suspect it hasn't done you any good. Many economist believe in trash and you appear to be either one of them or someone that believes in their trash.
