Comments on: When we say that wingnut economics is discredited, this is why

By: Evil Bender

Evil Bender — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:25:29 +0000

they manage to convince millions of suckers that, somehow or other, if they just let the rich do whatever suits their purpose, they too will someday get their hands on a lot of money.

Yup, supply side economics is absolute genius at getting the rich richer. As a description of reality, not so much.

By: Green Eagle

Green Eagle — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:09:48 +0000

I’ll buy into that. Somehow or other, they manage to convince millions of suckers that, somehow or other, if they just let the rich do whatever suits their purpose, they too will someday get their hands on a lot of money.

A few winners and a hell of a lot of suckers standing around in parks screaming about taxes. That’s what they’ve got.

By: mcclaud

mcclaud — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:19:26 +0000

I’ll up the ante -

Conservatism is about freedom for people with money while restricting the freedoms of that “other no-so-rich guy.”

By: Green Eagle

Green Eagle — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:15:20 +0000

I would like to push on you my long-held contention that American Conservatism is about nothing but greed, or as it is more commonly put, “cut my taxes.” The rest is all window dressing, intended primarily to convince themselves that they hold the moral high ground.

There is, therefore, no such thing as conservative “ideology,” as they are not advancing any real position, but rather claiming to believe whatever alleged argument or fact that supports their immediate purposes.

Having no real beliefs, they have no qualms about the inconsistency or fallacy of their arguments, and it will only drive you to distraction to expect that truth or consistency means anything to them.

By: Rob F

Rob F — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:09:49 +0000

AFAIK, microeconomics is pretty much settled science. The real research and discussion is mostly in macroeconomics. Indeed, there’s an old jake about how if you put three economists in a room and asked for their thoughts on something you’d get four opinions.

Essentially, economics is complicated, and so are national economies. When a national economy has problems, there are no easy solutions. In some circumstances, a tax cut might solve a problem. But so might deregulation, reregulation, increasing spending, shifting around appropriations, or even some combination of these things. Indeed, doing nothing and letting things sort themselves out might even be the best solution. The key point is this: there is no economic fix-all. Hence, I think the issue with Kyl is not his advocacy of additional tax cuts per se, but rather his preconceived notion that his preferred course of action is the solution to every problem.