To all the supply side economists

2001400ex

Here's looking at you Damoan.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/418768-kansas-voters-render-final-verdict-on-failed-tax-cut-experiment?amp

SFGbob

The Kansas economy is ruined I tell you.

https://www.google.com/search?q=kansas+unemployment+rate&oq=Kansas+Unemployment+rate&aqs=chrome.0.0l6.12183j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

2001400ex

Because no one wants to live in Kansas Toto. Look at GDP and job growth. Both in bottom 10. But but but low unemployment!!!! Success!!!

SFGbob

Nearly 3 million people live in Kansas. Another post another lie from Hondo. The low unemployment refutes the lie from your article that their economy is ruined.

UW_Doog_Bot

It's almost as if there are confounding variables in economics. LMK when you have something that bothers to legitimately analyze Kansas' economy and show empirical evidence of policy failure.

2001400ex

UW_Doog_Bot said:

It's almost as if there are confounding variables in economics. LMK when you have something that bothers to legitimately analyze Kansas' economy and show empirical evidence of policy failure.

Did you read the article?

1) supply side economics are sold to spur growth and create jobs. The GDP and job growth in the state is one of the worst in the country.

2) The voters, in a very conservative State, voted in a Democrat for governor by 4.5%.

UW_Doog_Bot

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

It's almost as if there are confounding variables in economics. LMK when you have something that bothers to legitimately analyze Kansas' economy and show empirical evidence of policy failure.

Did you read the article?

1) supply side economics are sold to spur growth and create jobs. The GDP and job growth in the state is one of the worst in the country.

2) The voters, in a very conservative State, voted in a Democrat for governor by 4.5%.

Yes, it's an opinion piece seeking to use political elections to justify economic policy. I don't expect you to understand the difference between that and actual academic economics.

1) See above. Economics has lots of confounding variables. Hence, show me an analysis that seeks to account and isolate the variables instead of an opinion piece that appeals to your confirmation bias.

2) And this changes science how? I didn't realize we vote on science. Interesting take from a liberal.

Dude61

Failed tax-cut experiment in Kansas should guide national leaders

No, it shouldn't. All the data suggests otherwise.

2001400ex

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

It's almost as if there are confounding variables in economics. LMK when you have something that bothers to legitimately analyze Kansas' economy and show empirical evidence of policy failure.

Did you read the article?

1) supply side economics are sold to spur growth and create jobs. The GDP and job growth in the state is one of the worst in the country.

2) The voters, in a very conservative State, voted in a Democrat for governor by 4.5%.

Yes, it's an opinion piece seeking to use political elections to justify economic policy. I don't expect you to understand the difference between that and actual academic economics.

1) See above. Economics has lots of confounding variables. Hence, show me an analysis that seeks to account and isolate the variables instead of an opinion piece that appeals to your confirmation bias.

2) And this changes science how? I didn't realize we vote on science. Interesting take from a liberal.

The fact that their GDP and job growth is low isn't opinion. The fact that the constituents don't like cutting taxes and cutting services isn't opinion. Their votes matter.

But keeping buying the bullshit of "we'll cut taxes and cut government and you'll love it. The wealthy have suffered enough".

2001400ex

Dude61 said:

Failed tax-cut experiment in Kansas should guide national leaders

No, it shouldn't. All the data suggests otherwise.

What data are you referring to?

UW_Doog_Bot

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

It's almost as if there are confounding variables in economics. LMK when you have something that bothers to legitimately analyze Kansas' economy and show empirical evidence of policy failure.

Did you read the article?

1) supply side economics are sold to spur growth and create jobs. The GDP and job growth in the state is one of the worst in the country.

2) The voters, in a very conservative State, voted in a Democrat for governor by 4.5%.

Yes, it's an opinion piece seeking to use political elections to justify economic policy. I don't expect you to understand the difference between that and actual academic economics.

1) See above. Economics has lots of confounding variables. Hence, show me an analysis that seeks to account and isolate the variables instead of an opinion piece that appeals to your confirmation bias.

2) And this changes science how? I didn't realize we vote on science. Interesting take from a liberal.

The fact that their GDP and job growth is low isn't opinion. The fact that the constituents don't like cutting taxes and cutting services isn't opinion. Their votes matter.

But keeping buying the bullshit of "we'll cut taxes and cut government and you'll love it. The wealthy have suffered enough".

Lmk when you understand what a confounding variable is and we will pick up this convo.

2001400ex

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

It's almost as if there are confounding variables in economics. LMK when you have something that bothers to legitimately analyze Kansas' economy and show empirical evidence of policy failure.

Did you read the article?

1) supply side economics are sold to spur growth and create jobs. The GDP and job growth in the state is one of the worst in the country.

2) The voters, in a very conservative State, voted in a Democrat for governor by 4.5%.

Yes, it's an opinion piece seeking to use political elections to justify economic policy. I don't expect you to understand the difference between that and actual academic economics.

1) See above. Economics has lots of confounding variables. Hence, show me an analysis that seeks to account and isolate the variables instead of an opinion piece that appeals to your confirmation bias.

2) And this changes science how? I didn't realize we vote on science. Interesting take from a liberal.

The fact that their GDP and job growth is low isn't opinion. The fact that the constituents don't like cutting taxes and cutting services isn't opinion. Their votes matter.

But keeping buying the bullshit of "we'll cut taxes and cut government and you'll love it. The wealthy have suffered enough".

Lmk when you understand what a confounding variable is and we will pick up this convo.

So you want to play Webster's rather than actually address the discussion. Got it.

pawz

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

It's almost as if there are confounding variables in economics. LMK when you have something that bothers to legitimately analyze Kansas' economy and show empirical evidence of policy failure.

Did you read the article?

1) supply side economics are sold to spur growth and create jobs. The GDP and job growth in the state is one of the worst in the country.

2) The voters, in a very conservative State, voted in a Democrat for governor by 4.5%.

Yes, it's an opinion piece seeking to use political elections to justify economic policy. I don't expect you to understand the difference between that and actual academic economics.

1) See above. Economics has lots of confounding variables. Hence, show me an analysis that seeks to account and isolate the variables instead of an opinion piece that appeals to your confirmation bias.

2) And this changes science how? I didn't realize we vote on science. Interesting take from a liberal.

The fact that their GDP and job growth is low isn't opinion. The fact that the constituents don't like cutting taxes and cutting services isn't opinion. Their votes matter.

But keeping buying the bullshit of "we'll cut taxes and cut government and you'll love it. The wealthy have suffered enough".

Lmk when you understand what a confounding variable is and we will pick up this convo.

So you want to play Webster's rather than actually address the discussion. Got it.

Fuck off loser.

UW_Doog_Bot

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

It's almost as if there are confounding variables in economics. LMK when you have something that bothers to legitimately analyze Kansas' economy and show empirical evidence of policy failure.

Did you read the article?

1) supply side economics are sold to spur growth and create jobs. The GDP and job growth in the state is one of the worst in the country.

2) The voters, in a very conservative State, voted in a Democrat for governor by 4.5%.

Yes, it's an opinion piece seeking to use political elections to justify economic policy. I don't expect you to understand the difference between that and actual academic economics.

1) See above. Economics has lots of confounding variables. Hence, show me an analysis that seeks to account and isolate the variables instead of an opinion piece that appeals to your confirmation bias.

2) And this changes science how? I didn't realize we vote on science. Interesting take from a liberal.

The fact that their GDP and job growth is low isn't opinion. The fact that the constituents don't like cutting taxes and cutting services isn't opinion. Their votes matter.

But keeping buying the bullshit of "we'll cut taxes and cut government and you'll love it. The wealthy have suffered enough".

Lmk when you understand what a confounding variable is and we will pick up this convo.

So you want to play Webster's rather than actually address the discussion. Got it.

No, you are incapable of having a discussion unless you understand basic concepts(which you refuse to educate yourself on). Until then you are just shouting talking points and citing opinion pieces that support your already ill-formed world view.

I'm not at all dogmatic to any school of economics, there are different models with different successes and failings(this is philosophy of science 101 btw). If you want to have an intelligent conversation on the merits of macro based neo-synthesis vs. micro based neo-classical supply side economics I'd be happy to do so. You aren't attempting that. You are attempting an "ah-ha!" from a place of ignorance of either of those concepts.

PurpleThrobber

SFGbob said:

The Kansas economy is ruined I tell you.

https://www.google.com/search?q=kansas+unemployment+rate&oq=Kansas+Unemployment+rate&aqs=chrome.0.0l6.12183j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Kansas economy is ruined because of Kansans. Easily the dumbest motherfuckers in this entire country.

Doesn't matter who is in power - they'd fuck it up.

2001400ex

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

It's almost as if there are confounding variables in economics. LMK when you have something that bothers to legitimately analyze Kansas' economy and show empirical evidence of policy failure.

Did you read the article?

1) supply side economics are sold to spur growth and create jobs. The GDP and job growth in the state is one of the worst in the country.

2) The voters, in a very conservative State, voted in a Democrat for governor by 4.5%.

Yes, it's an opinion piece seeking to use political elections to justify economic policy. I don't expect you to understand the difference between that and actual academic economics.

1) See above. Economics has lots of confounding variables. Hence, show me an analysis that seeks to account and isolate the variables instead of an opinion piece that appeals to your confirmation bias.

2) And this changes science how? I didn't realize we vote on science. Interesting take from a liberal.

The fact that their GDP and job growth is low isn't opinion. The fact that the constituents don't like cutting taxes and cutting services isn't opinion. Their votes matter.

But keeping buying the bullshit of "we'll cut taxes and cut government and you'll love it. The wealthy have suffered enough".

Lmk when you understand what a confounding variable is and we will pick up this convo.

So you want to play Webster's rather than actually address the discussion. Got it.

No, you are incapable of having a discussion unless you understand basic concepts(which you refuse to educate yourself on). Until then you are just shouting talking points and citing opinion pieces that support your already ill-formed world view.

I'm not at all dogmatic to any school of economics, there are different models with different successes and failings(this is philosophy of science 101 btw). If you want to have an intelligent conversation on the merits of macro based neo-synthesis vs. micro based neo-classical supply side economics I'd be happy to do so. You aren't attempting that. You are attempting an "ah-ha!" from a place of ignorance of either of those concepts.

I'm not looking for an ah ha moment. I'm not saying the tax and spend liberal model is any better. But Kansas is the first place to implement the cut tax and cut spending model. They sold it as growth would increase because businesses in local states would move into Kansas. That hasn't happened.

Granted Kansas is different than the country as a whole. The way economies work are different and the way they have to manage debt is different.

I honestly wish politicians would stop trying to manage the economy through taxes. There are too many other factors and reasons economies go up or down. Look at the 90s as an example. One of the best economies ever after a huge tax increase in 1993.

CuntWaffle

Hondo getting annihilated. Play him out Keyboard cat!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J---aiyznGQ

SFGbob

Brownback's tax policy didn't cause Kansas to have a weak economy. The Kansas economy is heavily reliant on agricultural commodities such as wheat and corn. They also relied on oil production but in Kansas oil production isn't very profitable when oil falls below a certain price because of the difficulty in drilling there.

This is the reason for the weak economy in Kansas

Corn Prices



Not supply side economics. Hondo is stupid and he is a parrot so of course he repeats what he hears.

SFGbob

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

It's almost as if there are confounding variables in economics. LMK when you have something that bothers to legitimately analyze Kansas' economy and show empirical evidence of policy failure.

Did you read the article?

1) supply side economics are sold to spur growth and create jobs. The GDP and job growth in the state is one of the worst in the country.

2) The voters, in a very conservative State, voted in a Democrat for governor by 4.5%.

Yes, it's an opinion piece seeking to use political elections to justify economic policy. I don't expect you to understand the difference between that and actual academic economics.

1) See above. Economics has lots of confounding variables. Hence, show me an analysis that seeks to account and isolate the variables instead of an opinion piece that appeals to your confirmation bias.

2) And this changes science how? I didn't realize we vote on science. Interesting take from a liberal.

The fact that their GDP and job growth is low isn't opinion. The fact that the constituents don't like cutting taxes and cutting services isn't opinion. Their votes matter.

But keeping buying the bullshit of "we'll cut taxes and cut government and you'll love it. The wealthy have suffered enough".

Lmk when you understand what a confounding variable is and we will pick up this convo.

So you want to play Webster's rather than actually address the discussion. Got it.

No, you are incapable of having a discussion unless you understand basic concepts(which you refuse to educate yourself on). Until then you are just shouting talking points and citing opinion pieces that support your already ill-formed world view.

I'm not at all dogmatic to any school of economics, there are different models with different successes and failings(this is philosophy of science 101 btw). If you want to have an intelligent conversation on the merits of macro based neo-synthesis vs. micro based neo-classical supply side economics I'd be happy to do so. You aren't attempting that. You are attempting an "ah-ha!" from a place of ignorance of either of those concepts.

I'm not looking for an ah ha moment. I'm not saying the tax and spend liberal model is any better. But Kansas is the first place to implement the cut tax and cut spending model. They sold it as growth would increase because businesses in local states would move into Kansas. That hasn't happened.

Granted Kansas is different than the country as a whole. The way economies work are different and the way they have to manage debt is different.

I honestly wish politicians would stop trying to manage the economy through taxes. There are too many other factors and reasons economies go up or down. Look at the 90s as an example. One of the best economies ever after a huge tax increase in 1993.

And a huge tax cut on capital gains.

WestlinnDuck

The problem with socialist leftards is that they are happy to ignore basic economic principles for a wad of feelings. It’s like ignoring gravity. If you want less private sector activity, you tax it or steal it. If you want more sloth, you subsidize it. If you can’t see the difference between Cuba and Chile or North or South Korea – you are a proudly ignorant leftard.

PurpleThrobber

The only supply side the Throbber ever worried about was the number of hookers available and is there enough coke to snort of their respective asses.

What more do you need?