Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
To all the supply side economists
2001400ex
Member Posts: 29,457
in Tug Tavern
Comments
-
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 -
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!!!
-
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.
-
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?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.
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.2001400ex said:
Did you read the article?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.
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%.
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. -
Failed tax-cut experiment in Kansas should guide national leaders
No, it shouldn't. All the data suggests otherwise. -
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.2001400ex said:
Did you read the article?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.
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%.
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.
But keeping buying the bullshit of "we'll cut taxes and cut government and you'll love it. The wealthy have suffered enough". -
What data are you referring to?Dude61 said:Failed tax-cut experiment in Kansas should guide national leaders
No, it shouldn't. All the data suggests otherwise. -
Lmk when you understand what a confounding variable is and we will pick up this convo.2001400ex said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.2001400ex said:
Did you read the article?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.
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%.
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.
But keeping buying the bullshit of "we'll cut taxes and cut government and you'll love it. The wealthy have suffered enough". -
So you want to play Webster's rather than actually address the discussion. Got it.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Lmk when you understand what a confounding variable is and we will pick up this convo.2001400ex said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.2001400ex said:
Did you read the article?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.
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%.
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.
But keeping buying the bullshit of "we'll cut taxes and cut government and you'll love it. The wealthy have suffered enough". -
Fuck off loser.2001400ex said:
So you want to play Webster's rather than actually address the discussion. Got it.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Lmk when you understand what a confounding variable is and we will pick up this convo.2001400ex said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.2001400ex said:
Did you read the article?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.
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%.
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.
But keeping buying the bullshit of "we'll cut taxes and cut government and you'll love it. The wealthy have suffered enough". -
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.2001400ex said:
So you want to play Webster's rather than actually address the discussion. Got it.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Lmk when you understand what a confounding variable is and we will pick up this convo.2001400ex said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.2001400ex said:
Did you read the article?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.
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%.
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.
But keeping buying the bullshit of "we'll cut taxes and cut government and you'll love it. The wealthy have suffered enough".
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. -
Kansas economy is ruined because of Kansans. Easily the dumbest motherfuckers in this entire country.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
Doesn't matter who is in power - they'd fuck it up.
-
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.2001400ex said:
So you want to play Webster's rather than actually address the discussion. Got it.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Lmk when you understand what a confounding variable is and we will pick up this convo.2001400ex said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.2001400ex said:
Did you read the article?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.
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%.
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.
But keeping buying the bullshit of "we'll cut taxes and cut government and you'll love it. The wealthy have suffered enough".
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.
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. -
-
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.
-
And a huge tax cut on capital gains.2001400ex said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.2001400ex said:
So you want to play Webster's rather than actually address the discussion. Got it.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Lmk when you understand what a confounding variable is and we will pick up this convo.2001400ex said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.2001400ex said:
Did you read the article?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.
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%.
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.
But keeping buying the bullshit of "we'll cut taxes and cut government and you'll love it. The wealthy have suffered enough".
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.
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. -
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.
-
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?
-
Don’t bother. Trying to have a rational economic discussion with an economic illiterate who refuses to acknowledge his ignorance or seek knowledge when led to it is a waste of time.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Lmk when you understand what a confounding variable is and we will pick up this convo.2001400ex said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.2001400ex said:
Did you read the article?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.
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%.
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.
But keeping buying the bullshit of "we'll cut taxes and cut government and you'll love it. The wealthy have suffered enough".
TL;DR - Hondo is a waste of time. -
But don't you want to HELP people?!?!??WestlinnDuck said:
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.
Sure! On my terms as I see fit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J---aiyznGQ
