Are Republicans opportunistic liars, or just stupid?

[_EAllusion]

To my knowledge, supply siders don't argue that production creates demand. Rather they emphasize the fact that products are paid for ultimately with other products, so production drives demand to the extent it has value. Supply drives demand, in other words. That's all based in classical econ that I dimly recall from high school, but Droopy's wording skirts over that.

[_Analytics]

To my knowledge, supply siders don't argue that production creates demand. Rather they emphasize the fact that products are paid for ultimately with other products, so production drives demand to the extent it has value. Supply drives demand, in other words. That's all based in classical econ that I dimly recall from high school, but Droopy's wording skirts over that.

That is a fair point. Like I said, "demand" is how much you want something, but it is measured in terms of what you'd be willing to trade in order to get it. If you "want" something really really bad, yet you have little to trade for it, you still aren't expressing that much demand.

However, if you produce more and thus have more money to spend, your demand for goods and services isn't necessarily going to rise. Some people maximize their utility spending $100,000 a year, even if they produce $500,000 a year. A lack of production can limit demand, but other things can limit it too.

[_krose]

Employee wages, new stock, supplies, water, electric, phone, paper towels, plastic forks, window cleaner, or whatever else you need on an ongoing basis, are your operating costs...

You're [sic] personal income, out of which must come any new hiring or expansion beyond present operating costs, is your profit after business overhead and taxes are deducted.

Where do you get the notion that one must use after-tax, personal income to expand or hire new employees, while existing employees are paid as a deductible operating cost?

Please explain how Line 26: "Wages" on Form 1040, Schedule C, Part II: "Expenses" does not include new hires?

Hello!!!



Okay, Droopy. So you don't want to answer that question. (It's a mystery why not.)

Maybe you meant to say that it's those people known as corporations that have to pay their new employees using after-tax profits, not mythical high-income "job creators." After all, the right is constantly spouting some nonsense about "high corporate taxes" killing jobs, or preventing corporations from hiring. (Of course that's a lie, because employee wages are deducted before paying taxes. That's also true for health insurance premiums, by the way.)

Well, below you will find a link to Form 1120, the corporate tax form. My challenge to you is to point out on this form anything that does not allow a corporation to deduct employee expenses, including wages, commissions and benefits, before paying taxes.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120.pdf

Oh, and here are the instructions. Knock yourself out.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1120.pdf

[_Droopy]

What in the world are you talking about? Since Adam Smith, "demand" simply means what people want. It can be measured by utility functions or whatever, but it always goes back to what people want. Talk to any economist, and they'll say there is a demand for food because people want to eat--they are hungry and they want food.

Saying things like, "production creates demand" implies that nobody wants food until it is produced. Pure gibberish. Either you are extremely confused about economics, or you’ve hijacked the word “demand” to means something totally different than what economists mean by the term.

You're really hedging your bets here, Analytics, and the arguments become more strained and more elastic as the thread moves on.

I'm not speaking of things such as food; fundamental aspects of bare subsistence. I'm speaking of the vast plethora of things that have increased human temporal felicity, comfort, longevity, health, well-being, opportunity, personal development, and aesthetic enjoyment - prosperity - over generations of time.

There is no reason whatsoever, within a production-for-use-not-for-profit framework, or from the perspective of nothing more than what people need, for any more than one, basic, standardized car (a Volkswagon) used for transportation and utility, for the average citizen. There might, as well, be one basic pick-up truck, or similar vehicle. In reality, however, there are numerous sizes, styles, colors, shapes, and classes of vehicles, all created, marketed, and sold by competing automotive companies, to a welcoming populace, not to mention motercycles, two and three-wheeled touring cycles, three and four wheeled off-road vehicles, hot rod kit cares, self-produced dune buggies, and more.

In similar vain, all we need is bread, butter, some meat, some dairy products, and a few basic vegetables to survive and be reasonably healthy. And yet, you go to any bookstore and you see countless cookbook titles covering and endless variety of tasty, colorful, and aesthetically creative foods.

I could go on and on with this but the point should be obvious.

The socialist argument was lost in the 19th century. It only remains alive today within the academy and among the various elements of the Ruling Class because of who is, overwhelmingly, in control of the major institutions of society, not because of any truth to be found in the Mordorian philosophy or Korihorism.

[_Analytics]

What in the world are you talking about? Since Adam Smith, "demand" simply means what people want. It can be measured by utility functions or whatever, but it always goes back to what people want. Talk to any economist, and they'll say there is a demand for food because people want to eat--they are hungry and they want food.

Saying things like, "production creates demand" implies that nobody wants food until it is produced. Pure gibberish. Either you are extremely confused about economics, or you’ve hijacked the word “demand” to means something totally different than what economists mean by the term.

You're really hedging your bets here, Analytics, and the arguments become more strained and more elastic as the thread moves on.

I'm not speaking of things such as food; fundamental aspects of bare subsistence. I'm speaking of the vast plethora of things that have increased human temporal felicity, comfort, longevity, health, well-being, opportunity, personal development, and aesthetic enjoyment - prosperity - over generations of time.

There is no reason whatsoever, within a production-for-use-not-for-profit framework, or from the perspective of nothing more than what people need, for any more than one, basic, standardized car (a Volkswagon) used for transportation and utility, for the average citizen. There might, as well, be one basic pick-up truck, or similar vehicle. In reality, however, there are numerous sizes, styles, colors, shapes, and classes of vehicles, all created, marketed, and sold by competing automotive companies, to a welcoming populace, not to mention motercycles, two and three-wheeled touring cycles, three and four wheeled off-road vehicles, hot rod kit cares, self-produced dune buggies, and more.

In similar vain, all we need is bread, butter, some meat, some dairy products, and a few basic vegetables to survive and be reasonably healthy. And yet, you go to any bookstore and you see countless cookbook titles covering and endless variety of tasty, colorful, and aesthetically creative foods.

I could go on and on with this but the point should be obvious.

The socialist argument was lost in the 19th century. It only remains alive today within the academy and among the various elements of the Ruling Class because of who is, overwhelmingly, in control of the major institutions of society, not because of any truth to be found in the Mordorian philosophy or Korihorism.

What in the world are you talking about? I’m talking about the definition of a word that has been well-defined in economics since Adam Smith. I’m not talking about “the socialist argument” (whatever that is).

[_krose]

You're [sic] personal income, out of which must come any new hiring or expansion beyond present operating costs, is your profit after business overhead and taxes are deducted.

Where has Droopy gone? Has he left the building once again?

I have asked him several times to back up the claim that new hiring and expansion must be taken from after-tax profits, by showing me on the IRS form or instructions where it says I cannot deduct such things. He may use the corporate forms or the individual forms.

Strangely, he has consistently refused to address the subject, which I find strange for someone who was so sure. This point is crucial to the claim that higher taxes cost jobs.

Why is that?



Still patiently waiting...