Falling prices.....yay!

[Kirkland Laing]

Alllllright


Well, Steve Jobs turned Apple around by accepting money a deal from his rival Microsoft, switched around their business model to offer what the masses wanted or offer things new to the market, and took a back to basics stance on business going with more brick and mortar stores when everyone was going for those people using the internet which got people more hands on experiences with his company's products.

And judging from that the main points you can learn from and grow from are cutting costs in overhead where it's reasonable, doing things more efficiently, having a solid business plan which offers value for money, and having a product or service that is what people want/need. You look at McDonald's and how they're having troubles right now and that's because they lost sight of what they are, a fast food company....the wizards of smart were ALWAYS complaining "Why doesn't McDonald's have healthy options?" I guess they missed the memo in that McDonald's specializes in FAST FOOD a market not really known for having customers who are health conscious....so in going the "healthy route" McDonald's has let their burger business stagnate while chains such as Shake Shack a newcomer to the market is going the route of quality ingredients rather than building half assed salads and offering up apple slices instead of French fries for kids.

Now where the government comes in on this is interesting as Shake Shack is a New York City based company and there are HUGE bureaucratic hurdles for them to overcome in order to make money. They can't offer sodas over 16 ounces and as you may well know those sodas are pretty much all profit as a soda may cost the restaurant .05 to .25 and you might pay $2.00 for it. But hey, that soda ban is great policy right? It generates revenue doesn't it? Oh wait, it's a ban, it generates NOTHING....nothing but a bunch of people who are irritated about either not getting a better profit margin or not getting the amount of drink they want.

I suppose the best answer I'm going to get is an incoherent irrelevant word salad. At least you're not trying to claim that tax cuts have anything to do with it.

The short answer is that businesses start doing well when they sell more stuff. And they sell more stuff when people can afford to buy the stuff they make. Cutting the taxes of the business owner and the regulations that govern his business so that he can make bigger profits do nothing to help his prospective customers buy his products. And we have 1980-2015 as conclusive evidence of this.

[El Kabong]

I suppose the best answer I'm going to get is an incoherent irrelevant word salad. At least you're not trying to claim that tax cuts have anything to do with it.

The short answer is that businesses start doing well when they sell more stuff. And they sell more stuff when people can afford to buy the stuff they make. Cutting the taxes of the business owner and the regulations that govern his business so that he can make bigger profits do nothing to help his prospective customers buy his products. And we have 1980-2015 as conclusive evidence of this.

Yeah that's probably the wrong way to read it but "I'mma let you do you"

When the consumer is taxed less they have more money to spend, the more money the consumer has to spend the more apt they are to spend it.

When a business is taxed less the same is true, they can buy more materials to produce more of their product and then turn around and sell it for cheaper what with the whole supply & demand thing working.

As for saving, well when companies and people save their money in banks the banks have more money on hand to lend out for people wanting mortgages and loans and the like.

Lowering taxes gives slack to the companies trying to make it and to the people trying to buy their products...but I guess you don't believe that, and that's fine, you do you

[Gandalf]

I don't know, Kirkland. All I can do is measure my income against the cost of living and I am not seeing any deflation. I am an ordinary man and at the end of the day if it is more expensive to live, then I am experiencing inflation. In that sense it matters little what someone like Mark Carney says at it will just not resonate nor correlate with the experiences of the general public. On the Keiser report a guest mentioned a website that deals with real inflation and it had it at around 32% from 2008 to 2013 (not hundred % sure I got the years right) which is clearly much higher than any government barometer of inflation. Now fuel is down and of course wages are generally down, but the cost of living is up. That is a squeeze no matter how you look at it. Deflation in the sense of prices going down is a positive for ordinary people who don't care about infinite growth and I welcome that, but that isn't really happening in normal land. Would ordinary folk consider a 40% drop in the cost of a house bad? Not really, yet the media would say the sky is falling as the journalists are largely part of the ponzi scheme.

[Kirkland Laing]

I don't know, Kirkland. All I can do is measure my income against the cost of living and I am not seeing any deflation. I am an ordinary man and at the end of the day if it is more expensive to live, then I am experiencing inflation. In that sense it matters little what someone like Mark Carney says at it will just not resonate nor correlate with the experiences of the general public. On the Keiser report a guest mentioned a website that deals with real inflation and it had it at around 32% from 2008 to 2013 (not hundred % sure I got the years right) which is clearly much higher than any government barometer of inflation. Now fuel is down and of course wages are generally down, but the cost of living is up. That is a squeeze no matter how you look at it. Deflation in the sense of prices going down is a positive for ordinary people who don't care about infinite growth and I welcome that, but that isn't really happening in normal land. Would ordinary folk consider a 40% drop in the cost of a house bad? Not really, yet the media would say the sky is falling as the journalists are largely part of the ponzi scheme.

If inflation was 32% for six years then an asset worth £100 in 2008 would be worth £532 in 2013. I think people would have noticed prices quintupling over six years Miles. Or how about banks lending money at 5% back in 2008? If there'd been 32% inflation how would that have worked out, hmmm? Like I said, do you seriously think you know more than the people managing the worlds' major economies and the world's pension and capital funds? Who is being the arrogant one here now?

Is any of this getting through the force field?

[Kirkland Laing]

I suppose the best answer I'm going to get is an incoherent irrelevant word salad. At least you're not trying to claim that tax cuts have anything to do with it.

The short answer is that businesses start doing well when they sell more stuff. And they sell more stuff when people can afford to buy the stuff they make. Cutting the taxes of the business owner and the regulations that govern his business so that he can make bigger profits do nothing to help his prospective customers buy his products. And we have 1980-2015 as conclusive evidence of this.

Yeah that's probably the wrong way to read it but "I'mma let you do you"

When the consumer is taxed less they have more money to spend, the more money the consumer has to spend the more apt they are to spend it.

When a business is taxed less the same is true, they can buy more materials to produce more of their product and then turn around and sell it for cheaper what with the whole supply & demand thing working.

As for saving, well when companies and people save their money in banks the banks have more money on hand to lend out for people wanting mortgages and loans and the like.

Lowering taxes gives slack to the companies trying to make it and to the people trying to buy their products...but I guess you don't believe that, and that's fine, you do you

Well done Woti. This is still nonsense but it's the best reply I could hace expected seeing as you're defending a nonsense argument.

What you're saying here and in the previous post about "businesses doing well" is basically a load of boilerplate right wing ideology that you've been bombarded with over the years and now these claims have taken up permanent residence on your little shelf. But these things that you claim are all wrong. Clearly, demonstrably, diametrically wrong.

Before 1980 market economies since the advent of market economies hundreds of years ago had been governed by demand-side economics. Since before people even knew what demand-side economics were.

What are demand side economics? Make sure people had money in their pockets to buy goods and services and the market would take care of the rest. Whatever the demand was, for housing or clothes or food or appliances or gadgets or entertainment, if people created demand for a good or service the market would find a way to supply it.

And that worked fine until the late 1970s when two or three economists argued that if you slashed taxes for business owners and corporations and slashed regulation and oversight of their businesses -- to affect the supply side of the market system rather than concentrating on the damand side -- then we'd see a huge boom in investment which would supercharge the economy and create huge economic growth.

Back in 1980 this is how Reagan sold his tax cuts. Tax cuts and deregulation were going to unleash a wave of economic growth. But growth under Reagan was lower than under Carter or Clinton and significantly lower than 50s and 60s. Deficits and debt however skyrocketed, Reagan trebled the national debt in eight years as the tax cuts did not pay for themselves but created huge deficits.

But to the GOP these deficits are a feature not a bug. They mean they can make the case that government is too big and needs to be slashed to end the deficits. And then how to make the economy grow again after that? More tax cuts! And this has been their entire economic policy for 35 years now.

But did supply side economics unleash a wave of investment? No.




Investment actually reached a peak the year before Reagan took office (a time of 70% top tax rates) and has declined as a percentage of GDP ever since. The private spending graph is much more clear but FRED isn't co-operating today do none of my normal blue graphs.

But the other big claim of supply-siders was that a rising tide would lift all boats. Like you claimed, when businesses do well everybody else ends up doing well. How did that work in reality?



Income inequality goes through the roof since 1980. How about individual houeholds? How have they done in the supply side era?




Bugger. Savings depleted and debt through the roof of those households.

So all the money foe 35 years has gone to the top 1% and big business. If they didn't invest it what did they do with it?




So after 35 years of supply-side economics we've now got a very unbalanced economy with all of the surplus money going into capital markets where it creates volatility, bubbles and crashes. And until these markets and business in general is re-regulated and the money within the economy redistributed back to 1970s levels we're never going to see inequality improve or shared prosperity or solid economic growth.

Investor: Peasants Will Be Out With Pitchforks if We Don't Start Sharing the Wealth - Bloomberg Business



n the cur I told you all this back in 2007. The longer it takes the people running our economies and central banks to recognise their arrogance in believing they knew better than I did the more damage is going to be done to long-term global economic growth. Not to mention the potential pitchfork problem.

[El Kabong]

Uh huh....well what you fail to understand is that Reagan had a Congress run by Democrats, the Congress controls the power of the purse and they were a group in love with spending. Bill Clinton rode the '.Com' wave until the bubble burst but the Republican veto-proof Congress kept Clinton from over spending and also allowed him the political mobility to sign bills into law such as Welfare Reform when the Congress was going to act anyway.

But here's a picture of a Llama, because you are a dolt

[Kirkland Laing]

Uh huh....well what you fail to understand is that Reagan had a Congress run by Democrats, the Congress controls the power of the purse and they were a group in love with spending. Bill Clinton rode the '.Com' wave until the bubble burst but the Republican veto-proof Congress kept Clinton from over spending and also allowed him the political mobility to sign bills into law such as Welfare Reform when the Congress was going to act anyway.

But here's a picture of a Llama, because you are a dolt

This is wrong and has nothing to do with what I posted. All you're doing here is demonstrating how little you know about this.

[El Kabong]

The Reagan Boom - Greatest Ever - NYTimes.com

Bill Clinton rode on the coattails of Reagan and George H.W. Bush.....Reagan had to rebuild America after Mr. Peanut Jimmy Carter screwed the pooch. But you go ahead and blindly support the liberals because outcomes don't matter to them only intentions. LBJ's War on Poverty....MASSIVE failure! But hey, his intentions were great so it's a moot point eh comrade?

[Kirkland Laing]

The Reagan Boom - Greatest Ever - NYTimes.com

Bill Clinton rode on the coattails of Reagan and George H.W. Bush.....Reagan had to rebuild America after Mr. Peanut Jimmy Carter screwed the pooch. But you go ahead and blindly support the liberals because outcomes don't matter to them only intentions. LBJ's War on Poverty....MASSIVE failure! But hey, his intentions were great so it's a moot point eh comrade?

I'm not going to read why a former Reagan administration employee who now has a right wing welfare job at a t right wing think tank believes the Reagan boom was the best thing ever. If you want to put it into an actual written down argument I'll have a laugh at itthough.

[El Kabong]

I'm not going to read why a former Reagan administration employee who now has a right wing welfare job at a t right wing think tank believes the Reagan boom was the best thing ever. If you want to put it into an actual written down argument I'll have a laugh at itthough.

Yeah laugh it up because the economy is just booming and Obama can barely control it right now. I mean the average person has sooooooo much free money on their hands right now they hardly know what to do with it. And the gap between the super wealthy and the poor has shrunk to nothing. Reagan who? Obama is the greatest...maybe you'll quack like a duck for him