"reagan screwed this country up! hes the rich supporting lunatic who caused our deficit. this is all a lie! dont read a word this retard says."
"would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share or would you rather accept large budget deficits, higher interest rates and higher unemployment? I think I know your answer"
-Ronald Reagan

TC: "Supply-side economics has no labor policy whatsoever."

Are you are sure about that? Robert Mundell stressed the importance of the mobility of labor (I have no expertise but I looked him up).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_currency_area

Also I found an educational site which discusses the labor policies of Supply Side Economics - which admittedly talks about a European country (Ireland).
http://tutor2u.net/economics/content/topics/supplyside/labour_policies.htm

This is a question: can an economic theory which stresses the importance of supply really be disinterested in labor policy. Surely,  labor is an important consideration in ensuring supply? 

Spyman, please tell me the congressional bill that the Reagan administration put through concerning the "mobility of labor?
Please tell me the congressional bill that the Kennedy administration put through concerning the "mobility of labor?"
Please tell me the congressional bill that the Harding-Coolidge administrations put through regarding the "mobility of labor?"

Mundell wrote many papers. So are you now saying that everything Mundell ever wrote is supply-side economics?

Why don't you read "THE" paper that Mundell wrote that "IS" supply side economic theory.

"The Appropriate Use of Monetary and Fiscal Policy for Internal and External Stability."
Read the Staff Papers eight page publication and not the DM seven page publication.
There is a footnote in the Staff papers version of the paper how Mundell preferred tax cuts to government expenditures as the proper means to stimulate economic growth. It is a really enlightening footnote.

This paper won Mundell his Nobel Prize.

As far as European supply side economics I'm completely unfamiliar with that.
American supply side economics is unique and non-European.

You also mistake the name applied to Mundell's economic theory "supply-side" as being descriptive of what it was.
"Supply-Side" is an arbitrary name applied to Mundell's theory by the press.
Supply has nothing to do with Mundell's theory.
I've posted exactly what supply side economic policy is and you can verify this by reading either the IMF paper of investing some money in Econoclasts.

Supply side theory simply advocates a fiscal tax policy of reducing marginal tax rates in conjunction with a Federal Reserve monetary policy that maintains stable price levels to prevent inflation.

Supply-side economics leaves labor considerations completely to the market place and individual firms.

Fasces, I want to demonstrate to you the joys of the mute button.
You reposted some moronic idiots rant "Reagan screwed up this country!"
Because of the mute button I don't even waste my time on such infantile drooling.

The mute button is beautiful.

Here is a link to Robert Mundell's own site where you can buy and e-version of "The Appropriate Use of Monetary and Fiscal Policy for Internal and External Stability" for $5.

Please tell me that the powerful socialist-marxist intellects on this site have the economic prowess to blow $5 of disposable income on this crucial paper.

Here is also a link to Mundell's Nobel Prize acceptance speech where he describes supply-side economics in detail in 1999 after the Reagan Revolution.

"A Reconsideration of the Twentieth Century."

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1999/mundell-lecture.pdf

http://robertmundell.net/major-works/the-appropriate-use-of-monetary-and-fiscal-policy-for-internal-and-external-stability/

"Spyman, please tell me the congressional bill that the Reagan administration put through concerning the "mobility of labor? "

Alas that question is beyond me. I'll accept what you say about that.

I get the point you made about Europe versus America. There is,surely, a distinction between theory and it's application. Granted. Individual agents will have their own ideas about which aspects of a theory have priority.

What do you think? Does Mundel make a good point about the mobility of labor? Is it relevant to supply?

Personally, in theory, I am completely sold on the idea of free market economics. But surely a market can only be truly free if the labor component is free too. Now I am not advocating that labor should be completely mobile, at this time (but technology plays a role here - especially communications related) because there are other considerations aside from economics.

"[During the 1920s,] Real gross domestic product increased every year, consumer prices were stable (this means no inflation for you economic dumb assess) real wages rose as a consequence of productivity advance, stock prices triped..."

Real wages didn't rise, they stayed the same. Corporations made larger profits because of recently-pioneered mass production techniques--aka the assembly line. The labor force was about the same size in 1929 as it was in 1920, but it could produce more because of new technology.

Most of the profits made in the 1920s went to the upper class. The middle class shrunk, and many farmers went bankrupt before the Great Depression.

I found some great charts here, would TC like to argue why huge income inequality is good for the economy?
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/4Inequality.htm

"[In 1990,] the top 1 percent owned more than the bottom 90 percent combined."

Supply-side economics inherently makes the upper class richer, and decreases the wealth per capita of everyone else.

During and after WWII, the US tax rate on the rich was higher than it ever was, and the economy was booming. When Reagan lowered tax rates on the wealthy, anyone in the bottom 60% of the US lost wealth per capita.

"Supply-side economics inherently makes the upper class richer, and decreases the wealth per capita of everyone else."

Is this effect true in the long term? Sure I can understand that in the short term the rich benefit the most, but if this wealth is reinvested in the economy, doesn't this help everyone because production is increased?

Also can a war economy truly be described as booming? Sure output is increased for a time but standards of living don't actually rise.

Spyman, I don't study Mundell's ideas on labor at all.
I've researched fiscal and monetary policy extensively.
If you look at the 20th century supply side economics produced three eras of GDP expansion, 1922-29 1964-69 and 1983-1990.

When the economy grows unemployment decreases and that is what we need right now.

Unemployment was low in all three periods where supply side economics prevailed.

Ray, I've cited my sources and quoted directly from them with page numbers.

You haven't. Why not?

Ray, please tell me that you don't think that huppi.com is an acceptable source.

If you do please check your intellect at the donation counter since your don't use yours and someone who could use it could receive it.

Where do idiots come from who get their ideas about how the economic world works from "huppi.com"

The problem with Marxists like Ray, Putin, Tantris, and the rest of the blind herd haven't had an original idea in their lives and live through the vacuous insanity of Karl Marx.

The fact that the application of Marxism in the communist Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Castro's Cuba has led to economic ruin and genocide doesn't even factor into to the thought process of these brain dead idiots.

You just feel pity for pathetic, helpless idiots like them.

So, I am a marxist now? Wow, the ignorance is strong with this one.

The false argument about income inequality is easy to deal with.

#1-Marxists claim that a certain group, referred by various labels, has more income than another.
This presupposes a historical example in the past where income has been equally distributed in some society in the past?
There has never been a society without income inequality in the history of mankind.
Yet Marxists make the false claim that since an economic system they dislike does not produce income equality it is invalid and must be abandoned.
So by their own standard Marxists declare all economic systems in all of human history invalid because none have ever produced income equality.

This is the utter idiocy of Marxism.
Marxism is completely disconnected from reality.
This disconnection from reality is exactly what has allowed Marxist regimes in the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and Cuba to commit genocide throughout the 20th century.
What a psychotic ideology.

"Because of the mute button I don't even waste my time on such infantile drooling.

The mute button is beautiful."
I support free speech and like to hear pathetic arguments.

@Ray: That is an incredibly misleading statistic that doesn't take anything into account. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc:
http://xkcd.com/925/

The numbers, I think you will find to be real in the XKCD case (I haven't verified the case of yours). However lets pretend for a second that it is true.

It doesn't take into account that everything fell, the rich went from 99 down to 19. The lower taxes didn't cause the decline in wages because in your theory, wages would have continued to go up in the upper class, but they didn't. What did inflation have to do with the changing numbers? What did minimum wage laws have to do with it? What did the job creations Reagan caused making a larger middle and lower class have to do with it? There are so many underlying factors you can't say taxes caused the crash. What a crock of shit.

138% was the increase in wages, that is insanely high and if you can find an economist who can say that is sustainable I will give you a million dollars.
To give you an idea, back in 1950, Minimum wage was $3.50 (adjusted for inflation). That would be $7200 a year (round to the nearest 100 to make it easier)
So in 1950 one makes $7200, assuming the colossal growth you wanted which is approx 150% every 15 years. In 1965 it should be $10800.
1950: 7200
1965: 10800
1980: 16200
1995: 24300
2010: 36450

Assuming the growth was sustained, that 1 job that was min wage lowest quintile back in 1950 became middle class 3rd quintile by 2010. Is that sort of growth sustainable? Imagine minimum wage being $35,000 a year today. What company would have the money to pay all their employees 35,000? There would be no money left for the corporate jets. It didn't stop because taxes were raised, it stopped because the growth was just not sustainable and after massive growths there are always declines. The Great Depression followed to roaring 20s.


But if you want to know my answer here is the main reason for the 138% growth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:History_of_US_federal_minimum_wage_increases.svg

Minwage in 2009 US dollars was rising rapidly from 1950-1980. In fact it was rose at 228% (which could easily explain your 138), then because Reagan actually controlled inflation, it declined by 27% (which in turn explians your -15% during the same time period),

Thats all it was, minimum wage laws and inflation and I have the proof right here.

Fasces, LOL!!!!!!!!!!! that was great.

"I support free speech and like to hear pathetic arguments."

I don't oppose free speech at all.
The marxist idiots can post anything they want.
I don't have to clutter my life with it though.

Fasces ++

Ray, are you there or are you busily prowling "huppi.com" in a vain effort to find out how the world works.

Unbelievably pathetic that someone would admit publicly that "huppi.com" supplies their intellectual arguments.

even if it does, those numbers are useless due to adjustments in inflation and minwage laws.

I love when people assume economics = science. Nope. There's no such thing as a real controlled economic experiment. About the closest thing we have is what happened in Chile after Pinochet took over (and even that is far from controlled).

Without a controlled experiment, there are always *always* going to be other factors. Especially in macroeconomics.

My point? Economics is more ideology than anything testable or provable.

"On the contrary, it's because someone knows something about it that we can't talk about physics. It's the things that nobody knows about that we can discuss. We can talk about the weather; we can talk about social problems; we can talk about psychology; we can talk about international finance... so it's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!" - Richard P. Feynman

#3 The leading Marxist of the 20th century, Lenin, said that workers in capitalist societies had it so well that they could never shed their “false consciousness” (whatever that tidbit of bat shit crazy Marxism that is.)
Then Lenin went on to stress “equality” which resulted in the Soviet genocide on its own people that lasted over a half century.

I love how anyone who cares about income inequality is a MARXIST!!!!111!!!ONE!!!

You must be a blast at parties, Tettleton.

#4 The truth about any income inequality during periods of economic expansion is that Marxists are arguing that “everyone is getting richer in the expanding economy, but you got richer than me.”
That is the lunacy of Marxism.

anyway now where those statistics correct:
here is some of them:
Years Percent
1945 91%
1946-63 88
1964-81 70
1981-86 50
1988 28
1991 31

Those are the numbers, according to huppi of the tax the highest bracket pays. Now here are the real numbers:
1945: 91%
1946-1962: 91%
1963: 89%
1964-65: 76%
1966-80: 70%
1981-86: 50%
The numbers were off some of the time.

Also here is another interesting statistic, There was an increase in wages in lower and middle class during Reagan (but a sharp decrease under Bush Sr):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Evaluation

So not only did I prove you statistics to be incorrect, but even if they were correct, inflation and minimum wage would have caused them, not Reaganomics.

@TC: you forgpt #2

#5 Arguments about income inequality assume that individuals never increase or decrease their wealth.
They ignore economic mobility and upward progress.
Their fantasies make statements that “The bottom 20% only own 10% of the wealth.”
They never realize that in a 10-year period throughout American economic history that people from the bottom 20% climb to the next quintile.

Here is a link to income mobility from the Treasury Department for the last Clinton term and the first Bush term as evidence of how Americans continual climb the economic ladder.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

Thanks Fasces,

#2
The real fallacy of income inequality arguments from Marxists is that a person making $100,000 with medical insurance and a 401K plan in Des Moines, Iowa that owns a home, two paid off cars, televisions, computers, appliances, takes vacations, and enjoy entertainment sit around wondering what someone who has more money than them is doing. Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous got cancelled because people weren’t interested.

The only people who sit around wondering who has more than they do are bitter, envious, Marxists who covet what their minimal intellects are incapable of providing for themselves.

Normal, successful people don’t worry about anyone but themselves. It is called “self-interest” and it is one of the healthiest mental concepts human beings possess.

Sarge,
Economics goes on every day, and real world corporations have to employ economists who have to make real decisions that affect the course of a company.
Academic economists sit in their ivory towers on tenure publishing all sorts of drivel that can't stand the test of reality.

Just like the idiocy that Marx spewed, utterly worthless.