Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 56

Thread: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

  1. #1
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    Epic Fail. Look at the global response to "trickle down".

    I challenge anyone to point out one example of any economy, large or small, that grew and became successful as a result of cutting taxes. I'm talking long term sustainability, not a year where revenues went up for a minute, but LONG TERM.

    Supply side economics is like crack cocaine to markets. There is a rush at first, then the markets get violent, then the markets crash leaving nothing but destruction in their wake. Trickle down doesn't work in the long term.

    Straight up, once a person has reached a certain level of personal financial security, they continue to work harder not to put food on the table or designer clothes in their closets. They keep working for two reasons;

    1. The joy of the work.
    2. The excitement of competition (to be the best).

    Do you think Metallica will stop writing music and performing at concerts if they are taxed at a higher level?

    Do you think Donald Trump would stop developing real estate, writing books, and starring on TV shows if he is taxed at a higher rate?

    Do you think Exxon-Mobile will stop selling gasoline if they are taxed at a higher rate?

    Do you think that strippers stop stripping when house fees are increased?

    Just think about that last one for a second. Funny how when house fees are high, there are more strippers. The clubs are encouraging the strippers to keep working. The strippers see the club as being more valuable because those house fees are re-invested into nice decor, nice dressing rooms, good security and advertising to bring in more customers.

    When managed properly, the clubs with high house fees are totally worth it. A poorly managed club without any house fees is not worth the bother.


    Do dancers who pay no house fees work more hard or less hard than ones that have a large house fee to cover? Dancers who have no house fees to pay may come to work and sit around and get drunk. Because there is no obligation to actually put any effort forth. Eventually the dancers that do work hard will move to clubs that have high house fees to get the benefits of those house fees- namely spending customers.

    This is why supply side economics won't work. The club is the government in this scenario and the dancers are the businesses. In the short term, a zero house fee can be a boon to the strip club. But then the club ceases to invest into fixtures and advertising, the dancers get disgruntled with the lack of business, the good dancers all leave to the clubs that actually have customers and the remaining dancers are the low quality girls that can't get hired anywhere else.

    Think about it. All the best and most desirable clubs that girls want to work at all have very high house fees.

    All the nations that have the best infrastructure, health care, education for their citizens, and highest income levels all have high taxes.

    Coincidence? I think not!
    Last edited by Paris; 10-24-2008 at 08:28 PM.


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  2. #2
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    804
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 34 Times in 24 Posts

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    Very well thought out post. I don't have much to add, but will be watching to see what others have to say. May I quote you?
    Grinding is for coffee and meat.
    "I want to entertain people who wish to be entertained, not be an expensive but poor substitute for someone who can't find themselves a prostitute."-Asurfel
    Those Who Hear Not The Music Think The Dancers Mad.
    “Belgian Trappist Organically Farmed Multiple Orgasm Inducing. Bed Shaking, Neighbors Complaining, Heirloom Radishes”

  3. #3
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by lildreamer316 View Post
    Very well thought out post. I don't have much to add, but will be watching to see what others have to say. May I quote you?
    Quote away! I'm flattered.

    I'm just waiting for the argument about high taxes and bad government = failure. That is true. But we as a nation have proven that we know how to be smart. We have just been greedy lately.


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  4. #4
    Featured Member dangerousdiva's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Saint to Sin
    Posts
    1,268
    Thanks
    31
    Thanked 63 Times in 36 Posts

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    You're right the rich will keep on producing. It's the poor that will have no incentive to produce if they are taken care of by the government.

    I just don't understand why people can't fathom taking care of themselves. Why do we need big brother to do it for them? Is mankind that helpless? Whatever happened to natural consequences?

    Maybe you won't have the same financial inequality but it still will be unequal. Those who contribute and those who don't.

    Sorry, but if you are industrious you deserve the fruits of YOUR labor. Welfare should be there to help people out of a tough spot, not a lifestyle or entitlement.

    Relating it to stripping. Why don't dancers want an hourly wage? Because the effort we put forth in our appearance, skills and drive vary and we don't want to share our earnings with the drunk idiot dancer that camps out for free all night.

    As for dancers flocking to clubs that have the highest house fees, I disagree. Why does dancing in California suck so bad? Because the clubs take half your money. I worked in California half of my career but chose to move and work in a run down barn in Nebraska. Why? Because they only charged me $40 a night to work and I KEPT the rest of my earnings.

    From there I moved to work in Las Vegas to earn MORE. Why do I like Vegas? I pay $80 a night to work and KEEP the rest of my earnings. Why would i work to make $600 and tip out $10 out of every $30 dance, taking home $400. When I could pay $80 and take home $520?

    Keeping the fruits of my labor sure motivated me. Working for Deja Vu did not.

    Yeah, those high house fees in California sure make it a great place to dance because the clubs are sooo nice and advertise via 2-4-1 tee-shirt dances and madatory cattle calls.

    Funny, why do all those SoCal dancers flock to Vegas on the weekends for the cheaper house fees and higher earning potential?
    Last edited by dangerousdiva; 10-25-2008 at 06:46 AM.


  5. The Following User Says Thank You to dangerousdiva For This Useful Post:


  6. #5
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    Do you think Metallica will stop writing music and performing at concerts if they are taxed at a higher level?

    Do you think Donald Trump would stop developing real estate, writing books, and starring on TV shows if he is taxed at a higher rate?

    Do you think Exxon-Mobile will stop selling gasoline if they are taxed at a higher rate?
    Obviously the answer is no. But what you didn't mention is that the business tax increases associated with all of these ventures will NOT be paid by those operating the businesses, but instead passed on to customers who are buying 'product' from these businesses. Thus a new Metallica CD will cost $1 more, a night at the Trump Tower will cost $10 more, and a gallon of gasoline will cost $.25 more than it otherwise would have.

    Just as obviously, politicians who enact tax increases on businesses do so knowing that very few people will 'connect the dots' in regard to the resulting increase in retail prices. More importantly, politicians who enact tax increases on businesses do so knowing that mainstream media will never take the time to point out that the end result of increased business taxes must be paid by consumers on an equal dollar basis rather than a progressive basis. In other words a guy earning $20k per year and a fat cat earning $2 million per year both must pay the SAME increased prices for the new Metallica CD or to fill up their gas tank. Those politicians are confident that as long as a tax increase doesn't directly show up in average Americans' weekly paychecks, that those average Americans will never associate the results of an increase in other federal taxes (i.e. higher gasoline prices being the result of higher US business taxes on oil companies)


    Do you think Exxon-Mobile will stop selling gasoline if they are taxed at a higher rate?

    Do you think that strippers stop stripping when house fees are increased?
    no, but it is extremely likely that both will take action to maximize their 'net' earnings. In the case of strippers, this may indeed mean moving to a different club, or even moving to a different city. In the case of major oil companies, this may mean moving certain parts of their businesses outside US tax jurisdiction ... i.e. corporate HQ's being transplanted ( the infamous 'Benedict Arnold' corporations ). The latter is more serious to the US gov't, since it not only means that they don't get to collect more tax revenue from the higher tax rate, but that they actually wind up being net LOSERS since some portion of corporate profits / executive pay etc. will now escape US taxation altogether (which is equivalent to the outsourcing of super high paid executive jobs) !

    I would also point out that while many 'service' industries from exotic dancing to medical care are geographically tied to one particular area, most 'goods' industries and certain 'service' industries are not similarly tied. Thus while American dancers may face limited options in regard to their ability to relocate, manufacturers, phone call centers, x-ray interpreters, legal contract evaluators, corporate accountants, R&D labs, even corporate management etc. don't necessarily face similar geographic limitations. Given sufficient 'net cost differential', all of the 'goods' industries and many of the 'service' industries are completely capable of outsourcing ... thus causing the US to lose not only some portion of corporate profits but also payroll and income tax revenues from the now outsourced high paying jobs.


    I just don't understand why people can't fathom taking care of themselves. Why do we need big brother to do it for them? Is mankind that helpless? Whatever happened to natural consequences?
    Those natural consequences more or less fell by the wayside when LBJ's 'great society' social welfare programs were enacted. As such, an ever growing amount of taxpayer money has been redistributed via an ever expanding cornucopia of social welfare benefit programs which provide subsidized rent, subsidized utilities, free food, free medical care, even subsidized mortgage loans. Because taxpayer money has eliminated a good measure of the natural consequences which would otherwise result from having no skills, working sporadically or not at all, buying a house with no hope of ever being able to pay for it etc., America is now well into a third generation of residents who look to the government rather than to themselves as the responsible party for maintaining their well being / standard of living.

    Worse, by structuring social welfare benefits in their present form, the government's original good intentions have resulted in a mountain of unintended consequences. It provides an incentive for children to be raised by single mothers (since having a father around would squash benefit eligibility). It provides an incentive for benefit recipients to deliberately limit their incomes / working hours ( because earning one dollar more than the benefit eligibility threshold would 'cost' them thousands of dollars to pay for their own full priced rent, full priced utilities, medical care, groceries etc.). And where minority / low income housing is concerned, the gov't bailout plan will wind up providing the greatest financial rewards to those who took out the most irresponsible mortgages !

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 10-25-2008 at 06:49 AM.

  7. #6
    Featured Member flickad's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,860
    Thanks
    268
    Thanked 103 Times in 67 Posts
    My Mood
    Pensive

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by dangerousdiva View Post
    You're right the rich will keep on producing. It's the poor that will have no incentive to produce if they are taken care of by the government.
    Not true. We have both a low rate of unemployment and extensive social welfare schemes (ie money handouts to the unemployed which are much easier to access and retain than in the US).

  8. #7
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    ^^^ it is well known that a 'trick' has been employed to create a false impression in regard to US unemployment statistics. US unemployment statistics simply drop from those counted as unemployed anybody who stops seeking work. Depending on the particular state, anywhere from 7% to 12% of the state's population is currently collecting social welfare benefits. I have no way of knowing whether or not Australian official statistics employ the same sort of 'trick'.

  9. #8
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    To the naysayers, can you think of just one example where supply side economics has been successful over the long term?

    You won't find it, because it ALWAYS FAILS.


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  10. #9
    Featured Member flickad's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,860
    Thanks
    268
    Thanked 103 Times in 67 Posts
    My Mood
    Pensive

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ it is well known that a 'trick' has been employed to create a false impression in regard to US unemployment statistics. US unemployment statistics simply drop from those counted as unemployed anybody who stops seeking work. Depending on the particular state, anywhere from 7% to 12% of the state's population is currently collecting social welfare benefits. I have no way of knowing whether or not Australian official statistics employ the same sort of 'trick'.
    I know that part-time work is counted as employment here, so I guess in a way statistics are somewhat misleading.

    Still, even if 12% is the real statistic, that means 88% of people choose to work rather than collect benefits, despite the existence of a safety net.

  11. #10
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ it is well known that a 'trick' has been employed to create a false impression in regard to US unemployment statistics. US unemployment statistics simply drop from those counted as unemployed anybody who stops seeking work. Depending on the particular state, anywhere from 7% to 12% of the state's population is currently collecting social welfare benefits. I have no way of knowing whether or not Australian official statistics employ the same sort of 'trick'.
    I'd like to know how many of that 7-12% are disabled or elderly. What job do you propose for a person that is mentally ill, has served a prison term for a violent crime and has no skills above basic labor. Likely that person can't even get hired at a fast food restaurant with that kind of background.


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  12. #11
    God/dess hockeybobby's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,969
    Thanks
    1,811
    Thanked 597 Times in 382 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    I've noticed that generally speaking, the best countries to live in have the highest tax rates as well. They toss more money into the kitty to bring up the level of their basic infrastructure...education, healtcare, housing, transportation, daycare etc. It's just a larger shared committment. It is a reasonable way to conduct the business of building communities.

    There have always been lots of low/minimal tax countries. Wealthy people have always been free to flee to them if they so desire. But why would anyone rationally choose to live anywhere other than the very best country to live in? Likewise, why would someone rationally choose to live on social assistance, in abject poverty? That's insanity...and why demonize insane people? They'll do better for themselves when, or if they can.

  13. #12
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Your imagination
    Posts
    2,875
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 174 Times in 119 Posts

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    those countries are usually both resource-rich and (relatively) homogeneous.

    australia has fewer people than an american state but similar resources to america as a country. canada is much the same. if you earn the same 30$ from your resources as america does, but don't have to spend on the same size population, things go a lot easier for you. a more honest comparison would be to compare america's 50 states as if they were countries, and divide up their social-welfare spending by their populations.

    then comparing those 50 states to places of similar size like canada, sweden, australia, etc would be a scaled comparison. but comparing 300+ million to 20-30 million is just ridiculous and absurdly misleading. fewer old, disabled, chronically ill people in the smaller countries, for starters.

  14. #13
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    There have always been lots of low/minimal tax countries. Wealthy people have always been free to flee to them if they so desire. But why would anyone rationally choose to live anywhere other than the very best country to live in?
    Well, this point speaks directly to the hypocracy that actually exists between official tax rates and real world tax payments for the 'rich' in countries with 'socialist' tax policies. As recent government challenges to Lichtenstein banking secrecy laws have spotlighted, many of the 'very rich' residing in EU countries are in fact 'avoiding' a significant portion of their official income tax liabilities. This will arguably also be the case if the US adopts 'socialist' tax policies. As you (unintentionally) point out, in this way the 'very rich' get to enjoy the best of both worlds ... living in a comfortable but high tax rate country without actually having to pay those high official tax rates !!!

    The end result of course is / will be that gov't tax revenues from the 'very rich' wind up falling far short of gov't projections, meaning that the gov't must then increase official tax rates on 'less rich' residents in order to cover the shortfall ... with 'less rich' residents being poorly equipped to avoid payment of those official tax rates. Thus the reality of the situation in EU countries, and the likely future in the US as well, is that 'middle class' residents wind up bearing a very heavy tax burden - proportionally speaking. This in turn provides motivation for many bright and promising young people to exit the jurisdiction, or to expend their efforts along avenues involving tax minimization rather than avenues involving fully taxable innovations / productivity increase ! So far this has manifested itself in the form of some number of young EU residents exiting the EU, and has manifested itself in the US in the form of young people from quasi-socialist 'blue' states emigrating to 'red' states.
    Last edited by Melonie; 10-25-2008 at 03:19 PM.

  15. #14
    Featured Member Hello_Kitty27's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,818
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paris View Post
    I'd like to know how many of that 7-12% are disabled or elderly. What job do you propose for a person that is mentally ill, has served a prison term for a violent crime and has no skills above basic labor. Likely that person can't even get hired at a fast food restaurant with that kind of background.

    But I thought the unemployment numbers are based on #'s of people who have filed for unemployments benefits and those who are currently receiving them. You can only get unemployment for what ....6 months? 9? I dont' recall. what happens to those people when they can no longer collect and are still unemployed. Do they get counted in the monthly unemployment figures?

    If that's where we're getting #'s, the elderly and mentally disabled wouldn't be counted in that figure....would they?

    Someone enlighten me.






    (just click to donate FREE food to those in need...REALLY!)

  16. #15
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    what happens to those people when they can no longer collect and are still unemployed. Do they get counted in the monthly unemployment figures?
    In terms of US unemployment statistics, once the unemployment benefits expire they are dropped from the statistical total.


    I'd like to know how many of that 7-12% are disabled or elderly
    In the US, the answer is essentially none. The reason of course is that benefit payments to the elderly and the disabled fall under the federal Social Security system not the state social welfare programs to which the 7-12% statistic applies. Granted that there is some overlap i.e. state medicaid benefits for disabled persons under age 62, state utility bill subsidies for low income retirees etc. But in general, the vast majority of the state funds being expended to provide social welfare benefits to 7-12% of state residents are being paid to 'able bodied' persons below official retirement age.

    To the best of my knowledge, the US state with the highest percentage of population collecting social welfare benefits is Michigan ... the 12% figure. This is the direct result of wholesale cutbacks in the automotive industry causing widespread local unemployment among both the auto manufacturers and among other businesses for who the auto manufacturers were major customers. It is guesstimated that the unofficial but accurate rate of overall unemployment in the state of Michigan now exceeds 20% of the state's population ... which includes both a 9% official unemployment rate (i.e. 9% of Michigan's residents collecting unemployment benefits funded by federal and state gov't), plus nearly all of the 12% social welfare rate (i.e. remaining Michigan residents whose unemployment benefits have now expired / whose personal savings have now been exhausted).

    In a previous era before states made available social welfare benefit payments that allowed unemployed residents to maintain an 'acceptable' standard of living without a regular paycheck, free market forces would have motivated unemployed Michigan residents to relocate to other states in search of work. A classic example would be the westward migration of many unemployed Americans during the 1930's in search of work on large gov't projects. But with today's social welfare benefit situation, it is indeed possible for Michigan residents to remain right where they are .. to remain unemployed ... and to constitute an increasing 'drag' on what remains of Michigan's free market economy.

    In other words, the economic burden of providing those unemployment and social welfare benefits to some 20% of residents forces the enactment of state and local tax increases, which in turn puts more pressure on remaining Michigan businesses to lay off workers, to outsource, or to relocate to a different state ! In the final analysis, the end result of such a vicious cycle would be that every Michigan business will go bankrupt or relocate, that the state of Michigan will go bankrupt, that Michigan social welfare benefits and unemployment benefits can no longer be paid out, and that unemployed Michigan residents will eventually be forced to relocate in any case.

    This of course will not be allowed to happen because the federal gov't will bail Michigan out - an action that will constitute a de-facto shift in economic burden to residents and businesses in other states. In fact, Congressman Barney Frank is already proposing such a bailout. This of course leads to the question as to WHY Washington would embark on such a bailout plan to allow huge numbers of unemployed to remain as 'gov't dependent' Michigan residents as opposed to relocating to other states to find work. The 'tin foil hat' crowd would answer by pointing out that 'gov't dependent' Michigan residents remain a potent democratic voting block, whereas former Michigan residents relocating to other states where jobs are available (i.e. Carolinas, Texas to name just a couple of options) would have their democratic votes overwhelmed by republicans already residing in those states !!! Furthermore, the relocation of unemployed Michigan residents to other states where jobs are available would reduce the number of democratic electoral votes assigned to the state of Michigan, and increase the number of republican electoral votes assigned to the state of North Carolina, for example. Thus in terms of political power, it is in the interest of a democratic US congress and president to keep as many 'gov't dependent' unemployed residents living in states like Michigan as possible.
    Last edited by Melonie; 10-25-2008 at 04:04 PM.

  17. #16
    God/dess hockeybobby's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,969
    Thanks
    1,811
    Thanked 597 Times in 382 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by miabella View Post
    those countries are usually both resource-rich and (relatively) homogeneous.

    australia has fewer people than an american state but similar resources to america as a country. canada is much the same. if you earn the same 30$ from your resources as america does, but don't have to spend on the same size population, things go a lot easier for you. a more honest comparison would be to compare america's 50 states as if they were countries, and divide up their social-welfare spending by their populations.

    then comparing those 50 states to places of similar size like canada, sweden, australia, etc would be a scaled comparison. but comparing 300+ million to 20-30 million is just ridiculous and absurdly misleading. fewer old, disabled, chronically ill people in the smaller countries, for starters.
    I see the point you are making, like, with our wealth of resources and low population density, Canada and Australia should be great places to live...

    But population density, and abundance of resources don't tell the whole story. Here's a list of all the countries by population density:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lation_density

    By that reasoning Russia should be a kick-ass place to live. But really, the U.S. has a ton of dough ( in top ten richest countries), and gathering up less of it to share the burden just seems to be a loss of potential. With not too much tweaking, the U.S. could easily be the best country in the world to live.

  18. #17
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    By that reasoning Russia should be a kick-ass place to live. But really, the U.S. has a ton of dough ( in top ten richest countries), and gathering up less of it to share the burden just seems to be a loss of potential. With not too much tweaking, the U.S. could easily be the best country in the world to live.
    The underlying point of this comment involves how that dough is distributed ! For example, the USA is arguably the very best place in the world for 'poor' unskilled people to live ... which is the reason that so many unskilled 'poor' people keep trying to sneak across the US border. And until the last few years at least, America had also been one of the best places in the world for 'middle class' skilled people to live and work. Obviously, Russia has had it's swings in policy in regard to distributing it's own dough ... generally concentrating upon the 'rich and powerful' elite.

  19. #18
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    Melonie, you didn't address my scenario of the uneducated ex-con. We hired a nice young guy a few years back that couldn't get a job anywhere because he had done 4 years in prison because of an assault charge involving a drug dealer. He was married to a stripper and when she became pregnant he became desperate to start earning money legally (he was still dealing pot).

    No one would hire him. He tried car washes, and fast food restaurants, bars and night clubs and warehouse work but never got a single interview due to his past. We hired him, trained him and he was a wonderful worker. He was on time and frequently beat us to the job site in the mornings. He learned quickly and didn't complain about the weather or how "hard" the work was. He worked for us all summer and got hired at a lumber yard driving a forklift because we were able to write him a letter of recommendation. He is still working for that lumber yard today.

    If we didn't take a chance on that ex-con, he would have been back in prison eventually. He was able bodied and willing to work, but couldn't find a job due to mistakes in his past. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people on the welfare rolls have similar stories, but were unable to find people like us who are willing to take a chance on someone with a checkered past.

    Maybe adding a provision into Affirmative Action to include that an employer must be required to hire a certain number of ex-cons would help this situation?

    How about legalizing drugs and prostitution as a job creation program?

    Okay, I'm being silly now. But seriously, just because a person makes mistakes in his/her youth, you'd have them spend their entire lives in abject poverty and forced to committing crimes just to survive?

    Welfare payments seem to be a less expensive alternative at the moment.


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  20. #19
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 117 Times in 78 Posts

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by hockeybobby View Post

    But population density, and abundance of resources don't tell the whole story. Here's a list of all the countries by population density:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lation_density

    By that reasoning Russia should be a kick-ass place to live.
    If it wasn't for years of skewed economic policy and a late industrial revoloution, it would be. When oil is high they have a ton of cash to throw around.

  21. #20
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    Maybe adding a provision into Affirmative Action to include that an employer must be required to hire a certain number of ex-cons would help this situation?

    How about legalizing drugs and prostitution as a job creation program?

    Okay, I'm being silly now. But seriously, just because a person makes mistakes in his/her youth, you'd have them spend their entire lives in abject poverty and forced to committing crimes just to survive?

    Welfare payments seem to be a less expensive alternative at the moment.
    I would only point out that other 'socialist' governments have traditionally had a very effective cure for this sort of 'structural' unemployment / unemployable worker problem. In peacetime it was called 'gulags', 'labor camps' etc. In wartime, it was called 'front line casualties'.

    As to the legalization of drugs and prostitution, such developments are definitely in line with more liberal leadership. After all, both arguably involve freedom of choice issues, and both definitely involve the collection of huge amounts of new potential tax revenues - as well as the possibility of adding significantly to gov't worker rolls via new agencies needed to 'regulate' legalized prostitution and recreational drug commerce. In fact, the city of San Francisco has just such a measure ready for the next election



    Of course it remains to be seen what impact such a change would have on the exotic dancing industry in San Francisco. Based on personal knowledge of some SF clubs, my guess would be 'not much' !!!


    As to your 'ex-con' situation, all I can say is this. The likelihood of an unskilled worker with ANY sort of unfavorable history remaining unemployed is directly proportional to the amount of available unskilled jobs ... period. Thus every gov't action which reduces the number of available US unskilled jobs ... i.e. increasing the US minimum wage, increasing mandated employer costs for workmen's comp, unemployment insurance, increasing income taxes on small business owners etc. ... directly results in those unskilled Americans wtih unfavorable histories being the very first applicants to be rejected. This is particularly the case where ex-cons are concerned given that (liberal) product / business liability laws now result in businesses bearing tremendous financial risk should an ex-con employee commit some indiscretion involving a business customer. You simply can't have it both ways !
    Last edited by Melonie; 10-25-2008 at 05:04 PM.

  22. #21
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    LOL! Slave labor camps are an excellent alternative to welfare. Gosh, why haven't we done that sooner?


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  23. #22
    Featured Member dangerousdiva's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Saint to Sin
    Posts
    1,268
    Thanks
    31
    Thanked 63 Times in 36 Posts

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paris View Post
    Melonie, you didn't address my scenario of the uneducated ex-con. We hired a nice young guy a few years back that couldn't get a job anywhere because he had done 4 years in prison because of an assault charge involving a drug dealer. He was married to a stripper and when she became pregnant he became desperate to start earning money legally (he was still dealing pot).

    No one would hire him. He tried car washes, and fast food restaurants, bars and night clubs and warehouse work but never got a single interview due to his past. We hired him, trained him and he was a wonderful worker. He was on time and frequently beat us to the job site in the mornings. He learned quickly and didn't complain about the weather or how "hard" the work was. He worked for us all summer and got hired at a lumber yard driving a forklift because we were able to write him a letter of recommendation. He is still working for that lumber yard today.

    If we didn't take a chance on that ex-con, he would have been back in prison eventually. He was able bodied and willing to work, but couldn't find a job due to mistakes in his past. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people on the welfare rolls have similar stories, but were unable to find people like us who are willing to take a chance on someone with a checkered past.

    Maybe adding a provision into Affirmative Action to include that an employer must be required to hire a certain number of ex-cons would help this situation?

    How about legalizing drugs and prostitution as a job creation program?

    Okay, I'm being silly now. But seriously, just because a person makes mistakes in his/her youth, you'd have them spend their entire lives in abject poverty and forced to committing crimes just to survive?

    Welfare payments seem to be a less expensive alternative at the moment.
    I agree there is an unfortunate stigma for ex-cons to overcome.

    However, in prison inmates have the opportunity to take community college classes. They're also classified with a "program" that is streamlined to their crime and their estimated release date. They have to have complete their program to even become eligible for parole. As the parole date nears they usually are released to a work release program ( depending on their crime, violent criminals are not eligible) so they can start assimilating and develop skills.

    Most parole offices (this varies by state) recruit employers and compiles a list of employers that hire ex-offenders and this given to parolees.

    At least in California the sentencing guidelines have changed for felons. Usually if you are a first time felon your conviction is a "wobbler" and after doing time (if you were sentenced) you're placed on felony probation. Meaning that if you don't re offend during probation (~5 years), at the end of probation your conviction becomes a misdemeanor.

    Two federal programs provide incentives to businesses to hire ex-offenders. Income tax credits: The Work Opportunity Tax Credit reduces employer federal tax liability by as much as $2,400 per new hire for the first year of employment.

    There are also bonding programs. Free bonding of ex-offenders up to $5,000, which acts as a guarantee for employers concerned about hiring someone with a criminal background. It’s good for six months from the date of hire and insures the employer for theft, forgery, larceny and embezzlement.

    I think programs such as these are a greater benefit to society rather than just cutting them a welfare check each month.


  24. #23
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    ^^^ actually, many 'red' states do implement a scaled down system i.e. prison industries.

    And in terms of the 'larger picture' of a growing problem of structurally unemployable Americans during the next few years, it is possible that the US government is already making preparations ...

  25. #24
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Obviously the answer is no. But what you didn't mention is that the business tax increases associated with all of these ventures will NOT be paid by those operating the businesses, but instead passed on to customers who are buying 'product' from these businesses. Thus a new Metallica CD will cost $1 more, a night at the Trump Tower will cost $10 more, and a gallon of gasoline will cost $.25 more than it otherwise would have.
    ~
    That's not true. Prices are determined by supply and demand. Businesses are always going to sell their products for the highest price they can get people to buy them for, regardless of the tax rates. If record companies can increase the price of a CD by a dollar and still get lots of people to buy them, then they'll increase the price. If they can't get people to buy them at the increased price they won't.

    In addition, income taxes are based on profits, not sales. Increasing income taxes doesn't increase the costs of the product.

  26. #25
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Supply side economics has failed 100% of the time.

    Increasing income taxes doesn't increase the costs of the product
    technically correct ... since an increase in corporate tax rates or individual income taxes upon small business owners could also translate into a loss of net profitability. This is indeed a possibility, and particularly so if foreign competitors aren't similarly burdened by taxes. If this alternative materializes (as opposed to price increases to offset the effect of increased taxes) the likely result will be more closures of US businesses, more US job losses etc. as the former business owners decide to invest the proceeds of their business liquidations into tax free bonds, into tax (credit) favored industries etc. But in the case of oil companies at least, there is zero chance of this option happening.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-31-2006, 12:57 PM
  2. weekend commentary - supply and demand
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-01-2006, 05:43 PM
  3. stripper supply stores in nyc
    By cataclysm in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-25-2005, 12:41 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •