Monday, February 8, 2016

Supply-side economics

The GOP are addicted to supply-side economics.
Field of Dreams
"If you build it, he will come."
Yeah, right.

Problem is, folks have to have $$$ to "come".

Giving producers $$$ to create jobs doesn't work if there's no demand for the stuff the workers make.

DEMAND creates wealth.
Folks like me, going out and buying stuff.

If I go out and buy something, that "something" had to have been made by someone.

If someone makes that "something" and I don't go out and buy it?
Oh, well... it just sits there.

I've said this before: the median household income is about $50K/year.
It hasn't changed in 20 years or more.
THIS is "middle class"!

The folks that make $50K/year?
WE - SPEND $$$!!!

The folks that make $10,000,000/year?
They "invest" it... which means it's sequestered! - it is no longer in the economy.
They do NOT create jobs.

We - the "middle class" ... the folks making $50K/year?
- WE spend our money in the economy.
WE create jobs!...


  1. The Republican Party, though it has changed so very much, still apparently endorses Gilded Age economics for a postindustrial age. That barely worked in the 1880s, when we were much more export driven (i.e., you don't need to worry about impoverished American workers if there are people in other countries to buy your products).

    During WW2, after the Great Depression, everyone realized that a vibrant domestic market would be a much safer economic bulwark - and that required a "middle class" with real spending power.

    Republicans during the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations certainly understood this as well as Democrats. Why have they forgotten and reverted back to the failed approach of the 1880s?

  2. Not quite sure what "still... endorses Gilded Age economics" means. Teddy Roosevelt - a Republican - did his very best to break the Trusts. (I've got a "Pinafore" cartoon with Teddy & the Trusts... Teddy is on the losing side in the debate.) ... we might be speaking at cross purposes - you reference 1880s & I 1900s. I do note that max marginal tax rate under Eisenhower was above 90%. Ouch! ... and 'why' indeed?