The Marjorie Greene Thread

Curious as to where you learned your “most rudimentary understanding of economics.”

Businesses have to factor in both demand and costs. How much he produces depends on where the supply and demand curve intersect. If taxes are lower that’s going to cut his costs and move his supply curve and it will intersect with the demand curve at a different place.

Demand isn’t the only thing he looks at.
https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/ap-macroeconomics/basic-economics-concepts-macro/market-equilibrium-disequilibrium-and-changes-in-equilibrium/v/changes-in-equilibrium-price-and-quantity-when-supply-and-demand-change-khan-academy

I assume @Poundsand can do calculus, he should get an intermediate micro book.

Lowering taxes to businesses does not motivate them to hire, or increase production.

It’s just common sense to do neither until the demand shows up. And it doesn’t until people spend.

If I have a business and you give me a tax cut, I’m exposing myself to risk by investing in growth without knowing the future.

Maybe a stupid business would do this, not most of them though.

2 Likes

Please look at those supply and demand graphs provided by the Khan Academy.

Supply moves independently of demand, and one of the factors affecting supply is costs.

You’re exposing yourself to risk by starting a business. Even without a tax cut.

This is moot. Even if costs are lowered for businesses, they’re not jumping in the water until consumers and their disposable income start spending.

I mean, you could have some combo of demand increasing and supply costs decreasing, but only the former drives the economy to grow.

Bottom line is, when you give tax cuts to people, or raise their wages, then that money in pocket gets spent. It is a tangible, real way to stimulate an economy, versus supply side, which is like some weird fantasy based on faith.

Sorry back to Space Lasers.

It seems to me a lot of posters are missing the point here

1 Like

Doesn’t matter. You will still get different amounts of supply for the same demand if costs shift, and they shift when taxes are cut.

Exactly. Companies pay more to keep good employees. Hiring and hiring and hiring short term workers is not cost effective. Tamny touches on this as well.

This is quite correct. Most new businesses fail. More will fail with a mandatory $15 minimum wage. But that doesn’t seem to be connected with Ms. Greene. :whistle:

This has nothing to do with what I said though.

If I have a lemonade stand, and 5 people buy lemonade today, and daddy gives me more more money, should I make lemonade for 20 tomorrow?

Supply side lacks common sense, but I respect your right to be wrong. :wink:

2 Likes

You should invest in franchising your lemonade stand out so that hiring people and paying them a living wage is someone else’s problem.

Also, you’ve earned a bonus

Great generalizable analogy, since opening a lemonade stand entails all the costs usually associated with running a business.

And anyways, we’re sticking our heads in the sand on regulations. Here’s something short from Forbes, which is not a great source IMHO

It encapsulates the basics of business pretty well actually.

Ain’t nobody coming around to buy 20 lemonades, even if it’s good lemonade, if they don’t have the cash for it.

I think people who argue for supply side, tend to read until they find something that confirms their view. But I don’t think it’s that complicated, it comes down to what motivates people, both to spend, and to hire/produce.

1 Like

Ignoring either side is sticking your head up your butt.

I don’t think there are 2 sides to common sense, no offense.

Laws of supply and demand don’t care what you think.

Speaking of which, I don’t believe she ran on a tax or jobs platform…

1 Like

Good for the economy, or good for themselves? Not the same.

That’s not why I thought it would crash. I thought it would crash because he cut taxes and increased spending, which is pretty common sense.

Or because certain forms of bunk economics benefit them personally

If his taxes are lower, he’s gonna pay his workers the same thing anyway and pocket the money. Or as @mups said,

JDsmith: Exactly. Companies pay more to keep good employees.

Not always they don’t. They cut costs by outsourcing their labor to the Phillipines to avoid minimum wage. How many layoffs did airlines just make, despite rolling in Cash.

But our economy has long since gone off the rails where only that matters. (See: subsidies for industries already rolling in cash)

2 Likes

You should pick up a basic economics textbook. If you’ve had economics, you probably took it from some Marxist school and not from a mainstream department.

If you take it out the abstract though, and look how people act rationally.

Say I have a one-classroom private school. I have capacity for 10 students.

I’m given a tax break, I can afford a new teacher. But there’s no waiting list.

Do I
a) hire a new teacher
b) wait for new students

That isn’t to say if you put money in a businesses’ pocket, they won’t utilize it to seek out some growth. Perhaps I would try some low-risk advertising.

But that’s not where things get done in terms of turning the economy up. Consumer confidence is the vast majority of it.

I’ve read lots of them.

I studied economics in a mainstream department. The whole Marxist thing is so boring and played out. Engage with ideas not labels please.

Stock market does not equal economy. That is basic. 2016-2020 proves this. Stock market booming, economy in the shitter. Do you agree?

2 Likes