quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

And NONE of that counters what I've told you nor supports what you have claimed.

Read it. NONE of it supports your arguments.

Except for the fact that what I highlight shows that Friedman himself was a proponent of inflation despite his one sentence in a span of decades of his life. He is best known for Keynes vs Friedman as any student of economics is very well aware. Except for the fact? It's not an issue in dispute. And I myself told you he's not a fan of Keynes. But that doesn't make him a supply sider -- and I've already cited him attacking it. THAT MAKES ZERO SENSE AND I CAN WHIP OUT ARTICLES FROM FORBES ABOUT KEYNES VS FRIEDMAN OR COUNTLESS ARTICLES IF YOU LIKE.
Your quote:

quote:

"Inflation is always a monetary phenomenon" is the central tenet of Friedman's work. You can disagree with him if you like, but it's still his position. And it's why his economic philosophy is called Monetarism.

REALITY:

quote:

During the 1960s, he promoted an alternative macroeconomic policy known as "monetarism". He theorized there existed a "natural" rate of unemployment and argued that governments could increase employment above this rate, e.g., by increasing aggregate demand, only at the risk of causing inflation to accelerate.

Reality -- yup. He did that. And that quote is not some isolated instance--it's the most famous thing he said. And your own link earlier includes it. A QUOTE AGAIN, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT YOU WERE INCORRECT IN YOUR DEFINITION AND UH, YEA...YOU'RE KIND OF CREEPING ME OUT NOW.

Your assertion is as unrealistic as saying Einstein claimed conventional education methods limited the thought process and creativity of an individual, which is one single sentence that is in no way applicable to his entire life and the fact he was a PROFESSOR AT PRINCETON. Also I highlighted what Friedman's economic theory was which is not remotely in the realm of what you asserted so case in point but it was your call to pointlessly argue semantics with someone who knows this stuff fairly well. But it's not my job to translate plain English to you if you choose to remain in utter denial.
It's not my assertion -- it's the core of Friedman's work. If you think he's unrealistic, take it up with him. It's not "semantics," but simply reality. You're certainly not "someone who knows this stuff fairly well" -- you're clueless. And your "translations" aren't even on the same topic. Talk about denial! Geez.<<<<LOL, WTF, READ WHAT FRIEDMAN'S WORK WAS BASED ON AND YOUR FAILED DEFINITION OF MONETARISM. YOU WERE DEBUNKED, GET A CLUE.

quote:

In other words trying to understand this problem is like trying to wrap your head around global warming.

Global warming isn't that hard to understand, increased CO2 in the atmosphere (at its highest rate in 655,000 years, 97% of climatologists agree it is man made so not even worth debating) increases the production of methane at our hydrothermal vents and tectonic plate activity (which also has an effect on the earth's magnetic field but that's another story).
The methane gas released then traps heat in the atmosphere which creates a "greenhouse effect", this heat moves upward to the poles causing a melting of the polar ice caps...causing cold fronts to move southward. The mix of extreme heat (trapped in atmosphere which normally would be released beyond the ionosphere) combined with the cold fronts from the polar ice caps explains the increase in extreme weather.

None of this global warming stuff is mine. I can't imagine why you're quoting it as such.

They certainly don't make goddesses like they used to. Must be common core.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

But you're still not addressing any of the issues. I taught college economics for a decade, started my career on Wall St., went on to run my own management consulting firm. And trust me, just because someone is enrolled in a major doesn't mean they've mastered it, that they know the subject well (people do get Cs and Ds, you know), or that you understand the conversations with them.

...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

But you're still not addressing any of the issues. I taught college economics for a decade, started my career on Wall St., went on to run my own management consulting firm. And trust me, just because someone is enrolled in a major doesn't mean they've mastered it, that they know the subject well (people do get Cs and Ds, you know), or that you understand the conversations with them.

I've cited my points well -- I didn't ask you to trust my opinion. You responded with posts unrelated to the topic at hand, and demonstrated an ignorance of even microeconomic and monetarism basics.

Huff and puff and stamp and pout, but you're simply wrong here, and I explained why. I even responded nicely at first, noting a single error--but you couldn't acknowledge even a single fault, and immediately went on your endless tantrum.

Wake up princess.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

What the hell are you talking about now? Exactly when did the conversation turn to communism?

Check with your doctor -- your meds needs adjusting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

What the hell are you talking about now? Exactly when did the conversation turn to communism?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
Why are so few people wealthy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

What the hell are you talking about now? Exactly when did the conversation turn to communism?

Check with your doctor -- your meds needs adjusting.

OK, so you can't answer, what a shock. This was not at all completely predictable. Move along now, you have been twice debunked. *eye roll and yawn*
Oh, and PS Mr Professor of Economics, communism ties into the OP, it's the ONLY WAY there would be a massive wealth allocation. That tip was for free, you're welcome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DamnedIfYouDont

I sense an agenda here, coming from an Econ professor. First, a minor quibble, I would place the modern supply side era at Kennedy's feet. He clearly understood (and spoke about) the drag of taxes on the economy. His tax cuts were a larger percentage of GDP than Reagan's. But to say "trickle down doesnt work" is wrong on two counts. "Trickle down" doesnt exist, except in the demand siders attempts to disparage supply side. Its name is the direct opposite of supply side theory. Second, the claim that supply side has been proven not to work is widely debated, and hardly an accepted conclusion. The fact is the economy has grown after every modern era tax cut.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
...people think in terms of dollars per hour via labor employment and not in terms of income streams and marketable skills. When I was a teen, when you couldn't get jobs, you mowed lawns, painted houses, and so forth. You essentially started a small business.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DamnedIfYouDont

I sense an agenda here, coming from an Econ professor. First, a minor quibble, I would place the modern supply side era at Kennedy's feet. He clearly understood (and spoke about) the drag of taxes on the economy. His tax cuts were a larger percentage of GDP than Reagan's. But to say "trickle down doesnt work" is wrong on two counts. "Trickle down" doesnt exist, except in the demand siders attempts to disparage supply side. Its name is the direct opposite of supply side theory. Second, the claim that supply side has been proven not to work is widely debated, and hardly an accepted conclusion. The fact is the economy has grown after every modern era tax cut.