Sure. Why don´t you stop, then? Argue honestly and don´t run away from your claims.
I think we can do without the sneering attitude and suspicious thinking.
You think, then, that running through the streets naked while covered in blue paint has be to tried as an economic policy before it can be discarded as useless?
I was not aware that anyone had made the claim that doing what you describe was an economic policy.
We can also do without your dishonest debating tactics. I´m not going to be the only gullible sucker who plays fair.
There is nothing dishonest about what I do. I merely asked what will work, and how you knew it.
Given your responses, we can say that you do not know the answers to any of these. That does make your swiping dismissals invalid.
Supply-side ecconomic policies made it legal to run the credit-default swap Ponzi scheme. It ruined us.
Hyperbolic claims do nothing to further a point.
And before the idiotic tax giveaways, we had a means of keeping it under control without shutting down government functions.
When, exactly, was this golden age?
As is anyone who thinks supply-side works.
That does not make you right.
What is best for the middle class is best for the working class because it gives them someplace to move upward amd keeps them employed making goods and services. It is good for the rich because there is an oportunity to profit selling things that the working people make.
That is your opinion. Others disagree.
The unions were a key to making the New Deal work.
Maybe a key, but not the only one. You need all factors, in order to say whether something works or not.
Supply-side and anti-unionism destroyed what made America work for seventy years.
But then, you have moved the goalposts: Now, it was much longer, and hence, not Reagan's fault.
Yes. But I do not advicse it because it kills people if you are wrong.
Which economic theory is scientifically the best?
Supply-side has killed people. It belongs on the copmpost heap.
Which economic theory has not killed people?
