"And tax cuts for either business owners or their associated investors, have never caused CUSTOMERS to want their products more, or to be able to afford them".

This is not a true statement!! Business owners and corporations do not pay taxes from their own pocket but pay them from the business. In order to pay those taxes and maintain their net margin or income, they increase the price of their product to offset the taxes. While this may not cause a higher desire on the part of their customers, it does result in a lower price for their product than it would have been otherwise.

Americans are way over taxed. ATL local govt is being investigated for fraud. Our govt needs to be held accountable. Trump donates his salary back to the people and I think it's a great idea. I wish other politicians and former president would give back their salaries or pensions.

So you're used HD as an example???

Don't.That isn't a high tech company. They've been selling junk for years. They priced themselves out of the market. Then they exported most of their manufacturing out of the country. Most of the parts are shipped in, and assembled here. They're buying a lot of parts from Honda. Showa is selling them forks, shocks, wheels. Brakes, and discs, from another Honda owned company. ( the name, I can't remember) Carbs, Keihin. I've heard also that Honda is making their pistons. I found it funny, several years ago, Harley riders were griping about the bearings in the engines going out. These were the awful Ching Shin bearings. Some were having their engines torn down, and having "quality" Torrington bearings put in them. They were supposedly made in the USA.- Problem- Torrington had gone out of business 15 years prior. What they were getting was another Chinese bearing with the Torrington name stamped on it.(And paying a premium price for them) The company had bought the name. I knew this, because Torrington's home was here in my town.

Harley-Davidson has been bilking their customer base for years.They are their own worst enemy. When they went public with stock, they made enough to buy up Coachman Industries, and drove that company into the ground. ( Another, My home town company)

Harley has been running on a sales pitch for years. That sales pitch isn't working anymore, and they're paying the price now.

How the Politics of Tax cuts are Oversimplified

Again, proof that "supply side economics" is nonsense.

tax cuts for either business owners or their associated investors, have never caused CUSTOMERS to want their products more, or to be able to afford them.

Or simply not understood while believing one does understand them.


Not really.
And in many cases it "proves" that supply side economics is relevant.

Per the article, there's a 60% tariff on assembled motorcycle imports.
According to the article, the U.S. is a declining market.
Not according to the article, Asia is a growing market for motorcycles.

By going to Thailand, HD is leaving a declining market for a growing one, partially motivated by Thailands tax/tariff to move assembly to that region in order to save money. That 60% tariff will not have to be worked into the price as it was before.

The motorcycles in Thailand might not be cheaper, the savings may be used to subsidize the U.S. market to keep from losing customers.
There is nothing in the article comparing how much are the tax savings from the cuts, and how much the 60% tariff actually costs.

Simplified discussions of supply side economics generally revolve around stagnant, local, or closed markets. Not competing dynamic markets in a globalized interdependent setting among competing supply side strategies.


If you want to "understand" oversimplified supply side economics look at states like New Mexico that have huge tax incentives for film companies to come in and shoot there.
Movie companies come in, hire a bunch of local labor, use local resources, etc.

Supply side economics is more about economic activity, not creating "value."
With fiat currency the importance, the market, wealth, is based more on the velocity of money. Getting it moving through the/an market/economy.
Not translating or preserving "value."

One analogy many people use is the German tourist analogy.
Something like a German tourist goes into a hotel. Slaps down a $10 bill and says "I'd like to examine your rooms before I choose to stay." While the tourist is upstairs the hotel owner gives the $10 to the local cook to pay for the prepared food, the cook pays the pig farmer $10 for the meat, the pig farmer pays the traveling salesman $10 for the piglets, the traveling salesman pays the hotel owner $10 for use of a room while he negotiated his sale.
Then the German tourist comes back downstairs and says "sorry, not for me," picks up the same $10 bill and leaves.
That generated economic activity.
Each person in that chain now feels they "made" money, provided a good or service, got paid, whatever.
Take out "German tourist" and put in "tax savings" if you want.

Reducing taxes/pushing money via rates, on individuals or business allows more money to be used in the economy, by the individuals and businesses within the economy, rather than held and controlled by inefficient government. Therefore, greater, more efficient, economic activity.

The main point of supply side thinking, of using government tax cuts and subsidies, is influencing economic activity.
With fiat currency increased economic activity = economic growth.
It's an important point to understand in supply side economic discussions.


I think you are conflating marketing/advertising and supply side economics here.
"Demand" in discussions of theoretical economic theories, like supply side economics, simply means something like "actual number of people that have, will, or would actually purchase the product."
The way "want" is presented here seems like it's being used as an advertising term. Something more like "within a customers heart of hearts what they truly want, having already decided on what will fulfill a perceived need based on known alternatives, that will never ever change because of who they are as people."

Tax cuts that affect businesses, and thereby business owners and investors have led to benefits of increased economic activity which have influenced perceptions of wealth, purchasing power, and product prices, which can increase demand.

The harley davidson article from the OP might actually be relevant or enlightening if there was a follow up detailing the prices in Thailand and Asia of their motorcycles, and if demand for those motorcycles actually increased as a result of their saving that 60% tariff.

The move to and markets in Thailand/Asia kills the article as relevant as an argument against supply side economics in the U.S. market/economy.

My my. Lots of false analogies and some rather weird and imaginative "examples" of how wonderful supply side stuff is there

AGAIN. I am NOT saying that having extra money in the pocket of person B instead of it being in the pocket of person A, is inherently "bad."

I'm AM saying that what is being pushed by supply side advocates is much like what you've posted here: imaginative, not real.

I'm AM saying that what is being pushed by supply side advocates is much like what you've posted here: imaginative, not real.

I liken it to the situation where a car is stopped by the side of the road, broken down somehow. The supply-sider comes along and declares that the problem is lack of enough oil, dumps two quarts in, and drives off again, never having noticed the two flat tires, or the fact that now there's oil dripping out of the over-filled engine.

Not really. And I don't really think "supply side stuff" is "wonderful."
But even if there were, that's much better than the undeserved condescending arrogance of the response I got.


Nor is it inherently good.
The conclusion at the end of the OP is "supply side economics is nonsense."
The basis of that is an article that isn't understood, as it mostly disproves what you're saying if you actually understand it.

I addressed that.

You can try telling me "AGAIN" and "AGAIN" and "AGAIN" what you "AM" or "NOT" saying all you like but if you don't really understand what you're saying, I am limited in what I can do beyond facilitating my own entertainment.


You don't really mention any "supply side advocates" in the OP.
At best you mention: "The political CLAIMS of the people who recently drastically altered the way revenues are taken by the Federal Government, said that reducing business taxes dramatically as they did, would nearly instantly result in American businesses expanding"

You don't mention any specific names. There is absolutely nothing that denotes these people as actual "supply-siders," or, "supply side advocates," nor "supply side eeconomists" or actual believers in "supply side economics."

A guy telling his friends about the health benefits of sex after having a one night stand with a woman he lied to on the internet doesn't make him an altruist nor a doctor.
Arguing that medicine is "nonsense" based on some vague story about how some people are saying all guys cheat and presenting an article about a girl marrying a foreign bride to prove it, is entertaining more than anything.

You also don't really provide any actual evidence whatsoever that "the political CLAIMS of the people..." are in any way false.

I see nowhere in the OP where it states "would nearly instantly result in absolutely every single American business to expand in obvious ways that directly positively economically influence every single American and only American, ever, with no doubt that nothing would ever change in any way except to the positive in American economic growth every second of every day for the entirety of the existence of America."


And I'll say, "AGAIN" (and why you capitalize rather than bold or italicize I'll never know, it is annoying though, it makes it look like online Tourette's), you have not shown anything from any particular supply side advocate, and don't know what you're talking about when you say "supply side economics is nonsense."

At best/worst you've goal seeked an article that you wanted to prove your own bias against an economic theory or group of people, and conflated a bunch of things together, all so you could post something you think you feel smart about but really have no idea what it means.

Just because politicians use supply side rhetoric to justify their behavior, it doesn't mean they are supply side advocates, or economists, or even really know what they're doing.

IMO you've conflated politicians with economists.
Just like I don't think you really understand "demand" in an economic sense by the way you are using it and seem to be conflating that with individual desire, or something more appropriate to marketing/advertising rather than economics.

IMO that's fine. Go nuts with that. People online do it all the time. When you make assertions like "supply side economics is nonsense" that is actually somewhat worth responding to, actually addressing supply side economics.


And "AGAIN" it's funny you accuse me of "false analogies."
What with:

I have read that analogy numerous times, or one very nearly like it.
And in every case "government" has always been used in place of "supply-sider."
It was used a lot when the wars in the middle east were more prominent in the news, it was used a lot when TARP and bailouts were in the news.
What an economist believes, and can prove works, and what the government does and then what it uses to justify what it does, are completely and utterly different things.

Simply changing "government" to "supply-sider" doesn't make an economic theory "nonsense," nor does it even really address supply side economics, nor make an analogy true or work.


Try to figure out what it is exactly you want to talk about.
Because based on the OP it seems you could be addressing one of two things.
Either:
1. Politicians are full of crap and I want to appear smarter than I am!
2. I disagree with an economic theory and believe it's nonsense but don't really understand what I'm talking about!

One of those is interesting.
I chose what I found interesting to respond to.

Not really. And I don't really think "supply side stuff" is "wonderful."
But even if there were, that's much better than the undeserved condescending arrogance of the response I got.


Nor is it inherently good.
The conclusion at the end of the OP is "supply side economics is nonsense."
The basis of that is an article that isn't understood, as it mostly disproves what you're saying if you actually understand it.

I addressed that.

You can try telling me "AGAIN" and "AGAIN" and "AGAIN" what you "AM" or "NOT" saying all you like but if you don't really understand what you're saying, I am limited in what I can do beyond facilitating my own entertainment.


You don't really mention any "supply side advocates" in the OP.
At best you mention: "The political CLAIMS of the people who recently drastically altered the way revenues are taken by the Federal Government, said that reducing business taxes dramatically as they did, would nearly instantly result in American businesses expanding"

You don't mention any specific names. There is absolutely nothing that denotes these people as actual "supply-siders," or, "supply side advocates," nor "supply side eeconomists" or actual believers in "supply side economics."

A guy telling his friends about the health benefits of sex after having a one night stand with a woman he lied to on the internet doesn't make him an altruist nor a doctor.
Arguing that medicine is "nonsense" based on some vague story about how some people are saying all guys cheat and presenting an article about a girl marrying a foreign bride to prove it, is entertaining more than anything.

You also don't really provide any actual evidence whatsoever that "the political CLAIMS of the people..." are in any way false.

I see nowhere in the OP where it states "would nearly instantly result in absolutely every single American business to expand in obvious ways that directly positively economically influence every single American and only American, ever, with no doubt that nothing would ever change in any way except to the positive in American economic growth every second of every day for the entirety of the existence of America."


And I'll say, "AGAIN" (and why you capitalize rather than bold or italicize I'll never know, it is annoying though, it makes it look like online Tourette's), you have not shown anything from any particular supply side advocate, and don't know what you're talking about when you say "supply side economics is nonsense."

At best/worst you've goal seeked an article that you wanted to prove your own bias against an economic theory or group of people, and conflated a bunch of things together, all so you could post something you think you feel smart about but really have no idea what it means.

Just because politicians use supply side rhetoric to justify their behavior, it doesn't mean they are supply side advocates, or economists, or even really know what they're doing.

IMO you've conflated politicians with economists.
Just like I don't think you really understand "demand" in an economic sense by the way you are using it and seem to be conflating that with individual desire, or something more appropriate to marketing/advertising rather than economics.

IMO that's fine. Go nuts with that. People online do it all the time. When you make assertions like "supply side economics is nonsense" that is actually somewhat worth responding to, actually addressing supply side economics.


And "AGAIN" it's funny you accuse me of "false analogies."
What with:

I have read that analogy numerous times, or one very nearly like it.
And in every case "government" has always been used in place of "supply-sider."
It was used a lot when the wars in the middle east were more prominent in the news, it was used a lot when TARP and bailouts were in the news.
What an economist believes, and can prove works, and what the government does and then what it uses to justify what it does, are completely and utterly different things.

Simply changing "government" to "supply-sider" doesn't make an economic theory "nonsense," nor does it even really address supply side economics, nor make an analogy true or work.


Try to figure out what it is exactly you want to talk about.
Because based on the OP it seems you could be addressing one of two things.
Either:
1. Politicians are full of crap and I want to appear smarter than I am!
2. I disagree with an economic theory and believe it's nonsense but don't really understand what I'm talking about!

One of those is interesting.
I chose what I found interesting to respond to.