This is not a counter argument to anything I said. It is at most a Tu quoque fallacy.
Yes, and they accomplish all the things I just said, I could even show you if you wanted. But, yes, Taxes create deadweight loss and a disincentive to work. Which is one reason why lower taxes are better, it limits the amount of damage done. I am not a supporter of no taxes. I acknowledge that some loss is acceptable when the exchange is necessary. Note: this information is part of what creates the Laffer Curve. It’s why the more you tax the less taxes you get. At a point the disincentive and deadweight loss counter any other gained value.
No, it would be like pointing to cars built using the exact model of the nova, basically the same thing by a different name, and showing why they continue to not work. Or how some design elements in the Nova caused it not to work, and why they don’t work in other model cars.
At least you acknowledge that "trickle down economics is a strawman.
My understanding of the partial source of the poor ideas does not mean that they are not the source. Just as a non-academic not understanding the partial source of those ideas does not stop them from being the source.
Nope, just the stuff that came from him. Everything else they are wrong about comes from other places. Without saying they are wrong about everything that is considered “left.” I am talking about a very specific issue, around the progressive economics of people like Marx, who worked at economics and used them in his writing or Keynes, who was also wrong about a lot of things, but in a different way and was not wrong about everything. Keynes writing on cyclical cycles is amazing!
I will gladly do so, but I shall in a different thread, if you don’t mind. I’m sorta working right now, so it might not be until Friday or so…