Thursday, October 26th 2006
BCR v. Cal Dems on CNBC
Yesterday Berkeley College Republicans President Josiah Prendergast and Cal Berkeley Democrats President Suzanne Ruecker appeared on CNBC’s Kudlow & Company. The interview speaks for itself.
Does Josiah favor supply side economics? See what he says.
Skip to 4:00, for the good part. Speaks for itself… I totally agree.
Comment by patr — 10/27/2006 @ 1:37 am
Such a nice report. However, the atmosphere on the campus is not hot, Berkeley gets more far from the politics, in my opinion…
Comment by Omid — 10/27/2006 @ 2:20 am
Does Josiah favor supply side economics?
Josiah doesn’t seem to know what supply side economics are…
Comment by Andy R. — 10/27/2006 @ 8:49 am
In his defense, “Trickle-down economics” was mostly used as colloquialism during the Reagan years. I’m well sure he knew this. I myself hardly ever hear the term used in the media of Supply-side economics. Why?, because America business stopped that program in the 1970s. SSE means to increased production. WTF do we produce? Nothing. We do not produce anything anymore except for TV shows, Music and Movies, and high-technology used in weapons. Otherwise SSE was long gone by the time Reagan came in, but he wanted to return but the Dems said no way – we want America to go down because it calls on God and wants no public promotion of gay-sex, transgender, porno mags on every street corner. So they stood in opposition to all production and said lets make sweat-shop do our entitlement work in South America in the ‘70s. The rest is history.
Comment by Anonymous — 10/27/2006 @ 6:58 pm
haha i would have been caught off-guard by that question
Comment by bobby gregg — 10/27/2006 @ 7:02 pm
I agree with Andy, Josiah didn’t know what supply side economics were. Yikes! It’s a pretty straight forward label for the policy and is still widely used today.
Comment by Salad Tosser — 10/27/2006 @ 10:55 pm
Those microphones in your ear are hard to hear…its likely that he just missed the question. They both seemed to have a hard time hearing his questions, from the long pauses.
Comment by funsize — 10/28/2006 @ 10:15 am
“is still widely used today”
Rubbish.
Like I said in my original anonymous post, SSE was out the window by the time Reagan took office. So Reagan’s attempt didn’t garner results, so Clinton took the anti-SSE approach and the results were the same.
1993 Clinton increase in the top marginal tax bracket to 39.6% and no had no effect on the labor supply.
Why is this? Because we did not produce anything except high-tech military application, in which was the number one money maker for the Clinton years? It ran the American economy. He actually built up Saudi Arabians entire Navy and Military ( to the 10th best world military, 1998 rated) , gave North Korea economic incentives ( including a small-water nuclear reactor) to not produce nuclear weapons, he gave China rocket and nuclear technology which everyone knew was part of his economic plan, and built high-tech jets for Pakistan ( and others), in which the last shipment remained on the tarmac in Arizona because the congress shut it down toward the end of his regime, which all went into a large factor in the economics of the ‘90s.
Even Reagan begun to sign in NAFTA initiates. In effect we do not produce anything, therefore lowering taxes or raising them has no effect on the workforce in the big picture, at all. America only competes for service jobs now. “Production jobs” is what is asked for in the SSE hypothesis.
After Billy the Dumbly Clinton took Bill Gates to the laundry-mat in Congress, Microsoft, one of the last physical American producers got up and took his show to India, which cost 200,000 high-paying American producing jobs ( including the taxes on production).
SSE is not in use to day in America. It has become an artifact. In China it is of great concern because they produce everything from the screw to your living-room furnishing. Those have a great deal to think about in regards to taxes and production. In America, only service jobs exist in the large part. Therefore, SSE doesn’t exist.
Unfortunately the interviewer should have known this, and I doubt that Josiah would have corrected him and embarrassed him by simply pointing out the obvious - the contemporary economic relevance.
Comment by Anonymous — 10/28/2006 @ 12:13 pm
“long pauses” - satellite delay…this kind of stuff happens all the time, you’d have to be totally clueless to even try to use that as an excuse.
If you missed the question you don’t go on answering it, because embarrassments will (and did) ensue.
In Josiah’s defense, it’s OK to not support supply-side economics. It has it’s time and place, but it also needs principled leaders to see it through. The runaway deficits we have seen since Reagan are hardly a stable long-term economic policy. Of course, the social/political pressure is far too great for an ambitious person to stand up to.
Comment by ghost of Clark Kerr — 10/28/2006 @ 12:28 pm
Suzanne was nervous, and Josiah had a faux pas. Neither had anything to say. Pretty weak stuff.
Comment by Mac — 10/29/2006 @ 1:59 am
Supply side economics refers to an economic approach. The label is widely used to describe that particular economic approach. Whether or not certain leaders have used that approach is irrelevant because Kudlow didn’t ask whether or not Josiah supported a specific leader’s approach; he asked whether Josiah supported that particular economic approach.
Kudlow: “Josiah, are you a supply-sider?”
Josiah: “No, I’m really not.”
Check out the response Suzanne gave at that point. I think just about everyone, except Josiah, knew what was asked. Especially with the question that was posed to the Suzanne right before.
Also check out Josiah’s reaction when he realizes what supply side economics are. SHOCK! Whoops! His response wasn’t one in which he expresses a wish to clarify his initial answer.
The answer speaks for itself.
Comment by Salad Tosser — 10/29/2006 @ 1:15 pm
That was weak stuff- well at least Berkeley is in the news for something positive.
Maybe it’ll draw more top-notch conservatives to generate a more diverse and education discussion in class rooms.
One can only hope.
Comment by Nathan — 10/29/2006 @ 2:33 pm
Kudlow: “Salad tosser, are you a supply-sider?”
Salad tosser: “Supply side economics refers to an economic approach.”
Kudlow: “and?, what is your point Tosser? Do you know what it is or don’t you?”
Salad tosser: “The label is widely used to describe that particular economic approach.”
Kudlow: “Uhhhh, It is like you are comparing academia to refer to an academic approach?, or Arithmetic refers to a numeric approach?, Suzanne, can you answer for Salad Tosser, he doesn’t know what a supply-sider is?”
Suzanne: “Sure no problem. It is a program of lowering taxes to stimulate manufacturing jobs therefore creating more employment in which a wider tax bases is created in which all stimulates the economy and creates jobs and a vibrant tax-base. You know like China is doing right now with manufacturing everything the Americans use in the domestic sphere. We buy-it they supply-it. We pay and they get rich. Look at the monthly trade imbalances. We’re losing. However, there is less then 9% manufacturing in America so this program is obsolete. So if Tosser knew what SSE was he would have told you this strait-off. Therefore it is useless to consider this a contemporary relevance. We have many service sector jobs in which to address to our tax issues. No one uses this label anymore. Tosser is wrong as usual. I did a news ‘ yahoo search’ and found ZERO results - news/web pages, including archives, that deal with this label; only a reference to the guy who created the hypothesis who was giving a speech of why this is irrelevant to the American economy now. You can do a history and find a lot of pages on SSE, but that is archived history on the internet, not current news.”
Kudlow: So you are saying, even though Salad Tosser believes that it is ‘widely used’ it is in fact not, I’m just pinning for the good-old-days, and he is wrong, and people are wondering why he claiming such a thing?”
Suzanne: “ well I have no understanding of where he is coming from and how he thinks this label is widely used.”
Kudlow: “ Nice ending and analysis Suzanne, and folks will leave it at that.”
Comment by Anonymous — 10/29/2006 @ 5:21 pm
Anonymous, sorry about your comments being caught in the spam filter. It seems to be harsher when it comes to anonymous commenters. Use a pseudonym and it will probably be more likely to let your comments through immediately.
Comment by patr — 10/29/2006 @ 7:11 pm
I doubt too many people will see your damage control. Are you trying to be funny, Anonymous?
Comment by ghost of Clark Kerr — 10/30/2006 @ 11:34 am
“Kudlow: “Uhhhh, It is like you are comparing academia to refer to an academic approach?, or Arithmetic refers to a numeric approach?, Suzanne, can you answer for Salad Tosser, he doesn’t know what a supply-sider is?””
Actually, no. In this example, arithmetic would be “the economy”. There are arithmetic approaches, just as there are economic approaches. No sense in trying to confuse people with your extremely weak anologies, Anonymous. Though they may be some picture as your capabilities.
Allow me to present Exhibit B:
Supply side?
But…but…
I though no one used it anymore?
How can this be?
Maybe Google is just too advanced for some people…
Comment by Ham Sandwich — 10/30/2006 @ 12:02 pm
Hey Pat, might want to let my previous comment through the spam filter.
Comment by Ham Sandwich — 10/30/2006 @ 12:03 pm