Silly Obama Rabbit: Don't You Know That 'Tricks' (Socialist Acts Like Those of Robin Hood) Are For Kids??

Informed Lawyer

If as you suggest he was a supply-sider, he certainly did not, by his stealthy actions, impose an optimal tax to generate greater or more efficient production or market sales (increased supply), let alone increased market demand.

Rather, he imposed higher costs on merchants traveling through the forest who then had to employ armed guards to prevent against Robin Hood's thefts. Alternatively, merchants seeking to trade with other villages had to make the choice of whether to go around the forest if they were unable to afford armed guards. And typically, that route was longer, riskier and costlier.

Ultimately, no matter what merchants chose, merchant profits were lowered. Or, the increased costs of hiring armed guards or traveling around the forest to sell his wares (a form of indirect taxation) were passed downstream onto the people of the villages who were then forced to devote a greater share of their meager earnings to acquire the same good/product/ware that they had purchased the day before. Consequently, many common people were likely worse off than before. Perhaps, in some cases of extreme poverty made out well (i.e., those whom received the bounty of the merchants stolen by Robin Hood), as they had received a form of welfare underwritten by the victimized merchants via a form of 'wealth redistribution'.

How then, could Robin Hood be a supply-sider? He was NOT interested in promoting market efficiency and wealth (increased supply and demand) by lowering tax rates to higher earners (the merchants) whom could then hire more people who could, in turn, earn more wages to afford new purchases, precisely because it was the merchants upon whom he effectively imposed higher taxes. The government of which he was part (he was a royal with his own castle) did not benefit from increased tax revenues since production/supply also decreased as the result of the merchants taxable profits being diminished, which, in turn, likely resulted in less profits being reinvested in production due to risk of theft. Similarly, Robin Hood likely also diminished demand among many of the common people (those other than the cash-strapped proverty-stricken) who were likely unable to afford the higher prices the merchants were then compelled to charge to compensate for the thefts.

There is also the possibility that Robin Hood welfare also diminished demand among the welfare recipients who no longer were wanting for the products/wares that they might otherwise have acquired. Thus, it was more likely than not that, welfare did not necessarily increase taxable revenues payable to the government. In other words, it did NOT likely have a positive 'trickle-down' effect on consumption, but rather likely triggered some degree of economic contraction when the risk of theft and the subsequent price increases rose to a significant level.

No. Robin Hood was more like a Keynesian because, through his gifting away of others' private property to those cash-strapped lower income households (i.e., those in desperate need of state welfare) in an effort to lower their costs of acquisition he tried to stimulate consumer demand and spending with whatever remaining dispensable income they had.

Robin Hood was an elitist who wished to reform markets for social rather than (economic) profit-seeking purposes. He was, in other words, ideologically a progressive liberal socialist, NOT a capitalist.

What say you?

do you have kids?...do you bring the pain on Fairy tales?

LOL...Love you..I know your playin'.....

seriously...what is it like to have a Lawyer as a parent?

"40 million American households that read TMR are generally happier
than those people in households that don't read TMR."