You don't raise taxes during a recession

[DarrinS]

I agree

PwoKOFgghxI

[MannyIsGod]

Not in a recession tbh.

[Halberto]

:wakeup

[boutons_deux]

And since the Criminal Banksters' Great Depression is now looking like a (long) L-curve and not a short V-curve, this no-raise-taxes (for the Repugs it's never-raise-taxes) logic says we won't raise taxes for 10 years (aka, "Lost Decade" a la Japan)

Raising taxes on the lower 95%, agree. UCA needs Human-Americans to buy shit, which they won't/can't do now.

But raising taxes and closing loopholes on corporations and the top 5% won't prevent/delay a recovery.

[CosmicCowboy]

There's not enough money in just raising taxes on those nasty rich to make a significant difference. They are gonna have to bite the middle class to get any significant deficit reduction.

[George Gervin's Afro]

shared sacrifice..

[spursncowboys]

Because they share the same amount of work?

[coyotes_geek]

Taxes need to go up across the board. Not just on the top 5%. Of course neither party is interested in that.

lol "shared sacrifice" with half the country not paying a dime in income taxes.

[TDMVPDPOY]

imo since america loves to print money out of thin air, where it holds no value...why not continue to print more out and raise income while lowering interest on deposits only...ppl would have more money to spend, whether the power of the dollar holes up, but nothing beats injecting more fake money into the economy to get it rolling...

doubt the govt cares how much money printed is going around anyway....

[boutons_deux]

"raising taxes on those nasty rich"

The estate tax cut on a couple 1000 families has cost about $1T so far. Every little bit helps.

fund mgrs paying 15% on their fee incomes as if it were capital gains instead of the earned income it is cost many $10Bs. Every little bit helps.

sales tax on all stock trades, derivatives trades, financial instrument buy/sell

etc, etc.

[CosmicCowboy]

It would be interesting if the Republicans took Obama up on his 4 trillion reduction proposal (including cutting SS and Medicare). I suspect it was pure posturing trying to appeal to independents and moderates and he would have shit all over himself if the Republicans had actually said yes....

[MannyIsGod]

You think he proposed it and had no intention of actually applying it? Um, if he used that as a starting point it would only get worse - not better. Thats some odd logic to say the least, CC.

I don't see how anyone can say that.

[CosmicCowboy]

You think he proposed it and had no intention of actually applying it? Um, if he used that as a starting point it would only get worse - not better. Thats some odd logic to say the least, CC.

I don't see how anyone can say that.

Yeah, I think he proposed it knowing it was a non-starter with the Republicans since it included tax increases. Now he can look like he was trying to be "moderate" and the Republicans were obstructionists. Do you REALLY think he wanted his name on a plan that cut SS and Medicare?

[MannyIsGod]

He's going to get his name on a plan that does just that so I'm not sure how you can use that argument.

[Winehole23]

Yeah, I think he proposed it knowing it was a non-starter with the Republicans since it included tax increases. Now he can look like he was trying to be "moderate" and the Republicans were obstructionists. Do you REALLY think he wanted his name on a plan that cut SS and Medicare?Tactically shrewd. Obama fired up his fellow Democrats (got them mad/scared) and made the GOP look unserious at the same time.

Whatever Obama's "real" intentions, it was deft politically. Republicans running for reelection will have to explain why they voted for a plan that cuts the deficit far less than was offered and passed on the opportunity to reform entitlements.

[Th'Pusher]

Republicans running for reelection will have to explain why they voted for a plan that cuts the deficit far less than was offered and passed on the opportunity to "reform" entitlements.

I think we know their answer...those liberals insisted on tax hikes so I couldn't vote for the larger deal even though it offered an opportunity to reform entitlements. And their constituents will likely be fine with that answer unless the democratic opponents are able to effectively paint them into a corner with some good ol' fashion class warfare. More of the same.

[Wild Cobra]

Taxes need to go up across the board. Not just on the top 5%. Of course neither party is interested in that.

lol "shared sacrifice" with half the country not paying a dime in income taxes.
I agree but I disagree.

I say we need to go back to a maximum 28% marginal rate for top earners, but at the same time, eliminate nearly all deductions on gross income.

If we are to actually raise taxes, then go back to the 15%/28% min/max marginal rates.

[Wild Cobra]

"raising taxes on those nasty rich"

The estate tax cut on a couple 1000 families has cost about $1T so far. Every little bit helps.

You talk like a communist here when you say it "costs." Who are you to imply this money belongs to the state and it costs the state money to let people keep it?


fund mgrs paying 15% on their fee incomes as if it were capital gains instead of the earned income it is cost many $10Bs. Every little bit helps.

OK Comrade, what's your solution?


sales tax on all stock trades, derivatives trades, financial instrument buy/sell

etc, etc.

Capital gains isn't enough for you Comrade?

[QUOTE=boutons_deux]

[Th'Pusher]

OK Comrade, what's your solution?


Tax all 'income' the same way. Why should it matter if I live off of $100k a year salary or $100k from capital gains?

[coyotes_geek]

Yeah, I think he proposed it knowing it was a non-starter with the Republicans since it included tax increases. Now he can look like he was trying to be "moderate" and the Republicans were obstructionists. Do you REALLY think he wanted his name on a plan that cut SS and Medicare?

He sure doesn't want his name on a U.S. default. No doubt Obama picks up some political "gotcha's" against republicans here by having them back away from the biggest package of cuts, but I don't think he offered this up completely devoid of any intentions of following through.

[Winehole23]

And their constituents will likely be fine with that answer unless the democratic opponents are able to effectively paint them into a corner with some good ol' fashion class warfare.The hammer doesn't have a rivalry with the nail. The nail gets hammered every time. Such is class war.

[boutons_deux]

Fund managers' fee income is earned, should be taxed as earned.

WC and ilk are all for the every single poor person paying some income tax, but want to let the corps and super wealthy slide right by paying their share.

[jacobdrj]

Taxes need to go up across the board. Not just on the top 5%. Of course neither party is interested in that.

lol "shared sacrifice" with half the country not paying a dime in income taxes.


Because that 50% never pays regressive taxes... like sales tax...
:rolleyes


Just because they are not paying income tax doesn't mean they are not paying taxes... And based on percentage of their income, you could argue they are paying their fair share, but just limited to the state and local regions... I would think that would be a big plus for conservatives promoting local/states rights...

[Wild Cobra]

It would be interesting if the Republicans took Obama up on his 4 trillion reduction proposal (including cutting SS and Medicare). I suspect it was pure posturing trying to appeal to independents and moderates and he would have shit all over himself if the Republicans had actually said yes....
How does that work?

President proposes something that still has to get past a democrat senate?

Fat chance.

It's all posturing. Besides. Like I said. I'll bet that $4T is only $4T after the 10% growth annual democrats count on. What is it, $4T over 5 years? 10% compounded annually for 5 years is 61%. With the way I have seen congress say anything less that 10% increase annually is a cut, it takes a 4.21% increase to spend $4T less.

I'm pretty sure this is Obama's idea. I'll bet combined growth and population is still under 4.21%. It's still a relative spending increase.

[coyotes_geek]

Because that 50% never pays regressive taxes... like sales tax...
:rolleyes

Maybe this would be relevant if the other 50% weren't paying those taxes on top of the income taxes they're paying.


Just because they are not paying income tax doesn't mean they are not paying taxes... And based on percentage of their income, you could argue they are paying their fair share, but just limited to the state and local regions... I would think that would be a big plus for conservatives promoting local/states rights...

If you're above the poverty line, your fair share of income tax is greater than $0. Whatever other state & local taxes you're paying are irrelevant.

[coyotes_geek]

I agree but I disagree.

I say we need to go back to a maximum 28% marginal rate for top earners, but at the same time, eliminate nearly all deductions on gross income.

If we are to actually raise taxes, then go back to the 15%/28% min/max marginal rates.

Make getting rid of capital gains rates part of that and I think you're getting somewhere.

[jacobdrj]

Maybe this would be relevant if the other 50% weren't paying those taxes on top of the income taxes they're paying.



If you're above the poverty line, your fair share of income tax is greater than $0. Whatever other state & local taxes you're paying are irrelevant.

I actually answered that point in my original post, stating that you can argue that if this is a 'percentage of income thing', then these people are paying 'proportionate' amounts, and that the 'regressive' taxes are added to the income tax, the burden is still less than, or the same as, those only paying the local taxes.

States rights, right? Those taxes still mean less money that has to be doled out from the federal government to bail out the states when they fail to meet their budget obligations, it is just 'boiling up' instead of 'trickling down'.

Again, it seems like an honest conservative would have no problem with this scenario...

[Wild Cobra]

Fund managers' fee income is earned, should be taxed as earned.

WC and ilk are all for the every single poor person paying some income tax, but want to let the corps and super wealthy slide right by paying their share.
Only half correct. I want all people to pay taxes so they have tax increases also when politicians talk about raising taxes. It should affect everyone. maybe they will start voting for politicians who talk about lowering taxes instead of raising them if they have a dog in the fight.

As for letting the wealthy go? Hell no. It's just the system is unfair. Those with write-offs get them, but what about those who don't have enough write-offs? Those earning big bux don't need to pay more or less than anyone else percentage wise.

Think about it. I constantly talk about changing the tax system. I would prefer a consumption tax, but as long as we are going to use the income tax system, I say remove almost all deductibles. If you remove the deductibles from the rich, a 28% marginal rate will probably tax them more than the 39.6% with endless deductions.

[Wild Cobra]

Make getting rid of capital gains rates part of that and I think you're getting somewhere.
Which would you prefer to get rid of. Capital gains, or corporate taxes?

I'm all for getting rid of one, not both. I would prefer to get rid or corporate taxes.

[Winehole23]

I'm all for getting rid of one, not both.Why?

[Kamala]

I'm all for lower taxes, but somewhere down the line our state and national leaders have lost sight. Cutting education by 4 billion in Texas and laying off fire fighters is unacceptable. :rolleyes

[Spurminator]

I'd be interested in hearing a good reason why capital gains should not be taxed at the exact same rate as income taxes.

[RandomGuy]

Maybe this would be relevant if the other 50% weren't paying those taxes on top of the income taxes they're paying.

If you're above the poverty line, your fair share of income tax is greater than $0. Whatever other state & local taxes you're paying are irrelevant.

Hardly "irrelevant".

The buried tax costs in everything from rent to food mean that everybody pays into the system in one way or another.

It is dishonest to say that even the very poorest don't pay for government, because they do.

If you have to spend 100% of what comes in simply to not be homeless or starving, even offering somebody a 1% break makes the difference between saving money and not.

Income taxes should be designed so that the most people possible have the opportunity to save, and raising taxes on the middle class simply means more people dependent on social safety nets 20-40 years down the road.

[Winehole23]

I'm all for lower taxes, but somewhere down the line our state and national leaders have lost sight. Cutting education by 4 billion in Texas and laying off fire fighters is unacceptable.The states will invest in infrastructure, people and communities belatedly, when the harm for not having done so more promptly is already apparent and political will starts building behind the resentment. Cuidense, pues: political vision is expensive.

[coyotes_geek]

I actually answered that point in my original post, stating that you can argue that if this is a 'percentage of income thing', then these people are paying 'proportionate' amounts, and that the 'regressive' taxes are added to the income tax, the burden is still less than, or the same as, those only paying the local taxes.

States rights, right? Those taxes still mean less money that has to be doled out from the federal government to bail out the states when they fail to meet their budget obligations, it is just 'boiling up' instead of 'trickling down'.

Again, it seems like an honest conservative would have no problem with this scenario...

Your logic is incredibly flawed. Half the population getting to claim that the sales taxes they pay to a state government fufills their obligation to the federal government and the other half having to pay both state sales taxes and federal income taxes is not a question of states rights. What you pay in state & local taxes should have no bearing on whether or not you should owe something to the federal government. The federal government funds itself through income taxes. If you're not paying those taxes, you're not paying your fair share to help fund your federal govt. Whatever other taxes you may be paying to some state or local government does not change that.

[Th'Pusher]

I'd be interested in hearing a good reason why capital gains should not be taxed at the exact same rate as income taxes.

It's not a good reason, but here is a video summarizing the general propaganda that you hear out of the Cato institute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yXINN1tD54

[Wild Cobra]

Why?
For most, it's double taxation.

As a stock holder, I am a partial owner of a corporation. Part of that money is mine. I am already being taxed at the 35% corporate rate. then I get my capital gains from my stocks I invested in and am taxed again, after already paying taxes?

I say just stop taxing the job providers. they can then do a combination of treating their employees better, hire more, and lower costs. In come cases, it will shift products to a competitive advantage for our goods over foreign goods.

We tax production, then the receiving country taxes consumption. When we buy a product from someone else, it essentially goes untaxed at either end. We need to help restore trade balance, and this is one way to help achieve that.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm all for lower taxes, but somewhere down the line our state and national leaders have lost sight. Cutting education by 4 billion in Texas and laying off fire fighters is unacceptable. :rolleyes
The politicians always pick the cuts by which cuts will generate support for raising taxes. They will blame the people for being stingy with their money.

[ChumpDumper]

Revenue and capital gains are two different things.

[Wild Cobra]

I'd be interested in hearing a good reason why capital gains should not be taxed at the exact same rate as income taxes.
I don't have a problem with that as long as we eliminate corporate taxes so stock holders aren't double taxed.

[Wild Cobra]

Hardly "irrelevant".

The buried tax costs in everything from rent to food mean that everybody pays into the system in one way or another.

It is dishonest to say that even the very poorest don't pay for government, because they do.

If you have to spend 100% of what comes in simply to not be homeless or starving, even offering somebody a 1% break makes the difference between saving money and not.

Income taxes should be designed so that the most people possible have the opportunity to save, and raising taxes on the middle class simply means more people dependent on social safety nets 20-40 years down the road.
The difference is these taxes are not tangible to people, because they don't see them. No line on their pay stub saying how much they paid.

[coyotes_geek]

Which would you prefer to get rid of. Capital gains, or corporate taxes?

I'm all for getting rid of one, not both. I would prefer to get rid or corporate taxes.

I want to get rid of capital gains rates and drastically lower corporate tax rates. Dumping cap gains rates would allow you to go with lower marginal rates. Wage earners benefit by seeing their tax rate go down, those with large investment incomes (i.e. the wealthy) end up paying more.

High corporate tax rates serve no purpose. Since all costs get passed along, it's the American consumers who have to pay whatever corporate taxes corporations are unable to avoid.

[coyotes_geek]

Hardly "irrelevant".

The buried tax costs in everything from rent to food mean that everybody pays into the system in one way or another.

It is dishonest to say that even the very poorest don't pay for government, because they do.

It is irrelevant if you're trying to say that what you pay in buried taxes should excuse you from having to pay income taxes. Because everyone pays those buried costs. Yet not everyone gets to use that as an excuse to not pay income taxes.


If you have to spend 100% of what comes in simply to not be homeless or starving, even offering somebody a 1% break makes the difference between saving money and not.

The percentage of the population that falls into that scenario is far less than 50%.


Income taxes should be designed so that the most people possible have the opportunity to save, and raising taxes on the middle class simply means more people dependent on social safety nets 20-40 years down the road.

"Opportunity to save" is more a function of choosing to live beneath your means than it is a matter of tax policy. Obviously there are people at or under the poverty line for whom tax policy does mean the difference between being able to save and not being able to save. But again, the percentage of the population in that situation is less than 50%.

[RandomGuy]

A corporation makes a 20% profit margin and pays 35% taxes on that. .2*.35 = .07 or 7% of the price of that company's goods go directly to income taxes.

Presumedly without that income tax, the company could offer its goods at 7% less, just from the income tax that the company pays on its income, let alone whatever other kinds of sales taxes that are buried in the price of good sold.

If you want to buy bread, you are paying the income taxes of everyone in the chain of people and companies that produced that bread.

I just don't buy the "50% don't have a stake in paying for the government" bit.

[DarrinS]

Analyst: Even Dollar Stores Struggling In ‘Obama Depression’

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/07/11/analyst-even-dollar-stores-struggling-in-obama-depression/





LOS ANGELES (CBS) — More stores across the U.S. that offer deeply-discounted products are seeing their sales decline after years of growth amid America’s “Great Recession” — and one analyst said on Monday it’s another sign of even deeper downturn.

While the demand at stores like the 99-Cent Store or Dollar Tree is still relatively high, the biggest chains in the nation have fallen short of Wall Street’s expectations for several months, a trend that may prove even more ominous for the economy at large.

“I think what’s going on in those stores is that we are in a depression for 80 percent of Americans,” top retail analyst Howard Davidowitz told KNX 1070.

America’s three largest discount chains — Dollar General Corp., Family Dollar Stores Inc. and Dollar Tree Inc. — all recently missed their quarterly earnings targets.

Davidowitz pointed to the weakness of the dollar and a gloomy consumer outlook as some of the factors behind the stores’ slump.

“In those stores, somebody comes in with $12 to do all their shopping,” said Davidowitz. “The person who used to come in with $12 now comes in with $8.”

“In other words, the economy is continuing to be worse, the Obama depression continues to explode,” he added.

Analysts say rising food and transportation prices are likely eating into the profit margins of discount stores, which risk driving away price-sensitive customers with any potential price hikes.

Core customers at most U.S. discount chains typically have a household income of $40,000 or less.

[RandomGuy]

It is irrelevant if you're trying to say that what you pay in buried taxes should excuse you from having to pay income taxes. Because everyone pays those buried costs. Yet not everyone gets to use that as an excuse to not pay income taxes.

The percentage of the population that falls into that scenario is far less than 50%.

"Opportunity to save" is more a function of choosing to live beneath your means than it is a matter of tax policy. Obviously there are people at or under the poverty line for whom tax policy does mean the difference between being able to save and not being able to save. But again, the percentage of the population in that situation is less than 50%.

So you do admit that we all have a stake in how much government costs.

Fair enough.

I don't see how increasing income taxes on people who already pay a good chunk of what they earn to taxes is going to make any difference.

Quite frankly it seems like class warfare by the rich on everybody else, especially given the increasing wealth and income inequality over the last 20 years.

[DarrinS]

Quite frankly it seems like class warfare by the rich on everybody else, especially given the increasing wealth and income inequality over the last 20 years.


It's a choice between "kids' safety" and "tax breaks for corporate jets". -BHO

[RandomGuy]

Analyst: Even Dollar Stores Struggling In ‘Obama Depression’

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/07/11/analyst-even-dollar-stores-struggling-in-obama-depression/

Meh. Davidowitz has been bitching about whoever is in power for decades.

Simply because he wants to use phrases like "Obama depression" though, ensures that people will talk to him when they want someone to pay attention to their article, because he is gauranteed to say something outrageous.




President Davidowitz says, he would immediately eliminate the Bush tax cuts. (He thinks Bush was an idiot, too, by the way). He would then address the real cause of our financial problems: Entitlement spending, specifically, Medicare and Medicaid. He would avert a dollar crisis. He would also cut military spending.

Would these moves hurt the economy? Yes, Davidowitz says, in the short-term, they might. But in the long-term, they'd be a huge step in the right direction. Our international trading partners and investors would see immediately that we had finally gotten serious about addressing our problems, and this would lead to a surge in the dollar and direct investment. And the investment, in turn, would produce the jobs that we so desperately need. And they would avert a dollar crisis that Davidowitz views as looming catastrophe.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/howard-davidowitz-obama-doesn-t-clue-fix-country-20110325-072825-462.html

The guy says what he thinks, and people lap it up, when he says something they agree with.

Since it is your flavor kool aid, knock yourself out. :jekka

Just be sure to note that the same guy says that eliminating the Bush tax cuts should be a priority.

[Winehole23]

Raise taxes? That's socialism!

[RandomGuy]

It's a choice between "kids' safety" and "tax breaks for corporate jets". -BHO

Asshats like yourself like to blather about the evils of class warfare, but seem quite content to ignore the fact that the rich are already actively fighting that war, via useful idiots like yourself who aspire to that level of income.

You also seem to be missing the fact that they are winning, and it isn't really helping the country any.

[Winehole23]

Re-consolidation at many levels. It only took the Seven Sisters 100 years to outlast the political will behind anti-trust regulation, and merge back together.

[DarrinS]

Asshats like yourself like to blather about the evils of class warfare, but seem quite content to ignore the fact that the rich are already actively fighting that war, via useful idiots like yourself who aspire to that level of income.


Actually, I'd like to make $249,999/year and not a dime more. Otherwise, I'll join that infamous "millionaires and billionaires" club.

[MannyIsGod]

Asshats like yourself like to blather about the evils of class warfare, but seem quite content to ignore the fact that the rich are already actively fighting that war, via useful idiots like yourself who aspire to that level of income.

You also seem to be missing the fact that they are winning, and it isn't really helping the country any.

Home fucking Run.

LOL @ classwarfare against the rich. Get back to me after someone looks at how the rich manipulated the financial sector into the economic crisis.

I can't remember the exact quote, but whom ever said something to the effect of socialism never sticking in the United States because here the average worker wasn't a proletariat but a rich man who was only temporarily poor nailed this mindset.

[DarrinS]

I can't remember the exact quote, but whom ever said something to the effect of socialism never sticking in the United States because here the average worker wasn't a proletariat but a rich man who was only temporarily poor nailed this mindset.


"The problem with Socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money." -Margaret Thatcher

[Th'Pusher]

Home fucking Run.

LOL @ classwarfare against the rich. Get back to me after someone looks at how the rich manipulated the financial sector into the economic crisis.

I can't remember the exact quote, but whom ever said something to the effect of socialism never sticking in the United States because here the average worker wasn't a proletariat but a rich man who was only temporarily poor nailed this mindset.

There are a lot of them and they don't seem to mind...From this week's Lexington in the Economist






Fat cats and corporate jets: Why is it so unrewarding for politicians to bash the rich in America?

THE corporate jet gets a lousy press. In the James Bond classic, “Goldfinger”, the eponymous villain is sucked out of the window of just such an aircraft. In 2008 the bosses of Detroit’s moribund car companies did themselves no favours when they flew in their gleaming jets to Washington, DC, to beg Congress for bail-outs (they drove the next time). And in his present face-off with the Republicans over the federal debt ceiling, Barack Obama is bashing the jets again, because to the man in the street the corporate jet is a perfect proxy for a fat cat. “I’ve said to Republican leaders, you go talk to your constituents and ask them, ‘Are you willing to compromise your kids’ safety so some corporate-jet owner can get a tax break?’.”

Needless to say, Mr Obama is now accused by the aircraft manufacturers of scapegoating a successful industry that employs more than a million Americans and by the Republicans of launching a populist “class war”. But this raises a question. If an authentic populist movement exists in the United States today, it is not composed of impoverished class warriors braying to squeeze the rich until their pips squeak. It is the tea-party movement, whose crusade to slash taxes and pare government to the bone far outweighs whatever distaste it might feel towards those magnificent fat cats in their flying machines.

Why is bashing the rich such an unpopular form of populism in America? The normal answer falls back on culture. Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution notes that Americans are repelled by the notion of inequality in worth or status. That men are created equal is, after all, “self-evident”. They are, however, far less perturbed by unequal wealth, a form of inequality that is the inevitable product of the free-market system in which most still profess an abiding faith. According to Tom Smith, director of the Centre for the Study of Politics and Society at the University of Chicago, surveys still show Americans to be more sympathetic than Europeans to the idea that unequal pay encourages people to work hard, for example, and less sympathetic to the idea that governments should try to smooth such inequalities out.

That said, you might think that the normal answer would no longer do in such abnormal times—after a great recession and with 14m people still looking for work. And, sure enough, every week brings a flood of complaints in the media about the rich getting richer while the incomes of the middle class stagnate or fall. A survey for the New York Times has just reported that the median pay for top executives at 200 big companies last year was little shy of $11m a year—a mouth-watering 23% rise since 2009. Joseph Stiglitz, the holder of a Nobel prize in economics, claimed in Vanity Fair that the top 1% of Americans were taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income and controlled 40% of its wealth, though others dispute his numbers.

As to whether such disparities should matter, that question has puzzled philosophers at least since the Enlightenment. This column proposes no definitive answer this week. The point here is only that Americans do not seem to mind about the widening inequality of income and wealth as much as you might expect them to in current circumstances. By and large, they have preferred opportunity to levelling; equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. The trouble with this is that America is a long way from providing equal opportunity. Children born into the bottom fifth of the income distribution are nearly five times as likely to end their lives there as those from families in the top fifth. Indeed, social scientists are no longer sure whether it is still easier to climb the ladder in the “classless” United States than it is in the supposedly class-hobbled lands of Western Europe.

What are vote-seeking politicians to make of this? That the American people appear to have kept faith in the hardest of times with the idea of leaving it mainly to markets rather than governments to allocate life’s material rewards strikes many Republicans as a marvellous thing—the glorious opposite of what happened in the 1930s, when the economically stricken turned to government for succour. In the case of the recent collapse, runs the Republican argument, misplaced government intervention—such as the egalitarian nonsense of extending credit for home-ownership to those who could not really afford it—was at least as much to blame as the excesses of the private sector. That, to judge by the eruption of the tea-party movement, is the verdict of many non-aligned Americans too. So the Grand Old Party is betting on this anti-government wave restoring it to power in 2012.

Not so exceptional, after all?

There are those on the Democratic side who urge Mr Obama to place precisely the opposite bet. His great mistake, they say, is failing to see that, beyond the din the tea-partiers make, most Americans deeply resent the bailing-out of the bankers and the rest of the undeserving rich who led the economy to the abyss, and would rally to the president if he only found the courage to mete out the punishment these villains deserve. Only thus can he summon up a populist wave for himself and ride it to re-election.

And yet Mr Obama, as is his wishy-washy wont, is not biting. He still plans to end the Bush-era tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000. But for all his occasional digs at the fat cats and their jets, this president is not and will probably never be the avenging egalitarian the left of his party dreams of. His own bet seems to be that in the matter of inequality the American people are less exceptional than they like to think they are. They might be unusually tolerant of big gaps between the rich and poor, but they expect the rich to pay their way and the state to offer a helping hand to those who cannot rise without one. This middling bet might not be the most exciting reading of America’s mood. But it may be the shrewdest path to re-election.

[MannyIsGod]

"The problem with Socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money." -Margaret Thatcher

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
-John Steinbeck

[coyotes_geek]

So you do admit that we all have a stake in how much government costs.

Fair enough.

I don't see how increasing income taxes on people who already pay a good chunk of what they earn to taxes is going to make any difference.

Quite frankly it seems like class warfare by the rich on everybody else, especially given the increasing wealth and income inequality over the last 20 years.

Thinking that a clear majority of Americans should pay income taxes is hardly class warfare. Everybody's taxes need to go up.

[RandomGuy]

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
-John Steinbeck

"Please accept my resignation. I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member". --Groucho Marx


Yeah, I quoted Marx in a thread that touches on class warfare.

HAH!?!

Seriously, though it reminds me of the white Southerners who supported slavery, even though they didn't own any.

I dunno, I think the fact that social mobility here sucks should say volumes, as has been pointed out. Time to change game plans.

[MannyIsGod]

CG, to be fair I think everyone's taxes should go up but the fact remains that if we had created wealth over the past decade instead of just redistributed it to the upper x% more people would be paying higher tax rates.

[coyotes_geek]

CG, to be fair I think everyone's taxes should go up but the fact remains that if we had created wealth over the past decade instead of just redistributed it to the upper x% more people would be paying higher tax rates.

Dumping cap gains rates would go a long ways towards correcting that imbalance IMO.

[coyotes_geek]

Capping deductions would also be a good thing to do.

[ElNono]

Outlawing Dutch sandwich accounting would help too.

[boutons_deux]

I read that they're thinking about reducing, but not removing, the tax deduction for employee health insurance. That would hasten a lot more companies to drop health plans, pushing employees to exchanges and be a great motivation for a hardcore public option. Obviously, for-profit health insurers are avidly against dropping the tax deduction. Probably won't happen.

Dropping the tax deduction for mortgages would raise a lot. :)

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah, I think he proposed it knowing it was a non-starter with the Republicans since it included tax increases. Now he can look like he was trying to be "moderate" and the Republicans were obstructionists. Do you REALLY think he wanted his name on a plan that cut SS and Medicare?

Well if Republicans are refusing any tax increases... doesn't that make them obstructionist? :lol

To Republicans, compromise means the Democrats caving.

[scott]

Curious who here is actually a millionaire. Raise your hand and state your position.

[RandomGuy]

Curious who here is actually a millionaire. Raise your hand and state your position.

The millionaires I know realize and are honest that they can spare a bit more in taxes than anybody else.

Of course they hate paying taxes because it "contributes" to what they see as "a government corrupted by corporate interests".

[RandomGuy]

I would also point out that technically, we aren't in a recession.

A lot of people miss that.

[boutons_deux]

"A lot of people miss that."

Nearly all economists and the Fed "missed" the credit/mortage/housing bubble, so yes, their "technical" definition of "recession over" that leave 9%+ unemployed and man millions more mal/under/partially employed proves what bunch of silly, Fed-Dominated assholes they are.

[Winehole23]

I would also point out that technically, we aren't in a recession.

A lot of people miss that.Tell it to the jobless.
http://www.brookings.edu/%7E/media/Files/rc/opinions/2011/0708_jobs_greenstone_looney/chart3%20ver%202.jpg

[jacobdrj]

I don't really see a practical difference. Taxes are taxes. Whether state or federal, they are supporting the government. The burden is the same. The percentage of their income doesn't change. Just because the more impoverished only pay to the local government in terms of sales taxes is something the state and federal governments need to address amongst themselves. To say they don't pay is dishonest. You just don't like where they are sending that money. That isn't the taxpayers' problem, unless he has the choice to simply move somewhere else. Even illegals pay these taxes!

[coyotes_geek]

I don't really see a practical difference. Taxes are taxes. Whether state or federal, they are supporting the government.

Try telling your local county tax assessor that you'll be sending your next property tax check to the federal government instead of them and let me know how that works out for you. Be sure to point out that taxes are taxes and that as long as you're sending that money to some government, it doesn't matter which one you send that money too.


The burden is the same.

No, it's not. Someone paying state sales taxes is not carrying the same burden as someone paying state sales taxes and federal income taxes.


The percentage of their income doesn't change. Just because the more impoverished only pay to the local government in terms of sales taxes is something the state and federal governments need to address amongst themselves.

It's been resolved. The states have their taxing mechanisms, the federal government has theirs. Paying towards one doesn't free you from obligations to the other.


To say they don't pay is dishonest.

Actually it's true.


You just don't like where they are sending that money.

Incorrect. I don't like that 50% of the country doesn't have to pay federal income tax. If you're making the median income in this country, you are not poor. You can afford to pay something in federal income taxes, regardless of what you're spending on state & local taxes.


That isn't the taxpayers' problem, unless he has the choice to simply move somewhere else. Even illegals pay these taxes!

You do have the choice to simply move somewhere else.

[jacobdrj]

Try telling your local county tax assessor that you'll be sending your next property tax check to the federal government instead of them and let me know how that works out for you. Be sure to point out that taxes are taxes and that as long as you're sending that money to some government, it doesn't matter which one you send that money too.



No, it's not. Someone paying state sales taxes is not carrying the same burden as someone paying state sales taxes and federal income taxes.



It's been resolved. The states have their taxing mechanisms, the federal government has theirs. Paying towards one doesn't free you from obligations to the other.



Actually it's true.



Incorrect. I don't like that 50% of the country doesn't have to pay federal income tax. If you're making the median income in this country, you are not poor. You can afford to pay something in federal income taxes, regardless of what you're spending on state & local taxes.



You do have the choice to simply move somewhere else.

Tax burden fundamentally takes into account percentage of income. Someone paying both sales and income taxes has a far smaller percentage burden coming from that sales tax relative to their total income.

You can choose to differentiate the taxes between the federal and state governments, but I am not sure the taxpayer cares who is taking their money, just that a government is taking it.

And as far as moving, if they are so impoverished as not to be able to pay income taxes, it follows they likely do not have the means to 'move'. Hence my comment.

Again, whether it is state or federal, that is between those 2 and how the voters decide how that is divided.

I think we are going to have to agree do disagree here.

[TDMVPDPOY]

raise taxes, more like introduced a new tax like carbon emissions tax while cutting some rebates and welfare handouts while bumping up the tax brackets to offset....thats what did in australia this past week, just another tax and the public is already hating the pm.

i think usa is going to introduced a emissions tax soon.... fkn pathetic when the market would just pass the expense down to the consumer...

[coyotes_geek]

i think usa is going to introduced a emissions tax soon.... fkn pathetic when the market would just pass the expense down to the consumer...

Won't happen. Republicans don't want it and union labor democrats don't want it. Together they're too big of a majority for environmentalist democrats to overcome to get something like that pushed through.

[MannyIsGod]

Tell it to the jobless.
http://www.brookings.edu/%7E/media/Files/rc/opinions/2011/0708_jobs_greenstone_looney/chart3%20ver%202.jpg

Its the new reality, not a recession.

[DarrinS]

Curious who here is actually a millionaire. Raise your hand and state your position.

250K is the new million

[Winehole23]

Its the new reality, not a recession.The new reality sucks almost as bad as the recession. Some rebound we're having, eh?

[MannyIsGod]

Sure - but with no quick fix at some point you have to start doing things like raising taxes. There was a time when we could have done better with stimulus but that time is gone. Now that we got the lemons, we better find some way to make some lemonade.

[scott]

250K is the new million

Not what I asked. Learn to read, dipshit.

[boutons_deux]

"find some way to make some lemonade."

ain't no "way".

The VRWC's restructuring of the country and economy and the Repugs increasing still extremism and polarization these past 30+ years to their favor and to everybody's else's disfavor is ratcheted into place, irreversible, and as we can see with the obstructive/destructive Repugs in Congress and the Repugs in several states, the ratchet is advancing to screw over public schools (tea party admits they want to destroy public schools), salaries, pensions, employees, patients, unions, retirees, the poor, the disabled, the vets, etc.

The VRWC has got the country by balls with their Banksters' Great Depression, and they ain't gonna let go. Such huge political and economic power is never given away freely.

[DarrinS]

I would also point out that technically, we aren't in a recession.

A lot of people miss that.

Whew! What a relief. Thanks man.

[RandomGuy]

Whew! What a relief. Thanks man.

That's it? Your entire position here has been debunked as either factually incorrect or logically flawed, and all you have is some weak sauce attempt at sarcasm?

[DarrinS]

That's it? Your entire position here has been debunked as either factually incorrect or logically flawed, and all you have is some weak sauce attempt at sarcasm?

What's clearly debunked is Keynesian economics.

[Winehole23]

Now that we got the lemons, we better find some way to make some lemonade.We are the lemons, dude, but yeah. People with gross quantities of spare juice can kick down a little harder.


(BTW, so can everybody else: we're all in the same boat.)

[Winehole23]

What's clearly debunked is Keynesian economics.Every other economic theory has failed or soon will, so it's a rather large club.

[MannyIsGod]

We are the lemons, dude, but yeah. People with gross quantities of spare juice can kick down a little harder.


(BTW, so can everybody else: we're all in the same boat.)

I won't argue against raising taxes on everyone. I don't think there's much sound economics behind it but I do think there's a lot of sound social reasons to do so. Mainly, maybe people will pay attention more if their having to pay some more into the system.

[MannyIsGod]

What's clearly debunked is Keynesian economics.

Um what? Keynesian economics has certainly be reinforced every step of the way in recent years.

[RandomGuy]

What's clearly debunked is Keynesian economics.

Because *you* say it is?

You will have to pardon me while I don't assign that any credibility whatsoever.

If I had more time, I would simply search for all the times the 9-11 truthers claim to have "debunked" the claims of the "shills", and see who well that aligns with what you are tryign to do here.

Since it is so clearly debunked, please demonstrate how. Unless your mouth just cashed a check your ass can't cash.

That is how the truthers and other conspiracy wankers operate. Claim something they disagree with is "debunked" then completely fail to back up that claim with anything that approaches logical arguments or reasonable evidence, and prance around pretending to have won some great point.

I call bullshit on this. Back it up or take it back.

and no, I won't do your work for you. If you want to be a lazy shit, just say so up front.

[MannyIsGod]

He's absolutely wrong but since when has being wrong ever stopped Darrin from anything? Don't expect to draw out substantial conversation from Darrin, though. He's got his trolling methods down to a science.

[Winehole23]

I won't argue against raising taxes on everyone. I don't think there's much sound economics behind it but I do think there's a lot of sound social reasons to do so.I roughly agree with this, Manny.

[coyotes_geek]

We really don't know whether Keynesian economics have been debunked or not because the government's attempts at it haven't really been in tune with what Keynes was advocating. Keynes wanted government to make investments in infrastructure and to spend money in other ways that directly contributed to creating demand. Government was supposed to be the entity demanding the goods and services.

But that's not really what we did. Instead of the government demanding goods and services, the government basically just gave a bunch of money away through tax breaks and other direct payments to individuals hoping that the demand would create itself. The government wanted to spend money to put people to work, but apparantely didn't think it was warm and fuzzy enough to actually require people to work for the money they wanted to spend. The end result was a stimulus package that was essentially ineffective because a large chunk of the population took the money they were given and basically funnelled it to the banks via paying down debt or putting it into savings.

[MannyIsGod]

Not to mention Keynesian economics is not simply spending when the economy is down but rather draw backs during times of economic boom. Yeah, when the hell has the United States undertaken that aspect of it?

The idea behind Keynesian economics is to flatten the wave - not to eliminate all troughs.

[coyotes_geek]

Not to mention Keynesian economics is not simply spending when the economy is down but rather draw backs during times of economic boom. Yeah, when the hell has the United States undertaken that aspect of it?

The idea behind Keynesian economics is to flatten the wave - not to eliminate all troughs.

Good point. We've been practicing our bastardized Keynsian approach through good times and bad, for decades now.

[Winehole23]

We really don't know whether Keynesian economics have been debunked or not because the government's attempts at it haven't really been in tune with what Keynes was advocating. Keynes wanted government to make investments in infrastructure and to spend money in other ways that directly contributed to creating demand. Government was supposed to be the entity demanding the goods and services.

But that's not really what we did. Instead of the government demanding goods and services, the government basically just gave a bunch of money away through tax breaks and other direct payments to individuals hoping that the demand would create itself. The government wanted to spend money to put people to work, but apparantely didn't think it was warm and fuzzy enough to actually require people to work for the money they wanted to spend. The end result was a stimulus package that was essentially ineffective because a large chunk of the population took the money they were given and basically funnelled it to the banks via paying down debt or putting it into savings.According to Keynesian theory, government is supposed to fill the demand gap. Your point that very little practical attempt to do so was made, in favor of temporary tax gimmicks and such, is salient.

[boutons_deux]

Much of the ARRA funds went to states and muncipalities to keep people employed and off the dole. Job maintenance is as important and easier than job creation.

[DarrinS]

Much of the ARRA funds went to states and muncipalities to keep people employed and off the dole.

They're on the dole either way.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Because *you* say it is?

You will have to pardon me while I don't assign that any credibility whatsoever.

If I had more time, I would simply search for all the times the 9-11 truthers claim to have "debunked" the claims of the "shills", and see who well that aligns with what you are tryign to do here.

Since it is so clearly debunked, please demonstrate how. Unless your mouth just cashed a check your ass can't cash.

That is how the truthers and other conspiracy wankers operate. Claim something they disagree with is "debunked" then completely fail to back up that claim with anything that approaches logical arguments or reasonable evidence, and prance around pretending to have won some great point.

I call bullshit on this. Back it up or take it back.

and no, I won't do your work for you. If you want to be a lazy shit, just say so up front.


sorry RG but if darrins says so it must be the truth..

[boutons_deux]

They're on the dole either way.

no, sitting at home/looking for a job is not producing.

Being employed at a job is not on the dole.

The public employees getting laid off and forced to renegotiate pension/employement contract were not the cause of the Banksters' Great Depression.

They, along with the poor, sick, disabled, young, old, and millions of middle class employees now jobless, are being scapegoated and punished for the Banksters' crimes.

[Wild Cobra]

Not to mention Keynesian economics is not simply spending when the economy is down but rather draw backs during times of economic boom. Yeah, when the hell has the United States undertaken that aspect of it?

The idea behind Keynesian economics is to flatten the wave - not to eliminate all troughs.
It was also never advocated in times with such high debt ratios.

[spursncowboys]

Raising taxes as in just getting rid of the Bush tax cuts?

[Wild Cobra]

Raising taxes as in just getting rid of the Bush tax cuts?
We can get rid of the cuts. At the same time, lets get rid of most tax deductions. Make the short and long form simple again.

How many people would be willing to pay more in taxes if they don't have to pay someone else to do them anyway?

[spursncowboys]

I agree completely WC. streamline the IRS before anything.

[boutons_deux]

the complexity and opacity of the tax code is how the corps and wealthy game the system in tandem with bought legislators and lobbyists writing the tax code.

it's not complexity for bureaucracy's sake. there's method in the madness.

[Wild Cobra]

The most important thing is stop messing with the tax system. Stick with one method so people and businesses know how to plan for the future, instead of always yanking the rug out of someone.

I'll bet many economists will agree it's the talk about hurting someone's tax position that hamper future growth as much or more than a given rate.

[Wild Cobra]

the complexity and opacity of the tax code is how the corps and wealthy game the system in tandem with bought legislators and lobbyists writing the tax code.

it's not complexity for bureaucracy's sake. there's method in the madness.And that's why we will never see a system that makes sense.

It takes power away from legislators.

[boutons_deux]

UCA and capitalists get the tax code they pay for.

[LnGrrrR]

And that's why we will never see a system that makes sense.

It takes power away from legislators.

Who do you think has more influence on introducing/keeping tax cuts? The middle class or the upper class?

[Wild Cobra]

Who do you think has more influence on introducing/keeping tax cuts? The middle class or the upper class?
I would say the lower class and upper class have about equal pull. It's the middle class that keeps getting screwed.

[boutons_deux]

UCA at work:

Lies, Damned Lies, and Big Oil Statistics

The latest biased report from an oil-industry-funded outfit is “Repealing Tax Deductions on U.S. Energy Companies Exacerbates Federal Deficit, Increases U.S. Debt” by Joseph Mason, a Professor at Louisiana State University. The report was “prepared with the support of the American Energy Alliance,” which receives oil industry funds. The study unabashedly relies on other oil-industry funded research to support its false claims.

In the report, Mason attempts to evaluate the impact of eliminating two special subsidies enjoyed by the oil industry:

Domestic manufacturing deductions for oil production under Section 199 of the U.S. tax code
The treatment of so-called “dual capacity taxpayers” who claim foreign tax credits, including oil companies

These are both arcane tax loopholes that reaped oil companies $29 billion over the past decade.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/13/268115/lies-damned-lies-and-big-oil-statistics/

[LnGrrrR]

I would say the lower class and upper class have about equal pull. It's the middle class that keeps getting screwed.

I would say that the upper class have much greater say in determining laws and loopholes. Heck, just look at the financial makeup of Congress, especially the Senate. As a percentage of the population, lower/middle class aren't close to being represented near their national numbers. (Neither are various minorities for that matter, but that's a different issue. Heck, I don't even know of one open atheist in Congress.)

[Wild Cobra]

I would say that the upper class have much greater say in determining laws and loopholes. Heck, just look at the financial makeup of Congress, especially the Senate. As a percentage of the population, lower/middle class aren't close to being represented near their national numbers. (Neither are various minorities for that matter, but that's a different issue. Heck, I don't even know of one open atheist in Congress.)
Yes, that's one side of the coin. The other side is making the poor happy.

Democrats pay for votes by subsidizing the poor.

Republicans pay for votes by giving tax breaks to the rich.

[spursncowboys]

Who do you think has more influence on introducing/keeping tax cuts? The middle class or the upper class?
For the class warfare Dems- lower class. It is their vote getter. 1. Makes people think they are taking from the evil rich and 2. Gives them an attack on the Repubs. However, like always, when the Buerocrats start making the actual wording is when the upperclass gets their say with all their loopholes and exceptions. So in the end it's equal, IMO.

[MannyIsGod]

There is no way the lower class have more (or even close to equal) of an influence over either party. You need proof? Look at the banking bullshit that just went down over the past 3 years.

[ChumpDumper]

You don't raise taxes during a recession
http://dc-cdn.virtacore.com/2011/02/reagan.jpg
I did, dumbass.

[ferg]

looking at it from my simple frame of mind my logic is this. if the govt raises taxes on me and im a wealthy business owner i would raise the price of whatever product i am putting out. i would think doing that would offset the cost of the higher taxes for MYSELF and pass it on down the line to the conusmer. doing so i would be able to maintain my lifestyle and not worry about higher taxes because of the extra revenue coming in. so raise taxes on the richers and lets watch everything else up as well..... sounds like a plan! where can i sign up?

[spursncowboys]

Reagan: Cumulative tax cuts=275.3B
Cumulative tax increase= 132.7B
Total net tax cuts= 142.6B

[ChumpDumper]

Reagan: Cumulative tax cuts=275.3B
Cumulative tax increase= 132.7B
Total net tax cuts= 142.6B
http://dc-cdn.virtacore.com/2011/02/reagan.jpg
I raised taxes during a recession, dumbass.

[ChumpDumper]

Reagan: Cumulative tax cuts=275.3B
Cumulative tax increase= 132.7B
Total net tax cuts= 142.6BAnd tell me how much Obama's tax cuts have added up to so far.

Thanks in advance.

[spursncowboys]

You tell me. Let me know how well their Pay-Go has worked out for them since their pledge in 06. Preciate it in advance.

[ChumpDumper]

You tell me.I asked you, dumbass.

You gave the numbers for Reagan.

Without a link.

Why don't you give a link to the blog from which you lifted that?

[spursncowboys]

Why? You are just repeating what an orchastra of liberal writers and bloggers are quoting from their favorite sci-fi novelist Paul Krugman. Why should I be in the business of doing your citing. You clearly don't do your homework. I also didn't get it from a blog. I actually did the math retard.

[ChumpDumper]

Why? You are just repeating what an orchastra of liberal writers and bloggers are quoting from their favorite sci-fi novelist Paul Krugman. Why should I be in the business of doing your citing. You clearly don't do your homework. I also didn't get it from a blog. I actually did the math retard.I call bullshit on that. It's too easy to find other examples.

Reagan raised taxes during a recession.

You can't refute that.

That's the subject of this thread.

Trying to change the subject won't change the fact that Reagan raised taxes during a recession.

[ChumpDumper]

Why? You are just repeating what an orchastra of liberal writers and bloggers are quoting from their favorite sci-fi novelist Paul Krugman.It's a clear historical fact that Regan raised taxes suring a recession. No blog need be consulted.
Why should I be in the business of doing your citing.I didn't ask you to cite my sources; you should be in the business of doing your citing, you colossal idiot.
You clearly don't do your homework.I clearly did, since you did nothing to refute the simple fact that Reagan raised taxes during a recession.
I also didn't get it from a blog. I actually did the math retard.Where did you get the numbers?

Citation needed.

[spursncowboys]

Just because I didn't refute it doesn't mean it's factual. Where did you get your information? Link?

[Wild Cobra]

Just because I didn't refute it doesn't mean it's factual. Where did you get your information? Link?
Maybe he's thinking the higher revenues generated from lower taxes was a tax increase?

[spursncowboys]

You calling anyone a colossal idiot. lol

[ElNono]

Maybe he's thinking the higher revenues generated from lower taxes was a tax increase?

He couldn't possibly think that since lower taxes have never generated higher revenues.

[Wild Cobra]

He couldn't possibly think that since lower taxes have never generated higher revenues.
OK.

What ever you say.

[ElNono]

What ever you say.

You should've started there and saved a whole lot of posts, tbh

[Wild Cobra]

You should've started there and saved a whole lot of posts, tbh
LOL...


I didn't mean I agreed with you. It's just I have no intention of wasting my time with you over this. We have gone over it too many times in the past. Neither of us are changing each others mind.

[ChumpDumper]

Just because I didn't refute it doesn't mean it's factual. Where did you get your information? Link?http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL97-248.pdf

Feel free to refute it.

[ElNono]

I didn't mean I agreed with you. It's just I have no intention of wasting my time with you over this.

This isn't something to agree/disagree with. It's not an opinion. You already did the research and it's simply a fact.

[Wild Cobra]

http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL97-248.pdf

Feel free to refute it.
I see.

Removing unintended loopholes is raising taxes.

OK. I get it. I too am in favor of such measures.

[ChumpDumper]

I see.

Removing unintended loopholes is raising taxes.

OK. I get it. I too am in favor of such measures.During a recession, no less.

[LnGrrrR]

Wont making rich people pay more money by eliminating reductions cause them to flee America? Isn't that the logic?

[ChumpDumper]

WC is in favor of killing jobs!

During a recession!

[ChumpDumper]

Damn, Reagan more than doubled the excise tax on gasoline during a recession too!

[Wild Cobra]

Wont making rich people pay more money by eliminating reductions cause them to flee America? Isn't that the logic?
That's why their tax rates need to be reduces also. They are fleeing already. What are we going to do to keep them here?

[Wild Cobra]

Damn, Reagan more than doubled the excise tax on gasoline during a recession too!
Whoop-t-doo...

3 cents to 8 cents...

Gasoline tax should be indexed to inflation anyway. A fixed cent/gallon makes no cents (pun intended.)

[ChumpDumper]

So you guys really don't have a problem with raising taxes during a recession.

:tu

[Winehole23]

I think it's reasonable to be concerned about our fiscal situation and to adjust accordingly, even in a "recovery".

[Winehole23]

Obama doesnt seem to have a problem with it.

[DJ Mbenga]

just lower taxes for people making more than 1 million to 0%. that way unemployment drops to 5 % quickly. cause lower taxes =jobs

[Winehole23]

Besides, isn't the recession already technically over, probably?

[LnGrrrR]

That's why their tax rates need to be reduces also. They are fleeing already. What are we going to do to keep them here?

I thought you said a flat tax rate, without loopholes, might bring in more tax money from the upper class?

Do you think we should lower the tax burden on the rich and shift it to the middle class and/or poor? Or should the govt just take less revenue in?

[boutons_deux]

"They are fleeing already"

link? proof?

NYC and CA, with state income taxes and state/city sales taxes, are full of multi-millionaires and billionaires, have been for a long time. They don't flee (but they almost certainly avoid and/or criminally evade paying all their taxes).

[RandomGuy]

Why? You are just repeating what an orchastra of liberal writers and bloggers are quoting from their favorite sci-fi novelist Paul Krugman. Why should I be in the business of doing your citing. You clearly don't do your homework. I also didn't get it from a blog. I actually did the math retard.

The figures are yours, and it is not anyone else's responsibility to figure out where you got them from.

If you give a figure, at least do everyone the courtesy of telling them where you got it, so we can judge for ourselves how much credence to give them.

[Agloco]

I agree but I disagree.

I say we need to go back to a maximum 28% marginal rate for top earners, but at the same time, eliminate nearly all deductions on gross income.If we are to actually raise taxes, then go back to the 15%/28% min/max marginal rates.

I wonder what effect that would have on a middle class family with very little disposable income to begin with.

I can't see it as being positive.

[RandomGuy]

For the class warfare Dems- lower class. It is their vote getter. 1. Makes people think they are taking from the evil rich and 2. Gives them an attack on the Repubs. However, like always, when the Buerocrats start making the actual wording is when the upperclass gets their say with all their loopholes and exceptions. So in the end it's equal, IMO.

The GOP is fighting class warfare already for the upper class. It is their vote getter.

As I have said before, the accusation that Democrats are only interested in "class warfare" is another hollow one to me.

Class warfare is being waged already, and the upper class with its vast resources is winning in shifting the burden of government to the middle and lower classes.

They do this through all sorts of policies, and they use Republicans to do the fighting for them to enact those policies. To think only one side is doing it, is naive.

Class warfare has always existed, and we don't like to admit that because we still buy into the myth that social mobility is available to everyone.

[RandomGuy]

I wonder what effect that would have on a middle class family with very little disposable income to begin with.

I can't see it as being positive.

It is hard to estimate the real ultimate effect of eliminating all the deductions, if only because of the sheer number of them.

As I noted earlier, the best estimates say that we could lower the "book" rate by quite a bit, simply because those deductions undermine the current stated rates of income tax on various levels of income.

If you have a rule, but allow almost everybody to be exempt from that rule, why bother with the fiction? I think it would be a helluva lot more honest to just have a more firm rule with no exceptions.

The problem is that we pull the "lever" of the tax code to accomplish all manner of social engineering, from encouraging home ownership, to encouraging people to go to college.

It is an easy thing to do. We could just as easily provide direct payments that would be a bit more transparent, something I would be all for.

[boutons_deux]

"hard to estimate the real ultimate effect of eliminating all the deductions, if only because of the sheer number of them."

let's just say: GREATLY INCREASED REVENUE

ain't nobody gonna touch the tax code, because the UCA/capitalists have spent decades complexifying/gaming it to their advantage. The tax legislation is written in Congress,and we know for sure that's an impregnable-by-Human-Americans fortress commadeered by UCA/capitalists.

[Agloco]

I would also point out that technically, we aren't in a recession.

A lot of people miss that.

I don't doubt that by the textbook definition we aren't, but in this scenario aren't we sailing into uncharted waters? I see this in virtually every article I run across......something to that effect at least.

How well do the traditional axioms hold up this time around? What's your opinion on the markets' psychology with respect to that notion at this point?

To borrow a medical analogy, I just wonder if we aren't treating what we see on the monitor instead of treating the patient.

[Agloco]

It is hard to estimate the real ultimate effect of eliminating all the deductions, if only because of the sheer number of them.

As I noted earlier, the best estimates say that we could lower the "book" rate by quite a bit, simply because those deductions undermine the current stated rates of income tax on various levels of income.

If you have a rule, but allow almost everybody to be exempt from that rule, why bother with the fiction? I think it would be a helluva lot more honest to just have a more firm rule with no exceptions.

The problem is that we pull the "lever" of the tax code to accomplish all manner of social engineering, from encouraging home ownership, to encouraging people to go to college.

It is an easy thing to do. We could just as easily provide direct payments that would be a bit more transparent, something I would be all for.

I see the logic here, but the money necessarily passes through that wonderful filter called government. I have to wonder how much of that money gets back into the "jobs creation pipeline" then.

I don't know the figures, but I do agree that taxes need to be collected with more urgency and purpose.

Playing a little devils advocate doesn't hurt every now and again.


Class warfare has always existed, and we don't like to admit that because we still buy into the myth that social mobility is available to everyone.

:tu

Quite insightful.

[boutons_deux]

"myth that social mobility is available to everyone"

social mobility, and real household income, has been stagnant/decreasing over exactly the same period, 1975 and after, when the VRWC got going, esp with St Ronnie getting into office.

[Winehole23]

Besides, isn't the recession already technically over, probably?RG said as much, somewhere, recently.

[ChuckD]

just lower taxes for people making more than 1 million to 0%. that way unemployment drops to 5 % quickly. cause lower taxes =jobs

Fail. They just pocket it and create an army of Paris Hiltons by passing it along to winners of the brithright lottery who did nothing to earn it, and continue that pretty much throughout life.

[boutons_deux]

the recession, for those highly accurate Fed-sucking economists who missed the housing bubble, was over in 2009.

[RandomGuy]

Fail. They just pocket it and create an army of Paris Hiltons by passing it along to winners of the brithright lottery who did nothing to earn it, and continue that pretty much throughout life.

Birthright or just being born to the right bitch at the right time...

Leona Helmsley's Dog Heir, Trouble, Is Dead
(http://www.peoplepets.com/people/pets/article/0,,20501215,00.html)

I wonder how many jobs Trouble created with the money she inherited?

:rolleyes

[Ignignokt]

Just because you're born into american society doesn't mean you deserve all the wealth that comes from innovation and creation. The premise that the rich need to pay their fair share is class warfare itself. The rich as a whole aren't a monolith. The rich pass loopholes and regulation to war against other rich, their competitors to seize more market share.

Somebody always stands to gain an advantage from regulation even if it's intended to punish a whole market. Despite what manny say's. In a representative democracy, the poor and underclass don't need lobbyist, they are the majority, they have immense power, it's the rich who feel the need to pay for lobbyist to usurp the will of the majority.

[Ignignokt]

also, chump didn't prove shit. The premise of the thread was that the govt shouldn't raise income taxes, even though not specified, everyone knows the proper argument. Closing loopholes is not the same argument.

[MannyIsGod]

Just because you're born into american society doesn't mean you deserve all the wealth that comes from innovation and creation. The premise that the rich need to pay their fair share is class warfare itself. The rich as a whole aren't a monolith. The rich pass loopholes and regulation to war against other rich, their competitors to seize more market share.

Somebody always stands to gain an advantage from regulation even if it's intended to punish a whole market. Despite what manny say's. In a representative democracy, the poor and underclass don't need lobbyist, they are the majority, they have immense power, it's the rich who feel the need to pay for lobbyist to usurp the will of the majority.

You yourself just pointed out how the rich go above democracy using money in order to gain power right after calling me wrong. Ohhhhk.

[Prime1]

Just because you're born into american society doesn't mean you deserve all the wealth that comes from innovation and creation. The premise that the rich need to pay their fair share is class warfare itself. The rich as a whole aren't a monolith. The rich pass loopholes and regulation to war against other rich, their competitors to seize more market share.

Somebody always stands to gain an advantage from regulation even if it's intended to punish a whole market. Despite what manny say's. In a representative democracy, the poor and underclass don't need lobbyist, they are the majority, they have immense power, it's the rich who feel the need to pay for lobbyist to usurp the will of the majority.

Almost all innovation and creation comes from college educated employees. The super rich very rarely create anything. Studying books written on the lives of the people who populate the board rooms of most companies and you will want to tax the hell out of the people.

[Prime1]

double post

[Ignignokt]

You yourself just pointed out how the rich go above democracy using money in order to gain power right after calling me wrong. Ohhhhk.

You're wrong from the aspect that you unwittingly perpetuate that the rich are a monolith waging war against the poor. But it's more complex than that. You say that the poor have no power in this country, and that is false, i pointed out the fact that the rich need lobbyist discredits that notion. i hope i'm clear here. But let me say this, Individual rights should never be up for a vote. That's the principle of the Bill of Rights anyway.

[Ignignokt]

Almost all innovation and creation comes from college educated employees. The super rich very rarely create anything. Studying books written on the lives of the people who populate the board rooms of most companies and you will want to tax the hell out of the people.
You lack the understanding of what it is to create wealth. Having an idea does not make you rich alone. You need capital, management, advertising, logistics and resources. Those are things the rich provide. Is it fair in all cases? probably not, but to redistribute that wealth to more people does not make it moral. The world doesn't need 5000000 dependents compared to 1 rich heir.

[coyotes_geek]

Birthright or just being born to the right bitch at the right time...

Leona Helmsley's Dog Heir, Trouble, Is Dead
(http://www.peoplepets.com/people/pets/article/0,,20501215,00.html)

I wonder how many jobs Trouble created with the money she inherited?

:rolleyes

Not really a good example towards your point. Yeah, she left her dog $12 million dollars. She also left $4 to $8 billion to charity.

http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=188000018

[Spurminator]

Stifling competition through lobbying for regulation makes it harder to start and build a business. This also means the powerful businesses only get more powerful, and employment options decline because there are fewer businesses competing for the best talent/labor. These businesses also have an easier time under-staffing their workload, making their employees work longer, for less pay, because where else are they going to go?

[MannyIsGod]

You're wrong from the aspect that you unwittingly perpetuate that the rich are a monolith waging war against the poor. But it's more complex than that. You say that the poor have no power in this country, and that is false, i pointed out the fact that the rich need lobbyist discredits that notion. i hope i'm clear here. But let me say this, Individual rights should never be up for a vote. That's the principle of the Bill of Rights anyway.

Well I have never said that the poor have no power. Never. I just feel they're at a complete disadvantage that should be nullified because you're voting power should not be determined by your income.

Its the fact that lobbyist power is so easily wielded for results that benefit so few that I have a problem with.

[ChumpDumper]

also, chump didn't prove shit. The premise of the thread was that the govt shouldn't raise income taxes, even though not specified, everyone knows the proper argument. Closing loopholes is not the same argument.Taxes were raised during a recession. If you want Darrin to walk back from his statement and split hairs like a bitch, let him do it himself.

[Winehole23]

Just because you're born into american society doesn't mean you deserve all the wealth that comes from innovation and creation.Obviously not. If you can't get a nut, you can eat shit and die. That's what we "deserve" for being born into American society. Good thing the air is still free.

The premise that the rich need to pay their fair share is class warfare itself.Something less than their fair share would be more appropriate, in your opinion?
Despite what manny say's. In a representative democracy, the poor and underclass don't need lobbyist, they are the majority, they have immense power, it's the rich who feel the need to pay for lobbyist to usurp the will of the majority.Lobbyists keep the immensely powerful underclass from trampling the rich? I never thought of it that way before.

[ChumpDumper]

Thank God the rich have gtown to protect them from the poor.

[RandomGuy]

Not really a good example towards your point. Yeah, she left her dog $12 million dollars. She also left $4 to $8 billion to charity.

http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=188000018

and my point being...?

I just thought it was funny, although I could say that just because some bitch is rich, that doens't mean that she automatically is some magical job creation machine, like some seem to imply.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_01.jpg
http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_02.jpg
http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_03.jpg
http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_04.jpg

[RandomGuy]

http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_05.jpg
http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_06.jpg
http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_07.jpg

[RandomGuy]

http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_08.jpg
http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_09.jpg
http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_10.jpg
http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/story/franken_ssj_11.jpg

[coyotes_geek]

and my point being...?

I just thought it was funny, although I could say that just because some bitch is rich, that doens't mean that she automatically is some magical job creation machine, like some seem to imply.

And I'd agree with that statement. It's just not personified in someone who gave over 99% of her multi billion dollar estate to charity.

[Ignignokt]

Obviously not. If you can't get a nut, you can eat shit and die. That's what we "deserve" for being born into American society. Good thing the air is still free.
Something less than their fair share would be more appropriate, in your opinion?Lobbyists keep the immensely powerful underclass from trampling the rich? I never thought of it that way before.

Fair share! HA! why are you entitled to somebody else's wealth. From what moral premise? Bitching about the rich's gadgets is not a premise.

You have no moral ground to backup your argument. So now you think the govt should be in the buisiness on how you should spend your wealth? By what right?

[Ignignokt]

Thank God the rich have gtown to protect them from the poor.

And the poor are protected from your internet rhetorical guardianship. Pat yourself on the back.

[Ignignokt]

Well I have never said that the poor have no power. Never. I just feel they're at a complete disadvantage that should be nullified because you're voting power should not be determined by your income.

Its the fact that lobbyist power is so easily wielded for results that benefit so few that I have a problem with.

And how do the lobbyist do that?

1. Complicating the tax code in their favor

2. Passing progressive regulation that benefits their own private interest.

So, in essence. The programs you advocate to keep empower the endless cycle.

[ChumpDumper]

And the poor are protected from your internet rhetorical guardianship. Pat yourself on the back.Nah, I don't do much for them -- definitely not as much as you for the rich, you brave class warrior.

[Ignignokt]

Nah, I don't do much for them -- definitely not as much as you for the rich, you brave class warrior.

:toast brilliant posting

[MannyIsGod]

And how do the lobbyist do that?

1. Complicating the tax code in their favor

2. Passing progressive regulation that benefits their own private interest.

So, in essence. The programs you advocate to keep them in check.

They do it by passing programs that benefit themselves and by shooting down legislation that doesn't. The banking sector being deregulated to dangerous levels is progressive how? The criminalization of drugs like marijuana and the lobby for harsh prison terms for drug violators is progressive? I could go on for days.

[Ignignokt]

They do it by passing programs that benefit themselves and by shooting down legislation that doesn't. The banking sector being deregulated to dangerous levels is progressive how? The criminalization of drugs like marijuana and the lobby for harsh prison terms for drug violators is progressive? I could go on for days.

Regulations cause more problems for govt to fix. You wouldn't need Glass Steagull if interest rates were set by a truly free market. You would have bad consequences yes, but they would easily be liquidated and then the public wouldn't purchase them. THe fact that the govt artificially kept interest rates low excacerbated the risk of bad buisiness practice.

Fact is too, that the progressive movement started with prohibition of drugs. So yeah, i support repealing all drug laws.

[boutons_deux]

taxes are already historically low, but that's doing nothing for getting the economy going

"Income-tax receipts are down sharply since the Bush tax cuts. In fiscal 2000, the year before the cuts began to take effect, receipts from the federal income tax on individuals amounted to 10.2 percent of GDP. That figure was down to 6.2 percent of GDP last year.
Spending for the military and for homeland security has risen substantially since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Spending for national defense rose from 3.0 percent of GDP that year to 4.8 percent last year."

http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/

[boutons_deux]

CBS Poll: 71% shun GOP handling of debt crisis

with a new CBS News poll showing a majority disapprove of all the involved parties' conduct, but Republicans in Congress fare the worst, with just 21 percent backing their intransigent resistance to raising taxes.

Even half of the Republican respondents (51 percent) voiced disapproval of how members of their own party in Congress are handling the talks.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/18/995528/-CBS-Poll:-71-shun-GOP-handling-of-debt-crisis?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

[boutons_deux]

U.S. Government Receipts as Percent of GDP


http://cr4re.com/CRimages/USReceipts.jpg

=======

Low taxes does not equal anything but deficits, not economic growth. The beast is starved, now the Repugs, pledged to Norquist to NEVER raise taxes, want to drown it in a bathtub.

[Winehole23]

Fair share! HA! why are you entitled to somebody else's wealth. Never said I was. I just asked you what you thought would be fair. You don't do very well with direct questions but I knew that already and you just keep proving it. :tu

[RandomGuy]

Regulations cause more problems for govt to fix. You wouldn't need Glass Steagull if interest rates were set by a truly free market. You would have bad consequences yes, but they would easily be liquidated and then the public wouldn't purchase them. THe fact that the govt artificially kept interest rates low excacerbated the risk of bad buisiness practice.

Fact is too, that the progressive movement started with prohibition of drugs. So yeah, i support repealing all drug laws.

Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999, and didn't have anything to do with how the free market sets interest rates. "Bad consequences" in this case was that its repeal effectively let investment banks play craps with their depositors money with the mortgage crisis as one of the direct results.

Government isn't *the* solution to everything, but then neither is the "free market", whatever that means.

Large corporations wield immense power and groups of large corporations even more so. What I find funny is that the same people who rail against "government overreach" think nothing when large corporations and groups of corporations do things that shock the conscience.

People that worship the free market seem to always miss that no market, even if one were to strip away all regulation, would be truly "free", and still subject to all sorts of information assymetries that distort markets as much, if not more, than any government interference.

Personally, I am not one to want to rush back to the Guilded Age.

[ElNono]

Ponzi schemes are only ok when Bernie Madoff runs them... :jack

[RandomGuy]

Ponzi schemes are only ok when Bernie Madoff runs them... :jack

He'da gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling government regulators!

[MannyIsGod]

Regulations cause more problems for govt to fix. You wouldn't need Glass Steagull if interest rates were set by a truly free market. You would have bad consequences yes, but they would easily be liquidated and then the public wouldn't purchase them. THe fact that the govt artificially kept interest rates low excacerbated the risk of bad buisiness practice.

Fact is too, that the progressive movement started with prohibition of drugs. So yeah, i support repealing all drug laws.

If the "truly free market" actually worked in any type of regulation then federal regulations would be redundant. We've seen thats not the case at all. Sure, corporations can buy the federal government at this time but pointing that out in favor of eliminating regulation doesn't solve the issue it just makes it easier for corporations and lobbyists to work the system in their favor.

[Ignignokt]

If the "truly free market" actually worked in any type of regulation then federal regulations would be redundant. We've seen thats not the case at all. Sure, corporations can buy the federal government at this time but pointing that out in favor of eliminating regulation doesn't solve the issue it just makes it easier for corporations and lobbyists to work the system in their favor.

That's not free market capitalism. But that problem you posed can be easily eliminated by taking away the legal definition of personhood from corporations.

[Ignignokt]

Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999, and didn't have anything to do with how the free market sets interest rates. "Bad consequences" in this case was that its repeal effectively let investment banks play craps with their depositors money with the mortgage crisis as one of the direct results.

Government isn't *the* solution to everything, but then neither is the "free market", whatever that means.

Large corporations wield immense power and groups of large corporations even more so. What I find funny is that the same people who rail against "government overreach" think nothing when large corporations and groups of corporations do things that shock the conscience.

People that worship the free market seem to always miss that no market, even if one were to strip away all regulation, would be truly "free", and still subject to all sorts of information assymetries that distort markets as much, if not more, than any government interference.

Personally, I am not one to want to rush back to the Guilded Age.


You have no understanding of free markets. You assume there wouldn't be any way to punish ethics violations. Also, the point is not that Glass Steagall has rules regarding Fed Interest rates, but that Federal controlled interest rates worsened those effects. THe feds encouraged more debt lending by lowering the fed interest rates rather than letting the market set them. If the market set the interest rates based on economic performance, we've would have likely had the bubble come sooner, it would have been shorter, and the effects not as damning, considering that the Fed had to lower interest rates even tho the market was demanding them to be raised.If you can't understand this, i can't help you.

[Ignignokt]

If the "truly free market" actually worked in any type of regulation then federal regulations would be redundant. We've seen thats not the case at all. Sure, corporations can buy the federal government at this time but pointing that out in favor of eliminating regulation doesn't solve the issue it just makes it easier for corporations and lobbyists to work the system in their favor.

We've never had truly free markets anyway. The US from it's inception issued trade tarrifs and other regulations. So your point is moot.

[Ignignokt]

Some of you guys keep arguing a strawman anyway. When statements like, "well we saw how the free markets did in this case.. hah ha", you're discrediting mercantillism, not laissez faire capitalism

[ElNono]

That's not free market capitalism. But that problem you posed can be easily eliminated by taking away the legal definition of personhood from corporations.

I don't disagree with your take on this, but 'easily eliminated' is easier said than done. Ultimately, politics is played with money. That's the bottom line, and the reason more and more the red and blue team are only 'different' in talk only.

[ElNono]

We've never had truly free markets anyway. The US from it's inception issued trade tarrifs and other regulations. So your point is moot.

Have there ever been a state that did not? Otherwise we're just talking unrealistic wishful thinking. By most standard measures, the US has historically been the closest you're going to get to ideal free-market in this planet.


Some of you guys keep arguing a strawman anyway. When statements like, "well we saw how the free markets did in this case.. hah ha", you're discrediting mercantillism, not laissez faire capitalism

There's no such thing as 'laissez faire capitalism' in the real world. There's a degree of competition, but the reality is that the big players that eventually come out on top, will do whatever it takes to avoid competing in the long run, and prefer monopolizing, price-fixing, dumping, buy-outs, and every other strategy in the book (barring govt regulation that prevent those practices) to minimize competition exposure and retain their market leadership. It's in their best interest (and shareholder's interests obviously) to do so. Minimizing risk is always atop the priority list, and competition is a always risky proposition.

The free market has it's place. Government regulation has it's place too.
I think a much better argument would be that govt regulation is sometimes overrreaching, and you probably have a point there.

[Winehole23]

Fact is too, that the progressive movement started with prohibition of drugs. So yeah, i support repealing all drug laws.Agreed. We know it's all bad for us now, so let's have a little more freedom.

[Ignignokt]

Have there ever been a state that did not? Otherwise we're just talking unrealistic wishful thinking. By most standard measures, the US has historically been the closest you're going to get to ideal free-market in this planet.



There's no such thing as 'laissez faire capitalism' in the real world. There's a degree of competition, but the reality is that the big players that eventually come out on top, will do whatever it takes to avoid competing in the long run, and prefer monopolizing, price-fixing, dumping, buy-outs, and every other strategy in the book (barring govt regulation that prevent those practices) to minimize competition exposure and retain their market leadership. It's in their best interest (and shareholder's interests obviously) to do so. Minimizing risk is always atop the priority list, and competition is a always risky proposition.

The free market has it's place. Government regulation has it's place too.
I think a much better argument would be that govt regulation is sometimes overrreaching, and you probably have a point there.

The cartel price fixing examples you provided have already happened in the 19th century, but the market penalized those..
Cartels are generally viewed as evil, destructive schemes because they are overt attempts by a group of businesses to increase revenues by raising consumers’ prices across an industry. In and of itself, however, seeking higher prices for one’s products is not evil; it is good. The problem with cartels is not that they seek higher profits, but that they shortsightedly attempt to generate them by non-productive means. So long as the economic freedom to offer competing or substitute products exists—as should be the case—such a scheme is bound to fail.

Cartels are more accurately viewed as ineffectual than evil. Cutting off supply in order to effect higher profits rewards those who do not participate in the scheme (as well as cheaters within the cartel) with the opportunity to sell more of their own products at inflated prices. And to attempt a cartel is to invite a boycott and long-term alienation from one’s customers. These truths were borne out by both the South Improvement Company (SIC) scheme and the Pittsburgh Plan.

The Pennsylvania Railroad and its infamous leader, Tom Scott, a master manipulator of the Pennsylvania legislature, initiated the South Improvement Company cartel. Railroads, like oil refiners, were struggling financially; they too had overbuilt given the market. Having less traffic than they had anticipated, they sought to solve the problem by charging above-market prices. Here is the essence of their plan: The railroads would more than double the rates for everyone outside the cartel, including oil producers, to either bring all refiners into the SIC or drive them out of business. In turn, SIC refiners, which could constitute virtually all the refiners on the market, would impose strict limits on their output in order to raise prices. It seemed to be a “win-win” plan: The railroads would get higher rates and more revenue, and SIC refiners would raise prices and start profiting again.

This whole scheme, however, was delusional. For one, it presumed that the oil producers would accept catastrophic rate increases. They did not.

The oil producers—who were also the railroads’ consumers and the refineries’ suppliers—retaliated by placing an embargo on refineries associated with the South Improvement Company. The proposed rate increases were so dramatic and arbitrary that producers were strongly committed to the embargo—and it worked, cutting off Standard’s operations while benefiting those who did not participate. Writes Charles Morris in The Tycoons, “By early March, [1872] the Standard was effectively out of business, and up to 5,000 Cleveland refinery workers were laid off. . . . [In early April] the triumphant producers announced the end of their embargo.”51 The South Improvement Company never collected a rebate.

So much for Standard’s and the SIC’s “monopoly power.”

The other cartel in which Standard participated, the Pittsburgh Plan, was an agreement between oil producers and refiners to inflate their respective prices. While the 1870s began with high crude prices due to low crude supply and excess refinery capacity, a series of gushers soon reduced the price of crude to about $3.50 a barrel. Oil producers wanted to reverse this trend. Again, the idea was to artificially restrict production, raise prices, and reap the profits while competitors and consumers idly complied. The participants agreed that refiners would buy oil at the premium price of $5 a barrel (in some cases $4) so long as the producers substantially limited their production. Refineries, also, would limit production to raise their prices. The deal was wildly illogical; part of it stipulated that producers in the Oil Regions would simply cease new drilling for six months.

The plan dissolved in short order. Producers outside the cartel did not play their role of not trying to make a profit; instead, they expanded their production to make money—as did cartel members once this started happening. Prices fell—indeed, they fell immediately to the market rate, $3.25; within two months, following more crude discoveries, prices fell again, down to $2.52

Historians try to outdo one another in denouncing the oil cartels as immoral. But given the desperation of many in the industry, and the relatively primitive understanding of how such arrangements pan out, it is more valuable to learn from the incidents, to gain a better understanding of the nature of cartels and other attempts to control markets under economic freedom.

[Ignignokt]

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/standard-oil-company.asp

for any of you that are contentious. The source also lists scholarly sources if you care to verify.

[Ignignokt]

also, some of you forget. Mercantillism has been around for a long time. The founders rebelled against mercantillism and corporations. Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations was written late in the 18th century. By the beggining of the nineteenth century, statist govts in prussia and europe were already experimenting with anti capitalist, pro statist forms of govt. The American elite just mimicked everything that was in vogue in Europe so you had the Whig Party introduce things as a centralized National bank, public works, strong Federal powers etc. \

[ElNono]

The cartel price fixing examples you provided have already happened in the 19th century, but the market penalized those..

Obviously there would have been no Sherman Act if 'the market penalized those'.

Alex Epstein (good read, thanks) makes his case not for 'laissez faire capitalism', but to dispel the notion that oligopolies and monopolies that have been product of capitalism should be outlawed. If anything, he makes the case I mentioned earlier that Standard Oil couldn't obtain market dominance by just streamlining production, but also had to include buy-outs and rebates as part of their overall strategy for market dominance (With Epstein making a case for Rockefeller earning his rebates as opposed to using his 90% market share to leverage for better deals. 100 years later, it's still debatable).

Fact remains that when you have a company with a 90% market share, competition is basically nonexistent. Epstein doesn't even try to rebuke that competition was impossible with the system Rockefeller ultimately built. He just praises it for it's efficiency.

You'll find economists from both sides of the aisle argue about oligopolies and monopolies being 'good' or 'necessary' part of the free-market. A guy like Alan Greenspan was outspoken against the Sherman Act.

I think the more accurate question would be whether those oligopolies and monopolies are good for the consumers. Considering the eradication of competition, I'm not sold that they are.

[ElNono]

The founders rebelled against mercantillism and corporations. Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations was written late in the 18th century.

Let's be accurate here. While Adam Smith and the likes of Locke were certainly major players in the anti-mercantilism movement, another founding father like Alexander Hamilton was a mercantilism fanboy.

Also, even Smith recognized the protection of certain industries in the short term provided long term benefits (he ended up praising the 1650-1660 Navigation Acts, even after pointing out they had a cost to British consumers).

[ElNono]

Lastly, I want to add that the term "Mercantilism" has varied pretty wildly in it's meaning since the 18th century. Some people erroneously equate old-time Mercantilism with some of the economic doctrines posed by Keynes. While some points do overlap (ie: government intervention in the economy as necessary), some others do not (ie: a balanced trade sheet is important, and something that's been actively monitored since the 1930's).

Obviously, if you subscribe to the Austrian school of economics, which can talk a lot but can't seem to find the math to make their case, odds are you think everything is just the same.

[Ignignokt]

Obviously there would have been no Sherman Act if 'the market penalized those'.

Alex Epstein (good read, thanks) makes his case not for 'laissez faire capitalism', but to dispel the notion that oligopolies and monopolies that have been product of capitalism should be outlawed. If anything, he makes the case I mentioned earlier that Standard Oil couldn't obtain market dominance by just streamlining production, but also had to include buy-outs and rebates as part of their overall strategy for market dominance (With Epstein making a case for Rockefeller earning his rebates as opposed to using his 90% market share to leverage for better deals. 100 years later, it's still debatable).

Fact remains that when you have a company with a 90% market share, competition is basically nonexistent. Epstein doesn't even try to rebuke that competition was impossible with the system Rockefeller ultimately built. He just praises it for it's efficiency.

You'll find economists from both sides of the aisle argue about oligopolies and monopolies being 'good' or 'necessary' part of the free-market. A guy like Alan Greenspan was outspoken against the Sherman Act.

I think the more accurate question would be whether those oligopolies and monopolies are good for the consumers. Considering the eradication of competition, I'm not sold that they are.


You're idea of free markets is lacking. So long as the means of gaining market power are voluntary, and is not fraudulent or coercive it is a just transaction.

He did more than argue for the legitimacy of oligopolies and monopolies. He distinguished the difference between market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs, which he also distinguishes merit based monopolies compared to state sanctioned monopolies. He even provided reason as to why merit based monopolies are better for the consumer, he provided the whole Standard oil ascent as an example of how a product on the market was made cheaper because of vertical integration and efficiency.


Also, you point out a logical fallacy here. The sherman act was passed because it gives govt power to punish buisiness. Buisinessemen can be punished for being efficient, profitable and exceptional. That's the folly of the sherman act. It's that it's not objective, the application of the law is subjective and can be abused. Just look how Ida Tarbell helped the passage of this law and Sun Oil benefitted. It doesn't help that Ida Tarbell was related to the higher ups of Sun Oil.

And just because alan greenspan was against the sherman act, doesn't discredit my argument. He was also for monetary control and the federal reserve. Is Alan Greenspan all of the sudden a barometer for everything on what not to do? Obviously not.

THe reason anti trust law is bad is because it's immoral. It's the fact that a judge can seize assets by his whim because the buisiness is "too" good. When microsoft had the nerve to provide free browsers, netscape took them to court and the judge levied sanctions. That's the folly of your system.

Also, the Austrian school might have valid reasons as to why they don't have formulas. I'm not versed in it. But, formulas don't mean shit when discussing markets seeing as individual behaviour in markets induce so many variables as to the thought of predicting futures of markets should be questioned as a valid science.

Hey look at me! I got formulas, in the meantime your standard of living is going to shit! Take my ideas!


One thing can be for certain, austrian economics has not been practiced in america. What has been is Classical, Chicago School, and Keynesian. THe keynesians and the monetarist have fucked it up, so to claim that either is more valid is preposterous.

Take for instance that the Keynesians were smoked by the austrians regarding;

1. Post WW2 economic expansion. The keynesians maintained that after the war, there would be a huge economic collapse because govt would cease to purchase large assets. The austrians argued that pent up savings due to a command economy would prove otherwise.

2. Stagflation, the keynesians were dumbfounded and couldn't explain stagflation in the 70's.

3. Properly predicting both dot com bubbles and the housing crash. The austrians were at the forefront of this phenomenae. Not that they needed formulas, but that common sense principles of sound money were being eggregiously violated.

[Ignignokt]

Lastly, I want to add that the term "Mercantilism" has varied pretty wildly in it's meaning since the 18th century. Some people erroneously equate old-time Mercantilism with some of the economic doctrines posed by Keynes. While some points do overlap (ie: government intervention in the economy as necessary), some others do not (ie: a balanced trade sheet is important, and something that's been actively monitored since the 1930's).

Obviously, if you subscribe to the Austrian school of economics, which can talk a lot but can't seem to find the math to make their case, odds are you think everything is just the same.


Govt sanctioned corporate monopolies or markets whether by monarchy in the 17th and 18th century, or through liberal democracies are all the same in cause and effect. The principle has not changed, merely the players. Time has shown that this relationship benefits the state and it's corporate lords over the consumer. In a true free market where corporations have no legal privelege, the corporation is at the mercy of the consumer. When there is no force favoring one side like you have in keynesian, socialism, mixed market monetarism, you have equal bargaining power. There is no mechanism by which force can be used to keep one out of the market and offering a cheaper more cost effective product.

[LnGrrrR]

Long post about various forms of monopolies

Actually a pretty decent post.

[Winehole23]

In a true free market where corporations have no legal privilege, the corporation is at the mercy of the consumer. When there is no force favoring one side like you have in keynesian, socialism, mixed market monetarism, you have equal bargaining power.You've got something in common with the losers who claim true socialism has never been tried yet -- romantic allegiance to an Edenic state of nature, perhaps?

[Ignignokt]

You've got something in common with the losers who claim true socialism has never been tried yet -- romantic allegiance to an Edenic state of nature, perhaps?

Outside of the Wealth of nations. A scholar and systematic defense and support for free market capitalism has been around for only sixty years. the chicago school and the austrian school are recent phenomenae and for the past 200 yrs the west has been experimenting with secular statist social engineering of all sorts.

Ofcourse, nothing has changed. You still have collectivism, just that instead of the tribe, you have public will. Instead of kings, you have prime ministers, presidents, and Chancellor. Instead of nobles, you have legislators. But the transfer of wealth still lies behind one principle. "the common good". whether the common good be the crown, church, or society as a living organism etc, it's still the same. Those systems are an oppresor to the individual.

It's still seems as though society is too reliant on tribalism and collectivism. That's not fault of austrian economics. That's not to say that we're not gonna ever change. And that's not to say that it shouldn't be advocated.

[Winehole23]

And that's not to say that it shouldn't be advocated.Hey, go for it.

[ElNono]

You're idea of free markets is lacking. So long as the means of gaining market power are voluntary, and is not fraudulent or coercive it is a just transaction.

:lol Everyone's idea of what they free market is and how it should function is fundamentally different. There's no such thing as the big truth of the free market. You see it as this entire pure form, other people understand the free market to include certain controls. That's why there's various different schools of thought on economics from pretty much forever, and we're still having these discussions.


He did more than argue for the legitimacy of oligopolies and monopolies. He distinguished the difference between market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs, which he also distinguishes merit based monopolies compared to state sanctioned monopolies. He even provided reason as to why merit based monopolies are better for the consumer, he provided the whole Standard oil ascent as an example of how a product on the market was made cheaper because of vertical integration and efficiency.

I don't particularly like state-sanctioned monopolies any more than merit-based monopolies. The Standard Oil ascent included major competition and an incredible amount of business streamlining that was simply unseen at the time. That in itself is a great story. What followed, however, was a plethora of fairly well documented shady deals (not by just Ida Tarbell). From not only obtaining rebates, but actually sanctioning competitors (remember some of those contracts leaked, it wasn't some made up story) to sidestepping the Ohio ruling with the creation of shell companies (or 'trusts').


Also, you point out a logical fallacy here. The sherman act was passed because it gives govt power to punish buisiness. Buisinessemen can be punished for being efficient, profitable and exceptional. That's the folly of the sherman act. It's that it's not objective, the application of the law is subjective and can be abused. Just look how Ida Tarbell helped the passage of this law and Sun Oil benefitted. It doesn't help that Ida Tarbell was related to the higher ups of Sun Oil.

Laws have always been abused. And I won't say the Sherman Act has not been abused before. But to argue that corporations, including Standard Oil, didn't use their dominant position to remove any type of competition is just absurd. I concur Ida Tarbell had a serious interest in Standard Oil's demise, and her commentary loses some credibility because of that. But that wasn't the sole source of historical information of Standard Oil. And I think that's where Alex Epstein really misses the boat. There's the DOJ allegations, the actual actions by the company, etc.

Here's a different view at Standard Oil's market dominance and how it was achieved, including some of the stuff they did to keep that dominance:
http://books.google.com/books?id=htQDB-Pf4VIC&pg=PA11&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false


And just because alan greenspan was against the sherman act, doesn't discredit my argument. He was also for monetary control and the federal reserve. Is Alan Greenspan all of the sudden a barometer for everything on what not to do? Obviously not.

I have no intention of discrediting any argument. You're entitled to your opinion, as I'm entitled to mine, and that's fine with me. I brought up Alan Greenspan as an example of somebody that's fairly contemporary and doesn't like the Sherman Act. As you and me, he has a different view of what the free market is or should be.


THe reason anti trust law is bad is because it's immoral. It's the fact that a judge can seize assets by his whim because the buisiness is "too" good. When microsoft had the nerve to provide free browsers, netscape took them to court and the judge levied sanctions. That's the folly of your system.

It's not 'my' system. My system would do away with government sanctioned monopolies too, among other things. And Microsoft didn't 'just' provide 'free' browsers. Netscape provided free browsers too. That's a grotesque oversimplification, and obviously not what Microsoft was in court for (which was leveraging their monopoly power in the OS to restrain competition in the browser market). Eventually, another panel of judges reversed the original decision and Microsoft decided to settle with the DOJ for what amounted to a slap in the wrist (compared to the remedies of the original decision, which called for a breakup).


Also, the Austrian school might have valid reasons as to why they don't have formulas. I'm not versed in it. But, formulas don't mean shit when discussing markets seeing as individual behaviour in markets induce so many variables as to the thought of predicting futures of markets should be questioned as a valid science.

I don't necessarily have a problem with people believing in faith-based economics. To each their own. I personally think that since Economics is a social science after all, it simply makes much more sense to go about it like you go about it with any other science: applying the scientific method, and gaining actual insight based on reproducible results. That's what sound science is normally built upon.


Hey look at me! I got formulas, in the meantime your standard of living is going to shit! Take my ideas!

But that's not necessarily a bad thing in the scientific sense. It's part of making progress. The biggest criticism of Austrian economics is not just that they lack empirical evidence, but that some of their lead voices (ie: Boettke) actually advocate against using empirical data to create falsifiable theories, which really hurts them more than it hurts the 'mainstream'.


One thing can be for certain, austrian economics has not been practiced in america. What has been is Classical, Chicago School, and Keynesian. THe keynesians and the monetarist have fucked it up, so to claim that either is more valid is preposterous.

Take for instance that the Keynesians were smoked by the austrians regarding;

1. Post WW2 economic expansion. The keynesians maintained that after the war, there would be a huge economic collapse because govt would cease to purchase large assets. The austrians argued that pent up savings due to a command economy would prove otherwise.

2. Stagflation, the keynesians were dumbfounded and couldn't explain stagflation in the 70's.

3. Properly predicting both dot com bubbles and the housing crash. The austrians were at the forefront of this phenomenae. Not that they needed formulas, but that common sense principles of sound money were being eggregiously violated.

But the Austrian economists had no problem opening their mouths either and coming up with rampant predictions that reality didn't match. The 'Business cycles' proposition by Mises-Hayek is simply false by any measurable standard.

Look, Austrian economics, much like other economics schools of thought, have good ideas (I think their inflation contribution is widely accepted to be spot on, and verifiable with empirical data), and not so good ideas. But as long as they're stuck being opposed to anything close to the scientific method, they're going to remain relatively irrelevant, and not widely adopted. And it's entirely their fault. Companies and Governments rely on a certain degree of empirical-based risk management, and as such, pure Austrian economics is pretty much useless to them.

[Winehole23]

Instead of nobles, you have legislators. But the transfer of wealth still lies behind one principle. "the common good". whether the common good be the crown, church, or society as a living organism etc, it's still the same. Those systems are an oppressor to the individual. By definition, I would think. Are you an anarcho-capitalist?

[ElNono]

Govt sanctioned corporate monopolies or markets whether by monarchy in the 17th and 18th century, or through liberal democracies are all the same in cause and effect. The principle has not changed, merely the players. Time has shown that this relationship benefits the state and it's corporate lords over the consumer. In a true free market where corporations have no legal privelege, the corporation is at the mercy of the consumer. When there is no force favoring one side like you have in keynesian, socialism, mixed market monetarism, you have equal bargaining power. There is no mechanism by which force can be used to keep one out of the market and offering a cheaper more cost effective product.

I don't disagree about the cozy relationship of the state with certain corporate overlords, but at the same time I am realistic that states are not going to disappear, nor stop getting involved. I personally think there is a place for certain state structures like the justice system, and you can't tell me with a straight face that wouldn't have some economic effect to a fairly large degree. I mean, inter-Corporation disputes are as old as Corporations themselves.

[ElNono]

BTW, that booked I linked to is a pretty good read too if you're into that. I wish the whole chapter would be available online. Here's an Amazon link for the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Market-Dominance-Impact-Economic-Performance/dp/0275956040

It's a compendium of different authors.

[ElNono]

It's still seems as though society is too reliant on tribalism and collectivism.

One could argue that Corporations themselves are an expression of tribalism and collectivism.

[Winehole23]

I'm doubtful tribe and collective are synonymous and still less sure that the corporation -- a legal entity chartered by the state -- is aptly compared to them.

I guess corporations could be seen collectively as a sort of economic horde. Is that what you meant?

[ElNono]

I'm doubtful tribe and collective are synonymous and still less sure that the corporation -- a legal entity chartered by the state -- is aptly compared to them.

I guess corporations could be seen collectively as a sort of economic horde. Is that what you meant?

My interpretation of what gtown describes as collectivism or tribalism is the tendency of people to associate in order to empower the group over the individual. Now my interpretation could easily be incorrect, and I'm hoping gtown will correct me if that's the case.

[MannyIsGod]

You'll never have a "true" free market. Ever. Therefor, I have no interest in discussing what the effects of such an economic environment would be.

[boutons_deux]

Ignig and WC love to spew on academically about ideologies, principles, theories, fantasies.

So much easier than that looking at the real problems (not that I think there are any solutions).

[Ignignokt]

:lol Everyone's idea of what they free market is and how it should function is fundamentally different. There's no such thing as the big truth of the free market. You see it as this entire pure form, other people understand the free market to include certain controls. That's why there's various different schools of thought on economics from pretty much forever, and we're still having these discussions.



I don't particularly like state-sanctioned monopolies any more than merit-based monopolies. The Standard Oil ascent included major competition and an incredible amount of business streamlining that was simply unseen at the time. That in itself is a great story. What followed, however, was a plethora of fairly well documented shady deals (not by just Ida Tarbell). From not only obtaining rebates, but actually sanctioning competitors (remember some of those contracts leaked, it wasn't some made up story) to sidestepping the Ohio ruling with the creation of shell companies (or 'trusts').



Laws have always been abused. And I won't say the Sherman Act has not been abused before. But to argue that corporations, including Standard Oil, didn't use their dominant position to remove any type of competition is just absurd. I concur Ida Tarbell had a serious interest in Standard Oil's demise, and her commentary loses some credibility because of that. But that wasn't the sole source of historical information of Standard Oil. And I think that's where Alex Epstein really misses the boat. There's the DOJ allegations, the actual actions by the company, etc.

Here's a different view at Standard Oil's market dominance and how it was achieved, including some of the stuff they did to keep that dominance:
http://books.google.com/books?id=htQDB-Pf4VIC&pg=PA11&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false



I have no intention of discrediting any argument. You're entitled to your opinion, as I'm entitled to mine, and that's fine with me. I brought up Alan Greenspan as an example of somebody that's fairly contemporary and doesn't like the Sherman Act. As you and me, he has a different view of what the free market is or should be.



It's not 'my' system. My system would do away with government sanctioned monopolies too, among other things. And Microsoft didn't 'just' provide 'free' browsers. Netscape provided free browsers too. That's a grotesque oversimplification, and obviously not what Microsoft was in court for (which was leveraging their monopoly power in the OS to restrain competition in the browser market). Eventually, another panel of judges reversed the original decision and Microsoft decided to settle with the DOJ for what amounted to a slap in the wrist (compared to the remedies of the original decision, which called for a breakup).



I don't necessarily have a problem with people believing in faith-based economics. To each their own. I personally think that since Economics is a social science after all, it simply makes much more sense to go about it like you go about it with any other science: applying the scientific method, and gaining actual insight based on reproducible results. That's what sound science is normally built upon.



But that's not necessarily a bad thing in the scientific sense. It's part of making progress. The biggest criticism of Austrian economics is not just that they lack empirical evidence, but that some of their lead voices (ie: Boettke) actually advocate against using empirical data to create falsifiable theories, which really hurts them more than it hurts the 'mainstream'.



But the Austrian economists had no problem opening their mouths either and coming up with rampant predictions that reality didn't match. The 'Business cycles' proposition by Mises-Hayek is simply false by any measurable standard.

Look, Austrian economics, much like other economics schools of thought, have good ideas (I think their inflation contribution is widely accepted to be spot on, and verifiable with empirical data), and not so good ideas. But as long as they're stuck being opposed to anything close to the scientific method, they're going to remain relatively irrelevant, and not widely adopted. And it's entirely their fault. Companies and Governments rely on a certain degree of empirical-based risk management, and as such, pure Austrian economics is pretty much useless to them.


Your slander that austrian economics is faith based is ingorant, petty, and with out substance. Keynesian empiricist based models aren't worth a damn either, since you can't empirically find truth if you ignore the five senses we've been given, and by that i mean historical examples.

What's funny is that you dispel the Business Cycle theory as being debunked but then you credit their inflation theory, further proof that you must be talking out of your own flawed premises or reading some partisan blog. Inflation theory and Business Cycle theory for austrian economics is the SAME THING. Credit expansion by govts and bankers leads to booms and then busts.

This has been demonstrated by history during the 90's, 2008, and WW1. To say that austrian economics relies on faith is simply false, when it relies on self evident axioms found through out history. Austrian economics is a history-senses built theory. What's funny is that other schools claim superiority with their empiricist models because of precision where there is none.

[Ignignokt]

You'll never have a "true" free market. Ever. Therefor, I have no interest in discussing what the effects of such an economic environment would be.

We'll never have a colorblind society or a truly tolerant society either, therefore it's pointless to talk about promoting tolerance...:blah


The point in talking about free markets as compared to central planning is because one can find how central planning is the cause of most the ills it pruports to solve.

Take for instance urban sprawl, mass production, and lack of public transportation. While Europe was immuned to some of these effects of statist planning because for the large part, Europe's city infrastructure developed earlier than the advent of railroads and highways, america's identity was changed.


When progressives and liberals bitch about mass produced low quality low denominator products, they blame laisezz faire capitalism. They do the same for public transportation, and urban sprawl.

But what they don't get is that these afflictions on the american way of life came from the govt subsidies.

1. The subsidized railroads and highways systems made it beneficial for the paleotechnic methods of mass production stay in power and dominate over decentralized markets. Because these corporations didn't have to spend a dime for the roads they benefitted for mass importation, they were able to compete against local vendors on equal footing. Therefore the dawn of electric machinery which was predicted to bring about the age of local neighborhood warehouse and goods, was stalled because of the govt's subsidies of the railroads and highways.

2. The post office, and the subsidizing of telephone lines made living in the country just as cheap as living in the city. Without these subsidies, living in the country if not for agriculture would not be optimal. It would be cheaper to live in the city. Therefore you wouldn't have rampant urban sprawl.

[ElNono]

Your slander that austrian economics is faith based is ingorant, petty, and with out substance.

I actually have no problem with faith-based anything, including religion. My comment might come across as slanderous but it really isn't meant to be that. I simply subscribe to the scientific method.

I also believe I backed up why it's largely considered non-empirical and non-scientific, and thus relatively useless in the current world of economics.

Feel free to keep calling me names instead of providing a rebuttal with some actual substance...


Keynesian empiricist based models aren't worth a damn either, since you can't empirically find truth if you ignore the five senses we've been given, and by that i mean historical examples.

The question isn't who holds the 'entire truth', because there's no such thing at this point in time. There's no shame in being wrong trying to methodically find bits and pieces of that truth, regardless of which school of thought you're coming from. It's part of an evolutionary process that all sciences have to go through. Of course there's growing pains. That exists in every field.

What's really backwards is to claim to hold the entire truth but when asked to provide empirical evidence of the claim, turn around and provide none. That leaves you with just faith that what's postulated is correct.


What's funny is that you dispel the Business Cycle theory as being debunked but then you credit their inflation theory, further proof that you must be talking out of your own flawed premises or reading some partisan blog. Inflation theory and Business Cycle theory for austrian economics is the SAME THING. Credit expansion by govts and bankers leads to booms and then busts.

My source for their inflation is Mises' The Theory of Money and Credit (Part II, Chapter 7, Section 7). His argument being that inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply.
While Mises sets the foundation to the Business Cycle on the credit portion of this same book (Part III, Chapter 5, Section 5), it wasn't until Nobel laureate Hayek published his Prices and Production book where he elaborated and expanded on Mises' work to actually posit what's currently known as the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

I own both books, BTW.


This has been demonstrated by history during the 90's, 2008, and WW1.

It actually has not. The history of the Austrian Business Cycle theory has a few turns. There's a long list of critics to the original theory (including Keynes obviously, Myrdal, Hicks too IIRC). In response to the criticism, Hayek turned around and reformulated his theory. More recently, especially after the 2008 bust, economists like Krugman argued that the theory indicates that consumption grows in an economic downturn (something not denied by Austrian backers), but empirical evidence simply shows that not to be the case. Mainstream economists largely regard that theory as simply false at this point (where they don't regard as such other Austrian contributions).


To say that austrian economics relies on faith is simply false, when it relies on self evident axioms found through out history. Austrian economics is a history-senses built theory. What's funny is that other schools claim superiority with their empiricist models because of precision where there is none.

That's not true at all, unless you're contending that mathematical advances in statistics and number crunching in general are useless when it comes to economy (a pretty ignorant position to be in, IMO).

Also, if such 'axioms found through out history' are so evident, there shouldn't be any reason not to express them in the realm of mathematics (logical and non-logical axiom constructs exists in modern mathematics) and build falsifiable theories upon them. Obviously, doing that exposes your theories to be potentially falsified, and thus proven wrong (or verified and proven correct)

[ElNono]

The point in talking about free markets as compared to central planning is because one can find how central planning is the cause of most the ills it pruports to solve.

Out of curiosity, since you circumscribed that to 'most' and not 'all', what do you think central planning does solve?