Reply With Quote
Please let the adults have a conversation, head. I wasn't attacking Scott, I was asking questions. Unlike you, I respect his opinion.
Sorry..I was napping. Could you start over?Will you have me teach an entire semester on econometrics on this forum while I'm at it?
Sheesh!
Please let the adults have a conversation, head. I wasn't attacking Scott, I was asking questions. Unlike you, I respect his opinion.
Acting petulant like this makes you appear weak and age smack coming from a boomer does not have the vehemence that you are hoping for.
Further the asking of questions and framing of an argument are not mutually exclusive.
Specifically, you said:
It's pretty obvious what conclusion you are drawing. Thus my saying how you are trying to frame it as a "things are just too complicated for us to understand dismissal."Isn't it a little simplistic to attribute growth/shrinkage in a states economy to a single variable?
Is his conclusion really justified by the data?
That is called me participating int he discussion. Feel free to ignore me but I was very specifically talking about the subject matter. Your method was cliche and I pointed it out. that is not an attack on you, it's a criticism of your approach. Learn the difference.
Nah man. I am just saying that you should not entertain that train of thought as relevant by arguing it on it's merits. The underlying premise behind his line of questioning is flawed.Will you have me teach an entire semester on econometrics on this forum while I'm at it?
Sheesh!
He probably doesn't want to be taught anyway.
This post exists for a reason. But I won't explain why. It has nothing to do with you though (no matter who you are).
Edit: Okay, it exists only to create the 5th page, because while Spurstalk thinks there was a 5th page... there wasn't. And it annoys the out of me when it does that.
You should teach on the graduate level... I tell you the econ professors they have there now ... suck.Will you have me teach an entire semester on econometrics on this forum while I'm at it?
Sheesh!
(to be fair I only took a class with one of them, she was bad, but I heard that her husband was the same)
That is, unless your style is to face away from the class and write on the board for the entire 3 hours. If that is the case, they have that covered already.
Obviously the VST5PC at work here.
There is one good reason trickle down is no longer a working idea.
Global trade.
Most the money exchanged now crosses borders.
What was the reason for it not being a good idea before?
Tell that to the conservatives...
We didn't have so much global trade in the 80's. Things change.
Are they speaking of "trickle down" or are they speaking of tax law changes?
You can get a tickle down anytime if you head across the border.
Conservatives think that lowering taxes = better business. But that's not necessarily true, and they usually don't do the paperwork to prove their point.
A square is a rectangle, a rectangle is not a square.
Trickle down is lower taxes. Lowering taxes is not trickle down.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 09-13-2012 at 02:45 AM.
You didn't answer my question.
???
Before... When is before? I assumed the 80's, and it worked. Just not as well as advertised.
I was well aware of the 80's. I have already been paying taxes for a decade when this came about. How about you, or are you relying on what other people say?
How did it work? What objective metric can you point to of it working?
But just so I'm clear... your argument is that it worked in the 1980s, because imports weren't as high?
What lefty pinko said this nonsense?DiA: More generally, which party do you find more credible when discussing America's fiscal challenges?
Respondent: The Republicans don't have any credibility whatsoever. They squandered whatever they had when they enacted a massive UNFUNDED expansion of Medicare in 2003. Yet they had the nerve to complain about Obama's health plan, WHICH WAS FULLY PAID FOR according to the Congressional Budget Office. The word “chutzpah” is insufficient to describe how utterly indefensible the Republican position is, intellectually.
Furthermore, Republicans have a completely indefensible position on taxes. In their view, deficits cannot arise from tax cuts. No matter how much taxes are cut, no matter how low revenues go as a share of GDP, tax cuts are never a cause of deficits; they result ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY from spending—and never from spending put in place by Republicans, such as Medicare Part D, TARP, two unfunded wars, bridges to nowhere, etc—but ONLY from Democratic efforts to stimulate growth, help the unemployed, provide health insurance for those without it, etc.
The monumental hypocrisy of the Republican Party is something amazing to behold. And their dimwitted accomplices in the tea-party movement are not much better. They know that Republicans, far more than Democrats, are responsible for our fiscal mess, but they won't say so. And they adamantly refuse to put on the table any meaningful programme that would actually reduce spending. Judging by polls, most of them seem to think that all we have to do is cut foreign aid, which represents well less than 1% of the budget.
Consequently, I have far more hope that Democrats will do what has do be done. The Democratic Party is now the “adult” party in American politics, willing to do what has to be done for the good of the country. The same cannot be said of Republicans, who seem unwilling to do anything that would interfere with their ambition to retake power so that they can reward their lobbyist friends with more give-aways from the public purse.
Unfortunately, I don't think Democrats have the guts or the stamina to put forward a meaningful deficit-reduction programme because they know—as I do—that it will require higher revenues. But facing big losses in the elections this fall I can't blame them. That leaves us facing political gridlock between the sensible but cowardly party and the greedy, sociopathic party. Not a pleasant choice for those of us in the sensible, lets-do-what-we-have-to-do-for-the-good-of-the-country independent centre.
BTW, while I agree that the Democrats are probably the lesser of two evils on economic policy in 2012, I still contend them to be largely incompetent.
PS: that was Bruce Bartlett, Reagan Supply-side architect. [Who actually agrees with Wild Cobra, btw. He'd tell you supply-side was appropriate in the 70s and 80s, but not today]
Two pieces to the argument: 1) how big a piece of the pie for the government to take
2) the right way to take it
There is an upper and lower bound on the size of the public sector. When I say public sector, I mean federal + state + local + whatever other authority-having jurisdictions exist. The lower bound is ~25%; this maximizes economic growth. Below that, the state is so austere that it hurts economic growth. The upper bound is 45%; this maximizes revenue (again, federal + state + local + whatever, not just federal). Above that, the combination of inefficiency and disincentive means that revenue decreases.
This is the actual Laffer curve. You may hear some conservatives say that reducing taxes increases revenue all the way down to a zero marginal rate. This is bull .
Now, as to the means of collection, I'm more in favor of consumption taxes than income or investment taxes. With the question at hand, I think the response (CC, was it?) that the income tax rate makes a higher hurdle on rate of return for capital investment nails it. An uncertain regulatory regime is worse than a certain tax rate though. Regulations can do a 180 overnight.
Now, when revolution comes, unfortunately that is going to create a lot of uncertainty for businesses (what country will I be in? will I be in power, or imprisoned, or killed?). However, in the long run (100+ years) it will be worth it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
