If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Magazine)   Paul Ryan and the Republicans don't let things like "facts" and "reality" and "empirical evidence" get in the way of their economic point of view   (nymag.com) divider line 223
    More: Obvious, Republican, empirical evidence, Yuval Levin, Carmen Reinhart, Independent Payment Advisory Board, electronic medical records, Kenneth Rogoff, National Affairs  
•       •       •

4983 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 May 2013 at 12:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



223 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-11 03:03:27 PM  

vygramul: Zimbabwe has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.


Are you telling me that having the government take the land from the farmers and giving it to politically connected people who have no idea how farming works and destroyed the farmland as a result is not Keynesian economics?

Well color me shocked.
 
2013-05-11 03:03:35 PM  
"Trickle-down" is a reasonable descriptor of what happens, but supply-side economics has some pretty solid foundations. Given some time with my notes, I can adequately explain the criticisms of Keynesian economics and deficit spending during a downturn. I can't really find a good article to explain why the criticisms are wrong (Paul Krugman tends not to get into details nor even label his axes).

That doesn't mean Keynesian economics is wrong. There are some incredibly talented economists who believe it works and there are some incredibly talented economists who do not. There are reasonable objections to raise, but usually, most Republicans don't know them - just as most Democrats don't know what the reasonable objections to supply-side economics are.
 
2013-05-11 03:04:03 PM  

houstondragon: Reality? Your "reality", sir, is lies and balderdash, and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.


And I can't wait to offer your facts and citations to back up this claim.
 
2013-05-11 03:05:44 PM  

Mrtraveler01: vygramul: Zimbabwe has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.

Are you telling me that having the government take the land from the farmers and giving it to politically connected people who have no idea how farming works and destroyed the farmland as a result is not Keynesian economics?

Well color me shocked.


Neither is printing money in obscene quantities.
 
2013-05-11 03:07:47 PM  

Mrtraveler01: vygramul: Zimbabwe has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.

Are you telling me that having the government take the land from the farmers and giving it to politically connected people who have no idea how farming works and destroyed the farmland as a result is not Keynesian economics?

Well color me shocked.


Why do you think Obama wants to take our guns?
 
2013-05-11 03:08:26 PM  
vygramul:  most Democrats don't know what the reasonable objections to supply-side economics are.

How does, "A country in which nearly all the wealth ultimately concentrates into the hands of a very few is one that will be brittle at it's foundations and headed for instability and strife. Since people who own next to nothing have no rational reason to defend a stake in the country's continued existence." strike you?
 
2013-05-11 03:08:50 PM  

vygramul: Mrtraveler01: vygramul: Zimbabwe has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.

Are you telling me that having the government take the land from the farmers and giving it to politically connected people who have no idea how farming works and destroyed the farmland as a result is not Keynesian economics?

Well color me shocked.

Neither is printing money in obscene quantities.


True.

It's always easy to tell who has no idea about economics when they bring up Zimbabwe.
 
2013-05-11 03:09:27 PM  

dericwater: The Stealth Hippopotamus: FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.

The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

I guess the author of the article hasn't been checking the news lately. The people behind The ACA (even one of the co-authors) have admitted it going to cost billions more than projected to get into place and increase insurance premiums by 50-60 percent.

It's ok to want to end private healthcare and install a single payer healthcare system. What's not ok is lying about and trying to it piece by piece. We voted him in! Elections DO consequences. I just wish the White House would be honest with its intentions. But more and more this White House looks like it is having trouble telling the truth.

No one on the left is particularly happy with the ACA. It was, eventually, a band-aid compromise that basically took all the Heritage Foundation's ideas that went into RomneyCare in Massachusetts and federalized it. The only benefit that Obama's win with the ACA is that it's a foot in the door to make further changes, eventually moving towards a real single-payer system.


Careful people around here will accuse you of wearing tin foil headwear for saying stuff like that.
 
2013-05-11 03:11:11 PM  
www.sluniverse.com

Just past this over anything any Republican says on any topic or belief, ever.
 
2013-05-11 03:11:49 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: dericwater: The Stealth Hippopotamus: FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.

The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

I guess the author of the article hasn't been checking the news lately. The people behind The ACA (even one of the co-authors) have admitted it going to cost billions more than projected to get into place and increase insurance premiums by 50-60 percent.

It's ok to want to end private healthcare and install a single payer healthcare system. What's not ok is lying about and trying to it piece by piece. We voted him in! Elections DO consequences. I just wish the White House would be honest with its intentions. But more and more this White House looks like it is having trouble telling the truth.

No one on the left is particularly happy with the ACA. It was, eventually, a band-aid compromise that basically took all the Heritage Foundation's ideas that went into RomneyCare in Massachusetts and federalized it. The only benefit that Obama's win with the ACA is that it's a foot in the door to make further changes, eventually moving towards a real single-payer system.

Careful people around here will accuse you of wearing tin foil headwear for saying stuff like that.


Only in your mind.
 
2013-05-11 03:12:16 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Careful people around here will accuse you of wearing tin foil headwear for saying stuff like that.


Sure, as long as you ignore all of the people who were grumbling in these threads during the ACA debate that the Democrats were to busy compromising with themselves to pass a good bill.  Seriously, you're like a dog with peanut butter in its mouth.
 
2013-05-11 03:12:43 PM  

randomjsa: It's on the internet and more importantly it's being said by a liberal, so it must be true. It's also just what I wanted to be told, so that makes it even more true.


Me: I'm letting go of this broken air conditioner. It's going to land on the ground you're standing on 5 seconds later. Please move
randomjsa: LIBERAL LIAR! It will land 20 seconds later. I'll be done smoking this crystal meth in 15 seconds.
Me: but the laws of physics and gravite state that--
randomjsa: Those are liberal lies, too! HURRRRRRRRRRRR,
Me: (shrugs) I'm letting go now, you better move in less than 5 seconds
randomjsa: LOL WHATEVER NOOB! It will take it 20 seconds to land
Me: I DROPPED IT, LOOK OUT BELOW!
(5 seconds later)
randomjsa: OW, THAT HURT, ASSHOLE!
Me: I told you it would hit you 5 seconds later!
randomjsa:  LOL NOOB, it hit me 20 seconds later
Me: WTF?
randomjsa: Hahahahaha I win
Me: I'm letting go of this broken refrigerator now.......
 
2013-05-11 03:12:49 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: vygramul:  most Democrats don't know what the reasonable objections to supply-side economics are.

How does, "A country in which nearly all the wealth ultimately concentrates into the hands of a very few is one that will be brittle at it's foundations and headed for instability and strife. Since people who own next to nothing have no rational reason to defend a stake in the country's continued existence." strike you?


Unfortunately, even in Keynesian economics, wealth converges on the few. It just does so more slowly the more social programs and the more progressive your taxes.
 
2013-05-11 03:13:41 PM  

jst3p: dericwater: Karac: NewportBarGuy: Republicans talking about economics is a lot like an 8-year-old talking about sex. They have no clue what they are talking about.

An 8 year old is at least the product of sex.  So he knew something about it as early as 8 years and 9 months ago.
Whereas trickle-down economics hasn't worked for at least 30 some odd years.

Trickle-down has never worked whenever and wherever it has been implemented, and under whatever different names it used. It used to be called slavery and serfdom.

I disagree, it is working as intended for those at the top.


The claim of trickle-down is that by amassing money at the top, the riches will then trickle down to everyone else. By it's own definition, it's not working as claimed. That's what I'm stating. Whether it benefits those who are amassing the money or not, that's not the claim of the trickle-down economic system.
 
2013-05-11 03:14:15 PM  

Mentat: Seriously, you're like a dog with peanut butter in its mouth.


Dubbed over with James Franco's voice.
 
2013-05-11 03:17:30 PM  
vygramul:
Unfortunately, even in Keynesian economics, wealth converges on the few. It just does so more slowly the more social programs and the more progressive your taxes.

Which is altogether a positive thing. Plus on a longer timeline it's easier for that hard earned dynastic wealth to be lost or squandered.
 
2013-05-11 03:19:19 PM  

dericwater: jst3p: dericwater: Karac: NewportBarGuy: Republicans talking about economics is a lot like an 8-year-old talking about sex. They have no clue what they are talking about.

An 8 year old is at least the product of sex.  So he knew something about it as early as 8 years and 9 months ago.
Whereas trickle-down economics hasn't worked for at least 30 some odd years.

Trickle-down has never worked whenever and wherever it has been implemented, and under whatever different names it used. It used to be called slavery and serfdom.

I disagree, it is working as intended for those at the top.

The claim of trickle-down is that by amassing money at the top, the riches will then trickle down to everyone else. By it's own definition, it's not working as claimed. That's what I'm stating. Whether it benefits those who are amassing the money or not, that's not the claim of the trickle-down economic system.


They really went for simplicity and managed to come up with the worst explanation. It's not a magical trickle-down - there are well-understood and agreed-upon economics that state WHY it "trickles down". It's really the default. Realize that Keynes didn't eschew trickle-down/supply-side economics. He argued that in economic downturns, you have to do something else.
 
2013-05-11 03:21:36 PM  
vygramul:
There are well-understood and agreed-upon economics that state WHY it "trickles down".

And they're all wrong. Because homo-economicus is a myth.
 
2013-05-11 03:21:40 PM  

vygramul: there are well-understood and agreed-upon economics that state WHY it "trickles down"


Uh, exactly what economics state this? Theory is great, but obviously in practice it doesn't work.
 
2013-05-11 03:22:05 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: vygramul:
Unfortunately, even in Keynesian economics, wealth converges on the few. It just does so more slowly the more social programs and the more progressive your taxes.

Which is altogether a positive thing. Plus on a longer timeline it's easier for that hard earned dynastic wealth to be lost or squandered.


I should be clear - social programs and progressive taxes are not definitionally Keynesian.

Ultimately, concentrated wealth only gets redistributed occasionally in great social upheaval. Of course, social upheaval tends to happen in countries with huge wealth disparities...
 
2013-05-11 03:22:32 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: vygramul:
There are well-understood and agreed-upon economics that state WHY it "trickles down".

And they're all wrong. Because homo-economicus is a myth.


NTTAWWT.
 
2013-05-11 03:22:40 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: vygramul:  most Democrats don't know what the reasonable objections to supply-side economics are.

How does, "A country in which nearly all the wealth ultimately concentrates into the hands of a very few is one that will be brittle at it's foundations and headed for instability and strife. Since people who own next to nothing have no rational reason to defend a stake in the country's continued existence." strike you?


You're describing human nature. There isn't an economic theory that will stop this. There are a couple of governmental theories that do however once you take them our of the books and try to have humans run them, well lets just say it does work the same as it did on paper.

As along as there is scarcity this will be a fact
 
2013-05-11 03:23:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Theory is great, but obviously in practice it doesn't work.


so sort of an antipodal analog to communism.
 
2013-05-11 03:24:20 PM  

vygramul: Ultimately, concentrated wealth only gets redistributed occasionally in great social upheaval. Of course, social upheaval tends to happen in countries with huge wealth disparities...


Which can be done the easy way (Massive inheritance taxes), or the hard way (Violence).
 
2013-05-11 03:24:39 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: there are well-understood and agreed-upon economics that state WHY it "trickles down"

Uh, exactly what economics state this? Theory is great, but obviously in practice it doesn't work.


Pretty much all econ. It works, even according to Keynes, but it only works in the long-run, in which we're all dead. Again, Keynes wanted to address economic downturns. Were this 1996, Keynes would say we should run a surplus and engage in trickle-down. In 2008, he would argue for abandoning trickle-down for his own solutions.
 
2013-05-11 03:25:22 PM  
Paul Ryan wants to make money for his rich friends. If you think he gives a rat's ass about the rest of us, you're nuts.
 
2013-05-11 03:25:28 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: toomuchwhargarbl: vygramul:  most Democrats don't know what the reasonable objections to supply-side economics are.

How does, "A country in which nearly all the wealth ultimately concentrates into the hands of a very few is one that will be brittle at it's foundations and headed for instability and strife. Since people who own next to nothing have no rational reason to defend a stake in the country's continued existence." strike you?

You're describing human nature. There isn't an economic theory that will stop this. There are a couple of governmental theories that do however once you take them our of the books and try to have humans run them, well lets just say it does work the same as it did on paper.

As along as there is scarcity this will be a fact


That's absolutely true. Scarcity is the issue, and it's unfixable.
 
2013-05-11 03:26:42 PM  
Years of "classic" English Literature and I'm still not clear what "hoary" means.
 
2013-05-11 03:26:49 PM  

MrEricSir: Paul Ryan wants to make money for his rich friends. If you think he gives a rat's ass about the rest of us, you're nuts.


I object to this assertion.

Most of them probably aren't actually his friends. It's more like an employer/employee relationship.
 
2013-05-11 03:31:49 PM  

vygramul: Were this 1996, Keynes would say we should run a surplus and engage in trickle-down. In 2008, he would argue for abandoning trickle-down for his own solutions.


Something tells me you aren't familiar with the entirety of Keynsianism. Running a surplus and engaging in trickle-down are mutually exclusive; as trickle-down requires massive tax-breaks for the wealthy.
 
2013-05-11 03:32:35 PM  

vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: there are well-understood and agreed-upon economics that state WHY it "trickles down"

Uh, exactly what economics state this? Theory is great, but obviously in practice it doesn't work.

Pretty much all econ. It works, even according to Keynes, but it only works in the long-run, in which we're all dead. Again, Keynes wanted to address economic downturns. Were this 1996, Keynes would say we should run a surplus and engage in trickle-down. In 2008, he would argue for abandoning trickle-down for his own solutions.


No, Keynesian economics does not say to engage in "trickle down". Where on earth do you get this idea? It in fact says just the opposite, in a boom you raise taxes to pay off the deficit and hopefully accumulate a surplus for the next downturn. It does not say to lower taxes on the rich.

You guys are doing a great job of confirming the premise of tne headline.
 
2013-05-11 03:34:02 PM  

Mrtraveler01: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The same keynesian economics that allowed us to enjoy a "great" depression while the rest of the world simpley went though a depression? Even FDRs financial advisor called a failure. Do you want to go into what happened when Hoover tried it? Care to google "Hoover flag"?

The historical revisionism is strong in this one.


I guess "simply a depression" is what plunged Europe into war in the 30's, in this iteration of history.
 
2013-05-11 03:35:28 PM  

FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has


Supply side is Keynesian.

What causes inflation?  Demand exceeding supply.  If that is true then they way to combat inflation would be for the government to increase supply.  Supply side worked for Reagan as he was able to get the inflation rate under control that had been a bugger since the early 70s.  The problem today isn't inflation.  Pricing has been flat for quite some time.  Supply side strategies combat inflation when inflation isn't the problem then it is a waste of money.  Since inflation is low, the proper strategy is to increase demand.
 
2013-05-11 03:37:50 PM  
Here's a clear way to look at why trickle-down is not a good economic policy. Suppose you have a country of 1 million people. You have $10 million and you can either give $1 million to ten people or $10 to all 1 million people. Which is better for the over all economy? The question is not whether one choice is more ethical or moral, or one choice is more fair (by whatever metric one measures fairness). The question is which choice will help benefit the economy of this country of 1 million.

If you give 10 people $1 million each, they will spend a part of that $1 million on their basic necessities. They might be able to spend on some luxuries, but for the most part, they're going to keep the bulk of the $1 million. If you give everyone $10, it will be spent. But, the benefit of a million people spending is that you get to see trends of what people like to do with $10, thereby identifying new market trends, places where innovation will be drivers for growth. That $10 also gets cycled through and people down stream earn a bit from that $10.

When I go to a Walgreens and buy a pen for $3.49, it seems unlikely that more than one entity will benefit from me buying that pen. But in reality, Walgreens benefit, the clerks and the stock boy benefit, the truck driver who brought the pens to Walgreens benefit, the company that packaged the pen benefit, the marketing agency benefit, the brand owner benefit, the people who make plastic casing benefit, the people who create ink benefit, the people who create the little springs in the pen benefit, the people who ship the little springs from their manufacturing place to the pen assembly location benefit, the people who sell gas to the truckers who ship springs benefit, the lunch lady that the gas seller buy food benefit.

There are thousands, maybe even millions of people who benefit from me buying a cheapie pen for $3.49. And along most of those transactions, there's a tax. I pay a retail sales tax. Walgreens pay an inventory tax for whatever they hold but don't sell. Same with the manufacturer. There's tax on the gas used to ship the pen. There's payroll taxes on every W-2 or 1099 employee along the way. All those taxes go to fund the government.

If 1 million people get to buy different pens, we learn which pens are better (and probably why) and manufacturers will innovate to achieve or surpass that better pen. We get so much more tax revenue than if 10 people had $1 million each, where that money is sitting somewhere doing nothing. I mean, how many pens can and do 10 people want? Would that person buy $1 million worth of pens, even over his life time? We get no market information, we get no cash flow, we get no tax revenues and no one benefits from having 10 people sitting around with $1 million. The rich can't spend their money fast enough to use up their money, and they refuse to do so in any case.

That's why it's important to have a progressive tax rate, to "redistribute" the wealth. People who claim, "Hey, those of you who received the redistribution, you didn't earn it." Well, the wealthy also didn't earn it either. They helped themselves to it through lobbying key legislators, or they benefitted from an unequal contract or agreement. Not one wealthy person became wealthy without the help of many, many people.

The rich also like to say, "Without the security of my wealthy, I would not be able to innovate." That's why they want to be "too big to fail". The security of wealth allows them to innovate and not worry about failure. There is some truth in that, but it's basically bogus. For example, most large pharmaceuticals do almost no innovation in drugs that could help many, many people, because the ROI horizon is too far away. Passing the FDA often take 10 to 15 years. They want a get rich quick solution, so they don't bother to innovate. Innovation actually comes from research labs at universities and government labs like the NIH. They're happy to buy, but they'll negotiate for a great bargain for themselves.

On the other hand, small businesses that live month-to-month, like most local restaurants, a staple of San Francisco economy, innovate like hell to keep ahead of the competition. Yet, they're not secured by infinite wealth to protect them from failure. The bottom line is innovation and financial security of a company are not correlated.

Another example is Apple and Microsoft. Apple, when they were at death's door soon after Jobs returned to the company was innovative, and they're still rather innovative now (although some would argue otherwise), when they have well over $100 billion in cash sitting around doing nothing. Microsoft, on the other hand, was never innovative: always looking at what others did, even when they were a new company in the early 80s. Now, the behemoth that they are, they're still not so innovative.
 
2013-05-11 03:37:52 PM  
On an entirely unrelated note, fark really needs to kill these malicious "mobicow" ads on mobile that hijack the browser window and open the app store. They are making mobile fark almost unusable.
 
2013-05-11 03:38:19 PM  
Capitalism is a dead-end system. The rightists understand that and are trying to steal as much as possible while they still can. Nothing confusing about that.
 
2013-05-11 03:38:41 PM  

TheBigJerk: Years of "classic" English Literature and I'm still not clear what "hoary" means.


http://bit.ly/10iCyP8
 
2013-05-11 03:39:05 PM  

Thrag: vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: there are well-understood and agreed-upon economics that state WHY it "trickles down"

Uh, exactly what economics state this? Theory is great, but obviously in practice it doesn't work.

Pretty much all econ. It works, even according to Keynes, but it only works in the long-run, in which we're all dead. Again, Keynes wanted to address economic downturns. Were this 1996, Keynes would say we should run a surplus and engage in trickle-down. In 2008, he would argue for abandoning trickle-down for his own solutions.

No, Keynesian economics does not say to engage in "trickle down". Where on earth do you get this idea? It in fact says just the opposite, in a boom you raise taxes to pay off the deficit and hopefully accumulate a surplus for the next downturn. It does not say to lower taxes on the rich.

You guys are doing a great job of confirming the premise of tne headline.


Trickle-down is a modern term, so of course Keynes didn't actually refer to it. Keynes DID say you CUT SPENDING during boom, and SPEND during bust.

And if you're raising taxes during boom, aren't you cutting them during bust?
 
2013-05-11 03:42:19 PM  
vygramul:
And if you're raising taxes during boom, aren't you cutting them during bust?

Not necessarily. Short term leveraging of the economy is perfectly possible without ever touching tax rates.
 
2013-05-11 03:42:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: Were this 1996, Keynes would say we should run a surplus and engage in trickle-down. In 2008, he would argue for abandoning trickle-down for his own solutions.

Something tells me you aren't familiar with the entirety of Keynsianism. Running a surplus and engaging in trickle-down are mutually exclusive; as trickle-down requires massive tax-breaks for the wealthy.


Trickle-down does call for tax breaks for the wealthy (well, everyone, but as with all tax cuts, even really progressive ones will have a larger impact on the wealthy).

Keynes basically said that when consumer spending falls (bust), government spending must rise. During booms you pay off the debt you collected during busts - income smoothing on a societal level. But if you have a reasonable surplus, and things are good, then his economics are indistinguishable from trickle-down.
 
2013-05-11 03:43:07 PM  
The lie that FDR extended the Great Depression is one of the worst. There is only one study, by conservative student economists, that even claimed that, it came out only a few years ago, and it has been refuted and debunked a million times. Its like citing the Heritage Foundation about the laffer curve.
 
2013-05-11 03:43:43 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: vygramul:
And if you're raising taxes during boom, aren't you cutting them during bust?

Not necessarily. Short term leveraging of the economy is perfectly possible without ever touching tax rates.


But if you always have a + during a boom but no - any other time, the + adds up until you hit 100.

When do you cut again?
 
2013-05-11 03:43:55 PM  
TeaParty supports communism. A bunch of Rich politicians and the Poor sign carrying wifebeaters who help Koch profit more.
i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-11 03:44:00 PM  

maxheck: The thing that struck me... That's not a minor difference, that's order-of-magnitude difference.

But hey, the feudal system worked so well!


I can't imagine anyone looking those numbers and not thinking that there's a serious problem with how economic rewards are allocated in the US. It's appalling, unsustainable and complete abrogation of the social contract between employers and employees. The only solution I can see is a return to the 90+ percent taxation rates for the highest earners.
 
2013-05-11 03:44:20 PM  

vygramul: Keynes DID say you CUT SPENDING during boom, and SPEND during bust.


Well here's the thing, trickle-down doesn't ONLY refer to spending; in fact its main component is tax cuts. And that is where Keynesianism and trickle-down differ.
 
2013-05-11 03:45:08 PM  
vygramul:
But if you always have a + during a boom but no - any other time, the + adds up until you hit 100.

When do you cut again?


So not adding or subtracting from tax rates will always result in rates >100?
 
2013-05-11 03:46:33 PM  

Truncks1: The lie that FDR extended the Great Depression is one of the worst. There is only one study, by conservative student economists, that even claimed that, it came out only a few years ago, and it has been refuted and debunked a million times. Its like citing the Heritage Foundation about the laffer curve.


Any assertions on what would have happened are really counter-factual anyway. The problem with economics is the number of independent variables that cannot be isolated.
 
2013-05-11 03:47:41 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: vygramul:
But if you always have a + during a boom but no - any other time, the + adds up until you hit 100.

When do you cut again?

So not adding or subtracting from tax rates will always result in rates >100?


I responded to the statement that you raise taxes during boom. If you raise taxes during boom, it follows that you then cut them at some point.
 
2013-05-11 03:50:17 PM  

vygramul: If you raise taxes during boom, it follows that you then cut them at some point.


Why?
 
2013-05-11 03:51:01 PM  

Muta: FlashHarry: it's actually pretty simple, as far as the US and europe go, supply-side, trickle-down economics has never worked and keynesian economic theory has

Supply side is Keynesian.

What causes inflation?  Demand exceeding supply.  If that is true then they way to combat inflation would be for the government to increase supply.  Supply side worked for Reagan as he was able to get the inflation rate under control that had been a bugger since the early 70s.  The problem today isn't inflation.  Pricing has been flat for quite some time.  Supply side strategies combat inflation when inflation isn't the problem then it is a waste of money.  Since inflation is low, the proper strategy is to increase demand.


Volker's policies that combated inflation were not in any way, shape or form "trickle down". The main thing the did was to significantly raise the federal funds rate which has zero to do with giving tax breaks and other economic benefits to the rich. You are getting your Reagan era policies confused. His "trickle down" policies came later.
 
Displayed 50 of 223 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report