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  
•       •       •

4982 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 03:52:08 PM

phaseolus: 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.


In my opinion a better analogy would be '... like an evangelical preacher talking about salvation' -- thinking the right thoughts and believing the right things is necessary and sufficient for blessings to flow from some ineffable fount. It's a way of thinking that doesn't ask for evidence to prove that it's correct and contradictory facts and evidence aren't given any consideration when they appear.

All their derp notwithstanding, this is a huge reason why I can't take today's Republicans seriously. And after they get rid of their Social Conservative crap, this naïve faith in their economic theories is still gonna be there...


"But Brawndo's got electrolytes. It's what plants crave."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c708Rinx6hE

Sadly, this scene closely resembles debates on U.S. economic policy.
 
2013-05-11 03:52:27 PM

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: If you raise taxes during boom, it follows that you then cut them at some point.

Why?


Because you have boom, bust, boom, bust, boom, bust... if you raise taxes each boom, and never cut them, you get to 100.

If taxes should be at a particular level at all times, then say so. Saying you raise them during boom suggests dynamic tax policy.
 
2013-05-11 03:53:51 PM
This interesting and civil debate y'all are having in here is throwing off my rhythm. Also,

Thrag: 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.


Can you send in a farkback to our dev team. Bad ad or Hey! app category. That shouldn't be happening. Coders will take care of it.
 
2013-05-11 03:56:34 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. they are pushing a failed notion simply because they and their masters want to pay as little tax as possible.


THIS. They don't really care about the debt at all-- if they did, they wouldn't call for tax cuts every day of every year. It's just an excise to go after the social safety net programs they hate so much.

No one's mind was changed by the revelations on how this study was bullshiat, because no one's minds were ever convinced by it in the first place. "Debt" is a scary word that lets them justify doing what they already were going to do in the first place.
 
2013-05-11 04:00:01 PM

vygramul: 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?


No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.
 
2013-05-11 04:09:14 PM

machodonkeywrestler: Actually, the argument for austerity was "Fark your unemployment insurance, my bank needs another round of bailouts".


Bailouts and austerity are not related. In fact, most austerity advocates were critical of bail-outs.

Gunther: Utter bullshiat. Plenty of politicians and supply-side economists were claiming back in 2008-9 that the recession was largely the result of some nebulous lack of "confidence" in the markets, and austerity measures would somehow give them that confidence, leading to a recovery.


[citation needed]

Satanic_Hamster: Heh, I love right wing idiots who make that argument. "The spending works programs didn't bring us out of the Depression, but the spending on military did! Only military spending can help the economy, all other spending is just wasted!"


The people who make that argument are called Military Keynesians for a reason. I wouldn't call them right-wing though.

Don't base your rebuttal on what you think the other side's argument ought to be. Base it on what it actually is.

Gunther: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I never said it caused the Great Depression. I should have added "they tried to use it to get out of the Great Depression". Which it didn't do by the way.

But that's a) a backtrack on what you said originally, and b) still wrong:

[img.photobucket.com image 371x480]


This may come as a shock, because you apparently didn't know this, but GDP includes gov't spending. So your actual argument is literally "If we count gov't spending, spending goes up because the gov't spends more."

GDP is a metric. Stop making it the Holy Grail. The point of the NEw Deal was to recover the economy to 1929 levels and then allow it to resume and pay for itself afterwards. That literally never happened as the cutbacks in the programs showed there was no pump priming.
  

A Dark Evil Omen: 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.


Your class struggle theory has been debunked. Even Syndicalism failed. You political hipsters and your niche politics.
 
2013-05-11 04:09:42 PM

Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.


You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)
 
2013-05-11 04:11:03 PM

Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.


Yep.Vygramul is pushing austerity, which has been proven false. It's been proven that when wealth goes to the wealthy, it just makes robber barons and a whole lot of poor people. It's the very opposite of Keynesian economics.
 
2013-05-11 04:11:43 PM

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.



A

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.


About that New Deal 'failure'...

You do know that that same advisor, Henry Morgenthau Jr. didn't like the New Deal because it didn't go far enough ? Morgenthau wanted a higher tax on the rich to pay off the depression debt & stimulate the economy? To quote: "We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be..... I don't pay what I should. People in my class don't. People who have it should pay."

He's also the man who invented Social Security, and also the man who decided to fund it through a payroll tax, separate and protected from the annual federal budget.

Not exactly the ardent anti-social program economist you hoped he would be, eh?
 
2013-05-11 04:12:12 PM

mark12A: Hold tight to your dreams, Libtards. Keynesian deficit spending CANNOT go on forever, and it won't. Like *every* single time its been tried long term (ref: third world, Zimbabwe, etc.) , it WILL blow up at some point.


There are two halves to Keynesian economics.  The other half is you pay the bills back when times are good.

Which we were doing.  We had a big farking surplus when Clinton left office.

But then george w. bush started beating the war drums and you wingnuts believed every word he said and suddenly deficits didn't matter.

Of course now they do matter, because another dagburn Dimmycrat varmint is in the White House.
 
2013-05-11 04:20:35 PM
People are aware that they primary points outlined by Ryan are in full agreement with the bi-partisan Simpson-Bowles Plan (National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform) that outlines the exact same issues with federal spending and taxes.  The problem with Ryan's proposal is that he just wants to cut the spending and not raise taxes.  Any realistic solution in D.C. will require both.

Strangely enough the politicans from both parties have pretty much ignored the very realisitic work done by Simpson-Bowles.
 
2013-05-11 04:21:05 PM
The thing with austerity is it fails the economic growth test from first principles. If you want an economy to grow, people need to have money to spend. If you start taking money out of people's pockets, you aren't about to have the economy grow.
 
2013-05-11 04:21:11 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.



One of the major problems Keynes was trying to address was  deflation. Over-production on the supply side was one of the biggest contributors the the Great Depression. Rich farks can produce as much shiat as they want, if no one can buy it, the economy still sucks.  Demand exceeding supply is equally bad as supply exceeding demand.
 
2013-05-11 04:23:03 PM

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.


Heritage Foundation stooge like typing detecting. Dispatching ground to Austrian missiles.
 
2013-05-11 04:23:27 PM

gblive: Any realistic solution in D.C. will require both.


There's another way to solve things. Get incomes growing again, but that takes actually having a spine and leaning on the private sector.
 
2013-05-11 04:23:31 PM

vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)


So basically, Supply Side doesn't totally work effectively, so the GOP is pushing a policy that is completely and totally ineffective. Got it.
 
2013-05-11 04:24:36 PM

vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)


I did answer the larger question, but if you insist; Taxes on the wealthy can be lowered to where they were before increases once deficits are back under control.

I have addressed your tree, can we get back to concentrating on the forest now? The main point still stands, Keynesian economics has little to do with the idea of trickle down. They are at best concepts in opposition to each other and at worst entirely unrelated.

/to preemptively cut off any attempts to go to the "jealousy of the rich" or the "sure, you want to raise taxes on others and not yourself" arguements that always come up, I am far into the top tax bracket
//this is a general comment not directed to the poster I am replying to
 
2013-05-11 04:27:57 PM

dugitman: This interesting and civil debate y'all are having in here is throwing off my rhythm. Also,

Thrag: 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.

Can you send in a farkback to our dev team. Bad ad or Hey! app category. That shouldn't be happening. Coders will take care of it.


First, Same to you buddy!

Second, error report sent. Though I probably should have mentioned I'm currently in Europe in case the ads are regional.
 
2013-05-11 04:28:39 PM

eggrolls: 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.


AThe 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.

About that New Deal 'failure'...

You do know that that same advisor, Henry Morgenthau Jr. didn't like the New Deal because it didn't go far enough ? Morgenthau wanted a higher tax on the rich to pay off the depression debt & stimulate the economy? To quote: "We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be..... I don't pay what I should. People in my class don't. People who have it should pay."

He's also the man who invented Social Security, and also the man who decided to fund it through a payroll tax, separate and protected from the annual federal budget.

Not exactly the ardent anti-social program economist you hoped he would be, eh?


I knew that quote as well. And I have no problem with that idea. And maybe the rich should be paying more and maybe everyone should! At this moment we have a majority of people getting government benifits and a minority of people paying taxes. Does that sound like a winning plan to you? We need more people pulling the cart than people in the cart.

Right now it's being demanded because the "rich" arnt paying their fair share. If it was phrased differently maybe it would work. As of right now a very few people are paying for most of the federal government services and then they are being told they are greedy?! And we're shocked when they get nervous and stop investing and/or pull up stakes and move their money out of the states?! It doesn't matter what economy theory you want to use you need the rich people to stay here!
 
2013-05-11 04:40:13 PM

Wessoman: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

Yep.Vygramul is pushing austerity, which has been proven false. It's been proven that when wealth goes to the wealthy, it just makes robber barons and a whole lot of poor people. It's the very opposite of Keynesian economics.


I'm not pushing austerity. I'm trying to clarify.
 
2013-05-11 04:46:21 PM

vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)


I should also address your parenthetical; Yes, supply side can be more than "trickle down", but trickle down is at the heart of it. People who push supply side economics often focus on lowering income and cap gains taxes justified by the trickle down concept.

While it may fit into the overall concept I honestly have never heard anyone call things like investments in basic research or education "supply side economics". Everything I have ever seen on supply side economics from its advocates is completely focused on taxes. Research usually only comes into play in the form of R&D credits for companies, not government funded research. It's usually just laffer curve all the way down.
 
2013-05-11 04:54:48 PM

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: If you raise taxes during boom, it follows that you then cut them at some point.

Why?


During a recession, to stimulate demand.
 
2013-05-11 04:55:20 PM

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?


The rest of the world didn't just go through a depression, the rest of the world tried radically different systems to solve their economic problems, some of those systems being extremely hostile. They all had varying degrees of success and failure, but it should be noted that the systems that pulled themselves out of the depression the fastest were the ones that abandoned Capitalism altogether (Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia). The ones who stood fast to free market principles (Britain, France, USA) were the ones who suffered the depression the longest.
 
2013-05-11 04:56:22 PM
Even with the data on their side, none of the advocates of Obamacare is nearly as certain the law will succeed as conservatives like Levin are that it will fail. That is a testament only to the overweening ideological certainty that pervades the right.

There's an old Peanuts cartoon I remember in which Lucy says something along the lines of "If you can't be right, be wrong at the top of your lungs".This appears to be the GOP's MO these days. Claiming for the umpteenth time that trickle down really works and that lower taxes and less regulation are the cure to all ills with the same passionate certainty of a confidence trickster or a snake oil salesman in days gone by.

I always suspected that Lucy van Pelt grew up and became a Republican.
 
2013-05-11 04:56:30 PM
The only way one can say a majority of people are on government benefits is to include SSI and Medicare as benefits (they are entitlements, people are entitled to them because they paid in) and to include all tax credits like the mortgage interest deduction as benefits (which they are but people who get them often deny).

The only way one can say that a minority of people pay taxes is to include children, and in that case, well duh.
 
2013-05-11 05:01:58 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: We need more people pulling the cart than people in the cart.


Well if incomes hadn't been flat the last 30 years that wouldn't be an issue.
 
2013-05-11 05:04:25 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: And we're shocked when they get nervous


One if five children in America live in poverty but the rich are *gasp* feeling nervous. I'll fetch the fainting couch.
 
2013-05-11 05:06:24 PM

Mrbogey: The people who make that argument are called Military Keynesians for a reason. I wouldn't call them right-wing though.

Don't base your rebuttal on what you think the other side's argument ought to be. Base it on what it actually is.


Actually, I regularly see that argument from "conservatives," both in real life and on the Hill.  Government spending on bridges?  Why, that's wasteful spending and doesn't help the economy at all.  But we can't cut military spending, think of all the jobs that would hurt!
 
2013-05-11 05:07:38 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: At this moment we have a majority of people getting government benifits and a minority of people paying taxes.


Well, you know why, right?

www.ishkur.com

Just what, pray tell, do you think you're going to get out of these moochers who don't pay taxes?

They don't pay taxes because they don't have any money.

There is an easy solution to this, of course: Pay people a decent wage so they actually have something to tax.
 
2013-05-11 05:10:50 PM
Its like faith of any kind, in anything, is not a virtue?
 
2013-05-11 05:17:10 PM

Ishkur: The Stealth Hippopotamus: At this moment we have a majority of people getting government benifits and a minority of people paying taxes.

Well, you know why, right?

[www.ishkur.com image 432x432]

Just what, pray tell, do you think you're going to get out of these moochers who don't pay taxes?

They don't pay taxes because they don't have any money.

There is an easy solution to this, of course: Pay people a decent wage so they actually have something to tax.


Socializim!!!!!
 
2013-05-11 05:26:29 PM

vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)


Keynesian economics is not about tax rate changes. It is about affecting aggregate demand. Tax rates could theoretically be at the correct level to balance out over a period of time longer than the business cycle and therefore never be adjusted. Aggregate demand can be changed by government purchases paid by debt during a downturn and that debt paid off after an upturn.

You are stuck on tax rates and it is causing your brain to malfunction with regard to what Keynes was saying.
 
2013-05-11 05:27:25 PM

Thrag: vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)

I did answer the larger question, but if you insist; Taxes on the wealthy can be lowered to where they were before increases once deficits are back under control.

I have addressed your tree, can we get back to concentrating on the forest now? The main point still stands, Keynesian economics has little to do with the idea of trickle down. They are at best concepts in opposition to each other and at worst entirely unrelated.

/to preemptively cut off any attempts to go to the "jealousy of the rich" or the "sure, you want to raise taxes on others and not yourself" arguements that always come up, I am far into the top tax bracket
//this is a general comment not directed to the poster I am replying to


In times when things are good and you have a reasonable surplus, Keynes has nothing against supply-side decisions.
 
2013-05-11 05:30:38 PM

Thrag: vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)

I should also address your parenthetical; Yes, supply side can be more than "trickle down", but trickle down is at the heart of it. People who push supply side economics often focus on lowering income and cap gains taxes justified by the trickle down concept.

While it may fit into the overall concept I honestly have never heard anyone call things like investments in basic research or education "supply side economics". Everything I have ever seen on supply side economics from its advocates is completely focused on taxes. Research usually only comes into play in the form of R&D credits for companies, not government funded research. It's usually just laffer curve all the way down.


Supply side states there are four primary paths to increasing per capita GDP. Tax cuts for people and corporations are two of them. R&D and Education are the other two.

Technology improves productivity, as does education, shifting the supply curve and increasing GDP.

Tax cuts shift both curves for different reasons.
 
2013-05-11 05:34:12 PM

MontanaDave: vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)

Keynesian economics is not about tax rate changes. It is about affecting aggregate demand. Tax rates could theoretically be at the correct level to balance out over a period of time longer than the business cycle and therefore never be adjusted. Aggregate demand can be changed by government purchases paid by debt during a downturn and that debt paid off after an upturn.

You are stuck on tax rates and it is causing your brain to malfunction with regard to what Keynes was saying.


No, I'm responding to Thrag, who brought it up. You can't bring up taxes, and when I respond to it, claim that *I* am stuck on taxes.
 
2013-05-11 05:38:31 PM

WhyteRaven74: The Stealth Hippopotamus: We need more people pulling the cart than people in the cart.

Well if incomes hadn't been flat the last 30 years that wouldn't be an issue.


If we did increase the size and cost of government in the last 30 years it would be an issue either
 
2013-05-11 05:40:04 PM

Ishkur: The Stealth Hippopotamus: At this moment we have a majority of people getting government benifits and a minority of people paying taxes.

Well, you know why, right?



Just what, pray tell, do you think you're going to get out of these moochers who don't pay taxes?

They don't pay taxes because they don't have any money.

There is an easy solution to this, of course: Pay people a decent wage so they actually have something to tax.


And pray tell what should federal living wage be?
 
2013-05-11 05:43:03 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Ishkur: The Stealth Hippopotamus: At this moment we have a majority of people getting government benifits and a minority of people paying taxes.

Well, you know why, right?

Just what, pray tell, do you think you're going to get out of these moochers who don't pay taxes?

They don't pay taxes because they don't have any money.

There is an easy solution to this, of course: Pay people a decent wage so they actually have something to tax.

And pray tell what should federal living wage be?


While people make some economic arguments for and against a minimum wage, the real argument is a moral one. It's immoral to pay people so little for full-time work that they cannot feed, clothe, and educate their children.
 
2013-05-11 05:51:21 PM

vygramul: MontanaDave: vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)

Keynesian economics is not about tax rate changes. It is about affecting aggregate demand. Tax rates could theoretically be at the correct level to balance out over a period of time longer than the business cycle and therefore never be adjusted. Aggregate demand can be changed by government purchases paid by debt during a downturn and that debt paid off after an upturn.

You are stuck on tax rates and it is causing your brain to malfunction with regard to what Keynes was saying.

No, I'm responding to Thrag, who brought it up. You can't bring up taxes, and when I respond to it, claim that *I* am stuck on taxes.


Thank you for pointing that out. I will clarify my comment by saying that both you and Thrag are stuck on taxes and both of your brains are malfunctioning with regard to what Keynes was saying.

Better?
 
2013-05-11 05:54:50 PM

vygramul: Thrag: vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)

I did answer the larger question, but if you insist; Taxes on the wealthy can be lowered to where they were before increases once deficits are back under control.

I have addressed your tree, can we get back to concentrating on the forest now? The main point still stands, Keynesian economics has little to do with the idea of trickle down. They are at best concepts in opposition to each other and at worst entirely unrelated.

/to preemptively cut off any attempts to go to the "jealousy of the rich" or the "sure, you want to raise taxes on others and not yourself" arguements that always come up, I am far into the top tax bracket
//this is a general comment not directed to the poster I am replying to

In times when things are good and you have a reasonable surplus, Keynes has nothing against supply-side decisions.


Correct, it has nothing against (or for) supply side in boom times once deficits are under control and the system is prepared for a downturn. It is as I stated entirely unrelated.

I do have to point out that this is not the arguement you started with. You were attempting to claim that Keynesian economics advocates trickle down. The larger supply side concepts only came into the conversation when I used the term supply side as a contrast my explanation that Keynesian economics says to stimulate the demand side and I was specific about saying trickle down in that same sentence.

You have also expressed some agreement that current trickle down/supply side advocates (i.e. the GOP) usually only concentrate on taxes. While it is true that an academic definition of supply side economics does include education and stimulating research, in practice advocates almost entirely ignore thkse parts and focus on taxes. So at this point I do not believe we have any points of contention, unless you plan to revert to your eariler argument.
 
2013-05-11 05:55:34 PM
Holy shiat.  A good article and fairly decent thread.

Heap:  You made me laugh.

Thrag:  I need to get out of this job.  Call me, baby.

Dusk:  There's not a single comment from you that I don't love.  You really should post more.
 
2013-05-11 05:57:09 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: WhyteRaven74: The Stealth Hippopotamus: We need more people pulling the cart than people in the cart.

Well if incomes hadn't been flat the last 30 years that wouldn't be an issue.

If we did increase the size and cost of government in the last 30 years it would be an issue either


Not increasing the size of government for 30 years would be demographically impossible.  We've added close to 100 million people since 1980.

But maybe there's more to government spending than raw numbers...oh look...we're spending a massive 1.6 points more now than in 1981 weighed against the total size of the economy.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-11 06:06:08 PM

MontanaDave: vygramul: MontanaDave: vygramul: Thrag: No, trickle down policies have a specific meaning. It means giving economic benefits to the rich in the hope they somehow eventually benefit the poor.

Keynesian economics says that in a downturn you stimulate demand, not supply. Usually by stimulus spending like infrastructure projects. Tax cuts to the poor and middle class (usually not the rich and definitely not only the rich) can be part of stimulating demand. This is the opposite of trickle down, or supply side economics as it is also called.

You didn't answer - if you raise taxes on the rich during boom, when do you cut them again?

(And Republican trickle-down != supply-side, as supply-side states that you spend money on R&D and Education, things the GOP says the government shouldn't do.)

Keynesian economics is not about tax rate changes. It is about affecting aggregate demand. Tax rates could theoretically be at the correct level to balance out over a period of time longer than the business cycle and therefore never be adjusted. Aggregate demand can be changed by government purchases paid by debt during a downturn and that debt paid off after an upturn.

You are stuck on tax rates and it is causing your brain to malfunction with regard to what Keynes was saying.

No, I'm responding to Thrag, who brought it up. You can't bring up taxes, and when I respond to it, claim that *I* am stuck on taxes.

Thank you for pointing that out. I will clarify my comment by saying that both you and Thrag are stuck on taxes and both of your brains are malfunctioning with regard to what Keynes was saying.

Better?


No, not better. The conversation we were having was mainly about trickle down, which is largely if not entirely focused on taxes which is why taxes were a primary point of discussion. Neither of us has claimed in any way that Keynesian economics is all about taxes. In fact vygrmul early on stated the basic spend in bust save in boom concept. Since that was not a point of contention it was not necessary to keep mentioning it. In my posts I specifically stated that Keynesian economics focuses on stimulating demand during a bust. If any brain is malfunctioning here it is yours with regard to reading comprehension.
 
2013-05-11 06:25:01 PM

Thrag: I do have to point out that this is not the arguement you started with. You were attempting to claim that Keynesian economics advocates trickle down. The larger supply side concepts only came into the conversation when I used the term supply side as a contrast my explanation that Keynesian economics says to stimulate the demand side and I was specific about saying trickle down in that same sentence.

You have also expressed some agreement that current trickle down/supply side advocates (i.e. the GOP) usually only concentrate on taxes. While it is true that an academic definition of supply side economics does include education and stimulating research, in practice advocates almost entirely ignore thkse parts and focus on taxes. So at this point I do not believe we have any points of contention, unless you plan to revert to your eariler argument.


I admittedly was intentionally vague about WHEN Keynes agreed with supply-side economics.

As far as what advocates of trickle-down economics champion, I would wholeheartedly agree that they only advocate those things that satisfy their own ideology. It's like Cafeteria Catholics. They're Flophouse Friedmans. (Well, that doesn't really make sense, but there aren't synonyms with Cafeteria that start with F.)
 
2013-05-11 07:05:32 PM
Flipflop Friedmans?
 
2013-05-11 07:06:43 PM
LEAVE VICE PRESIDENT DUDEBRO ALONE!!!!!
 
2013-05-11 07:08:55 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: And pray tell what should federal living wage be?


Well, if we peg it to inflation like it should be, probably $12.87 (aka the federal poverty level for a family of four).

At the very least, it should be $10.00, which would put the purchasing power of the bottom rung consumer back to 1968 levels. I would go $11.00 as a compromise.
 
2013-05-11 07:13:50 PM
These threads are a lot better without MattStafford threadshiatting over everything.

/oh no, I just invoked him. He's going to show up, isn't he?
 
2013-05-11 07:15:48 PM

FlashHarry: and what, pray tell, did get us out of the great depression? tax cuts and less regulation?


The nazi scientists we captured?
 
2013-05-11 07:24:32 PM

Baryogenesis: The Stealth Hippopotamus: WhyteRaven74: The Stealth Hippopotamus: We need more people pulling the cart than people in the cart.

Well if incomes hadn't been flat the last 30 years that wouldn't be an issue.

If we did increase the size and cost of government in the last 30 years it would be an issue either

Not increasing the size of government for 30 years would be demographically impossible.  We've added close to 100 million people since 1980.

But maybe there's more to government spending than raw numbers...oh look...we're spending a massive 1.6 points more now than in 1981 weighed against the total size of the economy.


We were overbuying on 81 too.
 
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 »






Report