On September 14 2008 14:43 NovaTheFeared wrote: Anyone who's ever taken an economics class care to take a guess at the type or relationship between capital gains tax increases proposed by Obama and GDP? Income tax, who cares. Whether spent by the citizen or the government, the money is still flowing. Perhaps not as efficiently but the difference is small compared to the number of dollars involved. Capital gains increases on the other hand slow the flow of investment directly and unconditionally. Capital, unsurprisingly, is the beating heart of capitalism.
I always hear how Democratic presidents are going to enact policies that slow economic growth, hurt GDP, etc. I wonder how people can keep saying this when the average GDP under Democratic Presidents over the past 60 years has grown far more than it has under Republican Presidents. Care to explain how that fits in with your theory?
On September 14 2008 14:43 NovaTheFeared wrote: Anyone who's ever taken an economics class care to take a guess at the type or relationship between capital gains tax increases proposed by Obama and GDP? Income tax, who cares. Whether spent by the citizen or the government, the money is still flowing. Perhaps not as efficiently but the difference is small compared to the number of dollars involved. Capital gains increases on the other hand slow the flow of investment directly and unconditionally. Capital, unsurprisingly, is the beating heart of capitalism.
I always hear how Democratic presidents are going to enact policies that slow economic growth, hurt GDP, etc. I wonder how people can keep saying this when the average GDP under Democratic Presidents over the past 60 years has grown far more than it has under Republican Presidents. Care to explain how that fits in with your theory?
Larry Bartel's thesis intriguing. He answers a few questions I had in this blog: http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/04/larry-bartels-r.html but probably answers a lot more of them in his book (I wish he had gone in more detail with the effect of Congress though, since congress DOES control spending and the president's effectiveness in pushing his agenda depends on how well he controls congress. That and I wish he were an actual economist :D). Also, I think it's only fair to lay out the kinks in his argument, according to the other side.
I spent some time going through the data. I’ll start with the headline of my conclusions. Bartels’s thesis is primarily the statistical artifact of the combination of two very simple observations: (A) there has been a higher proportion of Republican presidential years during the period 1980 – 2005 than the period 1948 – 1979 (64% vs. 48%), and (B) starting in 1979, U.S. income inequality began to rise dramatically after a post-WW II period of relative wage equality. Accepting these two statements of fact does not imply accepting Bartels’s thesis that A caused B, and his academic paper on the subject provides no compelling evidence of causality.
The objective international conditions that allowed Truman (D), Eisenhower (R), Kennedy (D) and Johnson (D) to preside over an economy with relative wage equality no longer exist. The interaction between: (1) the fact that Republicans achieved a realignment based on a number issues, some related to the economy and some not, as these trends hit the economy with resulting structural increases in inequality, and (2) the fact that the Republican approach to meeting the challenge of increased international competition over this period involved deregulation of various kinds, which has probably had a tendency to increase inequality vs. what it would otherwise have been, is a lot more complex than Bartels is willing to accept. If we tried to recreate the policies that early post-WW II America followed in a misguided attempt to recreate the economy of 1955, we would fail because we face much more severe international competition today than we did then. Trying to pretend otherwise is selling snake oil.
The problem with statistics is that data can be used to "prove" different facts. Because the GDP real growth rate was higher in the Clinton Administration than in the Bush Administration's, Clinton's economic policies were superior. This doesn't take into account the dot com boom in the 90's, the tax reduction passed by a republican congress in 96-97, illegal immigration, the staggering and rising costs of medicare, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. etc. Another example is how a family's average income can go down as they make more money depending on how you interpret the data. If dad makes $40k a year and mom makes $20k a year, then you can say good: family income is up 60k a year, or, you can say bad: The average wage of a family worker dropped 30k a year.
On September 15 2008 04:25 Wysp wrote: the product of social labour belongs to the group that produces it, anyway. No one has the right to make $600,000.
On September 12 2008 01:46 Yoshiva wrote: Now I am new so please dont kill me >_<!! Ok Well I have done my research. I dislike McCain for wishing to stay in the war. This is common news. I dislike Biden for his views towards piracy and the privacy with computers.
Biden uses the views of plagerism for his views to stop downloads of music. Now I am not against that; however, I do not see a reasonable solution to knowing who downloaded what unless he searches the computers illegally.
i agree that biden has had a bad philosophy on the internet. but i doubt this will play a big role since obama is completely uninterested in starting stuff up like this, especially since his campaign grew thru internet popularity.
Obama has actually gone as far to support net neutrality.
Part of the reason "rich" Californians are objectors to the tax issues is because they're also having the pay the state's income tax.
On September 14 2008 14:43 NovaTheFeared wrote: Anyone who's ever taken an economics class care to take a guess at the type or relationship between capital gains tax increases proposed by Obama and GDP? Income tax, who cares. Whether spent by the citizen or the government, the money is still flowing. Perhaps not as efficiently but the difference is small compared to the number of dollars involved. Capital gains increases on the other hand slow the flow of investment directly and unconditionally. Capital, unsurprisingly, is the beating heart of capitalism.
I always hear how Democratic presidents are going to enact policies that slow economic growth, hurt GDP, etc. I wonder how people can keep saying this when the average GDP under Democratic Presidents over the past 60 years has grown far more than it has under Republican Presidents. Care to explain how that fits in with your theory?
It's not a matter of the party but of their policies. Clinton was a Dem, but he was more free-market (in his policies actually implemented) than both Bushes.
Smaller government leads to greater economic growth.
On September 14 2008 14:43 NovaTheFeared wrote: Anyone who's ever taken an economics class care to take a guess at the type or relationship between capital gains tax increases proposed by Obama and GDP? Income tax, who cares. Whether spent by the citizen or the government, the money is still flowing. Perhaps not as efficiently but the difference is small compared to the number of dollars involved. Capital gains increases on the other hand slow the flow of investment directly and unconditionally. Capital, unsurprisingly, is the beating heart of capitalism.
I always hear how Democratic presidents are going to enact policies that slow economic growth, hurt GDP, etc. I wonder how people can keep saying this when the average GDP under Democratic Presidents over the past 60 years has grown far more than it has under Republican Presidents. Care to explain how that fits in with your theory?
It's not a matter of the party but of their policies. Clinton was a Dem, but he was more free-market (in his policies actually implemented) than both Bushes.
Smaller government leads to greater economic growth.
How do you measure the size of government? By government spending? What does that number stand for at the bottom?
While I agree with you, you also have to realize that economic growth often comes at a considerable short term cost to the lower class, who don't have the political leverage to bargain for that wealth. China is an excellent example: more than half the country lives on substance farming. Social services and development is practically nonexistent in rural areas. But you could never tell by visiting Beijing.
This is the main reason why I'm not supporting Obama. I don't like being fucked by taxes. Look at the total lack of incentive to make 600k+.
That demographic always gets fucked [the poorest of the richest]. It's not rich enough to do whatever it wants, but it still fits in the highest tax bracket.
edit: Large national taxes are simply silly. Region to region, living costs fluctuate way too much to arbitrarily say "oh, you make this much money - we're going to tax you this much." The cost of living in some parts of the country is several times that in others. Fucking ridiculous.
it is not the lack of incentive you are feeling, but wariness of burdens. suppose you make 40k a year, i'd think your attitude would change. taxes for the rich is, among other things, a reminder that they have things other than their own affairs to worry about.
and it is a federal tax, taxing regions unevenly would offend state rights sentiments, not to mention cause various problems with people moving from one state to another. keep in mind, the cost of living for places will change once you implement this cunning plan,
The argument for less high-income taxes goes thus: Less taxes means more savings (in US banks anyway). More savings means more investment, which leads to growth. The problem is certainly not a lack of incentive for people to get richer.
And speaking as someone who lives in the Bay Area, seriously, we are wealthy beyond comparison in 90% of the country. We live here because we can afford it.
On September 15 2008 13:57 ahrara_ wrote: How do you measure the size of government? By government spending? What does that number stand for at the bottom?
While I agree with you, you also have to realize that economic growth often comes at a considerable short term cost to the lower class, who don't have the political leverage to bargain for that wealth. China is an excellent example: more than half the country lives on substance farming. Social services and development is practically nonexistent in rural areas. But you could never tell by visiting Beijing.
Yeah, it's total government expenditures as a percentage of GDP.
I don't know about the second part. That would be the fault of government, not economic growth. Advances in technology and efficiency help everybody -- the poor the most.
On September 14 2008 14:43 NovaTheFeared wrote: Anyone who's ever taken an economics class care to take a guess at the type or relationship between capital gains tax increases proposed by Obama and GDP? Income tax, who cares. Whether spent by the citizen or the government, the money is still flowing. Perhaps not as efficiently but the difference is small compared to the number of dollars involved. Capital gains increases on the other hand slow the flow of investment directly and unconditionally. Capital, unsurprisingly, is the beating heart of capitalism.
I always hear how Democratic presidents are going to enact policies that slow economic growth, hurt GDP, etc. I wonder how people can keep saying this when the average GDP under Democratic Presidents over the past 60 years has grown far more than it has under Republican Presidents. Care to explain how that fits in with your theory?
It's not a matter of the party but of their policies. Clinton was a Dem, but he was more free-market (in his policies actually implemented) than both Bushes.
Smaller government leads to greater economic growth.
Thanks for posting this. I'm not convinced that comparing us to other OECD countries is necessarily valid, but I'm interested to take more of a look at the study it's from. The other thing I'm kind of pondering right now is how much GDP growth is correlated to people's standard of living / quality of life. Gonna read more in the next few days.
On September 15 2008 13:57 ahrara_ wrote: How do you measure the size of government? By government spending? What does that number stand for at the bottom?
While I agree with you, you also have to realize that economic growth often comes at a considerable short term cost to the lower class, who don't have the political leverage to bargain for that wealth. China is an excellent example: more than half the country lives on substance farming. Social services and development is practically nonexistent in rural areas. But you could never tell by visiting Beijing.
Yeah, it's total government expenditures as a percentage of GDP.
I don't know about the second part. That would be the fault of government, not economic growth. Advances in technology and efficiency help everybody -- the poor the most.
No it's not. No, it doesn't. You're confusing the short run and the long run. When I get a brand new robot arm that builds a hundred cars in the time it takes people to build one, one hundred people are going to lose their jobs. Eventually, the savings will allow for greater wealth, but that takes time. Meanwhile, unless the government spends more, which inhibits growth, these people without jobs go hungry. Another problem is that in a country with considerable surplus labor, such as in China, companies have no incentive to improve wages and working conditions. So even if I live in the city and makes shoes for Nike, I am working in terrible conditions with little pay. The people who profit the most are the shareholders and executives.
Second, industry develops in cities. It is much more efficient and profitable to invest in industry than agriculture. As a result, developing countries neglect their rural population in favor of urban areas.
Economic growth is the means, not the end. The stupid thing is when people argue that it is absolutely one way or another. Some taxes are good. Some are bad. Most times, you have to find the balance between incentive and welfare.
I can't help but notice that the poll here is VERY heavily weighted toward Obama. Could someone try to sum up in a few sentences why they believe Obama would make a good president preferably not why he would be BETTER than McCain.
I'm far from a conservative... I'm pro-choice, pro-equal rights, pro-gays/trannies (lol), and believe religion is for stupid people, but I find myself more comfortable with McCain in office than Obama.
I don't see how increasing government size could possible be a good thing under any circumstance. I don't understand how giving handouts to people who do little/nothing is good under any circumstance. give a man a fish or teach a man to fish... anyways, I'm older than most people on here. I've been around for a few elections and this one is the most perplexing for me. :/
On September 15 2008 15:54 starcraft911 wrote: I can't help but notice that the poll here is VERY heavily weighted toward Obama. Could someone try to sum up in a few sentences why they believe Obama would make a good president preferably not why he would be BETTER than McCain.
I'm far from a conservative... I'm pro-choice, pro-equal rights, pro-gays/trannies (lol), and believe religion is for stupid people, but I find myself more comfortable with McCain in office than Obama.
I don't see how increasing government size could possible be a good thing under any circumstance. I don't understand how giving handouts to people who do little/nothing is good under any circumstance. give a man a fish or teach a man to fish... anyways, I'm older than most people on here. I've been around for a few elections and this one is the most perplexing for me. :/
It's not about giving hand outs to people who do little/nothing. A lot of the programs he's running on are incentive based, like college scholarships for community service or teacher award programs. The tax cuts and universal health care are actually tools to improve the economy. Supposedly there'd be more money to put back in and a healthier work force means a much more efficient work force. Government pays for a lot of things. A lot of them are bad, but other times it's extremely useful for improving technology, standard of living and it's another way to put money into the economy.
I'd like to add that switching to a single payer national health care system will actually save an estimated 300 billion annually. With bulk purchasing power of the federal government to provide drugs, the elimination of the insurance/HMO buracacy that has a average 20% overhead, and eliminating a doctor's incentive to run unnecessary test will all save Billions. Right now doctors order all sort of shit tests that aren't needed. Hmmm, you have a cysts, looks like you need a CT... The way the system is currently set up is so rediculously wasteful. There are numerous examples of countries who have switched to national health care and their health care is more cost effective and they produce better statistics regarding health.
For me this election is about national health care. I'm voting for Obama for this reason and because I don't want another neocon mascarading as a moderate as president.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/function/exh-4.gif)
![[image loading]](http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/wp-content/images/taxplans.gif)
