EPTAs for socialism, the socialists have still not answered Ludwig von Mises calculation problem, which was levied in 1922 in Socialism (Still to do this day the best critique of socialism alongside Hoppe's A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism].
A Discussion of US Debt - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
As for socialism, the socialists have still not answered Ludwig von Mises calculation problem, which was levied in 1922 in Socialism (Still to do this day the best critique of socialism alongside Hoppe's A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism]. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On April 10 2011 23:27 DoubleReed wrote: Uhm. You realize INCOME TAX taxes your income (which is the most complained about tax), not what you inherit from any family member. Income Tax literally taxes your hard work and paycheck. I have no idea what you're talking about, and have no idea how you justify socialism that way. That is not a good argument for socialism at all. Economists really don't have a great track record. In the 60s, it was taught in schools that stagnation and inflation could not occur at the same time (because that's what the theory said). Then in the 70s we had stagflation and we had to rewrite all our economic textbooks. Not to mention that about these specific issues there's tons of disagreement between economists. Yea, because the income someone makes has absolutely nothing to do with the socio-economic environment someone grew up in. Or with their gender. Or with skin-colour. Or with the mental/physical capacities they were born with. And for team tea party out there, having an income tax is not the equivalent of socialism. A true socialist system would offset all differences in wealth, which the US income tax is nowhere close to. A former, republican, supreme court justice (Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.) said: 'Taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society'. Ofcourse that was back when republicans still had actual, coherent, ideals. | ||
|
Deja Thoris
South Africa646 Posts
On April 11 2011 01:48 red_b wrote: not really. socio-economic status and maternal education are by far the best predictors of success. you think you would be where you are now were you born in Etheopia? Or Estonia? Or even to a poor single parent family in Oakland? what a joke. Americans, in general, are obsessed with anecdotes of rags to riches or bosses going undercover and seeing the light of how shitty they treat their employees and then make it all right. much like in a country of 350 million people, only a few hundred can be professional athletes in the big sports, a preposterously small percent of people are really able to find upward social mobility. and that is, unfortunately, well evidenced. a promoter of gold as money writing a discourse on how Keynes was wrong? what a shocker. see above. and Im not justifying socialism through that, just making a point about how silly people are when they attribute their income to things like hard work or that God somehow loves them more than starving people. I, you, all of us... we deserve nothing. Taxes are taken from income that is only owned as long as you have a government making sure no one shoots you and takes it from you. That is not true ownership. it is a difference in perspective caused from observation of reality instead of living in a dream world where money will drop from the sky because I am awesome. actually theory did allow for stagflation. Keynes's description of the aggregate supply curve is somewhat J shaped without the upturned left tail; prices are sticky to a point, then there is a period of the schedule where prices will rise with increased output and then there is a portion where prices can rise with stable output. this was not something that was really considered by his pupils (Hicks, primarily, but also Samuelson) when they worked to make a mathematical formalization of the General Theory (which has all of 2 graphs in it). unfortunately, Keynes died shortly after publication so what precisely he had in mind was lost in the rather obtuse, ambiguous General Theory. This is all very lofty but how does it translate to the real world, and more importantly the current topic which the the national debt of the US? | ||
|
mads
Canada90 Posts
The reason I ask, I have a few economists in my family (my mom is an econ major, and my sister majored in econ for her undergrad, has her masters in econ and is working on her doctorate). I've taken a couple econ courses as well (I'm a finance major, but international finance isn't until next semester) and my understanding through discussion with my sister and my mom is that national debts are nothing more than a 'how-to finance national spending'. In reality, global debt is an integral part of how world economies operate. High debt figures can be a problem but it's a much more complex problem than if, for example, a person's debt is higher than their income. Which is, I think, how most people look at it (and was an example used earlier in this thread). The debt figures are excellent numbers to scare people with but the problem is not as large or at the very least not as simple as it may seem. What do I know though. Definitely not an expert. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On April 10 2011 16:42 SpeaKEaSY wrote: It is truly tragic that we no longer have Keynes, because we aren't able to see the look on his face upon seeing that the Keynesian experiment has been shown to be a complete failure. This is actually one of the worst critiques of Kenyesian economics I've ever read. Namely, most of what he criticizes isn't Keynesian. Keynes rejected monetary policy as ineffective and tended to be critical of central banks. The gold standard and Bretton Woods system were a major part of Keynesian economics as it was applied in practice. The alternative that he proposed in 1940 wasn't freely floating money, but rather an international reserve currency called the "bancor" which would be valued in terms of a certain weight in gold. The Keynesian period of economics is typically thought of as starting sometime around the end of WWII and lasting until the mid/late 1970s when it proved ineffective in dealing with a recession that was caused by supply-side factors (namely, the energy crisis). The two dominant schools of thought in economics from the late 70s through recently have been monetarism (and derivatives thereof, such as rational expectations) and neoliberal (sometimes called new classical). The former deals heavily with monetary policy and how it can theoretically be used to stabilize an economy while minimizing inflation. Given the nature of Nathan Lewis' critique, what he is saying would apply much more to these theories, particularly monetarism. Ideas more in line with Keynesianism have only returned to prominence (and I should clarify - this is more of a parity with the neoliberal school than a hegemony) since the 2007-09 worldwide crashes. Gold is also not stable in value -- or perhaps more subtly, I should say that this depends on how strictly he means "stable." (I could see an argument that gold backing results in less inflation over long periods of time, but if he means that the value of gold is always the same, then that is definitely incorrect.) Gold is a limited resource and, like other limited resources, its real value is subject to change over time. As the population grows and the supply of gold remains relatively constant, the real price of gold will rise due to basic supply and demand principles. The change in the nominal price of gold in terms of dollars is both a function of inflation on the dollar as well as changes in the real price of gold. | ||
|
red_b
United States1267 Posts
On April 11 2011 02:20 mads wrote: Out of honest curiousity (this is not an attack on the integrity of the arguments and discussion here) how many of those posting in this thread are econ majors? I was until last May. Now Im a masters program in the same field. Of course graduate econ work is mostly mechanical so in the last few months Ive learned less about this sort of thing than any time in the last 5 years. Oh, and to the guy who mentioned Hazlitt, come on man. That man, as an "economist", was a joke. At least when Hayek unloaded on Keynes it came from actual understanding. Hazlitt and his folk economics is no better than Sarah Palin's particular brand of horse shit, although I suppose he at least was an intelligent human being. And blaming Keynes for the current mess? That would be well and good, if it wasnt 3 decades of conservative economists running the show. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On April 11 2011 02:20 mads wrote: Out of honest curiousity (this is not an attack on the integrity of the arguments and discussion here) how many of those posting in this thread are econ majors? I have a bachelor's degree in economics, and as part of my masters in applied mathematics I took a some graduate courses in economics for interdisciplinary. (I do not have a phd in econ though, and they didn't offer masters in that subject. I'm no expert obviously, merely literate  )Above poster is right - once you get into grad level economics, shit gets real. Microfoundations is closer to a class in abstract algebra or analysis than the arithmetic or simple calculus you'll see in undergrad. It isn't surprising that some of the most influential economists like Keynes (math) or Barro (physics) came from backgrounds where they'd have gained a deep understanding of these subjects. In the end, of course I hold academic literature with higher regard than things from an ideologically-driven think tank or an internet forum. That is a no-brainer. But it's really no different than watching people outside of atmospheric science disciplines discussing climate change. People who are interested in an earnest back-and-forth discussion can gain some amount of understanding from it if they are willing. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On April 11 2011 01:48 red_b wrote: not really. socio-economic status and maternal education are by far the best predictors of success. you think you would be where you are now were you born in Etheopia? Or Estonia? Or even to a poor single parent family in Oakland? what a joke. Americans, in general, are obsessed with anecdotes of rags to riches or bosses going undercover and seeing the light of how shitty they treat their employees and then make it all right. much like in a country of 350 million people, only a few hundred can be professional athletes in the big sports, a preposterously small percent of people are really able to find upward social mobility. and that is, unfortunately, well evidenced. a promoter of gold as money writing a discourse on how Keynes was wrong? what a shocker. see above. and Im not justifying socialism through that, just making a point about how silly people are when they attribute their income to things like hard work or that God somehow loves them more than starving people. I, you, all of us... we deserve nothing. Taxes are taken from income that is only owned as long as you have a government making sure no one shoots you and takes it from you. That is not true ownership. it is a difference in perspective caused from observation of reality instead of living in a dream world where money will drop from the sky because I am awesome. actually theory did allow for stagflation. Keynes's description of the aggregate supply curve is somewhat J shaped without the upturned left tail; prices are sticky to a point, then there is a period of the schedule where prices will rise with increased output and then there is a portion where prices can rise with stable output. this was not something that was really considered by his pupils (Hicks, primarily, but also Samuelson) when they worked to make a mathematical formalization of the General Theory (which has all of 2 graphs in it). unfortunately, Keynes died shortly after publication so what precisely he had in mind was lost in the rather obtuse, ambiguous General Theory. Uhm, it doesn't really make sense to bring up other countries in that context. When we talk about rags to riches and such through hard work, the whole point is we want our country to be that way. That's the American Dream. You can't say "Well if you born in estonia then it wouldn't work." It's the ideal of America. Honestly this doesn't have to do with "luck of the draw." Obviously this plays a huge factor in people's wealth. But that really doesn't have to do with this at all. That doesn't mean you don't earn your paycheck, and it doesn't mean it isn't your money. That doesn't mean we should all give huge amounts of our money to some amorphous government. That doesn't justify anything. Look, there are very practical reasons why we should pay taxes. If it's about this "rags to riches" and such, there's private philanthropy. That's a much more efficient way of giving back. This has nothing to do with taxes. | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On April 11 2011 03:23 Signet wrote: + Show Spoiler + This is actually one of the worst critiques of Kenyesian economics I've ever read. Namely, most of what he criticizes isn't Keynesian. Keynes rejected monetary policy as ineffective and tended to be critical of central banks. The gold standard and Bretton Woods system were a major part of Keynesian economics as it was applied in practice. The alternative that he proposed in 1940 wasn't freely floating money, but rather an international reserve currency called the "bancor" which would be valued in terms of a certain weight in gold. The Keynesian period of economics is typically thought of as starting sometime around the end of WWII and lasting until the mid/late 1970s when it proved ineffective in dealing with a recession that was caused by supply-side factors (namely, the energy crisis). The two dominant schools of thought in economics from the late 70s through recently have been monetarism (and derivatives thereof, such as rational expectations) and neoliberal (sometimes called new classical). The former deals heavily with monetary policy and how it can theoretically be used to stabilize an economy while minimizing inflation. Given the nature of Nathan Lewis' critique, what he is saying would apply much more to these theories, particularly monetarism. Ideas more in line with Keynesianism have only returned to prominence (and I should clarify - this is more of a parity with the neoliberal school than a hegemony) since the 2007-09 worldwide crashes. Gold is also not stable in value -- or perhaps more subtly, I should say that this depends on how strictly he means "stable." (I could see an argument that gold backing results in less inflation over long periods of time, but if he means that the value of gold is always the same, then that is definitely incorrect.) Gold is a limited resource and, like other limited resources, its real value is subject to change over time. As the population grows and the supply of gold remains relatively constant, the real price of gold will rise due to basic supply and demand principles. The change in the nominal price of gold in terms of dollars is both a function of inflation on the dollar as well as changes in the real price of gold. Ha, I must confess, I didn't even read the article. I just googled for some article with the words Keynesian experiment in it to show that it wasn't my idea, and looked for a liberal source so that people wouldn't complain about bias if I posted something from an Austrian source. The guy complained about the source anyway so I guess it was a failure on my part lol. | ||
|
Deja Thoris
South Africa646 Posts
Obama wants to cut the defecit by 4 Trillion over the next 12 years by a number of measures including taxing the rich more. (It seems like a low bar being set - reducing quarter of your debt in 12 years) Republicans want to reduce social programmes to save money and tax the rich less because it will stimulate growth. It seems pretty blatant as to who butters the Republicans bread  I'd be interested to see stats on how this supposedly works. I'd also be curious to know how Obama plans to increse the tax burden on the rich without chasing them all to tax havens. Appealing to their better nature probably won't work. | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
On April 15 2011 07:27 Deja Thoris wrote: So as part of the election campaign kickoff it seems that: Obama wants to cut the defecit by 4 Trillion over the next 12 years by a number of measures including taxing the rich more. (It seems like a low bar being set - reducing quarter of your debt in 12 years) Republicans want to reduce social programmes to save money and tax the rich less because it will stimulate growth. It seems pretty blatant as to who butters the Republicans bread I'd be interested to see stats on how this supposedly works. I'd also be curious to know how Obama plans to increse the tax burden on the rich without chasing them all to tax havens. Appealing to their better nature probably won't work.Rich people won't move to dangerous shitty 3rd world countries just to avoid tax. They will still want to live in America where they enjoy the highest quality of life and luxury. America already has among the lowest income tax for the wealthy in the developed world, so they would actually have to go to a dangerous shithole to pay less tax. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On April 15 2011 07:27 Deja Thoris wrote: So as part of the election campaign kickoff it seems that: Obama wants to cut the defecit by 4 Trillion over the next 12 years by a number of measures including taxing the rich more. (It seems like a low bar being set - reducing quarter of your debt in 12 years) Republicans want to reduce social programmes to save money and tax the rich less because it will stimulate growth. It seems pretty blatant as to who butters the Republicans bread I'd be interested to see stats on how this supposedly works. I'd also be curious to know how Obama plans to increse the tax burden on the rich without chasing them all to tax havens. Appealing to their better nature probably won't work.You do know Obama was the number one receiver of corporate donations right? Guess who was last -- Ron Paul a Republican. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On April 15 2011 07:31 Zzoram wrote: Rich people won't move to dangerous shitty 3rd world countries just to avoid tax. They will still want to live in America where they enjoy the highest quality of life and luxury. America already has among the lowest income tax for the wealthy in the developed world, so they would actually have to go to a dangerous shithole to pay less tax. That's not true. There are lots of places that have less tax rates than the US (far less) and aren't dangerous shitholes. Just to list a few: Estonia, Mauritania, Switzerland, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. Of course you are right that a marginal increase won't make them all pack up and move, they'll just shift the taxes onto consumer prices (some businesses will close and some will indeed move). When the cost of doing businesses rises, prices must increase to make the venture profitable. The US has an extremely high tax burden on individuals and businesses, even compared to most of the rest of the world. Most Americans get quadruple taxed daily (Federal, State, County, Local/Munincipal). I still laugh anytime someone thinks the Democrats are against Corporations and Republicans are for, or that Democrats are for the poor, and Republicans for the rich. Both Democrats and Republicans are for the extremely wealthy -- who do you think bankrolls their elections, and who writes most of the laws? 95% of the Government's policies stay the same no matter if it is a R or a D in charge. (Just to add, I find it sort of ironic that Democrats are supposedly the party of the working man, yet seven of the ten richest federal politicians are Democrats...) | ||
|
Deja Thoris
South Africa646 Posts
Mauritania While I agree with your point that there are many tax havens that aren't shitholes (you dont have to "live" in many of them to get residents status) I have to laugh at your quoted choice. Mauritania is by any world definition a shithole. It's lower than Bangladesh and Burma on the Human Development Index which measures things like life expectancy, education and standard of living. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index 20% of the country subsides on less than $1.25 a day | ||
|
samurai ninja
United States29 Posts
On April 09 2011 14:25 Broodwich wrote: In a multi-currency system with exports and imports, the gold standard will fail due to capital movements between countries. No amount of pegging currencies or gold exchanges or tariffs or import / export quotas will change this. It has failed multiple times for that reason since we have become industrialized and interconnected. We're only more interconnected now than the early 70s when Bretton Woods finally went away. You don't see credible economists out arguing for the gold standard. There's a reason the main proponent of the gold standard in the United States is a medical doctor, not an economist or a financier (and I say that as someone who voted for Ron Paul). It is a terrible idea in the modern world that would lead to continued economic instability. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On April 15 2011 08:44 Deja Thoris wrote: While I agree with your point that there are many tax havens that aren't shitholes (you dont have to "live" in many of them to get residents status) I have to laugh at your quoted choice. Mauritania is by any world definition a shithole. It's lower than Bangladesh and Burma on the Human Development Index which measures things like life expectancy, education and standard of living. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index 20% of the country subsides on less than $1.25 a day Yes, you are indeed correct. My bad, I meant Mauritius. They are on the same continent (well Mauritius is an island..., but nevertheless), and are similarly named. | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
The Economist just posted an article about the very real possibility of the US imminently doing a "technical default" on its debt obligations. (Meaning they might be late on a payment or two, but still) | ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
US tax total revenue has been fairly stable in all these years. in addition, its a lot easier to reduce spending than raising revenue. raising taxes on a ditto economy won't work because ppl don't have the income to pay it. cutting spending, while it hurts the economy too, it can be justified as living within your means. | ||
|
NotJumperer
United States1371 Posts
| ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 24 2011 05:01 Jumperer wrote: wrong, US taxes rate is at an all-time low especially at the top of the bracket. the rich gets richer while the poor get poorer. wrong, 28% Top Federal Income Tax Rate under Reagan's 1986 TRA 35% Top Federal Income Tax Rate Currently Keep in mind, Obama wanted it even higher, but went along with Republicans to extend Bush's policy. | ||
| ||
