|
|
On November 13 2012 06:21 oneofthem wrote:
dunno what this guy is arguing about. govt debt has never been a problem in the entirety of the u.s. history. (after hamilton ofc)
private debt fueled by bad economic calculation of the private finance lending sector, on the other hand, has been responsible for the two system undermining crises in history.
That Hamilton edit is fucking priceless lol. Hats off to you sir.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
For anyone who's curious about how the different polls fared this year:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/#more-37396
In late October, Gallup consistently showed Mr. Romney ahead by about six percentage points among likely voters, far different from the average of other surveys. Gallup’s final poll of the election, which had Mr. Romney up by one point, was slightly better, but still identified the wrong winner in the election. Gallup has now had three poor elections in a row.
Perhaps it won’t be long before Google, not Gallup, is the most trusted name in polling.
Google so good.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
hamilton is my homeboy etc.
|
On November 13 2012 06:17 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:11 Souma wrote:
^ That is incorrect. While we received higher tax revenue in absolute terms, as a % of GDP tax revenues were about average. Clinton saw record tax revenue during his tenure, you know, when we had 40% tax rates and the economy boomed. It is actually entirely correct, and you are as usual entirely incorrect. % of GDP > absolute numbers is a bad joke. Mr. Romney will win in a landslide calling me incorrect. % of GDP is the only thing that matters. Of course we'll get more absolute GDP over time. It's called having a higher population, having more jobs, etc.
People like you, with your kind of thinking, being in charge of this country, is why we have had 8% (or more) unemployment for 3 years. And why the debt rose as much in 4 years as it rose in the previous 8.
% of GDP is absolutely meaningless next to absolute terms. Bills do not come in percentages of GDP, and they are not paid in percentages of GDP. Playing in the la-la land of percentages of GDP is part of how we added ~11 trillion to the debt in 12 years.
Take your percentage of GDP from the Clinton years and put it in the Bush years and congratulate yourself on the lower GDP and lower revenues you would have gotten. You prefer a prettier percentage on a screen or a piece of paper and worse actual results, that's fine.
|
On November 13 2012 06:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 06:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 05:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:
[quote]
Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that.
I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black). I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all). He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want. He's using strange and contradictory logic. Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own. Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands. Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry. To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good: More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country? Well, if the Republican backers continue to push for things like the Bush tax cuts (which were disastrous for the country's long term health), then yes. It may make more sense to hurt Republican backers even if it dampens the overall economic outlook for a few years, especially since the Republican backers will lobby like hell for that not to happen anyway. I'm not sure I agree with his assessment regarding the fiscal cliff, but it's not contradictory with his overall views that Republicans holding the primary power over national economic policy is going to be awful for the economy. By what measures are you judging the Bush tax cuts to be 'disastrous'? Also, are you referring to all the Bush tax cuts or just the portions Dems don't like? As in, they caused tepid-at-best economic growth and crushingly expanded the deficit (they were pitched as government revenue-neutral). The composite cuts should really be repealed, and it's a measure of how obnoxious the "middle-class" rhetoric is that they became the "baseline" in Washington for anybody at all. I mean, by what metric were they "successful?" I don't think you know what tepid means... also, I don't think you know what "long-term" means. Look at GDP growth from 2000-2003 and then from 2003-2008, I think that might be a metric you want to look at. Also, the unemployment rate. That might be another metric. It is a mystery of mental gymnastics as to how record tax revenues crushingly expanded the deficit. It might be understandable if tax cuts lowered tax revenue, but when revenue came in at larger levels after the cuts than before, there might just be another explanation for higher deficits, one that you seem to have almost unbelievably failed to mention... Well, for one thing, tax revenues didn't regain their 2000 peak until 2006. As of 2008, total federal tax revenue/GDP wasn't at its 2000 peak. And the "long term" is more in the generational accounting level of government than anything. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=2000_2008&view=1&expand&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title&state=US&color=c&local=s
Somewhat more reasonable.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 13 2012 06:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:17 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 06:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:11 Souma wrote:
^ That is incorrect. While we received higher tax revenue in absolute terms, as a % of GDP tax revenues were about average. Clinton saw record tax revenue during his tenure, you know, when we had 40% tax rates and the economy boomed. It is actually entirely correct, and you are as usual entirely incorrect. % of GDP > absolute numbers is a bad joke. Mr. Romney will win in a landslide calling me incorrect. % of GDP is the only thing that matters. Of course we'll get more absolute GDP over time. It's called having a higher population, having more jobs, etc. People like you, with your kind of thinking, being in charge of this country, is why we have had 8% (or more) unemployment for 3 years. And why the debt rose as much in 4 years as it rose in the previous 8. % of GDP is absolutely meaningless next to absolute terms. Bills do not come in percentages of GDP, and they are not paid in percentages of GDP. Playing in the la-la land of percentages of GDP is part of how we added ~11 trillion to the debt in 12 years. Take your percentage of GDP from the Clinton years and put it in the Bush years and congratulate yourself on the lower GDP and lower revenues you would have gotten. You prefer a prettier percentage on a screen or a piece of paper and worse actual results, that's fine.
lol, people like us is why we're even recovering from the shit people like you put us in.
% of GDP is the ONLY thing that matters. Why do you think we talk about unemployment by %? Why do you think we talk about government spending as a % of GDP? Debt as a % of GDP is the critical observance. Absolute terms, who the hell cares. If you have $2 trillion worth of revenue now, what does it matter 10 years down the road when spending remains at a steady 20% of GDP and GDP is 20% higher than what it is right now? On the other hand, I would love 20% in tax revenue, no matter what the year is.
|
|
|
On November 13 2012 06:32 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:17 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 06:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:11 Souma wrote:
^ That is incorrect. While we received higher tax revenue in absolute terms, as a % of GDP tax revenues were about average. Clinton saw record tax revenue during his tenure, you know, when we had 40% tax rates and the economy boomed. It is actually entirely correct, and you are as usual entirely incorrect. % of GDP > absolute numbers is a bad joke. Mr. Romney will win in a landslide calling me incorrect. % of GDP is the only thing that matters. Of course we'll get more absolute GDP over time. It's called having a higher population, having more jobs, etc. People like you, with your kind of thinking, being in charge of this country, is why we have had 8% (or more) unemployment for 3 years. And why the debt rose as much in 4 years as it rose in the previous 8. % of GDP is absolutely meaningless next to absolute terms. Bills do not come in percentages of GDP, and they are not paid in percentages of GDP. Playing in the la-la land of percentages of GDP is part of how we added ~11 trillion to the debt in 12 years. Take your percentage of GDP from the Clinton years and put it in the Bush years and congratulate yourself on the lower GDP and lower revenues you would have gotten. You prefer a prettier percentage on a screen or a piece of paper and worse actual results, that's fine. lol, people like us is why we're even recovering from the shit people like you put us in. % of GDP is the ONLY thing that matters. Why do you think we talk about unemployment by %? Why do you think we talk about government spending as a % of GDP? Debt as a % of GDP is the critical observance. Absolute terms, who the hell cares. If you have $2 trillion worth of revenue now, what does it matter 10 years down the road when spending remains at a steady 20% of GDP and GDP is 20% higher than what it is right now? On the other hand, I would love 20% in tax revenue, no matter what the year is.
The fact you're both referring to eachother as "people like you or people like us" is absurdly hilarious and sad at the same time.
|
On November 13 2012 06:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 06:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 05:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:
[quote]
Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that.
I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black). I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all). He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want. He's using strange and contradictory logic. Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own. Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands. Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry. To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good: More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country? Well, if the Republican backers continue to push for things like the Bush tax cuts (which were disastrous for the country's long term health), then yes. It may make more sense to hurt Republican backers even if it dampens the overall economic outlook for a few years, especially since the Republican backers will lobby like hell for that not to happen anyway. I'm not sure I agree with his assessment regarding the fiscal cliff, but it's not contradictory with his overall views that Republicans holding the primary power over national economic policy is going to be awful for the economy. By what measures are you judging the Bush tax cuts to be 'disastrous'? Also, are you referring to all the Bush tax cuts or just the portions Dems don't like? As in, they caused tepid-at-best economic growth and crushingly expanded the deficit (they were pitched as government revenue-neutral). The composite cuts should really be repealed, and it's a measure of how obnoxious the "middle-class" rhetoric is that they became the "baseline" in Washington for anybody at all. I mean, by what metric were they "successful?" I don't think you know what tepid means... also, I don't think you know what "long-term" means. Look at GDP growth from 2000-2003 and then from 2003-2008, I think that might be a metric you want to look at. Also, the unemployment rate. That might be another metric. It is a mystery of mental gymnastics as to how record tax revenues crushingly expanded the deficit. It might be understandable if tax cuts lowered tax revenue, but when revenue came in at larger levels after the cuts than before, there might just be another explanation for higher deficits, one that you seem to have almost unbelievably failed to mention... Well, for one thing, tax revenues didn't regain their 2000 peak until 2006. As of 2008, total federal tax revenue/GDP wasn't at its 2000 peak. And the "long term" is more in the generational accounting level of government than anything. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=2000_2008&view=1&expand&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title&state=US&color=c&local=s
Well, first of all, "Total direct revenue" is not the same as federal tax revenues. Here's a chart of that, which does indeed only surpass 2000 in 2006 (it almost is equal in 2005).
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1990_2010USb_13s1li011mcn_10f_Federal_Revenue_By_Type
Second of all, there's no indication that the Bush tax cuts resulted in a markedly better economy than would have occurred without them. If you look at the % change in GDP from 1970-2010, the changes during Bush's first term and the first half of his second term are nothing exceptional.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
I ask again: by what metric were the tax cuts successful? It's not relative GDP growth. It's not jobs growth. They didn't shrink government.
Edit: I mean, I suppose by the metric of "lowering taxes" they were successful.
Edit2: "Putting money in people's pockets" is another way they were successful. I don't think either of those are compelling reasons to make (or preserve) fiscal policy, however, just like I don't think the fact that Social Security puts more money into people's pockets than if we reformed it means we shouldn't reform social security.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 13 2012 06:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:32 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 06:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:17 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 06:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:11 Souma wrote:
^ That is incorrect. While we received higher tax revenue in absolute terms, as a % of GDP tax revenues were about average. Clinton saw record tax revenue during his tenure, you know, when we had 40% tax rates and the economy boomed. It is actually entirely correct, and you are as usual entirely incorrect. % of GDP > absolute numbers is a bad joke. Mr. Romney will win in a landslide calling me incorrect. % of GDP is the only thing that matters. Of course we'll get more absolute GDP over time. It's called having a higher population, having more jobs, etc. People like you, with your kind of thinking, being in charge of this country, is why we have had 8% (or more) unemployment for 3 years. And why the debt rose as much in 4 years as it rose in the previous 8. % of GDP is absolutely meaningless next to absolute terms. Bills do not come in percentages of GDP, and they are not paid in percentages of GDP. Playing in the la-la land of percentages of GDP is part of how we added ~11 trillion to the debt in 12 years. Take your percentage of GDP from the Clinton years and put it in the Bush years and congratulate yourself on the lower GDP and lower revenues you would have gotten. You prefer a prettier percentage on a screen or a piece of paper and worse actual results, that's fine. lol, people like us is why we're even recovering from the shit people like you put us in. % of GDP is the ONLY thing that matters. Why do you think we talk about unemployment by %? Why do you think we talk about government spending as a % of GDP? Debt as a % of GDP is the critical observance. Absolute terms, who the hell cares. If you have $2 trillion worth of revenue now, what does it matter 10 years down the road when spending remains at a steady 20% of GDP and GDP is 20% higher than what it is right now? On the other hand, I would love 20% in tax revenue, no matter what the year is. The fact you're both referring to eachother as "people like you or people like us" is absurdly hilarious and sad at the same time.
Well, if it makes people like you feel any better, people like me would love to live in a country people like you live in (minus the weather). :p
|
On November 13 2012 05:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that. I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black). I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all). He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want. He's using strange and contradictory logic. Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own. Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands. Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry. To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good: More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country? Well, if the Republican backers continue to push for things like the Bush tax cuts (which were disastrous for the country's long term health), then yes. It may make more sense to hurt Republican backers even if it dampens the overall economic outlook for a few years, especially since the Republican backers will lobby like hell for that not to happen anyway. I'm not sure I agree with his assessment regarding the fiscal cliff, but it's not contradictory with his overall views that Republicans holding the primary power over national economic policy is going to be awful for the economy.
Doesn't that make you just as bad as the republicans if you're going to be just as stubborn?
|
people like me
me like people
|
On November 13 2012 06:40 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 13 2012 06:32 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 06:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:17 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 06:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:11 Souma wrote:
^ That is incorrect. While we received higher tax revenue in absolute terms, as a % of GDP tax revenues were about average. Clinton saw record tax revenue during his tenure, you know, when we had 40% tax rates and the economy boomed. It is actually entirely correct, and you are as usual entirely incorrect. % of GDP > absolute numbers is a bad joke. Mr. Romney will win in a landslide calling me incorrect. % of GDP is the only thing that matters. Of course we'll get more absolute GDP over time. It's called having a higher population, having more jobs, etc. People like you, with your kind of thinking, being in charge of this country, is why we have had 8% (or more) unemployment for 3 years. And why the debt rose as much in 4 years as it rose in the previous 8. % of GDP is absolutely meaningless next to absolute terms. Bills do not come in percentages of GDP, and they are not paid in percentages of GDP. Playing in the la-la land of percentages of GDP is part of how we added ~11 trillion to the debt in 12 years. Take your percentage of GDP from the Clinton years and put it in the Bush years and congratulate yourself on the lower GDP and lower revenues you would have gotten. You prefer a prettier percentage on a screen or a piece of paper and worse actual results, that's fine. lol, people like us is why we're even recovering from the shit people like you put us in. % of GDP is the ONLY thing that matters. Why do you think we talk about unemployment by %? Why do you think we talk about government spending as a % of GDP? Debt as a % of GDP is the critical observance. Absolute terms, who the hell cares. If you have $2 trillion worth of revenue now, what does it matter 10 years down the road when spending remains at a steady 20% of GDP and GDP is 20% higher than what it is right now? On the other hand, I would love 20% in tax revenue, no matter what the year is. The fact you're both referring to eachother as "people like you or people like us" is absurdly hilarious and sad at the same time. Well, if it makes people like you feel any better, people like me would love to live in a country people like you live in (minus the weather). :p
Well if it makes people like you feel any better, people like me have learned to enjoy the weather as it is quite beautiful and that people like you might enjoy it too given some assimilation. That being said, people like you might have trouble conforming to the "take care of everyone" philosophy people like you seem to disdain, people like me are rather socialist.
|
On November 13 2012 06:42 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 05:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 13 2012 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 03:31 NicolBolas wrote:On November 13 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 02:24 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 13 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 13 2012 00:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Even Politico is jumping on the GOP anti-intellectualism with a recent article titled "The GOP's media cocoon". A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
[...]
Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected.
[...]
In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.
Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html#ixzz2C1Rt5k2k Says the guy living in the Krugman cocoon... Should we be listening to Taylor and Mankiw then? Krugman is criticized in vague terms by the right but his track record on economic issues is pretty good. (That whole "housing bubble" thing is something you should look into before posting, he said it satirically but was right when he said it would boost demand and he was right when he said in 2006 it had gone too far.) Plus he was right about the effects of austerity in Europe and the IMF has admitted that. I'd recommend listening to more than one source. It's doubly good advice if you ever plan on accusing the other side of living in a cocoon (pot kettle black). I don't doubt that Krugman's a smart guy who knows his stuff, but he also lets his politics go before his economics. For example he changed his stance on China's currency after Romney started pushing for calling China a 'currency manipulator'. More recently he's advocating going over the fiscal cliff rather than strike a deal (he wants winner take all). He didn't say that. He said that Obama should be willing to go the fiscal cliff route if the Republicans aren't willing to make meaningful compromises. That is, he's saying that we shouldn't let them hold the country hostage and give in to everything they want. He's using strange and contradictory logic. Reps are bad for their brinkmanship and so Obama and the Dems should counter with brinkmanship of their own. Reps are bad for not compromising but Dems should go "not far at all" in meeting Rep demands. Reps are holding the economy hostage by not striking a deal yet the "fiscal cliff isn’t really a cliff" and that going over it isn't an immediate worry. To me it often sounds like he's advocating scorched-earth politics - kill the other guy even if it hurts the common good: More important, however, is the point that a stalemate would hurt Republican backers, corporate donors in particular, every bit as much as it hurt the rest of the country. Really? It is more important to hurt Republican backers than help the rest of the country? Well, if the Republican backers continue to push for things like the Bush tax cuts (which were disastrous for the country's long term health), then yes. It may make more sense to hurt Republican backers even if it dampens the overall economic outlook for a few years, especially since the Republican backers will lobby like hell for that not to happen anyway. I'm not sure I agree with his assessment regarding the fiscal cliff, but it's not contradictory with his overall views that Republicans holding the primary power over national economic policy is going to be awful for the economy. Doesn't that make you just as bad as the republicans if you're going to be just as stubborn?
Well, it does make Krugman that bad. I personally favor the cut deductions as Boehner has tentatively given an almost-thumbs up to and live with Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and middle class as a necessarily evil of the current political situation plan.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
anyway, getting back to the topic of long term impact of taxation on economic competitiveness, it is a rather complicated relationship and a simple "you are not for economic growth if you are for taxes" position is sorely lacking. different taxes have different impacts. those that alter behavior in favor of real investment and penalize nonproductive or even destabilizing behavior can have positive impact.
taxation supports more public investment in things that foster enterprise with research and infrastructure. it also does well to smooth volatility in the macro economy over time.
a simple marginal tax affects activities that has the lowest amount of marginal gain. the big innovations are still going to be made, and the absolute deadweight loss from taxation may just be pushed into the future, when the costs change.
market crowding and monopolistic behavior (which is not well modeled by classical approaches that treat market condition as exogenous), insofar as they damage actual drivers of growth in innovation and meritocratic competition, are bigger concerns.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 13 2012 06:43 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:40 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 06:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 13 2012 06:32 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 06:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:17 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 06:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:11 Souma wrote:
^ That is incorrect. While we received higher tax revenue in absolute terms, as a % of GDP tax revenues were about average. Clinton saw record tax revenue during his tenure, you know, when we had 40% tax rates and the economy boomed. It is actually entirely correct, and you are as usual entirely incorrect. % of GDP > absolute numbers is a bad joke. Mr. Romney will win in a landslide calling me incorrect. % of GDP is the only thing that matters. Of course we'll get more absolute GDP over time. It's called having a higher population, having more jobs, etc. People like you, with your kind of thinking, being in charge of this country, is why we have had 8% (or more) unemployment for 3 years. And why the debt rose as much in 4 years as it rose in the previous 8. % of GDP is absolutely meaningless next to absolute terms. Bills do not come in percentages of GDP, and they are not paid in percentages of GDP. Playing in the la-la land of percentages of GDP is part of how we added ~11 trillion to the debt in 12 years. Take your percentage of GDP from the Clinton years and put it in the Bush years and congratulate yourself on the lower GDP and lower revenues you would have gotten. You prefer a prettier percentage on a screen or a piece of paper and worse actual results, that's fine. lol, people like us is why we're even recovering from the shit people like you put us in. % of GDP is the ONLY thing that matters. Why do you think we talk about unemployment by %? Why do you think we talk about government spending as a % of GDP? Debt as a % of GDP is the critical observance. Absolute terms, who the hell cares. If you have $2 trillion worth of revenue now, what does it matter 10 years down the road when spending remains at a steady 20% of GDP and GDP is 20% higher than what it is right now? On the other hand, I would love 20% in tax revenue, no matter what the year is. The fact you're both referring to eachother as "people like you or people like us" is absurdly hilarious and sad at the same time. Well, if it makes people like you feel any better, people like me would love to live in a country people like you live in (minus the weather). :p Well if it makes people like you feel any better, people like me have learned to enjoy the weather as it is quite beautiful and that people like you might enjoy it too given some assimilation. That being said, people like you might have trouble conforming to the "take care of everyone" philosophy people like you seem to disdain, people like me are rather socialist.
Nah, you're thinking about people like DeepElemBlues. People like me are probably more socialist than people like you.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the big problem with top rate cut is twofold. first, it does nothing for the economy. if you are cutting taxes, cut middle class and marginal corporate tax. create another bracket at say 600k-1m and tax that heavier. you are likely discouraging unproductive career choices and getting more engineers and doctors. both of which are in short supply.
then, because revenue has been cut, you either have to shift that burden onto the rest of the economy, which is very bad. or even worse, cut necessary services and perpetuate the partial decay of the undesirable portion of society. even if you do not care for these people, it will lead to more expensive problems down the road.
|
On November 13 2012 06:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:32 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 06:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:17 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 06:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:11 Souma wrote:
^ That is incorrect. While we received higher tax revenue in absolute terms, as a % of GDP tax revenues were about average. Clinton saw record tax revenue during his tenure, you know, when we had 40% tax rates and the economy boomed. It is actually entirely correct, and you are as usual entirely incorrect. % of GDP > absolute numbers is a bad joke. Mr. Romney will win in a landslide calling me incorrect. % of GDP is the only thing that matters. Of course we'll get more absolute GDP over time. It's called having a higher population, having more jobs, etc. People like you, with your kind of thinking, being in charge of this country, is why we have had 8% (or more) unemployment for 3 years. And why the debt rose as much in 4 years as it rose in the previous 8. % of GDP is absolutely meaningless next to absolute terms. Bills do not come in percentages of GDP, and they are not paid in percentages of GDP. Playing in the la-la land of percentages of GDP is part of how we added ~11 trillion to the debt in 12 years. Take your percentage of GDP from the Clinton years and put it in the Bush years and congratulate yourself on the lower GDP and lower revenues you would have gotten. You prefer a prettier percentage on a screen or a piece of paper and worse actual results, that's fine. lol, people like us is why we're even recovering from the shit people like you put us in. % of GDP is the ONLY thing that matters. Why do you think we talk about unemployment by %? Why do you think we talk about government spending as a % of GDP? Debt as a % of GDP is the critical observance. Absolute terms, who the hell cares. If you have $2 trillion worth of revenue now, what does it matter 10 years down the road when spending remains at a steady 20% of GDP and GDP is 20% higher than what it is right now? On the other hand, I would love 20% in tax revenue, no matter what the year is. The fact you're both referring to eachother as "people like you or people like us" is absurdly hilarious and sad at the same time.
Lol I like this better than saying Republicans or Democrats 
|
On November 13 2012 06:49 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 13 2012 06:32 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 06:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:17 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 06:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:11 Souma wrote:
^ That is incorrect. While we received higher tax revenue in absolute terms, as a % of GDP tax revenues were about average. Clinton saw record tax revenue during his tenure, you know, when we had 40% tax rates and the economy boomed. It is actually entirely correct, and you are as usual entirely incorrect. % of GDP > absolute numbers is a bad joke. Mr. Romney will win in a landslide calling me incorrect. % of GDP is the only thing that matters. Of course we'll get more absolute GDP over time. It's called having a higher population, having more jobs, etc. People like you, with your kind of thinking, being in charge of this country, is why we have had 8% (or more) unemployment for 3 years. And why the debt rose as much in 4 years as it rose in the previous 8. % of GDP is absolutely meaningless next to absolute terms. Bills do not come in percentages of GDP, and they are not paid in percentages of GDP. Playing in the la-la land of percentages of GDP is part of how we added ~11 trillion to the debt in 12 years. Take your percentage of GDP from the Clinton years and put it in the Bush years and congratulate yourself on the lower GDP and lower revenues you would have gotten. You prefer a prettier percentage on a screen or a piece of paper and worse actual results, that's fine. lol, people like us is why we're even recovering from the shit people like you put us in. % of GDP is the ONLY thing that matters. Why do you think we talk about unemployment by %? Why do you think we talk about government spending as a % of GDP? Debt as a % of GDP is the critical observance. Absolute terms, who the hell cares. If you have $2 trillion worth of revenue now, what does it matter 10 years down the road when spending remains at a steady 20% of GDP and GDP is 20% higher than what it is right now? On the other hand, I would love 20% in tax revenue, no matter what the year is. The fact you're both referring to eachother as "people like you or people like us" is absurdly hilarious and sad at the same time. Lol I like this better than saying Republicans or Democrats
reminds me of late 50's dialogue. "People like you ain't welcome in parts with people like us, ye see?"
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 13 2012 06:49 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 06:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 13 2012 06:32 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 06:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:17 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 06:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 13 2012 06:11 Souma wrote:
^ That is incorrect. While we received higher tax revenue in absolute terms, as a % of GDP tax revenues were about average. Clinton saw record tax revenue during his tenure, you know, when we had 40% tax rates and the economy boomed. It is actually entirely correct, and you are as usual entirely incorrect. % of GDP > absolute numbers is a bad joke. Mr. Romney will win in a landslide calling me incorrect. % of GDP is the only thing that matters. Of course we'll get more absolute GDP over time. It's called having a higher population, having more jobs, etc. People like you, with your kind of thinking, being in charge of this country, is why we have had 8% (or more) unemployment for 3 years. And why the debt rose as much in 4 years as it rose in the previous 8. % of GDP is absolutely meaningless next to absolute terms. Bills do not come in percentages of GDP, and they are not paid in percentages of GDP. Playing in the la-la land of percentages of GDP is part of how we added ~11 trillion to the debt in 12 years. Take your percentage of GDP from the Clinton years and put it in the Bush years and congratulate yourself on the lower GDP and lower revenues you would have gotten. You prefer a prettier percentage on a screen or a piece of paper and worse actual results, that's fine. lol, people like us is why we're even recovering from the shit people like you put us in. % of GDP is the ONLY thing that matters. Why do you think we talk about unemployment by %? Why do you think we talk about government spending as a % of GDP? Debt as a % of GDP is the critical observance. Absolute terms, who the hell cares. If you have $2 trillion worth of revenue now, what does it matter 10 years down the road when spending remains at a steady 20% of GDP and GDP is 20% higher than what it is right now? On the other hand, I would love 20% in tax revenue, no matter what the year is. The fact you're both referring to eachother as "people like you or people like us" is absurdly hilarious and sad at the same time. Lol I like this better than saying Republicans or Democrats
Well, this is a little better than generalizing all Republicans and Democrats, considering how diverse those groups are. :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
