Would it be possible, do you think, to convince Democrats to abandon wind and solar energy initiatives, and instead open up the U.S. for more drilling and constructing new power plants? For the price of, say, a notable tax increase on the top income earners?
Dude this isn't horse trading. The US isn't subjecting itself to the vulnerabilities of massively relying on oil and gas. The super rich aren't getting carte blanche forms of tax write offs and exemptions any longer. We didn't want this in 2008. We don't want this now. Deal with it (Or don't and the Republican Party will lose the House in 2014).
Nobody wants the failed policies of Bush or the insipid Reaganomics! from 30 years ago.
And who the fuck wants to get rid of clean energy? Have you seen the advances in solar and wind energy in just a few years?
We need to get off fossil as quickly as possible without affecting the global economy, not because it's perfect but because it's realistic.
In 10 years saying we should abandon solo energy will seem as stupid as saying we should abandon gas now. I mean really the rate of solar energy incrases is drastic and while it probably has to slow at some point (though it hasnt yet) the rate is growth is so large and so fast that even a slight slowdown will still make it a very very strong energy method in 10 years.
At first I thought you were negating clean energy then I saw not. What I'm interested in is the Thorium based Nuclear Plants.. If they can manage 100% fuel rod consumption (like they theorize they can) along with the thorium instead of the steam heating with water which takes a massive containment facility and risks a melt down it could become the biggest power source. Let alone the achievements in fusion they've been making (not perfect but it's a theorized to work now just have to manage the power)
Would it be possible, do you think, to convince Democrats to abandon wind and solar energy initiatives, and instead open up the U.S. for more drilling and constructing new power plants? For the price of, say, a notable tax increase on the top income earners?
Dude this isn't horse trading. The US isn't subjecting itself to the vulnerabilities of massively relying on oil and gas. The super rich aren't getting carte blanche forms of tax write offs and exemptions any longer. We didn't want this in 2008. We don't want this now. Deal with it (Or don't and the Republican Party will lose the House in 2014).
Nobody wants the failed policies of Bush or the insipid Reaganomics! from 30 years ago.
And who the fuck wants to get rid of clean energy? Have you seen the advances in solar and wind energy in just a few years?
We need to get off fossil as quickly as possible without affecting the global economy, not because it's perfect but because it's realistic.
In 10 years saying we should abandon solo energy will seem as stupid as saying we should abandon gas now. I mean really the rate of solar energy incrases is drastic and while it probably has to slow at some point (though it hasnt yet) the rate is growth is so large and so fast that even a slight slowdown will still make it a very very strong energy method in 10 years.
At first I thought you were negating clean energy then I saw not. What I'm interested in is the Thorium based Nuclear Plants.. If they can manage 100% fuel rod consumption (like they theorize they can) along with the thorium instead of the steam heating with water which takes a massive containment facility and risks a melt down it could become the biggest power source. Let alone the achievements in fusion they've been making (not perfect but it's a theorized to work now just have to manage the power)
Sorry, no. That video was making perfect sense (in that it was actual science) right until 2:10, when they brought in the "SuperWave Principle". Then it all turned to shit.
Even if this "SuperWave Principle" does in fact cause fusion, I seriously doubt that it will result in a net gain of energy. Not with the amount of energy you need to do this, and the percentage of deuterium ions that will be absorbed into the Palladium (compared to the losses as D2 gas), and the fact that heating water only gives about a 65% energy efficiency when collected as steam.
Also, the fusion of Deuterium with itself usually gives He3 + a high-energy neutron. AKA: radiation. How does Palladium stand up when it gets an added neutron due to radiation? Any signficant fusion reaction will destroy the Palladium quickly, thus ending the reaction.
On November 15 2012 10:38 sam!zdat wrote: What?? I voted for Obama because he promised me cold fusion and now you say IT DOESN'T WORK!?!?
Then you should had voted for Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat I'm still waiting for someone to find some news regarding him and bump the old Andrea Rossi thread.
Would it be possible, do you think, to convince Democrats to abandon wind and solar energy initiatives, and instead open up the U.S. for more drilling and constructing new power plants? For the price of, say, a notable tax increase on the top income earners?
Dude this isn't horse trading. The US isn't subjecting itself to the vulnerabilities of massively relying on oil and gas. The super rich aren't getting carte blanche forms of tax write offs and exemptions any longer. We didn't want this in 2008. We don't want this now. Deal with it (Or don't and the Republican Party will lose the House in 2014).
Nobody wants the failed policies of Bush or the insipid Reaganomics! from 30 years ago.
And who the fuck wants to get rid of clean energy? Have you seen the advances in solar and wind energy in just a few years?
We need to get off fossil as quickly as possible without affecting the global economy, not because it's perfect but because it's realistic.
In 10 years saying we should abandon solo energy will seem as stupid as saying we should abandon gas now. I mean really the rate of solar energy incrases is drastic and while it probably has to slow at some point (though it hasnt yet) the rate is growth is so large and so fast that even a slight slowdown will still make it a very very strong energy method in 10 years.
At first I thought you were negating clean energy then I saw not. What I'm interested in is the Thorium based Nuclear Plants.. If they can manage 100% fuel rod consumption (like they theorize they can) along with the thorium instead of the steam heating with water which takes a massive containment facility and risks a melt down it could become the biggest power source. Let alone the achievements in fusion they've been making (not perfect but it's a theorized to work now just have to manage the power)
Sorry, no. That video was making perfect sense (in that it was actual science) right until 2:10, when they brought in the "SuperWave Principle". Then it all turned to shit.
Even if this "SuperWave Principle" does in fact cause fusion, I seriously doubt that it will result in a net gain of energy. Not with the amount of energy you need to do this, and the percentage of deuterium ions that will be absorbed into the Palladium (compared to the losses as D2 gas), and the fact that heating water only gives about a 65% energy efficiency when collected as steam.
Also, the fusion of Deuterium with itself usually gives He3 + a high-energy neutron. AKA: radiation. How does Palladium stand up when it gets an added neutron due to radiation? Any signficant fusion reaction will destroy the Palladium quickly, thus ending the reaction.
I also seriously doubt that the saturation level of D in Pd is high enough for them to consistently interact with each other at all. Interstitial transport takes a LOT of energy to begin with, and most interstitial point defect models assume that there is no defect-defect interation (magnetic or otherwise) for good reason. Extremely high saturation (at temperatures cold fusion is supposed to work at) would be something like 1 interstitial per 10^4 atoms (of Pd in this case).
On November 12 2012 02:17 sc2superfan101 wrote: Obama is a very left-wing President, to the point where he is more concerned about taxing the rich than fixing the economy.
This is hilarious coming from Republicans, whose only economic policy is giving tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich. Regardless of whether it is counter-cyclical or pro-cyclical, tax cuts are the solution for any state of the economy. The CBO shows that tax cuts have little affect on growth compared to spending, the Congressional Research Office finds no correlation between tax cuts and economic growth, but let's ignore all the evidence, because it disagrees with Republican dogma. After all, Republicans are so anti-intellectual that they were utterly shocked when Romney lost, since they ignored all the evidence then.
Gotta of love the hypocrisy when they talk about the debt being catastrophic. And what should we do about it? Another tax cut.
Spending your way out of debt makes about as much sense as putting out a fire with gasoline in my book. Tax cuts make more sense to me. Give money back to the people so they can invest it in business. This is why I tend to side more with the Republicans than Democrats even though I am neither.
On November 12 2012 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On November 12 2012 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:
On November 12 2012 02:17 sc2superfan101 wrote: Obama is a very left-wing President, to the point where he is more concerned about taxing the rich than fixing the economy.
This is hilarious coming from Republicans, whose only economic policy is giving tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich. Regardless of whether it is counter-cyclical or pro-cyclical, tax cuts are the solution for any state of the economy. The CBO shows that tax cuts have little affect on growth compared to spending, the Congressional Research Office finds no correlation between tax cuts and economic growth, but let's ignore all the evidence, because it disagrees with Republican dogma. Republicans are so anti-intellectual that they were utterly shocked when Romney lost, since they ignored all the evidence then.
Gotta of love the hypocrisy when they talk about the debt being catastrophic, and what should we do about it? Another tax cut.
that is a misunderstanding of how taxes work, and also betrays the inner feeling you have. it's not about fixing the economy, it's about punishing the rich.
Republicans want to cut spending and simplify the tax-code, then cut taxes to spur economic growth. Democrats just want to raise the debt ceiling again, and again, and again, and again. ignoring the clear fact that the rich will pass any tax off onto the poor.
Of course it's not surprising that the party of anti-intellectuals is ignoring the evidence.
Kmillz, you talk about reducing the debt. And how are tax cuts going to reduce the debt? If you're serious about reducing the debt above all else, why don't you call for spending cuts and tax increases? Why don't you embrace the fiscal cliff?
That CRS report is fairly useless. You can't take one thing, be it highest tax rates or education spend or whatever, and see if it has a noticeable effect on the overall economy. Its just too minor to make a noticeable difference. I don't know why you insist on being anti-intellectual and arguing otherwise.
The data points for the Top Marginal Tax Rate used in the report are from about 30% to 90%. If you're saying that even such a wide range of rates makes no difference to growth, then why not raise it back up to 90%? After all, it makes no difference to growth, but it would be good for revenues.
Between 1945 and 2010 more change occurred in the US economy than the highest tax rates.
For example, during the same period that top tax rates were generally declining, government spending was increasing. + Show Spoiler +
And its only in recent years that tax revenues have declined.
So let's complete the picture. Top tax rates do not affect economic growth nor does government spending nor do top tax rates affect government revenue.
Now, I don't have the data to prove this but my intuition tells me that such an analysis (drawing trend lines and extrapolating conclusions) is at best, flaky, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
But if you look in Table A-1, you'll see that the change in government spending is accounted for in the model. And there is no significant effect, which is obvious since government spending is only expansionary in a recession or if it improves the capacity for long run growth. Many economists support the methodology and conclusion of the report.
The fact remains there isn't much evidence that tax cuts lead to large long run economic growth. The top marginal tax rate was around 90% in the 50s, yet that didn't stop massive economic growth. When Clinton raised taxes, that didn't tank the economy. And as I'll show below, the magical economic effects of tax cuts are mostly bogus.
The paper attempts to control for a number of variables but their attempts are not exhaustive. Economic life in the US in 1950 was vastly different from economic life in the US in 2012. Government spending is different. The government used to invest more in R&D and infrastructure (which are important to growth) back then than today. The US was a net exporter and is now a net importer and we used to trade under a fixed exchange system but no longer do so.
Another factor is that while the highest marginal tax rate was 90% in the 50s, the portion of income that paid that highest rate was far smaller than the portion of income that pays today’s highest rate due to tax brackets being vastly different. So comparing 90% to 35% is not an actual apples to apples comparison.
Finally I think that it’s also worth noting that back in 1950 both people and capital were much more bound to the US. There simply were not as many options available for the wealthy and for wealth in general to travel overseas. It was also less valuable to move capital overseas since the US was one of the few industrial powers to be largely spared during WW2.
You quote an EY study which argues that tax increases are bad for economic growth:
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.
You can only nay-say Krugman as a source so many times before your lack of credible, opposing source material makes it look like it is only you with the political lens on. When you say stuff like "He's playing politics because he wants winner take all economics talks.", you are presuming a lack of economic utility in holding Republican feet to the fire in order to get an economic mandate across, when this is clearly not the case, at least not entirely. In this case specifically, the recommendation of economic brinkmanship is Krugman saying that making concessions is economically a poor choice, in addition to being politically malfeasant. If you think otherwise, prove it, instead of simply saying that it is so.
Some think that Reps are right and that increasing taxes will hurt the economy: Long-run macroeconomic impact of increasing tax rates on high-income taxpayers in 2013Link
Overall, this study finds that the higher tax rates would reduce output in the long-run by 1.3% when the proceeds are used to finance additional government spending. Employment would fall by 0.5%. In today‟s economy these changes would translate into a decline in GDP of $200 billion and employment by roughly 710,000 jobs. Investment, the capital stock (net worth) and real after-tax wages would also fall...
These results may suggest to policy makers that allowing the top tax rates to increase comes with economic consequences. Long-run output can be expected to fall, and, depending on the use of the revenues, living standards, as reflected by workers‟ real after-tax wages, may also be lower.
But I guess we should dismiss the other side and refuse to compromise because that would be the "intellectual" thing to do?
More specifically, this EY report claims that increasing taxes to finance additional government spending will reduce economic output in the long run. But there are many problems here. (Note: Everything that I talk about below applies in the long run, which is the opposite of what should happen in the short run, since in the short run we are in a depressed economy.)
Firstly, no one is suggesting that taxes should be increased to pay for additional spending. Taxes should be increased to reduce the deficit in the long run. Of course increasing government spending in the long run will tend to reduce output because of crowding out effects. When the economy has recovered, government spending can crowd out private spending, and tends to increase interest rates, which reduces output.
I agree that the EY study isn’t perfect for the discussion at hand though I still think that it is instructive. Assuming that the goal is an eventually balanced budget, more taxes will mean more spending.
Secondly, the study ignores the fact that government spending can improve productive capacity, e.g. through research, education, infrastructure, etc. These government investments increase long run output. Reading Appendix A, the role of government in their model is only to redistribute income. While I do not expect such effects to be quantified as that would be very difficult, to disregard the good that government spending can do to boost capacity is a poor omission from the author.
I agree here. This is a problem in using either study in the fiscal cliff context. Government has grown bigger over the past few decades and yet spends less on items that are more important to long-term economic growth and middle class jobs (in both the long and short run).
Thirdly, and this is the most important point, the CBO disagrees. It finds that hitting the fiscal cliff will eventually increase output in the long run compared to backing off the fiscal cliff by extending unsustainable current tax and spending policies. The CBO argues that in the long run, increasing taxes reduces the deficit, which reduces the extend to which government spending crowds out private spending. The EY report seems to disregard the fact that tax increases have positive effects through reducing the deficit in the long run, which reduces crowding out and the other deleterious long run effects of high deficits.
Moreover, if the fiscal tightening was removed and the policies that are currently in effect were kept in place indefinitely, a continued surge in federal debt during the rest of this decade and beyond would raise the risk of a fiscal crisis (in which the government would lose the ability to borrow money at affordable interest rates) and would eventually reduce the nation’s output and income below what would occur if the fiscal tightening was allowed to take place as currently set by law. [...] For example, if the economy has idle resources, as it does now, government funding for projects can lead to the hiring of otherwise unemployed workers. The additional spending by those workers, who would have more income, would constitute a positive indirect effect. In contrast, a substantial increase in government spending financed by borrowing tends to drive up interest rates, which discourages spending on investment and on durable goods by raising the cost of borrowed funds. Those indirect “crowding-out” effects would offset some of the direct effects.
I don’t disagree with this either, though there’s a big difference between arguing that raising the highest marginal tax rates by a small amount to lessen the deficit is a wise economic move and the idea that the highest tax rate can be increased in size and scope to 90% with virtually zero consequence.
Lastly, the EY reasons that according to its model, increasing taxes reduces output due to reduced incentive to work. This is the primary justification for its findings. It writes:
These results can best be understood by considering how the higher tax rates affect the after-tax reward to work and the after-tax return to savings and investment and the disposable incomes of households. The higher tax rates make work less attractive as compared to leisure, thereby reducing labor supply. At the same time, the lower after-tax returns to saving and investment make current consumption more attractive and make investment in the United States less attractive. The increase in taxes also reduces disposable incomes, which reduces households‟ desire to consume more leisure.
But this paper from The Hamilton Project (which is part of the Brookings Institute), looked at the results of 23 studies, and by using the elasticity of labor supply with respect to changes in tax rates estimated in these studies, it says that "Tax cuts have relatively small effects on the amounts people work." (Figure 11 on Page 16).
In fact, this is a paper about tax policy in general. It further argues that tax cuts massively blow up the deficit instead of increasing income, and that deficit-financed tax cuts, like the Bush tax cuts, do not increase long run output, as explained below:
9. Cutting individual income tax rates would modestly increase the earnings of the typical American family while substantially increasing the federal budget deficit.
Figure 11 uses the economic evidence from twenty-three published studies cited in Chetty (2011) to illustrate how a 10 percent cut in individual income tax rates might increase the pretax earnings of the typical tax-paying family earning about $70,000 per year. Most studies find that such a tax cut would have essentially no effect on employment or earnings. The average estimate of all twenty-three studies predicts that the typical family would increase pretax earnings by roughly $450, or 0.7 percent. Even using the highest estimated response, the increase in earnings is about $1,500, or about 2.2 percent.
10. Deficit-financed tax cuts do not spur economic growth in the long run.
But historical tax cuts are also frequently said to have been motivated by a desire to spur economic activity by encouraging increased savings, investment, entrepreneurship, and other activities that contribute to long-term growth. While the evidence suggests that temporary tax cuts can help combat recessions—temporary tax cuts were an important part of the policy response to the Great Recession—the available estimates of how taxes affect the larger economy suggest that in normal economic times any potential long-run gains from lower tax rates are largely offset if they increase the deficit. Instead of increasing saving and investment, tax cuts that result in higher government borrowing reduce funds available to invest in the private sector, reducing growth.
Indeed, the best available estimates suggest that the tax cuts enacted a decade ago likely reduced economic growth in subsequent years. For instance, the CBO estimated the macroeconomic effects of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which reduced revenues by more than $200 billion per year (CBPP 2011).
So no, tax cuts do not tend to increase long run growth. Tax increases do not tend to decrease long run growth.
The paper from The Hamilton Project stated that a 10% cut in tax rates would indeed spur greater economic growth, just not enough to pay for itself. I don’t disagree with that.
And Republicans, particularly kmillz and sc2superfan101, should stop ignoring the evidence and taking it as an article of faith that tax cuts are good and tax increases are bad. And, yes, the way that they haven't even bothered to engage in a serious discussion, instead just dismissing evidence that contradicts their faith-based belief in supply-side economics and the magic power of tax cuts, does make them anti-intellectuals.
Finally, the hypocrisy of Republicans who claim to be concerned about the deficit, while pushing for tax cuts and demand that taxes never be raised, is utterly breathtaking.
I agree that treating tax cuts as a panacea to all economic problems, as some Republicans seem to do (Larry Kudlow comes to mind), is entirely misguided. But it also seems incorrect to treat tax rates as irrelevant to economic growth. We shouldn’t downplay the negative effects of higher taxes any more than we can oversell the benefits of lower taxes. If we do that then we risk swinging from the current extreme of perpetual deficits to a future where taxes grow to truly harmful levels.
that is a long run study because it uses a general equilibrium modeling method (black boxed with no internals) that only gives long run (actually unspecified time, specifying the equilibrium state does not specify the time) results.
but yea of course when you take out money from the economy, it runs slower. the bigger effect on high income taxation are mainly effects on tax evasion efforts. something that can be tackled as a problem in itself. the conclusions of the study are pretty standard results from any neoclassical modeling aggregating from micro level agents. but of course, this methodology is hugely flawed + Show Spoiler +
explanation: the causal effect is not actually empirically observed or analyzed from how the economy actually works. it is assumed by the structure of the DSGE modeling. a change in the parameters faced by the micro level agent, such as tax, will cause an instantaneous adjustment to the macro level results. the exact process by which this occurs is not specified. not that i'd deny that incentives don't play a role, of course it does. but it does not specify the exact causal mechanism. the problem wtih this is that even if you get the macro level results right, you still are shutting yourself out of knowing what kind of policy can tackle the problem. the model only gives you one solution, tax cutting. think of it this way, if your onlly explanation for how labor time moves with pay is the incentive for pay, you have to attribute ALL of the effects of teh myriad of factors affecting work decisions to the elasticity of labor supply. viola, use an empirically observed rate of elasticity and you've explained everything, but that's called fitting the model to the data, and it always confirms itself if you use the data to design your model parameters a different approach with an econophysics, dynamic model that works at the agent level a bit more, using logic of how finance and banking is actually done, is more realistic and gives more information for policy.
as a general statement i'd say tax's distortion effect among different sectors is more interesting than "leisure/work" choices. for investment decisions of capital, tax on capital gains and dividends may actually help by encouraging people to invest in real companies rather than finance. e.g. dividend stock vs growth companies
and failed to predict the current crisis and suggest disastrous policies for fixing the situation.
the study itself admits that giving money to lower income people is more effective. (multiplier is .35 for rich compared to .9 in the middle class range) the capital stock thing, i don't see how it has much effect when you are financing investments by credit rather than actual savings anyway. as long as there is demand and the real productive capability, you can get financed.
If there was a referendum on energy policy I have no doubt this country would choose massive subsides for renewable's. The far right can complain and saber rattle against Solar, Wind and next generation energy but poll after poll show the tide is turning, and has already turned in the arena of public opinion regarding climate change and even how we get and where we get our energy.
Was not surprised by Obama's statement regarding Climate Change during today's press conference. I believe him when he said he thinks it is real, and I think the subject will become more of a political incentive. Now will Obama do more than his last term? We'll see.
Mitt Romney told donors Wednesday he blamed last week’s loss to President Barack Obama in part to “gifts” the Obama administration gave to key voter blocs, including African Americans, Hispanics and young women, according to media reports.
“The president’s campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift — so he made a big effort on small things. Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars,” Romney said on a conference call with donors, the Los Angeles Times first reported.
The “gifts,” according to Romney, included forgiving college loan interest, free contraceptive coverage and the part of Obamacare that allows people 26 and younger to be covered under their parents’ health care plans.
“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free healthcare, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free healthcare worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity. I mean, this is huge,” Romney said, the New York Times reported.
“Likewise with Hispanic voters, free healthcare was a big plus,” Romney added. “But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”
Romney told the donors he was “sorry” about the results.
“I’m very sorry that we didn’t win,” he said. “I know that you expected to win, we expected to win, we were disappointed with the result, we hadn’t anticipated it, and it was very close but close doesn’t count in this business.”
Mitt Romney told donors Wednesday he blamed last week’s loss to President Barack Obama in part to “gifts” the Obama administration gave to key voter blocs, including African Americans, Hispanics and young women, according to media reports.
“The president’s campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift — so he made a big effort on small things. Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars,” Romney said on a conference call with donors, the Los Angeles Times first reported.
The “gifts,” according to Romney, included forgiving college loan interest, free contraceptive coverage and the part of Obamacare that allows people 26 and younger to be covered under their parents’ health care plans.
“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free healthcare, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free healthcare worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity. I mean, this is huge,” Romney said, the New York Times reported.
“Likewise with Hispanic voters, free healthcare was a big plus,” Romney added. “But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”
Romney told the donors he was “sorry” about the results.
“I’m very sorry that we didn’t win,” he said. “I know that you expected to win, we expected to win, we were disappointed with the result, we hadn’t anticipated it, and it was very close but close doesn’t count in this business.”
watch this instead of reading my post which was pretty terribly written, but still good. i'm not going to rewrite it though + Show Spoiler +
if a huge tax break like the founder's tax discount mechanism they talk about mostly fuels stock bubbles, it would put the blame on getting the causation direction wrong in the incentive model. investment opportunities are driven by real conditions of production and technology, not really tax incentives. you don't work hard and automatically make an invention or discovery because the tax on the occasion of your success is lower. you do it because you think you can succeed. same thing kind of applies to the incentive driven thinking in other areas like job search.
the general principle is that the agent is not given its true external description. it cannot have access to the true outcome of her choices under uncertainty, that would be a modal error.
there was a guy earlier talking about lack of investment options, part of that is because of entrenched interests, but part of it is also due to the continued weakness of the demand side of the economy. the wage earning households. in a circulation system like the economy, when the demand side does not have enough capacity to circulate and wealth accrues to free floating capital, it will run all over the place without going into investing in actual productive projects, because yes, there is no demand to drive the optimistic revenue projections that justify the ever higher standard for investment returns. this is inflated because......yes, hot and idle money piling into asset bubbles.
Mitt Romney told donors Wednesday he blamed last week’s loss to President Barack Obama in part to “gifts” the Obama administration gave to key voter blocs, including African Americans, Hispanics and young women, according to media reports.
“The president’s campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift — so he made a big effort on small things. Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars,” Romney said on a conference call with donors, the Los Angeles Times first reported.
The “gifts,” according to Romney, included forgiving college loan interest, free contraceptive coverage and the part of Obamacare that allows people 26 and younger to be covered under their parents’ health care plans.
“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free healthcare, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free healthcare worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity. I mean, this is huge,” Romney said, the New York Times reported.
“Likewise with Hispanic voters, free healthcare was a big plus,” Romney added. “But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”
Romney told the donors he was “sorry” about the results.
“I’m very sorry that we didn’t win,” he said. “I know that you expected to win, we expected to win, we were disappointed with the result, we hadn’t anticipated it, and it was very close but close doesn’t count in this business.”
When I first read this peice of news from Romney about why he lost I just had a wtf moment.
So you're saying the guy who did things for the majority of americans won? Mind blowing. I say majority because Obama obviously won because of these "gifts" he did, which had to affect the majority of americans since he got the majority of the vote.
Romney just trying to blame the loss on anything but himself and his views.
On November 15 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote: (‘Kay. I’m just gonna post it. Apologies in advance if I'm derailing any side conversations.)
News: Obama won't budge on taxes. Probably more legislative impeding on the way, as I'd imagine Republicans wouldn't let much through without some sort of tax cut.
My hope for now: gridlock. People say they like bipartisanship, but bipartisanship usually means politicians conspire to take more of our money and freedom. Bipartisanship gave us the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, Import-Export Bank, war on drug users, ethanol subsides, TARP, No Child Left Behind, foreign wars and an ever-rising debt. When Democrats and Republicans come together, they put us deeper in debt.
Let's have some gridlock!
As a libertarian-conservative, I share some of Stossel's sentiment. A busy Congress and Senate raises a prominent red flag in my mind. Unfortunately, with our debt piling up uncontrollably, I fear that inaction will not be enough to get us out of this mess. That means compromise looks to be a necessity rather than an option.
This likely stems from my inherent bias, but I don't believe I see "bipartisanship" in quite the same light as those on the "other side of the aisle." For example, when I hear a Democrat say they want both parties to come together and create legislature that appeals to everyone, I view this less as "we'll be more conservative if you be more liberal" but more as "we want you to slowly become as liberal as us." Basically, I keep hearing that Republicans need to change their platform by accepting liberal solutions (gets what I'm referring to, "For a two-party system to be healthy, both parties need to be in good shape. Right now the Republican Party is badly in need of a soul transplant."), but I've not heard of any Democrats accepting conservative proposals.
You're kinda missing the point. The Republicans need a "soul transplant" because their current "soul" is foul and corrupted.
The left and the right are not equally valid viewpoints on all issues. Many social conservatives would like nothing better than to strip homosexuals of the right to get married, or otherwise prevent them from gaining that right. They would like to put the Bible and other religious texts in classrooms. Hell, conservatives in Texas have tried to sanitize history books so that they fit more in tune with conservative ideology.
These are not acceptable. That's the part of the Republican "soul" they need to leave.
Remember: when it comes to compromise, Democrats are far more willing to do so than Republicans. Just look at healthcare: Republicans effectively forced the single-payer option off the table. They forced a lot of changes to the bill. Was there compromise? No; they basically sabotaged it to the point where it's questionable whether it's better than we had before.
And even then, it only barely passed.
Democrats have been giving ground to obstinate Republicans for years now. It's time we held firm on some things and make them compromise with us by giving up something they want.
I was referring to economic policies, rather than social stances. And you're missing my point. Liberals insist that Republicans are super-far right that need to be reined in to the center, when instead I see most of them as moderates who are being pulled further left.
The fact that the healthcare bill passed in the first place was quite the compromise. I see that as a very liberal piece of legislature, and Reps were forcing it to the center.
Unfortunately, many of the changes to the ACA that formed the backbone of that "compromise" are disliked by both Republicans and Democrats and are demonstrably inefficient. And it bears worth mentioning that a discussion of where compromise ought to take place, at least if Obama's signals mean anything so far, needs to include a rather substantive appropriation of Obama's re-election campaign platform. The order of operations in post-election policy back and forth is considerably more important than it is during other times; the results of the election suggest that the public wants Republicans to make the first concessions, not the other way around, and the dialogue ought to be carried out in such a manner.
Exactly. As a Republican, I would prefer single-payer over the abomination they put in. It was a bad plan that's 20 years old. Obama tried to pull a fast one on the Republicans and it backfired on him. And us. They need to fix it. One way or the other.
On November 15 2012 13:21 Souma wrote: Romney agrees with Bill.
Mitt Romney told donors Wednesday he blamed last week’s loss to President Barack Obama in part to “gifts” the Obama administration gave to key voter blocs, including African Americans, Hispanics and young women, according to media reports.
“The president’s campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift — so he made a big effort on small things. Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars,” Romney said on a conference call with donors, the Los Angeles Times first reported.
The “gifts,” according to Romney, included forgiving college loan interest, free contraceptive coverage and the part of Obamacare that allows people 26 and younger to be covered under their parents’ health care plans.
“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free healthcare, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free healthcare worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity. I mean, this is huge,” Romney said, the New York Times reported.
“Likewise with Hispanic voters, free healthcare was a big plus,” Romney added. “But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”
Romney told the donors he was “sorry” about the results.
“I’m very sorry that we didn’t win,” he said. “I know that you expected to win, we expected to win, we were disappointed with the result, we hadn’t anticipated it, and it was very close but close doesn’t count in this business.”
On November 15 2012 12:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: If there was a referendum on energy policy I have no doubt this country would choose massive subsides for renewable's. The far right can complain and saber rattle against Solar, Wind and next generation energy but poll after poll show the tide is turning, and has already turned in the arena of public opinion regarding climate change and even how we get and where we get our energy.
Another reason to be happy we're not a direct democracy.
Massive subidies for renewables is a terrible environmental policy that has been pushed by special interests which stand to benefit from it. A simple carbon tax would be the most efficient means of addressing the negative externality of pollution and would be the least economically distorting form of regulation.
Barack Obama won the presidential election running on an explicit platform of hiking the top marginal income-tax rate to 39.6%, the same rate it was under the centrist neoliberal administration of Bill Clinton in the 1990s. As has been repeated incessantly over the past two weeks, if Mr Obama does nothing, or if the Republican faction in Congress fails to present sufficiently attractive compromise proposals, 39.6% is the level to which the top marginal rate will automatically return. Americans want the wealthy to pay a higher tax rate. The wealthy are going to pay a higher tax rate. Republicans appear to think that by merely stating that they are not in principle opposed to the federal government getting more revenue, they are entitled to be congratulated for their conciliatory approach, despite the fact that they continue to make the same basic tax proposals they made before the election, which they lost, and despite the fact that they have no cards to play; if they don't give ground, they lose.
On November 15 2012 13:21 Souma wrote: Romney agrees with Bill.
Mitt Romney told donors Wednesday he blamed last week’s loss to President Barack Obama in part to “gifts” the Obama administration gave to key voter blocs, including African Americans, Hispanics and young women, according to media reports.
“The president’s campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift — so he made a big effort on small things. Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars,” Romney said on a conference call with donors, the Los Angeles Times first reported.
The “gifts,” according to Romney, included forgiving college loan interest, free contraceptive coverage and the part of Obamacare that allows people 26 and younger to be covered under their parents’ health care plans.
“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free healthcare, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free healthcare worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity. I mean, this is huge,” Romney said, the New York Times reported.
“Likewise with Hispanic voters, free healthcare was a big plus,” Romney added. “But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”
Romney told the donors he was “sorry” about the results.
“I’m very sorry that we didn’t win,” he said. “I know that you expected to win, we expected to win, we were disappointed with the result, we hadn’t anticipated it, and it was very close but close doesn’t count in this business.”
When I first read this peice of news from Romney about why he lost I just had a wtf moment.
So you're saying the guy who did things for the majority of americans won? Mind blowing. I say majority because Obama obviously won because of these "gifts" he did, which had to affect the majority of americans since he got the majority of the vote.
Romney just trying to blame the loss on anything but himself and his views.
I'm not asserting Romney is right, I didn't vote for him etc. Posts like these make me cringe a little. There's always room for more critical thinking and understanding complex situations but you have to be balanced. Most critiques like Bill's about people voting for "stuff" have some truth. Some of that can be very legitimate but you can't just dismiss it as "mind blowing". Reminds of me of Bread and Circuses. Also, the War on Terror always scares me a little bit.
Feel free to explain how Rome and the U.S. are not good comparisons I'm very open-minded. Some of this stuff resonates though... Edit: fixed a funny typo
EPT
then I saw not. What I'm interested in is the Thorium based Nuclear Plants.. If they can manage 100% fuel rod consumption (like they theorize they can) along with the thorium instead of the steam heating with water which takes a massive containment facility and risks a melt down it could become the biggest power source. Let alone the achievements in fusion they've been making (not perfect but it's a theorized to work now just have to manage the power)
I'm still waiting for someone to find some news regarding him and bump the old Andrea Rossi thread.
