Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How can anyone defend trickle-down?

ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 9:50:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are a myriad of studies I can cite in favor of my position, but here's a recent study that came out that I highly advise any supporters of trickle-down economics to read through: http://www.ctj.org...

Here are some of the findings:

-111 of the companies enjoyed at least one year in which their federal income tax was
zero or less.
-26 companies, including Boeing, General Electric, Priceline.com and Verizon,
enjoyed negative income tax rates over the entire five-year period, despite
combined pre-tax profits of $170 billion. 2
-Of the 125 multinational companies in this sample, two-thirds paid a lower U.S.
tax rate than the rate they paid to foreign governments on their foreign profits.
On average, their foreign effective tax rate was 12 percent larger than their U.S.
effective rate.
-The total amount of federal income tax subsidies enjoyed by the 288 profitable
corporations over the five years was $362 billion.
-Wells Fargo tops the list of corporations receiving the most in tax subsidies,
getting more than $21 billion in tax breaks from the U.S. treasury from 2008 through
2012.
-Pepco Holdings had the lowest effective tax rate of all the companies in the study,
at negative 33 percent over the five year period.
-Industry tax rates varied widely, from a low of 2.9 percent for utilities to a high of
29.6 percent for healthcare companies.
-Some companies within sectors fare worse than others. For example Time Warner
Cable paid 3.9 percent over five years, while its competitor Comcast paid 24 percent.
-More than half of the federal corporate tax subsidies received by companies in the
study went to four industries: financial services, utilities, telecommunications, and
oil, gas & pipeline.

Here's what I already knew: trickle-down economics is a mythology.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 9:56:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Trickle down is a derogatory term used to describe supply side economics.

Supply side economics does hold pretty true over long periods of time.
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 10:00:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 9:56:46 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
Trickle down is a derogatory term used to describe supply side economics.

Supply side economics does hold pretty true over long periods of time.

A game of semantics is irrelevant here, but I'll humor you and call it supply-side.

It clearly doesn't -- and I know, since you responded so quickly, that you haven't read the study. Please do so, and then tell me with a straight face that supply-side economics -- a critical component of which, obviously, is marginal rate cuts and business tax cuts/investment credits -- has or does worked.

Also, what do you mean by "long periods of time?" Must I invoke the great John Maynard Keynes? You probably know where I'm going with that.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 10:05:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 10:00:35 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 9:56:46 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
Trickle down is a derogatory term used to describe supply side economics.

Supply side economics does hold pretty true over long periods of time.

A game of semantics is irrelevant here, but I'll humor you and call it supply-side.

It clearly doesn't -- and I know, since you responded so quickly, that you haven't read the study. Please do so, and then tell me with a straight face that supply-side economics -- a critical component of which, obviously, is marginal rate cuts and business tax cuts/investment credits -- has or does worked.

Also, what do you mean by "long periods of time?" Must I invoke the great John Maynard Keynes? You probably know where I'm going with that.

Do you find it odd at all that the USA has the HIGHEST corporate tax rate in the world?

Corporations still pay taxes. The problem is complexity not low rates. In fact, corporations would pay more and the USA would be more competitive if we lowered the corporate rate and closed deductions and loopholes.
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 10:16:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 10:05:56 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:00:35 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 9:56:46 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
Trickle down is a derogatory term used to describe supply side economics.

Supply side economics does hold pretty true over long periods of time.

A game of semantics is irrelevant here, but I'll humor you and call it supply-side.

It clearly doesn't -- and I know, since you responded so quickly, that you haven't read the study. Please do so, and then tell me with a straight face that supply-side economics -- a critical component of which, obviously, is marginal rate cuts and business tax cuts/investment credits -- has or does worked.

Also, what do you mean by "long periods of time?" Must I invoke the great John Maynard Keynes? You probably know where I'm going with that.

Do you find it odd at all that the USA has the HIGHEST corporate tax rate in the world?

Corporations still pay taxes. The problem is complexity not low rates. In fact, corporations would pay more and the USA would be more competitive if we lowered the corporate rate and closed deductions and loopholes.

Now you're just spewing BS talking points.

No, I don't find that odd, probably because it's completely factually untrue. The US has the top STATUTORY corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. However, as the study that you didn't read said, the average corporate tax rate is 19.4%. AND, there are corporations with negative tax rates.

Correction to your next point: SOME corporations pay taxes. Some hide their money in the Cayman Islands. Some take advantages of giant loopholes and buy a congressman or a senator to maintain their bloody loopholes. That's why the top 1% owns 20% of total income today relative to 10% in 1980.

How would lowering rates make the US more productive? Rates are already low.

What deductions would you want to close to get more revenue? Would that not be a tax INCREASE on a very large amount of these corporations? How would that improve competitiveness abroad if your thesis -- a highly debunked one, might I add -- is that tax cuts generate growth? Are you agreeing with me that Exxon should pay some bloody taxes? Or that Mitt Romney shouldn't pay 14% on long-term investments -- a lower rate than the "47 percent?"

Ultimately, to prove your case, you have to dispute the facts in this study. Do you?
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 10:20:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 10:16:14 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:05:56 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:00:35 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 9:56:46 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
Trickle down is a derogatory term used to describe supply side economics.

Supply side economics does hold pretty true over long periods of time.

A game of semantics is irrelevant here, but I'll humor you and call it supply-side.

It clearly doesn't -- and I know, since you responded so quickly, that you haven't read the study. Please do so, and then tell me with a straight face that supply-side economics -- a critical component of which, obviously, is marginal rate cuts and business tax cuts/investment credits -- has or does worked.

Also, what do you mean by "long periods of time?" Must I invoke the great John Maynard Keynes? You probably know where I'm going with that.

Do you find it odd at all that the USA has the HIGHEST corporate tax rate in the world?

Corporations still pay taxes. The problem is complexity not low rates. In fact, corporations would pay more and the USA would be more competitive if we lowered the corporate rate and closed deductions and loopholes.


Now you're just spewing BS talking points.

No, I don't find that odd, probably because it's completely factually untrue. The US has the top STATUTORY corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. However, as the study that you didn't read said, the average corporate tax rate is 19.4%. AND, there are corporations with negative tax rates.

Correction to your next point: SOME corporations pay taxes. Some hide their money in the Cayman Islands. Some take advantages of giant loopholes and buy a congressman or a senator to maintain their bloody loopholes. That's why the top 1% owns 20% of total income today relative to 10% in 1980.

How would lowering rates make the US more productive? Rates are already low.

What deductions would you want to close to get more revenue? Would that not be a tax INCREASE on a very large amount of these corporations? How would that improve competitiveness abroad if your thesis -- a highly debunked one, might I add -- is that tax cuts generate growth? Are you agreeing with me that Exxon should pay some bloody taxes? Or that Mitt Romney shouldn't pay 14% on long-term investments -- a lower rate than the "47 percent?"

Ultimately, to prove your case, you have to dispute the facts in this study. Do you?

Nothing in the study disputes my beliefs. I meant lower the statutory rate and increase deductions.

Clearly, having high statutory rates doesn't make corporations pay taxes and your solution is to raise the statutory rate. The same statutory rate that corporations aren't paying right now.
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 10:23:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 10:20:56 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:16:14 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:05:56 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:00:35 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 9:56:46 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
Trickle down is a derogatory term used to describe supply side economics.

Supply side economics does hold pretty true over long periods of time.

A game of semantics is irrelevant here, but I'll humor you and call it supply-side.

It clearly doesn't -- and I know, since you responded so quickly, that you haven't read the study. Please do so, and then tell me with a straight face that supply-side economics -- a critical component of which, obviously, is marginal rate cuts and business tax cuts/investment credits -- has or does worked.

Also, what do you mean by "long periods of time?" Must I invoke the great John Maynard Keynes? You probably know where I'm going with that.

Do you find it odd at all that the USA has the HIGHEST corporate tax rate in the world?

Corporations still pay taxes. The problem is complexity not low rates. In fact, corporations would pay more and the USA would be more competitive if we lowered the corporate rate and closed deductions and loopholes.


Now you're just spewing BS talking points.

No, I don't find that odd, probably because it's completely factually untrue. The US has the top STATUTORY corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. However, as the study that you didn't read said, the average corporate tax rate is 19.4%. AND, there are corporations with negative tax rates.

Correction to your next point: SOME corporations pay taxes. Some hide their money in the Cayman Islands. Some take advantages of giant loopholes and buy a congressman or a senator to maintain their bloody loopholes. That's why the top 1% owns 20% of total income today relative to 10% in 1980.

How would lowering rates make the US more productive? Rates are already low.

What deductions would you want to close to get more revenue? Would that not be a tax INCREASE on a very large amount of these corporations? How would that improve competitiveness abroad if your thesis -- a highly debunked one, might I add -- is that tax cuts generate growth? Are you agreeing with me that Exxon should pay some bloody taxes? Or that Mitt Romney shouldn't pay 14% on long-term investments -- a lower rate than the "47 percent?"

Ultimately, to prove your case, you have to dispute the facts in this study. Do you?


Nothing in the study disputes my beliefs. I meant lower the statutory rate and increase deductions.

Clearly, having high statutory rates doesn't make corporations pay taxes and your solution is to raise the statutory rate. The same statutory rate that corporations aren't paying right now.

It does, because your case is that lower taxes generates growth, right? Rates are already low.

Actually, you're now making assumptions. Find a time where I said raise the statutory rates. I want corporations to pay their fair share. If we lowered deductions and got more revenue -- a fair amount of revenue -- I'd support it. What deductions do you want to eliminate? Would you support, for instance, equalizing rates on capital gains and ordinary income, eliminating the carried interest loophole, and eliminating the deduction for CEO salaries (which average about $10 million, by the way, an all-time high -- and the CEO:average worker ratio is about 475:1, the highest in the industrialized law)?
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 10:24:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 10:23:40 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:20:56 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:16:14 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:05:56 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:00:35 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 9:56:46 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
Trickle down is a derogatory term used to describe supply side economics.

Supply side economics does hold pretty true over long periods of time.

A game of semantics is irrelevant here, but I'll humor you and call it supply-side.

It clearly doesn't -- and I know, since you responded so quickly, that you haven't read the study. Please do so, and then tell me with a straight face that supply-side economics -- a critical component of which, obviously, is marginal rate cuts and business tax cuts/investment credits -- has or does worked.

Also, what do you mean by "long periods of time?" Must I invoke the great John Maynard Keynes? You probably know where I'm going with that.

Do you find it odd at all that the USA has the HIGHEST corporate tax rate in the world?

Corporations still pay taxes. The problem is complexity not low rates. In fact, corporations would pay more and the USA would be more competitive if we lowered the corporate rate and closed deductions and loopholes.


Now you're just spewing BS talking points.

No, I don't find that odd, probably because it's completely factually untrue. The US has the top STATUTORY corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. However, as the study that you didn't read said, the average corporate tax rate is 19.4%. AND, there are corporations with negative tax rates.

Correction to your next point: SOME corporations pay taxes. Some hide their money in the Cayman Islands. Some take advantages of giant loopholes and buy a congressman or a senator to maintain their bloody loopholes. That's why the top 1% owns 20% of total income today relative to 10% in 1980.

How would lowering rates make the US more productive? Rates are already low.

What deductions would you want to close to get more revenue? Would that not be a tax INCREASE on a very large amount of these corporations? How would that improve competitiveness abroad if your thesis -- a highly debunked one, might I add -- is that tax cuts generate growth? Are you agreeing with me that Exxon should pay some bloody taxes? Or that Mitt Romney shouldn't pay 14% on long-term investments -- a lower rate than the "47 percent?"

Ultimately, to prove your case, you have to dispute the facts in this study. Do you?


Nothing in the study disputes my beliefs. I meant lower the statutory rate and increase deductions.

Clearly, having high statutory rates doesn't make corporations pay taxes and your solution is to raise the statutory rate. The same statutory rate that corporations aren't paying right now.

It does, because your case is that lower taxes generates growth, right? Rates are already low.

Actually, you're now making assumptions. Find a time where I said raise the statutory rates. I want corporations to pay their fair share. If we lowered deductions and got more revenue -- a fair amount of revenue -- I'd support it. What deductions do you want to eliminate? Would you support, for instance, equalizing rates on capital gains and ordinary income, eliminating the carried interest loophole, and eliminating the deduction for CEO salaries (which average about $10 million, by the way, an all-time high -- and the CEO:average worker ratio is about 475:1, the highest in the industrialized law)?

*industrialized world
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 3:08:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 9:50:15 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
There are a myriad of studies I can cite in favor of my position, but here's a recent study that came out that I highly advise any supporters of trickle-down economics to read through: http://www.ctj.org...

Here are some of the findings:

-111 of the companies enjoyed at least one year in which their federal income tax was
zero or less.
-26 companies, including Boeing, General Electric, Priceline.com and Verizon,
enjoyed negative income tax rates over the entire five-year period, despite
combined pre-tax profits of $170 billion. 2
-Of the 125 multinational companies in this sample, two-thirds paid a lower U.S.
tax rate than the rate they paid to foreign governments on their foreign profits.
On average, their foreign effective tax rate was 12 percent larger than their U.S.
effective rate.
-The total amount of federal income tax subsidies enjoyed by the 288 profitable
corporations over the five years was $362 billion.
-Wells Fargo tops the list of corporations receiving the most in tax subsidies,
getting more than $21 billion in tax breaks from the U.S. treasury from 2008 through
2012.
-Pepco Holdings had the lowest effective tax rate of all the companies in the study,
at negative 33 percent over the five year period.
-Industry tax rates varied widely, from a low of 2.9 percent for utilities to a high of
29.6 percent for healthcare companies.
-Some companies within sectors fare worse than others. For example Time Warner
Cable paid 3.9 percent over five years, while its competitor Comcast paid 24 percent.
-More than half of the federal corporate tax subsidies received by companies in the
study went to four industries: financial services, utilities, telecommunications, and
oil, gas & pipeline.


Here's what I already knew: trickle-down economics is a mythology.

Trickle-down theory, and "libertarian" free-marketarianism, and ancap nonsense, et al., are all just variations on the same theme of viewing reality from a perspective skewed by the interests and ideology of capitalists and their economic system, i.e. a lot of rubbishy pro-capitalist ideologizing and apologetics.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 8:05:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 3:08:40 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/16/2014 9:50:15 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
There are a myriad of studies I can cite in favor of my position, but here's a recent study that came out that I highly advise any supporters of trickle-down economics to read through: http://www.ctj.org...

Here are some of the findings:

-111 of the companies enjoyed at least one year in which their federal income tax was
zero or less.
-26 companies, including Boeing, General Electric, Priceline.com and Verizon,
enjoyed negative income tax rates over the entire five-year period, despite
combined pre-tax profits of $170 billion. 2
-Of the 125 multinational companies in this sample, two-thirds paid a lower U.S.
tax rate than the rate they paid to foreign governments on their foreign profits.
On average, their foreign effective tax rate was 12 percent larger than their U.S.
effective rate.
-The total amount of federal income tax subsidies enjoyed by the 288 profitable
corporations over the five years was $362 billion.
-Wells Fargo tops the list of corporations receiving the most in tax subsidies,
getting more than $21 billion in tax breaks from the U.S. treasury from 2008 through
2012.
-Pepco Holdings had the lowest effective tax rate of all the companies in the study,
at negative 33 percent over the five year period.
-Industry tax rates varied widely, from a low of 2.9 percent for utilities to a high of
29.6 percent for healthcare companies.
-Some companies within sectors fare worse than others. For example Time Warner
Cable paid 3.9 percent over five years, while its competitor Comcast paid 24 percent.
-More than half of the federal corporate tax subsidies received by companies in the
study went to four industries: financial services, utilities, telecommunications, and
oil, gas & pipeline.


Here's what I already knew: trickle-down economics is a mythology.

Trickle-down theory, and "libertarian" free-marketarianism, and ancap nonsense, et al., are all just variations on the same theme of viewing reality from a perspective skewed by the interests and ideology of capitalists and their economic system, i.e. a lot of rubbishy pro-capitalist ideologizing and apologetics.

I do think supply-side, libertarianism, and anarcho capitalism are a cut from the same fictitious, drug-induced bull. But I don't see it as an indictment on capitalism by any means. I like capitalism; I just don't like cronyism or unregulated markets. I don't think there's a better alternative to a market economy. But that doesn't mean we need to throw out any degree of nuance whatsoever, as many right-wingers do. For instance, I don't support capitalism in health insurance, and am quite skeptical of it in education -- though I'd be more likely to accept a stronger public sector influence in the latter, in lieu of the single-payer system I'd want for health insurance.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 9:53:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 10:00:35 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 9:56:46 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
Trickle down is a derogatory term used to describe supply side economics.

Supply side economics does hold pretty true over long periods of time.

A game of semantics is irrelevant here, but I'll humor you and call it supply-side.

It is not a game of semantics; "trickle down economics" is a pejorative term referring to providing economic benefits (such as tax breaks and subsidies) to businesses and to the wealthy who own/run those businesses. It is the opposite of "trickle up economics", which focuses on the consumer, and boosting aggregate demand.

It clearly doesn't -- and I know, since you responded so quickly, that you haven't read the study. Please do so, and then tell me with a straight face that supply-side economics -- a critical component of which, obviously, is marginal rate cuts and business tax cuts/investment credits -- has or does worked.

Also, what do you mean by "long periods of time?"
Boosting aggregate demand creates unsustainable rates of consumption, as well as promoting malconsumption, so what may be a good idea this year can come back to bite us in the butt next year.
Must I invoke the great John Maynard Keynes? You probably know where I'm going with that.

Ignoring the obvious appeal to authority; if you are calling Keynes "great", then you are truly lost. While Keynes did had some good theories, his advocacy of demand side economics was entirely misguided.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 10:13:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 9:53:49 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:00:35 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 9:56:46 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
Trickle down is a derogatory term used to describe supply side economics.

Supply side economics does hold pretty true over long periods of time.

A game of semantics is irrelevant here, but I'll humor you and call it supply-side.

It is not a game of semantics; "trickle down economics" is a pejorative term referring to providing economic benefits (such as tax breaks and subsidies) to businesses and to the wealthy who own/run those businesses. It is the opposite of "trickle up economics", which focuses on the consumer, and boosting aggregate demand.

So you're agreeing with me that the term is well-placed? Fair enough. I knew the right was going to harp on my terminology, so I decided to take Ben Shapiro's advice and afford him a "meaningless victory" (Ok, that was tongue-in-cheek).

It clearly doesn't -- and I know, since you responded so quickly, that you haven't read the study. Please do so, and then tell me with a straight face that supply-side economics -- a critical component of which, obviously, is marginal rate cuts and business tax cuts/investment credits -- has or does worked.

Also, what do you mean by "long periods of time?"
Boosting aggregate demand creates unsustainable rates of consumption, as well as promoting malconsumption, so what may be a good idea this year can come back to bite us in the butt next year.

And your evidence for this is......? The housing bubble wasn't overconsumption -- it was a financial system run amok. Calling it overconsumption is wrongly throwing blame on the mortgage holders, when we really should be blaming the fraud and abuse of complex financial instruments on Wall Street.

Must I invoke the great John Maynard Keynes? You probably know where I'm going with that.

Ignoring the obvious appeal to authority; if you are calling Keynes "great", then you are truly lost. While Keynes did had some good theories, his advocacy of demand side economics was entirely misguided.

That's funny, since supply-side economics has zero success, while demand-side has worked -- in Japan, in Britain, in the US leading up to and following WWII, etc.

Also, the reference in my post was to a Keynes quote:

"The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we're all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again."

He referred to the long run, so I pointed out how meaningless the long run actually is, since it's hardly measurable -- people love to distort the Keynes quote, but he of course meant that the long run is meaningless vis-a-vis the short run because it's hardly measurable, and the neoclassical assumption that markets are "self-correcting" in the long run is a farce at best, blatant distortion at worst.

It wasn't hardly an appeal to authority, but a witty comeback based on economic history that I trust any modestly informed person knows. And I'm lost? That's hilarious. Where's Frederick Hayek's theory? Oh, that's right -- the ash heap of history where they belong. I love how libertarians and conservatives foolishly attack Keynes without any facts or knowledge. It's quite riveting, really.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 2:28:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 10:13:01 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/17/2014 9:53:49 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:00:35 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 9:56:46 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
Trickle down is a derogatory term used to describe supply side economics.

Supply side economics does hold pretty true over long periods of time.

A game of semantics is irrelevant here, but I'll humor you and call it supply-side.

It is not a game of semantics; "trickle down economics" is a pejorative term referring to providing economic benefits (such as tax breaks and subsidies) to businesses and to the wealthy who own/run those businesses. It is the opposite of "trickle up economics", which focuses on the consumer, and boosting aggregate demand.

So you're agreeing with me that the term is well-placed? Fair enough. I knew the right was going to harp on my terminology, so I decided to take Ben Shapiro's advice and afford him a "meaningless victory" (Ok, that was tongue-in-cheek).

It clearly doesn't -- and I know, since you responded so quickly, that you haven't read the study. Please do so, and then tell me with a straight face that supply-side economics -- a critical component of which, obviously, is marginal rate cuts and business tax cuts/investment credits -- has or does worked.

Also, what do you mean by "long periods of time?"
Boosting aggregate demand creates unsustainable rates of consumption, as well as promoting malconsumption, so what may be a good idea this year can come back to bite us in the butt next year.

And your evidence for this is......? The housing bubble wasn't overconsumption -- it was a financial system run amok. Calling it overconsumption is wrongly throwing blame on the mortgage holders, when we really should be blaming the fraud and abuse of complex financial instruments on Wall Street.

It was malconsumption. It was consumption in a good or service that was not in the best interest of the consumer, because of false market signals.
Must I invoke the great John Maynard Keynes? You probably know where I'm going with that.

Ignoring the obvious appeal to authority; if you are calling Keynes "great", then you are truly lost. While Keynes did had some good theories, his advocacy of demand side economics was entirely misguided.

That's funny, since supply-side economics has zero success, while demand-side has worked -- in Japan, in Britain, in the US leading up to and following WWII, etc.

Creating a temporary demand by confusing market signals is not economic growth, just like shaking up a soda bottle does not create more soda. All you are doing is temporarily changing the marginal rate of substitution, so the economy appears to be growing, which will just prolong the problem and make the overall situation worse.

Also, the reference in my post was to a Keynes quote:

"The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we're all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again."

I know what you were referring to. The long run is a period of time in which the factors of production are fixed as opposed to the short run where some variables exist; therefore in the long run the supply side is inelastic, while in the short run it is elastic.
However we are not talking about the long run supply, we are talking about the future short term supply. That is to say when the market signals are confused in the present, it will have a detrimental effect on the future state of the economy.

He referred to the long run, so I pointed out how meaningless the long run actually is, since it's hardly measurable -- people love to distort the Keynes quote, but he of course meant that the long run is meaningless vis-a-vis the short run because it's hardly measurable, and the neoclassical assumption that markets are "self-correcting" in the long run is a farce at best, blatant distortion at worst.

Keynes's assertion that the market will not correct itself is unfounded, and based purely on an ideological bias.
It wasn't hardly an appeal to authority, but a witty comeback based on economic history that I trust any modestly informed person knows. And I'm lost? That's hilarious. Where's Frederick Hayek's theory?
I'm not an Austrian; I'm more in line with the Chicago school of economics.
Oh, that's right -- the ash heap of history where they belong. I love how libertarians and conservatives foolishly attack Keynes without any facts or knowledge. It's quite riveting, really.
I love how Keynesians foolishly ignore microeconomics. It's quite riveting, really.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 2:45:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 2:28:42 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/17/2014 10:13:01 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/17/2014 9:53:49 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:00:35 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 9:56:46 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
Trickle down is a derogatory term used to describe supply side economics.

Supply side economics does hold pretty true over long periods of time.

A game of semantics is irrelevant here, but I'll humor you and call it supply-side.

It is not a game of semantics; "trickle down economics" is a pejorative term referring to providing economic benefits (such as tax breaks and subsidies) to businesses and to the wealthy who own/run those businesses. It is the opposite of "trickle up economics", which focuses on the consumer, and boosting aggregate demand.

So you're agreeing with me that the term is well-placed? Fair enough. I knew the right was going to harp on my terminology, so I decided to take Ben Shapiro's advice and afford him a "meaningless victory" (Ok, that was tongue-in-cheek).

It clearly doesn't -- and I know, since you responded so quickly, that you haven't read the study. Please do so, and then tell me with a straight face that supply-side economics -- a critical component of which, obviously, is marginal rate cuts and business tax cuts/investment credits -- has or does worked.

Also, what do you mean by "long periods of time?"
Boosting aggregate demand creates unsustainable rates of consumption, as well as promoting malconsumption, so what may be a good idea this year can come back to bite us in the butt next year.

And your evidence for this is......? The housing bubble wasn't overconsumption -- it was a financial system run amok. Calling it overconsumption is wrongly throwing blame on the mortgage holders, when we really should be blaming the fraud and abuse of complex financial instruments on Wall Street.

It was malconsumption. It was consumption in a good or service that was not in the best interest of the consumer, because of false market signals.

I asked you for evidence, and instead you give me a two-sentence, anecdotal pile of forest gump. That's all this neoclassical worship of markets is.

Are you suggesting that financial systems overleveraging into toxic mortgages, rate agencies rating them as perfect even though they were backed by nothing, and then engaging in fraud and predator lending was "false market signals?" Give me a break. Keep this libertarian mythology in the religion forum where it belongs.

Must I invoke the great John Maynard Keynes? You probably know where I'm going with that.

Ignoring the obvious appeal to authority; if you are calling Keynes "great", then you are truly lost. While Keynes did had some good theories, his advocacy of demand side economics was entirely misguided.

That's funny, since supply-side economics has zero success, while demand-side has worked -- in Japan, in Britain, in the US leading up to and following WWII, etc.

Creating a temporary demand by confusing market signals is not economic growth, just like shaking up a soda bottle does not create more soda. All you are doing is temporarily changing the marginal rate of substitution, so the economy appears to be growing, which will just prolong the problem and make the overall situation worse.

Also, the reference in my post was to a Keynes quote:

"The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we're all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again."

I know what you were referring to. The long run is a period of time in which the factors of production are fixed as opposed to the short run where some variables exist;
Stop right there. Completely wrong. That's the MICROECONOMIC definition of the long and short run. The long run in macroeconomics is when prices, wages, and expectations are adjusting and self-correcting. Both are a mythology, have never happened, and are fully unrealistic, and I challenge you to point to one time in history where a textbook "long run" has ever taken place.

therefore in the long run the supply side is inelastic, while in the short run it is elastic.:
Exact opposite. The long run is self-correcting, while the short run in not. Yet we have data telling us not only that we're perpetually in the short run, but that a glut of labor in the short run can undermine long term growth -- that markets may clear, but may do so at inefficient equilibria. That's not part of the "hooray for markets" mythology, but this is simply the reality you and those of your libertarian cult refuse to recognize.

However we are not talking about the long run supply, we are talking about the future short term supply. That is to say when the market signals are confused in the present, it will have a detrimental effect on the future state of the economy.

Sure, but "market signals" had nothing to do with subprime. We're talking about subprime.

He referred to the long run, so I pointed out how meaningless the long run actually is, since it's hardly measurable -- people love to distort the Keynes quote, but he of course meant that the long run is meaningless vis-a-vis the short run because it's hardly measurable, and the neoclassical assumption that markets are "self-correcting" in the long run is a farce at best, blatant distortion at worst.

Keynes's assertion that the market will not correct itself is unfounded, and based purely on an ideological bias.: :
Another case of projection! For goodness' sake, I'm finding this all over the place. No, completely wrong. You have no evidence whatsoever that the market is "self-correcting." In fact, we know -- from the 1800s, from 1929, from 2007, from 1986, from Greece for crying out loud -- that markets are not beautiful and self-correcting. You're living in a dream world. Thanks for proving my point that people attack Keynes without any facts, or even the slightest clue as to what they're talking about.

It wasn't hardly an appeal to authority, but a witty comeback based on economic history that I trust any modestly informed person knows. And I'm lost? That's hilarious. Where's Frederick Hayek's theory?
I'm not an Austrian; I'm more in line with the Chicago school of economics.:
And you probably differ from Austrians on...what? Anti-trust laws and monetary policy? Cut from the same BS neoclassical cloth.
Oh, that's right -- the ash heap of history where they belong. I love how libertarians and conservatives foolishly attack Keynes without any facts or knowledge. It's quite riveting, really.
I love how Keynesians foolishly ignore microeconomics. It's quite riveting, really.:

We don't ignore it. I could say, "I love how ignorant neoclassicals are still living in the world as it was two hundred years ago, and ONLY focus on flawed, unrealistic, unprovable microeconomic models."

That's just the key. There are macro factors at play that you guys completely ignore. You expect markets to be perfect, for them to clear at the efficient rate. You completely deny that markets are, by definition, highly unstable, and we know the danger of unregulated markets. You live in this ideological fantasy land that precludes even the slightest modicum of nuance. Your ignorance is literally laughable.
Topkek
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 3:13:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
OP, what does your study even prove? That corporations don't pay the taxes we think they do? Great, so how does that prove supply side economics doesn't work? All you've done is shown us that the top don't pay the taxes written on paper. That's it. After that, you have yet to make the connection to how this prove supply side economics doesn't work. Unless I'm missing something here, you're just perpetrating erroneous leaps of logic here.
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 3:24:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 3:13:57 PM, Topkek wrote:
OP, what does your study even prove? That corporations don't pay the taxes we think they do? Great, so how does that prove supply side economics doesn't work? All you've done is shown us that the top don't pay the taxes written on paper. That's it. After that, you have yet to make the connection to how this prove supply side economics doesn't work. Unless I'm missing something here, you're just perpetrating erroneous leaps of logic here.

Not even close. I explained the logic earlier, but I'll do so again for the somewhat less astute observer.

The entire premise of supply-side economics is this: get government out of the way, and businesses will thrive. Remove regs, cut taxes, cut "red tape," so forth and so on. Their argument for why the economy is so bad right now either has some BS to do with market signals -- unfounded, but this study didn't need to tell you that -- or about "business uncertainty" due to overtaxation. Well, that pile of BS fell, as what many of us already knew was codified in this study, and even BigDave80 won't dispute the numbers. In fact, he came out for a tax increase! Closing loopholes is a tax increase, though he won't admit as much. That's the crux of the matter. The second you come out for a tax increase, the second you admit that taxes are already low, that trickle-down economics has already been in play for 34 years and has done nothing, you concede that it is not, never was, and never will be a valid economy theory. To the ash heap of history it goes.
Topkek
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 3:49:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You are clearly straw-manning supply side economics here, most likely because you do not understand it. It isn't objectively lower taxes that supply side stands for, but lower taxes when taxes are too high so that they end up creating barriers to production. It is perfectly plausible for a proponent of supply side economics to advocate for higher taxes when taxes are too low, as measured with the Laffer curve and modifications of this model, so BigDave80 isn't in the wrong here. In addition, you still have yet to link this study of yours to how supply side economics has failed. All you've done is say "my opponents claim X causes Y, here is a study that says X isn't happening" when you should be saying "here is a study that says X does not cause Y".

Now I don't have much time right now to gather all my sources but one good example of how supply side economics is working is none other than Washington state, specifically Seattle. Their strong tax incentives for large corporations such as Boeing and Microsoft, as well as no income tax and a low property tax, ensures their city continues to expand and grow, and is what helped them absorb the effects of a $9+ minimum wage and a $15 wage for certain other employees (I can't remember what this latter group is made of but I think airport employees are a part of it).
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 4:39:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 2:45:05 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/17/2014 2:28:42 PM, DanT wrote:
It was malconsumption. It was consumption in a good or service that was not in the best interest of the consumer, because of false market signals.

I asked you for evidence, and instead you give me a two-sentence, anecdotal pile of forest gump. That's all this neoclassical worship of markets is.

I already did. People mal-consume due to the temporary change in the marginal rate of substitution. The only way to grow the economy is to increase capital and labor. You can do this by increasing trade, increasing advancements in technology, increasing raw material production, and increasing the knowledge skills and abilities of the working population.
Are you suggesting that financial systems overleveraging into toxic mortgages, rate agencies rating them as perfect even though they were backed by nothing, and then engaging in fraud and predator lending was "false market signals?" Give me a break. Keep this libertarian mythology in the religion forum where it belongs.

1.) Don't strawman me. I can speak for myself.
2.) Please refrain from ad hominem attacks

Nothing you said here was worth responding to, because it was irrelevant to what I said. I will not respond to conversations between you and yourself, as I am not a party to said conversation.
Must I invoke the great John Maynard Keynes? You probably know where I'm going with that.

Ignoring the obvious appeal to authority; if you are calling Keynes "great", then you are truly lost. While Keynes did had some good theories, his advocacy of demand side economics was entirely misguided.

That's funny, since supply-side economics has zero success, while demand-side has worked -- in Japan, in Britain, in the US leading up to and following WWII, etc.

Creating a temporary demand by confusing market signals is not economic growth, just like shaking up a soda bottle does not create more soda. All you are doing is temporarily changing the marginal rate of substitution, so the economy appears to be growing, which will just prolong the problem and make the overall situation worse.

Also, the reference in my post was to a Keynes quote:

"The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we're all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again."

I know what you were referring to. The long run is a period of time in which the factors of production are fixed as opposed to the short run where some variables exist;
Stop right there. Completely wrong. That's the MICROECONOMIC definition of the long and short run. The long run in macroeconomics is when prices, wages, and expectations are adjusting and self-correcting. Both are a mythology, have never happened, and are fully unrealistic, and I challenge you to point to one time in history where a textbook "long run" has ever taken place.

Please see what I said after the semi-colon. The long run supply is inelastic, so it is unaffected by price levels. You are acting as though microeconomics and macroeconomics are two separate schools of economic thought, when they are not. Microeconomics is the foundation of macroeconomics.

therefore in the long run the supply side is inelastic, while in the short run it is elastic.:
Exact opposite. The long run is self-correcting, while the short run in not. Yet we have data telling us not only that we're perpetually in the short run, but that a glut of labor in the short run can undermine long term growth -- that markets may clear, but may do so at inefficient equilibria. That's not part of the "hooray for markets" mythology, but this is simply the reality you and those of your libertarian cult refuse to recognize.

OK obviously you are ignorant of economics; elasticity refers to the the influence price has on the supply curve. When a curve is perfectly inelastic price levels don't have an impact on the curve, and when it is perfectly elastic the curve is defined by the price level. The long run aggregate supply is inelastic, meaning the price does not influence it. The long run aggregate supply equals the potential output, and the difference between the long run and short run supply depends on the difference between the expected price and actual price. The expected price is where the long run supply = the short run supply.
However we are not talking about the long run supply, we are talking about the future short term supply. That is to say when the market signals are confused in the present, it will have a detrimental effect on the future state of the economy.

Sure, but "market signals" had nothing to do with subprime. We're talking about subprime.

The FED artificially lowered the base rate, which reduced the risk of subprime lending, thereby encouraging subprime lending. It is market signals, and historical data proves this.
Keynes's assertion that the market will not correct itself is unfounded, and based purely on an ideological bias.: :
Another case of projection! For goodness' sake, I'm finding this all over the place. No, completely wrong. You have no evidence whatsoever that the market is "self-correcting." In fact, we know -- from the 1800s, from 1929, from 2007, from 1986, from Greece for crying out loud -- that markets are not beautiful and self-correcting.
They self correct when left alone. They don't self correct when policy makers try to intervene. If I was not constrained by character limits I would address the policies of each and every event you listed.
You're living in a dream world. Thanks for proving my point that people attack Keynes without any facts, or even the slightest clue as to what they're talking about.

You are the one living in a dream world. You throw up dates, without researching the historical and economic backgrounds of those events.

I'm not an Austrian; I'm more in line with the Chicago school of economics.:
And you probably differ from Austrians on...what? Anti-trust laws and monetary policy? Cut from the same BS neoclassical cloth.
Ad Hominem attacks are not arguments.
Oh, that's right -- the ash heap of history where they belong. I love how libertarians and conservatives foolishly attack Keynes without any facts or knowledge. It's quite riveting, really.
I love how Keynesians foolishly ignore microeconomics. It's quite riveting, really.:

We don't ignore it. I could say, "I love how ignorant neoclassicals are still living in the world as it was two hundred years ago, and ONLY focus on flawed, unrealistic, unprovable microeconomic models."

You cannot rely solely on macroeconomics. Once again micro and macro economics are not schools of thought, they are two sides of the same coin.
That's just the key. There are macro factors at play that you guys completely ignore. You expect markets to be perfect, for them to clear at the efficient rate. You completely deny that markets are, by definition, highly unstable, and we know the danger of unregulated markets. You live in this ideological fantasy land that precludes even the slightest modicum of nuance. Your ignorance is literally laughable.

You call me ideological when I am the least ideological person on this site. I go with what works, whereas you are just taking sides like most of the sheep in this world. You have no original thought in your head, you are just regurgitating misinformation without knowing what you are talking about.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 5:08:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I already did. People mal-consume due to the temporary change in the marginal rate of substitution. The only way to grow the economy is to increase capital and labor. You can do this by increasing trade, increasing advancements in technology, increasing raw material production, and increasing the knowledge skills and abilities of the working population.

No, you did not. Repeating yourself is not the equivalent of providing evidence. You've giving no evidence of malconsumption as the basis of the crisis. I would love to increase trade, technology, production, skills of the working population etc. The question is how do we do that? Or, better yet, how did things get so bad that what we had wasn't adequate. That's where you're wrong.

1.) Don't strawman me. I can speak for myself.
2.) Please refrain from ad hominem attacks

Do you even know a strawman is? Do you even know what an ad hominem is? Don't use words you don't understand to avoid responding to a credible, factual argument. I explained how the crisis came to fruition. You keep throwing around this red herring about malconsumption. Again, give me EVIDENCE that your highly debunked, Chicago School view is correct.

Nothing you said here was worth responding to, because it was irrelevant to what I said. I will not respond to conversations between you and yourself, as I am not a party to said conversation.

Paraphrase: Nothing is worthy responding to because they were too many facts that contradict your ideology. HE DARED TO QUESTION THE FREE MARKET?! DOES NOT COMPUTE!


Creating a temporary demand by confusing market signals is not economic growth, just like shaking up a soda bottle does not create more soda. All you are doing is temporarily changing the marginal rate of substitution, so the economy appears to be growing, which will just prolong the problem and make the overall situation worse.

The marginal rate of substitution is the slope of an indifference curve. That has to do with relative tastes from one commodity to the next. That's not what we're doing. We're looking at business surveys, acknowledging that the problems the business community admit they're facing is lack of demand, and responding in kind. I frankly don't care what they buy, but that they're spending -- that they're increasing the "C" portion of GDP, which is 70%, btw. But nice misrepresentation of my position. That, my friend, is a strawman.


Please see what I said after the semi-colon. The long run supply is inelastic, so it is unaffected by price levels. You are acting as though microeconomics and macroeconomics are two separate schools of economic thought, when they are not. Microeconomics is the foundation of macroeconomics.

I never said anything of the sort. What I gave you was the textbook definition of the long run in macro, which differs from the textbook definition of the long run in macro. It's as simple as that.


OK obviously you are ignorant of economics;
Yet you accuse me of ad hominem. At least I'm actually right. Ok, let's get into this:

elasticity refers to the the influence price has on the supply curve.: :
And demand curve, but sure.

When a curve is perfectly inelastic price levels don't have an impact on the curve, and when it is perfectly elastic the curve is defined by the price level. : :
Precisely. And the neoclassical assumption is that all markets are perfectly competitive, all react to the price levels, there are no asymmetries of information, market share, power and economies of scale, and that changing the price changes the allocation by definition.

The long run aggregate supply is inelastic, meaning the price does not influence it.: :
This is wrong, for the second time. The macro definition of long run -- you mentioned aggregate, so you're speaking of macro -- is SELF-CORRECTING. If you don't believe me, believe Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The long run aggregate supply equals the potential output, and the difference between the long run and short run supply depends on the difference between the expected price and actual price. The expected price is where the long run supply = the short run supply.: :
True.

However we are not talking about the long run supply, we are talking about the future short term supply. That is to say when the market signals are confused in the present, it will have a detrimental effect on the future state of the economy.

Way, way, way too much faith in markets, again.

The FED artificially lowered the base rate, which reduced the risk of subprime lending, thereby encouraging subprime lending. It is market signals, and historical data proves this.
Oh, another argument that the Fed caused the recession. Fun. Ok, I'll bite.

When you say "artificially lowered," you're literally introduce an unfounded idea. Artificial relative to what? The "market rate?" The Fed has set interest rates since its inception in 1913. Granted, in 47' with its dual mandate it was afforded greater leverage, but the notion that it, ipso facto, sparked the recession is nonsense. Greenspan was actually too much of an inflation hawk -- which no Chicago boy will tell you, by the way. If anything, the Fed enabled the crisis by not regulating, which Greenspan later regretted.

They self correct when left alone. They don't self correct when policy makers try to intervene. If I was not constrained by character limits I would address the policies of each and every event you listed.:
Here's what you can't seem to grasp: I want EVIDENCE. Give me an example of when the beautiful free market has self-corrected, but it has never happened. Tell me, also, how markets respond to failures -- pollution, et al. You believe in micro, so you've heard of a pigouvian tax. Do you support that to mollify pollution? That's a micro-endorsed response to pollution.


You are the one living in a dream world. You throw up dates, without researching the historical and economic backgrounds of those events.

Not even close. Do you dispute that the Great Depression, Great Recession, panics of the 1800s, et al. were a resulting of lack of oversight of the market economy? If you did, you'd be wrong. Again, this is projection and ad hominem on your end. You literally keep repeating "markets are perfect, and if you don't believe me, you don't understand economics." You, sir, are the one who is misinformed.

Ad Hominem attacks are not arguments. :
You keep throwing out this word without understanding what it means. I said "neoclassical BS" -- attacking neoclassical IDEAS, not those holding the ideas.


You cannot rely solely on macroeconomics. Once again micro and macro economics are not schools of thought, they are two sides of the same coin.

When did I say we could? You're making a boatload of assumptions. All I have ever said that is that the assumptions made in micro need to be improved upon for real-world applications because they simply do not hold in reality. There are many, many other variables at play.

I could counter this by saying that you intend only to rely on microeconomics, but you'd probably scream "ad hominem, you disproved my argument!"


You call me ideological when I am the least ideological person on this site. :
That's baseless, and clearly a load of malarkey given your remarks here.

I go with what works, whereas you are just taking sides like most of the sheep in this world. :
There's another ad hominem, and a case of a deliberate, misinformed projection. Actually, I look to facts and reality, rather than listening to what Ron Paul and his libertarian buddies scream about the Fed being evil. I used to be a libertarian, and then I read a few books and realized how flawed and dogmatic the ideology is.

You have no original thought in your head, you are just regurgitat
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 5:11:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"You call me ideological when I am the least ideological person on this site. I go with what works, whereas you are just taking sides like most of the sheep in this world. You have no original thought in your head, you are just regurgitating misinformation without knowing what you are talking about."

I love how you're insulting me, claiming that I'm a sheep "without an original thought in my head." That's so deliberate, asinine, misinformed, and ad hominem that I shouldn't even dignify it with a response, but I will do it.

You calling anyone stupid is absolutely laughable. My ribs hurt from the irony. You, as a believer in the unshakable market who eschews any facts or nuance that comes your way, calling someone else a sheep is absolutely. You, claiming malconsumption and the Fed were the cause of the crisis -- and then screaming "Ad hominem" when I pointed out that financial instruments on Wall Street were the actual cause -- telling someone else that he is spewing misinformation is, again, laughable.

I'm done. I've made my case.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 5:57:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 5:08:34 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I already did. People mal-consume due to the temporary change in the marginal rate of substitution. The only way to grow the economy is to increase capital and labor. You can do this by increasing trade, increasing advancements in technology, increasing raw material production, and increasing the knowledge skills and abilities of the working population.

No, you did not. Repeating yourself is not the equivalent of providing evidence. You've giving no evidence of malconsumption as the basis of the crisis. I would love to increase trade, technology, production, skills of the working population etc. The question is how do we do that? Or, better yet, how did things get so bad that what we had wasn't adequate. That's where you're wrong.

OK I'm going to have to break up my response due to character restraints, because you obviously want a lengthy reply, which I can't do with the character limit allotted to me.

How do we increase the knowledge skills and abilities of workers, and how did we get to here?
Education

Currently there is a crisis with the rising cost of college tuition. College tuition is rising because their educators are Masters and Doctors of their respective fields; therefore educational institutes must compete with other industries to hire qualified educators. This creates a shrinking supply of educators, because other industries offer better incentives.
The natural solution to this would be to have an excess of Masters and Doctors, to hire retired Masters and Doctors and/or to provide Masters and Doctors with a secondary income by hiring them on as part time professors.
Because the education market is no way in a natural state, we must resort to artificial incentives. The current policy is to increase demand for education with student financial aid (tax breaks, grants, scholarships, easy to obtain loans, student debt forgiveness, etc.). This increases the demand for a market with a shrinking supply, thereby further straining the already maxed out capacities of educational facilities. That is why tuition is still increasing while the quality of education is in a steep decline.
A better alternative would be a supply side fix, where the current money going towards students is redirected as a subsidization for hiring more educators along with other educational operation costs. By reducing operation costs we would reduce the cost of tuition, thereby allowing more students to naturally afford higher education without financial assistance.

Work Experience

Real world experience is just as important as, if not more important than, formal education. Minimum wage laws hurt inexperienced workers, because it sets a minimum requirement for employment. Employers hire employees based on the marginal revenue product of labor, and the more relevant knowledge skills and abilities (KSAs) an employee has the more valuable they are to the employer. If an employee's KSAs are lower in value than the minimum wage, they will not be able to find employment. Therefore eliminating, or at least lowering, the minimum wage would be a step towards work experience.

An employer takes a risk when they hire a new employee, and the greener the employee the greater the risk. There are all kinds of costs to hiring new employees. Policies that increase the risk of hiring new employees can hurt the economy. For example, in France the government is so involved in employment contracts that it is near impossible to get out of a contract once it is formed. Unions, protecting the lowest common denominator, also increases the risk of employment and hurts productivity. Government Policies regarding pregnancy can also increase the risk of hiring pregnant women, and even non-pregnant women, due to frivolous lawsuits if their employment needs to be terminated. Reducing the risk of employment, and refraining from policies that create additional risks can help increase the rate of employment. We can also increase employment of inexperienced workers by granting financial incentives to employers that hire inexperienced workers. Such as tax breaks, and subsidized training.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Topkek
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 8:16:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"I frankly don't care what they buy, but that they're spending -- that they're increasing the "C" portion of GDP, which is 70%, btw."

It's not actually.

http://www.businessweek.com...
http://m.nationalreview.com...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 10:01:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 5:11:24 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
"You call me ideological when I am the least ideological person on this site. I go with what works, whereas you are just taking sides like most of the sheep in this world. You have no original thought in your head, you are just regurgitating misinformation without knowing what you are talking about."


I love how you're insulting me, claiming that I'm a sheep "without an original thought in my head." That's so deliberate, asinine, misinformed, and ad hominem that I shouldn't even dignify it with a response, but I will do it.

You calling anyone stupid is absolutely laughable. My ribs hurt from the irony. You, as a believer in the unshakable market who eschews any facts or nuance that comes your way, calling someone else a sheep is absolutely. You, claiming malconsumption and the Fed were the cause of the crisis -- and then screaming "Ad hominem" when I pointed out that financial instruments on Wall Street were the actual cause -- telling someone else that he is spewing misinformation is, again, laughable.


I'm done. I've made my case.

Your timeline is a bit screwed up. I claimed false market signals caused malconsumption. You claimed it was financial instruments on wall st. I then pointed out that the FED caused Wall St.'s actions by confusing market signals, which led to malconsumption. You can't just stop at where you like when investigating the sequence of events leading up to a crisis; you have to look at the whole picture. The problem with Keynesians is that they like to over simply things. "Y=C+I+G so when C+I lacks we need to increase G".... Too bad G = T+d(RR+ER)+dB, so increasing G means increasing T, ER, or B. An increase in T would reduce (Y-T), and an increase in B would increase r, resulting in a decrease in I. That only leaves increasing ER, which would increase D, thereby inflating the economy.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 10:31:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 10:01:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/17/2014 5:11:24 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
"You call me ideological when I am the least ideological person on this site. I go with what works, whereas you are just taking sides like most of the sheep in this world. You have no original thought in your head, you are just regurgitating misinformation without knowing what you are talking about."


I love how you're insulting me, claiming that I'm a sheep "without an original thought in my head." That's so deliberate, asinine, misinformed, and ad hominem that I shouldn't even dignify it with a response, but I will do it.

You calling anyone stupid is absolutely laughable. My ribs hurt from the irony. You, as a believer in the unshakable market who eschews any facts or nuance that comes your way, calling someone else a sheep is absolutely. You, claiming malconsumption and the Fed were the cause of the crisis -- and then screaming "Ad hominem" when I pointed out that financial instruments on Wall Street were the actual cause -- telling someone else that he is spewing misinformation is, again, laughable.


I'm done. I've made my case.

Your timeline is a bit screwed up. I claimed false market signals caused malconsumption. You claimed it was financial instruments on wall st. I then pointed out that the FED caused Wall St.'s actions by confusing market signals, which led to malconsumption. You can't just stop at where you like when investigating the sequence of events leading up to a crisis; you have to look at the whole picture. The problem with Keynesians is that they like to over simply things. "Y=C+I+G so when C+I lacks we need to increase G".... Too bad G = T+d(RR+ER)+dB, so increasing G means increasing T, ER, or B. An increase in T would reduce (Y-T), and an increase in B would increase r, resulting in a decrease in I. That only leaves increasing ER, which would increase D, thereby inflating the economy.

What do all of those equations (other than the first on GDP, obviously) mean? I'm not sure if you're trolling me, or if those are actually a thing, and I'm genuinely interested.
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 10:32:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 8:16:12 PM, Topkek wrote:
"I frankly don't care what they buy, but that they're spending -- that they're increasing the "C" portion of GDP, which is 70%, btw."

It's not actually.

http://www.businessweek.com...
http://m.nationalreview.com...

First off, citing two-right wing articles isn't going to disprove....every macroeconomics textbook.
kiryasjoelvillage
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 12:58:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 10:00:35 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 9:56:46 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
Trickle down is a derogatory term used to describe supply side economics.

Supply side economics does hold pretty true over long periods of time.

A game of semantics is irrelevant here, but I'll humor you and call it supply-side.

It clearly doesn't -- and I know, since you responded so quickly, that you haven't read the study. Please do so, and then tell me with a straight face that supply-side economics -- a critical component of which, obviously, is marginal rate cuts and business tax cuts/investment credits -- has or does worked.

Also, what do you mean by "long periods of time?" Must I invoke the great John Maynard Keynes? You probably know where I'm going with that.
The Things which i have read are really interesting.
Thanks for sharing!!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 4:02:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 10:31:48 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/17/2014 10:01:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/17/2014 5:11:24 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
"You call me ideological when I am the least ideological person on this site. I go with what works, whereas you are just taking sides like most of the sheep in this world. You have no original thought in your head, you are just regurgitating misinformation without knowing what you are talking about."


I love how you're insulting me, claiming that I'm a sheep "without an original thought in my head." That's so deliberate, asinine, misinformed, and ad hominem that I shouldn't even dignify it with a response, but I will do it.

You calling anyone stupid is absolutely laughable. My ribs hurt from the irony. You, as a believer in the unshakable market who eschews any facts or nuance that comes your way, calling someone else a sheep is absolutely. You, claiming malconsumption and the Fed were the cause of the crisis -- and then screaming "Ad hominem" when I pointed out that financial instruments on Wall Street were the actual cause -- telling someone else that he is spewing misinformation is, again, laughable.


I'm done. I've made my case.

Your timeline is a bit screwed up. I claimed false market signals caused malconsumption. You claimed it was financial instruments on wall st. I then pointed out that the FED caused Wall St.'s actions by confusing market signals, which led to malconsumption. You can't just stop at where you like when investigating the sequence of events leading up to a crisis; you have to look at the whole picture. The problem with Keynesians is that they like to over simply things. "Y=C+I+G so when C+I lacks we need to increase G".... Too bad G = T+d(C+RR+ER)+dB, so increasing G means increasing T, ER, or B. An increase in T would reduce (Y-T), and an increase in B would increase r, resulting in a decrease in I. That only leaves increasing ER, which would increase D, thereby inflating the economy.

What do all of those equations (other than the first on GDP, obviously) mean? I'm not sure if you're trolling me, or if those are actually a thing, and I'm genuinely interested.

There in lies my point. You know Output (Y) = Private Consumption (C) + Investments (I) + Government spending (G), because it is a simple equation. You go on about the ramifications of it's simplicity while remaining ignorant of the deeper economic mechanisms at play. Government spending (G) = Taxes (T) + the change in the monetary base (d(MB)) + the change in bonds (dB). The Monetary base is comprised of Cash (C) + Required Reserves (RR) + Excess Reserves (ER).

By law the government by law cannot increase the monetary base without backing it with securities, so if the government decides to increase the base, they must increase excess reserves through the FED. Those excess reserves becomes required reserves through fractional banking by Commercial Banks, thereby increasing deposits (D). The monetary supply is comprised of Cash (C) + Deposits (D), so increasing the Reserves of the monetary base eventually leads to increases in the Monetary Supply.

If you want to avoid inflation, the only other 2 alternatives would be raising Taxes (T) or issuing Bonds (B). Raising Taxes reduces disposable income (Y-T), and issuing bonds increases the real interest rate (r), because as the bond price decreases the interest rate increases. More bonds also means more debt, and higher interest rates are required for a debtor to receive additional loans.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 4:06:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 10:32:42 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/17/2014 8:16:12 PM, Topkek wrote:
"I frankly don't care what they buy, but that they're spending -- that they're increasing the "C" portion of GDP, which is 70%, btw."

It's not actually.

http://www.businessweek.com...
http://m.nationalreview.com...


First off, citing two-right wing articles isn't going to disprove....every macroeconomics textbook.

Businessweek is not a right wing article.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 7:06:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 4:02:09 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/17/2014 10:31:48 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/17/2014 10:01:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/17/2014 5:11:24 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
"You call me ideological when I am the least ideological person on this site. I go with what works, whereas you are just taking sides like most of the sheep in this world. You have no original thought in your head, you are just regurgitating misinformation without knowing what you are talking about."


I love how you're insulting me, claiming that I'm a sheep "without an original thought in my head." That's so deliberate, asinine, misinformed, and ad hominem that I shouldn't even dignify it with a response, but I will do it.

You calling anyone stupid is absolutely laughable. My ribs hurt from the irony. You, as a believer in the unshakable market who eschews any facts or nuance that comes your way, calling someone else a sheep is absolutely. You, claiming malconsumption and the Fed were the cause of the crisis -- and then screaming "Ad hominem" when I pointed out that financial instruments on Wall Street were the actual cause -- telling someone else that he is spewing misinformation is, again, laughable.


I'm done. I've made my case.

Your timeline is a bit screwed up. I claimed false market signals caused malconsumption. You claimed it was financial instruments on wall st. I then pointed out that the FED caused Wall St.'s actions by confusing market signals, which led to malconsumption. You can't just stop at where you like when investigating the sequence of events leading up to a crisis; you have to look at the whole picture. The problem with Keynesians is that they like to over simply things. "Y=C+I+G so when C+I lacks we need to increase G".... Too bad G = T+d(C+RR+ER)+dB, so increasing G means increasing T, ER, or B. An increase in T would reduce (Y-T), and an increase in B would increase r, resulting in a decrease in I. That only leaves increasing ER, which would increase D, thereby inflating the economy.

What do all of those equations (other than the first on GDP, obviously) mean? I'm not sure if you're trolling me, or if those are actually a thing, and I'm genuinely interested.

There in lies my point. You know Output (Y) = Private Consumption (C) + Investments (I) + Government spending (G), because it is a simple equation. You go on about the ramifications of it's simplicity while remaining ignorant of the deeper economic mechanisms at play. Government spending (G) = Taxes (T) + the change in the monetary base (d(MB)) + the change in bonds (dB). The Monetary base is comprised of Cash (C) + Required Reserves (RR) + Excess Reserves (ER).

By law the government by law cannot increase the monetary base without backing it with securities, so if the government decides to increase the base, they must increase excess reserves through the FED. Those excess reserves becomes required reserves through fractional banking by Commercial Banks, thereby increasing deposits (D). The monetary supply is comprised of Cash (C) + Deposits (D), so increasing the Reserves of the monetary base eventually leads to increases in the Monetary Supply.

If you want to avoid inflation, the only other 2 alternatives would be raising Taxes (T) or issuing Bonds (B). Raising Taxes reduces disposable income (Y-T), and issuing bonds increases the real interest rate (r), because as the bond price decreases the interest rate increases. More bonds also means more debt, and higher interest rates are required for a debtor to receive additional loans.

How can you possibly reason that, by virtue of having never seen those equations before, I'm ignorant? You're literally grasping at straws in a feeble attempt to attack me, while hiding behind your free-market baloney.

My question to you is this: where did you find those? To my knowledge, they have not appeared in a textbook -- and I take it we both have a respect for textbook economics, so surely you must have taken them from a reputable source. They indeed seem intuitively plausible and I understand them after reading your post, but I simply want to read up further on them so that we can have this debate.
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 7:13:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 4:02:09 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/17/2014 10:31:48 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/17/2014 10:01:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/17/2014 5:11:24 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
"You call me ideological when I am the least ideological person on this site. I go with what works, whereas you are just taking sides like most of the sheep in this world. You have no original thought in your head, you are just regurgitating misinformation without knowing what you are talking about."


I love how you're insulting me, claiming that I'm a sheep "without an original thought in my head." That's so deliberate, asinine, misinformed, and ad hominem that I shouldn't even dignify it with a response, but I will do it.

You calling anyone stupid is absolutely laughable. My ribs hurt from the irony. You, as a believer in the unshakable market who eschews any facts or nuance that comes your way, calling someone else a sheep is absolutely. You, claiming malconsumption and the Fed were the cause of the crisis -- and then screaming "Ad hominem" when I pointed out that financial instruments on Wall Street were the actual cause -- telling someone else that he is spewing misinformation is, again, laughable.


I'm done. I've made my case.

Your timeline is a bit screwed up. I claimed false market signals caused malconsumption. You claimed it was financial instruments on wall st. I then pointed out that the FED caused Wall St.'s actions by confusing market signals, which led to malconsumption. You can't just stop at where you like when investigating the sequence of events leading up to a crisis; you have to look at the whole picture. The problem with Keynesians is that they like to over simply things. "Y=C+I+G so when C+I lacks we need to increase G".... Too bad G = T+d(C+RR+ER)+dB, so increasing G means increasing T, ER, or B. An increase in T would reduce (Y-T), and an increase in B would increase r, resulting in a decrease in I. That only leaves increasing ER, which would increase D, thereby inflating the economy.

What do all of those equations (other than the first on GDP, obviously) mean? I'm not sure if you're trolling me, or if those are actually a thing, and I'm genuinely interested.

There in lies my point. You know Output (Y) = Private Consumption (C) + Investments (I) + Government spending (G), because it is a simple equation. You go on about the ramifications of it's simplicity while remaining ignorant of the deeper economic mechanisms at play. Government spending (G) = Taxes (T) + the change in the monetary base (d(MB)) + the change in bonds (dB). The Monetary base is comprised of Cash (C) + Required Reserves (RR) + Excess Reserves (ER).

By law the government by law cannot increase the monetary base without backing it with securities, so if the government decides to increase the base, they must increase excess reserves through the FED. Those excess reserves becomes required reserves through fractional banking by Commercial Banks, thereby increasing deposits (D). The monetary supply is comprised of Cash (C) + Deposits (D), so increasing the Reserves of the monetary base eventually leads to increases in the Monetary Supply.

If you want to avoid inflation, the only other 2 alternatives would be raising Taxes (T) or issuing Bonds (B). Raising Taxes reduces disposable income (Y-T), and issuing bonds increases the real interest rate (r), because as the bond price decreases the interest rate increases. More bonds also means more debt, and higher interest rates are required for a debtor to receive additional loans.

And, again, you keep insinuating that this is a supply problem we're dealing with, and the only way to solve the problem is to get market forces back into play. You won't even entertain the idea that you could possibly be -- gasp -- wrong. You're calling me ignorant -- a blatant ad hominem, might I add, made worse by the fact that you're regurgitating BS -- yet you're spouting obsequious mickey moose, no-nuance economics.

Read the study I posted. Corporate rates are ALREADY down. There have already been studies concluding that (1) the Fed did not cause the crisis of 2008, (2) tax rates are near historic lows, (3) tax rates have virtually no discernible impact on investment, productivity and savings level -- contrary to micro models, and (4) the US economy -- as well as European economies with significantly lower Gini coefficients than the US -- have thrived with more equitable distributions of wealth and higher tax rates.

So, please, before you pontificate, source your arguments, cut the anecdotes, and inform yourself. Because right now you're sounding like a sheep.