1RuleNoRules

How Washington's Policymakers Are Damaging the U.S. Economy

Whether correctly interpreted or not Keynes made it OK for government to spend to generate growth, when intuition tells us that the less government takes from the private sector the more the private sector will grow. What our founding father tried to avoid, boundless government, Keynes has established through economic theory. Keynes, has empowered socialism through the interpretation of his theories and for this his theories are un-American. Let the Europeans experiment with Keynesianism.

Outlandish CEO Pay: How to Fix the Problem

The consensus here seems to be government needs to fix it.
When we change he question, less government is the answer.

What is wrong with our economy and the labor market for CEO's that even bad CEO's get ridiculous amounts of compensation? Big government has decimated the "farm system" of small and intermediate businesses that should have been creating the super stars of enterprise.Unemployment and stagnation are only the last symptoms of an economy under stress. The first signs(that we ignored) were stagnant wages, disposable everything from cars to toasters. Before layoffs came insidious cost cutting and stagnant wages because of endless erosion of opportunity that began in the late 60's.

www.cato.org/pub_displ...

www.house.gov/jec/grow...

The Economist on the Failure of Economics

Without creating panic and sell-offs. Allen Greenspan has been warning of the housing bubble and banking problems for at least 10 years. He has been complaining about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pointing to derivatives as the vehicle that enables the process and the bubble to come clearly to Congress. The Bubble gum media did not see the words of a statesman as the warning bell that it was and Congress was unable to act because of decades of rhetoric and political posturing. Economics be damned as long as the bubble does burst during their term.
Now, the bubble gum media points to Greenspan as the source instead as the only culpable villain is Congress.

Don't Confuse Higher Tax Rates with Higher Tax Revenues

So you agree that revenue went up under the Reagan administration even though you cherry picked your years. I now assume that because you have such a secure grip on the facts that you already knew that economists do not look to the affects of a phased tax cut until after the final year. Going no further I see that the facts are not what you are looking for. The original argument for supply side tax cuts was that the small decrease in revenue would be offset by the greater increase in economic production. The problem with this was that revenue did indeed go up as you have pointed out after being pressed for more info, and the supply siders did not expect that. True, I don't have the details as you do but I do have the truth my friend. Perhaps you need to reread your data and first remove your bias.

Don't Confuse Higher Tax Rates with Higher Tax Revenues

I thought tax revenues doubled under Reagan.
Complete and utter nonsense is looking to to Treasury Dept. for unbiased reporting of their own failures.
Your numbers only show why phased tax cuts only count in the year after the last phase, Spending and investment is delayed until the complete tax cut. Phasing in Reagan tax cuts only prolonged the recession.
So what happened to revenue in '85, '86, '87, '88, '05?

On Jul 15 11:36 AM Vox Rationalis wrote:

> "Time and time again, we have seen how tax rate cuts have spurred
> employment, economic growth, and tax revenues."
>
> Complete and utter nonsense. This is a favorite line of the anti-tax
> crowd, repeated so often in so many forums that many people have
> come to accept it unquestioningly. But I've yet to see a good argument
> supporting the notion that in our economy, with tax rates comparable
> to ours, lowering tax rates results in more tax revenue or raising
> them leads to less.
>
> I invite anyone who disagrees to build an argument against me on
> this. But before you do, note that one of Bush's chief economic
> advisors has clearly stated that tax cuts do not pay for themselves
> (Greg Mankiw, "Principles of Economics, 1998). And the 2003 Economic
> Report of the President makes clear that while the economy should
> grow in response to tax cuts, the economy is "unlikely to grow so
> much that lost revenue is completely recovered by the higher level
> of economic activity."
>
> Not satisfied? Read the 2003 Treasury Department report (revised
> 2006) titled "Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills." Here are the percentage
> effects on revenue of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, in the subsequent
> 4 years:
>
> 1981: -5.7, -12.3, -16.5, -18.6
> 2001: -1.7, -3.9, -4.4, -4.2
> 2003: -6.3, -3.4, -0.4, -0.1
>
> Now, here's what the Bush Treasury Department report says happened
> when Clinton raised taxes:
>
> 1993: +2.0, +3.5, +3.9, +4.7
>
> I eagerly await any analysis supporting your assertion.

Why Macroeconomists Are Particularly Obtuse

WHOA!!
Tax revenue double under Reagan because of his tax cuts. Spending was philosophically entrenched and controlled by mostly a democratic congress. The Reagan Administration was taken to the whipping post(in the broadcast media) on every proposed reduction in future spending, it was ridiculous, reports of future cuts in spending would be backdropped by poor hungry children sitting on a porch in impoverished W.VA. Between Bush and Reagan wee balanced budgets and $0 debt.
Thank Ronald Reagan and the wave of supply side congressman that followed his lead.
Please eliminate spiked Kool-Aid from the disscusion.

The Deficit Has Become Sexy Again

The same is true for answer A.
They want to know if accept the answer even if the result is bad.


On Jun 21 10:49 AM nobby73 wrote:

> Question 24 is framed to lead people to answer B, through the second
> half of each statement.
>
> We all know what needs to happen and now the people are being prepared
> for the spending cuts and tax increases to come. After all, the
> foreign holders of US assets are driving the bus now and this is
> where they want to go...

The Deficit Has Become Sexy Again

It has been the(supply side) argument that tax cuts generate revenue not decrease it at high bracket taxation levels. It also has been customary for CBO and WHBO to project reductions in revenue for tax cuts and increases in revenue for tax hikes with the result being the opposite. I remember David Stockman testifying before congress that deficits will be ballooning and continuing into the new millennium. He did not foresee balanced budgets and $0 debt in between while he complained of tax cuts.
$0 debt coincidentally occurred during the administration of a Democrat, and more importantly, Gingrich as speaker as if things needed to be more confusing.

Greenspan's Ghouls, Kool-Aid Drinkers and the Shortcomings of Obama's Reforms

It seems to me that we are falling short on our attempts to see the big picture, except for some commentators. The 2 primary arguments against regulation are interference in the free market as an undesirable event and that the Government cannot arbitrate and regulate without becoming advocates for the industry and entities they are empowered to oversee. The previous argument has been proven by our recent experience, especially when the banking industry did it gallant best to absorbed junk debt generated by, more government, Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac. Perhaps now we need to see the main argument against Government regulation is incompetence. Government is not competent to oversee or regulate anything. It is the prevalence of this view compared to other countries that has helped provide us with our successes.
Bush Republicans (<-- interesting slang connotation arises here) are not competent to deregulate, and were unable to accept the Reagan arguments against big government but were able to at least see the selling features of low tax rates. And equally incompetent in claiming victory when those tax cuts generated higher tax revenues. Our liberal media ignores these facts as coincidental.
The constant theme of correcting what has gone wrong with banking is controlling banks. Very marketable idea and very wrong. We, as a nation, must see that the villain was and is government and its approach to providing a level playing field. Probably the most damaging effect of regulation was its probably unintended consequence of encouraging merger and acquisition and creating institutions that are too big to fail. Our tax system is a very strong incentive(or disincentive) to industry and should be used to encourage all large enterprises to spin off successful divisions and departments. Taxes should not reward or even mitigate failure, and easily could provide the means to guide corporate structures to enhance the public good while creating a level playing field which should be the extent and limit of government intervention and regulation.
To blame anything other than the philosophy of government on banking, finance and even auto industry problems is misguided and doomed to more failure both foreseen and unforeseen.
It seems odd, I hope not just to me, that blame is directed toward Greenspan when it was his lone voice was heard clearly complaining of Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac and without causing panic and sell-offs. It is unfortunate although not rare that the cure gets the blame in deregulation.

When Economics Collide with Politics

You imply that after a far swing to the far economic right it now swings to the far left. True Reagan was on the economic right but he pushed the pendulum to the center and it has drifted back ever since, particularly after Gingrich left office. The swing to the left began in the 30's and we will now see it swing to the right over the next 60-80 years. What we are experiencing now is a rebellion against the caretaker administrations after Reagan. As anemic growth gives way to stagnation during the caretaker regimes Americans will again demand what Reagan was selling, American Greatness. This pendulum is swing has a much bigger amplitude than 15 years.

United States vs. European Union: Who Games the Crisis Better?

What I don't get is why didn't any nation dramatically cut spending and top tax rates as a stimulus. Especially when cutting top tax rates have been the most successful method in recent history to stimulate growth(and reduce deficits).
Test tubes like this don't come around often and no one tried the tried and true.

Who Is to Blame for the Deficit? (Hint: It Doesn't Matter)

Not knowing who to blame is not knowing how to vote.
We definitely don't know who is to blame.

Household Net Worth's Big Declines - Why a Graph Tells a Better Story

How much of that wealth was unrealized property value?
Paper wealth that was not seen and was in real estate appraisals over that 15years.

Economic Challenges: Comparing Obama to FDR

Milton Friedman stated that the Great Depression was caused by the Feds failure to maintain the money supply. There was a sharp decline in the money supply as the 2 main branches of the Fed argued over who was calling the shots. According to Milton Friedman, the recovery came as money supply was corrected. This would make FDR irrelevant. For that matter, Obama will also be irrelevant if the current crisis has been created by a steadily growing government drawing wealth and resources from the private sector.
So, You all don't know what you are talking about : )

It's the Soil That's Bad, Not the Green Shoots

>The pervasive irrational mindset that the largest industrialize >nation’s infrastructure can be had with niggardly taxation defies logic.


The source of this logic is increased revenue immediately after Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts, and decreased revenue following tax increases. WBO and CBO have consistently errored in its estimates of revenue after changes in tax rates. We have reached the logical limit of taxation and it is not at extremely high levels (See Laffer curve).