Downgraded

Post Reply New Topic

Honey, providing definitions for economic words does not help your economic arguments.

Arguments ought to be judged on their own intrinsic merit. It does not matter who says something, what their name is, or what their status in life is.

If a crackhead looks up on a clear day and proclaims "the sky is blue" is that statement wrong on the virtue that it was said by a crackhead? No of course not.

You think Rothbard is some kind of crackhead - I don't agree with you but I understand where you are coming from - that crazy bastard will adress any topic under the sun - even if nobody else will touch the topic with a hundred foot pole. Just because he said something you think is crazy - and maybe most people would agree with you - but that does not mean everything he says is false by association.

So feel free to use that. Whenever a right winger decides to argue on the basis of "so and so is a communist bastard" or "that's just liberal propaganda" doesn't refute the actual substance of the argument being made - let them know that.

Clearly is was the democrats fault on S&Ps decisi
[img][800:259]http://i.imgur.com/cPX5A.png[/img]

Well of course.

S&P today admitted (again) that the default threat entertained by some politicians was shocking and not something you see with AAA nations. A direct shot at teabaggers.

And at the debate last night Republicans were asked if they would accept a deal that cut spending 10:1, cuts to revenue. Every single one said they'd oppose it. Baby wants his rattle.

You have identified a single potential cause of inflation and then conflated that cause with the meaning.

As you point out, Inflation can occur as a result of monetary policy actions.

But it can also occur as a result of high economic growth--with greater aggregate demand in the marketplace, prices will tend to rise.

It can occur as a result of sectoral triggers--when petroleum exporters are disrupted, the price of crude rises, adding to inflationary pressure.

It can occur as a result of environmental triggers--hard winters tend to raise home heating expenditures. Crop failures tend to lift food prices.

While monetary policy is one of the two economic levers that government has at its disposal to address inflation and deflation, it is not the only cause of inflation or deflation.

Inflation, historically, has been defined as the increase of the money supply. Price inflation is the phenomenon of rising prices.

Heh, there is a fatal flaw with your argument, and that's the deal that was originally on the table. It had $800 billion in revenue increases by closing tax loopholes. At the last minute Obama moved the goal post and demanded $400 billion in tax hikes.

Boehner walked out because Obama was acting like keeping one's word in an agreement only applied to other people, and that he (Obama) could do whatever he wanted as though he was a king.

Okay, so now that we're clear on that, I'll say that I might read Rothbard if and only if I planned to read several books on the Great Depression, in order to get a diversity of opinions. I don't intend to read any books on the Great Depression, though, and if I read only one, I'd read one that had broad acceptance, by a broadly respected author.

PLEASE AVOID CONFUSING "REVENUES" WITH "TAXES."

Raising "revenue" has little to do with taxation. You can lower tax rates and bring in more revenue if it stimulates economic activity. You can likewise raise taxes and hinder revenue generation because it ret*ds economic activity.

This inappropriate word game now going on is by design to blur the distinction between "raising taxes" and "increasing revenue" which are not one and the same thing.

That's a rather significant 'if.'

This is the game Boehner was playing with his agreement to revenues (not tax hikes), which is why the deal folded. Note, S&P specifically named the expiration of the Bush tax cuts as the move they wanted to see. Their positive outlook includes the expiration of these tax cuts. Their negative outlook keeps the cuts in place.

Revenues are gotten from 5 sources:

1. Taxes
2. Rents
3. Sale of Asssets
4. Charging for services or goods.
5. Voluntary Contributions

ruveyn

That's not at all what it means for purposes of the discussion going on in Congress.

You can imagine they are talking about whatever you want, but that's not reality.

S&P pretty clearly was equating raising revenue with some version of raising taxes. I agree with you in theory, but where we are in the economic curve of taxes-reaction, we're pretty much stuck with raising taxes to raise revenue. Or closing loopholes, which certain conservatives seem to feel is the same as raising taxes (especially since your loophole is my necessary tax break). There are times you can cut taxes and stimulate economic activity, but it rarely is enough to offset the direct loss of revenues. Regardless, we aren't in one of those times; that isn't where things sit on the curve. With income tax rates still at relatively historic lows, and at a point where tax rates really do NOT drive economic decision making, you wouldn't get an economic boost today. As a tax professional, I truly believe that tax rates could be tweaked up a percent or two or three very little negative economic effect, and a substantial increase to actual revenue. Every business and individual I work with knows it has to happen, and has been ready for it for years.

As a side note: It seems to me that all the interesting stuff with taxes is happening at the state level, and in international transactions. Nothing to do with the basic federal income tax rates. And yet there is little political momentum fighting it. Amusing, when you realize that it was changes to the Texas margin tax that took the combined state tax liabilities of one of my clients from $1,000 a year to $80,000. But that floats right under the voter radar. And the client ... still operates in Texas. Barely skipped a beat over it. Imagine the political outcry if federal taxes increased 80 times!