Does trickle down economics/austrian economics/conservatives

Page 2 of 3 [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

19 May 2012, 8:14 pm

xenon13 wrote:
What's wrong with these people being forced to sell things when that happens all the time. Corporate raiders seize companies and empty the pension plans and strip mine the companies, the state are forced to privatise natural monopolies and increase the cost of doing business. These are practices that have picked up during the neoliberal age of coddling the very wealthy in the name of making sure they don't have to sell some of their precious assets.


Mostly because taxing working capital ultimately ends up hurting small and medium size business owners more than the ultra rich.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,568

19 May 2012, 8:28 pm

This idea that restoring marginal tax rates to what they were in a more balanced time with better economic performance in general will damage small and medium sized business is not backed up by any facts. They always claim that any tax on the well off will soak small and medium sized business, that's the ace up their sleeve that they always use but it's a lie.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

19 May 2012, 8:42 pm

xenon13 wrote:
This idea that restoring marginal tax rates to what they were in a more balanced time with better economic performance in general will damage small and medium sized business is not backed up by any facts. They always claim that any tax on the well off will soak small and medium sized business, that's the ace up their sleeve that they always use but it's a lie.


http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/ideasatwor ... reneurship

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 270300046X

http://pdfcast.org/pdf/the-effect-of-co ... reneurship

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 26290.html



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

07 Sep 2012, 9:38 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The three shouldn't be lumped together too quickly.

"Trickle-down" economics, which is probably better termed supply side economics, basically says that by removing taxes and regulations jobs will be created. The rationale is that certain tax cuts favor capital investment, which is necessary for businesses to grow and require more labor. Also, reducing regulations decreases the cost of doing business which will thus cause greater growth in businesses which will increase the demand for labor.

Austrian economics doesn't really believe in "creating jobs" as a policy initiative, but rather they think the concept is rather confused. Austrian economists see the existence of jobs simply to be instances where the exchange of money for labor is in the best interest of both sides, and in general, they tend to favor free markets so as to allow these exchanges to be found and used with efficiency. Their general belief is that the best policy for governing society is laissez faire.

"Conservatives" is a political category. It's difficult to extrapolate much from other than that conservatives identify with businesses, and they identify with a market economy, and they will try to act on those identifications, even though there will be some conflicts.


That's very beautifully said.

To find Austrian Economics, you're more apt to find it among Libertarians than among Conservatives. Conservatives may proclaim the greatness of Austrian Economics, but I find that they generally don't understand it at all.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

07 Sep 2012, 9:44 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
cut regulation

Deregulation of the banks is a big part of what caused the recession in the first place. As for environmental regulation, that's there for a reason. To be honest, there isn't anything like enough of it. It continues to fail to make our society sustainable.

I don't know if trickle down economics work or not, but I do know that I find them morally wrong. The rich should have to pay more taxes than the poor, not less.


Artificially low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve created the housing bubble which caused the recession. The free market when left alone will regulate itself.

also, the rich do pay more in taxes


Uttter and complete nonsense.

Canada had comparable interest rates to the United States, but we didn't experience bank collapses. Germany had comparable interest rates to the United States--but they didn't experience bank collapses.

The simple fact of the matter is that US and British banking and securities regulation were so woeful that lenders could write mortgages for anyone; could write mortgages beyond the value of the security interest; and could slice-and-dice the mortgages into derivative securities that they could sell on to others, so that the the loan issuer was no longer the entity that carried the risk.

The housing bubble was created by easy credit--not low interest. The financial crisis was triggered when the security interest in those easy credit loans disappeared and banks could no longer obtain cash on the liquidity market--because no one knew what was on anyone's balance sheet anymore.

And that's all down to regulation (or, more importantly, the lack of it).


The Housing Bubble was created entirely by the Federal Reserve when they shoveled billions of dollars into the pockets of their Wall Street Banking friends an an effort to help save the wealthy and influential from the effects of making bad decisions during the Dot Com Bubble. They were trying to keep the bubble from completely deflating and ruining those friends.

CDO's had an enormous effect on the bubble, but they had no part in creating the bubble.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

07 Sep 2012, 9:50 pm

eric76 wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
cut regulation

Deregulation of the banks is a big part of what caused the recession in the first place. As for environmental regulation, that's there for a reason. To be honest, there isn't anything like enough of it. It continues to fail to make our society sustainable.

I don't know if trickle down economics work or not, but I do know that I find them morally wrong. The rich should have to pay more taxes than the poor, not less.


Artificially low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve created the housing bubble which caused the recession. The free market when left alone will regulate itself.

also, the rich do pay more in taxes


Uttter and complete nonsense.

Canada had comparable interest rates to the United States, but we didn't experience bank collapses. Germany had comparable interest rates to the United States--but they didn't experience bank collapses.

The simple fact of the matter is that US and British banking and securities regulation were so woeful that lenders could write mortgages for anyone; could write mortgages beyond the value of the security interest; and could slice-and-dice the mortgages into derivative securities that they could sell on to others, so that the the loan issuer was no longer the entity that carried the risk.

The housing bubble was created by easy credit--not low interest. The financial crisis was triggered when the security interest in those easy credit loans disappeared and banks could no longer obtain cash on the liquidity market--because no one knew what was on anyone's balance sheet anymore.

And that's all down to regulation (or, more importantly, the lack of it).


The Housing Bubble was created entirely by the Federal Reserve when they shoveled billions of dollars into the pockets of their Wall Street Banking friends an an effort to help save the wealthy and influential from the effects of making bad decisions during the Dot Com Bubble. They were trying to keep the bubble from completely deflating and ruining those friends.

CDO's had an enormous effect on the bubble, but they had no part in creating the bubble.


The bubble like all bubbles was caused by excess capital in the hands of non-productive folks.
If we taxed capital gains at the same rate as income we have a lot fewer bubble even if we threw the money down wells or bought penny candy with it.

Point two the mortgage crash infecting the rest of the economy was cause by the misapplication of risk mathematics. 100 million loans valued at $100 are not actually worth 10 billion dollars they are worth nothing.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


NoPast
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 18 Aug 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 53

07 Sep 2012, 10:38 pm

supply side economics and austrian economics don't have much in common...except that both are religions