I prefer Keynesian Economics over Trickle Down Economics but

Page 3 of 3 [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,000
Location: Turkey

20 May 2012, 12:55 pm

CSBurks wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
The problem is in the US as soon as we got a surplus, Republicans immediately saw fit to squander it on tax cuts..


Only money spent can be squandered. You show a typical left of center bias by thinking of a tax cut as an expenditure. It isn't.

ruveyn


Indeed, sir.

If we're talking about Keynesian economics, that argument is nothing more than an off-topic semantic nitpick. If taxes are cut in order to eliminate the surplus every time the budget has a chance of poking out of the red territory, you are left with a long-term trend of indefinitely growing debt-to-GDP ratio. I wouldn't have a gripe with Republicans if they at least admitted to their constituents that they are not really concerned with the national debt but are using it as a tool to further their true agenda, which is to shrink the welfare state. The debt issue is being used as a scare tactic.

In any case our ever growing private-debt-to-GDP ratio is a bigger issue to be concerned about than public debt. It indicates that too much of our economy is being financed on expanding credit and financial/asset inflation instead of technological innovation and productivity growth.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

20 May 2012, 2:17 pm

marshall wrote:
]
If we're talking about Keynesian economics, that argument is nothing more than an off-topic semantic nitpick. If taxes are cut in order to eliminate the surplus every time the budget has a chance of poking out of the red territory, you are l.


The "semantic nitpick" is a recognition of the facts. And only facts matter.

ruveyn



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

20 May 2012, 3:06 pm

xenon13 wrote:
Executive talent is highly overrated. People make huge amounts of money for either bungling or for plans to raid pension plans and asset-strip companies. Who cares if some crybabies leave. Let them leave! There will be plenty of people who can do just as good a job for what after all would be far more than most occupations can pay.


No there won't and once they get a taste, they'll leave. Knowledge is a commodity in this emerging economy, and this conversation alone has proven to me that based on what you argue, you have no idea what you're talking about.



CSBurks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 792

20 May 2012, 11:25 pm

TM wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
The business of business is business - to make money. That's the role of these bigwigs. Their business is not to produce widgets. I repeat, their business is not to produce widgets. Businessmen and the government do not have the same interest - government, supposedly in service of the people, wants more production, the businessmen want to make more money. These are not the same thing.


You're wrong here as well. Government wants more production, because more production means more jobs, more jobs means less people collecting social aid in the form of unemployment, food stamps, welfare and other programs that cost the government money. Furthermore, it means more tax revenue for the government since everyone who works has to pay taxes.

So in the end, government also only cares about making money.


Image

Data Source:Federal Reserve Economic Data (link)



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,000
Location: Turkey

21 May 2012, 11:48 am

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
]
If we're talking about Keynesian economics, that argument is nothing more than an off-topic semantic nitpick. If taxes are cut in order to eliminate the surplus every time the budget has a chance of poking out of the red territory, you are l.


The "semantic nitpick" is a recognition of the facts. And only facts matter.

ruveyn


It still has absolutely zero bearing on my argument. Increasing spending and decreasing revenue have the same net effect on the balance sheet. That is also a fact.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,571

21 May 2012, 12:01 pm

That so-called semantic nitpick is also designed to promote the idea that all taxation is theft, that government spending is evil, and therefore it's a matter of good and evil to always cut taxes and spending at all times when it's possible to do so. The end is to create a larger pool of desperate people who can be effectively enslaved so that the rich and powerful can have larger free lunches at their expense.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

21 May 2012, 12:12 pm

CSBurks wrote:
TM wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
The business of business is business - to make money. That's the role of these bigwigs. Their business is not to produce widgets. I repeat, their business is not to produce widgets. Businessmen and the government do not have the same interest - government, supposedly in service of the people, wants more production, the businessmen want to make more money. These are not the same thing.


You're wrong here as well. Government wants more production, because more production means more jobs, more jobs means less people collecting social aid in the form of unemployment, food stamps, welfare and other programs that cost the government money. Furthermore, it means more tax revenue for the government since everyone who works has to pay taxes.

So in the end, government also only cares about making money.


Image

Data Source:Federal Reserve Economic Data (link)


correlation does not make causation and statistics without point specific supporting structure is worthless.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


CSBurks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 792

21 May 2012, 1:25 pm

Oodain wrote:
CSBurks wrote:
TM wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
The business of business is business - to make money. That's the role of these bigwigs. Their business is not to produce widgets. I repeat, their business is not to produce widgets. Businessmen and the government do not have the same interest - government, supposedly in service of the people, wants more production, the businessmen want to make more money. These are not the same thing.


You're wrong here as well. Government wants more production, because more production means more jobs, more jobs means less people collecting social aid in the form of unemployment, food stamps, welfare and other programs that cost the government money. Furthermore, it means more tax revenue for the government since everyone who works has to pay taxes.

So in the end, government also only cares about making money.


Image

Data Source:Federal Reserve Economic Data (link)


correlation does not make causation and statistics without point specific supporting structure is worthless.


No sh*t. Technically, causation can never be proven. We simply assume it because we live in an ordered universe, or so we postulate.

TM's stated hypothesis is that the government wants more production because that leads to more tax revenue. If that is the case, then there should be a positive correlation between the two variables.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

21 May 2012, 1:29 pm

CSBurks wrote:

No sh*t. Technically, causation can never be proven. We simply assume it because we live in an ordered universe, or so we postulate.

TM's stated hypothesis is that the government wants more production because that leads to more tax revenue. If that is the case, then there should be a positive correlation between the two variables.


That was only half the hypothesis, the government also wants increased production due to increased employment, which again means less spent on social programs.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,000
Location: Turkey

21 May 2012, 5:59 pm

TM wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
The business of business is business - to make money. That's the role of these bigwigs. Their business is not to produce widgets. I repeat, their business is not to produce widgets. Businessmen and the government do not have the same interest - government, supposedly in service of the people, wants more production, the businessmen want to make more money. These are not the same thing.


You're wrong here as well. Government wants more production, because more production means more jobs, more jobs means less people collecting social aid in the form of unemployment, food stamps, welfare and other programs that cost the government money. Furthermore, it means more tax revenue for the government since everyone who works has to pay taxes.

So in the end, government also only cares about making money.


The obvious difference is a democratic government must be responsive to the demands of the electorate.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

21 May 2012, 6:46 pm

marshall wrote:

The obvious difference is a democratic government must be responsive to the demands of the electorate.


Including the dead-beats who collect welfare, feed at the trough AND vote.

ruveyn



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,571

21 May 2012, 10:02 pm

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:

The obvious difference is a democratic government must be responsive to the demands of the electorate.


Including the dead-beats who collect welfare, feed at the trough AND vote.

ruveyn



You forgot to mention that those people finance election campaigns.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

22 May 2012, 3:00 am

xenon13 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:

The obvious difference is a democratic government must be responsive to the demands of the electorate.


Including the dead-beats who collect welfare, feed at the trough AND vote.

ruveyn



You forgot to mention that those people finance election campaigns.


They are among the dead-beats. Corporate subsidies are the worst kind of welfare give away. And bribing the politicians is among the worst of wrongs to do.

ruveyn