Speaking of Keynesian economics....I never saw a response to how all politicians (GOP or Dem) use some form of Keynesian economics.
I've said repetitively throughout this thread that both parties have used Keynesian economics. Re-read the thread. What I also said is Keynesian economics runs counter to a large amount of Republican ideals. Meanwhile, Keynesian economics is the backbone of the Democratic economic platform and has been for the last century.
So, on net, I favor Republicans who I think would actively favor a Classical approach. Ron Paul is probably the best of the bunch. But, I don't think he can win the primary. When I survey the field, the next best may be Bachmann, and I do think she can win the primary and the general.
Just going to jump in a bit late if that's OK and comment on a few things that were mentioned...
how can Keynesian only work in the short run? From what I can see in history, the country was doing much better 30 years ago, when the Chicago school shifted policies away from Keynesian. The results have been an increase in the gap between rich and poor. no, not both rich and poor making 10% more and both being better off, but a shrinking middle class with wages completely stagnate and the wealthy increasing exponentially. So I guess I am saying I am against redistribution of wealth.
First, I have a hard time reading your posts. Keynesians are a economic party of sorts, think of it like Republicans or Democrats in politics. You can't say "how can Republican work in the short run?" You can say how can "Republican ideas work in the short run?"
Second, you are contradicting yourself. If we were doing better 30 years ago under the Chicago school, then was it because of the shift to the Chicago school? You're kinda all over the map and somewhat hard to read. I'll try to respond, but as I said I have really no clue what you're saying. Keynesian economics occurs in both Republican administrations and Democratic administrations. You used the term Chicago school, I'd argue that really hasn't been practiced. Keynesian economics is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. It tends to run counter to some Republican ideals, but it not in recent times.
As for wealthy paying super high taxes and whatnot, the richest pay only about 17% in effective tax rate. High corporate tax rate at 35% you say? Many fortune 500 companies pay 0 in taxes. The effective tax rate is lower than any time since WWII. They still ship jobs overseas. Thank you free trade.
I'd like to see where you are getting your numbers. Seriously, actually show data. Because this is BS. Are there loopholes? Yes. Do I like loopholes? Nope. Do I think we could get them to go away? Yes. How? Several ways, you could have a flat tax, you could have a consumption tax and do away with the income tax.
For your point on the corporate tax rate it is 35%. I'd love to see a company that pays 0 in taxes. Rebates are different, so take that into account. Rebates are Keynesian.
In fact, Every Democratic president from FDR to the present (aside from Obama, who hasn't finished a term) has a better record for job creation than that of every republican during that period in terms of annual percentage increase. FDR, with his Keynesian policies and stimulus packages, has the highest job creation. The problem with Obama is that he is basically continuing the same Reagan-era policies that have gotten us into this deep hole.
First, I never said Bush was a great President. But, Bush did not "lose" jobs. Obama has, and will end his term with a net job loss. Second, FDR served three terms. ha ha... and he did not get the jobs back that were lost under Hoover until his second term. If you look at the trend of where jobs should have gone, without the Depression, he would be below average.
You are proving my points. Keynesian economics builds bubbles. The truth is it's not Obama and Bush that got us to where we were in 2000, it was BS economics. It was bubbles. The bubbles continued under Bush and they were in Obama.
Second, the problem with Obama is he is straight-up Keynesian. And if trends remain the same will have the worst record on jobs ever. So, if Bush did have the worst ever, which is false, Obama will be worse than Bush. He is far worse right now. Once again, under Bush our economy created jobs, under Obama we lost a hell of a lot of them.
If we just look at what the two largest changes to our fiscal situation since the surplus Bush inherited, one would be unfunded wars, and two would be tax breaks for the wealthy (or as some might say, "small businesses"). Still not sure where those jobs are from the lower tax rates.
War is Keynesian stimulus. And now we're in a third Keynesian war... maybe you didn't hear about it because the press is trying to bury it... it's in Libya.
Why didn't Obama do away with the tax cuts? He did not have to renew them.
And since the deficit is suddenly super important even though it has increased far more under Rs than Ds (could it be because we have a Kenyan in the White House??), here is a simple graph:
and haha haaa... you're chart is funny. First, the paper is from last year so all the data is wrong. Regardless, I don't know what this proves. Second, answer a few things for me... just to show you why Keynesian models like these are just complete BS:
1) How do they know how much the economic downturn added to the deficit? Explain in detail how they would know that. They don't. They make a back of the envelope estimate with all sorts of bias included.
2) How do they know hos much the wars will cost in 2016?
3) Why don't they take into account QE1 and QE2... or QE3? Do you even know what these are?
4) Why don't they show the entire budget and stop manipulating numbers by looking at percent changes. Every person with a brain knows what the budget looks like. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Defense are the problems. From your same source: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
Please educate yourself and don't pull charts that support your viewpoint without at least thinking through the chart itself.
let me jump back in in case I didn't explain myself well enough. When I said we were doing better until 30 years ago, I mean that the Chicago school is the problem. Ever since we shifted toward the Chicago school, we have been far worse off as a country. And of course Keynesian has bubbles. Capitalism is based on bubbles. Highs and lows. Regulations are supposed to minimize those cliffs we fall off of. When we have none, it hurts worse than it needs to. And I am aware it is in both parties. Sadly, both have shifted far to the right, so far that Nixon today would be considered a liberal Democrat. Both believe in unregulated markets, free trade, low taxes on wealthy to stimulate jobs, etc. Of course, creating demand creates jobs, not surplus wealth in the hands of the upper class. If there is no demand for company X's product, they arent going to hire anyone just because they have more money. Back when the wealthy had a high tax rate, they reinvested their money into their company cause they didn't want to "lose" it to the government.
I'm not blaming Bush completely for the recession. Its part cyclical, part of the system. Bush pushing for everyone to own a house from the day he came into office didn't help. As for FDR, i'm talking average job creation per year, so 3 terms doesn't have anything to do with it. I'm also not sure where jobs "should have gone." Don't know what that means. My point there is to say that when it comes to job creation, look at the track records of the parties. Dems are far more successful. Oh, and the only jobs Bush created during his tenure were public sector. And those don't count as real jobs.
I'm pissed Obama caved on the tax cuts. He shouldn't have. And no, I've never heard of Libya. :roll:
As for deficits, Obama has lowered them actually. They are, of course, extremely high, but the last budget Bush signed, which was basically Obama's first year, had higher deficits than Obama has had since. Historically speaking, Democratic presidents have a far better record, again, and reducing the deficit, as do Democratic led congress'.
Sorry you din't like my biasd chart. I'm sure you can find a better one from the Heritage foundation. But there are things like CBO estimates that look at the future and predict these sorts of things. Like when, in 2001, the CBO predicted an $850 billion surplus in 2009-2012. See my crappy chart to see what we are not there now.
Ok, let me get back to educating myself captain condescension. Got a dissertation to finish anyway
let me jump back in in case I didn't explain myself well enough. When I said we were doing better until 30 years ago, I mean that the Chicago school is the problem. Ever since we shifted toward the Chicago school, we have been far worse off as a country. And of course Keynesian has bubbles.
Again, "and of course Keynesian has bubble" doesn't make sense. Keynesian economics is a branch of economics. When you use the word Keynesian, it's used as an adjective.
Capitalism is based on bubbles. Highs and lows. Regulations are supposed to minimize those cliffs we fall off of. When we have none, it hurts worse than it needs to. And I am aware it is in both parties. Sadly, both have shifted far to the right, so far that Nixon today would be considered a liberal Democrat. Both believe in unregulated markets, free trade, low taxes on wealthy to stimulate jobs, etc.
No, capitalism is not based on bubbles at all. If you had a market with no regulations or government intervention, there would be no bubbles. Markets would fall back to equilibrium. Do you know what a bubble is? It when prices are artificially inflated beyond the fundamental or intrinsic value.
I don't know where you are going with political parties shifting to the right. I'd argue that the Bush administration was as Keynesian as any Republican administration ever in their approach to economics.
Of course, creating demand creates jobs, not surplus wealth in the hands of the upper class. If there is no demand for company X's product, they arent going to hire anyone just because they have more money. Back when the wealthy had a high tax rate, they reinvested their money into their company cause they didn't want to "lose" it to the government.
I think a lot of people work in order to purchase products. In that sense, it could be argued that supply creates its own demand.
If that's not the right approach, how do you create demand? Government stimulus, holding interest rates low? Ok, sure flooding the market with more money may work. But, it creates a bubble. You are inflating values beyond where they should be. That will result in a crash.
Think capital gains. That is the rate the wealthy pay in taxes.
Dumb argument. First, capital gains are already taxed. That's not taken into account here. Second, this chart may indicate that the incomes of the richest are declining (which is probably the case). Third, this upper quintile still pays more as a percentage than any other earnings grouping. So, the system remains progressive. Finally, the overall point made here has all sorts of bias instilled. It's silly to argue using this tax structure, when we don't look at taxes as a percent of net worth for tax purposes in our country. We use an income based tax system.
Thanks for sending me to the NYTs for info. ha ha... Anyway... as I said, this article talks about rebates. It's 35% rate, and yes unfortunately we have all sorts of rebates to try to keep business from leaving. My solution: Just set the tax code at a reasonable measure, maybe 15% to 20%, and enforce it.
I'm not blaming Bush completely for the recession. Its part cyclical, part of the system. Bush pushing for everyone to own a house from the day he came into office didn't help. As for FDR, i'm talking average job creation per year, so 3 terms doesn't have anything to do with it. I'm also not sure where jobs "should have gone." Don't know what that means. My point there is to say that when it comes to job creation, look at the track records of the parties. Dems are far more successful. Oh, and the only jobs Bush created during his tenure were public sector. And those don't count as real jobs.
Bush pushed for more citizens owning homes, as did Democrats. Both were to blame for that, and both were stupid for pushing that.
On FDR, once again, most of that was give back. FDR gained about 5%, 2% and 5% in his three terms. Hoover lost 9% in his term. FDR gained the jobs lost by Hoover back by middle of his second term. It's all give back. Just like the President after Obama will have.
You don't mention Monetary Policy at all. Greenspan was actively Keynesian and Big Ben is even worse.
As for deficits, Obama has lowered them actually. They are, of course, extremely high, but the last budget Bush signed, which was basically Obama's first year, had higher deficits than Obama has had since. Historically speaking, Democratic presidents have a far better record, again, and reducing the deficit, as do Democratic led congress'.
Sorry you din't like my biasd chart. I'm sure you can find a better one from the Heritage foundation. But there are things like CBO estimates that look at the future and predict these sorts of things. Like when, in 2001, the CBO predicted an $850 billion surplus in 2009-2012. See my crappy chart to see what we are not there now.
You didn't answer any of my questions. You just point to the website that altered data to show what they wanted it to show. That's my point.
let me jump back in in case I didn't explain myself well enough. When I said we were doing better until 30 years ago, I mean that the Chicago school is the problem. Ever since we shifted toward the Chicago school, we have been far worse off as a country. And of course Keynesian has bubbles.
Again, "and of course Keynesian has bubble" doesn't make sense. Keynesian economics is a branch of economics. When you use the word Keynesian, it's used as an adjective.
Capitalism is based on bubbles. Highs and lows. Regulations are supposed to minimize those cliffs we fall off of. When we have none, it hurts worse than it needs to. And I am aware it is in both parties. Sadly, both have shifted far to the right, so far that Nixon today would be considered a liberal Democrat. Both believe in unregulated markets, free trade, low taxes on wealthy to stimulate jobs, etc.
No, capitalism is not based on bubbles at all. If you had a market with no regulations or government intervention, there would be no bubbles. Markets would fall back to equilibrium. Do you know what a bubble is? It when prices are artificially inflated beyond the fundamental or intrinsic value.
I don't know where you are going with political parties shifting to the right. I'd argue that the Bush administration was as Keynesian as any Republican administration ever in their approach to economics.
Of course, creating demand creates jobs, not surplus wealth in the hands of the upper class. If there is no demand for company X's product, they arent going to hire anyone just because they have more money. Back when the wealthy had a high tax rate, they reinvested their money into their company cause they didn't want to "lose" it to the government.
I think a lot of people work in order to purchase products. In that sense, it could be argued that supply creates its own demand.
If that's not the right approach, how do you create demand? Government stimulus, holding interest rates low? Ok, sure flooding the market with more money may work. But, it creates a bubble. You are inflating values beyond where they should be. That will result in a crash.
Think capital gains. That is the rate the wealthy pay in taxes.
Dumb argument. First, capital gains are already taxed. That's not taken into account here. Second, this chart may indicate that the incomes of the richest are declining (which is probably the case). Third, this upper quintile still pays more as a percentage than any other earnings grouping. So, the system remains progressive. Finally, the overall point made here has all sorts of bias instilled. It's silly to argue using this tax structure, when we don't look at taxes as a percent of net worth for tax purposes in our country. We use an income based tax system.
Thanks for sending me to the NYTs for info. ha ha... Anyway... as I said, this article talks about rebates. It's 35% rate, and yes unfortunately we have all sorts of rebates to try to keep business from leaving. My solution: Just set the tax code at a reasonable measure, maybe 15% to 20%, and enforce it.
I'm not blaming Bush completely for the recession. Its part cyclical, part of the system. Bush pushing for everyone to own a house from the day he came into office didn't help. As for FDR, i'm talking average job creation per year, so 3 terms doesn't have anything to do with it. I'm also not sure where jobs "should have gone." Don't know what that means. My point there is to say that when it comes to job creation, look at the track records of the parties. Dems are far more successful. Oh, and the only jobs Bush created during his tenure were public sector. And those don't count as real jobs.
Bush pushed for more citizens owning homes, as did Democrats. Both were to blame for that, and both were stupid for pushing that.
On FDR, once again, most of that was give back. FDR gained about 5%, 2% and 5% in his three terms. Hoover lost 9% in his term. FDR gained the jobs lost by Hoover back by middle of his second term. It's all give back. Just like the President after Obama will have.
You don't mention Monetary Policy at all. Greenspan was actively Keynesian and Big Ben is even worse.
As for deficits, Obama has lowered them actually. They are, of course, extremely high, but the last budget Bush signed, which was basically Obama's first year, had higher deficits than Obama has had since. Historically speaking, Democratic presidents have a far better record, again, and reducing the deficit, as do Democratic led congress'.
Sorry you din't like my biasd chart. I'm sure you can find a better one from the Heritage foundation. But there are things like CBO estimates that look at the future and predict these sorts of things. Like when, in 2001, the CBO predicted an $850 billion surplus in 2009-2012. See my crappy chart to see what we are not there now.
You didn't answer any of my questions. You just point to the website that altered data to show what they wanted it to show. That's my point.
Ok, let me get back to educating myself captain condescension. Got a dissertation to finish anyway
A dissertation in what field? No chance it's econ. Maybe... political science, sociology?
I'm not sure how Bush followed Keynesian policies more than any other when one of his main platforms was deregulation. Not that it is only him doing this. Its been policy since Reagan. My main point is that since basically 1980 things have been economically worse. The repeal of Glass-Steagall had a lot to do with our current situation, but the overall mindset of how to intervene or not intervene in the financial markets has changed since then to less intervention. Our problems of the last 30 years are a result of that in large part. And there have always been bubbles and bursts in this country's history.
Not sure how stimulus creates bubbles and crashes when the largest example of stimulus in our history, New Deal era policies and World War II, created the strongest economic era of our nations history. Of course, it was paid for by raising taxes. There was no "crash" until LBJ spent billions on a different war and didn't want to raise taxes, so he printed more money, which lead to problems in the 70s.
As for taxes, yes, it is based on income. Those with more of it should, in theory, pay more in a progressive tax system. Taxes go to pay for the commons, and the wealthy benefit more from the commons than anyone else. My point is that the wealthy do not pay anywhere near where they should, and the effective tax rate for them is far below 35%.
If you want to get rid of loopholes etc., you probably support Obama's proposal then I'm assuming.
Not sure what "give back" has to do with the larger point I made, that being that job creation and deficit reduction is far better under every Democratic president than Republican. Its still job creation. So was Bush just giving back the jobs created under Clinton?
Yes, i've heard of Libya. Our first overseas adventure was fought over there. I'm sure Michelle Bachmann knows all about it. After all, a founder was involved...
Your link shows that the deficit has decreased under Obama, just like I said it did.
Dissertation in history, US foreign policy. Mostly SE Asia. So no, I'm no economist, but I do recognize historical trends and see a lot of disturbing things since the end of Carter/Reagan era. The fact that the average worker makes the same amount of money as he or she did in 1980 and the average CEO salary has increased over 300% while he or she ships jobs overseas to let exploited, underpaid people make Levi jeans or whatever should disturb you. Good talk though!
I'm not sure how Bush followed Keynesian policies more than any other when one of his main platforms was deregulation. Not that it is only him doing this. Its been policy since Reagan. My main point is that since basically 1980 things have been economically worse. The repeal of Glass-Steagall had a lot to do with our current situation, but the overall mindset of how to intervene or not intervene in the financial markets has changed since then to less intervention. Our problems of the last 30 years are a result of that in large part. And there have always been bubbles and bursts in this country's history.
Bush followed Keynesian policies by spending through the roof. His spending was ridiculous and Obama's is worse.
You keep talking about regulation/deregulation, which really makes me think you don't really understand Keynesian policies. I really think you should look up the term. It would make a good history project.
Not sure how stimulus creates bubbles and crashes when the largest example of stimulus in our history, New Deal era policies and World War II, created the strongest economic era of our nations history. Of course, it was paid for by raising taxes. There was no "crash" until LBJ spent billions on a different war and didn't want to raise taxes, so he printed more money, which lead to problems in the 70s.
I'm not trying to demean you, but I think you should read a bit more on the subject. If you really think the New Deal had anything to do with economic growth, you're insane.
Also, LBJ didn't print money. That's why I asked you if you understood what the Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy is. I also am going back to the definition of Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics is also actively practiced by the FED. So, you're proving my point.
As for taxes, yes, it is based on income. Those with more of it should, in theory, pay more in a progressive tax system. Taxes go to pay for the commons, and the wealthy benefit more from the commons than anyone else. My point is that the wealthy do not pay anywhere near where they should, and the effective tax rate for them is far below 35%.
My point back: The wealthy do pay more than anyone else, even if you are looking at the effective tax rate (which includes double taxation, as I mentioned before).
You once again, linked to a NYT report ha ha. But, I responded to this already stating point blank that this is due to rebates.... which is Keynesian. Do you honestly think if the gov't did away with those rebates, enforced taxes properly, and did not lower the tax rate from 35%, companies would stay in the U.S.? If you do think those companies would stay here, you're crazy. That would mean $0.
If you want to get rid of loopholes etc., you probably support Obama's proposal then I'm assuming.
Which one? I'm willing to bet I don't, but I'd be curious as to which one you mention. Just because a candidate or president says "I want to close loopholes", I don't blindly agree with them. I want to know how.
I already mentioned the right way to do away with loopholes. Lower the corporate tax rate to something competitive and enforce it with no rebates or loopholes.
Not sure what "give back" has to do with the larger point I made, that being that job creation and deficit reduction is far better under every Democratic president than Republican. Its still job creation. So was Bush just giving back the jobs created under Clinton?
You mentioned cyclical economies. Give back has to do with that. FDR did not make back the jobs lost by Hoover until his second term. He was nearly finished two terms with little more jobs than two presidents prior. Success? I think not.
Yes, i've heard of Libya. Our first overseas adventure was fought over there. I'm sure Michelle Bachmann knows all about it. After all, a founder was involved...
Even if you want to try to argue that 2009 was Bush, which is not factual in reality, then you can easily see Obama's will have much higher deficits on average. Moreover, 2011 will trump 2009. Remember, this is not debt which is compounding. This is each year's deficit. He's adding to the debt like no President in history. His numbers on averaging roughly three times the average size of Bush deficits.
Dissertation in history, US foreign policy. Mostly SE Asia. So no, I'm no economist, but I do recognize historical trends and see a lot of disturbing things since the end of Carter/Reagan era. The fact that the average worker makes the same amount of money as he or she did in 1980 and the average CEO salary has increased over 300% while he or she ships jobs overseas to let exploited, underpaid people make Levi jeans or whatever should disturb you. Good talk though!
I'd say the late 70s were pretty awful, myself. I'd also say that the economy under Reagan and Clinton was pretty good. Regardless, your points do nothing to combat what I've said on Keynesian economics. You act as though it's a party-specific fight and it's not. It's kinda sad I've had to type this much for you to understand that.
Also, I'll end on this... Those workers making Levis are benefiting from that job. That country with workers who would otherwise be picking cotton or worse jobless, are benefiting from manufacturing jobs. If you really want those jobs back, that's fine, once the dollar devalues more. They'll come back. And people will be running to get those jobs, just like they lined up in the thousands to get McDonalds jobs recently:
i'll post later. i'm going to lay down my head is killing me.
man o man the AMT has some serious economic einsteins and i mean that in a good way. who knew michelle bachman would bring out an economic debate of this order?
San Diego Sports Arena - Oct 25, 2000 MGM Grand - Jul 6, 2006 Cox Arena - Jul 7, 2006 New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival - May 1, 2010 Alpine Valley Music Theater - Sep 3-4 2011 Made In America, Philly - Sep 2, 2012 EV, Houston - Nov 12-13, 2012 Dallas-November 2013 OKC-November 2013 ACL 2-October 2014 Fenway Night 1, August 2016 Wrigley, Night 1 August 2018 Fort Worth, Night 1 September 2023 Fort Worth, Night 2 September 2023 Austin, Night 1 September 2023 Austin, Night 2 September 2023
Comments
Is it?
Seems pretty clever, really.
I've said repetitively throughout this thread that both parties have used Keynesian economics. Re-read the thread. What I also said is Keynesian economics runs counter to a large amount of Republican ideals. Meanwhile, Keynesian economics is the backbone of the Democratic economic platform and has been for the last century.
So, on net, I favor Republicans who I think would actively favor a Classical approach. Ron Paul is probably the best of the bunch. But, I don't think he can win the primary. When I survey the field, the next best may be Bachmann, and I do think she can win the primary and the general.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
let me jump back in in case I didn't explain myself well enough. When I said we were doing better until 30 years ago, I mean that the Chicago school is the problem. Ever since we shifted toward the Chicago school, we have been far worse off as a country. And of course Keynesian has bubbles. Capitalism is based on bubbles. Highs and lows. Regulations are supposed to minimize those cliffs we fall off of. When we have none, it hurts worse than it needs to. And I am aware it is in both parties. Sadly, both have shifted far to the right, so far that Nixon today would be considered a liberal Democrat. Both believe in unregulated markets, free trade, low taxes on wealthy to stimulate jobs, etc. Of course, creating demand creates jobs, not surplus wealth in the hands of the upper class. If there is no demand for company X's product, they arent going to hire anyone just because they have more money. Back when the wealthy had a high tax rate, they reinvested their money into their company cause they didn't want to "lose" it to the government.
Effective tax rate info:
http://www.quickanded.com/2010/02/effec ... icans.html
Think capital gains. That is the rate the wealthy pay in taxes.
Corporate tax rate info:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/busin ... rates.html
I'm not blaming Bush completely for the recession. Its part cyclical, part of the system. Bush pushing for everyone to own a house from the day he came into office didn't help. As for FDR, i'm talking average job creation per year, so 3 terms doesn't have anything to do with it. I'm also not sure where jobs "should have gone." Don't know what that means. My point there is to say that when it comes to job creation, look at the track records of the parties. Dems are far more successful. Oh, and the only jobs Bush created during his tenure were public sector. And those don't count as real jobs.
I'm pissed Obama caved on the tax cuts. He shouldn't have. And no, I've never heard of Libya. :roll:
As for deficits, Obama has lowered them actually. They are, of course, extremely high, but the last budget Bush signed, which was basically Obama's first year, had higher deficits than Obama has had since. Historically speaking, Democratic presidents have a far better record, again, and reducing the deficit, as do Democratic led congress'.
Sorry you din't like my biasd chart. I'm sure you can find a better one from the Heritage foundation. But there are things like CBO estimates that look at the future and predict these sorts of things. Like when, in 2001, the CBO predicted an $850 billion surplus in 2009-2012. See my crappy chart to see what we are not there now.
Ok, let me get back to educating myself captain condescension. Got a dissertation to finish anyway
Again, "and of course Keynesian has bubble" doesn't make sense. Keynesian economics is a branch of economics. When you use the word Keynesian, it's used as an adjective.
No, capitalism is not based on bubbles at all. If you had a market with no regulations or government intervention, there would be no bubbles. Markets would fall back to equilibrium. Do you know what a bubble is? It when prices are artificially inflated beyond the fundamental or intrinsic value.
I don't know where you are going with political parties shifting to the right. I'd argue that the Bush administration was as Keynesian as any Republican administration ever in their approach to economics.
I think a lot of people work in order to purchase products. In that sense, it could be argued that supply creates its own demand.
If that's not the right approach, how do you create demand? Government stimulus, holding interest rates low? Ok, sure flooding the market with more money may work. But, it creates a bubble. You are inflating values beyond where they should be. That will result in a crash.
Dumb argument. First, capital gains are already taxed. That's not taken into account here. Second, this chart may indicate that the incomes of the richest are declining (which is probably the case). Third, this upper quintile still pays more as a percentage than any other earnings grouping. So, the system remains progressive. Finally, the overall point made here has all sorts of bias instilled. It's silly to argue using this tax structure, when we don't look at taxes as a percent of net worth for tax purposes in our country. We use an income based tax system.
Thanks for sending me to the NYTs for info. ha ha... Anyway... as I said, this article talks about rebates. It's 35% rate, and yes unfortunately we have all sorts of rebates to try to keep business from leaving. My solution: Just set the tax code at a reasonable measure, maybe 15% to 20%, and enforce it.
Bush pushed for more citizens owning homes, as did Democrats. Both were to blame for that, and both were stupid for pushing that.
On FDR, once again, most of that was give back. FDR gained about 5%, 2% and 5% in his three terms. Hoover lost 9% in his term. FDR gained the jobs lost by Hoover back by middle of his second term. It's all give back. Just like the President after Obama will have.
You don't mention Monetary Policy at all. Greenspan was actively Keynesian and Big Ben is even worse. Are you pissed at Obama? Or do you try to blame Republicans for actively following their economic platform.
I'm glad you've heard of Libya. We're fighting a war there.
Um... huh? Not so...
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed ... chart.html
You didn't answer any of my questions. You just point to the website that altered data to show what they wanted it to show. That's my point.
A dissertation in what field? No chance it's econ. Maybe... political science, sociology?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I'm not sure how Bush followed Keynesian policies more than any other when one of his main platforms was deregulation. Not that it is only him doing this. Its been policy since Reagan. My main point is that since basically 1980 things have been economically worse. The repeal of Glass-Steagall had a lot to do with our current situation, but the overall mindset of how to intervene or not intervene in the financial markets has changed since then to less intervention. Our problems of the last 30 years are a result of that in large part. And there have always been bubbles and bursts in this country's history.
Not sure how stimulus creates bubbles and crashes when the largest example of stimulus in our history, New Deal era policies and World War II, created the strongest economic era of our nations history. Of course, it was paid for by raising taxes. There was no "crash" until LBJ spent billions on a different war and didn't want to raise taxes, so he printed more money, which lead to problems in the 70s.
As for taxes, yes, it is based on income. Those with more of it should, in theory, pay more in a progressive tax system. Taxes go to pay for the commons, and the wealthy benefit more from the commons than anyone else. My point is that the wealthy do not pay anywhere near where they should, and the effective tax rate for them is far below 35%.
Sorry for linking to the Times and its liberal bias. Here's another source with the exact same information:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/ ... 5620080812
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/busin ... 25tax.html
http://www.good.is/post/how-american-co ... s-in-2010/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 108x134249
etc.
If you want to get rid of loopholes etc., you probably support Obama's proposal then I'm assuming.
Not sure what "give back" has to do with the larger point I made, that being that job creation and deficit reduction is far better under every Democratic president than Republican. Its still job creation. So was Bush just giving back the jobs created under Clinton?
Yes, i've heard of Libya. Our first overseas adventure was fought over there. I'm sure Michelle Bachmann knows all about it. After all, a founder was involved...
Your link shows that the deficit has decreased under Obama, just like I said it did.
Dissertation in history, US foreign policy. Mostly SE Asia. So no, I'm no economist, but I do recognize historical trends and see a lot of disturbing things since the end of Carter/Reagan era. The fact that the average worker makes the same amount of money as he or she did in 1980 and the average CEO salary has increased over 300% while he or she ships jobs overseas to let exploited, underpaid people make Levi jeans or whatever should disturb you. Good talk though!
Bush followed Keynesian policies by spending through the roof. His spending was ridiculous and Obama's is worse.
You keep talking about regulation/deregulation, which really makes me think you don't really understand Keynesian policies. I really think you should look up the term. It would make a good history project.
I'm not trying to demean you, but I think you should read a bit more on the subject. If you really think the New Deal had anything to do with economic growth, you're insane.
Also, LBJ didn't print money. That's why I asked you if you understood what the Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy is. I also am going back to the definition of Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics is also actively practiced by the FED. So, you're proving my point.
My point back: The wealthy do pay more than anyone else, even if you are looking at the effective tax rate (which includes double taxation, as I mentioned before).
You once again, linked to a NYT report ha ha. But, I responded to this already stating point blank that this is due to rebates.... which is Keynesian. Do you honestly think if the gov't did away with those rebates, enforced taxes properly, and did not lower the tax rate from 35%, companies would stay in the U.S.? If you do think those companies would stay here, you're crazy. That would mean $0.
Watch this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... er;housing
Which one? I'm willing to bet I don't, but I'd be curious as to which one you mention. Just because a candidate or president says "I want to close loopholes", I don't blindly agree with them. I want to know how.
I already mentioned the right way to do away with loopholes. Lower the corporate tax rate to something competitive and enforce it with no rebates or loopholes.
You mentioned cyclical economies. Give back has to do with that. FDR did not make back the jobs lost by Hoover until his second term. He was nearly finished two terms with little more jobs than two presidents prior. Success? I think not.
Clever.
Huh?
Time Deficit (Billions)
2004 412.90
2005 318.59
2006 248.57
2007 160.96
2008 458.55
2009 1412.69
2010 1293.49
2011 1645.12
2012 1101.12
Even if you want to try to argue that 2009 was Bush, which is not factual in reality, then you can easily see Obama's will have much higher deficits on average. Moreover, 2011 will trump 2009. Remember, this is not debt which is compounding. This is each year's deficit. He's adding to the debt like no President in history. His numbers on averaging roughly three times the average size of Bush deficits.
I'd say the late 70s were pretty awful, myself. I'd also say that the economy under Reagan and Clinton was pretty good. Regardless, your points do nothing to combat what I've said on Keynesian economics. You act as though it's a party-specific fight and it's not. It's kinda sad I've had to type this much for you to understand that.
Also, I'll end on this... Those workers making Levis are benefiting from that job. That country with workers who would otherwise be picking cotton or worse jobless, are benefiting from manufacturing jobs. If you really want those jobs back, that's fine, once the dollar devalues more. They'll come back. And people will be running to get those jobs, just like they lined up in the thousands to get McDonalds jobs recently:
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index ... nalds.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/04 ... -big-macs/
Good luck with your dissertation.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
i'll post later. i'm going to lay down my head is killing me.
man o man the AMT has some serious economic einsteins and i mean that in a good way. who knew michelle bachman would bring out an economic debate of this order?
MGM Grand - Jul 6, 2006
Cox Arena - Jul 7, 2006
New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival - May 1, 2010
Alpine Valley Music Theater - Sep 3-4 2011
Made In America, Philly - Sep 2, 2012
EV, Houston - Nov 12-13, 2012
Dallas-November 2013
OKC-November 2013
ACL 2-October 2014
Fenway Night 1, August 2016
Wrigley, Night 1 August 2018
Fort Worth, Night 1 September 2023
Fort Worth, Night 2 September 2023
Austin, Night 1 September 2023
Austin, Night 2 September 2023