Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Debate #1... GO!Follow

#352 Oct 05 2012 at 4:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,763 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Why do you keep misusing quotes from Joph?


Well, given the fact that you didn't even know the context of your own words, I don't think you have the position to determine how a text should be taken.
I understand the context of the words I used. They were insulting you and questioning everyone else for indulging you. It is you who can't grasp the context. Not that I expect you to, even if this is the 2nd time they've been spelled out for you.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#353 Oct 05 2012 at 4:46 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,072 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Why do you keep misusing quotes from Joph?


Well, given the fact that you didn't even know the context of your own words, I don't think you have the position to determine how a text should be taken.
I understand the context of the words I used. They were insulting you and questioning everyone else for indulging you. It is you who can't grasp the context. Not that I expect you to, even if this is the 2nd time they've been spelled out for you.


Oh I understand the context, but the context doesn't negate the original claim. In attempt to save face, you're trying to point out your derision. And you talk about me having irrelevant points..Smiley: lol
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#354 Oct 05 2012 at 5:52 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,946 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

End result is a lot of additional tax revenue without having to raise tax rates.


Minor caveat: This has never occurred in the history of time and is mathematically and economically unsound.


When applied as an absolute, yes. But then all economic calculations break down when used at the wrong time. I'm assuming you also realize how wrong statements like "a dollar of food stamps creates a buck 80 in economic growth". Same deal.

However, in the situation we're in right now, the approach is absolutely sound. Let me repeat what I said earlier. Our revenues dropped several hundred billion dollars between 2007 and 2011. Yet, during that time, we did not change our tax rates. The loss of revenue occurred because of decreased economic activity and lower employment. At the federal level, lower profits means less taxes and fewer workers means less taxes. If you can reverse that, then the revenue will come back. That's not voodoo economics at all. It's quite consistent and documented economic behavior. It's what happens every time you have a recession and then the economy bounces back.

The problem is that we didn't bounce back. Now we can disagree over why that happened, or what the correct solution is, but if Romney is correct that his policies will allow that bounce we've been waiting for to finally happen, then he's absolutely right that this will allow for deficit reduction without having to raise taxes. If you want to argue that his policies wont create that bounce, that's fine. But simply declaring that if we can get that increased economic activity and employment it wont help our deficit issues at all is simply 100% wrong.

I was asked how Romney thought he could do this. I've answered the question. Now, if you want to argue that there's some magical math that says that if we shift 10 million people from the unemployment roles (which consumes tax revenue) to employment (where they'll be paying taxes), that this will not help our deficit, then by all means, argue away. But I don't think you can do more than just wave your hands and insist that it wont work. That's not a good enough response though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#355 Oct 05 2012 at 6:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,946 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Except he's right. There is no specific tax deduction for moving jobs overseas.


Except he's wrong, every company that moves jobs overseas writes off the majority of the expense under various parts of the tax code.


And so does every company that moves jobs across town. It's a business expense deduction. If you spend $1 million dollars opening up a new office, you get to deduct the cost of opening up that new office. Where that office is doesn't matter. Whether you laid off an equal number of workers at the old office or not also doesn't matter. Suggesting that this in any way equates to a "tax break for companies that ship jobs overseas" is absurd.

Quote:
The idea that because line 75 of the tax code doesn't read "Deduction for outsourcing American jobs like an economic vampire" that there is no tax break is staggeringly ignorant.


There is no tax break for shipping jobs overseas. Was that too hard for you to understand?


Quote:
It'd be easy to prevent deductions related to outsourcing, you could just pass a law.


Not a very good one though. How exactly do you decide that a given dollar amount of deductions were from "shipping jobs overseas"? Let's imagine for a moment that I run a large multi-national corporation which is constantly hiring, firing, and laying off people in offices and plants all over the world. What criteria do we use to decide that this person's job was "shipped overseas"? And then how do we decide how much cost there was associated with that? Any legislation which attempted to do that would be a disaster from start to finish.

Quote:
I mean you could, unless it was such a precious loophole that the political party owned by outsourcing businesses filibustered it.


When more than 50 Senators filibuster something, it's not really a filibuster anymore, is it? You're talking about a bill written purely so idiots like you could make the very point you're making and which even a number of Democrats realized was vapor-legislation. This was not a real law. It was a name and a label put on the agenda by Reid, knowing it would fail, so that he could blame Republicans for failing to stop jobs from going overseas. Way to be a drone there Smash. I kinda expected more from you.

Want to know the best way to prevent jobs from going overseas? Make job creation easier for companies in the US. Or at the very least, don't pursue an agenda that directly makes hiring people and building products in the US more expensive. That's got to be a better approach than inserting yet another impossibly defined exception into our already complicated tax code. This, BTW, is how we end out with all those loopholes that Obama and folks claim they oppose. Perhaps we should not make the current problem worse? Just a thought.

Edited, Oct 5th 2012 5:24pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#356 Oct 05 2012 at 6:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,763 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Why do you keep misusing quotes from Joph?


Well, given the fact that you didn't even know the context of your own words, I don't think you have the position to determine how a text should be taken.
I understand the context of the words I used. They were insulting you and questioning everyone else for indulging you. It is you who can't grasp the context. Not that I expect you to, even if this is the 2nd time they've been spelled out for you.


Oh I understand the context, but the context doesn't negate the original claim. In attempt to save face, you're trying to point out your derision. And you talk about me having irrelevant points..Smiley: lol


Can someone who understands almish translate this for me because I'm so fucking lost on what his point is supposed to be.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#357 Oct 05 2012 at 6:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,946 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Why do you keep misusing quotes from Joph?


Well, given the fact that you didn't even know the context of your own words, I don't think you have the position to determine how a text should be taken.
I understand the context of the words I used. They were insulting you and questioning everyone else for indulging you. It is you who can't grasp the context. Not that I expect you to, even if this is the 2nd time they've been spelled out for you.


Oh I understand the context, but the context doesn't negate the original claim. In attempt to save face, you're trying to point out your derision. And you talk about me having irrelevant points..Smiley: lol


Can someone who understands almish translate this for me because I'm so fucking lost on what his point is supposed to be.


I'm not sure, but I think it's something like "I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know what you know". Either that, or someone dropped a scrabble box on my screen.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#358 Oct 05 2012 at 6:56 PM Rating: Good
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Why do you keep misusing quotes from Joph?


Well, given the fact that you didn't even know the context of your own words, I don't think you have the position to determine how a text should be taken.
I understand the context of the words I used. They were insulting you and questioning everyone else for indulging you. It is you who can't grasp the context. Not that I expect you to, even if this is the 2nd time they've been spelled out for you.


Oh I understand the context, but the context doesn't negate the original claim. In attempt to save face, you're trying to point out your derision. And you talk about me having irrelevant points..Smiley: lol


Can someone who understands almish translate this for me because I'm so fucking lost on what his point is supposed to be.


You do realize that Alma is pretty much this forums version of Cleverbot. Way to allow yourself to get trolled again.
#359 Oct 05 2012 at 7:06 PM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
In other news, here's one of the members of the House Committee on Science and Technology (of which Todd Akin is also a member) making America once again look like the rural Mississippi of the first world.

Edited, Oct 5th 2012 8:07pm by Paskil
#360 Oct 05 2012 at 7:19 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Paskil wrote:
In other news, here's one of the members of the House Committee on Science and Technology (of which Todd Akin is also a member) making America once again look like the rural Mississippi of the first world.
How the **** does someone with such an obvious bias agains anything even vaguely scientific get to be part of a science and technology committee?
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#361 Oct 05 2012 at 7:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Republicans, that's how.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#362 Oct 05 2012 at 8:21 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,072 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Why do you keep misusing quotes from Joph?


Well, given the fact that you didn't even know the context of your own words, I don't think you have the position to determine how a text should be taken.
I understand the context of the words I used. They were insulting you and questioning everyone else for indulging you. It is you who can't grasp the context. Not that I expect you to, even if this is the 2nd time they've been spelled out for you.


Oh I understand the context, but the context doesn't negate the original claim. In attempt to save face, you're trying to point out your derision. And you talk about me having irrelevant points..Smiley: lol


Can someone who understands almish translate this for me because I'm so fucking lost on what his point is supposed to be.


Well, you don't even understand your own points, I'm not sure how you expect to understand others.

To break it down, you were wrong on the original claim of me and instead of admitting it, you're tried to point out that you were ridiculing me. However, your ridicule does not take away from the fact that you were still wrong.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#363 Oct 05 2012 at 8:44 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Paskil wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Why do you keep misusing quotes from Joph?


Well, given the fact that you didn't even know the context of your own words, I don't think you have the position to determine how a text should be taken.
I understand the context of the words I used. They were insulting you and questioning everyone else for indulging you. It is you who can't grasp the context. Not that I expect you to, even if this is the 2nd time they've been spelled out for you.


Oh I understand the context, but the context doesn't negate the original claim. In attempt to save face, you're trying to point out your derision. And you talk about me having irrelevant points..Smiley: lol


Can someone who understands almish translate this for me because I'm so fucking lost on what his point is supposed to be.


You do realize that Alma is pretty much this forums version of Cleverbot. Way to allow yourself to get trolled again.


Alma reminds me of a couple characters in Dinner for Schmucks. Pair him up with a like-minded poster, and I bet they'd reenact the final battle scene.

____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#364 Oct 05 2012 at 8:52 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,484 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
How the @#%^ does someone with such an obvious bias agains anything even vaguely scientific get to be part of a science and technology committee?
The less you know, the more of an expert you are in any field. You not knowing that means you should know that better than anyone here.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#365 Oct 05 2012 at 10:16 PM Rating: Excellent
lolgaxe wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
How the @#%^ does someone with such an obvious bias agains anything even vaguely scientific get to be part of a science and technology committee?
The less you know, the more of an expert you are in any field. You not knowing that means you should know that better than anyone here.
But don't worry, no matter how little you know, Gbaji knows less than you and so is more qualified to speak on it.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#366 Oct 05 2012 at 11:22 PM Rating: Good
**
586 posts
It really is scary that loons like that get into higher office. I know how they do it but still.
____________________________
.
#367 Oct 05 2012 at 11:56 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
How the @#%^ does someone with such an obvious bias agains anything even vaguely scientific get to be part of a science and technology committee?
The less you know, the more of an expert you are in any field. You not knowing that means you should know that better than anyone here.
In that case I should apply to the folks at the LHC, I bet they pay well.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#369 Oct 06 2012 at 9:53 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,479 posts
So I was reading about Romney's plan to reduce deductions and cap them in order to increase revenue to the government. Which is a decent idea as far as income generation is concerned, and it will definitely help the US money bleeding issue. There is a thing though about it that he is not mentioning, or at least being very misleading about.

His plan targets everyone, all taxable Americans, Rich and Poor, and all those in between. According to the Romney camp there is potentially 1.1 Trillion at stake and this would most certainly put a dent into the deficit, however again Romney has given up math for talking points.

There are approximately 230 Million people in the US who are taxable, this equates to about 4700 dollars of increased taxation per taxable citizen. Granted some will be exempt (in the sense they don't have deductions to claim) and others hit harder depending on their sources of equity. (ie. those who own multiple properties will be hit the deduction cap faster and thus pay more taxes in the end than say the guy who is renting, or own just one home.)

A deduction cap is essentially the same as increasing the taxation of the people. Something that Romney adamantly said he would not do several times over the course of the campaign and debates (including the GOP debates). Yet his plan directly increases the taxation of Americans by limiting their deduction those being hardest hit...the middle class, and the wealthiest of Americans. The two categories of people he explicitly said would see no increase to their personal taxes.

Now Obama has a similar plan, he would like to cap deductions at 28% of equity. However the key difference he only plans to impose these caps on the folks earning over 250K/yr. Leaving the vast majority of Americans without this phantom tax increase., particularly middle class Americans.

What is it with this guy and basic math, and glossing over details?

Edited, Oct 6th 2012 11:54am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#372 Oct 09 2012 at 4:14 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Math is irrelevant as long as your message sounds good enough to get you elected.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#373 Oct 09 2012 at 5:37 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,556 posts

So I was reading about Romney's plan to reduce deductions and cap them in order to increase revenue to the government. Which is a decent idea as far as income generation is concerned,


Nope, it's not a decent idea. It's make believe. There is literally zero chance of an itemized deduction cap, ever.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#374 Oct 09 2012 at 7:12 AM Rating: Good
******
44,484 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
It's make believe.
It doesn't have to be real, it just has to convince people to get votes.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#375 Oct 09 2012 at 6:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,946 posts
Ignoring Smash's opinion about whether such a thing *will* be done (cause Obama's plan has the same problems, right?).

rdmcandie wrote:
His plan targets everyone, all taxable Americans, Rich and Poor, and all those in between. According to the Romney camp there is potentially 1.1 Trillion at stake and this would most certainly put a dent into the deficit, however again Romney has given up math for talking points.


IIRC, he was talking about capping it at either $17k or $25k (or something in that range). That's not going to affect most Americans at all, and certainly not the "Poor".

Quote:
There are approximately 230 Million people in the US who are taxable, this equates to about 4700 dollars of increased taxation per taxable citizen. Granted some will be exempt (in the sense they don't have deductions to claim) and others hit harder depending on their sources of equity. (ie. those who own multiple properties will be hit the deduction cap faster and thus pay more taxes in the end than say the guy who is renting, or own just one home.)


Yeah. Which might be a reasonable (but still flawed) assessment of the tax component of Obamacare, which is essentially a flat tax that directly affects just those above the poverty line, but who don't have jobs that provide health care as a benefit. So it hits the working class and lower middle class folks and if you think it'll actually just be $2500/person/year, I've got a bridge to sell you. You can't just calculate the total amount "saved" and divide by the entire tax base.

Quote:
A deduction cap is essentially the same as increasing the taxation of the people.


Only if we're using a very broad definition of "taxation" (which isn't the word Romney uses). Romney makes a specific distinction between "raising taxes" and "lowering deductions". And while you can argue that both result in people paying more total taxes, he's not being misleading when he uses the terms he's using. Unlike say calling a tax credit a tax cut, for example.

Quote:
Something that Romney adamantly said he would not do several times over the course of the campaign and debates (including the GOP debates).


Again, I'm certain he did not use such a vague word as "taxation" in this context. It's meaningless and interesting that you chose it.

Quote:
Yet his plan directly increases the taxation of Americans by limiting their deduction those being hardest hit...the middle class, and the wealthiest of Americans. The two categories of people he explicitly said would see no increase to their personal taxes.


It puts a cap on deductions. It's a tax idea. And one which resonates with many people. You're getting caught up in details though. Remember that no "plans" talked about during a presidential campaign end out being exactly implemented as stated during the campaign itself. There is this whole congress thing that kinda gets in the way. It's about the concept and approach, not the details. And the idea of putting some kind of cap on deductions is one which people tend to like more than just having tax rates increased. Because when you increase the tax rates, that affects everyone in a given bracket. When you cap deductions it *only* affects those taking large amounts of deductions. If the cap is a hard number, then only people who earn enough money and had enough money to use in various ways (to earn the deductions in the first place) are affected.

That has issues all by itself, and could be (would be) a mess to implement since you'd somewhat have to have exceptions, but as a concept it's a valid one and we're to judge such things by the same measuring stick, his math works just as well (better really) than Obama's. And in a contest between two candidates, that's all that really matters.

Quote:
Now Obama has a similar plan, he would like to cap deductions at 28% of equity. However the key difference he only plans to impose these caps on the folks earning over 250K/yr. Leaving the vast majority of Americans without this phantom tax increase., particularly middle class Americans.


I'm assuming you meant "earnings" and not "equity"? Yeah. Yet another Obama "I'm just taxing people who make over $250k/year" bit. This has all the same problems that Romney's plan does, but doesn't generate any real significant revenue increase because it does avoid taxing the meatiest part of the tax base. I mean, I know that the whole "middle class versus rich" is a new theme that Obama is trying out, but the reality is that there's an absolutely massive difference between someone making say $60k/year and someone making $249k/year, but both are considered "middle class". To pretend that somehow someone's fortunes stay the same until they magically cross the $250k/year income barrier is absolutely absurd.

Don't get me wrong, I'm one of those in that range who would most benefit from Obama's plan. I earn enough money to be very comfortable but am still well below where he's decided to set his magical cutoff for his tax plan. But I also understand that I earn that nice comfortable income *because* there are rich people and big businesses who are able to retain sufficient money after tax to employ me (small businesses don't tend to pay their employees 6 figure salaries, do they?). It is vastly more in my long term interest for folks in that range to take a minor hit spread across a large number of people, than to focus it all on the relatively small tax base that Obama is going after. Because those brackets (and businesses) will be hit *hard*. And it'll directly affect how many people they employ and how much they can pay those people.

You don't affect the size of the middle class if you cap their deductions (or even raise their taxes). You do shrink the middle class if you lump the same total dollar of revenue increase in the form of higher taxes (or lower deductions) targeted entirely on "the rich". And the kind of deduction cap that Romney is talking about would not hurt those most in need of deductions, while preventing those who don't really need them from taking advantage of the tax system.


Now, ideally, we go in and completely re-do the tax code, but that's an even harder thing to accomplish. I suspect this deduction cap idea is just an alternative easier step.

Quote:
What is it with this guy and basic math, and glossing over details?


He didn't gloss over details. You've invented details. I also find it interesting that you ignore the same flaws in Obama's plan, while highlighting them in Romney's. Both have the same problems. Romney at least has the benefit of spreading the impact more and actually reducing the deficit more. So if we're going to compare two early stage plans, his is absolutely better.

Edited, Oct 9th 2012 6:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#376 Oct 09 2012 at 7:42 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,556 posts

IIRC, he was talking about capping it at either $17k or $25k (or something in that range). That's not going to affect most Americans at all, and certainly not the "Poor".


Really, Pareto? A 25k cap on itemized deductions won't impact people making 25k. WOW! SCIENCE!

It would affect many homeowners, as racking up $10k+ in interest deductions is fairly common, even for people who live places where $100k can buy an actual structure with doors that isn't on fire. That and the pre-tax value of healthcare (both sides of the employer/employee premium) would fill up $25k fairly quickly for an "average" middle class, $100k a year family of 4.

At any rate, let me emphasize again, that we're arguing over what color the armor for the new unicorn army should be.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#377gbaji, Posted: Oct 09 2012 at 8:21 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Agreed, but Romney's color would look better on said unicorn army than Obama's. If they're both putting up imaginary plans, then it's perfectly fair to compare them, isn't it?
#378 Oct 09 2012 at 8:45 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,556 posts
However, in the situation we're in right now, the approach is absolutely sound. Let me repeat what I said earlier. Our revenues dropped several hundred billion dollars between 2007 and 2011. Yet, during that time, we did not change our tax rates. The loss of revenue occurred because of decreased economic activity and lower employment. At the federal level, lower profits means less taxes and fewer workers means less taxes. If you can reverse that, then the revenue will come back. That's not voodoo economics at all. It's quite consistent and documented economic behavior. It's what happens every time you have a recession and then the economy bounces back.


Sorry I missed this earlier. See that part in red, there? That's the part I'm referring to that doesn't happen, has never happened, and won't happen if implemented now. Lowering taxes doesn't increase production. Never has. Never will. Taxation and production are free floating factors that *are causally not linked in a linear way*. That's the part people laugh about. Amusingly, a guy named Aurthur Laffer did some work on it. Laffer, we laugh at it, har har.

In some theoretical models, lowering taxes would increase production enough to increase overall tax revenue. Models where taxation is exceptionally high, 100% let's say. Lowering taxation from 100% to 99% probably does increase production enough to compensate for the lost revenue. The counter-factual case is equally obvious, raising taxation from 0% to 1% will raise revenue, unless production ceases entirely. So Laffer proposes there's a curve, and that somewhere on this curve there is an ideal point of taxation that raises the most revenue while limiting production the least.

The funny part is that you can always sell the case that taxes should be lowered, because the ideal point on the curve is impossible to calculate or estimate because of the complexity involved in actual economic systems. It's an abstract concept that cannot be used to drive policy, but is, perpetually because it's just plausible enough to laymen to be sold. That's the "voodoo" part. It's frustrating for people who understand economics because it's so obviously and cynically false, but to demonstrate that, you need to teach people economics. It's also an example of what political consultants call "a one way ratchet" where public sympathy for a certain argument means it will always be able to made, regardless of outcome because the base psychological pull is so strong.

So, for this case, the ratchet works this way:

You lower taxes and production increases: See, we should lower taxes more and increase production even more!
You lower taxes and production doesn't increase: See, we didn't lower taxes enough!

Phrased differently:

We can't raise taxes now, the economy is doing poorly, we don't want to destroy it!
We can't raise taxes now. the economy is doing really well, we don't want to stall it!

All from the obviously false case: "Lowering taxes is good for the economy"

This isn't the only example, there are hundreds. Most of Edward Bernays and Anna Freud's careers were dedicated to discovering this sort of situation and exploiting it for corporations. It's a known effect.

Other examples:

False case: "Tough on crime laws lower crime rates"

Ratchet positions:

Pass a law crime rates go down : Tough on crime laws work!
Pass a law crime rates go us: We need to be tougher!

You get the idea.

Well, probably not. That's the idea, though.



Edited, Oct 9th 2012 10:51pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#379 Oct 09 2012 at 8:53 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,556 posts

Obviously, there's also issues with implementation. I'd assume


Let's stop there, shall we? I assume Obama's plan will lead to negative unemployment and we'll be begging people to immigrate to the US to fill the depleted labor pool.

Few things are more pointless than discussing imaginary economic plans, but discussing how you assume they'll work is one.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#380 Oct 09 2012 at 9:11 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,042 posts
I vote for metallic teal.


Unicorn armor, that is.

Edited, Oct 9th 2012 11:15pm by Debalic
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#381 Oct 10 2012 at 10:13 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts


The guy doing the voice for Lehrer is perfect.

Romney wrote:
Ah, c'mon, I'm not a robot, okay? I wish. Then I could go higher and you could rotate my arm and send me whooshin' into space. Can you hear me?


Smiley: lol

Edited, Oct 10th 2012 12:14pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#382 Oct 10 2012 at 10:27 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,484 posts
How can we debate the color of unicorn armor without knowing what color the unicorns are first?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#384 Oct 10 2012 at 6:06 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,072 posts
I didn't think this warranted a new thread:

What are your predictions of the VP debate?

Based off the clips that I've seen, I foresee Ryan monkey stumping Biden. I don't think because Ryan will know what he's talking about, but because Biden will gaffe it up. Then again, no one expected the results of the first debate, so it might just be the opposite.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#385 Oct 10 2012 at 7:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,946 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
However, in the situation we're in right now, the approach is absolutely sound. Let me repeat what I said earlier. Our revenues dropped several hundred billion dollars between 2007 and 2011. Yet, during that time, we did not change our tax rates. The loss of revenue occurred because of decreased economic activity and lower employment. At the federal level, lower profits means less taxes and fewer workers means less taxes. If you can reverse that, then the revenue will come back. That's not voodoo economics at all. It's quite consistent and documented economic behavior. It's what happens every time you have a recession and then the economy bounces back.


Sorry I missed this earlier. See that part in red, there? That's the part I'm referring to that doesn't happen, has never happened, and won't happen if implemented now.


Let's be really clear here (since I suspect your reading comprehension is a bit off here). The statement in red is in reference to reversing high unemployment and low economic growth. So you are saying that at no point in the past has increased employment and increased GDP growth resulted in increased federal tax revenue? Because that's all I'm talking about here.

I'll even answer for you: Of course increased employment and increased GDP growth will result in increased federal tax revenue. Everything else staying the same (including tax rates), you will collect more total tax dollars if there are more dollars running around for you to tax. We know this is true because in the example I gave (which you completely missed or ignored) our tax revenues dropped by several hundred billion dollars over a 2 year period of time despite our tax rates not changing. All I was saying was that if can recover the jobs and GDP growth we had in 2007, we will also recover the relative tax revenues we lost. And we can do this without raising a single tax rate.

Quote:
Lowering taxes doesn't increase production.


Not always. As I've explained many times before (and I thought in one of my earlier posts), it depends on the economic conditions you're in. It also depends on what you're defining as "lowering taxes" and "increase production". You liberals tend to play games with directionality on things like this, calling the lack of a tax increase a tax cut, and the lack of a decrease in production an increase. So forgive me if I'm being cautious about responding to you with your own words.

My argument is (and has been for years) that all we need to do to initiate a rapid recovery from the crash of 2008 is to simply commit to not raising taxes. It is my contention that the combination of massive spending (making the need to raise tax rates to pay for it more likely) and nearly continuous calls for raising taxes by Democrats and their supporters on the left is the primary reason why our economy has recovered so sluggishly from the recession. Businesses are afraid to invest in long term commitments (which usually involve employment) because they are being told constantly that their taxes will go up. Instead, they're dumping their investment money into commodities and bonds (things that they can shift money in and out of quickly, but which don't cause much if any job creation).

While Romney is also proposing some tax cuts, the primary objective, and primary means by which he plans to fix the deficit is via increased revenues resulting from increased tax base. You recover *first* and you'll see the money come back. The Democrats have been trying to do this backwards and the result has been no real recovery, which means low revenues, which means high deficits.

Point being it's not about lowering taxes, but committing to not raising them. And while this may be a bit unfair to the Democrats, right now the folks with the money who are making those investment decisions trust the GOP to not raise their taxes, while they believe the Dems will. Thus, merely electing a Republican president, even if he does nothing else, will result in the economy recovering. This is why all your talk about fantasy tax plans amuses the **** out of me. It really doesn't matter. What matters is restoring confidence in the market that they can invest in job creation and not get their hands slapped for doing it. Romney can talk about tax cuts and repealing Obamacare to add to that perception, but at the end of the day, it's the perception that matters more than what he actually does once he takes office.


Quote:
Never has. Never will.


False. It has on many occasions, but you'll always dismiss those. It's somewhat surprising how often conservative economic predictions come exactly right when we finally fight through the BS you liberals put in our way.

Quote:
Taxation and production are free floating factors that *are causally not linked in a linear way*. That's the part people laugh about. Amusingly, a guy named Aurthur Laffer did some work on it. Laffer, we laugh at it, har har.


Hah. I'm sure that's what you believe and what you were taught. But it's not true. It can't be true. Production *today* may not be affected by tax rates today, but production over time absolutely is. Every dollar not taxed is a dollar that contributes to the pool of money that is used to increase future production. Regardless of what ratio of that money actually contributes to production, everything else being the same, if you reduce that pool of money by X%, you will reduce the increase of production over time by some similar relative amount.

Your claim is like saying that how much money someone earns has no casual relationship with how expensive a house he buys. It's ludicrous. Unless your argument is that there's some magical cap on how much money companies and individuals will invest in things that contribute to productivity then your claim must be false. I know it's what you've been taught to believe, but it simply is not true. Everything else being the same, if I have more dollars left after taxes, I'm going to do more of whatever I would normally do with those dollars. Assuming some percentage of what I do with those dollars contributes to economic growth, then having more dollars after tax will increase economic growth.

Just saying something over and over doesn't make it true.

Quote:
You lower taxes and production increases: See, we should lower taxes more and increase production even more!
You lower taxes and production doesn't increase: See, we didn't lower taxes enough!


Or...

You spend money on stimulus and the economy recovers: See, we should spend more money on stimulus and the economy will grow!
You spend trillions on stimulus and the economy doesn't recover: See, we didn't spend enough on stimulus!

Sound familiar? That's your pal Krugman. He's wrong btw. The reason smaller stimulus "works" is because stimulus is only a placebo and has no real effect on recovery after a recession. As long as it's small, it doesn't *hurt* recovery though. The reason it didn't work this time isn't because it was too small, but because it was massively too large.

Funny how you can see the logic, but utterly fail to apply it to your own positions.


Quote:
All from the obviously false case: "Lowering taxes is good for the economy"


Hmmm... Misstating that a bit though. it's not "lowering" taxes that is good for the economy, but "low" taxes that is. I know that's a subtle difference, but it's really important. I can't say that every time a tax rate is lowered, that this will cause a positive economic outcome. I can say that, everything else being the same, if we can find ways to decrease the total tax burden on our economy, our economy will perform better. It's not just about taxes though, it's also about spending. Which is why Republicans are arguing for cutting spending *and* lowering taxes (or at least not raising them). Democrats, on the other hand, don't really seem to care if the economy is doing poorly. Increased spending is the end they seek, so any excuse they can use to do so will be tossed out there. And if they can somehow convince people that spending more money will make the economy do well, they'll do that. I guess what's shocking to me is how many people continue to believe that lie even when all the evidence that it didn't work is right in front of them.


Quote:
You get the idea.

Well, probably not. That's the idea, though.


I get the idea just fine. But you can apply that argument to anything, right? Coaches should not bother to try to come up with game strategies because if they work, they'll claim their ideas worked, and if they don't they just didn't implement them well? I mean, it's a cute observation and it certainly does appear in human behavior, but taking it to an absolute is completely useless. Defensive driving works if I don't get into an accident, but if I do then I wasn't defensive enough, right? What's the point? Saying that doesn't mean that driving defensively isn't still a good idea. The fact that you can express something in that form (which btw, you can do for anything) doesn't give us any information at all about whether we should adopt a given position.


What does is when we compare patterns over time, not single events. If those who practice defensive driving get into fewer accidents statistically than those who don't, then we can say it's a good thing to do. Similarly, when we can show that when the US responds to a recession with small short term spending increases and keeping taxes the same or lower we recover with a very predictable 2-3 year pattern, then that's a proven approach. When someone proposes doing something different (large long term spending paid for with increased tax rates) and we don't get that same relatively rapid recovery, it's not wrong at all to suggest that the new idea we tried didn't work and was a bad idea in the first place.

And that ought to be doubly apparent when a host of people told you right from the start that it wouldn't work, and told you exactly why it wouldn't work, but got overruled. I think it's more than fair for that group to say "I told you so", and then expect the population of the US to let them have a crack at the problem. You want us to use meaningless rhetoric to make decisions, but I think that an examination of facts and historical patterns is a much better way.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#386 Oct 11 2012 at 5:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,556 posts

Not always. As I've explained many times before (and I thought in one of my earlier posts), it depends on the economic conditions you're in. It also depends on what you're defining as "lowering taxes" and "increase production". You liberals tend to play games


Stopped reading here. You can make another attempt, if you like, where you don't look like a stumbling moron who has no clue what he's talking about and I may give it another shot. Don't get me wrong, I go into this, EVERYONE goes into this knowing that you have, quite literally, zero understanding of economic theory and are essentially guessing cobbling together things from Wikipedia and various blog, but when the foil hat of "it depends what you mean by 'is'" ******** gets put on, I'm done.

I'm not at all interested in playing pretend with you about data. No one has to "play games" to understand that lowering taxes in our present circumstances would be harmful. No one has to "play games" to understand that spending cuts now are a massively terrible idea. Europe is an easy object lesson in this. In a balance sheet rescission with interest rates against the ZLB, expansionary government spending is the only beneficial action.

The US recovery has been slow because WE DID NOT SPEND ENOUGH. It's math. It's not debatable. It's honestly not. You could easily look at the stimulus numbers initially and plug them into a model and say "hey, not big enough". When the stimulus passed, I, on this very forum said "hey, not big enough". All of the "debate" you hear in the political world from Christine Legarde or Paul Ryan or Angela Merkel about austerity being the only path out is pure unadulterated pandering with *literally* no empirical basis.

You want to cut taxes, fine. You want to cut spending also, you're encouraging the broad collapse of the US economy. Not hyperbole, just math.

For someone who understands the underpinning of the economic math involved, arguing for austerity is less credible than arguing that passenger jets simply cannot fly because "they are too heavy". Literally. The only way to convince a "they are too heavy" believer is to demonstrate a jet flying. Showing them the physics math that proves they can fly won't matter because they don't understand it. That's where we are here, but rather than having any interest in understanding, we're already at "it depends how you define fly, you jet flight people like to play games with aerodynamics."

I wonder if you had anything interesting to add after you gave away the punchline and demonstrated that you're a fucking soft minded fool so early on. We'll never know, I guess.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#387 Oct 11 2012 at 8:14 AM Rating: Good
******
44,484 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
It's math. It's not debatable. It's honestly not.
It's not debatable, but mindlessly arguable is still an option.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#388 Oct 11 2012 at 4:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Camp Romney has requested that Ryan be referred to as Mister Ryan and not Congressman Ryan. So drink when Biden says Congressman.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#389 Oct 11 2012 at 4:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,011 posts
When does this drinking game start anyway?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#390 Oct 11 2012 at 4:40 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
When does this drinking game start anyway?
As soon as you can get to the liquor cabinet.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#391 Oct 11 2012 at 4:53 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,072 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Camp Romney has requested that Ryan be referred to as Mister Ryan and not Congressman Ryan. So drink when Biden says Congressman.

Isn't that a downgrade?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#392 Oct 11 2012 at 4:54 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,228 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Camp Romney has requested that Ryan be referred to as Mister Ryan and not Congressman Ryan. So drink when Biden says Congressman.

Isn't that a downgrade?


Maybe like Romney, they are trying to erase any connection to his past.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#393 Oct 11 2012 at 5:02 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Meh, it's not like he was anyone important in Congress anyway. Chairperson of the House Budget Committee isn't really experience you go flaunting when you're running as VP.
#394 Oct 11 2012 at 5:33 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,042 posts
Guenny wrote:
Meh, it's not like he was anyone important in Congress anyway. Chairperson of the House Budget Committee isn't really experience you go flaunting when you're running as VP.

Especially when you look at the current state of the budget.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#395 Oct 11 2012 at 5:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,946 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I'm not at all interested in playing pretend with you about data. No one has to "play games" to understand that lowering taxes in our present circumstances would be harmful. No one has to "play games" to understand that spending cuts now are a massively terrible idea.


Saying this over and over doesn't make it true Smash. You're also still playing games with the facts. While Romney is proposing some minor tax cuts, the real question is between raising or not raising taxes. I've explained this several times now, and you keep ignoring it. You insist on making these broad statements about elements of the issue that are not the most significant factors.

If we raise taxes now, it would be a complete disaster. Obama wants to raise taxes.. Romney is opposed to raising taxes. That's the 800lb gorilla in the room. The left believes that raising taxes on the rich does not affect future job creation or economic growth. The right believes that it affects both negatively.


Those are the two positions people need to choose between Smash. But you suspiciously avoid addressing it and instead prefer to tilt at windmills made of straw.

Quote:
Europe is an easy object lesson in this. In a balance sheet rescission with interest rates against the ZLB, expansionary government spending is the only beneficial action.


You're kidding, right? You believe that to be true, but that does not make it true. Historical evidence show repeatedly that low taxes and spending leads to high employment, high economic growth, and high rates of technological advancement (which tends to bring about all sorts of standard of living benefits). Historical evidence in the US shows that when we keep spending low and keep taxes the same (or lower them) we recover consistently and fully within about a 3 year time frame. When we don't do this, we languish at the bottom of a recessionary hole for 2-3 times that.

Quote:
The US recovery has been slow because WE DID NOT SPEND ENOUGH. It's math. It's not debatable. It's honestly not.


Why isn't it debatable? It's not math Smash. It's an economic theory held by some people. How the **** is that not debatable. Again, you claiming it's true doesn't make it so.

Quote:
You could easily look at the stimulus numbers initially and plug them into a model and say "hey, not big enough".


Which model are we talking about though? Sure. If you plug it into a model which assumes that high spending is the way to rapidly recover from a recession, then of course that model will give you that result. The problem is that said model completely contradicts US economic history for the last 30 years. In the previous 3 recessions we did *not* massively increase spending and did *not* increase tax rates. And in all three cases, our economy recovered rapidly and fully.

The one time we tried things the other way around, we ended out with slow recovery. Actually, this is the second time we tried things that way. The other was the Great Depression. See how there's a common pattern there?


You are desperately clinging to an economic model that does not work. It has never worked. But instead of realizing this, you keep making excuses for why it fails. We didn't spent enough. Are you kidding?

Quote:
You want to cut taxes, fine. You want to cut spending also, you're encouraging the broad collapse of the US economy. Not hyperbole, just math.


Obama must listen to the same echo chamber you do. He also handwaves away any sort of logical assessment of his positions by claiming "it's math". Um... No, it's not.

Quote:
For someone who understands the underpinning of the economic math involved...


OMFG! It's not math. It's a theory. Just because there's math involved does not make the whole thing "just math". I can claim that combining a bar of lead and a ham sandwich will result in a bar of gold, but no amount of me doing the math of calculating how many gold bars I can get by combining X bars of lead and X ham sandwiches makes the result true. I can declare "it's just math" all day long. I'm still not going to see the result I predict. You can't just declare your theory to be math and avoid defending why the **** it never works.

Quote:
The only way to convince a "they are too heavy" believer is to demonstrate a jet flying.


Except what you're arguing is that since a jet can fly even though it's heavier than air, then the heavier you make the jet, the better it will fly. And despite repeatedly failing to get your jet off the ground if its weight to thrust ratio exceeds a certain amount, you continue to insist that heavier jets fly better. Meanwhile, the folks who work to keep their jets as light as possible are flying circles around you.

Quote:
Showing them the physics math that proves they can fly won't matter because they don't understand it.


Except in this case, it's demonstrable that you are the one who doesn't understand the physics, but continues to insist that heavier is better.

Quote:
That's where we are here, but rather than having any interest in understanding, we're already at "it depends how you define fly, you jet flight people like to play games with aerodynamics."


No. It's you saying that I'm wrong because heavier than air jets can fly, forcing me to clarify that I'm not saying that a jet can't fly if it's heavier than air, but that depending on how heavy it is, it wont fly well, or wont fly at all. It really does depend on how powerful the engines are, and how much actual weight we're talking about. But you want to treat it like an absolute.


But these are the kinds of fallacious arguing techniques you use when you know you can't defend your position using logic and reason. I keep hoping for better, but I'm not surprised when I don't get it. You've taken a completely untenable position here, so you kinda don't have a choice.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#396 Oct 11 2012 at 8:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,540 posts
Since I was late to the debate due to UX class I just had a long island iced tea and drank whenever Ryan took a sip.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#397 Oct 11 2012 at 11:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,556 posts
Why isn't it debatable? It's not math Smash. It's an economic theory held by some people. How the **** is that not debatable. Again, you claiming it's true doesn't make it so.

No, you know what makes it so? Mathematics. I'm not sure what you want me to do here. You literally cannot begin to understand the models, how do you suggest I persuade you? I'm sorry I can't dumb it down enough. I'm sorry your uneducated. I'm sorry you lack the capacity for effective self analysis which might allow you to become aware of your own ignorance. Should I sign you up for a community college statistics course?

There are many many things that are debatable, that are based largely on belief. Abortion is murder? Debatable. Social welfare programs are a drag on productivity? Debatable. Ages of consent? Debatable. Homosexuality as deviant social behavior?
Debatable. Capital punishment benefits societies where it exists? Debatable. Racial differences in mean innate IQ? Debatable. Paper or plastic? Debatable.

This is not one of those things. I understand you can't tell the difference. Clarke's law and all that, it's all magic to you, but, really it isn't. I'm not asking you to take my word for it, understand, you could get an education and DO THE FUCKING MATH on your own. You'd come to the same conclusion. Why? Because it's not an ideological point. This isn't an argument I make on any other ideological basis. I make ethical or ideological arguments. This isn't that any more than arguing with someone who can't grasp the math behind the world not being flat or the sun not orbiting the earth is debatable.


Except what you're arguing is that since a jet can fly even though it's heavier than air, then the heavier you make the jet, the better it will fly. And despite repeatedly failing to get your jet off the ground if its weight to thrust ratio exceeds a certain amount, you continue to insist that heavier jets fly better. Meanwhile, the folks who work to keep their jets as light as possible are flying circles around you.


I've probably asked this before, but are you actually mentally handicapped in some way? You don't seem to be, contrary to my frequent protestations, someone with an IQ of 85, but you have the communication skills of same.


In the previous 3 recessions we did *not* massively increase spending and did *not* increase tax rates. And in all three cases, our economy recovered rapidly and fully.


Not even vaguely true, but beside the point entirely. The reason the math is so simple and solid for the current case is, once again, the ZLB. It occurs to me you probably have no idea what that means, so (god help me, I don't know why) let me elaborate. "Recession" is a generic term like "war". You would agree, hopefully, that World War 2 where we won with forced rationing, conscription and nuclear weapons, is a different case than Afghanistan?

ZLB stands for Zero Lower Bound, and it refers to the Fed Funds rate. You see, in the other cases you mention, and in most other cases that aren't this specific case (where again, the mathematical model is completely understood) the primary stimulus function reaches the market via the Fed adding liquidity. You're not competent to understand the mechanics of this, but the net result is the lowering of the Fed Funds rate. Cheaper money let's people borrow, adds money to the system, etc. Idiots sometimes refer to this as the Fed "printing money". So there is a debatable point about if this is enough, in other cases, to spur economic growth, if lowering too aggressively sets up the system for more crashes, etc. All debatable things. I have beliefs based on best evidence for them, but they are opinions.

This case is different...

Because the current Fed Funds rate is ZERO

http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/statistics/dlyrates/fedrate.html

See the ZERO there by 2008? Notice the trend-line of multiple point reductions in the rate for the other time frames you're citing? It's a wall. A hard stop to this mechanism of monetary policy. In theory, the fed could add liquidity in ways that would drive the Fed Funds rate below zero (paying people to borrow money), but there are obvious superficial problems with this and deeper systemic risks that I'm not going to bother explaining to you, but trust me that it won't occur. The fed can try to compensate for the breakdown of the mechanism caused by being against the ZLB with quantitative easting (I'm not going to explain it), but it's far less effective.

So, while it's trivial to establish that lowering the Fed Funds rate has coincided with every recovery you mention, THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE RIGHT NOW. Since the Fed lacks the capacity currently to inject enough stimulus to hasten recovery, the only other agency large enough to effect the same monetary policy is the Federal Government via direct spending. Again, it's math. We can calculate the effects of the Fed Funds rate moves for all of the other cases, and if that rate was at 8, this would be debatable. What to do would be a complex question.

But, it isn't, and..it isn't.

This is why it was easy to tell the Stimulus was too small, immediately. This is why it was obvious that the "compromise" number was a mistake, and likely a catastrophic one. Go back and read my posts at the time. They'll be the same argument. Why? Because 2+2 still =4. Like the forum. That additional stimulating effect has to come from somewhere, and no, tax cuts aren't sufficient to do it. They might be if rates hadn't been lowered basically for fun prior to the crisis, but they were. Lowering taxation to zero tomorrow wouldn't be enough, unless spending was increased as well.

That's what has to happen if you want a recovery in the next 10 years. Massive spending to create demand. Probably won't happen, regardless of who is elected, but that's a separate issue.

Edited, Oct 12th 2012 1:24am by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#398 Oct 12 2012 at 7:42 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,484 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
\ Because 2+2 still =4.
That's just a theory that only some people believe.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#399 Oct 12 2012 at 9:53 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,540 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
\ Because 2+2 still =4.
That's just a theory that only some people believe.


It also assumes you're working in Base 10. In Base 4, 2+2=10.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#400 Oct 12 2012 at 11:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#401 Oct 12 2012 at 1:32 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
catwho wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
\ Because 2+2 still =4.
That's just a theory that only some people believe.


It also assumes you're working in Base 10.


Nope.

You're not very good at this, are you?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 36 All times are in CST
Allegory, Bijou, Jophiel, trickybeck, Anonymous Guests (32)