Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So Sowell, an avowed Laffer-lover, writes an Op-Ed with no real evidence whatsoever to support his hypothesis and you consider it something of value?
It's a proven fact that Supply-Side economics not only doesn't work, it also causes recessions. Every tax cut on the rich has been followed by a brief period of prosperity and then a major crash. These are FACTS.
When tax brakes allow more money to be spent on rent seeking, expect the supply on real goods and service to go down.
Yeah da guberment is behind all the regulation.....
Large companies are especially good at using environmental regulations to squeeze out smaller competitors, because there are economies of scale that can be put to use. A company with 20 refineries can comply with regulatory paperwork a lot more easily than a firm with one refinery, because the big company is more likely to employ specialists who do the work for all of their refineries. The small firm has to train somebody to do the regulatory filings even if it is not their primary job, or, more likely, to hire an outside consulting firm to deal with the red tape, which can be considerably more expensive than doing it yourself. For this reason, the number of small, independent refineries has shrunk greatly since 1980, and now only a few large companies dominate the industry.
Actually the Bush tax cuts could be a reason why the housing bubble inflated as it did. During an economic boom, taxes are to be raised to offset aggregate demand. This never happened.
When tax brakes allow more money to be spent on rent seeking, expect the supply on real goods and service to go down.
Yeah da guberment is behind all the regulation.....
Large companies are especially good at using environmental regulations to squeeze out smaller competitors, because there are economies of scale that can be put to use. A company with 20 refineries can comply with regulatory paperwork a lot more easily than a firm with one refinery, because the big company is more likely to employ specialists who do the work for all of their refineries. The small firm has to train somebody to do the regulatory filings even if it is not their primary job, or, more likely, to hire an outside consulting firm to deal with the red tape, which can be considerably more expensive than doing it yourself. For this reason, the number of small, independent refineries has shrunk greatly since 1980, and now only a few large companies dominate the industry.
Supply-Side Economics, you know the entire tenet of the current GOP, has been debunked countless times.
And tax brakes are not the same thing as tax breaks...
.
The estimates of the Iraq war costs by people like Stiglitz were exercises in hallucinomics. Stiglitz included such things as estimates of the costs borne by Americans for higher energy costs, which he guessed would result from the war.
And this guy cannot narrow down his estimate better than $2 trillion? Why? Because he's guessing, and making it up as he goes.. The cost of the Iraq war, based on actual outlays, according to the Congressional Research Service, was $806 billion. You know I always found the UFO/bigfoot/paranormal realm to be intriguing but quickly boring. Why? Because they just make s--t up. Same thing with Joe Stiglitz & simliar.
CRS (congressional research service) says $806 billion. Period.
Actually the Bush tax cuts could be a reason why the housing bubble inflated as it did. During an economic boom, taxes are to be raised to offset aggregate demand. This never happened.
Wages declined following tax cuts. So I doubt people suddenly realized that they had a few hundred dollars a year to go take a loan. The economic debacle ensued largely for these reasons in my opinion:
Economy boomed thru FY2000. Jobs continued to grow thru January 2001. Recession started in February 2001 (and ended in November 2001). But here it gets interesting.
Wages increased for many years, as the economy was booming since 1993. By 2000, unemployment rate was below 4%, perhaps unprecedented. So, when economic slowdown began in late 2000, and economy started shedding jobs (but not even close to the kind of losses we saw in 2008-2009 recession), the assumption of still living the mid-1990s economy was alive. Then, Greenspan decides that to recover from an economic downturn (which is how we saw in 2001) by promoting… lending over savings. The “recovery†hinged on two things:
-Tax cuts
-Interest rate cuts
Both provided incentives/perceptions to more lending. Even with wages and employment declining, home prices continued to rise, and in fact, accelerated. This was also the time we started seeing automakers start 0% loan deals. Suddenly, the populace felt “empoweredâ€â€¦ perception of more take home income, low lending rates, and the hangover from the high times of the late 90s economy.
BUT, job growth was terrible. In fact, it took almost two years since the end of recession for the economy to show positive growth in private sector employment. At this time, a second tax cut was proposed (indeed, to “stimulate†job growth since, apparently, the 2001 stimulation of economy didn’t do the often advertised magic). At this time, rules were also relaxed for the five top financial institutions, to lend at an obscene leveraging ratio. Want to hold only $1 to lend $35? Hey, go for it! Lehman Brothers and company, obliged.
Then boom happened. And the whole economy dropped down with a thud. The idiot, Sowell, chooses to deflect from areas where the Bush tax cuts played a role, and from the steps taken that literally never had the economy recover from 2001 recession.
BUT, bad economy, and growing deficits are a good thing… if your party platform includes the idea that deficits can be used as the boogeyman to kill social safety nets you never supported.
.
CRS (congressional research service) says $806 billion. Period.
Which is what many studies also put it... covering only direct costs. I assume you find it better to ignore, unlike these economists you quickly dismissed, that indirect costs don't exist and don't matter going forward.
Wages declined following tax cuts. So I doubt people suddenly realized that they had a few hundred dollars a year to go take a loan. The economic debacle ensued largely for these reasons in my opinion:
Economy boomed thru FY2000. Jobs continued to grow thru January 2001. Recession started in February 2001 (and ended in November 2001). But here it gets interesting.
Wages increased for many years, as the economy was booming since 1993. By 2000, unemployment rate was below 4%, perhaps unprecedented. So, when economic slowdown began in late 2000, and economy started shedding jobs (but not even close to the kind of losses we saw in 2008-2009 recession), the assumption of still living the mid-1990s economy was alive. Then, Greenspan decides that to recover from an economic downturn (which is how we saw in 2001) by promoting… lending over savings. The “recovery†hinged on two things:
-Tax cuts
-Interest rate cuts
Both provided incentives/perceptions to more lending. Even with wages and employment declining, home prices continued to rise, and in fact, accelerated. This was also the time we started seeing automakers start 0% loan deals. Suddenly, the populace felt “empoweredâ€â€¦ perception of more take home income, low lending rates, and the hangover from the high times of the late 90s economy.
BUT, job growth was terrible. In fact, it took almost two years since the end of recession for the economy to show positive growth in private sector employment. At this time, a second tax cut was proposed (indeed, to “stimulate†job growth since, apparently, the 2001 stimulation of economy didn’t do the often advertised magic). At this time, rules were also relaxed for the five top financial institutions, to lend at an obscene leveraging ratio. Want to hold only $1 to lend $35? Hey, go for it! Lehman Brothers and company, obliged.
Then boom happened. And the whole economy dropped down with a thud. The idiot, Sowell, chooses to deflect from areas where the Bush tax cuts played a role, and from the steps taken that literally never had the economy recover from 2001 recession.
BUT, bad economy, and growing deficits are a good thing… if your party platform includes the idea that deficits can be used as the boogeyman to kill social safety nets you never supported.
You can't deny that there was robust economic growth from 2003-2006. Anybody who wanted a job could get one.
I am cool with that, lets return to taxing and spending levels of the Clinton Era Would you be willing to see taxes go up for that to happen? I am fine with spending going down to where Clinton had it set (which also means you are gonna see some money come out of defense, I am sure you are cool with that)
You bet! If we could actually have a $200 billion surplus that would be earmarked for debt reduction, I actually would not mind paying Clinton era taxes. However, I doubt very much that-
the current government would ever cut spending to Clinton era spending
the current government would actually apply a "surplus" to the debt
When has our government ever done anything responsible with increased revenues? They just fall all over themselves finding ways to blow it. They need the constraints of a balanced budget amendment, as they are addicted to spending.
You can't deny that there was robust economic growth from 2003-2006. Anybody who wanted a job could get one.
Well, that is the least we could hope for, with the coupling of economy propped up on borrowing, on tax cuts (creating a perception of greater purchasing power) and financial giants allowed to leverage at over 30:1 ratio (again, promoted irresponsible lending... irresponsibility leading to rescue of some of them (AIG, for example), and disappearance of some (Lehman Brothers).
So, we did see an increase of private sector employment by 6.4 million during those four years, or an average of 132K jobs/month.
By comparison, private sector has added 5.0 million during last 33 months, and we're doing bad (computes to 151K jobs/month.
I wonder if I'd asked Romney, about the two best calender years of growth in private sector hiring, he would have mentioned 2011 being one of them. But, we're so spoiled by quick-trick economy now, that slow and steady simply is a terrible idea.
Which is what many studies also put it... covering only direct costs. I assume you find it better to ignore, unlike these economists you quickly dismissed, that indirect costs don't exist and don't matter going forward.
The indirect costs are difficult to impossible to measure. How do you really tell what impact the Iraq war had on energy prices paid by US consumers? That was one of the things Stiglitz claimed to have calculated.
Plus, what about indirect benefits. How do we tell what might have happened had we not gone to Iraq? Maybe all those guys like al zarqawi would have come to the US instead of Iraq. Who knows. How do you measure that. What if I claim that was a $20 trillion benefit to the US.
It's all an exercise in crapology. What number do you use? $3 trillion, $4trillion, or $5 trillion? Why not just make it $16 trillion, then you can blame the entire national debt on Bush and the Iraq war? If you give yourself the green light to make up numbers why stop at $5 trillion. But guess what, for every $trillion you make up, I can make one up on the other side.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would you be willing to see taxes go up for that to happen? I am fine with spending going down to where Clinton had it set (which also means you are gonna see some money come out of defense, I am sure you are cool with that
)
