< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3084 OF 5704 ·
|Apr-24-12|| ||valiant: "In the postwar U.S., higher top tax rates tend to go with higher economic growth—not lower."|
<keypusher> Thanks for the wonderful wsj-article (written by Mr. Diamond & Mr. Saez).
|Apr-24-12|| ||cormier: 18 minutes ago
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu voiced support on Tuesday for the first time for Palestinians to establish a contiguous state, saying their future country should not look like “Swiss cheese.
|Apr-24-12|| ||OhioChessFan: <Tomlinsky: People progressively down the 'profit' ladder have to put their money straight back into the economy without a chance of hanging onto it with promises of spreading their 'profit' how they see fit.>|
There is no question that a person spending most of their earnings on life's necessities won't have much left to invest to increase their wealth (I understand there's other ways of creating wealth). I understand wanting to make things more fair, etc, but most programs that seek to address that make things worse.
|Apr-24-12|| ||al wazir: Don't we all believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed in life and to realize his or her full potential? Is that everyone's right? Anything less would be unfair.|
Let's see what that means in practice:
-- An equal chance to grow up safely.
-- An equal chance to get proper nutrition.
-- An equal chance at an excellent education.
-- An equal chance to get the best medical care.
-- An equal chance to work in a good job.
Are you still with me? OK, how about these:
-- An equal chance to have competent legal and financial advice.
-- An equal chance at convenient, comfortable means of transportation.
-- An equal chance to enjoy domestic bliss and harmony.
-- An equal chance to achieve spiritual well-being (whatever that means).
-- An equal chance to share the full cultural patrimony of the human race.
By now I can practically hear the groans and jeers. This sounds like a recipe for a lifestyle that tycoons and tyrants don't always achieve. Even the first few items may be a little controversial. After all, if the poor enjoy the same diet, schooling, healthcare, etc., as the rich, then what's the point of being rich?
Everything is contingent. In prehistoric times *none* of these conditions were met, and this is still true today in the most backward societies. A rich society like ours can afford some, but not all of them. Which ones? That is, ahem, debatable. There is no _a priori_ definition of what is "fair."
|Apr-25-12|| ||johnlspouge: We pay more per capita than any other country for our medical care, but things could certainly be worse.|
Capitalist incentives inherent in US emergency care have led to increased efficiencies [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/b... ].
|Apr-25-12|| ||patzer2: <Chancho> In reference to Wolfe's attack on Sowell, one needs to know where Alan Wolfe is coming from politically.|
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_W... <<Earlier in his career, Wolfe was a member of the collective that put out the Marxist-oriented journal, Kapitalistate, whose pages featured articles by such writers as Poulantzas, Claus Offe, Ralph Miliband, and Bob Jessop.>>
Wolfe is now supposed to be more "centrist," but the attack by this sociologist (not an economist) on Sowell demonstrates that he hasn't moved away from extreme left wing positions. Like many here he resorts to adhominem attacks as a substitute for reasoned argument.
Thomas Sowell is a Professor of economics at Stanford and highly respected in his profession. His biography at http://www.hoover.org/fellows/9767 states <<Sowell was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2002. In 2003, Sowell received the Bradley Prize for intellectual achievement. Sowell received his bachelor’s degree in economics (magna cum laude) from Harvard in 1958, his master’s degree in economics from Columbia University in 1959, and his PhD in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968.>>
|Apr-25-12|| ||patzer2: <Jim Bartle: "Trickle-down economics" most certainly exists.> You might believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny, but that doesn't make them real. |
Professor Thomas Sowell makes two convincing arguments:
1. There is no such thing as "trickle down economics" in the academic literature or text books written by professional economists.
2. The benefits of business tax cuts (i.e. capital gains tax cuts) that spur investment first benefits the workers hired to operate the new enterprise, and only later "trickles back up" to owners and investors if the business makes a profit.
Sowell is right. Liberals have it backwards about how wealth is created and distributed in the private sector.
P.S.: The phrase is simply a fabrication and a convenient tool of the left to engage in class warfare. It's demagoguery designed to appeal to the resentment of the public toward those who succeed in private enterprise. It also marks those who believe an essential purpose of government is to confiscate and redistribute wealth.
|Apr-25-12|| ||chancho: <patzer2> Yeah, I read that.|
I also read this from, Wiki:
<Thomas Sowell has stated that he was a Marxist “during the decade of my 20s"; one of his earliest professional publications was a sympathetic examination of Marxist thought vs. Marxist-Leninist practice>
He changed his views and so did Wolfe:
<Wolfe: I do not fear a future Tim Russert combing my early books to find words in blatant contradiction to my present ones: good luck in even finding the young out-of-print me. Sure, some of the stuff I once wrote embarrasses me now, even down to my choice of titles. But better that than sentences never exposed to the air of experience.>
Saying that Wolfe is not an economist and therefore not qualified to comment on Sowell's work sounds reasonable.
There are people here who do understand something about economics,(you amongst them) and while they do not have the title next to their name, their opinions certainly have value.
Wolfe understands economics to a reasonable extent, (probably beyond that) so why shouldn't his opinions have merit as well?
Besides, it's really not relevant in this case.
The book in question is called:
<Intellectuals and Society>
Seeing as Wolfe is an intellectual of some note, it's reasonable to assume that he's not out of his depth in regards to this particular kind of review?
|Apr-25-12|| ||HeMateMe: On a lighter note, has anyone seen <VEEP>, a new HBO show starring Julie Louis Dryfus? She is a contemporary Vice President. This isn't the pwer girl type show, like a few years ago when Geena Davis played the president of the USA. This is a much more realistic, small issue oriented type show, real people, real world. |
She played Elaine, the girlfriend of Jerry Seinfeld on <Seinfeld>. Not a bad show, tries to take you into the hypothetical sleazy world of big time politics. The players are as ethical as used car salesmen. Probably inspired by the almost VEEP asendency of Sarah Palin.
I'll have to watch another two episodes to see if I really like it. The actors surrounding Dryfus are good. It remains to be seen if the writers can keep it good each week.
|Apr-25-12|| ||King Death: I'd like to see Julia Louis Dreyfus.|
|Apr-25-12|| ||King Death: Darrell Issa's at it again on Obama's administration.|
|Apr-25-12|| ||FSR: Issa may wish to compare the entries in this article for the Obama administration and its predecessor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o... As you'll recall, I reposted their list of George W. Bush administration scandals here, but it required three posts to do so.|
|Apr-25-12|| ||kb2ct: |
Which is the better high??
Airplanr glue, cough syrup, mouthwash, or hand sanitizer???
|Apr-25-12|| ||Jim Bartle: Patzer2: "Trickle down economics" is just a light term similar to "Obamacare." It refers to giving breaks to the wealthiest so they can then pass on some of that wealth to those below.|
That's a common policy prescription, and advocated by several people on this page. It's not going to go by the informal name in academic literature, but the policy is certainly discussed.
|Apr-25-12|| ||hedgeh0g: <Low skill low education low wage workers? How politically incorrect. I prefer to call them undocumented entrepeneuric Obama supporters.>|
Considering the vast redneck base of the GOP, I find this comment amusing.
|Apr-25-12|| ||tpstar: <Which is the better high??>|
|Apr-25-12|| ||johnlspouge: < <kb2ct> wrote: Which is the better high?? Airplanr glue, cough syrup, mouthwash, or hand sanitizer??? >|
Maybe we can finally get an informed opinion from <diceman>.
|Apr-25-12|| ||cormier: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings...|
|Apr-25-12|| ||Tomlinsky: <OCF: There is no question that a person spending most of their earnings on life's necessities won't have much left to invest to increase their wealth (I understand there's other ways of creating wealth). I understand wanting to make things more fair, etc, but most programs that seek to address that make things worse.>|
Well, I'll just reiterate the part you left out then... Where, exactly, are all of these jobs globally that have been created with endless 'incentives' to the corporate pocket? Anyone!? Profit to reinvest in jobs and the economy my arse.
- Available For Children's Parties, Bar Mitzvah, Public Executions, Vicar's Lunches, Cheerleader Reunions & Balloon Dancing -
|Apr-25-12|| ||Marmot PFL: <Don't we all believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed in life and to realize his or her full potential? Is that everyone's right? Anything less would be unfair.>|
Sure, but who over age 14 believes that life is fair?
|Apr-25-12|| ||Marmot PFL: <Which is the better high??
Airplanr glue, cough syrup, mouthwash, or hand sanitizer???>
I've heard computer duster is good, but don't take my word for it. Most druggies aren't too picky and will use whatever household products are handy.
|Apr-25-12|| ||Marmot PFL: <Professor Thomas Sowell makes two convincing arguments:|
1. There is no such thing as "trickle down economics" in the academic literature or text books written by professional economists.>
"Trickle down", "Reaganomics", "voodoo economics" are all slang expressions for supply side economics. Sowell is correct in that very few professional economists take it seriously.
<The specific set of foolish ideas that has laid claim to the name "supply side economics" is a crank doctrine that would have had little influence if it did not appeal to the prejudices of editors and wealthy men.>
|Apr-25-12|| ||Jim Bartle: I thought supply-side economics is different from trickle-down economics, or at least deal with different aspects of similar policies.|
Supply-side says that lowering tax rates raise productivity by so much that tax revenues will go up.
Trickle-down economics claims that if you give breaks to the wealthy (excuse me, the job creators), they will hire more employees, pay them better, etc. and that part of that wealth will flow down to the regular folks.
|Apr-25-12|| ||kb2ct: |
Dice appears to be a huffer not a puffer or drinker.
|Apr-25-12|| ||johnlspouge: < <kb2ct> wrote: <johnlspouge:> Dice appears to be a huffer not a puffer or drinker. >|
I apologize for overestimating his expertise.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3084 OF 5704 ·