Perhaps you are confused by the spending aspect that is implied by the term "stimulate". Taxing those who spend proportionally less will stimulate spending, the other side of the coin is that it will have an inverse effect on savings, which is why I have made it very clear that the automatic stabilizing aspect of progressive taxation is the bigger gain from it. Stimulating spending is what you want to do when there is a recession, stimulating savings is what you want to do when there is a bubble. The aspect of progressive taxation that does both of these is the way that it increases tax levels as incomes increase, and reduces tax levels as they decline (on the aggregate).

[Edited on November 30, 2010 at 11:01 PM. Reason : ]

11/30/2010 10:58:40 PM

^except the govt doesnt cut spending during good times or bad. Thats the real problem. Hell, some guy on here is calling for riots over a proposed pay freeze. At a time with over 1T deficit. Imagine the outrage if we had to CUT some of these programs.

I favor the fairtax, and if not that a flat tax. Fairness/equality should be the rule of law, instead of some egghead lawyers trying to manage the economy and the people.

If you want to fish 30 hours a week and work 10, fine.

If you want to work 30 and fish 10, fine.

Im not saying one lifestyle is better than the other, but certainly one will earn more...so be it. Why would you want to try to bring down ones income to subsidize the others? Just isnt right, imo.

I keep hearing the poorer people spend a larger percentage...blah blah.. They spend a higher percentage on everything..period. Of the 20 people in Mcdonalds they all are spending a different percentage of their worth on their meal. Yet I rarely see anyone whining how unfair that is. It applies to everything. Instead of worrying about what someone else is earning, spend more time increasing what you earn. I know, I know, much easier to vote to take their money to give you than to earn it.

[Edited on November 30, 2010 at 11:39 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2010 11:38:16 PM

Quote :

"except the govt doesnt cut spending during good times or bad"

What they do with the money is irrelevant, what matters to that mechanism is that they take it.

Quote :

"I favor the fairtax, and if not that a flat tax."

Why not a VAT? It has all the pluses of a fairtax, without the stupid gaping loopholes.

Quote :

"They spend a higher percentage on everything..period."

Yes, their predictability is a valuable asset to intelligent tax policy.

11/30/2010 11:49:02 PM

Loopholes? I prefer the fairtax bc of the simplicity.

I would support a VAT over the income tax, not in addition to.

12/1/2010 1:51:19 PM

It's not as simple as it might seem. Seeming simplicity is the reason it sold all these books and has this populist support, but its complexities are all neatly crammed under the rug of a term most people would simply gloss over, that is "final goods". "Final goods" is what fairtax claims it would tax, unfortunately things aren't easily classified into "final" or "intermediate". They can be now simply by saying "everything an individual buys is a final good, everything a corporation buys is an intermediate good", but this isn't completely accurate, and more damaging, it completely depends upon corporate income tax, otherwise one could easily claim themselves to be a corporation, as most of what we spend is, in some degree, related to work.

12/1/2010 2:08:26 PM

Quote :

"Taxing those who spend proportionally less will stimulate spending"

HOW!?

12/1/2010 5:38:17 PM

I don't understand how you aren't following this. Person A spends 90% of the money they get. Person B spends 10% of the money they get. If I want to maximize the amount of money that is spent, who should I tax more? MPC explains that as proportional spending goes up, income goes down, thus we know that Person A is poor, and Person B is rich.

12/1/2010 5:54:22 PM

Kris is still here? Peddling his same economic musings?

Crazy to think some of us have spent well over half a decade arguing the same things in TWW TSB...

12/1/2010 6:09:30 PM

Quote :

"What they do with the money is irrelevant, what matters to that mechanism is that they take it."

hahaha. pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!!

12/1/2010 6:17:53 PM

Quote :

"Kris is still here?"

I took several years off, but I'm back again, nice to see you.

Quote :

"pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"

Good job ignoring the argument.

12/1/2010 6:23:08 PM

says the person who says "fuck what they do with it, just take it!"

Quote :

"If I want to maximize the amount of money that is spent, who should I tax more? "

But that's not AT ALL what you were initially saying. You said taxing the rich is economically stimulative. Simply spending cash is not, in itself, stimulative.

12/1/2010 6:26:14 PM

The economic mechanisms of taxation can be compartmentalized from the economic mechanisms of government spending. The government could offer tax refunds with the money or they could spend every dime on missles, both are irrelevant to the mechanisms of taxation.

Quote :

"You said taxing the rich is economically stimulative. Simply spending cash is not, in itself, stimulative."

plz2read the post on the top of this page.

12/1/2010 6:30:49 PM

absolutely not. the government SPEND THE MONEY in order to have any effect on the economy with its taxation. But that does NOT equate to "simply spending money is stimulative". Necessary vs sufficient.

Either way, MPC, alone, does not explain how soaking the rich is stimulative. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, such as the rich sheltering their money elsewhere away from high tax-rates, as we have seen previously in our history.

Moreover, MPC ignores the very real fact that the rich DO drive investment and capital. To simply look at consumption alone is to be ignorant of what the rich do with their money. They don't squirrel it away in a hole. Seriously, stop being such a one-trick-pony

12/1/2010 6:41:41 PM

Quote :

"I don't understand how you aren't following this. "

Because you're terrible at translating Keynesian concepts and language into terms those of us who haven't drank the Kool-Aid can easily digest.

Do you not see how this doesn't make sense to even a casual studier of economics - If you want people to spend more money you tax them more? There is nothing intuitive about that. It's what I'm asking you to explain and all you're doing is saying "it's self evident, I can't believe you can't see it". Marginal propensity to consume as you're explaining it doesn't explain why taking from someone will make them spend more.

If you're talking about in terms of business where they'd rather avoid higher tax rates by fully investing back into the company, then yes I can buy that. But as best I can tell, you haven't explained it this way.

[Edited on December 1, 2010 at 6:53 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2010 6:52:22 PM

Quote :

"the government SPEND THE MONEY in order to have any effect on the economy with its taxation."

No it doesn't. Progressive taxation is like as if the government gave a tax break to those who spend the most.

Quote :

"There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, such as the rich sheltering their money elsewhere away from high tax-rates, as we have seen previously in our history."

You wouldn't happen to have that evidence, would you?

Quote :

"Moreover, MPC ignores the very real fact that the rich DO drive investment and capital."

MOC doesn't ignore that, the implied argument that "stimulating spending is always good" ignores that, and I pointed that out in my post on the top of this page.

Quote :

"They don't squirrel it away in a hole."

To some degree they do, and they do especially in times of economic downturn. I know more than most as I work in financials and during the recession I saw how much money was moved out of real investments into money markets and short term bonds, which is basically "squirreling it away in a hole".

Quote :

"If you want people to spend more money you tax them more?"

We're not talking about the amount we tax, but just where we put the tax burden for whatever amount we tax. I find it obvious that putting the burden on the people who spend the least would obviously increase spending.

Quote :

"Marginal propensity to consume as you're explaining it doesn't explain why taking from someone will make them spend more"

Progressive taxation doesn't attempt to make the rich spend more, what it does is it takes advantage of those who already spend more by making them pay less. Obviously, all other things equal) spending would be greatest if we didn't tax at all, but that isn't an option, so the question we're left with is how much do we tax and who do we tax. The "who do we tax" is part progressive taxation tries to address. In order to maximize aggregate spending we would tax least those who spend most, and tax most those who spend least. MPC explains why the rich are the group that spend the least and the poor are those who spend the most.

12/1/2010 7:16:52 PM

Before, you said taxing the rich more makes them spend more. Now you're saying taxing those that aren't rich less lets them spend more.

Quote :

"I know more than most as I work in financials and during the recession I saw how much money was moved out of real investments into money markets and short term bonds, which is basically "squirreling it away in a hole"."

As it should be. Let the weakest companies die. Once we see who had a strong capital position and is most likely to grow and give us our investment back, we'll move back into those companies (as the market has been doing since early 2009).

Unfortunately, big government interfered with our ability to know who was weak and who wasn't and picked the corporations it wanted to survive. Thats fucked up.

[Edited on December 1, 2010 at 7:51 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2010 7:48:02 PM

Quote :

"No it doesn't. Progressive taxation is like as if the government gave a tax break to those who spend the most."

Really? a guy who makes 10 grand a year spends more than a guy who makes a million? wow! how was i so stupid?

Quote :

"You wouldn't happen to have that evidence, would you?"

Switzerland has all the evidence you will ever need.

Quote :

"MOC doesn't ignore that, the implied argument that "stimulating spending is always good" ignores that, and I pointed that out in my post on the top of this page."

Really? Then why try to take it from them? If all you do is take the money from them, what good have you done? Jack shit. If anything, you've HURT the economy because you've then just taken money out of it in that case.

Quote :

"To some degree they do"

Not really. They invest it. They don't put it into a mattress.

Quote :

"I know more than most as I work in financials and during the recession I saw how much money was moved out of real investments into money markets and short term bonds, which is basically "squirreling it away in a hole"."

In that one instance, yes. But that is not what is typically done. To suggest so is absurd.

12/1/2010 7:56:51 PM

Quote :

"Kris: I took several years off, but I'm back again, nice to see you."

Likewise. I need to force myself to visit TWW more regularly, I was much more polished in my debating style back then. Now I go through this thread and my eyes just kinda glaze over

12/1/2010 8:39:20 PM

Quote :

" If you want more money out of rich people, I would appreciate it if people would just come out and say it, instead of trying to come up with some convoluted system that doesn't directly take more money from rich people, but the end result has rich people paying more than anyone else."

I'll say it.

I want rich people to pay more money.

12/2/2010 12:16:30 AM

Quote :

"Before, you said taxing the rich more makes them spend more."

I never said that. What I have said, several times now, is that if you want to maximize spending while having taxes, you will tax the rich the most.

Quote :

"As it should be. Let the weakest companies die. Once we see who had a strong capital position and is most likely to grow and give us our investment back, we'll move back into those companies"

Although it may seem great under your idea of economic darwinism, it is not efficient. What if, several years ago before thier growth, google had been one of the companies that happened not to have a strong capital position and forced to go under? We need stability, not a holocaust of companies that don't happen to have the right level of cash when the music stops.

Quote :

"Really? a guy who makes 10 grand a year spends more than a guy who makes a million? wow! how was i so stupid?"

We are talking about proportions, please keep up. I've made it clear many times throughout the discussion, I shouldn't have to post "proportionally" after every post because you can't keep up.

Quote :

"Switzerland has all the evidence you will ever need."

No, they don't. They evidence you would need is that tax avoidance is significant enough to have real economic impacts on the progressivity, which I don't believe is true.

Quote :

"If all you do is take the money from them, what good have you done?"

You have to take it from someone. I think the premise, we need to have taxes, is assumed. The question is, who do we take them from to have the best economic outcome?

Quote :

"They invest it. They don't put it into a mattress."

Yes they do, they keep a good percentage of thier savings in cash or a cash-equivilent.

Quote :

"In that one instance, yes. But that is not what is typically done. To suggest so is absurd."

It's not absurd at all. They keep a good deal of it in liquid or easily liquid positions. During the recession, they kept a whole lot more in those positions, but they always keep a considerable amount in them.

12/2/2010 9:43:19 AM

Quote :

"What I have said, several times now, is that if you want to maximize spending while having taxes, you will tax the rich the most."

I think making taxes proportional to consumption is a bigger priority than crafting the tax system in such a way that it has the best possible effect on the economy.

Quote :

"We are talking about proportions, please keep up. I've made it clear many times throughout the discussion, I shouldn't have to post "proportionally" after every post because you can't keep up."

If poor people consume proportionally more, they should be taxed proportionally more. A person earning $100k and consuming $40 should not pay more taxes than someone earning $40k and consuming $40k. Granted, one cannot reduce their consumption to zero, which is why everyone gets prebates for taxes spent up to a certain amount.


[Edited on December 2, 2010 at 10:43 AM. Reason : lol brain fart]

12/2/2010 10:38:35 AM

Quote :

"You have to take it from someone."

Actually, no, you don't. You don't have to take MORE from people.

Quote :

"No, they don't."

Oh, I guess you are right. There aren't super-secret bank-accounts in Switzerland where the rich hide their money. How stupid of me.

Quote :

"Yes they do, they keep a good percentage of thier savings in cash or a cash-equivilent."

Sure, they keep some in cash and equivalents, but only so they can spend it. How about you put your money where your mouth is and show that they don't put it elsewhere, since you are the one claiming that rich people don't invest their money, something that everyone else takes as accepted fact.

12/2/2010 5:48:45 PM

Quote :

"I think making taxes proportional to consumption is a bigger priority than crafting the tax system in such a way that it has the best possible effect on the economy."

Why? The purpose of a tax system is both to fund the government and to assist in stabilizing the economy, why do you think it should be there simply to punish people for buying things? Buying things is what gives us all money.

Quote :

"A person earning $100k and consuming $40 should not pay more taxes than someone earning $40k and consuming $40k."

Since the poor will inevitably spend more proportionally, why do you think the responsibility of supporting the government should fall on the poor?

Quote :

"Actually, no, you don't. You don't have to take MORE from people."

I didn't suggest that. We aren't talking about the total amount of taxes, we're talking about who pays them.

Quote :

"Oh, I guess you are right. There aren't super-secret bank-accounts in Switzerland where the rich hide their money. How stupid of me."

There aren't, Switzerland is known for tax evasion because they treat it as a civil matter rather than a criminal one, like they do elsewhere.

Quote :

"How about you put your money where your mouth is and show that they don't put it elsewhere, since you are the one claiming that rich people don't invest their money, something that everyone else takes as accepted fact."

Only fools who know nothing of investing would regard that as fact.
http://www.money-zine.com/Investing/Investing/Holding-Cash/
"Nearly every investor holds a certain amount of cash"

I have actually seen the amount of cash holdings different investors hold, I apologize but I cannot show them to you as they are confidential, any investment advisor would tell you to keep some of your investment portfolio in cash.. The fact that this is so new to you bothers me, do you not have any money invested anywhere? It is definitely good to begin investing money now while you are young, I would strongly recommend doing some research and finding an investment company that can help you reach your investment goals.

12/2/2010 6:57:40 PM

Quote :

"Nearly every investor holds a certain amount of cash"

Too bad I never said they hold NO cash. nice try.

12/2/2010 7:14:23 PM

You: They don't squirrel [money] away in a hole.
Me: To some degree they do
You: Not really. They invest it. They don't put it into a mattress.

These are exact quotes.

12/2/2010 7:21:25 PM

at no point did I say they put all of it into a hole. geez, dude. if that's all you got, then you need to give up

12/2/2010 7:34:31 PM

It's not all I've got, I posted a big long post, you're the one who decided to drop all of that in order to focus your backpedalling in this one topic. My point was that the rich have a significant portion of their portfolio devoted to cash. That being that investors do "just hold cash".

12/2/2010 7:55:27 PM

Quote :

"Since the poor will inevitably spend more proportionally, why do you think the responsibility of supporting the government should fall on the poor?"

Did you miss my very next sentence? Thanks to the monthly prebates, the poor's tax burden will be zero.

12/3/2010 12:41:20 AM

Then the burden will be on the slightly less poor. Fixed amounts like the prebate are irrelevant when we are talking about rates.

12/3/2010 12:45:58 AM

A progressive income tax is regressive in terms of wealth, as wealthy individuals only pay the tax when they work a job or rent out their wealth. That is one reason why the rich are in favor of income taxes, as such taxes fall more heavily upon those trying to become rich than those that are already rich, aiding the currently rich when it comes to bidding for status symbols.

12/3/2010 1:14:03 AM

Quote :

"Then the burden will be on the slightly less poor. Fixed amounts like the prebate are irrelevant when we are talking about rates."

How is it irrelevant? The burden will be on those who choose to spend a higher portion of their earnings on luxury goods.

As a democratic society, we've already decided that the amount of taxes one pays should depend greatly on what one chooses to do with one's income.

12/3/2010 9:03:24 AM

Quote :

"Since the poor will inevitably spend more proportionally, why do you think the responsibility of supporting the government should fall on the poor?"

1) I call bull. dont act like whether the tax system is progressive, flat, fair, or regressive the responsibility of supporting the government would be on the poor. even if it was flat the precentage of all tax dollars raised isnt going to come predominantly from the poor. they wont be "shouldering the load" or "taking on the responsibility" of funding the government like you insinuate

2) because the responsibility for the poor falls on the government

the OP says "The upper middle class man benefits from all the same things as a poor man" and then goes on to state how he is even more benefited from them, which is complete bullshit. The upper middle class doesnt use any of the social programs funded by the goverment. I dont recall the last group of upper middle class people I met using housing assistance, energy assistance, medicaid, or unemployment among others.

The OP also acts as if public roads and public schools only benefit the rich business owner. I'm sure the business owner doesnt give 2 shits if his employees get to the workplace on public roads, on the starship enterprise, or swinging through the woods like George of the Jungle. And apparently public schools are just factories for big business employment, shelling out drones that receive no benefit whatsoever from being there, just to make some businessman rich.

Give me a break with that one-sided pity garbage

[Edited on December 3, 2010 at 3:40 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2010 3:38:57 PM

Quote :

" I'm sure the business owner doesnt give 2 shits if his employees get to the workplace on public roads, on the starship enterprise, or swinging through the woods like George of the Jungle."

Wow, you're really kind of retarded huh? The business owner does care that they get there though, which is the point. If they have to walk through the mud and mire or perhaps ride their mare through the forest to get to work and can only travel by daylight it will kill the productivity, which effects the business owner.

Now, I don't have an opinion one way or the other on how to quantify this trickle up effect, but to see that the roads don't benefit the business owner is about the dumbest thing posted in this thread.

12/3/2010 5:23:12 PM

Quote :

"I never said that. What I have said, several times now, is that if you want to maximize spending while having taxes, you will tax the rich the most."

I think what I am learning is that

1) You're terrible at posting what you actually are meaning to say
2) You're not so great at understanding what others are posting either.

I've finally understood after you had to explain it to burro that implied in your "tax the rich more" comments was actually "tax the rich proportionally more than the poor", apparently you felt after you stated it the first time that every time thereafter it was sufficient that you continued to mean proportionally, even though you dropped the term.

Furthermore, you've conflated the idea of "stimulus" with the "automatic stabilizer" aspect of the progressive tax and for those of us who
1) Aren't Keynes wonks, and
2) Have come to accept "stimulus" as a direct injection of money or some other directed and purposeful action taken by the government to stimulate the economy

this is pretty fucking confusing language, especially when you don't include links so we can get a better idea of the message you are failing to convey and instead just refer to it as

Quote :

"It's a fairly well known argument"

This would be an accurate statement if we were talking about, say, gravity, or anything that is a law. But not one aspect of a failing economic theory that isn't going to be known to anyone that doesn't have a broad knowledge of various theories of economic thought.


I digress.

So we have progressive taxes, we've had government stimulus, we've had money printing, and 17 months after the recession ended all we've got to show for it is higher commodity prices, higher unemployment, and lower house prices?

Fuck yeah dude, gimme some more of that Keynes Kandy, I think I'm going to take it as an enema this time.

12/3/2010 5:43:50 PM

Quote :

"The burden will be on those who choose to spend a higher portion of their earnings on luxury goods."

Define a luxury good. Certainly most of us would not be able to work without a car, but you're definitely going to be taxing cars. And the burden will fall on those who have the most difficulty buying one anyways.

Quote :

"As a democratic society, we've already decided that the amount of taxes one pays should depend greatly on what one chooses to do with one's income."

And when did we do that? Last time I checked our democratic society has chosen a progressive income tax, and the only time the fairtax is mentioned is when fringe republicans need to cater to the Pauliacs.

Quote :

"I call bull. dont act like whether the tax system is progressive, flat, fair, or regressive the responsibility of supporting the government would be on the poor. even if it was flat the precentage of all tax dollars raised isnt going to come predominantly from the poor. they wont be "shouldering the load" or "taking on the responsibility" of funding the government like you insinuate"

A flat percentage is irrelevant, the fact would be that a larger percentage of the poor's income would be devoted to taxes. That's the definition of regressive.

Quote :

"The upper middle class doesnt use any of the social programs funded by the goverment. I dont recall the last group of upper middle class people I met using housing assistance, energy assistance, medicaid, or unemployment among others."

What about the two largest, Social Security and Medicare?

Quote :

"The OP also acts as if public roads and public schools only benefit the rich business owner. I'm sure the business owner doesnt give 2 shits if his employees get to the workplace on public roads, on the starship enterprise, or swinging through the woods like George of the Jungle."

I'm sure he does, if they had to "swing through the woods", labor would cost more.

Quote :

"Furthermore, you've conflated the idea of "stimulus" with the "automatic stabilizer" aspect of the progressive tax and for those of us who"

I have explained both, the confusion you see may be due to the fact that I have to reply to responses concerned over one or the other.

Quote :

"Have come to accept "stimulus" as a direct injection of money or some other directed and purposeful action taken by the government to stimulate the economy"

That's not what stimulus means. Stimulus is anything that causes money to begin moving, for example, spending.

Quote :

"So we have progressive taxes, we've had government stimulus, we've had money printing, and 17 months after the recession ended all we've got to show for it is higher commodity prices, higher unemployment, and lower house prices?"

Those were inevitable, what we do have to show for it is the starting of economic growth. And you shouldn't confuse everything I say here with Keynes and Keynesian thought, while much of it has been, many of the simpler things are right out of an intro econ textbook.

12/3/2010 7:24:48 PM

Quote :

"I have explained both, the confusion you see may be due to the fact that I have to reply to responses concerned over one or the other. "

Huh? They are the same concept of a progressive tax system so I'm not sure how you would be explaining one over the other.

Quote :

"That's not what stimulus means. Stimulus is anything that causes money to begin moving, for example, spending. "

If we were all Keynesians. Fortunately, we aren't, so if were going to talk about economic theories, we at least need to agree on the definitions before just surreptitiously referring to them as fact and then causing the group to waste time debating what Kris meant and what Kris posted again. If you're going to reply to this comment that its an accepted definition across all economic theories, I'd like to see a link to support that.

Quote :

"Those were inevitable, what we do have to show for it is the starting of economic growth."

At what cost? Of course, we won't know for decades if the hangover was worth it but I shudder to think that we spent that much taxpayer money for "the starting economic growth" (if it is even that, some indicators are pointing up, some are actually pointing back down).

12/3/2010 9:30:13 PM

Quote :

"It's not as simple as it might seem. "

Are you seriously going to try to say it is more complex than the current system? Come on.

I do see your point about different goods, but you could simply apply the sales tax rules to the fairtax.

12/3/2010 9:47:17 PM

Quote :

"if they had to "swing through the woods", labor would cost more."

Bullshit. As productivity falls, wages fall.

Quote :

"Those were inevitable, what we do have to show for it is the starting of economic growth."

Facts not in evidence. Recessions happen, they also end, the impact of bailouts and stimulus is not science as there can be no counter-factual. But it is the opinion of many economists that the bailouts and stimulus, along with other governmental actions such as obamacare, prolonged the recession. I agree with them.

[Edited on December 4, 2010 at 9:45 AM. Reason : .,.]

12/4/2010 9:39:50 AM

Quote :

"They are the same concept of a progressive tax system so I'm not sure how you would be explaining one over the other."

They are two different aspects of it. But let me guess, you're about to start complaining about how we're arguing about how I'm saying things rather than what I'm saying, and you'll blame it on me because even through I've been on this board for years and most people don't have any problem understanding me, you think I barely speak english or something.

Quote :

"to waste time debating what Kris meant and what Kris posted again"

HA called it. You do realize that you're the one that forces us to talk about that, and that no one else on this site in my 8 or so years here that devolves every one of our conversations into that subject.

Quote :

"Are you seriously going to try to say it is more complex than the current system?"

I never said that. I said it was not as simple as it might seem to be.

Quote :

"I do see your point about different goods, but you could simply apply the sales tax rules to the fairtax."

They could be applied, but one would avoid them in just the same way because without corporate income tax, you could avoid retail on most things, thus avoiding the tax.

Quote :

"Bullshit. As productivity falls, wages fall."

I assumed we were talking a bit smaller, that being, I have my company where employees have to swing through trees while my competitors are easily accessible. In this case I would be lowering supply and raising price.

Quote :

"But it is the opinion of many economists that the bailouts and stimulus, along with other governmental actions such as obamacare, prolonged the recession. I agree with them."

And it's the opinion of other economists that it shortened it, and I agree with them, so where does that leave us?

12/4/2010 10:57:39 AM

Quote :

"because even through I've been on this board for years and most people don't have any problem understanding me"

What does how long you've been on the board have to do with anything? If most people is Lonesnark, who probably figured out long ago everything you've ever posted regarding economic theory is straight from Keynes so he could fill in the gaps accordingly, then yeah. I'm not the only one in this thread that was confused when you dropped 'proportional' from your posts.

Quote :

"that no one else on this site in my 8 or so years here that devolves every one of our conversations into that subjec"

Just about every topic on the economy in the past couple of months we can go in there and find examples of where people aren't understanding what you're posting or are questioning what you're posting. Some of it is from an ideological standpoint as to be expected, but you'd think if your ideas were

Quote :

"It's a fairly well known argument"

that multiple people wouldn't be so stumped when you post them.

12/4/2010 11:14:03 AM

Chance

12/4/2010 11:23:39 AM

ITT Chance is "multiple people"

12/4/2010 11:27:30 AM

Quote :

"And it's the opinion of other economists that it shortened it, and I agree with them, so where does that leave us?"

If you wanted, we could present the reasons offered for the position and why we found it convincing.

1. throughout the 20th century in America, stimulus has usually occurred after the recession was over, so every time that happened is proof that stimulus is clearly not necessary, as you implied it was. In the cases where stimulus occurred during the recession, the biggest case was the Great Depression which lasted for over a decade.

2. There is also the theory problem. At best, stimulus spending should always be inferior to helicopter drops of money in terms of getting money into the economy. Stimulus spending, being government spending, also suffers from all the same arguments as to why even more government spending would be bad without a recession: the government already does so much it has run out of productive things to do with even more money. On the same vein, government spending is present or future taxes on Americans, harming their balance sheets and worsening their flight to security. Spending also runs the risk of the borrowing being financed by the public, such that every dollar spent into circulation was a dollar borrowed out of circulation.

Well, helicopter drops suffer none of these problems, you just don't like them because they don't entail a growth in Congress' Power.

12/4/2010 11:29:39 AM

aaronburro as well.

Do I need to start going in the econ discussions and start listing people and comments that don't buy your logic because you don't state it clearly then you end up having to explain yourself again because you were so obtuse the first time around?

Look, just accept it and work on it and we'll all be better for it.

12/4/2010 11:36:18 AM

Quote :

"In the cases where stimulus occurred during the recession, the biggest case was the Great Depression which lasted for over a decade."

Then it seems stimulus always occured some point after, the difference was the length of the depression.

Quote :

"At best, stimulus spending should always be inferior to helicopter drops of money in terms of getting money into the economy."

That's not true, just handing people money during a recession tends to go right into savings, cash based savings. Paying people money for something or employment, or whatever causes people to actually gain some faith and spend.

Quote :

"Spending also runs the risk of the borrowing being financed by the public, such that every dollar spent into circulation was a dollar borrowed out of circulation."

Thats a given. We know that any increase in money supply, especially during uncertain economic times is going to go right back into government bonds including your favorite helicopter based solution.

Quote :

"Well, helicopter drops suffer none of these problems"

Helicopter drops are nothing more than an appeal to ridicule that you love to use.

Quote :

"Do I need to start going in the econ discussions and start listing people and comments that don't buy your logic because you don't state it clearly then you end up having to explain yourself again because you were so obtuse the first time around?"

I'll tell you what you need to do, I've said it several times. READ MY POSTS. You don't bother doing more than half skim over it and then you complain that I'm not clear enough. You're the only person I have this problem with, and I've been doing this for quite a while. I think the issue is on your end.

[Edited on December 4, 2010 at 5:11 PM. Reason : ]

12/4/2010 5:09:56 PM

Quote :

"A flat percentage is irrelevant, the fact would be that a larger percentage of the poor's income would be devoted to taxes."

except when someone starts paying for more than he has earned... if you're just going to keep saying the same thing that others have refuted, then just do us all a favour and shut the fuck up.

Quote :

"READ MY POSTS"

HE IS, dumb fuck. just because you think you are perfectly clear doesn't mean you are, especially when MULTIPLE PEOPLE keep saying "wait, what the fuck?"

12/4/2010 5:22:29 PM

Quote :

"HE IS, dumb fuck. just because you think you are perfectly clear doesn't mean you are, especially when MULTIPLE PEOPLE keep saying "wait, what the fuck?""

Well you'll just ride my dick regardless, but he does struggle with putting the effort into reading and comprehending what I post.

12/4/2010 5:43:52 PM

Quote :

"That's not true, just handing people money during a recession tends to go right into savings, cash based savings. Paying people money for something or employment, or whatever causes people to actually gain some faith and spend."

The personal savings rate and consumer debt figures disagree with you on your first point. Is there any way you can show an example of your second statement in action?

And to belabor the point, you've just stated that as an absolute, likely again from Keynesian theory, and of course didn't attempt at all to support what you posted as if you're credibility is such that you don't need to.

12/4/2010 5:44:30 PM

^^ when EVERYONE has trouble reading and comprehending what you are saying, we being to see one common denominator in all of it, genius...

12/4/2010 5:46:05 PM

Quote :

"The personal savings rate and consumer debt figures disagree with you on your first point."

I don't believe they do, savings rates increased during the recession, please show me the evidence where you have seen the contrary.

Quote :

"Is there any way you can show an example of your second statement in action?"

Your first argument should show it, it's the other side of the coin. Mark any time of economic uncertainty and you'll see savings rise and spending drop.

Quote :

"when EVERYONE has trouble reading and comprehending what you are saying"

Everyone doesn't. In fact, you do not as well. I've been arguing with you for quite a while and you don't have this problem, only chance does. That is because he doesn't read the posts, or maybe he reads them but refuses to process them, I'm not sure, but this is a problem that I don't see out of anyone else on this board.

Quote :

"we being to see"

You must understand the irony here.

12/5/2010 11:06:53 AM