and pay for themselves?

Explain how this works. Bush cut taxes and created only 3 million jobs. Clinton created 22 million jobs.

9/11/2010 11:32:00 PM

Yeah we all know how many jobs Clinton got, no need to brag on his behalf

9/11/2010 11:37:25 PM

Presidents don't create jobs. For every overpaid bureaucrat that is hired, at least one productive private sector worker can't be hired. All a president can do is get the fuck out of the way and let the market work.

9/12/2010 12:08:05 AM

they sure as hell don't pay for themselves, we've been on the left side of the Laffer curve since the '60s

9/12/2010 12:11:11 AM

the clinton jobs had nothing to do with a giant explosion in the tech sector...

9/12/2010 8:52:31 AM

Quote :

"Yeah we all know how many jobs Clinton got, no need to brag on his behalf"

HAY-OOOOOO!

9/12/2010 9:57:40 AM

Yes, Clinton's tax cuts helped the economy. But I suspect it had more to do with regime certainty than any walks along the laffer curve.

Quote :

"The 1997 Tax Cut: The economy Unleashed In 1997, the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton. The 2007 bill: * Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent; * Created a new $500 child tax credit; * Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education; * Extended the air transportation excise taxes; * Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million; * Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs; * Established education IRAs; * Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax lives; and * Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax. "

9/12/2010 12:00:29 PM

The market doesn't necessarily make business owners want to create more jobs if they are taxed less, it simply makes them want to make more profit. If they already are at optimum employment, cutting taxes will simply put more money into their pockets. That said, there are many more certain ways to create jobs than simply cutting taxes for the rich.

9/12/2010 12:53:13 PM

You know how you increase profit? By expanding your business and cutting costs. Both of these things are great for the consumer. If you just put away the money, it's not going to be working for you.

One of the severely flawed ideas that seems to be held by so many liberals is that it's okay to tax the rich, because at some point, a person has made too much money. It's good to tax them at a higher rate, because that's money that would have just been saved and invested. The thought here is that spending is all that matters, and that savings and investment are not benefiting the economy. That thought can only come about by misunderstanding of how the economy works; we can't have robust production without robust savings and investment.

9/12/2010 2:43:17 PM

actually the way I see it is that the less you make, the more of it you need to survive; conversely, the more you make, the more of it you can afford to have taken from you

9/12/2010 5:41:10 PM

Quote :

"The market doesn't necessarily make business owners want to create more jobs if they are taxed less, it simply makes them want to make more profit. "

What is the sum of your education that led up to the creation of this dribble? Are these actual thoughts you have or are you copypasting this shit from a MessageBoardTrolling101 site? You can't possibly be so retarded to actually believe this are you?

Quote :

"If they already are at optimum employment, cutting taxes will simply put more money into their pockets."

Again, what the fuck are you talking about? If a business reaches a point where the homeowner isn't interested in expanding due to any number of reasons, the extra profit will simply be spent on other productive endeavors which will benefit some other business that is interested in expanding and seeking capital. Hell, it may go to charity causes. The money will flow where it wants to flow. I'd like to see you come up with case studies or good hypothetical experiments as to why a business wouldn't expand given additional profit. Are you really the dumbest mother fucker here or is this some of the most dedicated trolling the internet has ever seen? In either case, the probability is near 100% that your life sucks and you should probably find something else productive to do with it.

9/12/2010 6:03:08 PM

When facing contradictory evidence, appeal to thought experiments.

9/12/2010 6:38:54 PM

If only mambagrill had presented evidence of any sort, your statement would have a shot at validity.

9/12/2010 7:17:29 PM

Quote :

"It's good to tax them at a higher rate, because that's money that would have just been saved and invested. The thought here is that spending is all that matters, and that savings and investment are not benefiting the economy. That thought can only come about by misunderstanding of how the economy works; we can't have robust production without robust savings and investment."

But they don't always invest their money in a way that will help all of us. They may just put their money in a low interest savings account or money market fund. Thus if the economy would cause them to do that, as mambagirl has implied, it is better that the government take it and invest it more wisely.

Quote :

"What is the sum of your education that led up to the creation of this dribble? Are these actual thoughts you have or are you copypasting this shit from a MessageBoardTrolling101 site? You can't possibly be so retarded to actually believe this are you?"

This is actually the most intelligent thing I have heard from mambagirl. It is correct to say that if they are at the maximum level of employees they would hire, additional money made would go somewhere less effective than reinvesting it in their business.

Quote :

"the extra profit will simply be spent on other productive endeavors which will benefit some other business that is interested in expanding and seeking capital"

That's not necessarily true. It could be used to pay stockholders or simply to increase cash reserves.

Quote :

"Hell, it may go to charity causes"

That doesn't happen. I would be pissed if I was a stockholder and a company started giving profits to charities.

Quote :

"Are you really the dumbest mother fucker here or is this some of the most dedicated trolling the internet has ever seen? In either case, the probability is near 100% that your life sucks and you should probably find something else productive to do with it."

In other threads I might have agreed with you, but in this one, everything that was said was well thought out and logical.

9/12/2010 8:57:58 PM

Quote :

"That doesn't happen. I would be pissed if I was a stockholder and a company started giving profits to charities."

huh? really? you know companies give money to charity ALL the time right?

Quote :

"That's not necessarily true. It could be used to pay stockholders or simply to increase cash reserves."

money not collected by taxes are spent by someone. businesses dont just sit on piiles of cash.

9/12/2010 9:14:33 PM

Slash federal budget by 50%, military specifically by 80%. Then we'll see some domestic growth.

9/12/2010 9:48:02 PM

Quote :

"huh? really? you know companies give money to charity ALL the time right?"

Sure, but not that much.

Quote :

"money not collected by taxes are spent by someone. businesses dont just sit on piiles of cash."

Sure, money collected by taxes is recirculated. And yes companies do sit on piles of cash. They are called cash reserves, and they tend to be higher during periods of unemployment.

9/12/2010 9:50:04 PM

Quote :

"Sure, but not that much."

are you kidding me?

Quote :

" Sure, money collected by taxes is recirculated. And yes companies do sit on piles of cash. They are called cash reserves, and they tend to be higher during periods of unemployment."

they dont sit on anymore than necessary. its very unproductive to do so. companies do try to become more liquid in down times but that is usually to cover expenses and make up for lost revenue...not to fill their scrooge mcduck tower.

9/12/2010 10:00:09 PM

The tax cuts failed because they were insignificant and government spending continued unabated.

[Edited on September 12, 2010 at 10:23 PM. Reason : ]

9/12/2010 10:02:11 PM

Quote :

"are you kidding me?"

Compared to profits or revenue, yes I'm serious

Quote :

"they dont sit on anymore than necessary. its very unproductive to do so. companies do try to become more liquid in down times but that is usually to cover expenses and make up for lost revenue...not to fill their scrooge mcduck tower."

Obviously there's a reason for it, they'll do it as long as it's financially beneficial. It helps adjust for uncertainty, in addition investing money is risky, whether that's buying part of another company, opening up a new office, or hiring an employee. The government doesn't have to factor these kind of things in, it can adjust for the aggregate.

9/12/2010 11:28:08 PM

Quote :

"This is actually the most intelligent thing I have heard from mambagirl. It is correct to say that if they are at the maximum level of employees they would hire, additional money made would go somewhere less effective than reinvesting it in their business."

You're making some jumps there and I'm not following. First of all, what is "optimal employment"? Businesses grow all the time. If we're talking about a single store, or something of that nature, I guess I can see it. The business owner might need 5 employees, and he makes a decent enough living keeping the business at that size. No need to hire more employees or expand the business. The "super rich" that we're talking about here are, generally, not running single stores in a community. They have many, many employees and are looking to expand to bring in additional profit. That means hiring more employees, opening up more stores or venues, and fulfilling the desires of more people.

And, even if they are somehow at "optimal employment," it doesn't mean that the money won't be used effectively. They can also buy capital, which promotes economic growth.

9/13/2010 12:44:01 AM

Quote :

"First of all, what is "optimal employment"?"

When hiring one more employee decreases revenue. Granted that's a very simple version, you might like this explanation better: If you're questionable about your financial future you're not going to go out and buy something you can't easily sell back.

Quote :

"The "super rich" that we're talking about here are, generally, not running single stores in a community. They have many, many employees and are looking to expand to bring in additional profit. That means hiring more employees, opening up more stores or venues, and fulfilling the desires of more people."

But that growth imposes risk, what if people don't buy the additional stuff you're selling?

Quote :

"And, even if they are somehow at "optimal employment," it doesn't mean that the money won't be used effectively. They can also buy capital, which promotes economic growth."

Both are the same thing, one would need to grow capital with new employees and grow employees with new capital. It's simply a fact that companies will grow cash reserves as the economy shrinks. As the economy goes down the value of money goes up.

9/13/2010 12:55:31 AM

Quote :

"it is better that the government take it and invest it more wisely."

Because we know George W. Bush was a genius when it came to investing wisely? If only he had more money, we might have also invaded Iran.

"Bush cut taxes and created only 3 million jobs. Clinton tax cuts created 22 million jobs." FTFY

[Edited on September 13, 2010 at 1:41 AM. Reason : .,.]

9/13/2010 1:38:35 AM

Quote :

"Because we know George W. Bush was a genius when it came to investing wisely? If only he had more money, we might have also invaded Iran. "Bush cut taxes and created only 3 million jobs. Clinton tax cuts created 22 million jobs." FTFY"

They may not always do it right, but at least theres a chance for them to do the right thing, it's at least not a systemic failure, it's something we can fix.

9/13/2010 11:11:49 AM

Quote :

" Compared to profits or revenue, yes I'm serious"

do you have any statistics to back that up? I looked very quickly for fortune 500 company donations but didnt have any luck, aside from Target, who gives ~5% of pre-tax profit annually...that is nothing to sneeze at.

I know a lot of big companies go out of their way to sponsor things and donate for the PR alone.

my small company throws an event every year benefiting the Make a Wish foundation and we donate whatever we can.

9/13/2010 12:01:07 PM

Quote :

"do you have any statistics to back that up?"

I guess I'll provide evidence for a claim you made. I'm starting to get tired of having to provide evidence so people can look into the claim they've made after they make it. You should be finding this stuff beforehand. I know I did.
http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/11/charities-corporations-giving-cx_lm_1114charity_2.html

Note that these are the LARGEST givers, and they still only give a small percentage of income.

Quote :

"my small company throws an event every year benefiting the Make a Wish foundation and we donate whatever we can."

Great, but compare that to income or revenue, and it's fractions of pennies.

[Edited on September 13, 2010 at 12:44 PM. Reason : ]

9/13/2010 12:40:20 PM

Quote :

"Note that these are the LARGEST givers, and they still only give a small percentage of income."

% of income isnt a great indicator. I would like to see how it compares to profit.

I do concede that it appears smaller than what I would have guessed.

Quote :

"Great, but compare that to income or revenue, and it's fractions of pennies."

actually, if you are speaking about my company you would be very wrong. do not assume.

9/13/2010 12:47:47 PM

Quote :

"but at least theres a chance for them to do the right thing, it's at least not a systemic failure, it's something we can fix."

Not quite. Entrepreneurs have a good chance of doing the right thing with their money. Quite often they invest in new production that people actually want. Meanwhile, George Bush spent our money employing an army of bureaucrats to actively prevent investment in new production that people actually wanted. Opting instead to spend vast sums building up production of things such as Ethanol that no one wanted. It is a systemic failure of government that it is far easier to stop progress than it is to create it. Looking at the news just last week, the latest outrage is the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles, which controls billions of dollars of real-estate through eminent domain, has spent vast sums of taxpayer dollars, all to produce nothing but vacant lots where there had previously been functioning businesses and communities.

If a private enterprise had wasted such vast sums of resources, it would have gone bankrupt. But not the CRA, it just forces everyone that must live next to these bulldozed communities to give it even more money, which it is going to use to turn even more of the city back into a desert.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/09/whole-lotta-nothing-in-la

Once again, Kris, you are a victim of the belief that if only the right people were in charge it would work out. But it never does. The right people either never show up, or quickly get corrupted by the system.

[Edited on September 13, 2010 at 12:56 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/13/2010 12:54:50 PM

Quote :

"% of income isnt a great indicator. I would like to see how it compares to profit."

I believe that's there in the chart I linked. I believe in relative percentage of cash Target was the top at about 2%.

Quote :

"do not assume"

Like you did? I'm faily confident your company doesn't donate that large of an amount corprately. They wouldn't be in business if they did, someone else would come in and do the same thing as you and only donate a small amount of money.

Quote :

"Entrepreneurs have a good chance of doing the right thing with their money. Quite often they invest in new production that people actually want."

They are forced to respond to risk, the government isn't. Thus fundementally, the government will be able to pursue actions that are positive on the aggregate without having to be subject to the market that may be working against them.

Quote :

"Once again, Kris, you are a victim of the belief that if only the right people were in charge it would work out. But it never does. The right people either never show up, or quickly get corrupted by the system. "

And you're against the airplane because you think man wasn't meant to fly. Political problems we can solve, we can work those out and get better, systemic economical failures will never be fixed, we'll never get any better at them. You like to think that political problems are impossible to solve or get better at, but that's not true, history proves it. Look at all the things politics have helped us solve: sexism, racism, child labor, human rights, etc. This is stuff we get better at, let's start getting practice and invest in this now so we can fix this problem.

9/13/2010 1:24:55 PM

More up to date numbers, and of course another example of lies, damn lies and statistics

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2010-08-08-corporate-philanthropy-interactive-graphic_N.htm

Quote :

"Of the companies that responded to the survey: • Eleven gave more than 5% of their profits to charity. • The biggest cash contributor was Wal-Mart, the largest company in the U.S. It gave $288.1 million in 2009. (The discount-store chain stepped up its commitment to charity even more in May, when it announced a $2 billion, five-year pledge to fight hunger.) AT&T was No. 2, donating $240 million, and Bank of America was No. 3, giving $209.1 million. • The top donors of cash and products were Pfizer, in New York ($2.3 billion); Oracle, in Redwood Shores, Calif. ($2.1 billion); and Merck, in Whitehouse Station, N.J. ($923.2 million)."

Quote :

"Look at all the things politics have helped us solve: sexism, racism, child labor, human rights, etc. This is stuff we get better at, let's start getting practice and invest in this now so we can fix this problem."

Arguably social problems are solved by social change, not by politics (if anything politics get in the way). A good example if this would be the current social climate surrounding LGBT rights. Society as a whole is moving along the right track in regards to these rights where politics pull backwards (see Prop. 8). I'm sure however the history books will record the valiant efforts of the politicians to pull a neanderthal like public into the enlightened ade.

9/13/2010 1:34:15 PM

Quote :

"More up to date numbers, and of course another example of lies, damn lies and statistics"

They're faily similar to what I gave, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. 5% of profits is nothing enormous, and only 11 gave that much? Not really a huge number in comparison.

Quote :

"Arguably social problems are solved by social change, not by politics"

You may be right about the social problems or the de facto problems, but the de jure problems are solved by politics, kind of the only way. Besides, you're really moving away from my context here.

9/13/2010 1:46:31 PM

Quote :

"Like you did? I'm faily confident your company doesn't donate that large of an amount corprately. They wouldn't be in business if they did, someone else would come in and do the same thing as you and only donate a small amount of money."

i am a partner in my company and we are very small. i would never call us "corporate."

i would say we donated about 7-8% of profit for the year...profit not revenue.

9/13/2010 2:04:02 PM

Quote :

"5% of profits is nothing enormous"

by comparison the Obamas give less than 1% of their income to charity

9/13/2010 2:08:18 PM

Quote :

"i am a partner in my company and we are very small. i would never call us "corporate.""

Cool story bro and all, but your little anecdote has little to do with what we're talking about.

Quote :

"by comparison the Obamas give less than 1% of their income to charity"

Profit and income are not the same thing, a more fair comparison, even the companies with the largest charitible donations give less than 1% of thier income.

9/13/2010 3:58:20 PM

Quote :

"They're faily similar to what I gave, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. 5% of profits is nothing enormous, and only 11 gave that much? Not really a huge number in comparison. "

I was mostly pointing out that how charitable a corporation is depends on the statistics you use, I wasn't saying you were lying with statistics. And 5% certainly is considerable given that you yourself said earlier:

Quote :

"That doesn't happen. I would be pissed if I was a stockholder and a company started giving profits to charities."

9/13/2010 8:37:08 PM

"And you're against the airplane because you think man wasn't meant to fly. Economic problems we can solve, we can work those out and get better at planning around them; systemic political failures will never be fixed, we'll never get any better at them. You like to think that free market problems are impossible to solve or get better at, but that's not true, history proves it. Look at all the things economic liberty has helped us solve: poverty, slavery, sexism, racism, child labor, human rights, etc. This is stuff we get better at, let's start getting practice and invest in this now so we can fix this problem." Fixed That For You, Kris.

Quote :

"Thus fundementally, the government will be able to pursue actions that are positive on the aggregate without having to be subject to the market that may be working against them."

Does spending create prosperity?
http://cafehayek.com/2010/09/does-spending-create-prosperity.html

[Edited on September 13, 2010 at 11:58 PM. Reason : .,.\]

9/13/2010 11:57:14 PM

Quote :

"Economic problems we can solve, we can work those out and get better at planning around them;"

The market does not plan, the market does not learn. The market will always make the same mistakes, that's why they're called failures.

Quote :

"The standard argument against this story is that the money the government spends has to come from somewhere."

It does, it comes from previously unused credit.

Spending does create growth in times of economic contraction.

9/14/2010 12:44:12 AM

Lying About Bush's Tax Cuts
March 5, 2010

Quote :

"According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total."

See top graph on page here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

Quote :

"The Bush tax cuts were intended to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest and thus create jobs and increase economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts shows that this is exactly what happened. The following table from Reidl's analysis depicts these effects."

Quote :

"The empirical data makes it impossible to validate the liberal claims that the Bush tax cuts were 'for the rich,' or that they 'caused the budget deficit' or that they were in any way responsible for causing this latest economic crisis. In fact, a study by economist John W. Skorburg underscores the positive effects of the Bush tax cuts. Skorburg's study found that the Bush tax cuts, which lowered the total federal tax burden from 20.9% in fiscal year 2000 to 17.9% in fiscal year 2008 and 2009, were responsible for increasing the economic growth rate. Further, the author concluded that '[i]f President Obama raises tax burdens, trend growth in real GDP will fall.' The bottom line is that tax policy has far-reaching effects, and for decades, liberals have refused to acknowledge them. The dire consequences of higher tax burdens in times of economic weakness were made most clear when FDR raised taxes in 1937, causing a double-dip in GDP that prolonged the Great Depression. If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, recovery from the current crisis will likely be prolonged, and we will have no one to blame but ourselves for not observing the lessons of history."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

Economists: Extending Tax Cuts Will Aid Recovery
Many Economists Think Letting the Bush Tax Cuts Expire Will Harm the Fragile Economy
Sept. 1, 2010

Quote :

"'I think if the tax cuts expire for everybody, then we'll be back in recession, no doubt. It would be a huge policy mistake,' says Moody's chief economist Mark Zandi."

Quote :

"David Zervos of Jeffries and Company says, '[Letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the top income tax rates] would actually have a pretty detrimental impact.'"

Quote :

"A recent survey of economists found that 54 percent support extending the tax cuts. So do Republicans. Democrats hope to bring a vote up on the issue before the November elections."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/01/eveningnews/main6827440.shtml

[Edited on September 14, 2010 at 5:43 AM. Reason : I took the first graph out because it was so large.]

9/14/2010 5:32:56 AM

Quote :

""According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total." "

Then this directly contradicts Republican language about harming jobs. So the rich carried more tax burden AND created more jobs? Something doesn't add up in the rhetoric.

It's probably because the tax cuts were dominated by easy Als cheap money that drove the growth over Bush's tenure. I've yet to see a study controlling for this. We'd probably be in better shape budget wise (outlays fixed as they were) had the tax cuts never been made and the treasury brought in more revenue.

Quote :

""A recent survey of economists found that 54 percent support extending the tax cuts. So do Republicans. Democrats hope to bring a vote up on the issue before the November elections.""

A resounding majority huh?

9/14/2010 6:58:36 AM

^ The overall tax burden was reduced. And we are in a different economic environment than we were in 2000-2004--you don't raise taxes in a recession.

Quote :

"[R]educing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues."

--President John F. Kennedy

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/bush-era-tax-cuts-reduce-deficit-and-increase-empl

In any event, it appears that some in the Obama's White House believe strongly in tax cuts--they have apparently given tax cuts to themselves!

41 Obama White House aides owe the IRS $831,000 in back taxes -- and they're not alone
September 10, 2010

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/congress-taxes-irs.html

[Edited on September 14, 2010 at 8:00 AM. Reason : And did I use "resounding"? Oh, that's right--you just made it up. ]

9/14/2010 7:58:53 AM

Quote :

"^ The overall tax burden was reduced."

Huh? That isn't what you're "Lying About Bush's Tax Cuts" quote says.

Quote :

"--President John F. Kennedy"

It is probably exceedingly difficult to compare tax cuts from a 91% top rate and a 39.6% (if the cuts are allowed to expire) top rate. I'm guessing you don't have a very good idea what credits and other tax avoidance schemes were like during Kennedy's time either.

Quote :

"And we are in a different economic environment than we were in 2000-2004--you don't raise taxes in a recession"

And you shouldn't spend like a drunken sailor in times of prosperity. I'm going out on a limb here and bet you're all for blowing large wads of money (and American lives) on fighting wars in foreign lands.

Quote :

"And did I use "resounding"? Oh, that's right--you just made it up. "

Of course I made it up . Unlike 100% of your posts, normal conversation isn't copypasta . How else was I supposed to take a statement like this? You drew my attention to a 14 word phrase out of a much larger 31 word phrase with attention grabbing text. Were you not really trying to make a strong point about the numbers?

[Edited on September 14, 2010 at 8:53 AM. Reason : \]

9/14/2010 8:51:17 AM

Quote :

"The market does not plan, the market does not learn. The market will always make the same mistakes, that's why they're called failures."

Bullshit. The market is just a word, a stand-in for people. People sure as hell do learn and they sure as hell do plan. People negotiate and write contracts with each other to avoid making the same mistakes again. If the force of government is needed to remedy their failures, they take their failures to court and collect damages. For someone that grew up in a free country, you seem to have no idea how one works.

The only difference between market mistakes and political mistakes is time. It can take months to fix a market mistake. Time to formulate a new way of doing things. Time to get all parties to sign a new contract if government force is necessary to fix the failure. Meanwhile, law is far slower to change. It can take years, decades, even centuries for Congress to build up the political will to fix a government mistake. In the meantime, whole sections of Los Angeles are returned to desert by the CRA, customers continue to suffer under cartels in trucking, and a ponzi-scheme for Social Security.

9/14/2010 9:26:55 AM

hahahaha. as if government plans. individual politicians may plan for their own retirement, but none of them plan for the people.

9/14/2010 9:30:10 AM

^^^

Quote :

"Huh? That isn't what you're 'Lying About Bush's Tax Cuts' quote says."

Yes, the article does--in the next to last paragraph:

Quote :

"Skorburg's study found that the Bush tax cuts, which lowered the total federal tax burden from 20.9% in fiscal year 2000 to 17.9% in fiscal year 2008 and 2009, were responsible for increasing the economic growth rate."

Quote :

"I'm guessing you don't have a very good idea what credits and other tax avoidance schemes were like during Kennedy's time either."

Potty Mouth: 1960s-era tax expert. Who knew?

Quote :

"And you shouldn't spend like a drunken sailor in times of prosperity."

On this, we agree.

Quote :

"I'm going out on a limb here and bet you're all for blowing large wads of money (and American lives) on fighting wars in foreign lands."

Economic concerns are only part of the equation in going to war. And how much have those wars saved us? It's difficult to say.

Quote :

"Unlike 100% of your posts, normal conversation isn't copypasta."

I certainly wouldn't want to deny some of you opportunities to use your beloved "copypasta" portmanteau.

[Edited on September 14, 2010 at 9:47 AM. Reason : And from what I gather, my posts are not even "copypasta," which is posted over and over again.]

9/14/2010 9:42:19 AM

Quote :

" The market is just a word, a stand-in for people. People sure as hell do learn and they sure as hell do plan."

The market is a stand-in for people on the aggregate. While people individually do learn and plan, on the whole, they do not.

Quote :

"People negotiate and write contracts with each other to avoid making the same mistakes again."

Then what contracts have been drawn up a to avoid monopolies? Or did the government have to step in. What about the numerous other systemic failures that capitalism will always suffer under? They're called market failures for a reason, no amount of contracts will ever fix them.

Quote :

"And how much have those wars saved us? It's difficult to say."

It's easy, nothing.

Quote :

"And from what I gather, my posts are not even "copypasta," which is posted over and over again"

I think you could more accurately describe them as crappypasta. It's using irrelevant crap to try to prove completely irrelevant crap in place of an actual argument accented with copious amounts of [b] [u] and [link], allowing you to spot the level of crap from a distance.

9/14/2010 10:50:21 AM

Quote :

"Then what contracts have been drawn up a to avoid monopolies? Or did the government have to step in. What about the numerous other systemic failures that capitalism will always suffer under? They're called market failures for a reason, no amount of contracts will ever fix them."

Lots of customers sign contracts to avoid monopoly. Signing long-term contracts eliminate such uncertainties. It was only when the California government banned such contracts that wholesale electricity markets fell victim to monopoly manipulation.

Your definition of "Market Failure" is indefensible. What you are describing would require the word "permanent" be appended. The miss-pricing of risk in America leading up to 2008 was a market failure, but that doesn't mean mortgages are always everywhere miss-priced, as Canada avoided this calamity all together. The invasion of Iraq was a Government Failure. But Sweden both has a government, and didn't invade Iraq, so invading Iraq is not a permanent Government Failure. It was just a Government Failure; no law said it had to fail, just the people involved made (with hind-sight) poor decisions.

[Edited on September 14, 2010 at 1:34 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/14/2010 1:28:20 PM

Quote :

"What you are describing would require the word "permanent" be appended."

No it wouldn't failure is failure, it doesn't matter if it eventually works itself out, it failed by mispricing for the entire period in between.

What the hell is permanent anyways? The fact is that these problems are systemic and will continue to happen when the conditions are there. Yes, they would probably work themselves out eventually, but they'll happen again as soon as those varibles are there again. Capitalism might not stay in a permanent state of monopoly, for example, but the fact that it will always go in and out of it makes it inefficent.

9/14/2010 1:50:31 PM

Quote :

"The market does not plan, the market does not learn. The market will always make the same mistakes, that's why they're called failures."

Is there any evidence that "the government" learns? That they don't also make the same mistakes time and again? It seems to me the same people who make up "the market" are the ones who make up "the government" and if we can't expect them to learn and plan when its their own money and their own livelihood on the line, how in the world do we expect them to learn and plan when it's someone else's money on the line?

Quote :

"Then what contracts have been drawn up a to avoid monopolies? Or did the government have to step in. "

And when the government steps in, they don't learn and they make the same mistakes again and again, and we still have failures, but now they're government approved failures. As evidence I submit the entire history of ATT and it's "baby bells" from 1885 to present day.

Quote :

"Capitalism might not stay in a permanent state of monopoly, for example, but the fact that it will always go in and out of it makes it inefficent."

And there is no evidence that strong government interference makes it any more efficient or eliminates the presence of these failures.

[Edited on September 14, 2010 at 2:54 PM. Reason : sdfg]

9/14/2010 2:53:01 PM

Quote :

"Is there any evidence that "the government" learns? That they don't also make the same mistakes time and again?"

I posted some examples earlier, for example the government doesn't institute slavery every 5-20 years.

Quote :

"It seems to me the same people who make up "the market" are the ones who make up "the government" and if we can't expect them to learn and plan when its their own money and their own livelihood on the line, how in the world do we expect them to learn and plan when it's someone else's money on the line?"

Well we are the market, you and I. We vote for the government, but we do it more based on ideas rather than money, thus we can have a longer term and more aggregate view of things.

Quote :

"And when the government steps in, they don't learn and they make the same mistakes again and again, and we still have failures, but now they're government approved failures. As evidence I submit the entire history of ATT and it's "baby bells" from 1885 to present day."

Is this supposed to be an example of failure? I think it worked fairly well. It was that breakup that has lead AT&T and Verizon being different companies. It's a direct result of that breakup that we have the level of competition we have now in the cell phone carrier industry.
I don't doubt you could find an example of failure, but that's not one.

Quote :

"And there is no evidence that strong government interference makes it any more efficient or eliminates the presence of these failures."

None any more than anecdotal, but in theory, it could be more efficient, capitalism, in theory, will never be.

9/14/2010 3:15:42 PM

Quote :

"Is this supposed to be an example of failure? I think it worked fairly well. It was that breakup that has lead AT&T and Verizon being different companies. It's a direct result of that breakup that we have the level of competition we have now in the cell phone carrier industry."

It is the interference of the government that granted AT&T the legal monopoly position it had in the first place which then lead to the need for a breakup. As to the level of competition we have now, neither AT&T nor Verizon (both baby bells that have since purchased other baby bells) really compete much, and they aren't doing anything to increase competition. In fact they keep buying up local and regional competitors in moves sanctioned by the government. At best we have exchanged an efficient monopoly, for an inefficient oligopoly, with no signs that the government has learned their lesson (see the recent Alltel aquisition, where they required Verizon to sell off some of their assets ... to AT&T). I would not be surprised at all if within the next 10-15 years Verizon and AT&T have a merger and within the 10-15 years following that, someone decides that we need to government to step in and break it all up again.

For what it's worth it appears to me the level of competition we currently have in the cellular industry is a result of cellular infrastructure being a different beast than land line telephone infrastructure, not as a result of the breakup of the AT&T monopoly of the 80's. Though if you have any evidence that the breakup is what is responsible for this competition I would be happy to read it.

Semi-relevant video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsCp-1hgfxI

[Edited on September 14, 2010 at 3:55 PM. Reason : lols]

9/14/2010 3:50:57 PM