16-02-2005 02:03									#91
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DanS The tax cuts are important to keep because the marginal tax rates impact the willingness of people to work to a great degree.

Supply-side economics.

	16-02-2005 02:17									#92
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by DanS The tax cuts are important to keep because the marginal tax rates impact the willingness of people to work to a great degree.

J. M. Keynes is rolling is is grave.

	16-02-2005 02:18									#93
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

This is based on the research that this year was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics.

And I don't much mind what Keynes is doing in his grave.

	16-02-2005 02:30									#94
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

A lot of people win that. Do you believe all their theories?

	16-02-2005 03:01									#95
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious A lot of people win that. Do you believe all their theories?

Milton Freidman:

	16-02-2005 03:05									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

DanS,

Let me ask you something about the research of the recent Nobel Prize winners.

Here's what I read about their theories .

quote: Research by the laureates also transformed the theory of business cycles by integrating it with the theory of economic growth. Whereas earlier research had emphasized macroeconomic shocks on the demand side of the economy, Kydland and Prescott demonstrated that shocks on the supply side may have far-reaching effects. In their business-cycle model, realistic fluctuations in the rate of technological development brought about a covariation between GDP (gross domestic product), consumption, investments and hours worked close to that observed in actual data. Previous business-cycle models had typically been based on historical relations between key macroeconomic variables. But models that had functioned quite well during the 1960s began to break down under the more turbulent economic conditions of the 1970s, with oil-price shocks and concurrent inflation and unemployment.

Did they do there research on the behavior of businesses during the 70s? Because that doesn't show that hours worked will decrease when tax rates or inflation increases. Businesses behave differently than individuals.

Another thing is that it's one thing to show that businesses will produce less when costs increase. It's another thing to show that they will produce more when costs decrease, because supply is constrained by demand, and there's the factor of saturation.

	16-02-2005 03:45									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

wait, so taxing the top 1% rich people makes them less likely to work? BULL****INGSHIT!

	16-02-2005 03:56									#98
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

heres the only thing worth believeing on the supply side - tax cuts to those with high MPC and to those whose MPC> MPS are the only ones who will jump start the economy.

those with low MPC (aahhhem the rich) will have negligeble effect in the short run and heres why.

theres two types of rich people.
1. entrepreneurs/big business owners
2. big shareholders, and upper management

group numero uno will not hire more people during a recession because no one is buying, and their profits are flat or falling(see introductory micro). their tax cut will go either a) into a swiss bank account, b)into the stock market c) to buy that yacht d) campaign donation

a) might push interest rates down, except since the US is in such debt, its pocket change. even if the rates went down slightly, no one is investing because of no profits.
now you would think that if it went into the stock market, it would help other companies expand. well, you'd be wrong again. those owners do the same math, realize that people arnt buying now, and are not likely to buy in the second period, and they continue firing, and put the money away for later.
c) might employ a couple hundred employees, and might even increase hiring in luxery products. unfortunalty, there are more people being laid off at steel mills, at retailers, and at software companies, then are being hired by Yachts Ltd.

group 2 doesnt actually employ anyone, so it either goes to a) b) c) or d) with no chance of further hiring.

	16-02-2005 03:58									#99
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Anyone who thinks that people won't work hard because of tax rates is either lying or stupid, and very possibly both.

	16-02-2005 04:03									#100
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Anyone who thinks that people won't work hard because of tax rates is either lying or stupid, and very possibly both.

i have yet to see any data to that effect. perhaps they are correct, at the extremes (say if the tax rate was at 90% and all the sudden it dropped to 30%.) However, from 34% to 32%, it just doesnt seem likely.

	16-02-2005 04:05									#101
	Support Apolyton

Keynes' wisdom is THE classic economic model that was 100% right at the time, I would hardly suggest "not caring" about it, DanS.

He argued that FDR wasn't spending ENOUGH to stimulate the economy. FDR's programs WORKED, but only in proportion to the amount of government spending that went out, which was alot but still not enough. Once REAL government stimulus kicked in (WW2 spending) the depression was over.

Keynes was also right about the nation having the capacity to cope with the increased demand due to the stimulus, factory work went from the 8 hour day to 3 shifts around the clock to meet the increased demand from government orders.

Alot has changed in 70 years, but he was 100% right about what was going on at the time.

But I don't think "tax cuts for the rich" were anywhere in his studies though.

I'd rathar have poor and middle class people spending that money on their immediate needs, such as food and clothes, and bills, not some rich bastard who is going to tie it up in an investment account where it goes to prop up some multi-million dollar CEO salary.

Poor Carly got fired and she is still getting a multimillion dollar severence package.

I'd like to see if any HP or Compaq workers got the same deal if they had gotten laid off.

	16-02-2005 04:13									#102
	Inflate your Upload Space

the problem with keynes is that G can only go so far, and there are very few ways to get G high enough to move the economy forward.

the more G, the more crowding out of the private sector, and the more you need to spend to cover that crowd out.

and then theres trade, which goes to hell since no one can afford your exports anymore, so everyone in the export sector gets fired.

research shows that if the federal bank had dropped the interest rates or increased the money supply, the whole depression could have been avoided/ cut short. i dont remember if they were still using gold at the time as a standard, but if they were, that woulda made it harder to decrease the value of money.

all the classic reasons for the great depression that you hear in classrooms across america are usually from the persepective of someone who hasnt studied economics. 'oversupply' 'stock market drop led to failure of banks.'

as all those banks closed and as less money was avaiable to the public, the government simply had to increase the supply in other banks to counteract this effect.

problem solved.

	16-02-2005 04:18									#103
	Suffering from ads?

Well in the case of G, during the Depression, when it was raised the first time, it did work. Unemployment fell, and the economy started getting better around 1936. But then FDR cut back G, in an effort to balance the budget. So the economy worsened again. Had he increased G spending, the economy would have been better more quickly, and there was plenty of room at the time to accomdate the increased G, as the private sector was so small there was plenty of room for lots and lots of increased G without any crowding effect. G was simply making up for the lost space that the private sector normally occupied.

He had scolded Hoover for not having a balanced budget, so he wanted it balanced as quickly as possible, and that's why he pulled back.

As far as seeing the effects of a monstrous G, that is illustrated by the outbreak of WW2, which not only rescued the economy, but took it to legendary heights and set the stage for economic prosperity that we have enjoyed for (most of) the last 70 years.

Keynes thought that TOO much G would shock the economy because it wouldn't have the capacity to deal with it, which was illustrated when there were 2nd and third shifts added to deal with the increased demand.

	16-02-2005 04:28									#104
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Well in the case of G, during the Depression, when it was raised the first time, it did work. Unemployment fell, and the economy started getting better around 1936. But then FDR cut back G, in an effort to balance the budget. So the economy worsened again. Had he increased G spending, the economy would have been better more quickly, and there was plenty of room at the time to accomdate the increased G, as the private sector was so small there was plenty of room for lots and lots of increased G without any crowding effect. G was simply making up for the lost space that the private sector normally occupied.

and thats the problem - the economy didnt take off with G. FDR wasnt able to wean the country off of it after a couple of years. he needed a war which completely restrucuted the economy. all the unemployed went into the army, thus reducing unemployment and driving wages for those who stayed behind (women, older people) and massive orders in military supplies. in normal times you cant expect this to happen.

and i dont think that FDRs new deal lead to 70 years of prosperity. there is no way it had that effect.

	16-02-2005 04:37									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

You are misreading. I said the economic boom from WW2 set the stage for the next 70 years, not specificallly because of what FDR did.


Secondly the economy DID recover because of increased G. It was when G was reduced, "weaning" as you would say, when things got worse again. This again was in an effort to balance the budget, which meant reduced spending, and a big slowdown of stimulus, which was not recovered from until foreign orders started to show up for WW2.

	16-02-2005 04:39									#106
	Put an end to popups!

And finally increased government spending has become a permanent fixture in our economy, growing many times what it was in the 1930s.

I think this spending provides an important buffer and stimulus for the economic fluctuations in the free market economy.

Provided, of course, that it is spent wisely.

	16-02-2005 04:45									#107
	Put an end to popups!

quote: have yet to see any data to that effect. perhaps they are correct, at the extremes (say if the tax rate was at 90% and all the sudden it dropped to 30%.) However, from 34% to 32%, it just doesnt seem likely.

Prescott's research shows the high elasticity of labor. Income and payroll tax rates on labor will have a substantial impact on whether people choose to work or choose leisure instead.

	16-02-2005 04:50									#108
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Secondly the economy DID recover because of increased G. It was when G was reduced, "weaning" as you would say, when things got worse again. This again was in an effort to balance the budget, which meant reduced spending, and a big slowdown of stimulus, which was not recovered from until foreign orders started to show up for WW2.

yeah but thats like losing weight by using pills, and then getting off of it and gaining it all back again. you wouldnt say that the diet works.
what did work was the war effect. however, in normal times, if there wasnt a war, they couldnt have kept this spending up. since the economy couldnt live without it and one point we would have run outta funds.

quote: And finally increased government spending has become a permanent fixture in our economy, growing many times what it was in the 1930s.

which is of course unfortunate.

quote: I think this spending provides an important buffer and stimulus for the economic fluctuations in the free market economy

monetary policy is the only thing needed to keep the economy going. only in rare cases is G needed (when interest rates approach zero, when real interest rates approch zero, and when there is deflation)

	16-02-2005 04:52									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

i dont believe this for minute. someone isnt going to say, "im not going to work cause taxes are too high"

	16-02-2005 04:53									#110
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Prescott's research shows the high elasticity of labor

really? what is elastic about the demand for labor (from the workers point of view) do you have a link? i would think that it would be rather inelastic (no work, no money, you starve)

	16-02-2005 05:16									#111
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia yeah but thats like losing weight by using pills, and then getting off of it and gaining it all back again. you wouldnt say that the diet works.

Bottom line is that it worked, first by government spending, then by massive government war spending.

quote: what did work was the war effect. however, in normal times, if there wasnt a war, they couldnt have kept this spending up. since the economy couldnt live without it and one point we would have run outta funds.

We seem to have done it the past few years with no problem. Plus eventually the private sector would have come back around. In this case it was from the war.

quote: which is of course unfortunate.

Depends on who you talk to.

quote: monetary policy is the only thing needed to keep the economy going. only in rare cases is G needed (when interest rates approach zero, when real interest rates approch zero, and when there is deflation)

When you make soup you need more than one ingredient. One ingredient by itself and you have one nasty concoction.

	16-02-2005 05:33									#112
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Where is all this spending going to come from again?

Bush's current deficit in his budget is around $400 billion but it doesn't count any money spent in Iraq, Afghanistan, nor emergency supplimental bills (which there are always), nor Bush's Social Security proposals. If those add up to $20 billion I win. Now, Dans has an advantaqge in that last year was an election year so the politicians were spending like mad to get every last penny.

I will never the less continue to have faith in the financial mismanagement of the Republicans. It has always been a good bet in the past.

	16-02-2005 05:42									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The best situation is to have one party in Congress and the other in the White House.

	16-02-2005 05:48									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious 2) The war shouldn't cost more this year than last.

Last year it cost $160 billion and Bush has not included any Iraq war expenses in his budget which he has given to Congress.

BTW there is good reason to believe that this year will have more expenses then last year since in most of 2004 we had 100,000 soldiers in Iraq but in the lead up to the elections we had 140,000. Even so Bush's budget doesn't account for any Iraq spending so even if it is the same I have a padding of $100 billion.

	16-02-2005 05:51									#115
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by DanS Now why would you think the CBO is incorrect in its forecasts? Surely, you're nothing more than a Bush apologist.

Bush's own numbers say the Deficit will be $427 billion in 2005. He might do better, we will see.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6862777/

BTW the CBO's forcst for 2004 was $400 billion but Bush & the Republicans came in at $412 billion. If anything the CBO has a history of under estimating the size of deficits. That makes sense since the CBO's job is to make politicians look good.

	16-02-2005 05:54									#116
	Support Apolyton

Didn't they ask for 80 billion dollars today?

	16-02-2005 05:58									#117
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by korn469 Didn't they ask for 80 billion dollars today?

Something like that. That's good for my bet but bad for America's deficit. I'm pretty sure DanS will be right about the taxs taken in being $20-$30 billion more then last year but if the war spending continues to outpace income growth I should be a winner. We will see.

	16-02-2005 06:51									#118
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by DanS Prescott's research shows the high elasticity of labor. Income and payroll tax rates on labor will have a substantial impact on whether people choose to work or choose leisure instead.

What do think people say, "Hey boss payroll taxes are just too high. Call me when they're lower. I think I'll live off my savings for awhile. My wife won't care."

I can't believe you fall for this crap.

	16-02-2005 07:07									#119
	Increase Your PM Length

Ted Striker


No one will borrow money in a depression LoA. The problem is not shortage of money. The problem is that no one will spend the money that they have.

	16-02-2005 07:11									#120
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: I'm pretty sure DanS will be right about the taxs taken in being $20-$30 billion more then last year

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear earlier. We are $22 billion ahead of where we were last on the deficit.