JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/08/my-new-favorite-flag.html (574 comments)


jsid-1282538431-358  pdwalker at Mon, 23 Aug 2010 04:40:31 +0000

I had an English friend just return from the US.  His first comment to me was how surprised and shocked he was at how polarized the country had become since his last visit.


jsid-1282550335-366  Robert at Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:58:55 +0000

They already are treading on us.


jsid-1282563890-71  Ken at Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:44:50 +0000

That's Kent McManigal, I think.

jsid-1282574103-901  khbaker at Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:35:05 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282563890-71

Looks like.  Thanks for the pointer.


jsid-1282578839-365  John Stephens at Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:53:59 +0000

The symbolism of the rattlesnake it that he warns before he strikes.  So a better slogan for this flag would be, "CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?"


jsid-1282583638-557  Rabbit at Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:13:59 +0000

Ideally, half the country will get this message on the morning of 3 November.

jsid-1282585006-732  khbaker at Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:37:02 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282583638-557

So far that "message" has been "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

Which comes at the end of that Who classic, Won't Get Fooled Again.

jsid-1282590329-976  Ken at Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:05:31 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282585006-732

Yeah, and you can make the heads of GOP laundry honks like Ace of Spades SPLODEY by saying so out loud.

Good times, good times.


jsid-1282595583-526  Mastiff at Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:33:03 +0000

Sigh.

"Inadequate" does not mean "same as the old boss."

I know you're less interested in politics per se than in the big picture, Kevin; but occasionally, the big picture is made up of a bunch of tiny pixels. Even if a crushing GOP victory only delayed the collapse by a few months, that ain't nothing.

And in this case, I suspect it will do far more than that. The Tea Party people are not interested in being co-opted by the GOP old boy network.

jsid-1282597551-503  khbaker at Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:05:58 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282595583-526

Mastiff, until I see some real change, then I go with experience over hope.

Experience tells me that people elected under the Republican banner are essentially Democrats Lite - 40% less Statist, but still Statist.  The Tea Party people may not be interested in being co-opted, but that doesn't mean they won't be.

Like you, I'm a believer in "who knows, maybe the horse will learn to sing!" delaying tactics, but I don't see a course reversal coming.

Still, Bill Whittle made an interesting point in one of his recent Afterburner pieces - the Titanic sank because it hit that iceberg just exactly wrong.  Had it veered off a little bit earlier, or hit just a little bit more head-on, the chances are good that not quite so many compartments would have been breached, and the ship would have survived. 

It seems apparent to me that we're not going to miss the metaphorical iceberg ourselves.  The question is, do we try veering off, or proceed full speed ahead?

jsid-1282742685-130  John Galt at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:24:45 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282597551-503

We've tried veering off.  Witness the "go along to get along" Quisling majority of the Republican party today.  *DONT_KNOW*

Now, it's time for "Ahead Full."  As in, "get with the Constitution or get run over."


jsid-1282616954-692  Markadelphia at Tue, 24 Aug 2010 02:29:15 +0000

How do you know for certain that we are hitting an iceberg to being with, Kevin? Or Mastiff? I guess what I'm wondering is that you seem so sure of yourselves that it doesn't jibe with your other proclamations of critical thought...I don't get it.

I guess what I'd like to see are some very specific examples of what you think is going to happen. Define hitting an iceberg. In fact, define the time frame in which this is going to happen. What are specfic examples of the fall out? I'm very interested to track these examples and see if they come to fruition.

jsid-1282619660-916  juris_imprudent at Tue, 24 Aug 2010 03:14:21 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282616954-692

Two things.  One - the country going to hell has been a hit meme since pretty much the beginning.  Two - you have been an enthusiastic proponent of this meme when it suited you, i.e. when YOUR party was out of power.

Now, in fairness, most folks around here aren't too keen on Republicans, but see them as a tolerable alternative to Democrats - particularly when the two parties split the govt.  Really bad shit tends to happen when one party has it all to themselves.  So, hard as this is for you to grasp, animus towards Democrats does not equal amour for Republicans - or as P.J. O'Rourke describes them, the party that claims govt doesn't work and promptly prove the point when they are in charge.

Sheesh, haven't you ever read de Toqueville?  Don't you TEACH him?


jsid-1282619511-421  khbaker at Tue, 24 Aug 2010 03:11:51 +0000

How do you know for certain that we are hitting an iceberg to being with, Kevin? ... Define hitting an iceberg.

Well, here's one aspect of the iceberg (image below) anyway. 

The iceberg is my metaphor for our government spending, and its promises to spend, beyond any reasonable expectation of our means, and our national unwillingness to face it.  As someone said, you can ignore reality.  What you can't ignore is the consequences of ignoring reality.

As to timeframe, I can't say with any precision.  Too much depends on what happens elsewhere in the world.  Let's just say that the timeframe is less than twenty years.  If nothing changes, a lot less.


jsid-1282622221-907  Markadelphia at Tue, 24 Aug 2010 03:57:02 +0000

Juris, specifics. What is going to happen? I've seen the results of the actions (or inactions of the GOP). I think the jury is still out on the DFL.

Kevin mentions spending and provides us with a graph. What is the source of this graph?

As to the deficit.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the federal budget deficit for 2010 will exceed $1.3 trillion—$71 billion below last year's total and $27 billion lower than the amount that CBO projected in March 2010, when it issued its previous estimate. Relative to the size of the economy, this year's deficit is expected to be the second largest shortfall in the past 65 years: At 9.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), it is exceeded only by last year's deficit of 9.9 percent of GDP. As was the case last year, this year's deficit is attributable in large part to a combination of weak revenues and elevated spending associated with the economic downturn and the policies implemented in response to it.


As such, CBO assumes that tax reductions enacted earlier in this decade that are currently set to expire at the end of this year do so as scheduled; it also assumes that no new legislation aimed at keeping the alternative minimum tax (AMT) from affecting many more taxpayers is enacted. In addition, CBO assumes that the measures enacted in the past two years to provide fiscal stimulus to the weakened economy will expire as currently scheduled and that future annual appropriations will be kept constant in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. Under those assumptions, the federal budget deficit would decline substantially over the next two years—to 4.2 percent of GDP by 2012—and, consequently, the budget would provide much less support to the economy than has been the case for the past two years.

It goes on to predict slow growth and minimal spending. The question is....what if not hitting the iceberg means letting the tax cuts expire for those who make over 250K a year? Or all of them? Let's see now...we've cut taxes twice under Bush and once under Obama.

Did that work? Why or why not? How?

jsid-1282658195-893  DJ at Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:56:36 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282622221-907

"Let's see now...we've cut taxes twice under Bush and once under Obama. 
 
Did that work? Why or why not? How?"


We have tried and tried and tried to teach this to you, and you will not learn it. I'll try again.

During the Bush administration, the feddle gubmint cut income tax RATES, which resulted in increased income tax REVENUE.

The error in your thinking and writing is that you repeatedly conflate tax RATES with tax REVENUE. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

Now, let's try two definitions, shall we?

-----

rate

n.

A measure of a part with respect to a whole; a proportion: the mortality rate; a tax rate.

-----

revenue

n.

All the income produced by a particular source.

-----

Thus, the income tax RATE is how much (i.e. what percentage) of each dollar of income the gubmint takes for its own use. The income tax REVENUE is how much (i.e. the total number of dollars) the gubmint collects by taxing income.

Now, read all that again and again until you understand it, and then continue. If you don't understand it, then you will not understand what follows.

-----

So, how could a cut in a tax RATE result in increased tax REVENUE? It is quite simple. It happens because a change in the RATE at which a particular economic activity is taxed results in a change in the willingness of people to engage in that activity, and thus a change in that activity, and thus a change in the tax REVENUE which taxing that activity produces.  THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.

A change in the RATE at which income is taxed can result in a greater or lesser willingness of people to engage in activity that produces income. Whether or not it is greater or lesser, and the amount by which it is greater or lesser, depends on what the rate was changed from and on what it was changed to, i.e. the old rate and the new rate.

Failiing to understand this is the primary error that the Dimocrat Party makes regarding tax policy. Their view is simplistic, viz., that if tax rates are increased, then tax revenue that results will increase, and that if tax rates are decreased, then tax revenue that results will decrease. That view is wrong, and history, in particular the history of the Bush tax cuts that are about to expire, demonstrate that it is wrong.

Your comments show that you share that view. When are you gonna learn that it is wrong?

jsid-1282663066-602  DJ at Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:17:46 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282658195-893

You want an explanation and demonstration of the failure of the Dimocrat Party to understand how the economy works?  Read here:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/24/abc-say-recovery-summer-isnt-going-as-well-as-advertised/

That's a pretty good summary.

For posterity, here's the end of it:

"Actually, Q1 GDP was revised downward to 2.7% in June.  The second-quarter growth figure is almost certain to be revised downward towards 1%.  The economy has slowed after really just one quarter of significant growth, 2009 Q4 — and that was mainly due to inventory management.  Porkulus didn’t save us from a “significantly worse” recession; it merely extended it.  We’re going to have the same recession we would have had without massive government intervention, except now we’re going to have it in 2010 as well as 2009.

"And we’re going to be almost a trillion dollars further in debt on top of it, thanks to the massive borrowing Porkulus required.

"The Democratic stimulus plan worked exactly as well as FDR’s WPA for the American economy, of which this White House is so enamored.  Government spending requires higher taxes sooner or later, which takes capital from the very job-creating activities necessary to grow the economy.  As soon as the artificial effects of government spending dissipate, the economy is left with fewer investors and less capital to pick up the pieces.  On top of that, the passage of ObamaCare and the threat of other heavy-handed regulatory regimes has private capital sitting on the sidelines, waiting to see what the rules will be before investing in any expansion.  With jobs stagnating at high unemployment levels, consumers aren’t spending.

"We’ve just seen a Cash for Clunkers on the largest scale possible."

See those highlighted parts? The guy who manages my investment portfolio confirmed it to me, and he used the same words. He told me that many trillions of dollars were pulled from the market as the Obamateur administration ramped up its agenda, and they will remain uninvested until, quite literally, "They know what the new rules are," meaning the new conditions under which those investments will be made. Congress and the Obamateur administration are killing the incentive to invest and expand, and those with money to invest and expand are behaving accordingly.


jsid-1282654796-718  khbaker at Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:59:59 +0000

 specifics. What is going to happen?

If we could tell you that, we wouldn't be bloggers.  We'd be rich speculators like, say, George Soros or Warren Buffett.

Now:  Relative to the size of the economy, this year's deficit is expected to be the second largest shortfall in the past 65 years: At 9.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), it is exceeded only by last year's deficit of 9.9 percent of GDP. As was the case last year, this year's deficit is attributable in large part to a combination of weak revenues and elevated spending associated with the economic downturn and the policies implemented in response to it. 

And:

CBO assumes that tax reductions enacted earlier in this decade that are currently set to expire at the end of this year do so as scheduled; it also assumes that no new legislation aimed at keeping the alternative minimum tax (AMT) from affecting many more taxpayers is enacted. In addition, CBO assumes that the measures enacted in the past two years to provide fiscal stimulus to the weakened economy will expire as currently scheduled and that future annual appropriations will be kept constant in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. Under those assumptions, the federal budget deficit would decline substantially over the next two years—to 4.2 percent of GDP by 2012—and, consequently, the budget would provide much less support to the economy than has been the case for the past two years. 

AND THEN YOU ASK:

The question is....what if not hitting the iceberg means letting the tax cuts expire for those who make over 250K a year? Or all of them?


What part of "weak revenues" did you miss?  What on Earth makes you think that "letting the tax cuts expire" will result in a sudden massive influx of cash to the federal government, rather than a continuing weak economy and unemployment?  On what planet does a $13 trillion debt that "merely" increases by 10% in ONE YEAR not throw up warning flags?  Wow, gee!  The amount of money we're spending is only a few hundred billion more than we're bringing in!  Cause to celebrate!!

The Democrats are not responsible for this, Markadelphia, we are.  Both parties and the people who elected them.  Rainbow-farting unicorns do not, in fact, exist.


jsid-1282672002-652  Markadelphia at Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:47:17 +0000

During the Bush administration, the feddle gubmint cut income tax RATES, which resulted in increased income tax REVENUE.  

Show me the numbers from a nonpartisan or primary source that this is true. Because we have heard this before...

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

As Kevin is fond of saying, RTWT.  I'm interested in your response that specifically refute the list of economic experts and analysts in this article. Alan Vidard directly contradicts your statement.

Here is another, more concise version.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/have_tax_cuts_always_resulted_in_higher.html

If we could tell you that, we wouldn't be bloggers.  We'd be rich speculators like, say, George Soros or Warren Buffett. 

So then why all the certainty then? It seems to me that you've decided the Democrats or whomever have decided that it's going to fail and that's it. And what would've been the alternative?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/2010/0809/Election-2010-a-fight-over-jobs-and-recovery-vs.-deficit-and-debt

They have invoked a paper by economists Alan Blinder of Princeton University and Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics, a former adviser to GOP presidential candidate John McCain, that asserts that absent vigorous government intervention in the economy, including bailouts and stimulus spending, "GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5 percent lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8.5 million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.


jsid-1282672358-853  geekwitha45 at Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:52:43 +0000

>>What on Earth makes you think that "letting the tax cuts expire" will result in a sudden massive influx of cash to the federal government...

What on earth makes anyone think that a sudden, massive influx of cash to the fedgov is a good thing in the first place?

Seriously, can anyone show how government has *ever* created economic value through spending tax money, as distinct from simply redistributing it?  Even when given the opportunity to run a business, they tend to screw it up...or operate businesses that can't exist outside nanny gov's protective embrace.

Ooh! Ooh! I know! They could foster a free, open and fair marketplace where people can pursue their own enlightened self interests through a system of strong property protection, enforceable contracts, reasonable liability, and a wide presumption of liberty...but I know, I know, that's just crazy talk.

Let's get back to a real solution, like figuring out how to screw a few more drops of blood out of peter to pay paul...or was it paul's turn in the barrel this week?


jsid-1282672750-716  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:59:10 +0000

Show me the numbers from a nonpartisan or primary source that this is true. Because we have heard this before...  

Yes, we have, and you're reverting to form.

You're misusing the term "primary source". Again. And after I've re-pointed that out to you on the other thread.

And after you demand a "nonpartisan" you link to "factcheck.org".

You can go look at the government figures, they're quite easily found. Tax revenues went up after the tax cuts went into effect.  The claims are that they would have gone up more, natch, had we not had those eeeevil tax cuts.


 So then why all the certainty then?

As always, it's back to base foundational principles.

Demonize investment, you'll get less of it. Make things less certain, and people will demand much higher returns (and risk being demonized as "ripping off")....  

There's a reason we predicted pretty much the route we'd be taking here, because we assessed the situation, and predicted that businesses would be under attack, subjected to massive new costs and taxes and uncertainty, and that would cause them to respond  rationally.

You're the one who assured us that that wasn't going to happen, and the un-defined "good capitalism" was going to save the day.

But you're trying to again, jump past the basics into heavy PhD level economics.  I take it you don't know any PhD economists.  I do.  *ahem*.

Stick to the basics, first.  Just even do the bare minimum and ask yourself "Self, what would it take to start a company and hire people?".  Do the math on that.


jsid-1282677498-617  Markadelphia at Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:18:19 +0000

geek, most economists agree that the cash we would get from letting the tax cuts expire won't completely solve everything. I agree with this as well. In fact, I'd like to see a reduction in spending across the board even though Kruggman says we should spend more. It might mean that it will take us longer to get out of this recession but the deficit is a concern. Since we have been higher in both deficit and debt to GDP in our country's history, I'm not ready to throw myself off a cliff yet but it is clearly something that needs to be addressed.

That's why I'm happy that both the GOP and the Dems are going to wait until we hear what the bipartisan commission says on December 1.

jsid-1282700896-463  Ken at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:48:16 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282677498-617

Since we have been higher in both deficit and debt to GDP in our country's history, I'm not ready to throw myself off a cliff yet but it is clearly something that needs to be addressed.

The two periods to which the Right Honorable Gentleman refers, those periods in which federal deficit as a percentage of GDP were greater than they are now, fell during the following years:

1918: 11.88%
1919: 16.86%
1942: 12.04%
1943: 28.05%
1944: 22.35%
1945: 24.07%

There is something hauntingly familiar about those years, upon which I cannot quite put a finger. ;)

So yes, the point -- that things could be worse -- is (in a narrow sense) accurate.

Awfully slender reed to which to cling for comfort, though.


jsid-1282681932-93  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 24 Aug 2010 20:32:12 +0000

Let's hear some direct refutation of these statistics provided here.

It's been refuted, it's easily found, and you still won't understand it.

Unix, this isn't a referendum on me. It's a debate on whether or not "During the Bush administration, the feddle gubmint cut income tax RATES, which resulted in increased income tax REVENUE"  is an accurate statement.

You're right, it's not a "referendum". The rest is erroneous.

Here's a rebuttal, graphically:

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-government-revenues

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/

From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a "surprise windfall."

So yes, that statement was completely accurate.

The CBO numbers provided in the footnoted link here do as well.

There's a major problem with ever using CBO numbers.  Do you know what it is?

I do.  Betcha DJ does. Betcha Kevin does.


jsid-1282685580-351  geekwitha45 at Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:33:00 +0000

Let's take a look at this statement, shall we?

>>In 2003, 450 economists,
Conceded: they are economists. From reading the overall text of the statement, they all seem to be proceeding from the Keynesian point of view, which survives, zombie like, despite being discredited in many credible eyes.

>>including ten Nobel Prize laureate,
The Nobel prize's credibility jumped the shark when it honored AlGore, and confirmed its lack of credibility when it awarded a prize to Obama at a time when his greatest achievement was having held the office of POTUS for what...11? 12?...days?

>>signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that
Conceded. They sent a letter.

>>"these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook...
Everyone knows the budget is out of whack with the means to pay for it. You either have to cut spending, increase taxes, or play voodoo games with negotiable instruments. People wanting the budget to include more stuff are going to object to any contrary phenomena.

>>will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits
And the Constitutional authority for that comes from where? (Crickets)

>>as well as investments in schools, health,
And the Constitutional authority for that comes from where? (Crickets)

>>infrastructure, and basic research...
And the Constitutional authority for that...is highly conditional, restricted to certain circumstances.

>>[and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income."

SINCE WHEN IS IT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO EQUALIZE AFTER TAX INCOME? 


So, in short, many apostles of a dubious economic religion complain that the Bush policies interferes with the ability of the government to engage in extra- Constitutional expenditures and social engineering.

For me, that's not a bug. It's a feature.



jsid-1282686398-582  Russell at Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:46:39 +0000

 The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform


"The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is disproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago."

This report was prepared in 1996. Neo-Keynesian monetary policies fail once again.


jsid-1282688617-744  Markadelphia at Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:23:55 +0000

Unix, just to recap a couple things here before we go any further...   
   
Washington Times, Heritage Foundation, you, DJ, some others here-accurate   
   
CBO, Treasure Dept, Joint Committe on Taxation, WH Council of Economic Advisors, Mankiw, Viard-inaccurate 
 
 
Agree or disagree?  
 
Some questions...   
   
Does federal revenue, as a rule, increse every year?   
   
Do you think that the Laffer curve is a valid measurement? Do you agree with supply side economics?
   
Are you saying that factcheck is biased? If so, what is factually inaccurate in the link I have provided?

jsid-1282766014-20  DJ at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 19:53:36 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282688617-744

"Do you think that the Laffer curve is a valid measurement?"

The Laffer Curve is not a measurement.

Again, teacher, I suggest that you not attempt to discuss something that you have not attempted to learn something about.

I suggest you begin with Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

It begins with:

"In economics, the Laffer curve is a theoretical representation of the relationship between government revenue raised by taxation and all possible rates of taxation. It is used to illustrate the concept of Taxable Income Elasticity (that taxable income will change in response to changes in the rate of taxation)."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? I refrained from making this comment until my previous comments on the subject of "taxable income elasticity" were thoroughly hammered into you.

Now, to continue:

"The curve is constructed by thought experiment."


A thought experiment is not a measurement. Had you even minimally investigated what the Laffer Curve is, you should have realized how stupid was the question you asked.

I'll quote further:

"First, the amount of tax revenue raised at the extreme tax rates of 0% and 100% is considered. It is clear that a 0% tax rate raises no revenue, but the Laffer curve hypothesis is that a 100% tax rate will also generate no revenue because at such a rate there is no longer any incentive for a rational taxpayer to earn any income, thus the revenue raised will be 100% of nothing."

So far, so good. To continue:

"If both a 0% rate and 100% rate of taxation generate no revenue, it follows that there must exist at least one rate in between where tax revenue would be a maximum."

Don't believe it? Consider that the current tax rate is between 0% and 100%, and the tax revenue is positive. Thus, the curve at some point is above the x-axis. As an exercise for the student, I suggest you learn about the Mean Value Theorem of differential calculus.

To continue:

"The Laffer curve is typically represented as a stylized graph which starts at 0% tax, zero revenue, rises to a maximum rate of revenue raised at an intermediate rate of taxation and then falls again to zero revenue at a 100% tax rate."

I have attached a copy, right out of Wikipedia, to show the graph that Arthur Laffer came up with to illustrate the concept.

That there is a curve is not disputed.  The dispute arises in the next two sentences:

"However, there are infinitely many curves satisfying these boundary conditions. Little can be said without further assumptions or empirical data."

These assumptions are where those on the left and right differ. On the left, we find [fill in the blank] such as Pelosi, Reid, and others who think the tax rate could be MUCH higher and would generate lots more revenue. On the right, the Bush tax cuts prove that the local maxima is at a much lower rate than most anyone on the left are willing to admit.

It is clear that, at the moment, you fall in with the group on the left.

I am a case in point. In 2000, the last full year of work before I retired, our net tax rate (federal income, state income, Social Security, and Medicare) was 29.90%. I quit working. I found that I had enough invested to live on, and I decided to stop giving nearly a third of my labor to the goddamned gubmint. Now, I live on what I withdraw from my investment portfolio, which is all IRA's, and thus I pay only federal and state income tax on what I withdraw. Last year, our net tax rate was 6.96%. We have no debt, and life is good.

So, yes, I think the Laffer Curve is valid. It is not a measurement, it is an illustration of an economic concept, and I believe that economic concept is valid.


jsid-1282692390-797  DJ at Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:26:31 +0000

Part I

"Show me the numbers from a nonpartisan or primary source that this is true."

Okay, I will.

The proposition is that:

"During the Bush administration, the feddle gubmint cut income tax RATES, which resulted in increased income tax REVENUE."

The premise on which this proposition is based is that:

"... a change in the RATE at which a particular economic activity is taxed results in a change in the willingness of people to engage in that activity, and thus a change in that activity, and thus a change in the tax REVENUE which taxing that activity produces."


To prove to the proposition, it is sufficient to show that income tax revenues to the feddle gubmint increased over time after the Bush tax cuts went into effect.

To prove the premise to the proposition, it is sufficient to show that the income tax revenues increased over time as economic activity increased over time after the Bush tax cuts went into effect.

The Bush tax cuts began in 2001 with The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, thus the last fiscal year before these tax rate cuts apply was 2000.  Many of these tax rate cuts were originally designed to be phased in over nine years, and would then expire after the tenth year. However, in 2003, the phase-in period was shortened by The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.

The primary source for data on income tax revenues of the feddle gubmint is the US Treasury Department. I presume we can trust the figures they have provided. Thus, we begin with the Treasury web site, which is at http://www.ustreas.gov/

On that page, we click on "Bureaus" and arrive at http://www.ustreas.gov/bureaus/

On that page, we click on "The Financial Management Service (FMS)" and arrive at http://www.fms.treas.gov/index.html

On that page, we click on "Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays and Balances (annual)" and arrive at http://www.fms.treas.gov/annualreport/index.html

On that page, we click on "Back Reports" and arrive at http://www.fms.treas.gov/annualreport/backissues.html

On that page, we click on "Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances for Fiscal Year XXXX", wherein XXXX is available for the years 2001 - 2008. Each link brings up a page on which each report is broken into many pieces partses, each of which is in the form of a .pdf file.  We are concerned with the part titled "Receipts by Source", which we can download from a link we find as we scroll down the page.  In these .pdf files, we find the individual and corporate income tax revenues for fiscal years 2001 - 2008.

For fiscal year 2000, the file is in a different format, so we directly download the "Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2000", wherein we find, on page 11, the individual and corporate income tax revenues for fiscal year 2000.

Thus we have, finally, the individual and corporate income tax revenues of the feddle gubmint for fiscal years 2000 through 2008, all from a primary source, namely the United States Treasury.


jsid-1282692503-967  DJ at Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:28:25 +0000

Part II

I have prepared a spreadsheet which shows both the individual and corporate income tax revenues by fiscal year, which I obtained as described above. It compares the income tax revenues of each year from 2001 - 2008 to the base year of 2000, which was the last fiscal year before the Bush tax cuts were applied.

It is important to understand two things: 1) a tax rate cut occurs in a "stepwise" fashion, i.e. the rate is one value one day and another value the next; and, 2) the effects of a tax rate cut on economic activity occur in a much more gradual fashion over a much more prolonged period.  Thus, if a tax rate cut occurs, one might expect to see an initial drop in tax revenue due to the stepwise change in the applied rate, followed by a rise in tax revenue over time as economic activity increases over time. Because of the phase-in of these tax rate cuts over several years, we should expect this transition period to be rather prolonged.

Thus, if the proposition is correct, and the explanation of the premise is correct, then we would expect to see a drop in tax revenue in 2001 compared to 2000, followed eventually by a rise in tax revenue as the fiscal years go by. In particular, we should eventually see a notable rise in corporate income tax revenue, which would indicate a corresponding rise in business activity.

I have made a .jpg snapshot of this spreadsheet and posted it below. It shows that, compared to 2000, individual income tax revenues were less in 2001 - 2005 and then were greater in 2006 - 2008. It shows that, compared to 2000, corporate income taxes were less in 2001 - 2004 and then were greater in 2005 - 2008, compared to 2000.

The proposition is proven, Q.E.D.

It shows a remarkable rise in corporate income tax revenues, indeed peaking at 78% in 2007.

The premise is proven, Q.E.D.


jsid-1282695295-170  JebTexas at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:14:55 +0000

Will he bail, or try the strawman defense? DJ did a stone cold bitch slap, a reasoned, articulate, and logical refutation of idiocy. With footnotes.  Anyone think Mark will EVAH be back to this thread? Anyone?


jsid-1282697004-718  DJ at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:43:27 +0000

"Does federal revenue, as a rule, increse every year?" 
 
Teacher boy, read the comment I posted just before this one. Follow how I found the numbers, provided by the US Treasury, which would answer that question. 
 
You don't have GUESS, you can find out FOR REAL. 
 
You don't have to ask the question of others, you can find out FOR YOURSELF. 
 
Now, do you see why we hammer on you to quit jumping to conclusions, find the facts for yourself, and reason from facts to conclusions?


jsid-1282697546-707  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:52:40 +0000

Unix, just to recap a couple things here before we go any further...     

The real recap is no, you can't evaluate information, and no, you're not learning anything.

So you fall back on logical fallacies.

Washington Times, Heritage Foundation, you, DJ, some others here-accurate          
CBO, Treasure Dept, Joint Committe on Taxation, WH Council of Economic Advisors, Mankiw, Viard-inaccurate 
    


Nope. Totally disagree. Not what I said, and I'm not going to argue in your strawman factory.

Some questions...     

You've got literally dozens of questions I've asked you, asked to clarify and to determine truth, not obfuscate.

Does federal revenue, as a rule, increse every year?     


Nope.

Do you think that the Laffer curve is a valid measurement? Do you agree with supply side economics?  


The "Laffer Curve" isn't a measurement, so no.  Supply side economics - Mark, you ain't even close to being able to understand what I think about economics.  I essentially minored in it in college, my father is a PhD economist, his father was an economist.
How about you manage to answer some basic supply/demand curve and floor/ceiling questions before you try and launch into macro-econ?
(And no, claiming that the sale price of footballs is biased won't work.)

Are you saying that factcheck is biased? If so, what is factually inaccurate in the link I have provided?


Factcheck isn't so much biased as a false flag operation.  What's factually inaccurate?  Damn, dude, you don't go outside in thunderstorms, do you?

In the meantime, you can just answer DJ. Good luck.


jsid-1282710669-789  Markadelphia at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 04:31:09 +0000

DJ, I'm not going to dispute that there is valdity to the idea that cutting corproate taxes attract corporate growth and increased federal revenue from this. That AEI study from three years ago showed some evidence of this although it's not entirely clear if this is completely applicable to the Untied States. But I'm willing to give them (and you) the benefit of the doubt. The numbers do make sense.

Still, I have do have some issues with your numbers. They're not really honest because they don't take into account that the cuts you are talking about are deficit financed. The tax cuts enacted in 2001 increased the deficit over half a trillion dollars by 2005. So when you say that they "increased revenue" it really makes no sense if you don't consider the deficit. The other issue I have is that you don't accurately characterize the fall off from 2001-2003 and then use 2004 as a starting point which, if you measure those numbers as a share of the economy, they were at their lowest levels since 1959.

In other words, you are looking at a small window of the business cycle and measuring growth based within itself to prove your point. How about creating a table comparing the period of 2001-2007 to...say....a 1990s business cycle following tax increases? Let's see those tables side by side. While we are at it, let's also see some data on historical averages (percentages) of receipts to GDP. The way I see it is that your increased revenue is simply a return to historical averages. Do you think that the growth that you list here has made up for the extraordinary weak growth from the previous years? Even your own table shows this as well as a drop off in 2008.

If your statement had been "During the Bush administration, the feddle gubmint cut income tax RATES, which resulted in ECONOMIC GROWTH"  then you would've been more accurate. And honest. Mankiw, thankfully, is at least honest in his study regarding whether or not any of this makes up for lost revenue in his study.

http://economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw/files/dynamicscoring_05-1212.pdf

Further, Bush's own Treasury Department gamed out extending the tax cuts and found that there would be negative effects.

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/treasurydynamicanalysisreporjjuly252006.pdf

Among the findings...

Best case scenario? Making these tax cuts permanent would have little effect on the size of the economy (0.7 percent). This study also found that the tax cuts would not, in fact, "pay for themselves" and some worst case scenarios called for lost revenue. They also suggested that small tax increases at the time (2006) would be better than a big one later.

Unix, federal revenue does, in fact, normally increase every year. Since 1962, revenue has declined in only five years. Check the historical tables. When you have a long run of economic growth, inflation, a growth in population/more people entering the work force and increases in wages, you are going to have an increase in revenue and tax policy will have nothing to do with it.

jsid-1282761527-546  DJ at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:38:47 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282710669-789

"Still, I have do have some issues with your numbers. They're not really honest because they don't take into account that the cuts you are talking about are deficit financed."

In the context of my proposition, that statement is gibberish.

"The tax cuts enacted in 2001 increased the deficit over half a trillion dollars by 2005. So when you say that they "increased revenue" it really makes no sense if you don't consider the deficit."

Wrong again, teacher.

I'm going to explain it, and I suggest you read it very slowly and completely.

First, three definitions:

revenue

n.

Money the government takes in.

spending

n.

Money the government pays out.

deficit

n.

The difference between spending and revenue, computed as deficit = spending - revenue.

Now, read the proposition yet again:

"During the Bush administration, the feddle gubmint cut income tax RATES, which resulted in increased income tax REVENUE."

Note that gubmint SPENDING, and thus the DEFICIT, form no part of that proposition, and thus are irrelevant to it.

"As it stands, his data in his table is, in fact, insufficient to support his statement."

No, the data in my table show that, after the income tax RATES were cut, income tax REVENUES increased, thus proving the proposition. Again, note that gubmint SPENDING, and thus the DEFICIT, form no part of that proposition, and thus are irrelevant to the proof.

As further clarification, note two things: 1) income tax revenue to the gubmint is determined by the rate at which income-producing economic activity is engaged in by 300+ million people; and, 2) spending by the gubmint is determined by the whims, brain farts, and intestinal irregularities of 535 partisan hacks in Congress, either with the approval or over the veto of a single partisan hack in the White House.

The deficit is thus determined by both of these things, but it is overwhelmingly at the mercy of the latter. To illustrate, consider the attached graph, which shows the deficit as a function of year. You can find this graph, in various forms, all over the internet, and you can verify the numbers on it through the web site of the US Treasury.

Note the TRIPLING of the deficit for fiscal year 2009 compared to 2008. That did NOT happen as the result of any income tax rate cut, it happened because of the whims, brain farts, and intestinal irregularities of a majority of both Houses of Congress, AND because of the whims, brain farts, and intestinal irregularities of the President, who together decided that borrowing a shitload of money and spending it, thus greatly increasing spending WITHOUT REGARD TO REVENUE, would DO SOMETHING, by golly. In effect, the normal checks and balances on the whims, brain farts, and intestinal irregularities of these 536 hacks became virtually ineffective.

We have been telling you for years that deficits, particularly when they grow to huge proportions, have a chilling effect on economic activity, particularly economic growth. However, that does not negate the fact that the lower the rate at which an economic activity is taxed, the greater the willingness of 300+ million people to engage in that activity.

Do you get it now?

jsid-1282762012-171  DJ at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:46:52 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282710669-789

"The other issue I have is that you don't accurately characterize the fall off from 2001-2003 and then use 2004 as a starting point ..."

ATTABOY!

Now THAT shows genuine, honest thinking on your part. My hat's off to you.

My analysis was correct, but not exact. I deliberately simplified it to illustrate the mechanism which proved the proposition, the idea being to not give you yet another opportunity to dive off into less important aspects.

As I stated earlier, the first year the full income tax rate cuts were applied was to fiscal year 2003. They were speeded up during that year and made retroactive to the start of it. Thus, the last fiscal year before the income tax rate cuts were fully applied was 2002.

So, I have modified the analysis and I present it below.  The ONLY change from what I showed earlier is that the base year is 2002 rather than 2000.

Now, consider the results and think of the mechanism.

Economic activity improves when income tax rates are cut, but only AFTER income tax rate cuts actually go into effect. That should be obvious; the idea is to engage in the activity WHEN it is taxed at the lower rate, BECAUSE it is taxed at the lower rate. The full rate cut went into effect in the middle of 2003.  Even though it was made retroactive to the beginning of 2003, no one knew that would be the case until it was passed.

So, we should expect economic activity to pick up beginning in 2004 and beyond, and that is what we see. Compared to 2002, corporate income tax revenue was down 10.95% in 2003, but was up 27.97% in 2004, peaking at up 150% in 2007. As is expected, individual income tax revenue lagged slightly behind that, being down 7.53% in 2003 and 5.74% in 2004, but was up 8.03% in 2005, peaking at up 35% in 2007.

Again, the proposition is proved, Q.E.D.

"...  which, if you measure those numbers as a share of the economy, they were at their lowest levels since 1959."

AWSHIT!

Those numbers "as a share of the economy" are irrelevant to the proposition.

Sigh ...

You dived off into the weeds anyway. You still don't get it. And, remember what I told you long ago: One AWSHIT wipes out all ATTABOYS.


jsid-1282740857-30  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:54:17 +0000

They're not really honest because they don't take into account that the cuts you are talking about are deficit financed.

They're completely honest, you're completely lost.

In the context of tax revenues, there's no such thing as "deficit financed".  You're trying to muddy the waters rather than learn something again.

The "deficit" is a function of spending, not collection, and as such, has nothing to do with tax receipts. Which is the subject of the conversation.

So you've changed the subject from DJ's point to your own strawman. That doesn't make DJ wrong.  You might say, ah, but in another context, the cuts.... Which is what most of your sources are saying.


You've never answered if you know why the CBO numbers have an issue.  Wonder why.

Unix, federal revenue does, in fact, normally increase every year. Since 1962, revenue has declined in only five years. Check the historical tables.

I'm well aware of that.

You asked : "Does federal revenue, as a rule, increse every year?"

It doesn't, as a rule. Historically it usually does.  But that's not what it means by "as a rule".  As you say, it doesn't always.  And there's no "rule" why it should.

I answered the question you asked, and purposely didn't expand, because I knew you didn't know the difference.


If your statement had been "During the Bush administration, the feddle gubmint cut income tax RATES,which resulted in ECONOMIC GROWTH"  then you would've been more accurate. 

I'm glad to see your minor change on the point, as flawed as your understanding is, but even with that, I'll note you've missed the bigger picture while shifting contexts.  So now you're against growing the economy in bad times?

jsid-1282741061-45  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:57:45 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282740857-30

The "deficit" is a function of spending, not collection, and as such, has nothing to do with tax receipts

Sorry, spoke too hastily.
Deficit is a function of spending and collection, I meant.  It's not a measure of tax receipts,  but a measure of what is done after they're collected. Spend more than you collect, you're in a deficit.  But that's not a measure of how much you collected, it's a measure of how much you're borrowing against the future.

Also, given Obama's deficit, I wouldn't even be throwing stones there, Mark. You're surrounded by glass and mirrors. (But you don't understand that.)

But when you're talking of tax receipts, how you spend them isn't in the same context.

(Lemme get some coffee.)


jsid-1282746721-304  Markadelphia at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:32:13 +0000

Unix, you'll get no argument from me that the spending of Congress is a concern (techincally, it's not Obama nor was it Bush' fault). My point in bringing up the deficit is that it is disingenuous to say that cutting taxes results in increased revenue when those tax cuts result in adding to the deficit. And that revenue in the time frame he mentions was honestly more restorative than anything else.

Simply put it's not enough to say "it is sufficient to show that income tax revenues to the feddle gubmint increased over time after the Bush tax cuts went into effect" and "it is sufficient to show that the income tax revenues increased over time as economic activity increased over time after the Bush tax cuts went into effect." if the word "result" is in this statement above...which it is. (During the Bush administration, the feddle gubmint cut income tax RATES, which resulted in increased income tax REVENUE.) That's like saying Clinton raised taxes and that's why he balanced the budget and left office with a surplus. All of us know that is spin and the "surplus" was in deficit spending not the actual debt to GDP which stood at over 50 percent of GDP. And that there were many other factors that contributed to this.


Now, if DJ had said, "Bush Cut Taxes. Federal Revenue Went Up" that would be an accurate (yet misleading due to its intimating a correlation betweent the two) statement. As it stands, his data in his table is, in fact, insufficient to support his statement. Take a look at the graph on pg. 15 of the AEI report.

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20070731_Corplaffer7_31_07.pdf

This shows revenue as a perentage of GDP which is more illustrative of the revenue stream and the overall picture. This graph does indeed show that when the corporate tax rate goes down, revenue goes OECD countries. Remember, though, that Hassett told Factcheck that his study showed that smaller countries had the most success and it may or may not be correct to apply the study to the US. My point in linking the study, though, is to show a more accurate graph than DJ presented. Instead, DJ shows the perentage of change from 2000 which is nice but, again, not illustrative as the AEI graph which does, indeed, prove part of his point.

But did he take into account population growth, wage increases, more people entering the work force and inflation as other factors in measuring increased tax revenue?

The other thing to consider is the total per capita revenue growth in 22 quarters after the last business peak. For the period of 2001-2007 it was 1.7 percent. Overall, that's not stunning growth. The average for all previous post WWII Business Cycles was 12 precent. In the 1990s business cycles after tax increases it was 16 perecent.

None of this, of course, takes into account how much more revenue there would've been had there been no tax cuts at all. Would there have been a surplus?

Unix, I hope that when you respond to this you leave the strident language regarding me out of the comment. I want it noted that I have stuck to the subject at hand and not taken issue with some your comments (had I made them) you would've pounced on. Example: The fact that my mother is a elementary school principal of 30 years doesn't necessarily make me an expert on education. 8-)


jsid-1282748667-883  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:04:28 +0000

I want it noted that I have stuck to the subject at hand and not taken issue with some your comments (had I made them) you would've pounced on. 

But you haven't stuck to the subject.

My statement was made to bolster my authority, not as an appeal to authority. Again, you don't understand anything about what you're talking about.  You insinuated I was uneducated as to economics. I'm not.  But I didn't insist that that was solely an authority - unlike your arguments quite often.  (Remember how you said *we* didn't respect educational institutions?)

My point in bringing up the deficit is that it is disingenuous to say that cutting taxes results in increased revenue when those tax cuts result in adding to the deficit. 

Then you have no point.  Because that's gibberish.

You've lost the argument to DJ, and can't admit it, so you're trying to obfuscate and change the subject.  But we've got more enduring knowledge than you do, and can see that.

Revenue = what you take in
Deficit = difference between what you take in and send out.

If you increase revenue, and increase spending, you (can) increase the deficit. Which is what we were mad about these last years with Bush, you might note.  But even if you can't note that, the discussion was on revenue. What increases revenue.

If you want to close the deficit, you increase revenue and decrease spending.

You advocate things that - you admit! would reduce revenue and increase spending, making your "point" even more ridiculous in the context of this site.

No, you haven't "stayed on subject", you've tried to change it - repeatedly, and you've tried to redefine words and concepts again.

DJ was correct, until you admit that, you are in error and have no enduring knowledge.


jsid-1282752529-954  GrumpyOldFart at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:08:50 +0000

My point in bringing up the deficit is that it is disingenuous to say that cutting taxes results in increased revenue when those tax cuts result in adding to the deficit.

But the tax cuts did not result in adding to the deficit. They can't. Deficits are a function of outgoing money, not incoming money. If you do no spending, any income at all will result in a surplus. If you do more spending than you have money for, you will run a deficit no matter how much money you have.

Doesn't anyone competent to balance a checkbook know this? Hell, doesn't anyone competent to count their change know this?

jsid-1282755619-498  khbaker at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:00:26 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282752529-954

But Grumpy, you're talking about GovernmentLand™ where a 10% increase in spending is called a 33% cut because it wasn't the planned 15% increase in spending.

All done with a perfectly straight face and reported as such by the media.

jsid-1282756780-178  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:19:40 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282752529-954

Trust me, Grumpy, I'm counting Change daily.  I'm counting Change daily.

jsid-1282759295-266  GrumpyOldFart at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:01:35 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282752529-954

In the interests of full disclosure, I'd like to make clear that my training in economics is nil. I am, however, competent to balance my checkbook and count my change.

Go figure.


jsid-1282756146-848  randy at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:09:21 +0000

My point in bringing up the deficit is that it is disingenuous to say that cutting taxes results in increased revenue when those tax cuts result in adding to the deficit.

OK, I admit I only had a year of Econ in my undergrad years, but that sentence made my head hurt and I could not force myself to read the rest of his post.

jsid-1282756853-823  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:20:57 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282756146-848

That may well have been the object.

jsid-1282763403-475  khbaker at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 19:10:03 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282756853-823

Honestly, I don't think it's intentional.  He can't help being irrational.  It's the wonky way he sees the world, and he shares it with a plurality of others. 

And they can't understand why we don't see the world the way they do.

They're not kidding when they say that they think they're the "reality-based community."

And this does not bode well for our future as a nation.  You cannot debate something on which you have differing first principles - it's a useless exercise.

jsid-1282765908-748  geekwitha45 at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 19:51:51 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282763403-475

>>You cannot debate something on which you have differing first principles - it's a useless exercise.

My interest in debating and compromising with such diminishes with each passing day.

It is replaced by an interest in ensuring that such has no power over me.

jsid-1282777245-872  Linoge at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:00:57 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282763403-475

I really and honestly have a somewhat difficult time believing that a living, breathing, supposedly reasoning, adult human being cannot comprehend that deficits have no direct impact on revenues, and likewise that deficits have absolutely no impact on the veracity of the statement of "doing X increases the revenues of Y". 

We are not exaclty talking about complex mathematics here, at this point, nor are we attempting to wrassle terribly difficult logical arguments...  we are talking about very basic definitions, of relatively rudimentary words. 

I mean, we joke about Mark having aphasia, but, goddamn, the humor is leeching away as we speak. 

jsid-1282777704-148  DJ at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:08:24 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282777245-872

It's like trying to push a cow. It doesn't work, and the cow has no idea what you're doing.


jsid-1282758754-162  Markadelphia at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:52:34 +0000

DJ was tasked to prove causality between Bush's tax cuts and increased revenue. Based on what he put up there, there is no evidence of this. Now, the AEI paper does show some evidence regarding corporate revenue but that includes other data that DJ did not include. Where is the causality? What about the other factors I have listed above?

In terms of the tax cuts and the deficit, I would point you to this:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=966#_ftn1

The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for nearly half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs. [1] Increases in program spending make up the other 52 percent and have been primarily concentrated in defense, homeland security, and international affairs.


A growing number of studies from highly respected institutions and economists have concluded that the negative effect on long-term growth of the increased deficits that the tax cuts are generating is likely to cancel out — and quite possibly to outweigh — any positive effects on long-term growth from reductions in marginal tax rates and other tax incentives in the 2001 and 2003 tax-cut packages. Stated simply, the tax cuts are more likely to reduce long-term growth than to increase it.[2]

So, rather than the strident language directed at yours truly, demonstrate how they are wrong.

I spent a decent amount of time researching some of this stuff. The rest I already knew. In fact, I think I have a nice little unit created for the coming year so I do appreciate the discussion. If you want to debate my points, let's hear thoughts or counter evidence to all of them. I made it a point to search for evidence that proved DJ was correct and I did find some related to coporate revenue. But the rest of his argument doesn't stand up to the standards that have been set on here. Honestly, I think I've been pretty kind considering when you google "Bush Tax Cuts Boost Federal Revenue" and see this

http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=bush+tax+cuts+boost+federal+revenue&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___US345&ie=UTF-8&aq=0&oq=bush+ta

or when you consider the black and white question and answer of this

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/have_tax_cuts_always_resulted_in_higher.html

Have tax cuts always resulted in higher revenues and more economic growth as many tax propoents claim? No, in fact economists say that tax cuts do not spark enough growth to pay for themselves.

It's pretty straight forward and backed up with plenty of source material for all to see and analyze.


jsid-1282759715-90  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:08:35 +0000

DJ was tasked to prove causality between Bush's tax cuts and increased revenue. Based on what he put up there, there is no evidence of this.

He did exactly that. You changed the subject away from "revenues" and onto "effect on the deficit".

Where is the causality?

The tax rates went down, the revenue went up.  There it is.


What about the other factors I have listed above? 

They're another subject, you can't get this under control yet.  We cannot move onto things that rely on this knowledge and understanding while it's obvious you don' t understand this.

if you don't understand the basics, you won't understand the advanced.

And you don't understand the basics.

If you want to debate my points, let's hear thoughts or counter evidence to all of them.

You have yet to counter DJ's points, other than to assume they're wrong, and change the subject to something else. 

I spent a decent amount of time researching some of this stuff.

Spend more.

The rest I already knew. In fact, I think I have a nice little unit created for the coming year so I do appreciate the discussion.

Not if you can't separate deficit from revenue.  I begin to see why you can't answer which is more, 22 or 15. You really don't know, do you?


jsid-1282760764-906  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:26:11 +0000

It's somewhat funny, that the "teacher" here can't manage an "Enduring understanding" of a common theme here.

He says something, many people object, and it ends up with someone going toe to toe with him, and at the end, ending up, every time, "wait, you don't UNDERSTAND [some basic fact/word/concept]??"

Of course, sometimes we start off telling him that from the get-go, but it almost always proceeds down that line.  And he wonders why we can reply to him so quickly.  All you have to do is ask about something, anything that's in the hierarchy of knowledge....


jsid-1282770237-461  Markadelphia at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 21:03:57 +0000

No, the data in my table show that, after the income tax RATES were cut, income tax REVENUES increased,  
 
That's true...your table did show that but it does not show causation.  
 
And you know as well as I do that if you are going to talk about tax cuts increasing revenue, it's much more honest to include a discussion of spending and the deficit. Your statement puts forth the notion that tax cuts spur increased revenue. The very idea of this means nothing when you offset this revenue with how much the deficit grew. "Increased revenue" sounds fantastic but we know that it really isn't and that is my whole point. See my link above in my last comment regarding more on the seperation of "deficit" and "spending" and how that figures into discussions of increaesd revenue.
 
As to your second comment, I'm with you somewhat on the corproate side of the equation. But I'm still wondering if you are taking into account the other issues in my various posts above. For example, we are talking about revenue, right? So, if revenue (as a share of the economy) is at is lowest point since 1959 in 2004, doesn't that set the bar low? And increased revenue look pretty darn amazing? I wouldn't characterize that as "diving off into the weeds."  
 
I'd also still like to see, as in the AEI study, percentage of GDP over the years and a comparison to other eras to get a more illustrative view. And don't you have to adjust for inflation, increased wages/new wage earners, and population growth when considering these revenues?  
 
Unix, more strident language and failure to address my overall points to DJ's statement. I'll keep checking back.   
 
GOF, check the link in my above post for a more detailed explanation of this connection.

jsid-1282772970-914  DJ at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 21:49:31 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282770237-461

"And you know as well as I do that if you are going to talk about tax cuts increasing revenue, it's much more honest to include a discussion of spending and the deficit."

Sigh ...

There is nothing even slightly dishonest about discussing the effects on income tax revenue of reductions in income tax rates.

"Your statement puts forth the notion that tax cuts spur increased revenue."

No my proposition asserts that income tax RATE cuts during the Bush Administration DID resulted in increased income tax REVENUE. I proved that proposition. I stated explicitly that whether or not a tax rate change results in increased or decreased tax revenues depends on what the rate was changed FROM and what it was changed TO. I further explained why the Laffer Curve, and the economic theory behind it, shows that to be the case.

But it is WAY over your head, teacher boy.


This comment, and most of yours herein on this subject, are FILLED with Random But Important Sounding Gibberish. You demonstrate over and over that you fundamentally do not understand the subject. The proposition that I put forth, and the proof of that proposition, both stick in your craw like old peanut butter rolled in gravel. You keep trying to thrash one strawman after another and you keep trying to change the subject over and over, all to avoid admitting that I was correct.

You fool no one, teacher boy.
I keep telling you and telling you; you are dealing with grownups here, and you're not up to it. You keep demonstrating the truth of that statement.

And you talk about honesty ...

Your hypocrisy is limitless, ain't it?

jsid-1282777447-463  Linoge at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:04:07 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282770237-461

Your statement puts forth the notion that tax cuts spur increased revenue. The very idea of this means nothing when you offset this revenue with how much the deficit grew. 

Mark, is DJ's statement, which you seem to be able to repeat accurately, true or false, as it stands, with no additional qualifiers, limiters, or additions?  Deficits have absolutely no impact on revenues - does cutting taxes lead to an increase in revenues?  We are, more or less, talking about gross income here when we say "revenue", not net income - do you actually grasp the difference? 


jsid-1282772798-931  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 21:46:39 +0000

Unix, more strident language and failure to address my overall points

No, it's not a failure, because you didn't make points.  Furthermore, we're not talking "overall" we're talking specific points.

Which you can't.

if you are going to talk about tax cuts increasing revenue, it's much more honest to include a discussion of spending and the deficit.

No, it's not, and you know it. Or should.  You're demonstrating that you don't understand, much less enduringly, what you're talking about.

This is an essay test. One you're failing.

Spending, and the deficit are important issues, not germane to discussions about increasing revenue.


Your statement puts forth the notion that tax cuts spur increased revenue.

No, it defends and demonstrates that.

The very idea of this means nothing when you offset this revenue with how much the deficit grew.

It means if we spent less, there's be less (or no) deficit!

Spending has nothing (for all intents and purposes here, you're failing high school econ here, we won't go into advanced MBA issues) to do with revenue.

DJ has explained this in great, graphic, easy to follow ways.

And don't you have to adjust for inflation, increased wages/new wage earners, and population growth when considering these revenues?   

And we're back to "But what's a mine???????? It's UNFAIR!!!!"

Mark, you're looking for excuses to avoid admitting that DJ has, quite literally, schooled you.

It's not always the teachers fault when the student fails.


jsid-1282774450-603  DJ at Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:14:10 +0000

Now THIS is interesting. Go read

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/25/where_are_the_new_jobs_106876.html

Recall a comment of mine from yesterday. Regarding a quoted excerpt from a HotAir article, I wrote:

"See those highlighted parts? The guy who manages my investment portfolio confirmed it to me, and he used the same words. He told me that many trillions of dollars were pulled from the market as the Obamateur administration ramped up its agenda, and they will remain uninvested until, quite literally, "They know what the new rules are," meaning the new conditions under which those investments will be made. Congress and the Obamateur administration are killing the incentive to invest and expand, and those with money to invest and expand are behaving accordingly."

Now, John Stossel state (emphasis added):

"The problem today is that the economy is not being left alone. Instead, it is haunted by uncertainty on a hundred fronts. When rules are unintelligible and unpredictable, when new workers are potential threats because of Labor Department regulations, businesses have little confidence to hire. President Obama's vaunted legislative record not only left entrepreneurs with the burden of bigger government, it also makes it impossible for them to accurately estimate the new burden."

and

"Nothing more effectively freezes business in place than what economist and historian Robert Higgs calls "regime uncertainty.""

and

"Higgs says: "Unless the government acts soon to resolve the looming uncertainties about the half-dozen greatest threats of policy harm to business, investors will remain for the most part on the sideline ... consuming wealth that might otherwise have been invested.""

This is what happens when amateurs are in charge of gubmint.


jsid-1282833028-940  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:30:44 +0000



Honestly, I don't think it's intentional.  He can't help being irrational.

It may not be intentional, but he can help being irrational.  So I have to disagree with you there, Kevin.

Sure, the educational system taught him the "wonky way" to view the world, and he "lenses" the world through those glasses.  He should get rewarded for effort, not result, and you're your own best judge.  Right.

But he could change, if he'd stop being so stubbornly insistent that his (easily demonstrably as massive hypocritical) intellect, (easily demonstrable as massively free of principle) conclusions, and his vocabulary (need I describe that) weren't superlative.

It's been proven, even to him, time and time and time again.  And yet he persists.  (The only principle that he actually can be accused of of holding to is "Give my guys power to point guns at everybody else")

But he doesn't see that, no matter how many times we break it down to elementary pieces and attempt to lead him to at least understanding of where our principles are.

And this does not bode well for our future as a nation.  You cannot debate something on which you have differing first principles - it's a useless exercise.


Sowell's point is a good one, but I think even that's too advanced for this.  In order to have that problem, you have to have first principles.  I don't think that he does. And I know if you asked him to define them, he couldn't.

Somewhat ironically, this reinforces what we're saying about the Educational System.


jsid-1282840430-164  Markadelphia at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:33:50 +0000

Linoge-Let's take a look at  it again.


During the Bush administration, the feddle gubmint cut income tax RATES, which resulted in increased income tax REVENUE.

As I have stated a couple of times in this thread, as long as the word "resulted" is in there, it is false. That word comes out, and his statement is valid but still intimates causality and/or correlation and there is none. The only possible exception would be the corporate revenue side but that has not been fully proven. As I have stated in many of my other comments here, there are other factors that contributed to the increased tax income...factors that he did not list in his analysis. I would ask you kindly to re-read those comments and links for further detail, facts, figures, and analysis.

I do grasp the difference between gross and net income....DJ is talking about gross revenue's increasing and not what is our actual income when coupled with spending. My reason for pointing at the deficit is how disingenuous it makes his statement. It's a comment more than a connection...although if you read the link I have provided above it is detailed as more. If you disagree with the CBO's assessment, let's hear why. Remember, though, my comment about the deficit was only one of several that have been made on DJ's statement. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on my other points.

Unix and DJ, let's try this again.

1. Please explain how revenue percentage of GDP would factor into your analysis. Kindly refer to the AEI report linked above (pg. 15) for a more accurate chart of how cutting corporate taxes boosts revenue in countires around the world which may or may not be true here in the US.

2. Please describe how inflation, a growth in population/more people entering the work force and increases in wages factor into the increase federal revenue.


3. Please compare the period of 2001-2007 with other 22 month business cycles from either the 1990s or another cycle of your choice...post WWII. How are they the same? How are they different?

4. As a bonus question, demonstrate critical thinking regarding the Laffer curve. What are your thoughts on Mankiw's analysis of the Laffer curve (pg. 169-171 of Principles of Microeconomics, 3rd Edition)? Here's a quote as a primer

There is no debate about the general lesson: How much revenue the government gains or loses from a tax change cannot be computed just by looking at tax rates. It also depends on how the tax change affects people's behavior.

So, there is more to it than your statement, DJ. This will be the third time I have asked these questions. Can you answer them without resorting to more strident language about myself?

Also, why the comment on Obama? I thought we were discussing whether or note federal tax cuts raise revenue.

jsid-1282852994-566  Linoge at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:03:20 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282840430-164

*sigh*  I do not even know where to start, Mark. 

 > I do grasp the difference between gross and net income....DJ is talking about gross revenue's increasing and not what is our actual income when coupled with spending.

See, you can parrot the words, even in the right order, and make it all sound correct, but I am still not convinced that the first sentence is true, even in light of your apparent understanding revealed in the second.  Why?  Because of this patent nonsense: 
 > My reason for pointing at the deficit is how disingenuous it makes his statement.

False, false, false, false, false.  There is no disingenousness in DJ's statement.  Talking about deficits does not make it any more, or less, disingenous (though it certainly makes the conversation significantly more prone to hurting my head).  Deficits have absolutely no impact, no reflection, and no direct control over revenues.  Period.  Full stop.  End of story. 

DJ, being an adult, reasoning human being, chose his words carefully - he said "revenues".  He did not say "income", he did not say "net income", he did not say "profit", and he did not say "earnings".  He said "revenues", which are strictly defined as:  "The amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period, including discounts and deductions for returned merchandise. It is the "top line" or "gross income" figure from which costs are subtracted to determine net income."  Sadly, we cannot return things to the federal government, so the equation becomes mind-numbingly simple - revenue is how much the federal government brought in each year.  PERIOD.  No mention of deficits was made in DJ's comment, and no mention of deficits is needed, at all, anywhere in the comment. 

Now, if DJ said, "the feddle government cut income tax RATES, which resulted in increased PROFIT", and then refused to discuss the small matter of deficits, you would be absolutely and completely correct to call his statement "disingenuous".  As we stand now, though, you are merely illustrating the fact that you do not yet comprehend the vocabulary those around you are using... which makes your condescension all the more amusing. 

 >  It's a comment more than a connection...

Well, now, that is a pretty bald-faced lie, there, mate.  You said, and I quote, "So when you say that they "increased revenue" it really makes no sense if you don't consider the deficit."  Not only is that statement flat-out wrong, it is also bears a hell of a striking resemblance to a "connection" [sic]. 

[Continued]

jsid-1282853051-701  Linoge at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:04:12 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282840430-164

[Continued]

And now that I have no other comments of yours worthy of addressing, I come to the one that gave me the single largest headache of them all: 

 > ...as long as the word "resulted" is in there, it is false. That word comes out, and his statement is valid... 

You do understand, do you not, that removing the word "resulted" from DJ's sentence DOES NOT CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE SENTENCE, right?  For the record, that question was completely rhetorical - your above-quoted comments clearly show that you do not, and UJ's comment sufficiently explains why.  The word "resulted" is totally irrelevant to DJ's comment, and leaving it or taking it out has absolutely no impactupon its meaning - I have to admit, the more I actually bother to read your comments, the more I become concerned that the disconnect we are seeing is not one of erroneous logic or reason, but rather a deeper, more significant one indeed. 

For that matter, I am curious - what is your definition of the word "valid"? 

 > ... but still intimates causality and/or correlation and there is none. 

Mighty strong word there - "none".  I assume you have proof?  Proof to back up that absolute prohibition included in the word "none"?  Proof of the type that DJ provided you earlier, wherein he spelled out the problem, the method he used to sovle it, and the resolution? 

Anything? 

Buehler? 

 > I would ask you kindly to re-read those comments and links for further detail, facts, figures, and analysis. 

Well, when it comes to your comments, that would be a mighty short read, and you and I both know it.  Regarding your links, why would I bother, when you flippantly discard and ignore those posed to you when you find them to be inconvenient, incongrous, or just plain difficult?  Goose, gander, and all that. 

End result:  I just wasted a grand total of about 15 minutes on this comment thread, though, in the process, I discovered that one of the most strident argumentative voices in the thread literally does not understand the words that are being used, even by him.  "First principles" argument, substantianted.  It is good that today is the anniversary of Ted's death - I need a drink. 


jsid-1282842028-87  Markadelphia at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:00:28 +0000

Just so we have all of our ducks in a row...let's bring the CBO report down here.  
 
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdf  
 
A summary from Wikipedia:  
 
 
In the paper's most generous estimated growth scenario, only 28% of the projected lower tax revenue would be recouped over a 10-year period after a 10% across-the-board reduction in all individual income tax rates. The paper points out that these projected shortfalls in revenue would have to be made up by federal borrowing: the paper estimates that the federal government would pay an extra $200 billion in interest over the decade covered by his analysis.  
 
It's a more specific summation of how tax cuts are related to the deficit. So, I guess this would be point #5 to add to my list above. Comments on the CBO report? It's only 8 pages.


jsid-1282844212-763  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:37:13 +0000

Mark:

The way you get to understanding is simplifying, as I've tried to show you.  You want to obfuscate, so you can claim that your conclusion is valid, despite multiple foundational steps being obviously incorrect, erroneous, or at best, arguable.

let's bring the CBO report down here.    

Let's first have you answer my outstanding question:

What must you know before you can cite the CBO?



During the Bush administration, the feddle gubmint cut income tax RATES, which resulted in increased income tax REVENUE.  

As I have stated a couple of times in this thread, as long as the word "resulted" is in there, it is false.

So that would make it:

During the Bush administration, the feddle gubmint cut income tax RATES, which [in] increased income tax REVENUE.  

The statement is still true if we remove your word.  The meaning is unchanged. So what was your "point", again?

That word comes out, and his statement is valid but still intimates causality and/or correlation and there is none


That there is none is a statement of conclusion on your part that you have not even attempted to prove.  You can make the argument that it is coincidental - that is, and I'm sure DJ will agree, an arguable proposition. Argueable. Not proven. 

Moreover, DJ already dealt with that argument and provided evidence against it.  If you understood the argument, you'd know that.  That's not to say DJ proved his point - from a purely devil's advocate side, it's still arguable.  But you'd have to deal with his argument, not just dismiss it.

Now, if you want to deal with that? Fine. Go ahead and do it. (And there's a reason I'm not specifically pointing to it, because I don't think you know where it is.

Please explain how revenue percentage of GDP would factor into your analysis.

Totally irrelevant, given the proposition we're working with.

Please describe how inflation, a growth in population/more people entering the work force and increases in wages factor into the increase federal revenue.  

Mostly irrelevant, given the proposition we're working with.  In case someone who knows something reads this, first, "inflation" isn't an issue, since the dollar values are equalized to a standard, and if you understood the material, you'd know that, and the second is more complicated; however, you saw a decrease until the cuts, despite the assumed (you didn't prove more people entered the work force, you just assumed it) increase in the work force.

Please compare the period of 2001-2007 with other 22 month business cycles from either the 1990s or another cycle of your choice...post WWII. How are they the same? How are they different?  

Teacher boy, you're not the instructor here, you're the gadfly, the "know it all" who knows nothing - demonstrably.  All that said, guess what?
Totally irrelevant, given the proposition we're working with.

By the proposition's definition, it's only for the post-2000 years.  You're trying to change the subject to avoid admitting DJ is right, or more likely, admitting you don't know what you're talking about.

As a bonus question, demonstrate critical thinking regarding the Laffer curve.

"Demonstrate critical thinking" - how would you know? You can't even manage to stay with the proposition we're working with.  You've yet to ever, once, demonstrate critical thinking skills, you're not a competent judge. You might as well send me to the Westminister Dog Show as to judge true critical thinking skills.

Anyway, it's totally irrelevant, given the proposition we're working with.

Funny how these things keep coming back to a simple given.Or maybe not.


jsid-1282845505-3  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:58:25 +0000



Just so we have all of our ducks in a row...let's bring the CBO report down here.    

Your ducks are all over the migration pattern.

A summary from Wikipedia:

Why do we need a summary from wikipedia?  

 

It's a more specific summation of how tax cuts are related to the deficit.


Ah, but it's not, not at all.  It's an estimate.

There is a huge difference between an estimate, and a summation.


So, Critical Thinking time. Which is more valuable. An estimate* or the real numbers?

* - There's an asterisk there, still waiting on you to tell us what you have to know - and disclaim - about CBO reports.


jsid-1282848428-727  Markadelphia at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:47:08 +0000

Unix, using the word "which" or "resulted" is basically saying the same thing. The more accurate statement would be: During the Bush administration, the feddle gubmint cut income tax RATES. During the Bush Administration, federal revenue increased.

There's nothing technically inaccurate about those statements but it still does imply causality and correlation. As to the rest of your comments, I disagree. These other factors are vey much relevant when considering a rise in revenue. Is it accurate to say, then, that you disagree with the Mankiw quote above?

If you disagree with the CBO estimates, that's fine. Why? Show me your reasoning and your points.


jsid-1282848850-295  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:54:10 +0000

If you disagree with the CBO estimates, that's fine. Why? Show me your reasoning and your points.

I already did.

And everything I said stands repeated, they're irrelevant, given the proposition in question.

But you can't evaluate that.  Can. Not. Will not learn the skills, or even try.


jsid-1282850372-108  Markadelphia at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:19:32 +0000

Where? I don't see them anywhere. All I see is more strident language directed at me.  
 
I can evaluate what you are saying. I disagree given the evidence researched and the information presented by DJ. There are, in fact, several relevant factors in determining the rise of federal revenue and simply looking at a change in tax rate is not sufficient to use the word "resulted."
 
I'll ask you again...do you agree or disagree with this statement?  
 
There is no debate about the general lesson: How much revenue the government gains or loses from a tax change cannot be computed just by looking at tax rates. It also depends on how the tax change affects people's behavior.   



jsid-1282850600-536  Russell at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:23:20 +0000

UJ, stop being so mean! Can't you see his self esteem is hurting? And you just don't care!

Stop making him answer basic questions about stuff! He's more of a big picture kind of guy, one that understands feelings and people and stuff. And the less defined it is, the more stuff he knows.

Oh, and 15 and 22 are the same number, if 15 really believes in himself, why, he's just as big as mean ol' 22. I bet you and 22 are friends, aren't you? You cad!


jsid-1282851110-123  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:31:50 +0000

I don't see them anywhere. All I see is more strident language directed at me. 

And there is the problem.

All you can see is the language. You can't see the concepts. Even when DJ spoonfed it, and gave you detailed directions, you couldn't see the concepts, or the data, all you could see is the "strident language".

Right there is the problem, and it's why Kevin, and I, think that there's no possible way to save the educational system. You've been taught to look at language, not concepts, not data, but what makes you feel good.  Not what's true, not what's definable, not what's reducible. 

I can evaluate what you are saying.

Then why haven't you? You're misleading yourself when you say that - after you've demonstrated quite clearly that you cannot evaluate what we're saying. 

I disagree given the evidence researched and the information presented by DJ.

You've yet to make a case for that. You've tried changing the subject repeatedly, rather than deal with the simplest of your errors.  Note the plural. Oh, sorry. Plural means "more than one".

There are, in fact, several relevant factors in determining the rise of federal revenue and simply looking at a change in tax rate is not sufficient to use the word "resulted."

We're still waiting for you to present the first of those "several relevant factors".  Not good for your claim that you understand the subject matter.

But this means that  - in opposition to what you said earlier - you now agree, that tax RATES dropped, and tax REVENUE went up? Yes?

jsid-1282851862-550  khbaker at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:44:22 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282851110-123

More evidence of the validity of that "first principles" argument.

jsid-1282852772-514  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:59:35 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282851862-550

But it brings into question the existence of them even more.


jsid-1282851131-557  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:32:11 +0000

Russell:

Sorry, can't. Rush told me to be mean, and that 22 was more than 15.


jsid-1282851850-450  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:44:11 +0000



Mark: If you disagree with the CBO estimates, that's fine. Why? Show me your reasoning and your points. 

Me: I already did. 

Mark: Where? I don't see them anywhere. All I see is more strident language directed at me.


In the spirit of the relaunch (though the plating is starting to wear thin), let me back up and be explicitly clear on that.

Because I wasn't before, perhaps intentionally, and probably more to demonstrate that Mark doesn't understand what's being said TO him, he can only listen to the "tone", and can't evaluate the data, or the concepts.

So let me rectify that.

The CBO study (and you keep dodging the very relevant question about the CBO, something you must understand to cite it (and that none of the major media bothers to understand.)) was from 2005. Or right after the Bush tax cuts (Which weren't flat 10%, like the CBO estimates).

Why would you use estimates when the time has passed and we have *real data to compare*?

That's not to say the estimates are *worthless*, but there's of no use given the proposition we were discussing, since we have real historical data.


I don't need to refute it, the tax receipts do that for me.  The CBO estimate* (I'm waiting on YOU for the disclaimer here) wasn't correct, and we know that now.


That's what I meant, when I referred you to the data DJ has collected. Real data. Not theoretical. Not with assumptions. But Real. Data.  You called the CBO report a "summation", and it's not.  It's a estimate.

Let me illustrate for you, and no, there's no bias in using this example.

Estimation:
2009, Aug "The Detroit Lions are going to win the Super Bowl! This is the Year!"

Summation:
2010, Feb "The New Orleans Saints won the Super Bowl 31-17 over the Indianapolis Colts"


jsid-1282853468-345  Markadelphia at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:11:08 +0000

Unix, I honestly didn't "see" them...I have noticed that Echo sometimes shows comments and then they mysteriously vanish.

I get where you are coming from on the CBO report. Remember, though, that I was using it as summative example of illustrating the relationship between the deficit and revenue. I realize that it is an estimate and it is from 2005. That is why I included the other data from above.

My ego is just fine, Russell. In fact, I've really enjoyed this discussion. I got a jump on some stuff that I was going to do in a few months anyway and it has solidified my knowledge in some key areas. In fact, my research in examining the validity of DJ's statement have led to some enduring understandings regarding these concepts.

Now, I will ask you for a third time...as it directly relates to DJ 's statement.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?    
   
There is no debate about the general lesson: How much revenue the government gains or loses from a tax change cannot be computed just by looking at tax rates. It also depends on how the tax change affects people's behavior.    


jsid-1282853812-396  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:16:52 +0000

 Remember, though, that I was using it as summative example of illustrating the relationship between the deficit and revenue. I realize that it is an estimate and it is from 2005. That is why I included the other data from above.  

Then you don't understand what you are saying.

The proposition had nothing to do with the deficit.  That's a strawman you threw in there either intentionally or non, to obfuscate, and refuse to clarify and get foundational principles agreed upon.

You included it in a "rebuttal" to the proposition which is:

During the Bush administration, the feddle gubmint cut income tax RATES, which [in] increased income tax REVENUE.    

Nothing about deficits.  

 In fact, my research in examining the validity of DJ's statement have led to some enduring understandings regarding these concepts.  

*sigh*

Kevin, wanna push the button?  It's the only way to be sure.


jsid-1282854708-914  Markadelphia at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:31:49 +0000

I have attached a copy, right out of Wikipedia, to show the graph that Arthur Laffer came up with to illustrate the concept.   
 
Unix, take a look at the link.  
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve  
 
Now look under "Research, Quantification, and Empirical Data." See the reference to the CBO? That's where I got the summation. Whether it is an estimate was not the issue. They are related.  
 
So, yes, I think the Laffer Curve is valid. It is not a measurement, it is an illustration of an economic concept, and I believe that economic concept is valid.  
 
Yet, according to Mankiw (pg. 170 of Principles)  
 
 
"Subsequent history failed to confirm Laffer's conjecture that lower taxes would raise tax revenue. When Reagan cut taxes after he was elected, the result was less revenue, not more. Revenue from personal income taxes (per person, adjusted for inflation) fell by 9 percent from 1980 to 1984, even though the average income (per person, adjusted for inflation) grew by 4 percent over this period."  
 
So....why do you think it is valid again if historically it has been disproved?  
 
It is clear that, at the moment, you fall in with the group on the left.   
 
Actually, that's not true. I agreed with you somewhat on the corporate taxes/revenue and also disagreed with the Democrats proclamations that Clinton "raised taxes and left a surplus." Re-read what I wrote above.  
 
Where we disagree is that the Bush tax cuts caused revenue to increase. They did not.


jsid-1282855849-36  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:50:49 +0000

Whether it is an estimate was not the issue. They are related.   

I don't play the critical pedagogy games.  There is some objective reality here, and you're doing your level damn best to hide that.

Why?


jsid-1282856145-334  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:55:45 +0000

So....why do you think it is valid again if historically it has been disproved?    

Oh, and Re: the Laffer Curve?

Because I understand what it *is*.  It's valid. It's not been "historically disproved".  Just for the record.

And you've YET to prove you know how to cite the CBO reports (not suprisingly, since you cited them incorrectly.)

Or even admit that 22 is more than 15.  And you want to discuss advanced economics, and think that you can "teach" me something.


jsid-1282857038-531  Markadelphia at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:10:38 +0000

Actually, at this point I'm wondering why you are dodging answering a question regarding a statement by someone who (literally) wrote a book on economics. Let's be perfectly clear, once again:

DJ: During the Bush administration, the feddle gubmint cut income tax RATES, which resulted in increased income tax REVENUE." 

Mankiw: There is no debate about the general lesson: How much revenue the government gains or loses from a tax change cannot be computed just by looking at tax rates. It also depends on how the tax change affects people's behavior. 

Do you agree or disagree with Mankiw?


jsid-1282857090-821  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:11:31 +0000

Do you agree or disagree with Mankiw?

Yes.


jsid-1282858303-251  Russell at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:31:43 +0000

More of the quote: "Economists disagree about these issues in part because there is no consensus about the size of the relevant elasticities. The more elastic that supply and demand are in any market, the more taxes in that market distort behavior, and the more likely it is that a tax cut will raise tax revenue. There is no debate, however, about the general lesson: How much revenue the government gains or loses from a tax change cannot be computed just by looking at tax rates. It also depends on how the tax change affects people's behavior."

Mankiw's statement doesn't in anyway conflict with DJ's proposition. DJ isn't computing the tax revenue based on changing tax rates, he's compiled data on what happened to the tax revenue after the tax rates changed.


jsid-1282859529-308  Russell at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:52:09 +0000

Furthermore, Mankiw was speaking about the Laffer Curve and supply side economics whilst DJ was doing anaylsis of recorded data.


jsid-1282859732-292  Markadelphia at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:55:32 +0000

Actually, the entire section on the Laffer curve is quite interesting. It does show that the Laffer curve is valid on a smaller set of people who have their taxes cut. It also may be applicable in countries with much higher tax rates than our country.  
 
he's compiled data on what happened to the tax revenue after the tax rates changed.  
 
Again, if he had said "During the Bush Administration, the government cut income tax rates and then after that there was increased income tax revenue" technically that would've been a valid statement, although misleading by drawing a correlation where the was none. But by using the word "resulted" in there he declared causation and that is not valid. I'm stating that tax revenue increased due to other factors which I have listed above and that the word "increase" is not entirely illustrative when you compare to other business cycles.


jsid-1282861150-612  DJ at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 22:19:10 +0000

Part I

"As I have stated a couple of times in this thread, as long as the word "resulted" is in there, it is false. That word comes out, and his statement is valid but still intimates causality and/or correlation and there is none."

Go back to ground zero, teacher boy. This chain of comments BEGAN with:

-----

YOU: "Let's see now...we've cut taxes twice under Bush and once under Obama.  
  
Did that work? Why or why not? How?" 
 
ME: "We have tried and tried and tried to teach this to you, and you will not learn it. I'll try again. 
 
During the Bush administration, the feddle gubmint cut income tax RATES, which resulted in increased income tax REVENUE."


-----

I then proved the truth of that statement to you, using fiscal year income tax revenue figures provided by the US Treasury, by showing that income tax revenue INCREASED after the Bush tax rate CUTS went into effect, and you now state baldly that there is NO CORRELATION? You describe said correlation as NONE?

You are the most fundamentally dishonest person I have ever tried to communicate with, and I took a building contractor to both federal and state court three times, and WON all three times.

Now, go back and read ALL of my comments in this chain. Note that I have remained DEAD ON POINT. Your comments, as I noted before, are FILLED with Random But Important Sounding Gibberish, as you have tried over and over again to dive off onto tangents, all to avoid admitting the truth of my statement and validity of the proof that I provided.

I WILL NOT PLAY THIS GAME WITH YOU.

I will not discuss the tangents you dive off onto unless and until you deal honestly with the comments I have made. So far, you have utterly refused to do so.

If you want to be treated as an adult, then ACT LIKE ONE.


-----

I believe the concept is way over your head, teacher boy, but there is a bit of careful thinking and planning behind the response I gave to your questions, which I quoted above, and my comments which followed. My intention was to get you to understand a simple bit of history, such that the comments I would follow up with would have a better, more understandable context, and such that you would have less opportunity to dive off into the weeds, yet again, without contradicting yourself.

You have demonstrated, yet again, that you are incapable of engaging in such a discussion in an intellectually honest manner. It is simply beyond you.

So, I will proceed with the my comments anyway. See Part II.


jsid-1282861578-973  DJ at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 22:26:19 +0000

Part II

In just over three months, the mid-term Congressional elections will take place. The campaigns are heating up and the bullshit is thick and smelly.

As was predicted years ago, the Dimocrat majorities of both Houses of Congress fell all over themselves as they voted to commit the feddle gubmint to spend massive amounts of money. That's what they do, and so they did it. Massive deficits now loom far into the future. Said incumbents now pose as Fiscally Responsible Good Guys, in a sleight-of-hand attempt to deceive voters and remain in office.

Part of that rhetoric is (and I expect we'll hear more of it) to let the Bush tax cuts expire. Their proposition is that, if income tax RATES rise, then income tax REVENUE will increase, and so the deficit will decrease. (And, I am ignoring the reinstatement of the federal estate tax, and so on).

The purpose of my response to your initial question was to demonstrate to you that this proposition is NOT NECESSARILY TRUE. In a brutally simple and verifiable manner, I showed you that the converse was NOT true when the Bush tax cuts were enacted.

Now, is the first sentence of the previous paragraph consistent with my previous comments on the matter? YES, IT IS, and I'll explain why.

I stated further (emphasis added):

"Their view is simplistic, viz., that if tax rates are increased, then tax revenue that results will increase, and that if tax rates are decreased, then tax revenue that results will decrease. That view is wrong, and history, in particular the history of the Bush tax cuts that are about to expire, demonstrate that it is wrong."

The reason that view is wrong is, as I stated explicitly:

"A change in the RATE at which income is taxed can result in a greater or lesser willingness of people to engage in activity that produces income. Whether or not it is greater or lesser, and the amount by which it is greater or lesser, depends on what the rate was changed from and on what it was changed to, i.e. the old rate and the new rate."

This observation is precisely correct. You WILL mischaracterize it, so, in even more simple English, I'll explain it further. If income tax rates are CUT, then income tax revenue might go UP or DOWN, if income tax rates STAY THE SAME, then income tax revenue might go UP or DOWN, and if income tax rates are INCREASED, then income tax revenue might go UP or DOWN. It depends on the change in the willingness of people to engage in activity that produces income.

Now, we come to the other observations I made in this thread,
those regarding the observable fact that TRILLIONS of dollars of privately held capital are sitting on the sidelines, not being invested, and businesses are not expanding and hiring new employees, all because they are waiting to see just what the "rules" of doing so will become.

We find that we consumers, as well as investors and business owners and managers, are all faced with a few Damned Fucking Serious known unknowns: 1) will the Bush tax cuts be allowed by the Dimocrats to expire; 2) will the voters clean house (i.e. of both parties) in November; 3) will the Dimocrats lose their majorities in Congress, in particular their supermajority in the Senate; 4) and, if the Dimocrats do not extend the Bush tax cuts, and the Republicans win big, will the next Congress extend the Bush tax cuts (i.e. retroactively to 01/01/11), possibly over an Obamateur veto? Note that this is only the tip of a huge iceberg of questions regarding the future.

My purpose was to combine these two aspects and then ask a simple question.
  The key observation in doing so is that the current HUGE level of economic uncertainty wasn't present when the Bush tax cuts were enacted. THUS, HISTORY IS NOT A RELIABLE GUIDE TO MAKE PREDICTIONS IN THIS SITUATION.

Suppose the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. The question is, WILL INCOME TAX REVENUE INCREASE OR DECREASE? Trying to answer before it happens means, in part, estimating which factor will dominate: an income tax rate change, or the economic uncertainties induced by a deliberately anti-business administration and Congress.

The answer is, I don't know, and YOU DON'T KNOW, EITHER.

The purpose of my previous comments was to education your miserable thick skull before asking that question such that you would understand that.

Now, do you begin to see how such a discussion could have proceeded in an intellectually honest manner, very simply and with civility, but it cannot even begin until you stop behaving like a childish little shithead?

jsid-1282870215-622  DJ at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:50:15 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282861578-973

Oops. My editing error:  replace "the converse was NOT true" with "the converse was true".

Sigh ...

And I proofread it three times.

My apologies.


jsid-1282863819-777  Russell at Thu, 26 Aug 2010 23:03:48 +0000

Markadelphia: "But by using the word "resulted" in there he declared causation and that is not valid. I'm stating that tax revenue increased due to other factors which I have listed above and that the word "increase" is not entirely illustrative when you compare to other business cycles."

Do those goalposts get heavy as you drag them hither and yon?

DJ analyzed the data, his proposition was "During the Bush administration, the feddle gubmint cut income tax RATES, which resulted in increased income tax REVENUE." Which he proved by aforementioned data. Rates went down, revenue went up. Revenue exceeded the projected amount from pre-tax cut rates.

DJ: "[The data] shows that, compared to 2000, individual income tax revenues were less in 2001 - 2005 and then were greater in 2006 - 2008. It shows that, compared to 2000, corporate income taxes were less in 2001 - 2004 and then were greater in 2005 - 2008, compared to 2000.  "


p = tax cuts. q = increased revenue.

If p, then q. P, therefore q. The argument is valid.



I'm going to quote Linoge: "You do understand, do you not, that removing the word "resulted" from DJ's sentence DOES NOT CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE SENTENCE, right? "

Your fixation on one word is all the more amusing since you've failed, repeatedly, to change topic and context away from DJ's proposition, tossing out more red herrings than Cobbett.

Mark: "I'm stating that tax revenue increased due to other factors which I have listed above [snip]."

Rephrase: "If tax revenues went up, it because of other factors. I've listed those other factors and that's why tax revenues went up."

p = tax revenues. q = other factors
If p then q. Q, therefore p. THIS IS INVALID! That's affirming the consequent.

That is something I have pointed out a number of times, and you still do it. Your argument is invalid. DJ's is not.


jsid-1282869822-831  Markadelphia at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:43:43 +0000

If income tax rates are CUT, then income tax revenue might go UP or DOWN, if income tax rates STAY THE SAME, then income tax revenue might go UP or DOWN, and if income tax rates are INCREASED, then income tax revenue might go UP or DOWN. It depends on the change in the willingness of people to engage in activity that produces income.  

I agree with this statement. But that's not what you said.

You said: "During the Bush administration, the feddle gubmint cut income tax RATES, which resulted in increased income tax REVENUE."  


There is no argument that revenue did increase. But it was not a result of the tax cuts. I'm not certain if you bothered to read my links or quotes but they demonstrate this to be true. There was increased revenue for a number of other reasons which I listed above in a summary of 5 points. I do not see a serious response to any of them nor do I see a response on the Mankiw quotes. Instead, you have resorted to more strident language aimed at me and have been, quite honestly, personally insulting.

I stuck to the point of your statement, researched the theory, provided data (some of which proved the statement to be partially true in regards to corporate revenue) and refrained from any personal insults. If you don't agree with that data, let's hear why. Rather than continuing with the strident language and personal insults, demonstrate how an increase in wages or a larger pool of wage earners did not account for the increase in revenue.

jsid-1282872487-24  DJ at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:28:07 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282869822-831

"... demonstrate how an increase in wages or a larger pool of wage earners did not account for the increase in revenue."

I stated:

"So, how could a cut in a tax RATE result in increased tax REVENUE? It is quite simple. It happens because a change in the RATE at which a particular economic activity is taxed results in a change in the willingness of people to engage in that activity, and thus a change in that activity, and thus a change in the tax REVENUE which taxing that activity produces.  THAT IS HOW IT WORKS."

To explain it even more simply:

People were more willing to engage in business, because the business kept a greater percentage of its gross profit. Business expanded. Business had more income and more gross profit. More people were hired. People were more willing to work, because they kept a greater percentage of their income. More wages and salaries were earned. Wages were higher. Salaries were higher. Thus, by various combinations of these effects, there was more income, and even though said income was taxed at a lower rate, it produced more tax revenue.

To summarize, I quote myself, yet again:

"It happens because a change in the RATE at which a particular economic activity is taxed results in a change in the willingness of people to engage in that activity, and thus a change in that activity, and thus a change in the tax REVENUE which taxing that activity produces."

And you claim to be a TEACHER? Are you really so fucking DENSE that this has to be explained to you?

jsid-1282874174-672  DJ at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:56:14 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282869822-831

"Instead, you have resorted to more strident language aimed at me and have been, quite honestly, personally insulting."

You get the treatment here that you earn, and you do not walk on moral high ground by insisting that it be written with pretty words.

I'll put this in the plainest English I can muster.

You are incapable of engaging in intelligent discussion with others here. Instead, any attempt at such by any of us precipitates an immediate and continuous fusillade of tangents by you as you dodge and weave, all to avoid admitting that someone else has written something that is correct, or that you have written something that isn't. What you simply WILL NOT UNDERSTAND is that IT DOESN'T WORK.

This entire chain of comments within this tread is a textbook perfect example.

You have tried this behavior here in Kevin's Parlor for over three years. What you WILL NOT UNDERSTAND is that it will NOT convince anyone that you are correct, it will NOT convince anyone that he is incorrect, and it will NOT result in anyone having any respect for you.

I once had a teacher who behaved IN CLASS just as you do here. I remember what we, his students, said about him where he couldn't hear us. I can't help but wonder what your students say about you.

Treating people as if they can't be right and you can't be wrong will earn you nothing but well-deserved contempt. If you want better treatment here, try earning it. It would open up a whole new world for you.


jsid-1282872873-916  Markadelphia at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:34:34 +0000

Linoge, if you can't be bothered to read my links and give my comments a short read, how can you make such a sweeping declaration regarding my argument? Start with my five points above and the Mankiw quote.

Russell, rather than play the fun game of semantics and modus ponens, I'd like to hear from you if you think the increased income tax revenue was a result of increased wages, more wage earners entering the work force due to economic growth, population growth, or inflation. I'd also like to hear how GDP and pecentage of revenue to GDP factor into increased revenue. Analyze DJ's period and compare it to other business cycles and show the causation between the tax cuts and the increased revenue.

jsid-1282877900-785  Ken at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 02:58:20 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282872873-916

As the precise point does not seem to have been raised, I rise to note a point about which the Right Honorable Gentleman has inquired repeatedly. Quoting from earlier in the thread, in the order in which they appear top to bottom (who the heck knows whether they're chronological, many thanks to Echo):  
 
Through the end of 2008, total federal tax revenues relative to GDP have yet to regain their 2000 peak.  
 
The other issue I have is that you don't accurately characterize the fall off from 2001-2003 and then use 2004 as a starting point which, if you measure those numbers as a share of the economy, they were at their lowest levels since 1959.  
 
1. Please explain how revenue percentage of GDP would factor into your analysis.  
 
I'd also like to hear how GDP and pecentage of revenue to GDP factor into increased revenue.
 
 
It is vital to the goal of gaining a better understanding of each other's first principles that I ask a few questions, if the gentleman will indulge. I'll ask one question per post, in order not to put words in the gentleman's mouth.  
 
These statements convey the impression that the gentleman holds the conviction that there is some fraction of GDP that the government should expect to collect in taxes, and further that the percentage of GDP claimed by the federal government in 2008 was lower than some ideal (or at least better) level (else why make the comparison to 2000 or 1959?).  
 
Is that the impression the gentleman intends to convey?


jsid-1282872974-498  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:36:14 +0000

 But it was not a result of the tax cuts.

I pointed out to you before  you did nothing but assert that. You in no way even attempted to prove it.

Your utter imbecility is staggering at times, but I thank you for proving our points.

I'm not certain if you bothered to read my links or quotes but they demonstrate this to be true

"if we bothered?"

I don't know why we would. You don't know the definition of "demonstrate".  None of your links - none - even remotely come close to demonstrating that.

Hell, Mark, you can't even discuss revenue. And you want to "discuss" the Laffer Curve and advanced macroecon.

Mark, this is a great thread. It really is. Because it's obvious that even you know you're wrong, and you cannot admit that.  You'll do literally anything to avoid it.

And after you're repeatedly schooled, you insist that your tone means you "won".

I can think of no finer proof for the need for atomic rearrangement of the school system.


jsid-1282873548-829  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:45:49 +0000

Russell:

Russell, rather than play the fun game of semantics and modus ponens, I'd like to hear from you if you think the increased income tax revenue was a result of increased wages, more wage earners entering the work force due to economic growth, population growth, or inflation.

In other words:

Please do my work for me, cause I don't have a clue how to prove what I've stated is the case, and I'll be grading you on how well you do.

Mark:
Linoge, if you can't be bothered to read my links and give my comments a short read, how can you make such a sweeping declaration regarding my argument? 

Because he's got an idea how a proposition is followed and/or a clue about economics?


jsid-1282873644-137  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:47:24 +0000

pecentage of revenue to GDP factor into increased revenue.

Socrates wept.


jsid-1282874076-627  Russell at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:54:36 +0000

Russell, rather than play the fun game of semantics and modus ponens,

It's not a game. An invalid argument isn't worth the time to discuss. Any remedial student of logic can tell you that. If you cannot follow the basics of logic, you cannot form logical arguments.

I'd like to hear from you if you think the increased income tax revenue was a result of increased wages, more wage earners entering the work force due to economic growth, population growth, or inflation. 

I'd like to hear from you that you understood DJ's valid argument and have DJ confirm you do  understand his argument. I guess we can't always get what we want. Life's tough.


jsid-1282875724-751  Linoge at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 02:22:04 +0000

 > Linoge, if you can't be bothered to read my links and give my comments a short read...

You really have no idea what I said in my post, do you?  You genuinely, honestly, completely have not the foggiest what the words I strung together actually mean, do you?  Dear God.  You are like the very fucking embodiment of "I'm rubber, your glue". 

I never said I would not read your posts, you ignorant little halfwit.  In point of fact, the vast majority of my comment, and the comments preceeding it, all of which you almost entirely ignored, were in reference to your comments, and even quoted exact citations from those comments.  Do you not recognize your own words when they are quoted back to you?  Wait, do not answer that... 

Thank you, yet again, for proving that attempting to have a rational, logical, reasonable discussion with you is completely goddamned pointless.  Occasionally, I take leave of my senses, and believe that you understand basic words within the English language.  This thread has certainly disabused me of that notion. 


jsid-1282879862-403  khbaker at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 03:31:02 +0000

Truly, this has been amusing to watch.  Markadelphia is trying so hard to educate us all, but we just won't get it!  It must be horribly frustrating for him, being a teacher and all, to work so hard to no effect.

You see, the Laffer Curve isn't real!  There's no cause-and-effect when you drop tax rates and tax revenues rise.  "Correlation isn't causation" you see.  Why can't we all see that?  And, and the deficits keep getting bigger and the national debt keeps going up!  And they go up even more when tax rates are decreased!  It's so simple when you ask yourself the right questions!!

But we right-wingers have been brainwashed by Adam Smith and Fredrich Hayek and all those other know-nothings!  We don't understand that if you don't tax the rich and redistribute their wealth, you get iniquity!  Higher tax rates are GOOD!  Back when Eisenhower was president, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, and everything was fine!!  We can do it again!  Those evil rich people aren't paying their fair share!! There will be rainbows and unicorns!  The economy will recover!  Tax receipts will roll in, and we can continue to fund all those entitlement programs!  Why can't we understand that??  Paul Krugman keeps trying to explain it to the great unwashed masses from his pulpit at the New York Times, but we just keep voting against our best interests!

Like I said:  first principles - we don't share 'em.

jsid-1282916353-650  geekwitha45 at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:39:13 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282879862-403

iniquity: absence of moral or spiritual values
inequity: Injustice; unfairness.
inequality: lack of equality

Often used interchangeably, but with different nuances of meaning.

To the progressivist liberal, observed facts of lack of equality signal fundamental injustice and unfairness, whose source is presumed to be the absence of moral or spiritual values on the part of an oppressor who has created the unequal conditions for his own benefit.

To the conservative, observed facts of lack of equality indicates fundamental justice, as the source is presumed to be the absence of moral or spiritual values on the part of the disadvantaged party.

Neither case is correct.

Shit happens.

Sometimes it's your fault.
Sometimes someone screwed you.
Sometimes, the $DEITY is just laughing it's ass off.

jsid-1282917295-648  khbaker at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:54:56 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282916353-650

Geek:  I used "iniquity" with intent.  Wealth redistribution is a moral imperitive with some.

jsid-1282918894-244  GrumpyOldFart at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:21:34 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282916353-650

Personally I think the most common mistake on all sides is to forget that "justice" and "a decision in your favor" are not synonyms.


jsid-1282880847-527  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 03:47:28 +0000



Kevin:
This isn't even first principles.

Sorry to flatly argue with you here, but my understanding of the first principles difference is that "The need of the many outweighs the needs of the few". Ok, that's a first principle I disagree with, and so we can argue that, and end up wildly at odds.

Or "Government can do a better job allocating resources than the free market" - that would be at least a defendable "first principle" Sure. We're not going to end up agreeing when we disagree at the start that much.


Mark's not evincing any knowledge of any principles other than bigoted ignorance and unweaned arrogance.

He's skipped right past anything foundational and jumped right into sycophancy.  And somehow, he'll figure it out ... somehow. Later.

jsid-1282880990-134  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 03:49:50 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282880847-527

Sorry, got messed up between windows and missed part of what I meant to say.


but my understanding of the first principles difference is that [insert here] that there it's something there that can actually explain the assumptions and presumptions.  Such as the concepts like "The need of the many


jsid-1282881673-701  Markadelphia at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 04:01:13 +0000

Ken, several of the comments above answer your question regarding GDP. I'm done repeating myself.

Kevin, where did I say any of that? I suppose based on past experience with me I can see why you would think those things. I will take some of the blame and responsibility for that. Mastiff's comments in the EDU thread inspired me to find common ground which I have in this thread (corporate revenue). I've even pointed out how the Laffer argument has some merit.

I stuck to the point in this thread, did research, presented my opinions backed up by facts, and in return, I received strident comments and personal insults. We can now add taunting and game playing to this list which makes me wonder if this topic can continue to be discussed seriously and/or if you are saying the things you saying in an attempt to drive me crazy. As I have stated before, I've enjoyed this discussion and benifited greatly from it.

I think, though, that unless an outside arbiter (perferably one with a knowledge of economics) that has no bias towards me (or anyone for that matter) comes in for analysis and feedback, we will see more of the same. I've got this page linked and I'll keep checking back to see if someone leaves a comment that offers serious analysis as opposed to strident comments, personal insults, taunting and game playing. If that happens, I will comment.

jsid-1282906291-930  Linoge at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:51:32 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282881673-701

Are we sure he is not some kind of complicated script from Kevin...?  Because, the "Trip 100 Comments -> Run Away And Hide (whilst speciously sounding condescending and haughty)" algorithm seems to be pretty strongly embedded... 

jsid-1282918809-840  khbaker at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:20:10 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282906291-930

If I were capable of writing software that - I suppose "good" would be the correct term - I would be wealthy like George Soros, not running a blog for seven years.

jsid-1282941597-39  Linoge at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:39:58 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282918809-840

'Ey, I was giving you a compliment ;) . 

jsid-1282926213-71  Ken at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:23:40 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282881673-701

Ken, several of the comments above answer your question regarding GDP. I'm done repeating myself.

Patently untrue. The gentleman has not stated whether he believes there is a right or wrong percentage of GDP the government is due. It is a simple question. Why will the gentleman not give a straight answer to a straight question?

jsid-1282944067-23  GuardDuck at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:21:08 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282881673-701

Are you serious Marxy?!?!?

The least "strident" comment and question directed at you in this entire thread and your entire and not entirely gracious response is equivalent to "la la la I can't hear you"?


jsid-1282881994-871  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 04:06:35 +0000

I stuck to the point in this thread, did research, presented my opinions backed up by facts, and in return, I received strident comments and personal insults. We can now add taunting and game playing to this list which makes me wonder if this topic can continue to be discussed seriously and/or if you are saying the things you saying in an attempt to drive me crazy.

This is why most of us laughed at the idea of students "assessing" (in which we used the word correctly and you did not) themselves.

You think you worked hard, thus you did well.

But you cannot see you failed miserably to deal with the tasks at hand. Or you claim you tried - the obfuscation and tangents has to be intentional.  

There's a track record here, Mark, and no, you don't get to "reset" the counter to 0 to start over with your "double or nothing". We get to remember the last 3 years, and all the other times you talked out of your ass, misused words, terms, definitions, refused to back up and learn what you're talking about, and admit to your errors.

Your tone is meaninless. Your failure is complete.

Except to prove why critical pedagogy must be eradicated with extreme prejudice from the education system, and why the educational system is doomed to actually educate ... Except by bad example.

jsid-1282882098-51  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 04:08:18 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282881994-871

I'm still waiting for you to admit that 22 is more than 15.  Going on a year now.

Or is that biased?


jsid-1282882695-384  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 04:18:15 +0000

outside arbiter (perferably one with a knowledge of economics) that has no bias towards me (or anyone for that matter) comes in for analysis and feedback, we will see more of the same. 

Oh, heh. You mean, another Cult (tm) Member?

I mean, that's what you'll say to whoever comes in - look at the vast number of new people who have ended up in the Cult (tm) after a week or so of trying to explain to you, or get you to factual basics?

jsid-1282921623-544  Russell at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:07:03 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282882695-384

We need a t-shirt: "I Wasn't A Member Of The Cult(tm) Until I Tried To Explain Something To Markadelphia"

Alright, maybe not. It's a bit wordy.

jsid-1282922737-945  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:25:38 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282921623-544

MSNBC could run a special:

"I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS IN A CULT".. Hosted by Rachel Maddow.

jsid-1282931497-903  GrumpyOldFart at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:51:38 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282921623-544

"I Wasn't A Member Of The Cult(tm) Until I Tried To Explain Something To Markadelphia" 
 
Alright, maybe not. It's a bit wordy.


Yep, t-shirts have to be snappy. How about this:

Open Mind=Good
Brains Fall Out=Bad

;)

jsid-1282936311-765  Ed "What the" Heckman at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:12:00 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282931497-903



With "Open Mind = Good" on the front and "Brains Fall Out = Bad" on the back. :)

jsid-1282944430-658  GuardDuck at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:27:18 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282931497-903

I went to Kevin's and all I got was this stupid cult membership.

:-E


jsid-1282923774-710  Russell at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:42:55 +0000

"I think, though, that unless an outside arbiter (perferably one with a knowledge of economics) that has no bias towards me (or anyone for that matter) comes in for analysis and feedback, we will see more of the same. I've got this page linked and I'll keep checking back to see if someone leaves a comment that offers serious analysis as opposed to strident comments, personal insults, taunting and game playing. If that happens, I will comment."

Oh, that's too precious! I love the parting jibes as he rides off on his high horse!

Shall I fisk? Yes, yes I shall!

"I think" See, already off to a bad start. We have 3+ years of proof that you cannot think. "I feel" would be a more accurate phrase.

"that unless an outside arbiter (perferably one with a knowledge of economics) that has no bias towards me (or anyone for that matter) comes in for analysis and feedback" Wow! Why, it's the old school playground taunt of "Wait until I tell the teacher about you! Your gonna be soooory!"

"a comment that offers serious analysis" Again, your failure to understand what has been presented ISN'T OUR FAULT. DJ did all the hard work for you, just to get you prepped, and yet you still failed. We have no idea what "serious analysis" looks like to you. Methinks it's analysis that agrees with your prejudices. DJ, UJ, Ken, Kevin, et al., why their analysis isn't serious, it's more like an kegger! "Dude, check it out! CHARTS" "WOOOOHOOOOO! CHART! CHART! CHART!"

Is that the problem, you aren't being invited to the cool kids party?

"strident comments, personal insults, taunting and game playing." Was "strident" a word of the day? "Personal insults" Nah, we're just getting warmed up. Besides, some of us still remember you saying we're the same as Al Queda. Or calling us The Cult(tm). "Taunting" as in neen-neer neen-neer? Being stupid and being called on it isn't any of those things. You get what you deserve. I'm sure if I said something utterly inane no one here would think twice before pointing it out. Stridently. It's amazing just how thin skinned you really are, and how your comments consistently reflect your emotions uber alles world view. "Game playing" Again, logic isn't a game. In fact, the only games I see played are yours, and now that we won't play them, you've taken your ball and gone home.

"If that happens, I will comment." So does denying sex work for you at home? I only ask because that was an estrogen fueled statement. I've seen it before with other low ranking betas trying to control a situation well beyond their powers.

Yes, I am being harsh, and a bit offensive, I'll admit. But I take umbrage in your rudeness and whining. It's a personal insult to me for you to stomp over all rules of logic and decency and then demand to be treated with respect.


jsid-1282928330-530  DJ at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:58:50 +0000

Teacher boy, you have beclowned yourself here for days.

Of course I'll explain it.

The nature of this thread is that you asked a question, I answered your question, you challenged me to prove my answer was correct, I proved my answer was correct, and I explained the underlying mechanism therein. I did these things over and over again, using very simple words and sentences.

Your responses to this can all be summarized as: 1) "Hey, look! A pony!"; 2) "I don't understand, so could you explain it some more?"; and, 3) "You're wrong! WRONG, I tell you! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!"

I am not interested in ponies. I WILL NOT PLAY THAT GAME WITH YOU.

I'll bet you're not aware that your other two responses are mutually exclusive.

Those are two big words, teacher boy. Here's the definition:

mutually exclusive

adj.

unable to be both true at the same time

It is not a question of which of these two responses came first, because you have repeated both of these responses, many times, and in random order. Thus, you hold both of these responses to be true simultaneously, and that is not possible.

Of course I'll explain it.

It is quite simple. If you do not understand something, then you have no grounds whatever for saying it is incorrect. You cannot judge what you cannot understand. Conversely, if you state that something is incorrect, then you have no grounds whatever for complaining that it has not been explained sufficiently for you to understand it. If you judged it to be incorrect, then you must have understood it.

Now, just what is driving this behavior of yours? Is it your inability to understand what you are doing? Is it your inability to admit that something which you don't like is correct? Is it your narcissism and your fundamental dishonesty, both of which hammer you like a coolie driving a railroad spike?

One might think such a performance is worthy of a circus, but P. T. Barnum wouldn't. His famous saying was, "There's a sucker born every minute."

We are not suckers. You earn the treatment you receive here by treating us as if we were, when you know we are not.


jsid-1282930986-303  Markadelphia at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:43:06 +0000

It occurred to me after these last few comments that the goal of these discussions has now become "Fuck with Mark, drive him crazy, and he's always wrong no matter what" hence my comments on game playing.  Whether this is intentional or not it is ironic, considering this would be the exact same treatment Kevin complained of receiving at the Democratic Underground and that I have certainly seen played out there. No doubt, my past behavior plays a part in this treatment. As I have stated previously, I take responsibility for my part in it and apologize. Perhaps my change in tone is too late and there is too much water under the bridge. 

So, there's no "riding off," Russell...it's a choice. Admit that many of my points above have merit (which they clearly do) and recognize the common ground that we share (which I have done several times in this thread with very little to zero notice) and I will comment. Continue with the same theme and chances are very good that I won't comment. And, of course, there will always be my blog which will continue to delve into many of these issues with no more gross generalizatons and personal insults by yours truly. Juris has become a regular poster there (when he is not at Burning Man) and his comments have pushed me in a direction that have certainly made me much more reflective. I've actually turned Mastiff's EDU points from the other thread into a series which I have truly enjoyed. The choice here applies to there as well, however.

It's up to all of you.


jsid-1282932410-147  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:06:50 +0000

It occurred to me after these last few comments that the goal of these discussions has now become "Fuck with Mark, drive him crazy, and he's always wrong no matter what" hence my comments on game playing.

There's no less than 3 words in that quote misused.

The goal has never been to "Fuck with Mark". Trust me. If that was the "goal", you'd be in far more trouble.

The goal, at least for me, is to counter you utter asininity and demonstrate the moral, intellectual, and factual vacuousness of your political positions.

And yes, I'm a "Primary Source" for my goal.

Whether this is intentional or not it is ironic, considering this would be the exact same treatment Kevin complained of receiving at the Democratic Underground and that I have certainly seen played out there.

That's incorrect.  Kevin was kickbanned for not being a "progressive", not for being wrong.  They kicked him rather than debate him.

You have absolutely no such claim, and to make that, after three years of the same is again, utterly asinine.

Perhaps my change in tone is too late and there is too much water under the bridge.   

The change in tone is fine - and you'll note that you immediately were received well with that.
What did not change is your methods, logical fallacies, and your inability to follow an argument, or evaluate evidence.  And as you more stridently insisted you could, as you demonstrated otherwise, we got equally strident back.  Possibly more so, because you were demonstrating that you did not understand, even as you insisted you did.  

Admit that many of my points above have merit (which they clearly do) and recognize the common ground that we share (which I have done several times in this thread with very little to zero notice) and I will comment.

Again, this is why the students cannot assess themselves.
Your "points" are meaningless, and were fisked mercilessly.  I pointed out that almost all of them were trite, showed no understanding of the example, and even now, this insistance proves you wrong.

Remember, we were talking about revenue and you jumped to dismissing that because of deficit. That's not a "valid point" - even if it might be if we were talking about another proposition.   

It's like me dismissing Greg Mankiw because of his haircut.  There is no "common ground" because you've demonstrated a total lack of knowledge - not enduring with you! - and you've misused words, concepts, and theories, and insisted that we MUST! RESPECT! YOU! YOU! LINKED! THUS! YOU'RE! VALID!

But you didn't link to valid things. You changed the subject, you threw topics out like a whacked piñata tosses candy, and then you insisted that somehow, you were right in all of that.

But you weren't, and you didn't make points, and if we've got common ground, I have yet to see it despite asking you point blank about it several times.  

You get the respect you earn, Mark.  You don't get it by trying to fake it, and yes, we know you're faking it.

And you could fix it - it's up to you.  Stop lecturing, and start listening. You might still disagree at the end. But at least it wouldn't be because of easily demonstrated fallacies in your argument.
As long as you continue to flaunt your inability to evaluate arguments, you'll be treated this way.  As soon as you stop, so will that treatment.


jsid-1282932470-31  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:07:50 +0000

Oh, and admitting to some of your legions of errors wouldn't hurt. 

22. 15. You don't get to run away and start over, just cause you realize you've been proven wrong.

22. 15. One is more than the other.  Which one did you claim was more? Which one is?


jsid-1282935978-15  DJ at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:06:18 +0000

"... Fuck with Mark, drive him crazy, and he's always wrong no matter what ..."

"... Fuck with everyone here, drive them crazy, and they're always wrong no matter what ..."

Teacher boy, that's what you DO. You have done so for almost three and a half years here, and done so in such a repetitive, scripted manner that twelve Standard Responses suffice to summarize the whole of it. Indeed, that sentence of yours I quoted above is, yet again, your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response.

"No doubt, my past behavior plays a part in this treatment."

Yes, it does. You have dug the hole you are in so deep your ass is drowning in the Indian Ocean.

"As I have stated previously, I take responsibility for my part in it and apologize."

Good. Well done.

"Perhaps my change in tone is too late and there is too much water under the bridge."

Likely so. The change in tone is quite welcome, but we have seen no change whatever in your modus operandi.

Are you a poker player? I'm not. I draw three of a kind and I get a cat-with-a-canary grin that gives me away.

In fact, I'm not a gambler at all. I don't bluff.

A poker player wins by drawing good hands and by bluffing, i.e. by upping the bid even when he has a lousy hand, challenging the other players to meet his bid until the risk for them is too great and they fold. Bluffing can bite, really, really hard, if the other guy has a good hand and he thinks you're bluffing. The problem is that if you get called, and you're bluffing, and you have a lousy hand, then the other guy wins. Do that enough times and you will ALWAYS get called.

That is the position you are in here, and your dilemma is self-inflicted. You can't bluff, you try it continually, we all know it, and so you ALWAYS get called. Conversely, we don't bluff and we know our hands.

Don't scoff. The metaphor is spot-on.

You have too much of your self-esteem tied up in trying to bluff here, and you cannot withstand admitting it. The game would be over and your fragile, inflated ego would be shattered.

"It's up to all of you."

No, the solution to your dilemma is up to you, and you alone, and it's easy.

If you want to engage in discussions, then go elsewhere. Comment there under a different name. Stop the pretense of being infallible. Admit that the other guy is correct when the other guy is correct. Admit that you're wrong when you're wrong.

Years ago, and many times since then, I have told you that you might have something to write that is worth reading, but it is not worth wading through the manure you submerge it in to find out. That is still true. So, have done with manure.

In essence, admit that reality is what it is even when you don't like what it is, remembering always that reality doesn't care whether you like it or not.

You'll be amazed how easy it is, and you'll suffer no pain because no one there will know what you wrote here.

In short, stop playing poker. It ain't your game.


jsid-1282939168-6  Russell at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:59:28 +0000

"occurred to me after these last few comments that the goal of these discussions has now become "Fuck with Mark, drive him crazy, and he's always wrong no matter what" hence my comments on game playing."

There has never been any reason to drive you crazy. As long as you make wrong statements, you will be wrong. Persisting in acting a certain way and expecting different results, well, that'll drive you crazy.

"Perhaps my change in tone is too late and there is too much water under the bridge." As UJ and DJ said, your changed tone is fine. But you are conflating tone with execution, and your execution has not changed.

"So, there's no "riding off," Russell...it's a choice." Gah!

This is what you said "I've got this page linked and I'll keep checking back to see if someone leaves a comment that offers serious analysis as opposed to strident comments, personal insults, taunting and game playing. If that happens, I will comment." If we play nice by what you are expecting, you'll comment. Otherwise, off you go on your high horse.

Guess what? I wasn't nice. I wasn't playing. And yet you still commented! Amazing! Almost as if you cannot resist, despite you telling us that you aren't going to comment. The only time you stop commenting is after your 'argument' has been blow clean out of the water and the monsters get close. Later you'll swoop into some other thread and lay down your blather, get pummeled and leave again. Rinse, repeat.

"Admit that many of my points above have merit (which they clearly do)"

Snort. Your, ah, "points" don't have bearing on the topic at hand. Since they don't apply to the topic, they have no merit within the thread. Plus, they've been beaten like a rented mule because they don't intersect with the topic. Notice the theme? Off topic points have no merit to the topic and will be treated as such.

"and recognize the common ground that we share (which I have done several times in this thread with very little to zero notice) and I will comment." So again, ply by your rules and you'll deign to comment again? Golly gee, I'll have to pass.

"And, of course, there will always be my blog which will continue to delve into many of these issues with no more gross generalizatons and personal insults by yours truly." Right, back to your pure as driven snow blog, because you haven't called us The Cult or anything over there.

"It's up to all of you." Stop with the persecution complex. The choice has always been in your court, and you keep choosing poorly.

So toddle on off now. Or come back whining again. Or even, I know this is radical, change your methods here. It's up to you.


jsid-1282939759-671  Linoge at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:09:19 +0000

Just... cannot... resist... 

> So, there's no "riding off," Russell...it's a choice.

Mark, the concepts of "riding off" and "choice" are not mutually exclusive.  In point of fact, the former can, and in this case does, describe the latter - and I dare say it is a rather apt description. 

This is part of the problem you are having with commenting, right here.  You say, "No, you are wrong," and then you either say something completely and totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand (for example, whinging on about deficits when we were clearly discussing revenues), or obviously show that you honestly have no idea what the people here are talking about (see above). 

Now, not having a clue, in and of itself, is not a problem - most of us start out that way, and most of us end that way as well.  The problem, and it is a problem you have displayed in almost every single comment you have left here in the past three years, is that you do not recognize that you do not have a clue, and are militantly opposed to even admitting that it is a possibility. 

For example: 

 > Admit that many of my points above have merit (which they clearly do)...

Proof by vigorous assertion is not proof.  What if, and I am speaking purely hypothetically here, your points actually did not have merit?  Would you be able to recognize it?  Would you be able to see the criticisms of those points as valid (whatever that word means to you - you still never answered that question)?  Would you be able to formulate some kind of response that did not consist of simply repeating those points over and over and over again? 

This comment thread, in and of itself, have proven the answers to all of those questions (except the first) to be, "No," and I dare say the vast majority of the comment threads in which you have engaged over the past three years do the same. 

To be perfectly honest, you are doing exactly that which you are accusing us of:  they're always wrong no matter what.  We show you specific numbers, we play it all out, we give you the primariest of primary sources, we spell out exactly what steps we are taking and what they result in... and you throw it out the window, simply because it is us saying it.  No matter what. 

Again, ignorance is not a problem, in and of itself, and so long as the ignorant person in question is willing to admit his or her ignorance, and grow from it, there will be no problem.  But when the ignorant stridently defend their ignorance, as you have done through the course of this entire comment thread, there is a problem, a significant one, and it is not incumbent upon us to correct it. 

Oh, and regarding your petty, school-yard style threats...  they only work if people care to have you back/around.  Just so you know. 


jsid-1282944988-393  khbaker at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:36:30 +0000

Wow, four posts in a row echoing the same points!  See? Groupthink!  It's so obvious! ;)

jsid-1282949505-329  Linoge at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:51:56 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282944988-393

That, or we are all long-winded, verbose, argumentative closet member of the Redundant Society for Redundancy. 

Maybe that is our "Cult"? 


jsid-1282946675-176  GuardDuck at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:04:35 +0000


In the interests of fairness to Marxy, and I hate to do it because as a teacher one of his primary skills should be the ability to communicate ideas effectively, perhaps what he was trying to or at least should have asked was this:

 

I understand that Bush cut tax rates and following that, tax revenues increased. If the tax rate was not reduced what would have been the effect on revenues? Would revenues have still increased if the tax rate had not been cut? If so, would that increase in revenues have been more than, equal to or less than the increase in revenues realized after the tax rate cut?

 

In other words, did the economic stimulus provided by the tax cut produce enough economic growth to compensate, in terms of revenue, for a lower level of economic growth taxed at a higher rate?

jsid-1282953432-167  khbaker at Fri, 27 Aug 2010 23:57:12 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282946675-176

That presupposes that tax rate cuts produce an economic stimulus, which is anathema to the Other Side.  No, government spending produces an economic stimulus.  Keynes tells us so!  Tax rate cuts result in - let me see if I can find that quote again . . . here it is, "the majority of the people...piss(ing) away that extra money." (Tgirsch)  I mean, just look at the success of the current economic stimulu....

Oh, wait.

jsid-1283008343-204  Markadelphia at Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:12:23 +0000 in reply to jsid-1282946675-176

GuardDuck, if you re-read my remarks, I did ask similar and summative questions and comment in the same fashion. Examples:

"That's true...your table did show that but it does not show causation."


"None of this, of course, takes into account how much more revenue there would've been had there been no tax cuts at all. Would there have been a surplus?"


"But did he take into account population growth, wage increases, more people entering the work force and inflation as other factors in measuring increased tax revenue? "

More specifically...

"The other thing to consider is the total per capita revenue growth in 22 quarters after the last business peak. For the period of 2001-2007 it was 1.7 percent. Overall, that's not stunning growth. The average for all previous post WWII Business Cycles was 12 precent. In the 1990s business cycles after tax increases it was 16 perecent. "

I also noted tax increases also do not necessarily mean more revenue either, pointing out the inaccuracy of the Dems talking point that "Clinton raised taxes and left a surplus." Not only is this inaccurate but it's also dishonest which is the same characterization I would offer for those who subscribe to supply side theory.

Kevin, no doubt there hasn't been the large growth that the Democrats had hoped for...especially given the shorter time frame they were looking at leading up to the 2010 elections. However, Both Moody's and IHS Global Insight estimated (one year after it passed) that the stimulus saved or created between one and two million jobs and is on track to save or create up to 2.5 million jobs.

And take a look at the photo that I have included. The stimulus was passed in the first quarter of 2009 when we had just come out of a fourth quarter 08 at -6 percent . Look at the 4th quarter of 09...over + 4 percent. Second quarter 2010 is 1.6 percent. Now, whether or not the stimulus caused this rise is uncertain. Whether the two are even correlated is uncertain. Whether the recent downturn is related is uncertain.There are other factors to consider. ;)

As Harry Truman once said, "Give me a one armed economist!"

jsid-1283020782-472  DJ at Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:39:42 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283008343-204

"However, Both Moody's and IHS Global Insight estimated (one year after it passed) that the stimulus saved or created between one and two million jobs and is on track to save or create up to 2.5 million jobs."

When a business received stimulus money from the gubmint, either directly or indirectly, even if it was nothing more than some part of the gubmint buying a product or service from it, that business was required to report how many jobs were "saved or created" by receiving that money.

It's a nebulous concept at best. If the gubmint bought a wheelbarrow, the hardware store it was bought from was required to estimate how many employees it hired and how many employees it didn't fire because the gubmint bought a wheelbarrow. Now, substitute any amount of anything for "wheelbarrow" and the silliness of this stands out like a bulldozer in a candy store.

The gubmint then added up all the responses (supposedly it did; do we really know?) and reported the total as the number of jobs "created or saved". That sounds a whole lot better than reporting, "Well, shit. The unemployment rate went up anyway."

Are you buying into this horseshit, or are you just reporting what you read in the papers?

jsid-1283023159-727  DJ at Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:19:19 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283020782-472

A moment of Googleness turned up this:

http://www.neutralsource.org/content/blog/detail/1487/

Now for the disclaimer: I had never heard of this web site or this organization. It's "about" page is:

http://www.neutralsource.org/section/about

where it states:

 "Who Is Neutral Source?


"Richard B. Belzer founded Neutral Source in 2006 to provide an independent source of reliable information about subjects related to federal regulation.

"Neutral Source is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity. All contributions are tax deductible."

The lede of the page cited above is:

"17 Feb 2010 in Regulatory Economics

Yesterday the White House released the Administration's first annual report on "the "stimulus bill" (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or "ARRA"). The Administration and its critics are sparring over how many jobs the bill "created or saved."

"Where do the numbers come from?

"We've blogged several times now on the estimation and reporting of the employment effects of ARRA. Here's quick refresher, which will help to keep the first year report in perspective:

"* Part 1, November 20, 2009: We discussed the scandal that had erupted over errors in the data reported on Recovery.Gov, the Administration's portal for disseminating results. Errors ranged from assigning codes for nonexistent congressional districts to reporting as jobs "saved" instances in which recipients used ARRA funds to give raises.

"Objectivity and integrity are fundamental information quality principles. Estimates of jobs "saved" or "created" that are not objective are inherently untrustworthy, which undermines public respect for and confidence in the program.

"Recovery.Gov is operated by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, a 12-member group of agency inspectors general. We reported that the Chairman Earl Devaney had testified that the Board had no responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of information it reported.

"That responsibility had been delegated to funding agencies, and through them to recipients, who were directed to report the numbers of jobs "created" or "saved." The Office of Management and Budget published guidance recipients were supposed to use to make these determinations. OMB's "guidance" didn't provide any guidance, however. It said "the relevant party conducting a data quality review required by this Guidance (i.e., recipients, sub-recipients, Federal agencies) must use its discretion in determining the optimal method for detecting and correcting material omissions or significant reporting errors." In other words, anything goes."


In other words, don't believe what the gubmint tells you about how many jobs were "created or saved" by the stimulus. This citation is just one quick peek at the problem, but it shows that you ought to peek really, really long and hard before defending these figures as being believable.


jsid-1283029613-321  Markadelphia at Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:06:53 +0000

don't believe what the gubmint tells you about how many jobs were "created or saved" by the stimulus

When President Obama says that the stimulus created 2 million jobs, it's not completely true. In fact, he is being generous and using projections through 2010. I tend to think that that numbers from Moody's, Global Insight, and Macroecomics Advisors (all between 1 and 1.6 milion jobs created or saved) are likely more accurate than recovery.gov.Now, Moody's and Global do project a higher number of 2.5 million jobs will be saved but who can really say that?

So, honestly, you're right...it is a nebulous concept. Claiming victory or defeat for political purposes is sure to happen in the next three months but there's nothing completely accurate about either view.



jsid-1283038368-868  DJ at Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:32:54 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283029613-321

"I tend to think that that numbers from Moody's, Global Insight, and Macroecomics Advisors (all between 1 and 1.6 milion jobs created or saved) are likely more accurate than recovery.gov."

NONE OF THEM are likely to be accurate at all.

I heard a radio program a few months ago about it. I don't remember what program it was, just that I was driving to my father-in-law's house during the early morning at the time. No, it wasn't talk radio; I've told you before, I don't listen to such.

But I remember the interviews with people who had to fill in the reports after the gubmint bought something where they worked. There were penalties for not doing so.

What stuck in my mind most was a CEO whose accounts receivable clerk had passed the buck up to him. His response was (paraphrased), "How the hell do you come up with a correct answer? I told her to do what would keep the gubmint out of our hair. She put down "five" and put the form in the mail."

THAT is what is reported in that total. The aggregate reported is the sum of millions of people guessing, and said guesses are partly motivated by keeping the gubmint out of their hair. The entire concept of measuring, via a form filled in by millions of clerks, how many jobs were "created or saved" by specific dollars spent by the gubmint is pure horseshit.

Now the Obamateur administration has a new gimmick. It reports how many "lives were touched" by the stimulus.

Go ahead; Google "lives touched by stimulus" and see what pops up.

I found this one, which I cite here because it is hilarious:

http://www.thefoxnation.com/business/2010/08/23/team-obama-now-counting-lives-touched-stimulus

It's short, so I'll post the whole thing and add emphasis:

"Every time a report on the stimulus bill is released, one can almost hear the sound of ‘Yakety Sax’ playing in the background and the president’s team running around in frantic disarray.
 
"It isn’t simply the absurdity of a recent Government Accountability Report (GAO), finding that each job ‘created’ by the stimulus bill costs an average of $194,213.  It’s the fundamental shell game that the administration is playing with the public regarding the numbers, a game that can only be interpreted one of two ways – either the administration itself is inept in their reporting, or they assume the American people are too inept to catch on.
 
"In fact, the jobs reporting has been such a muddled mess, that even liberal media stalwart, MSNBC, couldn’t keep track of their stories earlier in the year.  On January 13th, they ran two stimulus related stories, one which touted the White House claim that the stimulus had saved two million jobs, and another which explained why calculating such a number is impossible."


Now, doesn't that yank your sphincter a bit tighter?

It continues:
 
"Now however, the GAO report shows that the phrase ‘jobs created’ or ‘jobs saved’ is no longer the term of choice.  They have decided to go with – wait for it – ‘lives touched.’
 
"Essentially, we’ve now transitioned from the aforementioned terminology, on to ‘jobs funded’, and eventually landed on something reminiscent of an after school special, ‘lives touched’."


Regarding "jobs created or saved", you appear to be doubting the numbers while accepting the concept. Now, ask yourself a question and answer yourself honestly: If this were being done by the Bush administration, would you accept the concept?

jsid-1283049937-100  Russell at Sun, 29 Aug 2010 02:45:37 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283038368-868

Smacks of the Ministry of Truth, no?

jsid-1283091453-573  DJ at Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:17:33 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283049937-100

Or the Ministry of Silly Walks. It it were described as satire, it would be accepted as satire.


jsid-1283033527-83  GuardDuck at Sat, 28 Aug 2010 22:12:07 +0000


GuardDuck, if you re-read my remarks, I did ask similar and summative questions and comment in the same fashion.”

 

I don't need to re-read your remarks. I speak jive markadelphian and had to translate from the multiple posts containing extraneous information in order to provide a concise question. There is nothing the same fashion about the way you asked that question, you complicated it every time you tried. Wasn't someone just posting about you not being able to simplify?

 

You should be able to communicate your idea's effectively, but you can't(1). You should be able to understand simple communications that you read, but you can't(2). You can, however, recognize your own ideas when communicated by someone else(3).

 

Which is why (1)I had to rephrase your questions. (2) You didn't understand that when I said “perhaps what he was trying to...ask(ed)” means I already read your prior posts. And (3)why you came back here and railed at me to re-read your posts. By the way, your welcome.

 

And that is why I knew I shouldn't have done this, and am kicking myself for doing it. I know that you know what you are trying to say, but you're not saying it right. What's more, you don't know that you're not saying it effectively. So rather than saying “Thank you GuardDuck, that's what I was trying to say. What's your answer DJ?”, instead you tell me “re-read my stuff man, I already said that.”


jsid-1283034401-959  GuardDuck at Sat, 28 Aug 2010 22:26:42 +0000

"take a look at the photo that I have included. The stimulus was passed in the first quarter of 2009 when we had just come out of a fourth quarter 08 at -6 percent . Look at the 4th quarter of 09...over + 4 percent. Second quarter 2010 is 1.6 percent."

Apropos of nothing, but just how that graph serves to distort the numbers to those to don't understand what it's talking about.....

But you do know that a (hypothetical) 10% increase following on something that just had a 10% decrease does not mean that you are back where you started?


jsid-1283038828-724  Markadelphia at Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:40:28 +0000

Re: Guard Duck.

And we're back to personal insults...ah well.

jsid-1283043293-792  Ed "What the" Heckman at Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:54:53 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283038828-724

So GuardDuck decides to be generous and tries to help you make your arguments stronger, and this is how you repay him?

Niiiiice…

jsid-1283084574-219  GrumpyOldFart at Sun, 29 Aug 2010 12:22:54 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283038828-724

And we're back to personal insults...ah well.

Where, exactly?

What I see is GuardDuck showing you where he considers you to be in error. The only thing I see that could be taken as an insult is "I speak Markadelphian", unless you're claiming that it's insulting to disagree with you and point out why.

jsid-1283094138-558  Markadelphia at Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:02:18 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283084574-219

Well, he started out with this mild one which I politely ignored...

as a teacher one of his primary skills should be the ability to communicate ideas effectively

and then he essentially typed a summation of an ongoing discussion which was great, no doubt, but it, in my view, it was the same thing I had written above. Certainly that is not the view of others here whom are prone to insta-antagonism regarding yours truly. Then we have this...


I speak jive markadelphian

Which would be similar to me saying "speaking Cult lingo"


You should be able to communicate your idea's effectively, but you can't(1). You should be able to understand simple communications that you read, but you can't(2). You can, however, recognize your own ideas when communicated by someone else(3). 

Basically saying that I'm stupid

"I know that you know what you are trying to say, but you're not saying it right."

That's ridiculous. People should be allowed to express themselves how they want to in whatever way they want to...who defines what is right? One might look at your sentence above and say that you numbered in the wrong spots in it. Me? I don't care...your point came across just fine and who am I to judge.

And looking at 22 month business cycle is not "extraneous information."

"So rather than saying “Thank you GuardDuck, that's what I was trying to say"

This isn't an insult but it does come across as being very "get down on my knees and bow before the literary God" ish. It also has a "Oh, and by the way, Mark, you're stupid and need to thank someone to say things for you" vibe. So these points were what I meant by personal insults.

This doesn't even get into the notion that if I had asked his question, the response would've been exactly the same as the ones above...since I asked it.



jsid-1283104896-587  Ed "What the" Heckman at Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:01:36 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283094138-558

Mark,

How many times have you seen someone on this blog say something to the effect of "Xxxxx said it better than I could"?

Why do you consider that insulting when someone does make your own points more clearly than you do, then points it out when you get all testy with him (that tone thing) for saying what you said, only more clearly?

jsid-1283105780-92  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:16:20 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283104896-587

Ed said it better than I could have.

THAT BASTARD!!!! ALWAYS WITH THE "PERSONAL INSULTS"!!!!!!!!

jsid-1283129832-556  Ed "What the" Heckman at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:57:12 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283105780-92



"Ed said it better than I could have."

Nice humor! But I doubt it. My second question was far too overstuffed with events and ideas. I'm certain somebody could state it better. You have the technology… err… tools… err… well, you know what I mean. ;)

jsid-1283106805-20  DJ at Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:33:25 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283104896-587

"Why do you consider that insulting when someone does make your own points more clearly than you do, then points it out when you get all testy with him (that tone thing) for saying what you said, only more clearly?"

Because it makes him look REALLY ridiculous, even to himself, to call the other guy wrong.

jsid-1283112682-701  GrumpyOldFart at Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:11:22 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283094138-558

...who defines what is right?

Ask anyone who teaches speech, drama, theatre, public speaking, etc, etc, etc.

All communication is defined by the receiver.


jsid-1283043481-102  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:58:08 +0000

And we're back to personal insults...ah well.

Of course, none of that is a result of anything you did, or didn't do. No, sir, Nope.  

22.
15.

Forget that?

Oh, right. Well, failing to answer that, or admit that it impacts your authority and honesty, is what I consider to be a personal insult.  Which you have no problem delivering

 Either with that specific example, or - how many more do you need me to detail (again?)

As usual, your hypocrisy exceeds your irony.


jsid-1283043954-369  Ken at Sun, 29 Aug 2010 01:05:54 +0000

The attention given to GDP in this thread calls for a look at just what GDP represents. It is not uncommon for people to refer to GDP when referring to the health and/or strength of a nation's economy (to be sure, there are other ways), so we ought to take a look at it.

Here's the definition Mankiw (2008, p. 510, 512) uses:

Gross domestic product (GDP) is the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time.

The commonly used formula (also reproduced in Mankiw, p. 512) is:

Y = C + I + G + NX, where

Y = GDP
C = consumption
I = investment
G = government purchases
NX = net exports

Mankiw's example for G is "...when the Navy purchases a submarine...", which is fine as far as it goes. But think for a minute: Deficits for the last two fiscal years are 9.9% and 9.1% of GDP respectively. That means that almost 10% of the measure of the health of the economy is made up of borrowing beyond revenue (or of printing money into existence, but leave that aside for the moment).

Were that spending to be withdrawn from the economy, period-over-period change in GDP would approach or exceed (I believe an 11.5% GDP contraction was noted somewhere above, but I'm dipped if I can find it -- thanks, Echo!) the common definition of depression.

But how different is what the State is doing from a household (or any entity engaging in economic exchange) using credit to buy what it cannot by with its current revenue? If I go get five more credit cards and increase my consumption by $20,000, am I -- depite the increase in my "personal domestic product" -- truly more prosperous?

The State can play tricks unavailable to the individual. For example, the central bank can hide the apparent cost by suppressing the cost of credit...for a while. But just as I will eventually stop getting 0% introductory interest credit card offers once lenders figure out what I'm up to, the cost of borrowing for the State will rise (because bond buyers will demand higher rates of return -- higher interest -- to account for what appears to be increased default risk based on a higher debt load -- current income and indebtedness being, I trust, uncontroversial as a measure of creditworthiness for a prospective lender). The central bank either must seek higher interest rates in order to meet lender demand, or failing to do so, print the difference into existence. Potential consequences run from stagflation to hyperinflation, but I hope it is axiomatic to everyone here that more money chasing the same amount of goods and services is inflationary.

So by GDP alone, assuming one accepts the argument for GDP as a criterion variable for the health/strength of the economy, if we jacked the deficit to 20% of GDP, the economy would be even healthier, wouldn't it? Why stop at 20%? Why not 200%? We'd all be rich -- RICH, I tell you, beyond our wildest dreams! Ahahahahahaha! Whee! This economics stuff easy! [/mogamboguru]


It's also a nonpartisan issue to anyone who's paying attention. For there is none righteous: no, not one. I always say that if Reagan was so fired up about balancing the budget, he should oughta have submitted one somewhere along the line, and really laid it out for the American people to see. He kicked the can down the road too: Hayek called it, at the time.

Mark (and anyone else who'd benefit from the advice): Don't take my word for any of this. Go read some contemporary posts and some of the archives of a man named Karl Denninger at market-ticker.org. It can be reached from other URLs too, but that's the one I use.

I don't agree with Denninger in a number of areas, because he's more populist than Austrian and his solutions rest too much for my taste on the State being made up of righteous men, but if you want some fairly straight dope from someone who doesn't bash Obamanomics from a partisan perspective (if anything, I'd say he's even more down on Bush, and I'm not sure I can argue with him), he's your guy.

For a somewhat more Austrian-influenced view, I recommend Mish Shedlock (Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis ).

For the more or less straight anarcho-capitalist line, there's mises.org. For Keynesianism, I suppose Krugman and maybe Robert Reich.

If you accept the premises of Keynesian economics and are unconcerned with perpetual deficit spending, that is of course your prerogative. The evidence of history is strongly against Keynesianism, though.

jsid-1283093147-477  Markadelphia at Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:45:47 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283043954-369

Ken, thank you for this. I won't take your word for it but I am going to spend some time reviewing it before I comment. After a quick scan, I will say that there certainly is some common ground here.


jsid-1283096162-95  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:36:02 +0000

 It also has a "Oh, and by the way, Mark, you're stupid..."

Which is more, 22 or 15?  Either way, the fact you won't admit to your errors marks you.

But no, it  didn't have that - except to you, because you're more skilled at looking for reasons to be a victim, and be excused from the work, than to do the work, and evaluate what was said.
 
This doesn't even get into the notion that if I had asked his question, the response would've been exactly the same as the ones above...since I asked it.


Unlikely. Possibly. 

But we have three years of precedent to work from. Three years of blatant, flagrant errors without correction. Three years of presuming oneself as an expert, despite the errors and inability to admit to them and the inability to discuss or define core principles.  Three years, Mark.

Three years of "Verbatim" being misused - and proudly so. Three years of words being redefined, goalposts moving everywhere, new rules being added just after points were scored after you, three years of victimology and rude, arrogant behavior. Logical fallacies. Insults. Graphic and massive failures of logic.

DJ told you what you needed to do if you really want to turn over a new leaf. I won't be so exiling. If you can change, you'd be accepted for it here.  But you're unwilling to face exactly what a burden you face in order to establish positive credibility.

Because I can literally take up at least 3 Echo comments of 5000 characters with SUMMATIONS of arguments you've lost, run away from, or refused to admit blatant error in the last three years.

Yes, there is a seperate "treatment" for Mark's comments.

Because you've earned it in three years of efforts.


jsid-1283099715-635  DJ at Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:35:16 +0000

Now, THIS is funny as hell:

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/116251-dems-cant-agree-over-killing-or-saving-the-bush-tax-cuts

The goober:

"“All of the energy in this election is on the right; the progressives are completely demoralized,” Begala said. “One of the reasons is that when you get up in the morning and you find out that Democrats are increasing troops in Afghanistan and cutting taxes for the rich, why the hell have a Democratic Party?”"

I damned nearly fell out of my chair. Remember who Paul Begala is?

"... Democratic strategist and former advisor to President Clinton..."


Then we find this:

"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts continuing the all measures will add nearly $4 trillion to the debt in ten years. Tax breaks for the wealthy would account for less than a quarter of that figure, or $700 billion.

"Lawmakers are currently talking about a one-year extension of all Bush tax cuts, which would add approximately $200 billion to the debt in 2011. Tax breaks for the wealthy would account for roughly $40 billion of that increase."


Contrast that with the first commenter's comment:

"Let's tax all of the "rich" people to help pay for everyone else even though they are already paying taxes at a higher rate. That will really help the job rate, because we all know that when you tax business owners more the first thing they do is go out and hire more people."


jsid-1283110414-430  Markadelphia at Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:33:34 +0000

Alright, I've got something to say which I'm sure will spark a whole slew of comments but for me it will more than likely mean the end of the over analysis (how something was said, what someone really meant etc) of the comments in this thread. This will be near certain, of course, if my challenge at the conclusion is ignored. And, honestly, I'd much rather focus on Ken's comments above as well the latest one that DJ put up as they contain some very interesting topics and offer no personal insults.

I scanned back through the comments in this thread and discovered, quite clearly, how and why the discourse on here went...ahem...the way it did.

It started with what I would imagine was surprise by DJ and a few others that I accepted his challenge. Worse, I knew more than I suspect that he (and others) thought I did. The more facts and sound arguments I presented, the more personal insults were heaped upon me. Obviously, I don't think this was a coincidence. As I brought up more points to add to my argument...points that were well researched and sound....we saw an increase in taunting and game playing of a semantical nature.

But my worst transgression was agreeing with you and illustrating why I did with evidence. This resulted in the insults, taunting, and game playing going nuclear.  This is probably going to be the hardest part for many of you because I will be agreeing with you more often and thinking critically about what you have to say. In the past, I fell into the anger and rage trap too many times myself and it proved fruitless...hence the reason why I am taking a new approach.

So, here is my challenge for DJ, Unix, Russell, Ed, Guard Duck and anyone else. It would be great to see responses from all of you. Demonstrate critical thinking regarding the topic of supply side economics and the Laffer curve. Bonus challenge: find three economists and share DJ's statement and subsequent evidence with them. Honestly report their findings. Now, if you choose to pass on the challenges, I think it would be a drag considering I took DJ's.

Oh, and if you choose to go back to the personal insults, game playing and taunting (which I'm thinking is a strong possibility given my thoughts shared above), I will save what I know is your valuable time.


They're completely honest, you're completely lost. 

you are in error and have no enduring knowledge.


I mean, we joke about Mark having aphasia, but, goddamn, the humor is leeching away as we speak.


It's like trying to push a cow. It doesn't work, and the cow has no idea what you're doing.


But it is WAY over your head, teacher boy


You've yet to ever, once, demonstrate critical thinking skills, you're not a competent judge. You might as well send me to the Westminister Dog Show as to judge true critical thinking skills. 


The purpose of my previous comments was to education your miserable thick skull before asking that question such that you would understand that. 


but it cannot even begin until you stop behaving like a childish little shithead?

you ignorant little halfwit.

jsid-1283130243-66  DJ at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 01:04:03 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283110414-430

"So, here is my challenge for DJ, ..."

Save it, little boy. Ain't interested.

You have not changed one iota. Your modus operandi is the same as it has always been, which is EVASION.

In this comment alone, we see your Standard Responses #1, #4, #5, #6, #7, #9, #11, and, overwhelmingly, #12.

"It started with what I would imagine was surprise by DJ and a few others that I accepted his challenge."


You EVADED my challenge time after time after time. You dived off onto tangent after tangent after tangent, all to avoid admitting that my comments were correct, that I proved the proposition I posted. You're still doing it, Vizzini. It doesn't work.

"But my worst transgression ..."


... was doing what you always do, what you have done for over three years here.

For the gazillionth time, little boy, you fool no one. You complain about being insulted, yet you care not one whit for how your behavior insults all of us.


jsid-1283112676-811  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:11:17 +0000

The more facts and sound arguments I presented, the more personal insults were heaped upon me.

No, the more you ignored factual rebuttals and attempts to keep you on topic, the more we made comments, allusions, and allegory.

The personal insults were the result of you not only not understanding the premise, but actively refusing to research basic facts.  Oh,sure, you posted a lot of links (off topic), and you made lots of claims (having nothing to do with the proposition.  (And when you correctly interpreted something, DJ gave you credit for it.).


As I brought up more points to add to my argument.

You've changed the subject again. 

Let's go back if you want to summarize.

DJ offered you a simple proposition. You accepted. He defined it. You started talking about things having nothing t do with the proposition, you linked to things that were related, but with multiple variables to be accounted for, and not directly dealing with the proposition agreed upon.

That is, based on that proposition, then those other issues might come next, but you had yet to deal with the initial proposition.

And despite everybody telling you the exact. same. thing. you then insisted we were all wrong, cause you said so, and we hadn't dealt with your tangents.

Well, I did.  Furthermore, based on Mankiw's haircut, I proved that he's actually a transsexual first baseman for a minor league team in the Cubs heirarchy. *

And while you're trying to assign us work - that you couldn't judge - bloody hell, Mark, you couldn't manage to deal with a SIMPLE PROPOSITION - and you want to deal with the Laffer Curve?  Well, you don't. You just want to obfucate things into a complex enough mishmash that you can declare victory. Or at least not be obviously wrong.

22. 15. WHICH IS MORE?  ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION.  Gee, why won't you do that?

* - Ok, no I didn't, but if you get to make shit up, so should we.

jsid-1283132753-287  GrumpyOldFart at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 01:45:53 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283112676-811

Furthermore, based on Mankiw's haircut, I proved that he's actually a transsexual first baseman for a minor league team in the Cubs heirarchy. *

You left out the self-evident* fact that he's the love child of Bibi Netanyahu and Helen Thomas.

*Cos I decided it was self-evident, that's why.

jsid-1283137624-748  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 03:07:04 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283132753-287

You left out the self-evident* fact that he's the love child of Bibi Netanyahu and Helen Thomas. 
 


Biologically impossible. Even today you've got to have a man and a woman for a child.


jsid-1283112970-372  Unix-Jedi at Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:16:10 +0000

Actually, to answer my own question:

The reason you won't answer 22 versus 15, is because that's STEP ONE IN A LOGICAL PROCESS.

And even you know it. So you resist it, because if you WANT IT TO BE OTHER THAN REALITY, that's all it takes.

Step one.  Based on that answer, that determines the next step "Who was correct". Further down is "Who's usually correct" - but you know that Step One does not in any way go your way.

So you ignore it, and demand that we dance for you.

Only when you clear out your dance card - there's plenty in waiting for you.


jsid-1283114920-380  Linoge at Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:48:40 +0000

The more facts and sound arguments I presented, the more personal insults were heaped upon me.

Speaking personally, that is pretty much yet another lie.  I cannot comment on the motivations of other people personally attacking you, or whatever it is you are whinging about now, but I did not resort to pointing and laughing until such time as it became abundantly clear that not only did you not understand the words that were being used in the conversation (to wit: revenue and deficit), but also that you had absolutely no desire to learn the proper definitions and uses of the words, and were militantly defending that ignorance at every available opportunity. 

The only one playing games, here, Mark, is you - you are constantly obfuscating, tangentializing (new word!), and playing the wounded martyr, when the only people here with knives are you.  I would strongly suggest that you stop stabbing yourself in the back, but, hell, you seem to enjoy it. 

And since you are so fixated on unanswered challenges now (which gives you the chance to ignore and minimalize the fact that your arguments before in this thread have been systematically addressed and rejected already), how about one of mine that you have still left unanswered:  please point out, anywhere in the history of Kevin's weblog, wherein he or commenters of his general political bent have factually misrepresented the words or intentions, as they are historically known, of the Founding Fathers. 

Demands tend to follow a FIFO stack, so lead by example, mate. 

jsid-1283129624-242  DJ at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:53:44 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283114920-380

"... tangentializing ..."

Hey, I like that!


jsid-1283117279-386  Russell at Sun, 29 Aug 2010 21:27:59 +0000

So, here is my challenge for DJ, Unix, Russell, Ed, Guard Duck and anyone else. It would be great to see responses from all of you. Demonstrate critical thinking regarding the topic of supply side economics and the Laffer curve. Bonus challenge: find three economists and share DJ's statement and subsequent evidence with them. Honestly report their findings. Now, if you choose to pass on the challenges, I think it would be a drag considering I took DJ's. 

Ahh, how cute!

I'm going to repeat myself just cause that's what we have to do for you.

"I'd like to hear from you that you understood DJ's valid argument and have DJ confirm you do  understand his argument. I guess we can't always get what we want. Life's tough."

What you still don't get is that you didn't take DJ's challenge. You think you did, but you failed.

I think we could reduce the thread count by at least 35% if we didn't need to reiterate the same points over and over again. I take my job at the Redundant Department of Redundancy seriously, but I rather not take my work home with me.

And again, just to repeat a common theme around this parts, the odds of you, Markadelphia, understanding any sort of researched response would be close to nil since you still haven't figured out DJ's argument in this very thread!

But all means, keep whining. It's amusing on so many levels!


jsid-1283132930-774  Markadelphia at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 01:48:50 +0000

So, it's more insults, taunting, and game playing. I have noted that DJ, Russell, Linoge, and Unix have all refused to demonstrate critical thinking regarding supply side economics and the Laffer curve. As a post script to all of this, check out Sack's cartooon called Anchor Baby...

http://www.startribune.com/galleries/99985859.html?elr=KArks:DCiU1PciUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

It's the second slide from the left.

Now, it will be on to Ken's comment. Ken, I'd like to thank you again for a stunning and well thought out post. It was also very funny and I'm not certain any comments I will offer will do it justice. I'm going try, though.

jsid-1283135779-316  DJ at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 02:36:19 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283132930-774

"So, it's more insults, taunting, and game playing."

So, it's more arrogance, more insults, and more childish attempts at game playing by you.

Notice that we refuse to play.

"I have noted that DJ, Russell, Linoge, and Unix have all refused to demonstrate critical thinking regarding supply side economics and the Laffer curve."

You issued a challenge to me, little boy:

"Show me the numbers from a nonpartisan or primary source that this is true."

I did. You will not acknowledge that I did.

You stamp your feet an whine that everying is being mean to you, and you won't answer, you won't, you won't, you're gonna hold your breath until you turn blue ...

I keep telling you and telling you and telling you, little boy. You are dealing with grownups here, and you aren't up to it. You fool no one.

jsid-1283136653-763  Linoge at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 02:50:54 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283132930-774

I will repeat it again:  please point out, anywhere in the history of Kevin's weblog, wherein he or commenters of his general political bent have factually misrepresented the words or intentions, as they are historically known, of the Founding Fathers.   

Answer that, I might consider your haughty demands. 

FIFO.  Look it up. 

jsid-1283179033-916  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:37:14 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283136653-763

Mark's more minded to GIGO.

jsid-1283199685-411  Linoge at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:21:25 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283179033-916

*snort*  Amusing as that is (and I am somewhat ashamed that you beat me to that all-too-obvious pun), it is, unfortunately, false... or at least not entirely true - in Marxaphasia's case, the output never changes, thus "GIGO" is too limiting. 


jsid-1283137801-456  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 03:10:01 +0000

So, it's more insults, taunting, and game playing. I have noted that DJ, Russell, Linoge, and Unix have all refused to demonstrate critical thinking regarding supply side economics and the Laffer curve.

Why should we?  You challenged DJ, he took on your challenge, you didn't understand any of the words he used (which were small ones) and then you declared that he hadn't met your requirements!

But more importantly:  (said like Cary Elwes in Robin Hood: Men in Tights) Unlike other people here talking about the Laffer Curve, I've not flagrantly misrepresented it as a measurement.

IOW: I know more about it than you do.

How in the hell do you hope to assess my knowledge, when it exceeds your own?


jsid-1283138115-711  Ken at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 03:15:15 +0000

From my point of view, all the discussion of GDP, Laffer curve, multipliers, indifference curves, and the like serve to obscure and mystify the lay observer with respect to what economics really is. The basic principles of economics can be apprehended without recourse to abstruse math (but the math can be helpful for some things).

Economics (and I learned this from, of all places, listening to radio evangelist R.C. Sproul: long story, details not numerous but nonetheless dull) comes from the Greek oikos (home) and nomos (rule or law; some sources render it nomia - management). So economics means home rule, or household management.

I mentioned mises.org previously (The Mises Institute gets its operating budget from private sources, . Here's a post on the Mises blog by Art Carden that pretty well sums up the basics that flow from the etymology I presented (as always, don't believe a word I say). Summarizing:

1. People act.
2. Every action has a cost.
3. People respond to incentives.
4. People make decisions at the margin (they make trade-offs).
5. Trades make people better off. (Tooting the horn of my own discipline, the late great Wroe Alderson (1957, 1965) defined marketing as -- paraphrased -- exchange of items in the assortments held by A and B such that the value of A and B's assortments after the exchange are both greater than they were before.)
6. People are rational (might be better to say they do things they expect to provide them with net benefits). Carden's elaboration of this point is a must read; "people are rational" does not equal "people are Spock." I add on my own hook that some utilities are intangible and known clearly only to the beholder.
7. Using markets is costly, but using government can be costlier still. This gets into transaction costs, an interesting subject in business (where it is germane to the "make or buy" decision) as well as in economics. I will write a post at my own blog (real soon now) about the way State action distorts transaction costs in business.
8. Profits tell businesses they are helping others, while losses tell businesses they are wasting resources.
9. We shouldn't ignore the long-term and unintended consequences of policies and actions. If you've ever heard the term "broken-window fallacy" (see Bastiat and Henry Hazlitt), this is the point they're trying to make. It differs from the precautionary principle (waggishly summarized as "never do anything for the first time") by actually attempting to trace out the consequences of an action to everyone, not just particular groups. Again, Carden's explanation is better than mine.

jsid-1283181133-533  DJ at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:12:14 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283138115-711

"5. Trades make people better off."

I explained this to him long ago, Ken.

The person who sells values the money more than the product, and the person who buys values the product more than the money. If they didn't do so, then neither would trade one for the other.

If you'll pardon the pun, he didn't buy it.

jsid-1283183003-868  Ken at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:43:24 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283181133-533

Even so, it's worth the candle, so that everyone knows as clearly as I can express where I stand on these matters.


jsid-1283139622-253  khbaker at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 03:40:22 +0000

Carden's elaboration of this point is a must read; "people are rational" does not equal "people are Spock."

I would disagree a bit with Carden.  Individuals are rational.  People in groups may not be.  I'm curious how Carden saw the Dutch tulip mania.  I'm reminded, every time I think about that event, of the Garry Larson Far Side cartoon where one cow raises its head and says "Grass!  We've been eating GRASS!"  Somewhere, someone in the Netherlands said, "Flowers!  We're buying freaking FLOWERS!!"

jsid-1283168848-483  Ken at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:47:28 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283139622-253

Kevin, permit me to suggest that your point ("people in groups may not be rational") is kind of what Carden is talking about. Rational doesn't mean always right or prudent, whatever the setting. People do bogglingly stupid things alla time whether alone or in large groups. Information asymmetry, a perhaps hard-wired assumption of scarcity, and emotion -- "ZOMG! Looks like all those people are getting something cool (a net benefit from a given behavior)! I better get in on that BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!" -- changes the calculation of benefits. Remember, not all benefits are tangible or observable by anyone but the individual who sees it.

This is how I explain pet rocks and Lady Gaga.

jsid-1283175231-777  GrumpyOldFart at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:33:52 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283168848-483

The IQ of a mob is equal to the IQ of the least intelligent member divided by the number of people in the mob.

This is how I explain pet rocks and Lady Gaga.

Is there a difference between the two?

jsid-1283177711-595  Ken at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:15:11 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283175231-777

You don't have to water a pet rock.

jsid-1283175970-894  Russell at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:46:32 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283139622-253

Man is a rationalizing animal.

jsid-1283181426-192  DJ at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:17:06 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283175970-894

"Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal." -- Robert Heinlein

jsid-1283183118-589  Ken at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:45:18 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283181426-192

Cute and all, and I love Heinlein as much as anyone here, but speaking of rationalizations: Some people have misused lines like this to rationalize their insistence that people are incapable of self-government. Just sayin....

jsid-1283184386-77  Russell at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:06:26 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283183118-589

True, but rationalization involves creating a model that doesn't match reality. In the case of the Dutch tulips, assuming it happened, people rationalized a model where tulips had a high value in the market. Of course, the reality was one where tulips were just flowers and the bubble burst once people realized the situation. Once people understood that the model was incorrect, the mania passed and tulips returned to being tulips.

Others can rationalize "their insistence that people are incapable of self-government" all they want, but the model is just a map they want to see, not the territory.


jsid-1283140422-40  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 03:53:42 +0000

  I'm curious how Carden saw the Dutch tulip mania.  

If it really happened.  The reading I've done had a dearth of sources and evidence that it was widespread or even more than a handful of people. 

Oh, wait, sorry. I'm not supposed to know anything about econ. Sorry, NM.


jsid-1283174067-747  MPH146 at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:14:32 +0000

This will seem off topic, but it is relevant to this thread, although not to the post this thread is supposed to be commenting on.  This is relevant to the Markadelphia issue.

About 10 years ago I read of a study about competence that had been performed.

The study's author used spelling tests as his vehicle.  He gave volunteers spelling tests, and then asked the test subjects how well they thought they had done.  People who actually had done very well tended to slightly underestimate how well they had done.  People who had done very poorly tended to greatly overestimate how well they had done.  He then asked the test subjects for help grading other test subject's tests (they weren't ACTUALLY doing so, but they were told they were).  After being exposed to the correct answers in this manner, he again asked the test subjects to evaluate how well they thought they themselves had done.  People who actually did well lowered their estimates slightly, those who did poorly raised theirs.  There was a correlation between how poorly one actually did and how much better than they actually did they estimated they had done (That's poorly worded, so I'll elaborate: if you think of the difference between a test subject's actual score and estimated score as "bonus points", the lower the actual score the more "bonus points" the test subject gave themselves).

The study author's conclusion: the less competent a person is, the more competent they tend to THINK they are.  The study's author reasoned that this was because the skills needed to BE competent were the same skills needed to ASSESS competence.  Being incompetent therefore not only robs someone of the ability to perform well, it robs them of the ability to accurately assess their own performance and the performance of others.

So you'll never get through to Markadelphia until he's actually competent; at which point, you won't need to get through to him.

Perhaps this will save you all some time (although I do enjoy the spankings you all keep giving him, at least until the repetition gets boring).

jsid-1283174950-73  Russell at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:29:10 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283174067-747

MPH146: I think Kevin linked to this study or one like it: http://articles.sfgate.com/2000-01-18/news/17635543_1_percentile-dunning-incompetent

"In a series of studies, Kruger and Dunning tested their theory of incompetence. They found that subjects who scored in the lowest quartile on tests of logic, English grammar and humor were also the most likely to "grossly overestimate" how well they had performed."

"Perhaps this will save you all some time"

Thanks, but after 3 years, if we don't know we won't be saving time by now, well, refer back to the study! :)

jsid-1283179239-900  Markadelphia at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:40:41 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283174067-747

I think I can safely say that they will never get through to me, MPH146, as long as they follow the pattern I have listed above. In some ways I suppose I could call it the Sowell Pattern which would be roughly defined by this chief tenet: Don't agree with me, show me facts which prove me to be in error and you are incompetent and an imbecile. 

Example:

Mankiw "Subsequent history failed to confirm Laffer's conjecture that lower taxes would raise tax revenue. When Reagan cut taxes after he was elected, the result was less revenue, not more. Revenue from personal income taxes (per person, adjusted for inflation) fell by 9 percent from 1980 to 1984, even though the average income (per person, adjusted for inflation) grew by 4 percent over this period."   

Unix Jedi: Oh, and Re: the Laffer Curve? Because I understand what it *is*.  It's valid. It's not been "historically disproved".  Just for the record.  

Followed later by

Unix-Jedi: Your utter imbecility is staggering at times, but I thank you for proving our points.   

Now, watch what happens as a result of this comment 8-)


jsid-1283187166-629  Ken at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:52:46 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283179239-900

Revenue from personal income taxes (per person, adjusted for inflation) fell by 9 percent from 1980 to 1984...  
 
I rise to make a few observations. First, per-capita revenue matters a heck of a lot less than total revenue collected, doesn't it?  
 
Second, people do respond to incentives, but the typical wage/salary-earner's responses to incentives (like tax cut) are more constrained than those of entrepreneurs (for example). For exempt employees, working more overtime might get 'em a raise, and then it might not. For hourly employees, it's not always up to them whether they get to pull more overtime or not. Okay, but might either moonlight in order to increase revenue, now they get to keep more of what they earn? They might, depending on whether the revenue gained is worth more than the leisure foregone (people make tradeoffs).  
 
So for a great number of, um, capitas, tax revenue per capita might decline. Others, such as entrepreneurs, might pay more to the extent their enterprises succeed. The overall revenue collected by government is supposed to be what increases, as entrepreneurs start or expand businesses and hire employees. To the extent that I understand Laffer (I'm an Austrian, not a supply-sider; there's a difference), that's supposed to be the point. You get more economic activity, and therefore more tax revenue, while reducing the tax burden on individuals (thus rewarding the behavior you want, thus getting more of it).  
 
Third, and I make this point only in passing, inflation is also a source of mischief. Wages and salaries tend to be "sticky" (i.e., they change relatively slowly) with respect to inflation as they are with respect to tax policy. It takes a while for the new environmental condition to take hold. In this case, wages/salaries tend to rise more slowly than the rate the money supply inflates; therefore, tax revenue also tends to rise more slowly than the rate of monetary inflation (and may in fact decline for individuals for whom the conditions I have described are true).
 
Mankiw, in making this argument, appears to me to be more interested in scoring points for his team than in rigorously assessing Laffer.

jsid-1283199969-392  Linoge at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:26:12 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283179239-900

Now, watch what happens as a result of this comment

You mean apart from you handily and succinctly proving MPH146's point?  'Cause that was pretty much the high point of your comment for me... 

jsid-1283182784-622  DJ at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:39:44 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283174067-747

MPH146, he's like Pavlov's dogs. He can't resist showing you how good an example he is.

jsid-1283186951-180  Russell at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:49:11 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283182784-622

"Of course, some men are like pigs, the more you educate them, the more amusing little cusses they become, and the funnier capers they cut when they show off their tricks. Naturally, the place to send a boy of that breed is to the circus, not to college…"

-- Letters from a Self-Made Merchant to His Son


jsid-1283177348-174  Markadelphia at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:09:08 +0000

Great, Ken. Now I have another thougtful, sound, and reasoned comment to reflect upon...there's no way I can do them both justice. :-E


jsid-1283179630-981  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:47:11 +0000

Don't agree with me, show me facts which prove me to be in error and you are incompetent and an imbecile.   

You're the one who claimed 15 was more than 22. What more must I do?

Who claimed the Laffer Curve was a measurement?

Who started talking about deficit when they'd agreed to talk about revenue?


Now, watch what happens as a result of this comment

The same thing that has been happening for the last 3 years.

jsid-1283183038-246  Russell at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:43:58 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283179630-981

Who keeps making invalid logical arguments and keeps treating them as valid?

Who keep treating valid arguments as invalid?

Gah! Now I have that stupid "Candy man can" song in my head!

jsid-1283188280-577  Ed "What the" Heckman at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:11:20 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283183038-246

LOL!

Wanna make it worse? Watch this.

jsid-1283201311-395  Russell at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:48:31 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283188280-577

Snort! Now the song is really stuck in my head!


jsid-1283194891-642  Markadelphia at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:01:31 +0000

Who is "Mankiw's team?"

jsid-1283195528-291  Ken at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:12:12 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283194891-642

Them as are not supply-siders, near as I can make out. Whatever Mankiw's reason for making the argument the way he made it, I am not impressed with the quality of the argument.

jsid-1283202545-487  Markadelphia at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:09:05 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283195528-291

Ah, gotcha. To be fair to him, I pulled that quote from a much larger section in Principles of Microeconomics (3rd Ed 169-172). He agrees, as do I, that if Laffer's theory is applied on a smaller scale or in countries with higher taxes it is not without merit. I would also agree that it applies to coporate taxes and revenue as shown in the AEI study.


jsid-1283197929-98  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:52:12 +0000

Mark: though I know this will be a waste of time, just in the hopes that someday you'll learn something, allow me to lecture you. Yes. I'm going to lecture you. Sit and take notes, and stop interrupting and you might learn something.

If you don't, it's not my fault. I tried. But the student must be willing to learn.  You're not. Yet. Maybe you will be sometime.

What can I say, I'm an eternal optimist.

First.  The discussion was about revenue.  Soley revenue.  Yes, you cited Mankiw. But you didn't ask me why I said "yes" to your question "Do you agree or disagree with him?"

Because you won't understand.  You don't understand the basics, so you can't understand the complex issues.  But what I meant by that is yes, Mankiw is a bright guy, and yes, he's mostly correct in his decription.  That doesn't mean you understand what he said. Or what he wanted you to understand. It means that yes, given the proposition he's proposed, he's correct. And that's something very important you cannot grasp. You cannot define propositions, nor stay inside of them.  But he can. He's a bright guy.  You don't notice when people change contexts on you - and you refuse to stay inside contexts, jumping out of them to avoid having to admit that yes, you're wrong.

Yes, per capita, revenue dropped.  Wait. Why did he add per-capita?  The first problem with that is that it adds a whole new variable - with arguable definitions and constraints - how do you adjust for per-capita? (There are number of ways for it). The second is that now you've complicated matters. The third is, does it make sense to? So there are a bunch of new people under 2 years of age. Does that matter for the sake of income tax averaging? Does it make sense?  Does it cause less taxes to be taken because of additional deductions? Hey, these things are complicated. You do it without understanding why, I'm pretty sure Mankiw had a plan in his mind for bringing that up.  But, yes, he's correct.  Per capita, the revenue dropped.

But what happens when we drop the "per capita" qualifier?  We find that revenue increased. (The adjustment for monetary value is more straightforward.)

Now, you don't know what the Laffer Curve is.  it's not a "measurement" (nor have you admitted to your error there, despite 15 seconds of Googling could demonstrate that even for you.)  It's not even by a guy named Laffer. 

It's an idea. A projection. A description of human behavior.  The Laffer Curve, as it's taught in the general, does not have any specific values on the X and Y axis.  Historically, you can assign them, as you look back.  But the concept of the Laffer Curve is not, as you misunderstand it, to merely decrease taxes.  It's that at the apex of the curve - or technically, the highest apex, because a real Laffer Curve can have more than one - has the maximum revenue. Increase taxes above that, and your revenue decreases. Decrease it below the apex, and they decrease.

This also presumes that maximizing government revenues is the best use of the money. I disagree with that concept, wholeheartedly , but that's another subject entirely. The Laffer Curve has been demonstrated historically numerous - times. You can look at New Jersey and Maryland right now, in the last 2 years to see it's import. They raised tax rates, and their revenue plummeted.

This means - as DJ explained to you and you didn't understand - that an increase in tax rates can cause revenues to go up.  IF YOU'RE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE CURVE. If you're on the right, you cannot raise revenue by raising rates.  

I kept asking you to tell me what you needed to know to use CBO data. You didn't, because you didn't know. So take notes. the CBO data is only useful if you know what the assumptions they were instructed to use. They can hint at them, but the CBO does the math based on givens and assumptions.  So when, for instance, Pelosi and Reid tell them to run the numbers for Obamacare, and to presume that 500 billion in Medicaid costs goes away and that they're still paying that 500 billion (that just theoretically went away) to doctors, and that the 500 billion will go to the general operating fund (which is going away, and also being paid to the doctors) they do that math with those assumptions.


jsid-1283198008-842  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:53:31 +0000

(pt 2)

Without knowing the givens, you cannot blindly trust CBO numbers. But you should never blindly trust ANY NUMBERS. Learn to do the math yourself. Otherwise you're at the mercy of people who slide "per-capita" in and and out, or other rhetorical tricks.  If you know how to do the math, you can distill it down to the base parts.  Then, and only then, will you understand things.

 

The CBO report you quoted presumed a 10 percent flat reduction.  But that wasn't what the "Bush tax cuts were". It presumed that there would be bad effects - the CBO was told those assumptions to make things look worse.  

 

But even so, the difference is that you quoted them, in an argument, when we had real historical data to look at. Why would you cite a study, presumably to study future effects, when we can look at the real effects of the real law?  That makes no sense at all.

 

We don't have a flat rate tax system, we have a tax system that is utterly incomprehensible to any one mortal person.  That includes the people now running it, none of whom have done their own taxes in accordance with it.  

 

All of these things serve to distort the concept of the Laffer Curve in the specific.  But  many times, they're quite literally inconsequential noise to the overall, and you can presume them to be 0 for all real purposes.  And we can see that in many cases. You can look at the specifics of NJ and Maryland, and NYC, all of whom are now facing massive budget shortfalls because they raised their tax rates.  But they also complicate and obfuscate if you don' t understand the core principles. After you understand the core, then you can worry about the niggling details.

 

The Laffer Curve can be generated out of past data fairly easily. Any future projections are exactly that. Projections. But projections have to understand past history.

 

And that's where you fail, because you see into history what you wished to have happened, not what actually happened.

 

Now, question time for you. (Other than which is more, 15 or 22?)

 

What is your total tax burden right now?  Approximate if necessary. Would you work twice as much to earn half as much again as you do now?  (Would you work, for instance, 80 hours a week, to make whatever your salary is now times 1.5?  (so if you made 100/week , you'd be making 150/week.)

jsid-1283200521-871  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:35:22 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283198008-842

What is your total tax burden right now?  Approximate if necessary.

Let me correct and clarify - As a percentage of income.


jsid-1283199371-485  DJ at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:16:11 +0000

Troll boy, you really, really need to learn how to look things up for yourself.

I'll make it easy for you.

Google "Arthur Laffer" and click on the first link that pops up.

Now, do you see how easy that was?

I'll put the link here because I doubt you'll go to that much effort. It is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Laffer

Now, here are the choice excerpts therefrom:

"Arthur Betz Laffer ... is an American economist who became influential during the Reagan administration as a member of Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board (1981–1989). Laffer is best known for the Laffer curve, an illustration of tax elasticity which asserts that, in certain situations, a decrease in tax rates could result in an increase in tax revenues."

That's "in certain situations".
  Now, let's cut to the chase, shall we?

"Although he does not claim to have invented the Laffer curve concept (Laffer, 2004), it was popularized with policy-makers following an afternoon meeting with Nixon/Ford Administration officials Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in 1974 in which he reportedly sketched the curve on a napkin to illustrate his argument. The term "Laffer curve" was coined by Jude Wanniski, who was also present. The basic concept was not new; Laffer himself says he learned it from Ibn Khaldun and John Maynard Keynes."

WHAT? Laffer learned the concept from Keynes?

And he explained it to Cheney and Rumsfeld in 1974?

Is your head exploding yet?

Now for the meat of it:

"A simplified view of the theory is that tax revenues would be zero if tax rates were either 0% or 100%, and somewhere in between 0% and 100% is a tax rate which maximizes total revenue. Laffer's postulate was that the tax rate that maximizes revenue was at a much lower level than previously believed: so low that current tax rates were above the level where revenue is maximized."

How do you tell if the current tax rate is higher than the tax rate that would maximize revenue? Why, you lower the tax rate and see what happens. If it was higher, then the lower tax rates would result in increased revenue.

The Bush tax rate cuts did that. Revenue increased.

Arthur Laffer knew what he was talking about.

Again, do you see how easy that was?


jsid-1283200535-113  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:35:35 +0000

200!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jsid-1283201333-819  Russell at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:48:53 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283200535-113

Do we get cookies?

jsid-1283201462-346  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:51:06 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283201333-819

You can have 15. Or 22. Whichever is more.

jsid-1283201392-740  khbaker at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:50:04 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283200535-113

All on a little flag post.  Wow.

jsid-1283202666-290  DJ at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:11:08 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283201392-740

If you let a troll shit on your floor, don't be surprised if it has nothing to do with why you opened the door.

jsid-1283206666-43  Ken at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:17:46 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283201392-740

Ever get the feeling you're doing it wrong? :-P

(I keed, I keed, this is my favorite stop in the 'sphere.)

jsid-1283213716-837  GrumpyOldFart at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:15:16 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283206666-43

There's got to be a picture somewhere that goes with that.

"Teachin Liberals To Think...

...Ur Doin It Wrong."


jsid-1283203021-611  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:17:04 +0000

He agrees, as do I, that if Laffer's theory is applied on a smaller scale or in countries with higher taxes it is not without merit. I would also agree that it applies to coporate taxes and revenue as shown in the AEI study.

There's a possibility, faint as it might be, that you read neither DJ nor my explaination on what the "Laffer Curve" was before you wrote that.

In the spirit of your reboot, after reading what we explained to you, you should be willing, Mark, to apologize and correct that.

I suspect you won't know why you should, even after it was explained in graphic detail.


jsid-1283209287-673  DJ at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:01:27 +0000

Here is another interesting tidbit:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/hatch039s-plan-get-parts-health-care-law-repealed-gains-steam

Here's the lede:

"GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Senator, nice to see you, sir.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, R-UTAH:
Nice to talk to you, Greta. How are you?

"VAN SUSTEREN:
I'm very well. So Senator, you have -- you've introduced a bill, the American Job Protection Act, and I understand now you have secured some support, the United States Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business and the National Association of Wholesalers and the National Retail Federation. What is this statute that they are now endorsing?

"HATCH: Well, what that does is it does way with the employer mandate. As you know, they're going to impose mandates in health care on employers that are going to be -- cost an arm and a leg. And the employers are now starting to rebel about it because they're -- these are going to amount to at least a $52 billion increase in taxes, plus all kinds of other onerous regulations and burdens. So that's why people aren't hiring today, in a great sense, because they -- they basically just don't know what's going to happen in the future. They're very uncertain. They're very upset about it. And to be honest with you, that employer mandate has been changing as we sit here.

"VAN SUSTEREN: What do you mean it's changing?

"HATCH: Well, it was supposed to be just a mandate that you had to give insurance to your employees. It was supposed to save money over the long run. Now we find it's well over $300 billion in additional costs. Plus there'll be about a $52 billion increase in taxation. Plus, there are a lot of businesses that do have insurance, but they're now being told the insurance that they have isn't as good as it should be, or it isn't the way the government wants it to be.

"Small businesses are just frantic about this because a lot of small businesses are refusing to hire over the 50-employee limit because they get pushed into having to have this employer mandate, which is -- which can be very expensive and very problematic for the businesses involved."


Now, recall an excerpt from a previous comment of mine:

"The guy who manages my investment portfolio confirmed it to me, and he used the same words. He told me that many trillions of dollars were pulled from the market as the Obamateur administration ramped up its agenda, and they will remain uninvested until, quite literally, "They know what the new rules are," meaning the new conditions under which those investments will be made. Congress and the Obamateur administration are killing the incentive to invest and expand, and those with money to invest and expand are behaving accordingly."

Golly. Who knew that the gubmint could affect the willingness of people to invest and of business owners to expand?


jsid-1283209563-781  Russell at Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:06:03 +0000

I wonder if Echo will break soon.


jsid-1283214691-31  Markadelphia at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:31:31 +0000

Unix, you are correct. I did not see those comments. I wonder why Echo shows me things some times and not others. And then I will see something once and then it will be gone and then it will be back again...ah well...it's probably user error.  
 
But now I do see them...Unix first  
 
I'll skip the "you don't understand" stuff if that's ok...  
 
We find that revenue increased.  
 
No doubt that it did but I think it was for different reasons. Nonetehless, good analysis of Mankiw.  
 
Skipping the word games bit (measurement, Laffer)  


I do agree that it does work in a mirco fashion, if you will, in either smaller subsets or in certain economies that have insanely high taxes. The reason why Reagan wanted to use it was because he lived it. He would only make four pictures a year and then "go off into the country" so he wouldn't have to pay higher taxes...which at the time was 90 percent! So, in that environment it has been shown to work. You get taxed higher, you don't want to work. But our tax rates right now are very low compared to that time as well as many other countries.  
 
you cannot blindly trust CBO numbers.  
 
Agreed. That's why I used other sources. And I do understand that they use estimates. Remember, though, that the CBO is a source for estimating other things that you may agree with, no? In addition, I wanted to look at real historical data comparing other business cycles to the 2001-2007 cycle but we didn't do that.  
 
 
What is your total tax burden right now?  Approximate if necessary. Would you work twice as much to earn half as much again as you do now?  (Would you work, for instance, 80 hours a week, to make whatever your salary is now times 1.5?  (so if you made 100/week , you'd be making 150/week.)   
 
My wife file jointly and tends up being around 30 percent (incl. state and local) of our income. Your work question is a tough one for me because I don't work to make money. It's hard for me to look at things in the framework of your question. I work because I enjoy what I do, have seemingly endless energy for it, and don't think much about the money I make. My wife makes 3 times as much as I do so we are doing pretty well. I don't worry about it but to directly answer your question...I would work 80 hours a week...doing my job...and how much more I would make would be irrelevant. I know...I'm weird...but I love what I do.

jsid-1283228172-878  khbaker at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 04:16:12 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283214691-31

My wife [and I] file jointly and [it] tends [to end] up being around 30 percent (incl. state and local) of our income.

Try using complete sentences.  Or was that the 70% of the sentence that was untaxed?

That's your personal income tax.  That wasn't the question.  The question was "What is your total tax burden right now?"  That's income tax, sales taxes, property taxes, license fees, excise taxes, every little bit that gets nickeled and dimed and tacked onto the cost of the goods you buy and then taxed again.  So you pay ~30% in personal income tax.  Would you estimate that the other taxes and fees and indirect taxation would add up to another ~20% of your annual income?  How about FICA withholding?  (Do you honestly expect to ever see that money again?)  Is that not also taxation?

jsid-1283229856-440  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 04:44:16 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283228172-878

And perhaps we should have then phrased it: 

"Would you wife be willing to work 2x as long to make half again what she's making now?"

jsid-1283236010-571  GuardDuck at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:26:50 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283228172-878

State tax on gas, federal tax on gas. The percentage the gallon of milk you buy that is jacked up because of the taxes on gas - because it takes fuel to traansport that milk to the store, takes fuel to transport that milk to the processor and it takes fuel to operate the dairy that creates the milk.

Thats just one small little tax. One that affects everything you do. And it compounds upon itself.

You said earlier that Laffer only works in small economies or places with much higher tax rates.....if you look at all the taxes upon taxes that we have I don't think you can find an economy with higher rates than ours.

If theres a problem with finding large amounts of real stimulus from the Bush tax cuts, it's because it doesn't actually cut enough of the tax burden. Whats a 10% cut of what end up being a total of about 2% of your tax burden?


jsid-1283216024-164  Markadelphia at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:53:49 +0000

DJ's comment,  
 
That's "in certain situations".  
 
I agree. And those situations would be corporate taxes (
AEI study, MAYBE US), countries with high tax rates (probably), and possibly a subset of income earners that make more money. But that assumes a higher tax rate. I think you will agree that we do have lower tax rates for upper income earners compared to previous years.  
 
Again, do you see how easy that was?  
 
It's easy if you put the qualifier of "certain situations" on it. But that's not what you said above. I am refering to Part 1 and Part 2 on 8-24-2010. There wasn't a qualifier and, correct me if I am wrong, intimated that people would work more if they were taxed less. The orginal statement was also centered around income tax and didn't specify corporate taxes.  
 
In addition, other factors were left out which we have discussed previously in regards to our increased revenue during that time period. I disagree that you can point to the tax cuts as being the reason why this happened. It's my view, based on what I already knew and the research I did to respond to your points, that the cuts were not the reason for the increased revenue.  
 
So, I just want to be clear here, by saying that Laffer was correct, do you subscribe to supply side economics for only certain situations or on a macro level?  
 
Incidentally, I'm not a strict Keynesian. In fact, as my continually delayed response to Ken (sorry!) will contain a summation of my economic views which start with an Orwell quote about Hayek.

jsid-1283271094-497  DJ at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:11:34 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283216024-164

Part 1

Me: "That's "in certain situations".

You: "I agree. And those situations would be ..."

Sigh ...

No, teacher boy.

You do not understand what I wrote.

You do not understand what the Laffer Curve shows.

You do not understand why the Laffer Curve is valid.

You do not understand how to make use of what it teaches.

So, I'll try yet again to explain it to you. Get a cup of whatever you drink, siddown, shaddup, and try to learn.

I will be very long-winded here.

You ready?

We illustrate a mathematical function with a graph. In this case, the vertical axis (Y axis) is REVENUE the gubmint gets by taxing income.  The horizontal axis (X axis) is the RATE at which income is taxed to produce said revenue. The X axis is limited to the range of 0% to 100%, inclusive, labeled "0" and "100", i.e. 0 <= X <= 100.

About this graph, we state the following:

1) a fact: a tax rate of 0% produces zero tax revenue (i.e. zero percent times anything equals zero).

2) an assumption: a tax rate of 100% produces zero tax revenue (i.e. one hundred percent times zero equals zero).  The ONLY aspect of human nature involved here is that there is no incentive to produce income if the gubmint takes it all, thus a tax rate of 100% taxes no income, and so produces no revenue. Stay with me; I'll return to this assumption later.

3) a fact: there is a tax rate somewhere between 0 and 100 that produces some tax revenue. We know this because we actually pay income taxes. I'll call this point "z". It is not important where it is, only that it exists.

We proceed from those two facts and one assumption alone.
That one assumption is the ONLY assumption involved in understanding what the Laffer Curve is and what it teaches us. Everything else about the Laffer Curve is about mathematics only, not about politics, and not about human nature.

Mathematically, Y is a function of X, or "Y = f(X)". In plain language, revenue from taxing income is a function of the rate at which income is taxed. Note that "a function of" does NOT mean "is proportional to".

About this function Y = f(X) we know several things:

1) The function Y = f(X) is continuous over the range 0 <= X <= 100. In plain language, the tax rate can take on any value between 0 and 100, inclusive, and the tax revenue produced thereby would have some value, possibly zero.

2) The function Y = f(X) is differentiable over the range 0 <= X <= 100. In plain language, the function is "smooth".

3) The function Y = f(X) must contain the point Y = f(z), where Y > 0.  In plain language, there is a point z on the X axis, i.e. z is some tax rate which produces some positive revenue Y = f(z) > 0.

The significance of Y = f(z) is that the the function Y = f(X) is not a straight line. The endpoints are f(0) = 0 and f(100) = 0, but in between is the point f(z) which is not equal to zero. There is no straight line which contains all three points f(0), f(z), and f(100).

Thus the function Y = f(X) is a curve of some shape. At this point, we do not have any information to define that shape with specificity. But we do have a mathematical tool which tells us something crucial about it.

jsid-1283271199-596  DJ at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:13:20 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283271094-497

Part 2

The Mean Value Theorem of differential calculus states that, if a function f is differentiable over the open interval (a, b) and continuous at a and b, then there is a number c, with a < c < b, such that

(f(b) - f(a)) / (b - a) = f'(c)

Now, what is f'(c)? It is the derivative of the function at f(c), i.e. the slope of a line which is tangent to the curve at that point. I plain language, it is the rate of change of Y with respect to X at point c.

In this case, for this function Y = f(X), there is a value of X called c such that 0 < c < 100, such that

(f(100) - f(0)) / (100 - 0) = f'(c) = 0

Now, that equation is the meat of what the Mean Value Theorem tells us in this case. In plain language, there is a tax rate, somewhere between 0% and 100%, where the slope of the curve, i.e. the rate of change of tax revenue with respect to tax rate, is zero.

What is the significance of that point?

This point Y = f(c), i.e. the revenue produced by tax rate c, is the tax rate at which a "local maxima" occurs. The characteristic of a local maxima is that, if the X coordinate increases slightly, the Y coordinate decreases, and if the X coordinate decreases slightly, the Y coordinate decreases. Visually, it is the top of a hill; go either direction, left or right, and you go down the hill.

The graph I showed earlier of the Laffer Curve illustrates this. Go look at it again.

Now, get this through your thick skull:

The Mean Value Theorem REQUIRES that there is an income tax rate which produces the maximum income tax revenue that can be collected. If the tax rate deviates SLIGHTLY in either direction, then the tax revenue collected thereby decreases. Do not ignore the word SLIGHTLY; it has meaning and significance.

It is MATHEMATICS which requires this.
Politics and human nature play no part in producing this graph so far, other than the one presumption presented above. Again, more on that later.

jsid-1283271307-518  DJ at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:15:08 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283271199-596

Part 3

The graph of the Laffer Curve that I included before is only a representation of the function to illustrate its nature.  It is not accurate with specificity, but it is accurate at two points: 1) f(0) = 0; and, 2) f(100) = 0.

We know there is a point c, but we do not know where it is, and we know there is a value Ymax = f(c), but we do not know what its value is.

Let's see what we can deduce from this function, i.e. from this curve, shall we?

Suppose the tax rate is "d", a value which is lower than "c", i.e. d < c. The tax revenue is not the maximum that could be collected. If the tax rate is increased a bit, the tax revenue will be higher. If the tax rate is decreased a bit, the tax revenue will be lower.

Suppose the tax rate is "e", a value which is higher than "c", i.e. e > c. The tax revenue is not the maximum that could be collected. If the tax rate is increased a bit, the tax revenue will be lower. If the tax rate is decreased a bit, the tax revenue will be higher.

So far, that's pretty simple. But, suppose the tax rate is "e", and we reduce the tax rate to "d". The tax revenue might increase or it might decrease, right? It depends on whether f(d) is greater than or less than f(e). The key thought here is that f(d) and f(e) are on OPPOSITE sides of the "hump", i.e. the maximum. We do not know the curve with enough specificity to make a prediction as to whether the tax revenue would decrease or increase if the tax rate were changed from one side of c to the other.

This illustrates a quite simple thing, to wit, the notion that a tax rate decrease produces a tax revenue increase MIGHT be true, but it is NOT NECESSARILY true.

Now, remember your question of eight days ago which started this chain of comments:

"Let's see now...we've cut taxes twice under Bush and once under Obama.  
  
Did that work? Why or why not? How?"


My first response included the following statement:

"A change in the RATE at which income is taxed can result in a greater or lesser willingness of people to engage in activity that produces income. Whether or not it is greater or lesser, and the amount by which it is greater or lesser, depends on what the rate was changed from and on what it was changed to, i.e. the old rate and the new rate."

Thus, the fact that a reduction in the income tax rate CAN result in increased tax revenues, i.e. it will happen in "certain situations", is what I stated in MY FIRST COMMENT HERE ON THE SUBJECT.

It went right past you, didn't it?

jsid-1283271409-242  DJ at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:16:49 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283271307-518

Part 4

Now, let's look at the essence of what Arthur Laffer teaches us, and the realities of trying to make use of the Laffer Curve.

The Laffer Curve predicts that reducing the tax rate CAN increase the tax revenue generated thereby, but it will do so ONLY if: 1) the current tax rate is above the rate which produces maximum tax revenue; and, 2) the tax rate is not reduced so far that the revenue produced thereby is located on the "other side of the hump" where it could produce a lower revenue value.

Thus, this prediction CAN work IF the change in the tax rate is relatively small AND the current tax rate is to the right of point c. It makes no prediction if, for example, the tax rate were changed from 80% to 10%; the shape of the curve is not known with enough specificity to make any prediction in such a case.

Note that we do NOT know the exact shape of the Laffer Curve. In particular, we do NOT know where point c is, the income tax rate which produces the maximum income tax revenue.

Further, we cannot develop enough information to plot the curve with specificity. To do so would require changing the tax rate, observing the revenue, and so generating point after point along the curve. That will not happen.

The validity of Arthur Laffer's curve, and the prediction he made from it, are thus proven using mathematics alone.

Demonstrating it is, however, damned difficult. It requires two things: 1) a current income tax rate that is above point c; and, 2) a Congress and President with the balls to try a relatively small change in the tax rate.

Well, guess what? Bush was such a president. Congress, however, was chicken, and required the rate cuts to be phased in over years, after which they would be repealed. Even so, THE TEST WORKED, AND ARTHUR LAFFER WAS VINDICATED.

jsid-1283271622-64  DJ at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:20:22 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283271409-242

Part 5

As I noted in my first response to your question:

"During the Bush administration, the feddle gubmint cut income tax RATES, which resulted in increased income tax REVENUE."

Your response was:

"Show me the numbers from a nonpartisan or primary source that this is true."


I did, and presented a spreadsheet with those numbers.

It is important to note that the income tax is not computed via "a tax rate", rather it is collected via a SET of tax rates that apply to various levels of income in a progressive manner. The Bush tax rate cuts lowered the rates applied to the progressive tax brackets and raised the brackets. Further, it was passed by Congress ONLY by agreeing that the rate cuts would be phased in over some years and would expire after ten years. Thus, the result happened over some time.

Now, get it through your thick skull that the Laffer Curve applies to both individual and corporate income taxes. Millions of businesses report their income on personal Form 1040's via Schedule C, and millions of corporations report their income on corporate Form 1040's via a mountain of schedules and forms.

Human nature applies to both. People won't work if the gubmint takes all their income, because one cannot pay the rent without income. Corporations do not exist without people to do their work, and people will not do their work without pay.

Now, consider the one assumption we made, that f(100) = 0. It doesn't have to be perfecly zero, because the tax revenue f(c) is far greater that f(100), even if f(100) is not exactly zero. An income tax rate of 100% would collapse this economy into chaos of unimaginable proportions, but it would not result in income tax revenue to the gubmint. Thus the analysis holds true even if the one assumption made is slightly imperfect, and it holds for both individual and corporate income taxes

Now, look at my spreadsheet again, using 2002 as the base year.

Note the astounding rise in corporate income tax revenue. Note the high, but lagging rise in personal income tax revenue. Note that this happened despite lower income tax progressive rates, higher income tax progressive brackets, and the removal of six MILLION taxpayers from the tax rolls.

Again, THE TEST WORKED. Income tax rates were reduced and the result was income tax revenue that increased. Arthur Laffer was right.

And, showing that does not involve gubmint spending, gubmint deficits, gubmint debt, politics, nor the price of tea in China last Tuesday.

jsid-1283271851-893  DJ at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:24:12 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283271622-64

Part 6

Do you see how easy that was, or rather, how easy it should have been?

This entire comment thread illustrates the fundamental problem we all here have in trying to communicate with you on any level. Y'see, most of us here are engineers, or scientists, or similar, but we all have in common the training to apply mathematics to the real world. I've said it here many times before; if you cannot express it in numbers, it isn't science and it isn't engineering, it is opinion.

So, WE have no difficulty whatever in understanding the Laffer Curve, and at a glance. While it was a stroke of genius to come up with it, it's validity is painfully obvious to anyone who applies mathematics in the routine manner that we do. For us, the use of calculus is a Tuesday morning; for you, it is an UNKNONW UNKNOWN.

Now, read back through all my comments, IN ORDER. You state:

"It's easy if you put the qualifier of "certain situations" on it."

I did so, in different words, in my very first comment here on the subject seven days ago.

You ask:

"So, I just want to be clear here, by saying that Laffer was correct, do you subscribe to supply side economics for only certain situations or on a macro level?"


I understood the Laffer Curve, and what it predicts, decades ago. I just explained what it predicts, and that it workes only in certain situations. I am not interested in ponies. I WILL NOT PLAY THAT GAME WITH YOU.

You asked previously,

"Do you think that the Laffer curve is a valid measurement?"


thus demonstrating a GROSS lack of understanding of it at all, and YOU'RE quizzing ME about what it means and when it applies?

What we have here, teacher boy, is failure to communicate. The failure is YOURS and it occurs on two orthogonal axes.

The first is that, discussion of a simple concept, represented as "if A, then B", cannot occur, because you cannot get past the comma. You immediately explode into a stampede of ponies, all in the ritualistic and unmistakable choreography of your Twelve Standard Responses, such that we cannot get to the point that you can see that there is anything beyond "If A". You are so goddamned afraid of admitting error yet so willing to commit error that communication with you simply doesn't happen.

The other is that you degenerated into a sniveling, whiny little boy who complains that bullies are being mean to you and you won't play, you won't, you WON'T.

I told you years ago that a research psychologist could spend a whole career just studying you. This thread alone is worth a week long seminar, at least.

jsid-1283290975-152  GrumpyOldFart at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:42:55 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283271851-893

I have one minor quibble with this. Rather than "income" and "income tax", doesn't the Laffer Curve apply to all taxes and fees on all forms of economic activity?

jsid-1283294452-887  DJ at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:40:53 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283290975-152

"I have one minor quibble with this. Rather than "income" and "income tax", doesn't the Laffer Curve apply to all taxes and fees on all  forms of economic activity?"

Mostly. Of course it applies to capital gains tax rates, and the Bush tax rate cuts included capital gains tax rate cuts. Yes, capital gains tax revenues increased, too.

I think income tax rate cuts was enough for the resident troll to consider.

There is one economic activity that it doesn't apply to, and that is estate tax. The reason it doesn't apply, at least in the same manner as it does to income tax, is that reducing the feddle estate tax rate does not induce people to die and thereby take advantage of it.

Consider it in more detail, though. At the moment, the federal estate tax rate is ZERO. Next year, on January 1, 2011, it reverts to what it was before ten years ago, which is 55% of the value of the estate at the moment of death, except for the first million. That gives "the cost of staying alive a bit longer" a whole new meaning, doesn't it?

jsid-1283295098-979  GrumpyOldFart at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:51:39 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283294452-887

...reducing the feddle estate tax rate does not induce people to die and thereby take advantage of it.

I don't know whether to be thankful or regretful for that one.

;)

jsid-1283304780-487  GrumpyOldFart at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:33:00 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283294452-887

And in a lot of ways it also applies to all expenses of any kind, not just those imposed by the government.

So far as I can tell, taxes are supposed to function the same way as making a long term lease of a service. In this case, what you're purchasing is a consistent, thoroughly predictable framework of rules.

When the cost/benefit analysis quits working in the customer's favor, the customer stops buying. The less consistency and the less predictability that framework of rules has, the less the customer is willing to buy.

jsid-1283305144-28  DJ at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:39:04 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283304780-487

"When the cost/benefit analysis quits working in the customer's favor, the customer stops buying. The less consistency and the less predictability that framework of rules has, the less the customer is willing to buy."

Hence the current doldrums in our economy, as I have stated before.

But, you stated it better and in fewer words!

jsid-1283344496-912  GrumpyOldFart at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:34:57 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283305144-28

Maybe that's a side benefit of never having been educated in economics.

:-E

jsid-1283357629-740  GrumpyOldFart at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:13:58 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283305144-28

The less consistency and the less predictability that framework of rules has, the less the customer is willing to buy.

As a corollary argument, note that as consistency drops (in other words, failing to apply the same rules in the same way to group B as to group A, to individual Y as to individual X), the framework of rules will be perceived as a lesser value for money, even at the identical tax rate.

In short, Congress could probably get away with a higher tax rate if Congressmen obeyed and were subject to the same laws as everyone else.


jsid-1283216127-480  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:55:27 +0000

I'll skip the "you don't understand" stuff if that's ok...    

No, not really.

This is why you fail - you skip the stuff you don't like and just imagine that things fill in the blanks.

DJ and I both gave you explanations of what the "Laffer Curve" is and what it _means_.

We find that revenue increased.    
No doubt that it did but I think it was for different reasons. Nonetehless, good analysis of Mankiw.    


The "reasons" are irrelevant, which if you'd stop, LEARN SOMETHING, you'd UNDERSTAND.

But no, you have to act like the big man, who knows all - it's a threadbare and transparent disguise, it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

Now, back to what I said:


It's an idea. A projection. A description of human behavior.  The Laffer Curve, as it's taught in the general, does not have any specific values on the X and Y axis.  Historically, you can assign them, as you look back.  But the concept of the Laffer Curve is not, as you misunderstand it, to merely decrease taxes.  It's that at the apex of the curve - or technically, the highest apex, because a real Laffer Curve can have more than one - has the maximum revenue. Increase taxes above that, and your revenue decreases. Decrease it below the apex, and they decrease.  
 
This also presumes that maximizing government revenues is the best use of the money. I disagree with that concept, wholeheartedly , but that's another subject entirely. The Laffer Curve has been demonstrated historically numerous - times. You can look at New Jersey and Maryland right now, in the last 2 years to see it's import. They raised tax rates, and their revenue plummeted.  


This is not what you described, and in fact, right after that was posted, you mistakenly called it a "Theory" - which is another word you use, and don't understand.  Right there is the proof of that, Mark. You misused it. AGAIN.


I do agree that it does work in a mirco fashion, if you will, in either smaller subsets or in certain economies that have insanely high taxes.

Go back, and read what I said again. Or what DJ said. Either will work.  Because you are not agreeing with either of us. Because we understand the concept, and you do not.

It "worked" in '62. It "worked" in '80 - and you didn't address that Mankiw was addressing a different number than you cited him in rebuttal to.. It "worked" in '02. It "worked" in '06 and '08 for NY, NJ, and Maryland.

But "worked" is in quotes because that's not how it works.  And at this point any college graduate should be able to understand that. (and most who didn't go to, or graduate college.)


 It's hard for me to look at things in the framework of your question. 

Yes. We know.

This is why you fail.  Trust me, I wouldn't work 2x the hours for .5 the pay. Neither will most people.

But you expect them to.


jsid-1283216390-856  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:59:51 +0000

So, I just want to be clear here, by saying that Laffer was correct, do you subscribe to supply side economics for only certain situations or on a macro level?    

Go back, and read either or both of our comments.

Because you have no fucking clue right now. None.

Stop trying to lecture US. Stop. Take notes. Learn something.


jsid-1283216533-36  Markadelphia at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:02:13 +0000

Ken, I just want to add another comment apologizing to you for not commenting on your thoughts. I'm hoping I will have more time tomorrow to reflect more upon them and discuss.

jsid-1283217176-316  Ken at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:12:56 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283216533-36

No need. BTW, I believe I know the Orwell quote you have in mind.


jsid-1283224279-220  GrumpyOldFart at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 03:11:19 +0000

The reason why Reagan wanted to use it was because he lived it. He would only make four pictures a year and then "go off into the country" so he wouldn't have to pay higher taxes...which at the time was 90 percent! So, in that environment it has been shown to work. You get taxed higher, you don't want to work. But our tax rates right now are very low compared to that time as well as many other countries.

While conceding that 'anecdote' is not the singular of 'evidence', I have also personally seen the same thing at work in.... let's see... 3 doctors, 2 stagehands, a consulting engineer, a concrete finisher and a guy who made fiberglass and kevlar enclosures for aftermarket aircraft avoinics packages. That's since 1995. They get to a certain level of income for the year and then they stop working, because if they continue they go into a higher tax bracket and have less net income for the year.

I'll concede that the doctors and the engineer may be considered "rich", although they didn't consider themselves so and they certainly weren't in Reagan's league. The other half of that group aren't rich by anyone's measure.

No doubt that it did but I think it was for different reasons.

And what do you think those reasons are?

jsid-1283224425-208  GrumpyOldFart at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 03:13:45 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283224279-220

Oops. And 2 surveyors as well.


jsid-1283226445-480  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 03:47:25 +0000

GoF:


And what do you think those reasons are?

(Prediction here)

Nothing verifiable or checkable. But feeeeeeeelings.

But in the meantime, he thinks he's "rebutted" the Laffer Curve. Because he doesn't understand those "other reasons" are part of it.  But he'll launch off of that question, rather than deal with his lacks.


jsid-1283230022-840  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 04:47:02 +0000

Oh, and per the Reagan comment:

" He would only make four pictures a year and then "go off into the country" so he wouldn't have to pay higher taxes...which at the time was 90 percent! "

The top rate was 90% at the peak.  Where do you presume he'd have run into that?  Furthermore, and DJ educated you on this previously, there's a massive difference between marginal and effective rates.  Again, basic info, that you skip over to have a better story.  Problem is, fiction ain't a good predictor of the future.

jsid-1283275773-343  Russell at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:29:37 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283230022-840

"Problem is, fiction ain't a good predictor of the future."

Otherwise, I'd have a flying car right now!


jsid-1283271913-885  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:25:21 +0000

Damn, DJ, nicely done.

jsid-1283274403-347  Russell at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:06:43 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283271913-885

Agreed!

jsid-1283275604-722  GuardDuck at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:26:46 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283271913-885

Agreed, that was beautiful.

jsid-1283277367-480  khbaker at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:56:07 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283271913-885

And THAT is why Markadelphia is still allowed to comment here.

Damn, DJ, that was OUTSTANDING.  Next time you want to do that, email me and I'll put it up as a guest post! 

jsid-1283291400-351  Linoge at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:50:02 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283271913-885

Goddamn.  Pretty freaking amazing, that...  And it is good to know that there is an actual term for "flat part at the top or bottom of a curve".  Yay for picking an engineering degree that allowed me to avoid diffyscrews! 


jsid-1283293285-208  Markadelphia at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:21:25 +0000

***sigh***

I'm never going to get to Ken's comments, am I?

DJ, I will commend you on a much more thorough explanation. Had you done this in the beginning, things might have gone much differently. Chances are that we would not have had such a long thread but then it wouldn't have been as much fun. You narrowed your focus well and, in many ways, proved a more precise point that you were trying to make.

As I read through your explanation, something became very clear: you look at the economy like an engineer. I suppose that's alright considering that mathmatics play a part in economic theories and systems. But math isn't all there is to explaining why economies behave the way they do. More specifically, it's not the only way to explain why revenue behaves the way it does. What I'm basically saying is that you aren't looking at the economy like an economist. At least, not completely. That's cool because you aren't one. For that matter, neither am I. It's hard for me to not look at it from the sociological and psychological point of view so seeing the math is always refreshing and obviously an integral part.

I understood the Laffer Curve, and what it predicts, decades ago. I just explained what it predicts, and that it workes only in certain situations. I am not interested in ponies. I WILL NOT PLAY THAT GAME WITH YOU. 

This statement is really the crux of our problem, isn't it? Since you won't answer my question, I'm not certain if you are a supply sider or not. I am not. Nor am I Keynesian. Nor an Austrian. Nor a laissez-faire proponent. In fact, I'm not sure there is a model that can apply to our predicament right now but that gets more into what my response to Ken (coming soon, I hope) is going to be centered around. If I had to be pinned down, I guess I'm a Manzian.

Anyway, this entire thread, I think you were trying convince me of two different things. The first was that the Laffer curve has merit and is sound in certain situations. I agree. But you have continued to intimate (and have done so, in my opinion, since the beginning) that it was sound on a larger scale. The only way to know this for sure is if you answer my question regarding supply side economics. If you are a supply sider, this is where we would disagree. This would also be the part where we will, in all likelihood, fall back into the pattern that we see (again) in Part 6 of your comments...whether you answer the question or not.

If I think that  the explanation as to why revenue increased in the years we are talking about cannot simply be attributed to the Bush tax cuts, so what? If you do think so, also so what? The opinion that I have is based on my knowledge, research, and economists who, thankfully, think like economists. The opinion you have is based on your knowledge, research and economists as well. What a shock...two people are having a disagreement about the economy and we're not even economists! Economists have these same disagreements all the time...even with themselves...which is why President Truman yearned for a one armed economist. 

So, if your goal was to show me that the Laffer curve has merit in specific situations, you did that a long time ago in this thread. And I agreed with that before we even started...seeing it more fully with some of th research I did (the AEI study). But if your goal was to intimate a much larger economic trend and proove a theory regarding supply side economics, I suspect I would disagree. But I don't know for sure.

jsid-1283295452-649  khbaker at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:57:32 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283293285-208

Anyway, this entire thread, I think you were trying convince me of two different things. The first was that the Laffer curve has merit and is sound in certain situations. I agree. But you have continued to intimate (and have done so, in my opinion, since the beginning) that it was sound on a larger scale. The only way to know this for sure is if you answer my question regarding supply side economics.

And here is where you fail again.  Based on the generic curve described by DJ, decreasing tax rates will have one of three effects:  1)  If you are on the right side of the curve (and the rate cut is not excessive), revenues will increase.  2)  If you are already on the left side of the curve and cut tax rates, revenues will decrease.  If you are on the right side of the curve and slash tax rates just exactly the right amount, revenues will not change.  This is pure mathematics.  No sociology involved.

Now, DJ illustrated - using data, not someone's theory - that a tax rate cut resulted in a revenue increase,  thus indicating that tax rates are currently on the right side of the curve.  No "supply-side economics" is involved.  It's simple math.

But you cannot accept that.  You have to keep dragging out ponies.

jsid-1283303656-51  Russell at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:14:16 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283295452-649

"You have to keep dragging out ponies."

Dead ponies, at that.

jsid-1283304474-917  DJ at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:27:58 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283293285-208

Part 1

"Had you done this in the beginning, things might have gone much differently."

And you wouldn't have learned a thing, because teaching you about the Laffer Curve was not my intention. I did this to teach you about YOU. An opportunity like this was not to be passed up.

It seems to me that a teacher ought to be able to teach himself. So, I endeavored to point you toward knowledge, as any competent teacher would do with a student who exhibits a desire for that knowledge, and the ability to absorb it, to reason further, and to teach himself.

My expectation was that you would fail miserably, and that is precisely what you did.

Go back to the beginning of this comedy, eight days ago, when you asked a few stupid questions:

""Let's see now...we've cut taxes twice under Bush and once under Obama.   
   
Did that work? Why or why not? How?"

They were stupid questions because we answered them here years ago.

Your first difficulty is that, when you read someone else's comment, you do not read all the words on the screen. You behave as if they aren't all there. You play an endless game of "GOTCHA!" by which you try to put someone on the defensive and deflect attention away from your own errors. It never, ever ends, and it never, ever works. Meanwhile, much of what they write simply goes right past you, as if they hadn't even written it.

Your appraisal of the situation from your point of view is:

"Chances are that we would not have had such a long thread but then it wouldn't have been as much fun."

Behaving like a jackass ought not to be fun.

jsid-1283304561-629  DJ at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:29:21 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283304474-917

Part 2

Now, look at my response to your initial questions.

I defined the terms I used. I explained the results of the Bush tax rate cuts. I explained the mechanism by which those results happened. I explained the limited conditions under which tax rates could be cut and result in a tax revenue increase. I did this all in my very first comment here on the subject. Most of it went right past you.

Your response was, in effect, "Show me that's what happened."

That's a good response, if limited. So, I provided the real numbers of the real results, right out of an unimpeachable source, which proved the results I stated. I showed you how to verify those numbers for yourself.

You spent a whole WEEK thrashing about, trying to show that I was wrong, all the while not having actually read or understood what I wrote.

You became hung up, and still are, on the notion that, to prove that the Bush income tax rate cuts RESULTED in increased income tax revenues, one must show cause-and-effect every step of the way. No matter how it was explained to you, the very idea that such is not necessary could not make it past your self-defense mechanism.

That is your second difficulty. You cannot learn what is correct until you first unlearn what is wrong, and THAT you are simply unwilling to do. You enthusiastically make error after error, all in a smoke screen to avoid admitting any error.

So, what did I point you toward?

I showed you where the real, unimpeachable data about the results of the Bush tax rate cuts could be found. I showed you how to search for and extract that data yourself.

I pointed you toward the Wikipedia entry for the Laffer Curve, which I think is fairly well written, and which was the source idea for the Bush tax rate cuts.

I pointed you toward the mathematical basis for the Laffer Curve, which is the Mean Value Theorem of differential calculus. You ignored it completely, as I expected. Even simple arithmetic baffles you, as you have repeatedly demonstrated.

Despite all the hints, all the directions toward knowledge, you would not try to teach yourself that knowledge. It all went right through you as if you were prepping for a colonoscopy. All you did, for a whole weak, was thrash one straw man after another.

jsid-1283304666-642  DJ at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:31:07 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283304561-629

Part 3

The crux of understanding the Laffer Curve and its application is that the ONLY knowledge of human nature, of politics, of economics, and of the mechanism by which it works is IMPLICIT in the ONE assumption that is made to create it. That assumption is that the RATE at which an economic activity is taxed affects the WILLINGNESS of people to engage in said activity, the culmination of which is that, if the rate at which it is taxed is 100%, then people will not engage in said activity at all.

The crux of demonstrating the Laffer Curve is that the ONLY thing one needs to do is lower the tax rate SLIGHTLY and see the results. If that one assumption is correct, then all the aspects of human nature, of politics, of economics, and of the mechanism by which it works is IMPLICIT in the results which follow. If the results from decreasing the tax rate is that tax revenue rises, then the tax rate was to the right of the optimum rate, i.e. the rate at which tax revenue is maximized.

It has been so demonstrated. We were quite fortunate that a nearly ideal situation for testing Arthur Laffer's hypothesis presented itself, and that the President had both the INTELLIGENCE to recognize it and the COURAGE to try it. He was nearly thwarted by a Congress that was controlled by the opposition party. Even so, it was tried in an imperfect form, viz., phased in over several years.

But it was tried properly in that it consisted of relatively small cuts in the various tax rates, such that the result was a very small move along the Laffer Curve. The result was an increase in the tax revenue collected, and that is all it takes to demonstrate the validity of Arthur Laffer's hypothesis.

What sticks in your craw is: 1) President Bush did something significantly right; 2) President obamateur is about to fuck it back up, and we all know it; and, 3) I was right about it from the get-go.

jsid-1283304799-724  DJ at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:33:19 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283304666-642

Part 4

"Anyway, this entire thread, I think you were trying convince me of two different things. The first was that the Laffer curve has merit and is sound in certain situations."

In part, I was trying to teach you that the Laffer Curve is valid, and that it can be demonstrated in certain situations.

In part, I was trying to teach you that the Bush tax rate cuts was one of those situations.

"But you have continued to intimate (and have done so, in my opinion, since the beginning) that it was sound on a larger scale."

The phrase "sound on a larger scale" is gibberish. The Laffer Curve is mathematically sound in its entirety.

"The only way to know this for sure is if you answer my question regarding supply side economics."

Whether or not I support supply side economics is irrelevant; it is yet another pony that I have no interest in.

"So, if your goal was to show me that the Laffer curve has merit in specific situations, you did that a long time ago in this thread."

You did not understand that I stated the notion that tax rate cuts could result in increased tax revenue required certain conditions before it was true. I stated it in my very first comment and several times thereafter. You missed it like it wasn't there.

"But if your goal was to intimate a much larger economic trend and proove a theory regarding supply side economics, I suspect I would disagree."

Go read my comments of Thursday, 05/26/10, at 05:19:10 PM CDT. I stated therein:

"My intention was to get you to understand a simple bit of history, such that the comments I would follow up with would have a better, more understandable context, and such that you would have less opportunity to dive off into the weeds, yet again, without contradicting yourself."

Now, read what I stated earlier today:

"The first is that, discussion of a simple concept, represented as "if A, then B", cannot occur, because you cannot get past the comma. You immediately explode into a stampede of ponies, all in the ritualistic and unmistakable choreography of your Twelve Standard Responses, such that we cannot get to the point that you can see that there is anything beyond "If A". You are so goddamned afraid of admitting error yet so willing to commit error that communication with you simply doesn't happen."

Thus, we cannot get to the "then B" part because you cannot get past the "If A" part.

Now, read my comments of Thursday, 05/26/10 at 05:26:19 PM CDT. Do you see what I was leading up to? Do you see that you cannot read my mind?

The notion that my "goal was to intimate a much larger economic trend and proove a theory regarding supply side economics" is in YOUR head, not mine. I even stated explicitly what I was doing and it STILL went right past you as if the words weren't there.

jsid-1283304859-28  DJ at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:34:19 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283304799-724

Part 5

"What I'm basically saying is that you aren't looking at the economy like an economist. At least, not completely. That's cool because you aren't one."


Thank you for not deliberately insulting me. An economist is thought a genius if he is right ten percent of the time. An engineer cannot affort those rates.

I approach such things from the viewpoint that any explanation of a phenomena has to square with all relevant facts, else it is neither correct nor complete. I have stated this to you explicitly many, many times. An engineer does this by necessity. You ought to do it by choice, but you WILL NOT DO IT AT ALL.

This thread ought not to be thought of as "fun" by you. It ought to embarrass the living hell out of you. That it doesn't speaks volumes.


jsid-1283295288-750  GuardDuck at Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:54:48 +0000

"The only way to know this for sure is if you answer my question regarding supply side economics. If you are a supply sider, this is where we would disagree. This would also be the part where we will, in all likelihood, fall back into the pattern that we see (again) in Part 6 of your comments...whether you answer the question or not." 

I think you are trying to go about this starting from the wrong end of the discussion.

It's proper to start by discussing the base facts and figures, then once those are agreed upon you move to theory and discuss the potential results of the differring approaches. Then, and only then , if there is no cut and dried consensus upon the prevailing theories, do the parties claim to which theory they will each individually observe.

When you start out by insisting that the parties claim their positions before the discussion can even begin, the the discussion has no opportunity to be anything other than adversarial rather than educational. Further, when starting at the end point the discussion ends up wading backward through theories and the facts and figures that back them - it's all rather inneficient, confusing and ripe for error in communication.

You don't need to know if DJ is a "supply sider", because until you and DJ can agree upon the basic facts and figures that are true no matter what theory is to be discussed at a later time, that later discussion can not happen.

jsid-1283300714-935  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 00:25:15 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283295288-750

I think you are trying to go about this starting from the wrong end of the discussion.  

That's not a bug, that's a feature.  Mark does that, whether in ignorance (or it was originally) or by design, but Mark tries to tie up any political discussion to "well, it depends" and essentially to the point where A Hero Must Appear And Solve! The! Problem!

Of course, if anybody from the "Evil" side shows up, they're the villain.

I only wish I was kidding.  (I can't take credit, LabRat's the one who noticed this first and most succinctly.)

jsid-1283305016-57  DJ at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:36:59 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283295288-750

He's a "dry lab specialist". First, get your results. Then, derive your data.


jsid-1283299533-673  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 00:05:33 +0000

Since you won't answer my question

22.
15.

You were saying?

I'm not certain if you are a supply sider or not.

It. Does. Not. Matter.

Laffer is irrele.... Oh, fuck it. 

Mark, this is why we must nuke the educational systme from orbit. Not only after detailed tutelage, but after repeated factual correction, you still think you're better prepared to lecture on this than we are.



I am not. Nor am I Keynesian. Nor an Austrian. Nor a laissez-faire proponent.

Nice list of words. I bet they impress your teachers.

You fail. Mark.  Graphically. Classically. With malice aforesight.


The first was that the Laffer curve has merit and is sound in certain situations. I agree.

Despite correction after correction after correction, after DJ laid this out for you MATHMATICALLY, you insist on misusing this concept.

Just like all the others you misuse.

So, Mr. Answer. The. Question.

Which is more? 22? 15? You can at least give me what serves you for "logic" and tell me why you won't answer that. I'm sure it will be entertaining.


jsid-1283304974-602  Markadelphia at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:36:14 +0000

Kevin, I agree with what you are saying above. If you are on the right side of the curve, revenue will increase for that particular subset of tax payers. That would be the "certain circumstances" part. That part is the sound part of the argument because he is focusing on specifics. But if you read through the rest of his comments from way back in the beginning of this thread they are riddled with opinions and a very generalized view that intimates support of supply side economics and derision of any other theory...especially those held by the Obama administration and many Democrats. Now, I know he does support the president or his council of economic advisors but I'm not sure where he stands on supply side economics.

And now, as I have been very rude to him, must move on to Ken.

jsid-1283305350-297  DJ at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:42:30 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283304974-602

Read my comments on this specific subject. They were posted just before you posted this one, and you didn't have time to read them before posting it.

jsid-1283306525-500  DJ at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 02:02:05 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283305350-297

"Kevin, I agree with what you are saying above."  
 
Kevin stated:  
 
"Now, DJ illustrated - using data, not someone's theory - that a tax rate  cut resulted in a revenue increase,  thus indicating that tax rates are currently on the right side of the curve.  No "supply-side economics" is involved.  It's simple math."  
 
You then proceeded to disagree with that highlighted statement.  
 
You have thus explicitly agreed that  
 
"... that tax rates are currently on the right side of the curve ..."  
 
which means you agree that THE TAX RATES ARE HIGHER THAN THAT WHICH PRODUCES THE MAXIMUM REVENUE TO THE GUBMINT. Thus, you have agreed implicitly that both the gubmint and the taxpayers and corporations would be better off if the tax rates were lower; i.e. the taxpayers would keep more of their income, corporations would be more profitable, and the gubmint would have more revenue.  
 
Now, won't it be interesting to see your response to the Dimocrat's extension or non-extension of the Bush tax rate cuts.  
 
We could have been here FIVE DAYS AGO had you not been such a jackass. As I stated explicitly then, THAT IS THE SUBJECT I WAS HEADED FOR.

(Note that I deleted and corrected this; my highlighting was originally wrong. That's a lot of comments in one day!)


jsid-1283306800-334  Markadelphia at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 02:06:40 +0000

So by GDP alone, assuming one accepts the argument for GDP as a criterion variable for the health/strength of the economy, if we jacked the deficit to 20% of GDP, the economy would be even healthier, wouldn't it? Why stop at 20%? Why not 200%? We'd all be rich -- RICH, I tell you, beyond our wildest dreams! Ahahahahahaha! Whee! This economics stuff easy!

I'm going to take some small sections at a time. First of all, this was hilarious. Very funny, dude!

I put the GDP numbers above as a general guideline. But should GDP be the sole indicator for the health and strength of the economy? No, because GDP does take into account things like intermediary goods or goods produced by citizens outside of the country. And what about good produceds in the past but resold? We would also have to look at goods and services produced and consumed in households which GDP does not. In essence, when one uses GDP as an indicator of a country's income, it's usually less than what it really is which means that the numbers we see in my above graph are probably more conservative and likely not the full piciture of the health of our economy.

But that is the number that people go on so it's all about that perception.


But how different is what the State is doing from a household (or any entity engaging in economic exchange) using credit to buy what it cannot by with its current revenue? If I go get five more credit cards and increase my consumption by $20,000, am I -- depite the increase in my "personal domestic product" -- truly more prosperous? 

Well, in my view, not much different. Great analogy b to the w. It perfectly sums up why we got into this mess in the first place. People went out and spent more money than they could afford. They ran up credit card debt and sunk that debt into their houses. The financial services industry did the same thing on a macro level....taking otherwise sound money (Joe Cassano at AIG) and packaging it up with CDOs and then spending that money from "profits" that were pure air.

Now we have the government spending way too much money on a wide variety of programs that could easily be cut in my view. I think everyone agrees that there is waste in the government. Thus far, we have no one that is willing to do anything about it in Congress. I say Congress because they control the spending. If President Obama wanted to cut the budget in a massive way, he couldn't do it. So, there needs to be a change of thinking in Congress by both parties. It will be interesting to see what the non partisan commission says on Dec 1. And this, after the election.

One thing to note, though, is the current high level of government spending. I'm not a strict Keynesian but there are times and specific circumstances when his theories apply. This would be one of those times. I shudder to think of the alternative given how interconnected our banks, financial services, housing industries and other services have been for the past 11 years.

jsid-1283312178-333  Ken at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 03:36:18 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283306800-334

But should GDP be the sole indicator for the health and strength of the economy? No, because GDP does take into account things like intermediary goods or goods produced by citizens outside of the country. And what about good produceds in the past but resold? We would also have to look at goods and services produced and consumed in households which GDP does not.

The biggest problem with GDP as an indicator is that it permits deficit spending (as a portion of "G," government purchases of goods and services) in the first place. Remember that G comes from three possible sources: taxes, borrowing, and/or monetary inflation. Borrowing merely kicks the can down the road to subsequent generations in the form of (eventually) higher interest rates, higher taxes, or both.

Higher taxation slows or reverses economic activity by, in effect, punishing it: see the Laffer examples and the Hawley-Smoot tariff.

As for inflation, Keynes himself warned of the perils of monetary inflation, in Chapter VI of The Economic Consequences of the Peace: "Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens."

This, by the way, is why Austrians of the Rothbardian persuasion -- which is approximately the way I swing -- advocate the elimination of central banking, fractional reserve lending (one of the areas I disagree with Denninger, who calls instead for 10% reserve requirements with stronger enforcement, as he terms it -- read his claims directly, it's better than my using time and space to try to reconstruct them here, perhaps inaccurately), and fiat currency. It's not impossible to debase a 100% gold dollar, but it's a heck of a lot harder to do.

For the three reasons cited above, I dispute the claim that this is one of those times Keynesian stimulus is called for. At best (for given values of best), it yokes the future to pay for the excesses and malinvestments of the past and present. Shuddering to think of the alternative is understandable, but it didn't work in the 1930s or the 1970s, and there is little reason to think it will be otherwise now. Again, Denninger, who does the math so I don't have to, argues that had we gone ahead and taken our medicine, the contraction would have been on the order of 11 or so percent (I am working from fallible memory, so if someone finds the data and proves me in error, I'll own up to it), and we would now be on our way out of it, with the malinvestment flushed out of the system and the remaining financial institutions solvent. Instead, what we have is more risk piled to the sky, all the large banks still today technically insolvent and only avoiding the consequences by the game of "extend and pretend" they started when they decided not to mark their underwater assets to market any more, and the nonzero chance of an economic contraction of 20-40% if it pops. Shudder? How about an aneurysm?

I didn't have time tonight to read Keynes's entire End of laissez-faire, but I skimmed it a little, and have an excerpt: "The beauty and the simplicity of such a theory are so great that it is easy to forget that it follows not from the actual facts, but from an incomplete hypothesis introduced for the sake of simplicity. Apart from other objections to be mentioned later, the conclusion that individuals acting independently for their own advantage will produce the greatest aggregate of wealth, depends on a variety of unreal assumptions to the effect that the processes of production and consumption are in no way organic, that there exists a sufficient foreknowledge of conditions and requirements, and that there are adequate opportunities of obtaining this foreknowledge."

If sufficient foreknowledge of conditions and requirements are not obtainable, central planning (state intervention in the economy to good effect) is impossible. Keynes elsewhere wrote favorably of some form of "well-managed capitalism," but the argument is self-refuting.

jsid-1283345742-613  GrumpyOldFart at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:55:42 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283312178-333

It's been many years since I read Hayek, but IIRC this is his basic reason "Why the Bad Guys wind up on top" in collectivist systems. The more complete the control of the economy by the central planners is, the less they get handed surprises by the organic growth cycles of ______ number of people's individual economic activities. In short, the attitude of "The Plan trumps every individual's decisions, desires and needs, even including the 'but what you're doing is killing my children' type of decisions", is absolutely vital for central control to work at all. Without it, any freedom to "go outside the box" multiplied by _____ number of people quickly increases the number of variables to the point where the problem is no longer solvable.

jsid-1283428489-387  Ken at Thu, 02 Sep 2010 11:54:49 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283312178-333

PS -- The bit you thought was funny, there really is an econ/finance commentator who goes by the handle Mogambo Guru. He writes like that, and it is funny (considering his usual subject matter, one needs the funny so as not to find oneself absently sawing at a vein with a butter knife while reading).


jsid-1283320382-512  GuardDuck at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 05:53:02 +0000

"sums up why we got into this mess in the first place. People went out and spent more money than they could afford. They ran up credit card debt and sunk that debt into their houses."

Except you're blaming the people for this when in reality uncle sugar at F. May and F. Mac was co-signing for any semi-literate who could make their mark on the loan app. And with the fed backing making even Joe the itinerant street sweepers' quarter million McMansion loan a no lose proposition for anyone with a dollar to invest it's then a no brainer that such commodities became a hotly traded item. 

jsid-1283346271-374  GrumpyOldFart at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:04:31 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283320382-512

So far as I can tell, the idea of Fannie and Freddie spending taxpayer money to guarantee bad loans is a feature rather than a bug in Mark's view. The bug is that private sector financial institutions got into the act, making the problem go viral. So far as I can tell, that's what the Democrats think "financial reform" should fix, while carefully allowing the government to continue using taxpayer money to end run ROI considerations preventing some people from getting loans.

The problem I see with that (other than the underlying philosophical objection to 'government as Robin Hood') is that you can't allow one and disallow the other unless the government and private sector financial institutions are unable to borrow from one another at all, no? And as far as the US government is in debt, and as much new debt (deficit spending) as they are creating, that's really gonna work out, huh?

jsid-1283347775-490  Russell at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:29:35 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283346271-374

Urban housing projects were such a success, the govt decided to move into the single family housing market with spectacular results!

jsid-1283349698-310  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:01:38 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283320382-512

GD:


Except you're blaming the people for this when in reality 

Now you're trying to argue conclusions with him.  But as you can see above, he doesn't understand the basics. He doesn't understand what he's saying - he's throwing words out there with emotions and feeeeeeeeeelings, and by gum, he's TRIED HARD, and deserves an A!

The other day he didn't see any problem with students "assessing" themselves and their knowledge, and acted like we were insulting the students by objecting to the impossible.

He likes to play in the conclusion space - he doesn't like to go back to the assumptions and or basics, because quite often when he does, we tell him he's missed something, doesn't know something, or very often - doesn't know what the words mean that he's using. 

He doesn't know how to draw up, propose, or defend a proposition.  Not that stops him from trying to lecture us.

jsid-1283353436-927  GrumpyOldFart at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:03:57 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283349698-310

He doesn't know how to draw up, propose, or defend a proposition.

If you'll forgive me for crossing subjects into education, this (I believe) is the real core of the problem with US education. It's not what kids are being taught, it's what they are not being taught: Logic and Rhetoric.

They aren't being taught how to frame an argument, nor are they being taught how to defend one. Add a lack of mathematics and poor language skills into that, and teaching someone to think is like giving music lessons to someone you have deliberately deafened.

jsid-1283353559-84  GrumpyOldFart at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:05:59 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283353436-927

Oops.

...like giving music lessons to...

The reason for that is because no matter what they know in their heads, nor how accurate or innacurate that knowledge is, the chances of them communicating it effectively to anyone else is zero.

jsid-1283354491-811  Russell at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:21:32 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283353559-84

Then it all becomes a game of playing on emotions.

jsid-1283380094-753  DJ at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:28:14 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283353436-927

"They aren't being taught how to frame an argument, nor are they being taught how to defend one. Add a lack of mathematics and poor language skills into that, and teaching someone to think is like giving music lessons to someone you have deliberately deafened."

It leads go gibberish, and platitudes.

Want an example?

How about this:

"They ran up credit card debt and sunk that debt into their houses."


Well, lessee now ...

Suppose a person runs a credit card balance right up the card's limit. That is "credit card debt".

Now, when I read "and sunk that debt into their houses", the only mechanism that comes to mind for doing that is to pull equity out of the house by refinancing, and use the cash obtained thereby to pay off the credit card balance. The credit card debt is erased and the mortgage debt is increased.

But that requires equity in the house. The Fannie and Freddie problem was due to buyers with negative equity, i.e. with a mortgage balance that exceeded, particularly from day one, the value of the house.

So, is this not just one more Random But Important Sounding Platitude, and thus an example of what you describe?

jsid-1283358858-952  GuardDuck at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:34:19 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283349698-310

Unix,

"Now you're trying to argue conclusions with him"

I know, but I really wanted to use my itinerant street sweeper snark line.


jsid-1283349936-242  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:05:36 +0000

Urban housing projects were such a success, the govt decided to move into the single family housing market with spectacular results!

They were a smashing success.

By some definitions.  Almost as if it were planned.  Gee, have we seen anything else where there's a government program that tends to result in dependency?

jsid-1283354311-915  Russell at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:18:32 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283349936-242

Nonsense! Better adjust the tinfoil hat there, UJ!

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

 – Norman Thomas, socialist

It's not like we have massive entitlement programs, or have some program running now that's going to commandeer the health care industry and fundamentally change our relationship to the government or anything. Sheesh. Stop listening to all that hate talk radio, those are the wrong things to listen to.


jsid-1283356641-699  Markadelphia at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:57:21 +0000

Except you're blaming the people for this when in reality uncle sugar at F. May and F. Mac was co-signing for any semi-literate who could make their mark on the loan app.

Fannie and Freddie were part of the problem but the sub prime garbage started in CA. If you want to know where it all started, watch this video, thankfully now available online.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/59026/cnbc-originals-house-of-cards

It's around 90 minutes but well worth the viewing. This was originally shown to me by last in line, a guy who falls ideologically in line with many of you. If we are going to continue to discuss housing issues, this in depth analysis is a must.

jsid-1283359881-436  Ken at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:51:22 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283356641-699

The problem goes beyond sub-prime --whatever its genesis -- and many of us are involved (yours truly included).

Sub-prime mortgages with implicit or explicit taxpayer backing are problematic in two ways: They artificially increase demand for mortgages by reducing the nominal cost, and they introduce moral hazard because, in effect, someone else is on the hook for the tab in the event of nonperformance.

Now, let's consider the home mortgage interest deduction (ACHTUNG: This is a thought experiment, not an exercise in finger-pointing). If mortgage interest were suddenly no longer deductible, what would happen to demand for mortgages, and thus housing prices?

Deductibility of property taxes does the same thing, and further illustrates a moral question relating to income taxes, but there isn't time and space to dig into it here and now.

Do you (the editorial and generic you) see how state intervention in markets distort those markets? Offered price and customer's willingness to pay are how exchange decisions get made -- how buyers and sellers decide whether an exchange will make them better off. State intervention makes price signals ambiguous, and regime uncertainty (is the state going to change the nature of its involvement in the market?) makes it worse.

If exchange does not happen, prosperity increases slowly and imperceptibly, where it increases at all. Imagine a setting in which we all of us had to engage in autarky -- any potential surplus value we might create in the things we're good at would largely be foregone, due to the extra time we'd have to spend on things we suck at.

Aside: What mortgage interest deductibility and artificially cheap credit have done to housing prices make avoiding a mortgage difficult, to be sure. The best advice I've seen for avoiding it (to be sure, we are volunteers, not slaves, but that doesn't mean our liberty of action is unconstrained, it just means we signed up for it)  is Dave Ramsey's: Take your down payment and instead of a mortgage, get the best piece of land you can and an, ahem, fully amortized trailer. Live in the trailer on your land and save what you would have spent on the mortgage payment (and preferably do without a driveway full of credit-financed blingmobiles) for three to five years, then have a house built on your land, for which you just write some checks. Of course, I once suggested that to CINCHOME, and for my trouble got looked at like I had nine heads. :)


jsid-1283356991-602  Markadelphia at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:03:17 +0000

government as Robin Hood'

The bloated size of the federal government prevents them from doing any saving of anyone at this point. That's why I tend to fall more in line with Kevin's idea of government par sedimentation then the power grab theory. A tank is a very powerful and effective tool but when it is raining out and the mud is several feet deep, it's useless.


jsid-1283358076-73  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:21:17 +0000



GOF:

If you'll forgive me for crossing subjects into education, this (I believe) is the real core of the problem with US education. It's not what kids are being taught, it's what they are not being taught: Logic and Rhetoric.

That's certainly part of it. But part of it is also "self-esteem".  Whatever you did, it must be the best! Yaaaaaaaaaayyy!!!!!  Hey! you Did It! Doing it is more important than doing it Right! Or correctly!

Thus the ludicrousness of Mark telling us that Critical Pedagogy (part of which explicitly defines that there is no objective truth to be found) isn't really all over the place (despite the evidence) and while he's insisting that there is no objective truth to be found here.

The fact that he cannot set a goal, and follow through with it, but must, must, must move the goalposts.  The issue he has with never, ever, ever, admitting error adds to that. And his attempts to ignore - and insist that other people follow his rules and ignore - the evidence of that.

They aren't being taught how to frame an argument, nor are they being taught how to defend one. Add a lack of mathematics and poor language skills into that, and teaching someone to think is like giving music lessons to someone you have deliberately deafened.

Quite.  Or perhaps, giving music lessons without any regard to what's gone before, and without reference to sheet music.

The reason for that is because no matter what they know in their heads, nor how accurate or innacurate that knowledge is, the chances of them communicating it effectively to anyone else is zero.

But you must feel fiercely, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Even though there's no objective reality. Yours is.  (The self-negation in that principle, of course, shall be ignored.)

Russell:

Then it all becomes a game of playing on emotions.


It's a pre-adolecent view of the world. Because. Because I say so. Which is why you have to talk to pre-adolesents like that.  "Why do I have to do this?"  Because I say so.  Which in turn is how they view the world - because they haven't learned enough to understand base concepts and advance them. I want this right now.  Why?  Because.  But what about later? 

Many people never grow out of this. I can tell you of friends who make bad decision after bad decision because they refuse to plan for the future. But at least when they're complaining, they understand that they COULD have done differently and they COULD have planned. They just didn't.

This is why critical thinking, learning to understand why you're doing something, self-introspection has to be a learned skill.  You don't develop it by yourself, because there's no real reason to. Until the world intervenes.  And in the school system today, they're all about not allowing that to be learned.  They don't teach it, and they specifically and intentionally try and avoid it. Because I said so. 

And that's pretty much what you can take from Mark's stuff here.  I've explained it, DJ did so mathematically, and Mark is still stuck in because I say so, that's wrong. Why? Because I said so.

jsid-1283363488-445  GrumpyOldFart at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:51:35 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283358076-73

But part of it is also "self-esteem".  Whatever you did, it must be the best! Yaaaaaaaaaayyy!!!!!  Hey! you Did It! Doing it is more important than doing it Right! Or correctly!

The reason I consider it the core is because people competent in logic would see the flaw in the "self-esteem" philosophy for themselves, regardless of what the teacher tried to convince them of.

jsid-1283364374-537  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:06:14 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283363488-445

Dat's a very good point.


jsid-1283358274-517  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:24:34 +0000

A tank is a very powerful and effective tool but when it is raining out and the mud is several feet deep, it's useless.

Mark:

Stop with the attempts to illustrate.  Please. You don't do that well.. Even though you won't listen to me there, either.

But trust me, your attempts to illustrate just further prove what you don't know you don't know.


jsid-1283358549-711  Markadelphia at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:29:10 +0000

This, by the way, is why Austrians of the Rothbardian persuasion

Rothbard, eh? What a character he was...anyway...as his been common with your points above, excellent observations!

If sufficient foreknowledge of conditions and requirements are not obtainable, central planning (state intervention in the economy to good effect) is impossible. Keynes elsewhere wrote favorably of some form of "well-managed capitalism," but the argument is self-refuting.

This reminds me of something Ed said on my blog a while back. "It is the government's job to protect the citizens from force and fraud." Now consider this quote from George Orwell regarding Hayek.


[A] return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the state."

Review of the Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek, etc" As I Please, 1943-1945: The Collected Essays, Journalism & Letters, Vol 3

If the government is at least a player in central planning, it is very difficult for them to protect us against force and/or fraud. Hence the reason why see things happen today in places like Mossville, LA or the PG & E debacle. And when both parties are essentially lap dogs for corporate interests, their willingness to protect us against force and fraud is virtually non existent.

We may find ourself in agreement regarding the Fed. I'm always amazed at the number of people who have no idea that the Fed is a privately owned bank. They think that it is owned by the government. Depending upon where you fall ideologically, I suppose, one sees one to be the tool of the other.

jsid-1283377759-211  Ken at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:49:19 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283358549-711

[A] return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the state."

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C.S. Lewis


jsid-1283361884-605  GuardDuck at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:24:51 +0000

"I'm always amazed at the number of people who have no idea that the Fed is a privately owned bank."

That is at best only half the story.

From the Federal reserves website:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5

Who owns the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.
As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, ...


jsid-1283369084-304  Markadelphia at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:24:44 +0000

Well, that's what they say but if you read further in your link...


The Federal Reserve's income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. Other sources of income are the interest on foreign currency investments held by the System; fees received for services provided to depository institutions, such as check clearing, funds transfers, and automated clearinghouse operations; and interest on loans to depository institutions (the rate on which is the so-called discount rate).

So, who owns shares in the Fed? And why is that the GAO is not allowed to audit transactions for or with a foreign central bank or government, or nonprivate international financing organization?

Yes, it is technically true that Congress has authority over the Fed but when you have a large number of lobbyists from the banking and financial services industry assigned compared to the small number of elected representatives (and writing position papers for them), what sort of control is that?


jsid-1283376075-492  GuardDuck at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:21:16 +0000

"So, who owns shares in the Fed?"

From the link:

the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

"And why is that the GAO is not allowed to audit transactions for or with a foreign central bank or government, or nonprivate international financing organization?"


Not sure where you got that, but also from the link:

To ensure financial accountability, the financial statements of the Federal Reserve Banks and the Board of Governors are audited annually by an independent outside auditor. In addition, the Government Accountability Office, as well as the Board's Office of Inspector General, can audit Federal Reserve activities.

Under the Federal Banking Agency Audit Act (enacted in 1978 as Public Law 95-320), which authorizes the Comptroller General of the United States to audit the Federal Reserve System, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has conducted numerous reviews of Federal Reserve activities. In addition, the Board's Office of Inspector General (OIG) audits and investigates Board programs and operations as well as those Board functions delegated to the Reserve Banks. Completed and active GAO reviews and completed OIG audits, reviews, and assessments are listed in the Board’s Annual Report (before 2002, the reviews were listed in the Board's Annual Report: Budget Review).
The Board's financial statements, and its compliance with laws and regulations affecting those statements, are audited annually by an outside auditor retained by the OIG. The financial statements of the Reserve Banks are also audited annually by an independent outside auditor. In addition, the Reserve Banks are subject to annual examination by the Board. The Board's financial statements and the combined financial statements for the Reserve Banks are published in the Board's Annual Report.


jsid-1283383336-146  Markadelphia at Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:22:16 +0000

Not sure where you got that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federal_Reserve#Government_regulation_and_supervision

That's quite a list of four things hence the reason why there are so many conspiracy theories floating around out there. If the GAO may not audit these four types of transactions, how does that affect Congress's ability to oversee it?

And we also have this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Federal_Reserve#Private_ownership


Some have criticized this quasi-private arrangement, claiming that the Federal Reserve System is a private bank. For example, Charles August Lindbergh objected to the private ownership of the Federal Reserve banks, complaining that the financial system "has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board ... [which] administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money."[52]

Just so we are clear, I'm not refuting your comments. They are obviously true as well. It's the quasi-public, quasi-private nature of the Fed that leads to many questions and a whole lot of gray. As I said above, depending upon where you fall ideologically, I suppose, one sees one to be the tool of the other.


jsid-1283424459-534  GrumpyOldFart at Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:47:41 +0000

Just so we are clear, I'm not refuting your comments.

That's "refudiating".

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.


jsid-1283436662-413  geekwitha45 at Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:11:02 +0000

Oh, come now.

Surely we can muster enough intestinal fortitude to stagger across the 300 comment line?


I would point out that this entire "tax does/doesn't do something desirable to some privileged section of the economy" argument entirely fails to address the elephant sitting in the middle of the room:

That using taxation and quasi governmental monetary policy as a lever to manipulate money and markets is wildly extraconstitutional in the first place, and not in the government brief.

To some degree, engaging in the argument concedes/legitimizes a governmental role not as an impartial umpire of the market, but as *the* primary mover.


But if pursuing that line of thought doesn't interest anyone, I also offer these alternative thoughts to get us across the threshhold:

 "Marxy is a poo poo head!" and  "John Maynard Keynes eats muppets!"

jsid-1283439674-91  Russell at Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:01:14 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283436662-413

"Surely we can muster enough intestinal fortitude to stagger across the 300 comment line?"

Dead ponies can still be beaten!

"To some degree, engaging in the argument concedes/legitimizes a governmental role not as an impartial umpire of the market, but as *the* primary mover.  "

Oh, indeed. The government's job should be upholding the law and the law should be upholding Lockean property rights, but we're so far afield at this point, it's more like we are shuffling chairs around the deck as the neo-Keynesians confidently assure us that there are no American troops in Baghdad.

jsid-1283440037-761  khbaker at Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:07:19 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283436662-413

Only nine more comments to go! :-D

jsid-1283441748-516  Ken at Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:35:48 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283440037-761

Kevin, put up a post consisting entirely of:

"Discuss. Cite three examples."

Bet we get 500 comments out of that one. :-D

jsid-1283441390-753  Ken at Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:29:51 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283436662-413

That using taxation and quasi governmental monetary policy as a lever to manipulate money and markets is wildly extraconstitutional in the first place, and not in the government brief.  
 
Not to mention morally reprehensible.


I don't say that as an expression of personal aggravation; I mean it in a literal sense. Distorting the working of price -- the market's allocation mechanism -- is arguably fraudulent, whether or not fraud is intended. Monetary inflation, of course, is fraudulent on its face.


jsid-1283440573-269  Markadelphia at Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:16:13 +0000

Folks, we'll make it. Hopefully I'll have some time later today to address some more of Ken's great points. His list of nine items above regarding the principles of economics alone are worth at least 20 or more responses.

B to the W, Kevin, what is the record for most comments?

jsid-1283442419-283  khbaker at Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:46:59 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283440573-269

Honestly, I don't know.  But 300 is highly unusual.


jsid-1283440851-434  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:21:03 +0000

That using taxation and quasi governmental monetary policy as a lever to manipulate money and markets is wildly extraconstitutional in the first place, and not in the government brief.  

Hey, I addressed that. Well, mostly. You saying you didn't RTWT?


This also presumes that maximizing government revenues is the best use of the money. I disagree with that concept, wholeheartedly , but that's another subject entirely. 

If we can't get Mark to comprehend the nature of the Laffer Curve, which has a lot more than taxes to recommend it, I don't think we need to be discussing more meta-issues.

Because *that's* even MORE complicated.


jsid-1283440965-862  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:22:46 +0000

I'm sure I can eat up another 8-10 asking Mark why he won't answer which number is greater, and him refusing to answer, but demanding answers of us to his strawmen. 

jsid-1283442654-832  Russell at Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:50:59 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283440965-862

Er, isn't that how we got to 200?

jsid-1283442781-297  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:53:01 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283442654-832

Just imagine if Mark would have the sack to nut up and reply!


jsid-1283442619-183  Russell at Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:50:19 +0000

Well, this is cheery:

I have a very disturbing email that came in this evening.

It alleges out-and-out fraudulent reporting of home sales in one of the regional MLS systems.

That is, prices paid that are in fact much lower than the "sold" prices reported in the MLS.

The person in question claims to have seen over 100 of these in his area.  I have copies of two, and it appears, from the evidence that I have, that at least for those two the claim is accurate.

One in particular I was able to pull the auction data on.  It "sold" under reserve, is listed as sold in the MLS at ~25% higher than the "sold" bid, and the premium is disclosed as 5%.  This property also has a 90-day "anti-flip" provision on it, implying that the paper may be held by one of the GSEs.  (It's a nice-looking place, incidentally.)

Here's the problem, obviously - Case-Schiller and other "home statistics" numbers related to price paid are all computed off these numbers provided by the local Realty boards (via NAR.)  If the data in the MLS is bogus then so is the so-called "median sales price" and so are Case-Schiller's numbers!

These are not small discrepancies either - in both cases the "over-reporting" is by approximately 25%!


http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=165800


jsid-1283442873-117  geekwitha45 at Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:54:35 +0000

300!

This ...is...SPARTA!


jsid-1283443193-921  Russell at Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:00:27 +0000

Why stop at three hundred?!

I bet we can keep this party train a-runnin'

How about: Repeal the 17th Amendment!


jsid-1283454091-724  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:01:31 +0000

And of course, if we accept Mark's claims about Obama's gun cred (that is, he voted for a rider with no opposition, that has never been used, tested in court)....

And give him a net of +1 on guns (as Mark does, ignoring his Joyce time, his other comments, legislation in IL, etc.)....

Looks like he just went negative. Whoops.

Obama import ban on rifles confirmed

Yeah, we don't want 60 year old rifles falling into the "wrong hands." (Why do I think he means _us_?)


jsid-1283528584-186  DJ at Fri, 03 Sep 2010 15:43:04 +0000

Your read meat story of the day:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/305313.php

Tasty, wasn't it?

Now, for those of you who won't go there (pushing a mouse button is SO hard), I'll quote the lede, from the title onward, for posterity:

"Obama: Hey, You Know What Might Be a Good Idea To Boost The Economy? A Payroll Tax Holiday

"Who proposed that? Oh yeah, I did. And so did thirty thousand economists.

"Two years ago. On the theory -- see if you can follow this logic, because it gets twisty -- that if you reduce the cost to employers for hiring and maintaining staff, they might actually hire and maintain more staff.

"Did you follow that? I know, it's heady. Let me try again:

"If costs for a thing go down, you can afford more of it.

"No? Still too complicated?

"Here, here's a talking sandwich then.

"Hey, fucklebuns! It's easy as baby-shit, see?
If hookers lower their prices by 5% you can buy 21
cooch-whores for the cost of 20! What are you, touched?!

"You get it? Yeah, well, see, Obama didn't get it, and I think they had to invite time-travelling baloney sandwich Johnny Coldcuts to the White House to make him understand.

"But now, facing a double-dip Great Recession largely of his own design, suddenly he's willing to confront all sorts of disturbing scenarios, such as the bizarre notion that when taxes are reduced, economic activity increases."

Now, wasn't that fun?

jsid-1283535283-563  Russell at Fri, 03 Sep 2010 17:34:43 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283528584-186

Clearly, more Cult(tm) thinking!

jsid-1283539129-91  GuardDuck at Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:38:49 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283528584-186

But see, nobody but the greedy rich needs 21 or even 20 cooch-whores.

If we tax the rich enough so that they only have enough left to buy 10 hookers (see, we're still being generous), we can take that money and give 10 free hookers to the poor.

But of course we would have to create the new department of homeland hookers to run the national pimp program, and that would need funding to operate. As well as the presidential pimp advisory board to oversee that program. And we would need to beef up the treasury and revenue services to process the extra work. (of course there would have to be armed enforcement agents with their own tactical team for enforcement of the program)

After those administrative costs are taken care of we could easily fund to the poor 5 free hookers.

But we can't give away actual, you know, free stuff. So we would have to tax the recipients of those 5 hookers. Such benefits would also be considered taxable by state and local governments.

Increased taxation and increased jobs (government). See! Economic growth!

Nevermind that we took what started at 20 private sector employees, that could've increased to 21 and turned it into 15 employees and a bunch of economy stagnating government largesse.


jsid-1283542605-520  Markadelphia at Fri, 03 Sep 2010 19:36:45 +0000

Alright, it's time to dive into Ken's Nine Points...let's bring them down here so we don't have to scroll back up so far...

1. People act.  
2. Every action has a cost.  
3. People respond to incentives.  
4. People make decisions at the margin (they make trade-offs).  
5. Trades make people better off. (Tooting the horn of my own discipline, the late great Wroe Alderson (1957, 1965) defined marketing as -- paraphrased -- exchange of items in the assortments held by A and B such that the value of A and B's assortments after the exchange are both greater than they were before.)  
6. People are rational (might be better to say they do things they expect to provide them with net benefits). Carden's elaboration of this point is a must read; "people are rational" does not equal "people are Spock." I add on my own hook that some utilities are intangible and known clearly only to the beholder.  
7. Using markets is costly, but using government can be costlier still. This gets into transaction costs, an interesting subject in business (where it is germane to the "make or buy" decision) as well as in economics. I will write a post at my own blog (real soon now) about the way State action distorts transaction costs in business.  
8. Profits tell businesses they are helping others, while losses tell businesses they are wasting resources.  
9. We shouldn't ignore the long-term and unintended consequences of policies and actions. If you've ever heard the term "broken-window fallacy" (see Bastiat and Henry Hazlitt), this is the point they're trying to make. It differs from the precautionary principle (waggishly summarized as "never do anything for the first time") by actually attempting to trace out the consequences of an action to everyone, not just particular groups. Again, Carden's explanation is better than mine.


In many ways, these points are similar to Mankiw's ten principles of economics. Before we get into talking about Ken's points and compare them to Mankiw's points, let's take a look at how Mankiw groups his ten points. 

How People Make Decisions
1. People face tradeoffs
2. The cost of something is what you give up to get it
3. Rational people think at the margins
4. People respond to incentives

How People Interact
1. Trade can make everyone better off
2. Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity
3. Governments can sometimes improve market conditions

How The Economy Works as a Whole
1. A country's standard of living depends on its ability to produce goods and services
2. Prices rise when the government prints too much money
3 Society faces a short run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment

jsid-1283551260-745  Ken at Fri, 03 Sep 2010 22:01:03 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283542605-520

"2. Prices rise when the government prints money."

Fixed it for Mankiw...not that he would get it.


jsid-1283545073-22  Markadelphia at Fri, 03 Sep 2010 20:17:53 +0000

Ken's Points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 bascially fall under the "How People Make Decisions" umbrella and largely fall in line with Mankiw. It's important to note that Mankiw frames rationality in terms of thinking at the margins. So that would be a combination of K4 and K6.

On the whole, I do agree that this is an excellent way (by both Ken and Mankiw) to frame an economic discussion. But, as I have been saying all along in this thread, there's more to analyzing human behavior than the rational choice theory. In many ways, this is why we have so many disagreements about many issues. I tend to look at behavior from a wider view. While I agree with the rational choice model (Smith), it is only one of two basic tenets of interactionism. Sociologist William Kornblum

Rational-choice models of behavior prompt us to look at patterns of behavior to see how they conform to and depart from normal expectations of personal profit and loss. But those models do not always identify the underlying values. How we learn what to value in the first place, how we communicate our choices and intentions, how we learn new values through interaction-all are subject s that require other concepts besides those found in rational choice theories of behavior.

So, it's not simply that people's inherent interest to seek the most pleasure and minimize their pain. It's also about the symbolic interaction of our every day lives. How do we decide what is "good" to have and what is "bad?" I think that part of the reason we arrive at the answers we do come from our interactions with others. How someone is greeted, for example, at a meeting varies from culture to culture and the value of it is constructed by each culture. This interacton (face work) plays a part in how business is conducted on a daily basis.

There's also the fucntionalist perspective. It's not enough to say that "People respond to incentives." Many here have stated that people will work more if they are taxed less. In certain circumstances and tax brackets, that may be true. But how much I am taxed has no bearing on how much I want to work. I would do what I do for free because I love it. So would many other people in our society...if they took the time to find this out. I saw an interview with Warren Buffet recently and he said that the trick is to find something you love and make a living at doing it. Too many people fail to do this and, as a result, are simply extrinsically motivated.

No doubt, though, our culture is very extrinsically motivated. We want the 4G iPone, the flat screen and the nice car. People, however, get these things and still are not happy and then they lose their incentive. Why? Because of anomie. The structure of our culture defined "incentive" as being material based. This is why I tend to fall more on the functional side of the equation. The various groups and communities of our culture define reward from working hard in a monetary fashion. When this doesn't happen for many people, even if they do make money, the feel like they don't function well within the defintion of our structure. If our culture defined motivation and incentive differently...from an intrinsic point of view...we might have happier and more productive people. Our incentive for doing something shouldn't exlcusively be based around material value but around mental, emotional, and spiritual value as well.

The third basic theory of human behavior is conflict theory. Certainly when there are events like war and natural disaster, who has the power plays a part in everything we are discussing. Obviously, this is where Marx comes into play but his theories have largely proved false because there can never be such a thing as a classless society. And when the people own shares of stock in the company they work for, how can they be in a different class than the owners? Time has shown Marx to be completely wrong.


jsid-1283546249-33  Markadelphia at Fri, 03 Sep 2010 20:37:30 +0000

Noticeably absent from Ken's points is this...


Governments can sometimes improve market conditions 

Mankiw states there are two broad reasons for a government to intervene in the economy-to promote efficiency and to promote equity. He goes on to discuss externality which is essentially what happened when Joe Cassano decided to blow a 500 billion dollar hole in the universe. Many "bystanders" were affected by this and that's where government comes into play. I had someone post this on my blog recently.

The genesis of the wall street mess, simplified, is:
1. Home buyers got greedy and did not do their homework, but they all wanted to buy.
2. Mortgage marketers got greedy and did not do their homework, but they all wanted to sell to those eager buyers.
3. Wall street brokers got greedy and did not do their homework, but they all wanted to buy. Likewise, they all wanted to sell to eager investors, who likewise got greedy and failed to do their homework.
4. The SEC was too busy watching porn on the job to actually do their jobs.


This is essentially the point of the doc "House of Cards" that I urge all of you to watch.

Mankiw admits that market failure, of which externality is a part, is an example of how the invisible hand fails to allocate resources efficiently. Market power would be another example and we certainly see that being played out in many ways such as ownership of the media, for example.

On the whole, though, markets ARE the best way to promote economic well being and organize economic activity. I don't want the bizarre hyrbrid of Wall Street, the Fed, and government stoolies that we have right now centrally guiding our economic well being. I want Mankiw's "millions of firms and households" to do it. Like Ed, I want our government to protect us from fraud and force. Ironically, this is the entire point of Michael Moore's last film.

jsid-1283551758-260  Ken at Fri, 03 Sep 2010 22:09:18 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283546249-33

The calculation problem -- the impossibility of sufficient foreknowledge of conditions and requirements -- also makes it impossible, other than by sheer accident, for the state to improve market efficiency.

As for equity:

4. The SEC was too busy watching porn on the job to actually do their jobs.  
 
The government, improving market conditions.


jsid-1283546423-827  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 03 Sep 2010 20:42:04 +0000

I tend to look at behavior from a wider view.

Or, as DJ says, "Random But Important Sounding Gibberish. "

Obviously, this is where Marx comes into play but his theories have largely proved false because there can never be such a thing as a classless society. And when the people own shares of stock in the company they work for, how can they be in a different class than the owners? Time has shown Marx to be completely wrong.

Ah, I'm glad to see you've changed your mind on this.  So, shall we revisit then, the S-CHIP discussions and the Frosts? 


jsid-1283548660-199  GrumpyOldFart at Fri, 03 Sep 2010 21:17:40 +0000

I would do what I do for free because I love it.

No offense Mark, I'm sure you believe that, but I call bullshit.

The reason I feel confident in this is because I have had one of those jobs getting paid to do what I love. And yes, I have put in 65 hours over a 3 day holiday weekend for that job (not unusual for that type of work), and didn't get paid all that well for it. But I did get paid.

There was a time when I did basically the same job for free, as a form of entertainment because I love it. But I sure as hell didn't put in any hours like that. Why? Because since I was not getting paid for it, I couldn't afford to. I had to budget my time for other priorities, so I could make a living.

But how much I am taxed has no bearing on how much I want to work.

So the reason I call bullshit on this proposition is because 1) I suspect teaching is not your only priority (you are married, right?), and even if your wife is willing to support you, would you be willing to contribute nothing to your household? If not, then you would be in the position I was, above. And 2) somehow I don't think of you as altruistic enough or stupid enough to stay with a free gig that is making everyone but you wealthy. If you were taxed 100% of your income, you'd still teach? Really? So that the government could give it away as a Wall Street bailout, or as a present to the head of your union, who sure as hell isn't doing what he does for free, and is wealthier than you'll ever be in two lifetimes? Keep in mind, this means if you choose to help someone yourself, the resources to fuel your altruism have to be borrowed from your wife.

I don't buy it.

***

And to be honest, I don't see how the Kornblum quote has any slightest bearing on the subject at hand. No two people have precisely the same assessment of "value". That's the only thing that makes trade possible. So far as I can tell, it's completely irrelevant to economics why someone considers something to be of value or not, the only relevance is whether someone considers something to be of value or not.

If I go buy a Ford truck, does it make any difference at all to the salesman, the dealer, Ford Motor Company, or the US economy whether

I want to buy it for my son
I want to buy it to go 4 wheelin in the mud
I want to buy it because I'm depressed and plan to commit suicide by driving it into a bridge abutment
I want to buy it because I need it for work
I want to buy it because I'm I'm a stupid wastrel who doesn't actually need a truck at all

Okay, I'll accept that "I'm buying it because I need it for work" might have an effect on the larger economic picture. But if I get killed in a car wreck on the way home, the salesman, the dealer and Ford Motors don't suffer even a little bit.

The only part of any of those statements that is economically relevant is "I want to buy it".

jsid-1283549311-22  Russell at Fri, 03 Sep 2010 21:28:31 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283548660-199

Value is subjective.

Which is why the Left never understands property, they want to force their subjective value on yours, i.e. your property has less value to you than it does to the collective.

jsid-1283550167-117  DJ at Fri, 03 Sep 2010 21:42:48 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283548660-199

"I would do what I do for free because I love it."

I don't think he believes it, Grumpy. But he wants you to think he does because he's being intallekshull, y'see.

Now, look at the context of that quote by quoting what he surrounded it with:

"It's not enough to say that "People respond to incentives." Many here have stated that people will work more if they are taxed less. In certain circumstances and tax brackets, that may be true. But how much I am taxed has no bearing on how much I want to work. I would do what I do for free because I love it. So would many other people in our society...if they took the time to find this out. I saw an interview with Warren Buffet recently and he said that the trick is to find something you love and make a living at doing it. Too many people fail to do this and, as a result, are simply extrinsically motivated."

Do you see the caveat that I've highlighted?

No matter what he wants, if he wasn't being supported by his wife, then he would NOT work long hours at a job that didn't pay anything because the bills have to be paid, such as food, shelter, clothing, utilities, transportation, and so on, and so on.

But golly, doesn't he appear to be virtuous in his own mind?


jsid-1283548944-73  Russell at Fri, 03 Sep 2010 21:22:24 +0000

Obviously, this is where Marx comes into play but his theories have largely proved false because there can never be such a thing as a classless society.

Gah! No, Marx's system has to have two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and there has to be a continual revolution between them until there is the glorious workers paradise. He posited that once a true socialist state was in place, the friction would slowly ebb away as the State become defunct. But democracy under capitalism was still just the bourgeois ruling the proles. Wait, isn't that what you keep saying? Business runs government?

Read H.G. Wells "Time Machine" for a critique of Marx's classes.

No wonder you object to being called a Marxist, you have no idea what he's really saying. I, for one, am shocked!


jsid-1283551959-266  Russell at Fri, 03 Sep 2010 22:12:39 +0000

Hey, is anyone else having problems with the 'Like' function? I keep liking things that aren't tagged as such.


jsid-1283554099-486  Markadelphia at Fri, 03 Sep 2010 22:48:23 +0000

No matter what he wants, if he wasn't being supported by his wife, then he would NOT work long hours at a job that didn't pay anything because the bills have to be paid, such as food, shelter, clothing, utilities, transportation, and so on, and so on.  
 
Of course, if my wife didn't make as much as she did or if she didn't work at all, clearly I would have to find a higher paying job, work two jobs, or we'd have to adjust our lifestyle. My point in bringing up that I love what I do is it directly relates to motivation. I think that if more people were intrinsically motivated, our country would be way better off than it is right now. I get the sense that some people here don't like what they do for a living. Is that true?  
 
 
would you be willing to contribute nothing to your household?  
 
Well, it depends on how you define "contribute?" It is it exclusively under the monetary umbrella? There are many ways to contribute to a household. I was the stay at home parent before I became a teacher. My wife went back to work fairly quickly after the birth of our children and I did quite a bit of the "mommy stuff." Did I contribute? In fact, those interactions shaped my behavior (symbolic interaction) and helped to define the things that have value for me.  
 
 
The only part of any of those statements that is economically relevant is "I want to buy it".  
 
But we're talking about behavior and why people behave the way they do. Economics is the study of how society manages is scarce resources (Mankiw). I'm sure you will agree that there is more to managing scarcity than "I want to buy it."  
 
Value is subjective. Which is why the Left never understands property, they want to force their subjective value on yours, i.e. your property has less value to you than it does to the collective.  
 
Value is subjective...which is why you have to look at symbolic interaction...all the little and seemingly mundane communications that we have every day...as something that defines value. I have a friend whose daughter asked her how old she was when she got her first cel phone. My friend answered "27." The daughter, who is 10 and desperately wants a cel phone, than proceded to pepper her with questions like "What kind of phone did you have?" to which she answered, "It was attatched to the wall at home with a rotary dial on it." The daughter had no idea what she was talking about and then wondered, very cutely, "So....you had to take it off the wall to have it with you every time you went somewhere?" Our society has now defined phones as a necessity to have everywhere. This as come about through symbolic interactionism. Teenagers text constantly because they saw others placing value on it so they changed how they communicate.  
 
And, Russell, please join me in a cessation of generalizations about people.  
 
the resources to fuel your altruism have to be borrowed from your wife.    
 
See, you are still thinking exclusively within the rational choice model and at the margins. My "altruism" could be something as simple as peforming the duty of child psychologist for no charge...which I essentially do every day...with my children...the neigborhood kids...the kids that I teach and coach. As Mastiff said in the EDU thread, "the rare, blessed few who would have spent their lives in darkness, were it not for the intervention of a single, providential teacher who somehow kindled a spark. "  
 
And where does that child end up who has that guidance? What value do they have?  I strive to be this spark every single day and will do so for the rest of my life. I will never retire unless I am forced to or am physicaly unable to perform my duties.This spark could lead anywhere and this would be why I cheerlead all of you to go and mentor a child. In the final analysis, my goal for posting here is to one day see no comments from my posts because all of you are too busy (as Mastiff would say) out turning children "into the next Franklin." 

jsid-1283557214-74  DJ at Fri, 03 Sep 2010 23:40:14 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283554099-486

"And, Russell, please join me in a cessation of generalizations about people."

Now, THAT'S funny. Imagine YOU chastising someone else about jumping to conclusions.

jsid-1283562567-991  GrumpyOldFart at Sat, 04 Sep 2010 01:09:28 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283554099-486

Well, it depends on how you define "contribute?"

No it doesn't. The reason why is because whether you count it in money, chores, attention, fielding the hard decisions, whatever, if you're spending 8 hours a day working for free that's 8 hours a day that you are not doing any of that for your family.

The same is true when you go off and work for a check, but at least at the end of the day you have brought home something that can be used as a resource.

My point in bringing up that I love what I do is it directly relates to motivation. I think that if more people were intrinsically motivated, our country would be way better off than it is right now. I get the sense that some people here don't like what they do for a living.

Great, if you can do it. But it begs two questions:

1) What do you do with the guy who has his heart set on being a singer, but has a tin ear? Or any variation on that, what he wants to do and what he's suited to do are completely alien to one another. Don't tell me it doesn't happen, I've known more than one of that guy.

2) Who takes out the garbage, who works at the sewage treatment plant, etc? Unless you can answer that one, I have no choice to define this as fantasy.

jsid-1283585680-805  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:34:41 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283562567-991

1) What do you do with the guy who has his heart set on being a singer, but has a tin ear? Or any variation on that, what he wants to do and what he's suited to do are completely alien to one another. Don't tell me it doesn't happen, I've known more than one of that guy.
2) Who takes out the garbage, who works at the sewage treatment plant, etc? Unless you can answer that one, I have no choice to define this as fantasy.


Hey, we dealt with that with Mark before.  He wanted all the janitors to be astronauts. Seriously.  Could not understand the problem there. Somehow, we were all - something. Some kind of bigot who just couldn't see the world that Could Be if everyone who wanted to be an astronaut just.. could be. I'll try and find that thread.  As per his usual, he didn't think about what the obvious ramifications would be of his "plan".


Great, if you can do it.

Not really. For here we have Mark in a nutshell. Make some decision on How The World Must Work, make or use a really bad example, then insist that his experience - even though it's almost never actually germane to the discussion - proves his point.  While I understand what you mean by "Great, if you can do it," I don't think Mark will.  In fact, I know he won't.  

Even when he says something like this, and you try and get him to explain what it means, he'll not be able to.  Truely, this is a thread to bookmark.

When Mark doesn't think something should happen, he just ignores it.  He'll complain about "slaveowning" companies, and "enslaving" people for jobs, mortgages, contracts, but when you say "What then of this," and give him something he supports that's the same or worse - he Sir Robins.  Look at the very simple question, and how hard he avoids answering it or dealing with it, that I've been harping on.  22 or 15.  Of course, everybody reading this, including Mark, knows what the truth is, but Mark cannot say "I was wrong." Somewhere he knows that his entire worldview is ad hoc and without firm grounding.  And I'll continue, to make the point, and to point out that even if Mark says something that's easily disproven, he won't admit it, nor will he consider what that incorrect assumption means.  Because that's part of the problem here, when we concede things that we would to a reasonable person.  

He's not one.  (Or else I wouldn't be asking him to go back and deal with the slight problem that he claimed that (what turned out to peak at 15) is far more than (what turned out to average 22) - and what that means for the rest of his snap decisions.


jsid-1283557325-507  Russell at Fri, 03 Sep 2010 23:42:07 +0000

"And, Russell, please join me in a cessation of generalizations about people." 

Nah, my Cult(tm) membership gives me discounts at the local Death Merchant.

Besides, I keep forgetting you don't understand set theory.


jsid-1283614005-168  Markadelphia at Sat, 04 Sep 2010 15:26:45 +0000

Now, THAT'S funny. Imagine YOU chastising someone else about jumping to conclusions.

I certainly have. I admit (and have admitted) that I was in error in generalizing about people. Will you? And that wasn't chastising...it was a kind request. He can choose to ignore it.

if you're spending 8 hours a day working for free that's 8 hours a day that you are not doing any of that for your family. 

Ah, I see where you are coming from now...if I was at home for 8 hours than I would be contributing. My point in mentioning that I would work for free was more along the lines that if I was wealthy, I would still do it. It's not about the paycheck. In addition, when my children were younger (before I was full time) I volunteered at their school and served on the site planning committee. I still do, actually, as it gives me time at the grade school level of which I don't get enough. It wasn't 8 hours a day but it was, at times, 3-4. Was that contributing a resource to my family or not?

Good questions.

1. Tell the singer that he has to have a back up plan and figure out something else that he loves to do to help him get by. Working in a music store? Managing singers? Tell him if he truly has his heart set on it he is going to have to bust his ass to be one. It's funny that you bring this up....I was in a band and I have a tin ear! The lead singer used to rip me a new one all the time for singing so flat. I took voice lessons, worked hard at it, and because I loved it as much as I did, became passable...barely, though. The point is, GOF, that if he loves singing and his heart is set on it, any effort will seem minimal.

Of course, this doesn't even bring up the various challenges associated with getting into the music business. This also gets into the notion (delusion, actually) in our culture  that "if I just get lucky, then I'll make it big and be set with a ton of money!" (Michael Jordan generation parents-Vinnie Chase generation kids). If the guy is truly intrinsically motivated...if he can find that part inside of himself through self actualization...then his path in life will be fruitful whether he becomes successful as a singer or not. Of course, there is always the church choir...

2. It would be interested to see a study that shows that out of all the garbage people, who wants to actually do it. Earlier in the summer, I said hi to my garbage man and asked how he was doing. Great!, was his reply. I asked why he was so happy and he said he loves his job. I was like...really? He explained that his hours are minimal, his pay is great, he gets to be outside a lot, and he loves the people he works with every day. I couldnt' beleive it. Of course, this is just an amusing anecdote and by no means is a serious study but I did wonder what that company was doing that the others weren't. They've been around a long time in our area so it must be something pretty cool.

So, I guess my answer would be to 1). Do a study on "crappy" jobs and see if they really are crappy. Participant observation and/or polling would probably be the best methods. And 2). Model these types of jobs after my local waste management company and other successful models. Of course, there is always the option of......ROBOTS!!!!

jsid-1283618551-360  DJ at Sat, 04 Sep 2010 16:42:31 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283614005-168

Me: "Now, THAT'S  funny. Imagine YOU chastising someone else about jumping to conclusions."
 
You:
"I certainly have. I admit (and have admitted) that I was in error in generalizing about people. Will you? And that wasn't chastising...it was a kind request. He can choose to ignore it."

Yet again, we see your Standard Response #6, the The "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. Yet again, you deliberately missed the point.

My sarcasm was about you jumping to conclusions, which you do as if it were a virtue, and which I have complained about, and cautioned you about, for more than three years.

Do you see it, right there in my comment?

No, of course not. You ignored it. Same old shit, different day.

jsid-1283624890-506  GrumpyOldFart at Sat, 04 Sep 2010 18:28:11 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283614005-168

So, I guess my answer would be to 1). Do a study on "crappy" jobs and see if they really are crappy. Participant observation and/or polling would probably be the best methods. And 2). Model these types of jobs after my local waste management company and other successful models. Of course, there is always the option of......ROBOTS!!!!

Are you really being serious here? Sure, you can find people who like their job in almost any job, but that's beside the point. Unless you can make "I love what I do" universal, somewhere along the line you have a group that idea doesn't work for. What do they do?

We are far and away the most labor-free society in the history of mankind, but someone still has to do the maintenance, and they aren't all gonna enjoy it just because of what it is. A better solution is for people to learn to enjoy what they do and find the good in it, regardless of what that is. Robots? Great, that just increases the number of people who do nothing. Yeah, that'll help.

jsid-1283625015-420  GrumpyOldFart at Sat, 04 Sep 2010 18:30:15 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283624890-506

And for that matter, if I'm a business owner, trying to give my customers the best I can for the lowest price I can give them, and I know you'd do this job for free.... why the hell am I paying you?


jsid-1283632829-704  GrumpyOldFart at Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:40:29 +0000

The other glaring flaw in this line of reasoning is it presupposes that the person who is deciding what he wants to do with his life is in fact qualified to judge. My experience has been that it's a rare person who knows what they want out of life earlier than their mid 20s. This is perfectly understandable because until you've been out on your own, paid your own bills, had to be your own rescuer when you did something stupid, you don't have the real world data to judge what you think you want against what it costs. Up to that point you're living in a fantasy world where if you don't work you still have a place to live and food to eat.

I've known any number of teenagers that "aw man, I wanna learn to play guitar!" I've only known a very few who wanted it bad enough to still want it when their fingertips were bleeding and their arms were sore all the way to the shoulder. That's not meant to belittle anyone either, that's just an example of how easy it is to see the "ooo, I'd love to do that" aspect of something and miss the "wait, you gotta do WHAT?!?" aspects until you're already committed.

Puberty through mid 20s is when people mostly fall into that trap. They haven't yet learned what it looks like from all angles, see? So how late do you propose to wait to show someone how to do what they want for a living? And who feeds them while they're figuring it out? Keeping in mind of course that until they're feeding themselves, they are not acquiring the real world data they need to be qualified to choose.

I agree that in the process of making sure they have a roof over their heads and food in their bellies, people tend to forget that in an ideal world the roof and the food and etc. would be means, not ends. But since we don't live in an ideal world and aren't ever likely to, I can hardly blame them for keeping the roof, the food, the etc. at the top of the priority list, well above mere "I want".

And I hate to break this to ya, but that spot and the spot where "the one who dies with the most toys wins" are in fact the same spot. It's the spot where you think of the things as the goal, rather than as tools to help you reach your goals.


jsid-1283666325-290  Russell at Sun, 05 Sep 2010 05:58:45 +0000

He can choose to ignore it.

Condescension so thick, you can cut it with a knife!

It's like the past 3 years can be erased simply because Marxy says so.


jsid-1283699701-940  GrumpyOldFart at Sun, 05 Sep 2010 15:15:02 +0000

f you're spending 8 hours a day working for free that's 8 hours a day that you are not doing any of that for your family.   
 
Ah, I see where you are coming from now...


We got sidetracked here. It started out from how much you are taxed affecting your willingness to work.

The fiberglass worker I mentioned above... every year about early October, he stops accepting voluntary overtime hours (or at least that was the case when I knew him) Why? Because if he works them he gets into a higher tax bracket and nets about a thousand dollars less for the year. He has a wife and kids, he can't afford that crap.

Most of the other people on that list work under contract by the job, so after a particular point they just stop accepting contracts for the rest of the year.

Are those outliers? Of course they are, most people are paid by the hour rather than the job, and a fair percentage of overtime hours aren't "offered", they're mandatory if you want to keep your job. But when it is one of their options, yes I know several people who will stop working near the top of one income bracket rather than work harder, get into the bottom of the next income bracket, and lose money.

jsid-1283717253-148  DJ at Sun, 05 Sep 2010 20:07:33 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283699701-940

Grumpy, you've been handed a kettle of fish.

If you plot "after tax" income vs "before tax" income, you get a series of straight lines, but the resulting plot is monotonic. Expressed mathematically, f(b) >= f(a) where b > a. In plain language, if your before tax income increases, then your after tax income increases also, but you might pay a higher tax rate on the dollars that comprise the before tax increase.

I'll illustrate this with examples, using 2009 tax rates and the 2009 Form 1040, and choosing the incomes very carefully to illustrate how incremental dollars get taxed at higher rates.

Let's assume a very simple situation, as follows:

1. a married couple, filing jointly
2. a single income
3. no dependents
4. standard deduction
5. taxes are taken from the tax table in the Form 1040 instructions

Example 1:

Suppose the before tax income was 85,600. The tax is computed as:

7 wages, salaries, etc. 85,600
22 total income 85,600
37 adjusted gross income 85,600
38 adjusted gross income 85,600
40a standard deduction 11,400
42 exemptions 7,300
43 taxable income 66,900
44 tax 9,204

after tax income = 85,600 - 9,204 = 76,396

Example 2:

Suppose the before tax income was 86,600, which is an increase from example 1 of 1,000. The tax is computed as:

7 wages, salaries, etc. 86,600
22 total income 86,600
37 adjusted gross income 86,600
38 adjusted gross income 86,600
40a standard deduction 11,400
42 exemptions 7,300
43 taxable income 67,900
44 tax 9,356

after tax income = 86,600 - 9,356 = 77,244

Example 3

Suppose the before tax income was 87,600, which is an increase from example 2 of 1,000. The tax is computed as:

7 wages, salaries, etc. 87,600
22 total income 87,600
37 adjusted gross income 87,600
38 adjusted gross income 87,600
40a standard deduction 11,400
42 exemptions 7,300
43 taxable income 68,900
44 tax 9,606

after tax income = 87,600 - 9,606 = 77,994

Example 2 vs example 1:

The before tax increase was 1,000. The after tax increase was 848. The incremental tax on the 1,000 increase was 152, or 15%. The taxable income of example 2 was right at the top of the 15% tax bracket.

Example 3 vs example 2:


The before tax increase was 1,000. The after tax increase was 750. The incremental tax on the 1,000 increase was 250, or 25%. The taxable income of example 3 was right at the bottom of the 25% tax bracket.

Do you see it? More dollars were earned, and more dollars were kept. Before tax income increased, and after tax income increased. But, the tax rate on the incremental dollars earned was higher on the second increase than the first, because the taxable income went over a tax bracket boundary.

Now, how do we word this in plain language?

The more you earn in before tax income, the more you keep in after tax income. But, as you earn more and more, the incremental dollars you earn might be taxed at an incrementally higher rate. The tax rate that is applied to any given dollar of income will not increase simply because you earn more dollars.

Now, a final caveat: If you earn enough dollars, your itemized deductions, and other deductions, can begin to be phased out. This has the effect of increasing the tax rate that is applied to dollars you earn earlier because of additional dollars you earn later. However, the plot of after tax dollars vs before tax dollars is still monotonic.

Apply this to your fiberglas worker. He might have less incentive to work harder and earn more at the end of the year because he'll keep less of every incremental dollar he earns, but if he does keep working and earn more, his after tax income will increase.


jsid-1283715251-365  Markadelphia at Sun, 05 Sep 2010 19:34:17 +0000

GOF, you're points are well taken and I was joking about robots although it seems that we are there already.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/science/05robots.html?scp=2&sq=Robots&st=cse

I agree that this seems to contribute to the laziness of our country as well as being most impersonal. But it is interesting, no?

My experience has been that it's a rare person who knows what they want out of life earlier than their mid 20s.

I completely agree. This notes a failure at just about every level of socialization in our culture but mostly the fault resides with the parents. Again, this gets into my MJ Generation theory, though.

No doubt, our society is always going to have shitty jobs that no one wants to do and then some people will end up having to do them. So, I agree wholeheatedly with this statement:


A better solution is for people to learn to enjoy what they do and find the good in it, regardless of what that is.

which makes think that, in some ways, we are saying the same thing. This all comes back to extrinsic motivation which I would like to see a shift to in our society.

Russell, it wasn't my intention to be condescending. I apologize. I simply meant that I was making a request which you certainly have the freedom to disregard. Based on past statements that I have made, I can understand why you would be unwilling to do so and take it in such a way.


I know several people who will stop working near the top of one income bracket rather than work harder, get into the bottom of the next income bracket, and lose money.

Clearly, there is precedent for this in some cases. My question is what will they do with that money if the tax is changed so they won't be punished? If they are indeed outliers, how much of an effect will it have on the economy?

jsid-1283717327-584  DJ at Sun, 05 Sep 2010 20:08:47 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283715251-365

"Clearly, there is precedent for this in some cases. My question is what will they do with that money if the tax is changed so they won't be punished?"

Now, read my comments to Grumpy about this.

Does understanding it better change what you (ahem) think?


jsid-1283789318-779  Markadelphia at Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:08:39 +0000

He might have less incentive to work harder and earn more at the end of the year because he'll keep less of every incremental dollar he earns, but if he does keep working and earn more, his after tax income will increase.

No doubt, we can all find agreement that our tax system needs to be reformed. And I guess I lean more towards the idea that the Bush tax cuts should stay in place for most income earners until we are out of the recession.

But we're talking about incentive, right? The citizens of our country aren't taxed as much as German citizens, for example, and their results clearly show incentive.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10962017

Obviously, with that kind of growth, people are working and spending their money even with all of the taxes they have to pay.

And if you look at the historical tables in our own country, we had an economic boom post WWII and that's when the tax brackets were more numerous and the rates were insanely high. Clearly, there was some sort of incentive--other than tax related issues--to work harder. In your opinions, what were they?

When we talk about incentive, we honestly should talk about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. It seems to me that people during the post war boom were more extrinsically motivated whereas today it's quite different. Why?

jsid-1283797588-488  DJ at Mon, 06 Sep 2010 18:26:28 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283789318-779

Yet again you miss the point. What a surprise.

Grumpy stated:

"I know several people who will stop working near the top of one income bracket rather than work harder, get into the bottom of the next income bracket, and lose money."

I pointed out that this is in error, that they will not earn more but take home less.

You commented on Grumpy's statement (emphasis added):
 
"Clearly, there is precedent for this in some cases. My question is what will they do with that money if the tax is changed so they won't be punished? If they are indeed outliers, how much of an effect will it have on the economy?"

Now, I'll ask it again:

"Does understanding it better change what you (ahem) think?"


Here's a hint: You were, as usual, knee-jerk reacting to something you don't understand correctly.

Now, try it again.

jsid-1283799849-12  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:04:09 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283797588-488

One small quibble/nit/comment.


I pointed out that this is in error, that they will not earn more but take home less.  

DJ is correct here, at least for his examples chosen.  But the amount of return drops (As I think someone else pointed out) as the effort increases.  For example, for each hour he makes home $50 to a point. As he gets into the higher brackets, each additional hour of work means he brings home more, given DJ's examples (I think most of the perverse resets got fixed * ) but for his next hour, it's $45.  After that, $40.  So the more he works, the less per unit of work he brings home.  

As I'm sure even Mark understands, that works rather against the notion of "overtime" - each hour over is to the worker harder than the first hour of the day.  Yet he's bringing home less per his sacrifice.  At some point, it's just not worth it to keep working, when instead of say, bringing home an additional $10, he can go play ball with his kid.


The reason I mention this, is this gets back to Mark's blithely comparing raw numbers with per-capita averages.  Both can be useful in their own way. 

This is why the cite of Mankiw isn't on topic to the proposition DJ originally posited.  Because it's changing the argument.  If you understand the argument, that's fine. But if you don't, you'll just get more and more confused.


* This excludes the serious perverse incentive that is the AMT.  GoF didn't specify that, but the AMT would be an easily demonstrated point where jumping into the next bracket means you make a *lot* less in the end.


jsid-1283801482-557  GrumpyOldFart at Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:31:22 +0000

When we talk about incentive, we honestly should talk about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

Fine and good, but my earlier point still stands: Until someone has learned to become comfortable with the realities, limits and impositions of extrinsic motivation (Am I gettin paid for this? I mean I love what I do, but I gotta pay the rent too, ya know?) they don't have a solid framework to judge the value of their intrinsic motivation against. Ray Stevens made a gang o' cash having a lot of fun and doing some amazingly stupid and vapid stuff sometimes. Nice work if you can get it. But until you're comfortable within an extrinsically motivated framework, 1) you don't know enough to tell whether you can get it, 2) you don't know enough to know how to change things so you can get it, 3) you don't know if you can afford to get it, and most importantly, 4) you don't know if you want it badly enough to make the commitment it will require in extrinsically motivated terms.

The short version of that is, "No matter how confident a drunk you are, and no matter how long you've lived in the same house, your living room furniture will not get out of your way. Get over that."

Reality doesn't give a damn what your motivation is, and neither does a hungry belly.

jsid-1283809823-20  Ken at Mon, 06 Sep 2010 21:50:25 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283801482-557

The other question is: Is motivation -- intrinsic, extrinsic, or whatever name one cares to give it -- a matter for (ahem) policy intervention?  
 
One of the more unfortunate limitations of constitutional republicanism (which, for its flaws, is still vastly better than the effectively unrestrained democracy we have today) can be found in the following:  
 
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.  
 
That's the 16th Amendment. When Congress passed this amendment, and the states ratified it, the government unmoored itself from the securing of natural liberty rights that is the function of legitimate government (with or without a state apparatus). With the ratification of the 16th, the "social contract" now reads, in effect, "Some portion of your life does not belong to you (the portion of your time spent working to pay income tax), but is to be disposed at the behest of the state. The only thing left for us to discuss is whose plaything you are, and how much of your life will be taken from you."  
 
(It can be argued that the above formula applies to any tax, but let's leave it at income tax for now, because direct taxes can also be structured and characterized as user fees.)  
 
The state then compounded the moral crime of income tax by getting into the social engineering business in a way that would have made le roi du soleil, Louis XIV du Bourbon, blanch and say, "You've got to be kidding me, mon ami." Because what are income tax deductions, other than incentives to behave in the way the state wishes to promote (buy a house, have kids, install energy-efficient windows, whatever)?  
 
Unsurprising, considering the Progressive roots of income tax. The point of all this is that there appears to be an unspoken assumption that it is somehow good and right and just for the state to meddle in the affairs of individuals in this manner, without references to their own experience and preference. Fighting crime is one thing (of course, we have also seen that under such a regime practically anything the state cares to criminalize will become a crime), but social engineering is quite another, and no argument can be made for it other than the divine right of the ruler.
 
So questions of whether there are still incentives to work more and produce more, and the like, are side issues that ignore the bloody flyblown rhino's head in the middle of the table: What confers on the state the moral right to do any of it?

jsid-1283817216-991  DJ at Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:53:37 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283809823-20

[sarcasm]

"What confers on the state the moral right to do any of it?"

Why, it's the job of your betters to tell you how to behave. That's the unconstrained vision that Thomas Sowell described, in action.

And who are your betters, you ask? Why, they are the nincompoops whom the great unwashed elected to public office.

There. Don't you feel better about it now?

[/sarcasm]


jsid-1283806890-597  GrumpyOldFart at Mon, 06 Sep 2010 21:01:30 +0000

I sympathize with you, I really do. You have this weird political bulemia you (and Democrats in general, and a lot of Republicans as well) seem to be suffering from.

But the fact is, eating more of the private sector and throwing up more public sector in hopes that the body of the citizenry will starve a little less for a time... this scenario doesn't end well, ya know?

jsid-1283809328-217  DJ at Mon, 06 Sep 2010 21:42:08 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283806890-597

"But the fact is, eating more of the private sector and throwing up more public sector in hopes that the body of the citizenry will starve a little less for a time... this scenario doesn't end well, ya know?"

The goddamned Dimocrats are about to experience a bloodbath at the polls, and very soon. I think that scenario will end relatively well.

But for President Present, it's (ahem) business as usual. His first order of business is campaigning, but he doesn't realize that he is trying to overcome opposition to the very thing he proposes, so he proposes doing more of it. For him, that means spending more money. That's all he knows to do.

What's his latest proposal? Why, he wants to spend fifty billion more bucks on infrastructure, by golly. Go see

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/06/obama-campaigns-democrats-new-infrastructure-investment-plan/

which reports it as a "front-loaded plan to rebuild 150,000 miles of our roads, lay 4,000 miles of railways and restore 150 miles of airport runways."

He said,

"This will not only create jobs immediately, it's also going to make our economy hum in the long-run ..."

So, THAT'S what the economy needs to get into high gear. Golly. Who knew?

But, who pays for it? Why, he makes it sound easy:

"The president said the project will be paid for -- assuming congressional support -- with tax hikes on oil and gas companies and will cut waste and bureaucracy by consolidating more than 100 duplicative programs."

Obamacare calls for the creation of more than 100 new gubmint bureaucracies, and he proposes cutting waste and bureaucracy?

A Keynesian amateur in perpetual campaign mode; that's what we need more of, ain't it?

jsid-1283820886-731  GrumpyOldFart at Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:54:46 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283806890-597

But take heart.. there are therapists for that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR13ZhiNRXI


jsid-1283818908-752  Russell at Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:21:48 +0000

"A Keynesian amateur in perpetual campaign mode"

Ha! Brilliant bon mot for The Won!


jsid-1283822287-516  khbaker at Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:18:09 +0000

I can see this thread going to 400+ comments.

Good stuff, people.


jsid-1283831968-764  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 07 Sep 2010 03:59:29 +0000

"front-loaded plan to rebuild 150,000 miles of our roads, lay 4,000 miles of railways and restore 150 miles of airport runways."  


To, you know, ship all those goods that we're not producing, to the people without jobs to pay for them.

I first saw this on a facebook feed, with a friend who's a "Peak Oil" nut, who had further things to say about this plan.  (Personally, I don't ascribe to the peak oil mantra, but the Obama policies will at the very least, make sure we pay more for oil.)
 
"The president said the project will be paid for -- assuming congressional support -- with tax hikes on oil and gas companies 

Oh, well, as I was saying.

So we'll do all this roadwork, to be paid for by more expensive fuel so we can't afford to drive on it. 


jsid-1283866714-476  DJ at Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:38:34 +0000

He's in full blown campaign mode now. The left side of his mouth doesn't known what the right side of his mouth is promising, if you'll pardon the double pun.

Today's headline:

"http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/06/obama-propose-massive-tax-breaks-businesses-invest-growth/"

So, it's big tax increases for some businesses, and big tax breaks for other businesses, is it?  The silliness factor grows exponentially when you consider that the proposed tax breaks are for business investment in "plant and equipment", while the proposed tax increases are for an industry that is nothing but "plant and equipment".

I wonder if he can balance a goddamned checkbook.

jsid-1283873169-711  GrumpyOldFart at Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:26:10 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283866714-476

I wonder if he can balance a goddamned checkbook.

He doesn't have to, he has people for that, like... Tim Geithner.

*DONT_KNOW*


jsid-1283877574-976  DJ at Tue, 07 Sep 2010 16:39:35 +0000

Thomas Sowell hammers the anvil again:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/07/political_fables_107026.html

Here is the gumdrop, from right in the middle:

"Today, with Barack Obama in the White House, allied with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge in Congress, the national debt is a bigger share of the national output than it has been in more than half a century. And its share is projected to continue going up for years to come, becoming larger than national output in 2012.

"Having created this scary situation, President Obama now says, "Don't give in to fear. Let's reach for hope." The voters reached for hope when they elected Obama. The fear comes from what he has done since taking office.

""The worst thing we could do is to go back to the very same policies that created this mess in the first place," he said recently. "In November, you're going to have that choice.""


And aren't the polls about that choice getting interesting?


jsid-1283897073-251  Markadelphia at Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:04:33 +0000

DJ, I understood what you were saying above in correcting GOF. I just thought we were talking about the overall issue of incentive to work since this has been a common theme throughout this long thread.

GOF, really good points above and the furniture one was hilarious! You have defined one of the central problems in our country and that's moving up the hierachy of Maslow's pyramid. Defining what extrinsically motivates someone is a part of the self actualization process which too many Americans don't look at. If people just put in a small amount of time on self actualization, they might figure out better career choices. And I'm not talking about that trait bullshit tests that people fall into all the time. I'm talking about simply figuring out what it is that you love. But you (and Warren Buffet) are correct...it is a hard trick to figure out what "that" is.

Ken, another fantastic post. I'm curious how you would juxtapose Section 8 of the Constitution with AM XVI. How would you evaluate the difference between the two?


eating more of the private sector and throwing up more public sector in hopes that the body of the citizenry will starve a little less for a time.

Can you elaborate a little more on this? I guess I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this.


But for President Present, it's (ahem) business as usual. His first order of business is campaigning, but he doesn't realize that he is trying to overcome opposition to the very thing he proposes

This is a little off topic because we are talking about economics and human behavior as it relates to that...not so much election 2010. No prob for me because it is all connected. I just want to make sure we get back to the main theme at some point. And I still have Ken's third comment above to talk about as well (haven't forgotten, dude!)

That being said, I'm afraid I don't get the "President Present" joke. It makes no sense. President Ass Hat or President Dumb Fuck would make more sense given your distaste for his policies. But he has, along with Congress, taken more action than many other administrations (health care, stimulus, regs, AfPak etc). So, the joke that he does nothing but vote "present" or campaign doesn't fit. Again, I would remind you of these items

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/

121 and counting.

The goddamned Dimocrats are about to experience a bloodbath at the polls, and very soon. I think that scenario will end relatively well.  

To be replaced by the GOP? I thought we were all in agreement that they did an awful job as well. The election is two months away. There's going to be quite a bit that happens between now and then. The only thing that we can say for certain is that the GOP got their ass kicked in 2006 and 2008.
 
And aren't the polls about that choice getting interesting?

Well, therein lies the problem. With the House, you've got 94 percent of the races yet to be polled. So how can Charlie Cook and others call the House already for the GOP? More importantly, why are the Dems essentially submitting two months before the election? When you have Chris Matthews calling the House for red on Sep 3, one has to question the seriousness of it all.

Interesting as well is the fact that electoral-vote.com has the Senate tipping red or being 50-50 but still has the House staying blue. Check it out

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

There's some math involved and I would love to hear everyone's opinion on his algorithm. I find his site to be quite on the ball. 


jsid-1283897130-465  Markadelphia at Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:05:34 +0000

No doubt the polls are interesting, DJ, but it makes perfect sense. The GOP base is fired up and ready to go. They don't like the policies and want a change. The Dem base thinks the changes weren't enough and are feeling like Obama is too moderate. AfPak, the first targeted assassination of a US citizen, and his speech on Iraq don't help either. It's going to come down to a few things.

1. Dem turn out. If it's low, the Dems will lose seats. If it's high, they might hold on.
2. Independents-Will they Tea Party freak them out? Many TPers are already dialing back their views and trying to appear more mainstream.
3. Focus on the economy-if the GOP stays on this topic, more than likely they will win many seats. If they keep talking about the Islamic center in NYC, burning Korans, and gay marriage, say goodbye to big wins. This would be called rhetorical overreach and the American people aren't interested in it. They want to know how the government is going to fix the economy. Ironic, considering that the GOP is energized right now by people who are waging a holy war against the government which begs the question...should the government be the entity to fix the economy at all?

I think people need to ask the GOP exactly what their plan is to help the economy. Repeal and block the president is not an answer. People are just as angry at the GOP as they are with the Dems. They want answers and, because we live in an ADD society, they want them RIGHT NOW!! A year and a half is not enough time to turn around an economy that was as far down as it was but it may as well be an eternity in our instant gratification society.


jsid-1283898231-356  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:23:51 +0000

If people just put in a small amount of time on self actualization, they might

They....

No, it's just too easy.  


jsid-1283903359-139  Markadelphia at Tue, 07 Sep 2010 23:49:19 +0000

One other thing I just thought of to add above...if the GOP does gain back both or either house of Congress, I will certainly be disappointed. But I have to say, regardless of this potential outcome, I'm pretty up beat these days. If someone would have told me 6 years ago that in 2010 "Don't ask, don't tell" was on the verge of changing for the better and gay marriage bans were on their way out, I would've said they were nuts.But look where we are today...

In fact, I have to say that I am fairly impressed that the Tea Party and affiliates are staying away from social issues. Very, very smart. While I don't agree with many of the TP's ideas and think that some have no practical application in reality (although I would be excited to see how well they implement some of them should they get the power to do so), the focus is on the basics where it should be.

Now, if only we could get that other 40 percent to vote. Or at least have as much voter turnout as France, for example. I wonder how that would tilt elections...?


jsid-1283905947-207  DJ at Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:32:27 +0000

"I just thought we were talking about the overall issue of incentive to work since this has been a common theme throughout this long thread."

Horseshit.

You didn't think. You were simply practicing your usual evasion. It's what you do. You aren't even conscious that you do it.

"That being said, I'm afraid I don't get the "President Present" joke."

You didn't get it when I first made it.

Obamateur was elected to the Illinois State Senate, where he voted "present" 135 times. That is not leadership, it is abdication of responsibility that he asked the voters to give him. The name still fits, as he still does not practice leadership. He doesn't know how.

You want a better joke? Google "president present" and see what web site comes up FIRST.

"To be replaced by the GOP?"

Which is the lesser of two evils, at the moment.

"The Dem base thinks the changes weren't enough and are feeling like Obama is too moderate."

A headline today was:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/07/dems-campaign-obamacare-stay-mum/

"Some Dems Campaign Against ObamaCare While Others Stay Mum"

The lede was:

"While President Obama touts the new health care law everywhere he goes, some members of his party are saying just the opposite in re-election ads, making sure their constituents know they voted against the unpopular overhaul. Other Democratic lawmakers are choosing a silence-is-golden approach on the campaign trail."

Teacher boy, the Dimocrats had an opportunity, the voters have seen what the Dimocrats did with it, and the Democrats are gonna be thrown out as a result. Even Dimocrat candidates are campaigning against the Dimocrats.

"One other thing I just thought of to add above...if the GOP does gain back both or either house of Congress, I will certainly be disappointed."

No shit?

I'll alert the media.


jsid-1283911188-568  Markadelphia at Wed, 08 Sep 2010 01:59:48 +0000

the voters have seen what the Dimocrats did with it, and the Democrats are gonna be thrown out as a result.  
 
We'll see. Just to be clear, thrown out of where exactly? The House? The Senate? Or both?  


More importantly, do you think that voters would be thinking differently if the economy was better? How much of that is a factor?
 
The name still fits, as he still does not practice leadership. He doesn't know how.   
 
"Practicing leadership" is certainly a subjective concept. I'd like to hear how your opinion of this jibes with the 121 items listed in the above link. If you don't like his policies, that's one thing. But intimating that he isn't doing anything is silly and self contradictory. If they voters don't like what they are doing...and if they are doing nothing but vote "present"....then why are voters going to thrown them out again?  
 
While we are on the subject of leadership, you've made it clear that Sarah Palin would be a better leader than President Obama. I guess I'd like to hear how he rates against some of these other folks.....just so I can get an idea on your definition of "Good Leader."  
 
Michelle Bachmann, Jan Brewer, Sharron Angel, Rand Paul, and Joe Miller.

jsid-1283911740-474  DJ at Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:09:12 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283911188-568

"Just to be clear, thrown out of where exactly? The House? The Senate?"  
 
Some from each. We'll see how much when it happens.  
 
"If you don't like his policies, that's one thing. But intimating that he isn't doing anything is silly and self contradictory."  
 
I didn't write that he "isn't doing anything," I wrote that he "does not practice leadership." You quoted what I wrote, and you still can't get it right. Your fundamental dishonesty bites you in the ass yet again.  
 
In plain English, teacher boy, he is not a leader, and he does not lead. The best indictment of his attempts at leadership that I've read is that incumbents of his own party tell him, in effect, "Stay away! I don't want you around me! I'm campaigning, I'm trying to win, and I don't want you fucking things up for me!"


jsid-1283914398-324  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:53:18 +0000

 I'd like to hear how your opinion of this jibes with the 121 items listed in the above link. 

Not to repeat myself, but that's irrelevant.

The issue of leadership is almost totally divorced from completing "campaign promises" (and that's some weak sauce at that link).
But, just as you did throughout this thread, you took something irrelevant, declared it to win the argument, and then tried to change the subject.


 The Dem base thinks the changes weren't enough and are feeling like Obama is too moderate. 

The Dem pols are running away from Obama.  That doesn't bolster your (hah) analysis. Any place that Obama vists, he is avoided by pols in active races.  Right now, in GA, the Democrat governor candidates are running, both trying to smear the other with Obama's name.


Again, Mark, if you want to understand, stop trying to lecture, and pay attention to what we're telling you.  Learn to work back to BASICS and THEN move forward.

Otherwise, your "analysis" will be superficial and easily demonstrated to be utterly ludicrous.


jsid-1283969158-355  GrumpyOldFart at Wed, 08 Sep 2010 18:05:58 +0000

eating more of the private sector and throwing up more public sector in hopes that the body of the citizenry will starve a little less for a time.  
 
Can you elaborate a little more on this? I guess I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this.


What is "the public sector"? It's a rehash of the private sector with the authority to use force thrown in, that's all it is. Someone in the private sector tries to come up with a business model that pleases the largets possible number of customers, and makes him a profit. The public sector comes up with a model that tries to reconcile the competing interests of all those business models and all those customers, and leave them running it. So far, little difference.

The difference between a prize winning stew and vomit is the addition of stomach enzymes. The difference between the private sector and the public sector is the addition of methods to force compliance. That's all. Other than that, it's the exact same people doing the exact same things. Why do you think there's a "revolving door" between K Street, Goldman-Sachs and the White House? The corrupt private sector didn't "take over" or "buy out" the government, corrupt members of the private sector got promoted into it.

I'll freely grant you that Newt Gingrich, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are as much part of the problem as part of the solution. What I won't grant is that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama aren't every bit as much part of the problem.


jsid-1283976069-728  Markadelphia at Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:01:10 +0000

The Dem pols are running away from Obama.  That doesn't bolster your (hah) analysis. Any place that Obama vists, he is avoided by pols in active races.  Right now, in GA, the Democrat governor candidates are running, both trying to smear the other with Obama's name. 

Certainly this is true in some districts. You mention Georgia...is this a conservative or liberal state? Are the districts that "running away from Obama" more conservative or liberal? Are these the blue dogs? What is the PVI for these districts? I guess I'd like to see some data to back up your point.

The base of the Democratic party is, in fact, very frustrated by Obama because he has not been liberal enough. In fact, they view him as being moderate to right of center and, if you look at his policies, they are that way. "Obamacare" has no public option, no single payer, and is largely the same as Romney's MA plan. He increased troop presence in AfPak...a big no no for the progressives. His fin regs bill isn't nearly as restrictive as the progs would like it to be. No serious climate change bill, no amnesty for illegal immigrants, and an oil spill which clearly showed who runs our country. I told people (on both sides) that he wasn't all that liberal. His actions prove that he is not.

Add all this up and you have what I originally stated...a frustrated base that may not turn out in the numbers that could save Dem districts from flipping. It's not simply that people hate his policies to fit your narrative and characterization of him. It's more than that.

jsid-1283978659-188  DJ at Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:44:19 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283976069-728

"It's not simply that people hate his policies to fit your narrative and characterization of him. It's more than that."

In fact, it's not that at all.

Teacher boy, tens of millions of people now hate his policies who didn't before. Those tens of millions of people DO NOT KNOW THAT WE EXIST, thus they do NOT do so "to fit" any "narrative and characterization of him" that we have.

Now, do you realize what a fatuous, gibberish-filled load of horse dung this statement of yours is?

Our narrative and characterization of him is that, in large and increasing millions, people hate both his policies and what Congress has done to implement them. The reason they do so is that they now see what those policies are, instead of imagining what they might be if unicorns farted rainbows. Two years ago, they projected on him all their hopes and dreams. Now they see the emerging nightmare they voted for and they don't like it.

But you just can't pull your tongue off his boots to say that, can you? Instead, you vomit up yet more Random But Important Sounding Gibberish. You could recite the telephone book and appear more intelligent than this comment portrays you.


jsid-1283977068-45  Markadelphia at Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:17:48 +0000

The difference between a prize winning stew and vomit is the addition of stomach enzymes.

Now that should be the quote of the year...hilarious! And well said, as always, GOF.

In some ways, I agree with you. This statement, for example, is true.


The corrupt private sector didn't "take over" or "buy out" the government, corrupt members of the private sector got promoted into it. 

It also works in reverse...a many term Rep or Senator gets a private sector job after years of service to that corporation's interests. But here's what I'm wondering...if Reid, Pelosi, and Obama are also part of the problem, what corporate interests do they serve?

It seems to me that their raison d'etre is to have the government serve at the pleasure of the people. Of course, they define the "people" as union groups, farmers and other various labor associations which are also organizations rife with corruption...most societal institutions have this problem. Still, they look at things from a public service and people point of view. Even if they were the power hungry mad people that some here claim them to be, it would be still be from a state run position and not from private sector corruption.

This does not mean that there aren't any Democrats that serve at the pleasure of corporations. There are plenty, I'm certain. But the basic and fundamental tenet of the DFL is that our economy works better when the middle class are driving the engine. The basic model of the GOP is that our economy works better when corporations (and their owners) are driving the engine. Depending upon what side you fall on, that's the group that should get more breaks. And more freedom.


jsid-1283979833-228  DJ at Wed, 08 Sep 2010 21:03:53 +0000

There might be a new topic of conversation during the remainder of the campaign. Go see:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=4771

Now, why would the Dimocrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee jump into this topic less than two months before the mid-term elections?

Amended: The cite is:

"NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing entitled "Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Process" for Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

"By order of the Chairman."


jsid-1283982662-252  Markadelphia at Wed, 08 Sep 2010 21:51:02 +0000

Now they see the emerging nightmare they voted for and they don't like it. 

Based on what evidence, exactly? And I'm speaking both of the numbers of people that don't like it and the "emerging nightmare." Remember Mastiff, DJ.

If you decide on a course of action with your emotional mind, and then let your rational mind justify a decision already made (i.e. engage in "rationalization"), you are doing things the wrong way.



jsid-1283984795-227  DJ at Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:26:36 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283982662-252

"Based on what evidence, exactly?"

Google "obamacare polls" and read. Note that a suprisingly large majority of people across the country oppose it, and have so since long before Congress voted "aye" and sent it to Obamateur, who signed it into law. Note the huge majority by which people favor court challenges by states to the constitutionality of obamacare. Note that the polls have become worse as more and more of what's in Obamacare has come to light.

Now, try to find even ONE member of Congress who is running for re-election while bragging about voting "aye" on obamacare. Conversely, note how many members of Congress are running for re-election while bragging about voting "no" on obamacare.

We've pointed this phenomena and other issues out to you for months, teacher boy. Stop already with your Standard Response #7 and #1. Stop pretending you paid no attention before. You don't fool anyone.

"If you decide on a course of action with your emotional mind, and then let your rational mind justify a decision already made (i.e. engage in "rationalization"), you are doing things the wrong way."

And you're gonna lecture us on the evils of rationalization? Have you looked in a mirror, ever? Damn, but your hypocrisy gets old.

jsid-1283984978-917  DJ at Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:29:40 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283982662-252

"Now they see the emerging nightmare they voted for and they don't like it."

If they liked it, wouldn't the polls consistently show the Congressional Dimocrats who are up for re-election expecting to be re-elected this November?


jsid-1283987117-740  GrumpyOldFart at Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:05:17 +0000

Of course, they define the "people" as union groups, farmers and other various labor associations which are also organizations rife with corruption...most societal institutions have this problem. Still, they look at things from a public service and people point of view.

And there's the root of the difference between you and me. In my world, businesspeople are just as much people as any other people, and unions are just another type of corporation. So in my world, supporting someone who's against corrupt corporations because he's for corrupt unions is not a positive step. And for that matter, willingness to forgive the union because they're "on the side of the people" (which is blatant bullshit, the union is on the side of the union, and no one else) while criticizing the company that provides the market for their employment for acting precisely the same way they do (or more often, almost but not quite as bad)... I never will be able to make any sense of that one.


jsid-1283990227-18  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:57:13 +0000

Certainly this is true in some districts. You mention Georgia...is this a conservative or liberal state? Are the districts that "running away from Obama" more conservative or liberal? Are these the blue dogs? What is the PVI for these districts? I guess I'd like to see some data to back up your point.  

"Certainly this is true in some districts".  Sounds great if you're padding an essay.  How many districts? Almost all of them. 

Mark, this is where DJ has you pegged well with the "random but important sounding gibberish".  I can almost imagine you in a smoking jacket, puffing on a pipe, "Certainly, but..."

Except if you've spent any time paying any attention, you know the answer to that. Hell, spend a few minutes on google. 

Mark, voters in MASSACHUSETTS VOTED IN A REPUBLICAN TO DERAIL OBAMA.

Mass-a-fucking-chusetts.  And you're trying to imply there's not a pretty solid, objective truth out there.

In Georgia, the former Democratic Governor is re-running, and he's running away from Obama.  Race after race you can find Democrats in office trying to explain their votes, or eliding past their record, and refusing to talk about it.  How many campaign appearances has Obama made, Mark?  And where?

You can answer your own question, and if you tried, you wouldn't sound so cargo-cultish.  Obama's not.  Because even in the primaries, even in very very Democratic districts, Obama's endorsement is not wanted. 

Now, there are certainly those who complain that he didn't do enough, sure. There always will be.  But that's not the "base", as much as you'd like to define them as the "base".

22.
15.

You don't get to ignore the past, it will come back to haunt you - and that's what the democrats are facing right now, and trying to ignore it.  I understand why you sympathize with that position. Doesn't mean it's objectively right, or even explains the situation well.

jsid-1283991139-173  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:12:19 +0000 in reply to jsid-1283990227-18

TO DERAIL OBAMA

To be more precise, specifically to derail Obama's monstrosity that we're still finding easter eggs, since nobody read it, and that .. ah, insert anything you've complained about, it's in there, nominally to "reform" health "care".


jsid-1284059242-936  Markadelphia at Thu, 09 Sep 2010 19:07:37 +0000

try to find even ONE member of Congress who is running for re-election while bragging about voting "aye" on obamacare.

How about 3?

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/

http://hoyer.house.gov/

http://clyburn.house.gov/index2.cfm

C'mon, DJ, that was too easy. Let's look at one more whom I think was more to your point.

http://donnaedwards.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=17&sectiontree=15,17

Check out the video. She's proud, DJ, she's proud. I have aother example (Leonard Boswell) below.

The fact is, DJ, that out of the 238 Dems running for reelection, 155-170 are solid Dem...depending upon which index you use. How many of them are bragging about supporting the health care bill? This also ties into Unix's point as well.

Because even in the primaries, even in very very Democratic districts, Obama's endorsement is not wanted. 

Data, please, Unix...using the scientific method. You made an assertion. Back it up.

How many districts? Almost all of them.  

How many in an "almost all?" Now, if you are saying that it is almost all of the tougher races or the tossups, I'd agree. But even then, we have guys like this.

http://kanjorski.house.gov/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

He has a photo of himself with President Obama. If he was "running away," wouldn't he take that down? Here is his statement on health care for DJ

http://kanjorski.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1740&Itemid=1

Certainly, I would qualify this as not bragging but it is on his site for all to see.

So, Unix, here's the Cook site to help you get started. And the Times if you want another source.

http://cookpolitical.com/

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/house

Let's put a number to "almost all." I'd like to see some examples of these "very very Democratic districts" where they are telling Obama to stay away. Evidence, please and not just anamolies.

DJ, the Times page has info on how they voted on health care. Click on IA-03, for example and you will see that Leonard Boswell voted yes on health care. His race is currently rated "Tossup." Go to his site and you will find

http://www.boswellforcongress.com/

Thank you for stopping by and taking the time to learn more about our fight in Congress. I have worked tirelessly to improve the lives of everyday Americans with my focus on improving health care, education, and keeping our nation safe.

Front page, first line, first issue mentioned...does that qualify as bragging? On the issues page...

“Every American deserves access to affordable, quality healthcare.”

And it looks like he picked up an endorsement from a GOP primary candidate. Hmm...must be a local thing. Anyway, I would use the Times site as a tool to prove your theory as well.

Couple of other items...


jsid-1284059274-836  Markadelphia at Thu, 09 Sep 2010 19:07:57 +0000

How did Scott Brown vote on financial reform?

Scott Brown was elected to serve the best interests of MA, correct? MA already has universal health care so why would they want the fed version? It wasn't so much of an indictment on Obama as it was more of a "hey, we already have it...who cares about everyone else?" deal. In addition, the Dems did a piss poor job of campaigning, wouldn't you agree? Let's see how he does when he has to run in a general. Remember this conversation.

We've been talking about Dems trying to hold onto seats. Well, there are three seats, currently being held by the GOP, that are likely to flip. They are:

Delaware-John Carney running and is likely to win. Here is his position on health care

http://www.johncarneyforcongress.com/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpAccomplishments&type=5&s=carney

Hawaii-01, we have Colleen Hanabusa (more than likely)

http://www.hanabusa2010.com/issues/health_care_reform/

This was the seat that went GOP in the special because there were 2 Dems in the race against Djou. They got  57 percent of the vote and with the PVI at D+11, Colleen will likely win.

Finally, we have Louisiana and Cedric Richmond.

http://www.cedricrichmond.com/

We see a photo of him and Jim Clyburn as well as an issues page (somewhat incomplete) that supports the "emerging nightmare."

Here are three candidates that will probably take away seats from the GOP and are running on the support of the very issues you claim are now unpopular.

So, I guess I would be in agreement with you if you are speaking exclusively of districts that lean right on the PVI with Dems running. But both of you used sweeping statements backed up with no data. This is simply an example of projecting your emotions into a narrative that you hope is true.

jsid-1284066263-793  DJ at Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:04:32 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284059274-836

"This is simply an example of projecting your emotions into a narrative that you hope is true."

Well, lessee now ...

You ignored most of what I wrote and jumped on this:

"Now, try to find even ONE member of Congress who is running for re-election while bragging about voting "aye" on obamacare. Conversely, note how many members of Congress are running for re-election while bragging about voting "no" on obamacare."

To your credit, you actually looked for members of Congress who brag about voting "aye" on Obamacare. Of course there will be some, and saying Pelosi is one requires no research at all. You noted that:

"The fact is, DJ, that out of the 238 Dems running for reelection, 155-170 are solid Dem ..."

Of course they are, else the polls would be predicting a landslide of monumental proportions.

But to your discredit, you didn't look for members of Congress who brag about voting "no", did you? You did what you specialize in: you found something that supports what you like and ignored what doesn't.

The fact is that the polls, from all the major pollsters, are predicting that the Dimocrat party will be hammered in this election. The debate is about how bad, not about whether or not it will be bad. The question is why it will be so bad.

You blame this on:

"Add all this up and you have what I originally stated...a frustrated base that may not turn out in the numbers that could save Dem districts from flipping."

A frustrated "base", is it? Go see:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/305521.php

where we find:

"Democrats lead 47-40 among "drop off voters" -- voters not likely to vote this year."

Note something carefully here. OBAMATEUR IS NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE. It is CONGRESS (i.e. the House and 1/3 of the Senate) that faces election.

Now, why would these Dimocrat voters not vote in this election? Voting or not voting for Obamateur is not the question. Could it be that they are whom I characterized as people who "hate both his policies and what Congress has done to implement them", and so are not enthusiastic about voting for more of the same? Could it be that they voted for "change" and didn't like the "change" they got? Could it be that they think Congress has done too much, rather than too little?

As I noted above, your blithering does not account for the flip side, the expected high turnout of Independent and Republican voters, which is what the polls predict. The Dimocrats will be hammered by them, and you're blaming only a probable low Dimocrat turnout.

Now, do you see that you are engaging in precisely what you accuse me of, viz., complaining that I project my emotions on a narrative that I hope is true? Look in a mirror, teacher boy.

"So, I guess I would be in agreement with you if you are speaking exclusively of districts that lean right on the PVI with Dems running. ..."

I did not state or imply that I was writing exclusively about districts wherein a Dimocrat incumbent is vulnerable, but such is implicit in referencing polls of this election. The probability is quite high that lots of Dimocrat incumbents will be sent packing. The question is why that is true.  If you want to know why change is happening, then look where change is happening. Pointing out that Pelosi and her hard-core ilk will be re-elected is simply looking elsewhere.


jsid-1284060967-433  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 09 Sep 2010 19:36:07 +0000



Because even in the primaries, even in very very Democratic districts, Obama's endorsement is not wanted.   

Data, please, Unix...using the scientific method. You made an assertion. Back it up.  

I've been begging you for 3 years to stop using that term. You don't even begin to understand it.  

This has nothing to do with the "scientific method", other than more evidence how you throw around big words and concepts in an attempt to bolster your credibility, and end up demolishing it to anyone who understands the words you're using.



How many districts? Almost all of them.    
 
How many in an "almost all?" Now, if you are saying that it is almost all of the tougher races or the tossups, I'd agree. But even then, we have guys like this.  


More misuse of the words.
The issue now is there's a very obvious trend here, and you're ignoring it and in fact, denying it.  I'm not going through 435 races to count for you.

You producing one, or three, or 5 examples does not negate what I said. (And using PELOSI as an example?)  Yeah, that's meaningful. You're the one who thinks that any counterexample wins, despite what the proposition was.



Because even in the primaries, even in very very Democratic districts, Obama's endorsement is not wanted.   
How many districts? Almost all of them.

That's what I said, and there's a very interesting trend to those who are able to observe.  You're not able to, because you feel it reflects negatively on your beliefs. And it does, to a small extent.  But it's far more negative to be utterly unable to discuss and analyze, and continually misusing words and concepts.

 

He has a photo of himself with President Obama. If he was "running away," wouldn't he take that down? Here is his statement on health care for DJ  

 

How many campaign appearances has Obama made?

Compare that to how many Bill Clinton has made.

Let's put a number to "almost all." I'd like to see some examples of these "very very Democratic districts" where they are telling Obama to stay away. Evidence, please and not just anamolies.  

This is an epic thread.  Mark, just above, if you start at the top, you can find specific examples where you didn't even bother to listen.  You've misused terms, concepts, and changed the subject numerous times.  If you want to insist that Obama's cratering popularity, lack of campaign stops, being overshadowed by the prior officeholder of the same party is all "Anomalies", well, fine.  It's a far far far less important point than many others you've Sir-Mark'ed on in this thread alone.



But both of you used sweeping statements backed up with no data. This is simply an example of projecting your emotions into a narrative that you hope is true.

Which is more, Mark, 15? Or 22?  Who used a sweeping statement?  Who projected?

But no, it's not projection. I'll leave that to you.  I didn't say it was all. I said most. And you can watch Youtube videos and see there's a definite trend - current officeholders are playing down and pulling a Markadelphia on their votes, whilst their opponents - even in the same party - are highlighting their votes. 

Scott Brown was elected to serve the best interests of MA, correct? MA already has universal health care so why would they want the fed version? It wasn't so much of an indictment on Obama as it was more of a "hey, we already have it...who cares about everyone else?" deal.

Riiiiiiiight. And we're the ones projecting.

But in all fairness, that's one of your better attempts at evading and actually has a glimmer of plausibility to it. 


jsid-1284062774-414  Markadelphia at Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:06:14 +0000

So, you are ignoring my request for data to back up your assertion and replacing it with more personal attacks?


jsid-1284067593-878  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:26:44 +0000

So, you are ignoring my request for data to back up your assertion and replacing it with more personal attacks?

22.
15.

Let's back up to there.

Those aren't personal attacks, Mark.  And I explained exactly what I was doing and why.

I stand by what I said, you've yet to demonstrate evidence against it.  It's 1) not a worthy enough matter to "prove" it to you, 2) you have a track record of not being able to understand even very clearly laid out evidence, 3) You've got a track record of ignoring evidence not to your liking and changing the subject.

One need only page up a bit to get to where you replaced "Revenue" with "Deficit" to see why I say that.

Based on your history there, I'm just going to stick with what I said, and how I said it.  Your rebuttal attempt didn't really impact it - you cited some pols who are embracing Obama.  I never said nobody was, if you'd paid attention. I said most weren't, and most aren't.  For me to be incorrect, you'd need to find 51% that are. You won't, but you're welcome to try. The work and practice would be really good for you.  222 candidates for the House would prove you right, and me wrong.

222. Not 5. Not 10. Not 100. 222. That's the number that would prove me wrong.  Notice that your "rebuttal" was to find 3 and declare that I was wrong, and gee, look at the pictures there, and wow, he's all in favor and...

But that was 3.  Only 219 more to go.


Speaking of your track record, speaking of your hypocrisy, speaking of your projection.. 

*ahem*

Which is more, 22 or 15?  How can you possibly keep insisting that I'm ignoring anything while you won't deal with that little gem from your history?


jsid-1284067633-807  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:27:14 +0000

Oh, and you didn't even take the compliment I gave you.


jsid-1284071265-987  Markadelphia at Thu, 09 Sep 2010 22:27:46 +0000

Unix, I guess I have my answer. I'll be waiting for the data. Oh, and as long as we are talking about data you may want to re-check yours regarding Rush Limbaugh's audience size. Yet another fact which makes your taunting utterly meaningless. Unless you have anything new to offer, I will be on to Ken's third comment.

you didn't look for members of Congress who brag about voting "no", did you?

No, because I agree with you. There are Democrats in conservative districts who are bragging about voting no.In fact, I'm sure the Dem leadership has cut them loose and said, "Do what you have to in order to win. We won't take it personally."


The fact is that the polls, from all the major pollsters, are predicting that the Dimocrat party will be hammered in this election.

The ones with likely voters or registered voters? Pay attention to that one. Something else to consider...suppose the GOP takes back the House. Then what? Many of the new reps aren't going to be as friendly to the old guard GOP. They may end up voting against any bill that has spending in it, right? Which means they would vote with the Dems. In other words, there's a majority and a working majority. Good luck trying to get the Tea Partiers in line with a GOP budget that will have spending in it they don't like.

And what about the state houses? That's the real battle. The GOP is poised to take some of these back and, if they do, they will be able to favorably draw the lines for all the re-districting. The GOP may take back the House but if the Dems hold on to most of the state houses, what do you think they will do? 2012 will be a whole new ball game.


Could it be that they think Congress has done too much, rather than too little? 

In some districts, yes. In others, no. It depends on where you are at. Don't you think that if Dems were as enthused as they were in 06 and 08 that these polls might be different? Why they aren't enthused has to do with a decided lack of proggressive action items accomplished by Obama and the Congress.

jsid-1284074709-754  DJ at Thu, 09 Sep 2010 23:25:09 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284071265-987

"Why they aren't enthused has to do with a decided lack of proggressive action items accomplished by Obama and the Congress."

And, we're right back at Square One, wherein you project your emotions onto a narrative that you hope is true.

Go back to recess, teacher boy.


jsid-1284077284-808  GrumpyOldFart at Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:08:05 +0000

They may end up voting against any bill that has spending in it, right? Which means they would vote with the Dems.

Are you seriously suggesting that House Dems are going to demand spending cuts?


jsid-1284079561-999  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:46:02 +0000

Oh, and as long as we are talking about data you may want to re-check yours regarding Rush Limbaugh's audience size. Yet another fact which makes your taunting utterly meaningless.

Say what you mean, mean what you say.

At the time, I linked you to my data, which showed the peak audience for Rush.  You're trying to redefine and move the goalposts again, but you're going to fail, just like all the other times.

AT THE TIME YOU MADE THE CLAIM, I gave you the Arbitron and Neilson ratings. You could have then debated - but as usual, you ran, since you were wrong, had been projecting, and couldn't be bothered to check your facts.

The situation may have changed in the meantime. That does not mean you were right to make the claim when you made it. You made it in the present tense, not the future.

At that time,  Rush's largest audience - ever - was 15 million.  

Utterly meaningless?  How about what serves you for logic?  So a year and a half later, after Obama's policies and "leadership" drive people in record numbers to oppose him, now you actually do the research?

So enlighten me, since you've been dodging that for a year and a half.  What's his audience now? And compared to nightly news, which was what you claimed at the time, smaller than Rush's audience?

You don't get to change the facts and the data retroactively, even though that's the only way your forecasts work.

Gee, I wonder why you're such an Obama supporter and don't see the problems.


Which is more, 22 or 15?  How can you possibly keep insisting that I'm ignoring anything while you won't deal with that little gem from your history?

And you still fail to address your failure.


jsid-1284079931-289  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:52:11 +0000

Actually, I should also point out Mark, that this is typical of you, and it's not a reset.

If you have data, you'll pick past, present, or future, and use it interchangeably with comparisons and as rebuttal.  Just as you compared "per-capita" above with "total" revenue. 

This is not indicative of someone who has mastery of the material.


jsid-1284093853-552  Markadelphia at Fri, 10 Sep 2010 04:44:13 +0000

I gave you the Arbitron and Neilson ratings. You could have then debated - but as usual, you ran

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030603435.html

Arbitron, the radio industry's dominant audience-measurement company, has never publicly released a national estimate for Limbaugh, and it says, in effect, that the job is too complicated, expensive and time-consuming to bother with.

According to what Limbaugh delights in calling "the drive-by media," the number varies wildly. Is it 30 million (Pat Buchanan on MSNBC), 20 million (Time magazine, ABC News), 19 million (Fox News), 14 million (CNN), or "14.2 million to about 25 million" (The Washington Post)?

But estimates of Limbaugh's nationwide (and overseas) audience are exercises in guesswork, slippery methodology and suspect data. Limbaugh himself has muddied the water with the claim that he reaches 20 million people a week, although there's no independent support for that figure.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/09/entertainment/et-limbaugh9


The difficulty comes from the vast patchwork that is Limbaugh's radio empire. His three-hour daily program is carried on more than 600 domestic stations, but these stations don't all carry the show at the same time or even for the same duration. Like KFI-AM (640) in L.A., most stations air all three hours of Limbaugh's broadcast each weekday, but some carry only two hours. Arbitron has never attempted to aggregate all of this audience data for these many stations and times.

Should we continue, Unix?



jsid-1284094375-525  Markadelphia at Fri, 10 Sep 2010 04:52:55 +0000

Are you seriously suggesting that House Dems are going to demand spending cuts?

No, what I'm saying is that a GOP controlled House, for example, will largely be run by old school R's. They will try to pass bills that include too much spending for the TP's. The TP's will vote no along with the Dem minority (who will do it just to be contrary) and nothing will get done. That's a possible scenario. It depends on how many TP's get elected. There's a majority and a working majority.

More and more, I think that the GOP winning the House may not be all doom and gloom. In fact, it may help get out the vote in 2012. I think frustrated American need to be reminded of what they voted and rallied against in 06 and 08. Two more years of complete shit and "ideas" that have no practical application in reality.

jsid-1284209766-795  GrumpyOldFart at Sat, 11 Sep 2010 12:56:07 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284094375-525

No, what I'm saying is that a GOP controlled House, for example, will largely be run by old school R's. They will try to pass bills that include too much spending for the TP's. The TP's will vote no along with the Dem minority (who will do it just to be contrary) and nothing will get done. That's a possible scenario. It depends on how many TP's get elected. There's a majority and a working majority.

Sounds like a feature rather than a bug, to me. The Democrats acted like single sailors in a topless bar with other people's money, so they got thrown out and Republicans got put in. The Republicans acted like single sailors in a topless bar with other people's money, which gave the Democrats the opportunity to come back to power on the message of fighting the corruption, ethics, transparency and accountability. And once again, the old school money boys acted like single sailors in a topless bar. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Nobody says the process is easy, quick or painless. The winnowing processes that put Republicans in in 1994 and 2002 never caught Charlie Rangel or John Murtha, just as the 2006 and 2008 winnowing processes failed to catch some corrupt Republicans that badly need the boot.

Just because sifting something once isn't enough to thoroughly separate the trash from what you want to keep doesn't make the sifting process a waste of time. When the corruption reaches so deeply that some of your corrupt good ole boys are the grandchildren of those who were the corrupt good ole boys in their day, you can't expect the stain to wash out overnight.

In the same way, I think most of what's wrong with US law is what needs to be re-written from scratch or thrown away entirely, rather than what needs to be added to.


jsid-1284096890-660  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 10 Sep 2010 05:34:50 +0000

Should we continue, Unix?

Considering it's taken you 18 MONTHS to get this far, I think you're not one to be acting like I'm the one avoiding debate.

Perhaps I was wrong - it was 18 or so months ago (I might be wrong there. Maybe it was 20. I'm rounding. Feel free to go back and find what I originally quoted.

I'll freely admit that I presumed arbitron - that's what I remember now. I could be wrong. I remember the numbers, numbers you didn't start to question, rebut, or debate for well over a YEAR.  That was before the Echo cutover, and now those comments aren't googleable.  But I did archive them, and I'll see if I can find the post, including the links I provided to you.

But to wait over a year and THEN start to pick nits?  You need to go back and man up, sack up, and nut up on that, Mark.

Yeah, you're a real big man, you're the one who's got this figured out.  All that silly posturing does is make you look silly.   If you want to discuss what things are now, that's one thing. If you want to discuss what they were right after the election, then you'll need some figures from back then. Not now.  But you made the claim then. Not "in the future, more people will", but that "more people listen" - that's called "present tense".

You're confusing past, present, and future tenses.  

And then you've got the gall to act like I'm the unreasonable one.  Remember sticking to a proposition? You defined it. More people are (at the time) listening to Rush than the nightly news. Not according to the results I found at that time.  

Now you're changing the proposition and trying to declare victory. Maybe you should have tried this back then. Or sometime in the past several months.  Or just admit that yes, you shot from the lip, and didn't check before you ran your mouth.

Now, back to the subject - you're avoiding what I said. 219 more examples to prove me wrong. Because my proposition is in most races, Obama is not a positive. There's a lot of evidence for that proposition.

But It occured to me one of the biggest indications that ought to demonstrate this is something you wouldn't have considered, because you don't back up and try and break problems down.  

If the Republicans win a majority in the House - which is something the Democrats are currently panicking over - then by definition the majority felt Obama was a negative.  So if you're going to argue that with me, you might want to start with all the D pollsters and thinktanks who are trying to analyze the races, and worried that they'll lose their majority in the House.

But then again, if you actually knew how to break down info and analyze it, you'd probably already considered that.

Oh, wait, you almost did.


, I think that the GOP winning the House may not be all doom and gloom.

That's what I mean about failures of analysis.


jsid-1284097261-874  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 10 Sep 2010 05:41:02 +0000

On 2nd thought: Mark?  That's actually not a bad reply in it's quoting, and what you found.

Only problem, you skipped the main topic and went to nits.  It's possible I'm now wrong as to who I linked to and quoted

But is that my fault or yours, that this has dragged out for 18 months?

You're not rebutting my sources, facts, or figures. You're rebutting my memory of hundreds of comments ago.  Wasn't it you who last week derided exactly that sort of detail?

But yes, I might be wrong on quoting Arbitron. It's what I remember, and I might remember it incorrectly.  But I quoted somebody who said 15 million. Peak. Versus 22 million average for TV.  

Now, where your reply fails is  that you didn't go back to that time period and get the results from then. You moved the goalposts to now.  You're picking the nit - 18 or so months later - rather than debating the proposition that you set out.

But let me give you credit where credit is due. It's a small credit, but it came far closer to staying on topic than most of your attempts.

Now, by all means, let's continue, and don't forget when you said it defines the time period.


jsid-1284132946-24  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:35:46 +0000

I missed this reading the first time, much as I just read over your "mortages are slavery" line.

But, wait, WHAT THE HELL?

I think frustrated American need to be reminded of what they voted and rallied against in 06 and 08. Two more years of complete shit and "ideas" that have no practical application in reality.

On the drive in, I heard Obama speaking. This is from memory.  "I ran on the idea that the middle class wasn't getting a fair break... Needed to change the economic system .... people are frustrated, not there yet, the growth is coming."

See, Mark, this is where we've been trying to teach you, but stereotypically of teachers, you're the hardest student.  Obama ran on a wholly different platform than he's actually [trying to] enact[ing].

We've tried to explain this to you, it goes over your head, because "complete shit and "ideas" that have no practical application in reality."  Is the extent of your analysis.

Because you don't understand the concepts, and you won't open your mind to the concepts that elude you, there's just not a lot of point in taking this apart piece by piece.  You want to believe, and you'll just insist on believing.  The fact that you cannot, can not, reduce what you're saying to simpler steps and attempt to prove them means that it's all you can do.

So it's just like your "Mortgages are slavery" and "Jobs are slavery" (but being forced at gunpoint to do something isn't, you know, when you agree with it) slanders - because you can't reduce it, you overgeneralize and overcompensate past real problems.

But in your sneering analysis of what's "shit" you might want to consider the rather simple fact that many people were fed up at the Republicans being Democrat Lite, and just raising spending 30%.  That had a LOT to do with the takeover. It wasn't that people wanted 100% increases, they didn't want any.  Which is why the "Blue Dogs" had a huge run in '06. Promising Fiscal Responsibility.

That's rather hard to square with the numbers now, and the public isn't as dumb as you think they are.  

Remember, they ran on those promises - including Obama! Who promised to post bills! And declared that he'd make sure there were no tax increases! (Among other things.)

So to claim now that the gains in 06 and 08 were because people wanted MORE spending is ahistorical and not anywhere near a fair assessment.

And yes, it's why most Democrats now are running to the (center) right HARD and promising fiscal responsibility. It's why Obama is still blaming Bush for "his" deficit spending (nevermind it's a small fraction of what these last 2 years have been.  

It might work. But it's hardly honest.


jsid-1284142142-841  GrumpyOldFart at Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:09:03 +0000

"Mortgages are slavery"

I can actually buy this one. All credit of any kind is slavery. You are promising _____ monetary value, which is practical terms = _____ amount of the productive value of your life, therefore you are committing to your creditor owning _____ percentage of your life. Sure, I can see that argument.

But it only works if you admit that the "slave" in question voluntarily sold himself into his "slavery", and that some groups are advocating easy access to such "slavery" as a civil right.

So which is it going to be? Credit is slavery and should be abolished? Or credit is slavery, but you have the right to sell yourself at whatever terms the market will bear? Or is it slavery for some, but not for others? Has the deficit spending of the Democratic majority and the Obama Administration "sold us all into slavery"? Why or why not?


jsid-1284144851-706  Markadelphia at Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:54:11 +0000

Or just admit that yes, you shot from the lip, and didn't check before you ran your mouth.

Now, by all means, let's continue, and don't forget when you said it defines the time period.

Now you're changing the proposition and trying to declare victory.
 

Actually, Unix, I'm not. There's no "victory" at all in any of this. I took Rush at his word (which I shouldn't have) and it's possible that he does have 20 million listeners or as many as the nightly news. Maybe more. We don't have any way of knowing this as I have shown above. So, your question was ignored until now because the point was moot. And really not all that important compared to the other cool stuff we were talking about over the last few months. I guess I'm not certain where we would continue given we have no accurate data and a stated position not to gather that data given his framework of syndication.

But is that my fault or yours, that this has dragged out for 18 months?  

I'll take the blame, Unix. No problem. I apologize. I've had this link for awhile now but didn't really want to trot it out because I thought we had more important things to talk about. Rush Limbaugh's ratings are far less important to me than a discussion about the economy, for example. Or education. Or the election. Contrary to what you may think, I don't like to take cheap shots or pull a bunch of crap to win an argument. I've done it, of course, I'm human but I always feel like crap afterward which is why I've changed my tone on here and on my blog. I really don't like scoring cheap points so, much of the time, I avoid the little stuff like this because I'm trying to be considerate of other people's feelings.

But you're right. I should've brought it up earlier and probably should've thought of a way to quickly close the discussion on this small matter while keeping most of the discussion on the more important topics.

Now, back to the subject - you're avoiding what I said. 219 more examples to prove me wrong. Because my proposition is in most races, Obama is not a positive. There's a lot of evidence for that proposition. 

Unix, what would your response be if I made a proposition like that, without any evidence, and then told you to go prove me wrong? Seriously, c'mon dude! I've made similar requests in the past and you've told me (justifiably so) to go and fuck myself. I'm not going to tell you to fuck yourself...not my style...but I will submit that you have made a proposition and I think it's a fair request to ask you to prove it with evidence. You've come up with a hypothesis. Now it's time for research (I've provided you links to get started), gathering observable, empircal and measurable evidence, careful description, the formulation of theories based on possible explanations, and the gathering of additional data about questions that popped up during research.

If you don't have the time to do it, that's cool. I know I don't. And I have no problem agreeing with you that there are probably around 80-100 races where most of the reps view Obama as a negative. But there are around 150 where most would view him as a positive. And the vote on health care for that matter as well. His approval rating is around 45 percent (average) and those people live somewhere, right? Your statement was "almost all" and in "very, very Democratic districts." Now, if you'd like to change it to "almost half" I would agree because those districts would be ones with PVIs on the +R side. Chet Edwards (TX-17) would be an example of this. He voted no on health care in a R+20 district. Certainly, President Obama would not be welcome there.


jsid-1284147647-649  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:40:48 +0000

Ah, the "Dog ate my homework, but I really did do it on time" approach. Time tested and a classic, gotta give that to you.



I took Rush at his word (which I shouldn't have) and it's possible that he does have 20 million listeners or as many as the nightly news. Maybe more.

Right there. You said before more that. Not maybe, not perhaps, but for sure, 100% there were more listeners than nightly news viewers.

I couldn't find any evidence of that (and you presented none) when I went to look, and I presented you with what I found - which you ignored lo these years.

But you just said Maybe more. That was not what I replied to. I replied to when you said that he DID.

The evidence I found showed a peak of 15 million (at the time), versus a average of 22 million for nightly news.


We don't have any way of knowing this as I have shown above. 

YOU DIDN'T SHOW THAT ABOVE.

You did not, in ANY LIGHT, show what you claimed to.  What you did do, to be honest, was to critique my memory of where i got my figures, and demonstrate that I have mis-remembered.  That you could claim to have done. If you want to overextend, and you usually do, you could claim that throws everything I've been saying into doubt.  But you cannot then take the nit of where I got my census, and then declare that you proved something else, to wit; that there is no statistics to be quoted.

But you just cannot understand how to make a proposition, back it up, and defend it. You can't!  Right there is another clear case.

Rush's audience size is studied, and published. As it nightly news. There are of course some disagreements about how to measure them, but there are entire sciences and studies devoted to that.

Because most importantly? The money that is made? It's made based on audience size. So you'd damn well better believe that there's some serious eyeballs and people thinking about it. Hardly We don't have any way of knowing this.

I've had this link for awhile now but didn't really want to trot it out because I thought we had more important things to talk about. Rush Limbaugh's ratings are far less important to me than a discussion about the economy, for example.

But that wasn't the issue, Mark. The issue was you made a claim, insulting us by the way, and that claim didn't stand up to scrutiny. Rather than deal with it, or even present information defending your claim, you just ignored it for YEARS.  

It's about your integrity in part, and your ability in part, and your ability to admit you were wrong and the sum of those wholes that makes you able to analyze information.  That was what it was about. 

Having the link "for a while" makes my point for me. You didn't have it when you made the claim. The claim you made was for that time.  Holding it just makes you look bad.  Just like when you drew the line in the sand and made like you had irrefutable evidence and proof. "Should we continue, Unix?"

It doesn't make me look bad that you've sat on something, and then came out and acted like you won - even as you don't understand what you're posting. It doesn't make me look bad to ignore something for months and months.  It does, however, reinforce what I said to you in the other thread, that you're not good at analysis


jsid-1284147750-630  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:42:30 +0000


Unix, what would your response be if I made a proposition like that, without any evidence, and then told you to go prove me wrong?

 

But I provided you evidence.  Hell, Mark, I quoted you in support, because in the very next comment, you were entertaining the possibility

 

You don't understand the nature of evidence, and you've got NO IDEA what the scientific method is, where it applies, and how it works. NONE.

 

Your attempting to cargo-cult again makes you look bad. 

 

But let me just point out one thing that's very, very simple.

 

I told you what the number, the objective reality that exists (actually, that's imprecise, to bevery technical, but we're trying to SIMPLIFY not COMPLICATE the analysis).  A majority of the house would be 219 races.  

 

But there are around 150 where most would view him as a positive.

 

That does not disagree with what I said. I said most. 150 is 69 less. Or 2/3 of what would be needed to disprove my postulate.  And that's if you're right.

 

Then you kept going, and proved you do not understand.

 

And the vote on health care for that matter as well. 

 

That doesn't even fit into the paragraph. Nor about his percentage. 

 

Now, if you want to take on my 'almost all' - I already gave you an example of why I said that. To repeat: Obama is not on the campaign trail. Bill Clinton is.  Clinton is in demand. Obama is not.  That's a very powerful statement right there.  You could go back and compare it to other Presidents during midterms.  It's very atypical. Staggeringly so.

 

Almost all might be overstatement. I don't think it is. But it's incredibly atypical that Obama hasn't been campaigning for anybody but himself.  There's a historical nugget there, and I'm standing by what I said, what I'm seeing.


jsid-1284148501-875  Russell at Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:55:02 +0000

I've had this link for awhile now but didn't really want to trot it out because I thought we had more important things to talk about. Rush Limbaugh's ratings are far less important to me than a discussion about the economy, for example. 

 This is threaded chat forum, nothing has any real importance. Add to that the fact you have had no problem swooping into a thread, injecting your standard nonsense, and swooping off when the monsters got close and I call BS.

jsid-1284153736-173  DJ at Fri, 10 Sep 2010 21:22:41 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284148501-875

"This is threaded chat forum, nothing has any real importance."

He is fundamentally dishonest, Russell.  No error is too outrageous for him to make, just as long as he never admits error. One seldom ever sees self-delusion that is so successful. The reasons for that success here is that it really doesn't matter and he is not at risk.

But he does such good work for our side.


jsid-1284156368-685  Markadelphia at Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:06:08 +0000

And we're back to gross mis-characterizations about me, being deliberately contrary just because it's me, and personal insults. All this after I made a sincere effort to reconcile our differenes and expect the same rules to apply to you that apply to me. Ah well...at least I tried...now on to Ken's third (and very insightful comment) after which I will tackle GOF's equally bright post. Good questions, indeed, dude!  
 
I hope Ken is still reading down here... *DONT_KNOW*  
 
 
people do respond to incentives, but the typical wage/salary-earner's responses to incentives (like tax cut) are more constrained than those of entrepreneurs (for example) For exempt employees, working more overtime might get 'em a raise, and then it might not. For hourly employees, it's not always up to them whether they get to pull more overtime or not. Okay, but might either moonlight in order to increase revenue, now they get to keep more of what they earn? They might, depending on whether the revenue gained is worth more than the leisure foregone (people make tradeoffs).     
 
 
I agree. This would be why I can see cutting taxes on the business side of the equation spurring more incentive. The rest of your paragraph eloquently details the various grays to the cutting taxes increase incentive argument. This is where the other side of interaction theories comes into play...symbolic interaction. What value to we place on leisure time and how does that fit into behavior? Some people might work more if their taxes are cut and other may not because they value that leisure time no matter how much they make.  
 
(I'm an Austrian, not a supply-sider; there's a difference)  
 
Why are you an Austrian as opposed to a supply sider? And what do you see as the beneifts of thinking like an Austrian? The downside?

jsid-1284168745-371  DJ at Sat, 11 Sep 2010 01:32:25 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284156368-685

"And we're back to gross mis-characterizations about me, being deliberately contrary just because it's me, and personal insults. All this after I made a sincere effort to reconcile our differenes and expect the same rules to apply to you that apply to me."

So, you tried to "... reconcile our differenes ...", did you?

The result is the same regardless of how you are treated. Day after day after day, you present a carrousel of ponies that go 'round and 'round and up and down. You are driven by the avoidance of admitting significant error, yet you have no reluctance whatever to commit significant error. So, your modus operandi is evasion via the Quick Retort of the Moment that reads as Random but Important Sounding Gibberish, all in an endless game of dodgeball that is simply not worth playing.

Want a simple but perfect example of this?  I'll give you one.

You have stated repeatedly in this thread that you believe many Dimocrats in Congress will not be re-elected because many of the Dimocrat base think Obamateur and Congress did not go far enough, i.e. they didn't "Do it again, only harder!" But, you have complained for years at Kevin's use of this phrase, insisting that it does not accurately characterize that same base. You demonstrate that you have a problem which is common to pathological liars; you cannot remember your lies.

Kevin is correct, that it simply isn't worth the effort to try to have a serious discussion with you about any subject. It would be more worthwhile to buy a five minute argument from John Cleese.

The fundamental differences between you and the rest of us cannot be reconciled, and manners have nothing to do with it. Kevin has explained why he thinks this is the case, and I have come to the conclusion that he is dead right. He explained it better than I can, so I won't reproduce his reasoning here. But, I think what he describes is horribly compounded by your highly defective sense of self-worth. Nothing that has been written here in over three years of effort has changed you in any way that I can detect.

I have concluded that I was wrong about you in one regard. I don't think you have anything to write that is worth reading, no matter whether you submerge it in manure or top it with whipped cream. You are not the intelligent deep thinker that you pose yourself as, rather you are simply an insecure little unconstrained leftist who wants so desperately to be taken seriously that he will endure all manner of embarrassment and shame if only someone will pay attention to him.

You get the treatment here that you earn here. I have concluded that you are incapable of earning better treatment, regardless of how badly you want it. You are beyond help.

jsid-1284172012-787  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:26:52 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284168745-371

 It would be more worthwhile to buy a five minute argument from John Cleese.  

Actually, no it wouldn't.

jsid-1284172448-217  pdb at Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:34:08 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284172012-787

Oh yes it would.

jsid-1284172641-465  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:37:21 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284172448-217

No, it wouldn't. 

Before we continue, is this a argument on the scientific method, or on critical pedagogy?

jsid-1284405955-737  Russell at Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:25:56 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284172641-465

I told you once.

jsid-1284556283-60  GrumpyOldFart at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:11:23 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284405955-737

No you didn't.

jsid-1284571244-594  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:20:44 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284556283-60

Yes, I, LOOK A PONY!!!!!!!

jsid-1284753716-456  Russell at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 20:01:56 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284571244-594

That's not a pony.

jsid-1284754656-916  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 20:17:37 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284753716-456

Yes it is, how dare you question me! Why, I have here several quotations from Very Important People With Prestigious Jobs that attest that it is a pony. Well, not a pig, anyway, see, right here? Nevermind that minor scandal about him, that was all overblown by the Right Wing!

jsid-1284778304-626  Guest (anonymous) at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 02:51:44 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284754656-916

Look, an argument is more than just Random But Important Sounding Gibberish! An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is an intellectual process. Random But Important Sounding Gibberish is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

jsid-1284780584-507  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 03:29:44 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284778304-626

No it isn't, why won't you nut up and admit that, you verbatim kinda-sorta-repeater!

jsid-1284780743-741  Russell at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 03:32:23 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284780584-507

Yes, it isn't! And I may, or may not, have been Guest.


jsid-1284162745-968  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:52:26 +0000

All this after I made a sincere effort to reconcile our differenes and expect the same rules to apply to you that apply to me. 

You changed your tone - and the replies changed as well.  But note you dodged everything I said. Again.  Which did not change.  

Note you've changed the meanings of words, you're moving goalposts, those things did not change.  


 Ah well...at least I tried.

No, Mark, you didn't. You didn't try. You just said you did.

Like above, when you said you proved there was no way to measure, and no measurements of, Rush Limbaugh's listening audience.  But you didn't, and there's no reasonable way that you can claim that. That will come as a great shock to anybody who advertises on his show.

And then you retracted the proposition you'd made, without admitting the change in stance.  "Maybe more" is not the same as "More people listen.."

That's not a change, Mark. You want credit for making an "effort", without bothering to learn the material.  "See, I did work on it!" "But none of it is close to being correct." "But I TRIED!"  You quite literally just used the "Dog ate my homework, so that's why I didn't turn it in on time" excuse.

That's not a change.  Swapping discussion on deficit when revenue is being discussed?  No change.  

Refusing to admit that 22 is more than 15?  No change.

Moving the goalposts to use recent measurements, and then retroactively claim that that was the case all along?  No change.

No, Mark, you didn't really try.  I don't know if you have the capability.  You still obviously have no clue how to watch trends, or what it would take to defend propositions. 


Why are you an Austrian as opposed to a supply sider? And what do you see as the beneifts of thinking like an Austrian? The downside?

Nuke it from orbit, just to be sure.  Really, Mark, after the rest of this thread, asking a question like that?  It demonstrates what we've been saying about the educational system.


jsid-1284319627-698  Ken at Sun, 12 Sep 2010 19:27:07 +0000

The primary benefit of thinking like an Austrian is philosophical consistency. No one has permission (not saying no one does it -- saying no one has a legal or moral warrant to do it) to be a armed robber, not even if they can wave badges and flags. No one has permission to commit fraud by, say, debasing the coin; again, not even for those who wave badges, flags, and/or election results.

Downside? You pays your money, you takes your choice, and you lives with the consequences. I guess that's a downside, for given values of downside.

As far as supply-side is concerned, I agree that aggregate demand (there's no such Henny Youngman anyway) cannot drive prosperity, but by leaving the abomination of income tax in place (I am not implying that all supply-siders believe in preservation of the income tax), they are no less engaging in social engineering than anyone else who wants to influence behavior by playing games with the tax code.


jsid-1284413537-601  Markadelphia at Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:32:17 +0000

Interesting points, Ken. But I guess...going back to the Orwell quote...can we live with the consequences of a "tryanny worse and more irresponsible than than that of the state." Wouldn't you agree that unfettered markets threaten the soical order and possibly pave the way for fascism? Hayek seems to have changed his mind on the role of government throughout his lifespan and I'm wondering where you stand with his view stated in Serfdom and then later altered

jsid-1284415505-914  Ken at Mon, 13 Sep 2010 22:05:15 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284413537-601

Wouldn't you agree that unfettered markets threaten the soical order and possibly pave the way for fascism?  
 
No, I absolutely would not agree with that. Not ever. I don't think you understand what an unfettered market is. To amass the sort of resources required for a fascist coup d'etat requires an etat, and one that rigs the game to favor scale as an organizing principle. Consider: could the proprietors of, say, the Maryland colony obtained title to and control of so much land (any of the lords proprietors of the colonial era, Maryland I just pulled from the air) without the initial grant and later support of the English crown? Not in a million years. This is one of the things the Georgists (see Henry George) are on about.
 
As for the Orwell quote: I think he was out to lunch on this particular issue. To kill more people than the state has done throughout recorded history, you need something on the order of the Black Plague.


By the way: 400! THIS! IS. SUPERSIZED! (OR! MAYBE! INFLATED!) SPARTA!


jsid-1284414330-401  Markadelphia at Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:45:30 +0000

I can actually buy this one. All credit of any kind is slavery. You are promising _____ monetary value, which is practical terms = _____ amount of the productive value of your life, therefore you are committing to your creditor owning _____ percentage of your life. Sure, I can see that argument.  

I agree. And what happens when the financial sector of our country makes this worse by doing what they did? With the government "watching porn" instead of doing their job?


But it only works if you admit that the "slave" in question voluntarily sold himself into his "slavery", and that some groups are advocating easy access to such "slavery" as a civil right.  

The predatory lending that went on that caused most of this went far beyond what many signed up for, wouldn't you agree? The government's job is to protect them from force and fraud and they failed.
 
So which is it going to be? Credit is slavery and should be abolished? Or credit is slavery, but you have the right to sell yourself at whatever terms the market will bear? Or is it slavery for some, but not for others? Has the deficit spending of the Democratic majority and the Obama Administration "sold us all into slavery"? Why or why not?


Clearly, we have to have some sort of credit system in this country but there need to be barriers that prevent someone like Joe Cassano doing what he did.

No, I don't think that the Obama administration and the Dems have sold us into slavery. First of all, it's Congress that does the spending. The president execuates the law. So, it's there the focus should be. And it's tremendously unfair to not include the GOP in all of this. Their spending brought us to the point where the best option--poor as it was--was bail out and then stimulus. Second, we've had much worse in our history, economically speaking, and we came through just fine. I would again point to the post WWII years (which contained insanely high taxes) and the boom that followed. We could have that now but there needs to be some ideological "chillin'" and I'm not sure that can happen.

jsid-1284428103-635  GrumpyOldFart at Tue, 14 Sep 2010 01:35:03 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284414330-401

No, I don't think that the Obama administration and the Dems have sold us into slavery.

And yet wasn't it you who claimed that "mortgages are slavery"? You can't have it both ways.

And it's tremendously unfair to not include the GOP in all of this. Their spending brought us to the point where the best option--poor as it was--was bail out and then stimulus.

I disagree as to the "best option", but I'll grant you that it has been both parties for many decades now. However, if "Their spending brought us to the point", then how can you make the claim that increasing spending is the solution? Once again, you can't have it both ways.

The government's job is to protect them from force and fraud and they failed.

And this is one of the major things I (and I suspect most here) just flatly don't get about your attitudes. The government, not the private sector, failed to do the job they take our money by force to pay for. Extortion, by definition, no? I dunno about you, but I have yet to see a single item in the news about how those people are facing criminal charges. Some of the people whose job it was to watch out for this kind of thing, like Tim Geithner, got "a promotion and a pat on the back"... those are your words, I believe.

And yet even though they plainly couldn't be bothered to do their jobs, and the party currently in power, which you support, does not apparently think they should be punished, nor even fired, for that failure, on the other hand should get "a promotion and a pat on the back"... and your solution is to give those same people more authority. No more accountability you understand, there is still a FLAT ZERO chance that any of them will do any jail time the next time they do this... and you know it will happen again, it has been guaranteed by the current response, it's what you get promoted for. Apparently that's "the most ethical Administration/Congress in history" in your world.

In order to accomodate that, I can't help thinking that your reasoning process has to be so twisty you could think your way through a corkscrew in a tornado and not touch the sides.


jsid-1284489116-825  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:31:57 +0000

GOF Said: Once again, you can't have it both ways.  
 

We've been telling you, demonstrating, giving example after example, Mark, of why this happens to you. Because you can not or will no simplify back to basics.

So your entire worldview is hypocritical, where you excuse major bad behavior, and condemn minor infractions with Cromwellian zeal.

The government's job is to protect them from force and fraud and they failed.  
 

Just like that.  You've made a contention there, that they were either forced, of defrauded into that agreement.

That's your proposition.  What then, if they got exactly what they bargained and contracted for? Where's the force or fraud there?  Where's the "failure of the government"?  

Every single example you come up with, Mark, is  a bad one, and it demonstrates your lack of rigor.

Let me give you something that you won't read and comprehend, because you've never learned how to actually do that.
But it's too good not to bring out.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/246424/campus-crucible-contd-jonah-goldberg

The Left’s attacks work to some degree because the Left quite cleverly refuses to engage on the real battlefield; in so doing, it assumes as given the very thing conservatives find most contestable.  They all want to fight over the content of conservatives’ collective character.  We know—KNOW—that the real fight is over whether and to what extent the government is even capable of solving the problems we all agree exist.  They want to just DO something.  We know—KNOW—that we have to look beyond the good intentions that most of us will grant our ideological opponents, focusing instead on good RESULTS.  They’d rather feel good about their ability to identify a social problem, empathize with those suffering its ill effects, and explain that they can’t be held responsible for its continued existence because, after all, they supported [insert expensive regulatory fix here].  We can’t take that last step with them, unless the fix is likely to make things better in the real world; when we see dozens of rusted regulatory hulks strewn alongside the road, we quite sensibly ask, “Where are we trying to go, again?  Does it seem to be getting warmer out here?”
...
But the great mass of what the Left would label “conservatives,” whether Republicans, Tea Partiers, Libertarians, libertarians, etc., would agree with most self-identifying “liberals” on a great many ends.  We, like they, want to see Dr. King’s dream realized.  We, like they, want to see poverty and its consequences contained, then rolled back.  We, like they, want peace, both at home and abroad.  We, like they, want to live in a land of unbounded opportunity for all, where the amount of melanin in one’s skin and the place and time of one’s birth has no predictive value as to one’s future.  We just don’t always agree on how to get there.


jsid-1284496302-521  Markadelphia at Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:31:42 +0000

Ken, good points. I'm curious if you have ever seen the film Repo Men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repo_Men

Certainly a work of fiction but no doubt the paranoid nightmare of most lefties. With the far reaching influence of private industry, I just don't see the same level of power within the state as you do. Regardless, I thoroughly enjoy your posts and love the way your mind works. Quite funny and intelligent!

What are your thoughts on Hayek's view that the government should regulate work hours, engage in some social welfare, and esnure proper flow of information regarding economic matters?

And yet wasn't it you who claimed that "mortgages are slavery"? You can't have it both ways. 

Individuals aren't countries with Triple A credit ratings and the number one economy in the world. I think you will agree that there is a difference between my credit and that of the United States. This doesn't mean, however, that I support the new calls for more spending. In fact, there is no doubt in my mind that we can make hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts in spending if people were willing to make the sacrifice.


how can you make the claim that increasing spending is the solution?

Two reasons-To keep unemployment down and to avoid economic collapse (TARP and the bailout). Again, though, I think we have done enough and it's time to follow Merkel's lead and reduce spending. Of course, she works with the benefit of a social market economy so....

The government, not the private sector, failed to do the job they take our money by force to pay for. Extortion, by definition, no? I dunno about you, but I have yet to see a single item in the news about how those people are facing criminal charges. Some of the people whose job it was to watch out for this kind of thing, like Tim Geithner

Right. And this would be a spot where proggressives and the Tea Party could come together. Both would like a giant "Fuck You" given (by the government) to the corporations who blew their wad. I'd like that as well. Sadly, our private sector is too interconnected to fail (thanks to GLB) and so we aren't left with many good choices which brings us to Geithner. Why does a man who knows more than most about the complexities of these issues have to also be one of the ones responsible for our problems? In fact, it was Geithner and Dodd as well as a whole host of Dems who Michael Moore lambasted in Cap. But who was a better choice? I suppose I would have called Bruce Bartlett back into service but that's just my opinion based on bias. Who do you think would've been a better choice?

More importantly, how would you have handled the crisis?

Apparently that's "the most ethical Administration/Congress in history" in your world. 

I think, by and large, they are. His economics team was questionable, though but I think is much improved with Goolsbee on board now. We'll just have to see how much of Friedman he retains in his policy making.

Nobody will be going to jail anywhere, though, as long as the government (for the most part) is a wholly ownder subsidiary of the private sector.

jsid-1284511444-931  Ken at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 00:44:05 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284496302-521

With the far reaching influence of private industry, I just don't see the same level of power within the state as you do.


Nobody will be going to jail anywhere, though, as long as the government (for the most part) is a wholly ownder subsidiary of the private sector.

If there were no power resident in the state, why would "the private sector" trouble to buy it? I have mentioned Oppenheimer's "political means" before.

As for Hayek, I have not read The Road to Serfdom yet (I've read Hazlitt along with some Nock and some Rothbard, and I'm trying to read Menger now befor going into Mises or Hayek). Because I haven't done so, I can't speak knowledgeably as to why he would want to interfere in liberty of contract in the ways you describe. Hayek is Hayek, not Christ, so I remain skeptical of the notion based on Bastiat's "that which is not seen" and the knowledge problem.


jsid-1284496691-246  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:38:11 +0000

And yet wasn't it you who claimed that "mortgages are slavery"? You can't have it both ways.   
 
Individuals aren't countries with Triple A credit ratings and the number one economy in the world. I think you will agree that there is a difference between my credit and that of the United States. This doesn't mean, however, that I support the new calls for more spending. In fact, there is no doubt in my mind that we can make hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts in spending if people were willing to make the sacrifice.  



Mark, truly it's a marvel that you could write that entire paragraph, ostensibly in reply, and completely fail to say anything of value, much less to in any way reply to what you quoted.

It's staggering, let me tell you that. Staggeringly what, well, we'll just presume everybody here will know for their own diversity.

jsid-1284499680-93  Russell at Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:28:00 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284496691-246

It's writing of that sort that makes be really, really wonder if Markadelphia isn't a script.

I've seen phrase generators that can create Random Bu Important Sounding Gibberish of that caliber.


jsid-1284507221-900  GrumpyOldFart at Tue, 14 Sep 2010 23:33:42 +0000

Individuals aren't countries with Triple A credit ratings and the number one economy in the world.

So what? Since when does someone's credit rating give them the right to force everyone, including the around 60% who opposed it, to be cosign their loan? The individual getting a mortgage he can't afford at least has the option to suck it up and refuse, he doesn't have to buy what the loan agent is selling.

So... what you're telling me is that an individual, making a point to go and ask for a loan, has been enslaved if he is accepted... but that a taxpayer, even a majority of taxpayers, being put on the hook for a debt they did not want, loudly and publicly made plain they did not want, and were never asked to consent to, much less gave such consent... they aren't enslaved.

Ewkay...


jsid-1284511058-886  Markadelphia at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 00:37:39 +0000

he doesn't have to buy what the loan agent is selling. 

Neither do you. You have every right to get involved in the political process and get someone elected who has your views. It will probably take a lot of work to accomplish your goals. Isn't that what I hear on here on all the time? That if you work really, really hard you might (emphasis: MIGHT) be able to make it? If you don't like being forced to pay taxes, change it. Remember, though, that if you are outvoted...well...that's what they call a democracy.

The state is US, GOF. They aren't forcing anyone to do anything. WE elected them. Actually, I take that back...about 55 percent of us elected them which is pretty sad. Not only do any one of us have the right to decide who represents us but WE can also be the representatives. Don't like how things are done? Run for office. Who exactly is stopping you? From my perspective, no one is stopping the Tea Party, right?

In addition, what you value in the federal budget (which is what btw?) is probably different than what someone else values. You may have no problem cosigning a loan for the military. But Joe Smith wants the loan cosigned for his aging grandmother's medical bills. This would be why we have elections. You have a voice...unlike corporations which, unless you have money, you have no voice. If I don't like my insurance company, I can choose another....which has the exact same bullshit rules that are designed to fuck me out of my money. The only "change" I could make there would be if I had enough money to buy stock, buy the company or tell them to fuck off...I'm rich and I don't need their money.

Unless you are armed with a pile of cash or an array of accountants and lawyers, an individual has no weight whatsoever with private corporations. But with the government? You have a vote which opens the door to more power than I think you realize. There is one very good thing that may come out of this election vis a vis the Tea Party. Our government may finally develop a healthy fear of the people much like France's fear of their people. In some ways, I hope it happens.

jsid-1284526072-373  Ken at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 04:47:52 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284511058-886

If you don't like being forced to pay taxes, change it. Remember, though, that if you are outvoted...well...that's what they call a democracy.


In addition, what you value in the federal budget (which is what btw?) is probably different than what someone else values. You may have no problem cosigning a loan for the military. But Joe Smith wants the loan cosigned for his aging grandmother's medical bills.

Clearer expressions of the morality of the cannibal pot would be difficult to find.


jsid-1284515635-769  Ed "What the" Heckman at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 01:53:56 +0000

"that's what they call a democracy."

Well, there's yer problem raight thar! The United States is not a democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic. See, there's thing called a Constitution which is a contract, of sorts, between the Federal Government and We The People. It specifies what the government can and cannot do. While that LAW can be changed if a significant majority chooses to make that change, it was deliberately intended to be very difficult to accomplish. A mere majority vote is simply enough.

Of course, when the government chooses to violate that contract, there is recourse, as there is for the violation of any contract:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
—Declaration of Independence

jsid-1284559644-221  Ed "What the" Heckman at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:07:24 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284515635-769

Doggone it! I noticed this error before I posted it, then got interrupted and never fixed it:

A mere majority vote is simply NOT enough.

jsid-1284569019-230  Ed "What the" Heckman at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:43:39 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284559644-221

I just stumbled across this:



"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never."
—John Adams, letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814

jsid-1284577177-111  Ken at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:59:39 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284569019-230

Unrestrained democracy, in which "majority rule" is the sole rule, is essentially indistinguishable from "might makes right."


jsid-1284524447-394  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 04:20:50 +0000

Neither do you. You have every right to get involved in the political process and get someone elected who has your views.

And if they lie about those views?

If they lie to me about a contract, I have recourse. If they lie on the campaign trail - what recourse?

So your point is that I have MORE control over electing a slate of people to go off and make decisions I have no direct control over, than the contracts and responsibilities that *I* take on and sign for.

That's what you're saying. That's utterly inane.


Plus, your views also mean that whatever is done by elected officials is then OK. But you complained constantly about Bush and Republicans.  Pick one, they're mutually exclusive.


jsid-1284558911-195  GrumpyOldFart at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:55:11 +0000

The state is US, GOF. They aren't forcing anyone to do anything. WE elected them. Actually, I take that back...about 55 percent of us elected them which is pretty sad.

And the other 45% feel, correctly, that they've been disenfranchised by "I won". But they aren't forced, huh? So if Bush had declared Code Pink or ACORN to br criminal organizations back in the day and ordered them all arrested, you would not have had a legitimate bitch, right? If US law said gays have no right whatsoever you'd be okay with that, right? After all, they're only 10% of the population, it's not like they're a majority.

The state is US, GOF.

This is actually very telling.

The state is US.

The political activist groups wholly owned by George Soros are US. A political activist group whose membership was half or more illegal imigrants would somehow also be US, judging by your position on the subject.

Unions that operate on the basis of serving their employees, their "customers" and their "stockholders" and letting everyone and everything else go to hell for all they care, exactly like every other business, are US.

But businesses (other than unions et al, you know, business that actually produce something) and the people who own them and invest in them are somehow not US.

Your two brains don't talk to one another very much, do they?


jsid-1284559831-944  GrumpyOldFart at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:10:32 +0000

Oops, I forgot something...

If I don't like my insurance company, I can choose another....which has the exact same bullshit rules that are designed to fuck me out of my money. The only "change" I could make there would be if I had enough money to buy stock, buy the company or tell them to fuck off...I'm rich and I don't need their money.

First off, I call bullshit. No, that's not the only thing you could do. If you honestly believe they are making too much money and charging too much, you could get a small business loan and start your own insurance company. If you were able to offer pretty much the same service at a lesser price you'd make money too, until someone like Obama rigged the game in your opponents' favor.

Or for that matter, you can invest your money somewhere and show the personal financial discipline not to touch it until you need it for medical bills.

Something you don't seem to realize here... it seems obvious to me, but since I don't work in the insurance indistry I'll admit I could be wrong...

...which has the exact same bullshit rules that are designed to fuck me out of my money...

They all have "the exact same bullshit rules" for the same reason that automobile design follows "the exact same bullshit rules" for all auto companies, and all aircraft design follows "the exact same bullshit rules" for all aircraft companies. It's called the limitations of applying math to the real world. The people hired full time to make your organization work expect to be paid. Get over that.

Just out of curiosity, do you know what they average profit margin is for the insurance industry? Any idea what it is for any other industry?

As for "fucking you out of your money"... care to find me a single government agency that has as little waste and fraud as the average private sector corporation? Fair warning, the last time I looked for anything along those lines I found that government "assistance" programs averaged 27 cents on the dollar actually being spent on those being "helped", where private sector charities averaged 78 cents on the dollar.

Given that the waste and overhead was 3 times the private sector's in the arena of "assistance", I don't think you'll have much luck, but you're welcome to try.


jsid-1284565409-316  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:43:53 +0000

As for "fucking you out of your money"... care to find me a single government agency that has as little waste and fraud as the average private sector corporation?

Average profit on gallon of gas (split between pumpers, shippers, warehousers, and retail): $0.12

Average tax (not counting sales taxes in the states who tax gas) in the US on a gallon of gas: $0.61

Obviously it's those rapacious oil companies fucking us over.

jsid-1284568342-727  Russell at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:32:35 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284565409-316

Not only that, the oil companies turn around and invest a portion of that $0.12 into finding more sweet, sweet crude oil.

But the $0.61 goes into what? Certainly not more crude oil.

jsid-1284569063-602  Ed "What the" Heckman at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:44:41 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284568342-727

It goes into something crude!


jsid-1284565555-408  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:45:59 +0000


Leftists make irrational decisions that arise from their own intellectual hubris. All leftists (and most intellectuals) vastly overestimate their individual and collective understanding of complex, poorly understood and hard to predict phenomena. In every generation leftists have claimed to precisely and accurately understand something that in hindsight they clearly did not. Likewise, in every generation, there were people much like the modern Tea Party or Palin supporters, i.e., religious, supposedly uneducated, dullard bourgeois who told the leftists they were wrong.

In many major areas, history showed that the supposedly ignorant and unimaginative bourgeois proved correct in the end.

Palin Dumb? History Says, “Nope!”


jsid-1284566237-764  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:57:17 +0000

Kevin: this thread needs to be bronzed.

I don't know what is actually the best part of it.

he doesn't have to buy what the loan agent is selling.   
 
Neither do you. You have every right to get involved in the political process and get someone elected who has your views.


As many times as Mark has denied it, this just demonstrates so clearly his view process.

"People are too dumb to make their own decisions, so we should have smart people make them for us - unless I disagree with them, then they're evil and should be punished by the right smart people who will make up the rules as they go."

Yeah, we're the ones affected by epistemic closure, all right.

jsid-1284567114-711  Russell at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:11:54 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284566237-764

I think this thread does a fantastic job of encapsulating the past years of Markadelphiaisms and his favorite hobbyhorses.

jsid-1284580105-686  khbaker at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:48:25 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284566237-764

I am in abject awe of your endurance, y'all!  Four hundred-plus comments!  Incredible! :)

jsid-1284582407-767  DJ at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:26:47 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284580105-686

"I am in abject awe of your endurance, y'all!  Four hundred-plus comments!  Incredible!"

Now, why would that be? Perhaps because ...

"... this thread does a fantastic job of encapsulating the past years of Markadelphiaisms and his favorite hobbyhorses ..."

Indeed.

Five days ago, on 08/10/10 at 08:32:25 PM CDT, I summarized his behavior here quite succinctly. Since then, he has posted four comments in this thread. With those four comments, he could not have validated my summary of him more perfectly had he followed a script.


jsid-1284566482-797  Russell at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:01:25 +0000

Speaking of debt as slavery, the Greeks had a problem with that in the 600s B.C.

From the Athenian Constitution

"After this event there was contention for a long time between the upper classes and the populace. Not only was the constitution at this time oligarchical in every respect, but the poorer classes, men, women, and children, were the serfs of the rich. They were known as Pelatae and also as Hectemori, because they cultivated the lands of the rich at the rent thus indicated. The whole country was in the hands of a few persons, and if the tenants failed to pay their rent they were liable to be haled into slavery, and their children with them. All loans secured upon the debtor's person, a custom which prevailed until the time of Solon, who was the first to appear as the champion of the people. But the hardest and bitterest part of the constitution in the eyes of the masses was their state of serfdom. Not but what they were also discontented with every other feature of their lot; for, to speak generally, they had no part nor share in anything."

They had true slavery where the holder of the debt could force someone or their children into slavery if payment wasn't made.

Let's use logic! Well, some of us can, that is.

1. Debt as slavery means you or your children can be sold into slavery for not paying back the debt.
2. Ancient Greece had (1) in effect.
3. Anything that doesn't allow for actual slavery isn't (1)
4. American corporations are limited and adhere to (3).
5. Therefore American corporations don't support debt as slavery.

(1) is the definition. (2) is a factual statement. (3) is the negation of (1). (4) indicates American corporations limitations. (5) is the conclusion. (5) is supported by (4) which is supported by (3).

jsid-1284567879-725  GrumpyOldFart at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:24:42 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284566482-797

Well there is that. The concept debt=slavery hinges on the assumption that the lender, by accepting my debt, now legitimately owns part of the productive output of my life. Well if that's your attitude as a debtor you're welcome to it, but there's nothing in US law so far as I know that allows the lender to collect very much if you don't have that attitude. He can get the leftovers, and perhaps what you spent most of the money on, but it's often a small percentage of his loss and I doubt it's ever what he expected to profit had the loan gone off as written.

And so far as I can tell, the assumption that the debtor will consider the lender to have a legitimate claim on part of the productive output of his life equal to the terms of the loan he the debtor asked for.... well that assumption appears to get shakier by the day.

jsid-1284568420-888  Russell at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:33:41 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284567879-725

Everyone wants to dance to the tune, no one seems to want to pay the piper.


jsid-1284583184-704  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:39:44 +0000

In addition, what you value in the federal budget (which is what btw?) is probably different than what someone else values. You may have no problem cosigning a loan for the military. But Joe Smith wants the loan cosigned for his aging grandmother's medical bills. This would be why we have elections. You have a voice...unlike corporations which, unless you have money, you have no voice.

No, Mark.

I waited to reply to this, because that was so graphically stupidly ignorant as to require me to make sure I ridicule it sufficiently.

(I'm obligated to point out, though: value in the federal budget (which is what btw?)  is now nonsensical. There was no budget passed this year.  Congress didn't vote on what we're spending, nor on caps, nor on "values".  All of that was bypassed because it was getting embarrassing to Obama and the Democrats.  See, you can't bust their chops on budget-busting if they NEVER PROPOSE A BUDGET!)

We have explained this to you before. You have more voice to a corporation, because you can refuse to use them.  
You've already presupposed the "best" way to handle everything is to give all the money to the government and then lobby for it back.

But Joe Smith wants the loan cosigned for his aging grandmother's medical bills. 

Joe Smith is free, in the system I want, to spend every damn dime he's got, and his quarters and pennies, to pay for his grandmother's medical bills. 

It's not my business to tell him how to spend it!  Only you would insist on the ability to force all of us to pay for Joe's Grandma's bills, whether we want to or not.

The part you miss, that's blatantly obvious to anybody who's had to work for a living, who's owned a business and worried about making rent/payroll, is that if you're going to take my money and give it to other causes than the ones I want, I'm not going to make a lot.

I'm going to do the bare minimum. The minute that my work goes to someone else - why should I do it?

It's a system that is unsustainable, and if you had even a glimmer of ability to do a "what if", you'd see that.  Every system you propose is one where "you" get to tell guys with guns who's supposed to do what, and how often, and for how much.  

Doesn't work in reality.  Never will.

If I don't like my insurance company, I can choose another....which has the exact same bullshit rules that are designed to fuck me out of my money.

While I understand some of your complaint - I also have had many people bitch when I set up rules "they're bullshit" - which had some really good reasons behind them.  Why don't you go try and set up an insurance company, if you're so sure they're bullshit - obviously you can charge less than the other guys - and then you can use your profits however you see fit.

(end Pt 1. Damn echo.)


jsid-1284583249-36  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:40:49 +0000

(pt 2. Echo sucks)

The only "change" I could make there would be if I had enough money to buy stock, buy the company or tell them to fuck off...I'm rich and I don't need their money.

 

Wait, need their money?  What? You're trading money to the insurance company. You're gambling that you might, at some point, need a lot of money.  You don't "need their money" unless you're making a claim against your contract.

 

You're off on a rant, because, golly gee, you've never sat down and done these things. You've never done the "bullshit" things, so you don't know how much you don't know.  I know there are things I don't know, and I've owned a company! But I learned a LOT the first week I started it.  And the year. And the 2nd year.  Enough to not be so arrogant as to think I'm the smartest SOB around.  My business didn't do all that well - while I can point you to some redneck illiterates who made a ton of money during the same time.

 

Gee, didn't my college Bachelors in Science mean I should know more than them? ..... No.

 

This would be why we have elections. You have a voice...unlike corporations which, unless you have money, you have no voice.

 

You're incredibly perverse in your intentional ignorance.  Again, you're misusing words, and missing the forest for all the really tall "bushes".

 

You've got all the power in the world over a corporation. You've got close to none over government - and it gets less and less the more you move away from the locals to the center of DC.  The original idea, keep the decisions local, so people did have a voice had a problem to people like you.

 

The people didn't agree. So you had to minimize their voice, consolidate power.

 

It's a LOT easier to corrupt, say, 50 or 100 members of Congress, than 20,000 town council people.  That's what you keep missing, every time you insist on federalizing it, stripping out the very safeguards that exist in our federalism, you lose more of your voice. People are realizing it in droves now.

 

I'm not even asking you to agree with it, just understand what I say. But because you cannot use words correctly, you cannot put together those words into ideas and conceive of a system, but just insist on a "'cause I said so" mentality, you can't do that.

 

So you insist that I have more of a say, because I vote for the legislator who votes for bills that create bureaucracies with self-made regulations and procedures and penalties with civil service protections for the employees who are almost impossible to fire for any obvious transgressions (except if they say something possibly anti-gay or islamic, or practice freedom of speech and burn a koran), than if I decide where I'm going to work, live, and spend my money.

 

Truly, a dizzying intellect.

jsid-1284583285-643  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:41:27 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284583249-36

(and that's after deleting past all the parabreaks and redoing them.  Speaking of dizzying intellects...)


jsid-1284589498-232  Markadelphia at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 22:24:58 +0000

And the other 45% feel, correctly, that they've been disenfranchised by "I won".

I'm not sure they feel anything because they don't vote. If you don't vote and then complain, doesn't that make you a total ass hat? Honestly, there should be a study as to why our country has such low voter turnout. It's 70 to 80 percent in many other countries. Why not here? Imagine how different our political landscape would be if we had another 80 million voters. We probably could have three fully supported parties.


Or for that matter, you can invest your money somewhere and show the personal financial discipline not to touch it until you need it for medical bills. 

What if you don't have enough money to invest? Or pay your bills? You are working two jobs and you can barely afford to pay basic living expenses. That's a fine option for me or you but not for many Americans. They really don't have a choice but to get the lowest cost insurance and then they are at the mercy of that company.They could always choose to go somewhere else but they all are essentially the same animal.

I have no problem admitting that there is waste in the government. But the very nature of insurance...combined with the deregulation of the last 11 years....is to find new and interesting ways to not pay out on policies. And continue to raise rates. Now, if the government is not the mechanism to regulate this industry, then what is the mechanism?

I'm with Orwell on this one.


jsid-1284590760-779  GrumpyOldFart at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 22:46:04 +0000

Now, if the government is not the mechanism to regulate this industry, then what is the mechanism?

It's called free market economics, Mark.

If the government allows you to strip away their protected markets (remember one or two providers per state, no outside competition?) their competitors will regulate them, by offering a better deal. The only thing that makes it possible for such scams to the government creating and maintaining a competitive vacuum for them to take place in.

I'll grant you, there has to be some degree of government "referee". But with the health insurance industry, we're largely facing problems created and maintained by government in the first place, and now kept in place so they can pick winners and losers for their big donors.


jsid-1284594505-787  Ed "What the" Heckman at Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:48:34 +0000

"I'm not sure they feel anything because they don't vote."

Whoa, huge category error here. Earlier you said that "55 percent of us elected them". Are you claiming that all 55% voted for the Democrats and the other 45% didn't vote at all?


jsid-1284605707-968  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 16 Sep 2010 02:55:08 +0000

What if you don't have enough money to invest? Or pay your bills? You are working two jobs and you can barely afford to pay basic living expenses. That's a fine option for me or you but not for many Americans. They really don't have a choice but to get the lowest cost insurance and then they are at the mercy of that company.They could always choose to go somewhere else but they all are essentially the same animal.  

Don't cry for me, Jaaaaaavier.......


jsid-1284606483-929  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 16 Sep 2010 03:08:04 +0000

I have no problem admitting that there is waste in the government.

You have no problem with the throwaway line, without specifics.
You cannot even begin to understand how much waste there is, and you vociferously deny specifics we point out to you, insisting that that's somehow, not a bad thing.

You zealously attack - mistakenly more than not - anything having to do with "corporations" (nevermind all the corporations you excuse) - and insist that all the negatives from government waste would be better if only we spent more money.

But the very nature of insurance

You have never proven any understanding of the "nature of insurance", and in fact, have done a very good job proving that it's well beyond your comprehension. You've repeatedly injected emotion into arguments about insurance, which is nothing but flat actuarial tables.  You insist on readjusting for "fairness", for "diversity".  

The nature of insurance knows not these things.

...combined with the deregulation of the last 11 years

Which exists only in your head. Yes, I know, you can't not blame "deregulation" for everything. Nevermind if there was no deregulation.

....is to find new and interesting ways to not pay out on policies.

So they were doing that before the "deregulation"? According to you. So, what then changed? Nothing? Then kwityerbitchin.

And continue to raise rates.

And how much did their costs go up? Oh, nevermind, we're about to get back to you needing to know what the meaning of the word "revenue", and you've proven here you don't know it, and won't learn it.

Now, if the government is not the mechanism to regulate this industry, then what is the mechanism?  

According to none other than Markadelphia, they were doing that "before 'deregulation'".

So since your stance is the current regulation doesn't work, what exactly is your point?


jsid-1284645073-627  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:51:13 +0000

...combined with the deregulation of the last 11 years  

You know, Mark, you have so many problems with what you post, that sometimes it takes two or three or four or more readings to find all of them. Or at least most.

Let's put 2 statements - by the same guy! Side By Side! (Well, top and bottom)

...combined with the deregulation of the last 11 years  
vs
This would be why we have elections. You have a voice...unlike corporations which, unless you have money, you have no voice. 

So, Mark, when it was convenient (your side was "winning") it's about Elections and a Voice and Whoohoo.

But when it's not, then it's Evil and the Root Of The Problem.

Either the system is good, and voting for things is good, or it's not, and it's bad.  Pick one

Because you're holding completely opposing views inside your own head. Again.

(Which is why, if you learned to break down things to components, you'd understand that. Of course, that also means you'd understand the problems, and you wouldn't be able to blithely claim all the credit and pass off all the blame.)


jsid-1284645615-151  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:00:15 +0000

Honestly, there should be a study as to why our country has such low voter turnout.

*A* Study?

Mark, 15 seconds with Google - well, ok, give it a couple minutes for you - would show you many studies with that emphasis.

You just can't stop talking out of your ass.


It's 70 to 80 percent in many other countries. Why not here?

Amazingly, I betcha all of "us" know why, and you're admittedly clueless.

Because in most of those other countries, the government doles out money to the "right" people. So if you want your share of the pie, you'd damn well better make sure your pol gets elected.  Furthermore, most systems are parliamentary, which dilutes the vote more, thus making it more important to get out and get your guy in.

The less the government can control, the less need to have "your" guy in there. In most of America, historically, it just really didn't matter that much.

Imagine how different our political landscape would be if we had another 80 million voters. We probably could have three fully supported parties.  

Important Sounding But Random Gibberish.

It's not the number of voters, it's the system.  That's just more of your "padding the essay" and proving that you didn't do the research.

We've got a winner take all system, Mark. (I know, it's over your head, but just sos you can't say I didn't try and explain).  In those systems, 3rd parties are transitory. They may come in and take over one of the 2, but then one of the others will fade.  The only places where you have realistically more than 2 major parties are the ones where you get the vote sharing and crazy crap like Chicago's, where you can align and get votes.

As long as the system is winner take all, you'll have 2 parties. There might be some local exceptions, but you won't find any long-term 3rd parties in a serious place of dominance.  (There will always be candidates, but they will be spoilers at best, and more likely, just statistical noise.)

Again, you prove you have no concept of what you're spouting off about, but boy, you like to have platitudes.


jsid-1284648075-574  DJ at Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:41:15 +0000

Part 1

It's a fine morning. Then I read this:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/16/no-more-control/

and it became a fabulous morning.

To quote the best parts, I'd have to quote the whole thing.  So, here it is, in two parts, for posterity.

-----

NO MORE CONTROL

by Doctor Zero

"Even as the Tea Party grows in strength from another round of anti-establishment primaries, the Administration is serving weak tea in Washington.  What to do about the moribund economy?  Perhaps some more “stimulus” spending?  Some more subsidies for politically agreeable businesses?  Maybe the Democrats could leave the Bush tax cuts in place for the lower income brackets… or would that “deprive” Washington of too much money?

"Let me make this simple for the confused herds of policy wonks stumbling around the nation’s capital, trying to figure out why a disappointing populace won’t create jobs and shovel more revenue into the Treasury.  I think the message thundering towards the establishment this November can be summed up in three simple, powerful words:

"No more control.

"Political control is what’s killing us.  It is expressed in hundreds of ways: high tax rates with carefully tailored exceptions, massive bailouts, laws rigged to favor government-controlled industries, restrictions on resource development, and a vast poppy field of subsidies and penalties.  The Democrats have added thousands of pages of fabulously expensive legislation since Obama took office.  Two messages echo through those pages: Obey and be rewarded.  Resist and be punished.

"This is not appropriate behavior for a government that was meant to live in awe of the people’s boundless freedom, and work carefully with limited powers to accomplish its sworn duties.  Even the most apolitical citizen can now see that it’s also disastrous behavior.

"Who are the President and his congressional allies, to lecture us on what products to buy, or investments to make?  Who are they to demand even more of our wealth to fund their next round of grand designs?  Their failure is obvious and complete.  I don’t believe any group of brilliant central planners can legislate prosperity… but if such a group exists, it sure as hell isn’t this bunch.

"It’s not surprising that command economies are weak.  Business is a thing to be pursued and won.  Control is a thing to be feared and avoided.  A pile of stimulus dollars, dangled on the end of a string, is not a revenue stream.  All the “infrastructure” nonsense sounds good to a community organizer – communities need roads and trains, right?  It’s all temporary, though.  Prosperity is about careers, not paychecks.  It flows from the development of opportunities, not the collection of rewards.  What few opportunities the government can truly create depend on the continued exercise of power to maintain.  Redistribution is inherently destructive, for it relies on the use of compulsive force… and that force itself consumes a sizable chunk of the wealth it redistributes.  All those bureaucrats have got to be paid, and these days, they are paid very well indeed.

"Economic strength comes from innovation, which is produced by intense pressure.  Businesses seek creative ways to increase their revenue, and transcend the burden of their expenses.  The super-State feels no such pressures, so it does not innovate.  It believes it can siphon limitless revenue from its subjects, and defer the cost of its failures forever… so it spends extravagantly, and continues wasteful programs until the voters force it to stop, by holding sharpened ballots to its throat.  Only rarely can the voters muster that level of pressure.

"No group of people can ever force itself to prosper.  Substituting the limited vision of a few, for the innovation and risk-taking of many, will always impose a steep price.  We speak approvingly of “thinking outside the box.”  Washington makes boxes."


jsid-1284648172-335  DJ at Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:42:53 +0000

Part 2

"The devilish thing about control is that it blames all of its failures on its absence.  The “stimulus” didn’t work because it was too small.  The flabby and useless ObamaCare program just needs a few thousand more regulations to achieve perfection.  Now that the State controls our health care, it owns our bodies, and the First Lady would like to have a word with us about our diet.  The free market withers beneath the strain of its freedom, but politicians assure us they can chain it down and cure its ailments with a hundred more surgeries.

"Listening to the President who bankrupted a generation prattle about all the wonderful things he could do with another $50 billion reminds us that his blind ideology will never consider a solution that makes the government less powerful.  Even his idea of tax cuts are targeted to preferred constituencies, or awarded only in exchange for compliance with a political agenda… in other words, more control.

"There are no warranties on the “gifts” of the State, no escape clauses from unsatisfactory contracts, no way to opt out of unwanted programs, and absolutely no refunds.

"We should not be interested in studying any more official lists of fellow citizens we’re supposed to envy and hate.  We don’t need any more lectures from millionaire politicians on the heartless greed of people who work their tails off for six figures.  We don’t want a government that insists it can’t make do with a penny less to sell us reduced expectations for a threadbare future.  Every economic forecast from the Obama Administration sounds like a letter of resignation we shouldn’t have to wait until 2012 to accept.

"Here’s the deal, Democrats: you don’t get any more billions to spend.  You don’t get to pick the next group of winners and losers in the free market.  You don’t get to decide who “deserves” a tax cut.  You don’t get to hand us the invoice for this bloated government and tell us we need to figure out a way to pay for it.  You don’t get to blame deficits on the people who haven’t surrendered enough of their livelihood to you.  You do not get to insist every piece of this government’s sprawling machinery is indispensible, while every slice of our lives is negotiable.

"We own our lives.  We own the State.  The future is ours to discover.  The solutions that will forever evade the political class are already humming through our eager minds.  To be controlled is to spend eternity at each other’s throats, for free people must accept their own inferiority before they can accept domination… and they will always prefer to be told someone else is inferior, and deserves domination.  The control of a free society requires strategic infusions of sin and condemnation.  It also calls for controlling the information free people use to make their decisions, transforming the command economy into an endless con job.  The State survives by managing expectations, while free people compete to exceed them.

"No more lies.  No more poison.  No more imperial judgments.  No more despair.  No more control."


jsid-1284664409-202  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:13:31 +0000

Mark:

DJ said earlier:

Now, try to find even ONE member of Congress who is running for re-election while bragging about voting "aye" on obamacare. Conversely, note how many members of Congress are running for re-election while bragging about voting "no" on obamacare.  

You quoted and replied to the first sentence there, and ignored the second. (Par for your course)

Speaking of "all the data"...



Democratic candidates are spending three times more advertising against the health reform law than they are in support of it. 



Since the beginning of Congress’s August recess, Democratic candidates have poured $930,000 into ads deriding the health overhaul but just $300,000 in pro-reform spots, according to Evan Tracey at Kantar Media.
...


Even Democratic candidates’ pro-reform ads can offer tepid support for the law. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) ran an ad last week that mentioned his support of health reform briefly, sandwiched between other legislative accomplishments. 


“When the economy collapsed, Sen. Feingold helped pass tax cuts for 95 percent of Wisconsin family,” the script reads. “Russ also fought for tax credits for small businesses and relief from rising health care costs.” 


“There’s not any messaging out there by incumbent Democrats trying to promote what people liked, like allowing dependents to stay on their parents’ insurance,” says Tracey


Unlike your Rush "information", I'm not claiming I had this beforehand. But I knew what the trend was, and I knew what the likely result was. As did DJ.


You're the one off base here, off in left field, out on a limb. (I'm really not sure what game you're playing... wait, yes I am. Calvinball. Where the only rule is you make up the rules as you go.)


jsid-1284671562-8  DJ at Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:12:42 +0000

Me: "Our narrative and characterization of him is that, in large and increasing millions, people hate both his policies and what Congress has done to implement them. The reason they do so is that they now see what those policies are, instead of imagining what they might be if unicorns farted rainbows. Two years ago, they projected on him all their hopes and dreams. Now they see the emerging nightmare they voted for and they don't like it."

Marxadopia: ""Now they see the emerging nightmare they voted for and they don't like it."

"Based on what evidence, exactly? And I'm speaking both of the numbers of people that don't like it and the "emerging nightmare."


Guess what popped up on my browser this afternoon?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142967/Among-Recent-Bills-Financial-Reform-Lone-Plus-Congress.aspx

Here it is (emphasis added):

-----

"Among Recent Bills, Financial Reform a Lone Plus for Congress

"PRINCETON, NJ -- The financial reform bill President Obama signed into law in July is the most popular of five major pieces of legislation Congress has passed in the past two years -- in fact, it is the only one tested in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll that a majority of Americans support.

"Six in 10 Americans approve of the legislation to strengthen government regulation of the financial industry. By contrast, a majority disapprove of the 2009 economic stimulus package, the auto industry bailout, healthcare reform, and -- most of all -- the 2008 banking industry bailout.

"Financial reform does best due to a relatively high level of support from Republicans -- 42% approve of it -- as well as majority support from independents. Independents join Republicans in mostly opposing the other four legislative initiatives tested. Democrats, on the other hand, approve of all five, although to varying degrees.

"Of the five legislative acts, healthcare reform and the economic stimulus package are the most politically divisive. By contrast, financial regulatory reform, as well as aid to automakers and banks, sparks more similar reactions from Republicans and Democrats.

"Bottom Line

"Congress' approval rating has been stalled at or below 20% for most of this year, down from 39% in March 2009 -- and recent Gallup polling finds Americans no happier with the Republicans than with the Democrats in Congress. While some of this may be due to unavoidable fallout from the prolonged economic downturn, it may also represent an accumulation of public discontent with the more prominent spending and policy programs Congress has made law. Wall Street regulatory reform stands alone as a major legislative accomplishment that congressional incumbents would be wise to tout as they campaign for re-election this fall."


Well, so much for the notion that it's the Dimocrat BASE that is disappointed with Congress and The Won and so is driving the election.

We have stated for a long time that we are not happy with Republicans, but we are less happy with Dimocrats. It appears we are not alone.

Now, where was that quote again? Oh, here it is:

"There is something about a Republican that you can only stand him just so long; and on the other hand, there is something about a Democrat that you can't stand him quite that long." -- Will Rogers

Likely the coming elections will demonstrate that sentiment quite well.


jsid-1284681061-292  Markadelphia at Thu, 16 Sep 2010 23:51:01 +0000

Let's see how I do with DJ's photo...

Increased government regs....APPROVE 
Stimulus....APPROVE
Auto Aid...DISAPPROVE
Health Care...APPROVE
Aid to Banks...DISAPPROVE

Now let's break it down. These are just opinions of mine so do they actually have any merit in reality? In looking at #1, I think this one does. Most people do want this because it's quite clear that it was deregulation that caused our problems. Why many of you don't see this is a mystery. But, I do have to give you credit, DJ, for putting up a stat that places you (and others here) firmly in the minority.

I approved of the stimulus because it was the lesser of two evils. I also don't think we have felt the full effects of it yet. Had we not seen the insane spending of the Congress during the Bush years...and little to no vetos from Bush...the stimulus would not have been necessary. Add in the trillion dollars on the wars and you are left with a choice of having 9 percent unemployment or 20 percent unemployment. And don't forget what Dick Cheney said..."Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Was he correct or incorrect?

I was done with the auto industry. My view was..fuck them and their bullshit. But I was wrong. The auto bailout was a success. GM is about to go public with a sale....profits are up...the government is selling their shares...Ford and Chrysler are doing well...and the auto industry is leaner and heading on a better path. All the hollering about "Government Motors" was largely proved silly.

Health care...well, we'll see, won't we? We got a letter in the mail from our provider that indicated coverage for dependents under 26 and no denial for pre-existing conditions for children. That's fantastic in my eyes. It's going to be some time before people feel the full effects of this bill. When they do, watch the numbers shift. It's also important to note that polls vary widely on this issue. Kaiser Family has a poll which is pretty much split now and with a 50-35 approval just last July. Medicare by itself always has high approval ratings...usually in the 60s...and that is government run health care. I may have asked you this before, DJ, but are on Medicare or will you be on it if you are not old enough yet?

Aid to banks....I had the same feeling with them as I did with the auto industry...fuck them. Of course, this is a view based purely on emotion and does not take into consideration the likely collapse of our financial system had we not aided them. It was a pretty bitter pill to swallow and they still haven't changed their ways. This would be why I approve of question #1. The simple fact is that were it not for the spirit of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, none of us would have been able to draw money out of our bank accounts...FDIC...the only thing left intact of Glass Steagall...back in the fall of 2008. That's Krugman's line, btw, and on that point I agree with him. I don't agree that now is the time for more spending.


jsid-1284682161-285  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 00:09:21 +0000

We got a letter in the mail from our provider that indicated coverage for dependents under 26 and no denial for pre-existing conditions for children. That's fantastic in my eyes. 

And now you'll bitch about the price increasing. Because that costs more money.  And the "Nature of Insurance" is that they have to charge more, because it costs them more.

"Dependants under 26?" Man, that's a massive load of fail right there.

 That's fantastic in my eyes. 

Because you don't know the first thing about the "nature of insurance" and run everything off of ad hoc emotion.

I approved of the stimulus because it was the lesser of two evils.

There was a lot of options, hardly 2.  And it didn't "Stimulate" anything, and most of the money that was spent wasn't spent on anything resembling infrastructure.

I also don't think we have felt the full effects of it yet. 

Accidentally, you're right. We've not even spent it all - but we're already paying much more for the money we borrow as a result of it. 

The full effects won't be felt for years - but it will be weighting down the economy for years and years.  You're right, just accidentally, since you're just hoping and emoting.

But then you go and blow it:


Had we not seen the insane spending of the Congress during the Bush years.

Which was a fraction of the Congress and Obama admin.


 The auto bailout was a success. GM is about to go public with a sale....profits are up...the government is selling their shares...Ford and Chrysler are doing well...and the auto industry is leaner and heading on a better path. All the hollering about "Government Motors" was largely proved silly.  

A success.  So we dumped in money. We might get back 1/2 of that. That's a "success" to you.  "Profits" are meaningless  - that doesn't count the billions of dollar and thousands of jobs lost when people who weren't correctly D-connected got shafted in favor of the unions.

"Leaner"? 

Mark.  They shut down THE MOST EFFICIENT PLANTS. That was the point of the "bailout".  It hasn't been "proved" silly anymore than anything else you've "proved" in this thread.  You don't know what proof is, so you just fake it.


These are just opinions of mine so do they actually have any merit in reality?

A good question. Too bad you can't answer it.


jsid-1284682682-457  Markadelphia at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 00:18:02 +0000

It appears we are not alone. 

A few things to note with this view. First of all, It's interesting that you have become caught up in the media's frenzy about the Tea Party. Would it surpirse you to know that in the 2010 primary season, 98 percent of incumbunts won their primaries? Further, take a look at how well incumbunts do historically in general elections in the photos below. Even in 1994, it was 90 percent. The media likes to make a big deal out of a few more victories than there normally are by outsiders but the fact is that we still have quite a number of incumbunts up for re-election regardless of what MSNBC is reporting.

[Incumbents, too! - Ed.  And you, a teacher!  Surprise as a typo I can accept, but "incumbunt" three times in one paragraph?  Doesn't this thing have spellcheck?]

Of course, the GOP had a small chance to win back the Senate and with the data below that seemed more doable to oust an incumbunt. But with the candidates that have won their primaries (Delaware and Nevada, for example), it's going to be even tougher. It's one thing to win a primary where the seriously committed of your party  turn out to vote. It's another to win the general. Reid was a goner and now he is even with Angle who won't debate him. I wonder why. Delaware was a lock for the GOP but they went for "purity"...whatever that means...and now it's likely going to stay blue. Delaware was the first volley in the GOP civil war which is going to be so unbelievably entertaining in 2012, I can hardly wait!

Now, the one thing the GOP does have going for itself is enthusiasm and the fact that it is an off presidential year. Out of the 60 million people that voted for McCain, I'm certain that at least 40 million are die hard members of the base who are now fired up. Add in the TPers and you have a strong bloc considering that it's likely that only 80 million will turn out to vote. In contrast, the Dems have a solid 35 million or so out of the 70 million that voted for Obama that will turn out. Of course, it's not an overall, countrywide numbers game so it's going to come down to the districts.

Remember as well, there is a difference between likely and registered voters. The Dems are hoping that the registered voters come out.

At the end of the day, though, I really have to ask...would there be this outrage if the economy as doing well? No. So, I know that it's exciting to think that everyone hates Obama now but the fact is that people are just frustrated by the economy and there are many candidates, personalities, and "grass roots" organizations that are taking advantage of this anger. We are now in the general election...officially...and voters are going to be looking for answers...wondering how these candidates are going to govern. I'm wondering how they are going to respond when one side says, "The answer is that the federal government is not your answer." We'll see on November 3rd.

Oh, and Ed, when I said 55 percent, I meant that only 55 percent of the people that could vote actually voted. 55 percent voted for "them" as in "Congress" or all of the candidates. Wouldn't it be great if the other 45 percent actually voted? Hell, I'd take 20 percent more!


jsid-1284688689-350  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 01:58:09 +0000

 First of all, It's interesting that you have become caught up in the media's frenzy about the Tea Party.

Wait, who was caught it what from who?

Would it surpirse you to know that in the 2010 primary season, 98 percent of incumbunts won their primaries? 

Not in the slightest.  But I bet it surprises Markadelphia.

See, he was just telling us: This would be why we have elections. You have a voice...


 Delaware was a lock for the GOP but they went for "purity"...whatever that means...and now it's likely going to stay blue.

Wait, they don't have a voice? They're not allowed to use it?

And the GOP backed - hard - Castle.  Even you should have known that, but since you can't agree with yourself, I guess maybe the next post will have something to that effect in it.


would there be this outrage if the economy as doing well? No. So, I know that it's exciting to think that everyone hates Obama now but the fact is that people are just frustrated by the economy 

Everybody doesn't hate Obama.  But a LOT of people have seen who Obama is for real, not Candidate Obama - they've seen him and what he's done, and they've judged him accordingly.

The economy is a large part of it.  So far, Obama has yet to do anything to encourage or get the economy to a recovery.

Which is borne out by the economic numbers, and his continued tone-deafness. 

Obama's team promised us, assured us they had it under control. The "Stimulus", and it would save us.  Now they're talking Stimulus 2, as unemployment is over 2x the worst case they presented if we did nothing.

Not everybody has the lack of memory you do, Mark.  Most people remember what was said and promised.   And meanwhile, there are demographics with above 50% unemployment.  Those demographics, by the way, went 90%+ for Obama in the last election.


jsid-1284688967-725  DJ at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 02:02:47 +0000

Teacher boy, I found only ONE statement in your previous two comments that is worth responding to. It is this one:

"I may have asked you this before, DJ, but are on Medicare or will you be on it if you are not old enough yet?"

I'll ignore the very high gibberish coefficient of this bizarre question, and get right to the meat of it.

I have told you many times before that you reveal a great deal about yourself when you don't realize that you're doing so. Such a revelation can be trusted simply because you aren't aware that you make it when you do.

So, what did you reveal?

I have told you, several times, what my insurance situation is, and yet you ask if I'm on Medicare?

I have told you, several times, what my age is, and yet you ask if I'm eligible for Medicare?

The revelation this time is that YOU HAVE JUST PROVED THAT YOU DO NOT INTEGRATE KNOWLEDGE.

Now, let's look up the definition of "integrate", shall we?

Integrate

v. tr.

to make into a whole by bringing all parts together

You do not integrate what people write here. Even if it is spoon-fed to you in small words, short sentences, and hammered home with endless repetition and crystal-clear exposition, you simply cannot or will not integrate knowledge and thereby arrive at an improved understand thereof. You simply skim over the words in an endless game of dodgeball.

Or, is it that you WILL NOT integrate new knowledge with old IF doing so involves an admission, either explicit or implicit, that you were in error?

Which is it, little boy, a highly defective cognitive ability or a highly defective ego?

It has to be one, or the other, or both.

You just validated my summary of you yet again, and you'll just keep on doing it over and over, won't you? Do you realize that you are behaving PRECISELY as my summary described you?

There, all done. Do you feel more important now? Did you get any on your pants this time?


jsid-1284699550-245  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 04:59:10 +0000

*cough*



The Associated Press reported Monday that demographers expect the poverty rate to jump nearly two points to 15 percent, the largest single-year increase since the government began keeping track. The new figure will be released next week and is expected to show about 45 million Americans were living in poverty last year. That this is happening under the most liberal president ever is worth noting. It's axiomatic among liberals that Republican policies -- specifically the push for lower taxes and less government spending -- create poverty. This does not square with the historical record.



The previous record for a single-year increase in the poverty level occurred in 1980, under President Carter. His successor, President Reagan, was routinely accused of inducing poverty by cutting taxes and domestic spending. For instance, a common liberal trope in that era -- still kept alive by some -- was to blame homelessness on Reagan's unwillingness to prosecute alleged violations of the Community Reinvestment Act. The reality, however, is that personal income grew by 8.1 percent under Reagan and that the poverty rate reached an all-time low by the time he left office.

jsid-1284903404-371  MPH146 at Sun, 19 Sep 2010 13:36:44 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284699550-245

Just doing my part to get this over the 500 mark.

Have you seen the relationship between poor cities and Democrat control of their governments?

Here's a link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/20/beck.cities/

The upshot?  The ten poorest major cities in the country (in terms of percentage of population under the poverty line) have, over the last 50 years, been controlled by Republicans for a combined 36 years, and been controlled by Democrats (with a few independents) for a combined 464 years.

Of course this can't be caused by the policies they implemented, it must be due to the conniving of villains, like "the evil rich".


jsid-1284725338-532  GrumpyOldFart at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:08:58 +0000

I'm still waiting for a coherent answer on how the "Republican spending spree" caused all this problem, but the Democrats vastly increasing the rate of spending is the solution.

jsid-1284730973-832  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:42:54 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284725338-532

Why, Grumpy, it's because they're merely doing it again, only HARDER!!! (And Smarter!)


jsid-1284736455-532  Russell at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:14:15 +0000

I've gotten lost, did Markadelphia ever evince understanding of DJ's explanation of tax rates and increased revenue?

He's trotted out so many ponies, I'm afraid I haven't been following that point very well. Or did he just bury his ignorance in equine corpses, again?

jsid-1284737373-938  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:29:34 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284736455-532

Did Markadelphia ever evince understanding of DJ's explanation of tax rates and increased revenue?  

I assume you mean "evidence", and he has no need, for he "knows the questions to ask".

(For the newly Markadelphia-acquainted, about a year ago, he snidely presumed that someone had misspelled something when they used the word 'evince', and had to have it, and it's definition explained to him at length.  After that, he insisted his "points" were unchanged and his rebuttal unhampered despite the fact he didn't understand what the person had said.)

jsid-1284741486-354  Russell at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:38:06 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284737373-938

Dang it, I need to stop using 'evince'!


jsid-1284738100-736  CAshane at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:41:41 +0000

"The auto bailout was a success. GM is about to go public with a sale....profits are up...the government is selling their shares...Ford and Chrysler are doing well...and the auto industry is leaner and heading on a better path. All the hollering about "Government Motors" was largely proved silly."

Ha-ha!  Too classic! 

1.  Ford was not part of any government bailout.
2.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOaS2SymjQ4&feature=player_embedded


Kevin, this is why I love that you don't ban him as a troll.  He makes me laugh every day.

jsid-1284742408-454  khbaker at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:53:28 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284738100-736

Kevin, this is why I love that you don't ban him as a troll.  He makes me laugh every day.
Well, strictly speaking, he's not a troll.  And some people don't laugh, he causes them headaches.  Still, I appreciate your point.

jsid-1284743116-578  CAshane at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:05:16 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284742408-454

For a while I would just skip what he wrote and move along to Unix and DJ's responses.  But then I realized I was depriving myself of hilarity.

jsid-1284753623-281  Russell at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 20:00:23 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284743116-578

Hey! What about Ken's responses? :)

He did make my head hurt, but since he doesn't deviate from his scripting, it has become rather amusing!


jsid-1284740696-938  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:24:57 +0000

While we're speaking of government intervention...

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/15776.html

Beginning on January 1, 2010, manufacturers in the US were not allowed to make any new refrigeration or air conditioning equipment that was pre-charged with R-22. Originally, the EPA had written in that not only would no new equipment be allowed to be manufactured with R-22 in it, but no replacement parts would be allowed to be sold for the existing systems.
...
The major manufacturers all knew of the impending January 1, 2010 deadline and had fully converted their manufacturing processes to making units that were pre-charged with the new environmentally friendly refrigerant, R-410a ...




Since R-410a involves higher operating pressures than R-22 (significantly higher), technicians were forced to have training to use the new chemical, and buy all new tools to handle the higher pressures. Many were also forced to buy new torch sets. With the old R-22 you could soft solder the joints – with R-410a and the higher pressures that it brings, everyone that wasn’t brazing with 15% silver was forced to do that. Distributors such as myself had to invest a lot of time, energy and money into training our customers so they would use the correct lubricants (those changed from mineral to ester oil), techniques and methods to selling and installing the new R-410a units. Part of the training was to show our customers (hvac contractors) how to educate homeowners about the new refrigerant, and why their broken down air conditioner would require a complete system change out since the old components were not compatible with the new R-410a components.
...
Quickly the Chinese found this loophole. They immediately began to manufacture units that used R-22 but were shipped dry – in other words, the end user would charge up the unit with R-22 and off they went. This disrupted my business (and everyone else’s) a bit and everyone was scratching their heads as to whether or not this was legal. I just found out today that it is.





Guess what else I just found out? It would take literally years for Congress to close this loophole. Guess what else I just found out? The EPA will not prosecute or try to do anything about it because the government feels sorry for the poor and elderly who may not have enough money for a complete system change (I have only heard this orally, I do not have a good source but I believe it). Guess what else I just found out? ALL of the major manufacturers of air conditioning units are at this very moment gearing up to start producing – you guessed it – DRY R-22 UNITS.


So for all the posturing, training, tooling, re-tooling, experimenting, tool purchasing and everything else, we are getting ready to go back to the future. It is incredible how sad this is for my whole industry and for everyone (including myself!) who has invested time, blood, sweat and money to try to do the right thing. Leave it to politicians to write a law about something that they know nothing about, and to get it 100% wrong in the process.


That's what Mark doesn't understand.  Literally billions were spent by all the people involved in HVAC, and for almost nothing.  That's billions that has to get passed on to the customers. Billions that were spent replacing whole units - I know 3 people with units that failed and the entire system was replaced, because of that law. (And I guess, had they waited until the fall, they might could have saved thousands.)

Billions. And for nothing.  NOTHING. Any good part of that law, the change in chemical is lost. Wasted.

It's just another few hundreds pages of regulation (that Mark will decry as "deregulation" if it's amended), that's now mostly superfluous.

A comment there by a "Dan Foster" : This offers one more example of why the economy can’t be micromanaged from the top down. Congress involves itself in thousands of issues, ranging from baseball to refrigerants, and can’t possibly have the mental bandwidth to do a good job on even a small portion of them. They must either write bad legislation, or delegate dangerous levels of authority to the regulatory agencies.

But it's all hosannas! "Dependents" up to 26 years old will now be covered on insurance! HUZZAH! HUZZAH! And it is all going to be free!

jsid-1284741425-895  Russell at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:37:06 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284740696-938

Goverment intervention always distorts signals to the market.

jsid-1284742438-174  Ken at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:53:58 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284741425-895

This. For those keeping score at home, "always" means "without exception."

jsid-1284754997-94  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 20:23:17 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284742438-174

Hey! Stop it with your bigoted, black-and-white definitions!!!!! That's unfair, and it's just, well, MEAN.

Words can mean whatever you need them to, if you do it right!!!!

jsid-1284759001-714  GrumpyOldFart at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 21:30:12 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284754997-94

Pssst... you forgot 'racist'.

jsid-1284760413-842  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 21:53:34 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284759001-714

RACIST? You DARE to call ME a racist? My cousin's uncle's friend's lawyer has said that his grass is chrome-plated.

Rush Limbaugh doesn't clean up after he clips his toenails, and as I've proven, Nixon hated oranges, per my theory. Case closed, I've got the verbatim sack.

jsid-1284761821-56  Russell at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 22:17:01 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284760413-842

UJ- You aren't asking yourself the right questions!

Marxist theory (which I secretly adhere to slavishly) states that only the repressed, depressed and dimwitted can be oppressed.

So you have to ask yourself, who owns your money? Not you! is the only possible answer. So we ask, what can we spend the money on? Not you! is the next only possible answer.

Once we get that established, well then it's easier to say the money belongs to The People. Nevermind I haven't actually met The People. But They are out there. They get the chrome-plated grass.

Duh!

jsid-1284818103-370  GrumpyOldFart at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:55:03 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284760413-842

RACIST? You DARE to call ME a racist? My cousin's uncle's friend's lawyer has said that his grass is chrome-plated.  
 
Rush Limbaugh doesn't clean up after he clips his toenails, and as I've proven, Nixon hated oranges, per my theory. Case closed, I've got the verbatim sack.


Ah, I get it.... you hacked the Marky script.

;)


jsid-1284742606-618  GrumpyOldFart at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:56:46 +0000

And it is all going to be free!

"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who tells you different is selling something."

- The Dread Pirate Roberts


jsid-1284764911-592  Markadelphia at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 23:08:32 +0000

Russell, I understood it and, in specific circumstances, agreed with it. On a macro level, however, supply side economics has been shown to be a poor model. Generally speaking, there are other reasons, besides cutting taxes, that revenue increased during the years after the Bush Administration tax cuts. For more detail, review this thread.

GOF, certainly spending more money was not a "good" choice. The other choice, however, would've been worse. I've put up dozens of links from a wide variety of sources (including the WSJ) that confirm this fact. In addition, I put an image up of our growth since the stimulus above. Please review it for evidence of the solution and how it worked. 

Unix, interested in your source on this quote. The US Census Bureau said the poverty rate shot to 14.3 percent last year (2009). Are you suggesting that this is the effect of mere months of the Obama administration It's also important to note that this is a 15 year high. We had the same numbers in 1994. See the image below.

I've been talking about disparity on this blog since I first began posting here. Hank Paulson has been warning officials regarding median income since 2006. Krugman wrote of the greatest wealth transfer in the history of the world that occurred this decade. If you're worried about poverty now, that's fantastic. What's your solution? Let's hear what you think the government should do about it. Or should they do anything? In addition, here's how I think you should go about presenting your argument. Thanks to Mike Fahrion for his framework.

1. Define the Problem---you've already done that. Poverty is at an all time high

2. Gather information--why has it increased? when? what are the causes? which areas are being hit harderst? why? what role does ethnicity play? These are just a few guiding questions off of the top of my head. The image below is also a start to look at trends. I'd be interested to see what the lag times are between an administration's policies (and that of Congress) and the growth rate of poverty. A year? Two years? Or do the policies have any effect at all? How?

3. Make a hypothesis. You've sort of done that. Obama's policies have caused poverty. This does intimate bias, however, and it is my hope that in your information gathering, you can take a more reasoned and logical approach based on evidence. "It's all the government's fault" is an emotional statement not based on logic.

4. Design and conduct a fair experiment to test your hypothesis. For a research method, I would use a survey or, if you have the time, participant observation. I emphasize the word fair, here, and it is my hope that you will remember it.

5. Analyze the data and draw a conclusion. If you chose the latter method mentioned in #4, I would look forward to your analysis.I think the experience you would have would be most illuminating in a number of ways.

6. Clearly communicate the results.

Good Luck!

DJ, my apologies. I remember you mentioning your insurance now and that you are happy with it. I am curious, though, that you chose such a lengthy manner in which to answer. My curiosity compels me to ask again...just for the record...in a very simple way. I'd humbly request that the rest of you answer this as well.

Are you on Medicare? Y or N
Will you ever go on Medicare Y or N.
Have you ever been on Medicaid? Y or N.

I will consider the matter closed if all answers are simple Ns. If they aren't, however, or you launch into one of your flowery posts/personal insults of yours truly....well Lucy....you got some 'splaining to do. ;)

jsid-1284776801-8  DJ at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 02:26:41 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284764911-592

"I remember you mentioning your insurance now and that you are happy with it ..."

I explained clearly to you, on several occasions and at length, that I am quite UNHAPPY with my health insurance, and why that is the case.

"My curiosity compels me to ask again ...

"Are you on Medicare? Y or N"


"Your curiosity" means that you will not, or cannot, think it through yourself. There are two ways you can do so. I'll do it for you, since you either won't or can't do it for yourself.

1) To be eligible for Medicare, one must be at least 65 years old, or one must have certain disabilities. I have told you my age several times. I am not yet 65 years old yet, am I? I have told you the medical fun and games I have experienced, and disability isn't on the list. I am not disabled, am I? Thus, I am not eligible for Medicare, and so I cannot possibly be on Medicare.

2) In this country, when you reach age 65, you cannot have any other health insurance than Medicare and its supplements, or Medicaid. I have told you that I have health insurance. Thus, I cannot possibly be on Medicare.

Now, do you see how easy that was?

Now, do you see why that was a really stupid question?

You are writing on a subject, namely health insurance, that you just demonstrated you are unable to think clearly about simply because you do not integrate related information. Now, where have I heard that before?

"Will you ever go on Medicare Y or N."

I don't know. As the law currently stands, once I reach age 65, Medicare will be the only medical insurance available to me. I don't know what the law will be, nor do I know what will be available, when I reach that age. I'll cross that bridge if and when I come to it.

"Have you ever been on Medicaid? Y or N."

Again, you avoid thinking. I'll do it for you, since you either won't or can't do it for yourself.

Medicaid is for low income families without health insurance, and eligibility here in Oklahoma also requires a relationship with at least one of: 1) Aid to the Aged; 2) Aid to the Disabled; 3) Aid to the Blind; 4) Pregnancy-Related Services; or, 5) Aid to Families with Dependent Children. I have told you that I have also lived in Missouri and New Mexico, both of which have similar requirements. I have told you that I have never been poor, I am not aged, I am not disabled, I am not blind, and I have never had children. Thus, I have never been eligible for Medicaid.

Now, do you see how easy that was?

Now, do you see why that was a really stupid question?

The thought of looking up the requirements for Medicaid and (wait for it ...) integrating what I had already told you about me was just more than you could do, wasn't it? Now, where have I heard that before?

"I am curious, though, that you chose such a lengthy manner in which to answer."

No, you're not, and making such a precious statement does not elevate you to moral high ground. You beclown yourself yet again, and you fool no one, little boy.

"... you got some 'splaining to do."

Go back and read your three and a half years of blather here, hypocrisy boy, and then tell all of us that I've got some 'splainin' to do.


jsid-1284766421-519  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 23:33:41 +0000

In addition, here's how I think you should go about presenting your argument. Thanks to Mike Fahrion for his framework.

Mark, on the one hand, it's good you found that.
But as DJ said, you cannot assimilate the knowledge. You just cut and paste, and throw some strawmen into the mix.

1. Define the Problem---you've already done that. Poverty is at an all time high

That's your strawman.  I reported it as an effect.  Notice that after you miss the foundation, you keep going, which means you're in error from the start.

2. Gather information--why has it increased? when? what are the causes? which areas are being hit harderst? why? what role does ethnicity play? These are just a few guiding questions off of the top of my head. The image below is also a start to look at trends. I'd be interested to see what the lag times are between an administration's policies (and that of Congress) and the growth rate of poverty. A year? Two years? Or do the policies have any effect at all? How?

Your arrogance is overwhelming. After you've dodged every topic, after you've misstated, and mis-defined, and moved the goalposts all over the place, you've got the utter audacity to lecture us?  And you are going to tell us about boundaries and "trends"

3. Make a hypothesis. You've sort of done that. Obama's policies have caused poverty. This does intimate bias, however, and it is my hope that in your information gathering, you can take a more reasoned and logical approach based on evidence. "It's all the government's fault" is an emotional statement not based on logic.

You know how for dozens of comments, I've told you you don't understand the basics?  YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE BASICS.  So your strawman isn't a foundation, and all your other pap smears you, not us.  Stalling for extra pages doesn't help here.

4. Design and conduct a fair experiment to test your hypothesis. For a research method, I would use a survey or, if you have the time, participant observation. I emphasize the word fair, here, and it is my hope that you will remember it.

SAYS THE PERSON WHO CAN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN "DEFICIT" AND "REVENUE"?  Fair? You don't even understand the scientific method, or it's application.  You've been trying to somehow, work it into your arguments for 3 years, and you've failed every. Single. Time. Including this one. Your hope that we will remember it?  You don't remember what you said in the comment, the paragraph, or the sentence before. You keep asking questions that have been answered many times over. And you're lecturing US sanctimoniously on "remembering" that which you do not know?

(pt 2 continues)




jsid-1284766440-932  Unix-Jedi at Fri, 17 Sep 2010 23:34:01 +0000



5. Analyze the data and draw a conclusion. If you chose the latter method mentioned in #4, I would look forward to your analysis.I think the experience you would have would be most illuminating in a number of ways.

 

Says the man who can't define which is more, 22 or 15. Or define "verbatim". Or apologize for being wrong after telling people to "nut up". Or "have the sack".  

Who couldn't do the basic math on a standard skills test.

Yeah, I'm sure you're ALL SORTS OF READY to be "illuminated"

 

 

6. Clearly communicate the results .

 

Oh, you're a smarmy asshole.  This really has me mad, Mark.  I've been damn nice, all things considered, but if you EVER lecture ANYBODY here again like that, we're going to have a discussion, and I'm pulling out some evidence that I'm pretty sure is correct, and I'm pretty sure you don't want to discuss.

 

3/4/2010. That's your warning.

 

No more smarm. No more lecturing, no more insisting we jump through your hoops as you run around ours.  Or we'll discuss if what I noticed is what I think it is.

 


In the meantime, Mark, 



 I am curious, though, that you chose such a lengthy manner in which to answer.

 

Because you've been told, and you didn't pay attention.  Notice how we remember specifics about your arguments? Maybe you don't, maybe you really do forget the things you've said,and how ludicrous they are.  Because it proves us correct about your abilities.



If they aren't, however, or you launch into one of your flowery posts/personal insults of yours truly....well Lucy....you got some 'splaining to do.

 

3/4/2010.  Don't do it again.


jsid-1284777141-896  Russell at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 02:32:22 +0000

“Russell, I understood it and, in specific circumstances, agreed with it. On a macro level, however, supply side economics has been shown to be a poor model. Generally speaking, there are other reasons, besides cutting taxes, that revenue increased during the years after the Bush Administration tax cuts. For more detail, review this thread. “

Oh man! Sorry, I had to catch my breath. Laughing too hard!

Lessee, spot reading ye olde monster thread indicates you don’t have an understanding of what DJ said, or what ‘specific circumstances’ might exist in which to agree, because you failed, with vim and gusto, to understand his proposition and, later, the math.

Don’t think so?

About DJ’s argument, let me quote you: “Generally speaking, there are other reasons, besides cutting taxes, that revenue increased during the years after the Bush Administration tax cuts.”

And here’s DJ: “The proposition is that: 

‘During the Bush administration, the feddle gubmint cut income tax RATES, which resulted in increasedincome tax REVENUE.’

The premise on which this proposition is based is that: 

‘... a change in the RATE at which a particular economic activity is taxed results in a change in the willingness of people to engage in that activity, and thus a change in that activity, and thus a change in the tax REVENUE which taxing that activity produces.’’”

Q.E.D.

Regarding your inability to understand the math, DJ: “Thus the function Y = f(X) is a curve of some shape. At this point, we do not have any information to define that shape with specificity. But we do have a mathematical tool which tells us something crucial about it.”

You: “But math isn't all there is to explaining why economies behave the way they do. More specifically, it's not the only way to explain why revenue behaves the way it does. What I'm basic”

Again, Q.E.D.

And since I’m here, you keep misusing the phrase “Scientific Method”. Most of the time I think you want someone else to do the heavy lifting by creating a model and doing an analysis of the data. That is not the scientific method.


jsid-1284780538-490  Markadelphia at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 03:28:58 +0000

3/4/2010. That's your warning. 

Unix, I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. March 4, 2010? Or is it Brit version, 3 April 2010. Either way, I made no comments here on either day. Nor did I post anything on my blog. So I really don't get what you are on about.

As far as the rest goes, I don't understand how I'm being smarmy. I was told quite clearly that there are rules regarding making claims and backing them up. If those rules aren't in play anymore, no problem. People get busy and it's really tough to spend a lot of time doing this stuff. And, really, I'm not being a jerk about the poverty thing. If you are genuinely interested in looking into causes and offering possible solutions, that's great. I remember awhile back you talked about volunteering to work in hurricane preparedness so this would be a similar thing, no?


jsid-1284783888-460  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 04:24:48 +0000

Unix, I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. March 4, 2010? 

Yes.  Well, think about it a bit. 

It's about reputation.

I don't understand how I'm being smarmy.

That beggars belief, Mark. It truly does.  I just can't believe you can't understand that.  You're routinely arrogant and disdainful, after being schooled - literally - in failures of your foundational arguments, or being told you're wrong about others, or proven wrong on other things, and then you continue to lecture and act like you're morally and intellectually superior.

But for the sake of argument, we'll assume (Which you never do) for the sake of argument you don't see that.

Instead of believing that then, you weren't, go back and read what you said, what fired up both DJ and myself, and try and figure it out.

I'm not being a jerk about the poverty thing.

You're being obtuse. Either that's intentional, and the anger is warranted, or you're quite literally not capable of discussion.

You presumed a strawman, and then spun off and entire set of "rules", using the "scientific method", which has been well established you don't understand.
And you did so as if you were dispensing knowledge to us. (That's the smarm. I figured you wouldn't go work it out.)

From the start, your thought experiment was flawed. After the first failure, everything else was just a continuation. But this is something you demonstrably DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

So until you can start to prove mastery of material, don't lecture us.  Ask questions, argue - fine. But don't act like you have knowledge and are withholding it from us, or willing to dole it out.

Rebut specifics - that's fine.  But don't lecture us again until after you've dealt with these issues, and learned how to assimilate knowledge. For someone who has tried to tell us they know about all these methods of learning, you've never once demonstrated that you can, in fact, learn.


 If you are genuinely interested in looking into causes and offering possible solutions, that's great. I remember awhile back you talked about volunteering to work in hurricane preparedness so this would be a similar thing, no?

No. However you're almost correct.
I've served on 3 State Hurricane Diaster/Emergency Teams. I've helped people who were living in New Orleans.
But that's not really the same thing as what you're thinking - again, you've failed to establish the foundations. As a result, everything afterward is corrupted.  There's a reason why we've talked about GIGO to you.  It's a computer term, and it's very applicable to you.


jsid-1284829315-670  DJ at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 17:01:59 +0000

Well, it's started ...

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/18/ct-approves-rate-hikes-to-cover-obamacare-mandates/

"This comes as a great shock to all of those business experts on the Left that kept insisting that additional mandates meant lower costs.  To the rest of us, however, who actually understand risk pools and the difference between price and costs, it’s exactly what we predicted for over a year."


Golly. Who knew?


jsid-1284833165-821  Markadelphia at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:06:05 +0000

The article also says...

it’s unclear how much more customers will pay because of the variety of plans and the complexity of other factors, such as a person’s age.

and

The looming question is how much those new mandated benefits, along with rising medical costs, will raise prices for health insurance next year. Insurers will submit a new batch of rate requests in October and November to take effect in 2011.

Also, I wonder if this has anything to do with the rate change.

http://www.myrecordjournal.com/latestnews/article_02e09e8e-c03f-11df-ac08-001cc4c03286.html


jsid-1284833622-12  Markadelphia at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:13:42 +0000

We're going to top 500 on this one, folks, and it is positively filled with example after example of why I don't ban Markadelphia - he's just too perfect an example of what we're fighting against.

Odd, because I have found some common ground with several of you in this thread.

And, yes, I did put this extra comment in just to get us closer to 500.


jsid-1284838490-843  GrumpyOldFart at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 19:34:50 +0000

GOF, certainly spending more money was not a "good" choice. The other choice, however, would've been worse. I've put up dozens of links from a wide variety of sources (including the WSJ) that confirm this fact. In addition, I put an image up of our growth since the stimulus above. Please review it for evidence of the solution and how it worked.

How well it worked and whether the other options would have been worse is still arguable, but even accepting that, it's still only half an answer. You laid this at the feet of Republican spending. How so?

jsid-1284840894-284  Ken at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 20:14:54 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284838490-843

Actually, the gentleman's assertion is not testable (and therefore, is not a confirmed fact, and all the other opinions marshalled in support are equally untestable assertions when applied to present conditions); can't split the time stream and see what happens in each.

What we can do, though, is look at the historical evidence. Consider the Depression of 1920 (lasting approximately 6 months) vs. the Great Depression (lasting approximately until Europe and Japan were rubble).

Never heard of the Depression of 1920? I'm not surprised. The Keynesians and state-worshipers would love to do to it what the Gaia-worshipers would love to do the Medieval Warm Period.

jsid-1284841789-819  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 20:29:50 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284840894-284



Actually, the gentleman's assertion is not testable

Trust me. he's far from understanding what a control is and the requirement for such.  Let's not confuse things any more.


Oh, I'm well aware of the Depression of 1920.   :)

jsid-1284842877-73  Ken at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 20:47:58 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284841789-819

I hesitated over whether to ask that rhetorical question here, U-J. Of course, the usual reply to the examples I posted (there's a state apologost named michael at the Mises.org blog who has a really familiar style) is "the Fed did things the Austrian way in 1929-32, and look what happened!"

Never mind that if things had truly been done the Austrian way, there'd have been no Fed -- nor Hawley-Smoot, nor a Sixteenth Amendment, nor a host of other things.

jsid-1284844298-649  Ken at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 21:11:38 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284842877-73

Wait...apologost? "Rhadagast the Brown -- ride with all haste to Apologost, and give this message to Ransack the Elder!" :-P


jsid-1284839324-820  umpteen at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 19:48:45 +0000

Those of you arguing with Mark over whether "tax cuts" are "good" for federal revenue have fallen for an obvious trap, and lost horribly. Only statists argue over whether inflicting harm on individuals is good for the health of the state. Only collectivist parasites like Mark want to see tax revenue bolstered. Everyone else knows that that money is stolen from productive individuals, and that the ends to not justify the means.

Drop the weak sister arguments and stand up for your principles, if you have any.

jsid-1284841318-432  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 20:21:58 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284839324-820

"Those of you arguing with Mark over whether "tax cuts" are "good" for
federal revenue have fallen for an obvious trap, and lost horribly. "
Didn't read the replies, I see.
I know I, and I think DJ too, specifically disclaimed that. But that
wasn't the proposition.
Mark had complained of tax cuts, and implied that it meant that the
government had less money. DJ tried to demonstrate to him that he
was incorrect and did so in a number of ways.
The implications of that were not part of the discussion.
"Drop the weak sister arguments and stand up for your principles, if
you have any."
Ah, well, I'm sure your community has some adult literacy classes.
Take some, and maybe you won't be such a asshat because you couldn't
read well.
On 9/18/10, Echo
wrote:

jsid-1284841603-906  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 20:26:44 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284841318-432

(That was a reply-by-email.  Hardly a smashing success.)

jsid-1284843685-269  Russell at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 21:01:25 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284841603-906

It looked like you were attempting some sort of free verse poetry. 

jsid-1284862420-360  DJ at Sun, 19 Sep 2010 02:13:40 +0000 in reply to jsid-1284839324-820

"Only statists argue over whether inflicting harm on individuals is good for the health of the state."

That wasn't what the argument was about. The argument was about how the mechanisms function which provide the revenue, not whether the revenue should be provided.

"Drop the weak sister arguments and stand up for your principles, if you have any."


Go back in these comments about three or four years and read for a few weeks, all the way up to here, then come and tell us whether the conclusion you jumped to was correct.


jsid-1284841906-175  Unix-Jedi at Sat, 18 Sep 2010 20:31:46 +0000

Kevin: he's just too perfect an example of what we're fighting against.
Mark: Odd, because I have found some common ground with several of you in this thread.  


Mark, did you ever get inoculated against irony poisoning? You might want to check if that's covered under your health plan.


jsid-1284914182-994  Borepatch at Sun, 19 Sep 2010 16:36:23 +0000

The whole debate between Markadelphia and everyone else reminds me of the Global Warming debate.  On one side you have someone with a mental model of how the Universe should work, backed up by some computer models that represent teh same (both the climate models and the CBO's models suffer from precisely the same shortcoming).

On the other side are people who look at the data, and who try to tease a validated understanding of how the actual Universe works from these observations.

The second group looks at the first and sees a faith-based community, reading from a Liturgy.  The first group looks at the second and sees heretics.

Kevin's right that you can't have a debate between people who do not have a common set of first assumptions.  "Received Wisdom from teh experts" is nothing remotely like "Follow the data".


jsid-1285001136-295  GrumpyOldFart at Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:45:36 +0000

This thread isn't gonna die 4 posts short of the 500 mark, is it?

jsid-1285003853-963  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:30:56 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285001136-295

Yes, it is.

jsid-1285003985-74  Russell at Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:33:07 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285003853-963

No. it's not.

jsid-1285007383-153  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:29:50 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285003985-74

STOP IT! YOU'RE BEING FAR TOO SILLY!   

jsid-1285013787-470  Russell at Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:16:27 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285007383-153

Inconceivable! 


jsid-1285007517-380  khbaker at Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:31:57 +0000

500!!! :-D 8-)

jsid-1285008691-606  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:51:31 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285007517-380

I'm surprised Echo is still working.

jsid-1285013124-228  Russell at Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:05:24 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285008691-606

Me too!

I have noticed that Chrome is handling loading this thread better than Firefox.


jsid-1285008788-340  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:53:08 +0000

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/09/027267.php



The UK's tax collection agency is putting forth a proposal that all employers send employee paychecks to the government, after which the government would deduct what it deems as the appropriate tax and pay the employees by bank transfer.
...
If the real-time information plan works, it further proposes that employers hand over employee salaries to the government first.

You can't even parody Mark's ideas these days.

jsid-1285020494-906  DJ at Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:08:22 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285008788-340

In this article

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem.html

we find this excerpt:

"Obama Sr. was an economist, and in 1965 he published an important article in the East Africa Journal  called "Problems Facing Our Socialism." Obama Sr. wasn't a doctrinaire socialist; rather, he saw state appropriation of wealth as a necessary means to achieve the anticolonial objective of taking resources away from the foreign looters and restoring them to the people of Africa. For Obama Sr. this was an issue of national autonomy. "Is it the African who owns this country? If he does, then why should he not control the economic means of growth in this country?""

"As he put it, "We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now." The senior Obama proposed that the state confiscate private land and raise taxes with no upper limit. In fact, he insisted that "theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."

"Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father's history very well, has never mentioned his father's article."


Oh, to have a mind reader ...


jsid-1285013973-935  Markadelphia at Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:19:34 +0000

Never heard of the Depression of 1920? I'm not surprised.

What's your take on the causes of this? Or anyone? I'm always up any kind of discussion regarding topics like this but then again I'm not a really a strict Keynesian nor a state-worshipper. I guess I'm curious, since you are an Austrian school thinker, if you think that Harding's policies were helpful in the short term or long term. Or both? More or less, I know where you are going with this but I want to hear what your take is regarding the juxtaposition of both Depressions and the solutions that were used. How would they differ from today considering we have not just come out of a major conflict (WWI)?

How well it worked and whether the other options would have been worse is still arguable, but even accepting that, it's still only half an answer. You laid this at the feet of Republican spending. How so?

Well, you can't cut taxes and increase spending like they did. Combine that with the gutting of Glass-Steagall and you have the perfect storm. I know that most of you are not fans of George Bush but how many bills did he veto? Had they not spent that money on the various things they did, we would not have needed the bailout or the stimulus.

Only collectivist parasites like Mark want to see tax revenue bolstered.

Actually, that's not true. I think the majority of the Bush tax cuts should stay in place. I think that the taxes on the upper 2 percent should return to their previous levels. Of course, this isn't a complete solution. We do need to spend less and make our government more efficient. There need to be cuts across the board including defense and entitlements. 


Drop the weak sister arguments and stand up for your principles, if you have any.

I'm not sure I understand what this means at all. It seems to me that everyone is standing up for their principles just fine.

Here are some comments from the new thread (about this thread) which I cut and pasted here for the sake of convenience.

How you guys can engage somebody you know is never, ever going to change his mind on any important point is beyond me.
Fight the battles you can win for the minds that are open.

Actually, my mind is very open to solutions that work in reality. I've agreed with several facts, ideas, notions, theories, and concepts presented in this thread. I've disagreed with the statements that refuse to accept certain facts that don't jibe with reality.

The bottom line is, as he has been told many times, he will not win by default.

Wow. This statement says it all. DJ, I don't want to "win." This isn't a contest. Man, what a watershed moment. I don't look at this as winning or losing. I look at this as a discussion about ideas in which there are often no right or wrong answers. I have no desire to post on liberal blogs where everyone screams about how much conservatives suck etc. It doesn't solve anything, it's not interesting and completely fruitless.

If I could narrow my goals here into one hope, it would be this (which I think I have mentioned before). One day in the future, I post a comment and no one respponds because they are too busy. Mastiff is tutoring students who will become the next Franklin. Kevin and DJ are teaching engineering by day and gun safety by night. Juris is teaching constitutional law out in CA somewhere. Ed is leading teenagers on mission trips and spreading the Word. Unix, Sara, and Russell are all reps in either local, state or federal governments. Ken is a history teacher at his local high school.

And it doesn't have to necessarily be teaching or serving as a political representative. These are but a few examples that illustrate that "winning" doesn't involve "beating" me. I guess I think there are probably much better ways to bring about the change you desire than insulting me. Certainly, you could reach a wider audience than the few hundred (or thousand?) readers here. Honestly, that's not any sort of victory at all. While I always enjoy a good discussion and reaching 1000 comments would be fun (right?), I'd much prefer the possible future I have laid out above.

jsid-1285019969-253  DJ at Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:59:30 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285013973-935

"Man, what a watershed moment."

The statement of mine that you quoted, and made this comment in response to, is not in this comment thread, rather it is in the comment thread of this post by Kevin:

http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/09/epic.html

Let's quote that whole statement of mine, shall we? I'll add a bit of emphasis:

"We fight for the minds who read this without commenting, not for the resident fool who cannot be reached. The former are worth fighting for, but the latter is beyond help. The bottom line is, as he has been told many times, he will not win by default."

See the underlined part? It is accurate. I have stated this to you many times, and yet only now is it a "watershed moment"?

Now, see the bolded parts? You have just illustrated the truth thereof. You just don't pay attention, do you?  See what I mean by "cannot be reached"?

"I don't look at this as winning or losing."

Let's quote the whole statement of mine again, but with different emphasis:

"We fight for the minds who read this without commenting, not for the resident fool who cannot be reached. The former are worth fighting for, but the latter is beyond help. The bottom line is, as he has been told many times, he will not win by default."

See the highlighted part? It is accurate.

It is irrelevant what YOU think of what I write or how YOU look at what I write, because I do not write for YOUR edification. As I plainly stated, I write for others who read here, and it is what they might think of it that makes it worth writing.

You just aren't that important, no matter how desperately you wish to be.

"If I could narrow my goals here into one hope, it would be this (which I think I have mentioned before). One day in the future, I post a comment and no one responds because they are too busy."


Now, why would you hope that we would be too busy to respond to a comment of yours?

Would it be so that you can post yet another asinine, stupid, ignorant, ridiculous, arrogant, condescending, or otherwise fuckheaded comment and not be challenged for doing so? Would it be so you could comment away and delude yourself that you aren't wrong at all? Golly. Wouldn't that be totally all like, super, and stuff?

No, your goal is what you have achieved here for years; it is to have someone, anyone, pay attention to you. Hence you are "always up any kind of discussion regarding topics like this" even when you have no idea what you are talking about. Being ignorant as a blank page has never stopped you from imagining what's on that page, has it?

"These are but a few examples that illustrate that "winning" doesn't involve "beating" me."

You deliberately live in the butts, standing up almost daily to offer yourself as a target of ridicule. The notion that your "goal" is to be ignored is laughable. You can achieve that goal anytime you want to, and with the immediacy of flipping a switch. We have tried for years to get you to understand how to do so, but you refuse with the pig-headed obstinacy of gravity on a neutron star.

And, save the inevitable horseshit about how you just want the world to be a better place, with all of us too busy contributing to it to bother with you. That dog just won't hunt.

jsid-1285036066-57  Ken at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 02:27:46 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285013973-935


More or less, I know where you are going with this but I want to hear what your take is regarding the juxtaposition of both Depressions and the solutions that were used.  
 
I should think the evidence speaks for itself.  
 
How would they differ from today considering we have not just come out of a major conflict (WWI)?  

 
Huh? Does a doctor, faced with a patient bitten by a raccoon, consider a course of treatment different from that prescribed for a patient bitten by a bat? Hardly -- in both cases, the doctor, if he knows his business, starts rabies prophylaxis.


What he does not do is send the patient to Carlsbad Caverns to see whether enough additional bat bites will suck out the poison. Likewise, a credit-driven bubble-and-bust can be remedied only by allowing the bad investments to flush out of the system, which may in fact mean people lose their shirts. It must happen sooner or later; kicking the can down the road can only postpone the crunch, and is likely to make it worse when it comes...Q.E.D.

jsid-1285077702-363  GrumpyOldFart at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:01:42 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285036066-57

One of my biggest reasons for liking Pratchett is the wit and wisdom of Lord Havelock Vetinari:

"You see, I believe in freedom, Mr. Lipwig. Not many people do, although they will, of course, protest otherwise. And no practical definition of freedom would be complete without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom upon which all the others are based."

- Going Postal

* * *
In fairness, I don't think anyone here is saying it's solely a problem with the Democrats. The cancer is a century old, and long ago infected both parties. It's just metastasized with the current crop of Democrats.


jsid-1285014774-109  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:32:54 +0000

Actually, my mind is very open to solutions that work in reality.

'Scuse me. My irony meter just broke, I need to take it into the shop. Whoops, looks like it's a cascade.. Irony, man, it's just not broken, it's slagged. Gonna have to be replaced from he motivator out. Yup, credulism meter is fried, too... Damn, this is gonna be costly. Hope insurance covers it.

jsid-1285014879-22  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:34:39 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285014774-109

I'm always up any kind of discussion regarding topics like this but then again I'm not a really a strict Keynesian nor a state-worshipper. 

I thought I had sarcasm jury-rigged to cover irony, but that just fried it, too.


jsid-1285016097-792  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:55:09 +0000

More or less, I know where you are going with this but I want to hear what your take is regarding the juxtaposition of both Depressions and the solutions that were used. 

Cut through the BS, Mark.  Which one worked better?
Which solution is closer to your stated preferences?

Well, you can't cut taxes and increase spending like they did. 

GOTO 10

Cut tax revenue, or tax rates?  Here we go again with your inability to assimilate new information, and trying to blind us with BS.  

Had they not spent that money on the various things they did, we would not have needed the bailout or the stimulus.  

There was more than 1 "bailout".  And we needed that not because of Glass-Stegal, but far more because of the CRA and the government assumption of mortgage debt.
And while I'm not in favor of the spending that Bush signed off on, none of that had much at all to do with the meltdowns - which he tried to at least do SOMETHING about and was stymied by the democrats.

Nor would it have saved GM or Chrysler. So those "bailouts" would still have gone forward.


Actually, my mind is very open to solutions that work in reality.

I know you think so.  
I also know you don't have the training or ability to evaluate arguments.  But there's a glimmer of potential there, because you do know enough to muddy the waters rather than admit error. That's indicative that it's not totally beyond you.

But until you start learning to break problems DOWN, and to make sure you're on the same definitions as others, you won't be able to evaluate and see what works.

But to directly rebut you, no, that's not true, and I can point you to many cases where you refused to admit that something you were against worked, or vice versa. Most notably and recently, Stanford's charter school.

DJ, I don't want to "win." This isn't a contest. Man, what a watershed moment. I don't look at this as winning or losing. I look at this as a discussion about ideas in which there are often no right or wrong answers.

There are objective facts and realities.  We're not ever going to agree as long as you pull that "no objective facts" crap from critical pedagogy, because it's simply not true.

It's just faux-intellectual cover to let you do what you want, when you want.  It's markedly dishonest, and it means that you cannot ever be held responsible.  

You're not going to come here, spew intellectual venom on our heritage, and not be called out. That's my take on it, you're going to be embarrassed, called out, and your past failures brought out for all to see, so the people not participating, but reading, can evaluate the arguments, and include past history.


One day in the future, I post a comment and no one respponds because they are too busy.

Pass me a coke, wouldya?

So, you're not going to be too busy?

Mark, if you comment, and don't say something blatantly asshatted, people don't reply.  But you Just Cannot Not Do That.  You can't follow a argument, you can't make a thesis or defend it.  Yes, I'm sure you want to just be taken as An Authority, but you haven't earned it, you're farther in the negative than most homeowners when it comes to your authority.  

Because you've not thought through what you're so certain is "deep". You can't back out to components and line them up.  So you act rudely in response.  I know you don't see why I say that, but picking up the goalposts, or replying by changing the words, or using definitions that are you own, without disclosing that is incredibly rude, and it engenders more rudeness. 


I think there are probably much better ways to bring about the change you desire than insulting me. 

Show me where you've ever been gratuitously insulted.  The insults are a by blow, almost always, of your sneering condescension and lack of understanding. And usually, they're after someone attempts to point out that you've missed something, and or it's a repeat offense.  Such as above, where you said "cut taxes", whilst disregarding everything DJ did.

That's rude.  And it might never get through to you. But it will get through to anybody who finds this thread and who's had anyone tell them "cut taxes... less revenue".

jsid-1285088869-61  GrumpyOldFart at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:07:49 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285016097-792

I must be getting old.

GOTO 10

I just now got that.

jsid-1285101322-202  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:35:22 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285088869-61

But Grumpy, it's so BASIC!

Actually, no, I think you'd have to be old to get it.
Whippersnappers these days.

jsid-1285102916-392  Russell at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:01:56 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285101322-202

U-J, that comment actually hurt my head :)


jsid-1285016497-929  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:01:38 +0000

And no, this isn't a gratuitous insult.

But this is how you make decisions and argue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU

jsid-1285020863-669  Ed "What the" Heckman at Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:14:23 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285016497-929

Case in point: 55% voted for Obama, the other 45% didn't vote, therefore they have no right to complain.


jsid-1285023527-429  Markadelphia at Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:58:47 +0000

Ed, not sure if you saw this but I'll copy it again down here.


Oh, and Ed, when I said 55 percent, I meant that only 55 percent of the people that could vote actually voted. 55 percent voted for "them" as in "Congress" or all of the candidates. Wouldn't it be great if the other 45 percent actually voted? Hell, I'd take 20 percent more!

So, the other 45 percent were the ones that didn't even show up to vote for anyone....Democrat or Republican. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain. Again, I'd like to see voter turnout at least 75 percent. Wouldn't you?

jsid-1285081336-690  geekwitha45 at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:02:17 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285023527-429



>> If you don't vote, you have no right to complain.


Bull.


The right to complain about a governmental action that exceeds its rightful purpose is not contingent upon participation in the process that brings it about.


Elsewhere: >> The state is US


This is a classic fallacy exhbited by those whose minds have been poisoned, perhaps fatally, by Rousseau, who hamsters on a wheel of circular logic explaining how majoritarian society would never do anything against its own interests, because the the democratic state is composed of the people, who are magically incapable of such.


Living people with dead minds would be eerie if they weren't so damned commonplace.


Elsewhere: >> Remember, though, that if you are outvoted...well...that's what they call a democracy.


The premise that a majoritarian excercise justifies and vouchsafes all outcomes is firmyl rejected by the axioms of our system, which expressly limits the power of government, prohibits certain outcomes, and which explicitly states that the purpose of government is to "secure these rights" ...of... life liberty and the pursuit of (material) happiness.


Quote

-----------

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

-----------


That phrase MEANS SOME THINGS, AND NOT OTHERS.


It does NOT mean that governments are instituted to implement whatever arbitrary action a majority can be pursuaded to vote for. Nor does it mean that governments are instituted to implement whatever purpose a de-facto ruling class elected by a majority has decided is the government's purpose.


One of the things it means is that when governmental actions are serving purposes OTHER than securing our individual rights against each other, it exceeds its mandate.


And when that happens....


Quote

----------

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

----------



To a large extent, I only value democracy to the extent that it serves its stated purpose of securing *my* (and by extension, everyone else's) various unalienable rights. The less it serves that purpose, the more it becomes a means  of justifying/enabling the trampling of those endowments, the the further down my list of values and priorities it slides.  Democracy is a means, not an end it itself.

A duty of conscience to obey the laws of system of government is not unconditional. In order to be worthy of allegiance, certain minimums must be met, including among other things, the correctness of its philosophical foundations, and, with reasonable allowances made for the imperfection of the world, a correctness of practice, both in process and in outcome. 

At some point, a degenerate democracy (or democratic republic, or any other form of governance) becomes indistinguishable from a state of nature, and the rule of law, having lost its underlying moral justification, becomes nothing more than an expression of the arbitrary caprice of a tyrant.

The acts of a tyrannous majority does not vouchsafe the outcome of their desires. Rather, it intrinsicly *destroys* their authority to rule.

And that, Mr. 'Delphia, is the destination you don't see at the end of your road.

jsid-1285084201-667  Ken at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:50:01 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285081336-690

A duty of conscience to obey the laws of system of government is not unconditional. In order to be worthy of allegiance, certain minimums must be met, including among other things, the correctness of its philosophical foundations, and, with reasonable allowances made for the imperfection of the world, a correctness of practice, both in process and in outcome.

By those lights, constitutional republicanism foundered on the rock of the 16th Amendment.

jsid-1285087449-55  geekwitha45 at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:44:10 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285084201-667

Restraining direct federal taxation was an important "speed bump" (in the sense that a republic is a democracy with speed bumps in it), but in and of itself isn't sufficient to destroy a duty of conscience, so long as the amount and purpose of the taxes collected remains within bounds of the enumerated powers, which are in turn consistent with the stated purpose. 



The 18th amendment, Prohibition, was one of the few Constitutional elements that was just fundamentally tainted at the root....that's a story for another day.

In general, despite its flaws, the US Constitition is one of the few documents of human governance that even has a HOPE of forming a basis of being worthy of a conscientious duty.

jsid-1285089564-523  Ken at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:19:24 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285087449-55

I agree with you, except in this particular: I don't see how income tax can be made to comport with the right to life, liberty, and property, particularly the former. It grants the state a prior claim to some portion of one's life (leave aside the pragmatic considerations of letting the social engineers out to play thereby; I distrust pragmatism); that having been conceded, all that remains is to quibble over how much. The only moral basis for such a claim is something akin to Filmer, where whatever the king does is okay because he's the king, G_d's Anointed.

I don't have any basis to lay prior claim to the life of another. How, then, do I delegate a right I never had to a third party (the state)?

jsid-1285099285-803  geekwitha45 at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:01:27 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285089564-523

I'm not interested in arguing Ancap Absolutism, which is the source and destination of such arguments. Ultimately, whether its an income tax or any other, that argument can be applied.

If we accept the premise that governments can be formed for the legitimate purposes of "securing these rights", then the duty to pay for it comes as part of the package, unless we care to lay prior claim to someone else's life & goods to demand the implementation of government for free.

It is precisely *because* of the moral hazard you outline that all expenditures of the taxpayer's money (not "public money") must be strictly paid out only with the greatest scrutiny and frugality for only such things as are strictly necessary to the mission.

The right of conscientious objection to participation in war (which, I might add, needs to be expanded, another topic for another day) exists for the dual purpose of protecting the nation from moral error in acts of war, and for protecting the individual from being forced to participate in something he genuinely deems immoral, a similiar right must be extended to the paying of taxes.

If you reject the premise that governments can be formed, well, there's not a whole lot more to talk about. Good luck with that state of nature thing.

jsid-1285102837-284  Ken at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:00:37 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285099285-803

The argument would not apply to a tax imposed as a user fee, wherein one avoids payment by not using whatever is the thing taxed. (To have access to police and fire services in a voluntaryist polity, I recommend a small retainer be adopted in the bylaws. But I'm not trying to settle the details here and now; it's beyond the ability of the individual, or at least of this individual.)

Granted, I don't know how we get carrier battlegroups out of that either. Also, the excise is all too sadly prone to abuse, witness the Whiskey Rebellion.

Good luck with that state of nature thing.  
 
Fair enough, but given the evidence of history since the turn of the 20th Century (being generous), the alternative's not looking so hot either. Maybe I ought to give Hobbes another try....


Look, gwa.45, I am not entirely settled in my own mind on these questions, and I think you're right to point to the moral hazard as the key issue we have to address with the means at our disposal, being fallible people of limited capabilities. The most important thing I can accomplish here is not to sell ancappery, it's to make the argument that no constitution, no matter how crafted, is impervious to the depredations of those who wish ill upon their fellow men (or Those Who Have a Better Idea, Pinky Swear), even reading out arrant nonsense like "living Constitution."

I sometimes suspect that the stridency of the "Judicial review is illegitimate!" and "The 16th Amendment was fraudulently ratified!" arguments rests on the demonstration, in a manner consistent with the document itself, that the Constitution cannot be an inviolable shield of liberty (however, I have not studied these issues in detail). It's kind of immaterial whether the changes that demonstrated the impotence of "passive constitutionalism" are or are not consistent with founding principles when the document becomes the talisman.

When one get right down to it, the thing that must be guarded against is the "set it, wet it, and forget it" mindset: If we elect this guy, or pass that Amendment, All Will Be Well, and They All Settled Down and Lived Happily Ever After, Even Those Who Had to Cut the Grass.

States can certainly be formed, but I think the concept of consent needs further attention as well (although I'm not sure it can be fixed without unclaimed land and homesteading). As you say with respect to conscientious objection, another topic for another day.

jsid-1285104071-205  Ken at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:21:11 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285102837-284

Addendum: Lest I fail to communicate through my own fault, I am not insinuating that the "set it, wet it, forget it"/Constitution-as-talisman applies to gwa.45 or to his arguments.

jsid-1285107160-886  geekwitha45 at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:12:41 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285102837-284

I think we agree more than not.

jsid-1285165564-821  khbaker at Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:26:04 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285107160-886

Hear, hear!

The problem, as I see it, is that from a strictly rational, logical standpoint the AnCaps have a very good argument. 

Unfortunately, humanity is not strictly rational nor logical.  Coercive governments WORK, and they have no problem producing carrier battlegroups.  As a result, associations of free-thinking individuals in an AnCap society will tend to be overrun by the minions of coercive societies.

So you are left with what, exactly?  For me, minarchy is the only acceptable answer.  The problem, as it is with all government, is KEEPING IT a minarchy.

Read today's QotD.

jsid-1285206324-877  Ken at Thu, 23 Sep 2010 01:45:25 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285165564-821

Not to hijack the thread, but this is just too interesting not to talk about (and current events don't bear talking about too long).


As a result, associations of free-thinking individuals in an AnCap society will tend to be overrun by the minions of coercive societies.

The longest-surviving example of an (approximately) stateless society was Ireland in the Middle Ages. Ireland, by the technology of the time, was fairly geographically isolated (important point). The not-so-wild West likewise was fairly geographically isolated (at least getting there was a job of work), as was Pennsylvania in the 1680s. Neither was there a powerful and covetous state enemy in the vicinity (also important point).

It strikes me that a minarchy with meaningful consent provisions, coupled with the opportunity to light out for the territories for them as are inclined, may be the way to address the practical concerns of minarchists and the moral/philosophical concerns of ancaps. I may elaborate on my own blog, when I get a chance. It'll give me a chance to cite The Art of Not Being Governed and The Lord of the Rings in the same post.

jsid-1285209922-889  Russell at Thu, 23 Sep 2010 02:45:23 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285206324-877

"It strikes me that a minarchy with meaningful consent provisions, coupled with the opportunity to light out for the territories for them as are inclined, may be the way to address the practical concerns of minarchists and the moral/philosophical concerns of ancaps."

I'm talking out of my hat here, but it also seems that to have a proper go of it, ancaps would need sufficient numbers and means to transmit that to subsequent generations. Otherwise, it all ends within a single generation.

jsid-1285285462-34  Ken at Thu, 23 Sep 2010 23:44:22 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285209922-889

^------ *sings*  "Teach...your children well..." :-D

jsid-1285343873-537  Russell at Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:57:53 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285285462-34

Indeed, that has to happen, under any system.

But, as Sallust said: "Namque pauci libertatem, pars magna iustos dominos volunt."

How, then, does the ancap suggest we get around that part of the human condition?

A society propagates itself through institutions, both secular and spiritual and by tradition. I don't understand how the ancap thinks about such institutions or what he proposes to use in lieu of what has worked in the West.

jsid-1285365807-561  Ken at Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:03:30 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285343873-537

Due to the angle of my forehead, I hadda go look up that Sallust quote.

Good question. Beyond showing them the evidence of history, to wit: 99 44/100ths of the time they'll get neither, I dunno.

As I more or less alluded, the presence (entrance) of an organized and covetous enemy makes staying voluntaryist very difficult. The weight of the evidence suggests that the stateless society doesn't stay stateless for long under those conditions. Even resorting to fictional exemplars demonstrates this. Consider the Shire. You've got the Mayor: all he does is preside at banquets. You've got the Thain (chieftain of the militia, traditionally filled by The Took). The Shirriffs are haywards, and they're all volunteers. To decide whether to call the Shire an anarchy or the most minimal of minarchies is practically an exercise in hair-splitting. They certainly seemed to pay no taxes of any kind.

And when they came to someone's (Saruman's attention), it all went south until a few key individuals who knew what was what led a successful rising.

So, yes. An honest appraisal cannot minimize or handwave past any of the questions you raise. I suspect geographic isolation -- and I mean serious, "so far up-holler you have to pipe in sunlight" isolation -- would be required to make it last. James C. Scott argues in that direction, in The Art of Not Being Governed. For the vast majority of us in the West, it would involve (to say the very least) some significant lifestyle tradeoffs. Technological legerdemain is starting to address that, but slowly. Without casting aspersions to anyone present (I like having a car, a sailboat in the garage waiting to be fixed, my miniatures to paint, and this here computer to type at you as much as the next guy), I often wonder whether it isn't more comfort that just masters that people want. One can put up with a lot more, seemingly, with a full belly (and it is true that higher living standards mean there is more to lose, potentially, by upsetting an established order for an unknown).

It may be insoluble, but I still like to discuss it.

jsid-1285625628-534  Russell at Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:13:51 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285365807-561

"Due to the angle of my forehead, I hadda go look up that Sallust quote."

Oops! I had two translations and couldn't decide which one I liked better, then forget to include either! So, it seems you were tripped up by my slopping forehead :)
 
"[snip]Consider the Shire.[snip] And when they came to someone's (Saruman's attention), it all went south until a few key individuals who knew what was what led a successful rising."

When Hobbits can't maintain a near stateless society, who can?! Gives a little more weight to the notion of the proper care and feeding of the Tree of Liberty.
 
"So, yes. An honest appraisal cannot minimize or handwave past any of the questions you raise. I suspect geographic isolation -- and I mean serious, "so far up-holler you have to pipe in sunlight" isolation -- would be required to make it last."

But that bakes in an assumption that every so often, ancaps will have to strike out for a new Eden. I want to set about transforming the here and now.

"James C. Scott argues in that direction, in The Art of Not Being Governed. For the vast majority of us in the West, it would involve (to say the very least) some significant lifestyle tradeoffs. Technological legerdemain is starting to address that, but slowly. Without casting aspersions to anyone present (I like having a car, a sailboat in the garage waiting to be fixed, my miniatures to paint, and this here computer to type at you as much as the next guy), I often wonder whether it isn't more comfort that just masters that people want. One can put up with a lot more, seemingly, with a full belly (and it is true that higher living standards mean there is more to lose, potentially, by upsetting an established order for an unknown)."

Yes, this is how the slow encroachment begins: we like stuff, we like to be fed, and anything that doesn't appear to threaten the apple cart is tolerated. It is easier to hoodwink the comfortable.

"It may be insoluble, but I still like to discuss it."

Same here.

jsid-1285856412-226  Ken at Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:20:12 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285625628-534

Not your fault re the Sallust quote, Russell: I'm just not up on Sallust. Dr. Franklin apparently was, though. ;)


jsid-1285025877-192  GrumpyOldFart at Mon, 20 Sep 2010 23:37:57 +0000

So, the other 45 percent were the ones that didn't even show up to vote for anyone....Democrat or Republican. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain. Again, I'd like to see voter turnout at least 75 percent. Wouldn't you?

If you didn't choose between the casually criminal elitist and.... the other casually criminal elitist, you have no right to complain? Did I read that correctly?

I'd like to see voter turnout at 75%, sure. It would strongly imply that people thought there was someone running who was actually worthy of their support. Now that would be a watershed moment.

But in the last election, I honestly can't find fault with the reasoning of the 45% who voted for "none of the above".

jsid-1285075976-741  khbaker at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:32:59 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285025877-192

I'm relatively certain that if "None of the Above" was a choice on the ballot, we would see much higher voter turnout and NotA would win by a landslide in nearly every race.

jsid-1285104295-268  Ken at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:24:55 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285075976-741

Particularly if NotA left the office vacant and in a state of "Try again, and those on the last ballot are not eligible for this one." Or something that at least attempts to address the whole EU constitution debacle: "Trot it out until it finally passes."

jsid-1285077824-36  GrumpyOldFart at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:03:44 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285025877-192

In fairness, I can't find fault with "none of the above" as a choice for most of my life. Either party.

jsid-1285107308-506  DJ at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:15:08 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285077824-36

I propose we adopt a practice of "un-election". For example, the ballot would read in this form:

"Shall Barack Hussein Obama be un-elected from the Office of President of the United States and further be prohibited from serving in said office in the future? Vote "Yes" or "No"."


jsid-1285084606-97  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:56:46 +0000

If you don't vote, you have no right to complain.

Of course you do, that's a hideously authoritarian statement.

OK, so in your next election, you have a choice between Dick Cheney. Richard Nixon, and Rush Limbaugh. Who are you going to vote for?

AND IF YOU DON'T VOTE, YOU CAN'T COMPLAIN. Right?

That's obviously nonsensical. I've sat out many elections when the candidates were equally bad. That was the best alternative.

But for the obligatory spotlight on the Markadelphia Hypocrisy:

Remember how you've said, on many occasions, that the "people voted for change" and thus the "Healthcare" bill was justified and the complaints out of bounds?

Well, most of those people voted.  So you say that they can't complain if they voted, and they can't complain if they voted and lost, which means the only people who can complain, logically, are the ones who voted and won.

Why would they complain, Mark?  So the only people you think are "allowed" to complain are the ones who have no reason to.



Again, I'd like to see voter turnout at least 75 percent. Wouldn't you?

No.

Because that's also indicative of how much the government control is. When basically all the money goes to the government and the gov doles it back out, then it's really important to vote, and form factions.  

I want to see only people who are informed and interested voting - and I want there to be little reason for most people to BE that informed and interested.

As usual, you platitudes reveal that you don't understand where I am, or why I'm there. Even though I've specifically told you before.

But the number of people voting is mostly irrelevant, in my opinion.  It's just a meaningless number meant to distract people from the more important issues.  And it's a good bumper sticker platitude.

jsid-1285089224-653  GrumpyOldFart at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:13:44 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285084606-97

OK, so in your next election, you have a choice between Dick Cheney. Richard Nixon, and Rush Limbaugh. Who are you going to vote for?

Richard Nixon. At least the dead ones are fairly predictable.

*DONT_KNOW*

jsid-1285093870-476  Unix-Jedi at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:31:10 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285089224-653

And in Chicago, now he's a Registered Democrat.

jsid-1285095491-318  Ken at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:58:11 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285093870-476

And he voted seven times in the 2008 general.


jsid-1285105183-136  Ken at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:39:43 +0000

Just because I haven't typed enough this afternoon, I rise to remind the gentlemen that back on August 23, a request to "define hitting an iceberg" was made.

"Iceberg! Right ahead!" (The latter is the really big one.)

In all seriousness, I urge Markadelphia, and anyone else who isn't comfortable with complete separation of economy and state, to read Denninger on this stuff. He writes in (mostly) plain grumpy language, which I appreciate, and if I disagree with his proposed solutions he at least recognizes the problem and the potential consequences. And even though I don't agree with his prescriptions, I'll say this much for them: They wouldn't be any worse, and to a high probability would be quite a bit better, than what we have now. At the very least, they stand fair to restore the rule of law in finance, even if they are more law than I would prefer.

jsid-1285107782-67  khbaker at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:23:02 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285105183-136

I guess I need to go pick out my shopping cart right now.  Early retirement might be earlier than I had expected.

"Tough history coming" indeed.

jsid-1285111475-77  Ken at Tue, 21 Sep 2010 23:24:35 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285107782-67

Don't forget the dune buggy, colander, and assless chaps. :-D


jsid-1285120278-437  Ed "What the" Heckman at Wed, 22 Sep 2010 01:51:18 +0000

"Oh, and Ed, when I said 55 percent, I meant that only 55 percent of the people that could vote actually voted. 55 percent voted for "them" as in "Congress" or all of the candidates."

I have to admit that I did not see this. However, while that changes your error, it does not correct it.

Here's what you said first:

"about 55 percent of us elected them"

I took that to mean that 55% of those who voted elected him, because that's close to the actual percentage. (Obama got 52.7% of the vote*.) Furthermore, those who voted for someone else did not "elect them". The other 46.3% voted to elect someone else. So when you said…

"I'm not sure they feel anything because they don't vote."

…about the other 45%, it sounded like you were comparing 55% of those who actually voted to 45% of the total eligible voters, which is a clear category error.

Your correction is that by the 55%, you were referring to the percentage of total eligible voters. Okay. But that still leaves you wrong. Here's why:

55 percent of all the eligible voters did not elect Obama. Only 52.7% of those voters actually elected him, or 29% of all the eligible voters† actually elected him. If you want to compare percentages to all the eligible voters, that's the one you have to use. If you want to claim that 45% cannot complain because they didn't bother to vote (which is invalid for different reasons), that still leaves 46.3% of those who did vote (or 26% of all eligible voters) who can still legitimately complain by your reasoning. That number includes me, and I presume everyone who has been taking you to task.

In summary, you can compare 29% of all eligible voters to 45% of all eligible voters, and you can compare 52.7% of those who voted to 46.3% of those who voted, but you cannot mix the two.

That kind of category mixing is exactly what went on in that Monty Python clip. And that is exactly the kind of category mixing you engage in All The Time!! For example, your Just Like Al Qaeda thing, or your Cult thing, or your Fascist thing.

Notes:

* I'm using the totals for the Presidential race because I don't know the averages for all the races combined.

† I'm assuming that 55% is correct for the sake of argument. I don't know what the actual turnout percentage is.

jsid-1285120807-329  Ed "What the" Heckman at Wed, 22 Sep 2010 02:00:07 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285120278-437

BTW, as I was closing the page where I got the presidential race totals, I saw that they had the turnout totals for the 2008 election further down. It was 63.0%.

jsid-1285121676-350  DJ at Wed, 22 Sep 2010 02:14:36 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285120278-437

Don't expect much, Ed. He's just like Holly; he can't count without banging his head on the screen.

jsid-1285133472-281  GrumpyOldFart at Wed, 22 Sep 2010 05:31:12 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285121676-350

I suppose if you always have a class full of folks with their hands up, you get kinda spoiled to always having plenty of fingers to do your counting on.

jsid-1285133603-736  Russell at Wed, 22 Sep 2010 05:33:23 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285121676-350



DJ, I should've figured you're a smeghead :)


jsid-1285192967-626  Markadelphia at Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:02:47 +0000

Oh, to have a mind reader ...

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone here embrace Dinesh D'Souza's piece. I wrote about it on my blog the other day as Newt was riffing off of it with this quote.

What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]? That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior. 

So, I guess I'm wondering, DJ, is socialism genetic? Is that what you are saying? Because President Obama's father abandoned him when he was two years old. He never knew him. So, I'm not really sure what influence he had on him. And I thought Obama was colonial (aka King George) taxing us all to death. Now he's anti colonial? Isn't that what the Tea Party is? Anti colonial? I can't keep up O:-)

Regardless, I would urge all of you to read D' Souza's piece and then check out the commentary on it that's out there. Here's my favorite.

What's most astounding in this exercise is that D'Souza hails from Mumbai, India -- the largest country in the world that has benefitted from de-colonization in the past century! And yet he uses his personal background to support his contentions about Obama.  I suppose he (and Gingrich, for that matter) believe that Mahatma Gandhi was also a disingenuous "Manchurian Candidate" type, less interested in India's peaceful disengagement and more in creating a "New World Order" in which, presumably, communists, socialists, Siths, Orcs, and perhaps even Lord Voldemort prevail?


My recommendation for D'Souza, and by his confirmation of D'Souza's views, Gingrich: Don't  confuse your intellectual capabilities for either intelligence or credibility. Both of you are seriously lacking in your respect for our President, our culture and our nation.

http://www.stljewishlight.com/blogs/article_e7cc303c-c01a-11df-9719-001cc4c03286.html

Frum's "Obama Wants Whitey's Money" is also a good one.

http://www.frumforum.com/gingrich-obama-wants-whiteys-money

If Obama wants to expand health coverage, tighten bank regulation, and create government make-work projects it’s not because he shares the same general outlook on the world as Walter Mondale or Ted Kennedy or so many other liberals, living and dead, all of them white and northern European. No, Obama wants to do what he does because he thinks like an African, and not just any kind of African but (in D’Souza’s phrase) “a Luo tribesman.”

No doubt, Forbes will sell a lot of magazines. They probably saw Newsweek's sales with their Socialism issue and decided to embrace their inner Barnum. Now let's get back to the more important stuff...

jsid-1285206143-985  DJ at Thu, 23 Sep 2010 01:42:24 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285192967-626

"I can't keep up ..."

You can't read, either.

You quoted the ONE SINGLE COMMENT that I made about D'Souza's article, which was

"Oh, to have a mind reader ..."


the point of which is that WE DON'T KNOW WHAT INFLUENCE OBAMATEUR'S FATHER HAD ON HIS THINKING BECAUSE WE CANNOT READ HIS MIND.

I posted NO OTHER COMMENT about that article.

And yet, you posted this:

"So, I guess I'm wondering, DJ, is socialism genetic? Is that what you are saying? Because President Obama's father abandoned him when he was two years old. He never knew him. So, I'm not really sure what influence he had on him. And I thought Obama was colonial (aka King George) taxing us all to death. Now he's anti colonial? Isn't that what the Tea Party is? Anti colonial?"


Yet again, we see your Standard Response #12, the "I'm a deliberate fuckwit!"  response. Yet again, you don't read words that ARE there and you make up words that AREN'T there. Yet again, you intentionally mischaracterize someone else's statements, in this case conjuring said statements out of thin air, and then you argue against your mischaracterization as if it shows said someone else to be wrong. Yet again, you have earned the contempt of everyone else here.


jsid-1285193186-397  Markadelphia at Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:06:26 +0000

Which solution is closer to your stated preferences? 

Actually, I think that Harding's solutions were preferable and clearly worked for the time. We were making a massive transition from a war time economy to a peace time economy. In many ways, Thomas Woods was right. With the Depression of 1920-21 we saw four chief causes for it (end of WWI, labor union changes, mistakes by the Fed and deflationary expectations) that were well managed by a laissez faire solution. The Great Depression was an entirely different animal with multiple causes and views as to why it was so bad. This called for a different solution and Hoover certainly didn't handle it well. FDR did a good job considering how awful and complex it all was for such a long period of time. Of course, WWII helped out and the private sector largely ignored government debt and high taxes because of all the profits they were making from defense contracts. And, honestly, one needs to look at the Great Depression from an international perspective given how many countries it affected.
in both cases, the doctor, if he knows his business, starts rabies prophylaxis. 

Well, therein lies the problem. Different times...different causes...different solutions. I mentioned WWI because one of the chief causes of the D1920 was the glut in the work force from returning soldiers...an increase of over 1.5 million people in a single year (1920). Harding's solution fit well with this. That doesn't mean that it would've worked with the Great Depression, however.
And we needed that not because of Glass-Stegal, but far more because of the CRA and the government assumption of mortgage debt. 

Have you watched this yet?

http://www.hulu.com/watch/59026/cnbc-originals-house-of-cards

If you want to know where all this started and how it played it out, the answers are in this doc (shown to me by last in line..decidedly NOT a liberal). I'd be interested in your thoughts on it. Actually, I'm hoping Kevin watches it someday. It was government inaction, not action, that caused this debacle. And the subprime excesses came from institutions not regulated by the CRA. For example, 55 percent of commercial real estate loans, as of Nov of 2009, were FUBAR despite being completely unaffected by CRA.

Did I read that correctly?  

If you chose a third party, of course not. If you stayed at home and didn't vote at all, it's my opinion that you don't care enough to be able to bitch. Certainly, you can do it but it rings hollow since you didn't get off your ass and vote...if ou were capable, of course.



I honestly can't find fault with the reasoning of the 45% who voted for "none of the above".

Is that why they didn't vote, though? It would be interesting to see why people don't vote. Apathy? Work? Mobility issues? I wonder if there is a study that has been done...

I want to see only people who are informed and interested voting - and I want there to be little reason for most people to BE that informed and interested. 

So do I. I wonder which one of us would be more unhappy if another 30 percent or so voted? I'd certainly like to find out. Little reason? What does that mean?

OK, so in your next election, you have a choice between Dick Cheney. Richard Nixon, and Rush Limbaugh. Who are you going to vote for?  AND IF YOU DON'T VOTE, YOU CAN'T COMPLAIN. Right?  
That's obviously nonsensical.


Actually, I don't think it is nonsense at all. I'd vote for Nixon of those three choices. If I sat home and then bitched, I'd be essentially full of crap in my view. I didn't actually "do" anything so why complain? Not only that, I didn't even have the common courtesy to exercise a small amount of effort for something that people died for and would die for in other countries.

But that still leaves you wrong.

Ed, not sure if you don't get where I am coming from or you are playing silly/deliberately contrary games again. I wasn't speaking specifically about Obama but ALL candidates as I said in the text you copied above. I'm happy to hear that my number of 55 was wrong and it was actually 63 percent. I'd like to see 80 percent voter turnout or higher. If you stay home and don't vote for anyone at all on the ballot, then you have no right to complain.


jsid-1285193436-597  Markadelphia at Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:10:36 +0000

those minds have been poisoned, perhaps fatally, by Rousseau, who hamsters on a wheel of circular logic explaining how majoritarian society would never do anything against its own interests, because the the democratic state is composed of the people, who are magically incapable of such.  


Actually, I think the opposite. People are not inherently good as Rousseau thought. That's why we need a government to regulate some (but not all) behavior. And don't all you Smith followers believe in rational choice? Given the chance, a person will act in their own self interest which, in turn, will help out society in general? This intimates that the self interest is largely benevolent, correct? As I have stated before, I am a blank slate guy. I think that the five primary agencies of socialization are the main factors as to why people are the way they are...good or bad. People's nature (good or bad) is based on the interactions in their lives. Their functionality within societal institutions and frameworks also determine human nature and behavior.


And that, Mr. 'Delphia, is the destination you don't see at the end of your road.

In many ways, this brings the thread full circle. This is how it all started...predictions of hitting an iceberg. To quote juris, waaaayyyy up there...


the country going to hell has been a hit meme since pretty much the beginning

And yet we are still here. DJ was also very adamant above stating that none of us really know what is going to happen. I agree. We don't know. So, sorry geek, but I don't buy it. History has shown me otherwise. The same can be said for Mr. Deninger's link (provided by Ken). People really seem to love the "That's Armageddon" theme.

Walk into any VFW and start talking about Obama. Certainly, there will be plenty of people who will complain. Walk into the same VFW and say, "We are going to cut Medicare, Social Security and Veteran's Benefits" and see what happens. No problem, if you want to make cuts but they are going to have to be across the board. Ranting against entitlements is largely worthless unless you can point to specific items that should be cut and why.

We survived higher levels of spending before...even made it through "The Scourge of FDR" and ended up in great shape. I don't completely agree with this but didn't Dick Cheney say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter?"



jsid-1285212050-172  geekwitha45 at Thu, 23 Sep 2010 03:20:50 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285193436-597

>> Don't you Smith followers believe in rational choice?
>> This intimates that the self interest is largely benevolent, correct?

Actually, benevolence of intention, rationality, and the good/evil status of the other actor has nothing to do with it. Under a Locke based system, we're not obliged to give a hoot as to the nature of the benevolence or malevolence of the other party's intention, nor consider whether their choices and actions are rational.

The primary question as to whether *any* intervention, governmental or individual is justified turns on whether the person's actions, as a first order of consequence, transgress some right or prerogative that is justly mine.

The premise is that the other party is as equally free as myself. To do. Whatever they want. Except for bringing direct harm upon another.



jsid-1285196568-24  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:02:48 +0000

In many ways, this brings the thread full circle. 

But you're still on the same linear path you were before.

We survived higher levels of spending before...even made it through "The Scourge of FDR" and ended up in great shape.

And only 6o million people had to die, and another few hundred millions sold into slavery, and it meant we were in "great shape".

We've proven you can't even start to understand the material you're glossing over.

But you could be a little less gloating over others misfortunes so you can have your life of luxury that you want to give up. It's unseemly.


jsid-1285196638-974  Unix-Jedi at Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:03:59 +0000



Have you watched this yet?  

Asked and answered several times.  As well as that rebutted and argued.
Notably, you didn't retain anything, you didn't gain an enduring understanding.


jsid-1285196890-703  Russell at Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:08:12 +0000

In many ways, this brings the thread full circle.   

Ah, the server running the script was rebooted, I see. 


jsid-1285209035-836  Moshe Ben-David at Thu, 23 Sep 2010 02:30:36 +0000

I waded through all 544 comments.  Took me a couple of hours.  It was truly difficult but educational.  I think I will copy and paste to a document to use as a textbook example.

I have tried to explain the bizarre way that the leftist mind such as Mark's works, but it is one thing to tell someone what it is like, yet it doesn't do as much justice as actually seeing a leftist speak for himself and prove what I am talking about; the sheer inability to grasp the most basic concepts and facts and then put them together in any meaningful way.

I must salute DJ, Unix, GOF, and Ken for their unbelieveable patience and willingness to engage in this exercise for the benefit of others who have come here to learn.  I have engaged people with graduate degrees regarding the subject of Biblical apologetics in the same patient manner with facts and logic, not for my opponent's benefit, but for our audience.

That is the good reason Kevin has not banned him.  He serves as a kind of lab rat or zoological specimen, where, instead of learning about such idiots in the abstract, we get to read him first hand and be able to say, "So THAT's what it looks like!"

It would be fun to coin a single word that describes Mark's condition.  Ignorance can be a temporary condition that can quickly be overcome with a little education.  Stupidity can be organic or physical in nature.  So, what shall we call it when you encounter a human who seems to have enough cognitive ability to function in society and even seemingly pass for having reasonable intelligence and yet beneath it all engages in the grossest forms of cognitive dissonance, and worse, willful ignorance?  I don't want to call it Markism because it would be too easily confused with Marxism, even though Marxism seems to be the logical reductio ad absurdum result of Markism. 

Maybe we could call it Markean "Mark - ee - an", but I'm afraid too many would mispronounce it "Mar-keen."  How about "Markasian?"

jsid-1285212601-380  geekwitha45 at Thu, 23 Sep 2010 03:30:01 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285209035-836

I believe the phrase you seek isn't so much ignorance as it is obtuseness. Personally, I favor the phrase "willfully obtuse", even though it's not a single word.


If you want more illumination on the topic, I recommend Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer, Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements".   (http://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Nature-Movements/dp/0060916125)

jsid-1285277491-20  GrumpyOldFart at Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:31:31 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285212601-380

I think he's suffering from a fantasy ideology.

jsid-1285213009-874  Russell at Thu, 23 Sep 2010 03:36:50 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285209035-836

How about a P-zombie?

jsid-1285245356-251  geekwitha45 at Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:35:56 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285213009-874

Well, if we assign a status of p-zombie to a person or group, we deprive them of moral agency, and therefore responsibility for their actions. Without power, agency, or responsibility, they become simply dangerous animals, subhuman untermenschen in need of wildlife management, and all the ugly bits that implies.  

*Even* *if*, for the sake of argument, we stipulate the factual existence of p-zombies, since by definition, a p-zombie can pass a turing or any other test of sentience, it is indistinguishable from a fully enabled human. Because of this, for the sake of our own souls, we must presume that no one is a p-zombie, and give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they are full blown human. We guard against many errors that way, including some degenerate method of selection come into play, be it racial, religious, political, or on the basis of some objective behavior we arbitrarily find annoying or repugnant.

 
There's some real Dark Shit down that hallway, and I think it best no one goes there.



jsid-1285279486-683  Ken at Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:04:46 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285245356-251

Concur. Adorno and that ilk have been trying it for the last 60 years.

jsid-1285281881-115  Russell at Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:44:41 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285245356-251



I've implied too much with the p-zombie reference. I tossed it out partly tongue in cheek, but let me narrow it down to one salient point:

"One might invoke the notion of a p-zombie that is behaviorally indistinguishable from a normal human being, but that lacks conscious experiences."

Markadelphia behaves like a script, any information in seems to be sorted into three buckets: 'bias confirmation, 'misunderstood', or 'ignored' with no sort of conscious experience. 

I apologize if I had come across implying Markadelphia had no soul and was a "subhuman untermenschen". He's not.


Thank you for pointing out where I had over stepped. 

jsid-1285332420-705  geekwitha45 at Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:47:00 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285281881-115

No! No!

I didn't for a *second* think that's what *you* were advocating.  I was simply planting the flashing amber warning beacons on the map where folks could see them.  *I'm* sorry if I gave the impression of imputing such to you.

>>Markadelphia behaves like a script,

I have *seriously* considered the possibility that Markadelphia was a simulation of some sort, but ultimately rejected that hypothesis.  

What is creepy is that if we consider humanity in the light of "man, the rational, learning animal", we consider an idealized process wherein humans encounter information, evaluate it for veracity, applying various techniques of reason, and then come to some sort of conclusion concerning the information, either accepting or rejecting it in whole or in part. If the information is accepted, it is expected that it should be integrated into that person's thinking process, altering future behaviors.   

In other words, if we encounter A, some proposition which excludes B, we test A for truth. If we find A to be true,  we should at least reconsider B, and if we reject B as false, future interactions should include A, not B.

Evidence of this sort of thing going on is scant, and that's disturbing to folks used to operating in such a way.


There's really not great mystery here: man has the *capacity* for rationality, but that doesn't mean it's understood, practiced or employed on a regular basis in any given individual.

To some extent, our cushy society encouranges somnambulance, In the absence of significant, immediate natural consequences for failing to deploy rationality, many people find greater motivation from the reward of ego thrill that comes with using feeling rather than thinking as the primary cognitive process. Frankly, because that sort of processing stunts the evaluating propositions for objective truth, such people are easier to manipulate.

For example, the message, "Society should help these poor unfortunates" tickles the natural empathetic humanitarian response that most people have. A person operating primarily from a feeling process will accept the proposition based on the ego strokes, whereas a person operating primarily from a rational basis will delay that gratification while the proposition is subjected to additional evaluation.

jsid-1285344796-388  Russell at Fri, 24 Sep 2010 16:13:16 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285332420-705

"I didn't for a *second* think that's what *you* were advocating.  I was simply planting the flashing amber warning beacons on the map where folks could see them.  *I'm* sorry if I gave the impression of imputing such to you."

Glad to get cleared up! The warning beacons are much appericated.
 
>>Markadelphia behaves like a script,  
 
"I have *seriously* considered the possibility that Markadelphia was a simulation of some sort, but ultimately rejected that hypothesis."


Indeed, he exhibits enough human responses to cast enough doubt about him being a mere simulation. Which, sadly, leaves me to believe that he's been so thoroughly conditioned he's incapable of achieving independent thought of the type that would seriously challenge any of his core worldview models. The rot is in the bones, it'll take a Road to Damascus moment to begin the purge.

Kevin's observation is correct: "he's just too perfect an example of what we're fighting against."

jsid-1285364400-14  Ed "What the" Heckman at Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:40:00 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285332420-705

"In other words, if we encounter A, some proposition which excludes B, we test A for truth. If we find A to be true,  we should at least reconsider B, and if we reject B as false, future interactions should include A, not B."

I know Mark considers me an ignorant, evil, cult member, but I could have sworn that you just described something known as "learning". You would think a teacher would be intimately familiar with this process, and would practice it himself. But what do I know…? I can't describe exactly how the neurons form connections, or even name the person who discovered the process. Heck, I can't even name the latest fad theories about education, nor am I professional expert; therefore, I must know nothing at all… You could have just described what forgetting things is, for all us rubes know…

jsid-1285368695-418  DJ at Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:51:35 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285364400-14

"You would think a teacher would be intimately familiar with this process, and would practice it himself."

He has demonstrated to us for years that he can't learn. Why should we believe that he can teach?

jsid-1285214179-369  Ed "What the" Heckman at Thu, 23 Sep 2010 03:56:19 +0000 in reply to jsid-1285209035-836

We've called him "Marxy" and "Marxaphasia" in the past. But we've been playing nice since he decided to change his tone.


jsid-1285213319-338  Ed "What the" Heckman at Thu, 23 Sep 2010 03:41:59 +0000

"Ed, not sure if you don't get where I am coming from or you are playing silly/deliberately contrary games again."

Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you didn't understand it. I did try to be as clear as possible. What do other readers here think? Was I clear?

"I wasn't speaking specifically about Obama but ALL candidates as I said in the text you copied above."

This makes me think you didn't read it, because here's what I wrote on that particular point:

"* I'm using the totals for the Presidential race because I don't know the averages for all the races combined."

So go back and read it again. This time, read for comprehension; and do try to avoid the retort of the moment.


jsid-1285221273-693  Unix-Jedi at Thu, 23 Sep 2010 05:54:33 +0000

Actually, I think that Harding's solutions were preferable and clearly worked for the time. We were making a massive transition from a war time economy to a peace time economy.

Ah, but can you not also build a bridge out of STONE?


jsid-1285621132-148  Ed "What the" Heckman at Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:58:52 +0000

I guess it's about time to call it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLumBa5Ja7g


 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>