Dude US horse population bottomed in the 1950s somewhere below 2 million. By 2003 it was back to 6.9 million and it is presently estimated at 9.2 million by the American Horse Council.
Trust me, I've done extensive research on this issue.
Horses didn't become unemployed because they became fat and lazy, they became unemployable. The horse population peaked around 100 years ago and it has been nothing but downhill since.
Just a nit pick. Horse population bottomed out in the late 1950s and has recovered since, but your general point stands.
RIght, because if it were cost effective to move your encyclopedia to the Internet, Britannica would have done it first. And if it were cost efficient to stream music, record companies would have done it first.
Because that is exactly how the free market works. Perfect every single time. I'm glad you were paying attention during Indoctrination to Economics 101.
2000 and 2001 in constant dollars and, more importantly 1996 to 2001 in percentage of GDP.
You can easily find this data in wikipedia. The fact that you haven't proves that you care about defending ideology rather than what actually happens in real life.
And if GWB had not implemented the "revenue increasing" tax cuts the debt would have been completely wiped out in a few short years. You don't have to believe me, Alan Greenspan said exactly this when he begged congress to implement tax cuts.
Factcheck is a partisan joke.
That's what sore losers say when proven wrong by a non-partisan organization.
As I pointed out already Germany is paying off its debts,
Exactly. A big government/high taxes state that is doing so well that is paying off their debts. Just like the USA under Clinton. Then what happened under budget cuts&tax cuts during Bush Jr presidency? back to record deficits.
Just look at the data: tax cuts with budget cuts have never worked, anywhere.
Greece is running a primary surplus right now. So try again.
Spain and Ireland were running large surpluses when the crisis hit. Reality is that being in the doldrums had little to do with large/small state and all to do with a good/bad banking system.
That is not sustainable,
Says you. Meanwhile here, in the real world big state countries like Canada, France and Germany seem to sustain their debts without problems.
Yes creditors asked for a smaller state. What else is news? Yet their interest rates are extremely low, which shows that at the end of the day said creditors are happy with the status quo.
Except that we aren't bringing any more money... minor little detail you left out in your post.
While the Laffer curve undoubtedly exists, every single tax-cut experiment in the last 30 years in the USA suggests we are already to the left of the peak, and hence lower taxes simply means lower revenues.
This should be obvious to anyone who is paying attention to economic data rather than GOP talking points.
p.s. In fact this was a surprise to myself and many other economists. They had guesstimated the peak of the Laffer curve around a top marginal rate of 40-60%, now all evidence suggests is around 75%.
p.p.s. I'm opposed to a marginal rate of 75%, but not because lowering it would mean increased revenues: facts show that it doesn't.
In real life, as opposed to in your head, evidence suggests that to the contrary, what is better for everyone is a rather expansive state.
To wit, in most indicators, including wealth, large state countries such as western Europe, Canada and Japan are at least comparable and often better than the USA, while small state countries such as Somalia or Haiti are much below.
So what you say might sound very logic and obvious to you, but is contrary to the facts. I.e. the quintessential definition of truthiness: it ought to be right because it sounds right, facts be damned.
You have no idea if I support government expenditures or not. I.e. "statist". I'm just pointing out that your figures are flawed, and since you are loosing that argument you try to shift it into ascribing views to me that are not even part of the conversation.
It's clear you lost, you know you lost and you are trying to shift the target by claiming I'm a statist. Thanks for participating. Next!
they lay off most of their minimum wage workers because they don't need them anymore.
You are quite right. The savings in labor are then passed right along to the consumer who uses it to hire the worker doing some other task which cannot be robot automated as easily, such as, to give a trivial example, baby sitting.
That's the history of capitalism. You don't seem to believe on it, so I take it you are a Marxist.
wanted to keep cheaper minority workers from competing with them.
Perhaps so in the US, but the world just happen to be a smidgen larger than that. So your point is rather irrelevant.
Money that is in bank accounts isn't "idle"; rather, it is invested in stock
This quote already shows you do not know what you are talking about. Currently so much money is sitting in central banks rather than stocks that several countries have overnight negative interest rates.
I have read about multipliers, extensively: multipliers larger than 1 are a fiction.
Thanks for providing ready confirmation of your ignorance. No less than the IMF has studied and found cases of multipliers greater than one in the recent crisis along with many other economists from the left and from the right.
I'm not about to educate you out of your ignorance, so I'm signing off from this discussion
Sorry but your chosen baseline year, viz. 1940 makes the whole comparison moot. The world was just coming out of the great depression and entering a global war. Why don't you compare 1975 with 2015 instead?
In this case government collection is up only 20% over the last forty years.
While you're at it, also explain why businesses would pay $15/h for a worker who doesn't increase revenue by significantly more than $15 for each hour he works.
[citation needed]
This is particularly the case today when most money is seating idle in bank accounts and treasury bonds.
you simply price a lot of labor out of the market with minimum wages.
This is just no so. If you had said "you price a smidgen of labor out you would be correct as studies seem to agree that this is the case.
Lastly you need to read about money multipliers and it being possibly larger than 1 in some instances such as this.
While you're at it, also explain why businesses would pay $15/h for a worker who doesn't increase revenue by significantly more than $15 for each hour he works.
Work is fungible. Perhaps you had said worker hammering roofing nails manually and after the wage increase you decide to buy a nail gun to increase their productivity. In fact historically union shops have lead the way in increases in productivity for exactly this reason. This is well documented.
Currently believed to be about 4%, but it does heavily depend on human behavior. To wit, when we need deflation humans do not like to explicitly reduce wages, they would much rather simply not give you a pay increase and let inflation erode your wages away.
Because of this we need 4% inflation rather than the 2% inflation target proposed nearly two decades ago, which had ignored this all too human variable.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude US horse population bottomed in the 1950s somewhere below 2 million. By 2003 it was back to 6.9 million and it is presently estimated at 9.2 million by the American Horse Council.
Trust me, I've done extensive research on this issue.
Horses didn't become unemployed because they became fat and lazy, they became unemployable. The horse population peaked around 100 years ago and it has been nothing but downhill since.
Just a nit pick. Horse population bottomed out in the late 1950s and has recovered since, but your general point stands.
RIght, because if it were cost effective to move your encyclopedia to the Internet, Britannica would have done it first. And if it were cost efficient to stream music, record companies would have done it first.
Because that is exactly how the free market works. Perfect every single time. I'm glad you were paying attention during Indoctrination to Economics 101.
Must be doing great since it made massive cuts in spending like you wanted. Canada on the other hand must be doing terrible since it didn't.
Show me the year the US debt went down?
2000 and 2001 in constant dollars and, more importantly 1996 to 2001 in percentage of GDP.
You can easily find this data in wikipedia. The fact that you haven't proves that you care about defending ideology rather than what actually happens in real life.
And if GWB had not implemented the "revenue increasing" tax cuts the debt would have been completely wiped out in a few short years. You don't have to believe me, Alan Greenspan said exactly this when he begged congress to implement tax cuts.
Factcheck is a partisan joke.
That's what sore losers say when proven wrong by a non-partisan organization.
There's a law of Internet discussions by which the person who first uses the word "lie" is the almost always the one doing so:
From factcheck.org:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
MS? As best as I know Google was the first company I ever heard doing this back in 2005 or so.
As I pointed out already Germany is paying off its debts,
Exactly. A big government/high taxes state that is doing so well that is paying off their debts. Just like the USA under Clinton. Then what happened under budget cuts&tax cuts during Bush Jr presidency? back to record deficits.
Just look at the data: tax cuts with budget cuts have never worked, anywhere.
Seriously, are GOPers collected from a special ed school? Just read down to the paragraph where "opposed" is in bold and you have your answer.
Greece is running a primary surplus right now. So try again.
Spain and Ireland were running large surpluses when the crisis hit. Reality is that being in the doldrums had little to do with large/small state and all to do with a good/bad banking system.
That is not sustainable,
Says you. Meanwhile here, in the real world big state countries like Canada, France and Germany seem to sustain their debts without problems.
Yes creditors asked for a smaller state. What else is news? Yet their interest rates are extremely low, which shows that at the end of the day said creditors are happy with the status quo.
Except that we aren't bringing any more money... minor little detail you left out in your post.
While the Laffer curve undoubtedly exists, every single tax-cut experiment in the last 30 years in the USA suggests we are already to the left of the peak, and hence lower taxes simply means lower revenues.
This should be obvious to anyone who is paying attention to economic data rather than GOP talking points.
p.s. In fact this was a surprise to myself and many other economists. They had guesstimated the peak of the Laffer curve around a top marginal rate of 40-60%, now all evidence suggests is around 75%.
p.p.s. I'm opposed to a marginal rate of 75%, but not because lowering it would mean increased revenues: facts show that it doesn't.
In real life, as opposed to in your head, evidence suggests that to the contrary, what is better for everyone is a rather expansive state.
To wit, in most indicators, including wealth, large state countries such as western Europe, Canada and Japan are at least comparable and often better than the USA, while small state countries such as Somalia or Haiti are much below.
So what you say might sound very logic and obvious to you, but is contrary to the facts. I.e. the quintessential definition of truthiness: it ought to be right because it sounds right, facts be damned.
Not if it is accompanied with tax cuts. Pay attention.
Spending cuts and tax cuts worked well? Sorry but you are wrong. Spending cuts and minor tax increases have outperformed the former every where.
Except that it hasn't worked anywhere, anyplace. But yeah, aside from that it works.
You have no idea if I support government expenditures or not. I.e. "statist". I'm just pointing out that your figures are flawed, and since you are loosing that argument you try to shift it into ascribing views to me that are not even part of the conversation.
It's clear you lost, you know you lost and you are trying to shift the target by claiming I'm a statist. Thanks for participating. Next!
If you don't understand why the third column is the right one to use in the link you provided, you shouldn't be discussing economic matters in public.
No wonder they are small business owners:
1) they hate employees!
2) The key to growing your two bit operation is hiring people smarter than you and let them do their thing.
3) Given that they are not willing to pay a decent wage, is it any wonder that the only thing they manage t hire are headaches?
they lay off most of their minimum wage workers because they don't need them anymore.
You are quite right. The savings in labor are then passed right along to the consumer who uses it to hire the worker doing some other task which cannot be robot automated as easily, such as, to give a trivial example, baby sitting.
That's the history of capitalism. You don't seem to believe on it, so I take it you are a Marxist.
wanted to keep cheaper minority workers from competing with them.
Perhaps so in the US, but the world just happen to be a smidgen larger than that. So your point is rather irrelevant.
Money that is in bank accounts isn't "idle"; rather, it is invested in stock
This quote already shows you do not know what you are talking about. Currently so much money is sitting in central banks rather than stocks that several countries have overnight negative interest rates.
I have read about multipliers, extensively: multipliers larger than 1 are a fiction.
Thanks for providing ready confirmation of your ignorance. No less than the IMF has studied and found cases of multipliers greater than one in the recent crisis along with many other economists from the left and from the right.
I'm not about to educate you out of your ignorance, so I'm signing off from this discussion
Sorry but your chosen baseline year, viz. 1940 makes the whole comparison moot. The world was just coming out of the great depression and entering a global war. Why don't you compare 1975 with 2015 instead?
In this case government collection is up only 20% over the last forty years.
which in turn is beaten by Haiti which has an even lower minimum wage....
While you're at it, also explain why businesses would pay $15/h for a worker who doesn't increase revenue by significantly more than $15 for each hour he works.
[citation needed]
This is particularly the case today when most money is seating idle in bank accounts and treasury bonds.
you simply price a lot of labor out of the market with minimum wages.
This is just no so. If you had said "you price a smidgen of labor out you would be correct as studies seem to agree that this is the case.
Lastly you need to read about money multipliers and it being possibly larger than 1 in some instances such as this.
While you're at it, also explain why businesses would pay $15/h for a worker who doesn't increase revenue by significantly more than $15 for each hour he works.
Work is fungible. Perhaps you had said worker hammering roofing nails manually and after the wage increase you decide to buy a nail gun to increase their productivity. In fact historically union shops have lead the way in increases in productivity for exactly this reason. This is well documented.
Currently believed to be about 4%, but it does heavily depend on human behavior. To wit, when we need deflation humans do not like to explicitly reduce wages, they would much rather simply not give you a pay increase and let inflation erode your wages away.
Because of this we need 4% inflation rather than the 2% inflation target proposed nearly two decades ago, which had ignored this all too human variable.