I applaud them for exploring the possibilities. The only thing I would question is whether carbon nanotubes are strong enough? No one has been able to make them in quantity but my understanding was that even if you made it out of complete strands of carbon nanotubes... that is if you had monomolecular strands of the stuff stretching from geo sync orbit to the ground it wouldn't be strong enough to take the stress. I have in no way done the calculations on that and have no links to back up that statement. But I was given to understand that in past discussions.
Anyone want to confirm or deny that? Twenty times stronger then steel sounds strong until you realize they're talking about a cable far a lot longer then 20 times longer then what you'd ever consider making out of steel. As such, while 20 times is great... it's probably at least a thousand times too weak.
Only a problem if you spend more then you have. High school students are taught to balance a checkbook. One would assume grown men with literal armies of accountants could balance a budget but apparently they can't.
Go figure. And every time revenue increases due to a good economy, are the debts paid off? Rarely... typically spending is simply increased to match current revenue... and then when the good times end and the revenue falls... they keep spending using debt money until the checks start bouncing. Look at Illinois... the checks are literally bouncing. They're writing IOUs... California has done that as well. It's funny because when tax season rolls around they get their IOUs back in the mail. No interest on them sadly...
That assumed the oil fields could be tapped directly to pay for the invasion and occupation. That became politically impossible shortly before the war given that many allied nations objected to the matter to say nothing of the fact that the Iraqis themselves felt they should get it. So contrary to the US military being paid by the oil fields... the US government pumped a huge amount of aid money into Iraq that will likely never see returned in any meaningful way.
Don't take this as a defense of the Iraq war in anyway... I'm merely clarifying that the whole "it will pay for itself" remark was based upon the idea of tapping the oil fields to pay for it. Under that premise the fields could pay for the occupation and over time would pay off the cost of the initial invasion. However, as Iraq has little else to call an actual economy... the people there might well starve without it. So it was an ignorant claim made without fully understanding how dependent they are on that money. The US for example has a much larger oil industry in real terms but it's much smaller as a percentage of the economy. Everyone is prone to judge others in their own terms rather then the terms of those others. It's not wrong so much as it makes it impossible to actually understand anyone else. Ideally people should be judged both ways. So you can understand someone and then also relate them to yourself. If you merely relate without understanding then it's very easy to misinterpret those relationships.
That has no bearing on my argument. I didn't say the economy would be better or worse if the clinton taxes were imposed. I simply pointed out that there is an undeniable link between economic productivity and tax rate. Where it triggers is debatable. That it exists is not debatable.
If I take 100 percent of the money out then clearly there is going to be an impact right? Okay... what if I only take 80 percent out? Clearly we'll get a different result then if we took 100 percent. What if we took amounts out ranging from 100 and 0 and then graphed the result... think we'd get a curve, sport?
That's the laffer curve. Where it curves is debatable... that it exists or does curve is not.
Taxes would have to be very high for a large reduction in taxes to not impact government revenue.
Of course, I'm not arguing that republicans aren't blind to such matters as well.
I'm arguing rather then EVERYONE with a side is blind. I try to cheat by not having a side... but maybe I've failed? Possible... I wouldn't know it if I had... just as you won't know it if you've failed. Such is the nature of consciousness. You're either aware or you're not... and if you're not aware of something then you won't notice that you're not aware because you're not aware of it.
Around and around in circles...:D
As to supply side economics... no system of economics that looks only at one side is going to be complete. Supply side is no more accurate then demand side economics.
Look at the housing bubble... that was demand side economics. You gave money for people to buy houses. You put money into demand. But did you build more houses? No. And so housing prices inflated because you kept subsidizing demand without subsidizing supply.
The same thing has happened with education. You give money to students to buy educations with but are you building new universities? Not as much as you're pumping into demand. Result... price inflation.
And now you want to do the same thing with medical care. If you want hospital bills to come down... then you will need to increase supply. that won't give poor people medical care because they likely can't pay anything. So you'll have to subsidize demand. But now you're going to have to subsidize supply again to balance out the subsidization you made to demand.
Soviet union had this problem. Managing a centralized economy is almost impossible. You have to balance everything, motivate people to work even though they're often working for someone thousands of miles away that will never check their work... it's very challenging. Soviets couldn't make it work.
Maybe you will... I'd just assume let the market do it... but then I hold that view mostly because I don't think you can manage it. If you could actually manage a centralized economy with ANY competence, then I'd support you.
It's not that I think your economic view is bad. I just think you'd need to be GOD or some freaky scifi super computer with skynet level AI to manage the whole thing. I don't think you can do it.
So I'd prefer the crazy jungle of the market. Say what you will about it... it's scalable.
Observation of economic growth between similar countries with competing tax structure. I'm not saying that the peak of the curve is at 20 percent. I'm saying that you start getting diminishing returns after 20 percent. Fewer people start to be hired... fewer factories are opened... less happens.
the government probably will keep making money until 60 percent or more. But that will be long past the point where there is increased unemployment and decreased national growth.
And compounded over time... any decrease in growth will seriously impact revenue.
Compound interest... it's a bitch.
if your tax system only reduces economic growth by a tenth of a percent... compounded over 200 years that can make a big difference. And of course, as time goes on that difference if sustained will only increase throughout time. It's exponential.
In short... anything that impacts growth negatively is very very very bad. You won't notice it because you live in the present. But if you step back and see the flow of history... upon little things like that are empires built and civilizations crushed.
FML... did you read the post I was responding to? Read it again... let me quote it for you: "The Laffer Curve is a theoretical construct with no actual evidence "
which means he's denying it exists which was what I would say he would do... and he did it. So I said "now we have people denying it as predicted"...
Then you respond "they didn't say what you said they said"... Except they did. Word for word? I'm not sure... it really doesn't matter since what I said is that they'd deny the concept exists. And there are several people commenting to me right now who have said that repeatedly. So... point proven.
England was bombed out after WW2 and the money to rebuild came from an external source.
For the same thing to work in the US, you'd need to blow up most of US industry... with explosives... kill a fair number of young men between the ages of 16 and 35... you'll volunteer I'm sure... and then pump money into the country from a much larger economy... I'm assuming Mars and the Martians will do that... for years. Oh and most of our competitors should also be bombed out. So maybe if we start WW3 and make a point of blowing up china... then when the Martians bail us out we'll make boat loads of money.
Here's a word to the wise, basing any economic theory on a single data point is stupid. WW2 happened once. You'd need to show the same thing happening at least twice to draw a line between then and it's generally frowned upon if you can't prove the relationship with at least a few hundred examples of it working out a given way every time.
As to Keynesian theory, it requires money be pumped into NEW activity with NEW workers.
If you pay the OLD people to do the SAME thing... its not keynesian.... it's just pissing stimulus money down the drain. Of course, you can do that even with keynesian theory... it's just that if you're not even following the man's theories it's pretty dumb to then claim you were after blowing HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars. One would assume you'd have a plain if you were going to do that. But hey... plans are hard, right? Just half ass it... I'm sure no one will notice.
Not at all. It works with ants and even fire. The curve just curves in different places.
The economy is a system. Motivation operates within that system but if you want to claim money doesn't motivate you to work then why did you show up to work yesterday? If I paid you half as much to work would that impact your work? What if I paid you twenty five percent of what you're making right now?
Some have suggested here that the taxes could be raised to 75 percent before the laffer curve starts reducing revenue. So that leaves you with 25 percent of your pay... will you work if you can only keep 25 percent of your money?
What if I said, you'll get free medical care! Feel compensated? What if I say not only will you get free medical care but I'll even give it to you if you don't work at all.
The logic here is inescapable. Of course, that assumes it can get through your cognitive dissonance which I sort of doubt. It is said that Polynesian natives didn't see european ships... they couldn't see them because they were so unimaginable in their world that they simply couldn't perceive them. I won't claim that's true since I have no means of confirming it. But it was a claim by early european explorers. The natives thought the ships were clouds or something... they couldn't conceive of a ship so large or strange. Likewise, if your ideology won't accept certain things there isn't really a limit to how much it can prevent you from recognizing.
Also, I don't claim to be the best at explaining things. So it might just be I've done a bad job of presenting an argument. I've tried...
As to my extrapolation. The concept has no meaning if it has no application to growth. Why would revenue reduce as taxes are increased if higher taxes were not depressing economic productivity? If it had no impact on growth then you could raise the taxes all the way to 100 percent and at no point would there be diminishing returns. In fact, you could not only do that one year but every year there after since we're not taking growth or any time effect into consideration.
The insertion of growth and time are implicit. You can't have a rational discussion about anything that effects the economy without including those concepts.
As to bigger toys without wisdom. Only way to get wise is to play with the big toys.
Do you know what the first person to discover fire said?
Ouch.
What's the lesson there? Don't use fire? Clearly it hurts if you touch it. Your ancestors were probably protesting the first guy that started cooking with... A cartoonish suggestion but an amusing one.
Look, if you want to stay up in the trees with the other monkeys I won't threaten your bananas. In return, leave me and what becomes of the human race as it evolves alone. I've no patience for Luddites. I respect your right to do as you wish with other consenting adults... live like the amish if that makes you happy. But I won't play that game.
Ah, a Malthusian!... well, your spirit is impressive but your ideology has been predicting that for about 200 years and has been wrong repeatedly.
You're sort of like those rather sad religious cults that always says their savior or god or grand invisible spirit will arrive on some specific day and rain fire upon the unbelievers. Predictably, the day arrives, nothing happens, and everyone laughs at them.
So... if you want to walk around wearing a barrel holding up a sign that says "REPENT THE END IS NIGH!!!"... that is your business. However, your comment if anything strengthens my point about ideology blinding people to their own weaknesses. You can't very well rail against another ideology for it's blindness to observing the physical world when you belong to an ideology yourself that has been predicting global doom for 200 years and been wrong every single time.
Do you know what Malthus based his theory upon? His study of the Irish people during the Potato famine. What he failed to grasp at the time was that the Irish weren't starving because of the famine. They were starving because of English oppression which the famine made worse. Take the English out of the picture and the Irish are fine. And of course, the whole incident is not applicable to any other situation in which oppression and systematic mismanagement are not common place.
It's funny that you're denying it exists in this post because half of your allies are saying that NO ONE denies it. So I've told them that if they read the other posts to me... such as yours... they'd see that many people are in fact denying it.
Your denial is what I wanted. Your denial proved my argument that all ideologies... or at least yours in addition to the republicans will ignore science if they find it to be inconvenient to their argument. You've proved it by even saying "For the sake of argument assume it's true"... it can't not be true. The logic is elementary in its simplicity. This is 1+1=2 sort of stuff here.
As to why science hasn't found the exact point on the curve, that probably has something to do with economists not being handed nations to perform economic experiments upon. What do you think sport?
Economics is very hard field to practice because no one will let them test anything. They have to wait for things to naturally happen and then try to draw conclusions from those events. But they're never able to directly influence events and see the results. As you can imagine that is very frustrating. Psychologist have it easier... they occasionally get to play with some university students. But while economists will sometimes try the same thing with 50 or so college kids it's not really applicable to an economy of millions.
You could conclude then that economics isn't a science at all and all economic theory of any kind can be ignored as nonsense. That would be a some hilarious mistake... but it would be a typical response for those that find economic theory to be inconvenient. Thus reinforcing my point again about ideology.
No one denies it exists? Read some of the other comments to in this very thread. Several people have outright denied it exists.
Very stupid of them of course since it must exist. The logic is undeniable. The instant you actually understand what it is you realize be a relationship between taxation, economic productivity, and the revenue.
I am not arguing about the point at which it triggers. If you like, we'll say it triggers shortly before 100 percent simply for the sake of argument. Well, it exists then. There are many of your political allies that through a mixture of ignorance and indoctrination think denying its existence is a rational response. You can't dispute that. The evidence of their denial is in this very thread.
That they are denying it proves my point. Both sides ignore what they dislike.
Do you honestly think that your ideology is the only one in the history of the human race to be free from self delusion? Does that very hubris not strike you as itself deluded? It should.
The economist has been left of center for some time now. I think 15 years ago it was right of center but it's not the same.
As to 75 percent, that is where the point of maximum revenue for the government is... not where maximum productivity for the people is... Notice how long before 75 percent is reached on the graph there are diminishing returns. That is because prior to the 75 percent mark there is diminished productivity. People are fired... factories are closed and children starve... whatever bad things happen when the numbers go the wrong way.
Look at the graph again. This time see at what point the economy starts producing LESS wealth as a result of money being taken out of it. You'll note that is arrived at long before the government actually starts making less money itself. That is the point where you should stop taxing people. Not because the government will make less money. But because you're hurting the country beyond that point.
If you know how to read the graph properly then that will be obvious. Look at the bell curve again.
The wikipedia example shows the point where there are diminishing returns to be around 40 percent. And of course that example is likely not a derived figure.
Where the curve starts to curve is something that has to be tested more. My only point is that it does exist. It must exist. Take 100 percent of hte money out of an enemy and it dies. Take none out and it's clearly fine. So you're going to get a curve.
Democrats don't believe in the curve. They don't say "oh it's higher" they just deny it exists at all. Look at the other people replying to me in this thread. At least half of them are telling me the curve doesn't even exist.
As to facts versus bullshit... would not a creationist say the same thing about carbon dating? By all means, tell me about the great archeological conspiracy underpinning the science.
The problem with rejecting the laffer curve is that it doesn't actually even need to be proved. It's obvious. It's like saying 1+1 =2 . If you take money out of an economy at some point you are going to depress economic productivity and thus reduce revenue. Lets say I took 100 percent of the GDP from the economy. Are you honestly going to argue that that would have no impact on productivity or growth? Of course not. that would be stupid. Furthermore, will productivity remain high and then suddenly cut off at a specific number or will it more likely resemble a bell curve where the productivity will slowly taper off after a given point?
By all means, lets have an experiment to find out where the curve starts curving and what it's exact shape will be. But claiming that it doesn't even exist is idiotic.
Yet socialists don't like the idea since they want to claim that high taxes don't negatively impact economic growth or productivity. They must impact it. That is not to say that high taxes are good or bad. Simply understand that when you take money from column A it isn't in column B. There is a price. You don't get to eat your milk and cookies without a cow somewhere getting sore tits and a few eggs getting broken.
Just acknowledge what you're doing so there is a fair assessment of the costs.
Anyway, you won't agree... that's fine. The point wasn't to get you to agree about the laffer curve anymore then it was to get a creationist to agree the world was more then 6000 years old. The point was that ideology blinds everyone that has it.
I try not to have one. Maybe your argument now is that I've failed and that I'm blinded by my own ideology... and thus believe the laffer curve exists when any right minded person such as yourself knows it doesn't exist? Possibly. If I am blinded then I won't know it any more then you'd know it if you were blinded. That's how it works.
Claiming either party is blind to science is naive. They're both blind.
Economies are not static qualities. Economies are like rivers. They're a flow. It is impossible to have any rational economic theory that does not take into account CHANGES in the economy is constantly changing. If your system does not account for those changes then it is of no value.
Don't blame me if you're confused. You changed the subject and are now wondering why we're talking about it.
I brought up the laffer curve as something democrats deny even though it's pretty obvious economic theory. the point being that all ideologies ignore what they don't want to acknowledge.
As to why states offer welfare, totally irrelevant to my comments.
First you have to consider that the reason you get less revenue as you increase the tax rate is that you're depressing the economy. That's why high taxes according to the curve are a bad idea. That brings the opposite of growth into the equation. And if you bring the opposite of growth... then you bring growth in as well.
As to what most economists believe, if you think you can eat 50 percent of GDP without having a negative impact on growth, then go for it. I'll point out that someone else just said that "most economists agree that 75 percent"... etc... so we have two different numbers that most economists agree with... I threw out 20 percent because that is actually what the theory predicts.
But it doesn't matter. The point was not to talk about the stupid laffer curve. The point was to talk about how ideologies distort what people see and understand.
As to europe having a safety net, possibly but that has nothing to do with economic growth or the laffer curve. The taxes. Countries that eat up a larger percentage of GDP in taxes have lower economic growth. Look at the numbers.
And if you understand compound interest then you know that even one percent of growth compounded over a 100 years can be massive. And if you keep growing just ONE PERCENT faster then other countries... with compounding... there will be no comparison between your nation and any other.
Einstein actually said there was no force in the universe as powerful as compound interest.
As i said when I started this, my ideology is human survival and continuing evolution. That's all I really care about. Your politics and theories don't mean much to me. take them or leave them. if you can show that a dictatorship or a king is better for what I want then a democracy then I'll side with that.
I want growth. I think growth makes us stronger as a species, I think it increases the rate at which we advance, and I thus think it enhances our ability to survive in an enormous, bleak, and hostile universe.
No, it didn't work. Look, I have no problem with pumping a little money in to get an engine to turn over... the spark plug that fires the engine is fine.
But this isn't a spark plug issue... you're spending good money to fund systems that are running at a net loss.
it's like those fusion energy projects where they pour 10 megawatts of power into some chamber to get a self sustaining fusion reaction going. That's fine as a experiment. hell, maybe they'll get it working some day. But it isn't something you could use to actually power the grid.
Why? Because the net output from those reactors is always something like 9.5 megawatts... about.5 megawatts less then was put into them.
Look at your stimulus programs and see how much money was put in and how many jobs were saved.
In one estimate it was over 500,000 thousand PER JOB. In most cases it would have been more efficient to simply give each of those people half a million dollars.
Worse, it isn't even Keynesian. Keynesian economics requires that the stimulus money go to NEW and UNPLANNED projects that wouldn't have happened at all with or without the recession.
So for example, if you sent a manned mission to mars that would be Keynesian because it wasn't something we were going to do. But instead most of the money went to state budgets to retain EXISTING workers or to pay for projects that were ALREADY going to happen such as paving roads.
That isn't Keynesian. That's just a bailout with no particular plan. If you want a Keynesian stimulus package then you need to fund totally new projects and hire people that are NOT CURRENTLY EMPLOYED. You have to hire as many unemployed workers as possible.
Even a new war would be more Keynesian then what Obama did. Just pick some random country and attack it. Recruit a million people into the army... and have fun.
that was Keynes's argument. Your belief that you can just make everything work by throwing money at it isn't even Keynesian... it's just irresponsible.
First, yes they do deny it. In fact, if you keep talking about it and more democrats start commenting you'll probably see a few of them that will be on record denying it. Beyond that, the laffer curve is generally assumed to exist somewhere beyond 20 percent. Current federal taxes eat up about 16-18 percent GDP... if you add state and city taxes you could possibly be beyond the laffer curve in some parts of the US. Increasing federal taxes will likely put most of the US beyond that point.
As to republicans believing in no laffer curve because they think lowering taxes increases revenue... not really. Republicans rarely think they're going to make a lot of tax money by lowering taxes. They generally think they're shrinking government and giving the economy a chance to grow.
Anyway, your objection is really what I was going for here. You're proving my point. See how strongly you feel about this issue? Is it an entirely rational issue for you?
That's what ideologies do...
As much as possible, I try to be post ideological.
So you think you can eat 75 percent of the GDP of an economy and not have a negative impact on growth?
As to the curve not having a relation to different regions... how could it not? That's like saying a person's choice in where to vacation has nothing do with relevant prices in those regions.
Look this is all hilariously prophetic and everything... I mean all you guys did exactly what I said you'd do... and you don't even seem to realize it. But this is pointless. You're not open to discussion on the issue any more then a creationist is on evolution. I know I know... jesus road a dinosaur... it was amazing. You have your beliefs and I don't want to take them away from you. believe whatever you want. Just please tone it down with the claims that your little religion is the one true path to salvation. Every religion says that... it's irritating.
Paul Krugman if you want a single name. But if they mention it all it is with contempt and derision.
As to other people that propose low tax arguments... that isn't what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about how ideologies make facts and observed principles disappear if they find them inconvenient.
The more specific and complex your ideology becomes the more likely you are to filter.
I don't want to argue with you about the laffer curve any more then I want to argue with a creationist about whether evolution is real. It's besides the point.
Any failing system can be made to look like a success by spending money just as a stone can be made to fly by throwing it in the air.
When the stone strikes earth you'll just say I didn't throw it hard enough... for the purposes of ideology lets ignore orbit... which isn't flying anyway.
Try it... find a crack head... an actual crack head... ideally he should be in withdraw but not cleaning himself up. Just shivvering and the picture of a human mess.
Then give him a billion dollars to start an industrial concern. People will get employed. There will be activity.
But there will also be a strong burn rate. And at some point he'll have eaten through that billion dollars. At which point the activity will slack of.
Solution?
Give him more money, right? Rinse repeat.
The japanese did a similar thing in the 90s by pumping cheap credit into failed japanese businesses. They were called the Zombie corporations because they were dead but kept alive by the debt. People like you, argued that if they were just given enough money they'd come back to life. They never did. Japan went through a prolonged recession for no reason.
You base your position on the post WW2 growth of the US economy and basically nothing else. What you ignore is that europe and asia were destroyed by that war where as the US was not. So why did the US enjoy decades of undisputed trade dominance? BECAUSE WE BLEW UP EVERYONE ELSE"S FACTORIES!!! It's kind of obvious isn't it?
You can run up all the debt you like, the chinese will still be there eating your margins. If you want to repeat the post WW2 economy then you're going to need to blow up china's factories. Game for WW3?
No? Then maybe we should try something else that also works.
I don't think you'll do it... because you're ideological and your ideology simply doesn't believe in these things. But the universe doesn't care what you believe... it is what it is...
Slashdot Mirror
I applaud them for exploring the possibilities. The only thing I would question is whether carbon nanotubes are strong enough? No one has been able to make them in quantity but my understanding was that even if you made it out of complete strands of carbon nanotubes... that is if you had monomolecular strands of the stuff stretching from geo sync orbit to the ground it wouldn't be strong enough to take the stress. I have in no way done the calculations on that and have no links to back up that statement. But I was given to understand that in past discussions.
Anyone want to confirm or deny that? Twenty times stronger then steel sounds strong until you realize they're talking about a cable far a lot longer then 20 times longer then what you'd ever consider making out of steel. As such, while 20 times is great... it's probably at least a thousand times too weak.
Only a problem if you spend more then you have. High school students are taught to balance a checkbook. One would assume grown men with literal armies of accountants could balance a budget but apparently they can't.
Go figure. And every time revenue increases due to a good economy, are the debts paid off? Rarely... typically spending is simply increased to match current revenue... and then when the good times end and the revenue falls... they keep spending using debt money until the checks start bouncing. Look at Illinois... the checks are literally bouncing. They're writing IOUs... California has done that as well. It's funny because when tax season rolls around they get their IOUs back in the mail. No interest on them sadly...
That assumed the oil fields could be tapped directly to pay for the invasion and occupation. That became politically impossible shortly before the war given that many allied nations objected to the matter to say nothing of the fact that the Iraqis themselves felt they should get it. So contrary to the US military being paid by the oil fields... the US government pumped a huge amount of aid money into Iraq that will likely never see returned in any meaningful way.
Don't take this as a defense of the Iraq war in anyway... I'm merely clarifying that the whole "it will pay for itself" remark was based upon the idea of tapping the oil fields to pay for it. Under that premise the fields could pay for the occupation and over time would pay off the cost of the initial invasion. However, as Iraq has little else to call an actual economy... the people there might well starve without it. So it was an ignorant claim made without fully understanding how dependent they are on that money. The US for example has a much larger oil industry in real terms but it's much smaller as a percentage of the economy. Everyone is prone to judge others in their own terms rather then the terms of those others. It's not wrong so much as it makes it impossible to actually understand anyone else. Ideally people should be judged both ways. So you can understand someone and then also relate them to yourself. If you merely relate without understanding then it's very easy to misinterpret those relationships.
That has no bearing on my argument. I didn't say the economy would be better or worse if the clinton taxes were imposed. I simply pointed out that there is an undeniable link between economic productivity and tax rate. Where it triggers is debatable. That it exists is not debatable.
If I take 100 percent of the money out then clearly there is going to be an impact right? Okay... what if I only take 80 percent out? Clearly we'll get a different result then if we took 100 percent. What if we took amounts out ranging from 100 and 0 and then graphed the result... think we'd get a curve, sport?
That's the laffer curve. Where it curves is debatable... that it exists or does curve is not.
Taxes would have to be very high for a large reduction in taxes to not impact government revenue.
Of course, I'm not arguing that republicans aren't blind to such matters as well.
I'm arguing rather then EVERYONE with a side is blind. I try to cheat by not having a side... but maybe I've failed? Possible... I wouldn't know it if I had... just as you won't know it if you've failed. Such is the nature of consciousness. You're either aware or you're not... and if you're not aware of something then you won't notice that you're not aware because you're not aware of it.
Around and around in circles... :D
As to supply side economics... no system of economics that looks only at one side is going to be complete. Supply side is no more accurate then demand side economics.
Look at the housing bubble... that was demand side economics. You gave money for people to buy houses. You put money into demand. But did you build more houses? No. And so housing prices inflated because you kept subsidizing demand without subsidizing supply.
The same thing has happened with education. You give money to students to buy educations with but are you building new universities? Not as much as you're pumping into demand. Result... price inflation.
And now you want to do the same thing with medical care. If you want hospital bills to come down... then you will need to increase supply. that won't give poor people medical care because they likely can't pay anything. So you'll have to subsidize demand. But now you're going to have to subsidize supply again to balance out the subsidization you made to demand.
Soviet union had this problem. Managing a centralized economy is almost impossible. You have to balance everything, motivate people to work even though they're often working for someone thousands of miles away that will never check their work... it's very challenging. Soviets couldn't make it work.
Maybe you will... I'd just assume let the market do it... but then I hold that view mostly because I don't think you can manage it. If you could actually manage a centralized economy with ANY competence, then I'd support you.
It's not that I think your economic view is bad. I just think you'd need to be GOD or some freaky scifi super computer with skynet level AI to manage the whole thing. I don't think you can do it.
So I'd prefer the crazy jungle of the market. Say what you will about it... it's scalable.
Observation of economic growth between similar countries with competing tax structure. I'm not saying that the peak of the curve is at 20 percent. I'm saying that you start getting diminishing returns after 20 percent. Fewer people start to be hired... fewer factories are opened... less happens.
the government probably will keep making money until 60 percent or more. But that will be long past the point where there is increased unemployment and decreased national growth.
And compounded over time... any decrease in growth will seriously impact revenue.
Compound interest... it's a bitch.
if your tax system only reduces economic growth by a tenth of a percent... compounded over 200 years that can make a big difference. And of course, as time goes on that difference if sustained will only increase throughout time. It's exponential.
In short... anything that impacts growth negatively is very very very bad. You won't notice it because you live in the present. But if you step back and see the flow of history... upon little things like that are empires built and civilizations crushed.
FML... did you read the post I was responding to? Read it again... let me quote it for you:
"The Laffer Curve is a theoretical construct with no actual evidence "
which means he's denying it exists which was what I would say he would do... and he did it. So I said "now we have people denying it as predicted"...
Then you respond "they didn't say what you said they said"... Except they did. Word for word? I'm not sure... it really doesn't matter since what I said is that they'd deny the concept exists. And there are several people commenting to me right now who have said that repeatedly. So... point proven.
Try again.
England was bombed out after WW2 and the money to rebuild came from an external source.
For the same thing to work in the US, you'd need to blow up most of US industry... with explosives... kill a fair number of young men between the ages of 16 and 35... you'll volunteer I'm sure... and then pump money into the country from a much larger economy... I'm assuming Mars and the Martians will do that... for years. Oh and most of our competitors should also be bombed out. So maybe if we start WW3 and make a point of blowing up china... then when the Martians bail us out we'll make boat loads of money.
Here's a word to the wise, basing any economic theory on a single data point is stupid. WW2 happened once. You'd need to show the same thing happening at least twice to draw a line between then and it's generally frowned upon if you can't prove the relationship with at least a few hundred examples of it working out a given way every time.
As to Keynesian theory, it requires money be pumped into NEW activity with NEW workers.
If you pay the OLD people to do the SAME thing... its not keynesian.... it's just pissing stimulus money down the drain. Of course, you can do that even with keynesian theory... it's just that if you're not even following the man's theories it's pretty dumb to then claim you were after blowing HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars. One would assume you'd have a plain if you were going to do that. But hey... plans are hard, right? Just half ass it... I'm sure no one will notice.
Not at all. It works with ants and even fire. The curve just curves in different places.
The economy is a system. Motivation operates within that system but if you want to claim money doesn't motivate you to work then why did you show up to work yesterday? If I paid you half as much to work would that impact your work? What if I paid you twenty five percent of what you're making right now?
Some have suggested here that the taxes could be raised to 75 percent before the laffer curve starts reducing revenue. So that leaves you with 25 percent of your pay... will you work if you can only keep 25 percent of your money?
What if I said, you'll get free medical care! Feel compensated? What if I say not only will you get free medical care but I'll even give it to you if you don't work at all.
The logic here is inescapable. Of course, that assumes it can get through your cognitive dissonance which I sort of doubt. It is said that Polynesian natives didn't see european ships... they couldn't see them because they were so unimaginable in their world that they simply couldn't perceive them. I won't claim that's true since I have no means of confirming it. But it was a claim by early european explorers. The natives thought the ships were clouds or something... they couldn't conceive of a ship so large or strange. Likewise, if your ideology won't accept certain things there isn't really a limit to how much it can prevent you from recognizing.
Also, I don't claim to be the best at explaining things. So it might just be I've done a bad job of presenting an argument. I've tried...
As to my extrapolation. The concept has no meaning if it has no application to growth. Why would revenue reduce as taxes are increased if higher taxes were not depressing economic productivity? If it had no impact on growth then you could raise the taxes all the way to 100 percent and at no point would there be diminishing returns. In fact, you could not only do that one year but every year there after since we're not taking growth or any time effect into consideration.
The insertion of growth and time are implicit. You can't have a rational discussion about anything that effects the economy without including those concepts.
As to bigger toys without wisdom. Only way to get wise is to play with the big toys.
Do you know what the first person to discover fire said?
Ouch.
What's the lesson there? Don't use fire? Clearly it hurts if you touch it. Your ancestors were probably protesting the first guy that started cooking with... A cartoonish suggestion but an amusing one.
Look, if you want to stay up in the trees with the other monkeys I won't threaten your bananas. In return, leave me and what becomes of the human race as it evolves alone. I've no patience for Luddites. I respect your right to do as you wish with other consenting adults... live like the amish if that makes you happy. But I won't play that game.
Ah, a Malthusian!... well, your spirit is impressive but your ideology has been predicting that for about 200 years and has been wrong repeatedly.
You're sort of like those rather sad religious cults that always says their savior or god or grand invisible spirit will arrive on some specific day and rain fire upon the unbelievers. Predictably, the day arrives, nothing happens, and everyone laughs at them.
So... if you want to walk around wearing a barrel holding up a sign that says "REPENT THE END IS NIGH!!!"... that is your business. However, your comment if anything strengthens my point about ideology blinding people to their own weaknesses. You can't very well rail against another ideology for it's blindness to observing the physical world when you belong to an ideology yourself that has been predicting global doom for 200 years and been wrong every single time.
Do you know what Malthus based his theory upon? His study of the Irish people during the Potato famine. What he failed to grasp at the time was that the Irish weren't starving because of the famine. They were starving because of English oppression which the famine made worse. Take the English out of the picture and the Irish are fine. And of course, the whole incident is not applicable to any other situation in which oppression and systematic mismanagement are not common place.
It's funny that you're denying it exists in this post because half of your allies are saying that NO ONE denies it. So I've told them that if they read the other posts to me... such as yours... they'd see that many people are in fact denying it.
Your denial is what I wanted. Your denial proved my argument that all ideologies... or at least yours in addition to the republicans will ignore science if they find it to be inconvenient to their argument. You've proved it by even saying "For the sake of argument assume it's true"... it can't not be true. The logic is elementary in its simplicity. This is 1+1=2 sort of stuff here.
As to why science hasn't found the exact point on the curve, that probably has something to do with economists not being handed nations to perform economic experiments upon. What do you think sport?
Economics is very hard field to practice because no one will let them test anything. They have to wait for things to naturally happen and then try to draw conclusions from those events. But they're never able to directly influence events and see the results. As you can imagine that is very frustrating. Psychologist have it easier... they occasionally get to play with some university students. But while economists will sometimes try the same thing with 50 or so college kids it's not really applicable to an economy of millions.
You could conclude then that economics isn't a science at all and all economic theory of any kind can be ignored as nonsense. That would be a some hilarious mistake... but it would be a typical response for those that find economic theory to be inconvenient. Thus reinforcing my point again about ideology.
No one denies it exists? Read some of the other comments to in this very thread. Several people have outright denied it exists.
Very stupid of them of course since it must exist. The logic is undeniable. The instant you actually understand what it is you realize be a relationship between taxation, economic productivity, and the revenue.
I am not arguing about the point at which it triggers. If you like, we'll say it triggers shortly before 100 percent simply for the sake of argument. Well, it exists then. There are many of your political allies that through a mixture of ignorance and indoctrination think denying its existence is a rational response. You can't dispute that. The evidence of their denial is in this very thread.
That they are denying it proves my point. Both sides ignore what they dislike.
Do you honestly think that your ideology is the only one in the history of the human race to be free from self delusion? Does that very hubris not strike you as itself deluded? It should.
The economist has been left of center for some time now. I think 15 years ago it was right of center but it's not the same.
As to 75 percent, that is where the point of maximum revenue for the government is... not where maximum productivity for the people is... Notice how long before 75 percent is reached on the graph there are diminishing returns. That is because prior to the 75 percent mark there is diminished productivity. People are fired... factories are closed and children starve... whatever bad things happen when the numbers go the wrong way.
Look at the graph again. This time see at what point the economy starts producing LESS wealth as a result of money being taken out of it. You'll note that is arrived at long before the government actually starts making less money itself. That is the point where you should stop taxing people. Not because the government will make less money. But because you're hurting the country beyond that point.
If you know how to read the graph properly then that will be obvious. Look at the bell curve again.
The wikipedia example shows the point where there are diminishing returns to be around 40 percent. And of course that example is likely not a derived figure.
Where the curve starts to curve is something that has to be tested more. My only point is that it does exist. It must exist. Take 100 percent of hte money out of an enemy and it dies. Take none out and it's clearly fine. So you're going to get a curve.
Democrats don't believe in the curve. They don't say "oh it's higher" they just deny it exists at all. Look at the other people replying to me in this thread. At least half of them are telling me the curve doesn't even exist.
Point proven.
Good day, sir.
As to facts versus bullshit... would not a creationist say the same thing about carbon dating? By all means, tell me about the great archeological conspiracy underpinning the science.
The problem with rejecting the laffer curve is that it doesn't actually even need to be proved. It's obvious. It's like saying 1+1 =2 . If you take money out of an economy at some point you are going to depress economic productivity and thus reduce revenue. Lets say I took 100 percent of the GDP from the economy. Are you honestly going to argue that that would have no impact on productivity or growth? Of course not. that would be stupid. Furthermore, will productivity remain high and then suddenly cut off at a specific number or will it more likely resemble a bell curve where the productivity will slowly taper off after a given point?
By all means, lets have an experiment to find out where the curve starts curving and what it's exact shape will be. But claiming that it doesn't even exist is idiotic.
Yet socialists don't like the idea since they want to claim that high taxes don't negatively impact economic growth or productivity. They must impact it. That is not to say that high taxes are good or bad. Simply understand that when you take money from column A it isn't in column B. There is a price. You don't get to eat your milk and cookies without a cow somewhere getting sore tits and a few eggs getting broken.
Just acknowledge what you're doing so there is a fair assessment of the costs.
Anyway, you won't agree... that's fine. The point wasn't to get you to agree about the laffer curve anymore then it was to get a creationist to agree the world was more then 6000 years old. The point was that ideology blinds everyone that has it.
I try not to have one. Maybe your argument now is that I've failed and that I'm blinded by my own ideology... and thus believe the laffer curve exists when any right minded person such as yourself knows it doesn't exist? Possibly. If I am blinded then I won't know it any more then you'd know it if you were blinded. That's how it works.
Claiming either party is blind to science is naive. They're both blind.
Economies are not static qualities. Economies are like rivers. They're a flow. It is impossible to have any rational economic theory that does not take into account CHANGES in the economy is constantly changing. If your system does not account for those changes then it is of no value.
Don't blame me if you're confused. You changed the subject and are now wondering why we're talking about it.
I brought up the laffer curve as something democrats deny even though it's pretty obvious economic theory. the point being that all ideologies ignore what they don't want to acknowledge.
As to why states offer welfare, totally irrelevant to my comments.
Way more complicated then that actually.
First you have to consider that the reason you get less revenue as you increase the tax rate is that you're depressing the economy. That's why high taxes according to the curve are a bad idea. That brings the opposite of growth into the equation. And if you bring the opposite of growth... then you bring growth in as well.
As to what most economists believe, if you think you can eat 50 percent of GDP without having a negative impact on growth, then go for it. I'll point out that someone else just said that "most economists agree that 75 percent"... etc... so we have two different numbers that most economists agree with ... I threw out 20 percent because that is actually what the theory predicts.
But it doesn't matter. The point was not to talk about the stupid laffer curve. The point was to talk about how ideologies distort what people see and understand.
As to europe having a safety net, possibly but that has nothing to do with economic growth or the laffer curve. The taxes. Countries that eat up a larger percentage of GDP in taxes have lower economic growth. Look at the numbers.
And if you understand compound interest then you know that even one percent of growth compounded over a 100 years can be massive. And if you keep growing just ONE PERCENT faster then other countries... with compounding... there will be no comparison between your nation and any other.
Einstein actually said there was no force in the universe as powerful as compound interest.
As i said when I started this, my ideology is human survival and continuing evolution. That's all I really care about. Your politics and theories don't mean much to me. take them or leave them. if you can show that a dictatorship or a king is better for what I want then a democracy then I'll side with that.
I want growth. I think growth makes us stronger as a species, I think it increases the rate at which we advance, and I thus think it enhances our ability to survive in an enormous, bleak, and hostile universe.
And here we go. See, other people were saying democrats didn't deny the Laffer Curve... and I said "wait for it"... and here you are.
Thank you for proving me right twice.
Once for proving that ideologies don't see what they don't want to see.
And again for proving that democrats do deny the laffer curve.
Cheers.
No, it didn't work. Look, I have no problem with pumping a little money in to get an engine to turn over... the spark plug that fires the engine is fine.
But this isn't a spark plug issue... you're spending good money to fund systems that are running at a net loss.
it's like those fusion energy projects where they pour 10 megawatts of power into some chamber to get a self sustaining fusion reaction going. That's fine as a experiment. hell, maybe they'll get it working some day. But it isn't something you could use to actually power the grid.
Why? Because the net output from those reactors is always something like 9.5 megawatts... about .5 megawatts less then was put into them.
Look at your stimulus programs and see how much money was put in and how many jobs were saved.
In one estimate it was over 500,000 thousand PER JOB. In most cases it would have been more efficient to simply give each of those people half a million dollars.
Worse, it isn't even Keynesian. Keynesian economics requires that the stimulus money go to NEW and UNPLANNED projects that wouldn't have happened at all with or without the recession.
So for example, if you sent a manned mission to mars that would be Keynesian because it wasn't something we were going to do. But instead most of the money went to state budgets to retain EXISTING workers or to pay for projects that were ALREADY going to happen such as paving roads.
That isn't Keynesian. That's just a bailout with no particular plan. If you want a Keynesian stimulus package then you need to fund totally new projects and hire people that are NOT CURRENTLY EMPLOYED. You have to hire as many unemployed workers as possible.
Even a new war would be more Keynesian then what Obama did. Just pick some random country and attack it. Recruit a million people into the army... and have fun.
that was Keynes's argument. Your belief that you can just make everything work by throwing money at it isn't even Keynesian... it's just irresponsible.
First, yes they do deny it. In fact, if you keep talking about it and more democrats start commenting you'll probably see a few of them that will be on record denying it. Beyond that, the laffer curve is generally assumed to exist somewhere beyond 20 percent. Current federal taxes eat up about 16-18 percent GDP... if you add state and city taxes you could possibly be beyond the laffer curve in some parts of the US. Increasing federal taxes will likely put most of the US beyond that point.
As to republicans believing in no laffer curve because they think lowering taxes increases revenue... not really. Republicans rarely think they're going to make a lot of tax money by lowering taxes. They generally think they're shrinking government and giving the economy a chance to grow.
Anyway, your objection is really what I was going for here. You're proving my point. See how strongly you feel about this issue? Is it an entirely rational issue for you?
That's what ideologies do...
As much as possible, I try to be post ideological.
So you think you can eat 75 percent of the GDP of an economy and not have a negative impact on growth?
As to the curve not having a relation to different regions... how could it not? That's like saying a person's choice in where to vacation has nothing do with relevant prices in those regions.
Look this is all hilariously prophetic and everything... I mean all you guys did exactly what I said you'd do... and you don't even seem to realize it. But this is pointless. You're not open to discussion on the issue any more then a creationist is on evolution. I know I know... jesus road a dinosaur... it was amazing. You have your beliefs and I don't want to take them away from you. believe whatever you want. Just please tone it down with the claims that your little religion is the one true path to salvation. Every religion says that... it's irritating.
Paul Krugman if you want a single name. But if they mention it all it is with contempt and derision.
As to other people that propose low tax arguments... that isn't what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about how ideologies make facts and observed principles disappear if they find them inconvenient.
The more specific and complex your ideology becomes the more likely you are to filter.
I don't want to argue with you about the laffer curve any more then I want to argue with a creationist about whether evolution is real. It's besides the point.
Any failing system can be made to look like a success by spending money just as a stone can be made to fly by throwing it in the air.
When the stone strikes earth you'll just say I didn't throw it hard enough... for the purposes of ideology lets ignore orbit... which isn't flying anyway.
Try it... find a crack head... an actual crack head... ideally he should be in withdraw but not cleaning himself up. Just shivvering and the picture of a human mess.
Then give him a billion dollars to start an industrial concern. People will get employed. There will be activity.
But there will also be a strong burn rate. And at some point he'll have eaten through that billion dollars. At which point the activity will slack of.
Solution?
Give him more money, right? Rinse repeat.
The japanese did a similar thing in the 90s by pumping cheap credit into failed japanese businesses. They were called the Zombie corporations because they were dead but kept alive by the debt. People like you, argued that if they were just given enough money they'd come back to life. They never did. Japan went through a prolonged recession for no reason.
You base your position on the post WW2 growth of the US economy and basically nothing else. What you ignore is that europe and asia were destroyed by that war where as the US was not. So why did the US enjoy decades of undisputed trade dominance? BECAUSE WE BLEW UP EVERYONE ELSE"S FACTORIES!!! It's kind of obvious isn't it?
You can run up all the debt you like, the chinese will still be there eating your margins. If you want to repeat the post WW2 economy then you're going to need to blow up china's factories. Game for WW3?
No? Then maybe we should try something else that also works.
I don't think you'll do it... because you're ideological and your ideology simply doesn't believe in these things. But the universe doesn't care what you believe... it is what it is...
Cheers.