If tax revenue is a continuous function of tax rate, then according to the mean value theorem there is a certain percentage between 0% and 100% at which tax revenue is maximized. Call it m%.
I hear this argument a lot. However, you (and Laffer) assume a specific shape for the graph implicitly when you make the argument, which isn't supported anywhere except right close to the 0% and 100% mark. It also assumes extremely simplistic single-good and single labor supply economy, which isn't real. The relationship of revenue to tax rate isn't linear. None of this is nearly neat enough to fit any U-shaped graph. And since it isn't a simple equation, you can't use the "m% theory" to argue whether we're ahead of or below the optimum tax rate in any practical sense.
To add to this, one way to look at this is as a recurring prisoner's dilemma game. If it's a one-time only game, then making workers work harder might be ok because of potential net positive marginal utility. i.e., 40 hours of good work, and then successively reducing marginal productivity. But in any recurring scenario it creates cascading negative effects.
I dont think you get that California is the 6th largest economy in the WORLD. If they did secede, which i dont think will happen by the way, I think they'll have enough money to pay for water, food and those delicious texmex burritos.
Less people dying will have impacts also on roadside clean-up crew, and mortuaries, and hospitals who'll have less business, and on motorcycle shops, and so on and on.
But you know what it will do? Save more lives. Which is unquestionably good. Even if one of the people who would have died while driving a car in 2020 were to be Ted Bundy. Because if we start being utilitarian with questions like this, the end result can never be good - because we can never foresee every eventuality, and therefore are forced to live with local maxima rather than any global optimum.
Sometimes I wonder at the headline writers and think whether they're genius trolls to elicit these reactions, or absolute morons. I thought the article was from the Onion. I guess I placed too high a value on it...
The problem is that you can't prove conclusively that the task was difficult enough that nobody else *could* have done a great/better job. But the fact that she did a fantastic job is enough to say that she was right for the part and did a brilliant job in what turned out to be one of the most influential and iconic movies of all time.
Surely it's better than trying to prove the counterfactual!
I feel like this response has been posted from an alternate universe, where Trump didn't insult Mexicans, Women, Veterans, War Heroes, Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Liberals and ran an entirely emotion based campaign. In this universe, he moved back, forth and sideways on every single issue that he spoke on. Every single one. While Clinton tried her hardest to talk about policies, albeit in a political way, which isnt all that surprising since she's a politician, Trump basically ran the entire campaign on half-baked promises and with negligible policy proposals, interspersed with midnight tweets aimed at every random target he could think of, including the cast of fucking Hamilton and SNL *after* his election.
Christ, what a wonderful alternate universe it must be where none of this happened, and Clinton got out campaigned through rational arguments and depth of policy proposals. I'd like to live in this universe. It seems far nicer than this one.
You don't. Ban all contributions to electoral campaigns except by individuals, with an annual limit of $3,000.00 total per year. Remove all tax breaks for total donations over $100.00. Remove anonymous contributions.
The problem then, funnily enough, would be that you can only have self-funded megalomaniacs that can run - point in case, Trump.
And when a real estate billionaire from new york appoints bankers by the bulk, I have issues. When he has millions outstanding from deutsche bank, amongst others.
Also, I really have to understand the logic of the wall street guys in your worldview. "I gave millions of dollars to the losing candidate, whom I was hoping to influence, but since I couldn't do that I decided to join the other side, who absolutely refuses to let me get my way." Please tell me how that's logical? I'm seriously asking here, not trying to get a rise - because I don't get it! I've worked on wall street, and not a single person I know would flip from "let's influence policy behind the scenes while we smoke cigars as fat cats" to "let's selflessly serve the nation's interest by serving under a dude who's been calling us names for a solid year"...
And if we keep the current pace previous presidents have set us on we will fail as a nation. Obamacare is about to run out of steam with costs rising 20-500% in the next year for pretty much everyone, Social Security has been bankrupted, national debt and budgets are way worse than some 3rd world countries, companies are fleeing, there will be a husk left if nothing gets done.
Getting a ride on a private jet vs. Appointing people to whom you owe millions of dollars. Yeah, I'm convinced which one's more corrupt.
And it's none of your business what her husband, who was a two term President by the way, gets paid as speaking fees. It's not like he just fell of a turnip truck !
Fake news. All politicians lie or obfuscate, but how much they lie actually matters. e.g.,
"Climate change was a conspiracy created by the Russians" "Mexicans are sending over rapists" "I'll drain the swamp... by appointing Goldman Sachs bankers and Exxon CEO to my cabinet" "We have to be careful of voters in "those parts" of Pennsylvania" "3-4 million people voted illegally, otherwise I would've won the popular vote" "Liberal media conspiracy"......... Repeat 1000x
Not every fight to contain the damage coming from the fake news headlines, manufactured by farms of article writers from Macedonia as a cited example, is a partisan issue. Pointing out every fake news headline, or factually incorrect article, put out by EITHER campaign doesn't solve the problem that fake news was rampant.
That said, I'm completely agreed on the issue of blocking, and we shouldn't become China. I, for one, don't think that fake news is something that can be identified or blocked very easily, if at all. But any attempt to curb it is welcome..
The fact that this did create and perpetuate memes about HC which were untrue surely cost her some votes. But even otherwise, surely you'd agree that we have a duty to be vigilant, and to ensure that we're not falling prey to large swathes of unverified, false, reports? Regardless of who's asking, or who else did something wrong, can't we all agree that news should be factual?
1. European cultures are of course well worth preserving, and it's done fairly aggressively. Come visit us in Europe in Germany or Spain or France - you'll see. 2. You can only "preserve" cultures that aren't already the dominant paradigm. Just like you can only "preserve" animals that are endangered.
Slashdot Mirror
If tax revenue is a continuous function of tax rate, then according to the mean value theorem there is a certain percentage between 0% and 100% at which tax revenue is maximized. Call it m%.
I hear this argument a lot. However, you (and Laffer) assume a specific shape for the graph implicitly when you make the argument, which isn't supported anywhere except right close to the 0% and 100% mark. It also assumes extremely simplistic single-good and single labor supply economy, which isn't real. The relationship of revenue to tax rate isn't linear. None of this is nearly neat enough to fit any U-shaped graph. And since it isn't a simple equation, you can't use the "m% theory" to argue whether we're ahead of or below the optimum tax rate in any practical sense.
To add to this, one way to look at this is as a recurring prisoner's dilemma game. If it's a one-time only game, then making workers work harder might be ok because of potential net positive marginal utility. i.e., 40 hours of good work, and then successively reducing marginal productivity. But in any recurring scenario it creates cascading negative effects.
The app wont know the traffic patterns ten minutes and two miles away. The driver will.
I think you got that the wrong way around buddy.
Smart move in rejecting the big wife. :)
People do get brainwashed and start thinking that these are the companies with greatest engineers, by definition. That's yet another problem ...
Turns out there's a bit of swamp in Silicon Valley, too.
Maybe he'll drain it the same way he did Washington - by appointing all the valley billionaires and asking them nicely to do whatever they want.
"Stopped processing" is not equal to "ban people with valid visas"
Fair point. I guess we should add american and kyrgyz citizens to the list.
Doesn't that just break down to - "Let me believe the clandestine agency whose actions at one point in time suits my belief system."
Or, and more likely, "I will trust the NSA over the CIA/FBI." is the best bit of trolling I've ever seen on slashdot.
I dont think you get that California is the 6th largest economy in the WORLD. If they did secede, which i dont think will happen by the way, I think they'll have enough money to pay for water, food and those delicious texmex burritos.
.. and finally we'll have a fully accurate state-approved list of items to read.
And cat videos.
Less people dying will have impacts also on roadside clean-up crew, and mortuaries, and hospitals who'll have less business, and on motorcycle shops, and so on and on.
But you know what it will do? Save more lives. Which is unquestionably good. Even if one of the people who would have died while driving a car in 2020 were to be Ted Bundy. Because if we start being utilitarian with questions like this, the end result can never be good - because we can never foresee every eventuality, and therefore are forced to live with local maxima rather than any global optimum.
Sometimes I wonder at the headline writers and think whether they're genius trolls to elicit these reactions, or absolute morons. I thought the article was from the Onion. I guess I placed too high a value on it ...
The problem is that you can't prove conclusively that the task was difficult enough that nobody else *could* have done a great/better job. But the fact that she did a fantastic job is enough to say that she was right for the part and did a brilliant job in what turned out to be one of the most influential and iconic movies of all time.
Surely it's better than trying to prove the counterfactual!
I feel like this response has been posted from an alternate universe, where Trump didn't insult Mexicans, Women, Veterans, War Heroes, Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Liberals and ran an entirely emotion based campaign. In this universe, he moved back, forth and sideways on every single issue that he spoke on. Every single one. While Clinton tried her hardest to talk about policies, albeit in a political way, which isnt all that surprising since she's a politician, Trump basically ran the entire campaign on half-baked promises and with negligible policy proposals, interspersed with midnight tweets aimed at every random target he could think of, including the cast of fucking Hamilton and SNL *after* his election.
Christ, what a wonderful alternate universe it must be where none of this happened, and Clinton got out campaigned through rational arguments and depth of policy proposals. I'd like to live in this universe. It seems far nicer than this one.
You don't. Ban all contributions to electoral campaigns except by individuals, with an annual limit of $3,000.00 total per year. Remove all tax breaks for total donations over $100.00. Remove anonymous contributions.
The problem then, funnily enough, would be that you can only have self-funded megalomaniacs that can run - point in case, Trump.
Donated != Gave.
Paid != Gave, either.
And when a real estate billionaire from new york appoints bankers by the bulk, I have issues. When he has millions outstanding from deutsche bank, amongst others.
Also, I really have to understand the logic of the wall street guys in your worldview. "I gave millions of dollars to the losing candidate, whom I was hoping to influence, but since I couldn't do that I decided to join the other side, who absolutely refuses to let me get my way." Please tell me how that's logical? I'm seriously asking here, not trying to get a rise - because I don't get it! I've worked on wall street, and not a single person I know would flip from "let's influence policy behind the scenes while we smoke cigars as fat cats" to "let's selflessly serve the nation's interest by serving under a dude who's been calling us names for a solid year" ...
List of states doesn't quite capture what I meant by citation needed.
Love cowboy bebop also btw, re your sig.
And if we keep the current pace previous presidents have set us on we will fail as a nation. Obamacare is about to run out of steam with costs rising 20-500% in the next year for pretty much everyone, Social Security has been bankrupted, national debt and budgets are way worse than some 3rd world countries, companies are fleeing, there will be a husk left if nothing gets done.
[Citation Needed]
Getting a ride on a private jet vs. Appointing people to whom you owe millions of dollars. Yeah, I'm convinced which one's more corrupt.
And it's none of your business what her husband, who was a two term President by the way, gets paid as speaking fees. It's not like he just fell of a turnip truck !
How dare they extrapolate from trends using statistics, as has happened in literally every election known to man ... The nerve!
Fake news. All politicians lie or obfuscate, but how much they lie actually matters. e.g.,
"Climate change was a conspiracy created by the Russians" ... by appointing Goldman Sachs bankers and Exxon CEO to my cabinet" ... ... ...
"Mexicans are sending over rapists"
"I'll drain the swamp
"We have to be careful of voters in "those parts" of Pennsylvania"
"3-4 million people voted illegally, otherwise I would've won the popular vote"
"Liberal media conspiracy"
Repeat 1000x
Ad hominem.
Not every fight to contain the damage coming from the fake news headlines, manufactured by farms of article writers from Macedonia as a cited example, is a partisan issue. Pointing out every fake news headline, or factually incorrect article, put out by EITHER campaign doesn't solve the problem that fake news was rampant.
That said, I'm completely agreed on the issue of blocking, and we shouldn't become China. I, for one, don't think that fake news is something that can be identified or blocked very easily, if at all. But any attempt to curb it is welcome ..
The fact that this did create and perpetuate memes about HC which were untrue surely cost her some votes. But even otherwise, surely you'd agree that we have a duty to be vigilant, and to ensure that we're not falling prey to large swathes of unverified, false, reports? Regardless of who's asking, or who else did something wrong, can't we all agree that news should be factual?
"For the past 30 years we've been rolling over and playing dead."
[citation needed]
1. European cultures are of course well worth preserving, and it's done fairly aggressively. Come visit us in Europe in Germany or Spain or France - you'll see.
2. You can only "preserve" cultures that aren't already the dominant paradigm. Just like you can only "preserve" animals that are endangered.
There actually are quite a few drone pilots in the military. It's not all autonomous self driving drones.