Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

[kalm]

That accusation can be made to both sides of the argument.

We should see if there’s a study on supply side promises vs outcomes for all Americans.

No doubt. I'm willing to provide my opinions and the reasoning behind them and admit they're opinions based on my interpretation of the facts. The author wants to pass off his opinions as fact and you were a willing buyer and salesman because the author's opinions fit your worldview.

Cato Institute has a short commentary on Laffer and supply side - The Supply‐​Side Revolution Was Good for Economics and the World

Economists’ main beef is the bastardisation of these ideas by the right. Self‐​declared supply‐​siders, and sadly Laffer himself, often exaggerate the growth impact of tax cuts, implying more often than justified that they “pay for themselves”. Top income tax rates in the Seventies were often on the Laffer curve’s downward slope.

Few reputable economists would say though that across‐​the‐​board income tax rates today would be self‐​financing. Yet many Republican politicians made precisely that claim when justifying their 2017 tax reform.

This clear mis‐​selling, easily empirically falsified, has contributed to larger structural US deficits. That has emboldened commentators who say the Laffer curve is just a faulty “theory” — an intellectual veneer for pro‐​rich tax cuts. But left‐​wing critics go far too far in their denunciations.
...
This idea is not “trickle‐​down” — the belief that leaving the rich more money to spend will filter out to the economy. It’s the same supply‐​side argument that all economists recognise: tax rates affect incentives to work or produce, and so affect how much people work to earn income in the first place.

Anti-supply siders tend to act like raising taxes will increase government revenue without impacting incentive to work and the myriad of benefits of more people working, taking risks and innovating. I don't think the Information Revolution happens like it did without Reagan and his tax cuts.

Something tells me we’ve debated Art Laffer and his curve before. This has to be a troll post considering it’s a Cato piece that also provides little on facts but a whole lot on libertarian pixie dust theory. Exactly what you’re accusing me of.

Here’s a fascinating take down of Republican/libertarian economic performance from Reagan’s point man on the budget and one of the architects of Reaganomics. He’s a true blue libertarian but comes to a similar conclusion as many left leaning economists: give me a credit card (national debt) and I can make supply side work too.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ca/274554/

As for actual data beyond theory here’s an interesting take with some stats in the linked piece.

Chances are that you believe you are in the middle class—nearly everyone in the United States does. Doctors and lawyers believe they are middle-class; so, too, do welders and waiters. In a 2015 Pew survey, only 10 percent of Americans said they considered themselves lower-class and just 1 percent thought they were upper-class.

Earnings have been flat or stagnant for many middle-class workers in the United States while health care, education, and housing costs are rising. Surveys show that Americans accurately perceive these pressures too and share a broad belief that the middle class is struggling. Seven in ten respondents to a Northwestern Mutual survey said that the middle class was staying the same or shrinking. One-third said the middle class might disappear entirely.

https://www.rand.org/blog/2021/05/most- ... s-but.html

I think long-term sustainable economic strength is based on a vibrant middle class. Don’t worry, there is some data in here that supports the notion that supply side has worked. The two main problems with that are 1). Due to hyperinflation in key categories like education, housing, and healthcare it’s never been more expensive to be in the middle class 2). Supply side induced growth has never been achieved without the boom and bust cycle and/or creating significant national debt.

In fact we may be headed for a bust cycle shortly that will require either austerity (which affects the middle and lower classes the most and what Stockman was suggesting) or government stimulus.

Supply side is the juvenile running down the hill in the “Old Bull - Young Bull joke.

[houndawg]

No doubt. I'm willing to provide my opinions and the reasoning behind them and admit they're opinions based on my interpretation of the facts. The author wants to pass off his opinions as fact and you were a willing buyer and salesman because the author's opinions fit your worldview.

Cato Institute has a short commentary on Laffer and supply side - The Supply‐​Side Revolution Was Good for Economics and the World



Anti-supply siders tend to act like raising taxes will increase government revenue without impacting incentive to work and the myriad of benefits of more people working, taking risks and innovating. I don't think the Information Revolution happens like it did without Reagan and his tax cuts.

Something tells me we’ve debated Art Laffer and his curve before. This has to be a troll post considering it’s a Cato piece that also provides little on facts but a whole lot on libertarian pixie dust theory. Exactly what you’re accusing me of.

Here’s a fascinating take down of Republican/libertarian economic performance from Reagan’s point man on the budget and one of the architects of Reaganomics. He’s a true blue libertarian but comes to a similar conclusion as many left leaning economists: give me a credit card (national debt) and I can make supply side work too.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ca/274554/

As for actual data beyond theory here’s an interesting take with some stats in the linked piece.

Chances are that you believe you are in the middle class—nearly everyone in the United States does. Doctors and lawyers believe they are middle-class; so, too, do welders and waiters. In a 2015 Pew survey, only 10 percent of Americans said they considered themselves lower-class and just 1 percent thought they were upper-class.

Earnings have been flat or stagnant for many middle-class workers in the United States while health care, education, and housing costs are rising. Surveys show that Americans accurately perceive these pressures too and share a broad belief that the middle class is struggling. Seven in ten respondents to a Northwestern Mutual survey said that the middle class was staying the same or shrinking. One-third said the middle class might disappear entirely.

https://www.rand.org/blog/2021/05/most- ... s-but.html

I think long-term sustainable economic strength is based on a vibrant middle class. Don’t worry, there is some data in here that supports the notion that supply side has worked. The two main problems with that are 1). Due to hyperinflation in key categories like education, housing, and healthcare it’s never been more expensive to be in the middle class 2). Supply side induced growth has never been achieved without the boom and bust cycle and/or creating significant national debt.

In fact we may be headed for a bust cycle shortly that will require either austerity (which affects the middle and lower classes the most and what Stockman was suggesting) or government stimulus.

Supply side is the juvenile running down the hill in the “Old Bull - Young Bull joke.

This was what people my age had drilled into them on a daily basis during the Cold War: The reason our system is better than that of the Soviet Union is because we have a large and thriving middle class (at the time it was true) and that was a clear path to riches and fame for those that were willing to put in the hard work required whereas the Soviet Union didn't have a middle class, only bread lines.

[Ivytalk]

Stockman is no “true blue libertarian.” He’s just another former Republican insider that wants to go to swanky Democrat cocktail parties and salons. And don’t forget that Stockman discovered the joys of private equity (one of klam’s favorite industries) and paid a hefty civil fine to the SEC for running Collins & Aikman into the ground.

[kalm]

Stockman is no “true blue libertarian.” He’s just another former Republican insider that wants to go to swanky Democrat cocktail parties and salons. And don’t forget that Stockman discovered the joys of private equity (one of klam’s favorite industries) and paid a hefty civil fine to the SEC for running Collins & Aikman into the ground.

I don’t agree with Stockman on economics but it’s tough to deny his insider knowledge and issues with Reaganomics.

[Ivytalk]

Stockman is no “true blue libertarian.” He’s just another former Republican insider that wants to go to swanky Democrat cocktail parties and salons. And don’t forget that Stockman discovered the joys of private equity (one of klam’s favorite industries) and paid a hefty civil fine to the SEC for running Collins & Aikman into the ground.

I don’t agree with Stockman on economics but it’s tough to deny his insider knowledge and issues with Reaganomics.

Over time, “Reaganomics” has become a dirty word, but it did enable broader acceptance of of lower taxes, deregulation, and less government interference in the marketplace. Each of those things has proceeded in fits and starts since 1981, but all of them are better for the economy.

[UNI88]

No doubt. I'm willing to provide my opinions and the reasoning behind them and admit they're opinions based on my interpretation of the facts. The author wants to pass off his opinions as fact and you were a willing buyer and salesman because the author's opinions fit your worldview.

Cato Institute has a short commentary on Laffer and supply side - The Supply‐​Side Revolution Was Good for Economics and the World

Anti-supply siders tend to act like raising taxes will increase government revenue without impacting incentive to work and the myriad of benefits of more people working, taking risks and innovating. I don't think the Information Revolution happens like it did without Reagan and his tax cuts.

Something tells me we’ve debated Art Laffer and his curve before. This has to be a troll post considering it’s a Cato piece that also provides little on facts but a whole lot on libertarian pixie dust theory. Exactly what you’re accusing me of.

Here’s a fascinating take down of Republican/libertarian economic performance from Reagan’s point man on the budget and one of the architects of Reaganomics. He’s a true blue libertarian but comes to a similar conclusion as many left leaning economists: give me a credit card (national debt) and I can make supply side work too.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ca/274554/

As for actual data beyond theory here’s an interesting take with some stats in the linked piece.

Chances are that you believe you are in the middle class—nearly everyone in the United States does. Doctors and lawyers believe they are middle-class; so, too, do welders and waiters. In a 2015 Pew survey, only 10 percent of Americans said they considered themselves lower-class and just 1 percent thought they were upper-class.

Earnings have been flat or stagnant for many middle-class workers in the United States while health care, education, and housing costs are rising. Surveys show that Americans accurately perceive these pressures too and share a broad belief that the middle class is struggling. Seven in ten respondents to a Northwestern Mutual survey said that the middle class was staying the same or shrinking. One-third said the middle class might disappear entirely.

https://www.rand.org/blog/2021/05/most- ... s-but.html

I think long-term sustainable economic strength is based on a vibrant middle class. Don’t worry, there is some data in here that supports the notion that supply side has worked. The two main problems with that are 1). Due to hyperinflation in key categories like education, housing, and healthcare it’s never been more expensive to be in the middle class 2). Supply side induced growth has never been achieved without the boom and bust cycle and/or creating significant national debt.

In fact we may be headed for a bust cycle shortly that will require either austerity (which affects the middle and lower classes the most and what Stockman was suggesting) or government stimulus.

Supply side is the juvenile running down the hill in the “Old Bull - Young Bull joke.

Did you even read the Cato piece or did you disregard it because it's from Cato? It is as critical of the right-wingers who claim that income tax cuts will be self-financing as it is of the left-wingers who use those failures to denounce the Curve as faulty theory.

Your view of the Laffer Curve is biased and overly simplistic. Despite what many say it doesn't justify cutting taxes to the bone but finding the optimal tax rate.

You rip on Reagan but before him the federal income tax rate was 70%, add in state income taxes (9% in Oregon) and local/property taxes and you have an obscene tax rate for high earners. I thought the Trump tax cut was too far but I think the limit on SALT deductions was a great idea.

Like my question about why socialism will work this time, you've avoided addressing what will happen to quality of life improving innovation with significantly higher tax rates. High tax, big government types like to pretend that we live in a static world where taxes can be raised and there will be no unintended consequences. Unfortunately, life isn't that simple.

[kalm]

Something tells me we’ve debated Art Laffer and his curve before. This has to be a troll post considering it’s a Cato piece that also provides little on facts but a whole lot on libertarian pixie dust theory. Exactly what you’re accusing me of.

Here’s a fascinating take down of Republican/libertarian economic performance from Reagan’s point man on the budget and one of the architects of Reaganomics. He’s a true blue libertarian but comes to a similar conclusion as many left leaning economists: give me a credit card (national debt) and I can make supply side work too.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ca/274554/

As for actual data beyond theory here’s an interesting take with some stats in the linked piece.



https://www.rand.org/blog/2021/05/most- ... s-but.html

I think long-term sustainable economic strength is based on a vibrant middle class. Don’t worry, there is some data in here that supports the notion that supply side has worked. The two main problems with that are 1). Due to hyperinflation in key categories like education, housing, and healthcare it’s never been more expensive to be in the middle class 2). Supply side induced growth has never been achieved without the boom and bust cycle and/or creating significant national debt.

In fact we may be headed for a bust cycle shortly that will require either austerity (which affects the middle and lower classes the most and what Stockman was suggesting) or government stimulus.

Supply side is the juvenile running down the hill in the “Old Bull - Young Bull joke.

Did you even read the Cato piece or did you disregard it because it's from Cato? It is as critical of the right-wingers who claim that income tax cuts will be self-financing as it is of the left-wingers who use those failures to denounce the Curve as faulty theory.

Your view of the Laffer Curve is biased and overly simplistic. Despite what many say it doesn't justify cutting taxes to the bone but finding the optimal tax rate.

You rip on Reagan but before him the federal income tax rate was 70%, add in state income taxes (9% in Oregon) and local/property taxes and you have an obscene tax rate for high earners. I thought the Trump tax cut was too far but I think the limit on SALT deductions was a great idea.

Like my question about why socialism will work this time, you've avoided addressing what will happen to quality of life improving innovation with significantly higher tax rates. High tax, big government types like to pretend that we live in a static world where taxes can be raised and there will be no unintended consequences. Unfortunately, life isn't that simple.

Yes I read the entire piece which I thought was going to support your accusation with facts vs confirmation bias and opinion. Instead it just supported your owns opinions which you accused me of.

We have 40 years of low taxes and deregulation to demonstrate the magic of supply side not just lifting all boats (it hasn’t) while not driving us into debt.

Still waiting for the magic I guess.

Btw, did you read the piece about Stockman?

[UNI88]

Did you even read the Cato piece or did you disregard it because it's from Cato? It is as critical of the right-wingers who claim that income tax cuts will be self-financing as it is of the left-wingers who use those failures to denounce the Curve as faulty theory.

Your view of the Laffer Curve is biased and overly simplistic. Despite what many say it doesn't justify cutting taxes to the bone but finding the optimal tax rate.

You rip on Reagan but before him the federal income tax rate was 70%, add in state income taxes (9% in Oregon) and local/property taxes and you have an obscene tax rate for high earners. I thought the Trump tax cut was too far but I think the limit on SALT deductions was a great idea.

Like my question about why socialism will work this time, you've avoided addressing what will happen to quality of life improving innovation with significantly higher tax rates. High tax, big government types like to pretend that we live in a static world where taxes can be raised and there will be no unintended consequences. Unfortunately, life isn't that simple.

Yes I read the entire piece which I thought was going to support your accusation with facts vs confirmation bias and opinion. Instead it just supported your owns opinions which you accused me of.

We have 40 years of low taxes and deregulation to demonstrate the magic of supply side not just lifting all boats (it hasn’t) while not driving us into debt.

Still waiting for the magic I guess.

Btw, did you read the piece about Stockman?

I explicitly stated that the Cato piece was a commentary, I did not attempt to pass it off as fact. I thought it was interesting because it was a defense of rational not extreme supply side economics. You can cut taxes too far (and Stockton is correct, deficits matter). The Cato piece is a post-partisan piece.

Did you read the piece about Stockman? It's actually consistent with the Cato piece in criticizing supply side taken to the extreme. Speaking of magic, it also compares the magic of extreme supply side economics to the magic of your preferred Keynesian economics.

Incentives are important. Ultimately, economic growth, wealth, and prosperity come from the supply side of the economy and not the demand. But Jude turned that into something superficial. He argued that Republicans didn't have to be the party of root canals, warning the public about the dangers of deficit financing, or always saying no. Why don't we become the Santa Claus Party and give tax cuts to everybody? We'll win elections and live happily ever after -- well, I think that's just another variation of the Keynesian magic that the state can solve everything. There needs to be discipline. Economic growth, wealth, and prosperity take a lot of effort, sweat, and real-world endeavor over long periods.
...
How culpable is the Federal Reserve for the mess we're in?
It's at the heart of it. We've got a rogue central bank that's violating the principle of sound money that mankind accumulated over centuries. Interest rates were dropped to zero in early 2009 -- I say zero, but 10 basis points is the same thing -- and Bernanke's suggesting he'll keep them at that level through 2015. That's six years when money markets have zero interest rates. That's a lunatic economic proposition. Capital has to have a price. Money has to have a price. When it's driven to zero, you're essentially disarming the financial system. It can't function without prices.

His reservations/concerns about the Federal Reserve are extremely valid but you'll gloss over them to focus on attacking supply side as a whole rather then it's extremes.

Booms and busts have been a part of economics for a lot longer than supply side economics have been around. Blaming them on supply side economics is disingenuous.

[BDKJMU]

Something tells me we’ve debated Art Laffer and his curve before. This has to be a troll post considering it’s a Cato piece that also provides little on facts but a whole lot on libertarian pixie dust theory. Exactly what you’re accusing me of.

Here’s a fascinating take down of Republican/libertarian economic performance from Reagan’s point man on the budget and one of the architects of Reaganomics. He’s a true blue libertarian but comes to a similar conclusion as many left leaning economists: give me a credit card (national debt) and I can make supply side work too.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ca/274554/

As for actual data beyond theory here’s an interesting take with some stats in the linked piece.



https://www.rand.org/blog/2021/05/most- ... s-but.html

I think long-term sustainable economic strength is based on a vibrant middle class. Don’t worry, there is some data in here that supports the notion that supply side has worked. The two main problems with that are 1). Due to hyperinflation in key categories like education, housing, and healthcare it’s never been more expensive to be in the middle class 2). Supply side induced growth has never been achieved without the boom and bust cycle and/or creating significant national debt.

In fact we may be headed for a bust cycle shortly that will require either austerity (which affects the middle and lower classes the most and what Stockman was suggesting) or government stimulus.

Supply side is the juvenile running down the hill in the “Old Bull - Young Bull joke.

This was what people my age had drilled into them on a daily basis during the Cold War: The reason our system is better than that of the Soviet Union is because we have a large and thriving middle class (at the time it was true) and that was a clear path to riches and fame for those that were willing to put in the hard work required whereas the Soviet Union didn't have a middle class, only bread lines.

It still is.

[UNI88]

Stacy Abrams is now a millionaire ...

Stacey Abrams reaches millionaire status before 2nd campaign

Net worth in 2018 - $109,000
Net worth in 2022 - $3.17 million

Grifting the public is a good gig if you can get it.

I'm guessing that Bernie is jealous.

[BDKJMU]

Stacy Abrams is now a millionaire ...

Stacey Abrams reaches millionaire status before 2nd campaign

Net worth in 2018 - $109,000
Net worth in 2022 - $3.17 million

Grifting the public is a good gig if you can get it.

I'm guessing that Bernie is jealous.

Maybe she can now afford some dental work..

[houndawg]

This was what people my age had drilled into them on a daily basis during the Cold War: The reason our system is better than that of the Soviet Union is because we have a large and thriving middle class (at the time it was true) and that was a clear path to riches and fame for those that were willing to put in the hard work required whereas the Soviet Union didn't have a middle class, only bread lines.

It still is.

You didn't see it when things were hopping.

[BDKJMU]

It still is.

You didn't see it when things were hopping.

So you prefer we go back to 1950s-mid 60s era Ozzy & Harriett. Interesting.

[kalm]

Yes I read the entire piece which I thought was going to support your accusation with facts vs confirmation bias and opinion. Instead it just supported your owns opinions which you accused me of.

We have 40 years of low taxes and deregulation to demonstrate the magic of supply side not just lifting all boats (it hasn’t) while not driving us into debt.

Still waiting for the magic I guess.

Btw, did you read the piece about Stockman?

I explicitly stated that the Cato piece was a commentary, I did not attempt to pass it off as fact. I thought it was interesting because it was a defense of rational not extreme supply side economics. You can cut taxes too far (and Stockton is correct, deficits matter). The Cato piece is a post-partisan piece.

Did you read the piece about Stockman? It's actually consistent with the Cato piece in criticizing supply side taken to the extreme. Speaking of magic, it also compares the magic of extreme supply side economics to the magic of your preferred Keynesian economics.

Incentives are important. Ultimately, economic growth, wealth, and prosperity come from the supply side of the economy and not the demand. But Jude turned that into something superficial. He argued that Republicans didn't have to be the party of root canals, warning the public about the dangers of deficit financing, or always saying no. Why don't we become the Santa Claus Party and give tax cuts to everybody? We'll win elections and live happily ever after -- well, I think that's just another variation of the Keynesian magic that the state can solve everything. There needs to be discipline. Economic growth, wealth, and prosperity take a lot of effort, sweat, and real-world endeavor over long periods.
...
How culpable is the Federal Reserve for the mess we're in?
It's at the heart of it. We've got a rogue central bank that's violating the principle of sound money that mankind accumulated over centuries. Interest rates were dropped to zero in early 2009 -- I say zero, but 10 basis points is the same thing -- and Bernanke's suggesting he'll keep them at that level through 2015. That's six years when money markets have zero interest rates. That's a lunatic economic proposition. Capital has to have a price. Money has to have a price. When it's driven to zero, you're essentially disarming the financial system. It can't function without prices.

His reservations/concerns about the Federal Reserve are extremely valid but you'll gloss over them to focus on attacking supply side as a whole rather then it's extremes.

Booms and busts have been a part of economics for a lot longer than supply side economics have been around. Blaming them on supply side economics is disingenuous.

Much of this why I posted the Stockman piece. Cato is post partisan but in love with their neoliberal ideals. The FED is problematic but let’s not forget why it was created.

Somehow we were able to go decades at higher top marginal and corporate tax rates plus more financial regulation without a serious economic recession or depression.

Please indicate the real world examples where libertarian economics have proven a sustainable success.

[houndawg]

You didn't see it when things were hopping.

So you prefer we go back to 1950s-mid 60s era Ozzy & Harriett. Interesting.

Thats not what I said.

Poor dumb brute...

[UNI88]

I explicitly stated that the Cato piece was a commentary, I did not attempt to pass it off as fact. I thought it was interesting because it was a defense of rational not extreme supply side economics. You can cut taxes too far (and Stockton is correct, deficits matter). The Cato piece is a post-partisan piece.

Did you read the piece about Stockman? It's actually consistent with the Cato piece in criticizing supply side taken to the extreme. Speaking of magic, it also compares the magic of extreme supply side economics to the magic of your preferred Keynesian economics.

His reservations/concerns about the Federal Reserve are extremely valid but you'll gloss over them to focus on attacking supply side as a whole rather then it's extremes.

Booms and busts have been a part of economics for a lot longer than supply side economics have been around. Blaming them on supply side economics is disingenuous.

Much of this why I posted the Stockman piece. Cato is post partisan but in love with their neoliberal ideals. The FED is problematic but let’s not forget why it was created.

Somehow we were able to go decades at higher top marginal and corporate tax rates plus more financial regulation without a serious economic recession or depression.

Please indicate the real world examples where libertarian economics have proven a sustainable success.

You are misremembering history if you think we didn't have economic ups and downs during the period of higher taxes.


I'll see about "real world examples where libertarian economics have proven a sustainable success" after you've given a rational explanation of how higher taxes won't have a negative impact on productivity and innovation. While you're at it maybe you can finally answer my question about why socialism will work this time.

IMO, the innovations that have resulted from the Information Revolution have been worth some booms and busts. I'd rather risk the ups and downs for the opportunity to improve our overall quality of life.

[Ivytalk]

Kalm’s new proggie buzzword appears to be “sustainable.” Good old “nuanced” is so 2021.

[GannonFan]

Much of this why I posted the Stockman piece. Cato is post partisan but in love with their neoliberal ideals. The FED is problematic but let’s not forget why it was created.

Somehow we were able to go decades at higher top marginal and corporate tax rates plus more financial regulation without a serious economic recession or depression.

Please indicate the real world examples where libertarian economics have proven a sustainable success.

You are misremembering history if you think we didn't have economic ups and downs during the period of higher taxes.


I'll see about "real world examples where libertarian economics have proven a sustainable success" after you've given a rational explanation of how higher taxes won't have a negative impact on productivity and innovation. While you're at it maybe you can finally answer my question about why socialism will work this time.

IMO, the innovations that have resulted from the Information Revolution have been worth some booms and busts. I'd rather risk the ups and downs for the opportunity to improve our overall quality of life.

Kalm's love affair with the post WWII economy doesn't allow for him to see the ups and downs that followed, to him it was just nirvana. There were at least four major recessions after the war before we got to JFK, but the "Leave it to Beaver" reruns we see now gloss over that. Thank goodness the 60's were quiet and peaceful.

As for deregulation, I like being able to jump on an airplane and fly most anywhere in the word at a pretty decent price. Sure does beat the fly-once-or-twice in a lifetime that was commercial air travel prior to deregulation. I think kalmie just misses road trips and traveller's checks.

[BDKJMU]

So you prefer we go back to 1950s-mid 60s era Ozzy & Harriett. Interesting.

Thats not what I said.

Poor dumb brute...

What you implied dementia dawg..

[houndawg]

Thats not what I said.

Poor dumb brute...

What you implied dementia dawg..

Wrong again, as usual - I said that schhool kids were told that the difference between us and the Russians was a thriving middle class. Its true, that was what we were being told every day. You're probably too young to remember the Cold war and the Space Race.

[UNI88]

What you implied dementia dawg..

Wrong again, as usual - I said that schhool kids were told that the difference between us and the Russians was a thriving white middle class. Its true, that was what we were being told every day. You're probably too young to remember the Cold war and the Space Race. I might not remember what I had for breakfast or whether I took my meds but I remember the good old days.

FYP

[Col Hogan]

WWII Cargo From Sunken German Warship Washing Up in Texas Nearly 80 Years Later


https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/wwii-ca ... 39051.html

[houndawg]

Wrong again, as usual - I said that schhool kids were told that the difference between us and the Russians was a thriving white middle class. Its true, that was what we were being told every day. You're probably too young to remember the Cold war and the Space Race. I might not remember what I had for breakfast or whether I took my meds but I remember the good old days.

FYP

No meds to remember.

Thats for the younger, softer, folks.

[kalm]

Much of this why I posted the Stockman piece. Cato is post partisan but in love with their neoliberal ideals. The FED is problematic but let’s not forget why it was created.

Somehow we were able to go decades at higher top marginal and corporate tax rates plus more financial regulation without a serious economic recession or depression.

Please indicate the real world examples where libertarian economics have proven a sustainable success.

You are misremembering history if you think we didn't have economic ups and downs during the period of higher taxes.


I'll see about "real world examples where libertarian economics have proven a sustainable success" after you've given a rational explanation of how higher taxes won't have a negative impact on productivity and innovation. While you're at it maybe you can finally answer my question about why socialism will work this time.

IMO, the innovations that have resulted from the Information Revolution have been worth some booms and busts. I'd rather risk the ups and downs for the opportunity to improve our overall quality of life.

1) Downturns sure. Existential financial crises are a different thing.

2). Higher taxes enabled us to rebuild Europe, build interstates, go to the moon, and educate a generation of GI’s all at the same time without massively going into debt. We were productive, and innovative, and those dollars spent on education were more than paid back by personal income taxes alone (a few thousand spent on a GI was paid back in the 10’s of thousands)

3). Broken record. You know I’m not advocating for the means of production. Just sensible mixed market economics that’s already proven to be a success.

4). Were number 19!

[kalm]

You are misremembering history if you think we didn't have economic ups and downs during the period of higher taxes.


I'll see about "real world examples where libertarian economics have proven a sustainable success" after you've given a rational explanation of how higher taxes won't have a negative impact on productivity and innovation. While you're at it maybe you can finally answer my question about why socialism will work this time.

IMO, the innovations that have resulted from the Information Revolution have been worth some booms and busts. I'd rather risk the ups and downs for the opportunity to improve our overall quality of life.

Kalm's love affair with the post WWII economy doesn't allow for him to see the ups and downs that followed, to him it was just nirvana. There were at least four major recessions after the war before we got to JFK, but the "Leave it to Beaver" reruns we see now gloss over that. Thank goodness the 60's were quiet and peaceful.

As for deregulation, I like being able to jump on an airplane and fly most anywhere in the word at a pretty decent price. Sure does beat the fly-once-or-twice in a lifetime that was commercial air travel prior to deregulation. I think kalmie just misses road trips and traveller's checks.

We take road trips almost every week! Last Friday was through here.



Tomorrow I’m heading West to see some old trucks and try and catch my first carp on a fly rod.



And neither accept travelers checks.

‘Murica!