independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks for the passages.

Which one(s) said "savings holds money out of the economy"?

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift", and as I said, it is a very basic economic concept that has been accepted theory for seventy five years, although I am pretty sure Xenophon touched on it 1600 years ago. The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling. I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Paradox of thrift - Wikipedia

Oh, and by the way, I asked hours ago rather purchasing stock from the stock exchange was savings or investment. No one answered, it is savings, not investing.

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift",

The Paradox of thrift said savings "holds money out of the economy"?

The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling.

When you can show that it backs up Derp's claim, let me know.

I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Coming from a guy who thinks a 90% tax rate leads to more investment than a 20% rate, that's hilarious!!!!

Dude, pull your head out of your ass, what do you think this means?

The paradox states that an increase in autonomous saving leads to a decrease in aggregate demand and thus a decrease in gross output which will in turn lower total saving. The paradox is, narrowly speaking, that total saving may fall because of individuals' attempts to increase their saving, and, broadly speaking, that increase in saving may be harmful to an economy.[1] Both the narrow and broad claims are paradoxical within the assumption underlying the fallacy of composition, namely that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. The narrow claim transparently contradicts this assumption, and the broad one does so by implication, because while individual thrift is generally averred to be good for the economy, the paradox of thrift holds that collective thrift may be bad for the economy.

Decrease in gross output. You can consider gross output as "money". Like I said, fundamental economics covered within the first couple weeks of an intro Macro course.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate. The Laffer curve is a curve, as I have pointed out time and time again. Again, basic fundamental economics.

what do you think this means?

It doesn't mean that my deposit in a bank "holds money out of the economy".
I'm sure Derp appreciates your attempt to make him look less stupid. Keep trying.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate.

Why?

The financial industry is a big ass vampire sucking the blood from the lower and middle class. It is the very reason wages have remained stagnant and, for those in the middle, there has been little to no growth in wealth. Consider the total cost of financial intermediation, that is, what it cost the financial industry to produce loans, stocks, and bonds measured as a percentage of GDP. When they were building the railroads it was less than two percent. When they were financing the expansion of the steel industry it was about two percent, when it came to the automobile and chemical industry, about three percent. The space race, four percent. When Ronald Reagan took office it was at five percent.

Now think about this, information technology has lowered the cost of doing business in almost every category. But for some strange reason, the cost of financial intermediation is now over nine percent. Conservatively, that is sucking a minimum of two percent of GDP right out of the economy. Imagine if that two percent was going into the hand of the workers instead into the pockets of the financial executives. Wages would be higher, the middle and lower classes would have more wealth, and for sure, we would have higher growth. So yes, the financial industry, via interest and fees, sucks "money" right out of the economy.

Graph: How the Financial Sector Consumed America’s Economic Growth

The financial industry is a big ass vampire sucking the blood from the lower and middle class.

They add a lot of value.
Don't like them?
Feel free not to lend or deposit.
Or get in on the action. You can buy financial stocks for less than a $5 commission.

So yes, the financial industry, via interest and fees, sucks "money" right out of the economy.

Because they hide their earnings in a jar in the yard. DERP!

You still didn't explain why a 50% corporate tax rate yields more investment than a 20% tax rate.

 

[The Derp]

Yeah, the Internet Bubble was cool.

Unlike your subprime bubble, when it popped it didn't bring down the entire economy. That's because Clinton effectively managed our economy, whereas Conservatives only fuck it up.

If the Real Estate bubble had continued 2 more years, we'd have had another surplus.So what?

No we wouldn't have, and it popped anyway because it was as sloppily constructed as everything is that Conservatives ham-fistedly do. Even at the height of the subprime bubble (2005-6), we still had deficits that were larger than or just as high as any deficits prior to Bush the Dumber.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks for the passages.

Which one(s) said "savings holds money out of the economy"?

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift", and as I said, it is a very basic economic concept that has been accepted theory for seventy five years, although I am pretty sure Xenophon touched on it 1600 years ago. The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling. I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Paradox of thrift - Wikipedia

Oh, and by the way, I asked hours ago rather purchasing stock from the stock exchange was savings or investment. No one answered, it is savings, not investing.

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift",

The Paradox of thrift said savings "holds money out of the economy"?

The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling.

When you can show that it backs up Derp's claim, let me know.

I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Coming from a guy who thinks a 90% tax rate leads to more investment than a 20% rate, that's hilarious!!!!

Dude, pull your head out of your ass, what do you think this means?

The paradox states that an increase in autonomous saving leads to a decrease in aggregate demand and thus a decrease in gross output which will in turn lower total saving. The paradox is, narrowly speaking, that total saving may fall because of individuals' attempts to increase their saving, and, broadly speaking, that increase in saving may be harmful to an economy.[1] Both the narrow and broad claims are paradoxical within the assumption underlying the fallacy of composition, namely that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. The narrow claim transparently contradicts this assumption, and the broad one does so by implication, because while individual thrift is generally averred to be good for the economy, the paradox of thrift holds that collective thrift may be bad for the economy.

Decrease in gross output. You can consider gross output as "money". Like I said, fundamental economics covered within the first couple weeks of an intro Macro course.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate. The Laffer curve is a curve, as I have pointed out time and time again. Again, basic fundamental economics.

The Laffer curve is a curve, as I have pointed out time and time again. Again, basic fundamental economics.

The curve is used to illustrate Laffer's main premise that the more an activity such as production is taxed, the less of it is generated.

Laffer Curve

Besides supporting my claim, what did you mean to do by bringing up Laffer?

LMAO. Investopedia, what a freakin joke. Like their definition of free markets, it's sheer propaganda with no bearing on reality. Damn Laffer never even mentioned that whole more an activity is tax the less of it that is produced. The Laffer curve is about the relationship between tax rates and government revenue measuring something called taxable income elasticity. Laffer didn't even come up with it. Again, like most economic concepts it has been around for at least seven hundred years. So try again, and don't ever quote me that stupid ass Investopedia.

LMAO. Investopedia, what a freakin joke.

Feel free to post another source that backs your claim instead of mine. LOL!

Damn Laffer never even mentioned that whole more an activity is tax the less of it that is produced.

Is it wrong? Do you get more of an activity the more you tax it? Any examples?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If tax cuts worked as well in real life as they do in right wing fantasy; wouldn't we have, massive budget surpluses and no Debt?

Doesn't that imply, something fundamentally wrong with the, "rest of the plan".

If high taxes worked as well in real life as they do in left wing fantasy; wouldn't we have, massive budget surpluses and no Debt?

Because our taxes are CHEAP AS SHIT dumbass. In 2009 they were lower than at anytime in the last FIFTY YEARS. And don't get me started on corporations, which has been the primary topic of our conversation. They are not paying jackshit compared to the historical record. They need a tax cut like they need a hole in the head.

Because our taxes are CHEAP AS SHIT dumbass. In 2009 they were lower than at anytime in the last FIFTY YEARS.

Yeah, recessions tend to reduce revenues, moron.

 

[The Derp]

They add a lot of value.

What value? What tangible product do financial service companies actually produce? Nothing. The only thing they do produce are situations where their recklessness has to be bailed out.

Don't like them?
Feel free not to lend or deposit.
Or get in on the action. You can buy financial stocks for less than a $5 commission.

Or, how about we start imposing stricter rules and regulations on the banks so they can't keep screwing people? Why is that not an option?

 

[jc456]

again, why conservatives oppose it? duh stupid fk

Well, they chiefly oppose it because it was proposed by a Democrat (FDR). That's their primary reason for hating it. The other reason they hate it is because it's the government distributing earned benefits that are paid by not only the workers, but their employers. Conservatives don't think employers should have to pay for anything, not even decent wages. In fact, if Conservatives had it their way, they'd make slavery legal again. Because a business not having to pay labor means sky-high profits.

not at all, the idea was good, the problem was that it was set as a social program rather than an individual one. Why couldn't they have set up individual accounts, the individual would be responsible for the money as today and they would be responsible for it's growth. but libs don't give credit to people, they all believe individuals are too stupid to save money so they set up bullshit like SS. there were so many different ways, but nope the libs owned it. now it is a sore spot for life.

 

[dudmuck]

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift", and as I said, it is a very basic economic concept that has been accepted theory for seventy five years, although I am pretty sure Xenophon touched on it 1600 years ago. The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling. I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Paradox of thrift - Wikipedia

Oh, and by the way, I asked hours ago rather purchasing stock from the stock exchange was savings or investment. No one answered, it is savings, not investing.

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift",

The Paradox of thrift said savings "holds money out of the economy"?

The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling.

When you can show that it backs up Derp's claim, let me know.

I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Coming from a guy who thinks a 90% tax rate leads to more investment than a 20% rate, that's hilarious!!!!

Dude, pull your head out of your ass, what do you think this means?

The paradox states that an increase in autonomous saving leads to a decrease in aggregate demand and thus a decrease in gross output which will in turn lower total saving. The paradox is, narrowly speaking, that total saving may fall because of individuals' attempts to increase their saving, and, broadly speaking, that increase in saving may be harmful to an economy.[1] Both the narrow and broad claims are paradoxical within the assumption underlying the fallacy of composition, namely that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. The narrow claim transparently contradicts this assumption, and the broad one does so by implication, because while individual thrift is generally averred to be good for the economy, the paradox of thrift holds that collective thrift may be bad for the economy.

Decrease in gross output. You can consider gross output as "money". Like I said, fundamental economics covered within the first couple weeks of an intro Macro course.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate. The Laffer curve is a curve, as I have pointed out time and time again. Again, basic fundamental economics.

what do you think this means?

It doesn't mean that my deposit in a bank "holds money out of the economy".
I'm sure Derp appreciates your attempt to make him look less stupid. Keep trying.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate.

Why?

The financial industry is a big ass vampire sucking the blood from the lower and middle class. It is the very reason wages have remained stagnant and, for those in the middle, there has been little to no growth in wealth. Consider the total cost of financial intermediation, that is, what it cost the financial industry to produce loans, stocks, and bonds measured as a percentage of GDP. When they were building the railroads it was less than two percent. When they were financing the expansion of the steel industry it was about two percent, when it came to the automobile and chemical industry, about three percent. The space race, four percent. When Ronald Reagan took office it was at five percent.

Now think about this, information technology has lowered the cost of doing business in almost every category. But for some strange reason, the cost of financial intermediation is now over nine percent. Conservatively, that is sucking a minimum of two percent of GDP right out of the economy. Imagine if that two percent was going into the hand of the workers instead into the pockets of the financial executives. Wages would be higher, the middle and lower classes would have more wealth, and for sure, we would have higher growth. So yes, the financial industry, via interest and fees, sucks "money" right out of the economy.

Graph: How the Financial Sector Consumed America’s Economic Growth

The financial industry is a big ass vampire sucking the blood from the lower and middle class.

They add a lot of value.
Don't like them?
Feel free not to lend or deposit.
Or get in on the action. You can buy financial stocks for less than a $5 commission.

So yes, the financial industry, via interest and fees, sucks "money" right out of the economy.

Because they hide their earnings in a jar in the yard. DERP!

You still didn't explain why a 50% corporate tax rate yields more investment than a 20% tax rate.

Aww, look who forgot about the 2008 mortgage meltdown.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, the Internet Bubble was cool.

Unlike your subprime bubble, when it popped it didn't bring down the entire economy. That's because Clinton effectively managed our economy, whereas Conservatives only fuck it up.

If the Real Estate bubble had continued 2 more years, we'd have had another surplus.So what?

No we wouldn't have, and it popped anyway because it was as sloppily constructed as everything is that Conservatives ham-fistedly do.

Even at the height of the subprime bubble (2005-6), we still had deficits that were larger than or just as high as any deficits prior to Bush the Dumber.

Unlike your subprime bubble, when it popped it didn't bring down the entire economy. That's because Clinton effectively managed our economy,

Yeah, right. Awesome manager. LOL!

No we wouldn't have

We would have.
2004 - $413 billion deficit
2005 - $318 billion deficit
2006 - $248 billion deficit
2007 - $160 billion deficit
Deficit was falling an average of $84 billion a year.
Keep the bubble going 2 more years, we're in balance.

Even at the height of the subprime bubble (2005-6), we still had deficits that were larger than or just as high as any deficits prior to Bush the Dumber

2003, 3.3% of GDP
2004, 3.4% of GDP
2005, 2.5% of GDP
2006, 1.8% of GDP
2007, 1.1% of GDP

Yeah, unheard of. DERP!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift",

The Paradox of thrift said savings "holds money out of the economy"?

The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling.

When you can show that it backs up Derp's claim, let me know.

I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Coming from a guy who thinks a 90% tax rate leads to more investment than a 20% rate, that's hilarious!!!!

Dude, pull your head out of your ass, what do you think this means?

The paradox states that an increase in autonomous saving leads to a decrease in aggregate demand and thus a decrease in gross output which will in turn lower total saving. The paradox is, narrowly speaking, that total saving may fall because of individuals' attempts to increase their saving, and, broadly speaking, that increase in saving may be harmful to an economy.[1] Both the narrow and broad claims are paradoxical within the assumption underlying the fallacy of composition, namely that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. The narrow claim transparently contradicts this assumption, and the broad one does so by implication, because while individual thrift is generally averred to be good for the economy, the paradox of thrift holds that collective thrift may be bad for the economy.

Decrease in gross output. You can consider gross output as "money". Like I said, fundamental economics covered within the first couple weeks of an intro Macro course.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate. The Laffer curve is a curve, as I have pointed out time and time again. Again, basic fundamental economics.

what do you think this means?

It doesn't mean that my deposit in a bank "holds money out of the economy".
I'm sure Derp appreciates your attempt to make him look less stupid. Keep trying.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate.

Why?

The financial industry is a big ass vampire sucking the blood from the lower and middle class. It is the very reason wages have remained stagnant and, for those in the middle, there has been little to no growth in wealth. Consider the total cost of financial intermediation, that is, what it cost the financial industry to produce loans, stocks, and bonds measured as a percentage of GDP. When they were building the railroads it was less than two percent. When they were financing the expansion of the steel industry it was about two percent, when it came to the automobile and chemical industry, about three percent. The space race, four percent. When Ronald Reagan took office it was at five percent.

Now think about this, information technology has lowered the cost of doing business in almost every category. But for some strange reason, the cost of financial intermediation is now over nine percent. Conservatively, that is sucking a minimum of two percent of GDP right out of the economy. Imagine if that two percent was going into the hand of the workers instead into the pockets of the financial executives. Wages would be higher, the middle and lower classes would have more wealth, and for sure, we would have higher growth. So yes, the financial industry, via interest and fees, sucks "money" right out of the economy.

Graph: How the Financial Sector Consumed America’s Economic Growth

The financial industry is a big ass vampire sucking the blood from the lower and middle class.

They add a lot of value.
Don't like them?
Feel free not to lend or deposit.
Or get in on the action. You can buy financial stocks for less than a $5 commission.

So yes, the financial industry, via interest and fees, sucks "money" right out of the economy.

Because they hide their earnings in a jar in the yard. DERP!

You still didn't explain why a 50% corporate tax rate yields more investment than a 20% tax rate.

Aww, look who forgot about the 2008 mortgage meltdown.

Who missed it? Was it DERP? He misses a lot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They add a lot of value.

What value? What tangible product do financial service companies actually produce? Nothing. The only thing they do produce are situations where their recklessness has to be bailed out.

Don't like them?
Feel free not to lend or deposit.
Or get in on the action. You can buy financial stocks for less than a $5 commission.

Or, how about we start imposing stricter rules and regulations on the banks so they can't keep screwing people? Why is that not an option?

What value?

You don't know anything about economics, do you?

What tangible product do financial service companies actually produce? Nothing.

Value added only works for tangible products?
You should stop now. Seriously.

Or, how about we start imposing stricter rules and regulations on the banks

More than the rules and regulations added in the last 10 years?
What more should we add? Why?

Try not to show your usual level of idiocy.

 

[jc456]

it's my account, it's based on, wait for it, my SS number..

NO IT FUCKING ISN'T.

The people currently on SS are having their benefits paid by the people currently working (hence, pay-go). If those collecting SS benefits now got back exactly what they paid in, their monthly benefit would be a shitload less than it is now simply because of inflation and COLA.

imy SS number is my fking account you stupid fk. And my payout is based on my money I contributed to it. Duh!!!!! And using that money to pay down the debt is using individuals money. no matter how you wish to split your hair.

So tell me, can you go into your SS account now and take money out?

NO IT FUCKING ISN'T.

sure it is, they send me my statement on what I'm entitled to. but it's mine cause it is based on my money. Think man.

your SS account now and take money out?
nope, the social program doesn't allow that. there are ways to get it though due to health. again, why we're opposed. BTW, I had to get to age 59.5 to get at my 401K it's a rule based on age.

 

[The Derp]

Yeah, right. Awesome manager. LOL!

He sure was. His economic record blows all of yours out of the water, dating back alllllllllllll the way to Ike. You'd need to go back to the 1950's when a real Republican was President to have the economic track record of Clinton.

We would have.
2004 - $413 billion deficit
2005 - $318 billion deficit
2006 - $248 billion deficit
2007 - $160 billion deficit
Deficit was falling an average of $84 billion a year.
Keep the bubble going 2 more years, we're in balance.

1. So you once again prefer to argue in hypothetical land. It's just your flawed assumption you're substituting in as fact. Man, you're getting your clock cleaned here!

2. But it couldn't keep going and was actually popping toward late 2006. That's when all those garbage subprimes you issued in 2004 started entering default. And how would Bush even keep the subprime bubble growing? Well, he'd have to lower lending standards so much that banks could just make garbage loans until the cows came home. Oh wait...that's actually what he did in 2004. So he had nowhere to go. So your hypothetical fantasy is just that, a fantasy.

So once again, we have a situation where you absolutely refuse to accept reality, choosing instead to live in hypothetical fantasy land because you cannot reconcile that what you believe is utter shit. Your subprime bubble began popping in late 2006.

eah, unheard of. DERP!

Man, are you dishonest.

LOL! So once again, you choose to actively ignore facts so you could lessen the severity of the shittiness of your policies by focusing on % of GDP. Tell me, what is the significance of presenting the deficit in those numbers? Is it because it's the only way your argument doesn't look like shit, and thus, your beliefs look like shit? Because that's the only explanation for ignoring actual numbers to re-contextualize it.

BTW - what did Bush have to show for all his stupid tax cuts? Nothing. Not one thing. I mean, other than job loss, massive deficits, doubling of the debt, and spiking household debt as a percentage of GDP.

Oh yeah...if you want to talk in those terms, let's do it.

Bush sklyrocketed household debt as a percentage of GDP, just like Reagan:

 

[The Derp]

You don't know anything about economics, do you?

I think what's actually happening here is that all your "conventional" wisdom is being washed away by both Winston and me, and you're desperate to maintain this facade, so you just accuse others of doing the thing you are guilty of doing. I mean, why else would you try to alter and change the context of figures and numbers if you weren't scrambling to plug holes in your argument? I don't have to do that, but you do. So what does that say about your argument? That it sucks.

Value added only works for tangible products?

In this case, yes. Financial Services produce no tangible product, therefore shouldn't be privileged when it comes to regulating them.

More than the rules and regulations added in the last 10 years?

As I understand it, hardly any of the Dodd-Frank rules are actually in effect and most are tied up in the courts. Not like it matters anyway, as Wells Fargo proved with all the fraud they perpetrated very recently that bank rules mean nothing.

What more should we add? Why?

We shouldn't necessarily add more, we should break them up. Back into regional banks. They're too big to fail right now and dominate too much of the market share.

 

[The Derp]

sure it is, they send me my statement on what I'm entitled to. but it's mine cause it is based on my money. Think man.

For fuck's sake...what they send you is a statement of your projected benefit, and that projection changes depending on your income. But that doesn't mean it's your money. It's not. It's just the benefits you will be entitled to when you become eligible. What you will end up getting out of SS will be more than what you put into it.

nope, the social program doesn't allow that.

And why not? BECAUSE SOCIAL SECURITY IS PAY-GO. SS revenues collected today are used to pay for SS beneficiaries today. Just like Medicare. That's why you can't take money out of your Social Security benefits before eligibility, because there is no account that holds the money you are entitled to when you become eligible.

Otherwise, the SS Trust would be exponentially higher than it is today.

Fucking dumbass.

there are ways to get it though due to health. again, why we're opposed. BTW, I had to get to age 59.5 to get at my 401K it's a rule based on age.

You can still take money out of your 401k (depending on what it is), you just pay a penalty for doing so. No such option exists with Social Security, because there is no money in a personalized lock-box. SS is pay go; the people currently on SS are getting their benefits from the revenues of people currently contributing to it.

Moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, right. Awesome manager. LOL!

He sure was. His economic record blows all of yours out of the water, dating back alllllllllllll the way to Ike. You'd need to go back to the 1950's when a real Republican was President to have the economic track record of Clinton.

We would have.
2004 - $413 billion deficit
2005 - $318 billion deficit
2006 - $248 billion deficit
2007 - $160 billion deficit
Deficit was falling an average of $84 billion a year.
Keep the bubble going 2 more years, we're in balance.

1. So you once again prefer to argue in hypothetical land. It's just your flawed assumption you're substituting in as fact. Man, you're getting your clock cleaned here!

2. But it couldn't keep going and was actually popping toward late 2006. That's when all those garbage subprimes you issued in 2004 started entering default. And how would Bush even keep the subprime bubble growing? Well, he'd have to lower lending standards so much that banks could just make garbage loans until the cows came home. Oh wait...that's actually what he did in 2004. So he had nowhere to go. So your hypothetical fantasy is just that, a fantasy.

So once again, we have a situation where you absolutely refuse to accept reality, choosing instead to live in hypothetical fantasy land because you cannot reconcile that what you believe is utter shit. Your subprime bubble began popping in late 2006.

eah, unheard of. DERP!

Man, are you dishonest.

LOL! So once again, you choose to actively ignore facts so you could lessen the severity of the shittiness of your policies by focusing on % of GDP. Tell me, what is the significance of presenting the deficit in those numbers? Is it because it's the only way your argument doesn't look like shit, and thus, your beliefs look like shit? Because that's the only explanation for ignoring actual numbers to re-contextualize it.

BTW - what did Bush have to show for all his stupid tax cuts? Nothing. Not one thing. I mean, other than job loss, massive deficits, doubling of the debt, and spiking household debt as a percentage of GDP.

Oh yeah...if you want to talk in those terms, let's do it.

Bush sklyrocketed household debt as a percentage of GDP, just like Reagan:

He sure was

So why did he create a bubble?
Forget to manage while Monica was managing him?
Did he manage Arkansas out of 49th or 50th place, economy-wise? Why not?
Or do his wonderful management skills only work when Monica is around?

His economic record blows all of yours out of the water

Sure, because as soon as Gore invented the Internet, managing a $9 trillion economy is easy! LOL!

So you once again prefer to argue in hypothetical land.

Well, yeah, because when I said, "If the real estate bubble had continued........"
It's a hypothetical you moron.

But it couldn't keep going

Who said it could.....or should?
Bubbles are bad. We should try to minimize them a bit, not enlarge them.

That's when all those garbage subprimes you issued in 2004 started entering default.

I didn't issue any mortgages, subprime or otherwise.

by focusing on % of GDP

If your point was that the dollar amount of deficits increases over time as the economy grows, as inflation moves along......no fucking kidding. Real deep point there asshole.

Is it because it's the only way your argument doesn't look like shit

Do you think my argument was that Bush deficit dollar amounts weren't higher than previous deficit dollar amounts? LOL!

If you think I made that moronic claim, provide a link to where I said that.

BTW - what did Bush have to show for all his stupid tax cuts?

Better GDP growth after they were fully phased in than Obama in any of his 8 years of weakest recovery since WWII.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't know anything about economics, do you?

I think what's actually happening here is that all your "conventional" wisdom is being washed away by both Winston and me, and you're desperate to maintain this facade, so you just accuse others of doing the thing you are guilty of doing. I mean, why else would you try to alter and change the context of figures and numbers if you weren't scrambling to plug holes in your argument? I don't have to do that, but you do. So what does that say about your argument? That it sucks.

Value added only works for tangible products?

In this case, yes. Financial Services produce no tangible product, therefore shouldn't be privileged when it comes to regulating them.

More than the rules and regulations added in the last 10 years?

As I understand it, hardly any of the Dodd-Frank rules are actually in effect and most are tied up in the courts. Not like it matters anyway, as Wells Fargo proved with all the fraud they perpetrated very recently that bank rules mean nothing.

What more should we add? Why?

We shouldn't necessarily add more, we should break them up. Back into regional banks. They're too big to fail right now and dominate too much of the market share.

I think what's actually happening here is that all your "conventional" wisdom is being washed away by both Winston and me

It's my conventional wisdom that value added isn't only for tangible products? LOL!

I still love the moronic claim that higher corporate tax rates lead to more investment and lower tax rates lead to less investment.

Really beautiful argument!! DERP!

As I understand it, hardly any of the Dodd-Frank rules are actually in effect

There's more proof of your ignorance of the topic.

In this case, yes. Financial Services produce no tangible product

Gross value added of financial corporate business


And yet, add nearly $1.5 trillion in value.

We shouldn't necessarily add more, we should break them up. Back into regional banks. They're too big to fail right now and dominate too much of the market share

Five $200 billion banks failing would have the same economic impact as a single $1 trillion bank failing.

 

[jc456]

sure it is, they send me my statement on what I'm entitled to. but it's mine cause it is based on my money. Think man.

For fuck's sake...what they send you is a statement of your projected benefit, and that projection changes depending on your income. But that doesn't mean it's your money. It's not. It's just the benefits you will be entitled to when you become eligible. What you will end up getting out of SS will be more than what you put into it.

nope, the social program doesn't allow that.

And why not? BECAUSE SOCIAL SECURITY IS PAY-GO. SS revenues collected today are used to pay for SS beneficiaries today. Just like Medicare. That's why you can't take money out of your Social Security benefits before eligibility, because there is no account that holds the money you are entitled to when you become eligible.

Otherwise, the SS Trust would be exponentially higher than it is today.

Fucking dumbass.

there are ways to get it though due to health. again, why we're opposed. BTW, I had to get to age 59.5 to get at my 401K it's a rule based on age.

You can still take money out of your 401k (depending on what it is), you just pay a penalty for doing so. No such option exists with Social Security, because there is no money in a personalized lock-box. SS is pay go; the people currently on SS are getting their benefits from the revenues of people currently contributing to it.

Moron.

your projected benefit,

my benefit. It has my name on it. I ask when I'm 65.6 and they send me money. hmmmmm how is that not mine? if all the money in the hopper is gone, I don't get it. right? so government keep the fk out of my money.

 

[imawhosure]

If high taxes worked as well in real life as they do in left wing fantasy; wouldn't we have, massive budget surpluses and no Debt?

We don't have high taxes, and we did have a surplus...one you erased with your Bush Tax Cuts. That surplus in 2000 was a record high.

There was no surplus, and you know it. But, I will admit, Newt Gingrich got us close, but thanks for singing his praises as if he did!

 

[Winston]

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift", and as I said, it is a very basic economic concept that has been accepted theory for seventy five years, although I am pretty sure Xenophon touched on it 1600 years ago. The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling. I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Paradox of thrift - Wikipedia

Oh, and by the way, I asked hours ago rather purchasing stock from the stock exchange was savings or investment. No one answered, it is savings, not investing.

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift",

The Paradox of thrift said savings "holds money out of the economy"?

The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling.

When you can show that it backs up Derp's claim, let me know.

I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Coming from a guy who thinks a 90% tax rate leads to more investment than a 20% rate, that's hilarious!!!!

Dude, pull your head out of your ass, what do you think this means?

The paradox states that an increase in autonomous saving leads to a decrease in aggregate demand and thus a decrease in gross output which will in turn lower total saving. The paradox is, narrowly speaking, that total saving may fall because of individuals' attempts to increase their saving, and, broadly speaking, that increase in saving may be harmful to an economy.[1] Both the narrow and broad claims are paradoxical within the assumption underlying the fallacy of composition, namely that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. The narrow claim transparently contradicts this assumption, and the broad one does so by implication, because while individual thrift is generally averred to be good for the economy, the paradox of thrift holds that collective thrift may be bad for the economy.

Decrease in gross output. You can consider gross output as "money". Like I said, fundamental economics covered within the first couple weeks of an intro Macro course.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate. The Laffer curve is a curve, as I have pointed out time and time again. Again, basic fundamental economics.

what do you think this means?

It doesn't mean that my deposit in a bank "holds money out of the economy".
I'm sure Derp appreciates your attempt to make him look less stupid. Keep trying.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate.

Why?

The financial industry is a big ass vampire sucking the blood from the lower and middle class. It is the very reason wages have remained stagnant and, for those in the middle, there has been little to no growth in wealth. Consider the total cost of financial intermediation, that is, what it cost the financial industry to produce loans, stocks, and bonds measured as a percentage of GDP. When they were building the railroads it was less than two percent. When they were financing the expansion of the steel industry it was about two percent, when it came to the automobile and chemical industry, about three percent. The space race, four percent. When Ronald Reagan took office it was at five percent.

Now think about this, information technology has lowered the cost of doing business in almost every category. But for some strange reason, the cost of financial intermediation is now over nine percent. Conservatively, that is sucking a minimum of two percent of GDP right out of the economy. Imagine if that two percent was going into the hand of the workers instead into the pockets of the financial executives. Wages would be higher, the middle and lower classes would have more wealth, and for sure, we would have higher growth. So yes, the financial industry, via interest and fees, sucks "money" right out of the economy.

Graph: How the Financial Sector Consumed America’s Economic Growth

The financial industry is a big ass vampire sucking the blood from the lower and middle class.

They add a lot of value.
Don't like them?
Feel free not to lend or deposit.
Or get in on the action. You can buy financial stocks for less than a $5 commission.

So yes, the financial industry, via interest and fees, sucks "money" right out of the economy.

Because they hide their earnings in a jar in the yard. DERP!

You still didn't explain why a 50% corporate tax rate yields more investment than a 20% tax rate.

Tell me, just exactly what "value" do financial intermediaries add to GDP? The name should give you a hint, they don't.

Now, to the claim that I have not explained why a 50% corporate tax rate results in more investment than a 20% rate. I have explained it profusely. But don't take my word for it, try the Angry Bear, you know, a group of financial professionals, most with Phd's in Economics.

namely that higher tax rates will generally lead to slower economic growth. While that particular narrative seems to be widely believed even by non-economists, it certainly isn’t borne out by US data from the last eight decades or so

The graph shows that, at least until top marginal tax rates get somewhere above 50% (a bit more precision available here), increasing those rates does not correlate with slower economic growth, but rather with faster increases in real GDP. In fact, raising top marginal tax rates doesn't have many of the effects many people seem to expect (And incidentally, its worth noting that state level data also produces results the Chicago school and most libertarians don't expect.)

Now, the reason I mention the data’s irresponsible failure to abide by conservative and/or libertarian philosophies when it comes to tax rates and growth is because I think the relationship between tax rates and economic growth can be at least partly explained by the relationship between tax rates and investment. As I stated here, in my opinion, higher tax rates can lead to more investment. After all, one way a person who owns a business (large or small) can reduce the taxes they pay on profits is to reinvest the profits, which in turn leads to faster economic expansion. Furthermore, the incentive to avoid taxes and reinvest increases as tax rates increase. Of course, at some point, tax rates get high enough to encourage individuals to reinvest even though the “benefits” from more reinvestment, at the margin, are negative. Where that happens, I don’t know, but based on Figure 1, my guess is that it takes a top marginal tax rate above 50%.

How Tax Rates Affect Investment and Consumption - A Look at the Data

Exactly what I have been saying.

 

[Winston]

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift", and as I said, it is a very basic economic concept that has been accepted theory for seventy five years, although I am pretty sure Xenophon touched on it 1600 years ago. The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling. I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Paradox of thrift - Wikipedia

Oh, and by the way, I asked hours ago rather purchasing stock from the stock exchange was savings or investment. No one answered, it is savings, not investing.

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift",

The Paradox of thrift said savings "holds money out of the economy"?

The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling.

When you can show that it backs up Derp's claim, let me know.

I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Coming from a guy who thinks a 90% tax rate leads to more investment than a 20% rate, that's hilarious!!!!

Dude, pull your head out of your ass, what do you think this means?

The paradox states that an increase in autonomous saving leads to a decrease in aggregate demand and thus a decrease in gross output which will in turn lower total saving. The paradox is, narrowly speaking, that total saving may fall because of individuals' attempts to increase their saving, and, broadly speaking, that increase in saving may be harmful to an economy.[1] Both the narrow and broad claims are paradoxical within the assumption underlying the fallacy of composition, namely that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. The narrow claim transparently contradicts this assumption, and the broad one does so by implication, because while individual thrift is generally averred to be good for the economy, the paradox of thrift holds that collective thrift may be bad for the economy.

Decrease in gross output. You can consider gross output as "money". Like I said, fundamental economics covered within the first couple weeks of an intro Macro course.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate. The Laffer curve is a curve, as I have pointed out time and time again. Again, basic fundamental economics.

The Laffer curve is a curve, as I have pointed out time and time again. Again, basic fundamental economics.

The curve is used to illustrate Laffer's main premise that the more an activity such as production is taxed, the less of it is generated.

Laffer Curve

Besides supporting my claim, what did you mean to do by bringing up Laffer?

LMAO. Investopedia, what a freakin joke. Like their definition of free markets, it's sheer propaganda with no bearing on reality. Damn Laffer never even mentioned that whole more an activity is tax the less of it that is produced. The Laffer curve is about the relationship between tax rates and government revenue measuring something called taxable income elasticity. Laffer didn't even come up with it. Again, like most economic concepts it has been around for at least seven hundred years. So try again, and don't ever quote me that stupid ass Investopedia.

LMAO. Investopedia, what a freakin joke.

Feel free to post another source that backs your claim instead of mine. LOL!

Damn Laffer never even mentioned that whole more an activity is tax the less of it that is produced.

Is it wrong? Do you get more of an activity the more you tax it? Any examples?

Well first of all look at the damn graph of the Laffer curve. Now tell me, just where are products on that graph. You got tax revenue on one side and the marginal tax rate on the other. Nothing in the graph about products. It's not a damn supply and demand line, it's an elasticity curve.

Damn, what amazes me is why the hell anyone that hasn't even had a basic Econ course, Macro or Micro, would even attempt to debate such matters. But hell, I'll source it for you.

The Laffer Curve, created by Arthur Laffer, shows the relationship between tax revenue collected by the government and tax rates paid by citizens. The Laffer Curve implies that as tax rates rise, tax revenues will also increase. However, it only increases till a peak and then tax revenues begin to decline

The Laffer Curve | Intelligent Economist

Read the whole article. You won't find a damn thing about products sold verses a tax rate. Investopedia sucks ass, at least when it comes to economic concepts. Like free markets are free from government regulation. Anyone that believes that nonsense reveals a total ignorance as to Adam Smith and Economics.