independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

[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.

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.

Tell me, just exactly what "value" do financial intermediaries add to GDP?

About $1.44 trillion in Q2.

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.

And your explanation was something like, "A company wants a return of its capital more than a return on its capital, so they'll invest more at a 50% tax rate because if they fail, they'll have a bigger write off"

Is that about it?

try the Angry Bear, you know, a group of financial professionals, most with Phd's in Economics.

Thanks for the link.
Looks like they're discussing more of a Laffer like curve idea, not that, in the original claim, a 90% rate yields more investment than a 20% rate.

 

[Winston]

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.

Dumbfuck, that was taxes as a percentage of GDP, which would account for both a recessionary economy and a booming economy. It wasn't total tax receipts, but honestly, even that probably just flies right over your head. The more you post the more you reveal your ignorance as to Economics.

 

[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.

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.

Well first of all look at the damn graph of the Laffer curve.

Why are you talking about government tax revenues?
The original claim was that a business will invest a bunch of money at a 90% rate, because otherwise they'll be taxed on their profits. They won't invest at a 20% rate, because they'll want to take all their profits out of the business.

Have you forgotten the origins of your (and DERP's) confused claims?

 

[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.

Dumbfuck, that was taxes as a percentage of GDP, which would account for both a recessionary economy and a booming economy. It wasn't total tax receipts, but honestly, even that probably just flies right over your head. The more you post the more you reveal your ignorance as to Economics.

that was taxes as a percentage of GDP

Yes, asshole, recessions reduce revenues as a percentage of GDP.

which would account for both a recessionary economy and a booming economy.

You think booming economies give us lower revenues as a percentage of GDP? Fuck, that's DERP level idiocy.

 

[Winston]

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.

Well first of all look at the damn graph of the Laffer curve.

Why are you talking about government tax revenues?
The original claim was that a business will invest a bunch of money at a 90% rate, because otherwise they'll be taxed on their profits. They won't invest at a 20% rate, because they'll want to take all their profits out of the business.

Have you forgotten the origins of your (and DERP's) confused claims?

I used the ninety percent example to demonstrate that both companies had a million dollars to invest before the end of the year. Evidently your reading comprehension level is just as bad as your economic intelligence. I admitted ninety percent might be too high, but then I said fifty percent would definitely result in more investment than twenty percent. Angry Bear agrees, and provides historical data to prove it.

 

[Winston]

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.

Dumbfuck, that was taxes as a percentage of GDP, which would account for both a recessionary economy and a booming economy. It wasn't total tax receipts, but honestly, even that probably just flies right over your head. The more you post the more you reveal your ignorance as to Economics.

that was taxes as a percentage of GDP

Yes, asshole, recessions reduce revenues as a percentage of GDP.

which would account for both a recessionary economy and a booming economy.

You think booming economies give us lower revenues as a percentage of GDP? Fuck, that's DERP level idiocy.

I didn't say that asswipe. If tax rates are the same it should remain consistent through both a recession and a boom. What happens is the government takes measures that decrease taxes during a recession and that reduces revenues as a percentage of GDP. Jesus christ, this is some simple shit although I do realize that some people just can't grasp simple economic concepts. Maybe you are better at physical labor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Well first of all look at the damn graph of the Laffer curve.

Why are you talking about government tax revenues?
The original claim was that a business will invest a bunch of money at a 90% rate, because otherwise they'll be taxed on their profits. They won't invest at a 20% rate, because they'll want to take all their profits out of the business.

Have you forgotten the origins of your (and DERP's) confused claims?

I used the ninety percent example to demonstrate that both companies had a million dollars to invest before the end of the year. Evidently your reading comprehension level is just as bad as your economic intelligence. I admitted ninety percent might be too high, but then I said fifty percent would definitely result in more investment than twenty percent. Angry Bear agrees, and provides historical data to prove it.

but then I said fifty percent would definitely result in more investment than twenty percent.

So prove it. Why does someone start a business in the first place?
Is it to forever after reinvest all of the profits back into the business?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Dumbfuck, that was taxes as a percentage of GDP, which would account for both a recessionary economy and a booming economy. It wasn't total tax receipts, but honestly, even that probably just flies right over your head. The more you post the more you reveal your ignorance as to Economics.

that was taxes as a percentage of GDP

Yes, asshole, recessions reduce revenues as a percentage of GDP.

which would account for both a recessionary economy and a booming economy.

You think booming economies give us lower revenues as a percentage of GDP? Fuck, that's DERP level idiocy.

I didn't say that asswipe. If tax rates are the same it should remain consistent through both a recession and a boom. What happens is the government takes measures that decrease taxes during a recession and that reduces revenues as a percentage of GDP. Jesus christ, this is some simple shit although I do realize that some people just can't grasp simple economic concepts. Maybe you are better at physical labor.

I didn't say that

You said....

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

Did you mean dollar revenues were "lower than at anytime in the last FIFTY YEARS"?
Did you mean tax rates were "lower than at anytime in the last FIFTY YEARS"?

Then I said, "Yeah, recessions tend to reduce revenues, moron"

And you said, "that was taxes as a percentage of GDP".

And I said, "Yes, asshole, recessions reduce revenues as a percentage of GDP"

And you said, "which would account for both a recessionary economy and a booming economy"

So why does a booming economy result in "reduced revenues as a percentage of GDP"?

Pretend you're not a DERP level moron when you try to answer.

If tax rates are the same it should remain consistent through both a recession and a boom.

You think tax revenues as a percent of GDP "should remain consistent through both a recession and a boom" ?

Wow! That's just stupid.

Do you think lower corporate profits (losses even) reduce corp tax paid to government?
Do you think lower employment reduces income tax and payroll tax paid to government?

Shit, it's like I'm talking to a 3rd grader.

 

[Winston]

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.

Well first of all look at the damn graph of the Laffer curve.

Why are you talking about government tax revenues?
The original claim was that a business will invest a bunch of money at a 90% rate, because otherwise they'll be taxed on their profits. They won't invest at a 20% rate, because they'll want to take all their profits out of the business.

Have you forgotten the origins of your (and DERP's) confused claims?

I used the ninety percent example to demonstrate that both companies had a million dollars to invest before the end of the year. Evidently your reading comprehension level is just as bad as your economic intelligence. I admitted ninety percent might be too high, but then I said fifty percent would definitely result in more investment than twenty percent. Angry Bear agrees, and provides historical data to prove it.

but then I said fifty percent would definitely result in more investment than twenty percent.

So prove it. Why does someone start a business in the first place?
Is it to forever after reinvest all of the profits back into the business?

What kind of fantasy world do you live in, the one where individuals worry about their tax rate before they start a business. I started my business because I could make more money working for myself then I could for somebody else. And guess what, now I pay more taxes, and at a higher rate.

I mean it really is ignorance. As if a corporation would just close up shop and go home if the tax rate went up a little. Or if entrepreneurs would start jumping out of the woodwork because taxes went down.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Well first of all look at the damn graph of the Laffer curve.

Why are you talking about government tax revenues?
The original claim was that a business will invest a bunch of money at a 90% rate, because otherwise they'll be taxed on their profits. They won't invest at a 20% rate, because they'll want to take all their profits out of the business.

Have you forgotten the origins of your (and DERP's) confused claims?

I used the ninety percent example to demonstrate that both companies had a million dollars to invest before the end of the year. Evidently your reading comprehension level is just as bad as your economic intelligence. I admitted ninety percent might be too high, but then I said fifty percent would definitely result in more investment than twenty percent. Angry Bear agrees, and provides historical data to prove it.

but then I said fifty percent would definitely result in more investment than twenty percent.

So prove it. Why does someone start a business in the first place?
Is it to forever after reinvest all of the profits back into the business?

What kind of fantasy world do you live in, the one where individuals worry about their tax rate before they start a business. I started my business because I could make more money working for myself then I could for somebody else. And guess what, now I pay more taxes, and at a higher rate.

I mean it really is ignorance.
As if a corporation would just close up shop and go home if the tax rate went up a little.
Or if entrepreneurs would start jumping out of the woodwork because taxes went down.

What kind of fantasy world do you live in, the one where individuals worry about their tax rate before they start a business.

The kind of world where a company looks at many, many factors before deciding to open a plant in an area with a 35% tax rate or in an area where a plant would incur a 15% tax rate.

I started my business because I could make more money working for myself then I could for somebody else.

Excellent! Now if you could choose between one location in Indiana and a similar location across the street in Illinois, would the difference in state tax rates be a factor in your decision where to locate?

Would you pick the higher tax rate location, because you'd be incentivized to reinvest more?

I mean it really is ignorance.

I agree, you guys are dumb.

As if a corporation would just close up shop and go home if the tax rate went up a little.

I know, corporations never move or close, so tax them more, eh?

 

[JoeNormal]

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.

Ever heard of Blockchain? With any luck, it'll have financial industry personnel selling Chicklets to the tourists in the future.

Blockchain - Wikipedia

 

[JoeNormal]

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.

Well first of all look at the damn graph of the Laffer curve.

Why are you talking about government tax revenues?
The original claim was that a business will invest a bunch of money at a 90% rate, because otherwise they'll be taxed on their profits. They won't invest at a 20% rate, because they'll want to take all their profits out of the business.

Have you forgotten the origins of your (and DERP's) confused claims?

I used the ninety percent example to demonstrate that both companies had a million dollars to invest before the end of the year. Evidently your reading comprehension level is just as bad as your economic intelligence. I admitted ninety percent might be too high, but then I said fifty percent would definitely result in more investment than twenty percent. Angry Bear agrees, and provides historical data to prove it.

but then I said fifty percent would definitely result in more investment than twenty percent.

So prove it. Why does someone start a business in the first place?
Is it to forever after reinvest all of the profits back into the business?

What kind of fantasy world do you live in, the one where individuals worry about their tax rate before they start a business. I started my business because I could make more money working for myself then I could for somebody else. And guess what, now I pay more taxes, and at a higher rate.

I mean it really is ignorance.
As if a corporation would just close up shop and go home if the tax rate went up a little.
Or if entrepreneurs would start jumping out of the woodwork because taxes went down.

What kind of fantasy world do you live in, the one where individuals worry about their tax rate before they start a business.

The kind of world where a company looks at many, many factors before deciding to open a plant in an area with a 35% tax rate or in an area where a plant would incur a 15% tax rate.

I started my business because I could make more money working for myself then I could for somebody else.

Excellent! Now if you could choose between one location in Indiana and a similar location across the street in Illinois, would the difference in state tax rates be a factor in your decision where to locate?

Would you pick the higher tax rate location, because you'd be incentivized to reinvest more?

I mean it really is ignorance.

I agree, you guys are dumb.

As if a corporation would just close up shop and go home if the tax rate went up a little.

I know, corporations never move or close, so tax them more, eh?

Wow, talk about a bunch of cherry-picked bullshit.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The truth of the matter is that republicans in office only care about their own financial interests, so they will only formulate policy for that reason. Actual educated economists, however, do not.

This quote from an article below sums up the statistics:

Opinions of economists
There are many different ways to assess the consensus of economists on policy issues. Much of the public believes that economists tend to be libertarian and to favor laissez faire economic policy. That idea- that economic wisdom favors leaving all things to the free market- is actually dead wrong. Economists generally tend to support policies at least as liberal as the policies the Democratic Party supports. Some examples:

• 71% of economists favor using government to redistribute wealth and only 8% strongly oppose it. In fact, the concept of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth is a very well established and non-controversial economic principle. Even Adam Smith expressed the view that the government should redistribute wealth.

• Only 12% of economists take the view that the costs of the stimulus outweighed the benefits- a view passionately held by nearly all Republicans.

• 75% of economists favor government tuning the economy with monetary policy- an idea often vehemently rejected by the Republican Party- while only 4% of economists strongly oppose it.

• Zero percent- not a single economist in the entire sample- of economists agree with the central tenant of Republican fiscal policy that cutting tax rates would boost the economy enough to cause revenues to increase.

• 94% of economists support taking action to address climate change.

In terms of specific policies, economists appear to consistently and overwhelmingly either support the Democrats' policies or to be to the left of the Democrats. This stance on policy issues unsurprisingly translates into which party economists support: Democratic economists outnumber Republican economists by 2.5 to 1. In 2012, economists felt that President Obama had a better grasp of economics than Mitt Romney by a margin of almost 2-to-1 and that President Obama would grow the economy faster than Mitt Romney by a a margin of 20 points

Which Party Is Better for the Economy?

All irrelevant

If you want to craft economic policy try winning the elections required to achieve that goal rather than whining endlessly

 

[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.

Ever heard of Blockchain? With any luck, it'll have financial industry personnel selling Chicklets to the tourists in the future.

Blockchain - Wikipedia

Ever heard of Blockchain?

Yes. Banks will use the useful parts to make money.

With any luck, it'll have financial industry personnel selling Chicklets to the tourists in the future.

Why will it do that?

 

[Winston]

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.

Dumbfuck, that was taxes as a percentage of GDP, which would account for both a recessionary economy and a booming economy. It wasn't total tax receipts, but honestly, even that probably just flies right over your head. The more you post the more you reveal your ignorance as to Economics.

that was taxes as a percentage of GDP

Yes, asshole, recessions reduce revenues as a percentage of GDP.

which would account for both a recessionary economy and a booming economy.

You think booming economies give us lower revenues as a percentage of GDP? Fuck, that's DERP level idiocy.

I didn't say that asswipe. If tax rates are the same it should remain consistent through both a recession and a boom. What happens is the government takes measures that decrease taxes during a recession and that reduces revenues as a percentage of GDP. Jesus christ, this is some simple shit although I do realize that some people just can't grasp simple economic concepts. Maybe you are better at physical labor.

I didn't say that

You said....

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

Did you mean dollar revenues were "lower than at anytime in the last FIFTY YEARS"?
Did you mean tax rates were "lower than at anytime in the last FIFTY YEARS"?

Then I said, "Yeah, recessions tend to reduce revenues, moron"

And you said, "that was taxes as a percentage of GDP".

And I said, "Yes, asshole, recessions reduce revenues as a percentage of GDP"

And you said, "which would account for both a recessionary economy and a booming economy"

So why does a booming economy result in "reduced revenues as a percentage of GDP"?

Pretend you're not a DERP level moron when you try to answer.

If tax rates are the same it should remain consistent through both a recession and a boom.

You think tax revenues as a percent of GDP "should remain consistent through both a recession and a boom" ?

Wow! That's just stupid.

Do you think lower corporate profits (losses even) reduce corp tax paid to government?
Do you think lower employment reduces income tax and payroll tax paid to government?

Shit, it's like I'm talking to a 3rd grader.

Nope, it is just your third grade intelligence level prevents you from understanding the obvious. Taxes as a percentage of GDP have nothing to do with total taxes paid. Yes, in a recession, taxes paid go down. But so does GDP. So does income. So does employment, and manufacturing, and retail sales. Since taxes are a function of income or sales, usually a PERCENTAGE, that percentage stays the same rather the income and the sales are up or down. It's like DU HUH. So taxes as a percentage of GDP should remain constant. But if government spending goes up, or if tax cuts are initiated, the percentage to GDP goes down. Really dude, at this point you are just looking like an idiot. Tell the truth, not only have you never taken a simple Economics course, you have never even read a book on Economics, or watched a Ted Talk, or even glanced at an issue of The Economist.

 

[Winston]

.

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.

Ever heard of Blockchain? With any luck, it'll have financial industry personnel selling Chicklets to the tourists in the future.

Blockchain - Wikipedia

Sure, I built a mining rig seven years ago, when you could still mine Bitcoins with a couple of high end graphics cards. They were trading at less than twenty dollars. Sent my oldest to college with them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Dumbfuck, that was taxes as a percentage of GDP, which would account for both a recessionary economy and a booming economy. It wasn't total tax receipts, but honestly, even that probably just flies right over your head. The more you post the more you reveal your ignorance as to Economics.

that was taxes as a percentage of GDP

Yes, asshole, recessions reduce revenues as a percentage of GDP.

which would account for both a recessionary economy and a booming economy.

You think booming economies give us lower revenues as a percentage of GDP? Fuck, that's DERP level idiocy.

I didn't say that asswipe. If tax rates are the same it should remain consistent through both a recession and a boom. What happens is the government takes measures that decrease taxes during a recession and that reduces revenues as a percentage of GDP. Jesus christ, this is some simple shit although I do realize that some people just can't grasp simple economic concepts. Maybe you are better at physical labor.

I didn't say that

You said....

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

Did you mean dollar revenues were "lower than at anytime in the last FIFTY YEARS"?
Did you mean tax rates were "lower than at anytime in the last FIFTY YEARS"?

Then I said, "Yeah, recessions tend to reduce revenues, moron"

And you said, "that was taxes as a percentage of GDP".

And I said, "Yes, asshole, recessions reduce revenues as a percentage of GDP"

And you said, "which would account for both a recessionary economy and a booming economy"

So why does a booming economy result in "reduced revenues as a percentage of GDP"?

Pretend you're not a DERP level moron when you try to answer.

If tax rates are the same it should remain consistent through both a recession and a boom.

You think tax revenues as a percent of GDP "should remain consistent through both a recession and a boom" ?

Wow! That's just stupid.

Do you think lower corporate profits (losses even) reduce corp tax paid to government?
Do you think lower employment reduces income tax and payroll tax paid to government?

Shit, it's like I'm talking to a 3rd grader.

Nope, it is just your third grade intelligence level prevents you from understanding the obvious. Taxes as a percentage of GDP have nothing to do with total taxes paid. Yes, in a recession, taxes paid go down. But so does GDP. So does income. So does employment, and manufacturing, and retail sales. Since taxes are a function of income or sales, usually a PERCENTAGE, that percentage stays the same rather the income and the sales are up or down. It's like DU HUH. So taxes as a percentage of GDP should remain constant. But if government spending goes up, or if tax cuts are initiated, the percentage to GDP goes down. Really dude, at this point you are just looking like an idiot. Tell the truth, not only have you never taken a simple Economics course, you have never even read a book on Economics, or watched a Ted Talk, or even glanced at an issue of The Economist.

Since taxes are a function of income or sales, usually a PERCENTAGE, that percentage stays the same rather the income and the sales are up or down. It's like DU HUH

You think that when income shrinks during a recession, tax receipts would shrink by the same percentage?

Or if GDP shrinks by 3%, tax receipts should shrink by 3%?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Two more Regressives triggered.

Check.

See what I mean? This thread demonstrates that Republicans don't have a clue how to govern and here comes Mac to tell you why he blames Democrats.

I was wondering who the regressives were.

 

[Billy000]

The truth of the matter is that republicans in office only care about their own financial interests, so they will only formulate policy for that reason. Actual educated economists, however, do not.

This quote from an article below sums up the statistics:

Opinions of economists
There are many different ways to assess the consensus of economists on policy issues. Much of the public believes that economists tend to be libertarian and to favor laissez faire economic policy. That idea- that economic wisdom favors leaving all things to the free market- is actually dead wrong. Economists generally tend to support policies at least as liberal as the policies the Democratic Party supports. Some examples:

• 71% of economists favor using government to redistribute wealth and only 8% strongly oppose it. In fact, the concept of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth is a very well established and non-controversial economic principle. Even Adam Smith expressed the view that the government should redistribute wealth.

• Only 12% of economists take the view that the costs of the stimulus outweighed the benefits- a view passionately held by nearly all Republicans.

• 75% of economists favor government tuning the economy with monetary policy- an idea often vehemently rejected by the Republican Party- while only 4% of economists strongly oppose it.

• Zero percent- not a single economist in the entire sample- of economists agree with the central tenant of Republican fiscal policy that cutting tax rates would boost the economy enough to cause revenues to increase.

• 94% of economists support taking action to address climate change.

In terms of specific policies, economists appear to consistently and overwhelmingly either support the Democrats' policies or to be to the left of the Democrats. This stance on policy issues unsurprisingly translates into which party economists support: Democratic economists outnumber Republican economists by 2.5 to 1. In 2012, economists felt that President Obama had a better grasp of economics than Mitt Romney by a margin of almost 2-to-1 and that President Obama would grow the economy faster than Mitt Romney by a a margin of 20 points

Which Party Is Better for the Economy?

All irrelevant

If you want to craft economic policy try winning the elections required to achieve that goal rather than whining endlessly

Lol why do you people just assume that because the dems lost, that is somehow MY fault? It’s so stupid.

A) Hillary won the popular vote.

B) I wanted Bernie - not Hillary for the nomination. He would have crushed Trump.

C) Fuck you.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The truth of the matter is that republicans in office only care about their own financial interests, so they will only formulate policy for that reason. Actual educated economists, however, do not.

This quote from an article below sums up the statistics:

Opinions of economists
There are many different ways to assess the consensus of economists on policy issues. Much of the public believes that economists tend to be libertarian and to favor laissez faire economic policy. That idea- that economic wisdom favors leaving all things to the free market- is actually dead wrong. Economists generally tend to support policies at least as liberal as the policies the Democratic Party supports. Some examples:

• 71% of economists favor using government to redistribute wealth and only 8% strongly oppose it. In fact, the concept of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth is a very well established and non-controversial economic principle. Even Adam Smith expressed the view that the government should redistribute wealth.

• Only 12% of economists take the view that the costs of the stimulus outweighed the benefits- a view passionately held by nearly all Republicans.

• 75% of economists favor government tuning the economy with monetary policy- an idea often vehemently rejected by the Republican Party- while only 4% of economists strongly oppose it.

• Zero percent- not a single economist in the entire sample- of economists agree with the central tenant of Republican fiscal policy that cutting tax rates would boost the economy enough to cause revenues to increase.

• 94% of economists support taking action to address climate change.

In terms of specific policies, economists appear to consistently and overwhelmingly either support the Democrats' policies or to be to the left of the Democrats. This stance on policy issues unsurprisingly translates into which party economists support: Democratic economists outnumber Republican economists by 2.5 to 1. In 2012, economists felt that President Obama had a better grasp of economics than Mitt Romney by a margin of almost 2-to-1 and that President Obama would grow the economy faster than Mitt Romney by a a margin of 20 points

Which Party Is Better for the Economy?

All irrelevant

If you want to craft economic policy try winning the elections required to achieve that goal rather than whining endlessly

Lol why do you people just assume that because the dems lost, that is somehow MY fault? It’s so stupid.

A) Hillary won the popular vote.

B) I wanted Bernie - not Hillary for the nomination. He would have crushed Trump.

C) Fuck you.