The ultimate vindication of Republican supply-side economics

[The Rabbi]

Read what I quoted and read everything that I wrote, carefully. Also read the last line in post #55 of this thread. Then think about it. You completely missed my point.

This is the last line of Post 55:

This and common sense vindicate Republican supply-side economics

Which I agree with.
Your answer here seems to be, Take what I wrote at face value and don't ask for any proof because I am right.
And that answer seeems to be, Everything else--wars, 9/11, elections, is irrelevant because the cut in taxes is what caused the collapse. Nothing else mattered.
I think that is called Begging the Question in logic.

You just said that you agree that common sense enters into making an economic conclusion. When I see someone using "common sense" or "intuition", I see giant flashing red lights saying, "I don't have a realistic argument, or any argument for that matter", so I completely ignore their argument in coming to a conclusion. Ifitzme gave an excellent example of intuition gone awry when a few posts earlier he cited Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity where it has been shown in every experiment in the last 106 years that all space-time observations previously since the beginning of time are imprecise and completely disagree with reality.

Clue 1) I started a completely new topic without starting a new thread. Something's wrong here.

Clue 2) Compare the paragraph that I specifically quoted to the paragraph that I wrote. Both were trying to use an argument to get to a conclusion. What's the difference between the two? The quoted paragraph came to a conclusion based on a 12 year period without any discussion or consideration of external events, such as, was there a change of government during that time and other questions most likely could have been asked and refuted by someone familiar with the topic, namely the author trying to substantiate his argument.

I made a statement and came to a conclusion that was obviously and purposely incorrect. But then I listed a number of very potent economic events that I said to ignore, that could have, and in fact did lead to the economic collapse. You completely agreed that they did. The author of the quoted paragraph just stated his opinion without giving much thought to the validity of his argument. The whole irony went completely over your head

You dont have a fucking clue what you're talking about, and aren't even very coherent at that. Ask the doc to adjust your meds. In the meantime, join your pals on Iggy.

 

[stans]

And you credit the CELTIC tiger entirely to its tax stucture?

And you think taxes have no effect at all on behavior? :

Tax reduction has minimal effect on unemployment rate (less than 0.1% and 0.8% on the average) 1 and 2 years after the tax reduction respectively.

www.econostan.com

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In order for the Bush Tax Cuts to be concluded as effective, given that they didn't expire until 2010, there would have to have been no recession between the time they became effective and 2010.

There was a recession in 2007.

That alone is sufficient to prove that the Bush tax cuts did NOT save us from a recession or another Great Depression.

of course that's too idiotic for words. The Bush 2003 supply side tax cuts did produce the biggest revenue gains in American History. But, that free market stimulus of course was not enough to over come
the liberal induced great housing depression.

Venture capitalists tell us that the lower their taxes the more " shots on goal" they can afford to take and the more Apples, Googles, and Intels we get. A child can understand supply-side economics, just not a liberal.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And you think taxes have no effect at all on behavior? :

Tax reduction has minimal effect on unemployment rate (less than 0.1% and 0.8% on the average) 1 and 2 years after the tax reduction respectively.

Reduce Unemployment with Little Price Increase

tax reduction attracted dozens of companies to Ireland and produced 10's of thousands of jobs. A child can understand this just not a liberal

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's one of the main reasons why it took seventy years. "Huh" read the refernce and you'll understand why.

What do you mean "Careful with the quote function"? Am I doing something mechanically wrong?

Banks didn't get into trouble from underwriting.

Yes, you attributed a quote to me that wasn't mine.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ifitzme gave an excellent example of intuition gone awry when a few posts earlier he cited Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity where it has been shown in every experiment in the last 106 years that all space-time observations previously since the beginning of time are imprecise and completely disagree with reality.

You and Ifitzme think that the Theory of Relativity means "all space-time observations previously since the beginning of time are imprecise and completely disagree with reality"?

Don't assign my writings to Ifitzme. What, exactly, is wrong with my statement?

TOR does not make "all space-time observations previously since the beginning of time"
disagree with reality.

 

[stans]

You dont have a fucking clue what you're talking about, and aren't even very coherent at that. Ask the doc to adjust your meds. In the meantime, join your pals on Iggy.

Would a doctoral thesis on the subject be OK with you?
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Here's what you write when you don't have the vocabulary or intelligence to argue your point effectively.

 

[Toro]

The corporate tax rate was enormously beneficial to Ireland. It wasn't the only reason why Ireland boomed but it was a big one.

America should cut it's corporate tax rate to 15% or lower and wipe out most if not all of the loopholes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The corporate tax rate was enormously beneficial to Ireland. It wasn't the only reason why Ireland boomed but it was a big one.

America should cut it's corporate tax rate to 15% or lower and wipe out most if not all of the loopholes.

Yes!

 

[itfitzme]

What happens to the taxes? Usually they're wasted.
At what point in the cycle do you feel a tax hike increases economic activity?
Do you really feel government spending is a more effective way to improve things?

Are you a fucking lunatic? I never said anything remotely close to what your making up.

I didn't make anything up.
So no answers?

Of course you don't think so, that is the nature of insanity, the inability to tell the difference between reality and imagination.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you a fucking lunatic? I never said anything remotely close to what your making up.

I didn't make anything up.
So no answers?

Of course you don't think so, that is the nature of insanity, the inability to tell the difference between reality and imagination.

At what point in the cycle do you feel a tax hike increases economic activity?
Do you really feel government spending is a more effective way to improve things?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

America should cut it's corporate tax rate to 15% or lower and wipe out most if not all of the loopholes.

or better yet eliminate it altogether so business can concentrate on business rather than on wasting time and energy on tax avoidance.

Businesses are tax collectors not taxpayers. we have the tax only to pander to the pure ignorance of liberals who think they are punishing business with the tax.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

America should cut it's corporate tax rate to 15% or lower and wipe out most if not all of the loopholes.

or better yet eliminate it altogether so business can concentrate on business rather than on wasting time and energy on tax avoidance.

Businesses are tax collectors not taxpayers. we have the tax only to pander to the pure ignorance of liberals who think they are punishing business with the tax.

Toro said that, I agreed.
Just to be clear.

 

[stans]

Ifitzme gave an excellent example of intuition gone awry when a few posts earlier he cited Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity where it has been shown in every experiment in the last 106 years that all space-time observations previously since the beginning of time are imprecise and completely disagree with reality.

You and Ifitzme think that the Theory of Relativity means "all space-time observations previously since the beginning of time are imprecise and completely disagree with reality"?

Don't assign my writings to Ifitzme. What, exactly, is wrong with my statement?

TOR does not make "all space-time observations previously since the beginning of time"
disagree with reality.

It absolutely does. We just haven't been able to measure length or time precisely enough untill relatively recently. All pre-Einstein measurements were imprecise as I said above. In fact you could define relativistic velocity as the velocity at which we can detect changes in length-time (precision and accuracy) from the static length-time.

Btw, my last job title, before I retired a few years ago was Chief Electronic Engineer at Rutgers University, one of the 56 research universities in the US. Our mandate was to develop electronic instrumentation that was used in collaborative experiments at accelerator labs such as CERN, Fermilab, SLAC etc. and laboratory instruments such as Scanning Tunneling Microscopes. Do you really want to keep arguing about physics? I don't. This is an economics forum and that's what I'd like to discuss.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Again, the premise of the OP is that Ireland's low tax rate is the reason that they're economy is "booming". But it's NOT. It was until 2007 - just like ALL of Europe, for example. And since then? Last I heard the unemployment rate there is over 13%. That's about 40% higher than our percentage.
So basically, the low tax rate didn't do anything to shield them from the current world recession.
Countries who are doing best right now? Sweden, Denmark, Finalnd, Germany, Netherlands... What do all those countries have in common? Their corporate tax rate is almost or more than double of Ireland's. So it's not as simple as "Just lower tax rates and everything will be fixed!". Major economies are rarely that simple.

 

[stans]

That's one of the main reasons why it took seventy years. "Huh" read the refernce and you'll understand why.

What do you mean "Careful with the quote function"? Am I doing something mechanically wrong?

Banks didn't get into trouble from underwriting.

Yes, you attributed a quote to me that wasn't mine.

I am very careful not mis-attribute quotes. I apologize if I did. Could you point out the mis-attributation.

I didn't say that banks got into trouble from underwriting. They got into trouble from speculation and probably over leveraging as today. Previous to Glass-Steagall (GS) there was only one type of bank. They were allowed to take depositors money and speculate with it. GS specified that a bank could choose to be either a commercial bank which accepted customer deposits could not speculate widely and must make no more than 5% of it's income from activities other than loans. So they all got into the mortgage market. The other specified type bank was an investment bank which could speculate. GS got eaten away starting around 1980 (read the referenced article for the dates and detractors) to iirc 10%, then 25%, and repealed in ~1997. One of the reasons that we had the recent collapse was because investment banks and other financial institutions were leveraging up to and over 40 to1. (MF Global, which recently went bankrupt was a littlle over 40 to 1) Presently we have one type of bank that is called commercial that can speculate. I don't know what the leverage limits are. As far as leveraging goes, I remember in the 80's that the Fed recommended limiting the reserve requirement to 5% (20 to 1), but that was only calculable at night after the banks tallied up for the day. No one new the number during the day because banks gave out intra-day credit, so I suppose that was an argument to attack GS.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, the premise of the OP is that Ireland's low tax rate is the reason that they're economy is "booming". But it's NOT. It was until 2007 - just like ALL of Europe, for example. And since then? Last I heard the unemployment rate there is over 13%. That's about 40% higher than our percentage.
So basically, the low tax rate didn't do anything to shield them from the current world recession.
Countries who are doing best right now? Sweden, Denmark, Finalnd, Germany, Netherlands... What do all those countries have in common? Their corporate tax rate is almost or more than double of Ireland's. So it's not as simple as "Just lower tax rates and everything will be fixed!". Major economies are rarely that simple.

So because Ireland's UE rate is higher than ours now, that means their tax policy didn't work?
Do you understand the meaning of non-sequitur?

 

[The Rabbi]

And you think taxes have no effect at all on behavior? :

Tax reduction has minimal effect on unemployment rate (less than 0.1% and 0.8% on the average) 1 and 2 years after the tax reduction respectively.

Reduce Unemployment with Little Price Increase

So? One to two years isnt much lead time. A change in interest rates typically takes 18 months to work through the economy. Look 3-4 years and things change.
You are an ignorant dishonest poster. The only thing you were ever head of was head-case.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's one of the main reasons why it took seventy years. "Huh" read the refernce and you'll understand why.

What do you mean "Careful with the quote function"? Am I doing something mechanically wrong?

Banks didn't get into trouble from underwriting.

Yes, you attributed a quote to me that wasn't mine.

I am very careful not mis-attribute quotes. I apologize if I did. Could you point out the mis-attributation.

I didn't say that banks got into trouble from underwriting. They got into trouble from speculation and probably over leveraging as today. Previous to Glass-Steagall (GS) there was only one type of bank. They were allowed to take depositors money and speculate with it. GS specified that a bank could choose to be either a commercial bank which accepted customer deposits could not speculate widely and must make no more than 5% of it's income from activities other than loans. So they all got into the mortgage market. The other specified type bank was an investment bank which could speculate. GS got eaten away starting around 1980 (read the referenced article for the dates and detractors) to iirc 10%, then 25%, and repealed in ~1997. One of the reasons that we had the recent collapse was because investment banks and other financial institutions were leveraging up to and over 40 to1. (MF Global, which recently went bankrupt was a littlle over 40 to 1) Presently we have one type of bank that is called commercial that can speculate. I don't know what the leverage limits are. As far as leveraging goes, I remember in the 80's that the Fed recommended limiting the reserve requirement to 5% (20 to 1), but that was only calculable at night after the banks tallied up for the day. No one new the number during the day because banks gave out intra-day credit, so I suppose that was an argument to attack GS.

post #73.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ican-supply-side-economics-5.html#post4877938

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ifitzme gave an excellent example of intuition gone awry when a few posts earlier he cited Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity where it has been shown in every experiment in the last 106 years that all space-time observations previously since the beginning of time are imprecise and completely disagree with reality.

You and Ifitzme think that the Theory of Relativity means "all space-time observations previously since the beginning of time are imprecise and completely disagree with reality"?

Don't assign my writings to Ifitzme. What, exactly, is wrong with my statement?

TOR does not make "all space-time observations previously since the beginning of time"
disagree with reality.

It absolutely does. We just haven't been able to measure length or time precisely enough untill relatively recently. All pre-Einstein measurements were imprecise as I said above. In fact you could define relativistic velocity as the velocity at which we can detect changes in length-time (precision and accuracy) from the static length-time.

Btw, my last job title, before I retired a few years ago was Chief Electronic Engineer at Rutgers University, one of the 56 research universities in the US. Our mandate was to develop electronic instrumentation that was used in collaborative experiments at accelerator labs such as CERN, Fermilab, SLAC etc. and laboratory instruments such as Scanning Tunneling Microscopes. Do you really want to keep arguing about physics? I don't. This is an economics forum and that's what I'd like to discuss.

The Newtonian measurement of my yardstick does not disagree with reality because of the Theory of Relativity.