alan1
Gold Member
22.4% is lower on the graph than 9.3%.
Oh wait, it's an emotional thing.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Anderson said he "hired teams before launching and before knowing whether anyone would buy", which I contend is disingenuous, because he had an educated and calculated expectation of future demand. Hanauer summed it up nicely in his statement:
I would like to add that there are two ways to interpret his statement. Either as you do, that he in fact did have significant reason to believe that the gamble would pay off.
Or, he had no reason to believe it would pay off and is there for an idiot and lousy business person.
If, in fact, he is an idiot, his points lack credibility. If he is disingenuous, his points lack credibility. Either way, his points lack credibility.
22.4% is lower on the graph than 9.3%.
Oh wait, it's an emotional thing.
Anderson said he "hired teams before launching and before knowing whether anyone would buy", which I contend is disingenuous, because he had an educated and calculated expectation of future demand. Hanauer summed it up nicely in his statement:
I would like to add that there are two ways to interpret his statement. Either as you do, that he in fact did have significant reason to believe that the gamble would pay off.
Or, he had no reason to believe it would pay off and is there for an idiot and lousy business person.
If, in fact, he is an idiot, his points lack credibility. If he is disingenuous, his points lack credibility. Either way, his points lack credibility.
Your logic escapes me. I feel sure he's not an idiot, but his argument with Hanauer is shallow and disingenious. Remember, we're talking about jobs - and the demand that creates them.
I would like to add that there are two ways to interpret his statement. Either as you do, that he in fact did have significant reason to believe that the gamble would pay off.
Or, he had no reason to believe it would pay off and is there for an idiot and lousy business person.
If, in fact, he is an idiot, his points lack credibility. If he is disingenuous, his points lack credibility. Either way, his points lack credibility.
Your logic escapes me. I feel sure he's not an idiot, but his argument with Hanauer is shallow and disingenious. Remember, we're talking about jobs - and the demand that creates them.
No intelligent and educated business person would hire a team and attempt to bring a product to market without some reason to believe the demand exists. I think we both agree on this.
Your point it that he is educated and intelligent, therefore he must be disingenuous.
My point is the alternative explanation, that he is not disingenuous but rather neither educated or intelligent.
Either way, his point isn't credible because he is either disingenuous or an idiot.
I see your stuck simply on "I feel sure he's not an idiot".
I am not sure.
But, it doesn't matter. Either way, his point lacks credulity.
Yeah, it seems off.
So I checked the correlation between the top marginal rate and the average unemployment rate for each year.
For the span of 1995 through 2007, we get a coefficient of -0.26. For the span from 1995 through 2011, the coefficient is -0.42. What this means is that as the marginal rate decreases, unemployment increases.
A linear regression gives the relationship of (unemployment rate) = -0.3945 (top marginal rate) + 0.2042. And 25% of the variation in unemployment rate is accounted for by the top marginal rate.
So, what this says is that for every 1% decrease in the top marginal rate, there is a 2.53% increase in unemployment.
The chart shown, while questionable, comes out to a 2.11% increase in unemployment for every 1% decrease in the tax rate.
So, while it seems awfully questionable, it is actually a bit forgiving. It appears to be a bad presentation of the right conclusion
The facts is that tax decreases for the top marginal rate for individual income tax is far more detrimental to employment.
There are two ways to take this. Either lowering the rate caused increased unemployment or the increased unemployment drove the lowering of the rate which did no good.
Either way, lowering the tax rate on the wealthy does not create jobs.
.Anderson said he "hired teams before launching and before knowing whether anyone would buy", which I contend is disingenuous, because he had an educated and calculated expectation of future demand. Hanauer summed it up nicely in his statement:
I would like to add that there are two ways to interpret his statement. Either as you do, that he in fact did have significant reason to believe that the gamble would pay off.
Or, he had no reason to believe it would pay off and is there for an idiot and lousy business person.
If, in fact, he is an idiot, his points lack credibility. If he is disingenuous, his points lack credibility. Either way, his points lack credibility.
Your logic escapes me
Providing poor people (unemployed) with more money creates around 7 times more jobs than providing the rich with more money.
Really STUPID posts here. Lots of the normal conservative stuff - spouting the normal FOX dogma, in their true bobble head manner. No complex thoughts, bumper sticker statements, NEVER check their facts. JESUS, it must be miserable being that ignorant.