Krugman rips von Mises up one side & down the other

[Dot Com]

It's not welfare.

It becomes welfare, however, if SS is changed such that people start contributing more than they would otherwise receive. Democrats have talked about raising taxes on upper earners and not giving them increased SS benefits as a way to fund the projected shortfall in the trusts. Then it becomes welfare.

No offense but that makes no sense. Prior to the 80s, top earners paid in more than they do now. As part of the Reagan reforms, the taxes were lowered on the rich, but broadened on all of us. The Reagan reforms ran their course. The dems call to restore the taxes to original levels. It's no more welfare than it was in the 30s.

I meant FICA taxes, not all taxes.

@Toro

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why Righties claim to be experts on economics is puzzling as all of their econ idols have been proven to be dreamers w/o any real world data to back up their zany theories.

The right in this forum is vastly more educated than that left. When I got my MBA, concentrations were availible in finance or economics. I am not an accountant so the choice was easy.

You know utterly nothing about macro economics. You read leftist op eds from Krugman over on ThinkProgress and delude yourself that this gives you an understanding of the subject. It does not.

Arthur Laffer has an open challenge to Krugman to debate him on live TV - Krugman has wisely avoided the challenge.

Oh, as for Laffer, he backs up his positions quite well.

Arthur Laffer Three signs of a feeble economy - The Orange County Register

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why Righties claim to be experts on economics is puzzling as all of their econ idols have been proven to be dreamers w/o any real world data to back up their zany theories.

dear, the Chinese did not think Friedman was a dreamer when he advised them to switch to capitalism. They did switch and they did instantly eliminate 40% of world poverty and save another 50 million from slowly starving to death. Can you grasp the lesson?

 

[bripat9643]

Can't be welfare. To get Soc Sec benefits, a worker must have worked a set period of time. However, benefits are not equal. Higher earners pay more in. Less than they had to pay in back when the law was first enacted, and arguably a lot less than is now warranted under the theory that supported the law in the first place. But some get a higher % of benefits to dollars paid in than do others. That is not disputable.

That obviously isn't true. For one thing, people started collecting benefits the minute the legislation was signed. Those people didn't have to work a day to collect Social Security. Then there are survivor benefits, which means people who never paid in a dime get to collect benefits. The same goes for disability benefits. And then there's the fact that benefits were increased multiple times after the legislation was passed, which means people who worked with an expectation of lower benefits received higher benefits once they retired.

There is no real connection between the contributions made and the benefits received. Congress can change the terms at the stroke of a pen. The only thing you can accurately say about SS is that some people pay a tax called FICA, and other people receive a benefit called SS. The two things have no legal relationship to each other.

 

[Bfgrn]

SS isn't insurance. It's a retirement system.

It is more than 'a retirement system' It is social insurance..

It's welfare, in other words.

Social insurance is any government-sponsored program with the following four characteristics:

• the benefits, eligibility requirements and other aspects of the program are defined by statute;
• explicit provision is made to account for the income and expenses (often through a trust fund);
• it is funded by taxes or premiums paid by (or on behalf of) participants (although additional sources of funding may be provided as well); and
• the program serves a defined population, and participation is either compulsory or the program is subsidized heavily enough that most eligible individuals choose to participate.[1].

Welfare meets those conditions.

[Social insurance has also been defined as a program where risks are transferred to and pooled by an organization, often governmental, that is legally required to provide certain benefits.[2]

In the U.S., programs that meet these definitions include Social Security, Medicare, the PBGC program, the railroad retirement program and state-sponsored unemployment insurance programs.[1] The Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is also a social insurance program.

Another more accurate way to define it is looting, organzid plunder.

ACFD meets the definition. Virtually every socialist government boondoggle meets the definition.

Social safety nets or the "welfare state" is a construct of wealthy capitalist countries...

The Forgotten Churchill
The man who stared down Hitler also helped create the modern welfare state

In 1908, when Asquith became prime minister, there were almost no models of state welfare anywhere on earth. The exception was Bismarck’s Prussia, which to the dismay of German Social Democrats had instituted compulsory health insurance in 1883. That created a sudden panic on the left. Karl Marx had died weeks before, so the socialist leader August Bebel consulted his friend Friedrich Engels, who insisted that socialists should vote against it, as they did. The first welfare state on earth was created against socialist opposition.

By the new century Prussia was setting an example. Lloyd George and Churchill, as members of Asquith’s cabinet, went there to watch state welfare in action; Churchill, the more studious of the two, read published reports. In 1909 he collected his speeches in Liberalism and the Social Problem, where he made a case for seeing state welfare as an essential prop to a free economy. The Left had good reason to fear it, as he knew. Welfare promotes initiative, initiative promotes growth, and “where there is no hope, be sure there will be no thrift.”

Welfare, what is more, had an imperial dimension. The Boer War had been won with a volunteer army, and the nation had been shocked to hear of the high incidence of ill health among recruits. An empire needs troops. There was nothing socialist about state welfare, and socialists were right to fear the specter of a national health service. They continued to fear it, and when years later the Beveridge report appeared, in December 1942, it proved a bestseller but was roundly condemned in a letter by Beatrice Webb, an old Fabian, as a disastrous idea—though fortunately, as she added, very unlikely to be acted on. In the event, Labour was the last of the three British parties to accept a National Health Service, and William Beveridge, whom I knew as a neighbor in his last years, was endlessly bitter about the derision that Labour leaders had once heaped on his ideas.

The forgotten truth about health provision is that socialism and state welfare are old enemies, and welfare overspending is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies. Nobody doubts that California is capitalistic, and its public debt is notorious; the People’s Republic of China, by contrast, is a major creditor in international finance. When the two Germanies united after 1990, the social provision of the capitalist West was more than twice that of the socialist East, and the cost of unification to West Germany proved vast. Talk of socialized medicine was always misleading if socialized implies socialist, and the very word probably guarantees that confusion. The British National Health Service of 1948, like the Canadian version that followed it 20 years later, always allowed for a flourishing private sector—a sector that has tended to grow with the years. It neither banned private medical care nor discouraged it. Only a competitive economy, what is more, is likely to generate a tax base big enough to maintain public hospitals, pensions, and schools. In short, a free economy needs state welfare, and state welfare needs a free economy.

more

 

[bripat9643]

Why Righties claim to be experts on economics is puzzling as all of their econ idols have been proven to be dreamers w/o any real world data to back up their zany theories.

The right in this forum is vastly more educated than that left. When I got my MBA, concentrations were availible in finance or economics. I am not an accountant so the choice was easy.

You know utterly nothing about macro economics. You read leftist op eds from Krugman over on ThinkProgress and delude yourself that this gives you an understanding of the subject. It does not.

Arthur Laffer has an open challenge to Krugman to debate him on live TV - Krugman has wisely avoided the challenge.

Oh, as for Laffer, he backs up his positions quite well.

Arthur Laffer Three signs of a feeble economy - The Orange County Register

I watched Krugman debate Walter Williams on TV once and Williams just laughed at most of what he said. Williams crucified him, but Krugman was too stupid to know it.

 

[bripat9643]

Why Righties claim to be experts on economics is puzzling as all of their econ idols have been proven to be dreamers w/o any real world data to back up their zany theories.

Where did you get the ideal that right wing "econ idols" have proven to be "dreamers," from a bunch of leftwing economists sucking on the government tit?

You're deluded by propaganda. Virtually everything you know is bullshit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why Righties claim to be experts on economics is puzzling as all of their econ idols have been proven to be dreamers w/o any real world data to back up their zany theories.

and you're best example of this is?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bugfucker posts irrelevancy in an attempt to create a red herring fallacy.

Dog Cum posts utter stupidity.

Such is the left of USMB......

 

[Bfgrn]

Why Righties claim to be experts on economics is puzzling as all of their econ idols have been proven to be dreamers w/o any real world data to back up their zany theories.

The right in this forum is vastly more educated than that left. When I got my MBA, concentrations were availible in finance or economics. I am not an accountant so the choice was easy.

You know utterly nothing about macro economics. You read leftist op eds from Krugman over on ThinkProgress and delude yourself that this gives you an understanding of the subject. It does not.

Arthur Laffer has an open challenge to Krugman to debate him on live TV - Krugman has wisely avoided the challenge.

Oh, as for Laffer, he backs up his positions quite well.

Arthur Laffer Three signs of a feeble economy - The Orange County Register

Laffer? The man is a JOKE...

Paul Volcker, who served as chairman of the Federal Reserve during most of the Reagan years, commented in the film about the economist Arthur Laffer’s famous curve, which, incredibly, became a cornerstone of national economic policy. “The Laffer Curve,” said Mr. Volcker, “was presented as an intellectual support for the idea that reducing taxes would produce more revenues, and that was, I think, considered by most people a pretty extreme interpretation of what would happen.”

Toward the end of his comment, the former Fed chairman chuckled as if still amused by the idea that this was ever taken seriously.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why Righties claim to be experts on economics is puzzling as all of their econ idols have been proven to be dreamers w/o any real world data to back up their zany theories.

The right in this forum is vastly more educated than that left. When I got my MBA, concentrations were availible in finance or economics. I am not an accountant so the choice was easy.

You know utterly nothing about macro economics. You read leftist op eds from Krugman over on ThinkProgress and delude yourself that this gives you an understanding of the subject. It does not.

Arthur Laffer has an open challenge to Krugman to debate him on live TV - Krugman has wisely avoided the challenge.

Oh, as for Laffer, he backs up his positions quite well.

Arthur Laffer Three signs of a feeble economy - The Orange County Register

Laffer? The man is a JOKE...

Paul Volcker, who served as chairman of the Federal Reserve during most of the Reagan years, commented in the film about the economist Arthur Laffer’s famous curve, which, incredibly, became a cornerstone of national economic policy. “The Laffer Curve,” said Mr. Volcker, “was presented as an intellectual support for the idea that reducing taxes would produce more revenues, and that was, I think, considered by most people a pretty extreme interpretation of what would happen.”

Toward the end of his comment, the former Fed chairman chuckled as if still amused by the idea that this was ever taken seriously.

its taken very seriously by Ireland and Switzerland . They lowered corporate taxes, most of the world's major corporations moved there in whole or part, and they collect a lot more taxes!! NYS and many other do the same thing!! Isn't thinking fun?? A liberal is no more than a child.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why Righties claim to be experts on economics is puzzling as all of their econ idols have been proven to be dreamers w/o any real world data to back up their zany theories.

The right in this forum is vastly more educated than that left. When I got my MBA, concentrations were availible in finance or economics. I am not an accountant so the choice was easy.

You know utterly nothing about macro economics. You read leftist op eds from Krugman over on ThinkProgress and delude yourself that this gives you an understanding of the subject. It does not.

Arthur Laffer has an open challenge to Krugman to debate him on live TV - Krugman has wisely avoided the challenge.

Oh, as for Laffer, he backs up his positions quite well.

Arthur Laffer Three signs of a feeble economy - The Orange County Register

Laffer? The man is a JOKE...

Paul Volcker, who served as chairman of the Federal Reserve during most of the Reagan years, commented in the film about the economist Arthur Laffer’s famous curve, which, incredibly, became a cornerstone of national economic policy. “The Laffer Curve,” said Mr. Volcker, “was presented as an intellectual support for the idea that reducing taxes would produce more revenues, and that was, I think, considered by most people a pretty extreme interpretation of what would happen.”

Toward the end of his comment, the former Fed chairman chuckled as if still amused by the idea that this was ever taken seriously.

its taken very seriously by Ireland and Switzerland . They lowered corporate taxes, most of the world's major corporations moved there in whole or part, and they collect a lot more taxes!! NYS and many other do the same thing!! Isn't thinking fun?? A liberal is no more than a child.

Laffer's theory is related to PERSONAL income tax rates. Corporate tax rates are TOTALLY different. You just exhibited an EPIC fail.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why Righties claim to be experts on economics is puzzling as all of their econ idols have been proven to be dreamers w/o any real world data to back up their zany theories.

The right in this forum is vastly more educated than that left. When I got my MBA, concentrations were availible in finance or economics. I am not an accountant so the choice was easy.

You know utterly nothing about macro economics. You read leftist op eds from Krugman over on ThinkProgress and delude yourself that this gives you an understanding of the subject. It does not.

Arthur Laffer has an open challenge to Krugman to debate him on live TV - Krugman has wisely avoided the challenge.

Oh, as for Laffer, he backs up his positions quite well.

Arthur Laffer Three signs of a feeble economy - The Orange County Register

Laffer? The man is a JOKE...

Paul Volcker, who served as chairman of the Federal Reserve during most of the Reagan years, commented in the film about the economist Arthur Laffer’s famous curve, which, incredibly, became a cornerstone of national economic policy. “The Laffer Curve,” said Mr. Volcker, “was presented as an intellectual support for the idea that reducing taxes would produce more revenues, and that was, I think, considered by most people a pretty extreme interpretation of what would happen.”

Toward the end of his comment, the former Fed chairman chuckled as if still amused by the idea that this was ever taken seriously.

its taken very seriously by Ireland and Switzerland . They lowered corporate taxes, most of the world's major corporations moved there in whole or part, and they collect a lot more taxes!! NYS and many other do the same thing!! Isn't thinking fun?? A liberal is no more than a child.

Laffer's theory is related to PERSONAL income tax rates. Corporate tax rates are TOTALLY different. You just exhibited an EPIC fail.

Laffer Curve
Considering the range of real and financial responses to corporate taxes, it is likely that cutting the high U.S. corporate tax rate would induce a large expansion of the tax base over time. Both U.S. and foreign firms would invest more in the United States, and they would have less incentive to shift reported profits to other countries.
The Laffer curve illustrates the idea that above a certain tax rate, cuts to the rate cause the tax base to expand sufficiently for revenues to increase. The U.S. corporate tax rate seems to be above that rate, and thus in a strong Laffer zone

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbb_1107_49.pdf

 

[Dot Com]

Why Righties claim to be experts on economics is puzzling as all of their econ idols have been proven to be dreamers w/o any real world data to back up their zany theories.

The right in this forum is vastly more educated than that left. When I got my MBA, concentrations were availible in finance or economics. I am not an accountant so the choice was easy.

You know utterly nothing about macro economics. You read leftist op eds from Krugman over on ThinkProgress and delude yourself that this gives you an understanding of the subject. It does not.

Arthur Laffer has an open challenge to Krugman to debate him on live TV - Krugman has wisely avoided the challenge.

Oh, as for Laffer, he backs up his positions quite well.

Arthur Laffer Three signs of a feeble economy - The Orange County Register

Laffer? The man is a JOKE...

Paul Volcker, who served as chairman of the Federal Reserve during most of the Reagan years, commented in the film about the economist Arthur Laffer’s famous curve, which, incredibly, became a cornerstone of national economic policy. “The Laffer Curve,” said Mr. Volcker, “was presented as an intellectual support for the idea that reducing taxes would produce more revenues, and that was, I think, considered by most people a pretty extreme interpretation of what would happen.”

Toward the end of his comment, the former Fed chairman chuckled as if still amused by the idea that this was ever taken seriously.

yep, it turned out to be a fancy way to desribe the Horse & Sparrow Theory.

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory." He wrote, "Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: 'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'" Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory."

For example, who can forget his infamous 1984 quote that the communist system in the former Soviet Union was superior to capitalism because, according to Galbraith, the communists somehow made better and more efficient use of its "manpower" than did the West? Indeed, to the very end, Galbraith was a socialist impersonating an economist.


John Kenneth Galbraith, an intellectual icon of the Old Left and New Left, said of the Soviets’ overtaking of Poland after World War II: “Russia should be permitted to absorb Poland, the Balkans, and the whole of Eastern Europe in order to spread the benefits of Communism” (Emphasis added).

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory."

For example, who can forget his infamous 1984 quote that the communist system in the former Soviet Union was superior to capitalism because, according to Galbraith, the communists somehow made better and more efficient use of its "manpower" than did the West? Indeed, to the very end, Galbraith was a socialist impersonating an economist.


John Kenneth Galbraith, an intellectual icon of the Old Left and New Left, said of the Soviets’ overtaking of Poland after World War II: “Russia should be permitted to absorb Poland, the Balkans, and the whole of Eastern Europe in order to spread the benefits of Communism” (Emphasis added).

[/QUOTE]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory."

For example, who can forget his infamous 1984 quote that the communist system in the former Soviet Union was superior to capitalism because, according to Galbraith, the communists somehow made better and more efficient use of its "manpower" than did the West? Indeed, to the very end, Galbraith was a socialist impersonating an economist.


John Kenneth Galbraith, an intellectual icon of the Old Left and New Left, said of the Soviets’ overtaking of Poland after World War II: “Russia should be permitted to absorb Poland, the Balkans, and the whole of Eastern Europe in order to spread the benefits of Communism” (Emphasis added).[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Listening]

Bugfucker posts irrelevancy in an attempt to create a red herring fallacy.

Dog Cum posts utter stupidity.

Such is the left of USMB......

ROTFLMAO......

That was good.....Bugfucker....that's funny !!!

 

[oldfart]

Why Righties claim to be experts on economics is puzzling as all of their econ idols have been proven to be dreamers w/o any real world data to back up their zany theories.

The right in this forum is vastly more educated than that left. When I got my MBA, concentrations were available in finance or economics. I am not an accountant so the choice was easy.

So a couple of MBA courses made you an economist? I used to teach a statistics lab for MBA's at the Kenan School. Half of them thought a pie chart was sophisticated. I'm sure none of them knew what variance was at the start of the course.

You know utterly nothing about macro economics. You read leftist op eds from Krugman over on ThinkProgress and delude yourself that this gives you an understanding of the subject. It does not.

I read a dozen or so blogs regularly, including Krugman and I read the papers he links to. I doubt if you ever read an economics paper in your life; your posting doesn't show it if you did. I have seen nothing in your posting that indicates any understanding of economics, just political cant. I notice you rarely post on any of the more technical threads about economics; perhaps we do not use enough pictures.

DotCom at least asks reasonably intelligent questions and is capable of learning.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Why Righties claim to be experts on economics is puzzling as all of their econ idols have been proven to be dreamers w/o any real world data to back up their zany theories.

The right in this forum is vastly more educated than that left. When I got my MBA, concentrations were availible in finance or economics. I am not an accountant so the choice was easy.

You know utterly nothing about macro economics. You read leftist op eds from Krugman over on ThinkProgress and delude yourself that this gives you an understanding of the subject. It does not.

Arthur Laffer has an open challenge to Krugman to debate him on live TV - Krugman has wisely avoided the challenge.

Oh, as for Laffer, he backs up his positions quite well.

Arthur Laffer Three signs of a feeble economy - The Orange County Register

Laffer? The man is a JOKE...

Paul Volcker, who served as chairman of the Federal Reserve during most of the Reagan years, commented in the film about the economist Arthur Laffer’s famous curve, which, incredibly, became a cornerstone of national economic policy. “The Laffer Curve,” said Mr. Volcker, “was presented as an intellectual support for the idea that reducing taxes would produce more revenues, and that was, I think, considered by most people a pretty extreme interpretation of what would happen.”

Toward the end of his comment, the former Fed chairman chuckled as if still amused by the idea that this was ever taken seriously.

yep, it turned out to be a fancy way to desribe the Horse & Sparrow Theory.

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory." He wrote, "Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: 'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'" Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896.

Indeed, @Dot Com