Republicans are afraid to propose spending cuts!

[LeftCoastVoter]

Am I really supposed to be impressed with the fact that someone won a Nobel Prize these days? Might I remind you that Barack Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize simply for showing up? A Nobel Prize used to mean something...now it's just an "anointment" by a group of people with a liberal agenda.

yeah, the Nobel Prize is now a worthless piece of paper....... wing nut logic at its finest.

The Nobel Prize is what it is...it's an award given by a certain group of "selectors" who to be quite frank have politicized the award to the point of making it less prestigious than it used to be. It's hardly worthless since it's accompanied by a million dollar prize. Does it make the people that receive it "right"? Hardly...

right, the NBP is now a politicized award. if that helps you sleep better at night just keeping telling yourself that.

 

[Oldstyle]

A research paper recommending 70% top tax rate (one of the authors is a Nobel Prize winner):
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/diamond-saezJEP11opttax.pdf

Am I really supposed to be impressed with the fact that someone won a Nobel Prize these days? Might I remind you that Barack Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize simply for showing up? A Nobel Prize used to mean something...now it's just an "anointment" by a group of people with a liberal agenda.

What did it mean before? And when was the shift?

I merely ask since I need to know at what point Nobel laureate economists became icons of Liberal ideology and Beck and Limbaugh took over the mental heavy-lifting.

TIA,
-K

A Nobel Prize was once an award given for great achievements...now it is given for holding the right views. It's something that has gradually occurred over the past thirty years.

 

[Oldstyle]

yeah, the Nobel Prize is now a worthless piece of paper....... wing nut logic at its finest.

The Nobel Prize is what it is...it's an award given by a certain group of "selectors" who to be quite frank have politicized the award to the point of making it less prestigious than it used to be. It's hardly worthless since it's accompanied by a million dollar prize. Does it make the people that receive it "right"? Hardly...

right, the NBP is now a politicized award. if that helps you sleep better at night just keeping telling yourself that.

You don't think the Nobel Prize has become politicized? Fine...tell me what Barack Obama did to earn a Nobel Peace Prize?

 

[Koios]

And even in the paper that your liberal economists put out advocating raising taxes they admit the following: "Of course, increasing upper income tax
rates can discourage economic activity through behavioral responses, and hence
potentially reduce tax collections, creating the standard equity-efficiency trade-off
discussed in the introduction."

What they're admitting is that there is a natural response to higher taxes and that response is to move capital into investments that aren't taxed at the new higher rate.

Hahahahahaha. I'm just guessing, a Nobel in economics might not be in your immediate future.

Note "potentially" and "behavorial responses." It's not an economic dynamic, it's a confidence thing, akin to the consumer confidence index, which is FAR more of a concern, economically.

But it's largely a moot assumption. Investment is driven by opportunity. Period. So even if investors are slow on the draw, they will not leave low-hanging fruit dangling too long, if for no other reason, others might snap it up before they do. In the end, little if any real opportunity, is ever left unfunded. Someone always gets after it.

 

[Koios]

Am I really supposed to be impressed with the fact that someone won a Nobel Prize these days? Might I remind you that Barack Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize simply for showing up? A Nobel Prize used to mean something...now it's just an "anointment" by a group of people with a liberal agenda.

What did it mean before? And when was the shift?

I merely ask since I need to know at what point Nobel laureate economists became icons of Liberal ideology and Beck and Limbaugh took over the mental heavy-lifting.

TIA,
-K

A Nobel Prize was once an award given for great achievements...now it is given for holding the right views. It's something that has gradually occurred over the past thirty years.

What achievements in economics, and how have they changed as of today?

 

[Jarhead]

yeah, the Nobel Prize is now a worthless piece of paper....... wing nut logic at its finest.

The Nobel Prize is what it is...it's an award given by a certain group of "selectors" who to be quite frank have politicized the award to the point of making it less prestigious than it used to be. It's hardly worthless since it's accompanied by a million dollar prize. Does it make the people that receive it "right"? Hardly...

right, the NBP is now a politicized award. if that helps you sleep better at night just keeping telling yourself that.

The NPP was given to Obama based on his middle east and norther Africa speeches that his speech writers wrote for him. It was not based on any of his personal acheivments and most certainly not based on the ultimate result of his speeches.

Personally, I think that speaks voulmes about the NPP.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

The Nobel Prize is what it is...it's an award given by a certain group of "selectors" who to be quite frank have politicized the award to the point of making it less prestigious than it used to be. It's hardly worthless since it's accompanied by a million dollar prize. Does it make the people that receive it "right"? Hardly...

right, the NBP is now a politicized award. if that helps you sleep better at night just keeping telling yourself that.

You don't think the Nobel Prize has become politicized? Fine...tell me what Barack Obama did to earn a Nobel Peace Prize?

here you go:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 - Press Release

 

[Jarhead]

And even in the paper that your liberal economists put out advocating raising taxes they admit the following: "Of course, increasing upper income tax
rates can discourage economic activity through behavioral responses, and hence
potentially reduce tax collections, creating the standard equity-efficiency trade-off
discussed in the introduction."

What they're admitting is that there is a natural response to higher taxes and that response is to move capital into investments that aren't taxed at the new higher rate.

Hahahahahaha. I'm just guessing, a Nobel in economics might not be in your immediate future.

Note "potentially" and "behavorial responses." It's not an economic dynamic, it's a confidence thing, akin to the consumer confidence index, which is FAR more of a concern, economically.

But it's largely a moot assumption. Investment is driven by opportunity. Period. So even if investors are slow on the draw, they will not leave low-hanging fruit dangling too long, if for no other reason, others might snap it up before they do. In the end, little if any real opportunity, is ever left unfunded. Someone always gets after it.

Really? Then why dont we see all kinds of investments taking place in solar energy?

Got news for you...ROI and anticipated ROI is what drives REAL investors. Nothing else.

 

[Jarhead]

right, the NBP is now a politicized award. if that helps you sleep better at night just keeping telling yourself that.

You don't think the Nobel Prize has become politicized? Fine...tell me what Barack Obama did to earn a Nobel Peace Prize?

here you go:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 - Press Release

so EFFORT is now the criteria?

Not acheivments?

WHy didnt his speech writers get the prize? Or better yet, why didnt the tax payer get the prize seeing as we paid for his speech wrioters AND his transportation to get to the places where he made the speeches.

All he did was take a free ride, and the speeches written for him and read them off a teleprompter. That is now all one needs to do to win a NPP?

 

[Koios]

And even in the paper that your liberal economists put out advocating raising taxes they admit the following: "Of course, increasing upper income tax
rates can discourage economic activity through behavioral responses, and hence
potentially reduce tax collections, creating the standard equity-efficiency trade-off
discussed in the introduction."

What they're admitting is that there is a natural response to higher taxes and that response is to move capital into investments that aren't taxed at the new higher rate.

Hahahahahaha. I'm just guessing, a Nobel in economics might not be in your immediate future.

Note "potentially" and "behavorial responses." It's not an economic dynamic, it's a confidence thing, akin to the consumer confidence index, which is FAR more of a concern, economically.

But it's largely a moot assumption. Investment is driven by opportunity. Period. So even if investors are slow on the draw, they will not leave low-hanging fruit dangling too long, if for no other reason, others might snap it up before they do. In the end, little if any real opportunity, is ever left unfunded. Someone always gets after it.

Really? Then why dont we see all kinds of investments taking place in solar energy?

Got news for you...ROI and anticipated ROI is what drives REAL investors. Nothing else.

Because folks with dough to invest, know it's not the rosy opportunity that those politically in favor of it would like us to think. Note we tax-payers lost our ass on Solindra, etc. Thus private investors are wise to be wary.

Does that help?

 

[Oldstyle]

And even in the paper that your liberal economists put out advocating raising taxes they admit the following: "Of course, increasing upper income tax
rates can discourage economic activity through behavioral responses, and hence
potentially reduce tax collections, creating the standard equity-efficiency trade-off
discussed in the introduction."

What they're admitting is that there is a natural response to higher taxes and that response is to move capital into investments that aren't taxed at the new higher rate.

Hahahahahaha. I'm just guessing, a Nobel in economics might not be in your immediate future.

Note "potentially" and "behavorial responses." It's not an economic dynamic, it's a confidence thing, akin to the consumer confidence index, which is FAR more of a concern, economically.

But it's largely a moot assumption. Investment is driven by opportunity. Period. So even if investors are slow on the draw, they will not leave low-hanging fruit dangling too long, if for no other reason, others might snap it up before they do. In the end, little if any real opportunity, is ever left unfunded. Someone always gets after it.

Investment is driven by the anticipation of profit. Period. When you raise taxes, you lower profits. When you lower profits, you lower Investment.

 

[Koios]

Meanwhile, what is ROI? It's the hope / result of perceived opportunity.

Here, let me help you: say you have grand to invest. Where would you invest it; and why?

 

[Jarhead]

Hahahahahaha. I'm just guessing, a Nobel in economics might not be in your immediate future.

Note "potentially" and "behavorial responses." It's not an economic dynamic, it's a confidence thing, akin to the consumer confidence index, which is FAR more of a concern, economically.

But it's largely a moot assumption. Investment is driven by opportunity. Period. So even if investors are slow on the draw, they will not leave low-hanging fruit dangling too long, if for no other reason, others might snap it up before they do. In the end, little if any real opportunity, is ever left unfunded. Someone always gets after it.

Really? Then why dont we see all kinds of investments taking place in solar energy?

Got news for you...ROI and anticipated ROI is what drives REAL investors. Nothing else.

Because folks with dough to invest, know it's not the rosy opportunity that those politically in favor of it would like us to think. Note we tax-payers lost our ass on Solindra, etc. Thus private investors are wise to be wary.

Does that help?

In other words...the ROI and/or ANTIPATED ROI does not warrant it to be an investment.

ROI is the one and only thing investors cvare about.

Artificailly lower the ROI, and less will invest.

 

[Jarhead]

Meanwhile, what is ROI? It's the hope / result of perceived opportunity.

Here, let me help you: say you have grand to invest. Where would you invest it; and why?

Your condescending attitude is not necessary.

I am debating you. If I learn, great...but I dont need you to imply that "I need yopur help".
It is a childsih attitude.

 

[Oldstyle]

right, the NBP is now a politicized award. if that helps you sleep better at night just keeping telling yourself that.

You don't think the Nobel Prize has become politicized? Fine...tell me what Barack Obama did to earn a Nobel Peace Prize?

here you go:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 - Press Release

Now THAT is amusing. I wonder how many of those Nobel Committee members look back on that proclamation with utter embarrassment? The truth is...Barack Obama hadn't DONE anything except make some soaring political speeches about what he would do. It would be akin to our giving Barry credit for solving the deficit because he SAID he was going to cut it in half.

 

[Koios]

Really? Then why dont we see all kinds of investments taking place in solar energy?

Got news for you...ROI and anticipated ROI is what drives REAL investors. Nothing else.

Because folks with dough to invest, know it's not the rosy opportunity that those politically in favor of it would like us to think. Note we tax-payers lost our ass on Solindra, etc. Thus private investors are wise to be wary.

Does that help?

In other words...the ROI and/or ANTIPATED ROI does not warrant it to be an investment.

ROI is the one and only thing investors cvare about.

Artificailly lower the ROI, and less will invest.

It's less attractive. So money goes where opportunity is more bountiful. Period.

Hell; it's why government stepped in. Why else would it, if private investment was flowing to it? Government acted in politically, and not as a wise investor.

 

[ilia25]

Ah yes...another progressive who slept through Econ. 101 is heard from!

Let's raise taxes...taking money out of the private sector...instead of cutting governmental waste and reforming entitlements so they are actually affordable. THAT'LL GROW THE MARKET ALL RIGHT!!!

What is wrong with you people? Seriously...were you all stoned when your Econ Prof. went over the effects of raising taxes on an economy? Or were you taking Basketweaving and the Anthropology of Primitive People instead of a course that was actually useful?

A research paper recommending 70% top tax rate (one of the authors is a Nobel Prize winner):
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/diamond-saezJEP11opttax.pdf

Am I really supposed to be impressed with the fact that someone won a Nobel Prize these days?

No, not while being an idiot. A sensible person, on the other hand, would know the different between a Nobel in Economics and a Peace prize.

 

[Jarhead]

Meanwhile, what is ROI? It's the hope / result of perceived opportunity.

Here, let me help you: say you have grand to invest. Where would you invest it; and why?

and just an FYI...

To say "you have a grand to invest and where should yopuy invest it" is was too generic to answer. There is no information regarding the surrounding environment that helps determine an ROI for ANY investment.

For example....I decided this month to make 3 mortgage payments for the write off advantages.....why? Becuase the market rally...if there is one...will not produce the same financial advantages as the write off will.

If this were April...I may do something different.

 

[Koios]

Meanwhile, what is ROI? It's the hope / result of perceived opportunity.

Here, let me help you: say you have grand to invest. Where would you invest it; and why?

Your condescending attitude is not necessary.

I am debating you. If I learn, great...but I dont need you to imply that "I need yopur help".
It is a childsih attitude.

Correct. It was a choice (to not dumb-down my response.)

 

[Jarhead]

Because folks with dough to invest, know it's not the rosy opportunity that those politically in favor of it would like us to think. Note we tax-payers lost our ass on Solindra, etc. Thus private investors are wise to be wary.

Does that help?

In other words...the ROI and/or ANTIPATED ROI does not warrant it to be an investment.

ROI is the one and only thing investors cvare about.

Artificailly lower the ROI, and less will invest.

It's less attractive. So money goes where opportunity is more bountiful. Period.

Hell; it's why government stepped in. Why else would it, if private investment was flowing to it? Government acted in politically, and not as a wise investor.

I know that...such was the point I was making.

I was responding to the "jump in before someone else does" point made earlier.