Master of Disaster and Taxes upon Taxes

[Archaea]

Obama is easy to hate. He is the Captain of the biggest economic disaster in the history of the world and he plans more mayhem, while ill-informed Keynsians such as Cali actually believe they know what they're doing.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...Tabs%3Darticle

So the fondest Washington hopes for a grand debt-limit deal have broken down over taxes. House Speaker John Boehner said late Saturday that he couldn't move ahead with a $4 trillion deal because President Obama was insisting on a $1 trillion tax increase, and the White House quickly denounced House Republicans for scuttling debt reduction and preventing "the very wealthiest and special interests from paying their fair share."
How dare Republicans not agree to break their campaign promises and raise taxes when the jobless rate is 9.2% and President Obama's economic recovery is in jeopardy?

With that sort of tax burden, a revolution, anarchy and sedition might be justified. We need a new Jefferson.

[ChinoCoug]

You don't like Keynesian countercyclical policies.

Why are you advocating we extend Bush's tax cuts during this economic downturn then? That constitutes a countercyclical policy.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

You don't like Keynesian countercyclical policies.

Why are you advocating we extend Bush's tax cuts during this economic downturn then? That constitutes a countercyclical policy.

I'm guessing it's because he thinks counter-cyclical policies are identical to Marxism. I'm also guessing it's because he agrees the theory of counter-cyclical spending makes sense to him at some level. If he would read more about it rather than equating it with Marxism, I think he'd be interested by the "multiplier effect" and that tax cuts have among the lowest multiplier factor.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

You don't like Keynesian countercyclical policies.

Why are you advocating we extend Bush's tax cuts during this economic downturn then? That constitutes a countercyclical policy.

Do I have a completely integrated philosophy? No.

However, I believe more in money supply rather than government spending and taxing.

I advocate "tax cuts", because my primary impetus on taxation and government is minimization of government intrusion. So I advocate all tax cuts and advocate most government shutdowns, cuts and elimination of programs.

I do believe more capital in the markets will allow entrepreneurs to create jobs. I understand if you want to replenish what you spent you do so in good times. But such concepts represent over-simplification and don't seem to work because of delays in government's responses and the time it takes to turn an economy around.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Do I have a completely integrated philosophy? No.

However, I believe more in money supply rather than government spending and taxing.

I advocate "tax cuts", because my primary impetus on taxation and government is minimization of government intrusion. So I advocate all tax cuts and advocate most government shutdowns, cuts and elimination of programs.

I do believe more capital in the markets will allow entrepreneurs to create jobs. I understand if you want to replenish what you spent you do so in good times. But such concepts represent over-simplification and don't seem to work because of delays in government's responses and the time it takes to turn an economy around.

I'm truly baffled by what you are writing. It just doesn't make sense. Reducing taxes doesn't put any more money into the economy than government spending. They are two means to the same ends. Oftentimes, government spending is viewed as preferable because of the multiplier effect (Mark Zandi of The Economist has written extensively on this topic). It truly makes very little sense to be so staunchly in favor of one and totally opposed to the other (which is precisely why the Republican position right now of no new revenues is so ridiculous).

As for Marxism v Keynesianism, they are totally antithetical to each other. One is designed to eliminate the capitalistic structure. The other is a mechanism to remove some inefficiencies in the market, thereby enhancing the benefits of the capitalistic structure.

See? This is what happens when people start equating Marxism with socialism with any taxes with government spending with Democrats with Keynesianism economics. All of a sudden, words that have actual discrete meanings are put into a giant pot where they all mean the same thing. There are legitimate criticisms of Keynesianism, just as there are with all other economic theories. You just haven't hit on a single one of them yet.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

As for Marxism v Keynesianism, they are totally antithetical to each other. One is designed to eliminate the capitalistic structure. The other is a mechanism to remove some inefficiencies in the market, thereby enhancing the benefits of the capitalistic structure.

See? This is what happens when people start equating Marxism with socialism with any taxes with government spending with Democrats with Keynesianism economics. All of a sudden, words that have actual discrete meanings are put into a giant pot where they all mean the same thing. There are legitimate criticisms of Keynesianism, just as there are with all other economic theories. You just haven't hit on a single one of them yet.

Reducing taxes affects ME directly. I don't directly benefit from government expenditures, as I don't participate in grants, I don't get government contracts and I don't receive any government programs. I pay into social security but believe it will be means-tested by the time I qualify. The government takes from me, but gives me nothing directly. Any benefit I reap is indirect so I am disconnected from it. It is my actual enemy.

I won't receive Medicare, so my "social" benefits will be solely roads, and military, otherwise society provides no benefit to me, so I want to participate in it as little as possible. Its policies have collapsed my local market, a market which may not recover according to some studies until 2030.

And I believe Keynsian is designed to cause capitalism to fail to reduce the import of the capitalistic structure (Yes I know their theories say otherwise but I don't trust their words). Keynsians have never proven their theories can be implemented effectively. I will posit an argument that Keynsians are frustrated capitalists who are on the road to disbelieving in capitalism trending towards Marxism. Many Keynsians are Marxist at heart and wish to see capitalism fail.

You actually believe their theories work in practice. The timing and the efficacy of their theories are not doubted by Keynsians but they are by me. Keynsians tout their theories as a means to eliminate inefficiencies of the capitalist structures, but that doesn't mean I believe their intentions. Their theories don't take account for real world realities such as crowding crushing the multiplier effects. A Keynsian response, we just didn't flood enough money into the system for long enough time. Ugh. Keynsians ignore other factors such as lack of confidence and real world factors.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Reducing taxes affects ME directly. I don't directly benefit from government expenditures, as I don't participate in grants, I don't get government contracts and I don't receive any government programs. I pay into social security but believe it will be means-tested by the time I qualify. The government takes from me, but gives me nothing directly. Any benefit I reap is indirect so I am disconnected from it. It is my actual enemy.

I won't receive Medicare, so my "social" benefits will be solely roads, and military, otherwise society provides no benefit to me, so I want to participate in it as little as possible. Its policies have collapsed my local market, a market which may not recover according to some studies until 2030.

And I believe Keynsian is designed to cause capitalism to fail to reduce the import of the capitalistic structure (Yes I know their theories say otherwise but I don't trust their words). Keynsians have never proven their theories can be implemented effectively. I will posit an argument that Keynsians are frustrated capitalists who are on the road to disbelieving in capitalism trending towards Marxism. Many Keynsians are Marxist at heart and wish to see capitalism fail.

You actually believe their theories work in practice. The timing and the efficacy of their theories are not doubted by Keynsians but they are by me. Keynsians tout their theories as a means to eliminate inefficiencies of the capitalist structures, but that doesn't mean I believe their intentions. Their theories don't take account for real world realities such as crowding crushing the multiplier effects. A Keynsian response, we just didn't flood enough money into the system for long enough time. Ugh. Keynsians ignore other factors such as lack of confidence and real world factors.

Look, Arch, you seem like a nice enough guy, but posts like this are why it is so difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you. You have emotional, irrational reactions to things you don't like. If, for example, you aren't DIRECTLY benefited (and are only *gasp* indirectly benefited) by a policy, the indirect benefit becomes "your enemy." That's pretty difficult to make sense of. This is particularly the case when you define "direct" benefits as being only roads and the military. That's just preposterous. If you are lumping everything other than roads and the military into the category of "indirect" benefit (and therefore your "enemy"), the indirect benefits you receive FAR outweigh the direct benefits afforded by society.

When Keynesianism is discussed, rather than articulate an intelligent critique you instead focus on lumping all Keynesians in as Marxists (or people who are well on their way to Marxism because, after all, they must all truly hate capitalism). There's just nothing empirical to support that bizarre contention.

Like Chino, I'm struggling to understand your economic philosophy as it appears, to me, to lack any cohesion or consistency from our brief exchanges. It also appears to rely on a belief that competing philosophies are inherently Marxist and evil (which suggests not much thought has gone into your analysis). Other statements you make about Keynesianism are just false (such as your argument that it doesn't take into consideration crowding).

As I mentioned before, there are legitimate issues with Keynesianism just as there are with Friedman's philosophies, but we can't seem to even get to those topics because of the muddled rhetoric you are throwing out instead. I'm going to bow out of this discussion as it seems particularly pointless.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Look, Arch, you seem like a nice enough guy, but posts like this are why it is so difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you. You have emotional, irrational reactions to things you don't like. If, for example, you aren't DIRECTLY benefited (and are only *gasp* indirectly benefited) by a policy, the indirect benefit becomes "your enemy." That's pretty difficult to make sense of. This is particularly the case when you define "direct" benefits as being only roads and the military. That's just preposterous. If you are lumping everything other than roads and the military into the category of "indirect" benefit (and therefore your "enemy"), the indirect benefits you receive FAR outweigh the direct benefits afforded by society.

When Keynesianism is discussed, rather than articulate an intelligent critique you instead focus on lumping all Keynesians in as Marxists (or people who are well on their way to Marxism because, after all, they must all truly hate capitalism). There's just nothing empirical to support that bizarre contention.

Like Chino, I'm struggling to understand your economic philosophy as it appears, to me, to lack any cohesion or consistency from our brief exchanges. It also appears to rely on a belief that competing philosophies are inherently Marxist and evil (which suggests not much thought has gone into your analysis). Other statements you make about Keynesianism are just false (such as your argument that it doesn't take into consideration crowding).

As I mentioned before, there are legitimate issues with Keynesianism just as there are with Friedman's philosophies, but we can't seem to even get to those topics because of the muddled rhetoric you are throwing out instead. I'm going to bow out of this discussion as it seems particularly pointless.

Friedman pointed out the problem with Keynesians in a much more articulate manner. Borros also did. I can go down the list.

I have both an intellectual disagreement with Keynesian and a personal one. None of the Keynesians policies benefit me. Remember the inflation tax, how the uninformed voter blames the rise in prices on business? I realize inflation for example is a tax incurred by Keynesians financial policies. I also don't trust policy makers to do things in a timely or correct and morally beneficial manner.

I have repeatedly stated Obama's plan is fraught with error in that it did NOT achieve its multiplier effect as shown in the Stanford study.

So, when I attack you Keynsians coherently, you ignore my attacks. And because Friedman attacks, as do others, attack the motives of policy wonks who adhere to Keynesian economics, I attack them less well, but liken them to Marxists who loathe the capitalist system.

Again, you are engaging in ad hominems because you ignore the true arguments. Maybe you should start from a neutralist position if you wish to understand my philosophy.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Friedman pointed out the problem with Keynesians in a much more articulate manner. Borros also did. I can go down the list.

I have both an intellectual disagreement with Keynesian and a personal one. None of the Keynesians policies benefit me. Remember the inflation tax, how the uninformed voter blames the rise in prices on business? I realize inflation for example is a tax incurred by Keynesians financial policies. I also don't trust policy makers to do things in a timely or correct and morally beneficial manner.

I have repeatedly stated Obama's plan is fraught with error in that it did NOT achieve its multiplier effect as shown in the Stanford study.

So, when I attack you Keynsians coherently, you ignore my attacks. And because Friedman attacks, as do others, attack the motives of policy wonks who adhere to Keynesian economics, I attack them less well, but liken them to Marxists who loathe the capitalist system.

Again, you are engaging in ad hominems because you ignore the true arguments. Maybe you should start from a neutralist position if you wish to understand my philosophy.

Are you talking about this Stanford study?

http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/CCTW_100108.pdf

The study argues that ARRA didn't achieve the intended multiplier effect NOT because the multiplier was too big, but the multiplier was applied to the wrong number.

[ChinoCoug]

sorry, wrong paper.

This one: http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/Co...2011%20rev.pdf