Author Topic: Economics  (Read 186961 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
Economics, Which is better, equality or prosperity?
« Reply #450 on: December 13, 2018, 02:05:23 PM »
Which is more important, income equality or prosperity for all?

Choose one.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16997
    • View Profile
Re: Economics - Bush Tax Increase 1991
« Reply #451 on: December 15, 2018, 10:42:11 PM »
Tax rates increased hoping to get more revenue out of high income earners.  Bush broke his pledge and risked and lost his Presidency for the greater good evil.

Revenues decreased after a significant rate increase - same as for every retailer.  (Who knew?)

WHY DID THIS HAPPEN?  Famous people NOT reading the forum.

https://www.cato.org/blog/1990-bush-tax-increase-reduced-taxes


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also in the numbers above, Bush's last year growth rate that media reported still in recession (fake news) had a higher growth rate than Clinton's first year that followed.





If you get to keep your money, that makes you less dependent on government. They prefer you not be in such a state.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
Re: Economics - Real GDP Growth?
« Reply #452 on: December 20, 2018, 08:45:31 AM »
Continuing my many complaints about economic reporting:
Like climate data, "Real GDP Growth" is the adjusted data.  Actual, measured data is seldom reported and never discussed:

http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-quarter

http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-quarter

The difference is the inflation adjustment which is imperfectly measured.

The presumption is that the inflation component of the growth is automatic, guaranteed and so it doesn't count.  It is neither automatic nor guaranteed.  If not Jimmy Carter, ask  Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro about that.  

Growing the economy and minimizing inflation are two different things.  Combining two different measures into one does not always give you better information.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2018, 08:48:36 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
Income mobility, the top 1% and top 0.1% is an ever-changing group
« Reply #453 on: January 22, 2019, 11:08:12 AM »
Politicians, media and even academia refer to the top 1% as if it is one group who dominate the economy year after year after year, enriching themselves at the expense of the rest of the people.  That is wrong on so many levels, but first, it is not one group.  It is more like a parade of people taking turns at incredible success.

"According to IRS data, 4,474 unique people had turns with the top 400 highest taxpayers in America between 1992 and 2013, yet 72 percent appeared only once."
https://niskanencenter.org/blog/the-70-tax-and-progressives-tall-poppy-syndrome-ocasio-cortez/

72% of US taxpayers who make it into the ‘Top 400’ are there for only a single year!
 84% of the top earners made it into the “Fortunate 400” only once or twice.
https://www.aei.org/publication/new-irs-data-show-that-72-of-us-taxpayers-who-make-it-into-the-top-400-are-there-for-only-a-single-year/

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/13intop400.pdf
« Last Edit: January 22, 2019, 11:13:57 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
Re: Economics, Churchill on income wealth inequality
« Reply #454 on: February 12, 2019, 10:07:02 AM »
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

— Winston Churchill, House of Commons, 22 October 1945.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting that these are not new arguments.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
Re: Economics, Spain, Poland
« Reply #455 on: February 19, 2019, 07:05:45 AM »


Anyone wonder what the difference is policies is?  Poland moved strongly toward economic freedom during this time.  Relative to other countries Spain moved backwards on the country rankings of economic freedom.
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2017/05/09/polands-reward-for-good-economic-policy/

In Spain, taxes are so absurdly high that a guy with a modest income (1000 euro/mo.) only gets to keep one-third of the money he earns!
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2019/02/18/low-income-workers-are-victimized-by-spains-suffocating-taxation/

Other comparisons links at the links above:
Here are additional examples showing the long-run benefits of pro-market policy.

Chile vs. Argentina vs. Venezuela
Hong Kong vs. Cuba
North Korea vs. South Korea
Cuba vs. Chile
Hong Kong vs. Argentina
Singapore vs. Jamaica
United States vs. Hong Kong and Singapore
Botswana vs. other African nations

« Last Edit: February 19, 2019, 10:02:18 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
Economics, Small government rich nations, Abir Doumit, Freedom Prosperity
« Reply #456 on: February 19, 2019, 07:12:51 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=aK3lyNR_vV8
Small government creates rich nations - Watch and share!

Increased economic freedom brings increased prosperity.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2019, 07:14:32 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
Economics, NYT Does focusing on Inequality really help the poor?
« Reply #457 on: February 19, 2019, 10:15:40 AM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/business/growth-not-forced-equality-saves-the-poor.html?referer=http://m.facebook.com

Growth, Not Forced Equality, Saves the Poor
By Deirdre N. McCloskey
Dec. 23, 2016

Anger about economic inequality in the United States dominated the presidential election. But while polemics about the issue have flourished across the political spectrum, clarity has not.

Lack of clarity about inequality has been around for a long time. Look, for example, at the Illinois state constitution, adopted in 1970. It sought to “eliminate poverty and inequality.”

Note the linkage of poverty and inequality. It sounds good. Who wouldn’t want to eliminate both of them?

But think it through.

Eliminating poverty is obviously good. And, happily, it is already happening on a global scale. The World Bank reports that the basics of a dignified life are more available to the poorest among us than at any time in history, by a big margin. Shanghai, a place of misery not very long ago, now looks like the most modern parts of the United States, though with better roads and bridges. The real income of India is doubling every 10 years. Sub-Saharan Africa is at last growing. Even in the rich countries, the poor are better off than they were in 1970, with better food and health care and, often, amenities like air-conditioning.

We need to finish the job. But will we really help the poor by focusing on inequality?

Anthony Trollope, the great English novelist, gave an answer in “Phineas Finn” in 1867. His liberal heroine suggests that “making men and women all equal” was “the gist of our political theory.” No, replies her radical and more farseeing friend, “equality is an ugly word, and frightens.” A good person, he declares, should rather “assist in lifting up those below him.” Eliminate poverty, and let the distribution of wealth work.

Economic growth has been accomplishing exactly that since 1800. Equality in the most important matters has increased steadily, through lifting up the wretched of the earth. The enrichment in fundamentals for the poor matters far more in the scheme of things than the acquisition of more Rolexes by the rich.

What matters ethically is that the poor have a roof over their heads and enough to eat, and the opportunity to read and vote and get equal treatment by the police and courts. Enforcing the Voting Rights Act matters. Restraining police violence matters. Equalizing possession of Rolexes does not.

The Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt put it this way: “Economic equality is not, as such, of particular moral importance.” Instead we should lift up the poor, in the style of Trollope’s radical liberal, to a level Mr. Frankfurt labeled “enough” — enough for people to function in a democratic society and to have full human lives.

Another eminent philosopher, John Rawls of Harvard, articulated what he called the Difference Principle: If the entrepreneurship of a rich person made the poorest better off, then the higher income of the entrepreneur was justified. It works for me.

It is true that conspicuous displays of wealth are vulgar and irritating. But they are not something that a nonenvious principle of public policy needs to acknowledge.

Poverty is never good. Difference, including economic difference, often is. It is why New Yorkers exchange goods with Californians and with people in Shanghai, and why the political railing against foreign trade is childish. It is why we converse, and why today is the great age of the novel and the memoir. It is why we celebrate diversity — or should.

A practical objection to focusing on economic equality is that we cannot actually achieve it, not in a big society, not in a just and sensible way. Dividing up a pizza among friends can be done equitably, to be sure. But equality beyond the basics in consumption and in political rights isn’t possible in a specialized and dynamic economy. Cutting down the tall poppies uses violence for the cut. And you need to know exactly which poppies to cut. Trusting a government of self-interested people to know how to redistribute ethically is naïve.

Another problem is that the cutting reduces the size of the crop. We need to allow for rewards that tell the economy to increase the activity earning them. If a brain surgeon and a taxi driver earn the same amount, we won’t have enough brain surgeons. Why bother? An all-wise central plan could force the right people into the right jobs. But such a solution, like much of the case for a compelled equality, is violent and magical. The magic has been tried, in Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China. So has the violence.

Many of us share socialism in sentiment, if only because we grew up in loving families with Mom as the central planner. Sharing works just fine in a loving household. But it is not how grown-ups get stuff in a liberal society. Free adults get what they need by working to make goods and services for other people, and then exchanging them voluntarily. They don’t get them by slicing up manna from Mother Nature in a zero-sum world.

We could use state violence to take wealth from billionaires like Bill Gates and give it to the homeless, achieving more equality. (Mr. Gates is in fact giving away his fortune, to his credit.) Short of expropriation, we can and should join in supporting a safety net, keeping the violence to a minimum. K-12 public education, for example, should be paid for by compelled taxes on all of us. But we should not be doing a lot more.

As a matter of arithmetic, expropriating the rich to give to the poor does not uplift the poor very much. If we took every dime from the top 20 percent of the income distribution and gave it to the bottom 80 percent, the bottom folk would be only 25 percent better off. If we took only from the superrich, the bottom would get less than that. And redistribution works only once. You can’t expect the expropriated rich to show up for a second cutting. In a free society, they can move to Ireland or the Cayman Islands. And the wretched millionaires can hardly re-earn their millions next year if the state has taken most of the money.

It is growth from exchange-tested betterment, not compelled or voluntary charity, that solves the problem of poverty. In South Korea, economic growth has increased the income of the poorest by a factor of 30 times real 1953 income. Which do we want, a small one-time (though envy-and-anger-satisfying) extraction from the rich, or a free society of betterment, one that lifts up the poor by gigantic amounts?

We had better focus directly on the equality that we actually want and can achieve, which is equality of social dignity and equality before the law. Liberal equality, as against the socialist equality of enforced redistribution, eliminates the worst of poverty. It has done so spectacularly in Britain and Singapore and Botswana. More needs to be done, yes. Namely, more growth, which is sensitive to environmental limits and will require a proliferation of rich engineers. Let them have their money from devising carbon-fixing techniques and new sources of energy. It will enrich all of us.

To borrow from the heroes of my youth, Marx and Engels: Working people of all countries unite! You have nothing to lose but stagnation! Demand exchange-tested betterment in a liberal society.

Some dare call it capitalism.

Deirdre N. McCloskey is professor emerita of economics, history, English and communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
Re: Economics, Minimum Wage
« Reply #459 on: April 09, 2019, 07:54:54 AM »
Does anyone here know what the federally mandated minimum wage is now and what it will be after proposals like Bernie Sanders' are passed into new law?

Answer is zero.  You are not required to hire anyone and most poor and middle income people don't.  And the more above market you are required to pay, the less likely you are to hire.  When the market rate is above the minimum rate, then the law is irrelevant.

Trump and Republican policies are raising wages, not passing "so-called" minimum wage laws as a false substitute.
---------------------------------

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/01/21/the-real-minimum-wage-zero/#70452df2215f

"the real minimum wage is zero--the wage you get if you're unemployed."


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: May 03, 2019, 05:49:56 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
Private sector should grow faster than government
« Reply #462 on: May 03, 2019, 05:56:17 AM »

The private sector should grow faster than the government.
It's not rocket science.

Examples of spending restraint:
« Last Edit: May 03, 2019, 01:23:03 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9705
    • View Profile
Nobel Prize in economics to Trump?
« Reply #463 on: May 04, 2019, 09:46:03 AM »
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/buffett-no-textbook-predicted-the-strange-economy-we-have-today.html

 8-)

Tho lets see , another gigantic big government program of 2 trillion (infrastructure - the nickels and dimes will be impossible to account for - Pelosi's relatives all ready to make bids on proposed projects!)

and we will be up to what 24 or more trill in debt .  what comes after trillion ? quadrillion?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
definition of Rent-seeking
« Reply #464 on: May 04, 2019, 10:58:45 PM »
Just saving and sharing the definition of a term that comes up in economics.  I don't really like the term but the concept is important, very closely tied to crony capitalism governmentism.

Rent-seeking is a concept in public choice theory as well as in economics, that involves seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2019, 11:00:11 AM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
Re: Economics, Capitalism is all about self-interest??
« Reply #465 on: June 03, 2019, 05:02:01 AM »
Capitalism measures and rewards only how much and how well you are able to help others.

All the other forms of economics, socialism, communism, fascism, all involve some receiving something for nothing through the coercive taking from others.

And then they tell you capitalism is the system that is cold and uncaring.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
Economics: Arthur Laffer awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom
« Reply #466 on: June 12, 2019, 05:22:16 PM »
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/trump-should-give-the-medal-of-freedom-to-supply-side-economics

Economics
Arthur Laffer Deserves Some Kind of Award
The central goal of supply-side economics was to reduce inflation with minimal damage to the economy, and it worked.

By Karl W. Smith
June 4, 2019, 7:00 AM CDT
Karl W. Smith is a former assistant professor of economics at the University of North Carolina's school of government and founder of the blog Modeled Behavior.
From the article:
...
[Arthur Laffer's] boldness was crucial in the development of what came to be known as the “Supply Side Revolution,” which even today is grossly underappreciated. In the 1980s, the U.S. economy avoided the malaise that afflicted Japan and much of Western Europe. The primary reason was supply-side Laffer Curve, which demonstrates the relatively uncontroversial point that the maximum amount of revenue is raised by a tax rate of something less than 100%. This is emphatically not the same as saying that a tax cut of any size will always lead to a rise in revenue and a reduction in the deficit.

In fact, the Laffer Curve is only described (it does not appear) in a footnote to the 1975 essay that coined the term supply-side economics and laid out its basic tenets: “The Mundell-Laffer Hypothesis: A New View of the World Economy,” by Jude Wanniski, then an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal.

The article is primarily devoted to inflation, trade and exchange rates. The footnote explains that, if there is full employment, a reduction in tax rates might be expected to reduce revenues. When the economy is depressed, however, tax cuts would not only increase the incentive to expand output, but would also inject money into the economy — in effect, a Keynesian stimulus.

This double effect would increase tax revenue enough to cover the interest payments on the debt incurred. As long as the payments were made, future taxes would not have to be raised to “pay for” the tax cut. The economy could simply grow its way out of the debt, as it did after World War II.

That, in turn, meant that it was possible to reduce inflation quickly with the right combination of tax cuts and tight monetary policy. Reducing inflation with minimal damage to the economy was the central goal of supply-side economics.

At the time, most economists agreed that inflation could be brought down with a severe enough recession. But they also thought that the process could require a decade-long slump. Conservative economists argued that the long-term gain was worth that level of pain. Liberal economists argued that inflation was better contained with price and income controls.

Robert Mundell, a future Nobel Laureate, argued that there was third way. Restricting the money supply, he said, would cause demand in the economy to contract, but making large tax cuts would cause demand to expand. If done together, these two strategies would cancel each other out, leaving room for supply-side factors to do their work.

Mundell himself focused on the fact that tight money would lead to a rising dollar and falling prices for natural resources. Laffer suggested that permanent reductions in taxes and regulations would increase long-term economic growth. A faster-growing economy would increase foreign demand for U.S. financial assets, further raising the value of the dollar and reducing the price of foreign imports. These effects would speed the fall in inflation by increasing the supply of goods for sale.
...
Supply-side economics helped the U.S. fight both inflation and unemployment more effectively than most conventional economists expected

In Europe, meanwhile, efforts to bring down the rate of inflation led to persistently high unemployment and sporadic bouts of inflation that plagued the continental economy through the 1990s. The European Union accepted Mundell’s monetary theory in the creation of the euro, but rejected the budget-busting tax cuts associated with Laffer.
[more at link]

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
Economics, Alan Reynolds on Income Inequality, Harvard, 1987
« Reply #467 on: June 18, 2019, 10:25:22 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=352&v=i_Yg-mlKAAo

Funny how this issue remains the same.  He hits a huge number of very important points.

In 1987 Alan Reynolds was invited to Harvard to a debate on Income Inequality with John Kenneth Galbraith, Lester Thurow and others.

The young Reynolds is quite witty and insightful.  Everyone except the opposing professors laugh at his clever observations.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48041
    • View Profile
GPF: George Friedman: Capitalism & Socialism
« Reply #468 on: July 02, 2019, 07:15:34 PM »

July 2, 2019



By George Friedman


Socialism and Capitalism


Socialism is a global political movement that emerged from the French Revolution. Its goal was to speak for the dispossessed, only sometimes as a democratic political party. In all of its guises, it has been a powerful political force in most of the world. In the United States, however, it has been relegated to the political margins, seen largely as alien to the American ethos. It has now emerged explicitly as a subject of debate in American politics and therefore requires some thought.

Origin Stories

The important difference between socialism and capitalism – even more important than what each actually preaches – is that capitalism is less an intellectual or moral system than a reality born of the industrial revolution. Socialism, on the other hand, has always been an intellectual movement, crafted by intellectuals such as Saint-Simon, Fourier, Lassalle and Marx, all of whom made the moral case for socialism and imagined what such a system would look like. These intellectuals loathed inequality and despised the intellectual shallowness of the rich and sought to create a political movement that could bring their vision to life. It was commandeered by politicians such as Karl Kautsky in Germany, and Vladimir Lenin in Russia.

Socialism argued that the private ownership and control of investment capital, which created the means of production, was flawed in two ways. First, it diverted wealth from the common good to the private benefit of the rich. Second, in investing on the basis of the highest return on capital, capitalism neglected investment in social goods that had a lower or no return on capital. It limited human possibilities.

In general, socialism advocates a radical restructuring of society – the means of production should be transferred to state control, and the state should determine the investment strategy. There were three underlying goals to this argument. First, that socialism would make possible the political equality that wealth inequality did not allow for. Second, that the state would produce for the common good, since state officials would not profit from the decisions they made. Finally, that the state would be controlled democratically, and therefore be under control of the public.

Capitalism did not attempt to make the case for itself. In fact, it was not something imagined and planned for. It was the reality that emerged alongside the Industrial Revolution. The industrial revolution could not develop without investment, and the investors hoped to make a profit, and that profit was reinvested. The capitalists’ wealth came to dwarf that of the old European aristocracy, and it grew larger as capitalists pursued more wealth. The capitalist did not contemplate the virtue of wealth, or the effects of industrialism on the human condition. The capitalist considered the moment and acted on it. Capitalism was not an ideology, nor did intellectuals defend it until the 20th century, when Hayek and Friedman, among others, sought to make the moral case. In the United States, capitalists bound their work to Christian notions of charity, but they had no systematic vision of their own.

Capitalism’s greatest explicator was Adam Smith, who wrote “The Wealth of Nations.” In it, he described how individual decisions, driven by self-interest, would culminate in an increase in the wealth of nations. In one of his lesser-read books, “The Theory of Moral Sentiments,” Smith made the argument that moral principles do not derive from external theories (by which he implicitly meant socialism and religion) but rather from pragmatic, necessary solutions to problems. So, Smith’s ultimate defense of capitalism is that it worked. But by this he meant that it maximized wealth – not that it limited inequality.

The capitalists determined where money was invested, based on expectations of returns on capital. In this sense, they controlled the direction capitalism would go, in that they didn’t care where it went so long as their wealth increased. From this came the towering structures of Euro-American civilization, along with the reality that the wealth of nations left vast swaths of society serving the system as workers and excluded many others from the system. Human action usually comes at the expense of others.

Reallocating Capital

The socialist argument was that, so long as capitalists pursued their own immediate interests, the wealth of society would accumulate in their hands, and the matters of inequality and poverty would not be addressed. At the core of the socialist argument was that the very indifference to ideology by the capitalists would create vast wealth for the few, without alleviating the suffering of the many. Therefore, there had to be a reallocation of capital. Some capital would go toward easing the suffering of the excluded. But even more would go to the state, which would assume responsibility for investment. The state was a superior agent of investment the individuals making investment decisions would either be civil servants or an elected representative of the people, and, having no personal interest in the outcome, would make the best decisions possible based on democratically defined ends.

The clash between capitalism and socialism has many dimensions, but the most important is this: Capitalist investment is not centralized. Investment capital comes from many sources, and there are countless investors making decisions. The diversification of capital limits the consequences of any single decision. It makes capitalism vulnerable to cycles and fads, but devastation is not the same as annihilation. It can and (and regularly does) recover from devastation. But the emphasis is on what the investment process can recover from, not the havoc that the devastation might cause to the public.

Socialism places confidence in the state, and control of the state in the hands of the public. The public as a whole has an understanding of what it needs but is not sensitive to the price paid. The state, then, must either abide by the will of the many or make investment decisions regardless of the public will, but for the good of the public (or at least what the state regards as their good). Since the state is an abstraction, the decisions are actually made by state officials. Given the vastness of the decisions made by the state, it must devolve to an army of civil servants who individually hold minimal power, but who collectively would take the place of investors, unbound by the demand of self-interest.

Democratic socialism cannot be democratic because of the scope and scale of modern economies. It either evolves in a Soviet direction, to name one extreme, or, as in oft-cited Sweden, leaves most investment decisions to private investors, taxing them and transferring money to the rest of society. In the Soviet model, the state tries to manage mid-level civil servants by terrifying them with death. In the Swedish model, the battle is formed by demands of increasing social benefits and decreasing investment capital.

Under capitalism, the diversification of capital sources protects against bad decisions made by centralized governments. But it must, by its nature, create inequality and occasional social crisis. The flow of money into the hands of the investor class must generate crises as industries are shut down and as new ones are created. The speed of what Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction” generates rapid and intense crises that can turn just as rapidly into social unrest, chaos or repression. Capitalism has generally solved this in the same way that social democracy has: It has left investment to private investors and then imposed taxes on them to cushion social dislocation.

In short, the distinction between modern industrial capitalism and social democracy is minimal. Leaving aside socialist fantasies about the abolition of greed or capitalist fantasies in which a state will expect nothing from its citizens, the two systems have more or less merged. Capitalists and socialists accept private investment. Both expect economies to grow and from that growth they will pay taxes. In both Sweden and the United States, taxes are hated by the public, but the benefits are loved. Still, the political system decides the taxes and the politicians do what they were meant to do in a democracy – pander to the public. What may differentiate one politician from the next is the amount of taxation they propose, but even that is used to balance the system.

Even within today’s hybrid system, democratic socialism has risen as a topic of debate within the Democratic Party. I would argue that the reasons for the emergence can be explained this way. The Democratic Party was defeated by Donald Trump in the last presidential election because he seemed to speak for the interests of the industrial working class that is in decline. This class had been the foundation of the New Deal coalition that had dominated the Democrats and from which the Democrats shifted, focusing instead on other sectors of society.

The conversation around socialism in the Democratic Party represents an attempt to woo the voters feeling intense pain who voted for Trump. Whether this group will respond is a key question. For the most part, the conversation will appeal most to those already committed to the Democratic left. That is where the battle is going on now. So it seems designed to win the Democratic nomination and lose the general election. But I am not a politician, so they may see things I can’t. What I can say is that the discussion of socialism is purely symbolic and intended to indicate a commitment to unspecified radical change. But structurally, there is little there that can substantially change the economic system, because there has been a massive convergence between the socialists rising from the French Revolution and the industrialists rising in the factories of Edinburgh. The debate is functionally archaic – but perhaps of some symbolic power.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
Re: GPF: George Friedman: Capitalism & Socialism
« Reply #469 on: July 03, 2019, 03:26:07 PM »
I disagree with Mr. Friedman, in part.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
Economics, supply side
« Reply #470 on: August 09, 2019, 05:21:45 AM »
August 8, 2019 by Dan Mitchell, [article about spain]
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2019/08/08/spain-and-lessons-on-supply-side-tax-policy/

At the risk of over-simplifying, the difference between “supply-side economics” and “demand-side economics” is that the former is based on microeconomics (incentives, price theory) while the latter is based on macroeconomics (aggregate demand, Keynesianism).

When discussing the incentive-driven supply-side approach, I often focus on two key points.

Marginal tax rates matter more than average tax rates because the incentive to earn additional income (rather then enjoying leisure) is determined by whether the government grabs a small, medium, or large share of any extra earnings.

Some taxpayers such as investors, entrepreneurs, and business owners are especially sensitive to changes in marginal tax rates because they have considerable control over the timing, level, and composition of their income.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
Re: Economics, Mises in 4 Pieces
« Reply #471 on: August 11, 2019, 04:16:10 PM »
Learn here what you will learn in no public school in America, our economic system entrepreneurial capitalism, the system that has lifted more people out of poverty than all others combined.

https://fee.org/articles/capitalism-encapsulated-mises-in-four-easy-pieces/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
Re: Economics, socailism
« Reply #472 on: September 04, 2019, 08:15:49 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
Capitalism: Economics of an Apple Orchard
« Reply #473 on: September 04, 2019, 08:45:37 AM »
Listen up Bernie, Fauxcahontas and all the well meaning Democrats  out there:

Economics  of the Apple Orchard

After you make the big investment and take the risks and do the work and you somehow get a good crop of apples, how do you harvest the apples?  Do you pick them from the tree or cut down the tree?

If you chop down the tree it might be easier to pick the apples, but you won't have apples next year.  Apples are the income, the tree is the capital. 

We don't want politicians double, triple and quadruple taxing capital [cutting down the tree] even if it wins them votes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=iCbmsUc-99Q


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11421
    • View Profile
Economic Shocker, People who work more, make more
« Reply #474 on: September 26, 2019, 11:01:37 AM »
National Bureau of Economic Research, 1980

No one saw this coming.  People who work more, make more.

https://www.nber.org/chapters/c11300.pdf

"The richest fifth of families supplied over 30 percent of total weeks worked. . . while the poorest fifth supplied only 7.5 percent. Thus on a per-week-of-work basis, the income ratio between rich and poor was only 2:1.  This certainly does not seem like an unreasonable degree of inequality."

"A similar calculation comparing the richest tenth and the poorest tenth
brings an apparent 15:1 ratio in the raw data down to only 2.8:1"