i've tried explaining the laffer curve to my dad, who thinks that tax cuts always generate more revenue. i've explained it perfectly, multiple times, but he refuses to learn.
Libertarians think the maxima is at 5%, Conservatives think the maxima is at 25%, Liberals think the maxima is at 45%, Socialists think the maxima is at 65%, and Communists think the maxima should be no lower than 85%.
@Obamaluke I wish I thought he was ignorant, but it is clear that B.O. is really only interested in wealth equality, which makes all of this irrelevent to him.
Cain's "999" is actually 9 + 9x + 9y. The variables are at the mercy of the corporate entity or owners. Cain's plan is simply another form of a BAILOUT! for the corporate entity. TARP and other BAILOUTS have failed! Therefore, the Laffer curve and Cain's formula is outdated and flawed. Expect the "free market" to be perverted again by a few individuals. If I was a corporate owner I could simply keep the prices for my products the same and benefit from the 9% corporate tax for my company.
Herman Cain's REAL formula: 9 + 9x + 9y. Honestly, the problem with the Laffer curve theory is that this data is based on possible behavioural patterns or actions by the owners of corporations. My evidence against the Laffer curve theory is that NOW some owners of corporations are willing to pay more taxes for the well being of the citizenry. Remember,the Laffer curve has factored in the POSSIBLE behaviour patterns? OK,Cain's theory starts with Corporate tax & therefore affecting the other 9's.
food for thought, if you were already finding ways to hide your money from the irs, regardless of tax rate, why would you change your behaviors when the rates are lower? either way, unless your tax rate is zero, you're hurting yourself to report your taxable income. criminals don't change over night. the laffer curve is a joke and it assumes that it is a bell shaped curve, with only one optimal revenue point and all participants hold the marginal value of money equal across income demographics.
@tawilk Because, despite all of its flaws, our financial system is still exponentially more stable than some of the countries that the money is being hidden in, and the companies would be able to avoid all of the expense of keeping money offshore. Also, Art Laffer says that loopholes and tax holidays have to be removed for this to work.
6:42 so if there are barely any tax cuts that pay for themselves, nor any tax cuts that have a zero revenue effect, doesn't that imply that most tax cuts lead to a revenue drop? Which is the complete opposite of what the Laffer Curve is meant to show. Presumably he's made a slip here, or is he subtly admitting there is little empirical evidence to prove the Laffer Curve (as much as I think the gist of it is true).
@Chronoalarm2009 So, if Demnark is "a much better country than the one we are living in", why do you live here rather than there? Why do so many other people from around the world want to move to the US to live rather than Denmark? Or Greece? Ireland? What "Europeans are beating us in" is learning the errors of their failed socialist policies and trying to reverse them as our government tries to adopt them (e.g., health-control bill). "Don't be an idiot."
@ArcoZakus Would that be Ireland were Microsoft and other MNCs moved to because of the low tax rates? The low tax rates that were unsustainable (as well as their property/construction boom?
The reason people live in the US is probably because they were born there, just as people don't move abroad when taxes go up. Besides, Greece and Denmark are barely anything like each other. Greece may look to have the same provision of services as Denmark but have lower taxes, so they have crazy debt.
what about exise taxes like on cigarettes, alcohol and gas? Is there a laffer curve when the tax on those things go up to say $100 tax on a pack of cigarettes?
But a flat rate of tax isn't fair because the value of money to welfare has a logarithmic curve. Example if a guy making just enough to pay rent gets a pay rise that's hugely beneficial to his welfare but if a guy earning $150m (not chosen at random) gets a pay rise that is largely unusable to him. That's why you use tax brackets.
@DonalLynchyou How do you know that if "a guy earning $150m gets a pay rise" it "is largely unusable to him"? How do you know he won't use it to create a company that would hire the first guy in your example (& many others) at a higher wage, improving his situation? I KNOW this works, because I WAS the first guy in 1976 when M. Kenneth Oshman and partners were the "fat cats" who earned so much more than I did then. Google him at nytimes,com. I earned more after they hired me despite J. Carter.
@ArcoZakus "How do I know he won't create a company that would hire the first guy?" I don't but that more about have an idea of a company to start up as it would be strange that he wouldn't be able to finance a start up with $150m. Also isn't it more likely that one of the many millions more people who don't earn enough to finance the start up of a company will actually have a creative idea. You don't want to limit the means of job creation to a select few.
@DonalLynchyou In the US the guy with no money but a good idea for a company used to go to a guy with money and convince him to invest it for the potential to earn more. That happens much less now. It's not just whether $150m is enough. The investor also has to believe the risk is worth the potential reward and right now not enough do.Tax rates don't have to actually rise to reduce gov't revenue. If investors simply expect them to rise they see that as more risk and will not do the startup.
@ArcoZakus "investor has to believe the risk is worth the potential reward" agreed. But a large part of taking on that risk is collateral. So you are still limiting those who can potentially create jobs. Also with your tax creating extra risk; can you see how a low tax for businesses considering breaking even would encourage them but reasonable tax increases wouldn't harm businesses with robust profits.
@DonalLynchyou What evidence do you have that "the value of money to welfare has a logarithmic curve"? In my first comment, the rich guys used the money they had to create jobs that multiplied many other peoples' wealth more than we could have if their money had simply been taken from them and given to us. Maybe it IS logarithmic but in the opposite of the way you suggest. Even if they bought yachts instead of starting a company, who builds the yachts? Outfits them? Maintain them? More jobs.
whoa whoa. You lost me on your 1st point. "after all, who is going to work, if the government takes everything you make. " I would, as long as said government provided everything I needed in life, removing the need for me to make money.
So, your initial premise is false, and I cant watch the rest.
@chex383 Would you rather decide for yourself what "everything I needed in life" is, or have someone in the government decide? (Think DMV or P.O.) If you say the government, try living for a while somewhere that it works that way, like the USSR. Do you think the government will perform this function efficiently? For free? Without corruption? Good luck. Where has this EVER worked well in all of history? A government that has enough power to give you everything has enough power to take it away.
@chex383 OK, so how about if you give me everything you make and I provide everything you need in life? But then I, not you, get to decide what it is you need, and get to decide what my fee is for that service. Sounds like you would be fine if slavery returned? Google David Michael Mabery at virtualwall,org. You apparenty do not value the freedom he lost his life defending.
@bookfreak29 Thanks for your comment and the clarification regarding stock option sales I did not know that. I personally lean against capital gain rates being lower than income tax rates--although the other side has good arguments as well. Mr. Buffet himself actually has some good essays about this. I highly recommend the Collected Essays Of Warren Buffet Edited by Lawrence Cunningham. Your second point--that is exactly what I was trying to say but you said it better. Thanks again.
@lavedor: Thanks for the clairity, but it doesn't alter the tone of my missive. He's willing to pay more, as the Gates (Jr. & Sr.) are. And most rich people HATE paying taxes and will do practically anything to get out of paying them -- regardless of the Laffer curve. The presenter is dead wrong. Lower the tax rate of the wealthy and they pay less. It's simple and obvious and well proven. And what the heck is wrong with raising the rates on billionaires, for pities sake?
This is not right. It's a sham when the presenter makes claims that he expects us to take things as fact when they're not. For instance: It's well known that high end tax payers right now have low tax rates (and seemingly going lower every day). He says that means they pay their taxes willingly. NOT SO. We all know that high-end tax payers are avoiding taxes like crazy. And then there's this: Warren Buffett says his secretary pays more taxes than he does - and he says it's wrong.
because hes almost dead... thats why he cares. some of us still want to live, if he blieves so, why not advicate for an unavoidable flat tax of 10% everyone wins?
@PENNA65000 Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher rate % then he does for his big investment earnings because he is paying the capital gains rate which is lower then the income tax rate. His secretary earns about 200-250k a year. And is in the bush tax cut 35% federal bracket and I believe the capital gains rate then was 15% then he certainly pays much much more in tax then she does. Made that statement because he feels capital gains should be taxed at the same rates as income.
@lavedon First off: if Warrent Buffet's taxed income that you are claiming is from legitimate investment then yes, he would pay only a 15% rate for capital gains, which is incidentally the SAME rate that his secratary would pay if she invested her money. If you are assuming the capital gains rates for stock OPTIONS then you are sorely mistaken, when a stock option is sold then the tax is exaclty the same as income because there is no risk in the investment.
@lavedon Second, I'm sure that even if his secretary pays a higher % tax than he does, i can gaurentee you that he pays more physical money than she does simply because he makes more money, simply looking at one variable will never give you the correct answer
@mediblue9 So do you think raising their tax rate will make them hide more, or less? The lower the rate, the less incentive there is to go to the bother of hiding it, and to risk any penalty for being caught doing anything illegal to hide it.
You do NOT need to be an economist to see that, biased or not, this video explains the phenomenon pretty well. As nice as it is to think that the government can raise tax rates without consequence, this is clearly not the case. 100% of zero is still zero. You can ignore this fact only at your peril, as the government does regularly.
@ponycar17 I wasn't asking "When will they?" I was asking when have they? And considering the evidence he's using to support his idea is exaggerated, and a few people seem to claim he's even outright lying about certain statements, I wouldn't go questioning my ability to reason just yet.
@evilmiera Do you think that this presentation, or my comment, was meant to imply that the U.S. tax rate was ever set at 100%? Your question implies disingenuousness or impairment. Please say what you really mean. My comment was that 100% of zero is still zero. I assume the reader to have the modicum of arithmetic reasoning to infer that 99% of a very small number is still a very small number, and so forth. Still with me?
@MrWalrus52 No, my question was worded in that manner because you seem to imply a 100 percent tax rate is somehow either in the books for any governing party in the US, or the inevitable result of their policies. I don't know if you're just exaggerating because you somehow believe taxes are too high at the moment, or if you've got any actual proof outside this video (as noted, the curve is up for debate) for your predictions.
@evilmiera Not at all. As in calculus when evaluate limits as a number goes to infinity (and division by zero is implied), the fact that infinity is unachievable (and division by zero impossible), the equation and the limits are valid. I do not imply that it is on the books for a 100% tax rate, just a close as practicaity will allow. That is the point of the curve.
@y2knoproblem why? is it because he has like no numbers on it?
i agree with him that government shouldnt try to maximize revenue but his idea that a increase toward point B will make people spend less is oversimplified...there is a diminishing returns when you get closer to point B but that doesnt mean tax increases are bad...
He's got the concept down, but he is wildly exaggerating the evidence toward to support tax cuts and his line about revenue from the wealthy is simply false, revenue decreased dramatically.
The real problem is we can't know the shape of the curve or where we are on it at any given time. There are millions of variable impacting people's economic behavior relative to changes in taxes, so we never know whether up or down increases total revenue.
The earlier parts are a good summary of the concept, however 5:38 - 6:33 may or may may not be true as you offer no evidence for it.
1) How do we know that those points are best for economic growth?
2) Why is economic growth the most important thing in a society's decisions?
3) How do we know that flat taxes are best for economic growth? They are certainly simpler but that does that mean they are better for economic growth?
@ChristopherHeward Re: "2)" Do you think a poor kid in Romania is more likely to find a good job and improve their situation in an economy that is growing, or one that is not? When people needed help after the tsunami in Indonesia or the earthquake in Haiti, were others more likely to contribute if they lived in a growing economy, or in one that is stagnant? It is NOT "the most important thing", (FREEDOM is) but it is important. Growth helps pay the cost of sending people and material to help.
@ArcoZakus But you allude to one key thing, about freedom. Is a country with an authoritarian state and an economy growing faster than a country with democratic state a better country to live in? Similarly, an economy growing fast says nothing of what that money is going towards (how beneficial the activity is). Indeed, if in the West our economies are driven by consumption this implies consumerism is required, which makes people discontented with what they have (unnecessary and unhelpful).
@ChristopherHeward As I said, FREEDOM is more important than a growing economy to me. But the country that has had the highest standard of living for the greatest number of people I can think of throughout history has also been the most free for most of its existence. Its citizens (if not government) have also been the most charitible. Time will tell how long that can last. People who have had freedom given to them seem to value it less than those who have ever lost or had to fight to defend it.
@ArcoZakus Also, GDP is a flow, not a measure of welfare or wealth. It is perfectly possibly for GDP to be falling (net investment is falling but it is still positive, so adding to the wealth of the country) and a country to be becoming wealthier and possible for GDP to rise whilst a country has got poorer (a natural disaster will massively decrease wealth whilst increasing GDP, but the country is clearly poorer despite an increase in economic growth).
@ChristopherHeward I got the part about GDP being a flow but I'm not sure I followed the rest of your question. If two countries experience the same natural disaster at the same time, but one has a growing GDP and the other does not, which would be in the best shape to recover from the damage without help from others? To be able to offer help to others if they also experienced damage? So isn't it better to have GDP grow than decline regardless of it being "a poor measure of financial wealth"?
@ArcoZakus A lot of it depends on how much of GDP is Investment and how much Consumption. This is turn gives an indication of supply side capacity. If a predominately 'C' country is growing quicker than a predominately 'I' country it's GDP might be obliterated because an earthquake destroys it's infrastructure and producers of consumables. Whereas as the slower economy is perfectly equipped to continue investing, with ideal supply-side conditions, and so maintains or improves its growth.
@ChristopherHeward OK, but I don't think that's what I asked. You keep making the point more complex and I'm trying to keep it closer to your original question whether economic growth is important in a society's decisions. I think it is.
@ArcoZakus My original point was to question whether it was the MOST important thing to consider. The way he speaks around 5:37 indicates he believes that we should choose tax levels according to what it will do to economic growth. Of course, this is a consideration, but it's not the only or necessarily main thing. Taxes on certain things, whilst raising money, are there to prevent consumption of harmful things. If we have strong economic growth because of consumption of bad stuff, is that best?
@ArcoZakus My main issue is that I don't think consumerism is necessary or helpful. It damages the environment, it is a massive contributor to the social issues we have currently (poor mental health, relationship and family breakdown, low sense of self worth/value and obsession with physical image, etc.), and clearly it is economically unsustainable too because it is often funded by a mountain of consumer, business and sovereign debt. Arguably a stable GDP level would be better.
The part about "honest courts" makes me LOL. Laffer is always appearing on Kudlow cuz he and Larry Kudlow cochair the free enterprise fund, which just seems to be there to smear and sue any honest person who threatens to expose bankster corruption.
It is exactly that, CATTLE management. Laffer is Cheney and Rumsfeld's boy, a professor from Strauss's U. of Chicago. He got the laffer curve idea fron Keynes, the Bank of England director who promoted Eugenics. Eugenicsmakes sense from the NWO perspective, where nonconforming cattle are useless eaters or threaten the financial dictatorship.
At the end of the day, just in the same way as a farmer could create a graph regarding milk yield from his dairy herd... and learn how to improve it... we humans are simply regarded as stock by economists and politicians. Just a commodity to be explored. It's just a shame that so much of our tax goes on horrid wars. If only it was invested in helping the people more.
This ignores the fact that money improves your life less as you earn more. For example $30'000 / year is a much better life than $10'000, but $50'000 vs $30'000 is an improvement but not the massive difference of the first jump. $50K-$70 just means a slightly further away holiday, if you can spare the time to take it. So the rich don't need the extra as much. so the won't work as hard either.
If the streets are so bad and crime ridden u can't go out...
@pam0077 : Denmark is a more homogenous society--the majority of the people are in agreement with each other. MOST Americans would not last long there. Danish thinking is highly focused.
@100CommonCents : I see by your channel that you like to quote people whom you see as being smarter than yourself. Try quoting YOURSELF from your true feelings and heartfelt beliefs, and show us what you come up with.
@buzzclick500 actually i took the quote to be quite separate from the origin. i have sharp disagreements with most of these people, i just happen to only agree with the quotes themselves.
but the point i was making before is that a homogeneous society, on a national scale rarely happens naturally. it's actually depressing to be living Australia for the same reason.
i'm not attackign you, i'm just asking what your reasoning is?
i mean, masses of cultures reduced to uniformity - sad
@100CommonCents : I didn't feel attacked, I'm just used to living in a society in which people are more fearful by the day of saying what they think and feel as individuals., so I'm perhaps over-sensitized to the phenomenon.
@buzzclick500 well maybe we're thinking of different situations. i think on a national scale, the better option is that people are more critical/openminded. conformity in societies existing on a much small scale is ok
I think conformity on a national scale is dangerous and easily taken advantage of by 'leaders', but conversely on a small scale, this conformity usually IMO reflects a societies health - deceitful 'leaders' are easily recognised and people can evaluate society better at this level
@100CommonCents : When I think of conformity, I think of people who have agreed on certain things in a majorical sense. There ARE negatives and positives to every situation; recognizing that and co-operating with it is step forward. I actually think people should just do what they feel like doing, and America would be the place to practice that. We have our national secrets, and politics is like surfing. Americans are just waiting for that "perfect wave".
@Chronoalarm2009 Comparing the mostly homogeneous Danish population of 5 million people with the diverse United States of America is apples and oranges. Denmark is willing to support a large government structure because the population buys into it. Not everyone would agree that the Danish system is better; that's why there's controversy.
I've been in the work force for the last 24 years and have had seven different jobs in that time. I have never, and I know of no one else who has ever got a job from someone earning $200,000/yr or less.
Yet, progressives want to raise marginal tax rates on all these job producers... so that government can stimulate... the production of jobs?
"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan
"Liberalism is a mental disorder" - Michael Savage
Your kid makes a Laffer curve in his art class? Give it enough time and we'll have no art classes in schools. Money is a good thing but I don't think I want my kid worshiping it so early. Art is about actually feeling things instead of jacking off to Lamborghinis.
@HoGraz Did you even listen to the rest of the video you ideological asswipe. Stop telling others how to run their lives and either A) enjoy the video and make logical points or B) stop watching and move on without polluting the comment section with your nonsense.
@ipwnallnubscuzirock Haha. Ok. It doesn't really matter. I'm just reacting to most the post I usually see. People on youtube generally seem to scream Socialist all the time cause that's the cool way to look at things.
@ipwnallnubscuzirock You idiot. Can't I joke about how Republicans yell silly things on here? Libertarianism is kinda a joke. It's mostly Republicans who decided that there's a way out of the income tax and they realize Republican is becoming a dirty word just like liberal has become. Not all liberals are multi-multiculturalist, social progressive assholes who 'tell people how to live their lives.' If you think having small business centers to compete with the corporations is doing that or..
Respond to this video... Or you think the FDA shouldn't exist and people should just sell people Oxycotin or snake oil then that's silly. A hands off aproach and letting 'the market sort things out' seems of late to be what the big guys want. If the top 5% owns 80% of the stocks then those people are running other people lives by voting for all the companies to outsource all their jobs so they themselves can 'compete' by having the most conspicuous consumption.
"Center for Freedom and Prosperity" George Orwell must be laughing in his grave. Nothing says corporate sycophancy like that title or this bullshit theory.
@vgcq02 You are so right. I have an idea to lower unemplyment and lower the buget deficit. To lower the Unemployment rate The federal government should put in place a policy that says if a state government or city government or a US company agrees to pay its employees that are in the 25% or higher tax bracket ,80% of their salaries and expands their work force by 20%, the fed will pay the balance of the employees salaries. That way at income tax time the fed gets back its 20% plus.
One problem.. Under Reagan through the present executive salaries and dividends have gone up while worker salaries have gone down. Boards of directors are paying executives more and paying out more in dividends at the expense of all other employees. This would have the effect of increasing the tax payments of the wealthy, but not because they have invested more or were more productive only because they paid themselves more.
@scotths You are so right. I have an idea to lowere unemplyment and lower the buget deficit. To lower the Unemployment rate The federal government should put in place a policy that says if a state government or city government or a US company agrees to pay its employees that are in the 25% or higher tax bracket ,80% of their salaries and expands their work force by 20%, the fed will pay the balance of the employees salaries. That way at income tax time the fed gets back its 20% plus.
The picture of reality that you have is completely inside your own head. We don't plug in into a collective single reality. It exist as a manifestation of your intellect that is disconnected from everyone else's. Nothing overlaps into the other. It is contained within your own existence.
So why did the National Debt double in the eight years that GWB was President? The rich took the money from the tax cuts that Reagan and GWB gave them and spent in China. China is the powerhouse it is today because of the unconditional tax breaks that were given the rich. Had the rich invested their tax break in the U.S or had they not gotten that tax break we would not be in the hole that we are in today. The Republicans talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.
@dannnynieves why is the obama's deficit depending 3 times that of bush's? We went from bad to worse. The only way jobs come back to America is by cutting taxes. Do you really think wealthy people are going to invest in the economy when they cant make a dime? Wake up and stop drinking the kool aid you and your ilk are getting ready to get stepped on in Nov.
When people sit on their wallets the govt. has to spend money in order to restore consumer confidence. What was GWB's excuse for spending so much money, didn't he run for President as a fiscal conservative? You guys talk the talk but can't walk the walk, tax cuts to the rich is what made China the powerhouse it is today. In Nov. a lot of people are going to get stepped on, Republican and Democrat.
@dannnynieves What you fail to understand is all government can do is take from one person and give to another They create nothing The Wealthy I'm referring to are the people that could invest or not they've made there money. So what do you propose we use for incentive or should we just bull rush in and take their money? The reason China is out producing us is because we are over regulated and taxed and don't even get me started on the unions. Could you explain why G.B. is junking there H.C.?
@HaulingAsh When you take incentive away from people who create jobs there not going to create any. Congress spent 12 million dollars in the last 9 months on food during session!!!!!! so do you think this type of behavior is ok at any time? Nancy P. spent 101 thousand dollars on her own personnel alcohol this last year...WTH??? This administration is trying to divide us as a nation along party and racial lines. There will be no middle class if this continues and thats bad for everybody!
The rich cannot creat jobs if there is no demand. The best way to create demand is to put money into the hands of people with the highest (MPC) Marginal propencity to consume. The best sector to do that would be the government. The can best do it by lowering the unemplyment rate this way:To lower the Unemployment rate The federal government should put in place a policy that says if a state government or city government or a US company agrees to pay its...
@HaulingAsh ..............employees that are in the 25% or higher tax bracket ,80% of their salaries and expands their work force by 20%, the fed will pay the balance of the employees salaries. That way at income tax time the fed will get back the 20% it put out plus the 5% or higher becaues of the tax bracket of the employees is 25% or higher. That way the unemployment rate will go down and the budget deficit will go down. .
@david510152025303540 The government creates nothing. All they can do is take from one and give to another. And they due it at a cost much higher then that of any private business. Government is the problem its been documented that the stimulus created no jobs. But the bailouts for unions and federal employees are out of control (and are happing every few months lately). The private sector is taxed and regulated into a corner. Look to Greece for your future with bigger goverment.......
@HaulingAsh I don't think it is true that the government is the problem. Landing on the moon, fighting WWI and WWII would not have been possible with out the government. Your statemenet sound like idealogy. We need to look for solutions to our problems honestly.
@david510152025303540 There are plenty of solutions. #1 cut taxes across the board. #2 Cut Government spending and useless departments. De fund unions from Government tax dollars. End NAFTA. Charge import taxes and also export taxes on companies that export jobs. Stop earmarks and Government corrupt spending. And when a company can't pay the bills they fail no bailouts. The private sector were manufacturing is at 33% unemployment and rising still. You can't make money drinking Kool aid buddy.
@HaulingAsh I agree with some of what you say. We need to De fund unions from government tax dollars,end the practice of rewarding the export of american jobs,stop earmarks and government corrupt spending. The idea of the fed funding the 20% salary of the 20% employee increase in the 25% or higher tax bracket. Which will allow the fed to collect the 25%or higher on their out put. What do you think?
@david510152025303540 I really think we need to remove Government from our businesses as much as possible. However Some large corp. such as Enron (just using them as an example) and others have to have checks and balances I don't think anyone would argue that. I think a fair tax would be the simplest and fairest form (as the name suggests). Tax people on what they purchase. The wealthy buy more and also this kills all the loopholes they enjoy now.
@HaulingAsh The loopholes are made for the wealthy and the unions ect ect. On top of collecting more tax money we would eliminate most of the IRS . And they are very expensive. Trust me the rich cringe when they hear of fair tax. When you add more paperwork to business it drives the price up. I guess I'm not saying you're idea is bad I just think we need to go simple and fair (in my opinion). tc :)
@HaulingAsh I like "fair tax" but I don't understand is how we could make the switch from taxing income to taxing spending. How would it be fair to people who have spent their whole lives paying taxes on their income, retire, and then get taxed again on that money they have saved (in spite all the income taxes) as they spend it? They will get screwed in the deal without some fair transition and would not vote for it. With the aging of the baby boom that is an increasing part of the population.
@david510152025303540 The only time our economy has grown in the last 100 years is when taxes are cut. You can twist that anyway you want but facts don't lie. The 1 trillion dollar stimulus created jobs in 2 states N.D. and Alaska. The other 48 lost private sector jobs. Why? because the stimulus was a bailout for Government workers and unions. They also created 30,000 new Government jobs. We couldn't support what we had so the answer is to add more? The bailouts will stop were broke!!!!!
@david510152025303540 - actually the successes of WWI and WWII and landing on the Moon were largely due to private companies and individuals. Who made the bombs, bullets, guns, planes, Jeeps, tanks etc? Private companies that converted to produce those items to aid the war effort. Yes, NASA is funded by the govt but the technology to send man to the Moon came from private sector industry.
Govt helps in many ways but more often than not they obstruct business and employment.
@david510152025303540 Also I don't expect you to understand anything I've said because its common sense. We live in a time in America were its OK to let muslims establish themselves 500 ft from ground zero. But Christians students are arrested for praying on the steps of the Supreme Court.
@HaulingAsh Thanks for your response, However I am looking for a solution to our problem of unemployment and the budget deficit. I don't think it is helpful to imply that I am to unintellient to understand your position. God bless.
@david510152025303540 - you're not seeing the long term here. If the Feds have a hand in paying a private company salary they have a hand in its operations. Bad news if you own the company. Once the govt has its hands in your company it never takes it out. Never.
That is what the Nazi's did and what China does. Its called "State Capitalism". Good for govt - bad for business.
I understand very well that back in late 2008 to early 2009 when the stock market was crashing the rich were asking for a bail out, but now that the economy is on the road to recovery, guys like you are talking this hypercritical bullshit that you always talk. Without the unions workers would be working 6 days per week, sun up to sundown along with their kids. If you don't come in on Sat, forget about Monday. The golden age was the 1950's when the rich were taxed up to 90%.
Back in the 1950's the rich paid up to 90% taxes, taxes for the working people were low and Mom stayed home and took care of the kids. Now days the rich get tax breaks from the Republicans, Mom and Dad get the shit taxed out of them, and the perverts in daycare take care of the kids. When there was a 90% tax bracket the rich hardly paid it because they made investments that were good for the U.S. Unconditional tax breaks to the rich was the worst thing that ever happened here.
@dannnynieves@dannnynieves Notice everyone how the extreme left starts cussing squealing when they are losing any debate. Notice Also he couldn't answer a single question. When you speak with someone with an agenda they will use these tactics and deflect/divert from the facts. Common sense should be something you should try to include in you're life young man.
I've seen you're type before and I will not answer you again as you ARE whats wrong with America.......
You are so right. I have an idea to lowere unemplyment and lower the buget deficit. To lower the Unemployment rate The federal government should put in place a policy that says if a state government or city government or a US company agrees to pay its employees that are in the 25% or higher tax bracket ,80% of their salaries and expands their work force by 20%, the fed will pay the balance of the employees salaries. That way at income tax time the fed gets back its 20% plus.
@dannnynieves - The Rich still pay most of the taxes. Top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of all taxes, top 50% pay 97%, top 10% pay 64%, top 5% pay 53% and the top 1% pay 39%. The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97%. The top 1% is paying more than ten times in fed taxes than the bottom 50%. The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts.
When I say rich, I mean the top 2 % the ones that even Warren Buffet says can afford to pay more taxes because they are making most of the money and getting the most out of GWB's tax cut.
@HaulingAsh To lower the Unemployment rate The federal government should put in place a policy that says if a state government or city government or a US company agrees to pay its employees that are in the 25% or higher tax bracket ,80% of their salaries and expands their work force by 20%, the fed will pay the balance of the employees salaries. That way at income tax time the fed will get back the 20% it put out plus the 5% or higher becaues of the tax bracket of the employees >or=25%.
@dannnynieves You are so right. I have an idea to lowere unemplyment and lower the buget deficit. To lower the Unemployment rate The federal government should put in place a policy that says if a state government or city government or a US company agrees to pay its employees that are in the 25% or higher tax bracket ,80% of their salaries and expands their work force by 20%, the fed will pay the balance of the employees salaries. That way at income tax time the fed gets back its 20% plus.
the liberal comments on this thread are freaking nuts. its so disappointing they dont see common sense, when the policies they are agreeing with have not worked....ever....
This man is working for the CATO institute, formed by the multi-billionaire KOCH family. He doesn't want to help people, he wants to F the middle class and poor.
The KOCH family has paid hundreds of millions in enviornmental fines, because it's cheaper than to do the right thing. They want the rich to rule and stay rich forever. Know who you are listening to. THE EVIL KOCH FAMILY!
@lucki39284 ummm...millions of news jobs, revolutionized the technological sector, victory in the cold war...what has Obamanomics got us? 16.8% real unemployment, stagnant economy, devalued currency, isolating our allies and being laughed at by our enemies...yeah...the 1980s with all the wealth created, the standard of every American increased, and all that was just so awful...
@DarthByss Reagan bequeathed the largest budget deficit in American history to the presidents that succeeded him. His tax cuts also brought a range of social problems to the US as income inequities grew between the rich and the poor.
@dudz40 "Reagan's" deficit (remember it is the Democrats that controlled both houses of Congress during Reagan's presidency) is not the largest in history. The deficits after WWII are but one example. Unless you intend to be disingenuous and not account for the value of the dollar. Revenue to the treasury increased, but the Democrats spending far exceeded those revenue increases.
The executive branch lays out the budget, not the legislative branch. Let me guess, you're one of those people that claim Clinton had success due to a Republican Congress, yet Reagan's economic growth was due to him?
Clinton ran a surplus, Reagan ran a deficit. Only Clinton paid back any of the debt.
Oh yea, the Republicans controlled the Senate during Reagan's time.
Supply side economics worked under reagan. Revenues increased and unemployment went down. The reason we had such high deficits is because of the major increase in defense spending due to the fact that we were in an arms race with the soviet union.
To the money-lover libertarians it is good because numbers on a sheet look different than before. They are oblivious to anything in the real world (libertarians are usually pasty creatures haunting the moldy offices in tax-payer funded universities while they rail against the government and say "Free Trade" is the way to wealth despite all the evidence in the world outside the university.) They are oblivious to how customers have to spend 5 times longer on the phone to get issues solved.
Who said anything about conservative. I said libertarian. But, yes, the econ departments of all universities I know of preach the disproven religion of "Free Trade." Meanwhile, all other countries practice mercantilism and are destroying us economically.
so you want to play semantics as if conservative and libertarian economic philosophy are any different. Fine, libertarian it is.
While I would love to argue the irrelevance of the trade deficit/surplus, the more important question is how can you be a mercantilist when at the same time you believe in the govt expanding it's cost base on some type of health care reform? If you want a trade surplus, you have to lower the cost of doing business in the US.
ScottfromTexas: the econ departments of all universities I know of preach the disproven religion of "Free Trade."
Exactly! Just because an economic theory is over 200 years old and is universally accepted among professional economists is no indication it's actually correct.
dude hate to break it too you but mercantilism went out the window hundreds of years ago. free trade isn't a religion its simply a market in which society operates to distribute scarce goods by the means of free choices by individuals but unfortunately no country operates this way as central economic planning rules.
@jimbo525SE i agree we have crony capitalism corporatism under a kleptocracy your just confusing mercantilism with fascism or something mercantilism has to do with countries accumulating as much precious metals as possible its an ancient way of thinking and is alive today as part of the economic picture but isnt relevant as a whole of an economic theory.
@Depletethestate You are so right. I have an idea to lowere unemplyment and lower the buget deficit. To lower the Unemployment rate The federal government should put in place a policy that says if a state government or city government or a US company agrees to pay its employees that are in the 25% or higher tax bracket ,80% of their salaries and expands their work force by 20%, the fed will pay the balance of the employees salaries. That way at income tax time the fed gets back its 20% plus.
Politicians use their own form of the Laffer Curve. There has to be a perfect equilibrium with what they promise to the lower and middle class without going to overboard to seriously piss off the upper class and therefore lose their money and monetary contributions. Be too socialist and get no votes, be too corporatist and get no votes.
Supply Side Economics was put into effect under Reagan and Bush II-it failed to produce anything approaching a "trickle down." Economic inequality grew rapidly under Reagan and Bush had the worst jobs creation record since Hoover.
Reagan was saddled with the horrible economy and Keynesian baggage of the Ford, and Carter disasters. His policies took 2 years to drag the economy out of the tank but it worked.
Bush II was doing exactly what Obama is doing now in earnest, and that is following Keynesian theory to its fullest and crippling the country.
i've tried explaining the laffer curve to my dad, who thinks that tax cuts always generate more revenue. i've explained it perfectly, multiple times, but he refuses to learn.
UltraProle21 6 days ago
His son got a B? Not an A?
cyborganic99 1 month ago
Thanks! I have a presentation to do on the Laffer Curve and this helped me a lot as well as my general understanding. Economics to the world!
MrPinky868 2 months ago
art laffer, isn't that the guy who got pwned on television by peter schiff?
ApocDevTeam 2 months ago
Libertarians think the maxima is at 5%, Conservatives think the maxima is at 25%, Liberals think the maxima is at 45%, Socialists think the maxima is at 65%, and Communists think the maxima should be no lower than 85%.
wangsta25 3 months ago
@Obamaluke I wish I thought he was ignorant, but it is clear that B.O. is really only interested in wealth equality, which makes all of this irrelevent to him.
DCUPtoejuice 3 months ago
The LAST thing you want to do is increase government revenue!
DCUPtoejuice 3 months ago
*herman cain voice* NAHN NAHN NAHN!
pinkycheeks 3 months ago
The real goal is to lower the Corporate tax rate! The other two are NOT important for Herman Cain...and his advisors.
cris750 3 months ago in playlist cris750's favorites
Cain's "999" is actually 9 + 9x + 9y. The variables are at the mercy of the corporate entity or owners. Cain's plan is simply another form of a BAILOUT! for the corporate entity. TARP and other BAILOUTS have failed! Therefore, the Laffer curve and Cain's formula is outdated and flawed. Expect the "free market" to be perverted again by a few individuals. If I was a corporate owner I could simply keep the prices for my products the same and benefit from the 9% corporate tax for my company.
cris750 3 months ago in playlist cris750's favorites
Herman Cain's REAL formula: 9 + 9x + 9y. Honestly, the problem with the Laffer curve theory is that this data is based on possible behavioural patterns or actions by the owners of corporations. My evidence against the Laffer curve theory is that NOW some owners of corporations are willing to pay more taxes for the well being of the citizenry. Remember,the Laffer curve has factored in the POSSIBLE behaviour patterns? OK,Cain's theory starts with Corporate tax & therefore affecting the other 9's.
cris750 3 months ago
This guy makes me want to buy a used car
Typhoonbladefist 4 months ago 10
I'll turn this on again the next time I have trouble sleeping.
afxtal 4 months ago
food for thought, if you were already finding ways to hide your money from the irs, regardless of tax rate, why would you change your behaviors when the rates are lower? either way, unless your tax rate is zero, you're hurting yourself to report your taxable income. criminals don't change over night. the laffer curve is a joke and it assumes that it is a bell shaped curve, with only one optimal revenue point and all participants hold the marginal value of money equal across income demographics.
tawilk 5 months ago
@tawilk Because, despite all of its flaws, our financial system is still exponentially more stable than some of the countries that the money is being hidden in, and the companies would be able to avoid all of the expense of keeping money offshore. Also, Art Laffer says that loopholes and tax holidays have to be removed for this to work.
andrewrdavis9 5 months ago
Well, I guess he could also mention the cost of actually collecting taxes, which is actually quite a factor.
Illyrien 5 months ago
very very well taught. this is the way all macro should be
vijanatrix 5 months ago
6:42 so if there are barely any tax cuts that pay for themselves, nor any tax cuts that have a zero revenue effect, doesn't that imply that most tax cuts lead to a revenue drop? Which is the complete opposite of what the Laffer Curve is meant to show. Presumably he's made a slip here, or is he subtly admitting there is little empirical evidence to prove the Laffer Curve (as much as I think the gist of it is true).
ChristopherHeward 5 months ago
@Chronoalarm2009 So, if Demnark is "a much better country than the one we are living in", why do you live here rather than there? Why do so many other people from around the world want to move to the US to live rather than Denmark? Or Greece? Ireland? What "Europeans are beating us in" is learning the errors of their failed socialist policies and trying to reverse them as our government tries to adopt them (e.g., health-control bill). "Don't be an idiot."
ArcoZakus 5 months ago
@ArcoZakus Would that be Ireland were Microsoft and other MNCs moved to because of the low tax rates? The low tax rates that were unsustainable (as well as their property/construction boom?
The reason people live in the US is probably because they were born there, just as people don't move abroad when taxes go up. Besides, Greece and Denmark are barely anything like each other. Greece may look to have the same provision of services as Denmark but have lower taxes, so they have crazy debt.
ChristopherHeward 5 months ago
what about exise taxes like on cigarettes, alcohol and gas? Is there a laffer curve when the tax on those things go up to say $100 tax on a pack of cigarettes?
KripDrip 5 months ago
But a flat rate of tax isn't fair because the value of money to welfare has a logarithmic curve. Example if a guy making just enough to pay rent gets a pay rise that's hugely beneficial to his welfare but if a guy earning $150m (not chosen at random) gets a pay rise that is largely unusable to him. That's why you use tax brackets.
DonalLynchyou 5 months ago
@DonalLynchyou How do you know that if "a guy earning $150m gets a pay rise" it "is largely unusable to him"? How do you know he won't use it to create a company that would hire the first guy in your example (& many others) at a higher wage, improving his situation? I KNOW this works, because I WAS the first guy in 1976 when M. Kenneth Oshman and partners were the "fat cats" who earned so much more than I did then. Google him at nytimes,com. I earned more after they hired me despite J. Carter.
ArcoZakus 5 months ago
@ArcoZakus "How do I know he won't create a company that would hire the first guy?" I don't but that more about have an idea of a company to start up as it would be strange that he wouldn't be able to finance a start up with $150m. Also isn't it more likely that one of the many millions more people who don't earn enough to finance the start up of a company will actually have a creative idea. You don't want to limit the means of job creation to a select few.
DonalLynchyou 5 months ago
@DonalLynchyou In the US the guy with no money but a good idea for a company used to go to a guy with money and convince him to invest it for the potential to earn more. That happens much less now. It's not just whether $150m is enough. The investor also has to believe the risk is worth the potential reward and right now not enough do.Tax rates don't have to actually rise to reduce gov't revenue. If investors simply expect them to rise they see that as more risk and will not do the startup.
ArcoZakus 5 months ago
@ArcoZakus ... no startup = no new jobs = no new incomes to pay income taxes on = no increase in gov't revenue = the Laffer curve.
ArcoZakus 5 months ago
@ArcoZakus "investor has to believe the risk is worth the potential reward" agreed. But a large part of taking on that risk is collateral. So you are still limiting those who can potentially create jobs. Also with your tax creating extra risk; can you see how a low tax for businesses considering breaking even would encourage them but reasonable tax increases wouldn't harm businesses with robust profits.
DonalLynchyou 5 months ago
@DonalLynchyou What evidence do you have that "the value of money to welfare has a logarithmic curve"? In my first comment, the rich guys used the money they had to create jobs that multiplied many other peoples' wealth more than we could have if their money had simply been taken from them and given to us. Maybe it IS logarithmic but in the opposite of the way you suggest. Even if they bought yachts instead of starting a company, who builds the yachts? Outfits them? Maintain them? More jobs.
ArcoZakus 5 months ago
whoa whoa. You lost me on your 1st point. "after all, who is going to work, if the government takes everything you make. " I would, as long as said government provided everything I needed in life, removing the need for me to make money.
So, your initial premise is false, and I cant watch the rest.
chex383 5 months ago
@chex383 Ok, how about we put it like this, how can you have a free society if government takes everything you make?
dinkydkmg 5 months ago
@chex383 Would you rather decide for yourself what "everything I needed in life" is, or have someone in the government decide? (Think DMV or P.O.) If you say the government, try living for a while somewhere that it works that way, like the USSR. Do you think the government will perform this function efficiently? For free? Without corruption? Good luck. Where has this EVER worked well in all of history? A government that has enough power to give you everything has enough power to take it away.
ArcoZakus 5 months ago
@chex383 OK, so how about if you give me everything you make and I provide everything you need in life? But then I, not you, get to decide what it is you need, and get to decide what my fee is for that service. Sounds like you would be fine if slavery returned? Google David Michael Mabery at virtualwall,org. You apparenty do not value the freedom he lost his life defending.
ArcoZakus 5 months ago
@bookfreak29 Thanks for your comment and the clarification regarding stock option sales I did not know that. I personally lean against capital gain rates being lower than income tax rates--although the other side has good arguments as well. Mr. Buffet himself actually has some good essays about this. I highly recommend the Collected Essays Of Warren Buffet Edited by Lawrence Cunningham. Your second point--that is exactly what I was trying to say but you said it better. Thanks again.
lavedon 7 months ago
This belongs in the same category as Reefer Madness.
CheapLaborCapitalist 7 months ago
@lavedor: Thanks for the clairity, but it doesn't alter the tone of my missive. He's willing to pay more, as the Gates (Jr. & Sr.) are. And most rich people HATE paying taxes and will do practically anything to get out of paying them -- regardless of the Laffer curve. The presenter is dead wrong. Lower the tax rate of the wealthy and they pay less. It's simple and obvious and well proven. And what the heck is wrong with raising the rates on billionaires, for pities sake?
PENNA65000 7 months ago
This is not right. It's a sham when the presenter makes claims that he expects us to take things as fact when they're not. For instance: It's well known that high end tax payers right now have low tax rates (and seemingly going lower every day). He says that means they pay their taxes willingly. NOT SO. We all know that high-end tax payers are avoiding taxes like crazy. And then there's this: Warren Buffett says his secretary pays more taxes than he does - and he says it's wrong.
PENNA65000 7 months ago
@PENNA65000
because hes almost dead... thats why he cares. some of us still want to live, if he blieves so, why not advicate for an unavoidable flat tax of 10% everyone wins?
Bren565 7 months ago
@PENNA65000 Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher rate % then he does for his big investment earnings because he is paying the capital gains rate which is lower then the income tax rate. His secretary earns about 200-250k a year. And is in the bush tax cut 35% federal bracket and I believe the capital gains rate then was 15% then he certainly pays much much more in tax then she does. Made that statement because he feels capital gains should be taxed at the same rates as income.
lavedon 7 months ago
@lavedon First off: if Warrent Buffet's taxed income that you are claiming is from legitimate investment then yes, he would pay only a 15% rate for capital gains, which is incidentally the SAME rate that his secratary would pay if she invested her money. If you are assuming the capital gains rates for stock OPTIONS then you are sorely mistaken, when a stock option is sold then the tax is exaclty the same as income because there is no risk in the investment.
bookfreak29 7 months ago
@lavedon Second, I'm sure that even if his secretary pays a higher % tax than he does, i can gaurentee you that he pays more physical money than she does simply because he makes more money, simply looking at one variable will never give you the correct answer
bookfreak29 7 months ago
love the vid - hate taxes
g00ify 8 months ago
thanks .. that was helpful to understand!
areeblive 8 months ago
That this curve exists seems mathematically indisputable to me. The actual shape of the curve, the maxima in particular, is up for debate.
MrWalrus52 9 months ago 18
They are still hiding money!!
mediblue9 9 months ago
@mediblue9 So do you think raising their tax rate will make them hide more, or less? The lower the rate, the less incentive there is to go to the bother of hiding it, and to risk any penalty for being caught doing anything illegal to hide it.
ArcoZakus 5 months ago
Comment removed
mediblue9 9 months ago
You do NOT need to be an economist to see that, biased or not, this video explains the phenomenon pretty well. As nice as it is to think that the government can raise tax rates without consequence, this is clearly not the case. 100% of zero is still zero. You can ignore this fact only at your peril, as the government does regularly.
MrWalrus52 9 months ago
@MrWalrus52 Mind telling us when the tax rate was set to 100% in the US?
evilmiera 9 months ago
@evilmiera It's a theory that's self-explanatory. If you don't understand it then perhaps math and reason is not your forte?
ponycar17 9 months ago
@ponycar17 I wasn't asking "When will they?" I was asking when have they? And considering the evidence he's using to support his idea is exaggerated, and a few people seem to claim he's even outright lying about certain statements, I wouldn't go questioning my ability to reason just yet.
evilmiera 9 months ago
@ponycar17 Reading comprehension get some. See other people can be a dick to you too, so knock it off.
Darkchipper07 9 months ago
@evilmiera Do you think that this presentation, or my comment, was meant to imply that the U.S. tax rate was ever set at 100%? Your question implies disingenuousness or impairment. Please say what you really mean. My comment was that 100% of zero is still zero. I assume the reader to have the modicum of arithmetic reasoning to infer that 99% of a very small number is still a very small number, and so forth. Still with me?
MrWalrus52 9 months ago
@MrWalrus52 No, my question was worded in that manner because you seem to imply a 100 percent tax rate is somehow either in the books for any governing party in the US, or the inevitable result of their policies. I don't know if you're just exaggerating because you somehow believe taxes are too high at the moment, or if you've got any actual proof outside this video (as noted, the curve is up for debate) for your predictions.
evilmiera 9 months ago
@evilmiera Not at all. As in calculus when evaluate limits as a number goes to infinity (and division by zero is implied), the fact that infinity is unachievable (and division by zero impossible), the equation and the limits are valid. I do not imply that it is on the books for a 100% tax rate, just a close as practicaity will allow. That is the point of the curve.
MrWalrus52 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrWalrus52
"100% of zero is still zero. You can ignore this fact only at your peril, as the government does regularly."
I agree! Taxes have gone up a lot in the last 20 years!
laffercurves 5 months ago
My statistics professer laughed his ass off when he saw this.
y2knoproblem 9 months ago
@y2knoproblem why? is it because he has like no numbers on it?
i agree with him that government shouldnt try to maximize revenue but his idea that a increase toward point B will make people spend less is oversimplified...there is a diminishing returns when you get closer to point B but that doesnt mean tax increases are bad...
MrBigEnchilada 8 months ago
Cato Institute? This is utter propaganda.
He's got the concept down, but he is wildly exaggerating the evidence toward to support tax cuts and his line about revenue from the wealthy is simply false, revenue decreased dramatically.
The real problem is we can't know the shape of the curve or where we are on it at any given time. There are millions of variable impacting people's economic behavior relative to changes in taxes, so we never know whether up or down increases total revenue.
dtorfleming 9 months ago
They don't call it the "Laffer"(laugher)curve for nothing. ;])
buzzclick500 10 months ago
The earlier parts are a good summary of the concept, however 5:38 - 6:33 may or may may not be true as you offer no evidence for it.
1) How do we know that those points are best for economic growth?
2) Why is economic growth the most important thing in a society's decisions?
3) How do we know that flat taxes are best for economic growth? They are certainly simpler but that does that mean they are better for economic growth?
Thanks
ChristopherHeward 10 months ago
@ChristopherHeward Re: "2)" Do you think a poor kid in Romania is more likely to find a good job and improve their situation in an economy that is growing, or one that is not? When people needed help after the tsunami in Indonesia or the earthquake in Haiti, were others more likely to contribute if they lived in a growing economy, or in one that is stagnant? It is NOT "the most important thing", (FREEDOM is) but it is important. Growth helps pay the cost of sending people and material to help.
ArcoZakus 5 months ago
@ArcoZakus But you allude to one key thing, about freedom. Is a country with an authoritarian state and an economy growing faster than a country with democratic state a better country to live in? Similarly, an economy growing fast says nothing of what that money is going towards (how beneficial the activity is). Indeed, if in the West our economies are driven by consumption this implies consumerism is required, which makes people discontented with what they have (unnecessary and unhelpful).
ChristopherHeward 5 months ago
@ChristopherHeward As I said, FREEDOM is more important than a growing economy to me. But the country that has had the highest standard of living for the greatest number of people I can think of throughout history has also been the most free for most of its existence. Its citizens (if not government) have also been the most charitible. Time will tell how long that can last. People who have had freedom given to them seem to value it less than those who have ever lost or had to fight to defend it.
ArcoZakus 5 months ago
@ArcoZakus Also, GDP is a flow, not a measure of welfare or wealth. It is perfectly possibly for GDP to be falling (net investment is falling but it is still positive, so adding to the wealth of the country) and a country to be becoming wealthier and possible for GDP to rise whilst a country has got poorer (a natural disaster will massively decrease wealth whilst increasing GDP, but the country is clearly poorer despite an increase in economic growth).
It's a poor measure of financial wealth.
ChristopherHeward 5 months ago
@ChristopherHeward I got the part about GDP being a flow but I'm not sure I followed the rest of your question. If two countries experience the same natural disaster at the same time, but one has a growing GDP and the other does not, which would be in the best shape to recover from the damage without help from others? To be able to offer help to others if they also experienced damage? So isn't it better to have GDP grow than decline regardless of it being "a poor measure of financial wealth"?
ArcoZakus 5 months ago
@ArcoZakus A lot of it depends on how much of GDP is Investment and how much Consumption. This is turn gives an indication of supply side capacity. If a predominately 'C' country is growing quicker than a predominately 'I' country it's GDP might be obliterated because an earthquake destroys it's infrastructure and producers of consumables. Whereas as the slower economy is perfectly equipped to continue investing, with ideal supply-side conditions, and so maintains or improves its growth.
ChristopherHeward 5 months ago
@ChristopherHeward OK, but I don't think that's what I asked. You keep making the point more complex and I'm trying to keep it closer to your original question whether economic growth is important in a society's decisions. I think it is.
ArcoZakus 5 months ago
@ArcoZakus My original point was to question whether it was the MOST important thing to consider. The way he speaks around 5:37 indicates he believes that we should choose tax levels according to what it will do to economic growth. Of course, this is a consideration, but it's not the only or necessarily main thing. Taxes on certain things, whilst raising money, are there to prevent consumption of harmful things. If we have strong economic growth because of consumption of bad stuff, is that best?
ChristopherHeward 5 months ago
@ArcoZakus My main issue is that I don't think consumerism is necessary or helpful. It damages the environment, it is a massive contributor to the social issues we have currently (poor mental health, relationship and family breakdown, low sense of self worth/value and obsession with physical image, etc.), and clearly it is economically unsustainable too because it is often funded by a mountain of consumer, business and sovereign debt. Arguably a stable GDP level would be better.
ChristopherHeward 5 months ago
@ChristopherHeward A lot of assertions there that I'm not sure are true, but maybe not related closely enough to this video to discuss here.
ArcoZakus 5 months ago
The part about "honest courts" makes me LOL. Laffer is always appearing on Kudlow cuz he and Larry Kudlow cochair the free enterprise fund, which just seems to be there to smear and sue any honest person who threatens to expose bankster corruption.
Cashify 10 months ago
It is exactly that, CATTLE management. Laffer is Cheney and Rumsfeld's boy, a professor from Strauss's U. of Chicago. He got the laffer curve idea fron Keynes, the Bank of England director who promoted Eugenics. Eugenicsmakes sense from the NWO perspective, where nonconforming cattle are useless eaters or threaten the financial dictatorship.
Cashify 10 months ago
At the end of the day, just in the same way as a farmer could create a graph regarding milk yield from his dairy herd... and learn how to improve it... we humans are simply regarded as stock by economists and politicians. Just a commodity to be explored. It's just a shame that so much of our tax goes on horrid wars. If only it was invested in helping the people more.
CelticReject 10 months ago
The more you ask me for, the less I'm inclined to give.
buzzclick500 10 months ago
This ignores the fact that money improves your life less as you earn more. For example $30'000 / year is a much better life than $10'000, but $50'000 vs $30'000 is an improvement but not the massive difference of the first jump. $50K-$70 just means a slightly further away holiday, if you can spare the time to take it. So the rich don't need the extra as much. so the won't work as hard either.
If the streets are so bad and crime ridden u can't go out...
gregreman 1 year ago
@gregreman : Wow.
buzzclick500 10 months ago
Solution: Abolish the IRS and the income tax.
vspqbd 1 year ago 7
@vspqbd : Which are unlawful in the first place.
buzzclick500 10 months ago
@vspqbd : How do we abolish something that is unlawful in the first place?
buzzclick500 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vspqbd Ron Paul 2012
GeoRandel 4 months ago
@Chronoalarm2009
If you think Denmark is so much better than the USA, THEN MOVE THERE! Don't be the idiot by waisting your life in a country you hate so much.
Just be ready to name your first born Mohammed and pay $10/gal for gas.
pam0077 1 year ago
@pam0077 : Denmark is a more homogenous society--the majority of the people are in agreement with each other. MOST Americans would not last long there. Danish thinking is highly focused.
buzzclick500 10 months ago
@buzzclick500 it's strange, but i get the sense that you think this is a good thing... i mean the conformity of opinion - not being focus.
i mean to me that is the biggest sign mindless-ness in the more literal sense... conformity of opinion and groupthink.
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents : I see by your channel that you like to quote people whom you see as being smarter than yourself. Try quoting YOURSELF from your true feelings and heartfelt beliefs, and show us what you come up with.
buzzclick500 10 months ago
@buzzclick500 actually i took the quote to be quite separate from the origin. i have sharp disagreements with most of these people, i just happen to only agree with the quotes themselves.
but the point i was making before is that a homogeneous society, on a national scale rarely happens naturally. it's actually depressing to be living Australia for the same reason.
i'm not attackign you, i'm just asking what your reasoning is?
i mean, masses of cultures reduced to uniformity - sad
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents : I didn't feel attacked, I'm just used to living in a society in which people are more fearful by the day of saying what they think and feel as individuals., so I'm perhaps over-sensitized to the phenomenon.
buzzclick500 10 months ago
@buzzclick500 well maybe we're thinking of different situations. i think on a national scale, the better option is that people are more critical/openminded. conformity in societies existing on a much small scale is ok
I think conformity on a national scale is dangerous and easily taken advantage of by 'leaders', but conversely on a small scale, this conformity usually IMO reflects a societies health - deceitful 'leaders' are easily recognised and people can evaluate society better at this level
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents : When I think of conformity, I think of people who have agreed on certain things in a majorical sense. There ARE negatives and positives to every situation; recognizing that and co-operating with it is step forward. I actually think people should just do what they feel like doing, and America would be the place to practice that. We have our national secrets, and politics is like surfing. Americans are just waiting for that "perfect wave".
buzzclick500 10 months ago
@Chronoalarm2009 Comparing the mostly homogeneous Danish population of 5 million people with the diverse United States of America is apples and oranges. Denmark is willing to support a large government structure because the population buys into it. Not everyone would agree that the Danish system is better; that's why there's controversy.
tw1488 1 year ago
I've been in the work force for the last 24 years and have had seven different jobs in that time. I have never, and I know of no one else who has ever got a job from someone earning $200,000/yr or less.
Yet, progressives want to raise marginal tax rates on all these job producers... so that government can stimulate... the production of jobs?
"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan
"Liberalism is a mental disorder" - Michael Savage
pam0077 1 year ago
Larry Laffer? haha
solgoode1 1 year ago
Your kid makes a Laffer curve in his art class? Give it enough time and we'll have no art classes in schools. Money is a good thing but I don't think I want my kid worshiping it so early. Art is about actually feeling things instead of jacking off to Lamborghinis.
HoGraz 1 year ago
@HoGraz Did you even listen to the rest of the video you ideological asswipe. Stop telling others how to run their lives and either A) enjoy the video and make logical points or B) stop watching and move on without polluting the comment section with your nonsense.
ipwnallnubscuzirock 1 year ago
@ipwnallnubscuzirock REPUBLICANISM IS A MENTAL DISORDERR
HoGraz 1 year ago
@HoGraz Thank you for once again proving your qualifications. Also, I'm a libertarian.
ipwnallnubscuzirock 1 year ago
@ipwnallnubscuzirock Haha. Ok. It doesn't really matter. I'm just reacting to most the post I usually see. People on youtube generally seem to scream Socialist all the time cause that's the cool way to look at things.
HoGraz 1 year ago
@ipwnallnubscuzirock You idiot. Can't I joke about how Republicans yell silly things on here? Libertarianism is kinda a joke. It's mostly Republicans who decided that there's a way out of the income tax and they realize Republican is becoming a dirty word just like liberal has become. Not all liberals are multi-multiculturalist, social progressive assholes who 'tell people how to live their lives.' If you think having small business centers to compete with the corporations is doing that or..
HoGraz 1 year ago
Respond to this video... Or you think the FDA shouldn't exist and people should just sell people Oxycotin or snake oil then that's silly. A hands off aproach and letting 'the market sort things out' seems of late to be what the big guys want. If the top 5% owns 80% of the stocks then those people are running other people lives by voting for all the companies to outsource all their jobs so they themselves can 'compete' by having the most conspicuous consumption.
HoGraz 1 year ago
Share the wealth? how about share the work lazy fucks
vadermyhomeboy 1 year ago
lol, where is the evidence that 30% is the optimal tax rate?????? This guy is really dumb!!!!
brendos444 1 year ago
@brendos444 Through empirical research; tax rate is not sales tax (which is itself an indirect tax) and means income/business-reporting taxes.
EatMangos 1 year ago
This theory is 100% correct!! The rich don't go to jail for tax evasion and they get rewarded for poor behavior with tax cuts...good luck darfur.
joe4606 1 year ago
"Center for Freedom and Prosperity" George Orwell must be laughing in his grave. Nothing says corporate sycophancy like that title or this bullshit theory.
VanceJoudrey 1 year ago
@VanceJoudrey You should tell that to the slave a few posts up who thinks we are paying for others not to work.
HoGraz 1 year ago
This was part of Reaganomics and it failed to balance the budget. It created more major deficits. It screwed over GHW Bush.
vgcq02 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vgcq02 You are so right. I have an idea to lower unemplyment and lower the buget deficit. To lower the Unemployment rate The federal government should put in place a policy that says if a state government or city government or a US company agrees to pay its employees that are in the 25% or higher tax bracket ,80% of their salaries and expands their work force by 20%, the fed will pay the balance of the employees salaries. That way at income tax time the fed gets back its 20% plus.
david510152025303540 1 year ago
One problem.. Under Reagan through the present executive salaries and dividends have gone up while worker salaries have gone down. Boards of directors are paying executives more and paying out more in dividends at the expense of all other employees. This would have the effect of increasing the tax payments of the wealthy, but not because they have invested more or were more productive only because they paid themselves more.
scotths 1 year ago
@scotths You are so right. I have an idea to lowere unemplyment and lower the buget deficit. To lower the Unemployment rate The federal government should put in place a policy that says if a state government or city government or a US company agrees to pay its employees that are in the 25% or higher tax bracket ,80% of their salaries and expands their work force by 20%, the fed will pay the balance of the employees salaries. That way at income tax time the fed gets back its 20% plus.
david510152025303540 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The picture of reality that you have is completely inside your own head. We don't plug in into a collective single reality. It exist as a manifestation of your intellect that is disconnected from everyone else's. Nothing overlaps into the other. It is contained within your own existence.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
As Lady Gaga said: Are you listening???
runeglia 1 year ago
watch?v=W4zwCMf8dsc&feature=player_embedded#!
dannnynieves 1 year ago
So why did the National Debt double in the eight years that GWB was President? The rich took the money from the tax cuts that Reagan and GWB gave them and spent in China. China is the powerhouse it is today because of the unconditional tax breaks that were given the rich. Had the rich invested their tax break in the U.S or had they not gotten that tax break we would not be in the hole that we are in today. The Republicans talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.
What a laff! LOL
dannnynieves 1 year ago
@dannnynieves why is the obama's deficit depending 3 times that of bush's? We went from bad to worse. The only way jobs come back to America is by cutting taxes. Do you really think wealthy people are going to invest in the economy when they cant make a dime? Wake up and stop drinking the kool aid you and your ilk are getting ready to get stepped on in Nov.
HaulingAsh 1 year ago
@HaulingAsh
When people sit on their wallets the govt. has to spend money in order to restore consumer confidence. What was GWB's excuse for spending so much money, didn't he run for President as a fiscal conservative? You guys talk the talk but can't walk the walk, tax cuts to the rich is what made China the powerhouse it is today. In Nov. a lot of people are going to get stepped on, Republican and Democrat.
dannnynieves 1 year ago
@dannnynieves What you fail to understand is all government can do is take from one person and give to another They create nothing The Wealthy I'm referring to are the people that could invest or not they've made there money. So what do you propose we use for incentive or should we just bull rush in and take their money? The reason China is out producing us is because we are over regulated and taxed and don't even get me started on the unions. Could you explain why G.B. is junking there H.C.?
HaulingAsh 1 year ago
@HaulingAsh When you take incentive away from people who create jobs there not going to create any. Congress spent 12 million dollars in the last 9 months on food during session!!!!!! so do you think this type of behavior is ok at any time? Nancy P. spent 101 thousand dollars on her own personnel alcohol this last year...WTH??? This administration is trying to divide us as a nation along party and racial lines. There will be no middle class if this continues and thats bad for everybody!
HaulingAsh 1 year ago
@HaulingAsh
The rich cannot creat jobs if there is no demand. The best way to create demand is to put money into the hands of people with the highest (MPC) Marginal propencity to consume. The best sector to do that would be the government. The can best do it by lowering the unemplyment rate this way:To lower the Unemployment rate The federal government should put in place a policy that says if a state government or city government or a US company agrees to pay its...
david510152025303540 1 year ago
@HaulingAsh ..............employees that are in the 25% or higher tax bracket ,80% of their salaries and expands their work force by 20%, the fed will pay the balance of the employees salaries. That way at income tax time the fed will get back the 20% it put out plus the 5% or higher becaues of the tax bracket of the employees is 25% or higher. That way the unemployment rate will go down and the budget deficit will go down. .
david510152025303540 1 year ago
@david510152025303540 The government creates nothing. All they can do is take from one and give to another. And they due it at a cost much higher then that of any private business. Government is the problem its been documented that the stimulus created no jobs. But the bailouts for unions and federal employees are out of control (and are happing every few months lately). The private sector is taxed and regulated into a corner. Look to Greece for your future with bigger goverment.......
HaulingAsh 1 year ago
@HaulingAsh I don't think it is true that the government is the problem. Landing on the moon, fighting WWI and WWII would not have been possible with out the government. Your statemenet sound like idealogy. We need to look for solutions to our problems honestly.
david510152025303540 1 year ago
@david510152025303540 There are plenty of solutions. #1 cut taxes across the board. #2 Cut Government spending and useless departments. De fund unions from Government tax dollars. End NAFTA. Charge import taxes and also export taxes on companies that export jobs. Stop earmarks and Government corrupt spending. And when a company can't pay the bills they fail no bailouts. The private sector were manufacturing is at 33% unemployment and rising still. You can't make money drinking Kool aid buddy.
HaulingAsh 1 year ago
@HaulingAsh I agree with some of what you say. We need to De fund unions from government tax dollars,end the practice of rewarding the export of american jobs,stop earmarks and government corrupt spending. The idea of the fed funding the 20% salary of the 20% employee increase in the 25% or higher tax bracket. Which will allow the fed to collect the 25%or higher on their out put. What do you think?
david510152025303540 1 year ago
@david510152025303540 I really think we need to remove Government from our businesses as much as possible. However Some large corp. such as Enron (just using them as an example) and others have to have checks and balances I don't think anyone would argue that. I think a fair tax would be the simplest and fairest form (as the name suggests). Tax people on what they purchase. The wealthy buy more and also this kills all the loopholes they enjoy now.
HaulingAsh 1 year ago
@HaulingAsh The loopholes are made for the wealthy and the unions ect ect. On top of collecting more tax money we would eliminate most of the IRS . And they are very expensive. Trust me the rich cringe when they hear of fair tax. When you add more paperwork to business it drives the price up. I guess I'm not saying you're idea is bad I just think we need to go simple and fair (in my opinion). tc :)
HaulingAsh 1 year ago
@HaulingAsh I like "fair tax" but I don't understand is how we could make the switch from taxing income to taxing spending. How would it be fair to people who have spent their whole lives paying taxes on their income, retire, and then get taxed again on that money they have saved (in spite all the income taxes) as they spend it? They will get screwed in the deal without some fair transition and would not vote for it. With the aging of the baby boom that is an increasing part of the population.
ArcoZakus 5 months ago
@david510152025303540 The only time our economy has grown in the last 100 years is when taxes are cut. You can twist that anyway you want but facts don't lie. The 1 trillion dollar stimulus created jobs in 2 states N.D. and Alaska. The other 48 lost private sector jobs. Why? because the stimulus was a bailout for Government workers and unions. They also created 30,000 new Government jobs. We couldn't support what we had so the answer is to add more? The bailouts will stop were broke!!!!!
HaulingAsh 1 year ago
Comment removed
HaulingAsh 1 year ago
@david510152025303540 - actually the successes of WWI and WWII and landing on the Moon were largely due to private companies and individuals. Who made the bombs, bullets, guns, planes, Jeeps, tanks etc? Private companies that converted to produce those items to aid the war effort. Yes, NASA is funded by the govt but the technology to send man to the Moon came from private sector industry.
Govt helps in many ways but more often than not they obstruct business and employment.
RocktheStageNYC 1 year ago
@david510152025303540 Also I don't expect you to understand anything I've said because its common sense. We live in a time in America were its OK to let muslims establish themselves 500 ft from ground zero. But Christians students are arrested for praying on the steps of the Supreme Court.
HaulingAsh 1 year ago
@HaulingAsh Thanks for your response, However I am looking for a solution to our problem of unemployment and the budget deficit. I don't think it is helpful to imply that I am to unintellient to understand your position. God bless.
david510152025303540 1 year ago
@david510152025303540 - you're not seeing the long term here. If the Feds have a hand in paying a private company salary they have a hand in its operations. Bad news if you own the company. Once the govt has its hands in your company it never takes it out. Never.
That is what the Nazi's did and what China does. Its called "State Capitalism". Good for govt - bad for business.
RocktheStageNYC 1 year ago
@HaulingAsh
I understand very well that back in late 2008 to early 2009 when the stock market was crashing the rich were asking for a bail out, but now that the economy is on the road to recovery, guys like you are talking this hypercritical bullshit that you always talk. Without the unions workers would be working 6 days per week, sun up to sundown along with their kids. If you don't come in on Sat, forget about Monday. The golden age was the 1950's when the rich were taxed up to 90%.
dannnynieves 1 year ago
@dannnynieves
Back in the 1950's the rich paid up to 90% taxes, taxes for the working people were low and Mom stayed home and took care of the kids. Now days the rich get tax breaks from the Republicans, Mom and Dad get the shit taxed out of them, and the perverts in daycare take care of the kids. When there was a 90% tax bracket the rich hardly paid it because they made investments that were good for the U.S. Unconditional tax breaks to the rich was the worst thing that ever happened here.
dannnynieves 1 year ago
@dannnynieves @dannnynieves Notice everyone how the extreme left starts cussing squealing when they are losing any debate. Notice Also he couldn't answer a single question. When you speak with someone with an agenda they will use these tactics and deflect/divert from the facts. Common sense should be something you should try to include in you're life young man.
I've seen you're type before and I will not answer you again as you ARE whats wrong with America.......
HaulingAsh 1 year ago
@HaulingAsh
Extreme left LOL, I guess when you are playing right field everyone is a leftist.
dannnynieves 1 year ago
@dannnynieves
You are so right. I have an idea to lowere unemplyment and lower the buget deficit. To lower the Unemployment rate The federal government should put in place a policy that says if a state government or city government or a US company agrees to pay its employees that are in the 25% or higher tax bracket ,80% of their salaries and expands their work force by 20%, the fed will pay the balance of the employees salaries. That way at income tax time the fed gets back its 20% plus.
david510152025303540 1 year ago
@dannnynieves This would lowere the unemplyment rate and lower the buget deficit. It would eventally lead to a negative unemployment rate.
david510152025303540 1 year ago
@dannnynieves - The Rich still pay most of the taxes. Top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of all taxes, top 50% pay 97%, top 10% pay 64%, top 5% pay 53% and the top 1% pay 39%. The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97%. The top 1% is paying more than ten times in fed taxes than the bottom 50%. The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts.
RocktheStageNYC 1 year ago
When I say rich, I mean the top 2 % the ones that even Warren Buffet says can afford to pay more taxes because they are making most of the money and getting the most out of GWB's tax cut.
dannnynieves 1 year ago
@HaulingAsh To lower the Unemployment rate The federal government should put in place a policy that says if a state government or city government or a US company agrees to pay its employees that are in the 25% or higher tax bracket ,80% of their salaries and expands their work force by 20%, the fed will pay the balance of the employees salaries. That way at income tax time the fed will get back the 20% it put out plus the 5% or higher becaues of the tax bracket of the employees >or=25%.
david510152025303540 1 year ago
@dannnynieves You are so right. I have an idea to lowere unemplyment and lower the buget deficit. To lower the Unemployment rate The federal government should put in place a policy that says if a state government or city government or a US company agrees to pay its employees that are in the 25% or higher tax bracket ,80% of their salaries and expands their work force by 20%, the fed will pay the balance of the employees salaries. That way at income tax time the fed gets back its 20% plus.
david510152025303540 1 year ago
the liberal comments on this thread are freaking nuts. its so disappointing they dont see common sense, when the policies they are agreeing with have not worked....ever....
justfit989 1 year ago
Oh Christ it's from the Cato Institute. NEXT...
cazal607 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This man is working for the CATO institute, formed by the multi-billionaire KOCH family. He doesn't want to help people, he wants to F the middle class and poor.
The KOCH family has paid hundreds of millions in enviornmental fines, because it's cheaper than to do the right thing. They want the rich to rule and stay rich forever. Know who you are listening to. THE EVIL KOCH FAMILY!
indigo11274 1 year ago
Major error. We bought this hook, line, and sinker in 1980 and you can see where it got us.
lucki39284 1 year ago
How did it get us here?
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
@lucki39284 ummm...millions of news jobs, revolutionized the technological sector, victory in the cold war...what has Obamanomics got us? 16.8% real unemployment, stagnant economy, devalued currency, isolating our allies and being laughed at by our enemies...yeah...the 1980s with all the wealth created, the standard of every American increased, and all that was just so awful...
DarthByss 1 year ago
@DarthByss Reagan bequeathed the largest budget deficit in American history to the presidents that succeeded him. His tax cuts also brought a range of social problems to the US as income inequities grew between the rich and the poor.
dudz40 1 year ago
@dudz40 "Reagan's" deficit (remember it is the Democrats that controlled both houses of Congress during Reagan's presidency) is not the largest in history. The deficits after WWII are but one example. Unless you intend to be disingenuous and not account for the value of the dollar. Revenue to the treasury increased, but the Democrats spending far exceeded those revenue increases.
gskibum 1 year ago
@gskibum
The executive branch lays out the budget, not the legislative branch. Let me guess, you're one of those people that claim Clinton had success due to a Republican Congress, yet Reagan's economic growth was due to him?
Clinton ran a surplus, Reagan ran a deficit. Only Clinton paid back any of the debt.
Oh yea, the Republicans controlled the Senate during Reagan's time.
highwater03 1 year ago
The Laffer Curve is merely a modernized version of the idea of just taxation. Art Laffer is in good company with Confucious and Lao Tzu.
Mrhuh 1 year ago
Art Laffer was wrong.
beetjuice 1 year ago
@beetjuice In what way?
dachickenman 1 year ago
70% tax!!!? :-O my jaw is on the ground!
mahatmaghandi69 1 year ago
70% is appalling, but the tax rate was actually 90% before Kennedy became president.
minervx 1 year ago
Supply side economics worked under reagan. Revenues increased and unemployment went down. The reason we had such high deficits is because of the major increase in defense spending due to the fact that we were in an arms race with the soviet union.
allstarguard23 1 year ago
How does sending millions of jobs out of the country factor in?
JOEYooo8 1 year ago
To the money-lover libertarians it is good because numbers on a sheet look different than before. They are oblivious to anything in the real world (libertarians are usually pasty creatures haunting the moldy offices in tax-payer funded universities while they rail against the government and say "Free Trade" is the way to wealth despite all the evidence in the world outside the university.) They are oblivious to how customers have to spend 5 times longer on the phone to get issues solved.
ScottfromTexas 1 year ago
Are you accusing universities of being a hotbed for conservative economic thought? What college(s) are you talking about exactly? Brigham Young??
oterj0 1 year ago
Who said anything about conservative. I said libertarian. But, yes, the econ departments of all universities I know of preach the disproven religion of "Free Trade." Meanwhile, all other countries practice mercantilism and are destroying us economically.
ScottfromTexas 1 year ago
so you want to play semantics as if conservative and libertarian economic philosophy are any different. Fine, libertarian it is.
While I would love to argue the irrelevance of the trade deficit/surplus, the more important question is how can you be a mercantilist when at the same time you believe in the govt expanding it's cost base on some type of health care reform? If you want a trade surplus, you have to lower the cost of doing business in the US.
oterj0 1 year ago
ScottfromTexas: the econ departments of all universities I know of preach the disproven religion of "Free Trade."
Exactly! Just because an economic theory is over 200 years old and is universally accepted among professional economists is no indication it's actually correct.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
dude hate to break it too you but mercantilism went out the window hundreds of years ago. free trade isn't a religion its simply a market in which society operates to distribute scarce goods by the means of free choices by individuals but unfortunately no country operates this way as central economic planning rules.
Depletethestate 1 year ago
@Depletethestate Mercantilism is still alive and well. It just now goes by the name Crony Capitalism.
jimbo525SE 1 year ago
@jimbo525SE i agree we have crony capitalism corporatism under a kleptocracy your just confusing mercantilism with fascism or something mercantilism has to do with countries accumulating as much precious metals as possible its an ancient way of thinking and is alive today as part of the economic picture but isnt relevant as a whole of an economic theory.
Depletethestate 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Depletethestate You are so right. I have an idea to lowere unemplyment and lower the buget deficit. To lower the Unemployment rate The federal government should put in place a policy that says if a state government or city government or a US company agrees to pay its employees that are in the 25% or higher tax bracket ,80% of their salaries and expands their work force by 20%, the fed will pay the balance of the employees salaries. That way at income tax time the fed gets back its 20% plus.
david510152025303540 1 year ago
Politicians use their own form of the Laffer Curve. There has to be a perfect equilibrium with what they promise to the lower and middle class without going to overboard to seriously piss off the upper class and therefore lose their money and monetary contributions. Be too socialist and get no votes, be too corporatist and get no votes.
masflojo 2 years ago
Supply Side Economics was put into effect under Reagan and Bush II-it failed to produce anything approaching a "trickle down." Economic inequality grew rapidly under Reagan and Bush had the worst jobs creation record since Hoover.
gummoboy69 2 years ago
@gummoboy69
Reagan was saddled with the horrible economy and Keynesian baggage of the Ford, and Carter disasters. His policies took 2 years to drag the economy out of the tank but it worked.
Bush II was doing exactly what Obama is doing now in earnest, and that is following Keynesian theory to its fullest and crippling the country.
vlad3060 2 years ago