Master of Disaster and Taxes upon Taxes

[Archaea]

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

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

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

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

[ChinoCoug]

You don't like Keynesian countercyclical policies.

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

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

You don't like Keynesian countercyclical policies.

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

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

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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

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



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

Note to Arch: the tax increases as proposed wouldn't go into effect until 2013 (Keynesianism at work for you- higher taxes when the economy is better established).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Note to Arch: the tax increases as proposed wouldn't go into effect until 2013 (Keynesianism at work for you- higher taxes when the economy is better established).

We won't be better off in 2013, this is a ten year depression.

I understand the concept that you tax during good years, and spend during bad years hoping for multiplier effect without accounting for crowding.

The Keynsian and Marxism are not mutually exclusive. Why do you think they are?

One speaks to how to implement controls and during what cycles while the other speaks to metaphysics, who should control and other aspects on the means of control.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

You don't like Keynesian countercyclical policies.

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

Do I have a completely integrated philosophy? No.

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

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

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

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Do I have a completely integrated philosophy? No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Do I have a completely integrated philosophy? No.

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

Yeah, but we've already maxed out. Interest rates are zero.

Originally Posted by Archaea

I do believe more capital in the markets will allow entrepreneurs to create jobs.

But you didn't like the bailout. What would be your plan to get capital markets going again?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Yeah, but we've already maxed out. Interest rates are zero.



But you didn't like the bailout. What would be your plan to get capital markets going again?

Because it wasn't effective.

We didn't effectively take care of liquidity in the capital markets and provide an effective market for the toxic assets. They bailout was wrong-headed and poorly implemented.

Do you really believe unemployment is caused inefficient aggregate demand that should be rectified by government spending? What about "supply shocks, or sectoral shifts"?

We have excessive wage rates right now and the economy is necessarily correcting itself. The period of this correction is being exacerbated by government's actions.

The instability of today's economy is the result of government's interventions.

Here is why I will never believe in Keynesian economics, as the great saint, Milton Friedman wrote about lag times:

on the average of 18 cycles, peaks in the rate of change in the stock of money tend to precede peaks in general business by about 16 months and troughs in the rate of change in the stock of money to precede troughs in general business by about 12 months. For individual cycles, the recorded lead has varied between 6 and 29 months at peaks and between 4 and 22 months at troughs.

How are your wise and omnipotent fellow Keynesians going to know what the market will be in eight or twelve months? I do not agree with the wisdom or even the good will of your policy wonks.

Friedman is a stud.