First, a little clean up. Talk Radio describes Liberalism as a mental disorder. Examining our recent discussions, it must be true. To be clear, I did not and one could not reasonably assume from my Post that I was using my business acumen as something better than others, rather, I was describing what any normal business person would do given proper tax incentives which subsequently creates economic activity and jobs! The persistent lack of honesty in analyzing information...it must be a mental disorder!
Terry: You have always stated that everyone should pay some taxes, the stimulus does exactly the opposite. Social justice or responsibility? Also, if you double outside staff pay, you would be paying them more than they deserve, cause distortions and envy by other employers. Jobs have an economic value. Nirvana, Terry, is not real.
Rich (ie), you are always such a deficit hawk, how come this bill, which no one knows what it contains and you still cannot say what it is for, is such a good idea? Especially when it is obvious that it is mostly political payoff.
Lastly, things change. Rich(ie), you act like this is a forever change. In 2002, the Republicans controlled everything. In 1990, there was no Internet.
I still ask our Liberal/Socialists, how can you possibly think that we can manage and predict a complex economy without adverse consequences? I know the Dow agrees with me! And how can we bankrupt the country to service the needs of such an unfortunate few (which also requires the opinion that American charity would not do it alone.)
Your comments about a businessman's perspective were wanting. I don't agree with you on this topic, ever. Neither does Warren Buffet. We know that there is no free lunch and that a sustainable, robust economy doesn't come through never ending tax cuts for the rich (and the plaintive wails for still more cuts).
I support stimulus - spending - during times of deep recession. See: Keynes, John Maynard. Duh.
The internet cuts both ways, my friend. Internet users voted largely for O. Who fears empowerment of the people?
Regarding "predicting" - you have made this observation before and I simply assumed you hadn't given it much thought. There aren't any economists on the left or right who agree with you.
Like any business, the government needs to plan using the best information available - including anticipated economic activity. There will be consequences to legislation, for better or worse. The economic environment largely determines what policy makes the most sense. Raise taxes heading into a deep recession? No. Massive tax cuts in a growing economy with $5T of debt? Uh, no. Why would anyone do that?
Tax cuts qualify as "distortion". ANY taxes, spending, or fiscal policies materially effect the economy. The government needs to adopt the best policy prescriptions for the circumstances at hand. Obviously, they need to balance the needs of today with those of tomorrow.
Yes - it is complex, though not as tough as you apparently believe. What is the alternative?
3 comments:
First, a little clean up. Talk Radio describes Liberalism as a mental disorder. Examining our recent discussions, it must be true. To be clear, I did not and one could not reasonably assume from my Post that I was using my business acumen as something better than others, rather, I was describing what any normal business person would do given proper tax incentives which subsequently creates economic activity and jobs! The persistent lack of honesty in analyzing information...it must be a mental disorder!
Terry: You have always stated that everyone should pay some taxes, the stimulus does exactly the opposite. Social justice or responsibility? Also, if you double outside staff pay, you would be paying them more than they deserve, cause distortions and envy by other employers. Jobs have an economic value. Nirvana, Terry, is not real.
Rich (ie), you are always such a deficit hawk, how come this bill, which no one knows what it contains and you still cannot say what it is for, is such a good idea? Especially when it is obvious that it is mostly political payoff.
Lastly, things change. Rich(ie), you act like this is a forever change. In 2002, the Republicans controlled everything. In 1990, there was no Internet.
I still ask our Liberal/Socialists, how can you possibly think that we can manage and predict a complex economy without adverse consequences? I know the Dow agrees with me! And how can we bankrupt the country to service the needs of such an unfortunate few (which also requires the opinion that American charity would not do it alone.)
Your comments about a businessman's perspective were wanting. I don't agree with you on this topic, ever. Neither does Warren Buffet. We know that there is no free lunch and that a sustainable, robust economy doesn't come through never ending tax cuts for the rich (and the plaintive wails for still more cuts).
I support stimulus - spending - during times of deep recession. See: Keynes, John Maynard. Duh.
The internet cuts both ways, my friend. Internet users voted largely for O. Who fears empowerment of the people?
Regarding "predicting" - you have made this observation before and I simply assumed you hadn't given it much thought. There aren't any economists on the left or right who agree with you.
Like any business, the government needs to plan using the best information available - including anticipated economic activity. There will be consequences to legislation, for better or worse. The economic environment largely determines what policy makes the most sense. Raise taxes heading into a deep recession? No. Massive tax cuts in a growing economy with $5T of debt? Uh, no. Why would anyone do that?
Tax cuts qualify as "distortion". ANY taxes, spending, or fiscal policies materially effect the economy. The government needs to adopt the best policy prescriptions for the circumstances at hand. Obviously, they need to balance the needs of today with those of tomorrow.
Yes - it is complex, though not as tough as you apparently believe. What is the alternative?
Post a Comment