Boudreaux on Piketty

[PoliticalChic]

we got from the stone age to here as people figured out how to invent or supply stuff. Demand is always constant so plays no role.

if you agree or disagree with what is immediately above please say why. Thanks

Did I miss your agreement as to the astounding effectiveness of President Reagan's economic policies?


If you were about to post same, don't hesitate to compare them with those of the wind-bag in the White House.

Reagan's policies were a mixed bag of several tax increases and cuts , exploding deficits, and Fed intervention so I don't take much from them although I love the man's philosophy and think he would have done much better without having to compromise with Democrats.

The question was about the unmitigated success of his economic policies.


I'll wait.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Donald J. Boudreaux — Piketty: A Wealth of Misconceptions

LOL.

I just read it. It's all trickle down, we're all schmucks.

Obviously, this was published in Barron's, telling the super wealthy that everything is hey OK. Inequality is a result of social darwinism, perfectly natural, and inequality is hoax, despite the massive amount of data which tells us otherwise. Piketty is a moron that doesn't understand basic economics.


But wait, it gets better. He holds the Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair at the Mercatus Center over at George Mason.

The Mercatus Center was founded by Rich Fink as the Center for the Study of Market Processes at Rutgers University. After the Koch family provided more than thirty million dollars[4] to George Mason University, the Center moved to George Mason in the mid-1980s before assuming its current name in 1999.[4] The Mercatus Center is a 501(c)3 non-profit and does not receive support from George Mason University or any federal, state or local government, but rather is entirely funded through donations, including some from companies like Koch Industries[5] and ExxonMobil,[6] individual donors and foundations. As of 2011, the Center shows that 58% of its funding comes from foundations, 40% from individuals, and 2% from businesses.[2]

Mercatus Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the kind of post you author when you can't dispute the truth.

The fact people continue to spout supply-side nonsense given the available macroeconomic data over the last three decades is beyond delusional. We've entered the realm of political cargo cult.

We've entered the realm of political cargo cult.

You're right.
A large chunk of the Dem voter base thinks that if they build a large enough Obama runway, Obama phones and EBT cards will rain from the sky.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This is the kind of post you author when you can't dispute the truth.

The fact people continue to spout supply-side nonsense given the available macroeconomic data over the last three decades is beyond delusional. We've entered the realm of political cargo cult.

We've entered the realm of political cargo cult.

You're right.
A large chunk of the Dem voter base thinks that if they build a large enough Obama runway, Obama phones and EBT cards will rain from the sky.

yes, Democrats have subverted our democracy. They trade votes for various entitlement welfare programs. Honestly it is illegal!

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Did I miss your agreement as to the astounding effectiveness of President Reagan's economic policies?


If you were about to post same, don't hesitate to compare them with those of the wind-bag in the White House.

Reagan's policies were a mixed bag of several tax increases and cuts , exploding deficits, and Fed intervention so I don't take much from them although I love the man's philosophy and think he would have done much better without having to compromise with Democrats.

The question was about the unmitigated success of his economic policies.


I'll wait.

its true that Great Moderation started under Reagan but economic policies then represented huge compromises with Democrats and as such a mixed bag of left and right wing stuff that makes it hard to explain why the economy did so well.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reagan's policies were a mixed bag of several tax increases and cuts , exploding deficits, and Fed intervention so I don't take much from them although I love the man's philosophy and think he would have done much better without having to compromise with Democrats.

The question was about the unmitigated success of his economic policies.


I'll wait.

its true that Great Moderation started under Reagan but economic policies then represented huge compromises with Democrats and as such a mixed bag of left and right wing stuff that makes it hard to explain why the economy did so well.

"... makes it hard to explain why the economy did so well."


Well, in that case, I can help:


Reagan scrapped Keynesian economics in favor of supply-side, which holds that economic growth results from the incentives for production.

Reagan assigned the Fed and monetary policy the sole goal of reducing inflation through tight money policies. Stimulation of the economy was based on sharply increasing incentives via lower tax rates and reduced regulatory burdens. He campaigned on a four-part plan:

1. Cuts in tax rates to restore incentives for growth, first a reduction in the top rate from 70% to 50%, followed by a 25% across-the-board cut in rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform, finally, left just two rates, 28% and 15%.

2. When Reagan came into office in 1981, he forced through Congress not only his famed, historic tax cuts, but also a package of budget cuts. That package was close to 5%, (a $31 billion cut) of the Federal budget at the time, which would be the equivalent of roughly $200 billion today. In nominal terms, non-defense discretionary spending actually declined by 7.1% from 1981 to 1982. But the roaring inflation at the time actually masks the true magnitude of the Reagan spending cut achievement. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms! By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars. Even with the Reagan defense build-up, which, remember, won the Cold War without firing a shot, total Federal spending as a percent of GDP declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That's a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.
http://www.americansolutions.com/economy/2009/06/when-the-republicans-cut-spending.php



3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stable value of the dollar.

4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion a year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and the price of oil declined by over 50%.




His policies worked spectacularly!
The Reagan recovery started officially in November of 1982 and lasted 92 months without any more than a shallow, short recession, until July 1990, when tax increases of the ’92 budget deal killed it.
Robert Bartley, “The Seven Fat Years,” p. 135, 144.


This was a new record for the longest peacetime expansion, the previous being 58 months. During this seven year recovery, the economy grew by nearly one third.
The poverty rate, which had started to rise under Carter, declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one sixth from its peak.
http://www.presidentreagan.info/poverty.cfm

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Reagan scrapped Keynesian economics in favor of supply-side,

Reagan was the greatest but raising taxes a dozen times or so is not really supply side and exploding deficits are not really conservative. Lets not forget that a Republican president often will have to compromise with the party opposite so what you get is a compromise.

 

[bripat9643]

This is the kind of post you author when you can't dispute the truth.

The fact people continue to spout supply-side nonsense given the available macroeconomic data over the last three decades is beyond delusional. We've entered the realm of political cargo cult.

I'd counter that the last 80 years have proven Keynes right, generally, and supply side has been proven wrong again, as a badly gone experiment of the last thirty years.

I'd counter that the exact opposite is the case. Keynes is a witch doctor and a con artists. All his theories have been exploded. For example, according to Keynes there is a trade-off between high inflation and high unemployment, but during the recession of 1983 we had both. That alone is enough to shoot his "General Theory" down in flames.

 

[The Rabbi]

Reagan scrapped Keynesian economics in favor of supply-side,

Reagan was the greatest but raising taxes a dozen times or so is not really supply side and exploding deficits are not really conservative. Lets not forget that a Republican president often will have to compromise with the party opposite so what you get is a compromise.

Were taxes higher or lower after Reagan left office?


Yeah, the Left has been fixated on demand for like 70 years, trying to dream up ways to stimulate demand. Reagan changed that, arguing successfully that if you stimulate supply, i.e. incentives to work and produce, then demand will take care of itself. Reagan was right, the Left was wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

The fact people continue to spout supply-side nonsense given the available macroeconomic data over the last three decades is beyond delusional. We've entered the realm of political cargo cult.

I'd counter that the last 80 years have proven Keynes right, generally, and supply side has been proven wrong again, as a badly gone experiment of the last thirty years.

I'd counter that the exact opposite is the case. Keynes is a witch doctor and a con artists. All his theories have been exploded. For example, according to Keynes there is a trade-off between high inflation and high unemployment, but during the recession of 1983 we had both. That alone is enough to shoot his "General Theory" down in flames.

No economist predicted the stagflation of the 1970s, which Keynes' theory said couldn't happen.
We have not had supply side economic policies since Reagan,with the brief exception fo the beginning Bush years. SO no wonder things suck.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'd counter that the last 80 years have proven Keynes right, generally, and supply side has been proven wrong again, as a badly gone experiment of the last thirty years.

I'd counter that the exact opposite is the case. Keynes is a witch doctor and a con artists. All his theories have been exploded. For example, according to Keynes there is a trade-off between high inflation and high unemployment, but during the recession of 1983 we had both. That alone is enough to shoot his "General Theory" down in flames.

No economist predicted the stagflation of the 1970s, which Keynes' theory said couldn't happen.
We have not had supply side economic policies since Reagan,with the brief exception fo the beginning Bush years. SO no wonder things suck.

Yes we are hardly encouraging business to create jobs to supply stuff when we drive business out of the country with the highest tax rates in the world! And, to do at a time when China and India have far lower wages in unbelievably ignorant and liberal.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'd counter that the last 80 years have proven Keynes right, generally, and supply side has been proven wrong again, as a badly gone experiment of the last thirty years.

the top 1% pay 40% of all Federal income tax now while they paid only 22% in 1980. That is anti supply side! Our corporate tax rate is highest in world and so drives corporations out of the country. That is hugely anti supply-side.

Do you understand now?

 

[Shanty]

I'd counter that the last 80 years have proven Keynes right, generally, and supply side has been proven wrong again, as a badly gone experiment of the last thirty years.

the top 1% pay 40% of all Federal income tax now while they paid only 22% in 1980. That is anti supply side! Our corporate tax rate is highest in world and so drives corporations out of the country. That is hugely anti supply-side.

Do you understand now?

Before 1980, tariffs and corporate income taxes made up a large part of the revenues.

Our effective corporate tax rate is amongst the lowest in the developed world. Companies don't pay statutory taxes of 35%. If they did, their accountants should be fired.

 

[Shanty]

Reagan scrapped Keynesian economics in favor of supply-side,

Reagan was the greatest but raising taxes a dozen times or so is not really supply side and exploding deficits are not really conservative. Lets not forget that a Republican president often will have to compromise with the party opposite so what you get is a compromise.

Were taxes higher or lower after Reagan left office?


Yeah, the Left has been fixated on demand for like 70 years, trying to dream up ways to stimulate demand. Reagan changed that, arguing successfully that if you stimulate supply, i.e. incentives to work and produce, then demand will take care of itself. Reagan was right, the Left was wrong.

If by shrinking the middle class by putting more of them into poverty, and decreasing prosperity is what you mean about Reagan, then I agree Reagan achieved those goals.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'd counter that the last 80 years have proven Keynes right, generally, and supply side has been proven wrong again, as a badly gone experiment of the last thirty years.

the top 1% pay 40% of all Federal income tax now while they paid only 22% in 1980. That is anti supply side! Our corporate tax rate is highest in world and so drives corporations out of the country. That is hugely anti supply-side.

Do you understand now?

Before 1980, tariffs and corporate income taxes made up a large part of the revenues.

Our effective corporate tax rate is amongst the lowest in the developed world. Companies don't pay statutory taxes of 35%. If they did, their accountants should be fired.

Before 1980, tariffs and corporate income taxes made up a large part of the revenues.

How much were tariffs? 2% of revenues? 1%?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan was the greatest but raising taxes a dozen times or so is not really supply side and exploding deficits are not really conservative. Lets not forget that a Republican president often will have to compromise with the party opposite so what you get is a compromise.

Were taxes higher or lower after Reagan left office?


Yeah, the Left has been fixated on demand for like 70 years, trying to dream up ways to stimulate demand. Reagan changed that, arguing successfully that if you stimulate supply, i.e. incentives to work and produce, then demand will take care of itself. Reagan was right, the Left was wrong.

If by shrinking the middle class by putting more of them into poverty, and decreasing prosperity is what you mean about Reagan, then I agree Reagan achieved those goals.

Obama is doing a better job at dropping incomes and increasing poverty than Reagan. Isn't it awful?

 

[Shanty]

The fact people continue to spout supply-side nonsense given the available macroeconomic data over the last three decades is beyond delusional. We've entered the realm of political cargo cult.

I'd counter that the last 80 years have proven Keynes right, generally, and supply side has been proven wrong again, as a badly gone experiment of the last thirty years.

I'd counter that the exact opposite is the case. Keynes is a witch doctor and a con artists. All his theories have been exploded. For example, according to Keynes there is a trade-off between high inflation and high unemployment, but during the recession of 1983 we had both. That alone is enough to shoot his "General Theory" down in flames.

New Keynesians took into account the lessons learned from the oil supply shocks. Still, economic history based in the data and causation proves Keynes right. His theories just needed to be upgraded as new things were learned.

 

[Shanty]

Were taxes higher or lower after Reagan left office?


Yeah, the Left has been fixated on demand for like 70 years, trying to dream up ways to stimulate demand. Reagan changed that, arguing successfully that if you stimulate supply, i.e. incentives to work and produce, then demand will take care of itself. Reagan was right, the Left was wrong.

If by shrinking the middle class by putting more of them into poverty, and decreasing prosperity is what you mean about Reagan, then I agree Reagan achieved those goals.

Obama is doing a better job at dropping incomes and increasing poverty than Reagan. Isn't it awful?

In the wake of the Bush/GOP housing bubble bursting into the Great Recession, we're doing far better under Obama than if we had elected McCain or Romney. And the economy is coming back under Obama, I spite of the GOP obstructing recovery.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If by shrinking the middle class by putting more of them into poverty, and decreasing prosperity is what you mean about Reagan, then I agree Reagan achieved those goals.

Obama is doing a better job at dropping incomes and increasing poverty than Reagan. Isn't it awful?

In the wake of the Bush/GOP housing bubble bursting into the Great Recession, we're doing far better under Obama than if we had elected McCain or Romney. And the economy is coming back under Obama, I spite of the GOP obstructing recovery.

Correct appellation: the Democrat policy mortgage meltdown.

And, of course, Obama has managed the worst recovery in modern times.


1.More than 6.7 million more Americans have been plunged into poverty since Obama became President.

2.Real household income is down 5%

3. Consumer prices are up 10.2%

4. Total federal debt is up 58%

5. Gasoline prices are up 82%

6. Food stamp recipients up 49%

7. Debt held by the public is up 89%

However, the Obama administration recently projected an annual deficit of $750 billion in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, and $626 billion the year after. At that rate, the debt owed to the public will more than double during the Obama presidency.
As of 2012, according to the most recent figures reported by the Census Bureau, median (midpoint) income for all U.S. households was $51,017, which was 4.9 percent lower (in inflation-adjusted dollars) than it was in 2008, the year before Obama took office.
The same story applies to family income, which includes many families with two earners. (The “household” figure includes single persons living alone, as well as families.) Median family income in 2012 was $62,241, or 5.1 percent below the inflation-adjusted 2008 level.
The number of persons living in poverty also worsened again in 2012, according to the most recent Census figures.

8. As of last year, 46,496,000 persons lived in households with income below the official poverty line, an increase of nearly 6.7 million since 2008 and 249,000 since 2011. The total poverty rate remained unchanged in 2012 at 15 percent of the total U.S. population. So for the second straight year, the poverty rate was 1.8 points higher than it was in 2008.
Obama?s Numbers, October Update

9... in today’s recovery — the slowest in the modern era going back to 1947 — private capital investment has lagged badly. ... so has the jobs situation, with 92 million dropping out of the workforce altogether. A labor-participation rate of 62.8% and an employment-to-population rate of 58% are historic lows indicative of the anemic jobs recovery. Big Business Swings Behind a Mantra of Growth - The New York Sun

10. Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama
Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama | NewsBusters

11. . ".... the... [dollar] has today a value of barely a 1,250th of an ounce of gold, a staggering plunge from an 853rd of an ounce on the day Mr. Obama took office...." Fiat Wages - The New York Sun


12. "CBO says deficits slated to shrink in coming years, but will soar again if spending or tax changes are not made

Federal deficits have soared between 2009 and 2012, bring the total long-term debt to a level equal to 73 percent of the nation’s GDP. “Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing federal debt to soar.”
CBO says deficits slated to shrink in coming years, but will soar again if spending or tax changes are not made | Dallas Morning News

13. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession | The Weekly Standard

14. "(CNSNews.com) - The real median income of American women dropped a little more than four percent in the first three full years after the end of the last recession,..... Census Bureau income data, the median income of American women was $21,520 in constant 2012 dollars. That was down $914 dollars—or about 4.1 percent—from 2009." Median Income of Women Dropped 4%--In First 3 Years of Recovery | CNS News

15. "US economy slowed to 0.1 percent growth rate in Q1
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. economy slowed drastically in the first three months of the year... to a barely discernible 0.1 percent annual rate in the January-March quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. That was the weakest pace since the end of 2012 and was down from a 2.6 percent rate in the previous quarter.... the anemic growth last quarter is surely a topic for discussion at the Federal Reserve's latest policy meeting,..."
My Way News - US economy slowed to 0.1 percent growth rate in Q1

16. "More Than 92 Million Americans Remain Out Of Labor Force
The unemployment rate dropped to 6.3 percent in April from 6.7 percent in March, the lowest it has been since September 2008 when it was 6.1 percent. The sharp drop, though, occurred because the number of people working or seeking work fell. The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not count people not looking for a job as unemployed.
The bureau noted that the civilian labor force dropped by 806,000 last month, following an increase of 503,000 in March."
Report: More Than 92 Million Americans Remain Out Of Labor Force « CBS DC
The amount (not seasonally adjusted) of Americans not in the labor force in April rose to 92,594,000, almost 1 million more than the previous month.

17. "The U.S. economy contracted at a much steeper pace than previously estimated in the first quarter, but there are indications that growth has sincerebounded strongly.
The Commerce Department said on Wednesday gross domestic product fell at a 2.9 percent annual rate, the economy's worst performance in five years, instead of the 1.0 percent pace it had reported last month." Final US first quarter GDP contracts
18. (CNSNews.com) - The number of Americans 16 and older who did not participate in the labor force climbed to a record high of 92,120,000 in June, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)..... the labor force participation rate for Americans was 62.8 percent, matching a 36-year low. Record Number of Americans Not in Labor Force in June | CNS News
19. (CNSNews.com) – The unemployment rate for black Americans is more than double that of white Americans, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).... In the numbers released today, covering the month of June, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for black Americans age 16 and over was 10.7%, reported the BLS. The unemployment rate for white Americans in the same age group and time-frame was 5.3%, said the BLS. Black Unemployment 10.7%, More Than Double White Unemployment 5.3% | CNS News




FOLKS LIKE YOU ARE THE REASON THIS NATION HAS TO PUT DIRECTIONS ON SHAMPOO.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I spite of the GOP obstructing recovery.

what? please name one liberal policy that could help rather than hurt the economy or admit you have no clue what you're doing here!!

 

[sameech]

I spite of the GOP obstructing recovery.

what? please name one liberal policy that could help rather than hurt the economy or admit you have no clue what you're doing here!!

The Credit Card reforms a couple years back were a really awesome thing to do. Stopping credit card companies from jacking up your rates on things you had already purchased helps in the sense that it gives consumers more with which to consume and might allow them to stay out of bankruptcy a little longer if they have a disruption in income.