Economics 101

[edthecynic]

Plus, the very idea of a business tax is not to collect revenue but to pander to the pure and perfect ignorance of liberals who don't know that a business is a tax collector not a tax payer. A business passes the tax cost on like it passes any cost on.

Hold on there a minute there Slick!
As a pass-along all business taxes are de facto consumption taxes which the Right have renamed as the "Fair Tax."
So now the "Fair Tax" is suddenly not so "fair."

it has nothing to do with fairness. the corporate tax is based on the 100% pure ignorance of liberalism/ Do you understand?

And you expose the 100% pure ignorance of the CON$ervative "Fair Tax."
Do you understand?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You want to put a tax on imports and money transfers? Wow! That's like Trump level stupid.

Actually , most banks charge a fee for any transfer.... I guess that's stupid too.

I pay bills all the time that transfer money out of my account.
Haven't paid a fee yet.
Yeah, that would be stupid too.

That doesn't stop them from charging fees.

Wire Transfer - International Wire Transfers from Bank of America

I just paid 4 bills online.
Every one of them transferred money out of my account.
None resulted in a fee.

Well , congratulations ... I guess.
Were any of those international money transfers at all?
And how is that relevant for the discussion given the fact tha BoA does charge fees for international money transfers?

Were any of those international money transfers at all?

No. So your "plan" is to tax international transfers?
For what purpose? I mean, besides damaging our economy?
And damaging our reserve currency status?
Was this just to punish all the countries with lower corporate taxes?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Actually , most banks charge a fee for any transfer.... I guess that's stupid too.

I pay bills all the time that transfer money out of my account.
Haven't paid a fee yet.
Yeah, that would be stupid too.

That doesn't stop them from charging fees.

Wire Transfer - International Wire Transfers from Bank of America

I just paid 4 bills online.
Every one of them transferred money out of my account.
None resulted in a fee.

Well , congratulations ... I guess.
Were any of those international money transfers at all?
And how is that relevant for the discussion given the fact tha BoA does charge fees for international money transfers?

Were any of those international money transfers at all?

No. So your "plan" is to tax international transfers?
For what purpose? I mean, besides damaging our economy?
And damaging our reserve currency status?
Was this just to punish all the countries with lower corporate taxes?

Indeed.
The damage would be relative to the tax percent. If the tax was 0.01% there would be no damage at all ( though it would make it completely useless). 1% would be the top.
It has already been damaged by banks and rating agencies not doing their work correctly.
No , the goal is to have some government income from offshored profits.
Some companies bill phantom services or inflated semi-finished goods to offshore profits. This would not end it but would produce some revenue for the government.

That said, I would rather have a universal minimum income ( even if it requires money creation from the fed), as it would solve the problem I am most concerned with: the decrease of household income / gdp ratio.

This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy ( something which is actually covered in economics 101).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I pay bills all the time that transfer money out of my account.
Haven't paid a fee yet.
Yeah, that would be stupid too.

That doesn't stop them from charging fees.

Wire Transfer - International Wire Transfers from Bank of America

I just paid 4 bills online.
Every one of them transferred money out of my account.
None resulted in a fee.

Well , congratulations ... I guess.
Were any of those international money transfers at all?
And how is that relevant for the discussion given the fact tha BoA does charge fees for international money transfers?

Were any of those international money transfers at all?

No. So your "plan" is to tax international transfers?
For what purpose? I mean, besides damaging our economy?
And damaging our reserve currency status?
Was this just to punish all the countries with lower corporate taxes?

Indeed.
The damage would be relative to the tax percent. If the tax was 0.01% there would be no damage at all ( though it would make it completely useless). 1% would be the top.
It has already been damaged by banks and rating agencies not doing their work correctly.
No , the goal is to have some government income from offshored profits.
Some companies bill phantom services or inflated semi-finished goods to offshore profits. This would not end it but would produce some revenue for the government.

That said, I would rather have a universal minimum income ( even if it requires money creation from the fed), as it would solve the problem I am most concerned with: the decrease of household income / gdp ratio.

This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy ( something which is actually covered in economics 101).

1% would be the top.
It has already been damaged by banks and rating agencies not doing their work correctly.

Why are you conflating banks and mortgages with punishing Ireland by taxing transfers?

No , the goal is to have some government income from offshored profits.

Aside from punishing people unrelated to profits earned in other markets, why does the government deserve income from profit earned elsewhere?

Some companies bill phantom services or inflated semi-finished goods to offshore profits.

Wouldn't the government have agents and accountants examining corporations operations?

This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy.

When did Milton ignore cyclicality? Gotta link?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And you expose the 100% pure ignorance of the CON$ervative "Fair Tax."
Do you understand?

dear, you forgot to explain why it is ignorant? Afraid to try??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy ( something which is actually covered in economics 101).

If he ignored it I'll pay you $10,000 Bet ???? What kind of world do we live in when a libsocialist idiot feels free to be critical of Friedman despite the idiots total ignorance.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

it would solve the problem I am most concerned with: the decrease of household income / gdp ratio.

work force participation and U6 unemployment are at all time highs thanks to various libturd welfare entitlement programs. We don't want to add still more to the moral hazard these programs pose. Also if you are concerned about household income why not cut taxes to all rather than give just to poor??? Think before you post please.

 

[CultureCitizen]

That doesn't stop them from charging fees.

Wire Transfer - International Wire Transfers from Bank of America

I just paid 4 bills online.
Every one of them transferred money out of my account.
None resulted in a fee.

Well , congratulations ... I guess.
Were any of those international money transfers at all?
And how is that relevant for the discussion given the fact tha BoA does charge fees for international money transfers?

Were any of those international money transfers at all?

No. So your "plan" is to tax international transfers?
For what purpose? I mean, besides damaging our economy?
And damaging our reserve currency status?
Was this just to punish all the countries with lower corporate taxes?

Indeed.
The damage would be relative to the tax percent. If the tax was 0.01% there would be no damage at all ( though it would make it completely useless). 1% would be the top.
It has already been damaged by banks and rating agencies not doing their work correctly.
No , the goal is to have some government income from offshored profits.
Some companies bill phantom services or inflated semi-finished goods to offshore profits. This would not end it but would produce some revenue for the government.

That said, I would rather have a universal minimum income ( even if it requires money creation from the fed), as it would solve the problem I am most concerned with: the decrease of household income / gdp ratio.

This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy ( something which is actually covered in economics 101).

1% would be the top.
It has already been damaged by banks and rating agencies not doing their work correctly.

Why are you conflating banks and mortgages with punishing Ireland by taxing transfers?

No , the goal is to have some government income from offshored profits.

Aside from punishing people unrelated to profits earned in other markets, why does the government deserve income from profit earned elsewhere?

Some companies bill phantom services or inflated semi-finished goods to offshore profits.

Wouldn't the government have agents and accountants examining corporations operations?

This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy.

When did Milton ignore cyclicality? Gotta link?

That is going to be hard to proove: he didn't ever consider it. Even when talking about inequality this is the most one gets from his books:

"A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.… On the other hand, a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality "

He doesn't even consider the social and economical side effects of inequallity: less aggregate demand, higher crime rates, higher rate of informal economy. And that is my problem with Milton he doesn't even touch the subject. He talks at lengths on the morality of freedom and equality , but he doesn't ever mention what high inequallity does to an economy or a society as a whole.

I can say in his favour he did mention using a negative income tax as a way to alleviate poverty.

Addendum: That's as hard as trying to produce a paper of Newton discussing general relativity.

 

[CultureCitizen]

This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy ( something which is actually covered in economics 101).

If he ignored it I'll pay you $10,000 Bet ???? What kind of world do we live in when a libsocialist idiot feels free to be critical of Friedman despite the idiots total ignorance.

He doesn't mention it in any of his speeches or papers. Not even marginally, he actually states that the business primary goal is doing profit. That is exactly the opposite view of anyone who looks at the cycle. It is quite evident that there must be some sort of balance between household income and corporate output.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I just paid 4 bills online.
Every one of them transferred money out of my account.
None resulted in a fee.

Well , congratulations ... I guess.
Were any of those international money transfers at all?
And how is that relevant for the discussion given the fact tha BoA does charge fees for international money transfers?

Were any of those international money transfers at all?

No. So your "plan" is to tax international transfers?
For what purpose? I mean, besides damaging our economy?
And damaging our reserve currency status?
Was this just to punish all the countries with lower corporate taxes?

Indeed.
The damage would be relative to the tax percent. If the tax was 0.01% there would be no damage at all ( though it would make it completely useless). 1% would be the top.
It has already been damaged by banks and rating agencies not doing their work correctly.
No , the goal is to have some government income from offshored profits.
Some companies bill phantom services or inflated semi-finished goods to offshore profits. This would not end it but would produce some revenue for the government.

That said, I would rather have a universal minimum income ( even if it requires money creation from the fed), as it would solve the problem I am most concerned with: the decrease of household income / gdp ratio.

This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy ( something which is actually covered in economics 101).

1% would be the top.
It has already been damaged by banks and rating agencies not doing their work correctly.

Why are you conflating banks and mortgages with punishing Ireland by taxing transfers?

No , the goal is to have some government income from offshored profits.

Aside from punishing people unrelated to profits earned in other markets, why does the government deserve income from profit earned elsewhere?

Some companies bill phantom services or inflated semi-finished goods to offshore profits.

Wouldn't the government have agents and accountants examining corporations operations?

This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy.

When did Milton ignore cyclicality? Gotta link?

That is going to be hard to proove: he didn't ever consider it. Even when talking about inequality this is the most one gets from his books:

"A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.… On the other hand, a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality "

He doesn't even consider the social and economical side effects of inequallity: less aggregate demand, higher crime rates, higher rate of informal economy. And that is my problem with Milton he doesn't even touch the subject. He talks at lengths on the morality of freedom and equality , but he doesn't ever mention what high inequallity does to an economy or a society as a whole.

I can say in his favour he did mention using a negative income tax as a way to alleviate poverty.

Addendum: That's as hard as trying to produce a paper of Newton discussing general relativity.

Addendum: That's as hard as trying to produce a paper of Newton discussing general relativity.

That's funny.
Relativity hadn't been discovered during Newton's lifetime.
During Friedman's life, everyone knew about economic cycles and inequality.

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c7496.pdf

This paper might disprove your claim.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy ( something which is actually covered in economics 101).

If he ignored it I'll pay you $10,000 Bet ???? What kind of world do we live in when a libsocialist idiot feels free to be critical of Friedman despite the idiots total ignorance.

He doesn't mention it in any of his speeches or papers. Not even marginally, he actually states that the business primary goal is doing profit. That is exactly the opposite view of anyone who looks at the cycle. It is quite evident that there must be some sort of balance between household income and corporate output.

he actually states that the business primary goal is doing profit.

What do you feel the primary goal should be?

That is exactly the opposite view of anyone who looks at the cycle.

People who look at the cycle shouldn't be concerned with profit?

 

[edthecynic]

And you expose the 100% pure ignorance of the CON$ervative "Fair Tax."
Do you understand?

dear, you forgot to explain why it is ignorant? Afraid to try??

Actually I did already, but it obviously went over your ignorant head.

Because YOU said corporate taxes are ignorant because they are passed along to the consumer and the "Fair Tax" is a consumption tax therefore corporate taxes are a de facto "Fair Tax" and thus equally ignorant.
Get it?????

 

[Rshermr]

And you expose the 100% pure ignorance of the CON$ervative "Fair Tax."
Do you understand?

dear, you forgot to explain why it is ignorant? Afraid to try??

Actually I did already, but it obviously went over your ignorant head.

[/QUOTE]

Edthecynic said:
Because YOU said corporate taxes are ignorant because they are passed along to the consumer and the "Fair Tax" is a consumption tax therefore corporate taxes are a de facto "Fair Tax" and thus equally ignorant.
Get it?????
Funny, when you think about it. EdBal and Get it are a form of Oxymoron. Ed is brain dead, has been for life. He is a Conservative Troll. He understands nothing, but he has been told what to believe. Has his beliefs in a list, and he believes them brainlessly. Because he has no rational brain. Ed never makes sense, except to himself and other brainless trolls. Also conservatives trolls like him.
.
Now, Ed has the job of shutting down threads that are not going well for the cons. People see his name, and it is a lot like you are walking through a pasture and see a big pile of cow shit. See the similarity? EdBal and Cow Shit? So, people get away from the cow shit, just as they get away from Eds posts. They are equally nasty meaningless things that make people feel crappy . And the result is, the thread dies. Which apparently makes little edBal feel great.
I find Ed kind of like the target in target practice. You can shoot him full of holes, but it really makes no difference. He has no class, and no integrity. Like a con troll, which he is. He never admits he lost his argument, which he always does if anyone responds to his brainless posts. He simply keeps on with the same drivel, day after day, week after week, year after year. All to no rational end.
Then there are the same endless lines of personal attacks. Poor ed. I think it is clinical. Best guess is he is a congenital idiot.

 

[CultureCitizen]

This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy ( something which is actually covered in economics 101).

If he ignored it I'll pay you $10,000 Bet ???? What kind of world do we live in when a libsocialist idiot feels free to be critical of Friedman despite the idiots total ignorance.

He doesn't mention it in any of his speeches or papers. Not even marginally, he actually states that the business primary goal is doing profit. That is exactly the opposite view of anyone who looks at the cycle. It is quite evident that there must be some sort of balance between household income and corporate output.

he actually states that the business primary goal is doing profit.

What do you feel the primary goal should be?

That is exactly the opposite view of anyone who looks at the cycle.

People who look at the cycle shouldn't be concerned with profit?

Tricky. Indeed a corporation needs to profit in order to survive. But that doesn't make it its primary goal. Why else would business bother with making a charter with vision goals and objectives in the first place?
Profit is a requisite not a goal, just as eating is a requirement to stay alive, that doesn't make it your goal in life ( though it might be, it simply isn't the norm).

Economists looking at the cycle should be aware of the sidefects of the cycle:
- If a country has a trade surplus someone will have a deficit
- If corporations have increasing surplus, their internal markets will shrink
- If labour is continually rising corporations will not be able to sustain themselves.
- If the financial sector gets too much surplus, there will be a capital glut
... and so on.

Other economists: Minsky, Stiglitz, Keen are very aware of this cycle. But not Friedman, he was a libertarian and was unconcerned about it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy ( something which is actually covered in economics 101).

If he ignored it I'll pay you $10,000 Bet ???? What kind of world do we live in when a libsocialist idiot feels free to be critical of Friedman despite the idiots total ignorance.

He doesn't mention it in any of his speeches or papers. Not even marginally, he actually states that the business primary goal is doing profit. That is exactly the opposite view of anyone who looks at the cycle. It is quite evident that there must be some sort of balance between household income and corporate output.

he actually states that the business primary goal is doing profit.

What do you feel the primary goal should be?

That is exactly the opposite view of anyone who looks at the cycle.

People who look at the cycle shouldn't be concerned with profit?

Tricky. Indeed a corporation needs to profit in order to survive. But that doesn't make it its primary goal. Why else would business bother with making a charter with vision goals and objectives in the first place?
Profit is a requisite not a goal, just as eating is a requirement to stay alive, that doesn't make it your goal in life ( though it might be, it simply isn't the norm).

Economists looking at the cycle should be aware of the sidefects of the cycle:
- If a country has a trade surplus someone will have a deficit
- If corporations have increasing surplus, their internal markets will shrink
- If labour is continually rising corporations will not be able to sustain themselves.
- If the financial sector gets too much surplus, there will be a capital glut
... and so on.

Other economists: Minsky, Stiglitz, Keen are very aware of this cycle. But not Friedman, he was a libertarian and was unconcerned about it.

But that doesn't make it its primary goal.

What should the primary goal of a corporation be, if not profit?

Profit is a requisite not a goal

The thing we need most of all, the thing that allows us to survive....is not our goal. Hmmmmm.

Economists looking at the cycle should be aware of

Do you think (can you prove) that Friedman was unaware of those?

But not Friedman, he was a libertarian and was unconcerned about it.

For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy

Well, I'm just glad that you admitted your original claim was incorrect.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Well , congratulations ... I guess.
Were any of those international money transfers at all?
And how is that relevant for the discussion given the fact tha BoA does charge fees for international money transfers?

Were any of those international money transfers at all?

No. So your "plan" is to tax international transfers?
For what purpose? I mean, besides damaging our economy?
And damaging our reserve currency status?
Was this just to punish all the countries with lower corporate taxes?

Indeed.
The damage would be relative to the tax percent. If the tax was 0.01% there would be no damage at all ( though it would make it completely useless). 1% would be the top.
It has already been damaged by banks and rating agencies not doing their work correctly.
No , the goal is to have some government income from offshored profits.
Some companies bill phantom services or inflated semi-finished goods to offshore profits. This would not end it but would produce some revenue for the government.

That said, I would rather have a universal minimum income ( even if it requires money creation from the fed), as it would solve the problem I am most concerned with: the decrease of household income / gdp ratio.

This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy ( something which is actually covered in economics 101).

1% would be the top.
It has already been damaged by banks and rating agencies not doing their work correctly.

Why are you conflating banks and mortgages with punishing Ireland by taxing transfers?

No , the goal is to have some government income from offshored profits.

Aside from punishing people unrelated to profits earned in other markets, why does the government deserve income from profit earned elsewhere?

Some companies bill phantom services or inflated semi-finished goods to offshore profits.

Wouldn't the government have agents and accountants examining corporations operations?

This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy.

When did Milton ignore cyclicality? Gotta link?

That is going to be hard to proove: he didn't ever consider it. Even when talking about inequality this is the most one gets from his books:

"A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.… On the other hand, a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality "

He doesn't even consider the social and economical side effects of inequallity: less aggregate demand, higher crime rates, higher rate of informal economy. And that is my problem with Milton he doesn't even touch the subject. He talks at lengths on the morality of freedom and equality , but he doesn't ever mention what high inequallity does to an economy or a society as a whole.

I can say in his favour he did mention using a negative income tax as a way to alleviate poverty.

Addendum: That's as hard as trying to produce a paper of Newton discussing general relativity.

Addendum: That's as hard as trying to produce a paper of Newton discussing general relativity.

That's funny.
Relativity hadn't been discovered during Newton's lifetime.
During Friedman's life, everyone knew about economic cycles and inequality.

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c7496.pdf

This paper might disprove your claim.

Not quite. The article talks about the cycles of businesses and money stock. They are related topics but not the same.

I am refering to this:

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Were any of those international money transfers at all?

No. So your "plan" is to tax international transfers?
For what purpose? I mean, besides damaging our economy?
And damaging our reserve currency status?
Was this just to punish all the countries with lower corporate taxes?

Indeed.
The damage would be relative to the tax percent. If the tax was 0.01% there would be no damage at all ( though it would make it completely useless). 1% would be the top.
It has already been damaged by banks and rating agencies not doing their work correctly.
No , the goal is to have some government income from offshored profits.
Some companies bill phantom services or inflated semi-finished goods to offshore profits. This would not end it but would produce some revenue for the government.

That said, I would rather have a universal minimum income ( even if it requires money creation from the fed), as it would solve the problem I am most concerned with: the decrease of household income / gdp ratio.

This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy ( something which is actually covered in economics 101).

1% would be the top.
It has already been damaged by banks and rating agencies not doing their work correctly.

Why are you conflating banks and mortgages with punishing Ireland by taxing transfers?

No , the goal is to have some government income from offshored profits.

Aside from punishing people unrelated to profits earned in other markets, why does the government deserve income from profit earned elsewhere?

Some companies bill phantom services or inflated semi-finished goods to offshore profits.

Wouldn't the government have agents and accountants examining corporations operations?

This is one of the points in which Milton seems to be completely blind. For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy.

When did Milton ignore cyclicality? Gotta link?

That is going to be hard to proove: he didn't ever consider it. Even when talking about inequality this is the most one gets from his books:

"A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.… On the other hand, a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality "

He doesn't even consider the social and economical side effects of inequallity: less aggregate demand, higher crime rates, higher rate of informal economy. And that is my problem with Milton he doesn't even touch the subject. He talks at lengths on the morality of freedom and equality , but he doesn't ever mention what high inequallity does to an economy or a society as a whole.

I can say in his favour he did mention using a negative income tax as a way to alleviate poverty.

Addendum: That's as hard as trying to produce a paper of Newton discussing general relativity.

Addendum: That's as hard as trying to produce a paper of Newton discussing general relativity.

That's funny.
Relativity hadn't been discovered during Newton's lifetime.
During Friedman's life, everyone knew about economic cycles and inequality.

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c7496.pdf

This paper might disprove your claim.

Not quite. The article talks about the cycles of businesses and money stock. They are related topics but not the same.

I am refering to this:

Friedman didn't know about the things in that simplistic image?
Why do you feel that?
Do you have any proof?
Maybe you read some of his work that showed he didn't know about imports, exports, consumption, income, investments or government borrowing?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Economists looking at the cycle should be aware of

Do you think (can you prove) that Friedman was unaware of those?

But not Friedman, he was a libertarian and was unconcerned about it.

For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy

Well, I'm just glad that you admitted your original claim was incorrect.

Did I?
Ignore: to give no attention to something or someone.
ignore Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

 

[CultureCitizen]

Friedman didn't know about the things in that simplistic image?

I did not say he didn't know them , I said he ignored them: He knew, but he considered irrelevant. He was actually blatant about model simplifications :
Truly important and significant hypotheses will be found to have "assumptions" that are wildly inaccurate descriptive representations of reality, and, in general, the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions (in this sense)
Essays in Positive Economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Economists looking at the cycle should be aware of

Do you think (can you prove) that Friedman was unaware of those?

But not Friedman, he was a libertarian and was unconcerned about it.

For some reason he seems to completely ignore the cyclical nature of economy

Well, I'm just glad that you admitted your original claim was incorrect.

Did I?
Ignore: to give no attention to something or someone.
ignore Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c7496.pdf

55 pages at the link and he didn't mention those things in your image?