independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

[The Derp]

Ahhh, where did I claim that was the only cut?

You did, in your response. You thought it was just education cuts I was talking about, and so if you don't have a kid, it's not a cost that affects you. But education cuts were just one example of what I was talking about when I say the burden shifts. I used it as an example because I thought your pea brain would understand it. Clearly, I overestimated your capabilities. My bad! I'll be sure to assume you are a paint chip-eating cretin from now on.

How did the spending cuts compare to the tax cuts?

Compare, how? It's not a zero-sum game as Conservatives inadvertently point out when their budgets are all running massive deficits after spending cuts and can't figure out why. There's no comparison because you're just shifting the cost burden from the State to individuals. That's so the wealthy can skate away with more wealth, as you and the other cretins promise they will spend more and increase economic activity, even though they never have and never will.

Remember, tax cuts were initially pitched as being so wonderfully good for the economy, we'd be awash in revenues that there wouldn't even need to have cuts to spending. But once the math and reality didn't play out that way, Conservatives like you shifted your argument to one that tax cuts don't pay for themselves, and need to be done in tandem with spending cuts in order to work. Of course, the two have nothing to do with one another, and it was just a bullshit justification on your part to put off answering for your flawed beliefs.

So if tax cuts don't pay for themselves, if they don't result in the State being a wash in revenues that we wouldn't even need to think about spending cuts, why do you support them? Is it because you're fucking stupid or fucking ignorant? Because you can only be one of those two things.

xcept for Coolidge, JFK, Reagan, Bush......

Coolidge!? Seriously? Calvin Coolidge and Harding and Hoover are the ones who gave us the Great Depression with their lassiez-faire capitalism and allergy to regulation. Nto sure those are the folks you want to be championing.

2. Nope, it was JKF/LBJ's increase in spending by 50% that produced their growth.

3. Reagan didn't grow shit and his economy didn't start growing until after he started raising all those taxes and cancelling all those planned cuts. Which, by the way, undermines your entire argument completely that the cuts that were planned had to be cancelled because they wouldn't result in the revenues necessary to pay for them.

4. The Bush Tax Cuts didn't grow the economy, personal debt did. The Bush Tax Cuts reduced revenue to below 2000 levels for four straight years. So you are championing taking 4 steps back to take one step forward? You're dumber than I thought.

 

[The Derp]

Because if it was so good during Clinton, why not go back to that threshold? Sounds good to me, doesn't it to you!

So like I said, you just pulled that number out of thin air. You have no idea why you settled on that number. Just admit it. Admit that you're just winging this as you go.

 

[The Derp]

Why wouldn't a 99% corporate tax rate spur investment?
What about a 95% rate?

Maybe we should try it and find out. I'm open top it. Since they only pay taxes on profits, and they're not people, I don't really see the problem.

 

[The Derp]

It is obvious to me that people like Derp can't create wealth of their own to buy votes with, therefore, they need steal ours to purchase them, lol!

No one believes for a second that you have any wealth to steal.

 

[imawhosure]

Because if it was so good during Clinton, why not go back to that threshold? Sounds good to me, doesn't it to you!

So like I said, you just pulled that number out of thin air. You have no idea why you settled on that number. Just admit it. Admit that you're just winging this as you go.

No, you admit you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You try and equate deficits with lack of revenue.

Lets just go back when the Clinton years were doing well, and incorporate that tax rate, that rate of regulation, and that capital gains tax rate and cap all taxes at 20% of GDP, after which the government can tax no more.

What is wrong with that? It was under a Democrat, times were good, why not, and if not, explain-)

 

[imawhosure]

Ahhh, where did I claim that was the only cut?

You did, in your response. You thought it was just education cuts I was talking about, and so if you don't have a kid, it's not a cost that affects you. But education cuts were just one example of what I was talking about when I say the burden shifts. I used it as an example because I thought your pea brain would understand it. Clearly, I overestimated your capabilities. My bad! I'll be sure to assume you are a paint chip-eating cretin from now on.

How did the spending cuts compare to the tax cuts?

Compare, how? It's not a zero-sum game as Conservatives inadvertently point out when their budgets are all running massive deficits after spending cuts and can't figure out why. There's no comparison because you're just shifting the cost burden from the State to individuals. That's so the wealthy can skate away with more wealth, as you and the other cretins promise they will spend more and increase economic activity, even though they never have and never will.

Remember, tax cuts were initially pitched as being so wonderfully good for the economy, we'd be awash in revenues that there wouldn't even need to have cuts to spending. But once the math and reality didn't play out that way, Conservatives like you shifted your argument to one that tax cuts don't pay for themselves, and need to be done in tandem with spending cuts in order to work. Of course, the two have nothing to do with one another, and it was just a bullshit justification on your part to put off answering for your flawed beliefs.

So if tax cuts don't pay for themselves, if they don't result in the State being a wash in revenues that we wouldn't even need to think about spending cuts, why do you support them? Is it because you're fucking stupid or fucking ignorant? Because you can only be one of those two things.

xcept for Coolidge, JFK, Reagan, Bush......

Coolidge!? Seriously? Calvin Coolidge and Harding and Hoover are the ones who gave us the Great Depression with their lassiez-faire capitalism and allergy to regulation. Nto sure those are the folks you want to be championing.

2. Nope, it was JKF/LBJ's increase in spending by 50% that produced their growth.

3. Reagan didn't grow shit and his economy didn't start growing until after he started raising all those taxes and cancelling all those planned cuts. Which, by the way, undermines your entire argument completely that the cuts that were planned had to be cancelled because they wouldn't result in the revenues necessary to pay for them.

4. The Bush Tax Cuts didn't grow the economy, personal debt did. The Bush Tax Cuts reduced revenue to below 2000 levels for four straight years. So you are championing taking 4 steps back to take one step forward? You're dumber than I thought.

Here, lets make this simple, why argue---------> show me how tax cuts cost the federal treasury money--------->Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

Now, notice how much it jumped during Reagan and Kennedy. Similar for Coolidge if you look it up. The deficit is NOT germane to the discussion, since that is dependent upon how much the government SPENT, not how much they took in.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ahhh, where did I claim that was the only cut?

You did, in your response. You thought it was just education cuts I was talking about, and so if you don't have a kid, it's not a cost that affects you. But education cuts were just one example of what I was talking about when I say the burden shifts. I used it as an example because I thought your pea brain would understand it. Clearly, I overestimated your capabilities. My bad! I'll be sure to assume you are a paint chip-eating cretin from now on.

How did the spending cuts compare to the tax cuts?

Compare, how? It's not a zero-sum game as Conservatives inadvertently point out when their budgets are all running massive deficits after spending cuts and can't figure out why. There's no comparison because you're just shifting the cost burden from the State to individuals. That's so the wealthy can skate away with more wealth, as you and the other cretins promise they will spend more and increase economic activity, even though they never have and never will.

Remember, tax cuts were initially pitched as being so wonderfully good for the economy, we'd be awash in revenues that there wouldn't even need to have cuts to spending. But once the math and reality didn't play out that way, Conservatives like you shifted your argument to one that tax cuts don't pay for themselves, and need to be done in tandem with spending cuts in order to work. Of course, the two have nothing to do with one another, and it was just a bullshit justification on your part to put off answering for your flawed beliefs.

So if tax cuts don't pay for themselves, if they don't result in the State being a wash in revenues that we wouldn't even need to think about spending cuts, why do you support them? Is it because you're fucking stupid or fucking ignorant? Because you can only be one of those two things.

xcept for Coolidge, JFK, Reagan, Bush......

Coolidge!? Seriously? Calvin Coolidge and Harding and Hoover are the ones who gave us the Great Depression with their lassiez-faire capitalism and allergy to regulation. Nto sure those are the folks you want to be championing.

2. Nope, it was JKF/LBJ's increase in spending by 50% that produced their growth.

3. Reagan didn't grow shit and his economy didn't start growing until after he started raising all those taxes and cancelling all those planned cuts. Which, by the way, undermines your entire argument completely that the cuts that were planned had to be cancelled because they wouldn't result in the revenues necessary to pay for them.

4. The Bush Tax Cuts didn't grow the economy, personal debt did. The Bush Tax Cuts reduced revenue to below 2000 levels for four straight years. So you are championing taking 4 steps back to take one step forward? You're dumber than I thought.

You did, in your response. You thought it was just education cuts I was talking about

In my example, I cut government payments to colleges by $1 million and taxes by $1 million.

Remember when you said that reduced consumer funds by $2 million?
That was hilarious!!!

But education cuts were just one example of what I was talking about when I say the burden shifts.

Yup. Some have more money, some have less, a wash.
You don't add the extra money to the extra cost.

Unless you're a moron......oh, there you are.

Coolidge!? Seriously?

You didn't know he cut taxes? Seriously?

Reagan didn't grow shit

LOL!

Real Gross Domestic Product

You should compare that to Obama's weak ass recovery.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why wouldn't a 99% corporate tax rate spur investment?
What about a 95% rate?

Maybe we should try it and find out. I'm open top it. Since they only pay taxes on profits, and they're not people, I don't really see the problem.

Of course you don't see a problem. You're clueless when it comes to economics.

 

[Winston]

You'll have to cut and paste the part that said savings "holds money out of the economy".

From the link you were too chickenshit to open:

When the first Bush tax cuts were signed into law in June 2001, pushing the top rate down to 35 percent, the wealthy boosted savings. The saving rate climbed to 2.8 percent in the first quarter of 2002 from minus 2 percent in the second quarter of 2001. The increased savings coincided with a 1.1 percent decline in the S&P 500 index. ​

Furthermore, the link goes on to talk about how it's not the tax rate but rather the market that spurs spending:

“I would tend to wonder how much the tax cut actually influences spending behavior,” said Chris Cornell, an economist who mined government reports back to 1989 for West Chester, Pennsylvania-based Moody’s Analytics. “Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business- cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues.” ​

So you spun a false bill of goods. Even the folks at Moody's think you're full of shit.

Thanks for the passages.

Which one(s) said "savings holds money out of the economy"?

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift", and as I said, it is a very basic economic concept that has been accepted theory for seventy five years, although I am pretty sure Xenophon touched on it 1600 years ago. The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling. I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Paradox of thrift - Wikipedia

Oh, and by the way, I asked hours ago rather purchasing stock from the stock exchange was savings or investment. No one answered, it is savings, not investing.

 

[Winston]

It means people saved more. It doesn't mean, "money was held out of the economy" Moron

So if people are saving, then what are they not doing? Spending. And what grows the economy? Spending.

So post it. It should say, "savings is money held out of the economy", or some variation of your claim.

What do you fucking think going from a negative savings rate to a positive savings rate means!?!?!?!?!?! So unless something is written for you in exactly those terms, your brain cannot comprehend it? Are you telling me that you are completely incapable of critical thinking? Because that's all that is required here.

When they say that the savings rate went from -2% to 2%, what do you think that means?!?!?!?!

You're the one confused about debt. I'll be happy to dispel your confusion. At least this tiny portion of it.

Your definition of debt seems to change post-to-post, depending on how shitty your argument is faring.

So if people are saving, then what are they not doing? Spending. And what grows the economy? Spending.

If I put $1000 in the bank, why the fuck do you believe my money is "held out of the economy"?

What do banks do with deposits?

What do you fucking think going from a negative savings rate to a positive savings rate means!?!?!?!?!?!

It means that people who were spending more than they were earning began earning more than they were spending.

Your definition of debt seems to change post-to-post

Still waiting for you to post your definition.

Yes, the bank loans out your savings. But, they charge INTEREST. And INTEREST, takes from the economy without providing anything in return.

 

[BlackSand]

The truth of the matter is that republicans in office only care about their own financial interests, so they will only formulate policy for that reason. Actual educated economists, however, do not.

This quote from an article below sums up the statistics:

Opinions of economists
There are many different ways to assess the consensus of economists on policy issues. Much of the public believes that economists tend to be libertarian and to favor laissez faire economic policy. That idea- that economic wisdom favors leaving all things to the free market- is actually dead wrong. Economists generally tend to support policies at least as liberal as the policies the Democratic Party supports. Some examples:

• 71% of economists favor using government to redistribute wealth and only 8% strongly oppose it. In fact, the concept of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth is a very well established and non-controversial economic principle. Even Adam Smith expressed the view that the government should redistribute wealth.

• Only 12% of economists take the view that the costs of the stimulus outweighed the benefits- a view passionately held by nearly all Republicans.

• 75% of economists favor government tuning the economy with monetary policy- an idea often vehemently rejected by the Republican Party- while only 4% of economists strongly oppose it.

• Zero percent- not a single economist in the entire sample- of economists agree with the central tenant of Republican fiscal policy that cutting tax rates would boost the economy enough to cause revenues to increase.

• 94% of economists support taking action to address climate change.

In terms of specific policies, economists appear to consistently and overwhelmingly either support the Democrats' policies or to be to the left of the Democrats. This stance on policy issues unsurprisingly translates into which party economists support: Democratic economists outnumber Republican economists by 2.5 to 1. In 2012, economists felt that President Obama had a better grasp of economics than Mitt Romney by a margin of almost 2-to-1 and that President Obama would grow the economy faster than Mitt Romney by a a margin of 20 points

Which Party Is Better for the Economy?

"independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy"

If they are siding with anyone ... Then they aren't Independent ... Just saying ...

.

 

[Winston]

Because if it was so good during Clinton, why not go back to that threshold? Sounds good to me, doesn't it to you!

So like I said, you just pulled that number out of thin air. You have no idea why you settled on that number. Just admit it. Admit that you're just winging this as you go.

No, you admit you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You try and equate deficits with lack of revenue.

Lets just go back when the Clinton years were doing well, and incorporate that tax rate, that rate of regulation, and that capital gains tax rate and cap all taxes at 20% of GDP, after which the government can tax no more.

What is wrong with that? It was under a Democrat, times were good, why not, and if not, explain-)

Dude, the response you should have given in regards to the 20% number is Hauser's law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You'll have to cut and paste the part that said savings "holds money out of the economy".

From the link you were too chickenshit to open:

When the first Bush tax cuts were signed into law in June 2001, pushing the top rate down to 35 percent, the wealthy boosted savings. The saving rate climbed to 2.8 percent in the first quarter of 2002 from minus 2 percent in the second quarter of 2001. The increased savings coincided with a 1.1 percent decline in the S&P 500 index. ​

Furthermore, the link goes on to talk about how it's not the tax rate but rather the market that spurs spending:

“I would tend to wonder how much the tax cut actually influences spending behavior,” said Chris Cornell, an economist who mined government reports back to 1989 for West Chester, Pennsylvania-based Moody’s Analytics. “Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business- cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues.” ​

So you spun a false bill of goods. Even the folks at Moody's think you're full of shit.

Thanks for the passages.

Which one(s) said "savings holds money out of the economy"?

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift", and as I said, it is a very basic economic concept that has been accepted theory for seventy five years, although I am pretty sure Xenophon touched on it 1600 years ago. The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling. I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Paradox of thrift - Wikipedia

Oh, and by the way, I asked hours ago rather purchasing stock from the stock exchange was savings or investment. No one answered, it is savings, not investing.

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift",

The Paradox of thrift said savings "holds money out of the economy"?

The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling.

When you can show that it backs up Derp's claim, let me know.

I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Coming from a guy who thinks a 90% tax rate leads to more investment than a 20% rate, that's hilarious!!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It means people saved more. It doesn't mean, "money was held out of the economy" Moron

So if people are saving, then what are they not doing? Spending. And what grows the economy? Spending.

So post it. It should say, "savings is money held out of the economy", or some variation of your claim.

What do you fucking think going from a negative savings rate to a positive savings rate means!?!?!?!?!?! So unless something is written for you in exactly those terms, your brain cannot comprehend it? Are you telling me that you are completely incapable of critical thinking? Because that's all that is required here.

When they say that the savings rate went from -2% to 2%, what do you think that means?!?!?!?!

You're the one confused about debt. I'll be happy to dispel your confusion. At least this tiny portion of it.

Your definition of debt seems to change post-to-post, depending on how shitty your argument is faring.

So if people are saving, then what are they not doing? Spending. And what grows the economy? Spending.

If I put $1000 in the bank, why the fuck do you believe my money is "held out of the economy"?

What do banks do with deposits?

What do you fucking think going from a negative savings rate to a positive savings rate means!?!?!?!?!?!

It means that people who were spending more than they were earning began earning more than they were spending.

Your definition of debt seems to change post-to-post

Still waiting for you to post your definition.

Yes, the bank loans out your savings. But, they charge INTEREST. And INTEREST, takes from the economy without providing anything in return.

But, they charge INTEREST. And INTEREST, takes from the economy without providing anything in return.

Takes from the economy? LOL!
Pretty sure the interest earned by depositors, the profits earned by the banks, the salary earned by the employees and the dividends paid by the banks provide something in return.

 

[Winston]

You'll have to cut and paste the part that said savings "holds money out of the economy".

From the link you were too chickenshit to open:

When the first Bush tax cuts were signed into law in June 2001, pushing the top rate down to 35 percent, the wealthy boosted savings. The saving rate climbed to 2.8 percent in the first quarter of 2002 from minus 2 percent in the second quarter of 2001. The increased savings coincided with a 1.1 percent decline in the S&P 500 index. ​

Furthermore, the link goes on to talk about how it's not the tax rate but rather the market that spurs spending:

“I would tend to wonder how much the tax cut actually influences spending behavior,” said Chris Cornell, an economist who mined government reports back to 1989 for West Chester, Pennsylvania-based Moody’s Analytics. “Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business- cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues.” ​

So you spun a false bill of goods. Even the folks at Moody's think you're full of shit.

Thanks for the passages.

Which one(s) said "savings holds money out of the economy"?

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift", and as I said, it is a very basic economic concept that has been accepted theory for seventy five years, although I am pretty sure Xenophon touched on it 1600 years ago. The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling. I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Paradox of thrift - Wikipedia

Oh, and by the way, I asked hours ago rather purchasing stock from the stock exchange was savings or investment. No one answered, it is savings, not investing.

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift",

The Paradox of thrift said savings "holds money out of the economy"?

The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling.

When you can show that it backs up Derp's claim, let me know.

I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Coming from a guy who thinks a 90% tax rate leads to more investment than a 20% rate, that's hilarious!!!!

Dude, pull your head out of your ass, what do you think this means?

The paradox states that an increase in autonomous saving leads to a decrease in aggregate demand and thus a decrease in gross output which will in turn lower total saving. The paradox is, narrowly speaking, that total saving may fall because of individuals' attempts to increase their saving, and, broadly speaking, that increase in saving may be harmful to an economy.[1] Both the narrow and broad claims are paradoxical within the assumption underlying the fallacy of composition, namely that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. The narrow claim transparently contradicts this assumption, and the broad one does so by implication, because while individual thrift is generally averred to be good for the economy, the paradox of thrift holds that collective thrift may be bad for the economy.

Decrease in gross output. You can consider gross output as "money". Like I said, fundamental economics covered within the first couple weeks of an intro Macro course.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate. The Laffer curve is a curve, as I have pointed out time and time again. Again, basic fundamental economics.

 

[Winston]

It means people saved more. It doesn't mean, "money was held out of the economy" Moron

So if people are saving, then what are they not doing? Spending. And what grows the economy? Spending.

So post it. It should say, "savings is money held out of the economy", or some variation of your claim.

What do you fucking think going from a negative savings rate to a positive savings rate means!?!?!?!?!?! So unless something is written for you in exactly those terms, your brain cannot comprehend it? Are you telling me that you are completely incapable of critical thinking? Because that's all that is required here.

When they say that the savings rate went from -2% to 2%, what do you think that means?!?!?!?!

You're the one confused about debt. I'll be happy to dispel your confusion. At least this tiny portion of it.

Your definition of debt seems to change post-to-post, depending on how shitty your argument is faring.

So if people are saving, then what are they not doing? Spending. And what grows the economy? Spending.

If I put $1000 in the bank, why the fuck do you believe my money is "held out of the economy"?

What do banks do with deposits?

What do you fucking think going from a negative savings rate to a positive savings rate means!?!?!?!?!?!

It means that people who were spending more than they were earning began earning more than they were spending.

Your definition of debt seems to change post-to-post

Still waiting for you to post your definition.

Yes, the bank loans out your savings. But, they charge INTEREST. And INTEREST, takes from the economy without providing anything in return.

But, they charge INTEREST. And INTEREST, takes from the economy without providing anything in return.

Takes from the economy? LOL!
Pretty sure the interest earned by depositors, the profits earned by the banks, the salary earned by the employees and the dividends paid by the banks provide something in return.

Show me where more pie is being made via interest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It means people saved more. It doesn't mean, "money was held out of the economy" Moron

So if people are saving, then what are they not doing? Spending. And what grows the economy? Spending.

So post it. It should say, "savings is money held out of the economy", or some variation of your claim.

What do you fucking think going from a negative savings rate to a positive savings rate means!?!?!?!?!?! So unless something is written for you in exactly those terms, your brain cannot comprehend it? Are you telling me that you are completely incapable of critical thinking? Because that's all that is required here.

When they say that the savings rate went from -2% to 2%, what do you think that means?!?!?!?!

You're the one confused about debt. I'll be happy to dispel your confusion. At least this tiny portion of it.

Your definition of debt seems to change post-to-post, depending on how shitty your argument is faring.

So if people are saving, then what are they not doing? Spending. And what grows the economy? Spending.

If I put $1000 in the bank, why the fuck do you believe my money is "held out of the economy"?

What do banks do with deposits?

What do you fucking think going from a negative savings rate to a positive savings rate means!?!?!?!?!?!

It means that people who were spending more than they were earning began earning more than they were spending.

Your definition of debt seems to change post-to-post

Still waiting for you to post your definition.

Yes, the bank loans out your savings. But, they charge INTEREST. And INTEREST, takes from the economy without providing anything in return.

But, they charge INTEREST. And INTEREST, takes from the economy without providing anything in return.

Takes from the economy? LOL!
Pretty sure the interest earned by depositors, the profits earned by the banks, the salary earned by the employees and the dividends paid by the banks provide something in return.

Show me where more pie is being made via interest.

A company that borrows from a bank to expand isn't "making more pie"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You'll have to cut and paste the part that said savings "holds money out of the economy".

From the link you were too chickenshit to open:

When the first Bush tax cuts were signed into law in June 2001, pushing the top rate down to 35 percent, the wealthy boosted savings. The saving rate climbed to 2.8 percent in the first quarter of 2002 from minus 2 percent in the second quarter of 2001. The increased savings coincided with a 1.1 percent decline in the S&P 500 index. ​

Furthermore, the link goes on to talk about how it's not the tax rate but rather the market that spurs spending:

“I would tend to wonder how much the tax cut actually influences spending behavior,” said Chris Cornell, an economist who mined government reports back to 1989 for West Chester, Pennsylvania-based Moody’s Analytics. “Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business- cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues.” ​

So you spun a false bill of goods. Even the folks at Moody's think you're full of shit.

Thanks for the passages.

Which one(s) said "savings holds money out of the economy"?

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift", and as I said, it is a very basic economic concept that has been accepted theory for seventy five years, although I am pretty sure Xenophon touched on it 1600 years ago. The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling. I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Paradox of thrift - Wikipedia

Oh, and by the way, I asked hours ago rather purchasing stock from the stock exchange was savings or investment. No one answered, it is savings, not investing.

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift",

The Paradox of thrift said savings "holds money out of the economy"?

The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling.

When you can show that it backs up Derp's claim, let me know.

I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Coming from a guy who thinks a 90% tax rate leads to more investment than a 20% rate, that's hilarious!!!!

Dude, pull your head out of your ass, what do you think this means?

The paradox states that an increase in autonomous saving leads to a decrease in aggregate demand and thus a decrease in gross output which will in turn lower total saving. The paradox is, narrowly speaking, that total saving may fall because of individuals' attempts to increase their saving, and, broadly speaking, that increase in saving may be harmful to an economy.[1] Both the narrow and broad claims are paradoxical within the assumption underlying the fallacy of composition, namely that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. The narrow claim transparently contradicts this assumption, and the broad one does so by implication, because while individual thrift is generally averred to be good for the economy, the paradox of thrift holds that collective thrift may be bad for the economy.

Decrease in gross output. You can consider gross output as "money". Like I said, fundamental economics covered within the first couple weeks of an intro Macro course.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate. The Laffer curve is a curve, as I have pointed out time and time again. Again, basic fundamental economics.

what do you think this means?

It doesn't mean that my deposit in a bank "holds money out of the economy".
I'm sure Derp appreciates your attempt to make him look less stupid. Keep trying.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate.

Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You'll have to cut and paste the part that said savings "holds money out of the economy".

From the link you were too chickenshit to open:

When the first Bush tax cuts were signed into law in June 2001, pushing the top rate down to 35 percent, the wealthy boosted savings. The saving rate climbed to 2.8 percent in the first quarter of 2002 from minus 2 percent in the second quarter of 2001. The increased savings coincided with a 1.1 percent decline in the S&P 500 index. ​

Furthermore, the link goes on to talk about how it's not the tax rate but rather the market that spurs spending:

“I would tend to wonder how much the tax cut actually influences spending behavior,” said Chris Cornell, an economist who mined government reports back to 1989 for West Chester, Pennsylvania-based Moody’s Analytics. “Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business- cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues.” ​

So you spun a false bill of goods. Even the folks at Moody's think you're full of shit.

Thanks for the passages.

Which one(s) said "savings holds money out of the economy"?

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift", and as I said, it is a very basic economic concept that has been accepted theory for seventy five years, although I am pretty sure Xenophon touched on it 1600 years ago. The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling. I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Paradox of thrift - Wikipedia

Oh, and by the way, I asked hours ago rather purchasing stock from the stock exchange was savings or investment. No one answered, it is savings, not investing.

Todd, it is called the "Paradox of thrift",

The Paradox of thrift said savings "holds money out of the economy"?

The fact that you are not familiar with such a basic economic concept is quite telling.

When you can show that it backs up Derp's claim, let me know.

I would suggest you learn the fundamentals before attempting to debate economic policy.

Coming from a guy who thinks a 90% tax rate leads to more investment than a 20% rate, that's hilarious!!!!

Dude, pull your head out of your ass, what do you think this means?

The paradox states that an increase in autonomous saving leads to a decrease in aggregate demand and thus a decrease in gross output which will in turn lower total saving. The paradox is, narrowly speaking, that total saving may fall because of individuals' attempts to increase their saving, and, broadly speaking, that increase in saving may be harmful to an economy.[1] Both the narrow and broad claims are paradoxical within the assumption underlying the fallacy of composition, namely that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. The narrow claim transparently contradicts this assumption, and the broad one does so by implication, because while individual thrift is generally averred to be good for the economy, the paradox of thrift holds that collective thrift may be bad for the economy.

Decrease in gross output. You can consider gross output as "money". Like I said, fundamental economics covered within the first couple weeks of an intro Macro course.

And twenty percent tax rate might yield more investment than a ninety percent rate but most certainly LESS than a fifty percent rate. The Laffer curve is a curve, as I have pointed out time and time again. Again, basic fundamental economics.

The Laffer curve is a curve, as I have pointed out time and time again. Again, basic fundamental economics.

The curve is used to illustrate Laffer's main premise that the more an activity such as production is taxed, the less of it is generated.

Laffer Curve

Besides supporting my claim, what did you mean to do by bringing up Laffer?

 

[danielpalos]

If tax cuts worked as well in real life as they do in right wing fantasy; wouldn't we have, massive budget surpluses and no Debt?

Doesn't that imply, something fundamentally wrong with the, "rest of the plan".