I’m listening to the president, and on the verge of throwing something at the flat screen. I’m very tired of hearing him make the vague “argument” that we can’t get out of this situation with the “same failed policies of the past eight years.” This is apparently an argument against tax cuts in the “stimulus” bill, though it’s hard to know, because it’s vague. Why won’t some reporter ask him what in the hell he’s talking about? To actually put forth his supposed theory of how we got here, and what “failed policies” caused it? Because if he’s arguing that we’re in trouble because of tax rate cuts, that’s a ludicrous proposition. He seems desperate, and has fallen back on the only thing he seems to know how to do — campaign with vague and misleading rhetoric.
Charles Johnson has further commentary on these Obama strawmen.
[Update a few minutes later]
Some questions that the president should, but probably won’t be asked tonight.
[Update a few minutes later]
More thoughts from Victor Davis Hanson:
…things are upside down: The conservatives are mad that Bush over-spent, and suddenly when out of power want to restore fiscal sanity, while Obama says that the Bush borrowing brought on this mess and must be addressed by more borrowing. What is what? Conservatives suddenly are once again fiscal purists when out of power? Liberals blame Bush for reckless Keynesian spending and want to cure it by more of the same?
Few tell the truth: The conservatives should say ‘Mea culpa—our deficit spending and borrowing helped to get us into this mess, so we’ve seen the error of our ways, and want you liberals not to repeat our mistakes.’ And the liberals should say, ‘Bush on the budget was one of us in borrowing and spending and priming, so we can’t really trash the last eight years since we’re now advocating more of the same.’
Yes, few tell the truth. Including, foremost, the president.
[Update late morning]
“The worst bill since the 1930s.” An interview with economist Robert Barro.
[Evening update]
He’s doing the press conference now, and repeating the stupid, false history that we’ve done nothing in the past eight years except tax cuts. I want to throw a shoe at him.
[Bumped from this morning]
[Update a few minutes later]
He claims that he’s been “civil” and “respectable.” I don’t think that it’s either civil or respectable to set up strawman arguments based on a false history, and kick them down. And now he’s claiming that there are no earmarks in this package? Please.
I can think of some other questions. Such as, didn’t Bush try this already in October? If tax cuts are not good policy, shouldn’t that be removed from the ‘stimulus bill’? If we must act quickly, why do large portions of the bill go into effect a year from now? Why do some provisions not go into effect until 2011? Can you explain to the people in Elkhard, IN how a $850,000 frisbee park in Austin, TX will help stimulate their economy?
There’s big money in frisbee rentals, didn’t you know that? Also, dirty-faced street urchins in Elkhart will be able to find paying jobs as frisbee caddies, or finding lost frisbees and returning them to their anxious owners.
This is completely true, I’m not kidding: I regularly visit a plastic injection molding operation that is one of the main suppliers of discs in the USA. The operation is interesting in that one of their claims to fame is that they’ve exported cheap plastic goods to China (the owner worked out a clever molding technique that gives him a competitive advantage.) The factory isn’t in Elkhart, but it is in a place not unlike Elkhart in Northern Illinois. It is a surprisingly small operation, and I’m not saying the workers there could possibly make a major dent in the economy, but they do contribute, and at the very least, you should know that discs are made by American workers in a small American town in an American-owned plant that practices American innovation.
Rand: I think the President has clearly explained that he thinks that tax cuts, and only tax cuts, are the failed policy. You might think that’s ludicrous but I don’t think Obama is being intentionally vague.
I think the President has clearly explained that he thinks that tax cuts, and only tax cuts, are the failed policy. You might think that’s ludicrous but I don’t think Obama is being intentionally vague.
I’ve heard him say that, but it’s not clear that that’s what he means when he generally talks about failed policies. In any event, he has never explained how tax cuts caused our current problems. Nor has he explained how, in the spending spree of the past eight years, the policy was “only tax cuts.”
And that’s because he can’t. Because it’s bullshit. And the latest polls are showing that people are starting to see through it.
Obama is not actually lying, insofar as he’s conveying an economic populist argument. The argument is that those supposedly in the know have had a chance to run the economy, and have broken it, and have confirmed our classic American folk myth that all aristocracies, whether of birth or of wealth, are bogus — that ordinary folks could do just about as well pulling the levers of power.
The difficulty is that he represents the modern Democratic Party, which is no longer in the least bit populist. (If anything, populism hides in the Republican party, where it’s called redneckism and votes for Huckabee.) The modern Democratic Party is highly aristocratic, oriented around a wealthy elite core. So Obama can’t simply, as Father Coughlin might have done, inveigh openly against the rich Jew bankers. He can’t propose universal suffrage, because we’ve already got it. He can’t propose 40 acres and a mule for every freeborn man, because there’s no more frontier. He can’t crusade against slavery or Jim Crow or the admissions policies of elite Eastern universities or clubs, supposedly the gatekeepers of power — because these, too, are all gone.
In short, he’s tapped into the undying social myth that The Man is keeping you down — but he is (1) unable to point to a plausible representative of The Man without (2) coming uncomfortably close to the sources of his own power, e.g. wealthy and connected Democrats and Democratic donors.
So he’s left pointing the finger vaguely, without being too specific about his target, trusting that individual paranoia will identify the target for each Obot, as I’m pretty sure it will. That Julie at the office, always snipping at me for taking too long at lunch and not being willing to put up with shit from customers just because they’re customers — SHE’S who the President is talking about.
This might be off-topic, but I’m still trying to figure out who to blame. I don’t blame the Man. I am the Man, I guess. If Julie at the office got in over her head with her mortgage, maybe I should blame her? But we should really blame the people who packaged her insecure mortgage as a security and we should really really blame the people who rated that security as AAA? Is that right?
We should blame them, but we should also blame the politicians who were pushing the loan companies to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them, while on the take from the same (e.g., Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, et al).
Bob, you only need someone to blame if you’ve got a problem. Do you? Are you upside down on your mortgage? Are you out of a job? Out of customers? In that case, yeah, you should figure out who did what to make it happen, and take a stick to that person, if necessary, to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Chances are pretty good it’ll be the face in the mirror, but that’s life as a free man in a republic. If most of the power over your life is in your own hands, it follows as night from day that most of the screw-ups in your life are your own invention.
On the other hand, if nothing particular is going wrong with your life — if you can still pay your mortgage, if business is OK, although it could be better, and your job is secure, although you might not get a raise this year, then you don’t need someone to blame at all.
I think the President has clearly explained that he thinks that tax cuts, and only tax cuts, are the failed policy.
So if Tax Cuts are a failed policy, then why is the President supporting the bill that contains them? If something is a failed policy, then why continue it?
As for the “real story”, there is a plastic injection molding plant in Elkhart, but Wixom, MI is the closest home of a major disc brand (discraft). So money will go to Wixom, and the people of Elkhart will have to move there to find work.
On the other hand, if nothing particular is going wrong with your life — if you can still pay your mortgage, if business is OK, although it could be better, and your job is secure, although you might not get a raise this year, then you don’t need someone to blame at all.
Carl, I don’t understand why I have to be personally affected by something in order to note an injustice and blame someone for it. And in fact, productive taxpayers are being hurt by all this, regardless of whether or not they still have paychecks and right-side-up mortgages, and they’re the ones who will have to pay for the new mess that the government is going to impose on us.
Wasn’t Obama the one saying we need more than hate and rhetoric but actual arguments?
When are his arguments for the stimulus going to start? So far the only two things I’ve heard from him are “I won” and “spending is stimulus. that’s the point” oh and the third “every economist I’ve talked to says spending is the solution”
All three of these are the logical fallacy “argument from authority” where instead of arguing the point you say “the authorities say this is the truth”
What I don’t understand is Bush’s plan was to spend tons of money that we don’t have. Now Obama wants to continue this trend. How is Obama any different than Bush? It seems to me Obama is COPYING EXACTLY the Bush plan. Does he think it’s different just because he is the opposite party? ‘
I was against TARP and am against this plan, both are exactly the same, and almost the same as Hoover and the same as FDR and the same as Japan. History has proven spending doesn’t work. Now I would be happy if the President argued why I am wrong, but he refuses, instead he says “everyone thinks they are an economist” I guess “everyone” includes the President and he just thinks we’re too stupid to bother ‘splainin it to us.
Leland asked: So if Tax Cuts are a failed policy…
Pace Rand, the president was saying that it is a failed policy to only tax cuts, not tax cuts per se.
Next time I’m at Questat (you can google it), I’ll ask about those Wixom guys! In any case, obviously the economy is quite interrelated – funding something in Texas can help plastic injection molding plants in Illinois and Michigan. The little beads of plastic they use come from somewhere else – maybe a place like Elkhart. There might not be any need to move to find work if enough people start doing well.
Rand: It seems to me that if the securities were rated properly, it wouldn’t have been nearly such a big deal if a bunch of people had defaulted on their mortgages. Or is that exactly wrong, because of the interrelatedness of the economy described above?
Carl: I meant “blame” in the sense of understanding the causality, rather than in the sense of having a strong emotional reaction. Also, Leland is right (HA!). Carl, in your comments recently, you keep connectiong outcomes back to only yourself, as if the suffering of others isn’t a problem for you. Other people feel differently.
Plutosdad – you (and many other conservatives) labor under a misapprehension that the New Deal “didn’t work.”
The New Deal did work – see the GDP graph here (http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/how-does-your-gummint-grow/). Also, the massive Government spending of WWII helped.
The “failed policies” of the Bush years were tax cuts aimed at the rich. Reversing those tax cuts were specifically, at length and in detail discussed both on this blog and during the campaign.
Rand – As a banker, let me assure you that nothing in CRA required or forced banks to give money to people who couldn’t afford to repay. In fact, several popular subprime loans, such as balloons, were expressly denied banks on CRA grounds.
Th subprime crisis was caused by un-CRA-regulated mortgage companies, aided by Wall Street MBAs (full disclosure – I have an MBA, don’t work on Wall Street) who packaged up these securities.
I believe Obama is using “failed policies of the past” as shorthand for the above economic fallacies.
The New Deal did work – see the GDP graph here (http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/how-does-your-gummint-grow/). Also, the massive Government spending of WWII helped.
There’s a lot more to the story than GDP. Unemployment remained punishingly high throughout, due to New Deal socialist policies of forcing prices and wages too high, and discouraging competition.
As a banker, let me assure you that nothing in CRA required or forced banks to give money to people who couldn’t afford to repay.
Many other bankers have testified that you are mistaken. Why do you think that the fact that you are a banker makes you omniscient about what all other bankers were doing?
The “failed policies” of the Bush years were tax cuts aimed at the rich. Reversing those tax cuts were specifically, at length and in detail discussed both on this blog and during the campaign.
And how is it that those policies “failed”? Why is the massive increase in government spending irrelevant?
And with all due respect, any time someone uses the phrase “tax cuts for the rich,” my estimation of either their IQ, or their honesty, drops by about a quarter. Tax cuts are aimed at “the rich” because under our progressive tax system, they’re who pay most of the taxes. It’s not possible to cut taxes significantly without reducing rates for the rich. And of course, this isn’t necessarily a tax cut. It’s just a rate cut.
Carl, I don’t understand why I have to be personally affected by something in order to note an injustice and blame someone for it
I’m not saying you have to be, I’m saying it’s just much more likely that you’ll make an accurate and reasonable assessment if you are. The philosophy of liberty suggests that the best judge of a man’s circumstances is the man himself. You know best how to spend your own money. You know best what your particular problems are, exactly, and who should get the blame for them. You know best what you need, what you want, what you deserve, and so forth.
We can’t have one philosophy when it comes to, say, Federal spending, id est that every man knows best how to spend his own money, and then flip over to a Marxist sociologist philosophy elsewhere, e.g. that you and I can know just as well as someone recently laid off why he was laid off, and who’s to blame.
I don’t suggest such an exercise — trying to understand someone else’s life and the reason it’s gone the way it has — is worthless. Indeed, it’s very worthwhile, and especially so with people who are close to you. I’m only saying it should be undertaken for people you don’t know with considerable caution, with the understanding that you are much more likely to be wrong than right, just the way it is not worthless for government to tax away some of my money and decide where it should be spent, but it’s a task that should be undertaken with considerable caution and humility.
Carl, in your comments recently, you keep connectiong outcomes back to only yourself,
Correct. That’s the path of wisdom, Bob. Always connect airy grand theorizing back to solid reality, to what you know best, to the facts and situations that you meet every day. That empirical practicality is what prevents the horrific excesses of collectivist folly that so marred the twentieth century. it’s the other-centered theorists who will kill us in their wonderful schemes for heaven on earth.
as if the suffering of others isn’t a problem for you.
Excuse me, but how the foo would you know? Do you know my children, my neighbors, my family, my friends, my coworkers — the people with whom I have the most contact and influence, the people whose suffering I can do the most to correctly understand and usefully influence?
What you are observing is not callousness, but a deep and abiding skepticism that any attempt to “understand” the plight of anonymous millions through a bureaucracy and TV sound-bite sloganeering is of any use whatsoever, even assuming, as one might naively, that such an attempt is genuine, and not merely a cynical and underhanded attempt to use the plight of others to gain political power.
If each and every one of us treated the 10 people we know best with regard, respect, dignity and compassion, exactly as we would wish to be treated by them, I have no doubt Paradise would arrive. it’s the neglect of those 10 we know to hare off after abstract systems that purport to save the 10 million we don’t know that I hold in contempt.
Rand, if you cut the capital gains tax (rate), isn’t that a tax (rate) cut aimed at “the rich”?
No. It’s “aimed” at people who have capital gains. It may in fact be that it disproportionately benefits the “rich,” but that doesn’t mean that it is “aimed” at them. Or at least it’s not “aimed at them” because they are rich.
Why do I have the suspicion that the very wealthy people in the ruling class making 6-figure money regard “rich” as those with 7-figure incomes?
Rand, That’s like noting that plenty of non-Americans have been killed by Al Queda in New York, and then saying the following: Al Queda “aims” at New Yorkers. This policy may disproportionately kill Americans, but that doesn’t mean that Al Queda aims at Americans. Or at least, it does not “aim at them” because they are Americans.
Carl: I was reacting to the pattern I saw in your reasoning – I wasn’t trying to say anything critical about you “in real life”. Obviously I don’t know you at all, but I imagine you’re a great human being. I was thinking in particular of your comment in which you said that not only couldn’t you be Jesus, but that you would unapologetically work as a concentration camp guard. Or did you prefer to be a mid-level communist bureaucrat? I can’t remember all your inspirational career aspirations!
No, sorry, Bob, but it’s not like that at all. That’s an absurd analogy.
Ok, forget the analogy. When people say “tax cuts for the rich”, do you really think they are talking about rewarding people for being rich? I don’t. I think they are using shorthand. Just as they really mean “tax rate cut”, instead of “tax cut”, I think they are talking about setting up a tax scheme that does happen to disproportionately benefit the rich. The motives, or the “aim”, are irrelevant. I think Chris doesn’t deserve to have his perceived intelligence dropped by 25% just for using shorthand.
Paul,
Actually I suspect that those with millions or tens of millions in investments and inheritance look down on 6-figure salary earners as the undeserving rich.
It always seems to be guys like Ted Kennedy and George Soros with millions or billions that they’ve already earned or inherited safely stashed in off shore accounts that feign solidarity with the poor in pursuing increased taxes on the undeserving “rich” who draw a 6 figure paycheck.
When people say “tax cuts for the rich”, do you really think they are talking about rewarding people for being rich?
No, I think that they are complaining because the rich are getting an “unfair” tax break.
I think they are talking about setting up a tax scheme that does happen to disproportionately benefit the rich.
No, they use that expression because they know that it feeds into class envy. Otherwise, they would say “tax rate cuts for those who pay the most in taxes,” which is what it is, and who it is actually aimed at. “Tax cuts for the rich” is demagoguery, and I find it disgusting.
I’m not sure how to convince you of my position, but I disagree. I think Republicans tend to lower the capital gains tax, not because they want to benefit their fat cat friends (and themselves), but because they genuinely believe that lowering the capital gains tax will lead to increased investment activity and will thus bolster the economy. I think Democrats talk about “tax cuts aimed at the rich”, not because they are trying create envy and resentment, and not because they want to use populism to keep themselves in power, but because they think this kind of tax policy ends up denying the government needed funds while giving tax relief to the people who need it least. Democrats point to people like Warren Buffet, who pointed out that he pays less taxes than his secretary, as exemplars. I don’t think the Republicans are corrupt and I don’t think the Democrats are envious. I think there are, for the most part, no bad guys here.
I think Democrats talk about “tax cuts aimed at the rich”, not because they are trying create envy and resentment, and not because they want to use populism to keep themselves in power, but because they think this kind of tax policy ends up denying the government needed funds while giving tax relief to the people who need it least.
Even granting your overgenerous view of your fellow partisans, if that’s the case, they’re innumerate and economic ignorami.
But I don’t buy it. Revenues aren’t really the issue. The Messiah made that clear in the debate in which he said that he wouldn’t lower capital gains rates even if it would provide more revenue, because it wouldn’t be “fair.”
This is the politics of “social justice” and class envy, not of enlightened government.
Democrats point to people like Warren Buffet, who pointed out that he pays less taxes than his secretary, as exemplars. I don’t think the Republicans are corrupt and I don’t think the Democrats are envious. I think there are, for the most part, no bad guys here.
That’s because of the existence of legal tax shelters, not because the marginal rate on “the rich” is too low.
My real job prevented me from replying earlier. Regarding tax cuts “for the rich,” I meant that reducing the rate of taxation for higher incomes was not a particularly good way to stimulate the economy. Middle-class spending, which is by definition done by folks with middle-level incomes, is what drives the economy.
Regarding Bush’s spending policies – some of that money was undoubtedly stimulative. Some of it was not. Regardless of whether or not it was stimulative, obviously we need more stimulus. Unless you want to argue that we’re not in a recession.
Unemployment was high during the New Deal years. It fell, however, every year. Considering we went into 1933 with, IIRC, 25% unemployment, the absolute level remained high through most of the period.
I am not aware of any banker saying that CRA made them write bad loans. Please link to one. Also, please note that a mortgage company is not a bank. They do not fall under the same regulatory standards, and are not required to comply with CRA rules. (This is the reason I don’t argue with you about rocket stuff – it’s not my area of expertise).
Regarding the “enlightened government” argument – (Rand @ 3:01 PM): We as a country have had the debate before as to whether lower tax rates produce more revenue, AKA “the Laffer Curve”. The problem is that there is no empirical data to suggest that the Laffer curve works.
More technically, there is an inflection point in the curve – past that point, higher taxes = lower revenue. The only points we’ve tested for an inflection are 50% (Reagan) and 35-40% (Clinton / Bush). Based on my reading of the historical data, it appears that the inflection point is closer to 50% then 40%.
Bob, please make note that the “rich” do not pay taxes. There is no tax on wealth – there is only tax on income. I have seen convincing arguments that we should impose a 1% tax on wealth – wealth inherently grows far faster than that, and this would have a much larger effect on “fairness”.
The fact is, by taxing high income you are saying that only the currently wealthy are allowed to be wealthy. The guy born to poor parents (like myself) cannot get wealthy – because that would be income.
If you went to a system like VAT, with a 1% a year wealth tax for those with assets over $10M, the VAT rate would be tiny.
Rand,
I’ll try to find the Obama discussion of the capital gains tax that you’re referring to, but if you have any links or search strategies, that would be great.
Aren’t the tax shelters a very close cousin of “tax cuts aimed at the rich”? If we get only very slightly more abstract and talk about “tax policies” or “tax relief” instead of “tax cuts”, tax shelters would be another example of not getting needed revenue from people who can most afford to pay it. I’m often a bit scandalized by the small business owners I know who smirkingly write off personal indulgences as business expenses. But I suppose most tax shelters are totally out of their league.
David: In a year like this year, where stocks, bonds and real estate did not grow by 1%, not hardly, would you still be in favor of taxing at 1%?
Sorry, meant “mutual funds”, not bonds.
I stand corrected Bob. The President didn’t say tax cuts are a failed policy. You did. It doesn’t matter if you meant tax rate cut or whatever, you still haven’t explained why its failed.
As for your silly argument about excessive spending in Austin helps Indiana and Michigan, perhaps you can do the math, rather than Googling, on how much other frisbee parks cost, and then you can explain for the President (since your nice enough to take questions, rather than him) how over spending in Austin helps Elkhart? More importantly, if the frisbee park is viable in Austin (because Austinites are buying frisbees made in the midwest and need a play to use them), then why does it need government money to be built? Please don’t use a Hollywood cliche as an answer.
Middle-class spending, which is by definition done by folks with middle-level incomes, is what drives the economy.
You don’t believe that investment (which “the rich” are more likely to engage in with lower income and capital gains tax rates) plays any role in driving the economy?
Unemployment was high during the New Deal years. It fell, however, every year.
It rose from 14% to 19% between 1937 and 1938. There is zero evidence that the New Deal did anything for the Depression. Even Morgenthau admitted that the spending was futile. We don’t know what would have happened had Hoover actually been as laissez-faire as mythology has it, instead of raising taxes and tariffs. Probably it would have recovered as well as it did in 1920, when there actually was a laissez-faire president in charge.
The problem is that there is no empirical data to suggest that the Laffer curve works.
We know from the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax rate cuts that revenue increased (though the Reagan record was marred and confused by the huge tax increases during his term, forced by the Congress).
Bob: I’ll try to find the Obama discussion of the capital gains tax that you’re referring to, but if you have any links or search strategies, that would be great.
It’s not rocket science…
Leland – do you seriously wish to argue that the economies of Austin TX and Elkhart IN are so completely disconnected as to not affect each other? Because that’s what you seem to be saying.
Rand – the key point of the 1937-1938 recession is that FDR reduced government stimulus prior to that recession. He increased spending during the recession, thus getting us out of it.
Saying that there is “zero evidence” that the New Deal helped ease the Depression is like saying there is zero evidence that the Great Depression happened. There is vast amounts of evidence that New Deal policies, while not perfect, helped greatly. See New Deal Denialism.
Saying that there is “zero evidence” that the New Deal helped ease the Depression is like saying there is zero evidence that the Great Depression happened.
No, again, it’s not like that at all. You people certainly aren’t very good at analogies. Or, in this case, a simile.
Economics, like evolution, is not easily proved, because we can’t run controlled experiments. So maybe the New Deal didn’t help the Depression. However, WWII did.
Economically, WWII for the US looked like the New Deal on steroids. De facto nationalization of practically the whole economy, massive deficit spending, and IIFC a 94% top tax rate. Clearly unsustainable for a long duration, but effective at boosting the economy.
So if a big action produces a big result, why wouldn’t a smaller action produce a smaller result in the same direction?
I find it interesting that in the 21st century we are going back to a sort of soft Keynesianism. I think this is actually the best course, at this juncture.
Many people mock the little Austrian painter and Uncle Joe, but fact is, they managed to post historically unequaled economic growth. The reason is IMO quite simple.
Much is talked about their autocratic governments and so and so, but there were fundamental policy initiatives which led to this growth. These nearly invariably were: improved transportation (autobahn, railroad), energy (massive electrification, hydro power), increased industrialization. US economy started rebounding after similar policies were implemented there (coincidence?). There are trickle effects from these policies. I wonder what would be the cost of aluminum if not for the cheap hydroelectric power. Going back to an earlier autocrat, Shi Huangdi, his nation got the resources required to unify China in the first place by massive irrigation and transportation projects which increased food production several times and paved the way for a population increase that fueled Qin’s war economy.
This is a time of crossroads. There is technology available at this point that justifies massive investments to decrease energy dependency on petroleum and fossil fuels (wind power, solar thermal, HVDC lines, superconducting cables, next-generation nuclear fission power plants, nuclear isotope separation using more energy efficient methods such as gas centrifuges, nuclear reprocessing, hybrid-electric cars, etc), yet investment has been done at a snail’s pace so far. Of course there is a risk of getting too deep into projects with little future return (e.g. giant undersea tunnel to Hokkaido in Japan). Still, it is pretty obvious the transition is not happening as quickly or as smoothly as possible.
As for letting the market handle it, while that works, it can be pretty slow. There is often a chicken-egg problem, e.g. good wind power sources being far away from populated areas, requiring HDVC lines to transport the energy, but since there are no wind power generators in such areas no HDVC lines are being built and so on. So instead of spending money on these sorts of long-term projects with high starting capital costs and low long term costs, low starting capital cost solutions with higher long term costs are used. This was one of the reasons for the push for gas-fired power stations in the 1990s as a replacement for petroleum peaker plants which proved a failure in hindsight. In the short term the costs were much lower, but in the long term gas-fired power stations are being more expensive.
do you seriously wish to argue that the economies of Austin TX and Elkhart IN are so completely disconnected as to not affect each other? Because that’s what you seem to be saying.
No, if you reread the comment I made before this, you would note that I think $858,000 is excessive spending for a luxury that, if wanted, could pay for itself. For example:
if the frisbee park is viable in Austin (because Austinites are buying frisbees made in the midwest and need a play to use them), then why does it need government money to be built?
Perhaps you could answer that question, rather than making your own strawman. Otherwise, I’ll take my own try at your debate strategy:
So if a big action produces a big result, why wouldn’t a smaller action produce a smaller result in the same direction?
So, are you suggesting a small war? Say like Iraq?
So, are you suggesting a small war? Say like Iraq?
Well war can be useful up to a point. The military sank a lot of money in WWII in developing technologies which proved useful after the war (jet engines, radar, microwaves). What is the useful technology with civilian applications we got out of the Iraqi war? *crickets chirping*
Bob: In a year like this year, where stocks, bonds and real estate did not grow by 1%, not hardly, would you still be in favor of taxing at 1%?
Yes – they look at it long term, we should look at it long term.
As for your comment on tax shelters – there are no tax shelters for income, only wealth growth. So tax shelters, which the Democrats do not fight, keep the truly rich from paying taxes – while income tax, which the rich don’t pay, is raised wherever possible.
Here’s a clue – rich people do not pay income tax, they don’t have to work. That is what defines a rich person.
David, Of course, the idle rich pay other kinds of taxes that do contribute to society — they pay real estate taxes, they pay sales taxes, they pay capital gains taxes, and they sometimes even pay gift and estate taxes….
But about taxing wealth: say someone’s wealth is in stocks. The stocks fluctuate in value over time. Would you tax the year’s average value, or what? I foresee problems.
Leland – the park needs government money because a private firm couldn’t charge sufficent admission to make a profit. It needs Federal money because the state doesn’t have the money.
Of course, the point of a stimulus package is to spend money – money which is then re-spent and circulated through the economy.
No, Leland, I am not suggesting war as an economic stimulus, although I was and still am in favor of our actions in Iraq. I am suggesting that the government, deficit spending which came about as a byproduct of the New Deal and WWII clearly helped us out of the Great Depression.
BTW, one of the reasons that WWII was stimulative and Iraq has not proven to be stimulative is that, in WWII, we were buying more stuff – tanks, planes and ships. The Iraq spending has not been nearly as much for new stuff as for operating costs.
Godzilla, you are on a roll
Many people mock the little Austrian painter and Uncle Joe, but fact is, they managed to post historically unequaled economic growth. The reason is IMO quite simple.
That would be incorrect. Germany was much better at the begining of Hitler’s reign than it was at the end. I wager that in 100 years, it will generally be agreed that Hitler destroyed Germany completely. That is, the country and even a recognizably German culture will not exist by 2109. And that the trends that destroyed German can be traced all the way back to the end of the Second World War.
Stalin killed something like 20% of Russia’s population, maybe more. The Communist regime lingered another 35 or so years till it fell apart.
Sure there are short term gains to authoritarian governments and empire building. Infrastructure must be built to control and exploit the empire. But then it’s one giant siphon until the government is eliminated. Meanwhile the government makes increasingly bad decisions, while corruption grows, hastening that ending.
As for letting the market handle it, while that works, it can be pretty slow.
Compared to what? It’s real nice to speak of high cost, low long term cost “solutions” to various problems. But here’s what I don’t get. Why do we want to make these big investments? As I see it, if there really is a problem, markets are an efficient way (even if it is considered “slow”) for finding solutions. If the need is there, then we can transition from the low infrastructure cost, but high marginal cost solutions you dislike to the high infrastructure cost and low marginal cost solutions you like.
If the need isn’t there, then why we discussing “solutions” at all? Government is not adept at figuring out whether there is a problem in the first place. So that makes huge government investments in infrastructure very suspect.
Well war can be useful up to a point. The military sank a lot of money in WWII in developing technologies which proved useful after the war (jet engines, radar, microwaves). What is the useful technology with civilian applications we got out of the Iraqi war? *crickets chirping*
Here’s what comes to mind for me: drones and robotics, networked situation awareness, and in-field biological and chemical sensors.
At the risk of driving this thread off topic, an observation…
Envy is counted among the 7 deadly sins. (Outside of Obamunism is there a major world religion that disputes envy as a flaw?)
A tax code based on punitive taxation of “the rich” in the interest of “fairness” is based on Envy. For that matter, it appears to me that the larger portion of democrat party policy these days is based on Envy.
Do we really want a government oriented around a deadly sin?
Hey PeterH: I disagree with your take on the Democrats, but if your theory is correct, you’re out of luck regardless of which party is in power, because while Democrats might be driven by envy, Republicans are renowned for saying “Greed Is Good!” 🙂
Republicans are renowned for saying “Greed Is Good!”
They are? Really?
Do you know of a real-life example (fictional Hollywood characters don’t count) of a Republican saying that?
Bob, do you live in reality, or in a cartoon world, when it comes to Republicans? Or, for that matter, Democrats?
Ha ha! Well, I do know of real-life examples, but rather than share anecdotes, I’ll share links to people who used the phrase non-ironically. It has been a long time since that movie, and it was a catchy phrase that summed up a philosophy which many people enthusiastically embrace. For example:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123396915233059229.html
http://www.greedisgood.org/
http://www.liberty-watch.com/volume02/issue02/givemeabreak.php
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=526383
If you google “greed is good”, you can find plenty more examples, mixed in with lots of other stuff of course.
Hey, since I’m spewing links anyway, may I go off-topic and share two links that I enjoyed this week, and that I think you might enjoy too. (Just censor me if the answer is no.)
Did you see the jetpack that uses water as reaction mass? Using water (and hoses and pumps) solves the short flighttime issue that plagues jetpacks, and allows for much of the fun of a freeflying jetpack.
http://www.jetlev-flyer.com
(Watch the first video, the one with Thus Spake Zarathrusta (aka theme from 2001) as the soundtrack. It will make you proud to be a human being.)
Here’s a skit from a widely watched Israeli TV show. It is a satire about the war against Hamas, televised during the recent conflict. It is tempting to take it at face value.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9SMwVgCSzk
It would take paragraphs to explain why this was a satire, and why it should not be taken at face value, but it is very funny, and worth watching and thinking about.
Bob, I hate to ask an embarrassing question (well, OK, that’s not true — it’s fun), but is there any evidence in any of your links that “greed is good” is a Republican philosophy?
It is one aspect of libertarian philosophy (as indicated in some of the links), and the future of the Republican party depends on whether they can make a place for libertarians under their tent. I’d say that right now, Republican philosophy is a bit up for grabs.
What percent of small-l libertarians regularly vote for Republicans and almost never vote for Democrats?