|
Good Citizen posted:Well, yeah, but that's not really what the Laffer curve is about. It's a chart of government revenue vs tax rates, not consumption vs tax rates. That study doesn't seem to talk about whether revenue decreases from fewer purchases of cigarettes was offset by increased revenue on the cigarettes that people were still buying. At least I didn't see anything in a Ctrl+f for revenue and a quick scan. Fair point, but that at least demonstrates a drop in purchase rates. An actual drop in revenue would require an even more dramatic drop in purchase rates (presumably).
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
The Laffer curve seemed to work because in the 1980s we deregulated everything, let the financial markets in the back door, began opening up international trade and pretty much kickstarted a small economic boom by having a yard sale on corporations, their pension funds, their assets and so on while selling off the manufacturing base, busting unions and cutting everyone's pay and benefits. Then, when all this new cash rolled in while everything else rolled out they said, "See, it works. We cut taxes and the economy took off." It'd be like me selling off all my work equipment and declaring it a great month because I cut operating costs. Of course Reagan even had to agree to tax increases, so whatever. It's a bunch of hooey.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Fair point, but that at least demonstrates a drop in purchase rates. An actual drop in revenue would require an even more dramatic drop in purchase rates (presumably). That's just a demonstration of elastic demand and while that's one of the underlying assumptions of the Laffer curve, it doesn't address what the Laffer curve is trying to prove.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
ZobarStyl posted:It's not that they can't do math, it's that they actually believe in Lafferism despite all evidence to the contrary. As mentioned above regarding reason.com articles, the true believers don't see a lack of results as a falsification of their hypotheses, they see it as proof they just needed more of tax cuts/libertarianism/free markets. Tax cuts always increase revenues, tax hikes always decrease them, black is always white, I'm moving to Canada to escape socialism. So.. to starve the beast... we should... raise taxes. Makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Ahahaha, that article. One thing I keep hearing is "Ah! But you see, Stockton, Mammoth Lakes, and San Bernardino all went bankrupt! Proof that Cali is crumbling and that waves of investors will be flocking to poor-hating Texas aaaaanny day now." Can anyone provide a brief sound bite response to why these three towns went bankrupt? I have a gut feeling that it wasn't simply the fault of TAX N' SPENDING LIBRULS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:One thing I keep hearing is "Ah! But you see, Stockton, Mammoth Lakes, and San Bernardino all went bankrupt! Proof that Cali is crumbling and that waves of investors will be flocking to poor-hating Texas aaaaanny day now." It's more the manner of 2009 recession created by glorious capitalist banks caused home prices drop by half, which destroyed the local budget. Many of cities also took out big loans during the bubble years to build big massive unnecessary improvements such as new granite town halls, underwriting developer friendly real estate deals and other large scale bank recommended projects. So basically Stockton: Got burned by bubble and tax revenue implosion Mammoth: Had a tourist/retiree driven real estate bubble that imploded San Bernardino: Big air force base shut down leading to flight of skilled worker type jobs etalian fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Mar 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:One thing I keep hearing is "Ah! But you see, Stockton, Mammoth Lakes, and San Bernardino all went bankrupt! Proof that Cali is crumbling and that waves of investors will be flocking to poor-hating Texas aaaaanny day now." Stockton, Mammoth Lakes and San Bernardino are IN Texas, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
etalian posted:It's more the manner of 2009 recession created by glorious capitalist banks caused home prices drop by half, which destroyed the local budget. That should help. A lot of them seem insistent that they went bankrupt because the Cali public sector is too bloated and we need to shitcan half of all public employees and take the pensions away from the other half (because we all know they don't actually do any work anyway), but I can't see much of an argument against the banks driving up speculation, unless they go with the old argument that the recession was completely the fault of stupid poors for allowing themselves to be duped into buying houses. Edit: etalian posted:No they are part of the dismal Central valley region of California. 
ProperGanderPusher fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Mar 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
All Of The Dicks posted:Stockton, Mammoth Lakes and San Bernardino are IN Texas, though. No they are part of the dismal Central valley region of California.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:The best part is that even if Laffer is right (he is not), tax cuts would only increase revenue in certain constrained situations by his own theory's lights, and by his own theory's lights, raising taxes will sometimes raise revenues. And even if it's right, the shape of the Laffer curve is unknown, so we don't know where the 'sweet spot' would be, which means that cutting taxes because Laffer said so is just plain-old stupid ideology that's not backed even by their own voodoo economics! Beat me to it. Furthermore, what I never understood about this trickle down economics stuff is how giving a "job creator" a tax cut would give them any incentive to hire people? Nobody hires someone because they got some extra change laying around, they hire people if they need something to be done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:The Laffer curve is one of those things that are right for all the wrong reasons. Sure, there probably is a point where the basic premise is true. However, to be true(reach the point where revenue actually starts declining), you'd probably need sky high tax rates. Also that no one so far as I'm aware has posited anything like an equation to determine where we are on such a chart or what angle it slopes at or anything of that sort. It might as well be one of these instead:    I'm sure it'll continue to be brought up by anyone in the media interested in lowing taxes though, because it's a convenient excuse if you don't actually think about it too hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Beat me to it. The theory is that if they have surplus money it will lead to them expanding their business which will inevitably lead to more jobs. The problem is that when a company thinks it will be profitable to expand they will expand regardless what their tax rates are (within reason) so lowering taxes usually just means more money for shareholders. People genuinely believe that millionaires and billionaires would rather make zero dollars than make 30 million dollars and pay 15 million in taxes. They believe this because they are stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Also that no one so far as I'm aware has posited anything like an equation to determine where we are on such a chart or what angle it slopes at or anything of that sort. This is economics, usually an equation was posited somewhere in the process. Creating something "generally useful" rather than "overfitted garbage" is a bit trickier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Beat me to it. The low tax rates also encourage the job creators to continue Scrooge Mcducking their money to get even more wealth instead of creating jobs. It's why despite have impressive tax rates in the past for the US such as 91% for >200,000, you didn't see the economic implosion to back up the be nice to job creator idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Beat me to it. There's also the fact that for business taxes, only profit is taxed. Any money you spend on rent, inventory, utilities, salary you pay your employees, etc. is not taxed. The only thing lowering business taxes directly does is increase after-tax profits, which the company could then pay out in a dividend or retain within the business. What gets me is people confuse personal tax rates with business taxes. I've had conversations where people say stuff like "we should lower the top tax rate so businesses will hire", as if the amount of money your boss gets to keep after taxes has any effect on the company's bottom line. emptyspace fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Mar 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Also that no one so far as I'm aware has posited anything like an equation to determine where we are on such a chart or what angle it slopes at or anything of that sort. It might as well be one of these instead: Here's a video that will help explain these graphs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZArgEvK2R1s
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
I've been seeing on a lot of conservative websites the argument that Hoover didn't slash government spending during the Great Depression and that he was a big government Republican. Is this a thing now on the Right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
Is this thread mostly about news media or are propaganda films released by private organizations also allowed? Because this video put out by the American Life League trying to smear planned parenthood is loving insane: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=04b_1329454586
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I've been seeing on a lot of conservative websites the argument that Hoover didn't slash government spending during the Great Depression and that he was a big government Republican. I recall hearing in a high school history class that the New Deal helped in the short term, but if they'd left it to the market things would have turned around quicker and better. This made zero sense even to my dumbass high school brain, especially when the textbook talked about how the 1937 recession was coincidental with a cut in spending and bounced back when spending rose again. Of course I don't think conservatives really paid attention to how Roosevelt dealt with the 1937 recession, focusing on the fact that it happened at all. Basically this  Except with Roosevelt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Been a thing on the right for a while. The New Deal was an unambiguous success, and Hoover's policies were extremely damaging. Most Americans believe something like this. But it damages the Republican mythology, so they have to find some way to make Hoover's disastrous administration consistent with their ideology. They already have their Roosevelt story (he made it last longer than it would have if the Glorious Free Market was allowed to operate!), but they need to tell a story about Hoover. That's no accident. Organizations like the heritage foundation have been sneaking bullshit right wing free-market republican ideas into kids textbooks for decades. One thing you have to understand too is that they've been actively trying to undo everything FDR ever did. (Because so much of what he did put a muzzle and chain on the rabid insanity of wall street.) Sneaky right wing propaganda like that which you were exposed to is an example of them trying to plant in children's brains the idea that FDR & his intense regulating that got control over wall street's excess wasn't great compared to FREE MARKET FREE MARKET FREE MARKET. The same FREE MARKET that brought about the great depression, of course... Spacedad fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Mar 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I've been seeing on a lot of conservative websites the argument that Hoover didn't slash government spending during the Great Depression and that he was a big government Republican. Some nobody radio show (I want to say it was Rusty Humphries but gently caress if I know or care) was going on about this yesterday. It's amazing how much media coordination conservatives have, and how little they have in actual politicking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
I walked on a muddy road untill i came to a fork in the road. There i suddenly met Alex Jones and we sat down in the road with Ron Paul and i was interviewing the gold standard bearer. I asked him about things. Then i wanted to end the interview and Alex Jones said "NO! WE STILL HAVE TIME!". He spent the rest of that time laughing awkwardly. Then i asked him if the interview went well. He said "eh". I was disappointed. Then i left them and i went to the right. Then i wished this never happened and suddenly i got time travel powers and i went back in time and this time i ignored Alex Jones and everything was ok. This was my D&D Dittohead Thread Dream.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Some nobody radio show (I want to say it was Rusty Humphries but gently caress if I know or care) was going on about this yesterday. It's amazing how much media coordination conservatives have, and how little they have in actual politicking. I was just thinking about this and I don't think it is as much coordination as it is that right wingers only ever talk to each other so that whatever passes for ideas or information gets spread quickly, like a disease in a herd of livestock. Sure, there is some top down messaging but poo poo like this just comes from some nutbag wannabe conservative 'historian' writing a blog somewhere and it gets linked around and the next thing you know some dude is reading it verbatim on his lovely radio show. By that point, its accepted wisdom to whoever is listening because who would say poo poo that isn't true on the radio?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I've been seeing on a lot of conservative websites the argument that Hoover didn't slash government spending during the Great Depression and that he was a big government Republican. This is actually true. Hoover never slashed spending. He did try many very small scale programs to try to alievate the depression, but he was overly convinced of charity. He expanded some programs, started some new ones(Federal Home Loan Act) but it was in no way big government, as it should've been. I mean one of those programs has his name on it(Hoover dam). FDR then put the scale of those programs into overdrive, and boom, unemployment begins to plummet. The idea Hoover took a completely hands off approach to the economy when the depression began is wrong, even if it often seems that way when compared to FDR, and the idea Hoover instituted big government is hilariously wrong since it's just an attempt to rewrite history and make FDR and everything that solved the depression look bad so we can give the SS trust fund to Wall St. I look at it this way, if Mises hates Hoover's actions, he must've been doing something a little bit right http://mises.org/rothbard/agd/chapter8.asp#public_works Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Mar 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I was just thinking about this and I don't think it is as much coordination as it is that right wingers only ever talk to each other so that whatever passes for ideas or information gets spread quickly, like a disease in a herd of livestock. Sure, there is some top down messaging but poo poo like this just comes from some nutbag wannabe conservative 'historian' writing a blog somewhere and it gets linked around and the next thing you know some dude is reading it verbatim on his lovely radio show. By that point, its accepted wisdom to whoever is listening because who would say poo poo that isn't true on the radio? My side are the good guys. Their side is the bad guys. The good guys don't lie, therefore what they say is true. Ergo, global warming isn't real. QED, liberals 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Oh, Erick Erickson!:Erick Erickson posted:That lefties are accusing the new pope of handing over lefties to the right wing junta for execution makes me adore the new pope. Erick Erickson posted:Lefties upset about the death squads in Argentina back in the day are all about death pannels in the United States It will be interesting if the media discusses possible connections to the junta, or just quietly sweeps them under the carpet. Nucleic Acids fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Mar 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Is this thread mostly about news media or are propaganda films released by private organizations also allowed? I don't know anymore. For two or three pages there, it was about wrestling. I'd say your video is on track and certainly belongs here, even if Macho Man Savage isn't in it. I really just started the thread because the subject kept coming up over and over again, especially during election season, and it kept derailing other threads. We seemed to need a place to put all the examples of horrible, dishonest, lovely reporting. I think we still do. Thanks for the (vomit inducing) link. That's exactly what this thread is for. 800peepee51doodoo posted:I was just thinking about this and I don't think it is as much coordination as it is that right wingers only ever talk to each other so that whatever passes for ideas or information gets spread quickly, like a disease in a herd of livestock. No, it's coordinated, and the things you mentioned aren't mutually exclusive. You also left out the sponsors and the monopoly brought on the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine and allowing communications companies to merge completely unregulated. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Mar 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:It will be interesting if the media discusses possible connections to the junta, or just quietly sweeps them under the carpet. If the last pope's history is any indication: they'll only bring it up to dismiss it, or to be indignant about people bringing it up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Some nobody radio show (I want to say it was Rusty Humphries but gently caress if I know or care) was going on about this yesterday. It's amazing how much media coordination conservatives have, and how little they have in actual politicking. If you have money, you can talk at people through media. But gently caress if Young Republicans are going to ever go door to door in a poor neighborhood and explain to the residents why they deserve misery and need to bootstrap harder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
The inherent problem with the conservative media machine is that it's really great at letting people know what assholes conservatives are louder and faster than anything else. This would change if they let the non-rear end in a top hat conservatives drive the policy and message, but those people get smeared as "RINOS" by the aforementioned conservative media machine. Spacedad fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Mar 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Is this thread mostly about news media or are propaganda films released by private organizations also allowed? I went to a public high school in the US and I received neither penis popsicles nor vagina cookies from Planned Parenthood. What the gently caress. I've been ripped off! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
Erick Erickson posted:That lefties are accusing the new pope of handing over lefties to the right wing junta for execution makes me adore the new pope. Further proof that many among the American right covet the ability to mass murder their political enemies the way that freerange tyrants can, and that they're only one goose-stepping parade and charismatic dictator away from being complicit in such crimes. A lot of these same people would gleefully turn in their neighbors in a heartbeat if a junta-like organization took over the US. Erick Erickson posted:Lefties upset about the death squads in Argentina back in the day are all about death pannels in the United States Yes, the liberals who hated systematic mass murder by the junta in Argentina are "all about" the fake death panels made up by the right wing to smear health care reform. gently caress you. Spacedad fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Mar 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:Further proof that many among the American right covet the ability to mass murder their political enemies the way that freerange tyrants can, and that they're only one goose-stepping parade and charismatic dictator away from being complicit in such crimes. I think it's less about that and more about Erick reveling in being a spiteful antagonistic jackass. He doesn't know jack poo poo about the new pope, but since "lefties" found something objectionable about him he must be loving awesome. Someone on another blog said it best: "today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today: updated daily." Beyond that, right now the four pillars of conservatism seem to be greed, cruelty, spite and ignorance. Try to find one part of their platform or overall belief system that doesn't incorporate one of those four pillars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:I think it's less about that and more about Erick reveling in being a spiteful antagonistic jackass. He doesn't know jack poo poo about the new pope, but since "lefties" found something objectionable about him he must be loving awesome. Someone on another blog said it best: "today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today: updated daily." You'd be surprised to find those pillars and this kind of behavior identical to the people who tacitly approved of the junta as well. Being complicit towards mass murder because it upsets your political enemies is a line no one who wants to retain any shreds of humanity as a serious person should cross. Edit: Unrelated, I can't say enough times that this is loving hilarious: http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/03/12/occidental-professor-heldman-on-her-fox-appeara/193026 Spacedad fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Mar 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:This is actually true. Hoover never slashed spending. He did try many very small scale programs to try to alievate the depression, but he was overly convinced of charity. He expanded some programs, started some new ones(Federal Home Loan Act) but it was in no way big government, as it should've been. I mean one of those programs has his name on it(Hoover dam). FDR then put the scale of those programs into overdrive, and boom, unemployment begins to plummet. The idea Hoover took a completely hands off approach to the economy when the depression began is wrong, even if it often seems that way when compared to FDR, and the idea Hoover instituted big government is hilariously wrong since it's just an attempt to rewrite history and make FDR and everything that solved the depression look bad so we can give the SS trust fund to Wall St. Hoover did some small programs, but he did so little out of express ideological opposition to government welfare and intervention, and said poo poo like this in the worst years of the depression: Herbert Hoover posted:Nobody is actually starving. The hobos, for example, are better fed than they have ever been. Hobos are eating well, in fact one had ten meals in a single day. He called Roosevelt a socialist and was good buddies with Harding, basically the single most blatantly corrupt president we've ever had. He wasn't evil but he isn't really worth defending IMO. Also, something to remember is that the Republican Party in the 20s hadn't distilled the libertarian ideology we have now. They were quite open to government intervention if it benefited business, and were very protectionist and pro-tariff. Basically they didn't even pay lip service to the idea that the government shouldn't be controlled by he who has the most money back then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:No, it's coordinated, and the things you mentioned aren't mutually exclusive. You also left out the sponsors and the monopoly brought on the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine and allowing communications companies to merge completely unregulated. I understand that there is coordination and talking points. I guess what I'm saying is that Rush and other powerful opinion makers are often just as influenced from the bottom up and that a good portion of what we see burble out of the conservative bubble is grassroots crazy. Its not all GOP messaging from the get-go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Is this thread mostly about news media or are propaganda films released by private organizations also allowed? So that "fisting kit for homosexual college and teenage students" the video talks about? The photograph clearly include the instructions which state in bold letters "How to make a dental drat from a latex glove."
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
Conservative "humor": https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/312043872970764288 Dana Loesche approves: https://twitter.com/DLoesch/status/312044178760687616 Amused to Death posted:This is actually true. Hoover never slashed spending. He did try many very small scale programs to try to alievate the depression, but he was overly convinced of charity. He expanded some programs, started some new ones(Federal Home Loan Act) but it was in no way big government, as it should've been. I mean one of those programs has his name on it(Hoover dam). FDR then put the scale of those programs into overdrive, and boom, unemployment begins to plummet. The idea Hoover took a completely hands off approach to the economy when the depression began is wrong, even if it often seems that way when compared to FDR, and the idea Hoover instituted big government is hilariously wrong since it's just an attempt to rewrite history and make FDR and everything that solved the depression look bad so we can give the SS trust fund to Wall St. Okay, so he didn't cut spending, but didn't increase spending nearly enough to fix the economy? Basically he was a weaksauce Keynesian, then?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Conservative "humor": FDR was a weaksauce Keynesian; even FDR didn't implement spending on Keynes' recommended scale until WW2, which is why the economy didn't recover until ww2. Hoover tried to reallocate spending to public works and jobs (good) without increasing overall spending (bad). End result was that he didn't do anything like what was necessary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
Well Dick Morris has "bounced back" doing radio in Philly. http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/03/dick-morris-named-wpht-afternoon-host-159316.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 18:52
|
|