Leftists and Progressives do not believe in the so-called "Laffer curve", which is why they're so enamored of tax & spend policies. They also despise Milton Friedman and pretty much all his ideas. That's why people like Glenn Beck who reiterate or extrapolate such concepts are reviled and pilloried, yet when what they say happens within a calendar year, the events are labeled "surprise" or "unexpected" by the media.
I hope y'all like paying $15 for a Hershey's Bar next year.|||Quote:
Leftists and Progressives do not believe in the so-called "Laffer curve", which is why they're so enamored of tax & spend policies. They also despise Milton Friedman and pretty much all his ideas.
These links are highly interesting.
I don't understand what a "natural unemployment rate" is, but apart from that it's interesting reading.
What is that link about inflation. Those guys want you to melt down your coins lol?
EDIT: I tested the NY Times applet thingy. Yay, I solved the U.S. budget deficit. I also find it highly unlikely that things actually work this smooth in real life, haha.|||Sounds fun, but I have to admit, not to be taken any more seriously than any other game. I don't think the american economy can be encapsulated so neatly into an applet.
Unlike J, I will say that biases can go either way... and I have no reason to believe that this tool is particularly *biased*. Incomplete, inaccurate, maybe. Rigged? I'd like to see evidence before I believe that.
More to the point, anything talking about the economy should have predictive validity before it is taken seriously... not just with what it gets right, but also counting what it gets wrong.|||Quote:
I don't understand what a "natural unemployment rate" is,
Internetz to da rescue!!!
Quote:
What is that link about inflation. Those guys want you to melt down your coins lol?
I'd like you to remember your lol at me in about a year. Seriously.
Quote:
Unlike J, I will say that biases can go either way... and I have no reason to believe that this tool is particularly *biased*. Incomplete, inaccurate, maybe. Rigged? I'd like to see evidence before I believe that.
It was in front of you (at least, when playing the game). Just as with Anthropogenic Global Warming, tools and projections like this depend on presumptions, and those presumptions are made with bias. One of the most obvious presumptions for the game was the "status quo" of American membership in the U.N., World Bank, IMF, and so forth. If the U.S. pulled out of all these leeching agencies, it would cause a cascading failure in the rest of the world that would greatly benefit America (and at the same time destroy the progressive's international markets and legal structure). Likewise, no consideration of massive deregulation (such as OSHA), tax reform ("Fair tax", VAT, Flat tax) or additional conventional warfare was actually included.
You can claim bias is even-handed, but I didn't recall seeing the elimination of Obamacare, Bush' prescription drug benefit, or other such big-Gov't policies on the table; only tweaking was considered. It's more about the options <excluded> than the effects of those included.|||Quote:
Did you notice the Freudian slip inherent in your post? The New York Times? In other words, you're playing a game which is inherently rigged.
Leftists and Progressives do not believe in the so-called "Laffer curve", which is why they're so enamored of tax & spend policies. They also despise Milton Friedman and pretty much all his ideas. That's why people like Glenn Beck who reiterate or extrapolate such concepts are reviled and pilloried, yet when what they say happens within a calendar year, the events are labeled "surprise" or "unexpected" by the media.
I hope y'all like paying $15 for a Hershey's Bar next year.
i don't claim to be particularly knowledgeable about economics, but fortunately i don't have to be to know that whatever glenn beck thinks must be wrong.
and as for the laffer curve, i've never actually heard someone deny the notion that too much tax is a disincentive to work, and thus reduces income (or the opposite, that too low a tax does will not produce enough revenue). what that article (and you, apparently), fail to understand is that in times of economic hardship, those with the broadest shoulders, as they say, should bear the greatest burden. maybe consider that taxing the rich more than the poor isn't actually evil leftist envy, but more the fact that rich people have more money than the poor, and taxing the poor could push them below the poverty line, whilst large taxes for multi-millionaires is unlikely to leave them unable to afford food and clothing.|||Quote:
One of the most obvious presumptions for the game was the "status quo" of American membership in the U.N., World Bank, IMF, and so forth. If the U.S. pulled out of all these leeching agencies, it would cause a cascading failure in the rest of the world that would greatly benefit America (and at the same time destroy the progressive's international markets and legal structure).
This is considered a positive outcome?
Regarding the applet: f***ing ridiculous. It's insulting to people actually coming up with these policies by trivializing their decisions to a simple algorithm that should be easily optimized, it's insulting to the target audience by presenting them with a dumbed-down picture of the economy, and it's insulting to people like J because, inevitably, some people will cite this (consciously or not) as "evidence" for or against some policy that the NYT agrees or disagrees with.|||Quote:
i don't claim to be particularly knowledgeable about economics, but fortunately i don't have to be to know that whatever glenn beck thinks must be wrong.
Given his accuracy and the way he uses people's own quotes (i.e. he warned over a year ago that Bernanke was going to monetize the debt, while Bernanke was denying it under oath), I think you're more susceptible to "faith based reasoning" than I am!
Quote:
what that article (and you, apparently), fail to understand is that in times of economic hardship, those with the broadest shoulders, as they say, should bear the greatest burden.
And what you obviously fail to comprehend, exactly as the elites expect, is that those with the "broadest shoulders" are the same ones able to wrestle the tax law off of themselves, leaving the tax hikes to fall upon the backs of the proles. That's <why> such stupid acts result in diminishing returns; tax-and-spend types know fully well that they and their allies won't actually pay the price for their actions.
P.S. are you really trying to pretend that covetousness isn't the party platform of the Left?
Quote:
This is considered a positive outcome?
Is monetizing the debt?
Quote:
and it's insulting to people like J because, inevitably, some people will cite this (consciously or not) as "evidence" for or against some policy that the NYT agrees or disagrees with.
I suppose it would be easier to assert my claim of "inherent bias" by saying simply that whoever makes the game, sets the rules. Dumbing down these issues and pretending the pain we're in for is due to... er.. THAT GUY! isn't helpful.
In fact, a problem I have with Glenn Beck is regarding last week's episodes (devoted to exposing George Soros' role in our approaching fiscal apocalypse). In exposing Soros as the puppet master behind assorted plans to destroy the American Republic system, he downplays the fact that there are large swaths of corporate interests devoted to the same sort of destructive ends. Looting is a game anyone can play - but that the elites can play best.|||Quote:
I solved the U.S. budget deficit.
|||Do away with all religions. Put the money saved where it's actually needed.There, I fixed ur economy.
*runs before flames*
No comments:
Post a Comment