Liberals make great cities!

[Doc Savage Fan]

That can be said about anything. That doesn't change the fact that growth during Reagan's presidency was primarily due to changes in monetary policy, not tax cuts. Why did you not mention that?



The idea that Kennedy's tax cuts were the foundation for growth during that period also hasn't mentioned the impact of monetary policy during that time.

Regardless, I wanted to focus on the more recent, clearer case of the 'tax cuts lead to big growth' myth that keeps getting repeated. It comes back from conservatives every single presidential cycle, and it's tiresome.

http://eml.berkeley.edu//~dromer/papers/RomerandRomerAERJune2010.pdf

In short, tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output. Since most of our exogenous tax changes are in fact reductions, the more intuitive way to express this result is that tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects.

Christina Romer...hmmm...wasn't she the former Chair on the Council of Economic Advisers for the Obama administration?

 

[retrospooty]

What about every single other big liberal city? You named 2 of like 50.

As if you thought it was meant to be a fair comparison?

 

[fskimospy]

http://eml.berkeley.edu//~dromer/papers/RomerandRomerAERJune2010.pdf

Christina Romer...hmmm...wasn't she the former Chair on the Council of Economic Advisers for the Obama administration?

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue? I'm not aware of anyone that thinks tax policy has no effect on growth, it just didn't have nearly as large an effect on growth as a cutting the federal funds rate by about 1,300 basis points, which is what happened during Reagan's presidency.

Monetary policy is the single biggest policy influence on growth, and the cuts during Reagan's presidency were unprecedented in their massive scale. Trying to say his tax cuts are what led to the prosperity of the 80's without mentioning the huge impact of monetary policy was either ignorant or dishonest.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue? I'm not aware of anyone that thinks tax policy has no effect on growth, it just didn't have nearly as large an effect on growth as a cutting the federal funds rate by about 1,300 basis points, which is what happened during Reagan's presidency.

Monetary policy is the single biggest policy influence on growth, and the cuts during Reagan's presidency were unprecedented in their massive scale. Trying to say his tax cuts are what led to the prosperity of the 80's without mentioning the huge impact of monetary policy was either ignorant or dishonest.

I explicitly stated there were a wide range of factors involved, but tax changes were definitely a very significant factor. And I'm now being dishonest by not mentioning some of these other factors such as monetary policy, etc.? Wow...you really, really hate being wrong don't you?

 

[CitizenKain]

Reagan once said, "all great change begins at the dinner table." That's problem number one in America today.

Reagan also confused a movie he acted in as military service and suffered from Alzheimers for a good deal of his presidency.

 

[MagickMan]

You just revel in news like this, don'tcha?

Likely as much as BLM does when it's a cop doing the killing, amiright?

 

[fskimospy]

I explicitly stated there were a wide range of factors involved, but tax changes were definitely a very significant factor. And I'm now being dishonest by not mentioning some of these other factors such as monetary policy, etc.? Wow...you really, really hate being wrong don't you?

No, you're being dishonest by not naming the largest factor. Does it not seem less than honest to you to say "Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a strong recovery from a severe double-dip recession and initiated the Great Moderation." without mentioning the single largest factor that led to that strong recovery?

(also, still trying to figure out what his tax cuts had to do with the great moderation)

Finally, I'm confused as to what you think I was wrong about as you don't seem to be disputing monetary policy's dominance.

 

[theeedude]

We've been living in a declining interest rate environment for 35 years, which convinced a lot of people they were genius investors, or genius economists, genius politicians, etc, when in fact they were just floating along in a favorable current.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No, you're being dishonest by not naming the largest factor. Does it not seem less than honest to you to say "Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a strong recovery from a severe double-dip recession and initiated the Great Moderation." without mentioning the single largest factor that led to that strong recovery?

(also, still trying to figure out what his tax cuts had to do with the great moderation)

Finally, I'm confused as to what you think I was wrong about as you don't seem to be disputing monetary policy's dominance.

Oh brother.

Tax cuts do lead to significant growth. It's not a myth as you've stated and it's high time for you to deal with it and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[soundforbjt]

Ten States with the most gun violence:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-states-with-the-most-gun-violence-2015-06-30

Edit: Fun Fact, 7 out of 10 of them have stand your ground laws.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh brother.

Tax cuts do lead to significant growth. It's not a myth as you've stated and it's high time for you to deal with it and stop embarrassing yourself.

The idea that Reagan's tax cuts were the main cause of growth in the 1980's is most definitely a myth, and one you just tried to perpetuate.

I've never argued that tax cuts don't cause growth, just that they weren't responsible for the huge growth seen in the 80's, and that people who constantly try to make the claim that tax cuts will lead to this huge growth like the 80's are full of shit, and it happens every presidential cycle.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, you're being dishonest by not naming the largest factor. Does it not seem less than honest to you to say "Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a strong recovery from a severe double-dip recession and initiated the Great Moderation." without mentioning the single largest factor that led to that strong recovery?

(also, still trying to figure out what his tax cuts had to do with the great moderation)

Finally, I'm confused as to what you think I was wrong about as you don't seem to be disputing monetary policy's dominance.

Where he & the right wing in general are dishonest is in failure to recognize that top tier tax cuts went too far long ago & played a major part in the explosive inequality & political corruption of today.

Where JC is dishonest starts with himself. He doesn't have to go far to find a vibrant liberal stronghold in Denver.

 

[soundforbjt]

Wait, I thought Reagan raised taxes 11 times. His big tax cut caused unemployment to jump to 10.8 percent.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The idea that Reagan's tax cuts were the main cause of growth in the 1980's is most definitely a myth, and one you just tried to perpetuate.

Now you're being dishonest. Reread Post #24.

I've never argued that tax cuts don't cause growth, just that they weren't responsible for the huge growth seen in the 80's, and that people who constantly try to make the claim that tax cuts will lead to this huge growth like the 80's are full of shit, and it happens every presidential cycle.

You specifically claimed that tax cuts don't cause "big growth" below:

Regardless, I wanted to focus on the more recent, clearer case of the 'tax cuts lead to big growth' myth that keeps getting repeated.

I showed you a paper written by a top economist that shows you are wrong, tax cuts do indeed have a significant impact. And I've already explicitly stated that their were many other factors involved during the Reagan recovery as well. This is not hard. You have a few too many martinis at lunch today?

 

[fskimospy]

Now you're being dishonest. Reread Post #24.

Please stop the continuing attempts at dishonesty. You're not good at it. Saying there were 'many factors' while leaving out the primary driver is dishonest.

You specifically claimed that tax cuts don't cause "big growth" below:

It was in relation to growth like the Reagan tax cuts which we were discussing, something that I've mentioned several times now.

I showed you a paper written by a top economist that shows you are wrong, tax cuts do indeed have a significant impact.

You showed me a paper by a top economist that doesn't disagree with anything I've said, which was simply that monetary policy was the primary driver for the economic expansion of the 1980's. Considering Romer's work, I doubt she would disagree. (I strongly suspect you have denigrated this 'top economist's work in the past, btw. Should we go search?)

You've been reduced to trying to take a single sentence in one of my posts and decided I meant something I didn't, despite my posts in this thread saying otherwise and a whole ton of previous posts that have talked about tax and spending policy. What's the point of doing that unless you're trying to 'win'?

And I've already explicitly stated that their were many other factors involved during the Reagan recovery as well. This is not hard.

Those 'many other factors' conveniently leaving out the largest factor. That's called lying by omission.

You have a few too many martinis at lunch today?

I wish! That sounds like a fun lunch.

 

[Jhhnn]

Now you're being dishonest. Reread Post #24.



You specifically claimed that tax cuts don't cause "big growth" below:



I showed you a paper written by a top economist that shows you are wrong, tax cuts do indeed have a significant impact. And I've already explicitly stated that their were many other factors involved during the Reagan recovery as well. This is not hard. You have a few too many martinis at lunch today?

Tax cuts obviously have an impact. What's really at issue at this point is what segment of the population benefits most in the way they're structured- the working stiffs or the financial elite. The relative fortunes of the two groups over the last 35 years tell the real story.

When the benefits of growth go to the top & fail to trickle down through market forces then it seems obvious that other methods must be used to sustain working people- taxes & redistribution through a variety of mechanisms that weren't as necessary prior to the demise of unions & the rise of offshoring & automation.

Which really is tangential to the topic & the contention that Libs can't govern. What JC cites as Liberal ineptitude is really the result of Capitalism moving on to new locations leaving behind a phenomenon that righties try not to think about- a vast rust belt stretching from the east coast & throughout much of the midwest.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Tax cuts for the rich make the rich richer, high taxes on the rich encourage reinvestiment to avoid those high taxes and make the middle class richer.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I wish! That sounds like a fun lunch.

Then I can only conclude that you recently suffered a severe blow to the head. Hope it didn't hurt too much!

 

[Brian Stirling]

Reagan also confused a movie he acted in as military service and suffered from Alzheimers for a good deal of his presidency.

Yes, and at a function for Princess Diana he lost his train of though and called her Princess David!


Brian

 

[Meghan54]

Then I can only conclude that you recently suffered a severe blow to the head. Hope it didn't hurt too much!

At least he wasn't dropped on his head at birth, which seems to be your problem.....at a minimum.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

At least he wasn't dropped on his head at birth, which seems to be your problem.....at a minimum.

If you ever have anything reasonably intelligent to say, please say it. But, as I think about it a little longer, I can't recall you ever saying anything reasonably intelligent....so, good luck with that.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Wait, I thought Reagan raised taxes 11 times. His big tax cut caused unemployment to jump to 10.8 percent.

I was scouring over the posts here on this thread, and noticed the same thing. I was intending to look it up to refresh my memory of "1980's news."

But I think you're right, and I can do the research later in the day.

I tire of discussions at a super-generalized level of "philosophy and ideology."

I prefer to couch the discussion as a matter of choice between "public goods" and "private goods." An ice-cream cone is a private good: you get to choose whether someone else can have a lick or not. A county, state or federal highway is a "public good" with a strong collective aspect to it. Insurance -- a private industry -- wouldn't exist but for risk-pooling, which describes another collective aspect.

Another dimension of discussion is the trade-off or mix between domestic spending and military spending. Obviously, military spending is a "public good." The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

As to "cities." Around 2000, the conventional means of presenting election or voter-registration statistics during presidential election years casts Democrat as "blue" and Republican as "red." [Wasn't my choice, you poor, victimized Tory Commie rebs!]

Often, the statistics are presented by state. Shades of pink and purple appear in maps of states showing counties. You can drill down to incorporated cities and urban areas: they are nearly always blue, with pink-to-red areas in the unincorporated counties.

This betrays a preference for public goods by more concentrated populations and urban demography. I hope I myself am not over-generalizing my interpretation or the discussion.

There are collective benefits just for the infrastructure of the urban landscape, for instance -- the cost of delivering utilities or ciltizen-access to private-good markets or public goods.

Imagine the costs of things like school-busing in rural areas as opposed to densely-populated cities.

Yet, on a state-by-state basis, "red" states get more in federal subsidies or federally-provided public goods than they pay in tax dollars, and "blue" states get less than the tax dollar. I think this discussion could be extended by considering how different state or local governments may cover more public goods expense just for the technical economies introduced by population density.

I'll leave off here with my thoughts. Caller!! You're on! Who has anything to add or dispute?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes, and at a function for Princess Diana he lost his train of though and called her Princess David!


Brian

That's nothing. I thought he really showed the seriousness of his dementia when he said there were 57 states, forgot his own daughter's age, was confused over whether his faith was Muslim or Christian, couldn't correctly spell Ohio, said the private sector is doing fine when 23 million Americans were out of work, and when he referred to Hawaii as being in Asia. It's a miracle he ever got elected!

 

[BonzaiDuck]

That's nothing. I thought he really showed the seriousness of his dementia when he said there were 57 states, forgot his own daughter's age, was confused over whether his faith was Muslim or Christian, couldn't correctly spell Ohio, said the private sector is doing fine when 23 million Americans were out of work, and when he referred to Hawaii as being in Asia. It's a miracle he ever got elected!

It just points up the old myth, and one which Repubs are more likely to find as refuge. We assume that an election result is always optimal, because it's "democratic."

There is no guarantee that the electorate always made the best decision when politicians are installed to the actual practice of their platform.

Elections can perform two functions: with limited terms of office, they legitimate temporary authority; and they allow the largest number of people to participate in the decisions.

I think more than once we've seen cases in which the former function is performed as always, and the latter function is -- well -- dysfunctional.

I'm inclined myself to act as a destroyer of the Reagan myths. If anyone wants to discuss the three or more conditions by which the function of "optimal democratic decision-making" fulfills its promise, I can elaborate -- I am game for it.

 

[DrDoug]

I question how you know pigs are happy in shit? :hmm:

Maybe because I sometimes watch the pigsty called Fox news just to watch the pigs play in their sty. That and I grew up on a farm.

Enjoy your 'mud'.