Reduction or elimination of taxes on "rich" benefit wage earners

[Dissipate]

The progressive personal income tax, the corporate income tax, and the capital gains tax all operate in essentially the same way as the inheritance tax. They are all paid with funds that otherwise would have been saved and invested. All of them reduce the demand for labor by business firms in comparison with what it would otherwise have been, and thus either the wage rates or the volume of employment that business firms can offer. For they deprive business firms of the funds with which to pay wages.

By the same token, they deprive business firms of the funds with which to buy capital goods. This, together with the greater spending for consumer's goods emanating from the government, as it spends the tax proceeds, causes the production of capital goods to drop relative to the production of consumers' goods. In addition, of course, they all operate to reduce the degree of capital intensiveness in the economic system and thus its ability to implement technological advances. The individual and corporate income taxes, and the capital gains tax, of course also powerfully reduce the incentive to introduce new products and improve methods of production. In all these ways, as will be shown at length in Chapters 14 and 17, these taxes, along with the inheritance tax, undermine capital accumulation and the rise in the productivity of labor and real wages, and thus the standard of living of everyone, not just of those on whom the taxes are levied.

What makes it difficult for people to recognize the fact that everyone would benefit from reductions or better still, the total abolition of all these taxes on the so-called rich-made possible, of course, by equivalent reductions in spending-is not only massive ignorance of economics, especially of the general benefit from private ownership of means of production, but also collectivistic habits of thought inspired by Marxism and its doctrine of class interest.

From: Capitalism, scroll down to page 308.

I was just wondering what the Marxist libs have to say about this, especially since it is stated that their view comes from a massive ignorance of economics.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

The progressive personal income tax, the corporate income tax, and the capital gains tax all operate in essentially the same way as the inheritance tax. They are all paid with funds that otherwise would have been saved and invested. All of them reduce the demand for labor by business firms in comparison with what it would otherwise have been, and thus either the wage rates or the volume of employment that business firms can offer. For they deprive business firms of the funds with which to pay wages.

By the same token, they deprive business firms of the funds with which to buy capital goods. This, together with the greater spending for consumer's goods emanating from the government, as it spends the tax proceeds, causes the production of capital goods to drop relative to the production of consumers' goods. In addition, of course, they all operate to reduce the degree of capital intensiveness in the economic system and thus its ability to implement technological advances. The individual and corporate income taxes, and the capital gains tax, of course also powerfully reduce the incentive to introduce new products and improve methods of production. In all these ways, as will be shown at length in Chapters 14 and 17, these taxes, along with the inheritance tax, undermine capital accumulation and the rise in the productivity of labor and real wages, and thus the standard of living of everyone, not just of those on whom the taxes are levied.

What makes it difficult for people to recognize the fact that everyone would benefit from reductions or better still, the total abolition of all these taxes on the so-called rich-made possible, of course, by equivalent reductions in spending-is not only massive ignorance of economics, especially of the general benefit from private ownership of means of production, but also collectivistic habits of thought inspired by Marxism and its doctrine of class interest.

From: Capitalism, scroll down to page 308.

I was just wondering what the Marxist libs have to say about this, especially since it is stated that their view comes from a massive ignorance of economics.

Hmm, are their Marxist Li8s here or is that a new Buzz Word/ Phrase you thought up all by yourself?

 

[Spencer278]

And the proof of that "theory" is where now.

 

[Rockhound]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Dissipate

The progressive personal income tax, the corporate income tax, and the capital gains tax all operate in essentially the same way as the inheritance tax. They are all paid with funds that otherwise would have been saved and invested. All of them reduce the demand for labor by business firms in comparison with what it would otherwise have been, and thus either the wage rates or the volume of employment that business firms can offer. For they deprive business firms of the funds with which to pay wages.

By the same token, they deprive business firms of the funds with which to buy capital goods. This, together with the greater spending for consumer's goods emanating from the government, as it spends the tax proceeds, causes the production of capital goods to drop relative to the production of consumers' goods. In addition, of course, they all operate to reduce the degree of capital intensiveness in the economic system and thus its ability to implement technological advances. The individual and corporate income taxes, and the capital gains tax, of course also powerfully reduce the incentive to introduce new products and improve methods of production. In all these ways, as will be shown at length in Chapters 14 and 17, these taxes, along with the inheritance tax, undermine capital accumulation and the rise in the productivity of labor and real wages, and thus the standard of living of everyone, not just of those on whom the taxes are levied.

What makes it difficult for people to recognize the fact that everyone would benefit from reductions or better still, the total abolition of all these taxes on the so-called rich-made possible, of course, by equivalent reductions in spending-is not only massive ignorance of economics, especially of the general benefit from private ownership of means of production, but also collectivistic habits of thought inspired by Marxism and its doctrine of class interest.

From: Capitalism, scroll down to page 308.

I was just wondering what the Marxist libs have to say about this, especially since it is stated that their view comes from a massive ignorance of economics.

Hmm, are their Marxist Li8s here or is that a new Buzz Word/ Phrase you thought up all by yourself?

Sorry Red Dawn, but that is the liberal way of thinking and you are a liberal I know that from your past writings on this board. That's what Marxism was all about as well as Communism - in the interest of all, and so it is of the liberal point of view. Tax the rich, give to the poor. This is so well documented its not even funny so don't even try to dispute it.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
And the proof of that "theory" is where now.

Chapters 14 & 17, like it says right in the quote.

 

[cjgallen]

What makes it difficult for people to recognize the fact that everyone would benefit from reductions or better still, the total abolition of all these taxes on the so-called rich-made possible, of course, by equivalent reductions in spending-is not only massive ignorance of economics, especially of the general benefit from private ownership of means of production, but also collectivistic habits of thought inspired by Marxism and its doctrine of class interest.

Massive ignorance is thinking we'll see any benefits without any reduction in spending.

 

[Insomnium]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

The progressive personal income tax, the corporate income tax, and the capital gains tax all operate in essentially the same way as the inheritance tax. They are all paid with funds that otherwise would have been saved and invested. All of them reduce the demand for labor by business firms in comparison with what it would otherwise have been, and thus either the wage rates or the volume of employment that business firms can offer. For they deprive business firms of the funds with which to pay wages.

By the same token, they deprive business firms of the funds with which to buy capital goods. This, together with the greater spending for consumer's goods emanating from the government, as it spends the tax proceeds, causes the production of capital goods to drop relative to the production of consumers' goods. In addition, of course, they all operate to reduce the degree of capital intensiveness in the economic system and thus its ability to implement technological advances. The individual and corporate income taxes, and the capital gains tax, of course also powerfully reduce the incentive to introduce new products and improve methods of production. In all these ways, as will be shown at length in Chapters 14 and 17, these taxes, along with the inheritance tax, undermine capital accumulation and the rise in the productivity of labor and real wages, and thus the standard of living of everyone, not just of those on whom the taxes are levied.

What makes it difficult for people to recognize the fact that everyone would benefit from reductions or better still, the total abolition of all these taxes on the so-called rich-made possible, of course, by equivalent reductions in spending-is not only massive ignorance of economics, especially of the general benefit from private ownership of means of production, but also collectivistic habits of thought inspired by Marxism and its doctrine of class interest.

From: Capitalism, scroll down to page 308.

I was just wondering what the Marxist libs have to say about this, especially since it is stated that their view comes from a massive ignorance of economics.

Actually, exactly what you quoted comes from a MASSIVE ignorance of economics. Read a book on economics and then read what you posted. You'll get a good laugh or two. And I doubt there are any "Marxist libs" here.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Insomnium

Originally posted by: Dissipate

The progressive personal income tax, the corporate income tax, and the capital gains tax all operate in essentially the same way as the inheritance tax. They are all paid with funds that otherwise would have been saved and invested. All of them reduce the demand for labor by business firms in comparison with what it would otherwise have been, and thus either the wage rates or the volume of employment that business firms can offer. For they deprive business firms of the funds with which to pay wages.

By the same token, they deprive business firms of the funds with which to buy capital goods. This, together with the greater spending for consumer's goods emanating from the government, as it spends the tax proceeds, causes the production of capital goods to drop relative to the production of consumers' goods. In addition, of course, they all operate to reduce the degree of capital intensiveness in the economic system and thus its ability to implement technological advances. The individual and corporate income taxes, and the capital gains tax, of course also powerfully reduce the incentive to introduce new products and improve methods of production. In all these ways, as will be shown at length in Chapters 14 and 17, these taxes, along with the inheritance tax, undermine capital accumulation and the rise in the productivity of labor and real wages, and thus the standard of living of everyone, not just of those on whom the taxes are levied.

What makes it difficult for people to recognize the fact that everyone would benefit from reductions or better still, the total abolition of all these taxes on the so-called rich-made possible, of course, by equivalent reductions in spending-is not only massive ignorance of economics, especially of the general benefit from private ownership of means of production, but also collectivistic habits of thought inspired by Marxism and its doctrine of class interest.

From: Capitalism, scroll down to page 308.

I was just wondering what the Marxist libs have to say about this, especially since it is stated that their view comes from a massive ignorance of economics.

Actually, exactly what you quoted comes from a MASSIVE ignorance of economics. Read a book on economics and then read what you posted. You'll get a good laugh or two. And I doubt there are any "Marxist libs" here.

I have my own problems with what he posted, but I'd like you to dissect it with your knowledge of economics.

 

[ViRGE]

While I don't like to get in to P&N arguements, I will say this as an Econ minor: economics is not a "blind" field like math, it is tightly tied in to capitalism. All of our major theorys in economics are geared towards a capitalist system, and the more socialist a system is, the less absolute the rules of economics are, and the less correct they are. This is why economics, in turn, is still more of an art than a science, since we know people won't live in a perfect capitalist system, there's some desire for aspects of socialism, so our theorys break down as a result.

My point? You aren't ignorant of economics in a socialist situation; many of the rules simply don't apply like they do in a capitalist system.

 

[sandorski]

Hmm, so everyone would be better off if the Rich pauid No Taxes? BS.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Hmm, so everyone would be better off if the Rich pauid No Taxes? BS.

Who's better off with "progressive" taxation?

 

[Insomnium]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Insomnium

Originally posted by: Dissipate

The progressive personal income tax, the corporate income tax, and the capital gains tax all operate in essentially the same way as the inheritance tax. They are all paid with funds that otherwise would have been saved and invested. All of them reduce the demand for labor by business firms in comparison with what it would otherwise have been, and thus either the wage rates or the volume of employment that business firms can offer. For they deprive business firms of the funds with which to pay wages.

By the same token, they deprive business firms of the funds with which to buy capital goods. This, together with the greater spending for consumer's goods emanating from the government, as it spends the tax proceeds, causes the production of capital goods to drop relative to the production of consumers' goods. In addition, of course, they all operate to reduce the degree of capital intensiveness in the economic system and thus its ability to implement technological advances. The individual and corporate income taxes, and the capital gains tax, of course also powerfully reduce the incentive to introduce new products and improve methods of production. In all these ways, as will be shown at length in Chapters 14 and 17, these taxes, along with the inheritance tax, undermine capital accumulation and the rise in the productivity of labor and real wages, and thus the standard of living of everyone, not just of those on whom the taxes are levied.

What makes it difficult for people to recognize the fact that everyone would benefit from reductions or better still, the total abolition of all these taxes on the so-called rich-made possible, of course, by equivalent reductions in spending-is not only massive ignorance of economics, especially of the general benefit from private ownership of means of production, but also collectivistic habits of thought inspired by Marxism and its doctrine of class interest.

From: Capitalism, scroll down to page 308.

I was just wondering what the Marxist libs have to say about this, especially since it is stated that their view comes from a massive ignorance of economics.

Actually, exactly what you quoted comes from a MASSIVE ignorance of economics. Read a book on economics and then read what you posted. You'll get a good laugh or two. And I doubt there are any "Marxist libs" here.

I have my own problems with what he posted, but I'd like you to dissect it with your knowledge of economics.

There are so many ways to describe why tax cuts for the wealthy are ultimately detrimental to the economy as a whole that I will not even bother going into 99% of the material because it would take pages of writing and a multitude of graphs. But the basics are easy to outline. Essentially , it goes something like this:

Tax cuts -> increase in money supply in the short term -> threat of inflation and rising prices -> Fed must act to curb inflation -> Fed sells T-bonds -> People buy T-bonds (because interest rates are rising, so bonds are becoming attractive -> money supply decreases (counteracting tax cuts) -> higher interest rates attract foreign investors -> foreigners demand more dollars -> dollar appreciates -> goods abroad become relatively cheaper for US citizens -> citizens buy more from abroad (foreigners benefit) -> Current Account deficit grows -> combination of all the aforementioned lowers GDP (output).

That's the basics of it. It's also important to note a few things about give tax breaks to the ridiculously wealthy, such as: if wealthy individuals receive $5 million extra due to tax cuts they will not consume $5 million extra dollars worth of goods, and if they do, they are likely to buy super expensive Luxury goods (foreign cars, yachts, mansions). This doesn't do jack for wage earners working at Chevy plant for example, because the wealthy will be buying a couple Bentleys for $600,000, not 60 Chevy Cavaliers.
Tax cuts certainly lead to inequailty and also more crime.

The title of this thread however, is quite accurate. "Reduction or elimination of taxes on "rich" benefit wage earners" -> this is true. Reductions directly benefit wage earners, but in other countries and foreign economies.

wow, that was far too much econ chat on a Friday night. Must....head....out....sooon.

 

[SuperTool]

What was the top tax rate in the 50's? I heard it was close to 90%. I don't think many wage earners were complaining about their GI bill educations or their ability to afford housing and raise a family on single income. In fact when we think about the best years for America's middle class, most people think of the 50's. And we have that Marxist lib Ike to thank for that since he didn't want to cut top rates after the war.

 

[Strk]

I wonder how many individuals throwing the Marxist label around have much of any idea about what he actually wrote beyond a few generalizations that aren't all correct.

Also, since when does decreasing taxes on the wealthy increase their investments into the workforces/companies? I mean, if the company is successful already, increasing the owner(s)/shareholders money only benefits the owner(s)/shareholders, not the workforce. Let's use some logic here. If men and women in charge can be successful and maintain a workforce, why go beyond what is needed? (which can include benefits in some instances)

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Strk
I wonder how many individuals throwing the Marxist label around have much of any idea about what he actually wrote beyond a few generalizations that aren't all correct.

Also, since when does decreasing taxes on the wealthy increase their investments into the workforces/companies? I mean, if the company is successful already, increasing the owner(s)/shareholders money only benefits the owner(s)/shareholders, not the workforce. Let's use some logic here. If men and women in charge can be successful and maintain a workforce, why go beyond what is needed? (which can include benefits in some instances)

Why go beyond what?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Strk
I wonder how many individuals throwing the Marxist label around have much of any idea about what he actually wrote beyond a few generalizations that aren't all correct.

Also, since when does decreasing taxes on the wealthy increase their investments into the workforces/companies? I mean, if the company is successful already, increasing the owner(s)/shareholders money only benefits the owner(s)/shareholders, not the workforce. Let's use some logic here. If men and women in charge can be successful and maintain a workforce, why go beyond what is needed? (which can include benefits in some instances)

Why go beyond what?

Federal/State working standards/wages that are required to run a business.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Strk
I wonder how many individuals throwing the Marxist label around have much of any idea about what he actually wrote beyond a few generalizations that aren't all correct.

Also, since when does decreasing taxes on the wealthy increase their investments into the workforces/companies? I mean, if the company is successful already, increasing the owner(s)/shareholders money only benefits the owner(s)/shareholders, not the workforce. Let's use some logic here. If men and women in charge can be successful and maintain a workforce, why go beyond what is needed? (which can include benefits in some instances)

Why go beyond what?

Federal/State working standards/wages that are required to run a business.

Why wouldn't you go beyond what's needed? Don't you want a happy, productive workforce, a stable consumer base, etc? For every Wal Mart there's at least a Costco.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Strk
I wonder how many individuals throwing the Marxist label around have much of any idea about what he actually wrote beyond a few generalizations that aren't all correct.

Also, since when does decreasing taxes on the wealthy increase their investments into the workforces/companies? I mean, if the company is successful already, increasing the owner(s)/shareholders money only benefits the owner(s)/shareholders, not the workforce. Let's use some logic here. If men and women in charge can be successful and maintain a workforce, why go beyond what is needed? (which can include benefits in some instances)

Why go beyond what?

Federal/State working standards/wages that are required to run a business.

Why wouldn't you go beyond what's needed? Don't you want a happy, productive workforce, a stable consumer base, etc? For every Wal Mart there's at least a Costco.

Costco is actually a company that goes well beyond what is needed. But as a whole, why should a company? They don't have to go beyond what is needed though, that is the thing; there will always be someone to replace someone at unskilled labor.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Strk
I wonder how many individuals throwing the Marxist label around have much of any idea about what he actually wrote beyond a few generalizations that aren't all correct.

Also, since when does decreasing taxes on the wealthy increase their investments into the workforces/companies? I mean, if the company is successful already, increasing the owner(s)/shareholders money only benefits the owner(s)/shareholders, not the workforce. Let's use some logic here. If men and women in charge can be successful and maintain a workforce, why go beyond what is needed? (which can include benefits in some instances)

Why go beyond what?

Federal/State working standards/wages that are required to run a business.

Why wouldn't you go beyond what's needed? Don't you want a happy, productive workforce, a stable consumer base, etc? For every Wal Mart there's at least a Costco.

Costco is actually a company that goes well beyond what is needed. But as a whole, why should a company? They don't have to go beyond what is needed though, that is the thing; there will always be someone to replace someone at unskilled labor.

So why does Costco?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
So why does Costco?

I don't know. Why do companies that are already very profitable outsource?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

The progressive personal income tax, the corporate income tax, and the capital gains tax all operate in essentially the same way as the inheritance tax. They are all paid with funds that otherwise would have been saved and invested. All of them reduce the demand for labor by business firms in comparison with what it would otherwise have been, and thus either the wage rates or the volume of employment that business firms can offer. For they deprive business firms of the funds with which to pay wages.

By the same token, they deprive business firms of the funds with which to buy capital goods. This, together with the greater spending for consumer's goods emanating from the government, as it spends the tax proceeds, causes the production of capital goods to drop relative to the production of consumers' goods. In addition, of course, they all operate to reduce the degree of capital intensiveness in the economic system and thus its ability to implement technological advances. The individual and corporate income taxes, and the capital gains tax, of course also powerfully reduce the incentive to introduce new products and improve methods of production. In all these ways, as will be shown at length in Chapters 14 and 17, these taxes, along with the inheritance tax, undermine capital accumulation and the rise in the productivity of labor and real wages, and thus the standard of living of everyone, not just of those on whom the taxes are levied.

What makes it difficult for people to recognize the fact that everyone would benefit from reductions or better still, the total abolition of all these taxes on the so-called rich-made possible, of course, by equivalent reductions in spending-is not only massive ignorance of economics, especially of the general benefit from private ownership of means of production, but also collectivistic habits of thought inspired by Marxism and its doctrine of class interest.

From: Capitalism, scroll down to page 308.

I was just wondering what the Marxist libs have to say about this, especially since it is stated that their view comes from a massive ignorance of economics.

You keep quoting that book like it is the irrefutable word of God. It isn't.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: sandorski
Hmm, so everyone would be better off if the Rich pauid No Taxes? BS.

Who's better off with "progressive" taxation?

Depending on How Progressive, Most benefit---> to All benefit. A Most situation is very High Taxation which Penalizes the Rich(they do not benefit), an All situation is Moderate Taxation(much like what has existed in the US for at least a decade) which provides a good balance in which to support necessary Infrastructure. To not Tax the Wealthy is just stupid and is some whackos Polyanna view not reality.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Insomnium

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Insomnium

Originally posted by: Dissipate

The progressive personal income tax, the corporate income tax, and the capital gains tax all operate in essentially the same way as the inheritance tax. They are all paid with funds that otherwise would have been saved and invested. All of them reduce the demand for labor by business firms in comparison with what it would otherwise have been, and thus either the wage rates or the volume of employment that business firms can offer. For they deprive business firms of the funds with which to pay wages.

By the same token, they deprive business firms of the funds with which to buy capital goods. This, together with the greater spending for consumer's goods emanating from the government, as it spends the tax proceeds, causes the production of capital goods to drop relative to the production of consumers' goods. In addition, of course, they all operate to reduce the degree of capital intensiveness in the economic system and thus its ability to implement technological advances. The individual and corporate income taxes, and the capital gains tax, of course also powerfully reduce the incentive to introduce new products and improve methods of production. In all these ways, as will be shown at length in Chapters 14 and 17, these taxes, along with the inheritance tax, undermine capital accumulation and the rise in the productivity of labor and real wages, and thus the standard of living of everyone, not just of those on whom the taxes are levied.

What makes it difficult for people to recognize the fact that everyone would benefit from reductions or better still, the total abolition of all these taxes on the so-called rich-made possible, of course, by equivalent reductions in spending-is not only massive ignorance of economics, especially of the general benefit from private ownership of means of production, but also collectivistic habits of thought inspired by Marxism and its doctrine of class interest.

From: Capitalism, scroll down to page 308.

I was just wondering what the Marxist libs have to say about this, especially since it is stated that their view comes from a massive ignorance of economics.

Actually, exactly what you quoted comes from a MASSIVE ignorance of economics. Read a book on economics and then read what you posted. You'll get a good laugh or two. And I doubt there are any "Marxist libs" here.

I have my own problems with what he posted, but I'd like you to dissect it with your knowledge of economics.

There are so many ways to describe why tax cuts for the wealthy are ultimately detrimental to the economy as a whole that I will not even bother going into 99% of the material because it would take pages of writing and a multitude of graphs. But the basics are easy to outline. Essentially , it goes something like this:

Tax cuts -> increase in money supply in the short term -> threat of inflation and rising prices ->

Say what?! I suggest you listen to this lecture on inflation here:

The Economics of Inflation

and or Chapter 12 of Capitalism.

Wage push inflation, demand push inflation, cost push inflation etc. are all myths. Listen to the lecture and find out the true cause of inflation.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dissipate

The progressive personal income tax, the corporate income tax, and the capital gains tax all operate in essentially the same way as the inheritance tax. They are all paid with funds that otherwise would have been saved and invested. All of them reduce the demand for labor by business firms in comparison with what it would otherwise have been, and thus either the wage rates or the volume of employment that business firms can offer. For they deprive business firms of the funds with which to pay wages.

By the same token, they deprive business firms of the funds with which to buy capital goods. This, together with the greater spending for consumer's goods emanating from the government, as it spends the tax proceeds, causes the production of capital goods to drop relative to the production of consumers' goods. In addition, of course, they all operate to reduce the degree of capital intensiveness in the economic system and thus its ability to implement technological advances. The individual and corporate income taxes, and the capital gains tax, of course also powerfully reduce the incentive to introduce new products and improve methods of production. In all these ways, as will be shown at length in Chapters 14 and 17, these taxes, along with the inheritance tax, undermine capital accumulation and the rise in the productivity of labor and real wages, and thus the standard of living of everyone, not just of those on whom the taxes are levied.

What makes it difficult for people to recognize the fact that everyone would benefit from reductions or better still, the total abolition of all these taxes on the so-called rich-made possible, of course, by equivalent reductions in spending-is not only massive ignorance of economics, especially of the general benefit from private ownership of means of production, but also collectivistic habits of thought inspired by Marxism and its doctrine of class interest.

From: Capitalism, scroll down to page 308.

I was just wondering what the Marxist libs have to say about this, especially since it is stated that their view comes from a massive ignorance of economics.

You keep quoting that book like it is the irrefutable word of God. It isn't.

And I suppose this is, or perhaps this?.

 

[LunarRay]

I would opine that: Inflation and deflation are anticipatory adjustments made to the price of goods and services; That a reduction in taxation to one sector would have a negative economic related psychological impact on the rest of the sectors in the short term (1 - 2 years); That the Social Science Economics must be looked at in parts and not generalized; That the fiscal policy must be made to seem beneficial to all the people or the desired effect will not occur and finally, the monetary policy enacted will always keep the US economy within stable parameters.

I could add that if everyone was an economist then no one would know anything. We use historical data to generate our models but, fail to recognize fully the history we use is not always similar to the now in which the model is expected to perform.

Show a voter that he has less than yesterday because the rich folks pay less tax and soon the voter will mandate a change to where he still has less and so to do the rich folks. It is all nutty. Statistically sound insanity.