Tony,
I think you're right about one thing- I suppose I am an elitist. Having said that, based on my understanding of the term, I think one would have to be retarded not to be. According to Wikipedia, elitists believe that there is a group of people who "are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight", based on some particular characteristic, such as intelligence, training, etc.
Do you really believe that on all matters all people's opinions should be equal? Do you believe that someone w/ an IQ of 160 who has 5 degrees from Ivy League schools and who started his own fortune 500 company shouldn't be listened to more carefully than Joe the Plumber? An elitist would listen to the first guy.
Maybe feeling like this means that some other horrible label should apply to me (shoot, I guess I'm already a "elitist socialist keynesian", but I believe that certain people are intrinsically better leaders than others. Baby is crying, more later.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
No Fat Chicks
Tony,
Your last question is ridiculous. If someone wants to be an NFL lineman, he needs to be way stronger than the average American. If he wants to be a kicker, he needs to be able to kick the ball better than the average American. If he wants to be a running back.... (I think you get the picture).
If someone wants to be president, she should be way smarter than the average American. Sarah Palin is arguably dumber than the average American; that is why she is mocked.
Your last question is ridiculous. If someone wants to be an NFL lineman, he needs to be way stronger than the average American. If he wants to be a kicker, he needs to be able to kick the ball better than the average American. If he wants to be a running back.... (I think you get the picture).
If someone wants to be president, she should be way smarter than the average American. Sarah Palin is arguably dumber than the average American; that is why she is mocked.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Thoughts on Tax Cuts
Tony, the question you ask assumes that there's only on thing that can happen when you mess around with taxes. The point I constantly try to make is that there are different effects. Before, we spoke about whether someone would decide to work more or less when he was taxed more (someone who's not necessarily a business owner). My point then was that there's an income effect (he wants to make his car payment, so he'll actually work more if he's taxed more), and there's a substitution effect (which pushes him to work less, if he's taking home less each hour, then leisure gets "cheaper").
In this particular case, focusing only on businesses, we're both now on the other side of the argument. Before, you were arguing that the hourly worker would work less when he was taking home less money per hour. Now, you're arguing that a business owner will work more (by firing the help) when he's confronted with taking home less per hour. As before, I don't think that the business owner's actions are that easy to predict.
There are a couple of fairly strong forces at play. First off, I don't think you can ignore the fact that a salary is something that's not taxed on the business' end. If the tax on the business, or the business owner, is higher relative to the tax on what the worker takes home, keeping workers on starts to make more sense. Think about it- if you have some menial task, like cleaning, and assume that the business owner is as good as the professional cleaner (unlikely), he can either pay $50 to the cleaner (who will keep, say, $40 after taxes) to do the job, or he can do it himself, pay tax on that $50 and keep $25 for himself. Also, if you're talking about businesses that produce things (like Pepsi making cans of soda), you can usually put together some equation where an employee can produce x cans per hour. Pepsi should hire employees as long as they're producing cans of soda that are worth more than their hourly wage. Since the business doesn't pay tax on the money that is paid to the workers, a change in the tax rate won't change the optimal number of workers. I think that's a hugely important point that gets glossed over all the time.
Let me go off on a bit more of a tangent here: businesses are always (theoretically at least) making profit-maximizing decisions. A restaurant doesn't charge $15 (instead of, say, $20) for a steak because it's being nice, it charges $15 b/c it thinks that particular price will yield the most profit (after considering the cost of buying the meat, paying employees, etc., and estimating the number of customers that it will have if the steak is set at $10, $15, or $20). It frustrates me when people say that businesses can no longer "afford" to sell tacos for $.50, or whatever else. If they were doing it before, it was either calculated to help the business or the decision makers are retards (and actually breaking the law if there are shareholders).
Finally, I will concede that higher taxes can slow investment. I don't think that it (higher taxes) makes it more likely that a business will fail, but investors are essential bettors- if there's more taxes that's like a bigger house cut on the bet, so the sharper ones will be less likely to invest.
RE: Bush Tax Cuts
Let us assume that you are correct about the choice that the business owner will make. Doesn't this make you doubt the efficacy of trickle down economics for improving the condition of non-business owning, working-class Americans? Assuming that the business owner is already operating with employees that he can live without, would providing him with additional tax breaks cause him to hire new employees? Perhaps the business owner will just use the extra money to pay off his yacht.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
An Email from a Friend
My buddy Justin responded to my Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell post in an email (he did not include the typos in his email. The formatting changed when I copied the email into FoxTrott):
“While I appreciate the point you are trying to make, there is a fundamentalflaw with your logic in Scenario 2. Unless I am missing something, you seemto posit that a male Soldier who declares his sexual preference for boysseven years of age is not homosexually oriented. I submit to you insteadthat the Soldier in question is actually both a pedophile and a homosexuallyoriented individual, and, therefore, is also subject to discharge under theCongressional "Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces," ascodified in 10 USC 654, like the Soldier in Scenario 1.I believe that your point would be better served by substituting "boys" with"girls" in Scenario 2 (assuming we are still talking about a male Soldier),but this entire hypothetical still fails in practical application. Thecommander in Scenario 2 would likely refer the Soldier for a mental healthevaluation immediately given the fact that the Soldier has confessed aproclivity towards underage children. The Soldier's assurance that he wouldnever act on that proclivity is irrelevant because of the career-endingcatastrophe (and potential criminal culpability/civil liability) that wouldbefall our hapless commander should the Soldier be unable to control himselfat some point in the future. Assuming the Soldier was truthful in his claimand his paraphilia was confirmed upon a medical examination (regardless ofhis intent to act upon it), he would be designated as administratively unfitfor service and separated under the applicable service regulation. See,e.g., Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), para. 3-35(a);Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Separations), para. 5-17. Inthe end, the pedophiliac Soldier is administratively discharged just likethe homosexually oriented Soldier.My comments here are limited only to the two scenarios laid out above andare not intended to address the substance/policy of 10 USC 654 or any of itsimplementing regulations.”
The point of my Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell post was to show the absurdity of that policy by establishing that bad soldiers get to stay in the army as homosexuals are automatically discharged merely for being homosexuals. Thus, I responded to Justin with several theoretical soldiers that I thought the military would not discharge despite a poor character trait. For example, I asked whether the military would discharge a soldier that merely expressed an abstract desire to have sex with his mother. Additionally, I asked whether the military would discharge a racist white soldier in a unit made up of African Americans. Finally, I asked whether the military would discharge a soldier who told the men in his unit that he wanted to sleep with their wives. Justin had a response for every example. In each case, the military could discharge the soldier.
I knew that the military was tough. However, I did not know that the military had so many ways to discharge soldiers. There is likely no soldier of whom I could conceive that the military could not discharge under the right factual scenario.
The problem is the level of discretion that the military has to punish non-homosexual soldiers. I gave Justin the example of a male soldier in a unit in which a majority of the men are married. Suppose that this soldier tells the men in his unit that he has a fetish for married women. The soldier has seen the wives of the married men. The soldier tells those men that he wants to have sex with their wives. The married men believe the soldier and want to kick his ass. However, all the men know with 100% certainty that the soldier will never actually have sex with their wives, flirt with their wives, etc. The married men merely know that the soldier has a strong sexual desire for their wives.
Justin posited two ways in which the military could discharge this soldier:
1) Under Art. 134 (10 USC 934) (stating that “Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter [10 USCS §§ 801 et seq.], all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter [10 USCS §§ 801 et seq.] may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.” (emphasis added)).
2) Under Army Regulation 635-200, para. 5-17(a)(9) (Active Duty Enlisted Separations), para 5-17 (stating that “Commanders specified in paragraph 1–19 may approve separation under this paragraph on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability (AR 635–40) and excluding conditions appropriate for separation processing under paragraph 5–11 or 5–13 that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to—…Other disorders manifesting disturbances of perception, thinking, emotional control or behavior sufficiently severe that the Soldier’s ability to effectively perform military duties is significantly impaired. Soldiers with 24 months or more of active duty service may be separated under this paragraph based on a diagnosis of personality disorder.” (emphasis added)).
Both of the above authorities permit, but do not require, the discharge of a soldier. However, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell requires the discharge of a soldier who has indicated that he is gay. See 10 USC 654(b)(2) (declaring that “A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:… That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect.” (emphasis added). In fact, as written, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has only two exceptions:
1) No discharge if “the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.” Id.
2) No discharge if “the member engaged in [homosexual] conduct or made statements [indicating homosexuality] for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service…and…separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.”
Thus, under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the military must discharge a soldier that lets another soldier know that he is gay so long as the former soldier does nothing to prove that he is straight or that he only said that he was gay to get out of the military. On the other hand, the military can, but need not, discharge a soldier who tells the other men in his unit that he wants to have porno sex with their wives. I think that we can all agree that it would not be unreasonable to argue that the latter statement would have a greater negative effect on unit “morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion” than the former. Why then the varying levels of discretion? If what we really care about is “morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion,” See 10 USC 654(6), shouldn’t we at least give the military the discretion to decide whether an individual soldier’s homosexuality actually hurts his unit’s morale, etc.?
JAC: The military already has rules against flirting and having sex with other soldiers (male or female). These rules should alleviate most of your concerns. I merely wish to point out the absurdity of discharging soldiers based solely on the sexual preference that they manifest.
“While I appreciate the point you are trying to make, there is a fundamentalflaw with your logic in Scenario 2. Unless I am missing something, you seemto posit that a male Soldier who declares his sexual preference for boysseven years of age is not homosexually oriented. I submit to you insteadthat the Soldier in question is actually both a pedophile and a homosexuallyoriented individual, and, therefore, is also subject to discharge under theCongressional "Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces," ascodified in 10 USC 654, like the Soldier in Scenario 1.I believe that your point would be better served by substituting "boys" with"girls" in Scenario 2 (assuming we are still talking about a male Soldier),but this entire hypothetical still fails in practical application. Thecommander in Scenario 2 would likely refer the Soldier for a mental healthevaluation immediately given the fact that the Soldier has confessed aproclivity towards underage children. The Soldier's assurance that he wouldnever act on that proclivity is irrelevant because of the career-endingcatastrophe (and potential criminal culpability/civil liability) that wouldbefall our hapless commander should the Soldier be unable to control himselfat some point in the future. Assuming the Soldier was truthful in his claimand his paraphilia was confirmed upon a medical examination (regardless ofhis intent to act upon it), he would be designated as administratively unfitfor service and separated under the applicable service regulation. See,e.g., Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), para. 3-35(a);Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Separations), para. 5-17. Inthe end, the pedophiliac Soldier is administratively discharged just likethe homosexually oriented Soldier.My comments here are limited only to the two scenarios laid out above andare not intended to address the substance/policy of 10 USC 654 or any of itsimplementing regulations.”
The point of my Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell post was to show the absurdity of that policy by establishing that bad soldiers get to stay in the army as homosexuals are automatically discharged merely for being homosexuals. Thus, I responded to Justin with several theoretical soldiers that I thought the military would not discharge despite a poor character trait. For example, I asked whether the military would discharge a soldier that merely expressed an abstract desire to have sex with his mother. Additionally, I asked whether the military would discharge a racist white soldier in a unit made up of African Americans. Finally, I asked whether the military would discharge a soldier who told the men in his unit that he wanted to sleep with their wives. Justin had a response for every example. In each case, the military could discharge the soldier.
I knew that the military was tough. However, I did not know that the military had so many ways to discharge soldiers. There is likely no soldier of whom I could conceive that the military could not discharge under the right factual scenario.
The problem is the level of discretion that the military has to punish non-homosexual soldiers. I gave Justin the example of a male soldier in a unit in which a majority of the men are married. Suppose that this soldier tells the men in his unit that he has a fetish for married women. The soldier has seen the wives of the married men. The soldier tells those men that he wants to have sex with their wives. The married men believe the soldier and want to kick his ass. However, all the men know with 100% certainty that the soldier will never actually have sex with their wives, flirt with their wives, etc. The married men merely know that the soldier has a strong sexual desire for their wives.
Justin posited two ways in which the military could discharge this soldier:
1) Under Art. 134 (10 USC 934) (stating that “Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter [10 USCS §§ 801 et seq.], all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter [10 USCS §§ 801 et seq.] may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.” (emphasis added)).
2) Under Army Regulation 635-200, para. 5-17(a)(9) (Active Duty Enlisted Separations), para 5-17 (stating that “Commanders specified in paragraph 1–19 may approve separation under this paragraph on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability (AR 635–40) and excluding conditions appropriate for separation processing under paragraph 5–11 or 5–13 that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to—…Other disorders manifesting disturbances of perception, thinking, emotional control or behavior sufficiently severe that the Soldier’s ability to effectively perform military duties is significantly impaired. Soldiers with 24 months or more of active duty service may be separated under this paragraph based on a diagnosis of personality disorder.” (emphasis added)).
Both of the above authorities permit, but do not require, the discharge of a soldier. However, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell requires the discharge of a soldier who has indicated that he is gay. See 10 USC 654(b)(2) (declaring that “A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:… That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect.” (emphasis added). In fact, as written, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has only two exceptions:
1) No discharge if “the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.” Id.
2) No discharge if “the member engaged in [homosexual] conduct or made statements [indicating homosexuality] for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service…and…separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.”
Thus, under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the military must discharge a soldier that lets another soldier know that he is gay so long as the former soldier does nothing to prove that he is straight or that he only said that he was gay to get out of the military. On the other hand, the military can, but need not, discharge a soldier who tells the other men in his unit that he wants to have porno sex with their wives. I think that we can all agree that it would not be unreasonable to argue that the latter statement would have a greater negative effect on unit “morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion” than the former. Why then the varying levels of discretion? If what we really care about is “morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion,” See 10 USC 654(6), shouldn’t we at least give the military the discretion to decide whether an individual soldier’s homosexuality actually hurts his unit’s morale, etc.?
JAC: The military already has rules against flirting and having sex with other soldiers (male or female). These rules should alleviate most of your concerns. I merely wish to point out the absurdity of discharging soldiers based solely on the sexual preference that they manifest.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
I wish that everyone in the world got along. Instead of burning Qurans and American Flags, perhaps we could build utopian societies. Instead of increasing defense budgets, maybe we could increase our aid to developing nations.
However, I recognize the difficulty of achieving world peace. To survive in the world as it is (rather than in a world imagined by John Lennon) the USA needs a strong military.
Despite my appreciation of this fact, there are few scenarios that would inspire me to join the military. I’m not the only one. Thus, I have great respect for anyone who voluntarily chooses to join the military.
Given the need for soldiers, I find it difficult to understand why some people in this country still support Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I will not get into the constitutionality of that policy. It is sufficient to say that a California federal court ruled this week that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell violates the Constitution. Instead, I want to focus on the absurdity of the policy.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell requires the military to discharge soldiers who indicate that they are homosexuals. See 10 USC 654(b)(2). For purposes of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, a soldier is a homosexual if he has a “propensity to engage in” homosexual acts. See id. at (f)(1). Thus, a soldier would be discharged in the following scenario:
Scenario 1:
Soldier X is a homosexual male. You are Soldier X’s commanding officer. Soldier X informs you that if he was going to have sex, he would want to have sex with other males. However, Soldier X further tells you that he has never had and will never have homosexual sex. Additionally, Soldier X tells you that he only wishes to let the other soldiers in his unit know that he prefers sex with males to sex with females. Other than this, Soldier X will do nothing that calls attention to his sexual orientation. Assume that you believe everything Soldier X tells you.
Soldier X must be discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell because he has indicated that he has a propensity to engage in homosexual acts.
However, consider the following scenario:
Scenario 2:
Soldier Y is a male with an inclination to have sex with seven year old boys (TO CLARRIFY: the boys he wants to sleep with are all seven years old; Soldier Y does not fantasize about sleeping with seven one year old boys). You are Soldier Y’s commanding officer. Soldier Y informs you that if he was going to have sex, he would want to have sex with seven year old boys. However, Soldier Y further tells you that he has never had and will never have sex with a sever year old boy. Additionally, Soldier Y tells you that he only wishes to let the other soldiers in his unit know that he has a propensity to having sex with seven year old boys. Other than this, Soldier Y will do nothing that calls attention to his sexual orientation. Assume that you believe everything Soldier Y tells you.
Nothing in Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell requires you to discharge Soldier Y. However, what is the difference between gay Soldier X and pedophile Soldier Y such that the military must discharge X but not Y?
However, I recognize the difficulty of achieving world peace. To survive in the world as it is (rather than in a world imagined by John Lennon) the USA needs a strong military.
Despite my appreciation of this fact, there are few scenarios that would inspire me to join the military. I’m not the only one. Thus, I have great respect for anyone who voluntarily chooses to join the military.
Given the need for soldiers, I find it difficult to understand why some people in this country still support Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I will not get into the constitutionality of that policy. It is sufficient to say that a California federal court ruled this week that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell violates the Constitution. Instead, I want to focus on the absurdity of the policy.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell requires the military to discharge soldiers who indicate that they are homosexuals. See 10 USC 654(b)(2). For purposes of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, a soldier is a homosexual if he has a “propensity to engage in” homosexual acts. See id. at (f)(1). Thus, a soldier would be discharged in the following scenario:
Scenario 1:
Soldier X is a homosexual male. You are Soldier X’s commanding officer. Soldier X informs you that if he was going to have sex, he would want to have sex with other males. However, Soldier X further tells you that he has never had and will never have homosexual sex. Additionally, Soldier X tells you that he only wishes to let the other soldiers in his unit know that he prefers sex with males to sex with females. Other than this, Soldier X will do nothing that calls attention to his sexual orientation. Assume that you believe everything Soldier X tells you.
Soldier X must be discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell because he has indicated that he has a propensity to engage in homosexual acts.
However, consider the following scenario:
Scenario 2:
Soldier Y is a male with an inclination to have sex with seven year old boys (TO CLARRIFY: the boys he wants to sleep with are all seven years old; Soldier Y does not fantasize about sleeping with seven one year old boys). You are Soldier Y’s commanding officer. Soldier Y informs you that if he was going to have sex, he would want to have sex with seven year old boys. However, Soldier Y further tells you that he has never had and will never have sex with a sever year old boy. Additionally, Soldier Y tells you that he only wishes to let the other soldiers in his unit know that he has a propensity to having sex with seven year old boys. Other than this, Soldier Y will do nothing that calls attention to his sexual orientation. Assume that you believe everything Soldier Y tells you.
Nothing in Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell requires you to discharge Soldier Y. However, what is the difference between gay Soldier X and pedophile Soldier Y such that the military must discharge X but not Y?
Monday, September 6, 2010
Your Answer is Too Simple
Tony,
I did answer that allowing the tax cuts to continue could potentially hurt the economy, for the exact same reason that spending a bunch of money might. Now, whether the negative of increasing debt is outweighed by any sort of action taken by people (or corporations) keeping more money is a difficult question. There's uncertainty, and I think that intelligent people could fall on either side. Limiting it to "short term" doesn't make it (the tax cuts) any more clearly positive, because the strongest positive of a tax cut is more investment in business, which arguably won't necessarily happen immediately. As we discussed before, I believe that a rational corporation will hire approximately the same number of employees regardless of the tax rate.*
Then, your next question "then why not continue them?" basically removes any sort of "short term" modifier that you wanted in the first place. The argument against keeping them is that it amounts to increased debt, and that the money might be better "spent" elsewhere.
Which gets us to the next question- how does taxing/printing money help the economy?
It helps the economy in that it goes straight to the demand curve. Basically, the more stuff that is produced and sold, the better off our economy is. The choice is between having more cash in consumer's hands to buy Coca-Cola, or allowing Coke to keep more from every can sold. My argument is (and always has been) that most of the people arguing we will all be better off if Coke keeps more from every can of Coke sold are either highly educated and happen to own shares of Coke, or not particularly qualified to speak on the issue.
Then, the question about whether the stimulus should have had a bunch of tax cuts- it's the same question, but framed a different way. Again, I don't know the answer, but it's definitely not obviously "yes".
Finally, regarding "deregulation", that seems like a totally separate issue. You might argue that with more regulation in the first place, the stimulus would have been unnecessary. Not sure what it's worth, but I think you'd be echoing Alan Greenspan if you took that position.
In summary- I don't really know anything. I do know that some of the conclusions I've heard are wrong, or at least not clearly right. And, I really object to labels- (not saying you're guilty of this), but we wrote briefly about the mosque. A bunch have people have made up their minds knowing nothing more than the religion of the people behind it, without understanding the religion. In this particular issue, like two years ago w/ "socialists", Murdoch has spent the past year introducing "Keynesian" as a term to describe a bunch of people as outcasts lacking in common economic sense.
*You might argue that having more employees is a riskier position, and with taxes diminishing the maximum "reward" for a successful corporation, that the companies will hire fewer workers. But, if you take the approach that dollar amounts are known (it costs x/hr. for an employee to make y widgets, and the price is z), then the optimal number of employees will be the same at any tax rate.
I did answer that allowing the tax cuts to continue could potentially hurt the economy, for the exact same reason that spending a bunch of money might. Now, whether the negative of increasing debt is outweighed by any sort of action taken by people (or corporations) keeping more money is a difficult question. There's uncertainty, and I think that intelligent people could fall on either side. Limiting it to "short term" doesn't make it (the tax cuts) any more clearly positive, because the strongest positive of a tax cut is more investment in business, which arguably won't necessarily happen immediately. As we discussed before, I believe that a rational corporation will hire approximately the same number of employees regardless of the tax rate.*
Then, your next question "then why not continue them?" basically removes any sort of "short term" modifier that you wanted in the first place. The argument against keeping them is that it amounts to increased debt, and that the money might be better "spent" elsewhere.
Which gets us to the next question- how does taxing/printing money help the economy?
It helps the economy in that it goes straight to the demand curve. Basically, the more stuff that is produced and sold, the better off our economy is. The choice is between having more cash in consumer's hands to buy Coca-Cola, or allowing Coke to keep more from every can sold. My argument is (and always has been) that most of the people arguing we will all be better off if Coke keeps more from every can of Coke sold are either highly educated and happen to own shares of Coke, or not particularly qualified to speak on the issue.
Then, the question about whether the stimulus should have had a bunch of tax cuts- it's the same question, but framed a different way. Again, I don't know the answer, but it's definitely not obviously "yes".
Finally, regarding "deregulation", that seems like a totally separate issue. You might argue that with more regulation in the first place, the stimulus would have been unnecessary. Not sure what it's worth, but I think you'd be echoing Alan Greenspan if you took that position.
In summary- I don't really know anything. I do know that some of the conclusions I've heard are wrong, or at least not clearly right. And, I really object to labels- (not saying you're guilty of this), but we wrote briefly about the mosque. A bunch have people have made up their minds knowing nothing more than the religion of the people behind it, without understanding the religion. In this particular issue, like two years ago w/ "socialists", Murdoch has spent the past year introducing "Keynesian" as a term to describe a bunch of people as outcasts lacking in common economic sense.
*You might argue that having more employees is a riskier position, and with taxes diminishing the maximum "reward" for a successful corporation, that the companies will hire fewer workers. But, if you take the approach that dollar amounts are known (it costs x/hr. for an employee to make y widgets, and the price is z), then the optimal number of employees will be the same at any tax rate.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Did you read the article?
Tony,
I have a few things to say in response to your recent posts. First is that "Keynesian" has become the new "socialist", in that it's thrown around in a semi-descriptive half-truth sort of way; I would lay 5-1 that the majority of people using it couldn't even define it.
A basic principle of Keynesian economics is that the invisible hand doesn't always work exactly right (that a bunch of self-interested actors, left to their own devices, won't necessarily lead us to an optimal position). Sometimes, it's necessary for the government to step in and guide the economy, whether it's spending in one place, taxing in another, or cutting taxes someplace else. My reading of her conclusion wasn't that we need to adopt a Reagan-esque (the myth, not the man- he actually spent a buttload of money) tax-cutting and spending-slashing policy- it was basically a "deficit be damned we need to do everything we can to breathe life into the economy now; cut taxes and spend".
I don't disagree that that might be a good short-term strategy, but it's obviously not sustainable in the long run.
The second thing I want to say is, even if Keynesians believed that it is important to steal from the rich and give to the poor, and assuming that Ms. Romer changed her beliefs, why is that like a smoking gun? Just like the Muslims with no knowledge of what might go into the "Ground Zero Mosque (Eff you Jesus, America, and football)" (which I think is the new official name for the thing) shouldn't be able to speak on behalf of the Muslims who want to build the thing, I don't think that her words should carry any more weight when she falls on the other side of an issue than they have for the past couple years.
Finally, to get back to the question that you asked a week ago, whether it could possibly be good for the economy to let some tax cuts expire, the short answer is yes. The argument is:
(1) tax cuts will lead to less tax revenue (a position that's generally difficult, but not impossible, to argue with)
(2) all else being equal, less revenue will mean less of a surplus or a larger deficit (impossible to argue with- depending on a person's intellectual honesty, he might succumb to the temptation to throw "you liberals could just spend less" in there, but that would be ignoring the "all else being equal" part. If you allow finger-pointing, then it gets very difficult to make subtle points)
(3) a larger deficit (or less of a surplus) makes it harder for the country to borrow money, it also means that there is less faith in the dollar, which will make it weaker relative to other currencies. (tough to argue w/ this)
(4) if the dollar seems to be weakening, people w/ capital and the ability to invest elsewhere will, which will slow down the economy.
Basically, if you believe that a deficit is bad for the economy, then you have to be at least partly behind the idea that a tax cut could be bad for the economy. If you don't believe that a deficit is bad for the economy, then you're probably not one of the people complaining about out of control spending.
I have a few things to say in response to your recent posts. First is that "Keynesian" has become the new "socialist", in that it's thrown around in a semi-descriptive half-truth sort of way; I would lay 5-1 that the majority of people using it couldn't even define it.
A basic principle of Keynesian economics is that the invisible hand doesn't always work exactly right (that a bunch of self-interested actors, left to their own devices, won't necessarily lead us to an optimal position). Sometimes, it's necessary for the government to step in and guide the economy, whether it's spending in one place, taxing in another, or cutting taxes someplace else. My reading of her conclusion wasn't that we need to adopt a Reagan-esque (the myth, not the man- he actually spent a buttload of money) tax-cutting and spending-slashing policy- it was basically a "deficit be damned we need to do everything we can to breathe life into the economy now; cut taxes and spend".
I don't disagree that that might be a good short-term strategy, but it's obviously not sustainable in the long run.
The second thing I want to say is, even if Keynesians believed that it is important to steal from the rich and give to the poor, and assuming that Ms. Romer changed her beliefs, why is that like a smoking gun? Just like the Muslims with no knowledge of what might go into the "Ground Zero Mosque (Eff you Jesus, America, and football)" (which I think is the new official name for the thing) shouldn't be able to speak on behalf of the Muslims who want to build the thing, I don't think that her words should carry any more weight when she falls on the other side of an issue than they have for the past couple years.
Finally, to get back to the question that you asked a week ago, whether it could possibly be good for the economy to let some tax cuts expire, the short answer is yes. The argument is:
(1) tax cuts will lead to less tax revenue (a position that's generally difficult, but not impossible, to argue with)
(2) all else being equal, less revenue will mean less of a surplus or a larger deficit (impossible to argue with- depending on a person's intellectual honesty, he might succumb to the temptation to throw "you liberals could just spend less" in there, but that would be ignoring the "all else being equal" part. If you allow finger-pointing, then it gets very difficult to make subtle points)
(3) a larger deficit (or less of a surplus) makes it harder for the country to borrow money, it also means that there is less faith in the dollar, which will make it weaker relative to other currencies. (tough to argue w/ this)
(4) if the dollar seems to be weakening, people w/ capital and the ability to invest elsewhere will, which will slow down the economy.
Basically, if you believe that a deficit is bad for the economy, then you have to be at least partly behind the idea that a tax cut could be bad for the economy. If you don't believe that a deficit is bad for the economy, then you're probably not one of the people complaining about out of control spending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)