Krugman: U.S. Needs Death Panels, Sales Taxes.

[HeinousMark]

no. do you think the government can insure everybody at a 15% profit level

Why does there have to be a profit level? Who gets the profits?

[Goo For You]

I tend to agree, a little. But the fact remains that money/power is a big pie. A small number of people have acquired 99% of that pie, and they have no intention of giving it up, and they still want more. There will be no more pies, ever, there is only one. It used to be shared more equitably, and at this point, it looks like it never will be again, short of a massive revolution. A few people will make it, they'll bust their ass, be smart and adaptive, and above all, lucky... but for the rest, there will simply be nothing but long, hard, drudgery, will very little to show for it, or sucking on the Government tit, however much longer that is an option...THEN things are really gonna get interesting........

Debating the facts is the easy part.

Your observations strike me as quite Amerocentric. If you take a look at Scandinavian countries, you'll see that they are wonderful (as in egalitarian and free) societies that also happen to be (to an American observer often paradoxically) extremely free-market oriented. Even there, the good stuff has not come from squeezing every bit of tax dollars from the 1%, but from a combination of top-rate children's education and a handful of entrepreneurial success stories (such that Silicon Valley churns out daily). Of course, if you would impose on them the kind of poverty US is renowned for (and all the shit that comes with it), it would put a huge strain on the education system (the strain on welfare programs doesn't matter as much as some people would like you to think) and it's not clear that it wouldn't break as it has in the US.

Here's a good rule of thumb for figuring out how stuff works: dollars matter very little (money is something you can print -- unless you're in the Eurozone ); what matters are middle class income (which has stagnated but not in any intelligible sense been "taken" from them by the 1%) and expectations (e.g. if analysts cared about debt Japan would be down the drain with its 250% debt to GDP ratio).

EDIT: Oh and the finance sector is a steaming pile of shit.

EDIT2: That might have sounded like a pro-Occupy statement, but it was not intended as such. I find it funny how the Occupy crowd thinks it has dibs on dissing the finance sector, even though it contributes nothing to the discussion -- which happens to be a discussion that everyone is having, everywhere.

[Goo For You]

i have a question. first you say there's little evidence of debt affecting productivity, then you say krugman has a ouija board that tells him when enough downward pressure is affecting his model. how can a variable that isn't proven to have any affect be used to massage the economy?

Krugman's "ouija board" is actually a simple alteration to ubiquitous growth trend analyses (based on his own estimates of downward pressures from ageing etc). From this he derives a dollar figure for how much "more" money is needed to keep up with the trend.

This amount can be financed either through debt or through taxes.

What "isn't proven" is that the former will have much of an effect on productivity. The same can be said of latter, but at least with that, we get negative incentive effects. Also, it's no secret that tax increases go over well in leftist circles, and in the current climate, "more debt" may be a non-starter even there. Hence my interpretation of Krugman's statement.

the krugster is a big supporter of debt, i don't know if debt is the answer?

if ya took all the income of the middle class, would it put a dent in the debt?

Dollars earned through labor that are in middle class' pockets, and dollars that are on Fed's balance sheet are two very different things. Economists are able to do wonders with the latter, while keeping their hands off the former.

now ya sound like a kook.

[HeinousMark]

Debating the facts is the easy part.

Your observations strike me as quite Amerocentric. If you take a look at Scandinavian countries, you'll see that they are wonderful (as in egalitarian and free) societies that also happen to be (to an American observer often paradoxically) extremely free-market oriented. Even there, the good stuff has not come from squeezing every bit of tax dollars from the 1%, but from a combination of top-rate children's education and a handful of entrepreneurial success stories (such that Silicon Valley churns out daily). Of course, if you would impose on them the kind of poverty US is renowned for (and all the shit that comes with it), it would put a huge strain on the education system (the strain on welfare programs doesn't matter as much as some people would like you to think) and it's not clear that it wouldn't break as it has in the US.

Here's a good rule of thumb for figuring out how stuff works: dollars matter very little (money is something you can print -- unless you're in the Eurozone ); what matters are middle class income (which has stagnated but not in any intelligible sense been "taken" from them by the 1%) and expectations (e.g. if analysts cared about debt Japan would be down the drain with its 250% debt to GDP ratio).

EDIT: Oh and the finance sector is a steaming pile of shit.

EDIT2: That might have sounded like a pro-Occupy statement, but it was not intended as such. I find it funny how the Occupy crowd thinks it has dibs on dissing the finance sector, even though it contributes nothing to the discussion -- which happens to be a discussion that everyone is having, everywhere.

Honestly I don't understand all that, but what I do sounds reasonable. I think we definitely agree that our public education system is a glorious steaming pile of shit, and it was once the envy of the world. Most of Europe, Japan, prolly some others, are running circles around us. Not a good thing.

[Billy]

i volunteer to serve on the death panel for free IF i can rule on Krugman, and on DaveinDiego

[Goo For You]

Honestly I don't understand all that, but what I do sounds reasonable. I think we definitely agree that our public education system is a glorious steaming pile of shit, and it was once the envy of the world. Most of Europe, Japan, prolly some others, are running circles around us. Not a good thing.

Once you have a school system that churns out unemployable graduates, there's really nothing anyone can do to turn these kids' lives around fast enough for them to get back on board. Better stop kidding ourselves about that one.

This is scary stuff, and should be taken way more seriously than it currently is. Read to your kids, people, and get your friends to read books.

Relatedly, you made a good point earlier about income being about luck. When formulated properly, this is really the killer argument; conservatives are (on an intellectual level) powerless in front of it. Naturally it takes a great deal of perseverence and brain power to convince them of anything, but luckily we have extremely smart people trying their best to do that.

I know this here post is a mouthful, but it has great discussion on the topic; it includes, among other amazing things, a libertarian (!) justification for a progressive consumption tax regime.

For everyone who thinks Ron Paul is a libertarian, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Laters.

[RiotGrip]

no. do you think the government can insure everybody at a 15% profit level

The amount dumbness and/or trolling in this comment is staggering. Public option like medicare would run as a non-profit entitiy, they may make profit, they may loose money or they may break even. This is either your attempt to troll as your uninformed right wing internet character, or your complete lack of understanding of the subject at hand.

[Goo For You]

how can a variable that isn't proven to have any affect be used to massage the economy?

I realized I may have failed to address this question properly. Here's another try.

To explain my point, we need to differentiate between short-run and long-run effects. In the short run, debt can be used to stimulate demand during downturns, just like tax cuts. You understand how these effects work, right? (There's also a less prominent right-wing (?) school of thought that thinks this stimulus effect doesn't work, but that's irrelevant not only because we're talking about Krugman's views, which represent the mainstream, but also because in RBCT bad fiscal and monetary policies have relatively little effect on macroeconomic performance.) In the long run, however, it's not at all clear what will happen: Nordic countries seem to perform well with high tax rates, and Japan seems to performs well with a colossal public debt. The evidence seems to suggest these two variables aren't very important determinants of productivity; and so, on a theoretical level, it may be best to assume that other factors can adjust to produce good results under many different types of policy regimes.

[I invented that]

I realized I may have failed to address this question properly. In the long run, it's not at all clear what will happen

that's the the most honest statement i've seen you post. proving a macroeconomic theory's correct is like trying to prove god exists, it can't be done.

[Goo For You]

that's the the most honest statement i've seen you post. proving a macroeconomic theory's correct is like trying to prove god exists, it can't be done.

If you infer from that statement "therefore I can believe in anything I want, neener neener", you may be beyond help.

Based on what you've seen so far, do you believe you'll do well against me in arguing about the philosophy of science?

[Avery]

Nordic countries seem to perform well with high tax rates, and Japan seems to performs well with a colossal public debt. The evidence seems to suggest these two variables aren't very important determinants of productivity; and so, on a theoretical level, it may be best to assume that other factors can adjust to produce good results under many different types of policy regimes.

Please include that nordic countries pay a high personal tax rate and that their corporate tax rates are actually lower than the US, also that they don't have the red tape that the US has, or have any "too big to fail" firms. And if you think Japan 'performs well', well, i'd like a hit of what you're smoking.

[Goo For You]

Please include that nordic countries pay a high personal tax rate and that their corporate tax rates are actually lower than the US, also that they don't have the red tape that the US has, or have any "too big to fail" firms.

This is all irrelevant to the point I was making, but yes, as a whole, the Nordic countries are just as free-market oriented as the US (Denmark somewhat more, Sweden somewhat less). That's always a shocker to people who run around calling everyone "socialist".

Also, you might want to look up Nokia.

And if you think Japan 'performs well', well, i'd like a hit of what you're smoking.

What's your take on Abenomics?

[Avery]

This is all irrelevant to the point I was making, but yes, as a whole, the Nordic countries are just as free-market oriented as the US (Denmark somewhat more, Sweden somewhat less). That's always a shocker to people who run around calling everyone "socialist".

Also, you might want to look up Nokia.



What's your take on Abenomics?

Not to your point, but it's relevant to the people that only get their news from comedy central. As you said, certain revelations can be a "shocker" to the un-informed (progressives on this site).

Abe is new to the game. Interested to see what will happen. NGDP targeting will be implemented by him, according to his rhetoric. Can't wait to see the shit show that will result.

[Goo For You]

BTW, one thing to realize about Scandinavia is that the only reason they aren't making close to a perfect score on the Index of Economic Freedom is because of "government spending", as you can see here. In this category, they are put on par with Cuba and North Korea; and this, as every thinking person should realize, tells us more about the worthlessness of this particular indicator than the inefficiency of Scandinavian public policies.

Keeping in mind that the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank, how's this for an arbitrary and desperate way to make US look good in the indices?

:

[I invented that]

If you infer from that statement "therefore I can believe in anything I want, neener neener",

you can read, i didn't say anything like that. now, instead of proving of your theories you resort to personal attacks.

[Goo For You]

In the long run, it's not at all clear what will happen

that's the the most honest statement i've seen you post. proving a macroeconomic theory's correct is like trying to prove god exists, it can't be done.

Explain how this comment, in the context of our discussion, can be interpreted in any other than the following way:

"I can believe in anything I want, neener neener"

You failed to understand an elementary concept of economics, so I graciously dumbed it down for you. And the best you can do now is to nitpick the dumbed down part of my explanation?

[HeinousMark]

Oh this guy's good.....this is gonna get interesting....

[I invented that]

Explain how this comment, in the context of our discussion, can be interpreted in any other than the following way:



You failed to understand an elementary concept of economics, so I graciously dumbed it down for you. And the best you can do now is to nitpick the dumbed down part of my explanation?

Dumb it down or gussy it up, same results. It's not clear what will happen.

[Goo For You]

Dumb it down or gussy it up, same results. It's not clear what will happen.

Christ. I'll have to dumb it down to the max, then:

The meaning of the sentence you partially quoted is "economists think there's no reason to assume debt (or taxes) will have a long-run effect on productivity, because not enough evidence to support this claim has been found."

Explain how this ruins the credibility of macroeconomics.

[RiotGrip]

Dumb it down or gussy it up, same results. It's not clear what will happen.

Christ. I'll have to dumb it down to the max, then:

The meaning of the sentence you partially quoted is "economists think there's no reason to assume debt (or taxes) will have a long-run effect on productivity, because not enough evidence to support this claim has been found."

Explain how this ruins the credibility of macroeconomics.

This is hilarious I invented that cries like a bitch about Goo for you putting him on ignore. Goo for you takes Iit off ignore and actually tries to debate/explain economics to Iit. Iit clearly has no knowledge of economics beyond balancing a checkbook and the best he can do is say this is all theory we don't know if it work rather than come up with anything close to a counter argument.

I think Iit should have just stayed on ignore and shut up about it, this is getting sad.