2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Dickhead;428064]I don't want to live in any of those places on your list.[/QUOTE]Please note that the USA is on the list. I've visited four of the others and would just as soon live in any of them as the United States. Actually I'd prefer living in any of them to, say, New York City. And I might do that, if I can put together enough cash to afford the exit tax, that's required before they'll let you leave the USA and abandon your citizenship. And if Obama's announced tax and spending plans are implemented. All the sixteen countries by the way are on one or more of the Wikipedia lists of top ten countries by GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;428082]Please note that the USA is on the list. I've visited four of the others and would just as soon live in any of them as the United States. Actually I'd prefer living in any of them to, say, New York City. And I might do that, if I can put together enough cash to afford the exit tax, that's required before they'll let you leave the USA and abandon your citizenship. And if Obama's announced tax and spending plans are implemented. All the sixteen countries by the way are on one or more of the Wikipedia lists of top ten countries by GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power.[/QUOTE]How ludicrous is it when someone who purports to be a Libertarian implies that he'd rather live in a place like Singapore or Hong Kong or Qatar or Kuwait than the U. S? I hope you actually do renounce your USA citizenship and do that. Then you'll see what too much government and not enough freedom is REALLY all about.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;428077]About another of your posts, I applaud you for having the intellectual honesty to recognize that there are other things going on that affect GDP growth, besides the maximum marginal personal income tax rate. 91% tax rates were not the cause of strong economic growth in the USA.[/QUOTE]And yet, interestingly, those 91% tax rates were not an impediment to that growth either.

Don't want to wind up anyone on this board, especially the members that might have forgotten to take their medication, but? Why does Obama not want to release his school transcripts and passport application? If somebody offered me $5 million dollars for my school transcripts and passport application I would not only send them my transcripts and passport application, I would send them my diplomas, school loans, actual passport and offer them a free round the world cruise.

I read Barro's earlier paper, the one he updates, as part of my research back in the 90s, also the Summers paper he cites. In the update, I thought this was interesting:

"growth is insignificantly related to the ratio of public debt to GDP, measured at the start of each period."

If I recall correctly, criticism of Barro's work (to the extent it existed, which it always does) revolved around the quintilization that he refers to. I love where he says,"This relationship is not obvious from the scatter plot, although one can discern such a curve after staring at the diagram for a long time." Never heard a Harvard guy talk like that. Anyway the r-squared is very low. I have no problem believing this to be true: "For growth, there is an indication that inequality retards growth in poor countries but encourages growth in richer places." And then the sign change or instability in the poorer countries is likely from drastic changes in the regimes.

In the figures at the end of the paper, I don't see where he used income inequality as an independent variable. Did he throw that out because the r-squared was too low? The size of the inflation impact surprised me. I knew it was negative. I'd like to see an individual regression on that, as opposed to being part of a multiple one.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;428077]The best way is to reduce inequality is through education and eliminating government handouts to the relatively wealthy, be they Wall Street bankers or corn farmers.[/QUOTE]I agree with that completely. All agricultural subsidies and tariff barriers must go. I suggest a 5-7 year phaseout to allow for factor utilization to adjust. But that Horatio Alger stuff about hard work and thrift under capitalism is bullshit. It's all about the class you were born into. 96% of the time. I know plenty of hard working, thrifty people who have worked all their lives just to be poor. I also know a lot of rich jack-offs. In fact, my goal was to be a rich jack-off but I fell a bit short of the rich part.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;428084]And yet, interestingly, those 91% tax rates were not an impediment to that growth either.[/QUOTE]Why do you say 91% tax rates weren't an impediment? Do you honestly believe that? Maybe growth was 4%, but would have been 5% or higher if the tax system made sense. Over many years that makes a tremendous difference. I wasn't alive then so don't know a lot. I do know people with money looked for anyway they could to avoid taxable income. Drilling lousy oil wells and dry holes for instance. They'd rather have the write off than give the money to the government. That sort of behavior can't be good for the economy, or the overall level of prosperity.

[QUOTE=El Alamo;428086]Don't want to wind up anyone on this board, especially the members that might have forgotten to take their medication, but? Why does Obama not want to release his school transcripts and passport application? If somebody offered me $5 million dollars for my school transcripts and passport application I would not only send them my transcripts and passport application, I would send them my diplomas, school loans, actual passport and offer them a free round the world cruise.[/QUOTE]The money is being offered to a charity of Obama's choosing and not the individual.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgOq9pBkY0I[/url]

[QUOTE=Member #2041;428083]How ludicrous is it when someone who purports to be a Libertarian implies that he'd rather live in a place like Singapore or Hong Kong or Qatar or Kuwait than the U. S? I hope you actually do renounce your USA citizenship and do that. Then you'll see what too much government and not enough freedom is REALLY all about.[/QUOTE]Unh unh unh. Data mining. BAD #2041. Now you are beating up on the straw man. Tiny did not mention he would live in any of those countries. Don't fudge the data to make your points. Go to your room.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;428090]Why do you say 91% tax rates weren't an impediment? Do you honestly believe that? Maybe growth was 4%, but would have been 5% or higher if the tax system made sense. Over many years that makes a tremendous difference. I wasn't alive then so don't know a lot. I do know people with money looked for anyway they could to avoid taxable income. Drilling lousy oil wells and dry holes for instance. They'd rather have the write off than give the money to the government. That sort of behavior can't be good for the economy, or the overall level of prosperity.[/QUOTE]It wasn't an impediment because only like six people paid those rates.

[QUOTE=Rc Collins; 428091]The money is being offered to a charity of Obama's choosing and not the individual.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgOq9pBkY0I[/url][/QUOTE]OK, I rescind the free round the world cruise, but the rest stands

[QUOTE=Dickhead;428065]The facts are that income inequality and GDP are negatively correlated. That is what you need to debunk, but you can't, because it's true. But you are welcome to try. Only with data, though, not with rhetoric.[/QUOTE]Why would I try to debunk something that is a fact of nature? The inequality of outcomes is as important to the perpetuation of mankind as are water and air. Someone's financial successful does not ascribe one's value to society. Many, many people compete for things that are non-pecuniary, everyday. However, if there is nothing for which to compete, mankind will take a pass. So, why on earth do liberals spend so much time trying to reprogram human nature at its core (which has and will always fail) as opposed to shepherding and guiding it?

Why is income inequality bad? That is income inequality, not poverty. They aren't the same thing (BTW).


The correlation between income inequality and GDP growth is derivative of the fact that in order for GDP to grow, someone has to be making some more money. Gee, that really seems evil. We should make capitalism illegal (that isn't directed at you DH, I know you are not completely lost).

[QUOTE=Dickhead;428093]It wasn't an impediment because only like six people paid those rates.[/QUOTE]Higher tax rate regimes, at least in US history, have had a disproportionately negative impact on lower and middle income families (check it out in the Commerce Dept's data. Better use them now, before I get in office and eliminate them). Therefore, I would posit that, in truth, the inverse of your statement would be more factual.

[QUOTE=Dickhead; 428088]I read Barro's earlier paper, the one he updates, as part of my research back in the 90s, also the Summers paper he cites. In the update, I thought this was interesting:

"growth is insignificantly related to the ratio of public debt to GDP, measured at the start of each period."[/QUOTE]Barrio is a writer? I thought that was Spanish for neighborhood and that by using the different names and my tourista map, I could find mas privados.

*Please don't make me point out that this was an attempt at humor.

Trump is a buffoon. A rich buffoon but nonetheless, a buffoon. However, I don't think he is stupid nor do I think he does things, especially very public things, without considerable thought. He's always had the ability to do something like this, that is to say he could make a public offer like this to draw the president out (birth certificate, college application, etc) or offer a bounty to people in a position to provide legally obtained materials. However, I don't think any of us (I'll even include Esten and Member #whatever) are dumb enough to think that such an act would have any lasting value. It is cheap headline-grabbing tactic that has no legs. I don't see any way that Trump's ploy could effect the polls in any way. I doubt Trump's assessment of the situation is any different. Why then why would he do it? I'm guessing that he always known that he had the ability to suck the wind out of a day's news cycle, if and when, he thought such an act was needed. I think he kept his powder dry (less than two weeks until Obama gets his pink slip) just in case some scum-sucking worm like Gloria Albad (I don't want her name to appear here, she'd probably look for chicas to represent to get back pay based on US rates) popped her head out of the anal cavern within which she was hiding. I suspect that it was just an attempt to push Gloria's October "Surprise" (her OS is a surprise in the same vein as a hershey squirt is a surprise) off the list of top stories in the news cycle. If you can force a news item onto the shelf for 48 hours, you might well kill it (unless it has something to do with dereliction of duty, resulting in the deaths of four Americans).

As for Gloria Alscum's big surprise, it is a dud. I think she hung all of her hopes on the Romney campaign fighting the unsealing of the record. Oops, small miscalculation. As for the 'explosive' content, what a crock. Nobody cares about some lady that is still bitter about her divorce settlement. 25 years later. The American public doesn't have the attention span, nor the interest in a valuation analysis of a private company, circa the late 80's. It must be like having sand in her panties that Romney is squeaky clean.