USA & World Economics

[QUOTE=Member #3320; 429397]Have been reading / researching about the US tax system for past 100 years.

In 1936, the US government began circulating a series of pamphlets to explain its brand new Social Security program, plus the associated taxes. Initially, the Social Security tax was set at 2. The government promised it would rise to 3% in 1949, with no additional increases EVER.

In 1949, the tax rose to 3% as scheduled. But it only took five years for the government to break its promise. The tax rose to 4% in 1954, 4.5% in 1957, 5% in 1959. And continued to rise for decades. On January 1st. 2013 it will be 12. 4.

Politicians routinely make bold promises about tax policy. And they almost always end up being lies. Raising taxes, I. E. Plundering the wealth of citizens, is one of the oldest tactics in the playbook for insolvent governments, and you can be 100% certain that your taxes will increase despite any promises to the contrary.

Perhaps most dangerously, politicians fail to understand that raising tax rates does NOT actually increase government tax revenue.

In the US, for example, government tax revenue has consistently been 17. 7% of GDP since the end of World War II, plus / minus a very tight band. Similarly, the British government has consistently collected 35% of GDP in tax revenue.

Yet over the decades, tax rates have been all over the board. From 0% to over 90% Plus variations in corporate profits tax, payroll tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax, and (for the Brits) VAT.

Rates go up, rates go down. It doesn't affect overall government tax revenue one bit. Despite the obvious facts, though, politicians keep raising tax rates.

On January 1, 2013, the US government will impose what a friend of mine, a top US tax attorney calls the biggest tax increase in the history of the world. And some of the rate increases are simply extraordinary.

The estate tax exemption, for instance, is being slashed by EIGHTY PERCENT! And the amount that the Obama administration will tax the rest of your estate will increase to a whopping 55%

Moreover, dividend tax rates are set to rise from 15% to as high as 43. 4. This affects not only US taxpayers, but everyone on the planet who invests in the US stock market.

Remember Finance 101– the price of a stock is theoretically the present value of discounted future cash flows. In English, this means that share prices should rise and fall based on the market's expectations about future earnings. And over the long run, future dividends.

As a result of this tax policy, many investorswho own shares in US companies will now see their after-tax dividends slashed by 33. And since their investment returns are falling so dramatically, it stands to reason that the investments themselves become less valuable.

This is putting a lot of downward pressure on stock prices, affecting almost everyone who currently owns US shares– pension funds and retirement accounts, rich and middle class, US and non-US citizens alike. It's as if the US government is hanging a sign over the country saying 'PLEASE DO NOT INVEST HERE. ' It's genius.

This is the tip of the iceberg. Taxes will keep rising. Investment returns will be destroyed. Any incentive to start a business will be destroyed. Any benefit to your heirs for what you have worked your entire life to pass on will be destroyed.

All of this because a handful of morally bankrupt individuals who run financially bankrupt governments fail to understand simple truths about tax policy.

Bear this in mind over the next few weeks, because many new taxes will take effect on January 1st, and it's imperative to take defensive action first. I strongly recommend all US mongers, consulting with your tax advisor as soon as possible.

Sinking titanic sinks further!

Suerte.[/QUOTE]Nice post! Big Government requires big taxes.

[QUOTE=Member #3320; 429397]Have been reading / researching about the US tax system for past 100 years.

In 1936, the US government began circulating a series of pamphlets to explain its brand new Social Security program, plus the associated taxes. Initially, the Social Security tax was set at 2. The government promised it would rise to 3% in 1949, with no additional increases EVER.

In 1949, the tax rose to 3% as scheduled. But it only took five years for the government to break its promise. The tax rose to 4% in 1954, 4.5% in 1957, 5% in 1959. And continued to rise for decades. On January 1st. 2013 it will be 12. 4.

Politicians routinely make bold promises about tax policy. And they almost always end up being lies. Raising taxes, I. E. Plundering the wealth of citizens, is one of the oldest tactics in the playbook for insolvent governments, and you can be 100% certain that your taxes will increase despite any promises to the contrary.

Perhaps most dangerously, politicians fail to understand that raising tax rates does NOT actually increase government tax revenue.

In the US, for example, government tax revenue has consistently been 17. 7% of GDP since the end of World War II, plus / minus a very tight band. Similarly, the British government has consistently collected 35% of GDP in tax revenue.

Yet over the decades, tax rates have been all over the board. From 0% to over 90% Plus variations in corporate profits tax, payroll tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax, and (for the Brits) VAT.

Rates go up, rates go down. It doesn't affect overall government tax revenue one bit. Despite the obvious facts, though, politicians keep raising tax rates.

On January 1, 2013, the US government will impose what a friend of mine, a top US tax attorney calls the biggest tax increase in the history of the world. And some of the rate increases are simply extraordinary.

The estate tax exemption, for instance, is being slashed by EIGHTY PERCENT! And the amount that the Obama administration will tax the rest of your estate will increase to a whopping 55%

Moreover, dividend tax rates are set to rise from 15% to as high as 43. 4. This affects not only US taxpayers, but everyone on the planet who invests in the US stock market.

Remember Finance 101– the price of a stock is theoretically the present value of discounted future cash flows. In English, this means that share prices should rise and fall based on the market's expectations about future earnings. And over the long run, future dividends.

As a result of this tax policy, many investorswho own shares in US companies will now see their after-tax dividends slashed by 33. And since their investment returns are falling so dramatically, it stands to reason that the investments themselves become less valuable.

This is putting a lot of downward pressure on stock prices, affecting almost everyone who currently owns US shares– pension funds and retirement accounts, rich and middle class, US and non-US citizens alike. It's as if the US government is hanging a sign over the country saying 'PLEASE DO NOT INVEST HERE. ' It's genius.

This is the tip of the iceberg. Taxes will keep rising. Investment returns will be destroyed. Any incentive to start a business will be destroyed. Any benefit to your heirs for what you have worked your entire life to pass on will be destroyed.

All of this because a handful of morally bankrupt individuals who run financially bankrupt governments fail to understand simple truths about tax policy.

Bear this in mind over the next few weeks, because many new taxes will take effect on January 1st, and it's imperative to take defensive action first. I strongly recommend all US mongers, consulting with your tax advisor as soon as possible.

Sinking titanic sinks further!

Suerte.[/QUOTE]Raising taxes on dividends and short-term capital gains in the current economic environment and under today's monetary policy will NOT have a downward effect on the prices of equities in the United States. With interest rates at or near zero for the foreseeable future there is simply NO WHERE ELSE to put your money and hope to get any kind of decent return except for equities. Reform of the tax code is needed as a few "millionaire" tax brackets should be created for those earning $1-$5 million, $10 million+, etc, something like 38-40% for incomes at that level. People earning $400k are not rich and should not be paying 39. 6.

[QUOTE=SnakeOilSales;429401]Raising taxes on dividends and short-term capital gains in the current economic environment and under today's monetary policy will NOT have a downward effect on the prices of equities in the United States. With interest rates at or near zero for the foreseeable future there is simply NO WHERE ELSE to put your money and hope to get any kind of decent return except for equities. Reform of the tax code is needed as a few "millionaire" tax brackets should be created for those earning $1-$5 million, $10 million+, etc, something like 38-40% for incomes at that level. People earning $400k are not rich and should not be paying 39. 6.[/QUOTE]Easy for you to play with other peoples money!

[QUOTE=Silver Star;429402]Easy for you to play with other peoples money![/QUOTE]So what exactly is YOUR plan for addressing the deficit? Run your mouth? We get that you are anti-everything but do you have any ideas, at all?

[QUOTE=Dickhead;429410]So what exactly is YOUR plan for addressing the deficit? Run your mouth? We get that you are anti-everything but do you have any ideas, at all?[/QUOTE]Dramatic spending cuts! (that was easy)

[QUOTE=Silver Star;429415]Dramatic spending cuts! (that was easy)[/QUOTE]Easy, but lacking in substance and reeking of 1929.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;429416]Easy, but lacking in substance and reeking of 1929.[/QUOTE]Reeking of March 1789!

[QUOTE=Silver Star;429415]Dramatic spending cuts! (that was easy)[/QUOTE]So you are OK with the next great depression that would result from that?

The simple fact is, affluent Americans pay FAR LESS in taxes than they have during any prior period of prosperity over the past 65 years. It's utterly absurd to suggest that they can't handle a bit more of their share of the burden.

Oh, and to answer Jackson's question about how much tax burden the wealthiest 10% of Americans should incur, I'd suggest somewhere between what they paid during the Reagan years, and the Clinton years, as a percentage of their overall slice of the income pie, since those were two of the most prosperous periods in the history of the U.S, so clearly, that burden quite obviously did not act as a break on American prosperity.

BTW, I do agree that dramatic spending cuts in the Military portion of the U.S. budget would be highly beneficial, long term.

Does anyone of you patrons know the true thinking in BsAS on this potentially catastrophic financial issue? Will Kristina take the 'nuclear-option' and refuse to post the $1. 3 Billion required to appeal the US court decision, forcing a default on the bond payments due on 15 December? The US Court of Appeals decision notwithstanding, the negative ramifications are endless – an authentic mess!

I believe Argentina will default on this payment because of some type of misplaced national pride. Following that, I would expect more seizures of Argentine ships, planes, goods, etc. Immediately after this default I think you will be able to get 8 pesos to the dollar.

The US 2nd Circuit of Appeals has ruled late this afternoon in Argentina's favor, meaning Judge Griesa ruling is suspended until at least February 27, 2013 at which time Argentina will have to present oral arguments before the court.

SOS, that's good to hear. I'll have to get my hands and that more recent ruling. An extension until February could allow Argentina to make the 15 December payment, thus relieving a lot of anxiety, in the short-term.

Unfortunately, I too foresee an eventual default resulting in devaluation, and even more local hardship as the perceived pariah gets further banned from capital markets. The seizure of more 'worthless' Argentina assets seems like a waste of time, but maybe designed merely to embarrass and humiliate the government. Besides, I always figured the Sovereign Immunities Act eliminated the possibility.

On the upside, however, the impact of the court's decision related to 'pari passu' on faltering Euro country sovereign debt is advantageous for my personal swap strategy there.

[QUOTE=Member #2041; 429429]So you are OK with the next great depression that would result from that?

The simple fact is, affluent Americans pay FAR LESS in taxes than they have during any prior period of prosperity over the past 65 years. It's utterly absurd to suggest that they can't handle a bit more of their share of the burden.

Oh, and to answer Jackson's question about how much tax burden the wealthiest 10% of Americans should incur, I'd suggest somewhere between what they paid during the Reagan years, and the Clinton years, as a percentage of their overall slice of the income pie, since those were two of the most prosperous periods in the history of the U. S, so clearly, that burden quite obviously did not act as a break on American prosperity.

BTW, I do agree that dramatic spending cuts in the Military portion of the USA budget would be highly beneficial, long term.[/QUOTE]Everyone has to work within a budget. If you took every dollar from every person in the top 10% it wouldn't be enough. Every Democratic Administration in the last 50 years has taken an ax to the Defense Budget. What has it gotten us. The Korean War. Cold war tension. The Days of being able to take months to build up to fight a war are over. The Chinese have just launched their first Carrier. Granted it will take years before it is truly operational. We have to be ready to go anywhere at anytime and project power. I know I sleep well at night knowing that tough men are patrolling some god-awful piece of real estate watching my back

[QUOTE=Romanee;429849]Everyone has to work within a budget. If you took every dollar from every person in the top 10% it wouldn't be enough. Every Democratic Administration in the last 50 years has taken an ax to the Defense Budget. What has it gotten us. The Korean War. Cold war tension. The Days of being able to take months to build up to fight a war are over. The Chinese have just launched their first Carrier. Granted it will take years before it is truly operational. We have to be ready to go anywhere at anytime and project power. I know I sleep well at night knowing that tough men are patrolling some god-awful piece of real estate watching my back[/QUOTE]

It's laughable to suggest that those wars were a function of the cuts to the Defense budget. They were a function of the Soviet Union trying to match our global influence, something they've given up on. Of course you need to combine the increases in tax rates at the top with spending cuts. It would certainly be reasonable to cut the USA defense budget by at least 10% - and most of that could be done just by bringing down the nuclear arsenal some more, cutting a handful of our overseas bases, and pulling out of Afghanistan. 5% could be knocked out of most entitlement programs with not much more than streamlining the most obvious bureaucracy - Without even hitting any real benefits that are being given to constituents. If capital gains rates were returned to 20%, and the top marginal rates were upped to 36 and 39% again, in conjunction with the aforementioned cuts, you'd have a real legitimate start to getting things back on track. Then, if you wanted to make SS solvent, just eliminate the cap on taxes for wages above $110K.

The Chinese carrier is lower tech than what we were using in the 1960s, and their fighter jets are in line with what we had in the 1980s. We're 30+ years ahead of them.

The fact is, we are well on the way to energy independence - and once we are immutably achieving that - in 12-15 years or so, we can drastically ratchet down our defense and foreign aid expenditures throughout the Middle East.

[QUOTE=Romanee;429849]Everyone has to work within a budget. If you took every dollar from every person in the top 10% it wouldn't be enough. Every Democratic Administration in the last 50 years has taken an ax to the Defense Budget. What has it gotten us. The Korean War. Cold war tension. The Days of being able to take months to build up to fight a war are over. The Chinese have just launched their first Carrier. Granted it will take years before it is truly operational. We have to be ready to go anywhere at anytime and project power. I know I sleep well at night knowing that tough men are patrolling some god-awful piece of real estate watching my back[/QUOTE]I know that we have Sylvester, Arnold, Bruce, Matt, Samuel, even Clint to draw back on.

[QUOTE=Member #2041; 429852]

The fact is, we are well on the way to energy independence. And once we are immutably achieving that. In 12-15 years or so, we can drastically ratchet down our defense and foreign aid expenditures throughout the Middle East.[/QUOTE]I agree with most of what you wrote about defense, but not the above.

The USA could be a net exporter of energy in 12 to 15 years. But it won't happen, because the Democrats that will control the federal government will make it more difficult to use coal and nuclear, more difficult to explore for oil and gas on federal lands and offshore, more difficult to use hydraulic fracturing, and possibly more difficult to export LNG.

We will not be self sufficient again in oil under any reasonable scenario. It's very difficult to understand why Obama prevented or delayed the Keystone pipeline, and provided the Canadians with an incentive to construct a pipeline from Alberta to the west coast, where their oil can be exported to China and other Asian countries. If there were only the Keystone pipeline, we'd have a captive source of supply from immense reserves. Somewhere between the 2nd and 4th largest in the world, depending on which list you look at. We should have been doing everything we could to encourage the Keystone pipeline, and discourage sales to China. If we were successful, then we might be in a position, as you say, to ratchet down our defense expenditures in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, though, Obama sees this issue as something that helps Democrats politically. I'm assuming he's not stupid enough to really believe that the pipeline isn't in the best interests of the USA.

We don't want to become energy self-sufficient with coal or nuclear or fracking. We want to do it with innovative, clean technology. Increased funding for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education is a step in the right direction. Might, just might, have to protect nascent domestic industry for a while, as regards energy. That would be a lot better than this stupid shoe tariff they are getting ready to raise.

Do you really want to export natural gas given that the supply is finite? I mean, if the price is right, maybe, but it would not be my choice of where to increase exports, especially given the non-quantifiable but very real negative externalities of these extractive industries.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;429908]We don't want to become energy self-sufficient with coal or nuclear or fracking. We want to do it with innovative, clean technology. Increased funding for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education is a step in the right direction. Might, just might, have to protect nascent domestic industry for a while, as regards energy. That would be a lot better than this stupid shoe tariff they are getting ready to raise.

Do you really want to export natural gas given that the supply is finite? I mean, if the price is right, maybe, but it would not be my choice of where to increase exports, especially given the non-quantifiable but very real negative externalities of these extractive industries.[/QUOTE]

Dickhead, renewables won't provide a large percentage of our energy needs during our lifetimes. They won't be economic, we can't afford them. One or two hundred years from now they probably will, especially if you consider nuclear breeder reactors as renewable.

Actually I do agree that other energy sources are preferable to coal, but the rapid switch away from coal mandated by Obama will be difficult, expensive and unnecessary. Nuclear, and hydraulic fracturing (necessary to produce our natural gas resources), aren't that risky compared to coal. They provide energy with low or no carbon emissions.

Nuclear shouldn't be an issue right now, if we're talking about building new reactors. It's cheaper to produce energy from natural gas. New nuclear facilities only become viable if you've got paranoia about fracking and a zero tolerance policy for carbon emissions.

With respect to natural gas, the price is right. It sells for over $12/MMBTU in Asia versus less than $4/MMBTU in the USA. We're sitting on enough, if roadblocks aren't put in the way of hydraulic fracturing, than you can export, still provide cheap feedstock/energy to domestic users and have enough so that it won't run out before you do have economic renewables or can afford to pay out the ass to get energy from coal in an economically friendly way, many years from now.

Hydraulic fracking is causing sinkholes, changing water tables, and contamination of wells in my area. Of course coal mining does all that and more. I am not familiar with Obama' exact stance on coal and it isn't a field of expertise for me, but as you know I don't favor doing anything too rapidly. I do believe it will be [B]necessary[/B] to do some difficult and expensive things to get out energy policy where it needs to be. Nukes are for kooks.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;429918]Hydraulic fracking is causing sinkholes, changing water tables, and contamination of wells in my area. Of course coal mining does all that and more. I am not familiar with Obama' exact stance on coal and it isn't a field of expertise for me, but as you know I don't favor doing anything too rapidly. I do believe it will be [B]necessary[/B] to do some difficult and expensive things to get out energy policy where it needs to be. Nukes are for kooks.[/QUOTE]I actually know something about that. You live in an exceptional area. The formations there that are producing the gas are also aquifers for drinking water. It's possible fracking should be banned where you live. It's 100% true that if it's not banned, the chemicals used in the fracking fluid should be heavily regulated, to protect drinking water. For most of the gas shales, and even for the coal seams and tight sands farther south and southeast of where you live, contaminating potable water supplies isn't a significant risk. As you say coal is worse. If you rule out coal and natural gas nukes are all that's left.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;429918]Hydraulic fracking is causing sinkholes, changing water tables, and contamination of wells in my area. Of course coal mining does all that and more.s.[/QUOTE]In particular please reference Wyoming and Montana deposits that lie very close to the surface. Quite a sweeping statement you have made regarding coal dude. Please show me what it is based upon. Toymann

Ps. You might as well also support your statement about franking in the balkin formation. Where do you live? If it a problem there then why do it? I am guessing you have no supporting information pertaining to North Dakota and you are just talking out of your ass. Please prove me wrong!

Toymann, Since this is a monger's board, I won't mention where Dickhead lives. But anyway it's along the northwest margin of a geologic basin and it just so happens that in that particular part of the basin, the gas zones are intermingled with water zones, some of which are used for drinking.

You're right about the Bakken, and most other areas that are being fracked. In most places the danger is if you have a bad cement job behind the pipe, so that, say, you're trying to frac a zone at 5, 000 feet but you end up with frac fluid going into an aquifer at 2, 000 feet. This doesn't happen very often though. The safety and environmental risks associated with fracking are minimal compared with what we get out of it. A clean, cheap energy source with low carbon emissions.

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 429924]Toymann, Since this is a monger's board, I won't mention where Dickhead lives. But anyway it's along the northwest margin of a geologic basin and it just so happens that in that particular part of the basin, the gas zones are intermingled with water zones, some of which are used for drinking.

You're right about the Bakken, and most other areas that are being fracked. In most places the danger is if you have a bad cement job behind the pipe, so that, say, you're trying to frac a zone at 5, 000 feet but you end up with frac fluid going into an aquifer at 2, 000 feet. This doesn't happen very often though. The safety and environmental risks associated with fracking are minimal compared with what we get out of it. A clean, cheap energy source with low carbon emissions.[/QUOTE]Global brush strokes like the statement from professor Dick usually entertain me, but in our current political environment they kinda make me sick! More political based than factual based. The professor should know better but me thinks his real agenda is starting to poke its ugly head out of the ground. I am sure that Dick's next lecture will be all about global warming. LOL. Happy mongering all. Toymann

First let me state that I am in no way saying cease all coal mining immediately. I am saying there are many disadvantages to coal and we should move away from it. Even the industry itself, in the form of the World Coal Association, concedes,"Coal mining, particularly surface mining, requires large areas of land to be temporarily disturbed. This raises a number of environmental challenges, including soil erosion, dust, noise and water pollution, and impacts on local biodiversity."

So let me cite, first, a sort of beginner's version of the issues:

[url]http://www.environment911.org/160.12_Environmental_Effects_of_Coal_Mining[/url]

Then I will follow with a very well-known study that got bipartisan funding:

[url]www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/Cradle_to_Grave.pdf[/url]

And because I know Toymann is a Harvard alumnus and loves academic studies:

[url]http://chge.med.harvard.edu/resource/mining-coal-mounting-costs-life-cycle-consequences-coal[/url]

Finally, the following article is quite well-sourced:

[url]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_impacts_of_coal[/url]

[QUOTE=Dickhead; 429938]First let me state that I am in no way saying cease all coal mining immediately. I am saying there are many disadvantages to coal and we should move away from it. Even the industry itself, in the form of the World Coal Association, concedes,"Coal mining, particularly surface mining, requires large areas of land to be temporarily disturbed. This raises a number of environmental challenges, including soil erosion, dust, noise and water pollution, and impacts on local biodiversity."

So let me cite, first, a sort of beginner's version of the issues:

[url]http://www.environment911.org/160.12_Environmental_Effects_of_Coal_Mining[/url]

Then I will follow with a very well-known study that got bipartisan funding:

[url]www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/Cradle_to_Grave.pdf[/url]

And because I know Toymann is a Harvard alumnus and loves academic studies:

[url]http://chge.med.harvard.edu/resource/mining-coal-mounting-costs-life-cycle-consequences-coal[/url]

Finally, the following article is quite well-sourced:

[url]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_impacts_of_coal[/url][/QUOTE]I will be happy to review your references and respond. That said, you're couched comment about " temporarily disturbing" the soil kinda sends a message. What the heck do you think mining is professor? Does common sense even exist in your world. Please review google map coordinates for Gillette Wyoming and Colstrip Montana. I am betting that you are not aware, as a result of years of government regulation, that once the coal has been extracted from the ground that the site must be almost immediately returned to its original condition, right down to the number of sage bushes, once the mining has been completed. Right down to the number of sage bushes! Talk about over regulation professor! You wonder why we are dependent on foreign sources of energy. I repeat, right down to number of sage bushes! Of course, in your silly academic world I suppose you would be in favor of mining as long as it didn't "temporarily disturb the soil". Although I graduated from the equivalent of an Ivy League university I am guessing that your cv might not look that impressive, but I am just speculating and may be wrong. LMAO!"Temporarily disturbing" the soil. That is just too damn funny. Monger on Dick. Toymann.

Ps. What a revelation Dick, the world coal association conceded that mining temporarily disturbs the earth. Wow, I am speechless! LMAO dude! That considered in itself, I reconsider, you are right, coal is bad! Windmills are good! What was I thinking!

Your references 1, 2 and 4 are nothing but political spew cites without any engineering or scientific basis what so ever! Come on, we are all not that stupid.

Your Harvard reference is laughable at best, totally agenda driven without any scientific credibility at all. Check out the About Us tab on the site.

About Us.

The Center was founded in 1996 to study and promote a wider understanding of the human health consequences of global environmental change.

The Center is an official Collaborating Center of the U. N. Environmental Programme, and is one of the most trusted sources of information on this subject in the world.

Just ask them, they are totally on point! IALOTFLMAO! Your research paper gets a D minus at best professor. Sadly, you need to at least find some scientific basis for your statement. Your basis for your opinion is just as hollow and lacking in science as our current presidents position. Totally, political driven without even the slightest founding in science or engineering. Your agenda is now out for all to see brother. You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found WANTING! Better luck next time and thanks for playing. If I have hurt your feeling please forgive me. I am under strict orders from Esten and the newly reformed politically correct El Jeffe to neither offend nor insult board members. Please take my banter with a grain of salt! I apologize in advance if I have offended any liberal betchs sensibilities! Monger on Dichhead. Toymann.

Ps. As we say when playing bridge, never send a boy to do a mans job! LOL!

[QUOTE=Dickhead;429938]And because I know Toymann is a Harvard alumnus and loves academic studies:[/QUOTE]If that's true, it explains an awful lot about Toymann's internet persona. But it doesn't explain how the Admissions office in Cambridge let their standards slip so far.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;429950]If that's true, it explains an awful lot about Toymann's internet persona. But it doesn't explain how the Admissions office in Cambridge let their standards slip so far.[/QUOTE]I believe Toymann referenced going to another school below, not Harvard.

Aside from tman though, out of curiosity what do you mean re: being a Harvard grad explaining a lot about his internet persona? Are you saying for the most part or all Harvard grads are as Tman's internet persona portrays?

[QUOTE=Mpexy; 429954]I believe Toymann referenced going to another school below, not Harvard.

Aside from tman though, out of curiosity what do you mean re: being a Harvard grad explaining a lot about his internet persona? Are you saying for the most part or all Harvard grads are as Tman's internet persona portrays?[/QUOTE]Certainly not ALL Harvard grads, no. Just an unusually large percentage of them out of the overall population of Harvard grads. For example, Mitt Romney, but not Barack Obama.

In the interest of disclosure, I am a Brown and University of Chicago graduate. One might even contend that as such, I am biased against Harvard grads. If so, it would only be because I have interacted with an inordinate number of them.

I was joking about Toymann being a Harvard grad. There are many ways to get an education and fucking a lot of hookers from an early age is certainly one of them so that is what I did and it may indeed have left some gaps in my own education, similar to being sick the day they covered that subject. Now, as far as world economics go, you have two tools: monetary policy and fiscal policy. Libs want a contractionary fiscal policy and Dems say that will lead to recession right now. What specific steps do you fucks, I mean folks, want to take?

[QUOTE=Dickhead;429976]Now, as far as world economics go, you have two tools: monetary policy and fiscal policy. Libs want a contractionary fiscal policy and Dems say that will lead to recession right now. What specific steps do you fucks, I mean folks, want to take?[/QUOTE]I actually took a stab at this in post #94 of this thread. I was surprised to see that all of the discussion which followed stemmed from my almost offhand comment about heading toward energy independence down the road, and nothing else I mentioned garnered any comments at all.

I know. Republicans' and Libertarians' grasp of basic economics is just embarrassing on any level. It's like you took a whole bunch of home schooled Mormons and put them in charge of the economy. All I can do about that is apologize.

But here's an interesting bit of data about the economic disaster Obama inherited, and the recovery ever since:

You will note that the major inflection point in the graph and article below corresponds to the implementation of Obama's stimulus package in Q1 of 2009:

[url]http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/record-corporate-profits/[/url]

Apparently, Obama has failed at socialism and communism, but is doing pretty well at capitalism.

You know a lot more about economics than I do. So explain something. Are / were Milton Friedman, Glenn Hubbard, Martin Feldstein, and half of economists working in the private sector idiots? Was Alan Greenspan (Libertarian/Republican economist) a big believer in contractionary monetary policy? Have Republican presidents and Congresses since World War II starved the economy during recessions? Do Libertarians, who are about ½ of 1% of the electorate, count for anything in the USA? Was a short term increase in profits of corporations and decrease in unemployment worth trillions in additional debt? Do scale and efficiency count for anything, or if you see a problem (like recession) do you just throw as much money as you can at it and hope some will stick, with little thought to how you're going to pay it back?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;430029]You know a lot more about economics than I do. So explain something. Are / were Milton Friedman, Glenn Hubbard, Martin Feldstein, and half of economists working in the private sector idiots? Was Alan Greenspan (Libertarian/Republican economist) a big believer in contractionary monetary policy? Have Republican presidents and Congresses since World War II starved the economy during recessions? Do Libertarians, who are about ½ of 1% of the electorate, count for anything in the USA? Was a short term increase in profits of corporations and decrease in unemployment worth trillions in additional debt? Do scale and efficiency count for anything, or if you see a problem (like recession) do you just throw as much money as you can at it and hope some will stick, with little thought to how you're going to pay it back?[/QUOTE]Well, Milton Friedman has been dead since before the financial crisis occurred, so we don't know what he would have thought about it. But much of what happened from late 2006 through early 2009 was stuff that he believed would not have happened as markets self-corrected. So, while he was not an idiot, significant aspects of his world view were discredited during the last financial collapse. And Greenspan proved to be much more of a political hack. Going against quite a bit of what he supposedly stood for to pump up the economy while he was at the helm at the Fed. But the fact is, as long as there is a Democrat in the White House, we DO see Republicans pushing to starve the economy during recessions. Which, for some reason, they never have done when there has been a Republican President - but they did it when Clinton was President, and have done it under Obama - of course they did not do it when George W. Bush was in the White House, nor did they do it under Reagan or Bush Sr.

Supply side policies, normally associated with Republicans and with tenets such as Say's Law and the quantity theory of money, will work eventually. It is just that Keynesian or demand side policies, associated with Democrats, work faster. So the essential difference is what happens in the meantime. It seems to me that Republicans are kind of mean and don't give a shit about two or three years of privation while their 'laissez-faire' or 'free market' policies go to work at the speed of frozen snot. There is ample research that agrees with what I just said, and I've posted much of this evidence, including conclusive proof that real GDP is higher and unemployment is lower under Democratic regimes. Libertarians won't be taken seriously until and unless their economic 'policy' becomes much more clearly defined. Specifically, if you want to advocate a flat tax you had better come up with a [B]rate[/B].

[QUOTE=Dickhead;430044]Supply side policies, normally associated with Republicans and with tenets such as Say's Law and the quantity theory of money, will work eventually. It is just that Keynesian or demand side policies, associated with Democrats, work faster. So the essential difference is what happens in the meantime. It seems to me that Republicans are kind of mean and don't give a shit about two or three years of privation while their 'laissez-faire' or 'free market' policies go to work at the speed of frozen snot.[/QUOTE]Again, I don't know much about economics. But didn't Keynes believe lower tax rates would stimulate demand? And, like some Republicans, didn't he believe the national debt should be actually paid down when times are reasonably good, instead of always running budget deficits? So why is Keynes' name associated with Democrats instead of Republicans?

[QUOTE=Dickhead;430044]There is ample research that agrees with what I just said, and I've posted much of this evidence, including conclusive proof that real GDP is higher and unemployment is lower under Democratic regimes.[/QUOTE]You posted evidence that they were higher/lower, not that they are higher/lower. And you didn't show evidence for cause and effect.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;430044]Libertarians won't be taken seriously until and unless their economic 'policy' becomes much more clearly defined. Specifically, if you want to advocate a flat tax you had better come up with a [B]rate[/B].[/QUOTE]I don't have a problem with a progressive tax system. It would be better for most if tax reform occurred, to lower rates, improve economic efficiency, and decrease compliance burdens, and eliminate certain deductions and credits, regardless of whether that meant that the wealthy would pay a somewhat larger share of the income tax burden. Or, better yet, replace the income tax with a progressive sales or consumption tax. Jackson has pointed out that a large exemption or payment to those with lower incomes would make it progressive. Because of your posts I believe the corporate tax rate should be "0". And I believe the tax rate on unincorporated businesses should be reduced. But it's all a mute point though isn't it. None of this will happen. And the USA will become like France, then like Greece.