I'm seriously worried about my Economic perspective

[degsme]

Well here's another way: If you have $10 million in the bank, are you likely to work a 70 hour work week for a year at a job you dislike to earn $1 million more?
OTOH
If you have $100,000 in savings, would you likely work a 70 hour work week for a year at a job you dislike to earn $1 million?

the difference is that in the first case you only add 10% improvement (actually a lot lot less) to the quality of your lifestyle, in the latter case you improve your lifestyle by a factor of 10.

Taxes do not even factor into it.

 

[degsme]

Well that's the same thing Lukey makes the mistake of. He assumes ALL deficit spending is equally stimulative. Its not. furthermore he assumes that the stimulative effect of a 1% extra GDP spend in a recession/recovery has the same Fiscal Multiplier as a 1% extra GDP spend in an economy running at close to full employment.

Those are both fundamentally incorrect assumptions - just as is Trap's notion of a linear Marginal Utility of Income.

 

[MaryAnne]

In other words you can't so why bother? Typical winger "I'm rubber, you're glue...." attitude.

Disagreeing is why I stay here. I do not want all of us to agree.

What I do not care for is the ignorance of simply calling names,because that just proves you have no argument with facts.

 

[PACE]

Unless you are here 24 hours a day, reading every post, and reading every response, you cannot possibly make that statement, in fact, there are many posters here who attack because they do not like to be counter pointed.

And while you might think this boils down to personal vapors of those unable to debate, the truth is degs is right, this is not the kind of econ board where you might read well thought out, assessments, of facts, events, and consequences.

Reading an article and then linking it, is not even on the metric of being an expert in economics.

There were many posters from where we all came from, that could shape opinion and indeed, even policy,

They are not here, they never were, they were invited by many of us, but then again, Jen, they did not frequent one particular rubic from whence we came.

However, almost all of the posters from that "one particular rubic" are here, so the analysis? points to degs being right,

And it has absolutely nothing to do with personal attacks, it has everything to do with ability.

Regards
Pace

 

[Queen Titania]

You missed out Wisdom ...................

 

[Woolleybugger]

Exactly. Big money is not really about working hard anyway. Its more a function of working hard, luck, knowing the right folks and the whims of the market place since all big events are usually capital gains events.

 

[JackDallas]

So you think you're getting dumber as you get older? That would be my guess.

Frankly I'm disappointed in the conservatives on this board. And frankly I'm seriously worried about my economic perspective. I know that I don't "know everything". Particularly when it comes to economics. I have a solid undergraduate background in Econ, strong math skills, and I read broadly. But that's not enough. Historically I've had people be able to successfully challenge my views and make me rethink them and learn in the process.

But on this board and basically for the last 15 years or so - Conservatives have not been able to put together a comprehensive argument of any sort that has really undermined any of my economic perspectives. The best evidence is how quickly they resort to name calling.

and this concerns me. Because I know I'm not a Nobel economist. That conservative economics is such bad voodoo is dangerous not only to my ability to learn and grow, but also to the ability to balance political forces in the economy.

Reagan's voodoo economics may be among the most dangerous economic notions foisted on the USA in a very long time. Because it seems to have eviscerated the ability for conservatives to reason logically and factually about economics - particularly in the broader scales.

I wish someone could point me to some conservative economist works that actually make rational sense and don't engage in the "hide the pea" shell game of intentional omission of inconvenient data points (so CATO and Hoover are right out). Please SOMEONE - offer a COGENT and REASONED explanation for what are the weaknesses of the Obama plan.... PLEASE!

 

[JackDallas]

Give me one chance to say something nice about Ronnie. I hated his guts from his days as Governor and vowed to leave the country if he got elected POTUS. I did leave for a year in 81-82. Came back because I was almost dead in Dar es Salaam and had enough of Africa....

No quiche and caviar in Dar es Salaam?

 

[degsme]

Actually you can get both there. But its kinda like living in Texas

 

[PACE]

...... your opinion......and it's wrong......as usual.

Oh, that was a PERIOD

 

[JackDallas]

Actually you can get both there. But its kinda like living in Texas

So it's preferable to living in California, you're saying?

 

[trapdoor]

I cannot defend parts of the constitution that ended up creating insurmountable barriers to solving problems. The amendment process is one such barrier that no one really foresaw in 1790 when there were only 13 states.

There were almost as many states as today when Prohibition was put in place, and a few more when it was repealed -- both via the legitimate use of the amendment process. You'd have the Constitution so flimsy that it could be modified at the drop of a hat -- raising the question, "Why bother to have a Constitution?"

The electoral college is a travesty upon any democracy and the will of the people.

The electoral college (along with a bicameral legislature) is a hedge against the tyranny of more populated states over less populated ones. It keeps a coalition of, say, California, New York and three or four other states from joining up to select the president and effectively run the country for their own interests.

Lifetime appointments to the courts is another one, it gives absolute power with no real checks and balances given the difficulty of impeachment and the entrenched political power of one side or the other in protecting their favored jurist.

In so doing it insulates the courts from the political process. There is as much chance that a judge will be put in place by the other side, that you don't like, as there is that a judge will be put in place by your faction -- and thus it behooves the appointers not to play politics with the appointments. At least, that'st the theory. Now, what's happening is legislature is playing politics with the appointments, and the last two presidents have been unable to eradicate a backlog in appointing federal judges because of legislative actions.

 

[trapdoor]

Well here's another way: If you have $10 million in the bank, are you likely to work a 70 hour work week for a year at a job you dislike to earn $1 million more?
OTOH
If you have $100,000 in savings, would you likely work a 70 hour work week for a year at a job you dislike to earn $1 million?

the difference is that in the first case you only add 10% improvement (actually a lot lot less) to the quality of your lifestyle, in the latter case you improve your lifestyle by a factor of 10.

Taxes do not even factor into it.

If I had $10 million in the bank, I wouldn't work AT ALL in the sense of daily labor, but I would probably attempt to manage my millions so that they would make more.

Making the level I do, as I've said, I already turn down jobs that would increase my income by more than 10 percent, simply because they effectively would reduce my income -- I'd have to live in higher-cost areas. That plus the higher tax rate would mean I effectively would be reducing my lifestyle rather than increasing it.

 

[trapdoor]

Anthropology is hardly a science. There simply isn't a coherent enough record of history.

I'm sure that would shock an anthropologist. Is it less of a science than say, psychology? I know you regard that as legitimate science as you've said as much.

And you are wrong about the Keynesian models breaking down in Europe. That simply is factually FALSE. What the Eurozone faces is the same problem that the USA faced under the Articles of Confederation: namely a disconnect between the organization of the monetary and fiscal policies, and the organization of the political policies.

I'm sorry, but that is a misread of the realities of the Eurozone. What propped up the economic systems of those struggling Keynesian states was the abilitiy to inflate away their own debt via executive fiat. They lost that ability when they put their monetary systems into the hands of something outside their individual national governments -- and that revealed the flaw in the model. As they could not longer simply declare a value onto a piece of paper, and then use that piece of paper to pay for their underfinanced social safety nets, the ability to continue those safety nets has been called into question. England has already had distinct cutbacks. France made minor cuts under its former president (it remains to be seen how Hollande will deliver on his promises -- but we're seeing the high-profile rich flee the country, and can the low-profile wealthy be far behind?). Spain and Italy's problems are well documented, and Greece is a dystopia based on the very system you espouse. And no, the fact that Greece has corruption-based problems collecting revenue is not material -- every system has to account for levels of corruption within the system, or its failing to address what happens in the real world.

Nor is the issue one of Asian cultures not emphasizing individual rights. You make the same mistake that many others make lumping China in with other nations. Yes Japan is very much about "The group" but Korea is about hierarchy and what the individual DESERVES as part of their station in the hierarchy. And china is very much about individuals making the best they can of it and ignoring the government as much as possible

.

No, Degs. China is about regional warlords that enslave regional populations. That's what it was 3,000 years ago. It's what it was under Mao, and it's what it is today. The individual is not accorded a high status, per se -- certainly not compared to the family or the village. I'm aware of the differences between Korea and Japan in terms of culture (and frankly, I wasn't even considering India, which presents a whole set of different issues because it isn't really one nation and never has been).

 

[Dino]

What are the weaknesses of tax and spend BIG (and bigger) nanny-state government??

Maybe your weakness isn't in Econ, it's in world history.

Obama's method is nothing other than a proven failure.

 

[Alinvegas]

All we need is a few snips of the budget here and there.

 

[JackDallas]

"Solving problems" in the mind of a Liberal means stealing money from working people to buy the votes of lazy no-accounts. It also means destroying traditional moral ethics and values, trashing the constitution, burning the American flag and murdering babies. I am in favor of the constitution creating insurmountable barriers to you psychos.

I cannot defend parts of the constitution that ended up creating insurmountable barriers to solving problems. The amendment process is one such barrier that no one really foresaw in 1790 when there were only 13 states. The electoral college is a travesty upon any democracy and the will of the people. Lifetime appointments to the courts is another one, it gives absolute power with no real checks and balances given the difficulty of impeachment and the entrenched political power of one side or the other in protecting their favored jurist. The BOR and it's vagueness is both a strength and a weakness so it will always be a source for political hanky panky in difficult decisions. The SCOTUS does not take up the easy cases, they dwell in the gray areas where the law is not clear and where the subjective interpretation of five people can control the lives of 320 million. Have you read anything by Sandy Levinson? You should check him out, he is on Balkinization a lot, you would enjoy that site.