Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (13839)	9/22/2003 11:02:59 PM
From: gpowell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

I have a degree in economics so I understood long ago that this voodoo you believe in was just a bunch of nonsense. I’m sorry to say that I don’t believe you have a degree in anything. You’re a mortgage broker no? In any case, you have demonstrated zero economic training. To what voodoo are you referring? You must have me confused with someone else. I’ve asserted that tax cuts in the absence of spending cuts have zero economic effect. This is a point that can be attacked with sound economic arguments, but so far, you haven’t attempted to do that. In case you’re considering it, what you’ll find in the literature is mostly hack attempts at rebuttal. I’m sure Grace Z. could provide a quite unique and thought provoking rebuttal if she chose to. Political hacks claim that cutting taxes will magically increase economic activity and thus supply the missing taxes. All economists accept the well-known Laffer curve. In fact, it was such an obvious observation that it received very little attention. Tax cuts do not increase wealth unless accompanied by spending cuts. You won’t get an argument from me. In fact, I told you this 6 months ago and you chose to go off on some weird tangent on reagonmics. Did you forget – you asserted that a tax rate of 99% would maximize government revenue. That view is not consistent with a degree in economics, btw. None of your voodoo incantations will ever change this - no matter how many decades you wait in naive expectation. Actually, Grace has a point she can argue, but in order to understand it you would need a graduate degree in economics, mathematics, or physics.

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (13839)	9/23/2003 1:04:04 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 306849

elroy, the operative question you aren't asking is "who's wealth." tax cuts do add to the wealth of some. that's a fact. taxes and tax cuts just transfer the wealth between entities in the nation as a whole. i do agree with you that giving tax money to the capacity producers in an over capacity environment is pretty stupid. why? they'll just sit on the money. they aren't stupid - at least most aren't that stupid! that doesn't benefit the "average" american. but it most assuredly benefits the elite rich. i think an argument can be made for giving tax breaks to the capacity producers when there is undercapacity... b/c they will then put that money to use to meet demand. makes perfect sense to me... but the bush tax cut was all about giving the elite wealthy more money and making the average joe's portion of the national debt go up... i do not believe he, and all his cronies, are so stupid as to throw monetary gas onto an overcapacity fire and expect the monetary gas to burn out the overcapacity fire. the name of the game never has been a tax cut, per se. it has always been "how do i get more of a tax cut than everyone else, thereby increasing my own wealth in a real way?" the elite rich got an answer once bush was elected. of course, he lied about its "expected" effects on the economy to "sell it" to the average joe...