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: gpowell who wrote (13880)	9/23/2003 10:51:13 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

his one statement reveals both your lack of understanding of some very basic fundamental concepts and some erroneous preconceptions. You distrust selfish motives when in fact a close approximation to selfishly motivated behavior is at the core of all economic theory. Further, you assume that having wrong expectations some how invalidates the use of expectations to explain the impact of policy decisions. Again, the role of expectations is firmly established in core economic theory. " 'greed' for lack of a better word....is good " -gordon gecko don't i know it <gg> (thank you, gp, for your exposition on real economy dynamics vs economic abstract theorem)

To: gpowell who wrote (13880)	9/23/2003 11:20:53 PM
From: JBTFD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

<<The point of my zero economic impact statement is the assertion that the tax cuts in the absence of spending cuts will have no stimulus effect. It’s not a hot button for me at all. It is, in fact, a mild criticism of the Bush plan.>> What about the Bush rhetoric that all the tax savings will go into creating new jobs for the economy? : )

To: gpowell who wrote (13880)	9/23/2003 11:37:34 PM
From: Mr. Sunshine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

<<gp, i'm not interested in expectations b/c expectations are often selfishly motivated and wrong. >> Skeeter, I have to go with gp on this one. Selfishness is at the core of capitalistic theory. Striving to make money, in a capitalistic competitive society, motivates companies to make products that consumers will buy. The alternative is communism, ("to each according to his needs, from each according to what he can produce") which just does not work very well. It has been tried. There are a lot of problems with capitalism - but it is still better than anything else that has been tried. <<You distrust selfish motives when in fact a close approximation to selfishly motivated behavior is at the core of all economic theory.>> To be fair, I have to disagree with gp on this. Just because I do not like to use absolutes, like the word "ALL". Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but there are economic theories out there (obvious example is communism, which in THEORY, though perhaps not in practice) that preach the common good over the selfish individual. Everyone's homework assignment tonight is to reread (heck, considering the education system, maybe I should just say read) "ANIMAL FARM".

To: gpowell who wrote (13880)	9/24/2003 3:35:35 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

>>A wealth transfer between equivalent economic agents has zero economic impact. This means that variables such as GDP, aggregate supply, and aggregate demand are unchanged.<< where's my check then? -lol- there is a micro-economic impact that can be VERY LARGE, hence, you won't send me that check! why doesn't the US debt finance the entire economy then? is it b/c they fear the "impact" of doing so? >>The point of my zero economic impact statement is the assertion that the tax cuts in the absence of spending cuts will have no stimulus effect. It’s not a hot button for me at all. It is, in fact, a mild criticism of the Bush plan.<< i agree there will be a stimulus. that's obvious. but that isn't the question most folks want answered. the question is whether the BENEFIT of the stimulus is worth the COST of the stimulus - AND FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE. that's the issue that you don't address b/c you've oversimplified the situation. i know you are arguing a specific, technical point. but elroy wasn't really debating that point, although i think he didn't express it very well. his perspective was totally different. did you not comprehend this? i woulda thought a smart guy would've figured this out. >>You didn’t understand the term “economic impact”<< but i think i do. you are merely saying that the money is somewhere within the unit as a whole, therefore, it represents "zero economic impact" to the WHOLE. my point is that there is no "whole" perspective. the whole is made up of individuals and each has their own view. YOU PROVED the validity of this by not asking for my address to send your life savings to... even though that would have "zero economic impact" on the WHOLE, according to you. If you have some exotic meaning of "economic impact," do share it instead of just saying "you don't understand it." i must've missed it when you initially defined it. >>My original post to Elroy simply showed the wealth effect from lowering taxes (which the Bush plan isn’t really doing) – he then went off on wealth destruction tangent that had nothing to do with my post – and was wrong as well.<< there obviously is a wealth effect when transferring money to people that wasn't previously theirs. elroy doesn't debate that, although, i do agree he didn't make this very clear. the operative questions are "FOR WHOM?" and "IS THE BENEFIT WORTH THE COST TO 'SOCIETY', OR, MORE SPECIFICALLY, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL PERSON WITHIN SOCIETY?" that's my point. although elroy didn't articulate as well as he could've, THAT'S HIS BEEF. he's not saying the elite rich didn't get richer. he's saying it is great for the elite rich, but bad for society. wasn't this obvious to you? you come off as saying - "it is equal to society," which is ABSURD (not that you meant it that way, but it could reasonably be interpreted as such). centralizing all the money to my control also has "zero economic impact" from your point of view. but it isn't "equal to society." you two are really arguing different things... and i tried to get that point across. then you got all rude. >>This one statement reveals both your lack of understanding of some very basic fundamental concepts and some erroneous preconceptions.<< i disagree. i think it reveals a lot about you... to be explained below. >>You distrust selfish motives when in fact a close approximation to selfishly motivated behavior is at the core of all economic theory.<< absolutely. nothing i said contradicts this. that's just plain old microeconomics. cost benefit from the standpoint of an individual's value system. however, you bastardize it into the illogical conclusion that "the selfishness of others, therefore, ought to be trusted." dahmer's selfishness would lead him to want to eat you. would get on the plate for him? not me! that's a fallacy. interestingly, you applies this idea only intellectually. when it came to my selfish way of trying to get your net worth... YOU DIDN'T TRUST ME! so, practically, you UNDERSTAND the selfish motives of others ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED IN ALL CASES. thus, rendering your analysis entirely moot and of no value. not to mention intellectually dishonest to your true value system that drives your actions NOT to send me that check. >>Further, you assume that having wrong expectations some how invalidates the use of expectations to explain the impact of policy decisions. Again, the role of expectations is firmly established in core economic theory.<< yes, but some folks are entirely transparent. you are correct in a way, though. i do assume. but i thought i explained the foundation of the assumption. you know, the issue you failed to address here... ;-) the best way to put out a fire isn't to throw gas on it, is it? in like manner, the best way to stop an overcapacity environment is not to put more capital in the hands of the capacity producers - which is what bush effectively did. i have never heard a cogent argument elucidating how this is the best use of tax cuts for society - and that's the real issue - the one you FAILED to address. the fact you didn't even touch it in this response is not lost on yours truly. ;-) >>Try to have some empathy for me and realize that I just don't find discussing this with you a productive use of my time. Perhaps on some other thread you can do the same to me – I’ll understand and I won’t get snippy.<< that's a choice you are free to make. but if you are gonna post stuff full of inconsistencies, false statements and intellectually dishonest ideas, i'll chime in to point them out should i decide it IS worth my time. ;-) having said that, i think there are some issues you ought to ponder, especially the concept that if one doesn't "trust" in the selfishness of others, one doesn't understand economics. i don't trust in the selfishness of others PRECISELY b/c i do understand microeconomics - one of a handfull of classes where i earned a 4.0 gpa (4.0 scale) way back in my university days. by your definition, i should have my check by now or you express a "lack of understanding of some very basic fundamental concepts and some erroneous preconceptions," too.