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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (530290)	11/18/2009 1:22:26 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576954

But unless you can actually put numbers to it, it is pretty useless. And the only way to put numbers to it is to analyze past data. Once you change the tax rates or the economy changes, the curve changes and there is no way to determine the curve until after the fact. So it has no predictive value at all. Which Laffer himself says. Laffer is not an econometrician. Modern economists HAVE put numbers to it using modern techniques, and reasonable estimates have been established. They do change rapidly, however. As a result, using it as a basis of tax policy is, well, crazy. So, relying on any theoretical concept to which numbers can't be attached is, well, crazy?

To: combjelly who wrote (530290)	11/18/2009 1:26:44 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576954

CJ, > no one claimed that Clinton taxed our way to prosperity. Are you kidding me? Plenty of liberals on this thread have pointed out how Clinton raised taxes in 1994 and linked that to the economic prosperity of the 90's. When pressed, they reluctantly admit that the two are disconnected. But they'll quickly fall back into that mentality especially as they answer criticism from conservatives regarding economic policy. And no, I never patented the straw man, or else I'd be filthy rich off of royalties from you liberals alone. Tenchusatsu