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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (255045)	7/5/2014 2:55:03 PM
From: Metacomet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541933

What I wondered though is if you take money out of everyone's pocket - so they have less money to spend - isn't that the exact opposite of what he has been prescribing as being needed to get the economy to speed up? Did you think about this before you wrote it? You do know what spending means..right? You have your not-spending, saving or hoarding, in the case of the ultras.. ..that equals economic stall, what you want to happen it seems ...and you have spending, like how you build roads and make bridges, you know jobs from spending Spending is not strictly an individual trick, governments have to do it too, you know, to create and maintain a country

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (255045)	7/5/2014 3:13:39 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 541933

But at the very heart of keynesian thinking is to get more money into the hands of the individual. Taxing something as ubiquitous as gasoline does the exact opposite. I don't think those two points are even arguable. And yes, republicans are playing obstructionist here - so typically. I'm not certain how Krugman or any other "Keynesian" would reply to that question. I had been planning to spend large chunks of the July 4th holiday with my brother, the economist, who could be so classified. But we weren't able to get to Texas. But I would guess an answer would go something like this. That you are correct. In an ideal world, the state would not increase taxes to increase infrastructure spending, doing so in any of the several ways it has. But since funding for highway infrastructure comes from the highway trust fund (and changing that would likely required legislation that hasn't a ghost of a chance of passing, perhaps not even of being introduced, then raising the gasoline tax is the only game in town. Moreover it has the virtue of appealing to business interests that need an improved transportation infrastructure. So, a lesser evil argument. My own reading of Krugman was that he framed the political imbecility of having to make such a choice very well.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (255045)	7/5/2014 10:29:04 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541933

What I keep trying to explain to you, is that you are missing Keynes thesis regarding the power of economic stimulation. A gas tax is probably more neutral, but fundamental to keeping our infrastructure modern and safe. What is taken out in taxes is put back in, in the purchase of materials and labor. Which creates more jobs, businesses, taxes, etc and stimulates the economy. << It's a bit of a rhetorical question I guess - so there is sure no need to answer if you don't want to. But at the very heart of keynesian thinking is to get more money into the hands of the individual. Taxing something as ubiquitous as gasoline does the exact opposite. I don't think those two points are even arguable. And yes, republicans are playing obstructionist here - so typically.