Tax cuts- A simple lesson in economics

[RCglider Profile]

There is correlation between the two.

High productivity places pressure on the market, which in turn lowers the unemployment rate.

LordX, can you name a time when there was negative productivity and low unemployment?

I ask the question again:
If the economy is SO bad, who is buying new houses and cars? If you don't have a job, what good are low interest rates?

I can tell many of you guys are too young to remember what it was like 1978-1982,83. What we are seeing today is NOTHING compared to then.

[PudriK Profile]

RC, you are correct. Our "troubles" today are nothing compared to the early 80s or 70s. Not that I was aware or alive then (respecitvely) but I can read. We were so spoiled by the late 90s, I wonder how long it will take to forget them, too. Sad thing is, despite our 5.6% unemployment rate, the concern over "joblessness" will probably result in more protectionist measures.

On the subject of job losses due to machines, this is an interesing article. The points made about how productivity gains benefit everyone are as applicable to outsourcing as to machines.

PS I you're going to use Latin, don't waste it on cliches that have an English equivalent. That smacks of pretension for pretension's sake.

[FarginMofo Profile]

Good timing on this one, helps explain a bit the 2.2 million number from earlier, at least the outsource portion.

http://biz.yahoo.com/fo/040325/55cb69342b065e0c7ee518d98e908b20_1.html

[RCglider Profile]

Originally posted by LordX
Except for my father and my roomate, you're right. Oops - I guess I know my father and my roomate.


[b]

Your articles are about private practitoners. That they are described as working in a hospital does little to show if they own a practice or are salaried employees. They own a practice.

[b]Ohio Valley Medical Center currently pays more than $10,000 a day for the state's malpractice insurance for the hospital. - Your CNN article



1. If you can't write Democratic, which is the name of the party, then this discussion is over.

2. So? The Insurance Industry is one of the largest contributors to the Rethuglican party.

[b]

To be this important, this must be a huge problem. How much gets paid out in settlements and judgements each year? It must be what, like a hundred billion dollars or something, right?

How about this. If there's actually less than $10billion dollars paid out in medmal verdicts and settlements each year, you say to me "wow, I didn't know the problem was that small."

If there's more than $10billion paid out in medmal verdicts and settlements, I'll never write the word Democratic again.

Now now, fibbing is wrong.

This is my last post for this hijacking. It is getting hard to deal with immaturity and rock headed stubborness.

Read the articles thoroughly!!! You said:
"No. Doctors who work for other peoples practices or for hospitals DO NOT PAY THEIR OWN INSURANCE COSTS. They don't. Really. They don't. See, the hospitals and practices pay those costs. They do. Really. I know the Republican spin is that every doctors pays their own insurance, but it's Just Not True. "

C.Murgatroyd understands the crux of the matter. Why you can't is beyond me.

We can live with fewer attorneys.

The Democrat Party is not democratic. There, the discussion is ended.

[LordX]

Originally posted by RCglider
This is my last post for this hijacking. It is getting hard to deal with immaturity and rock headed stubborness.

Oh, so you've changed your opinions, and clearly - clearly - you've demonstrated substantial maturity by failing to call a group by the name that group has chosen for itself.

Hacktacular.

[RCglider Profile]

Originally posted by PudriK
RC, you are correct. Our "troubles" today are nothing compared to the early 80s or 70s. Not that I was aware or alive then (respecitvely) but I can read. We were so spoiled by the late 90s, I wonder how long it will take to forget them, too. Sad thing is, despite our 5.6% unemployment rate, the concern over "joblessness" will probably result in more protectionist measures.

On the subject of job losses due to machines, this is an interesing article. The points made about how productivity gains benefit everyone are as applicable to outsourcing as to machines.

PS I you're going to use Latin, don't waste it on cliches that have an English equivalent. That smacks of pretension for pretension's sake.

I lied, your post is good, so will extend my remarks. Umm, when did I use Latin?

I have no problem with disagreement, just with the hair splitters. Why I continue to drag it on must be a character flaw. Therefore I apologize if anything I said appears to be personal, although sometimes it's difficult to bite the toungue.

It appears you have a pretty good idea of how productivity affects the economy. If productivity did not increase, the cost of goods would be much higher, which is bad for the consumer. Automation is not a bad thing. It frees up capital to invest and create more jobs. I'm not even sure outsourcing is all bad, but am sure there certain rules need applying. I am not set in stone on that issue, so will have to ask a few nonpolitically biased colleagues knowledgeable in that field.

Raising taxes helps nobody except a bloated and ever expanding government.....hey, isn't that the subject??

[Folic_Acid Profile ICQYIM]

Originally posted by C. Murgatroyd
I'm surprised that we've got 10 pages of economic discussion, and nobody's said "ceterus paribus" yet.

Hehe.

It's always assumed, isn't it? And I think LordX used a form of it in a previous post.

RC, I think Pudrik was responding to Murg's comment on ceretis paribus.

[Folic_Acid Profile ICQYIM]

Originally posted by LordX
Oh, so you've changed your opinions, and clearly - clearly - you've demonstrated substantial maturity by failing to call a group by the name that group has chosen for itself.

Hacktacular.

LordX, namecalling has never advnaced the merits of an argument, whatever merits there may be. It only serves to make one look petty and foolish.

Perhaps your argument would be better served by providing some evidence or citation of your premise that increasing taxes increases revenue, until you reach 100% taxation. I find that a most interesting and unique theory.

[Murgatroyd]

Originally posted by Folic_Acid
:) It's always assumed, isn't it? And I think LordX used a form of it in a previous post.

RC, I think Pudrik was responding to Murg's comment on ceretis paribus.

Lol.. you know, I totally missed that.

Hey! I'll be as pretentious as I want to be! Besides, it's used in almost every economic theory, in those words. So nyah. Don't knock me just cos you didn't think of it first..

[Folic_Acid Profile ICQYIM]

Fine.

Murg, magnus pinguis fossor est. Vestri matris carnero est, quod vestri abbas nocens nidor.

[Murgatroyd]

Originally posted by Folic_Acid
LordX, namecalling has never advnaced the merits of an argument, whatever merits there may be. It only serves to make one look petty and foolish.

Perhaps your argument would be better served by providing some evidence or citation of your premise that increasing taxes increases revenue, until you reach 100% taxation. I find that a most interesting and unique theory.

<cough> laffer curve <cough> basic economic principle <cough>



Man, how many more times am I going to get to post this thing.. I think this makes three.

[LordX]

Originally posted by Folic_Acid
LordX, namecalling has never advnaced the merits of an argument, whatever merits there may be. It only serves to make one look petty and foolish.

As soon as RC apologies for calling me "immature" and "rock-headed" and "stubborn," I'll apologize for calling him hacktacular.

Perhaps your argument would be better served by providing some evidence or citation of your premise that increasing taxes increases revenue, until you reach 100% taxation. I find that a most interesting and unique theory.

IS TOMORROW ANOTHER DAY? THE LABOR SUPPLY OF NEW YORK CAB DRIVERS, Henry S. Farber, NBER Working Paper 9706

Again, it's an idealized theory. If the entire population is made up of target earners, increased tax rates increase revenues. It's a mathematical truism, as much as Laffer's cruve is a mathematical truism. It's clear that everyone is not a target earner, so I certainly don't believe that the tax/revenue curve is upwords sloping over the whole range. I don't see any evidence that it isn't upwards sloping in the current range.

Of course, you're not actually angry at me for namcalling, nor do you really think that I believe taxes increase revenues over all rates. What you want to do is score cheap points. Here, I award you 10,000 points for your effort.

[Folic_Acid Profile ICQYIM]

Originally posted by C. Murgatroyd
<cough> laffer curve <cough> basic economic principle <cough>



Man, how many more times am I going to get to post this thing.. I think this makes three.

The more times you post it, the merrier. I would hope that you realize by now that I'm a firm believer in the Laffer curve. Hell, I even worked for Heritage at one point.

[PudriK Profile]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, RC, Murg, my PS was addressed to LordX, who brought it up in the first place. Not that I have a problem with Latin, I often complain of people using "ad hominem" attacks, but there isn't really an equivalent English term. But ceretis paribis just means "all things being equal."

Folic, I'm impressed. I took four years of Latin in high school, but promptly brain dumped most of it in college. I caught something in there about "your mother," but that's it.

LordX, please don't degrade into bickering. You made some interesting arguments. Just let any cheap shots roll off, back up your arguments, and we can enjoy a civil debate.

On the subject of medical care in the US, I think we can all agree with the following:

1) Health care is very expensive for individuals and businesses to provide.

2) Health care providers are facing rising costs due to:
a) Malpractice lawsuits resulting insurance costs
b) Pro-bono care for uninsured patients
c) Trend of keeping people alive much past a humane death.

3) Health care provider prices are increasing due to:
a) Lack of open competition (due to monopoly effects and hidden prices)
Some (my boss, for one) also blame
b) Inefficiencies in the system (extra labor, union labor)

4) Health care systems in other nations, while universal, do not provide equivalent service quality to the US system.

At issue:
1) The relative effect of the factors in #2.
2) Whether the tax increase resulting from gov't health care would be more or less than the costs of the current system.
3) How to mitigate the factors in #2 and fix the problems in #3.

[Murgatroyd]

Originally posted by Folic_Acid
:) The more times you post it, the merrier. I would hope that you realize by now that I'm a firm believer in the Laffer curve. Hell, I even worked for Heritage at one point.

I love the thing.. keeps the taxes just right... and I love that I can remember the name and the principle so it'll make me look smarter than I actually am (which isn't all that much).