Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's not saying much, because supply siders always say taxes should be cut.
|
That is because, according to the Laffer curve, we are taxing way above the optimal point right now.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) BTW, if supplier siders made their argument only when taxes were above t* on the Laffer curve, they would never be making their argument.
|
?????. Don't you mean below?
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Let me distill my point this way, because it would likely save us both some time:
You are making a political argument for lower taxes that has proven convincing to a sufficiently large percentage of US voters to keep republicans substantially in power for the last 25 years. That argument may or may not be based on mainstream economics arguments, which are the ones I am presenting in rebuttal, but that does not really matter, because americans don't vote on mainstream economics arguments but rather on pie-in-the-sky plans sold to them by both democrats and republicans.
|
I was arguing that only this:
1) The fact that we do not have as much revenue now as we did before the Bush tax cuts does not disprove Supplie Sider theory. In addition, the number we are looking out is gross revenue and not a percentage of GNP.
2) If you agree that the Bush tax cuts increased growth (and thereby pulled us out of the recession) then you are agreeing that they were a good move from an economic perspective.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You can keep up with the political salesmanship, and it will probably win some votes outside of this board. But it's not going to win a serious argument with anyone who has a decent understanding of actual economics, fiscal policy, and monetary policy.
|
I am not making political salesmenship. I was refuting poitical salesemenship that was in that article. Can you take a direct quote of anything I have said and show my why it is political hyperbole. Everything I have said is based on basic economic theory. That article made ridiculous claims, was blindly partisan, and was written in ignorance of basic economic theory. Do you disagree with that?
