Forums

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is because, according to the Laffer curve, we are taxing way above the optimal point right now.



?????. Don't you mean below?

No, we are below t* and have been at least since Reagan's tax cuts

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.

nor does it prove it. all it proves is that when spending exceeds revenue we will have deficits.

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.

no, that's not necessarily true. Monetary theory, which has been shown to be valid at least in teh short run, posits that by increasing teh money supply, the economy will enjoy a short-term boost, but in the long run inflation results. Indeed, it may be as accurate to say that the Greenspan loose money policies of the early 2000s had more effect on growth than the bush tax cuts. but now it's time to pay the piper, with higher interest rates.



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?

I do disagree with it being based on basic economic theory, because it's not. Unless by "based" you mean "can arguably find limited and qualified support for limited aspects of the policies in economic theory."