Utopia Talk - Politics - Invisible hand slaps conservatives again

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue May 07 14:18:43 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Invisible hand slaps conservatives again

crownroyal
Member Wed Aug 20 10:59:51
Bush 36,000
by Jonathan Chait
The invisible hand slaps conservatives again.
Post Date Wednesday, August 27, 2008

I've recently been perusing a copy of The Bush Boom: How a 'Misunderestimated' President Fixed Our Broken Economy, by right-wing commentator and National Review contributor Jerry Bowyer. Ah, yes, the Bush Boom. It's a bygone era, a time of hope, like the Kennedy years. Also like Camelot, the Bush Boom was tragically cut short--by, um, the Bush recession. Actually, the second Bush recession, to be precise.

Now, I don't really think it's fair to blame a president for having the economy tank on his watch. But that's just the point. For several years--the "Bush Boom" years--Republicans were essentially arguing that the mere fact that the economy was expanding should be taken as proof that Bush's economic policies succeeded.

President Bush would routinely announce facts such as (from a speech last year), "During the time when we cut taxes to today, our economy has grown by more than $1.9 trillion." He would mock his critics and declare, "events have proven them wrong."

The whole trick here was to start at the bottom point of the economic cycle and assume that any subsequent improvement was the result of his policies. Of course, this is a ludicrously forgiving measure. Over time, the economy tends to grow, and it also goes through cycles. To point out that we're better off at the peak of a cycle than at the trough is something that could be said of any economic cycle. Bush was claiming his miracle fertilizer succeeded because his plants were taller at the end of the summer than at the beginning of spring.

So the justification for Bush's economic policies was that the economy was no longer in recession. Now they can't even claim that any more. It's as if Bush's plants suddenly wilted in August.

I'd never go as far as conservatives do in attributing economic growth to tax rates. But that's the right's game, so let's see how the Bush Boom measures up, now that it's gone to macroeconomic heaven. A recent paper by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) compares the Bush Boom to the ten previous periods of economic expansion since 1949. If you measure it from the peak of the previous business cycle, the Bush Boom ranks eighth out of the last ten expansions. If you measure it from the trough of the recession, Bush's preferred gauge, it ranks dead last.

And the meager growth that did occur accrued almost entirely to the rich. One of the few categories where the Bush Boom really did boom was corporate profits, which rank, depending on which measure you use, second or fourth. But wage and salary growth ranks last out of the ten previous expansions. Median family income actually declined. As the EPI paper notes, "this marks the first time this has happened since World War II in a business cycle lasting anywhere near as long as the most recent cycle." So, from the standpoint of making most people better off--which, of course, is the whole point of economic growth--the Bush Boom was a staggering catastrophe.

The Bush Boom was accompanied by frantic attempts to convince Americans that things were actually going better than they thought. One comical subgenre of Republican argumentation was to explain away polls showing persistent economic pessimism as a kind of false consciousness. If polls showed that people thought the economy was bad, it wasn't because their incomes hadn't risen--it must be the fault of the liberal media playing up bad news and ignoring the glories of the Boom. Ubiquitous right-wing economic commentator Larry Kudlow even coined a catchphrase to describe the press's suppression of the Bush Boom: "The greatest story never told."

When Phil Gramm recently remarked that we were becoming "a nation of whiners, " he gave voice to what had become the standard Republican view. What's the matter with you people? Can't you see that Phil Gramm and everybody he knows are making out like bandits?

Now that the Boom has ended, the new GOP line is to acknowledge the bad times but proceed on cheerfully as if all conservative economic precepts have been borne out. Bush recently declared, "the economy is not doing as well as we'd like to do--like it to do today, but there's no question that the tax cuts provided economic vitality." John McCain asserted, "Raising taxes in a bad economy is about the worst thing you could do because it will kill even more jobs when what we need are policies that create jobs." (Last year, remember, you couldn't raise taxes on the rich because the economy was growing, which proved the tax cuts worked.)

If you're keeping score at home, this makes two consecutive economic cycles that have annihilated the premises of right-wing economics. When Bill Clinton raised the top tax rate in 1993, conservatives unanimously predicted it would destroy the economy. When Bush cut the top tax rate, conservatives insisted it would produce (in fact, already had produced) widespread prosperity.

Of course, you could say that this was all horrible luck for the Republicans, and tax rates had little effect either way. But that would also undercut the right's case. The initial effect of tax cuts for the rich is to increase public debt and income inequality. Conservatives justify these consequences by pointing to the alleged second-order effects of tax cuts--promoting stronger incentives and higher growth. But, if the second-order effects are so tiny they get washed out by larger economic factors--and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests they are--why should we pay the price for them?

When the macroeconomic rationale for upper-bracket tax cuts is gone, you're left with nothing but a naked upward-redistribution scheme. Thus conservatives continue to cling to their cherished ideas. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial argued that, if the economy was sinking, it must be in part because markets fear the prospect of Barack Obama winning and raising taxes. (You thought Obama was up because the economy was bad? Turns out you had it backward. )

Combing through the Bush economic triumphalism literature, I sought in vain for some measure of selfawareness. The closest I came was this unwittingly prescient remark by Bowyer in The Bush Boom: "What, in particular, of our economic and financial pundits? When they make predictions that do not come to pass, they seem to suffer no ill consequences."

http://www...19-85f3-4210-b917-d882c900219c

eds
Member Wed Aug 20 11:11:28
I rather enjoyed that, but it's sad that opinions like those (and it's opposite on the right) are not what the American public reads to educate themselves politically.

I caught a bit of Bill Maher on Larry King last night and he made a good point. 3/4 of the American public believes offshore drilling will ease the energy crisis. He used that as part of his proof that the American people are too dumb to be governed well.

Milton Bradley
Member Wed Aug 20 11:13:47
3/4 of the US members of UP believe that offshore drilling will ease the energy crisis despite complete and obvious concrete data that says otherwise.

People are too stupid for a democracy to function as intended. The problem is that there is no better option(than democracy).

werewolf dictator
Member Wed Aug 20 11:20:12
bla bla bla fuzzy math bla bla bla per cent truff bla bla bla

this is y i like pitchers they tell the truth .

Turtle Crawler
Admin Wed Aug 20 13:25:09
This thread should be titled;

"Invisible hand slaps world population again-economists ignore basic fundamentals"

also regarding:

"When the macroeconomic rationale for upper-bracket tax cuts is gone, you're left with nothing but a naked upward-redistribution scheme."

Can you please explain how the tax system redistributes wealth to the wealthy? I thought that spending was proporataly higher on the lower and middle classes.

Garyd
Member Wed Aug 20 19:27:52
It is.

Tha tcrown was one of the bigger loads of crap you've eve dropped in this or any other forum. You're blaming Bush for Two recessions. The first began before his first budget took effect in 2002. Which means it can't be his fault and the second beginning after the Dems took control of congress and after nearly six years of badmouthing the economy on the part of every leftist asshat in the world.

werewolf dictator
Member Wed Aug 20 19:29:31
u tell em gard

crownroyal
Member Wed Aug 20 20:05:31
"You're blaming Bush for Two recessions."

From the article "Now, I don't really think it's fair to blame a president for having the economy tank on his watch."

Now stfu, cretin.

crownroyal
Member Wed Aug 20 20:06:12
"Can you please explain how the tax system redistributes wealth to the wealthy? "

It doesn't.

Garyd
Member Wed Aug 20 20:09:44
If he doesn't blame him why did he bring it up?

The article is your basic load of crap. The only people that ever get slapped by the invisible hand are tards like the author of this piece of tripe and variouls assorted other leftist tools that think you can tax your way to prosperity.

Master Bates
Member Wed Aug 20 20:18:02
He brought it up because he's saying that you can't take credit for the economy on the one hand and on the other refuse blame for the economy on the grounds that theres little a president can do about it. Duh

crownroyal
Member Wed Aug 20 20:18:13
ROFL @ sad retard. What a great argument, so detailed. Have you lost a couple of points from that famous IQ, trying to lacate the new forum, garyd?

murder
Moderator Thu Aug 21 07:00:20

"Can you please explain how the tax system redistributes wealth to the wealthy?"

TC: By taxing work income at a higher rate than capital gains.

Turtle Crawler
Admin Thu Aug 21 10:09:28
murder, isn't capital gains double taxation?

murder
Moderator Thu Aug 21 10:39:45

How so?

Turtle Crawler
Admin Thu Aug 21 13:07:14
Well you make $1000, its taxed into $750, then you invest it, it doubles to $1500, then its taxed to $1388. Without taxes that would be $2000. Effective tax rate of 30%, becuase its been taxed twice before you spend a cent of it.

Turtle Crawler
Admin Thu Aug 21 13:20:03
Oh and then you have inflation and it becomes a wealth tax (uhg)

murder
Moderator Thu Aug 21 19:00:21

How is that different from the "double taxation" related to consumption?

crownroyal
Member Thu Aug 21 19:32:52
Or how is that different from a worker paying income taxes and payroll taxes, all on one income?

Bubba Moonsaw
Member Thu Aug 21 21:19:24
gard es ryte

bucsh tol mi ae dint haf tu pae taxs an ae dowt aneemor

ae sei bucsh es da besist presadint

Garyd
Member Thu Aug 21 21:27:59
Bubba that isn't what Bush's tax return said.

Everyone pays those taxes crown. And if you are making over 80k a year you get jabbed with alternative minimum tax.

crownroyal
Member Thu Aug 21 21:32:36
"Everyone pays those taxes crown. "

Yes, that is what I said. You have this uncanny ability to state the obvious.

Cloud Strife
Member Sat Aug 23 18:15:15
`Well you make $1000, its taxed into $750, then you invest it, it doubles to $1500, then its taxed to $1388. Without taxes that would be $2000. Effective tax rate of 30%, becuase its been taxed twice before you spend a cent of it. '

You should not be being taxed for income that is being invested.

crownroyal
Member Sat Aug 23 21:25:39
"You should not be being taxed for income that is being invested. "

What if you invest in something that has no benefit to your country? Some foreign fund or something.

Camaban
Moderator Sun Aug 24 04:34:55
>>What if you invest in something that has no benefit to your country? Some foreign fund or something. <<

Only if you then aren't taxed on the dividends you earn from those investments.

Otherwise, your tax is paid from the money that comes from that company to you (and from you, benefits your country's economy)

Garyd
Member Sun Aug 24 11:09:12
So you are now arguing that if I make money in Brtain I ought to be liable for US taxes as well as British taxes???

crownroyal
Member Sun Aug 24 13:09:02
Are you talking to me, garyd?

Garyd
Member Sun Aug 24 13:23:36
What if you invest in something that has no benefit to your country? Some foreign fund or something.-CR

Yep.

crownroyal
Member Sun Aug 24 13:28:04
So, what is the question? I never said that you should pay income tax on the same income in two countries.

Garyd
Member Sun Aug 24 13:35:55
If I invest in Britain that doesn't clearly benefit the US but your implication is that I ought to pay taxes in the US for money I made in investments in Britain.

crownroyal
Member Sun Aug 24 13:40:51
"If I invest in Britain that doesn't clearly benefit the US but your implication is that I ought to pay taxes in the US for money I made in investments in Britain. "

No, you should pay income taxes in US on that income, made in US. CS said that any income that is invested shouldn't be taxed. I disagree, if you don't invest in something productive, or invest abroad.

Garyd
Member Sun Aug 24 13:48:53
If we didn't tax investment then no one would have a reason to invest in things that aren't productive. Investment in non productive things is largely driven by tax avoidance strategies.

crownroyal
Member Sun Aug 24 13:58:47
"If we didn't tax investment then no one would have a reason to invest in things that aren't productive. "

I don't know what this means.

Garyd
Member Sun Aug 24 14:14:03
Things that aren't productive don't make you any money and may lose you money.

crownroyal
Member Sun Aug 24 14:17:29
Ok, I guess. If you have a point there somewhere, anytime..

Garyd
Member Sun Aug 24 14:23:32
Damn you are unusually obtuse today even for you when you are discussing economics this is bad.

If it isn't productive you are losing money why would you tax someone for losing money?

crownroyal
Member Sun Aug 24 14:36:39
"If it isn't productive you are losing money why would you tax someone for losing money? "

Wtf? I said pay your income tax. What are you talking about? And productive means something non-speculative.

show deleted posts

crownroyal Member	Wed Aug 20 10:59:51 Bush 36,000 by Jonathan Chait The invisible hand slaps conservatives again. Post Date Wednesday, August 27, 2008 I've recently been perusing a copy of The Bush Boom: How a 'Misunderestimated' President Fixed Our Broken Economy, by right-wing commentator and National Review contributor Jerry Bowyer. Ah, yes, the Bush Boom. It's a bygone era, a time of hope, like the Kennedy years. Also like Camelot, the Bush Boom was tragically cut short--by, um, the Bush recession. Actually, the second Bush recession, to be precise. Now, I don't really think it's fair to blame a president for having the economy tank on his watch. But that's just the point. For several years--the "Bush Boom" years--Republicans were essentially arguing that the mere fact that the economy was expanding should be taken as proof that Bush's economic policies succeeded. President Bush would routinely announce facts such as (from a speech last year), "During the time when we cut taxes to today, our economy has grown by more than $1.9 trillion." He would mock his critics and declare, "events have proven them wrong." The whole trick here was to start at the bottom point of the economic cycle and assume that any subsequent improvement was the result of his policies. Of course, this is a ludicrously forgiving measure. Over time, the economy tends to grow, and it also goes through cycles. To point out that we're better off at the peak of a cycle than at the trough is something that could be said of any economic cycle. Bush was claiming his miracle fertilizer succeeded because his plants were taller at the end of the summer than at the beginning of spring. So the justification for Bush's economic policies was that the economy was no longer in recession. Now they can't even claim that any more. It's as if Bush's plants suddenly wilted in August. I'd never go as far as conservatives do in attributing economic growth to tax rates. But that's the right's game, so let's see how the Bush Boom measures up, now that it's gone to macroeconomic heaven. A recent paper by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) compares the Bush Boom to the ten previous periods of economic expansion since 1949. If you measure it from the peak of the previous business cycle, the Bush Boom ranks eighth out of the last ten expansions. If you measure it from the trough of the recession, Bush's preferred gauge, it ranks dead last. And the meager growth that did occur accrued almost entirely to the rich. One of the few categories where the Bush Boom really did boom was corporate profits, which rank, depending on which measure you use, second or fourth. But wage and salary growth ranks last out of the ten previous expansions. Median family income actually declined. As the EPI paper notes, "this marks the first time this has happened since World War II in a business cycle lasting anywhere near as long as the most recent cycle." So, from the standpoint of making most people better off--which, of course, is the whole point of economic growth--the Bush Boom was a staggering catastrophe. The Bush Boom was accompanied by frantic attempts to convince Americans that things were actually going better than they thought. One comical subgenre of Republican argumentation was to explain away polls showing persistent economic pessimism as a kind of false consciousness. If polls showed that people thought the economy was bad, it wasn't because their incomes hadn't risen--it must be the fault of the liberal media playing up bad news and ignoring the glories of the Boom. Ubiquitous right-wing economic commentator Larry Kudlow even coined a catchphrase to describe the press's suppression of the Bush Boom: "The greatest story never told." When Phil Gramm recently remarked that we were becoming "a nation of whiners, " he gave voice to what had become the standard Republican view. What's the matter with you people? Can't you see that Phil Gramm and everybody he knows are making out like bandits? Now that the Boom has ended, the new GOP line is to acknowledge the bad times but proceed on cheerfully as if all conservative economic precepts have been borne out. Bush recently declared, "the economy is not doing as well as we'd like to do--like it to do today, but there's no question that the tax cuts provided economic vitality." John McCain asserted, "Raising taxes in a bad economy is about the worst thing you could do because it will kill even more jobs when what we need are policies that create jobs." (Last year, remember, you couldn't raise taxes on the rich because the economy was growing, which proved the tax cuts worked.) If you're keeping score at home, this makes two consecutive economic cycles that have annihilated the premises of right-wing economics. When Bill Clinton raised the top tax rate in 1993, conservatives unanimously predicted it would destroy the economy. When Bush cut the top tax rate, conservatives insisted it would produce (in fact, already had produced) widespread prosperity. Of course, you could say that this was all horrible luck for the Republicans, and tax rates had little effect either way. But that would also undercut the right's case. The initial effect of tax cuts for the rich is to increase public debt and income inequality. Conservatives justify these consequences by pointing to the alleged second-order effects of tax cuts--promoting stronger incentives and higher growth. But, if the second-order effects are so tiny they get washed out by larger economic factors--and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests they are--why should we pay the price for them? When the macroeconomic rationale for upper-bracket tax cuts is gone, you're left with nothing but a naked upward-redistribution scheme. Thus conservatives continue to cling to their cherished ideas. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial argued that, if the economy was sinking, it must be in part because markets fear the prospect of Barack Obama winning and raising taxes. (You thought Obama was up because the economy was bad? Turns out you had it backward. ) Combing through the Bush economic triumphalism literature, I sought in vain for some measure of selfawareness. The closest I came was this unwittingly prescient remark by Bowyer in The Bush Boom: "What, in particular, of our economic and financial pundits? When they make predictions that do not come to pass, they seem to suffer no ill consequences." http://www...19-85f3-4210-b917-d882c900219c
eds Member	Wed Aug 20 11:11:28 I rather enjoyed that, but it's sad that opinions like those (and it's opposite on the right) are not what the American public reads to educate themselves politically. I caught a bit of Bill Maher on Larry King last night and he made a good point. 3/4 of the American public believes offshore drilling will ease the energy crisis. He used that as part of his proof that the American people are too dumb to be governed well.
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Aug 20 11:13:47 3/4 of the US members of UP believe that offshore drilling will ease the energy crisis despite complete and obvious concrete data that says otherwise. People are too stupid for a democracy to function as intended. The problem is that there is no better option(than democracy).
werewolf dictator Member	Wed Aug 20 11:20:12 bla bla bla fuzzy math bla bla bla per cent truff bla bla bla this is y i like pitchers they tell the truth .
Turtle Crawler Admin	Wed Aug 20 13:25:09 This thread should be titled; "Invisible hand slaps world population again-economists ignore basic fundamentals" also regarding: "When the macroeconomic rationale for upper-bracket tax cuts is gone, you're left with nothing but a naked upward-redistribution scheme." Can you please explain how the tax system redistributes wealth to the wealthy? I thought that spending was proporataly higher on the lower and middle classes.
Garyd Member	Wed Aug 20 19:27:52 It is. Tha tcrown was one of the bigger loads of crap you've eve dropped in this or any other forum. You're blaming Bush for Two recessions. The first began before his first budget took effect in 2002. Which means it can't be his fault and the second beginning after the Dems took control of congress and after nearly six years of badmouthing the economy on the part of every leftist asshat in the world.
werewolf dictator Member	Wed Aug 20 19:29:31 u tell em gard
crownroyal Member	Wed Aug 20 20:05:31 "You're blaming Bush for Two recessions." From the article "Now, I don't really think it's fair to blame a president for having the economy tank on his watch." Now stfu, cretin.
crownroyal Member	Wed Aug 20 20:06:12 "Can you please explain how the tax system redistributes wealth to the wealthy? " It doesn't.
Garyd Member	Wed Aug 20 20:09:44 If he doesn't blame him why did he bring it up? The article is your basic load of crap. The only people that ever get slapped by the invisible hand are tards like the author of this piece of tripe and variouls assorted other leftist tools that think you can tax your way to prosperity.
Master Bates Member	Wed Aug 20 20:18:02 He brought it up because he's saying that you can't take credit for the economy on the one hand and on the other refuse blame for the economy on the grounds that theres little a president can do about it. Duh
crownroyal Member	Wed Aug 20 20:18:13 ROFL @ sad retard. What a great argument, so detailed. Have you lost a couple of points from that famous IQ, trying to lacate the new forum, garyd?
murder Moderator	Thu Aug 21 07:00:20 "Can you please explain how the tax system redistributes wealth to the wealthy?" TC: By taxing work income at a higher rate than capital gains.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Thu Aug 21 10:09:28 murder, isn't capital gains double taxation?
murder Moderator	Thu Aug 21 10:39:45 How so?
Turtle Crawler Admin	Thu Aug 21 13:07:14 Well you make $1000, its taxed into $750, then you invest it, it doubles to $1500, then its taxed to $1388. Without taxes that would be $2000. Effective tax rate of 30%, becuase its been taxed twice before you spend a cent of it.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Thu Aug 21 13:20:03 Oh and then you have inflation and it becomes a wealth tax (uhg)
murder Moderator	Thu Aug 21 19:00:21 How is that different from the "double taxation" related to consumption?
crownroyal Member	Thu Aug 21 19:32:52 Or how is that different from a worker paying income taxes and payroll taxes, all on one income?
Bubba Moonsaw Member	Thu Aug 21 21:19:24 gard es ryte bucsh tol mi ae dint haf tu pae taxs an ae dowt aneemor ae sei bucsh es da besist presadint
Garyd Member	Thu Aug 21 21:27:59 Bubba that isn't what Bush's tax return said. Everyone pays those taxes crown. And if you are making over 80k a year you get jabbed with alternative minimum tax.
crownroyal Member	Thu Aug 21 21:32:36 "Everyone pays those taxes crown. " Yes, that is what I said. You have this uncanny ability to state the obvious.
Cloud Strife Member	Sat Aug 23 18:15:15 `Well you make $1000, its taxed into $750, then you invest it, it doubles to $1500, then its taxed to $1388. Without taxes that would be $2000. Effective tax rate of 30%, becuase its been taxed twice before you spend a cent of it. ' You should not be being taxed for income that is being invested.
crownroyal Member	Sat Aug 23 21:25:39 "You should not be being taxed for income that is being invested. " What if you invest in something that has no benefit to your country? Some foreign fund or something.
Camaban Moderator	Sun Aug 24 04:34:55 >>What if you invest in something that has no benefit to your country? Some foreign fund or something. << Only if you then aren't taxed on the dividends you earn from those investments. Otherwise, your tax is paid from the money that comes from that company to you (and from you, benefits your country's economy)
Garyd Member	Sun Aug 24 11:09:12 So you are now arguing that if I make money in Brtain I ought to be liable for US taxes as well as British taxes???
crownroyal Member	Sun Aug 24 13:09:02 Are you talking to me, garyd?
Garyd Member	Sun Aug 24 13:23:36 What if you invest in something that has no benefit to your country? Some foreign fund or something.-CR Yep.
crownroyal Member	Sun Aug 24 13:28:04 So, what is the question? I never said that you should pay income tax on the same income in two countries.
Garyd Member	Sun Aug 24 13:35:55 If I invest in Britain that doesn't clearly benefit the US but your implication is that I ought to pay taxes in the US for money I made in investments in Britain.
crownroyal Member	Sun Aug 24 13:40:51 "If I invest in Britain that doesn't clearly benefit the US but your implication is that I ought to pay taxes in the US for money I made in investments in Britain. " No, you should pay income taxes in US on that income, made in US. CS said that any income that is invested shouldn't be taxed. I disagree, if you don't invest in something productive, or invest abroad.
Garyd Member	Sun Aug 24 13:48:53 If we didn't tax investment then no one would have a reason to invest in things that aren't productive. Investment in non productive things is largely driven by tax avoidance strategies.
crownroyal Member	Sun Aug 24 13:58:47 "If we didn't tax investment then no one would have a reason to invest in things that aren't productive. " I don't know what this means.
Garyd Member	Sun Aug 24 14:14:03 Things that aren't productive don't make you any money and may lose you money.
crownroyal Member	Sun Aug 24 14:17:29 Ok, I guess. If you have a point there somewhere, anytime..
Garyd Member	Sun Aug 24 14:23:32 Damn you are unusually obtuse today even for you when you are discussing economics this is bad. If it isn't productive you are losing money why would you tax someone for losing money?
crownroyal Member	Sun Aug 24 14:36:39 "If it isn't productive you are losing money why would you tax someone for losing money? " Wtf? I said pay your income tax. What are you talking about? And productive means something non-speculative.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: