Neo-Changian

An Exchange: In segments
(These are some comments I compiled on hold, including an exchange with FB)
Thom Hartmann

Me: On hold with Thom Hartmann, AM1090 Seattle, just missing the Laffer Curve creator, and up next will be Joe Stieglitz.

Summit
Me: In the spirit of the summit, I point to the political down side of some discussion, not that politics is bad, but a process. Much like the Laffer Curve, it depends on which side you are on. Laffer seems to misuse his own curve and extend it to all taxes...

Flat metaphor
Me(cont)...while a flat tax may not be bad, what it is and where it starts is what matters. Even Milton Friedman apparently in the Libertarian wing, suggested a Negative tax. I would love to have the opportunity, ask Nobel winner Stieglitz(about these)

Neo_changian
Me: Apparently out of time, but the metaphor of the "Invisible Hand" of Adam Smith is equivalent to the Laffer Curve at least in how you look at it. There is a real curve and a real hand, although it does depend on individuals to use it and which side your are on. i.e. Neo-Keynsian or more of the change

Exchange
FB: if you want to be a capitalist, actually read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations from cover to cover. ALL of it.

Me: Someday. But did you hear Thom Hartmann with Laffer and Stieglitz? More of your point... please. Mine may have been missed. I might quibble with the (my) equivalence, but not how we look at it mattering. Being on one side of the Laffer Curve statistically, as in raising or lowering taxes(or rather income), matters. Yet, there being no hand really, but the hand the individual has in creating government and corporations is what I meant. Not that they are Leviathans, woops other league (of a book), but it is important to note that Wealth of Nations was written in 1776 so we really have created a hand.

[Update 2-26-10 speaking of summit spirit and comprehensive... well...(is this a cheap shot?) ]

V for Victim

F for Fudging*

W for Wedge.**

* in"F"able

** not only Econ 101, but Physics and Psychology 101

Economy Killers: Inequality and GOP Ignorance

VFW :

Curve Wars? Bell Curve meets Laffer Curve.

[There is a paradox to the bell curve reference, or counter-intuitive meeting. How ironic the Laffer curve is a Bell curve, but their meeting results in The L-Curve.]

[It may be dangerous(i.e. fuzzy math and English) to insert irony or mixed metaphors/charts, but I will now switch streams.]

There seems to be an overly conservative perspective on government spending in the Krugman/Wells article with the use of the word temporary:

In 2008 we suddenly found ourselves living in a Keynesian world — that is, a world that very much had the features John Maynard Keynes focused on in his 1936 magnum opus, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.” By that we mean that we found ourselves in a world in which lack of sufficient demand had become the key economic problem, and in which narrow technocratic solutions, like cuts in the Federal Reserve’s interest rate target, were not adequate to that situation. To deal effectively with the crisis, we needed more activist government policies, in the form both of temporary spending to support employment and efforts to reduce the overhang of mortgage debt.

It ignores the long-term infrastructure deficit otherwise know as investment in our infrastructure. Given the skewed GOP perspective on cutting spending over recovering taxes and investing in the country, it is no wonder growth, which is not the answer*** alone anyway, is not faring well.

Note fuzzy, not to mention capitalized Bell and un-capitalized bell curve.(ouch)

Related economics, INET. Related Salon, NFR.

***(Crtl F) "growth"

4-16-12 Not exploit veterans(V F W), but W is playing the victim card here.

The Curve or Nuance Thing

In this I am referring first to the Laffer Curve, which is propably not exactly a Bell Curve..

Now to un-nuance something or other.** The Laffer Curve has generally been used to argue that reducing taxes will increase government revenue. That is also called Supply Side economics. Reduced taxes(for the rich and corporations) will create jobs that will produce things and the economy will grow. Supply money, or not take it away, and it will supply jobs that will supply products and people will buy more. A better economy means better revenue. If people cannot see a few leaks in this theory, it is not just what I may have left out.

Not just the Demand Side, but also the debt side, the outsourcing, and the Wall Street or commodities side are left out. If money is being left in businesses and jobs, it is not being taxed as income. If it has a lower tax rate it will come out as income that will be spent, but there are fewer people in the top tax brackets to benefit the economy than there are in the lower tax brackets who would benefit the economy by having enough money to pay for their needs let alone their demands. Their decrease in taxes, or other income benefits,* would increase demand for products which would produce demand for jobs, which would increase their ability to benefit the economy. Now of course there are dangers to an either/or supply or demand(or any general) approach to the analysis. Then there are the debt, outsourcing, and Wall Street factors. Taxes are aslo a part of how these issues(debt, trade, and investment) effect the economy as generally explained here,(as well as in a more complex equation of the economy) as well as how changes in tax code may help the economy.

This has generally been more about how reduced taxes can help the economy. But there is the correction to the myth that all reducing of taxes increase the revenue. When that is more properly on the curve or in the equation, increased revenue will come from a general rise in the economy, as well as the proper taxation rate which will benefit the debt picture, which will be good for the economy. Now, too much emphasis on the burden of debt, trade and investment risks, must also find itself on the curve or dynamic equation of the big picture as well.

* two charts



** two curves in first paragraph: Ezra Klein and Eugene Robinson
*** yet to fully read, but a note on foreign aid as something to cut with only 1% of the budget. It just might fit into the above understanding of proper balance and investment not that it all is, but a cut in foreign aid may mean an increase or leak in another part of the picture above.

[I hope the above is easy to understand, but then there is the crack pot calling the kettle "stupid". i.e. Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg disagreeing with what Alan Simpson and Charles Krauthammer think.]

[Also Straw Man D'baits Red Herring. Thomas Sowell is right, there is no trickle down. That is because the money needs to be spent at the bottom, but where does the money come from? From the demand and the production of the worker.]

[3-11-11: two links (an update) from State of Thought blog]

Voodoo Economics Redux?

Or is it Tri-ducks, not in a row.
Not really meaning third times a charm, but that it ducks the question and begs the future. Calculations cannot be made based on terms of infinity, it should seem. The faux principle of gravity or trickle down or Laffer curve should not be calculable without understanding of the curve if not calculus.

[The reference to the Laffer curve is the assumptions that differ based on which side of the bell curve one is on when changes are made. It would seem that their might be a similar point if not additional principle or missing factor that could make any argument based on "generational accounting" irrelevant.]

[Tri-Ducks would be Re 3 Govs: Reagan, Bush and Sanford.*]

* this is not meant to be funny but I am simultaneously ahead of the curve as well as behind Think Progress in linking the pre-post or us.(meaning I found the link post post.)

[7-6-09: update ]

Consider the Source.

Mine not me.

Usually such headings and opening lines would be a self deprecating if not journalistic attention getting misdirection. But in this case, they are a direct reference to the links which I have only briefly scanned and I simply post them for later digestion, if not comment. Their sources, and the fact that I have heard their memes through my filters, is the reason I have selected them.

By Eric Alterman * [3-15 reply]
By Isaiah J. Poole [3-16 reply]
By Rick Perlstein [3-16 reply, 3-18 Bringing it up?]
By Bob Herbert

"Freedom is not a force, but thoughts are not just memes."

[And while I pursue some off line work,
this is enough online work to pass the time:
EDUCATION
A Textbook Case of Misinformation and Bias ]

[[Not to mention this new mine field:
(email QCON 4-12-8) -

Speaking of intelligence...
leaks are hard to trickle up.

Speaking of curve balls...
remember the laffer?

Hence the hard work
and the screw ups.

Thought(?) sometimes I need footnotes for some.
intelligence -
curveball - Laffer curve -
screw ups -

Google is my post-elixir, but I often preempt the research and post the BS. (Meaning I just dug these up, but the lines were previous tangents from the whole.)
BTW: I disassociate myself from anything I have not read in these links, which is most of them. ]]

*scroll over source for titles

When did liberals get so unreasonable?

Mike Check... and
moore [!]

Mean*** while Week ends with Alex Witt: Fact or fiction of taxes*.

*original link not located
[11-27-11** related belated links]
** Durbin/Kyle video(2:50-plus) Laffer curve a laffer, speaking of laffer? [Herd v. heard?]
***late insert

[Are we there yet?

INET

Joseph Stiglitz: Economics Has to Come to Terms with Wealth and Income Inequality
Xavier Gabaix: NFRY / PC

While reading the first I imagined a curve representing a tipping point and it's margins.  I also considered that dominoes can tip either way, but that is not the game called Dominoes. Then I properly applied the Laffer Curve but thought of a gulch of sorts.  (Ctrl F. Newtonian: not to mention 3-body problems.)  See PC and NFRY.  THE POINT ? [!] (Poe Pen dull  em?)

12-20-14
The mess ~ age is the message.  Not knot (~) exactly [!]
Fail fast/Bohemian Gravity/Enantiodromia=2#/8th. (Bohemian Irony Dimensions ... ?)

Debt and Tax Cuts,

debt and tax cuts,
go together like love and cha-nge...
you can't have one without the - other.
Well...not exactly but close enough for government work. BTW, what the heck does running a business have to do with running a government? Well one important feature is investment. While profit is not really the purpose of government, let alone the main point of any needs related services, let alone infrastructure, health care, education, insurance and banking.

Investment seems a basic feature that even those in business don't understand when it comes to their own tax situation. And when it comes to taxes cuts it is a no brainer that they increase debt. It is a fallacy that cutting taxes increase revenues. That only works on one side of the Laffer Curve not the other. i.e. it is a bell curve.

And apparently no means yes in some cirles, while apparently the tea party does not understand "taxation without representation". A prohibition of legislative change to an initiative means that what is not in the initiative can be in the future. But not without the legislature paying a price they do not want to pay now. In other words the only way to prevent the possibility of change is to takeaway the possibility of representation and politics to have an effect. When it comes to what is not in the ads or not on the table, it is as ridiculous(if not more so) to claim that supporters of I-1098 are not telling you it is an income tax, (5% over $200K for single/$400K for couples or 1% of the tax filers) as it is that the same ads don't mention a 20% reduction in state property taxes and an over 1000%* increase in the B&O TAX CREDIT which will bring the benefit to 80% of businesses.
* actually this is my calculation of $420 being raised to $4800

The Big Dig

Ron Paul not so much.
Mitt Romney not so much.
Newt Gingrich, deeper.

Re-Group?

NOW, was that what I was talking about? Just teasing. Or "tough surrogate"?

Not having reviewed each of the links, nevertheless here are hints to my G'Ribble.
Under "Mitt Romney" there was a hint that the debate was "on a topic that he should dominate: the economy". Hence the "ledership" of The Big Dig? Investment in infrastructure anyone?

[Then there is the Laffer Curve of Regulation Job Growth. Which is my twist on not just the misuse of the curve, but the avoidance of* regulation. Regulation could be increasing jobs, if they were not avoiding the regulations.]

*the real laugher is in the "willing to report" and the needless "math genious".

[Coffee Party / Organizing Wall Street: De Calf anyone?]

Economic Reform.

Not really.
But from my FB:
[ALSO THANX Rob for Obama Reformation.]

I recently heard, that the top 1%(or 2) account for the same as the bottom 50% in income and 90% in wealth held.[***] Just thought I would throw that in without too much other comment, it was very interesting to read the exchange, thumbs up, to... all.
But Yes, the point about investment and trickle down, the argument that(BTW, it is not raising taxes, it is an end to a tax cut, which the Republicans passed, which might sound the same, but is not, neither economically or politically) an end to the tax breaks will mean they will not be able to hire, is contrary to standard business and tax practices regarding what is deductible. It seems to me that it shows that there are a lot of people in business that are lucky to be there given their understanding of things, or it really doesn't matter how well one understands things to work, and probably a bit of each of these. But the Laffer curve is the biggest joke, not to mention the bell curve in general, but actually the joke is not in the curves but in the way people use them. OK, I did have more than I intended to comment*, but I must not forget my "nose under the camel's tent"(metaphor),[**] which represents the fear that change will be continued. 'nough said? (see the BTW)

OOPS!
I left an asterisk hanging: it regarded my metaphor...of knows or # of stakes OK, I just caught myself. . I am chuckling so hard, I better ponder before deleting or refudiating.
Ah, there's the rib!

[Speaking of Anachronism and Comprehensieveshun... I only now finished reading the NYT top link.]

[**] Not to coin a Palin, my original intent was the "camel's nose" but who knows? Only the Shadow.

[***] Thanks to Thom Hartmann...if we(I) have the numbers right. Meanwhile, I cannot believe there is not a reasonableness(constitutional pun) retort to this. i.e. I look forward to more context and links.

M'bed 'n Ba'ath?

Worse mongers!

The execution of shock and awe under the Laffer Curve!

IRA, IRS, Ire? 

[Re: Un'M'beds. Or Neo-Birchers? Or neo-Abels?] 
[Buy Gosh!]

5-29-15 : Nor fully read (...)

FOX ROMANTIC U.S.

BORROW WITS [?]

For some people the Laffer Curve doesn't ring a bell.

To paraphrase my own poetry of about 50 or more years ago circa FP(fridge post early '60s).

 

Funny,

money,

honey,

bunny.

 

I guess I was an economist and didn't know it.

Ate of 3?

re:FRus prism ? ?

W T F?

X & Y Chromo Somes / Under the Table?

 

 

Or visi goths ?

 

 





Apples and Oranges?

National Hyperbole?
Herman Cain is trying to explain his 9-9-9 or Sim City tax code, while Perry(or Romney) is trying to make the point that people don't want another tax, without pointing out the regressive nature of it. It really is apples and oranges, both of which will impact the 99% more than the 1%.
(tough segue)
(all+politics.)
[Cherry Picking the L word?]
[Local? Laffer? the Curve? Liberal?]

[My original intent was to note the rhetoric* in the hyperbole link, and get to my compromise-D point via "apples and oranges". i.e. who am I to recommend a Republican candidate? But suggesting that it go all the way, to the convention. Which itself is un-conventional, but do I have the facts to back that up? However...after last nights debate and a Rovian theory I have been scrolling over in my mind, could it be? Romney/Perry 2012?** In my opinion the best thing for the country is a more moderate Republican that will still be too right, that would allow Obama to hold the 99'ers. But that is not the way Republicans work, and it is even difficult sometimes for democracy to work. It is fine to attack an opponents strengths in a game or a battle and that works in politics, but that is not what works in governing.]
[Lions, and Tigers and Bears(please excuse the Wizard of OWS* analogy) is an apples and oranges and cherry picking procedure. For Republicans it is Tea or Koch and Rove, for democracy it is apples and oranges and cherry pitting. Pitting is a good thing, with apologies to Martha Stewart, not to mention George Washington, with his supposed hatchet.]

* not to disassemble in either sense, it is a great not so calm-pendium. Note that I did say "tough segue". And CAUTION please note that I do not always review the complete links that I insert, in particular the code of Rachel Maddow. And I cannot be responsible for links expiring or changing.

** Note that a more "realistic" combo(pardon the pun) may be Romney/Cain. And no pardon for the quotation marks, but the ticket would be more debate worthy. [OK, I pun on the pardon, but not the debate, with CAUTION.]

Deja Voodoo?

Fuzzy Math + Fuzzy English = 1 Heckuva Job
[This is an old quip of mine updated** with new links embedded.]

A COROLLARY:
Litigated Math + Mitigated Language = the inverse of the slippery slope.

Just what does that mean? Well it means that it is a lot harder to make progress than to run things down. It means we must be as careful backing out of the ditch, as we were careless getting the driver that got us there. (Sorry to mix rhetoric and metaphor here, but it is an uphill battle *that will take all hands on deck.0

*this is a Laffer speaking of hills, I suggest that you search for the boat in Reagan's words not to mention Lincoln's stroke of labor.

[And where do I get the voodoo? Well is just isn't magic. But the key as Bill Frist said is "when done right". It also seems to depend on the side of the curve one is on before changes are made, not to mention the application of the terms incentive and work when it comes to capital.]

[Update: 12-8-08 King County Re-Org and the inspiration from the Tax Reform debacle there.

** I attempt to represent this as a formula or parody of math, but the links I have inserted were not necessarily known to me at the time I formulated an earlier version, just the history as we lived it, in the form of Reaganomics and early Bushisms.]

The one thing?

[Right Columns Being Updated]

Well...
it was a chart that demonstrates the effects on GNP for various stimulative choices.

Translation:
Tax Cuts Bad
Federal Spending Good.
This of course is overly simplified, and relative to the position on the (Laffer) bell curve for tax rates.
Permanent tax cuts do not get even get half their money's worth of stimulative effect, while all categories under federal spending get well more than their buck's bang.

Speaking of "Killing two birds with one stone"...
Rachel Maddow [*] addresses the issue of Wisconsin and why Democrats exist(economic populism).
(Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll)

[Navigation aid: see bold link(s)]
[UPDATE 1-22-11 Keith and Rachel, D-part meant of Corrections and Stephanie Miller]
[Bottom Line? Democrats can stand strong and the American people will support them, and standing with the unions of Wisconsin and collective bargaining will be what the average American supports, the lopsided money and media to the contrary.]
[Potential follow-up: No to Violence, No to Prank News: But seriously.]
[*] my apologies the bold Rachel Maddow link has been corrected
[further Huckabee, Ed Schultz, Norman Goldman**, and Reverse Re-Verses.]
** must add show link for Norman

Caging Godzillas

Sustainability Requires Caging Godzillas- Andrew Sheng (INET)
Finance reforms, to meet the challenges of trade cycles and the debt bubble require Financial, Social and Resource Stability and Sustainability.
Finance is ungovernable, because of creation of credit.(paraphrased and contexted 4:58 in video through 10 minutes and more on global game-local blame.) The bubble containment dilemma*: leveraged capital flow, ability to get around** boundaries and rules. My aside: Bailouts are not stimulus, and stimulus are not bailouts. The problem and the solution are at the vertex of the three in politics and governance. Finance reform recognizes the role of governments in creating a system(market rules) that balances consumption and "creative destruction". The Godzillas are the metaphor for the responsibility that is avioded by not taking on the responsibility and blaming the market. Rollover of debt to public debt, crisis of reserve currency and international monetary system. Segue: BO-OB Barack Obama -Optimism Bias Extra Credit: Debt is not just about borrowing, it is about not paying for it. All bailouts and stimulus, not being equal, let alone at all similar, they are not all bad. Something somewhere has got to give. It is not all about free markets and free trade, but providing a system that does not just take, whether it is freedom, labor or resources.

[Laffer Cry or D ' Ribble]

[Hint: to Obama: Wrong Try Pod? More Cow Bell.]
[Huntsman Aside, Ring Obama]
[AND Congress- as amended: cutting loopholes are on the spending cuts not the tax hikes side of the equation.]

* my model/metaphor related to Platonic Tetrahedron
[** not an endorsement of shape of the curve, but another Godzilla factor]
[Breaking News: Presidential Press Conference]
[See Comments below Re:]
[Update: 7-1-11 He has a long way to go to be a Boehner or a Whiner, let alone "Tricky D." ]