Pit Charts

Investment?
Revenues?
Spending?
Debt Charts?

Rob Johnsons?
Rob Johnsons!
Really.
Bowles Simpson.*
Rob Johnson.
(special thanks to Stephanie Miller and Jared Bernstein.)

*(huh?)(Speaking of M.B.eh?)

Double Down on Blue Print!
Double Down !
(Bumper Snicker ! )
[NOT!]

Speaking of charts.

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]

Neo-Perspectivism

It is hard to say which niche this arises from.**
Neo-Nuanced is one trigger.***
Even if retro actively.
No silver bullet.
(Or Lone Ranger)
(I, II, III, IV, Not nor note.)
(Far From It)

Less embedded:
It is not just to Pop Culture but social engineering.
If that is an aphorism, you have one hint.(ouch)
But Freud and Hitler were both Austrian,
but the latter-day Austrians are economic transcendentalists.*
(Emerson, Niche& Rand?)
Some credit may be due to "Plato Not Prozac."

[Just in.]

***

Notes to Asterisk Readers:
It may help the flow if one reads the asterisks in order and after a full read of this piece, but scrolling over links as one goes will be useful.
* no Emerson
** last link inserted: Maybe way too much of a D'Ribble or G'Ribble?
[Apologies for Neo-Euphemism.]

[Breaking News:  Herman Cain will give an "unconventional Endorsement just prior to the South Carolina Primary. (Ctrl F "best" under vent) I hope it is not another one of his tours or projects, but if it is not a third party run or candidate it might be someone from out of the blue if not a write-in.  Huntsman or Bachmann also come to mind.]

***  The irony of taxes, GDP and debt. Is it in the charts?

> Previous Post <

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.

Wrong Track Romney

Mixed Metaphor Mangler Mitt *: Debt Picture 101

The Big Dig or Jig [?]

The Track? (not exactly ... [!])

* Facebook comment:  
     See Clip, Romney: "I'm here to collect." That sounds like an entitlement that is on the wrong track. The economy has turned around**, and that is not to say that it has been Obama's economy. How can Republicans complain about the budget operating on continuing resolutions while giving Obama the credit for the economy.
     Speaking of tracks, the government can not be operated like a business. Where is the profit? Not to mention the cost of some of the outrageous expectations that previous administrations have burdened the future with in the unfunded mandates, Terror/Afghan/Iraq war, and Bush tax cuts.

[who cares !  Some do. . . ]***

** misc. economic metrics

*** could not locate The Place for Politics that had a chart outlining what it takes in the primaries and caucuses for a Republican to win, not necessarily what determines who the nominee will actually be.  

[Facebook tangent.]

[Post Iowa Caucus it is a battle between Romney and Santorum @25%, with Ron Paul 21%, Newt Gingrich 13%, and Perry with 10%, not to mention Bachman 5%, and Huntsman 1%.  Note that Ron Paul gave a spirited "we are all Austrian", on to New Hampshire speech, while Newt had his "ticket punched".]

> charts <
< previous post >