Euro-myths

I know they only count those who are looking, which doesn't count those who have "given up" (how could you give up looking for a job? Wouldn't you starve? TANF only gives you 18 months...).

But I'm pretty sure that doesn't throw it off tremendously. e
 
Southern Man said:
As I recall the Laffer curve shows the optimum at much smaller.
Click to expand...


The Laffer curve was about taxation, not government as part of the GDP. But the optimum for government revenue is probably somewhere around 50% (not necessarily that you should place there, the purpose of taxation isn't only to get as much out of the people as possible). Keynes thought it was close to 90%. Laffer thought it was about 20%, but Laffer was a joke, and he's been proved wrong by history.
 
Southern Man said:
That's a good question. But I don't remember him making that promise.
Click to expand...

Because he didn't. Bush wasn't talking about cutting government. His big pledge was the tax cuts. He said the tax cuts were the peoples money not the government's. He spoke about education and NCLB was obviously a huge government expansion. He talked about precription drugs which again, another massive government entitlement.

Because Republicans have traditionally talked about wanting to cut government Citizen is just talking out his ass again and trying to claim Bush said it as well.
 
Watermark said:
The Laffer curve was about taxation, not government as part of the GDP. But the optimum for government revenue is probably somewhere around 50% (not necessarily that you should place there, the purpose of taxation isn't only to get as much out of the people as possible). Keynes thought it was close to 90%. Laffer thought it was about 20%, but Laffer was a joke, and he's been proved wrong by history.
Click to expand...

How has Laffeur proved a joke and proved wrong by history? The Laffeur Curve was about the optimal level of taxation for revenues. How is that wrong?
 
Watermark said:
Welfare is, for the most part, an economically neutral operation. It's regulation of trade (in some places) that can create the tight spots.
Click to expand...


That's a good point. If the Gov. pays for subsidized child care, that money is going to pay for child care workers, and creating salaries, jobs, and productive income.
 
Cypress said:
That's a good point. If the Gov. pays for subsidized child care, that money is going to pay for child care workers, and creating salaries, jobs, and productive income.
Click to expand...

If the poor have subsidized child care they can better afford to work at low paying jobs, keeping costs down....
 
uscitizen said:
btw the EU's economy is now about the size of ours....
Getting close folks.
Click to expand...

i predicted prior to the EU that eventually it will fall apart.. what happens with the French disagree with how the Spanish or English want to do something. They are not bound together like how the United States are.
 
Cypress said:
That's a good point. If the Gov. pays for subsidized child care, that money is going to pay for child care workers, and creating salaries, jobs, and productive income.
Click to expand...

What I meant is that it's just taking income from someone and giving it to another. It may change the market. It won't make it weaker. Paying people to do something that wouldn't be efficient otherwise is just a distortion of the market.
 
Cypress said:
That's a good point. If the Gov. pays for subsidized child care, that money is going to pay for child care workers, and creating salaries, jobs, and productive income.
Click to expand...

What you are missing in that equation is the opportunity cost of that capital. Is that the optimal use of that capital? Could it be better served elsewhere?

Yes the government can spend money and create jobs. But if the private sector can spend that same money and create 2X the number of jobs is that not better?
 
this is comical shit
Time to educate my democrat brothers aaagain.
Cypress, tell us how you trolled this moronic article.
Never debate any of your friends with the words Eurpope and economy compared to ours ever again. I like you and wouldn't want you to look like an ass.:clink:
 
cawacko said:
What you are missing in that equation is the opportunity cost of that capital. Is that the optimal use of that capital? Could it be better served elsewhere?

Yes the government can spend money and create jobs. But if the private sector can spend that same money and create 2X the number of jobs is that not better?
Click to expand...



Well, the private sector would just dump that money into platinum parachutes for failed senior executives.
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
What you are missing in that equation is the opportunity cost of that capital. Is that the optimal use of that capital? Could it be better served elsewhere?

Yes the government can spend money and create jobs. But if the private sector can spend that same money and create 2X the number of jobs is that not better?
Click to expand...


Nanny's and babysitters can come from private companies contracted by the goverment to provide daycare.

I don't know for sure, but I doubt all French, Norwegian, and Swedish childcare workers are government employees.

Childcare is something everyone needs at some point. So yes, its a neccessary use of public money or capital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top