The faux Edwards "hypocrisy" nonsense...

Topspin said:
Socratese, that's some weak ass shit. the best the turbo-libs can do is below average growth from the average recovery. I call that garbage.:clink:
Click to expand...
Sorry I could not come back to this as soon as possible. So WHY is it WEAK? I mean when I first read it, I saw that the author just has a BA in Philosophy, so not exactly what I would call resounding creditials for a report on economics.

But she does quote a Federal Reserve document that says:

A careful study by three Federal Reserve economists refuted this contention, finding that the tax cuts were not the reason the stock market rose in 2003. The study compared the performance of taxable stocks in the United States to the performance of European stocks, which did not benefit from the tax cuts. It found that European markets, which were unaffected by the U.S. capital gains and dividend tax cuts, behaved similarly to the U.S. market, casting serious doubt on the idea that the tax cuts were a crucial factor behind the improvement in the U.S. market.

Gene Amromin, Paul Harrison, and Steven Sharpe, “How Did the 2003 Dividend Tax Cut Affect Stock Prices?” Federal Reserve Board Discussion Paper, December 2005, http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2005/200561/200561pap.pdf
Click to expand...

Amromin is not a slacker his info can be found here http://www.federalreserve.gov/research/staff/amromingenex.htm , but if you don't want to look suffice it to say he graduated from University of Chicago with an M.A. and a Ph.D and his BA in econ from Northwestern.

Harrison http://www.federalreserve.gov/research/staff/harrisonpaulx.htm , has a Ph.D in Econ from Duke and was twice an associate professor at Brandies University. (Not that is NOT an alcohol that is a really prestigious university)

Steven A. Sharpe http://zentralbank.us/research/staff/sharpestevea.htm , has a Ph.D in Econ from Stanford and a BA in Econ and Math from University of Illinois.

The reason I point this out to you is that while economically you and I agree on a great deal, you seem to hold yourself out as some great economist and belittle many people on this site as being dumber than you, yet i give you site to a paper that quotes some pretty heavy hitters in the econ arena and all I get out of you is "that's some weak ass shit". Not a resounding criticism and one much less than I would have expected from one as brilliant and non Community College educated as yourself.

:clink:
 
I look up weak as shit in the dictionary and there was your post.

BA in Philosophy, LOFL you posted that for comedic value right.:clink:
 
Topspin said:
I look up weak as shit in the dictionary and there was your post.

BA in Philosophy, LOFL you posted that for comedic value right.:clink:
Click to expand...
and again you FAIL to address the issues in the paper and better yet the findings by the Ph.D's in econ from respected programs. I am beginning to think you are a fraud that gets off on telling everyone else how dumb they are compared to you. All you EVER post is how NO ONE obviously has ever taken Econ 101 so they should just leave you alone. No substance, all bluster. That seems to be your MO
 
Last edited:
Socrtease said:
and again you FAIL to address the issues in the paper and better yet the findings by the Ph.D's in econ from respected programs. I am beginning to think you are a fraud that gets off on telling eveyone else how dumb they are compared to you. All you EVER post is how NO ONE obviously have ever taken Econ 101 so they should just leave you alone. No substance all bluster. That seems to be your MO
Click to expand...

Umm, surely you are not talking about Topper?

Where would you get ideas like this from?
 
Topper ?

He is a self professed teacher of economics. But you know I never had a teacher would only tell the class how stupid they were....

Me perhaps, but not the entire class.
 
Last edited:
Socrtease said:
THE EFFECTS OF THE CAPITAL GAINS AND DIVIDEND TAX CUTS
ON THE ECONOMY AND REVENUES:
Four Years Later, a Look at the Evidence


http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-07tax.htm

This is a very interesting, albeit, left of center, report on capital gains tax cuts.

What do you think of this analysis Top?
Click to expand...


The tax cuts are a short term effect, they most certainly have boosted the economy over the past several years. But in the long term, you have to have spending cuts (or at least quit increasing spending) to offset the cuts in taxes.

That said, your above article has some valid points and some points that are bogus.

The ultra low interest rate environment has certainly aided growth, but it has also created the credit crunch we are currently in.

Yes, there was stronger growth in the early 90's than there is today, but that was not due to tax increases in 1990 and 1993. It was due to the tech expansion, the advent of the internet to the public, telecom buildout and higher productivity pretty much across the board. If anything the tax increases slowed that growth. The true boom of the 1990's coincidentally occured AFTER Clinton and the Rep Congress lowered the LT cap gains tax to 20%. But this too really wasn't the primary driver. It was the business cycle.
 
Onceler said:
The CBO estimated that, over time, the tax cuts will pay for only 10% of their cost...
Click to expand...

Where did you see that Lorax? I missed that and would love to see how they came to that conclusion.

Bottom line, the tax cuts will not be sustainable long term unless the fed stops spending like a bunch of crazed liberals. It does not appear that there are any true conservatives (economically speaking) in D.C.
 
Superfreak said:
The tax cuts are a short term effect, they most certainly have boosted the economy over the past several years. But in the long term, you have to have spending cuts (or at least quit increasing spending) to offset the cuts in taxes.

That said, your above article has some valid points and some points that are bogus.

The ultra low interest rate environment has certainly aided growth, but it has also created the credit crunch we are currently in.

Yes, there was stronger growth in the early 90's than there is today, but that was not due to tax increases in 1990 and 1993. It was due to the tech expansion, the advent of the internet to the public, telecom buildout and higher productivity pretty much across the board. If anything the tax increases slowed that growth. The true boom of the 1990's coincidentally occured AFTER Clinton and the Rep Congress lowered the LT cap gains tax to 20%. But this too really wasn't the primary driver. It was the business cycle.
Click to expand...

But this too really wasn't the primary driver. It was the business cycle.

Riiight. The old "Democrats just got lucky argument".

That argument might hold water if you only look at two or three business cycles.

But, if you look at a broard range of economic and stockmarket data, going back at least 50 to 70 years, you'll see that GDP, real income, unemplyment, governement deficits, stock market returns, inflation, statistically perform better under Democratic adminstrations and policies, than under republican ones. On every single economic metric. There's not a single metric that performs better statistically, over a time period of half a century or more, under republicans.

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/


http://slate.com/?id=2071929

That's not luck my friend. That's what we call a statistically significant finding.
 
socratese you ever post anything reasonable about economics instead of feabley trying to go against me then It'll warrent some discussion.
USC I was only calling you stupid, dungshit is right there with you though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top