New Fed Chief Denounces Supply-Side BS

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
or the iraq war situation - economists know that countries rich in natural resources always have worse forms of government. the worlds richest countries in natural resources (Oil) are some of the most repressive in the world. and rummy and co thought that democracy would be easy to implement.

Yeah, that's because the oil wealth is almost always concentrated in the hands of the elite who then use the money to dominate the rest of the people. Sucks but that's the way if goes most of the time. There are exceptions of large oil producers which are democracies like the US, Canada, Mexico, UK, Norway, and a few others but those were already developed (or in the case of Mexico one of the most developed developing countries). It's the third world countries which don't have the institutions to withstand the rush of oil wealth and the power concentrated into the hands of a few. State control of oil fields hasn't helped either because the dictator just uses the money as his private piggy bank.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I doubt it is even that high. There is probably a curve of economic efficency as on progresses from a zero tax rate up to a 100% tax rate. The X-axis is tax revenue and the Y-axis is the tax rate. So some where on that curve is the max income for taxs. It would also be interesting to put on a Z-axis for economic efficency though I admit it would be hard to objectively measure total economic efficency.

I was just thinking of something similar to this. It shows both can be wrong or right depending on the circumstance. Are there people out there who would ignore the logical absurdity produced when taking the tax cut theory to the extreme. That is, if you cut taxes to nil, would they still expect revenues to go up. The opposite extreme is also true. Raise taxes to 100% and see how much revenue you get.

[Kontiki]

It's called the Laffer Curve, and was used by some in the Reagan administration to justify the tax cuts. However, there's a lot of controversy about it, not the least of which is where exactly the optimal point along the curve is.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I doubt it is even that high. There is probably a curve of economic efficency as on progresses from a zero tax rate up to a 100% tax rate. The X-axis is tax revenue and the Y-axis is the tax rate. So some where on that curve is the max income for taxs. It would also be interesting to put on a Z-axis for economic efficency though I admit it would be hard to objectively measure total economic efficency.

thats the Laffer Curve(sans proposed Z axis), its not an exact science though. and I'd bet that right now the economy is under taxed according to it.

[RGBVideo]

Perhaps you mean countries heavily reliant on single natural resources, since the the world's richest countries in terms of resources are the United States, Canada and Russia.

Which, funnily enough, happen to also be the three larges countries in the world.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by VJ

Which, funnily enough, happen to also be the three larges countries in the world.

Indeed they are. I'm just not seeing them being the most opressive in the world, though.

[Dauphin]

I'm not even sure the premise holds on the other extreme. There are plenty of basket case countries with no resources that have brutal regimes that no-one cares about because they are poor, unimportant and over there.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
If its an 80% return or a 50% return, that's still pretty damn good I think and worth looking at.

Okay, let's do this. You invest a $1,000 with me & I'll give you back somewhere between $500.00-800.00.

[Dauphin]

Before, he was told he'd never get his money back. So seeing that amount of rebate would make his day.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Kontiki
It's called the Laffer Curve, and was used by some in the Reagan administration to justify the tax cuts. However, there's a lot of controversy about it, not the least of which is where exactly the optimal point along the curve is.

Since Reagan lowered taxes and revenues decreased instead of increased as he'd promised, it was obvious taxes hadn't been high enough to reach the maximum rate of revenue.

Laffin' at the Laffer Curve.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Before, he was told he'd never get his money back. So seeing that amount of rebate would make his day.

Don't forget...he still has to repay the deficit...with interest.

[Dauphin]

I think the official answer to that is lalallalalallalllalallI'mnotlisteninglalalalla

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Since Reagan lowered taxes and revenues decreased instead of increased as he'd promised, it was obvious taxes hadn't been high enough to reach the maximum rate of revenue.

Revenues actually increased during the 80s.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Revenues actually increased during the 80s.

That explains why in his first term, Reagan ran up more debt than all the previous Presidents combined, and why, during his second term, he ran up more debt than he did in his first term.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
That explains why in his first term, Reagan ran up more debt than all the previous Presidents combined, and why, during his second term, he ran up more debt than he did in his first term.

Because Reagan didn't approve any new spending projects during his administration .

Would you stop and think for a second before you post?