Obama wins, saves economy single-handedly while defeating economy-hating Republicans

[KrazyHorse]

A lot of fancy words for simple concepts... but what is your conclusion? Did any of those government activities serve to turn around economic growth? Were they just mitigating factors to soften the descent for certain politically expedient groups until the business cycle came back around? What? Obviously, this is complex and there's no data in front of you, but what do you think?

Is this some kind of joke? Do you often get meaningful responses when you ask for simple answers to questions so complex that nobody understands them?

If you want that kind of discussion, go read Krugman or Russ Roberts (depending on your preferences).

[KrazyHorse]

"we have no data and no meaningful theoretical framework, but I would like you to opine on the overall effect of a complex intervention into a fantastically complex system. 25 words or less, please"

[Al B. Sure!]

You said...

I promise to spend at least 15 minutes crafting an opinion (assuming the topic is at least moderately interesting).

I WANT AN OPINION You didn't have to pick a topic this complex

I saw threads about the Philippines sucking and about flights to South Dakota. Maybe that would have been easier for you

[KrazyHorse]

I gave you opinions in there. Just not opinions that can be boiled down to "two legs bad, four legs good"

[KrazyHorse]

For example, my view on QE is an opinion. My view on the aims and effects of the auto bailout's implementation was an opinion. My view on the paucity of data surrounding "stimulus" is an opinion...

[Al B. Sure!]

I gave you opinions in there. Just not opinions that can be boiled down to "two legs bad, four legs good"

You're always so clear-cut and these are the facts and this is what should be done, etc. on every other economic issue. I'm surprised you are actually taking a step back here and having a more complex evaluation. You're usually more one-sided.

[KrazyHorse]

Could you please provide examples of the supposed behavior in question? And do you understand that most of what I post is partly ironic and partly genuine?

[KrazyHorse]

In terms of economic policy positions that would probably be termed ideological in contemporary US politics:

1) I think that markets are generally pretty damn efficient, and are far more so than central planning. You can ascribe this to incentives of policymakers versus market participants, but my favored explanation rests more strongly on Hayekian critiques

2) I believe in an independent Fed that explicitly targets specific nominal variables

3) I think that short-run thinking often leads to long-term policy. Legislation and regulation are forever.

4) I believe in a redistributionist State, an efficient tax and benefit system, and allowing individuals to make their own production and consumption decisions. These aims are incompatible in extremis, thus there must be compromise. An example of a compromise that would suit me far more than the current compromise would be to reduce direct provision of a number of government services, a significant per capita cash payment and a flat earned income (or consumption) tax. The cash payment I'd favor would be far more generous than the one envisioned by most US proponents of a "flat tax".

[Al B. Sure!]

(or consumption) tax.

I am not feeling this one but I suppose you already have answers to the usual charges of consumption taxes disproportionally burdening the poor who spend a greater relative percentage of their incomes on consumables and that consumption taxes have a deleterious effect on consumption and instead incentivize saving (although that's probably a wash anyway)?

[KrazyHorse]

If you had bothered to think for yourself instead of listening to the chattering class' analysis of taxation, you would understand that:

1) It is not important whether or not the tax or benefit systems taken by themselves are "progressive" or not. What matters for welfare is their net effect. How much is redistributed and to whom? What are their marginal utilities (you can phrase this in Rawlsian terms if you'd like)? What are the incentive effects? What do the supply and demand elasticities for labor look like at various points on the income spectrum?
2) The claim that the poor "consume more" and therefore a consumption tax "hits them harder" is retarded on its face.

Please refer to any of dozens of posts by myself or others on (2)

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, through a stunningly retarded tax system design, the US manages to have fairly steep marginal tax rates AND fairly flat average tax rates.

Worst of both worlds.

[KrazyHorse]

I would love to expropriate all those suburban middle/upper-middle class ****ers (the most pampered demographic around) and take away the mortgage interest deduction, the health insurance exemption and the personal exemption for dependents

[Al B. Sure!]

If you had bothered to think for yourself instead of listening to the chattering class' analysis of taxation, you would understand that:

1) It is not important whether or not the tax or benefit systems taken by themselves are "progressive" or not. What matters for welfare is their net effect. How much is redistributed and to whom? What are their marginal utilities (you can phrase this in Rawlsian terms if you'd like)? What are the incentive effects.
2) The claim that the poor "consume more" and therefore a consumption tax "hits them harder" is retarded on its face.

Please refer to any of dozens of posts by myself or others on (2)

I take no issue with #1... #2 though... Because savings are deferred consumption which will be taxed at some point... I'd have to mull over this. It can't be that simple.

[Sava]

[Arrian]

I would love to expropriate all those suburban middle/upper-middle class ****ers (the most pampered demographic around) and take away the mortgage interest deduction, the health insurance exemption and the personal exemption for dependents

Oh no! You can't cut MY subsidies!!!

-Arrian