"I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong. Tax cuts don't equal growth."

of course if the quality is low you would not be so afraid to explain why. What do you learn from your fear?

 

I’m talking reality.

 

So this 'reality' isn't supported by Keynesian theory (despite you suggesting otherwise), nor can you support it with comment from economic historian (despite it apparently being proved).

Bit of advice for you. Try a '2 step' logic boost to your approach. Step 1: actually learn what Keynesian economics entails. Step 2: demonstrate that you can refer to economic evidence in support of your opinion.

 

Ms. Romer was in charge of the Obama government spending stimulus which was “guaranteed” to keep unemployment below 8%. Unemployment peaked over 10% and the Obama recovery was the worst since the Great Depression.

 

It’s supported by the historical record. My advice is to learn from reality instead of theory.

 

This isn't a cunning comment. Economic outcome is understood through a simple two step process: creation of economic model; empirical testing of the relevance of that model. You've tried to refer to the former with reference to Keynesianism. When pushed, you couldn't actually refer to any Keynesianism. You've also tried to refer to the latter. However, instead of doing the obvious (i.e. referring to an empirical investigation into fiscal policy), you've gone for a nonsensical "I don't need evidence as I'm right" stance.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that you can neither refer to Keynesianism with any accuracy or actually defend your stance with any credible evidence?

 

Economic outcome is understood from results. The Reagan tax rate reductions produced economic growth double that of the Obama government spending stimulus and triple the economic productivity growth.

 

You referred to Reaganomics, despite not knowing that it was Military Keynesianism. From that you made crass error as military expenditure is not particularly effective at demand management.

I've asked you to refer to an empirical source that agrees with your opinion (and, let's be honest, its an opinion that most economists do not share)

 

yes and at her academic most honest point( before working for a communist president) had to admit tax cuts worked better than govt spending/waste.

 

"These results are consistent with those conducted by economists David and Christine Romer in their study on the economic impact of changes in taxation, which also found that tax cuts correlated with more growth than spending increases."

 

Yes. And that conclusion is based on real world data. I also appreciate her honesty at a luncheon just before she returned to Berkeley when she stated that she had no idea why the government spending stimulus did not work.

 

That’s funny. The left continues to credit military spending for Supply Side Economics success of Reagan. Cute !!

 

Reaganomics has naff all to do with supply side economics. The clue is in the title: Military Keynesianism. For supply side economics try Thatcherism. That quadrupled unemployment, destroyed the industrial base and artificially created a recession worse than the Great Depression. Very efficient at creating child poverty mind you...

 

Oh look - a new one - Thatcher Derangement Syndrome.

 

You've gone from "Keynesian tax cuts are better" to "economic history proves" to "blah blah blah". Its a shame that you can't actually support your arguments with either economics or evidence, but try not to descent to grunt.

 

I support my arguments with real world data.

 

You make opinion (without any valid economics behind it). Then when confronted, you say "I'm right cos it is true". It is of course an idiotic approach.

 

That's often true, especially of private monopolies. But when monopoly is inevitable, it's more efficient to make it accountable to the voting public than to private owners. That's why power, water, rail transport, etc. almost always cost less in places where they are public monopolies than where they are private ones.

Yes: Cuba's public monopoly system, and the public monopoly systems of other countries like Canada, France, the UK, etc. are far more efficient than the American private monopoly system, which is by far the world's least efficient when measured by cost per health benefit obtained..

That's clearly false. And your idea of a "free" market is one in which privileged private monopolists steal from everyone else.

Absurd and disingenuous false dichotomy fallacy. Plus, it is clear that only the top 1% get rich under your "Republican capitalism," the next 9% do reasonably well as long as they own land, IP monopolies or other privileges, the next 60% struggle to keep their heads above water, and the bottom 30%, who don't own land, actually get poorer.

 

Only if you incorrectly assume there would be no market for the services and infrastructure it provides.

No, that's false. Private taxpayers cannot spend that money on public services and infrastructure as efficiently as government because of market failure conditions.

If you don't think it does, check the cost of production in places that have no government infrastructure. Why aren't all the producers flocking to zero-tax Somalia, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Are you even capable of considering relevant facts?

How many of those do you claim government has built, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Large private bridges can almost never be built at a profit because local landowners just take all their value.

 

What market failure conditions are they then?

 

It’s a statement based on fact and analysis as you should well know.

 

Then why can't you refer to one economic source in support of your opinion?

 

There is no market alternatives for social security. But as the three counties in TX prove, the private sector provides much better benefits.

Come’on man. Much of infrastructure spending is politically motivated. A bridge to nowhere is a metaphor. And obviously infrastructure which provides basic capabilities such as roads and bridges are necessary.

 

Why are you not capable of doing your homework ??

 

My homework is to show your position is supportable? You're a funny fellow!

You amused me through your reference to Keynesianism. I knew you were clueless over what it entails. I must admit that I was overly optimistic and assumed you'd do better than digging a hole for yourself. Next time, try and widen your knowledge! It needs it