Warning: If you are an ardent supporter of former President Trump who believes the election was stolen, do not read this. It will deeply upset you. Also, don’t read this if you only seek my views on economics and personal finance. Still here? Let me provide some quick background for what’s coming. I ran for President as an independent write-in candidate in 2016. This tells you three things. First, I’m neither a Red nor a Blue. Second, I thought neither Trump nor Clinton should be running the country. Third, I’m an unusual academic economist.
Ok, here's my last response. I never said, "... more competition into American industry coupled with historically higher tax rates produce greater incentives for wealth creation...." This is just gibberish. Read what I've written and you'll see what I really think/know, not your invention of my views. And, yes, Happy New Year.
''Ok, here's my last response. I never said, "... more competition into American industry coupled with historically higher tax rates produce greater incentives for wealth creation...." This is just gibberish."
Larry, this quote was one of your acolytes (Pitketty) who wrote that ''gibberish'', to which I responded; it wasn't intended as a response to YOU. You may have some kinks in your site yet to be worked out; this may be one.
AND, this will be my last response to you, sir, as it is a waste of time to play with children caught up in emotionally-charged political screeds and sciolism (see Pitketty's comments).
I recommend you unsubscribe. I think reading my newsletter is causing you excessive stress and won't teach you anything because you so clearly know everything about everything.
You're talking with the person who has written the most on the long-term fiscal gap of our country. Check out kotlikoff.net, particularly The Coming Generational Storm and The Clash of Generations. But both parties are responsible for our country's horrendous fiscal insolvency.As for taxing the rich, I know lots of super-rich people. They don't pay taxes. They borrow against their wealth, never realize capital gains, and pass their assets to their kids with a step-up in basis. You are sure you know so much when you really don't. But you are clearly a smart, articulate, knowledgeable person. So I hope that you'll mellow out and start looking at the world with an open mind. Trump is not your God. You don't need to kneel to him, intellectually or otherwise. He's simply a traitor headed to jail. best, Larry
OK, you have a PhD; I have a Business degree....so what? I'm not discrediting you in what I've written; I'm criticizing your TDS affliction. It's unbecoming of a person of your accomplishment.
AND, I don't care what your politics may be; I'm not a young man, as you assumed, and I gave up many years ago in trying to persuade a political conversion to my beliefs....it's a waste of my remaining precious time. I seek intellectual discussion; this may not be the forum for that with as much bilious commentary focused on one individual who's been out of office for nearly 2 years.
I suggest you follow your own admonition to me; you'll feel better.
I guess we differ. Fortunately, you and others with you adoration for our would-be dictator are in the minority. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are true profiles in courage. Our country remains a democracy because of people like them and Senator McConnell. Someday you will be old enough to realize this.
Thanks for your concern of my well-being; I do really well and Trump is not my god, nor do I kneel to anyone, especially politicians.
You are a zealot in your political assertions. I had no idea that you were so affected, as I appreciate the work you have excelled in with your Economic research, etc.
Try not to condescend; it weakens your standing in every way.
Trump will be vindicated, just as he was with the TWO FARCICAL Impeachment attempts brought by the crazed DemocRAT party and RINOS like Liz Cheney, Kinzinger, et al.....a disgrace to their offices and one of the reasons they are now politically irrelevant. The term that applies is TDS for those who despise him so profoundly; a more productive activity, and perhaps psychologically cleansing of TDS, would be a keener interest in how a verifiably non compos mentis, doddering fool who can barely string 2 coherent sentences together sits in the WH, protected against incessant gaffes by the MSM, Biden staff and other sycophants....not to mention the blatant 5 decades-long grifting by the present administration and his family members. Then there are the abjectly idiotic policy decisions that have recently been signed into law.
The outrage that divides this country is palpable, and it's perpetrated on the easily propagandized, like Prof. Kotlifoff and his rabid fellow Leftists who use ad hominem attacks, name-calling and highly subjective accusatory statements directed at President Trump. I look forward to the moment that Kotlifoff & Co. will dine on CROW; he should keep his politics away from economic analysis so as to enhance his status and standing in the field of economics.
The late Milton Friedman, PhD Economics, is but one fine example of an untarnished legacy in his field.
Trump didn’t try to “overthrow” the election. That’s absolutely absurd and something a partisan hack would say. Challenging an election is done routinely.
Hi, I appreciate your writing. But he did try to overthrow the election. There was nothing wrong with challenging the election legally. He did that and lost in, I believe, 60 out of 60 tries. But organizing and sending a mob to force Pence not to certify -- that's trying to overthrow the election. Don't you see this? If not, are we aware of different facts or do we speak different languages? best, Larry
Larry has TDS; that will not be overcome by solid evidence contrary to his beliefs...
he, like others similarly propagandized, are to be ignored. Abject hatred for another knows no bounds....it's why I praised his economic thought and condemned his illness.
Can you name the last time a Presidential candidate "challenged" an election outcome for more than a few days? It has been 2+yrs now and Trump is still challenging the outcomes of an election he got CRUSHED in. If this happens regularly you should easily be able to name a few examples?
If you can't then you are just revealing to everyone that you are misinformed, right?
Bravo, Larry. This is spot-on. I find it mind boggling that any thinking voter cannot see him as a Traitor. Like you, I have almost complete disagreement with everything Liz Cheney stands for politically, but I have developed enormous respect for what she has been doing standing up to his treason, even is she hasn't been calling it that.
Larry, you suffer from a powerful case of TDS. Sad to see such warped thinking coming from you. To be quite honest, you don’t know what you’re talking about. But I am sure Liz and Nancy thank you for your anonymous devotion. In the meantime, you will lose the respect of thousands.
''Larry, you suffer from a powerful case of TDS. Sad to see such warped thinking coming from you. To be quite honest, you don’t know what you’re talking about.''
Agreed, alas. The MSM has successfully propagandized a significant portion of the US population with its UNjournalistic, NONinvestigative 'reporting' that is cherry-picked to comport with the 'Official Narrative'....e.g., "The Big Lie" and other nonsense, PR phrases they pride themselves on for their puerile attempts to sway the public into believing 'it', through incessant repetition.
"....But I am sure Liz and Nancy thank you for your anonymous devotion. In the meantime, you will lose the respect of thousands. "
MORE like millions, if this article by Kotlifoff gets traction. See my other comments herein.
actually, Larry's opinion has aged very-well. TFG's indictments are slow-in-coming, but they are coming ... personally, I kinda-hope he gets the nomination, becuz he has Zero chance of winning.
LOL. LC’s political career is dead in the water. She entered the Trump quicksand. We will see what happens in the future, as none of us have a crystal ball. But the past is prologue!
Thanks so much for writing and glad it past muster. Reich's piece is outstanding. I just added him to my substack recommendations. Are you on this platform? Warm regards, Larry
The question is this, was former President Donald J Trump guilty of "Dereliction of Duty" by not acting to address an attack on the US Capitol. He clearly knew the attack was occurring in real-time but he failed to act. There's a reasonable amount of debate regarding Impeachment, the First amendment, Sedition, etc. However, as a sitting US President, one does not have the Privilege or the Right to choose which of the three branches of the US Government you will defend. All three are protected and sacred to our Democracy. With regard to "DoD" there is no debate, he is guilty by his failure to act on January 6th. To be fair to both sides of the political spectrum, President Biden should keep his oath in mind with regard to the judicial branch that he must also support and defend. Thank you for allowing me to post my thoughts.
Benedict Arnold did not have a 40% approval rating with American voters. The obsession with Trump personally undermines the fact that so many Americans have lost faith in this country and our political system.
Democrats don't fix that by obsessing on Trump and his corrupt actions. Democrats win these citizens by fighting more effectively on policies that Red and Blue Americans want. Policy like Medicare for All, $15 national min wage, Higher Taxes to the rich, Breaking up these monopolies are supported by the majority of Americans. And the last 3 Democrat President's in a row have not fought as hard for these policies as would be needed to convince Americans not to give up on this country. Trumps popularity assures us all that too many Americans have given up.
I agree. My book, (free at kotlikoff.net), called You're Hired, spells out clearly what I would do were I in charge. I venture we agree on most of what's there. Take a read. best, Larry
".... Democrats win these citizens by fighting more effectively on policies that Red and Blue Americans want. Policy like Medicare for All, $15 national min wage, Higher Taxes to the rich, Breaking up these monopolies are supported by the majority of Americans."
Were you incarnated from FDR's bones? Have you researched the depth of the financial HOLE the US has dug for itself, especially the PV of US UNFUNDED LIABILITIES? Do you REALLY believe there is untapped wealth from the 'soak the RICH' mentality approach?....ad nauseum.
I don't expect an intelligent response, just more bile and vitriol for the veracity and relevance of my questions.
Increasing min wage to $15 an hour is not a tax. If you have read Nobel Prize winner in economics David Card's book "Myth and Measurement" you would find that data going back decades shows that increases in min wage do not lead to higher unemploynent and do lead to higher quality of life for low wage workers. I suppose you could argue with Card on that but i suspect you would not win the debate.
Breaking up monopolies is not a tax either. Monopolies extract rents from consumers that do not produce either innovation or goods and services. Due to the large number of Monopolies that have been allowed to develop over the last 40yrs the US consumer pays more for internet, Cable, mobile phone, meat, poultry, airlines, drugs and dozens of other goods that consumers in other wealthy democracies pay far less than in the US. Paul Krugman and George Stiglitz (also Nobel Prize winners) have also written extensively on this. Further, Monopsony (the employment and procurement side of Monopoly) has increasingly and artificially suppressed wages of labor for 40yrs now. I suggest you look at the Rand study to see how much wages of labor have declined to Monopsony in the US over the last 40yrs.
Medicare for All (MFA) would reduce the amount of money this nation currently spends on health care the way similar single payer programs have reduced the cost of health care in virtually every wealthy democracy in the world. Read Elizabeth Rosenthals book "American Sickness" to better understand why the US pays 2 times more for health care than other nations with health care systems that rank higher than the US system. Again, argue with her if you have some insights that she does not have. I am happy to debate how to fund M4A, that is open for debate but what is not open for debate is that it will cost the nation less than what we have today.
The Regan, Bush and Trump tax cuts went primarily to the rich in this country. The rich are the same people that have seen their INCOMES increase far faster than productivity growth and magnitudes faster than the poor and middle class over that time period. Thomas Piketty in his award winning book Capital in the 20th Century has shown how those wage increases have not come through increased productivity (productivity growth is actually down for the past several decades) but instead by merely by squeezing wages of the Poor and middle class. The result has been far slower productivity growth for decades, relative to when the US had higher taxes on the rich, larger income inequality and asset inflation.
Chas, this thinking has nothing to do with "soaking the rich". It is about improving GDP growth and productivity growth by reinserting real competition into American Industry and reducing the spiraling deficits by taxing Americans at rates that have historically produced higher incentives for wealth creation and lower incentives for wealth extraction.
Which are you opposed to higher GDP growth or Higher Productivity growth? Or both?
"....Which are you opposed to higher GDP growth or Higher Productivity growth? Or both? "
Neither...and your cause/effect arguments are misplaced...and, you don't know my bonafides, per your assertion: " I suppose you could argue with Card on that but i suspect you would not win the debate."
Really? And your evidence for that is, since you know me well?
Your assertion that more competition into American industry coupled with historically higher tax rates produce greater incentives for wealth creation....that's when I realized...
I couldn't have an intellectual discussion on the basis of that comment, but thanks for participating. BTW, we WOULD have more US competition with LESS gov't interference and the commensurately lower taxes supporting the extant labyrinthine layers of regulation.
The central gov't planners don't produce anything; they voraciously consume resources. It's called the Regulatory State for good reason, thus my reference to FDR reincarnated.
Here's a working definition for the study of Economics:
Economics is a social science concerned with the allocation of scarce resources, among alternative uses, for present and future consumption.
It's a simplification of a complex 'science' but it meets Occam's Razor test:
<<...BTW, we WOULD have more US competition with LESS gov't interference and the commensurately lower taxes supporting the extant labyrinthine layers of regulation.>>
You notices that in the past post i did not merely give you my opinion i cited books from scholars that will validate my claims. Prof Kotlikoff disagrees with some of the experts i present, like Piketty, and he has reasonable, though not persuasive, arguments opposed to what Piketty has written about. It is called a conversation and he is excellent at it. I am privileged to hear his comments even if i don't always agree.
I notice you failed to produce evidence validating your claims (central gov planners don't produce anything, more competition with less gov't interference etc...). These are common notions held among many people but do you have actual evidence of this? Please provide it. I cited several Nobel Prize winners analysis. What do you have?
Monopolies by their very definition reduce competition. Over the past 40yrs the theory has been that if they can reduce the cost to consumers then the reduced competition justifies the monopoly (Robert Bork made this idea very popular in the legal and regulatory community). Thus it is that over the last 40yrs we have seen a decline in anti trust enforcement and an increase in the number of monopolies in the economy. So, by definition we have less competition. Fewer meat packers, fewer poultry plants, fewer airlines, fewer telco carriers etc... LESS competition. On the flip side the increase in monopolies has produced Monopsony which reduces labors ability to barging for higher wages and supplies ability to negotiate higher prices.
So all of this coincides with 40yrs of declining wages for the poor and middle class, slower GDP growth and slower Productivity growth.
Do you debate that point?
Allocation of resources is a great way to look at economics.
From the 30's until the lat 70's the US had a Maximum tax rate for incomes of over a certain amount of first 90% and then 76%. Tell me how reducing that max tax rate in the early 80's impacted the allocation of resources in the US economy?
Can you show the link between higher productivity growth from the 40's to the 80's associated with very high Maximum tax of that period?
Actually, it refers to people who feel compelled to refer to him as
Drumph or Orange anything. Still living rent free in your head despite being a public citizen for 18+ months. How preposterous to think that LC can become POTUS when she just lost her cushy incumbent seat. This is just the newest, baseless conspiracy theory in the TDS afflicted.
<< Author Gwenda Blair researched the Trump family origins, and identified Hanns Drumpf, an itinerant lawyer, who moved to Kallstadt in 1608. The spelling of his last name had changed by the end of the 17th century.[3] Another early Trump ancestor that can be identified as using this alternate spelling is Johann Philipp Drumpft (1667–1707, parents and place of birth not recorded), who married Juliana Maria Rodenroth.[4]
In 2011, the International Business Times repeated a verified claim that Donald Trump's paternal grandfather Frederick Trump changed his name from Drumpf to Trump, possibly to avoid anti-German sentiment popular at the time. [5]
I didn't say the name was baseless. I said the people who insist on using it are often afflicted with TDS. Please stop with the straw man arguments Rusty.
Hi Tom, Thanks for your comment. Keep them coming! Yours, Larry
Ok, here's my last response. I never said, "... more competition into American industry coupled with historically higher tax rates produce greater incentives for wealth creation...." This is just gibberish. Read what I've written and you'll see what I really think/know, not your invention of my views. And, yes, Happy New Year.
Larry Kotlikoff
''Ok, here's my last response. I never said, "... more competition into American industry coupled with historically higher tax rates produce greater incentives for wealth creation...." This is just gibberish."
Larry, this quote was one of your acolytes (Pitketty) who wrote that ''gibberish'', to which I responded; it wasn't intended as a response to YOU. You may have some kinks in your site yet to be worked out; this may be one.
AND, this will be my last response to you, sir, as it is a waste of time to play with children caught up in emotionally-charged political screeds and sciolism (see Pitketty's comments).
Chas,
I recommend you unsubscribe. I think reading my newsletter is causing you excessive stress and won't teach you anything because you so clearly know everything about everything.
best, Larry
Hi Chas,
You're talking with the person who has written the most on the long-term fiscal gap of our country. Check out kotlikoff.net, particularly The Coming Generational Storm and The Clash of Generations. But both parties are responsible for our country's horrendous fiscal insolvency.As for taxing the rich, I know lots of super-rich people. They don't pay taxes. They borrow against their wealth, never realize capital gains, and pass their assets to their kids with a step-up in basis. You are sure you know so much when you really don't. But you are clearly a smart, articulate, knowledgeable person. So I hope that you'll mellow out and start looking at the world with an open mind. Trump is not your God. You don't need to kneel to him, intellectually or otherwise. He's simply a traitor headed to jail. best, Larry
OK, you have a PhD; I have a Business degree....so what? I'm not discrediting you in what I've written; I'm criticizing your TDS affliction. It's unbecoming of a person of your accomplishment.
AND, I don't care what your politics may be; I'm not a young man, as you assumed, and I gave up many years ago in trying to persuade a political conversion to my beliefs....it's a waste of my remaining precious time. I seek intellectual discussion; this may not be the forum for that with as much bilious commentary focused on one individual who's been out of office for nearly 2 years.
I suggest you follow your own admonition to me; you'll feel better.
Hi Chas,
Happy New Year to you too.
I guess we differ. Fortunately, you and others with you adoration for our would-be dictator are in the minority. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are true profiles in courage. Our country remains a democracy because of people like them and Senator McConnell. Someday you will be old enough to realize this.
Yours, Larry
Thanks for your concern of my well-being; I do really well and Trump is not my god, nor do I kneel to anyone, especially politicians.
You are a zealot in your political assertions. I had no idea that you were so affected, as I appreciate the work you have excelled in with your Economic research, etc.
Try not to condescend; it weakens your standing in every way.
Happy New Year, Larry
Trump will be vindicated, just as he was with the TWO FARCICAL Impeachment attempts brought by the crazed DemocRAT party and RINOS like Liz Cheney, Kinzinger, et al.....a disgrace to their offices and one of the reasons they are now politically irrelevant. The term that applies is TDS for those who despise him so profoundly; a more productive activity, and perhaps psychologically cleansing of TDS, would be a keener interest in how a verifiably non compos mentis, doddering fool who can barely string 2 coherent sentences together sits in the WH, protected against incessant gaffes by the MSM, Biden staff and other sycophants....not to mention the blatant 5 decades-long grifting by the present administration and his family members. Then there are the abjectly idiotic policy decisions that have recently been signed into law.
The outrage that divides this country is palpable, and it's perpetrated on the easily propagandized, like Prof. Kotlifoff and his rabid fellow Leftists who use ad hominem attacks, name-calling and highly subjective accusatory statements directed at President Trump. I look forward to the moment that Kotlifoff & Co. will dine on CROW; he should keep his politics away from economic analysis so as to enhance his status and standing in the field of economics.
The late Milton Friedman, PhD Economics, is but one fine example of an untarnished legacy in his field.
Trump didn’t try to “overthrow” the election. That’s absolutely absurd and something a partisan hack would say. Challenging an election is done routinely.
Hi, I appreciate your writing. But he did try to overthrow the election. There was nothing wrong with challenging the election legally. He did that and lost in, I believe, 60 out of 60 tries. But organizing and sending a mob to force Pence not to certify -- that's trying to overthrow the election. Don't you see this? If not, are we aware of different facts or do we speak different languages? best, Larry
Larry -Regarding legal cases, perhaps you will believe differently after you read up on the correct dispositions :
https://election-integrity.info/2020_Election_Cases.htm
Larry has TDS; that will not be overcome by solid evidence contrary to his beliefs...
he, like others similarly propagandized, are to be ignored. Abject hatred for another knows no bounds....it's why I praised his economic thought and condemned his illness.
Paw
Can you name the last time a Presidential candidate "challenged" an election outcome for more than a few days? It has been 2+yrs now and Trump is still challenging the outcomes of an election he got CRUSHED in. If this happens regularly you should easily be able to name a few examples?
If you can't then you are just revealing to everyone that you are misinformed, right?
Bravo, Larry. This is spot-on. I find it mind boggling that any thinking voter cannot see him as a Traitor. Like you, I have almost complete disagreement with everything Liz Cheney stands for politically, but I have developed enormous respect for what she has been doing standing up to his treason, even is she hasn't been calling it that.
Larry, you suffer from a powerful case of TDS. Sad to see such warped thinking coming from you. To be quite honest, you don’t know what you’re talking about. But I am sure Liz and Nancy thank you for your anonymous devotion. In the meantime, you will lose the respect of thousands.
FloridaDove
Aug 18
''Larry, you suffer from a powerful case of TDS. Sad to see such warped thinking coming from you. To be quite honest, you don’t know what you’re talking about.''
Agreed, alas. The MSM has successfully propagandized a significant portion of the US population with its UNjournalistic, NONinvestigative 'reporting' that is cherry-picked to comport with the 'Official Narrative'....e.g., "The Big Lie" and other nonsense, PR phrases they pride themselves on for their puerile attempts to sway the public into believing 'it', through incessant repetition.
"....But I am sure Liz and Nancy thank you for your anonymous devotion. In the meantime, you will lose the respect of thousands. "
MORE like millions, if this article by Kotlifoff gets traction. See my other comments herein.
To his credit, he's owning his opinion. This aged poorly and he hasn't deleted it! The woke mind virus is strong.
actually, Larry's opinion has aged very-well. TFG's indictments are slow-in-coming, but they are coming ... personally, I kinda-hope he gets the nomination, becuz he has Zero chance of winning.
your mileage may vary ..
LOL. LC’s political career is dead in the water. She entered the Trump quicksand. We will see what happens in the future, as none of us have a crystal ball. But the past is prologue!
Great post Larry, and you have some perhaps surprising company here: https://robertreich.substack.com/p/liz-cheney-for-president?s=r
Hi Rajiv,
Thanks so much for writing and glad it past muster. Reich's piece is outstanding. I just added him to my substack recommendations. Are you on this platform? Warm regards, Larry
Yes I am... Latest piece was on Salman Rushdie. All signups are free:
https://rajivsethi.substack.com/p/is-nothing-sacred
Rajiv, Just recommended your newsletter and loved you piece on Rushdie! May God, however defined, restore and protect him. All best, Larry
If you are respected by Prof Kotlikoff and subscribe to Reich's substack, as i do, I will have to start reading yours as well.
The question is this, was former President Donald J Trump guilty of "Dereliction of Duty" by not acting to address an attack on the US Capitol. He clearly knew the attack was occurring in real-time but he failed to act. There's a reasonable amount of debate regarding Impeachment, the First amendment, Sedition, etc. However, as a sitting US President, one does not have the Privilege or the Right to choose which of the three branches of the US Government you will defend. All three are protected and sacred to our Democracy. With regard to "DoD" there is no debate, he is guilty by his failure to act on January 6th. To be fair to both sides of the political spectrum, President Biden should keep his oath in mind with regard to the judicial branch that he must also support and defend. Thank you for allowing me to post my thoughts.
Benedict Arnold did not have a 40% approval rating with American voters. The obsession with Trump personally undermines the fact that so many Americans have lost faith in this country and our political system.
Democrats don't fix that by obsessing on Trump and his corrupt actions. Democrats win these citizens by fighting more effectively on policies that Red and Blue Americans want. Policy like Medicare for All, $15 national min wage, Higher Taxes to the rich, Breaking up these monopolies are supported by the majority of Americans. And the last 3 Democrat President's in a row have not fought as hard for these policies as would be needed to convince Americans not to give up on this country. Trumps popularity assures us all that too many Americans have given up.
I agree. My book, (free at kotlikoff.net), called You're Hired, spells out clearly what I would do were I in charge. I venture we agree on most of what's there. Take a read. best, Larry
".... Democrats win these citizens by fighting more effectively on policies that Red and Blue Americans want. Policy like Medicare for All, $15 national min wage, Higher Taxes to the rich, Breaking up these monopolies are supported by the majority of Americans."
Were you incarnated from FDR's bones? Have you researched the depth of the financial HOLE the US has dug for itself, especially the PV of US UNFUNDED LIABILITIES? Do you REALLY believe there is untapped wealth from the 'soak the RICH' mentality approach?....ad nauseum.
I don't expect an intelligent response, just more bile and vitriol for the veracity and relevance of my questions.
CM
Increasing min wage to $15 an hour is not a tax. If you have read Nobel Prize winner in economics David Card's book "Myth and Measurement" you would find that data going back decades shows that increases in min wage do not lead to higher unemploynent and do lead to higher quality of life for low wage workers. I suppose you could argue with Card on that but i suspect you would not win the debate.
Breaking up monopolies is not a tax either. Monopolies extract rents from consumers that do not produce either innovation or goods and services. Due to the large number of Monopolies that have been allowed to develop over the last 40yrs the US consumer pays more for internet, Cable, mobile phone, meat, poultry, airlines, drugs and dozens of other goods that consumers in other wealthy democracies pay far less than in the US. Paul Krugman and George Stiglitz (also Nobel Prize winners) have also written extensively on this. Further, Monopsony (the employment and procurement side of Monopoly) has increasingly and artificially suppressed wages of labor for 40yrs now. I suggest you look at the Rand study to see how much wages of labor have declined to Monopsony in the US over the last 40yrs.
Medicare for All (MFA) would reduce the amount of money this nation currently spends on health care the way similar single payer programs have reduced the cost of health care in virtually every wealthy democracy in the world. Read Elizabeth Rosenthals book "American Sickness" to better understand why the US pays 2 times more for health care than other nations with health care systems that rank higher than the US system. Again, argue with her if you have some insights that she does not have. I am happy to debate how to fund M4A, that is open for debate but what is not open for debate is that it will cost the nation less than what we have today.
The Regan, Bush and Trump tax cuts went primarily to the rich in this country. The rich are the same people that have seen their INCOMES increase far faster than productivity growth and magnitudes faster than the poor and middle class over that time period. Thomas Piketty in his award winning book Capital in the 20th Century has shown how those wage increases have not come through increased productivity (productivity growth is actually down for the past several decades) but instead by merely by squeezing wages of the Poor and middle class. The result has been far slower productivity growth for decades, relative to when the US had higher taxes on the rich, larger income inequality and asset inflation.
Chas, this thinking has nothing to do with "soaking the rich". It is about improving GDP growth and productivity growth by reinserting real competition into American Industry and reducing the spiraling deficits by taxing Americans at rates that have historically produced higher incentives for wealth creation and lower incentives for wealth extraction.
Which are you opposed to higher GDP growth or Higher Productivity growth? Or both?
"....Which are you opposed to higher GDP growth or Higher Productivity growth? Or both? "
Neither...and your cause/effect arguments are misplaced...and, you don't know my bonafides, per your assertion: " I suppose you could argue with Card on that but i suspect you would not win the debate."
Really? And your evidence for that is, since you know me well?
Your assertion that more competition into American industry coupled with historically higher tax rates produce greater incentives for wealth creation....that's when I realized...
I couldn't have an intellectual discussion on the basis of that comment, but thanks for participating. BTW, we WOULD have more US competition with LESS gov't interference and the commensurately lower taxes supporting the extant labyrinthine layers of regulation.
The central gov't planners don't produce anything; they voraciously consume resources. It's called the Regulatory State for good reason, thus my reference to FDR reincarnated.
Here's a working definition for the study of Economics:
Economics is a social science concerned with the allocation of scarce resources, among alternative uses, for present and future consumption.
It's a simplification of a complex 'science' but it meets Occam's Razor test:
https://explorable.com/occams-razor
Happy New Year
Chas
<<...BTW, we WOULD have more US competition with LESS gov't interference and the commensurately lower taxes supporting the extant labyrinthine layers of regulation.>>
You notices that in the past post i did not merely give you my opinion i cited books from scholars that will validate my claims. Prof Kotlikoff disagrees with some of the experts i present, like Piketty, and he has reasonable, though not persuasive, arguments opposed to what Piketty has written about. It is called a conversation and he is excellent at it. I am privileged to hear his comments even if i don't always agree.
I notice you failed to produce evidence validating your claims (central gov planners don't produce anything, more competition with less gov't interference etc...). These are common notions held among many people but do you have actual evidence of this? Please provide it. I cited several Nobel Prize winners analysis. What do you have?
Monopolies by their very definition reduce competition. Over the past 40yrs the theory has been that if they can reduce the cost to consumers then the reduced competition justifies the monopoly (Robert Bork made this idea very popular in the legal and regulatory community). Thus it is that over the last 40yrs we have seen a decline in anti trust enforcement and an increase in the number of monopolies in the economy. So, by definition we have less competition. Fewer meat packers, fewer poultry plants, fewer airlines, fewer telco carriers etc... LESS competition. On the flip side the increase in monopolies has produced Monopsony which reduces labors ability to barging for higher wages and supplies ability to negotiate higher prices.
So all of this coincides with 40yrs of declining wages for the poor and middle class, slower GDP growth and slower Productivity growth.
Do you debate that point?
Allocation of resources is a great way to look at economics.
From the 30's until the lat 70's the US had a Maximum tax rate for incomes of over a certain amount of first 90% and then 76%. Tell me how reducing that max tax rate in the early 80's impacted the allocation of resources in the US economy?
Can you show the link between higher productivity growth from the 40's to the 80's associated with very high Maximum tax of that period?
Let's see what you got Chas...
T.D.S. is a symptom of drumpf’s supporter’s not his antagonists.
Actually, it refers to people who feel compelled to refer to him as
Drumph or Orange anything. Still living rent free in your head despite being a public citizen for 18+ months. How preposterous to think that LC can become POTUS when she just lost her cushy incumbent seat. This is just the newest, baseless conspiracy theory in the TDS afflicted.
Actually :
<< Author Gwenda Blair researched the Trump family origins, and identified Hanns Drumpf, an itinerant lawyer, who moved to Kallstadt in 1608. The spelling of his last name had changed by the end of the 17th century.[3] Another early Trump ancestor that can be identified as using this alternate spelling is Johann Philipp Drumpft (1667–1707, parents and place of birth not recorded), who married Juliana Maria Rodenroth.[4]
In 2011, the International Business Times repeated a verified claim that Donald Trump's paternal grandfather Frederick Trump changed his name from Drumpf to Trump, possibly to avoid anti-German sentiment popular at the time. [5]
I didn't say the name was baseless. I said the people who insist on using it are often afflicted with TDS. Please stop with the straw man arguments Rusty.