Wall Street Journal goes full communist

[ksen]

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/20/tax-cuts-boost-jobs-just-not-when-targeted-at-rich/

“The positive relationship between tax cuts and employment growth is largely driven by tax cuts for lower-income groups and the effect of tax cuts for the top 10% on employment growth is small,” writes Owen Zidar, a professor at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business.

. . .

“I find that the stimulative effects of income tax cuts are largely driven by tax cuts for the bottom 90% and that the empirical link between employment growth and tax changes for upper-income earners is weak to negligible over a business cycle frequency,” Mr. Zidar writes.

Apparently fresh water bastion University of Chicago also swallows the communist pill as well.

Srsly, people without degrees in economics have been saying that more money in the hands of people with a higher propensity to consume is much more stimulative than more money in the hands of people with a higher propensity to save. What's taken the degreed professionals so long to catch up?

And will this change anything policywise? Probably not.

 

[bigfield]

You know who the top 10% give most of their money to? Each other.

Here's a thought that never crossed a millionaire's mind:

"I should probably get a hundred-thousand-dollar bag of chips from the fish 'n' chip shop on the way home."

"And a coleslaw."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You know who the top 10% give most of their money to? Each other.

Here's a thought that never crossed a millionaire's mind:

"I should probably get a hundred-thousand-dollar bag of chips from the fish 'n' chip shop on the way home."

"And a coleslaw."

Fuck that shit. If I'm going to pay $100,000 for some fish and chips and the place doesn't toss in a side of coleslaw free of charge without my asking, I'm damn well taking my business down the street where they respect their customers.

 

[bigfield]

You know who the top 10% give most of their money to? Each other.

Here's a thought that never crossed a millionaire's mind:

"I should probably get a hundred-thousand-dollar bag of chips from the fish 'n' chip shop on the way home."

"And a coleslaw."

Fuck that shit. If I'm going to pay $100,000 for some fish and chips and the place doesn't toss in a side of coleslaw free of charge without my asking, I'm damn well taking my business down the street where they respect their customers.

Good work. Keep that up, and you'll be the the next Warren Buffet.

 

[dismal]

“I find that the stimulative effects of income tax cuts are largely driven by tax cuts for the bottom 90% and that the empirical link between employment growth and tax changes for upper-income earners is weak to negligible over a business cycle frequency,” Mr. Zidar writes.

I'm curious how one goes about "finding" this.

 

[ksen]

Here's the link to the paper . . . behind a paywall as all good capitalist papers should be.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w21035

Maybe one of our local Reds could liberate it for us.

 

[dismal]

Here's the link to the paper . . . behind a paywall as all good capitalist papers should be.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w21035

Maybe one of our local Reds could liberate it for us.

I'm going to hazard a guess that the answer is not "controlled experiments isolating the relevant variables".

 

[beero1000]

Here's the link to the paper . . . behind a paywall as all good capitalist papers should be.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w21035

Maybe one of our local Reds could liberate it for us.

Google is your friend.

http://www.iga.ucdavis.edu/Research/All-UC/conferences/huntington-2013/zidar-paper

 

[ksen]

The paper has been freed!

http://www.iga.ucdavis.edu/Research/All-UC/conferences/huntington-2013/zidar-paper

eta: beero1000 delete your post immediately!

 

[ksen]

Here's the link to the paper . . . behind a paywall as all good capitalist papers should be.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w21035

Maybe one of our local Reds could liberate it for us.

I'm going to hazard a guess that the answer is not "controlled experiments isolating the relevant variables".

Maybe you could point us to a good example of economics research that uses "controlled experiments isolating the relevant variables" so we can see what good economics research looks like.

I'm sure the University of Chicago would appreciate the help understanding that they don't know how to conduct economics research.

 

[beero1000]

The paper has been freed!

http://www.iga.ucdavis.edu/Research/All-UC/conferences/huntington-2013/zidar-paper

eta: beero1000 delete your post immediately!

Nuh-uh. I claim priority and all proceeds from the posting of said paper on this forum. Cease and desist, or I'll sue.

 

[dismal]

I'm going to hazard a guess that the answer is not "controlled experiments isolating the relevant variables".

Maybe you could point us to a good example of economics research that uses "controlled experiments isolating the relevant variables" so we can see what good economics research looks like.

I'm sure the University of Chicago would appreciate the help understanding that they don't know how to conduct economics research.

You find this methodology convincing?

 

[ksen]

I don't know if it's convincing or not since you haven't provided the requested example yet of it actually being done that way in even one instance of economics research.

Maybe you're confusing economics with hard science?

 

[bigfield]

How exactly would a controlled experiment be conducted in economics?

I'm thinking something like the setting of Bioshock.

 

[dismal]

I don't know if it's convincing or not since you haven't provided the requested example yet of it actually being done that way in even one instance of economics research.

Maybe you're confusing economics with hard science?

In this case you posted an article about this study. Presumably this means you think the methodology is sound and economists are capable of isolating relatively complex causes and effects from the relatively limited data they have?

 

[ksen]

Or maybe that I thought it was an interesting article about a University of Chicago economist looking at his research and coming to the conclusion that tax cuts aimed at the top 10% have a negligible effect on job creation since those economists tend to be firmly in the supply side camp.

I'm still a little baffled why you'd bring up experimental standards for sciences like biology and chemistry when we're looking at an economics research paper.

 

[dismal]

Or maybe that I thought it was an interesting article about a University of Chicago economist looking at his research and coming to the conclusion that tax cuts aimed at the top 10% have a negligible effect on job creation since those economists tend to be firmly in the supply side camp.

I'm still a little baffled why you'd bring up experimental standards for sciences like biology and chemistry when we're looking at an economics research paper.

I'm asking you if this paper was up to your standards.

Do you believe economists are capable of teasing out relatively complex causes and effects such as this from the data they have available?

Are you so confident in this that you would accept studies with similar methodology that concluded things you don't want to hear?

 

[ksen]

Or maybe that I thought it was an interesting article about a University of Chicago economist looking at his research and coming to the conclusion that tax cuts aimed at the top 10% have a negligible effect on job creation since those economists tend to be firmly in the supply side camp.

I'm still a little baffled why you'd bring up experimental standards for sciences like biology and chemistry when we're looking at an economics research paper.

I'm asking you if this paper was up to your standards.

No, I'm pretty sure that's not what you're doing.

 

[fromderinside]

Here's the link to the paper . . . behind a paywall as all good capitalist papers should be.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w21035

Maybe one of our local Reds could liberate it for us.

Copy the title. Go to scholar and ta da! http://harris.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/Tax Cuts for Whom - Harris December 2014_0.pdf

Here's the link to the paper . . . behind a paywall as all good capitalist papers should be.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w21035

Maybe one of our local Reds could liberate it for us.

Google is your friend.

http://www.iga.ucdavis.edu/Research/All-UC/conferences/huntington-2013/zidar-paper

Shit.

BTW dismal this article is very strong compared to many found in the froth of the trickle down people. We can get really meaningful data from about 1000 people about citizens why not from data about what citizens do? For instance some conservative cited a paper that they say showed the economy sucks in 2015 based on data from 2009 to 2011. This study cautions that since the base data is only between 1950 and 2010 one should be cautious.

yeah, I'm liking it.

Just sayin....

 

[KeepTalking]

I'm asking you if this paper was up to your standards.

No, I'm pretty sure that's not what you're doing.

Of course that's what he was doing, and he is so good at it that he was asking the question in this thread back when he knew you had not even read the paper. That's some impressive stuff right there. And that should also teach you about posting things for discussion before you have entirely made your mind up about it. Any good participant in any discussion must first have a fully formed opinion, and not be willing to adjust that opinion one bit before posting a thread. That is the way discussion forums (especially those that espouse freethought as a value) operate, don't you know?