The Religion of "The State"

[untermensche]

Yes, we have had Keynesian economics as the strongest influence, even during and after Reagan. But if we apply your current standard of "nobodies policies are ever followed purely" then we cannot say we've had a Keynesian economy for the same reason you keep saying Capitalism doesn't exist. After all, you demand purity on the one hand, and allow for massive alleged impurities on the other.

Just like you say I haven't defined capitalism and simultaneously wonder where I got the definition from. You contract yourself constantly.

I think we need to define all the terms. Reagan lowers taxes so we are now paying a whopping 4% less taxes for every group but it's the downfall of the economy.

Where does this 4% come from? The so-called Reagan Revolution extends to this day.

We have more than a 4% decrease in the top income tax, corporate tax, and capital gains tax.

How this amounts to 4% is some trick.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yes, we have had Keynesian economics as the strongest influence, even during and after Reagan. But if we apply your current standard of "nobodies policies are ever followed purely" then we cannot say we've had a Keynesian economy for the same reason you keep saying Capitalism doesn't exist. After all, you demand purity on the one hand, and allow for massive alleged impurities on the other.

Just like you say I haven't defined capitalism and simultaneously wonder where I got the definition from. You contract yourself constantly.

Keynesian policies are defined.

It is possible to be following some of them.

But if we had a Keynesian economy we would be spending massively to repair our infrastructure. We would be spending massively on things like high speed trains.

That is Keynesian policy.

Not building weapons and starting wars.

It's interesting because Keynes advocated deficit spending to spur the economy. And most people on the left argue that is exactly what he did. He increased the deficit, increased spending on both social and defense programs. someone that is a Keynes fan should point to Reagan as the best example of it working.

 

[untermensche]

Keynesian policies are defined.

It is possible to be following some of them.

But if we had a Keynesian economy we would be spending massively to repair our infrastructure. We would be spending massively on things like high speed trains.

That is Keynesian policy.

Not building weapons and starting wars.

It's interesting because Keynes advocated deficit spending to spur the economy. And most people on the left argue that is exactly what he did. He increased the deficit, increased spending on both social and defense programs. someone that is a Keynes fan should point to Reagan as the best example of it working.

His policies were one thing in good economic times and another in bad.

He lived through WWI and WWII so he knew that a military was necessary, and necessary spending should be made on the military.

But using the military to start wars all over the world this making more military spending seem necessary is not Keynesian policy.

As much as possible spending should be productive. It should put people to work on things with value that last, like infrastructure and efficient transportation, not things to be blown up.

 

[Axulus]

I think we need to define all the terms. Reagan lowers taxes so we are now paying a whopping 4% less taxes for every group but it's the downfall of the economy.

Where does this 4% come from? The so-called Reagan Revolution extends to this day.

We have more than a 4% decrease in the top income tax, corporate tax, and capital gains tax.

How this amounts to 4% is some trick.

I hate to burst your misinformed bubble but tax cuts are part of core Keynesian policy to spur the economy, the other being an increase in government spending. Funny how you focus on the one you like but ignore the one you don't.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I think we need to define all the terms. Reagan lowers taxes so we are now paying a whopping 4% less taxes for every group but it's the downfall of the economy.

Where does this 4% come from? The so-called Reagan Revolution extends to this day.

We have more than a 4% decrease in the top income tax, corporate tax, and capital gains tax.

How this amounts to 4% is some trick.

Here's an article that discusses. We're talking effective tax rates. From 1979 to 2011 the tax rates average about 4% for all groups.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-28/tax-cuts-can-t-motivate-the-republican-base-anymore

 

[coloradoatheist]

Where does this 4% come from? The so-called Reagan Revolution extends to this day.

We have more than a 4% decrease in the top income tax, corporate tax, and capital gains tax.

How this amounts to 4% is some trick.

I hate to burst your misinformed bubble but tax cuts are part of core Keynesian policy to spur the economy, the other being an increase in government spending. Funny how you focus on the one you like but ignore the one you don't.

And to add to that, the 4 years from 2003 to 2007 was definitely a combination of spending and infrastructure development with housing. So we have 1980 where it worked, and 2007 where it failed miserable.

 

[untermensche]

Where does this 4% come from? The so-called Reagan Revolution extends to this day.

We have more than a 4% decrease in the top income tax, corporate tax, and capital gains tax.

How this amounts to 4% is some trick.

I hate to burst your misinformed bubble but tax cuts are part of core Keynesian policy to spur the economy, the other being an increase in government spending. Funny how you focus on the one you like but ignore the one you don't.

Tax cuts for people who will put the money into the active economy.

Not more for people to hoard.

 

[untermensche]

I hate to burst your misinformed bubble but tax cuts are part of core Keynesian policy to spur the economy, the other being an increase in government spending. Funny how you focus on the one you like but ignore the one you don't.

And to add to that, the 4 years from 2003 to 2007 was definitely a combination of spending and infrastructure development with housing. So we have 1980 where it worked, and 2007 where it failed miserable.

What?

You have this huge bubble where the banks are owed all this money and all these people are failing to pay it.

Then you get these credit default swaps that the people who issued them can't afford to pay.

Then you get the government propping up the system to prevent potential collapse.

None of it in any way Keynesian.

Why do none of the critics of Keynes even know what he proposed?

 

[untermensche]

Where does this 4% come from? The so-called Reagan Revolution extends to this day.

We have more than a 4% decrease in the top income tax, corporate tax, and capital gains tax.

How this amounts to 4% is some trick.

Here's an article that discusses. We're talking effective tax rates. From 1979 to 2011 the tax rates average about 4% for all groups.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-28/tax-cuts-can-t-motivate-the-republican-base-anymore

Alleged effective rates.

About 6 in 10 of us believe that the tax system is unfair — and they’re right: put simply, the very rich don’t pay their fair share. The richest 400 individual taxpayers, with an average income of more than $200 million, pay less than 20 percent of their income in taxes — far lower than mere millionaires, who pay about 25 percent of their income in taxes, and about the same as those earning a mere $200,000 to $500,000. And in 2009, 116 of the top 400 earners — almost a third — paid less than 15 percent of their income in taxes.

Citizens for Tax Justice, an organization that advocates for a more progressive tax system, has estimated that, when federal, state and local taxes are taken into account, the top 1 percent paid only slightly more than 20 percent of all American taxes in 2010 — about the same as the share of income they took home, an outcome that is not progressive at all.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/a-tax-system-stacked-against-the-99-percent/?_r=0

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Just like you say I haven't defined capitalism and simultaneously wonder where I got the definition from. You contract yourself constantly.

Keynesian policies are defined.

I also gave you a definition of Capitalism. You wondered where I got that definition AND said it is undefined.

But are you suddenly embracing Keynesian economics? I thought you were in favor of a more collectivist system.

I hate to burst your misinformed bubble but tax cuts are part of core Keynesian policy to spur the economy, the other being an increase in government spending. Funny how you focus on the one you like but ignore the one you don't.

Tax cuts for people who will put the money into the active economy.

Not more for people to hoard.

Oh, now you're embracing Supply Side economics?

 

[untermensche]

Keynesian policies are defined.

I also gave you a definition of Capitalism. You wondered where I got that definition AND said it is undefined.

But are you suddenly embracing Keynesian economics? I thought you were in favor of a more collectivist system.

You didn't give a definition of anything.

You described a fantasy system that has never existed and never could. A capitalist economy without government controls and support.

And Keynesian economics is an attempt to improve a bad system.

Of course I embrace all things that make a bad system better, even if I would ultimately want to replace the bad corrupt system with something better.

Oh, now you're embracing Supply Side economics?

It is Keynesian policy.

As opposed to the "trickle down" policies we have been following for the past 35 years.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You didn't give a definition of anything.

So when I said capitalism was when the government doesn't intervene in the economy, that wasn't a definition. Even betterl.

It is Keynesian policy.

As opposed to the "trickle down" policies we have been following for the past 35 years.

Supply Side, which you just advocated, isn't a Keynesian policy, but it is Keynesian derived.