This Billionaire Governor Taxed the Rich and Increased the Minimum Wage -- Now, His State's Economy Is One of the Best in the Country

[dismal]

Ouch, more Keynes bashing.

I realize that you are on a personal mission to use "Keynes" as frequently as possible in this thread, though I can't imagine why. You should, however, realize that I did not mention Keynes at all in my post, and the only thing I bashed was Republican government.

In other words, what the fuck are you on about?

You also suggested they were running up deficits while having a bad economy. Lord Keynes shed a tear over that part.

 

[ksen]

He can share a tissue with Saint Reagan who's busy crying over tax cuts not creating budget surpluses.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I realize that you are on a personal mission to use "Keynes" as frequently as possible in this thread, though I can't imagine why. You should, however, realize that I did not mention Keynes at all in my post, and the only thing I bashed was Republican government.

In other words, what the fuck are you on about?

You also suggested they were running up deficits while having a bad economy. Lord Keynes shed a tear over that part.

What thread are you reading? Minnesota has a balanced budget amendment.

 

[KeepTalking]

I realize that you are on a personal mission to use "Keynes" as frequently as possible in this thread, though I can't imagine why. You should, however, realize that I did not mention Keynes at all in my post, and the only thing I bashed was Republican government.

In other words, what the fuck are you on about?

You also suggested they were running up deficits while having a bad economy. Lord Keynes shed a tear over that part.

Please quote my post directly and highlight where I used the words "bad economy" for me. Oh, wait, you can't do that because I never used those words. In fact, their huge budget shortfalls can be directly attributed to cutting taxes for the rich.

 

[Axulus]

Ouch, more Keynes bashing.

I realize that you are on a personal mission to use "Keynes" as frequently as possible in this thread, though I can't imagine why. You should, however, realize that I did not mention Keynes at all in my post, and the only thing I bashed was Republican government.

In other words, what the fuck are you on about?

Standard Keynesian policy tools include deficit spending _and_ tax cuts. When these policies fail to bring about a good economy, it's the Republicans fault for cutting taxes. When cutting spending (austerity) fails to bring about a good economy, it's because the Republicans failed to implement the Keynesian policy of deep deficit spending. You seriously haven't seen this pattern of thinking on this board and from the left?

 

[dismal]

You also suggested they were running up deficits while having a bad economy. Lord Keynes shed a tear over that part.

Please quote my post directly and highlight where I used the words "bad economy" for me. Oh, wait, you can't do that because I never used those words. In fact, their huge budget shortfalls can be directly attributed to cutting taxes for the rich.

So you associate "slow to non-existent job growth" with a good economy? I don't think even the Keynesians smoke that sort of weird shit.

 

[dismal]

You also suggested they were running up deficits while having a bad economy. Lord Keynes shed a tear over that part.

What thread are you reading? Minnesota has a balanced budget amendment.

I was reading the post I quoted at the time I said it. If you want to bash KeepTalking for talking about other states (and Keynes bashing too, of course, ye great defender of Keynes) feel free.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

What thread are you reading? Minnesota has a balanced budget amendment.

I was reading the post I quoted at the time I said it. If you want to bash KeepTalking for talking about other states (and Keynes bashing too, of course, ye great defender of Keynes) feel free.

The one that said that cutting tax revenue didn't bring about a budget surplus?

 

[KeepTalking]

Please quote my post directly and highlight where I used the words "bad economy" for me. Oh, wait, you can't do that because I never used those words. In fact, their huge budget shortfalls can be directly attributed to cutting taxes for the rich.

So you associate "slow to non-existent job growth" with a good economy? I don't think even the Keynesians smoke that sort of weird shit.

No, I bring it up to connect the dots showing that Republican governance, which claims that it will improve job growth, has actually hampered job growth during times in which other states that have not implemented those policies are seeing gains in that area. Also, the budget shortfalls they are experiencing are not a result of deficit spending in bad economic times, but rather because they are cutting taxes like crazy as the economy improves, and then they are turning around and using those budget shortfalls to justify cutting education spending, and benefits that primarily aid the poor. So, go ahead and talk about Keynes all you want, but it is not fucking relevant to any post I have made in this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

What thread are you reading? Minnesota has a balanced budget amendment.

I was reading the post I quoted at the time I said it. If you want to bash KeepTalking for talking about other states (and Keynes bashing too, of course, ye great defender of Keynes) feel free.

If you want to bash KeepTalking for talking about other states, then you should probably also bash the poster to whom he was responding who first brought up other states.

 

[dismal]

I was reading the post I quoted at the time I said it. If you want to bash KeepTalking for talking about other states (and Keynes bashing too, of course, ye great defender of Keynes) feel free.

The one that said that cutting tax revenue didn't bring about a budget surplus?

Again, the one in the quote. Not so hard to follow what I am talking about when I quote it immediately above where I talk about it.

 

[dismal]

What thread are you reading? Minnesota has a balanced budget amendment.

I was reading the post I quoted at the time I said it. If you want to bash KeepTalking for talking about other states (and Keynes bashing too, of course, ye great defender of Keynes) feel free.

If you want to bash KeepTalking for talking about other states, then you should probably also bash the poster to whom he was responding who first brought up other states.

Yeah Squirrel. If you're going to appoint yourself the basher of people who bring up other states you should bash all of them.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Huh?

 

[KeepTalking]

Huh?

Just typical dismal reading comprehension issues, with an added dose of inability to follow the thread.

 

[fast]

Sharing? That's not sharing!

 

[maxparrish]

Quite aside from the fact that coincidence is neither correlation nor causation, there is an equally fatal problem - Minn. has not been anywhere near "one of the best economies".

Business Insider rated State economies on two different scales (economic status and economic growth) and Minn. was B- and C+ performer.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ranked-the-50-us-state-economies-2014-8#50-mississippi-1
http://www.businessinsider.com/ranked-the-50-us-state-economies-2014-8?op=1

On the state of the each State's economy:

North Dakota First
Texas Second
Alaska 4th
Washington 5th.

Minn is 15th.

And when looking at economic growth:

The top three are Colorado, California, and Texas. Florida and Washington are 6th and 7th. Minn. is 19th.

Not only is Athena's argument based on a delusion, if we were to take the coincidence as causation seriously then TEXAS, who has the benefit of having no-income tax for the "I got mine already" billionaire governors to raise, is the only State to rank in the top five of both rankings. Moreover, the few 'no-income tax' states are disproportionately at the top of these rankings: Washington, Texas, and Florida.

Before folks start partying, they ought to make sure its not inside an air castle.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You are right Max, we do not have full employment, high wages, and jobs galore.

 

[laughing dog]

I realize that you are on a personal mission to use "Keynes" as frequently as possible in this thread, though I can't imagine why. You should, however, realize that I did not mention Keynes at all in my post, and the only thing I bashed was Republican government.

In other words, what the fuck are you on about?

Standard Keynesian policy tools include deficit spending _and_ tax cuts. When these policies fail to bring about a good economy, it's the Republicans fault for cutting taxes. When cutting spending (austerity) fails to bring about a good economy, it's because the Republicans failed to implement the Keynesian policy of deep deficit spending. You seriously haven't seen this pattern of thinking on this board and from the left?

I haven't. Of course, Keynesian policy tools indicate that government spending on goods and services generate more stimulus than a similarly sized tax cut. What I have seen is that when a "Keynesian" policy is enacted and it does not generate a large enough stimulus, I see some people say the stimulus package was not large enough and others saying it obviously indicates that "Keynesian" policies fail.

 

[maxparrish]

You are right Max, we do not have full employment, high wages, and jobs galore.

"One of the best" means one of the best. Perhaps the op meant that ranking 15th and 19th means "the best that can be expected", no?

 

[laughing dog]

You are right Max, we do not have full employment, high wages, and jobs galore.

"One of the best" means one of the best. Perhaps the op meant that ranking 15th and 19th means "the best that can be expected", no?

Depends on what criteria Business Insider used. Economic growth is an interesting rubric depending on how it is measured. The same increase in absolute terms generates better growth statistics for a state with lower initial numbers.

 

[bilby]

You are right Max, we do not have full employment, high wages, and jobs galore.

"One of the best" means one of the best. Perhaps the op meant that ranking 15th and 19th means "the best that can be expected", no?

I don't know shit about the economies or politics of individual US states, but I do know some basic mathematics, and it seems that any member of the best twenty five in any pool of fifty objects can reasonably be described as 'one of the best'. I understand that the education system in your country is much derided, but nevertheless it seems odd to me that even an American would have trouble with this concept.

You do know that there are fifty states in your nation, don't you?