Your thoughts? “Snake-Oil Tax Cuts” http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~jfrankel/TaxCutSnakeOilSept8-08.pdf
zigy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Your thoughts? > > “Snake-Oil Tax Cuts” > http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~jfrankel/TaxCutSnake > OilSept8-08.pdf Milton Friedman “I’ve never seen a tax cut I didn’t like.”
Dsylexic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SeanC Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dsylexic Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > since WW2 govts all over the world have grown > > in > > > size and influence because even intellectuals > > like > > > Keynes believed in govt being a major > influence > > on > > > the economy.no wonder true free markets never > > > existed after that. exceptions probably would > > be > > > estonia since 1991 or probably the bahamas > > > > True free markets, have never and can never > > exist. > > > > Economics is an axiomatic science like > philosphy, > > yes true free markets can be great in theory, > but > > inorder to get that theory to work you have to > > build assumptions into the model. The three > > biggest assumptions that free markets are based > > upon are inconceivible. You would need all > actors > > in the economy to be completely rational, human > > nature eliminates that possibility. You would > need > > all actors to have perfect forsight and for no > > information assymetry to exist, impossible, no > one > > can see into the future and the distribution of > > knowledge could never be equal unless we all > > shared the same brain. Finally all economic > actors > > must be equal and unable to influence the > system > > to their advantage, human interaction at its > most > > base level is frought with power relations, > theres > > no way you could organize a political system > > governing 300 million people without some > tendency > > to oligarchy. > > nonsense. > free marker economics doesnt make any particular > assumption about rationality.the assumption by > rothbard etc is that human beings act towards > their goals -which are often different from other > human beings. thus even schizos and suicide > bombers are rational. > what you are describing is the assumption of the > efficient market people. > too much collectivist koolaid has been imbibed lin > the last 100 years eading people to distrust > freedom so if i decide to pull my hk out of the safe, kill you and take your car because its marginally nicer then mine, thats rational? thats free market economics? are you sure you want to live in that world? there are people a lot rougher and tougher then you and there are a lot of negative implications to living in that type of world. If you feel that way, man up, screw finance and run coke.
those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty" - ben franklin. you are welcome to slip towards 1984
Returning the thread a little to its original point - I hate these labels and think that they are mostly for simpletons with a need to belong. I’m pretty willing to share my opinion about most anything, but having someone label me just doesn’t work. I’m a: a) Fiscal conservative a 1/2) Deep believer in civil liberties seriously eroded by the Bush Administration b) Believer in self-determination c) Supply-sider d) Apostate Presbyterian e) Environmentalist f) Totally against war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Georgia, Venezuela (but I might be convinced if that guy keeps pi$$ing me off), etc. Would seriously consider defending France if it was invaded though they are not appropriately grateful for the other times we did that. g) Elitist snob who believes the opinions of the great Unwashed are not worth listening to. h) Guy who believes the abortion debate has been decided so get over it i) Guy who believes the status quo in gun control is probably fine and why do so many people care about whether or not the Constitution gives them the right to own assault weapons, .50 caliber sniper rifles, Vulcan air cannon, etc.? j) Absolute believer that GWB has screwed up everything since he’s been in office. Now am I a Democrat or a Republican?
Of course, if we elect Sarah Palin maybe I can buy one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GAU-8_meets_VW_Type_1.jpg
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > a 1/2) Deep believer in civil liberties seriously > eroded by the Bush Administration Can someone on this board name me one instance where their civil liberties or the civil liberties of a family member or friend were compromised? I’m not being a smart ass, just sincerely curious. While my small sample size of family & friends is not representative of the entire country, I’ve yet to meet anyone, besdies Harold and Kumar, who have lost any of their liberties. >Now am I a Democrat or a Republican? Seems like you vote on the candidate’s vision for the country over blindly aligning yourself with a particular party, which is admirable. I would guess you are a registerred Republican who is truely the 15% of the independent/undecided vote that has decided EVERY election since Reagan was in office. I’m a simpleton conservative comfortable with my convictions. Palin is hot
I don’t really follow politics as much as I should - but for all of those out here that are strong Democrats - do you feel that a Democratic president will deliver in regards to the Economy / Energy situation? Why - and how? I don’t really see how Obama’s claims are feasible. Take the word ‘deliver’ for whatever you think is positive and/or good for GDP, as real GDP growth improves the quality of living in a country and could be attributed to progress.
j) - JDV - if GWB has screwed up everything since he has been in office, how would a Democratic president have made different and better decisions?