Atlas Shrugged the movie

[Kassz007]

Quote from Gabfly1:

Everyone is discussing spending cuts, where possible. That's a given. Only the Right is uniformly silent on revenue gains, which is the elephant in the room you simply won't acknowledge.

There would be no need for "revenue gains" if government didn't spend recklessly to begin with.

You asked me what level of taxation I considered appropriate and I answered you. Now I'll ask you the same question - what level of taxation would YOU consider appropriate? Other than the ubiquitous "higher".

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Kassz007:

There would be no need for "revenue gains" if government didn't spend recklessly to begin with.

You asked me what level of taxation I considered appropriate and I answered you. Now I'll ask you the same question - what level of taxation would YOU consider appropriate? Other than the ubiquitous "higher".

Where was it when Martin balanced the budget?

 

[Hello]

Gabfly1 i would love to see you address this issue. There is no better example of supply side vs. keynesian then the U.S. vs. Canada.

Canada supply side = Strongest economy in the G7, lowest deficit in the G7, most jobs being created in the G7, Canadian dollar skyrocketing.

U.S. Keynesian. =2nd Highest deficit in the G7, 2nd worst economy in the G7, highest unemployment in the G7 U.S. dollar going into the shitter.

Seems pretty obvious to see which one is working better. Trickle down is pouring buckets of rain in Canada.

Quote from Kassz007:


I would love to talk about Canada and how their corporate tax rates are the lowest in the G7. I would also love to tie that discussion into how Canada is the first G7 nation to recoup all of the jobs lost during the Great Recession, and how business investment in Canada is booming right now. But we all know that is a topic you don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole. In fact, you would probably reply to this fact with a quote from someone years ago stating tax cuts don't pay for themselves (I know this because it's happened before). How decisively vague.

 

[Kassz007]

Quote from Gabfly1:

Where was it when Martin balanced the budget?

Didn't your mother ever tell you it was rude to answer a question with a question?

I am speaking in philisophical terms, with respect to government spending and taxation. What does Martin have to do with this? The point is - government debt and deficits come from too much spending, not too little revenue.

Why do you continue to duck and dodge all of my questions? Your credibility diminishes greatly when you do this. It leads me to think that you believe what you believe simply because you've been brainwashed to believe what you believe, not because what you believe makes sense. Not even to you in your own mind if you think hard enough about it.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Hello:

Gabfly1 i would love to see you address this issue. There is no better example of supply side vs. keynesian...

You have already ducked my last attempt to engage you in this matter about the proper application of Keynesian economics. You either do not understand it or you choose not to...

Quote from Hello:

...Canada supply side = Strongest economy in the G7, lowest deficit in the G7, most jobs being created in the G7, Canadian dollar skyrocketing...

You attribute Canada's relative standing to "supply side?" That is as clueless a remark as I have ever read of yours.

Forgive me, but what a complete and utter waste of time these "discussions" are.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Kassz007:

...Why do you continue to duck and dodge all of my questions?

Because they are self-serving and largely vacuous?

And this from someone who selectively ignored my own pointed questions to him from time to time. Fascinating. You are not much better than a bot.

Quote from Kassz007:

...It leads me to think that you believe what you believe simply because you've been brainwashed to believe what you believe, not because what you believe makes sense. Not even to you in your own mind if you think hard enough about it.

I do believe I just got my daily allowance of irony.

 

[Hello]

Quote from Gabfly1:

You have already ducked my last attempt to engage you in this matter about the proper application of Keynesian economics. You either do not understand it or you choose not to...

You attribute Canada's relative standing to "supply side?" That is as clueless a remark as I have ever read of yours.

Forgive me, but what a complete and utter waste of time these "discussions" are.

Why dont you just make your argument, instead of saying "you dont know what your talking about", i have put my position down many times on paper, all you ever do is attack people like me and say i dont know what im talking about. Why dont you simply make your point, and explain to me what im "missing."

Seems pretty obvious (in my eyes) what is going on in both countries. The U.S.(obama) decided to drastically increase regulations at the same time we were flooding the system with dollars lowering interest rates, and destroying the currency by printing dollars.

In the last couple years Canada has actually raised interest rates in a weak economy,(anti-keyns) lowered regulation, and lowered corporate taxes.

In my opinion, it seems like free market principles in Canada are kicking the shit out of government intervention in the United States.

 

[Hello]

Here is what Obama and Bernanke's policy has accomplished when you compare the US dollar to the Canadian dollar. Im sure every other trader who trades U.S. markets from Canada feels this pain. Thats a 25-30% haircut since Obama got involved. Seems like Harper, and the lack of intervention is working wonders when compared to the states.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Hello:

Why dont you just make your argument, instead of saying "you dont know what your talking about", i have put my position down many times on paper, all you ever do is attack people like me and say i dont know what im talking about. Why dont you simply make your point, and explain to me what im supposedly "missing."

Becsaue you don't even bother to read what I had previously written?
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3164629&highlight=keynesian#post3164629

Quote from Hello:

...Seems pretty obvious (in my eyes) what is going on in both countries. The U.S.(obama) decided to drastically increase regulations at the same time we were flooding the system with dollars lowering interest rates, and destroying the currency by printing dollars.

In the last couple years Canada has actually raised interest rates in a weak economy,(anti-keyns) lowered regulation, and lowered corporate taxes.

In my opinion, it seems like free market principles in Canada are kicking the shit out of government intervention in the United States.

What is obvious to me is that you do not really understand the dynamics. First, Canada's interest rates are very low and they have to be in order for Canadian exports to be competitive to its largest export market by far -- the US. When the Canadian dollar loses ground to the US dollar, then the Bank of Canada has more room to maneuver with interest rates. And/or if the central bank sees, and decides to act upon, the risk of excess inflation.

http://www.bank-banque-canada.ca/en/index.html

Second, the only reason Canada is doing well relative to the other G8 nations is because it is largely an exporter of natural resources and we are in a higher price commodity cycle, which also contributes to a higher Canadian dollar. That has nothing to do with fiscal policy. Nor does Canada's robust banking system, which gives the country a stability unlike that in the US. But Harper and his Conservatives had nothing to do with that either. However, the fiscal policy that did affect Canada's fortunes is the rather low corporate tax rates. Harper inherited a budget surplus in 2006 and promptly gave Canada its largest deficit in history, attributed in part to his tax policy. And this from the party that prides itself on fiscal responsibility.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Hello:

...In my opinion, it seems like free market principles in Canada are kicking the shit out of government intervention in the United States.

Only because your opinion has no basis in fact. That was not meant as an insult. Merely an observation.