Mitt Romney Sent Millions to Mormon Church

[Lucrum]

Quote from Brass:

... The only "economists" who support the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves are the brazenly and opnely partisan...

Like I said: "But then of course to you the only economist worth their salt - is one that agrees with you. "

 

[Brass]

Quote from Ricter:

You have to use models to analyze for causality, for mechanism. Even the two variable one relationship expression, "tax cuts raise revenues" is a model. But of course many other relevant variables exist, and if they're not properly taken into account somehow... well, in that example, post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Apparently, there's a simple numerical explanation for jem's incomprehension:

Quote from jem:

...You have to have an IQ high enough to think in systems... ( I am told that occurs about 120 and above.)

 

[Brass]

Quote from Lucrum:

Like I said: "But then of course to you the only economist worth their salt - is one that agrees with you. "

If you choose to remain a fool, then who am I to stand in your way?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Brass:

... who am I to stand in your way?

A Canadian whose opinion on these matters means NOTHING to begin with.

 

[Brass]

Quote from Lucrum:

A Canadian whose opinion on these matters means NOTHING to begin with.

And there it is: a capitulation/denial cocktail with a twist.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Brass:

And there it is: a capitulation/denial cocktail with a twist.

Is that what you flaming liberals call an indisputable fact these days?

 

[jem]

Quote from Ricter:

You have to use models to analyze for causality, for mechanism. Even the two variable one relationship expression, "tax cuts raise revenues" is a model. But of course many other relevant variables exist, and if they're not properly taken into account somehow... well, in that example, post hoc ergo propter hoc.

If you are analyzing for causality...fine
I did not rely on models.

I said after tax cuts - revenues went up. That is a fact - no models required. even slate acknowledged that fact in a soft way.

Slate used models and "baselines" to argue revenues would have gone up more if the cuts had not happened.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:

I did not rely on models.

I said after tax cuts - revenues went up. That is a fact ...

That's actually two facts. The implication that the first caused the second is the model.

But I could add a third fact, that taxes went up five years previously. Maybe I'll try to emphasize the (new) implied conclusion by saying they went up more than the total of the cuts that followed. Don't laugh, this kind of reasoning is common here, it happens to be a favorite of, for example, Petsamo's.

 

[jem]

Quote from Ricter:

That's actually two facts. The implication that the first caused the second is the model.

But I could add a third fact, that taxes went up five years previously. Maybe I'll try to emphasize the (new) implied conclusion by saying they went up more than the total of the cuts that followed. Don't laugh, this kind of reasoning is common here, it happens to be a favorite of, for example, Petsamo's.

Look you and I know its hard to make conclusions about causation in dynamic systems... but the reality is that... if you allow the economy to grow (not to mention inflation caused by a private bank and overspending) ... unless you cut taxes to near zero... an expanding economy will eventually cause tax revenues to grow.

So,

1. As a citizen I do not care to maximize tax revenue. I think we would want to maximize economic health.

2. When ignorant fools argue that tax revenues did not go up after tax cuts... they must be disabused of their stupidity.

 

[Brass]

Quote from jem:

...When ignorant fools argue that tax revenues did not go up after tax cuts... they must be disabused of their stupidity.

I gather you must be referring to Greenspan.