We care about state rights they said...

[piezoe]

to try to infer that what @jem wrote is some kind of absurdity is just plain ignorance.

Ahw, but it is "plain ignorance" There are many things to be measured, all having an impact on revenues.

And now we have an example of an actual absurdity, viz., your failure to recognize the obvious ignorance of jem's statement.

I love "Uncle Milty" by the way," One of my favorite economists to read. He was right often enough, nuts some of the time, inexplicable some of the time, often brilliant and always insufferable. As a young lad and fledging member of the Mont Pelerin Society, he learned his economics at Hayek's knee. It was an injection with side-affects he never entirely recovered from.

 

[jem]

Wow... what an economic dolt you are.
And you just illustrated your ignorance in a comical manner.

And you just paid the price for deploying one of your favorite tricks...
The old logical fallacy of implying the authority supports your misunderstanding.

Unfortunately for you... I know Romers' work.
And I know Christine Romer was Obama's Economic advisor.

And I know she and her husband did a comprehensive study or 2 ... and found....
Exactly what I have been explaining to you and other lefties...



Tax Cuts can lead to GDP expansion...
And Tax Increases can cause a contraction...
given the context of the economy at the time.
and hence cuts can lead to an increase in revenue and vice versa.
As I have said... it depends on where you are on the curve and many other factors.


In fact when Romer used statistical tools to hold other factors steady she found a massive negative response in GDP to to tax increases. Over 2% in some cases if I recall.



Hence... more proof that tax cuts can lead to tax revenue increases.
so not only has Keynes said it.
Not only do the tax tables show it...

but your choice of expert Christine Romer has used statistical analysis to support my concepts...


You failed so hard... because although you write well. You try to act like an expert in areas where you have deficient understandings... like economics and law.

Here is one of Romer's paper... try reading it.

“The Macrcoeconomic Effects of Tax Changes”

read this on page 784....


"Thus, a first look at the data suggests that changes in the level of taxes have large effects on economic activity: following tax changes undertaken for reasons largely unrelated to other influences on output, there are large and significant output movements in the opposite direction."

..

You should write the Romers' and explain that you have solved the problem of how to tell what the effect of a tax cut was on revenue. They apparently wasted a couple years of research trying to figure out how to tell what the effect of a tax cut was on revenue. And you, you little devil, have solved the problem. Write them now:
Christina and David Romer,
c/o Dept. of Economics,
530 Evans Hall #3880
Berkeley, CA 94720-3880

They will be very appreciative.

 

[NeoTrader]

Ahw, but it is "plain ignorance" There are many things to be measured, all having an impact on revenues.

And now we have an example of an actual absurdity, viz., your failure to recognize the obvious ignorance of jem's statement.

I love "Uncle Milty" by the way," One of my favorite economists to read. He was right often enough, nuts some of the time, inexplicable some of the time, often brilliant and always insufferable. As a young lad and fledging member of the Mont Pelerin Society, he learned his economics at Hayek's knee. It was an injection with side-affects he never entirely recovered from.

Says the guys who quotes Noam Chomsky to make his arguments...

The thing is "Uncle Milty" had been calling out the shit that happens everytime a socialist regime takes power. "Your boy" Chomsky didn't want to listen and even went down to Venezuela to praise the regime. Guess who got it right?

 

[NeoTrader]

Wow... what an economic dolt you are.
And you just illustrated your ignorance in a comical manner.

And you just paid the price for deploying one of your favorite tricks...
The old logical fallacy of implying the authority supports your misunderstanding.

Unfortunately for you... I know Romers' work.
And I know Christine Romer was Obama's Economic advisor.

And I know she and her husband did a comprehensive study or 2 ... and found....
Exactly what I have been explaining to you and other lefties...



Tax Cuts can lead to GDP expansion...
And Tax Increases can cause a contraction...
given the context of the economy at the time.
and hence cuts can lead to an increase in revenue and vice versa.
As I have said... it depends on where you are on the curve and many other factors.


In fact when Romer used statistical tools to hold other factors steady she found a massive negative response in GDP to to tax increases. Over 2% in some cases if I recall.



Hence... more proof that tax cuts can lead to tax revenue increases.
so not only has Keynes said it.
Not only do the tax tables show it...

but your choice of expert Christine Romer has used statistical analysis to support my concepts...


You failed so hard... because although you write well. You try to act like an expert in areas where you have deficient understandings... like economics and law.

Here is one of Romer's paper... try reading it.

“The Macrcoeconomic Effects of Tax Changes”

read this on page 784....


"Thus, a first look at the data suggests that changes in the level of taxes have large effects on economic activity: following tax changes undertaken for reasons largely unrelated to other influences on output, there are large and significant output movements in the opposite direction."

..

The guy is simply full of shit. It's just endless gibberish from him, trying to disguise his BS as something that has any value. And when his BS is called out (like I did with MF's text), all he can do is try to use funny names for the author and try to discredit him. Curiously, his attempt to discredit MF was by quoting another Nobel Laureate that heavily influenced his work... Go figure.

But if he wants to go that road(attack the source instead of counterargue), so be it. Easy to continue to call out his BS like in the last post.

It's pretty pathetic this guy's attitude. Trying to "act superior" as if he's some "know it all" in a very condescending manner while spilling out nonsense non-stop.

 

[Ayn Rand]

I am a supporter of States Rights but only if it is in conjunction with a reduction in the influence of the Federal government. The last time this was tried was with Reagan. (Read David Stockman). Bless his heart, Reagan did not understand what was going on. No one in Washington wants to kill The Goose that lays the Golden Egg. Tax and spend. Everyone loves to spend other peoples money.

A government is best that governs least. Why can't people understand this?

The Swamp is not 1 or 5 or 50 people. It is the entire hierarchy.

 

[piezoe]

Wow... what an economic dolt you are.
And you just illustrated your ignorance in a comical manner.

And you just paid the price for deploying one of your favorite tricks...
The old logical fallacy of implying the authority supports your misunderstanding.

Unfortunately for you... I know Romers' work.
And I know Christine Romer was Obama's Economic advisor.

And I know she and her husband did a comprehensive study or 2 ... and found....
Exactly what I have been explaining to you and other lefties...



Tax Cuts can lead to GDP expansion...
And Tax Increases can cause a contraction...
given the context of the economy at the time.
and hence cuts can lead to an increase in revenue and vice versa.
As I have said... it depends on where you are on the curve and many other factors.


In fact when Romer used statistical tools to hold other factors steady she found a massive negative response in GDP to to tax increases. Over 2% in some cases if I recall.



Hence... more proof that tax cuts can lead to tax revenue increases.
so not only has Keynes said it.
Not only do the tax tables show it...

but your choice of expert Christine Romer has used statistical analysis to support my concepts...


You failed so hard... because although you write well. You try to act like an expert in areas where you have deficient understandings... like economics and law.

Here is one of Romer's paper... try reading it.

“The Macrcoeconomic Effects of Tax Changes”

read this on page 784....


"Thus, a first look at the data suggests that changes in the level of taxes have large effects on economic activity: following tax changes undertaken for reasons largely unrelated to other influences on output, there are large and significant output movements in the opposite direction."

..

Well, did you write them? I don't want to chit chat anymore until you write them and tell me what they said about your brilliant idea: Just look at the revenue, "because that's the only thing you can measure." Did it go up, or did it go down? What could be simpler! I am quite sure you're going to receive profuse thanks. Maybe they will nominate you for a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics! Let's hope.

 

[jem]

You are now completely misrepresenting the point I made... but why would I be surprised?

you are a paid propagandist with little integrity.

Well, did you write them? I don't want to chit chat anymore until you write them and tell me what they said about your brilliant idea: Just look at the revenue, "because that's the only thing you can measure." Did it go up, or did it go down? What could be simpler! I am quite sure you're going to receive profuse thanks. Maybe they will nominate you for a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics! Let's hope.

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

You're like a mushroom. kept in the dark and fed shit.

Nice saying. However, when it comes to things transportation related, especially trucking, you can safely consider me a source.

You want to try to match wits and depth of knowledge in this arena?

Go ahead, make my Millennial.

 

[piezoe]

The guy is simply full of shit. It's just endless gibberish from him, trying to disguise his BS as something that has any value. And when his BS is called out (like I did with MF's text), all he can do is try to use funny names for the author and try to discredit him. Curiously, his attempt to discredit MF was by quoting another Nobel Laureate that heavily influenced his work... Go figure.

But if he wants to go that road(attack the source instead of counterargue), so be it. Easy to continue to call out his BS like in the last post.

It's pretty pathetic this guy's attitude. Trying to "act superior" as if he's some "know it all" in a very condescending manner while spilling out nonsense non-stop.

Bedtime reading for you.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...-hayek-i-knew-and-what-he-got-right-and-wrong

 

[piezoe]

Nice saying. However, when it comes to things transportation related, especially trucking, you can safely consider me a source.

You want to try to match wits and depth of knowledge in this arena?

Go ahead, make my Millennial.

That is a very interesting area of commerce indeed, trucking. I may get a chance to go on a run with a close friend that just signed with a major U.S. Trucking company. Looking forward to it. Hoping for Alaska.

My earlier remark remark relates to your seeming to get much of your information from Trump . That is of course the most unreliable source of information about Trump there is! The next time someone tells you they are going to build a big beautiful wall between the United States and Mexico and Mexico will pay for it, I hope you'll stop listening to them then and there.