http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/20...-a-better-2014

not metal/machining related

On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:30:29 -0800 (PST), "Daring Dufas: A
hypocrite TeaBillie on welfare!"
wrote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/20...-a-better-2014

=====================

Wall Street is not Main Street, and a stock bubble is not
economic improvement but rather financial "speed" or
"crank."

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
not metal/machining related

On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:30:29 -0800 (PST), "Daring Dufas: A
hypocrite TeaBillie on welfare!"
wrote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/20...-a-better-2014

=====================

Wall Street is not Main Street, and a stock bubble is not
economic improvement but rather financial "speed" or
"crank."


In other words, "trickle down" economics is nothing but a hoax.

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 22:08:05 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
.. .
not metal/machining related

On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:30:29 -0800 (PST), "Daring Dufas: A
hypocrite TeaBillie on welfare!"
wrote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/20...-a-better-2014

=====================

Wall Street is not Main Street, and a stock bubble is not
economic improvement but rather financial "speed" or
"crank."


In other words, "trickle down" economics is nothing but a hoax.

======================

That's what the historical record shows over the last 30
years, although I don't know if I would call it a hoax or a
popular delusion, very much like the witch mania of New
England, it sounds very plausible, and most people want to
believe.

Overt implementation can be traced back to about 1982/3 with
Reagan/Stockman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stockman
and this is about the time median inflation adjusted per
capita income ceased to increase, and labor's share of GDP
began to fall.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-...r-share-2013-9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
snip
The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that
"trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United
States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow
theory." He wrote, "Mr. David Stockman has said that
supply-side economics was merely a cover for the
trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and
less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory:
'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through
to the road for the sparrows.'" Galbraith claimed that the
horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic
of 1896.[14]
snip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
snip
For a reduction in tax rates to increase revenue, the
current tax rate would need to be higher than the revenue
maximizing rate.
snip
The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a
comparison of academic studies yields a range of ==revenue
maximizing rates that centers around 70%.[2]== {emphasis
added UG} Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995
that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax
rates around 65%.[12] A 1996 study by Y. Hsing of the United
States economy between 1959 and 1991 placed the
revenue-maximizing average federal tax rate between 32.67%
and 35.21%.[13] A 1981 paper published in the Journal of
Political Economy presented a model integrating empirical
data that indicated that the point of maximum tax revenue in
Sweden in the 1970s would have been 70%.[14] A paper by
Trabandt and Uhlig of the NBER from 2009 presented a model
that predicted that the US and most European economies were
on the left of the Laffer curve (in other words, that
raising taxes would raise further revenue).[11]
snip
But this is just the opinion of a few of the world's top
economists -- what do they know?


There is no such thing as a free lunch, and if something
seems to good to be true -- it is.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 22:08:05 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
. ..
not metal/machining related

On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:30:29 -0800 (PST), "Daring Dufas: A
hypocrite TeaBillie on welfare!"
wrote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/20...-a-better-2014

=====================

Wall Street is not Main Street, and a stock bubble is not
economic improvement but rather financial "speed" or
"crank."


In other words, "trickle down" economics is nothing but a hoax.

======================

That's what the historical record shows over the last 30
years, although I don't know if I would call it a hoax or a
popular delusion, very much like the witch mania of New
England, it sounds very plausible, and most people want to
believe.

Overt implementation can be traced back to about 1982/3 with
Reagan/Stockman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stockman
and this is about the time median inflation adjusted per
capita income ceased to increase, and labor's share of GDP
began to fall.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-...r-share-2013-9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
snip
The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that
"trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United
States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow
theory." He wrote, "Mr. David Stockman has said that
supply-side economics was merely a cover for the
trickle-down approach to economic policy-what an older and
less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory:
'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through
to the road for the sparrows.'" Galbraith claimed that the
horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic
of 1896.[14]
snip

"The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would
trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn't know that money trickled up.
Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it
before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor
fellow's hands."

--Will Rogers in the St. Petersburg Times - Nov 26, 1932


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
snip
For a reduction in tax rates to increase revenue, the
current tax rate would need to be higher than the revenue
maximizing rate.
snip
The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a
comparison of academic studies yields a range of ==revenue
maximizing rates that centers around 70%.[2]== {emphasis
added UG} Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995
that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax
rates around 65%.[12] A 1996 study by Y. Hsing of the United
States economy between 1959 and 1991 placed the
revenue-maximizing average federal tax rate between 32.67%
and 35.21%.[13] A 1981 paper published in the Journal of
Political Economy presented a model integrating empirical
data that indicated that the point of maximum tax revenue in
Sweden in the 1970s would have been 70%.[14] A paper by
Trabandt and Uhlig of the NBER from 2009 presented a model
that predicted that the US and most European economies were
on the left of the Laffer curve (in other words, that
raising taxes would raise further revenue).[11]

Government immediately puts every single penny back into the economy.

The rich do not.

But this is just the opinion of a few of the world's top
economists -- what do they know?


There is no such thing as a free lunch, and if something
seems to good to be true -- it is.


No matter how much some would like it to be otherwise.

Unless you are a 1%er .
.....

Only if you are below the 1%ers .

...