Re: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues

Ernst Blofeld wrote:
> On Feb 26, 4:23 pm, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>"In fact, consumption does not decline as incomes
>>generally rise" in your words, is off his bird.  Can you point me to
>>some quotes of Friedman?
> 
> http://www.econ.nyu.edu/user/bisina/meghir%20on%20friedman.pdf
> ---
> Friedman's book on the "Consumption Function" is one of the great
> works of Economics demonstrating how the interplay between theoretical
> ideas and data analysis could lead to major policy implications. We
> present a short review of Friedman's Permanent Income Hypothesis, the
> origins of the idea and its theoretical foundations. We give a brief
> overview of its influence in modern economics and discuss some
> relevant empirical results and the way they relate to the original
> approach taken by Friedman.
> ---
> 
> Though I am surprised that you denounced Friedman's theory before
> you've even studied it. Well, not really.

I've seen the real world effects.  That's what tests a theory, not
whether the faux Nobel team gives its approval.  And his "permanent"
income applies to individuals, not across economic levels.  The paper
as much as admits it by noting how everybody's favorite proxy for the
poor, blacks, have a lower propensity to spend.

>>What about NeXT?
> 
> Inverse takeover of Apple.
> 
> NeXT was a great company that was about 2-3 years too late to its
> market and crippled by a few Jobsian style choices,

You mean a talented entrepreneur like Jobs could screw up a startup?

> like the cube and
> the then-immature optical media. But of course the software is the
> basis for the current OS X.

Weren't you claiming before that it had nothing to do with technology,
that the Howard Roarks of the world are the im****tant part?

> Jobs has Apple (twice) and Pixar under his belt, both billion-dollar
> companies.

Two out of three isn't bad for a mere mortal.

>>Every recession seems to bring on another round of start-ups.
> 
> that isn't a refutation that a there are a limited number of people
> with the skill and outlook to pull off a startup.

There are only 6.5 billion people on the planet, there is bound to be
only a limited number with any particular skill.

>>They attracted capital, that doesn't mean it's anywhere near as hard
>>as playing third base and hitting .300 in the majors.  
> 
> Uh, startups don't have huge staffs sup****ting everything. By their
> nature startups are usually selling a completley new product, and it
> is rarely clear through the entire process what the product's niche
> will actually be.

So what?

> Have you ever done a startup, as an employee or principal?

Nope.

>>So a failure is as good as success in attracting funding?  Sounds like
>>it's a skill that can be learned like any other.
> 
> If it's a _good_ failure. Blowing the VC money on hookers and blow is
> not a good failure. Getting steamrollered by another company can be a
> sign that the management team was fine but events simply overcame
> them. Most new businesses fail, so it's not surprising that many VC-
> funded companies fail. In SV failure is not regarded as the mark of
> Cain and if the VCs still feel good about you you can get another
> quarter to play another game of pinball.

I still don't think they should make outrageous amounts of money.

--Jeff

-- 
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without
formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to
deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree
odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government
whether Nazi or Communist."

- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943