Re: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues

Ernst Blofeld wrote:

> On Feb 28, 10:49 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>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.
> 
> 
> You still haven't accurately described Friedman's hypothesis, so I
> don't take your criticisms very seriously.
> 
> The Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC) is actually an interesting
> piece of Keynesian theory. The original idea was that the wealthy
> spent less of every extra dollar of income than the less wealthy. This
> led to "underconsumption" in Keynesian parlance. But Friedman's work
> refuted this by noting that people with a high income in any given
> year tend to have received a single-year windfall, which they tended
> to save rather than spend.

Can you get your story straight?  Either higher incomes lead to saving
or they don't.

> Again, there's probably a Nobel in it for you if you can disprove
> Friedman. Have at it.

I can't disprove what isn't intelligible in the first place.

>>You mean a talented entrepreneur like Jobs could screw up a startup?
> 
> Sure. Odds are that even a startup from an experienced group of
> entrepreneurs will fail. Sand Hill is full of experienced VCs who fund
> startups, most of which fail. But the odds are better with Steve.

Gosh, it sounds more like luck than anything else.

>>>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?
> 
> Given two ideas, you fund the group that has experience. If you come
> to a VC with just a good idea odds are he won't fund you without
> bringing on a management team. (Which he can arrange, for a price.)

That sounds like a simple conservative approach to investing.  It
doesn't sound like there's a small group of people who will ever be
successful with a startup.

>>>Have you ever done a startup, as an employee or principal?
>>
>>Nope.
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you nonetheless are willing to redesign
> Silicon Valley based on your feelings of envy.

Envy?  Nah.  I don't want to redesign Silicon Valley, just tax people
who can afford to pay more taxes.  Ninety or 95 percent would be fine
with me, I don't think a 100% top rate is necessary.

>>I still don't think they should make outrageous amounts of money.
> 
> Apparently you don't want any more Apples, Ciscos, Intels, Googles,
> Yahoos, or any others of the companies that have employed thousands
> and reshaped the economy.

Employed thousands?  Out of a nation of 300 million?  Oh my.  I don't
think raising the top tax rate to 90% is going to stop any of that.

--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