AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2016 7:56:02 GMT -5
Do I think Cruz will go all the way to the convention, or drop out? Interesting question. I honestly don't know the answer. I am suspicious of all the late breaking hard core establishment support for Cruz. Jeb Bush? These people HATE Ted Cruz. I am hoping that Cruz will not destroy his independent / outsider rep by going along with an establishment plan to torpedo the will of the voters. I honestly don't think the GOP will survive as a party if they beat Trump by shenanigans. Nate Silver actually pointed out how far Bush had to "reach" to endorse Cruz. Kasich would have been a far more logical choice. as to your second assertion, i think the party will be just fine. but you are the third person to say that now, so i would rather just watch and wait, so this is the last time i am going to say "the party will be just fine", until after the convention. there is a reasonable chance that, even in the case of a brokered convention, Trump will win. but according to party rules there are absolutely under NO obligation whatsoever to do that, if he fails to win on the first ballot. Bush is still the establishment pick. They still think they're going to get him- make no mistake. These people are so far out of touch and deluded you can bet they're going to do whatever they're going to do. I used to think they were willing to lose to Hillary, or even blow up the party to keep their jobs (which is their sole objective), but now I realize they don't even realize that they're going to lose / blow up the party. That's how detached from reality the establishment is.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2016 7:57:04 GMT -5
The party will not be fine. The GOP is in full whig meltdown. Pretty much no matter what happens-- Trump gets the nod, they deny him-- they're done.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2016 8:24:10 GMT -5
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP : Are you going to morph into a supporter of Mr. Trump once he wins the GOP nomination and is the only hope of taking down the redoubtable Ms. Hillary Clinton, or are you going to be a man without a party at that point? I've been told that FOX, the Heritage Foundation, even Mr. Limbaugh (to a degree) have all warmed up considerably to Mr. Trump in the past month. There's kind of a doleful acceptance that he's going to win the nomination and that Ms. Clinton is still the greater threat to America, making Mr. Trump their less-than-ideal-but-still-tolerable knight in shining armor. I ask because... you know... Mitt Romney. The difference between Trump and Romney is not one of ideology- I believe both are typical northeast moderate to liberal on most issues. Virtually ever issue Trump has flipped on to run for president- immigration, abortion, taxes, etc- Romney did the same. The thing that intrigues me about Trump (not that it elicits my support) is his total outsider status. Yes, he has bought and sold politicians like used cars- but I chalk that up to extortion payments to the government mafia. I never construe contributions to Democrats from business in big cities (let alone Manhattan) as necessarily "support". Trump brags about "buying politicians" because his ego won't let him tell the truth: he paid to be left alone because government is an extortion racket- that's one of the little known, little talked about aspects of political contributions. I think it would be interesting to see a true outsider in office. Hillary is the incarnation of an insider- the very definition of it. This is one reason I think the polls could be wrong about Trump losing to her. That and the Trump Democrats-- I presume we're all familiar with Diamond & Silk? Ditch & Switch? Oh, and I'm not dodging the question. I think as far as voting goes-- I just don't know that I can actually go and vote for Trump. I want to support him based upon some of the things he says he'll do. I just don't believe him. And then there's his temperament-- I just don't know that I can gamble on him? There's a 5% chance I'll actually vote for him. I explained it to a friend like this: with Hillary, I'm 100% sure we're getting a criminal who will destroy the country. With Trump, I'm only 80% sure we're getting a con artist who will destroy the country. There's a 20% chance Trump will do some good. There's 0% chance Hillary will do any good.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Mar 25, 2016 9:05:13 GMT -5
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP : Are you going to morph into a supporter of Mr. Trump once he wins the GOP nomination and is the only hope of taking down the redoubtable Ms. Hillary Clinton, or are you going to be a man without a party at that point? I've been told that FOX, the Heritage Foundation, even Mr. Limbaugh (to a degree) have all warmed up considerably to Mr. Trump in the past month. There's kind of a doleful acceptance that he's going to win the nomination and that Ms. Clinton is still the greater threat to America, making Mr. Trump their less-than-ideal-but-still-tolerable knight in shining armor. I ask because... you know... Mitt Romney. The difference between Trump and Romney is not one of ideology- I believe both are typical northeast moderate to liberal on most issues. Virtually ever issue Trump has flipped on to run for president- immigration, abortion, taxes, etc- Romney did the same. The thing that intrigues me about Trump (not that it elicits my support) is his total outsider status. Yes, he has bought and sold politicians like used cars- but I chalk that up to extortion payments to the government mafia. I never construe contributions to Democrats from business in big cities (let alone Manhattan) as necessarily "support". Trump brags about "buying politicians" because his ego won't let him tell the truth: he paid to be left alone because government is an extortion racket- that's one of the little known, little talked about aspects of political contributions. I think it would be interesting to see a true outsider in office. Hillary is the incarnation of an insider- the very definition of it. This is one reason I think the polls could be wrong about Trump losing to her. That and the Trump Democrats-- I presume we're all familiar with Diamond & Silk? Ditch & Switch? Oh, and I'm not dodging the question. I think as far as voting goes-- I just don't know that I can actually go and vote for Trump. I want to support him based upon some of the things he says he'll do. I just don't believe him. And then there's his temperament-- I just don't know that I can gamble on him? There's a 5% chance I'll actually vote for him. I explained it to a friend like this: with Hillary, I'm 100% sure we're getting a criminal who will destroy the country. With Trump, I'm only 80% sure we're getting a con artist who will destroy the country. There's a 20% chance Trump will do some good. There's 0% chance Hillary will do any good.I agree. I do not know if I could vote for Trump. I do know, I cannot, will not, in any human way possible, ever vote for Cruz.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2016 9:46:57 GMT -5
The difference between Trump and Romney is not one of ideology- I believe both are typical northeast moderate to liberal on most issues. Virtually ever issue Trump has flipped on to run for president- immigration, abortion, taxes, etc- Romney did the same. The thing that intrigues me about Trump (not that it elicits my support) is his total outsider status. Yes, he has bought and sold politicians like used cars- but I chalk that up to extortion payments to the government mafia. I never construe contributions to Democrats from business in big cities (let alone Manhattan) as necessarily "support". Trump brags about "buying politicians" because his ego won't let him tell the truth: he paid to be left alone because government is an extortion racket- that's one of the little known, little talked about aspects of political contributions. I think it would be interesting to see a true outsider in office. Hillary is the incarnation of an insider- the very definition of it. This is one reason I think the polls could be wrong about Trump losing to her. That and the Trump Democrats-- I presume we're all familiar with Diamond & Silk? Ditch & Switch? Oh, and I'm not dodging the question. I think as far as voting goes-- I just don't know that I can actually go and vote for Trump. I want to support him based upon some of the things he says he'll do. I just don't believe him. And then there's his temperament-- I just don't know that I can gamble on him? There's a 5% chance I'll actually vote for him. I explained it to a friend like this: with Hillary, I'm 100% sure we're getting a criminal who will destroy the country. With Trump, I'm only 80% sure we're getting a con artist who will destroy the country. There's a 20% chance Trump will do some good. There's 0% chance Hillary will do any good.I agree. I do not know if I could vote for Trump. I do know, I cannot, will not, in any human way possible, ever vote for Cruz. I'm curious- because I'm very familiar with Cruz's record, and a supporter: why not? You realize he argued the Heller case, right? Do you also know Cruz got the Ft. Hood victims the honors they deserve? His resume is a gleaming jewel of actual conservative accomplishment. I'm curious why, given that, you're not sure if you could vote for Trump, but you're certain you would not vote for Cruz?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2016 9:52:39 GMT -5
That's what I've been saying- I believed that. It was wrong. There's no clearer indication it was wrong than Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz has no buts. He's not "conservative, but" on literally anything. He is rated 100% (not 97%, not 98%, not 99%) conservative by Heritage Action. He has literally nothing to apologize to conservatives for. My opinion is that it's too late- and I disagree with dj. I think it's too late to even spoil for a contested convention. I think Trump gets to 1,237 well before July. that's fine for you to disagree. i am comfortable with your disagreement. I also think Chicago was a bigger tipping point than people realize right now. This country is in no mood to be bullied by the violent left wing fascist mob right now. I am probably in the minority of people who will actually publicly admit this- but I'm not only happy to see people hitting back, I'm encouraged by leadership that would say: if you're assaulted, fight back. If you see someone about to commit a battery- knock their block off. I know I'm not alone in loving it, but I'll say it for all those who won't: it's about time. Rioters should have been shot in Ferguson. There should have been a pile of bodies in Ferguson.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 14:21:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 9:58:10 GMT -5
Again images of V for Vendetta flash through my mind. But you have the fascists labeled wrong.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 25, 2016 11:57:17 GMT -5
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP : Are you going to morph into a supporter of Mr. Trump once he wins the GOP nomination and is the only hope of taking down the redoubtable Ms. Hillary Clinton, or are you going to be a man without a party at that point? I've been told that FOX, the Heritage Foundation, even Mr. Limbaugh (to a degree) have all warmed up considerably to Mr. Trump in the past month. There's kind of a doleful acceptance that he's going to win the nomination and that Ms. Clinton is still the greater threat to America, making Mr. Trump their less-than-ideal-but-still-tolerable knight in shining armor. I ask because... you know... Mitt Romney. The difference between Trump and Romney is not one of ideology- I believe both are typical northeast moderate to liberal on most issues. Virtually ever issue Trump has flipped on to run for president- immigration, abortion, taxes, etc- Romney did the same. The thing that intrigues me about Trump (not that it elicits my support) is his total outsider status. Yes, he has bought and sold politicians like used cars- but I chalk that up to extortion payments to the government mafia. I never construe contributions to Democrats from business in big cities (let alone Manhattan) as necessarily "support". Trump brags about "buying politicians" because his ego won't let him tell the truth: he paid to be left alone because government is an extortion racket- that's one of the little known, little talked about aspects of political contributions. I think it would be interesting to see a true outsider in office. Hillary is the incarnation of an insider- the very definition of it. This is one reason I think the polls could be wrong about Trump losing to her. That and the Trump Democrats-- I presume we're all familiar with Diamond & Silk? Ditch & Switch? Oh, and I'm not dodging the question. I think as far as voting goes-- I just don't know that I can actually go and vote for Trump. I want to support him based upon some of the things he says he'll do. I just don't believe him. And then there's his temperament-- I just don't know that I can gamble on him? There's a 5% chance I'll actually vote for him. I explained it to a friend like this: with Hillary, I'm 100% sure we're getting a criminal who will destroy the country. With Trump, I'm only 80% sure we're getting a con artist who will destroy the country. There's a 20% chance Trump will do some good. There's 0% chance Hillary will do any good.Fair enough. Thanks for the detailed response.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 25, 2016 12:35:17 GMT -5
So as I understand it, if Trump adds 13 billion dollars to the deficit (13 billion will not double the debt) he will not bankrupt the country, and yet you said earlier he would. Am I understanding this correctly? Some people here reject the Laffer Curve. It's hopeless. Of course we reject it. It's nonsense. (Not necessarily the idea of the Curve itself, but the notion that we as a society have EVER been on the downward-sloping side of it.) As I recall the reading, the midpoint of estimates for where the revenue-maximizing peak of the curve is located is at around the 70% rate. We are nowhere near, and have never been anywhere near that rate. If you are on the left side of the curve, tax increases raise revenue and tax cuts decrease them. We are firmly and have always been firmly on the left side of the curve.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 25, 2016 13:35:14 GMT -5
Some people here reject the Laffer Curve. It's hopeless. Of course we reject it. It's nonsense. (Not necessarily the idea of the Curve itself, but the notion that we as a society have EVER been on the downward-sloping side of it.) As I recall the reading, the midpoint of estimates for where the revenue-maximizing peak of the curve is located is at around the 70% rate. We are nowhere near, and have never been anywhere near that rate. If you are on the left side of the curve, tax increases raise revenue and tax cuts decrease them. We are firmly and have always been firmly on the left side of the curve. Tax revenues have never fallen outside the 17.5 +/- 2.5% of GDP band for more than a year or two in over 70 years, despite a sweeping range of tax policies. At the very least, that tends to suggest that the US is sitting reasonably close to the inflection point in the curve. Not that I'm endorsing Mr. Trump's suicidal tax policy by any means.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Mar 25, 2016 15:51:13 GMT -5
This country is in no mood to be bullied by the violent left wing fascist mob right now.
They seem more inclined to being bullied by the fascist rightwing mob led by Trumpolini. At least that one exists.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,452
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2016 23:15:06 GMT -5
that's fine for you to disagree. i am comfortable with your disagreement. I also think Chicago was a bigger tipping point than people realize right now. This country is in no mood to be bullied by the violent left wing fascist mob right now. sorry, but wtf are you talking about? and what, if anything, does it have to do with the GOP nomination?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,452
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2016 23:21:55 GMT -5
So as I understand it, if Trump adds 13 billion dollars to the deficit (13 billion will not double the debt) he will not bankrupt the country, and yet you said earlier he would. Am I understanding this correctly? Some people here reject the Laffer Curve. It's hopeless. nobody rejects it entirely, but there is no evidence that T* is less than 60%. there is a lot of discussion about this on line, if you don't believe me. it might be a good time to point out that Laffer is a Keynsian, however. he was actually interested in GENERATING revenue for the government, not cutting it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,452
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2016 23:24:28 GMT -5
Of course we reject it. It's nonsense. (Not necessarily the idea of the Curve itself, but the notion that we as a society have EVER been on the downward-sloping side of it.) As I recall the reading, the midpoint of estimates for where the revenue-maximizing peak of the curve is located is at around the 70% rate. We are nowhere near, and have never been anywhere near that rate. If you are on the left side of the curve, tax increases raise revenue and tax cuts decrease them. We are firmly and have always been firmly on the left side of the curve. Tax revenues have never fallen outside the 17.5 +/- 2.5% of GDP band for more than a year or two in over 70 years, despite a sweeping range of tax policies. At the very least, that tends to suggest that the US is sitting reasonably close to the inflection point in the curve. Not that I'm endorsing Mr. Trump's suicidal tax policy by any means. no, but tax revenues have fallen every time taxes were lowered**, and gone up every time taxes were raised since WW2. the combination of these two facts indicates that the Laffer Curve is much much flatter than a bell. probably looks more like a sawtooth.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 26, 2016 0:05:53 GMT -5
It is possible that Paul was not in fact promoting the argument that tax cuts result in greater revenue. (It is unlikely, since I would swear I have seen him attempt that argument several times in the past.) Even The Laffer Center disavows that argument:
In that sense it is perfectly understandable that tax cuts decrease revenues and explode deficits while leaving Laffer intact. Unfortunately, supply-siders aren't that discerning in their interpretations. They are much more in the "many people claim" part of the argument.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,452
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2016 1:10:41 GMT -5
It is possible that Paul was not in fact promoting the argument that tax cuts result in greater revenue. (It is unlikely, since I would swear I have seen him attempt that argument several times in the past.) Even The Laffer Center disavows that argument:
In that sense it is perfectly understandable that tax cuts decrease revenues and explode deficits while leaving Laffer intact. Unfortunately, supply-siders aren't that discerning in their interpretations. They are much more in the "many people claim" part of the argument. moreover, Laffter has been asked point blank if T* is under 50%, and he said no. when pushed on it to guess what it was, i believe he is on record for saying that it is "somewhere above 70%". again, i don't know of any economist that says it is less than that, but i am sure there are a few. the consensus view is that at or beyond that level, however. and let's not conflate this argument with "tax cuts grow GDP". that argument is unrelated, and also thoroughly debunked.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Mar 26, 2016 1:14:41 GMT -5
I'm a laugher at the Laffer.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,452
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2016 1:24:46 GMT -5
I'm a laugher at the Laffer. this is the moment Laffer lost all credibility:
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2016 1:35:05 GMT -5
I also think Chicago was a bigger tipping point than people realize right now. This country is in no mood to be bullied by the violent left wing fascist mob right now. sorry, but wtf are you talking about? and what, if anything, does it have to do with the GOP nomination? Trump rally cancelled in Chicago. Unruly mob responsible. Public blowback fared well for Mr. Trump's campaign. Any of this ringing a bell?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,452
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2016 1:40:38 GMT -5
The party will not be fine. The GOP is in full whig meltdown. Pretty much no matter what happens-- Trump gets the nod, they deny him-- they're done. no, there is another way. i am going to explain it just once, and then sit back and watch. remember, just for a moment, that this is the GOP, now. this is the party of Lincoln. it is not going to be hijacked by Trump, and his phony populism. not without a fight. just to illustrate what MIGHT happen, consider this. i know you think that Trump will have the votes to get there. i don't. not tonight. maybe in 5 weeks i will be convinced, but not now. now i think he ends up with less than 1200. is that close? you bet it is. it is very close. but not close enough. so, on the first ballot, he fails. then what? does he win on the second ballot? maybe. but i think that if Kasich is still in there, him and Cruz might split the Rubio votes, and leave Trump hanging. third vote? do you think, after the second vote, if Trump fails to win the nomination, that he is going to get it on the 3rd? i don't. and to your "travesty" and "devastation", what is WRONG with the delegates who did NOT vote for him on the first ballot NOT voting for him on the second ballot? nothing, that is what. no, Paul, VB, and Virgil- i think you are mistaken if you think this is impossible, or that "no case can be made to deny Trump the nomination. again, the majority wins in the delegate process. his plurality is MEANINGLESS, imo. again, Trump will PROBABLY win on the second ballot- but if he fails, i think he is going to lose. and, of course, Paul and Virgil might be right, it might never get to the convention. Paul thinks there is a 0% chance of that happening, Virgil thinks it is 30%, i think it is 60%. what do you think, VB? finally, i would not count Kasich out. what happened in 1880 is that someone OTHER than the two main candidates was nominated, and well over half the delegates went over to him. it did not cause the end of the party then, and it would not in 2016- but i think that is the least likely outcome. the most likely is that one of the three candidates that we have right now will win, and a case can be made for all three: 1) Trump- most votes 2) Cruz- second most votes, way more representative of conservatives than Trump, better campaigner, in traditional terms, also polls better -vs- Clinton than Trump 3) Kasich- third most votes (when all is said and done), OHIO, strong record and public opinion, and best matchup with Clinton
and there are strikes against all three:
1) Trump- no public record, jingoistic asswad 2) Cruz- has basically fought against every one of his own party since entering DC. hard to imagine him getting anything done 3) Kasich- least votes of the three major candidates
so, it is hard for me to say how this will turn out, and i would view anyone who thinks they are 100%, or even 90% sure with a lot of skepticism.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,452
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2016 1:41:13 GMT -5
sorry, but wtf are you talking about? and what, if anything, does it have to do with the GOP nomination? Trump rally cancelled in Chicago. Unruly mob responsible. Public blowback fared well for Mr. Trump's campaign. Any of this ringing a bell? Trump canceled it, because he is a big baby. how is that for a take? edit: oh, he then LIED about it, saying that he was "denied free speech" and the "police shut him down", all while waving his little cocktail sausage fingers around.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2016 1:42:05 GMT -5
Tax revenues have never fallen outside the 17.5 +/- 2.5% of GDP band for more than a year or two in over 70 years, despite a sweeping range of tax policies. At the very least, that tends to suggest that the US is sitting reasonably close to the inflection point in the curve. Not that I'm endorsing Mr. Trump's suicidal tax policy by any means. no, but tax revenues have fallen every time taxes were lowered**, and gone up every time taxes were raised since WW2. the combination of these two facts indicates that the Laffer Curve is much much flatter than a bell. probably looks more like a sawtooth. All I'm saying is that relatively major changes in taxation policy have resulted in very marginal changes in total tax revenue. That suggests the US is on the left side of the curve, but relatively close to the inflection point. This is all assuming the curve has reasonably well-behaved 1st and 2nd order derivatives.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,452
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2016 1:44:45 GMT -5
no, but tax revenues have fallen every time taxes were lowered**, and gone up every time taxes were raised since WW2. the combination of these two facts indicates that the Laffer Curve is much much flatter than a bell. probably looks more like a sawtooth. All I'm saying is that relatively major changes in taxation policy have resulted in very marginal changes in total tax revenue. That suggests the US is on the left side of the curve, but relatively close to the inflection point. This is all assuming the curve has reasonably well-behaved 1st and 2nd order derivatives. i know what you are saying. i heard you. (but) if the (Laffer) curve is actually a straight line, the 1st derivative is a constant, and the second is zero, right?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2016 1:50:18 GMT -5
Trump rally cancelled in Chicago. Unruly mob responsible. Public blowback fared well for Mr. Trump's campaign. Any of this ringing a bell? Trump canceled it, because he is a big baby. how is that for a take? I'm sure that's some Americans' take, but more see it as Mr. Trump responding "presidentially" to a bullying mob. You're the "poll dancer". Keep your personal perspectives out of it, hold your nose, and see these events through the eyes of the statistical creature that is the GOP primary voter.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,452
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2016 1:52:48 GMT -5
Trump canceled it, because he is a big baby. how is that for a take? I'm sure that's some Americans' take, but more see it as Mr. Trump responding "presidentially" to a bullying mob. You're the "poll dancer". Keep your personal perspectives out of it, hold your nose, and see these events through the eyes of the statistical creature that is the GOP primary voter. actually, that is not my "perspective". i was suggesting that it is ANOTHER perspective. my perspective is that it was another publicity stunt for Trump that might appeal to those that are already following him like a cult leader, but won't have much influence on anyone else. not that my PERSONAL opinion matters....
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2016 2:01:43 GMT -5
All I'm saying is that relatively major changes in taxation policy have resulted in very marginal changes in total tax revenue. That suggests the US is on the left side of the curve, but relatively close to the inflection point. This is all assuming the curve has reasonably well-behaved 1st and 2nd order derivatives. i know what you are saying. i heard you. (but) if the (Laffer) curve is actually a straight line, the 1st derivative is a constant, and the second is zero, right? That is correct. I can guarantee you the curve isn't a line. If I had to guess:
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,452
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2016 2:05:50 GMT -5
i know what you are saying. i heard you. (but) if the (Laffer) curve is actually a straight line, the 1st derivative is a constant, and the second is zero, right? That is correct. I can guarantee you the curve isn't a line. If I had to guess: you can't "guarantee" anything of the sort. but at least we both agree that we are well below T*, and have been for a good long while. you can SURMISE that the curve is not linear (or near enough to it that it could be modeled that way), but you can't prove it. nobody can. there is another problem with the curve. it is really obvious, but nobody ever discusses it. let me point it out by asking this question: what does this curve presume will happen at T = 100%?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2016 2:08:22 GMT -5
I'm sure that's some Americans' take, but more see it as Mr. Trump responding "presidentially" to a bullying mob. You're the "poll dancer". Keep your personal perspectives out of it, hold your nose, and see these events through the eyes of the statistical creature that is the GOP primary voter. actually, that is not my "perspective". i was suggesting that it is ANOTHER perspective. my perspective is that it was another publicity stunt for Trump that might appeal to those that are already following him like a cult leader, but won't have much influence on anyone else. not that my PERSONAL opinion matters.... Paul disagrees. As far as I can tell, neither of you has anything more than your gut feel to back you up. Mr. Trump has gotten more popular since the Chicago pogrom, but so have the other GOP candidates. Cause and effect? Coincidence? I should think finding data-based answers to those questions would be your cup of tea.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,452
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2016 2:15:43 GMT -5
actually, that is not my "perspective". i was suggesting that it is ANOTHER perspective. my perspective is that it was another publicity stunt for Trump that might appeal to those that are already following him like a cult leader, but won't have much influence on anyone else. not that my PERSONAL opinion matters.... Paul disagrees. As far as I can tell, neither of you has anything more than your gut feel to back you up. Mr. Trump has gotten more popular since the Chicago pogrom, but so have the other GOP candidates. Cause and effect? Coincidence? I should think finding data-based answers to those questions would be your cup of tea. i was taking "anyone else" as a group. it will have a profound influence on a few, and none on the rest. of course this is conjecture, but it is what i think. Trump has gotten more popular, Kasich has gotten more popular, and Cruz has gotten more popular since the (canceled) rally. if you can tell me what Cruz and Kasich did to earn those votes, then we can talk about how the rally affected Trump and why- otherwise, you are speculating. badly, i am thinking. that last remark was snarky and personal, imo. it was also unearned. i AM watching the data, Virgil.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2016 2:15:57 GMT -5
That is correct. I can guarantee you the curve isn't a line. If I had to guess: you can't "guarantee" anything of the sort. but at least we both agree that we are well below T*, and have been for a good long while. you can SURMISE that the curve is not linear (or near enough to it that it could be modeled that way), but you can't prove it. nobody can. there is another problem with the curve. it is really obvious, but nobody ever discusses it. let me point it out by asking this question: what does this curve presume will happen at T = 100%? Regardless of shape, the curve predicts revenue = 0% at T = 100%, which is a correct prediction, and precisely why I can guarantee you it isn't a line. T = 100% is communism. It can't exist in a democracy, republic, etc. It can't coexist with capitalism. It certainly can't exist in America. It would mean the end of the union, hence why revenues go to zero. Those are the two boundary conditions: R = 0 at T = 0% and R = 0 at T = 100%. Hence unless the curve is a line predicting that R = 0 for all T, it's not a line. What it does look like is debatable. The above is my best guess.
|
|