Which Party Do You Think is Better for the Stock Market?

The dividend tax cut will not show up till after 2003 returns are filed in 2004, by which time a short term stimulus should have been unneccessary; similarly most consumers won't benefit from the dividend tax at all . Your 401k? Your pension fund? all that stuff is already tax exempt.

At most, its another giveaway to the top brackets, who are far less likely to consume than the lower brackets, which defeats the purpose of having a stimulus in the first place.

 

Vik, you have clearly lost the forest for the trees. You have become lost in your sea of economic studies to the point where you are incapable of recognizing fundamental tenets.

1. Your post argues against the wealth effect. Your post gives no credit to stock market advances having positive impacts on consumer confidence. In case you forgot, consumer spending represents roughly 2/3 of GDP.

2. Since you have very little understanding of finance, I will help you out: A stock's price represents the net present value of expected future cash flows. The stock market is a collection of stocks. The stock market represents investor's opinion of the level of future cash flows. This is a leading indicator of economic activity.

3. You foolishly equate productivity to the level of economic activity and attempt to use this flawed logic to dispute my point. This is one of many ways to measure economic strength.

4. I didn't make the "short-run medium-run distinction" because those of us who do not operate in ivory-tower economic think tanks like yourself do not consider the distinction to be relevant.

Keep trying to obfuscate your flawed argument with big words and studies no one has heard of. In my eyes, it does not give you credibility and it does not advance your point. Your knowledge of finance is laughable. Economics is theory. Finance is reality. Deal with it, rookie.

 

Let me retort

1. The Nobel prize is a partisan affair given by a bunch of anti-American socialists. In fact, the only reason Jimmy Carter got the damned peace prize was to rub one in the eye of Bush. So what makes you think they would award the economic prize to anyone who is outside their narrow, little liberal view

2. Raising taxes in the midst of an economic slowdown is stupidity, plain and simple.

3. How do tax cuts not spur demand? By their very nature, giving the people with the most disposable income will spur investment activity and more purchasing of goods.

 

Vik, the crap about fiscal and monetary policy taking "years" to have any effect is post-hoc rationalization by Supply siders like TJ to cover up for the fact that their branch of voodoo economics, as george the first said, has been EXPOSED as the snake oil and rubbish that it is. ( a more in depth treatment is given in the long Krugman article from last sunday).

Essentially, the last few remaining supplysiders, including TJ' s hero Lawrence Kudlow, have taken to advancing the absurd proposition that the runaway success of balanced budgets and rubinomics in the late 90's (and the corresponding boost that it gave to investments) is the result of Reagan's tax cuts from the early-80's, a theory that is about as credible as saying that the economic growth in the mid 80's was fueled by Lyndon Johnson's spending on social services int he 1960's, or for that matter, by the fact that the 69 mets won the world series or Joe Namath's flamboyant personality.

In other words, it's a joke.

 

Who pays the most taxes.....the upper ten percent
Who should get the biggest cut since they pay the most...... the upper ten percent

I guess you believe in the good old Marx axiom about taxation:

 

That seals it, you are a joke poster.



If you're actually using the Nobel prize to imply Lucas and the Chicago school of Economists as well as Douglas North, a Hoover institute scholar, are a bunch of socialists, which I believe you are; well, let me be blunt:

You're completely ignorant of reality and don't know what the hell you are tallking about. That's akin to calling Jesus an atheist. That is not an opinion, that is fact.

It's really becoming more and more difficult to take anything you say seriously at all.

I'm not going to even bother addressing your other points as its obvious that you don't know a damn thing about economics...at all.

 

Well as they say--- "The proof is in the pudding" and the Dems clearly win this debate.

 

I'm just going to respectfully walk away from this.

Other posters, I urge you to use your best judgement when reading Jorge's less than cogent and often times false analysis of economics and economic policy.

Bamaslamma, dogging the Nobel Prize is not going to get you any support. In the strictly academic disciplines (Economics, Physics, Chemistry, Physiology and Medicine) the prize is determined by broad academic support and acclaim for excellence, hardly politically motivated.

I'm glad there are posters like MacBeth, MadMax and haven (to name a few) that try to raise the bar of discourse here. It's too bad that there are others that ruin good honest intelligent conversation.

 

And I believe you are so enslaved to the liberal dogma that you can't make a good point either without consulting some "authoritarian" figures that supposedly prove your false points.

You believe tax increases will stimulate economic activity.....prove it. If tax increases are so great and are a panacea for all our economic woes, why isn't Bush raising taxes? Don't give me that tripe about how "he wouldn't to help those evil rich buddies of his." Tax increases depress activity by reducing disposable income. I'm not a damned economist and I understand that. Some things like economics people attempt to overcomplicate like you and your economist buddies, but it is real simple.

Tax cuts lead to increased disposable income.....argue with that at your peril
Increased disposable income leads to increased economic activity, be it investment, buying a new lawn mower, etc. etc.
The so-called "voodoo economics" of "trickle down" is irrefutable, because there are other people down the food chain who benefit as well, from the factory worker at the lawn mower plant to the investment advisor at the investment firm who gets a bigger commission.

I'm tired of all this evil rich, they horde all the money for themselves.....ad nauseum. Everytime they buy anything or invest...they help people below them on the food chain of our economy. Not difficult stuff. I don't have any charts or facts or figures. I didn't go to yackety-smackety U to be bored to death in econ classes. I learned the lesson of how tax cuts work out in the REAL WORLD, which is vastly different from the different dimension most of our nation's academia reside in. I'm not an economist and nor do I pretend to be. But I at least have a Zen-like simple understanding of how the complex beast works.

 

proof of what??? how is it proof?? the same proof that if AFC teams win championships, Democrats get elected?? that kind of evidence?? otherwise, i don't see causal links here that lead you to a "proof is in the pudding" type response.

 

i'm going to speak for bamaslammer on this one...and he can correct me where i'm wrong...but i'm guessing he'd say:

1. this is not the kind of Christian charity Jesus talked about. taxes are payable to Uncle Sam....or else. not exactly the spirit of giving, there.

2. he likely would also disagree with your assertion that trickle-down is necessarily evil...rather, he would see it as a means to an end to ultimately help everyone. remember, the theory of trickle-down ultimately is that those with capital will be encouraged to share it with others...privately...through creation of jobs, etc.

i have no idea what bamaslammer gives to his favorite charities every year...i have no idea how willing he is to share his blessings with others. he may go far beyond what Uncle Sam would have him give. i know many people who do.

 

I accept your COMPLETE AND UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.

If you step to me through your usual attacks, expect to see counterpunching. Now go back to studying Okun's Gap like a good little theoretical economist. Let me know if you ever need educating on the financial markets again.

 

That was funny.

 

LMAO, like you accepted mine after your ultra-harsh, 8 million candlepower exposure in the Social Security thread last week?

Your jests amuse.

 

You hit it right on the button as my thoughts on the issue. I give plenty to charity, especially to Cystic Fibrosis research (my cousin is stricken with the disease) and Catholic Charities, which does more good for the poor than any other one. But there is a key difference, taxes are forced charity, which is not virtuous at all. I have something I want each one of you to watch that explains the concept of liberty better than anything I've ever seen in a form that is simple and to the point.

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

I believe in supply side economics because I want everyone to prosper, but to do so by using their talents and abilities. Government assistance just makes people dependent and listless and stifles people's search for using their talents to make their way in this world. Tax cuts to the evil rich do help you, but you just need to look past your jealousy and rage against the "winners of life's lottery" to see it. Envy is one of the seven deadly sins and it is an ugly thing when it comes to taxes and people paying their "fair share."