tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post8235031438277150877..comments2024-03-28T20:28:01.733-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Letter to the New York Postmike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-67779505848428949262009-02-11T11:32:00.000-05:002009-02-11T11:32:00.000-05:00EXACTLY MIKE,THE LAUFFER CURVE WHICH IS A BASIC AN...EXACTLY MIKE,<BR/><BR/>THE LAUFFER CURVE WHICH IS A BASIC AND NOT EXACT METRIC DOES INDEED SHOW THAT WHEN TAXES ARE TOO HIGH THERE IS LESS REVENUE.<BR/><BR/>WHEN TAXES ARE TOO LOW THERE IS NOT ENOUGH REVENUE.<BR/><BR/>THIS BELL CURVE DOES NOT EXIST IN IT'S ENTIRETY FOR REPUBLICAN SUPPLY SIDERS BECAUSE THEY ARE ALWAYS COMPLAINING THAT WE ARE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE THAT TAXES ARE ALWAYS TOO HIGH.<BR/><BR/>THAT MEANS WE ARE NOT ABLE TO MITIGATE EXCESSIVE EXUBERANCE WITH TAX SCRUTINY AND DEFINITELY NOT OVERLEVERAGE - SEE LAST 8 YEARS.<BR/><BR/>AS YOU POINTED OUT LAST SUMMER - TAX SCRUTINY ON WALL STREET COULD HAVE MITIGATED THE PROBLEM TO SOME DEGREE.<BR/><BR/>HOWEVER, CALIFORNIA IS BANKRUPT BECAUSE THEY ARE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE LAUFFER CURVE AND WALL STREET WAS ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE THOUGH ALWAYS FEELING ON THE RIGHT.<BR/><BR/>TOO LATE TO RAISE TAXES NOW, BUT IT WOULD HAVE SLOWED THINGS DOWN TO SUSTAINABLE LEVELS 3 YEARS AGO GIVEN THAT THERE WAS TRACEABILITY OF THE CREDIT SWAP SCHEMES.googleheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14459089745473598235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-58679622881453533202009-02-11T09:06:00.000-05:002009-02-11T09:06:00.000-05:00A supply sider would say that marginal tax rates a...A supply sider would say that marginal tax rates are too high. That's what they always say. The inference is that if rates were cut, businesses would be incentivized to raise production, hire more workers, produce more of the real wealth that makes up the economy, etc. Their beef is not with government spending, per se, but in the false notion that the government needs more revenues in order to increase spending and that takes from the private sector by keeping taxes and/or "borrowing" elevated. In actuality the reverse is true: spending by government adds to the wealth of the private sector by increasing the amount of assets owned in the form of Treasuries. It takes nothing away. It only becomes problematic when spendng by gov't uses up the available capital and resources of the nation, which as you can see in the numbers I gave, is not happening and has never really happened. We approached it in wartime years, but never in peacetime.mike normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-24408361348270204482009-02-11T08:45:00.000-05:002009-02-11T08:45:00.000-05:00I am a little confused by your paragraph concernin...I am a little confused by your paragraph concerning the "crowding out". Would not a "supply-sider" say the reason we are not at a higher productivity is due to the government spending. To me it seems you are giving a point for the non spend side. I know that is not what you are trying to convey, so I know I am missing something. <BR/> Besides that confusion, I don't see how anyone can read your post and not see the fallacy of Weinstein's column.Johnny Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17111389352871179622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-23469762117100839952009-02-11T03:05:00.000-05:002009-02-11T03:05:00.000-05:00http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/02/04/busi...http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/02/04/<BR/>business/20090205-bailout-totals-graphic.htmlgoogleheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14459089745473598235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-18898427582924816412009-02-11T03:04:00.000-05:002009-02-11T03:04:00.000-05:00http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/02/04/busi...http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/02/04/business/20090205-bailout-totals-graphic.html<BR/><BR/>link to NYT's tally of all the monies beyond TARP spent - something like 10 trillion or whatever.googleheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14459089745473598235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-7711018630268041982009-02-10T20:23:00.000-05:002009-02-10T20:23:00.000-05:00Thanks, Scott!Thanks, Scott!mike normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-14301505687105290222009-02-10T20:18:00.000-05:002009-02-10T20:18:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.mike normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-57988931166993417022009-02-10T19:46:00.000-05:002009-02-10T19:46:00.000-05:00Well said!ScottWell said!<BR/><BR/>ScottSTFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16261666934714196464noreply@blogger.com