7 ms·

anyone surprised?

by asdf333 5y ago

anyone surprised?

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
Why is it, then, on the front page?
- pavlov 5y ago
  “Such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth and unemployment” is in direct contradiction of a central tenet in center-right politics in the West for the past 40 years. It bears repeating.
- revscat 5y ago
  To annoy pg?
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  To reinforce that the concept that tax cuts for the wealthy creates growth and jobs is patently false. Some are still uninformed, or in disbelief, despite the data and scientific consensus.
  - seneca 5y ago
    > Some are still uninformed, or in disbelief, despite the data and scientific consensus. I think calling this a "scientific consensus" is a bit inaccurate. There's very little consensus in economics (and one can argue about the level of science as well).
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      Let's split the difference. "Emotionally rejecting strong evidence contrary to their belief system."
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pbecotte 5y ago
A little. The thesis behind 'trickle down' sorta makes sense if you think about it. Less taxes = more money to invest = more investment = more economic activity. I did kind of expect to see SOME impact, though have felt for a while that the financial markets have become so disconnected from actual investment behavior that the impact would be marginal...and looks like this study concludes its even less then that.
- NotSammyHagar 5y ago
  That might be obvious to you but history has shown it to be inaccurate. Of course rich people, who have lots of influence will be in favor of things that lower their own personal taxes. But in the us it has been show this does not lift others up. The thing that helps lift the overall economy is more money to less wealthy people, especially poorer, because they spend any extra income they receive on necessities.
- thek3nger 5y ago
  It makes sense until you cross the point of diminishing returns. And I think many countries crossed that point by at least 20 percentage points.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- simonw 5y ago
  That's exactly the problem: arguing that taxing the rich less will lead to trickle down / more economic activity / jobs etc sounds like it should work. As the linked study (and many others like it) shows, it doesn't actually work in practice.
- tstrimple 5y ago
  This is one of many dangers of "common sense" style policy and legislation. It's very easy to make misleading or outright false statements and dress it up as "common sense" and sell it to millions of people over and over again decade after decade despite all evidence building up refuting it.
- 5y ago
jjoonathan 5y ago
Surprised? No. Upset? Yes. Every time someone dares to suggest that a policy designed to benefit elites will hurt others, a clown car full of economists drives up. They pile out, tripping over each other to explain to us how we just aren't smart enough to understand economics and how actually cutting taxes for the rich (for the Nth time) will create such extraordinary economic growth that everyone's boat will float upwards as a result. Of course, they are wrong, but next time this topic comes around I guarantee the clown car will be there and in the meantime it behooves us to stockpile ammunition. See also: shipping all the manufacturing to China.
- throwaway6734 5y ago
  >shipping all the manufacturing to China. How is this related? I enjoy not having to pay $2000 for a cellphone and $500 for a pair of sneakers
  - NotSammyHagar 5y ago
    You'd never have to pay $500 for sneakers made in the us, other than fancy designer shoes, prices unrelated to costs. You can already pay 2k for a cell phone.
  - ShroudedNight 5y ago
    The hypothetical $2000 cellphone doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's entirely conceivable that income difference from the increased purchasing power of domestic labour would more than offset the potentially increased prices.
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    Yeah, but the American middle class got absolutely wrecked. Cheap sneakers don't make up for a lost job. Also, the numbers you cite seem pretty dubious. Yes, if you want to do onshore manufacturing today, it's twice as expensive, but propagating that all the way into the cost of the goods assumes 100% of the cost is in manufacturing, that there would be zero economy-of-scale benefit from retaining our manufacturing base, and it assumes no benefit to your income from the increased economic re-circulation. Those... aren't neutral assumptions. This is a separate matter from the one in TFA but the players and strategies are similar.

anyone surprised?

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago

Why is it, then, on the front page?

pavlov 5y ago
“Such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth and unemployment” is in direct contradiction of a central tenet in center-right politics in the West for the past 40 years. It bears repeating.
revscat 5y ago
To annoy pg?
toomuchtodo 5y ago
To reinforce that the concept that tax cuts for the wealthy creates growth and jobs is patently false. Some are still uninformed, or in disbelief, despite the data and scientific consensus.
- seneca 5y ago
  > Some are still uninformed, or in disbelief, despite the data and scientific consensus. I think calling this a "scientific consensus" is a bit inaccurate. There's very little consensus in economics (and one can argue about the level of science as well).
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Let's split the difference. "Emotionally rejecting strong evidence contrary to their belief system."

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pbecotte 5y ago

A little. The thesis behind 'trickle down' sorta makes sense if you think about it. Less taxes = more money to invest = more investment = more economic activity. I did kind of expect to see SOME impact, though have felt for a while that the financial markets have become so disconnected from actual investment behavior that the impact would be marginal...and looks like this study concludes its even less then that.

NotSammyHagar 5y ago
That might be obvious to you but history has shown it to be inaccurate. Of course rich people, who have lots of influence will be in favor of things that lower their own personal taxes. But in the us it has been show this does not lift others up. The thing that helps lift the overall economy is more money to less wealthy people, especially poorer, because they spend any extra income they receive on necessities.
thek3nger 5y ago
It makes sense until you cross the point of diminishing returns. And I think many countries crossed that point by at least 20 percentage points.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
simonw 5y ago
That's exactly the problem: arguing that taxing the rich less will lead to trickle down / more economic activity / jobs etc sounds like it should work. As the linked study (and many others like it) shows, it doesn't actually work in practice.
tstrimple 5y ago
This is one of many dangers of "common sense" style policy and legislation. It's very easy to make misleading or outright false statements and dress it up as "common sense" and sell it to millions of people over and over again decade after decade despite all evidence building up refuting it.
5y ago

jjoonathan 5y ago

Surprised? No. Upset? Yes. Every time someone dares to suggest that a policy designed to benefit elites will hurt others, a clown car full of economists drives up. They pile out, tripping over each other to explain to us how we just aren't smart enough to understand economics and how actually cutting taxes for the rich (for the Nth time) will create such extraordinary economic growth that everyone's boat will float upwards as a result. Of course, they are wrong, but next time this topic comes around I guarantee the clown car will be there and in the meantime it behooves us to stockpile ammunition. See also: shipping all the manufacturing to China.

throwaway6734 5y ago
>shipping all the manufacturing to China. How is this related? I enjoy not having to pay $2000 for a cellphone and $500 for a pair of sneakers
- NotSammyHagar 5y ago
  You'd never have to pay $500 for sneakers made in the us, other than fancy designer shoes, prices unrelated to costs. You can already pay 2k for a cell phone.
- ShroudedNight 5y ago
  The hypothetical $2000 cellphone doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's entirely conceivable that income difference from the increased purchasing power of domestic labour would more than offset the potentially increased prices.
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  Yeah, but the American middle class got absolutely wrecked. Cheap sneakers don't make up for a lost job. Also, the numbers you cite seem pretty dubious. Yes, if you want to do onshore manufacturing today, it's twice as expensive, but propagating that all the way into the cost of the goods assumes 100% of the cost is in manufacturing, that there would be zero economy-of-scale benefit from retaining our manufacturing base, and it assumes no benefit to your income from the increased economic re-circulation. Those... aren't neutral assumptions. This is a separate matter from the one in TFA but the players and strategies are similar.