5 ms·

do you care to respond to the argument or are you satisfied with simple ad hominem?

• yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Could you clarify the argument? Near as I can tell, he merely claims taxing the rich will benefit the economy, and provides no justification for this claim beyond vague allusions to the idea that it happened after WW2. I can't figure out what mechanism he is arguing. He also argues against straw-men such as this: Proponents of trickle-downism will argue that the little-taxed corporate executive will in fact share his wealth by spending it (Proponents of "trickle-downism" don't claim this.) and uses misleading definitions like this: A poor person, by contrast, needs more than he can afford. (By this definition there are virtually no poor people in America, thus his policy prescriptions are impossible. http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf )
  • JoachimSchipper 14y ago
    He seems to be saying "take money sitting idle in the bank accounts of the rich and give it to the poor - this will get the money rolling". I don't think it's the greatest article to ever hit HN, and it's almost pure politics.
  • rdl 14y ago
    "Why was the US so successful after WW2, particularly compared to the decade before it" is a really complex question with many confounding factors in the analysis. I strongly suspect "everywhere else previously industrialized in the world had been largely destroyed" had a lot to do with it.
    • deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]