• 3 months - 63 posts - Latest - RSS
• OP: 4 Goods vs 7 No Goods
• Thread: 119 Goods vs 149 No Goods

1. Roderick
   

   -"Historically low" means nothing. They are progressive. Now. Low corporate taxes are a good thing: they encourage investment. That means jobs for people who are willing to work for a living (probably not you). Btw, a FAIR tax would be a FLAT tax. It seems you dislike fairness

   History means nothing? Discredited!

   If your stupid ideas worked, the economy wouldn't be in such sorry shape. You bought into a lie and your fragile ego prevents you from admitting it. It's just a shame the rest of us have to suffer for your rank stupidity. lol

   Flat/tax fair tax is moronic

   -Do you have any concept of risk and reward? If you start a business with $1M and go broke, why should you pay taxes? A worker can make zero money, but an entrepreneur can lose money. Do you know how much Amazon lost before it turned profitable? Would you rather Amazon were taxed out of existence then so it wasn't around today?

   Not exactly a big risk for investors to collect rent checks and dividends, as opposed to working people who risk life and limb and have nothing to fall back on. Poor, Amazon! OMG somebody think of the children.

   Discredited! you are consistently a dumb a--, I'll give you that.

   -Americans with any retirement savings are investors. That's millions of people. Americans who do not participate in markets choose to spend instead of save. That is their choice. A dumb one, I think, but it's a free country

   Reality check: Vast majority of securities ownership is not working class Americans. Do stop hiding behind a tiny minority of working people to support policies that rob them blind, moron.

   -Good luck replacing owners. See how that works out for you. See, e.g., Venezuela
   People like you have little understanding of economic reality. You can't just wish it away, no matter what Bernie tells you. It's sad, really. You are sold a fantasy, a utopia, that reality will never deliver

   ^What rank delusions you hold! I'm merely suggesting that wealthy elites take *tiny* minuscule sacrifice so that the majority of working people can have dignity.

   After $70k income takes on a different meaning. You're no longer paying for basic necessities like shelter, food, and medicine. So, no, I don't share you moronic views, not even remotely. Your stupidity is neither back up by logic nor fact. You merely parrot scathing right-wing propaganda.

   You are in fact a cash and power worshiping moron. You're not even capable of critical thinking.

   2 months ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 0 NAY!

2. Pacey
   

   The debates which you are woefully unable to communicate? You can regurgitate conclusions from the PhD student who taught your econ 101 class, but you cannot communicate the foundations of the arguments.
   Any reasonable person will admit that supply-side economics works. Sometimes. And demand-side economics works. Sometimes.
   The question is, which kind of economy are we in? Demand-side economics works best in downturns. This is why we had bank bailouts during the Bush and Obama administrations. Are we in a downturn? No, not even close. There are roughly 1 million more job openings than job seekers in the US at the moment.
   UBI may be necessary if we reach a period of stagnation or if AI takes over and unemployment hits double digits. Until then, it would most likely just cause inflation and drive the country into bankruptcy. No thank you.
   "There is no significant relation between tax rates and the pace of investment."
   This, dear friend, is not a proof. It is an assumption. I assume you are an asshat. Does that prove you are an asshat?
   Keynes' general theory commends government spending during recessions. Repeat: during recessions. Not during expansionary periods, e.g., now. Again, Keynes had little to say about taxation.
   Can you even define "liquidity preference"? Or are you just rambling terms you recall from econ 101?
   You will not educate me because you cannot. Because you do not know what you are talking about. Unlike you, I have read Keynes. He had little to say about taxes, in general, and even less to say about corporate tax rates.
   But go on making empty claims.
   ^Keynes disproved the idea that tax rates drive investment? Oh dear. Please, Mr. Economic Savant, explain his argument to us.
   your claim that reducing corporate tax rates stimulates investment was disproved in the 1930s
   here: https://www.amazon.com/General-Theory-Employment-Interest-Money/dp/198781780X
   not my job to educate you
   i have a minute so i will bite:
   you clearly have not read the general theory. keynes: there is no significant relationship between tax rates and the pace of investment; the pace of investment is determined by monetary dynamics (liquidity preference).
   so your argument that lower taxes is an incentive for investment is standard supply side economics that was disproved in the 1930s.
   yang's proposal is arguably the most pro-growth policy proposal on the table. tech industries are winner-take-all markets, therefore, tech should taxed to fund a UBI. UBI will boost consumption in a consumption-driven economy, thereby stimulating investment via the liquidity preference.
   all of your questions were answered in the keynes-hayek debates in the 1930s. if you want to live in the fantasy land of supply-side economics then that is your business, the vast majority of the world accepts keynes and rejects hayek, because supply side economics does not work. proof is in the history. again, look at those debates.
   here is the point:
   yang's proposal is arguably the most pro-growth policy proposal on the table. tech industries are winner-take-all markets, therefore, tech should taxed to fund a UBI. UBI will boost consumption in a consumption-driven economy, thereby stimulating investment via the liquidity preference.
   so UBI is far more pro-growth then any conservative policy including cutting corporate taxes, which are arguably stifling growth

   the crux of the keynes-hayek debates was the liquity preference theory. the fact that you responded to that with some random statement about stimulus spending shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.

   2 months ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 0 NAY!

3. Roderick
   

   Are we in a downturn? No, not even close. There are roughly 1 million more job openings than job seekers in the US at the moment.

   Easily debunked. There are 5 million unemployed people in any given month, millions more underemployed, workforce participation remains at a historic low, wages barely budge, and only about 2% of applicants even get an interview.

   More likely that the business/investor class continues to exercise its significant leverage over working people, and many of those "job openings" are just testing the water to see how low wages can go, or if they can scalp over-qualified people and skimp on training costs. In other words they continue to toy with you and go laughing all the way to the bank.

   https://finance.yahoo.com/news/2-jobs-numbers-reveal-hidden-135721904.html

   2 months ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 0 NAY!

Reply

Post <blockquote>This makes no sense at all. UBI is a stupid policy, and it's particularly badly targeted at automation. The defining characteristic of the emerging tech platforms is that they have outsized market power. They're oligopolies or monopolies that are difficult to supplant because of their centralized control over data. You can pay workers whatever you want, but if private actors have the power to price, then they control the real wage.</blockquote>

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.