The 'New York Times' Votes Big for Obama Economics

Greg, the problem with economics in high school (or "101" as the smug always say) is that it often reinforces some old things that aren't proving to be true. In early science courses, many of us were taught about Piltdown Man who was a hoax appearing in many textbooks. So, also, is the notion that income taxes are bad.

The lower the taxes, the less the existence of anything that resembles a middle class. Check out Pareto and ask yourself WHAT (exactly WHAT) mitigates the 80/20 effect where 20% of the people end up with 80% of the assets and vice versa.

of @ Aug 21, 2008 13:58:48 PM

Item #4

Your comparison of U.S. economic growth in the 1980's, 1990's and 2000's does not take into account demographics and more importantly its impact on labor force growth. In the 1980's the percentage of women entering the labor force was growing; add that to baby boom cohort entering prime working age, and voila it doesn't take much to get 3.5% economic growth. By contrast, in the 2000's entry of women into the labor force peaked and has backed off somewhat. And because of demographics, potential labor force growth is also noticeably smaller.

wstevena of DC @ Aug 21, 2008 13:40:50 PM

Reasonable James

Actually, Chris of AZ, you have it so right. Anonymous keeps himself just that so he can wallow in his own self-imposed ignorance (kind of like the Dems and anything resembling free-market economics).

Now, CORPORATISM, THAT the Democrats understand (they're the masters at it)!

AM of SD @ Aug 21, 2008 13:32:19 PM

Economics 101

"because the tax code now says (stupidly) that if they do that then they can just keep the savings."

When you cut expenses you... obviously... have savings. Are you saying there should be a government tax on laying people off? In that case businesses will simply not hire people that they think they might have to lay off. European countries with 10% unemployment and 30% lower wages use your kind of thinking. Why do Democrats always want to copy their unsuccessful socialist economic policies?

"It actually works in reverse---the lower the taxes, the more incentive there is to LAY YOU OFF and keep the gravy."

Lower taxes leave businesses with more money to spend not just on hiring more people, but on everything. The idea that a business having more money will lead to layoffs is something that has never happened in any country in world history, because it could not be more nonsensical. Businesses that are losing money lay people off. Businesses that are making more money hire more people. Anyone who has had a real job knows this obvious truth.

If every student in America just took economis in High School I don't think a liberal Democrat could get 40% ever again.

Greg of MD @ Aug 21, 2008 13:24:20 PM

Daniel David

Will you stop with your nonsense of trying to post anonymously? It's not working.

Chris of AZ @ Aug 21, 2008 13:02:26 PM

"7) History has shown that free markets aren't so good at, say, preventing pollution or the issuance of fantastically unrealistic mortgages.

Me: Actually, the environment is worse in places where markets and property rights don't exist. Anyone remember the Soviet Union?"

Maybe they're not watching the Olympics, where smog in China is now called "low-flying mist that lasts for weeks.".

Excellent analysis, btw. It is amazing that when it comes to infrastructure and education and healthcare, we blame the free market for not allocating resources efficiently. Yet, the people who place the blame on the free market freely omit that these markets are not so free, with more government involvement than private sector involvement. And you're absolutely right: regardless of poor these sectors perform according to US standards, when compared to foreign counterparts, our healthcare, education and infrastructure are top notched.

Chris of AZ @ Aug 21, 2008 13:01:39 PM