doublegunshop.com - home Forums Ken Burn's Teddy R.

It's not historical context, it's not political philosophy, it's not economics (remember, there is a difference between accounting and economics, but that distinction appears to be too deep for most of you). It is simple math. Lower rates plus taxing more things (gas, cigarettes, social security, medicare, etc.), plus eliminating a bunch of deductions equaled higher taxes. You guys are either too fucking stupid or too committed to your cause to understand that point. You are the opposite of low information voters, you are low comprehension voters. It's too bad, because the country is going down the shitter and you guys are incapable of understanding simple tax accounting, thus your ability to make informed decisions on other matters is very questionable. Good day and good luck.

Thank you for your answer, now I better understand where you're coming from. I apologize for not being as smart as you. When I grow up, I wanna call everyone effer's because then I would be the bestest in the room.

Replacement,

You miss the point. I'm in favor of lower, or the elimination of taxes in general. I do not favor any tax increase, as the government takes up way too much of the economy as it is. I don't recall anyone here saying that we should have lower rates but increased taxes on anything. The issue has been Reagan, with you harping on the increased taxes, and everyone else pointing out the success of his overall policy. I don't know what politics you believe in, but trying to use the "increased taxes under Reagan" issue to attempt to discredit Austrian Economics is pure fantasy, and is typical of the lies believed in by the Left.

Ken61:
Although I don't know exactly what he stated I hope you can now see why posters like Replacement are on my permanent ignore list. I think to you it's apparent what politics he believes in.
As far as Reagan goes: IMO the 8 years we had with him as President were the best 8 years of the last half of the 20th Century. After the Carter fiasco Reagan brought respect back to the United States and the Office of the President as well. It's going to take another Reagan to rectify the domestic and international mess the current occupant of the White House has put us in.
Jim

Debate sharpens the mind. Replacement has yet to make an overall point about Reagan and Austrian economics. It's like the Democrats giving Clinton credit for the good economy during his years. That economy was due to the Republicans winning the House in 1994 and Newt forcing Clinton to be fiscally responsible. That was not completely successful, as legislation modifying the CRA during the Clinton years, including the changes regarding Freddie and Fanny (1992) and the repeal of Glass-Steagall (1999) set up the conditions that eventually led to the economic crisis during the Bush years that paved the way for the religious Demi-god Obama. This was despite Bush trying to correct the classic Austrian government-created "Bubble" that eventually burst. The obstruction credit to that goes to Chris Dodd in the Senate, who countered any effective proposal with a filibuster threat. He was assisted by Barney Frank and other Dems in the house by demonizing all proposals as Racist, or anti-poor people. The result, of course, has been the creation of more poor people, which was the Dems overall goal anyway.

You fellows know that David Stockman, as time has unfolded, has reversed his views on the Reagan years, Right?

I suppose you can choose to believe whatever version of history you get fed, but Reagan did raise taxes. That is a fact of the Congressional Record.
I fail to see the sense in even arguing about facts that are easily researched. The name calling I get, the other stuff, not-so-much.

I don't think anyone is disputing the negative effects of raising taxes. Nor the negative effect on the Free Market of massive government spending and debt. Except those who believe in Keynesian Mythology. The Reagan years would have been even more prosperous if taxes had not been raised and if spending had been reduced. Not possible with a Democrat controlled House. Especially since many of the tax increases were on the wealthy, and removed capital from the Free Market. I dispute that tax increases were a part of Reagan's philosophy, and assert that raising them was the the political price he had to pay when dealing with a House controlled by the Democrats.

Stockman understands, he's very much an Austrian..

Government operates in the world it is in. Not the world we wish it were in.

Having seen many recessions and resurrections in our economy, I suspect the results are just as good when government does nothing, as when it does something. Recovery probably takes the same length of time, the expansions are probably just as broad, and just as lasting.

In my industry, after near a decade of limited capital investment, yet with the cost of capital near zero, there is now a nationwide resurgence, and essential reinvestment being made. Cost of money didn't change, only the necessity, and confidence required to make the investments. Sooner or later industry must invest, if only to stay in business.

In other words basic industry is resurging because it has to. Not because of government intervention or stimulation.

I have come to believe it has always been so.
I don't think capital has any creed other than return vs risk.

Which is my explanation for the curious timing of several of our recoveries. I'm finding this current recovery to have real legs. As I benefit from it every day, I wonder what other board members might say if it really gets cooking. My self, I would say in spite of Obama, but I suspect the next President to say, because of Obama. And it won't really matter who is right.

The Austrian School, generally discredited in mainstream economics, was split in its thinking. Which side are you referring to? Hayek and his notions of laissez-faire and markets organizing and regulating themselves? Look where that got us over the last 10 years. Canada regarded it as voodoo economics, went the opposite way and came out on top of all G20 countries.

As for Keynesian "mythology," the world went to Keynes when it hit the fan, all the developed countries. And the "Free Market." What's that? What does it look like? Where may I see one? Americans may think of the US and China as separate markets. They are Siamese twins; China a command economy. Rabid partisanship and mythology makes Americans vote against their interests.

Jim alluded on an earlier thread, and Replacement said on this one, if the US doesn't start thinking more intelligently and putting country before party we're all going to suffer badly. Mythology reinforces ignorance. To stay on thread, Teddy R. got it right. The Republican chose the side of the underdogs, the common people, and not of his class who he felt were sobs.

I agree generally. It's discouraging to read the poisonous partisanship here, as if this or that president is responsible for everything that happens under their mandates. Some are lucky to catch a roll, others are saddled with events beyond their control. As for recoveries, I think TARP was the start of this one. Here's Wikipedia:

"The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion. The Dodd�Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion. By October 11, 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that total disbursements would be $431 billion and estimated the total cost, including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, would be $24 billion. This is significantly less than the government's cost of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s but does not include the cost of other "bailout" programs (such as the Federal Reserve's Maiden Lane Transactions and the Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). The cost of the former crisis amounted to 3.2 percent of GDP during the Reagan/Bush era, while the GDP percentage of the latter crisis' cost is estimated at less than 1 percent. While it was once feared the government would be holding companies like GM, AIG and Citigroup for several years, it was reported in April 2010 that those companies are preparing to buy back the Treasury's stake and emerge from TARP within a year.[2] Of the $245 billion handed to U.S. and foreign banks, over $169 billion has been paid back, including $13.7 billion in dividends, interest and other income, along with $4 billion in warrant proceeds as of April 2010. AIG is considered "on track" to pay back $51 billion from divestitures of two units and another $32 billion in securities.[2] As of December 31, 2012, the Treasury had received over $405 billion in total cash back on TARP investments, equaling nearly a non-inflation-adjusted 97 percent of the $418 billion disbursed under the program."

I think it ended with a small profit. Public intervention. No free market. Bush and Obama in lock-step for solutions. I disagree with it not mattering who gets the credit. It's unintelligent and old-fashioned to not make an effort to know why things happen. Fairy tales have their place with children. But not in the management of public affairs.