Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/06/07 17:28:14
Subject: Re:High Taxes do not Cause Millionaires to Flee your State
Living in Michigan, Snyder tried that here and we are still waiting for the rush of businesses he promised.
According to Forbes, Michigan has got from the 42nd best state for Businesses, to the 30th. There has been a corresponding growth in business coming into the state. Pretending that changing from one of the worst states in the entire nation for business, overnight is possible, is just being silly.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2016/06/07 18:34:14
Subject: High Taxes do not Cause Millionaires to Flee your State
One should always be careful about rankings, because they give the impression of meaningful differences whether they exist in reality or not.
One state has to be "worst" in the union for business. If it was 0.001% worse than the best, and 300 % better than the nearest foreign country rival, it still would be worst in the union.
Obviously I've made up deliberately exaggerated figures to illustrate the logic of the argument.
This finding is consistent with other work for national level taxes, that has found the 'Laffer Curve', the point where you lose more revenue than you gain by raising taxes, kicks in at about 70%.
This doesn't mean taxes should be raised to 70%, but it does mean that while taxes are so much lower than that point we shouldn't get too scared about negative effects of taxes.
Asterios wrote: so true if someone has a billion dollars, they can live on that their entire lives and if they have no income or income below a certain amount they will never have to pay taxs.
You don't understand how this works. You still pay taxes on interest, dividend and capital gains. It is treated and taxed differently, and typically at a lower rate, but it is still taxed.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/08 07:44:59
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/06/08 07:29:58
Subject: High Taxes do not Cause Millionaires to Flee your State
It would be possible to put all of the 1 billion in a zero interest account and simply spend cash, and the only tax you would pay would be sales taxes. However this is not real world behaviour.
There is also the question of how you got the money in the first place, because it's not realistic for 1 billion to materialise in your bank without it coming from a taxable source.
whembly wrote: I think we need to make a simple distinction that income tax is different than tax on wealth.
If the wealthy are making their $$$ via investments, rather than earning income, so of course the statement that "High Taxes do not Cause Millionaires to Flee you State".
Watch when a state raises taxes on property/weath. THEN you'll see some migration.
For people who are based entirely in passive investments like stocks and bonds that works. Most rich people are still doing it through executive positions or through a business they own and manage. And while it might be appealing to save some money on taxes, if your workforce and client base are in one state you can't just pick up and move.
The real story in this is business creation. Look at Musk's giga-factory, he dropped that thing in the state that give him the best tax incentives. As such the dynamic actually becomes where once you have their business you can tax fairly safely, but in order to get new business it helps a lot to have generous tax policies.
This is why targeted tax credits work better than an across the board tax cut. There's probably a whole other conversation to be had about the fairness of soaking existing businesses while throwing tax credits are new businesses, but it certainly works in driving growth.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/08 07:51:28
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/06/08 13:55:59
Subject: Re:High Taxes do not Cause Millionaires to Flee your State
sebster wrote: This finding is consistent with other work for national level taxes, that has found the 'Laffer Curve', the point where you lose more revenue than you gain by raising taxes, kicks in at about 70%.
This doesn't mean taxes should be raised to 70%, but it does mean that while taxes are so much lower than that point we shouldn't get too scared about negative effects of taxes..
I'm amused because the Laffer curve was invented (and still used) under the assumption that we are currently on the 'wrong' side of the curve and we should cut taxes...
2016/06/08 16:59:42
Subject: High Taxes do not Cause Millionaires to Flee your State
Read a book on economics. There are real economists out there who can back up all the "Myths" about the adverse affect of taxes on the economy, you merely haven't bothered looking for them.
The problem with your "economist" (I looked at his bio... seriously, BA in history... Masters in Philosophy?, and PhD in... something??)
And everything on that site is clearly Libertarian BS, that has been refuted by left-leaning economists, like Robert Reich.
Thing is, economics is just as politicized as any other sphere of education, and where you sit on the political spectrum is going to influence what you consider "myth" and what you consider "fact."
2016/06/10 02:00:48
Subject: Re:High Taxes do not Cause Millionaires to Flee your State
You'd probably want to read more than one book on economics, that might be your problem there.
See, economists break down in to three kinds. There are professional economists who are liberal, there are professional economists who are conservative, and there are professional conservatives who try and talk about economists. In a theoretical construct there would also be professional liberals who try and talk about economists, but in the real world that gig doesn't pay so that group doesn't exist.
The way this plays out is the professional economists (both liberal and conservative) will debate among themselves on tax policy, with lower taxes seen as one element of possible growth in some circumstances, with the extent of the benefit and whether it can be applied to the current situation debated. Meanwhile there'll also be those professional conservatives jumping up and down shouting about Laffer Curves and starving the beast and just generally looking like total ninnies. Unfortunately, as with many things, politicians will pick the story that most neatly fits what they already wanted to do, and for conservative that unfortunately means listening the professional conservatives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The problem with your "economist" (I looked at his bio... seriously, BA in history... Masters in Philosophy?, and PhD in... something??)
Yep, he's not a professional economist who leans conservative, he's a professional conservative who dresses things up with economics sounding arguments.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/10 02:02:19
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/06/10 02:04:52
Subject: High Taxes do not Cause Millionaires to Flee your State
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The problem with your "economist" (I looked at his bio... seriously, BA in history... Masters in Philosophy?, and PhD in... something??)
And everything on that site is clearly Libertarian BS, that has been refuted by left-leaning economists, like Robert Reich.
Thing is, economics is just as politicized as any other sphere of education, and where you sit on the political spectrum is going to influence what you consider "myth" and what you consider "fact."
One of the problems with todays world is that we think that certificates on a wall amount to something with the education system we have. All that they really prove is that you can regurgitate information. It's the same as saying "Look, I'm super great at being a parrot, so you should totally trust what I have to say".
And furthermore, what you're telling me is that there is no such thing as truth, that 1+1 is subjective to what you believe, which is trash. How about you try and refute what the guy actually has to say?
*EDIT* Missed the part about Robert Reich, I'll be looking him up now....
Randomrolls wrote: One of the problems with todays world is that we think that certificates on a wall amount to something with the education system we have. All that they really prove is that you can regurgitate information. It's the same as saying "Look, I'm super great at being a parrot, so you should totally trust what I have to say".
Yeah, it is true that having a qualification doesn't mean any argument you make valid, and lacking a qualification doesn't make an argument invalid. But within that, it still remains true that some opinions are better informed than others, and the opinions of professional, working economists are actually more meaningful and more useful than the opinions of a guy with an education in history who runs a podcast.
And look, here's a basic reality that you might not like to hear, but you need to - Austrian economics is total junk. It's completely irrelevant to actual world of economics. This is because there is simply nothing useful in the Austrian school. By rejecting quantitative data and instead relying on abstract models it actually rejects the idea of being applicable to the real world. This causes it to be rejected by every government, every central bank, every private bank, every investing house, basically by anyone who actually relies on economic information for useful forecasting.
This leaves the Austrian school as basically nothing more than a political noise machine on the fringes of the right wing, playing to a crowd who like to hear simplistic economics arguments that all amount to 'freedom!'.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/10 08:24:02
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/06/10 12:53:59
Subject: High Taxes do not Cause Millionaires to Flee your State
Randomrolls wrote: One of the problems with todays world is that we think that certificates on a wall amount to something with the education system we have. All that they really prove is that you can regurgitate information. It's the same as saying "Look, I'm super great at being a parrot, so you should totally trust what I have to say".
Yeah, it is true that having a qualification doesn't mean any argument you make valid, and lacking a qualification doesn't make an argument invalid. But within that, it still remains true that some opinions are better informed than others, and the opinions of professional, working economists are actually more meaningful and more useful than the opinions of a guy with an education in history who runs a podcast.
And look, here's a basic reality that you might not like to hear, but you need to - Austrian economics is total junk. It's completely irrelevant to actual world of economics. This is because there is simply nothing useful in the Austrian school. By rejecting quantitative data and instead relying on abstract models it actually rejects the idea of being applicable to the real world. This causes it to be rejected by every government, every central bank, every private bank, every investing house, basically by anyone who actually relies on economic information for useful forecasting.
This leaves the Austrian school as basically nothing more than a political noise machine on the fringes of the right wing, playing to a crowd who like to hear simplistic economics arguments that all amount to 'freedom!'.
You don't need to read books to learn about the economy. Plus, econ books tend to be pretty boring.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/06/10 14:37:08
Subject: High Taxes do not Cause Millionaires to Flee your State
Randomrolls wrote: One of the problems with todays world is that we think that certificates on a wall amount to something with the education system we have. All that they really prove is that you can regurgitate information. It's the same as saying "Look, I'm super great at being a parrot, so you should totally trust what I have to say".
Yeah, it is true that having a qualification doesn't mean any argument you make valid, and lacking a qualification doesn't make an argument invalid. But within that, it still remains true that some opinions are better informed than others, and the opinions of professional, working economists are actually more meaningful and more useful than the opinions of a guy with an education in history who runs a podcast.
And look, here's a basic reality that you might not like to hear, but you need to - Austrian economics is total junk. It's completely irrelevant to actual world of economics. This is because there is simply nothing useful in the Austrian school. By rejecting quantitative data and instead relying on abstract models it actually rejects the idea of being applicable to the real world. This causes it to be rejected by every government, every central bank, every private bank, every investing house, basically by anyone who actually relies on economic information for useful forecasting.
This leaves the Austrian school as basically nothing more than a political noise machine on the fringes of the right wing, playing to a crowd who like to hear simplistic economics arguments that all amount to 'freedom!'.
Have you ever considered the idea that governments and central banks have never been interested in keeping the economy stable? That because the politician has an infinite amount of income generated by taxation, and therefor doesn't give much of a damn about the economy? What does he care if we're all broke? You can't come up with anything to refute Austrian economics, you merely tell me that nobody uses it. Yeah. Nobody does use it. Everybody is using the Keynesian model. Look at the stellar job that's done for the economy. Everyone votes for the government to "Do something" about the economy, never caring that there is not much a politician might do about the economy. This leaves a politician merely concerned about their political career, saying "What do we do about this, John, something must be done!" and John says "feth if I know, just inflate the currency some more, that will shut them up."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/10 14:41:45
2016/06/10 14:42:35
Subject: High Taxes do not Cause Millionaires to Flee your State
Randomrolls wrote: One of the problems with todays world is that we think that certificates on a wall amount to something with the education system we have. All that they really prove is that you can regurgitate information. It's the same as saying "Look, I'm super great at being a parrot, so you should totally trust what I have to say".
Yeah, it is true that having a qualification doesn't mean any argument you make valid, and lacking a qualification doesn't make an argument invalid. But within that, it still remains true that some opinions are better informed than others, and the opinions of professional, working economists are actually more meaningful and more useful than the opinions of a guy with an education in history who runs a podcast.
And look, here's a basic reality that you might not like to hear, but you need to - Austrian economics is total junk. It's completely irrelevant to actual world of economics. This is because there is simply nothing useful in the Austrian school. By rejecting quantitative data and instead relying on abstract models it actually rejects the idea of being applicable to the real world. This causes it to be rejected by every government, every central bank, every private bank, every investing house, basically by anyone who actually relies on economic information for useful forecasting.
This leaves the Austrian school as basically nothing more than a political noise machine on the fringes of the right wing, playing to a crowd who like to hear simplistic economics arguments that all amount to 'freedom!'.
Have you ever considered the idea that governments and central banks have never been interested in keeping the economy stable? That because the politician has an infinite amount of income generated by taxation, and therefor doesn't give much of a damn about the economy? What does he care if we're all broke? You can't come up with anything to refute Austrian economics, you merely tell me that nobody uses it. Yeah. Nobody does use it. Everybody is using the Keynesian model. Look at the stellar job that's done for the economy.
Taxation is in no way an unlimited revenue stream. The combined wages and commercial transactions have a total sum from which taxes can be collected but taxes will always only amount to a portion of that aggregate. The unlimited source of money that is available to politicians/government is the printing press. The treasury can print/create as much money as they want. So can banks via fractional reserve lending.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/06/10 14:52:05
Subject: High Taxes do not Cause Millionaires to Flee your State
Randomrolls wrote: One of the problems with todays world is that we think that certificates on a wall amount to something with the education system we have. All that they really prove is that you can regurgitate information. It's the same as saying "Look, I'm super great at being a parrot, so you should totally trust what I have to say".
Yeah, it is true that having a qualification doesn't mean any argument you make valid, and lacking a qualification doesn't make an argument invalid. But within that, it still remains true that some opinions are better informed than others, and the opinions of professional, working economists are actually more meaningful and more useful than the opinions of a guy with an education in history who runs a podcast.
And look, here's a basic reality that you might not like to hear, but you need to - Austrian economics is total junk. It's completely irrelevant to actual world of economics. This is because there is simply nothing useful in the Austrian school. By rejecting quantitative data and instead relying on abstract models it actually rejects the idea of being applicable to the real world. This causes it to be rejected by every government, every central bank, every private bank, every investing house, basically by anyone who actually relies on economic information for useful forecasting.
This leaves the Austrian school as basically nothing more than a political noise machine on the fringes of the right wing, playing to a crowd who like to hear simplistic economics arguments that all amount to 'freedom!'.
Have you ever considered the idea that governments and central banks have never been interested in keeping the economy stable? That because the politician has an infinite amount of income generated by taxation, and therefor doesn't give much of a damn about the economy? What does he care if we're all broke? You can't come up with anything to refute Austrian economics, you merely tell me that nobody uses it. Yeah. Nobody does use it. Everybody is using the Keynesian model. Look at the stellar job that's done for the economy.
Taxation is in no way an unlimited revenue stream. The combined wages and commercial transactions have a total sum from which taxes can be collected but taxes will always only amount to a portion of that aggregate. The unlimited source of money that is available to politicians/government is the printing press. The treasury can print/create as much money as they want. So can banks via fractional reserve lending.
Technically true, but you can see what I'm getting at. Your financial situation is something they only care about in a career sense. So long as they can play the political game and dodge responsibility for their actions, they aren't going to try and help. And then, when they do try to help, they're not actually interested in helping so much as they are making sure that the cameras know that they're "Helping" so they can collect the votes for it.
2016/06/10 15:00:01
Subject: High Taxes do not Cause Millionaires to Flee your State
Randomrolls wrote: One of the problems with todays world is that we think that certificates on a wall amount to something with the education system we have. All that they really prove is that you can regurgitate information. It's the same as saying "Look, I'm super great at being a parrot, so you should totally trust what I have to say".
Yeah, it is true that having a qualification doesn't mean any argument you make valid, and lacking a qualification doesn't make an argument invalid. But within that, it still remains true that some opinions are better informed than others, and the opinions of professional, working economists are actually more meaningful and more useful than the opinions of a guy with an education in history who runs a podcast.
And look, here's a basic reality that you might not like to hear, but you need to - Austrian economics is total junk. It's completely irrelevant to actual world of economics. This is because there is simply nothing useful in the Austrian school. By rejecting quantitative data and instead relying on abstract models it actually rejects the idea of being applicable to the real world. This causes it to be rejected by every government, every central bank, every private bank, every investing house, basically by anyone who actually relies on economic information for useful forecasting.
This leaves the Austrian school as basically nothing more than a political noise machine on the fringes of the right wing, playing to a crowd who like to hear simplistic economics arguments that all amount to 'freedom!'.
Have you ever considered the idea that governments and central banks have never been interested in keeping the economy stable? That because the politician has an infinite amount of income generated by taxation, and therefor doesn't give much of a damn about the economy? What does he care if we're all broke? You can't come up with anything to refute Austrian economics, you merely tell me that nobody uses it. Yeah. Nobody does use it. Everybody is using the Keynesian model. Look at the stellar job that's done for the economy.
Taxation is in no way an unlimited revenue stream. The combined wages and commercial transactions have a total sum from which taxes can be collected but taxes will always only amount to a portion of that aggregate. The unlimited source of money that is available to politicians/government is the printing press. The treasury can print/create as much money as they want. So can banks via fractional reserve lending.
Technically true, but you can see what I'm getting at. Your financial situation is something they only care about in a career sense. So long as they can play the political game and dodge responsibility for their actions, they aren't going to try and help. And then, when they do try to help, they're not actually interested in helping so much as they are making sure that the cameras know that they're "Helping" so they can collect the votes for it.
Governments never care about the individual, that would be impossible. Governments deal with the public in the aggregate. They deal with "the economy" on a macro scale with indifference to how it impacts given individuals. Congress passes legislation that helps gets members of Congress re-elected, whether it's legislation that favors established business interests/special interests that spend money funding election campaigns or favors segments of the electorate that are likely to subsequently turn out and vote for the legislators that passed it. There is no force that pressures Congress to act in an altruistic manner for the general benefit of people or the country. Career politicians do what they need to do to gain and hold power and they spin out some public relations on those actions to help keep the public voting for them.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/06/10 15:06:26
Subject: Re:High Taxes do not Cause Millionaires to Flee your State
Sorry if it seems like I'm talking about individual households. In a way, I am. But I am also talking about the economy on a macro-scale. I know the government isn't going to call me up in person and ask me about my revenue, that's absurd (unless we're talking about the IRS, because they'll certainly do so if they feel they're owed).
2016/06/10 15:14:04
Subject: High Taxes do not Cause Millionaires to Flee your State
Kilkrazy wrote: Do you mean you think the government doesn't care if the economy improves or gets worse?
No. The politicians running the government want the economy to be improve and be "good" but what the politicians consider to be "good" doesn't have to align with any economic policy that improves the finances of any significant portion of the citizenry or the electorate. Look at unemployment for example. There's the statistics kept by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there's how politicians utilize those statistics to create other statistics and how they characterize those statistics and then there's the public perception of the job market and employment. Unemployment can go down and politicians can say unemployment numbers have "improved" but that doesn't mean that more people have jobs.
Politicians don't want the economy to crash, that would be bad for their careers, but the metrics used to determine if the economy is "good" or "bad" can very greatly depending on from whose perspective you're viewing the economy.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/06/10 16:22:37
Subject: High Taxes do not Cause Millionaires to Flee your State
Prestor Jon wrote: You don't need to read books to learn about the economy.
You actually really do need to read texts. Big ideas need to be in text, so you can dwell on them and really understand them before moving on to the next thing.
I will grant you that economics text tend to be boring, this is in part because real economics is pretty dry, and in part because the better someone is as an economist the worse they are at putting their big ideas in an easy to read format.
Randomrolls wrote: Have you ever considered the idea that governments and central banks have never been interested in keeping the economy stable?
I'm not a conspiracy nut, so no I haven't given that much thought. If I had ever thought about, then the hundreds of presentations I've gotten from private and central bank staff on economic forecasts would have dispelled me of any of that in seconds. The only thing those guys think about is keeping the ship steady.
That because the politician has an infinite amount of income generated by taxation, and therefor doesn't give much of a damn about the economy? What does he care if we're all broke?
The politician only keeps his job when he gets voted in, and if he sends everyone bankrupt he is a lot less likely to get enough votes. This should be so obvious, and yet....
You can't come up with anything to refute Austrian economics, you merely tell me that nobody uses it. Yeah. Nobody does use it.
What more is needed to refute something other than the basic reality that absolutely no-one who needs to get economic forecasts right for a living will go anywhere near that nonsense? But if you do want abig list of why the Austrian school is on the graveyard of failed nonsense;
1) It values theory over data. This wasn't a terrible idea at the time because data was limited and flawed, but the end result was that the Austrians gave themselves a little get out card where they could simply avoid having to admit failure or re-assess any of their ideas when they failed to predict or understand real world events. This has left the school completely stagnant since its initial development.
2) Austrians invent definitions to make their claims work. The classic is 'inflation', which is understood by everyone else to mean an increase in the general price of things - if my weekly grocery bill was $100 last and $103 this year then there's been 3% inflation. But in Austrian economics they mean it to simply mean that there's more money in the economy, the base of printed money is more than it used to be. They do this so that they can protect their prediction that money printing is always inflationary... but in doing so they've reduced their belief to a truism - increasing the money supply increases the money supply". Cheers for that, Austrians.
3) They still think gold produces a steady currency. This idea was naive when the Austrian school first battled it out with Keynes, but today with the wealth of knowledge we have about past price rates, and with the last 30 years of stable inflation, the Austrian school has become ridiculous on this.
4) They fail to understand the basics of inflation and deflation. It's an almost schoolkid understanding that inflation is bad because you can buy less, and deflation is good because you can buy more. They don't understand that inflation not only increases what you pay, it also increases what you get paid. And on top of that they have no understanding of how inflation interacts with the greater economy, deflation in particular does horrible things to AD.
5) The Austrian school shot back in to notoriety following the GFC - every unorthodox economic school gets a little attention in bad economic times. In its time in the spotlight the Austrian school predicted what was about to come was hyper-inflation, and the answer was to put everything in to gold. This was probably the worst advice anyone could give. In response, per the above, the Austrian school said they were okay because they followed logic not data so just because their ideas don't work that doesn't mean they're bad. Then they said they defined inflation as increasing the money supply, and so they were right in their prediction that the increase in the money supply did increase the money supply, and so it didn't matter that inflation was actually well under target. Then the gold price collapsed, just dumping one more intellectual failure on top of the mess... I don't think the Austrians have invented a reason why that failure is really not a failure at all, I think they just pretend like it didn't happen.
6) There's plenty of others, but I'll finish with Noah Smith's pithy criticism - it is neither Austrian nor is it economics.
Everybody is using the Keynesian model. Look at the stellar job that's done for the economy.
Actually the Keynesian model hasn't been in practical use for about 50 years. These days the models in use are RBC, which is derived from classical micro-foundations, or neo-Keynesian models like IS-LM, which apply some Keynesian market imperfections like sticky wages to an other wise classical model.
Keep it polite, folks. --Janthkin
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: No. The politicians running the government want the economy to be improve and be "good" but what the politicians consider to be "good" doesn't have to align with any economic policy that improves the finances of any significant portion of the citizenry or the electorate.
That's nonsense. There is no better way to keep getting re-elected than to sit there while the economy grows rapidly and improves the lives of almost everyone within that economy. The reason politicians don't just make the economy bigger and better is because there's actually very little anyone can do to create stable, lasting growth. Governments can stabilise in the short term, and in the long term they can do a handful of things to boost productivity (most of which we're not really very sure if they work or not).
Look at unemployment for example. There's the statistics kept by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there's how politicians utilize those statistics to create other statistics and how they characterize those statistics and then there's the public perception of the job market and employment. Unemployment can go down and politicians can say unemployment numbers have "improved" but that doesn't mean that more people have jobs.
Every time a jobs figure is released you'll find a hundred pieces written inside and outside of government analysing the details - the unemployment rate is split in to hardcore, cyclical & structural, and it is contrasted against the participation rate, which is contrasted against demographic data, and so on. Just because all you see on the nightly news is the headline figure, that doesn't mean there isn't a large debate going on around that.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/10 17:32:16
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/06/10 16:35:29
Subject: High Taxes do not Cause Millionaires to Flee your State
Yes, we can also see the results of limited Keynesian approach with the US Stimulus vs. the limited Hayek approach used in Europe called Austerity.
We can pretty much put the Hayek method to bed just by looking at these two modern examples. Sure, the US is in no great shakes, but Europe is even worse.
However, I will be the first to admit that I am no Economist.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
