tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post4905054629682123840..comments2024-01-06T04:13:41.492-07:00Comments on A Paladin In Citadel: Take The Money And RunAaron E. Steelehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07789462075611254929noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-40263261448338645162011-05-17T03:06:42.208-06:002011-05-17T03:06:42.208-06:00Thanks for this. I've posted it on my news blo...Thanks for this. I've posted it on my news blog.anarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05546197561922726279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-65388674166050370412011-04-08T15:22:16.820-06:002011-04-08T15:22:16.820-06:00Coldstream said...
@Paladin: Sadly, we could real...<b>Coldstream said... </b><br /><i>@Paladin: Sadly, we could really use better journalism...</i><br /><br />And more money for in-depth research. But like most things, we get what we're willing to pay for.Aaron E. Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789462075611254929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-54399106409476164222011-04-08T13:24:45.621-06:002011-04-08T13:24:45.621-06:00@steelcaress
Remember that correlation does not e...@steelcaress<br /><br />Remember that correlation does not equal causation. Many things have changed since the 1950's. One could just as well argue that more women and minorities are in the workforce since the 1950's and as a result, our standard of living has gone down. I don't believe that's the case, but is a similar example to yours.<br /><br />And recall that our budget was in surplus for only about 3-4 years in the late 90s (1998-2001) on the tail end of the Internet Tech Bubble, so that doesn't really explain increases in standard of living for the rest of the budget deficit 90s (which in inflation adjusted dollars weren't much different than our budget deficits in the 2000s).Coldstreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16140235342917611032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-61554738098668053652011-04-08T13:07:13.448-06:002011-04-08T13:07:13.448-06:00@Paladin
Their complete study is what I was refer...@Paladin<br /><br />Their complete study is what I was referencing from the CCPA's website. It's only 6 pages:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/3katx6u<br /><br />Unfortunately, I think what the news reporters did was simply refer to the CCPA's press release and just report the findings the organization wanted rather than looking for themselves and considering the validity of the study. Sadly, we could really use better journalism...Coldstreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16140235342917611032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-62993617515351687332011-04-08T12:32:05.527-06:002011-04-08T12:32:05.527-06:00If you want a preview of the book, the author'...If you want a preview of the book, the author's had an exchange with some people on the right in the Financial Post:<br /><br /><br /><br />The initial op ed<br />http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/09/16/terence-corcoran-the-myth-of-in equality/<br /><br />First Response<br />http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/09/27/the-great-inequality-debate-lin da-mcquaig-and-neil-brooks/<br /><br />Second Response<br />http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/09/27/the-great-inequality-debate-ala n-reynolds/<br /><br />Earlier related article<br />http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/15/timothy-noah-the-great-incom e-divergence-is-changing-america-for-the-worse/czakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17236466130753985811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-43274055604923884082011-04-08T12:21:09.355-06:002011-04-08T12:21:09.355-06:00The name of the book is The Trouble With Billionai...The name of the book is The Trouble With Billionaires and it is up on amazon. The co-author is Linda Mcquaig.<br /><br />http://www.amazon.ca/Trouble-Billionaires-Linda-Mcquaig/dp/067006419Xczakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17236466130753985811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-29748595086793850142011-04-08T00:17:40.815-06:002011-04-08T00:17:40.815-06:00I don't know much about Canada, but I would as...I don't know much about Canada, but I would assume the economic theory is sound worldwide. I can provide an example in the U.S.:<br /><br />In the 1950's, the tax rate on the rich was pretty high. <br /><br />If you look at per capita incomes and standards of living from 1954 until now (in the U.S.) you will see a sharp decline in per capita income and standard of living. In 1954, one income could make a pretty fair living. In 1990 a single-income household was asking for hardship. <br /><br />When the tax rates were adjusted upwards in the 1990s and rich people were paying more taxes, a budget surplus was created and standard of living rose.<br /><br />The taxes were again cut for the rich in 2001, and massive spending accounted for less money going to the states, so college tuition and state and local taxes skyrocketed. Standards of living fell, and it was again hard to make a decent wage. Also, we began hemmorhaging jobs at a fantastic rate. <br /><br />Are tax cuts a good thing? I leave it to the reader to decide.Eric R. Wirsinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04632409261940844934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-5042991230086020862011-04-07T23:52:29.597-06:002011-04-07T23:52:29.597-06:00All perspectives are welcome. Presumably their co...All perspectives are welcome. Presumably their complete study is available, so you can satisfy yourself on the objectivity and validity of their findings.Aaron E. Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789462075611254929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-91752425844283180792011-04-07T23:19:33.828-06:002011-04-07T23:19:33.828-06:00I'd hate to make this an overly political comm...I'd hate to make this an overly political comment, but on the surface their claim doesn't mean a whole lot. <br /><br />They examined only a select group of Canada's largest publicly traded companies and attempt to extrapolate a desired conclusion from that. <br /><br />Using only 2 data points (a problem to start, only 2005 and 2010) they say the large companies only generated a 5% increase in jobs, whereas the economy overall generated a 6% increase. I'd like to know where the overall increase in jobs came from during that period for comparison.<br />Smaller corporations? Which would also have benefited from lower corporate tax rates...<br /><br />And, without seeing their data, since they didn't provide any in their report, I'd likely guess that the recent recession certainly would hit large corporations harder than say, government which likely made up some percentage of the overall job increases from 2005 - 2010 and tends not to lay people off as quickly (if at all...) and is hardly a fair comparison.<br /><br />Their report made no mention of what corporations did with their profits...they might well have distributed them as dividends to shareholders. The report does not say.<br /><br />Also, it's interesting to note that their own figures suggest that as federal corporate tax rates dropped from 2000-2010, the total amount of taxes paid actually went up until the financial meltdown, when naturally profits and taxes for almost everyone fell. So, their own data could be used to suggest a positive benefit to lower corporate tax rates: increased competitiveness and higher profits, thus higher taxes paid. I'm not saying that's really the case, but is just as likely as their conclusion. <br /><br />I guess I'd also have to ask the authors, do we think corporations would have had better job creation records with higher tax rates? <br /><br />Anyway, sorry to make this so long and I don't want this to degenerate into a political flame-war, but thought an additional perspective would be of interest.Coldstreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16140235342917611032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-14815106237962925342011-04-07T20:46:14.663-06:002011-04-07T20:46:14.663-06:00Fair enough. Peace out!Fair enough. Peace out!Aaron E. Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789462075611254929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-35194125464459602472011-04-07T20:38:06.695-06:002011-04-07T20:38:06.695-06:00Nah, my bree yark blog is strictly limited to thin...Nah, my bree yark blog is strictly limited to things concerning fantasy/gaming. Although I suppose liberal economic theory does qualify as "fantasy"... ;^)<br /><br />While I'm a very "political" person, I generally try to avoid bringing up politics in non-political contexts. I usually limit my political comments to political posts and political blogs.Bree Yark!https://www.blogger.com/profile/06805609633299134038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-22236179168401919982011-04-07T20:25:58.132-06:002011-04-07T20:25:58.132-06:00Bree Yark: a modest proposal ... the comment feat...Bree Yark: a modest proposal ... the comment features of blogs are ill-suited for a full expansion of your economic views. <br /><br />Perhaps you could post your complete position on your blog, so I don't waste your time with endless questions?<br /><br />:)Aaron E. Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789462075611254929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-66726891908161702002011-04-07T20:20:29.639-06:002011-04-07T20:20:29.639-06:00That's cuz while geologists play in the dirt, ...That's cuz while geologists play in the dirt, politicians sling mud. ;^)Bree Yark!https://www.blogger.com/profile/06805609633299134038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-71296305818537090382011-04-07T20:18:08.404-06:002011-04-07T20:18:08.404-06:00Bree Yark! said...
Just because we treat geologis...<b>Bree Yark! said... </b><br /><i>Just because we treat geologists like dirt doesn't mean they make the top 3 list. From bad to worse, the top/bottom 3 are:<br /><br />#3. Politicians<br />#2. Lawyers<br />#1. Lawyer Politicians</i><br /><br />Yes, I agree, politicians rank at the bottom in terms of trustworthiness. But they tend to stay above the fray, while those geologists can be found wallowing in the dirt.Aaron E. Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789462075611254929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-61918114404938018102011-04-07T20:10:16.982-06:002011-04-07T20:10:16.982-06:00Bree Yark: My topic is a recent Canadian study, r...Bree Yark: My topic is a recent Canadian study, revealing that reduced taxes did not result in higher employment. I'm happy to have a reasoned discussion about that. Perhaps we can have a discussion about the successes and failures of the Reagan presidency another time?<br /><br />:)Aaron E. Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789462075611254929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-61877115910221902412011-04-07T19:59:39.741-06:002011-04-07T19:59:39.741-06:00Just because we treat geologists like dirt doesn&#...Just because we treat geologists like dirt doesn't mean they make the top 3 list. From bad to worse, the top/bottom 3 are:<br /><br />#3. Politicians<br />#2. Lawyers<br />#1. Lawyer PoliticiansBree Yark!https://www.blogger.com/profile/06805609633299134038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-85697739619417092602011-04-07T19:55:04.522-06:002011-04-07T19:55:04.522-06:00Rognar:
From least-to-most despised, I think it g...Rognar:<br /><br />From least-to-most despised, I think it goes geologist, political scientist, then lawyer (at least that's what I tell my lawyer friends).Aaron E. Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789462075611254929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-33232731997333573662011-04-07T19:53:22.953-06:002011-04-07T19:53:22.953-06:00Reagan is on topic, since Reagan and "trickle...Reagan <i>is</i> on topic, since Reagan and "trickle down economics" are closely associated with each other (as demonstrated in Tequila Sunrise's comment).Bree Yark!https://www.blogger.com/profile/06805609633299134038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-3021613781992624452011-04-07T19:50:49.299-06:002011-04-07T19:50:49.299-06:00czak said...
You might like some of the books or ...<b>czak said... </b><br /><i>You might like some of the books or articles by Neil Brooks on tax policy, he has a new one out intended for a general audience.<br /><br />http://www.osgoode.yorku.ca/faculty/Brooks_Neil.html</i><br /><br />His CV is impressive. Do you know the name of the book, and is it available through Amazon?Aaron E. Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789462075611254929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-20125394718943169062011-04-07T19:49:47.977-06:002011-04-07T19:49:47.977-06:00I'm worse, I'm a geologist.I'm worse, I'm a geologist.Rognarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16325723561313536356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-30188334665547530662011-04-07T19:43:57.264-06:002011-04-07T19:43:57.264-06:00Bree Yark: please try to stay on topic. I didn&#...Bree Yark: please try to stay on topic. I didn't say anything about Reagan, Obama, or Fox News in my post.Aaron E. Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789462075611254929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-23338046368390366822011-04-07T19:38:11.009-06:002011-04-07T19:38:11.009-06:00Rognar: i'm a political scientist by educatio...Rognar: i'm a political scientist by education. I will gladly defer to others that are experts in the economics of taxation!Aaron E. Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789462075611254929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-89916076981003258322011-04-07T19:13:53.561-06:002011-04-07T19:13:53.561-06:00You might like some of the books or articles by Ne...You might like some of the books or articles by Neil Brooks on tax policy, he has a new one out intended for a general audience.<br /><br />http://www.osgoode.yorku.ca/faculty/Brooks_Neil.htmlczakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17236466130753985811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-34554518848836340932011-04-07T19:09:30.667-06:002011-04-07T19:09:30.667-06:00Here is what I don't understand. If "tric...Here is what I don't understand. If "trickle-down economics" doesn't work, then explain the following:<br /><br />Reagan won reelection with 49 out of 50 states (he only lost the home state of his opponent). How did that happen?<br /><br />I think most people would agree Reagan is the most conservative US President in recent history. He did this in the era before the rise of the "right-wing media." Before Fox News, before talk radio, before conservative blogs, etc.<br /><br />If Reagan's policies and presidency was such a failure, then why did liberal-leaning media outlets recently try to cast Obama as Reagan?Bree Yark!https://www.blogger.com/profile/06805609633299134038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4891509519427970698.post-78428844744803419412011-04-07T18:56:58.085-06:002011-04-07T18:56:58.085-06:00So reaganomics doesn't work?!
Shocking!So reaganomics doesn't work?!<br /><br />Shocking!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com