The "People's Budget" from Progressive Caucus

#279
#279
VolDad said:
You made a slight, and I am sure accidental, omission.



Thank you for proving my point. :hi:
.
Click to expand...

DVD, that was the case for the consumer being inelastic and the producer being elastic.

In other words, the opposite of the situation in the real world. It is just a model.

I'm actually feeling a little pity watching you grab at straws.
 
Last edited:
#280
#280
IPorange said:
He isn't going to award you any points for that.
Click to expand...

Indeed not. Since he got it wholly wrong.

And since we aren't bleedin' hearts here, there are NO points for trying. Moreover, it wasn't even a good effort. :)

Edit - whoops. I assumed this was connected with the DVD post. Hey, teach, you avoided another bad misstep. How late is my report card gonna be?
 
Last edited:
#281
#281
kev20 said:
somehow, you just know this is going to prove his point.
Click to expand...

It did indeed. :hi:

Admittedly, I did write notes in hopes no one would make the "I read Wikipedia too fast and I posted another link that support my opposition in the debate!" mistake.

But it looks like I was mistaken.
 
#282
#282
Gibbs, stop it. Just quit. I'm not going to reiterate the points others have made, but anybody who has taken a 200-level series of economics courses at community college knows you're completely out of whack here.

We could be discussing legitimate issues with fiscal policy, instead it always turns into page after page of mental acrobatics with you. You're making this forum every bit as difficult as gs when it comes to... Well, everything else.

Stop it.
 
#283
#283
utgibbs said:
The producers are INELASTIC, DVD! The consumer is ELASTIC in the example!

Therefore, the costs of the tax are borne by the producer!!!

Competition, especially international competition, makes the producer INELASTIC.

Just like I've been saying all along. And thanks for supporting my argument. :hi:
Click to expand...

Your evidence that supply is always more elastic than demand?
 
#284
#284
milohimself said:
Gibbs, stop it. Just quit. I'm not going to reiterate the points others have made, but anybody who has taken a 200-level series of economics courses at community college knows you're completely out of whack here.

We could be discussing legitimate issues with fiscal policy, instead it always turns into page after page of mental acrobatics with you. You're making this forum every bit as difficult as gs when it comes to... Well, everything else.

Stop it.
Click to expand...

And my OP was a serious attempt to discuss fiscal policy.

I am not fully responsible for the discussion taking the course it has by a long way.

It seems corporations aren't really paying taxes anyway:

Most U.S. Corporations Pay No Income Tax - NYTimes.com

Once again suggesting the opposition argument doesn't have any beef in its burger.

And, Milo, I just quoted Community College Econ 200 explaining exactly why they can't pass costs onto the consumer.

But I will listen as to why you disagree.
 
Last edited:
#286
#286
volinbham said:
Your evidence that supply is always more elastic than demand?
Click to expand...

It's a neoliberal world with phenomenal productivity. :hi:

I'm sure there are a few esoteric examples otherwise, and if you know some, I'd be interested to hear about them.
 
#287
#287
Here is another very simple example of why it is as I describe.

If a corporation could pass onto the consumer any tax increase, why do they care what their tax rate is?

A business passes costs along to the consumer whenever they CAN. It doesn't matter what their tax rate is, whether it is sunny or wet, whether Aquarius is in the Moon of Capricorn, whether Joannie loves Chachi, or whether the VN scrubs are getting playing time.
 
Last edited:
#289
#289
milohimself said:
We could be discussing legitimate issues with fiscal policy.
Click to expand...

Actually, milo, understanding this very issue is a VITAL and legitimate issue of fiscal policy.

Most U.S. Corporations Pay No Income Tax - NYTimes.com

And for this reason:

10-20-03tax-fact-f1.jpg


Seems like there is an easy way to raise revenue and keep money in the pocket of real people.
 
#290
#290
What you're arguing is demand-side, or bottom-up fiscal policy, which is all fine and well, but you're overreaching your citations and explaining your own examples with incorrect ideas, like your little bout of nonsense regarding taxation on consumer price. Ever bother to explain why the tax rate on the wealthiest was 90% at one point?

Reading your posts makes me feel like I'm watching "Capitalism" by Michael Moore all over again.

Kenyes had his time and place, current righties like to toss his name around without thinking about who he was and what he did... He is a very important figure in economics, made incredibly important contributions to knowledge of the boom/bust cycle, and was one of the first to really think about what happened to cause the great depression. The backlash of that was to take a bottum-up approach, however. It worked for a while but may have contributed to the issues we had in the 70's (and there WERE issues).

Again, saying things like stagflation or the great depression or the housing bubble happened because of one thing or one group of people is a crutch for the mentally weak. There are always numerous contributing factors to why something happens on the macro scale.

There are people who argue what you argue and make valid points, the problem is you seem to understand none of them.
 
#291
#291
milohimself said:
What you're arguing is demand-side, or bottom-up fiscal policy, which is all fine and well, but you're overreaching your citations and explaining your own examples with incorrect ideas, like your little bout of nonsense regarding taxation on consumer price. Ever bother to explain why the tax rate on the wealthiest was 90% at one point?

Again, I usually default that people know a little history... ALTHOUGH, I would say at this point it was to pay for Truman's new National Security State. Regarding corporate taxation though, why do they care if they can simply pass on the price?

Reading your posts makes me feel like I'm watching "Capitalism" by Michael Moore all over again.

Actually haven't seen it nor Sicko believe it or not.

Kenyes had his time and place, current righties like to toss his name around without thinking about who he was and what he did... He is a very important figure in economics, made incredibly important contributions to knowledge of the boom/bust cycle, and was one of the first to really think about what happened to cause the great depression. The backlash of that was to take a bottum-up approach, however. It worked for a while but may have contributed to the issues we had in the 70's (and there WERE issues).

You are right. But the inflation issue is overwrought. Unemployment was creeping up, and that is a problem. But the important issue, which scared the bejesus out of top 1% was the so called "wealth crash" of the 1970s, and the deep need to find new outlets for capital growth in the new business of speculation and financialization. Keynes was by far the most important capitalist economist of the 20th century. It's a runaway.

Again, saying things like stagflation or the great depression or the housing bubble happened because of one thing or one group of people is a crutch for the mentally weak. There are always numerous contributing factors to why something happens on the macro scale.

I hope we don't have to start writing dissertations on VN. IPorange might disagree, but I don't think he will be able to grade them all. If factors are missed out, hopefully as the discussion blossoms, more will be revealed, IMHO.

There are people who argue what you argue and make valid points, the problem is you seem to understand none of them.

Help me then, please, mil. Which valid point did I misunderstand in this thread?
Click to expand...

I have a lot of time for anyone who wants to engage in this way, milo. :hi:
 
Last edited:
#292
#292
utgibbs said:
DVD, that was the case for the consumer being inelastic and the producer being elastic.

In other words, the opposite of the situation in the real world. It is just a model.

I'm actually feeling a little pity watching you grab at straws.
Click to expand...

You are right. They just came up with a description of something that totally contradicts you, placed it next to what you quoted, and gave it a name.

But it does not exist and never happens. It is just one big worldwide conspiracy being carried out against gibbs. I am sure that you have heard it all your life but is bears repeating. You are “special”. I bet you excelled in certain sporting activities.
 
#293
#293
VolDad said:
You are right. They just came up with a description of something that totally contradicts you, placed it next to what you quoted, and gave it a name.

But it does not exist and never happens. It is just one big worldwide conspiracy being carried out against gibbs. I am sure that you have heard it all your life but is bears repeating. You are “special”. I bet you excelled in certain sporting activities.
Click to expand...

DVD, I'm waiting for you and volinbham to explain and give examples of supply being elastic and demand being inelastic in our real world. I'm sure a few esoteric examples exist, as I said earlier.

Until then, the model which better approximates our real world is inelastic supply / elastic demand. Just as I wrote in my notes, and is, frankly, hard to argue against.

Until those conditions change, then the model you quoted simply doesn't approximate our world today. If they do change, maybe the inelastic demand / elastic supply model works.

I know it stings, because you have been so sure of yourself, but quite simply, it's like saying the sports page influences politics because they are sections B and C respectively in your local daily.

It's just time to concede. If they pass on their tax burden, why do they care in the first place?
 
Last edited:
#296
#296
hohenfelsvol said:
The man is delusional. It's like arguing with a real world gorilla in your backyard.
Click to expand...

It's easy to call me delusional, but as we have seen, very difficult to back that assertion up with thre real world gorilla.

Frankly, I'm just bored now. If someone comes up with an answer to why corporations are worried about their tax rate if they can just pass on the costs, I might weigh in again.

At this point, the ref just has to throw in the towel, and the woodshed is getting tired of being the most popular place in town.
 
#297
#297
utgibbs said:
DVD, I'm waiting for you and volinbham to explain and give examples of supply being elastic and demand being inelastic in our real world. I'm sure a few esoteric examples exist, as I said earlier.

Until then, the model which better approximates our real world is inelastic supply / elastic demand. Just as I wrote in my notes, and is, frankly, hard to argue against.

The only "proof" you've offered is your continual use of the term neo-liberalism

Until those conditions change, then the model you quoted simply doesn't approximate our world today. If they do change, maybe the inelastic demand / elastic supply model works.

I know it stings, because you have been so sure of yourself, but quite simply, it's like saying the sports page influences politics because they are sections B and C respectively in your local daily.

It's just time to concede. If they pass on their tax burden, why do they care in the first place?
Click to expand...

If they pass on the tax they care because people only have "x" to spend. A higher effective price to consumers means less volume of consumption is available at a given level of consumer income.

Further, the tax playing field is not level. If all competitors faced the same tax rate then the pass through would not matter. However, unless you have some tax subsidy then you are paying more relative to you competitors (including international) and thus are at a price disadvantage.
 
#298
#298
kinda said that earlier too but was ignored. Oh well, maybe you'll have more luck
 
#299
#299
volinbham said:
If they pass on the tax they care because people only have "x" to spend. A higher effective price to consumers means less volume of consumption is available at a given level of consumer income.

Further, the tax playing field is not level. If all competitors faced the same tax rate then the pass through would not matter. However, unless you have some tax subsidy then you are paying more relative to you competitors (including international) and thus are at a price disadvantage.
Click to expand...

And an elastic consumer will gladly spend his x on those companies who invest on short term losses in profitability to gain market share thereby increasing long term profitability.

Thanks again! :hi:

(PS - you are not "paying" more; your profitability is less. This is not a value added tax. It is again simply starting from the wrong point of origin which is where your argument falls over).

(PPS - as far as my proof, why do I have to repost world productivity charts, and go over neoliberalism which you know has greatly reduced international trade barriers? That is the freakin' mantra of Milton Friedman: Freedom to Choose.......)
 
Last edited:
#300
#300
notice you ignored his valid argument about international competition if only the US has this tax rate.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top