How does deregulation mean more economic freedom for everyone?

[RabbitWho]

They're just trying to appeal to the hyper-individualists. It has nothing to do with age or gender or intelligence or pretty pie charts. It rages from "hur-dur I don't want nobody telling me what to do, no government, nobody" to people who are intelligent but not so interested in politics to people who are well-read highly educated libertarians to people who are living in holes in the ground surrounded by 100 years worth of baked beans.

So even though it seems like deregulation isn't going to affect their freedom, it fits in with their life philosophy.

 

[mheslep]

One more time, to show how the tax plans have directly affected the debt.


That's, add it up, 2.77 trillion dollars due to tax cuts.

Debt is $16 trillion. Doesn't add up. BTW, what's the source for that graph?

 

[Jim Kata]

Debt is $16 trillion. Doesn't add up. BTW, what's the source for that graph?

I think it came from Time magazine, but it doesn't matter because I am done talking to you after this post. Since you question my sources here's a source you might understand

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/sites/foxbusiness.com.on-air.stossel/files/images/Graph%201.preview.jpg

The vertical axis I think is debt to GDP ratio.

Here is another one

Here are some projections if the Bush tax cuts stay in place.

 

[RabbitWho]

I think I just need 3 more colorful charts to decide who I'm going to vote for... or who I would vote for if I was allowed

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't see how the concepts of either deregulation or regulation are very meaningful alone. There's good and bad versions of each. It's the implementation and integration of them that determine how they affect social values like freedom. Deregulation that gives corps political power is bad, regulations that give bureaucrats power are bad. They each have potential to take away freedoms from the public.

 

[OmCheeto]

I think I just need 3 more colorful charts to decide who I'm going to vote for... or who I would vote for if I was allowed

Do colorful graphs count? Here's an old one I put together 2 days before Halloween last year:

Let's see if anyone can remember what it represents.

hint: edward, george Carlin, and I, all seemed to be on the same page that day.

ps. Looking at the name of the image is cheating.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, the name is a vague but generally WRONG, but common claim.

So if I could guess how that wrong statement could be made to look right via manipulation, I'd guess we're looking at a graph of share of income received by select income brackets.

 

[OmCheeto]

Well, the name is a vague but generally WRONG, but common claim.

So if I could guess how that wrong statement could be made to look right via manipulation, I'd guess we're looking at a graph of share of income received by select income brackets.

Ha ha! Ellipses can come across as very disingenuous.

since1979thepoorest80percenthavebeenlosing

perhaps should have been called:

since1979thepoorest80percenthavebeenlosingthebattlefortheirshareofthepie

The original file has disappeared from the CBO. But being the pack rat that I am...

after-tax_income_shares.pdf

Even my text describing the graph was a bit erroneous

post tax income since 1979 until 2007
bottom 5 lines are quintiles
top 3 lines are 1%, 5%, & 10%
I'm sure you can identify which is which. (Who knows how to say; Cha-Ching!)

hmm... I must have been very emotional.

2 gaffes in one day? Inexcusable! Where were the PF mentors when I needed them?

------------------------------
not baby-sitting your ****-***... Om...

 

[enosis_]

Does economic freedom = deregulation?

The two may be related - doubtful they are equal.

 

[OmCheeto]

The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth...

(ref)

What was our reason for not taxing the rich more?
So we could be that much more in debt?

hmmm...



Om: Mr. Peterffy, what are your opinions on taxing the rich.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-16/billionaire-peterffy-says-1-dot-9-billion-taxes-support-poor: The rich support the poor primarily via taxes. I paid $1.9 billion in taxes in my lifetime.
Om: Bloomberg, how rich is Mr. Peterffy?
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-16/billionaire-peterffy-says-1-dot-9-billion-taxes-support-poor: He has an estimated net worth of $7.6 billion.
Om: NPR, how did he make his fortune?
NPR: He didn't want to type in the orders. He and his engineers hacked into the NASDAQ terminal and wired it up to their own computer, which traded automatically based on algorithms.
Om: Algorithmic trading? Sounds like the stuff of Quants.
Om: Quant, what do you think of these quants?
Quant: I think its fantastic, that people who take risks, should be compensated for taking risks. But only if they are taking risks themselves. Taking risks with other peoples money, you should not get compensated for. I'm sorry. ... Sadly though, it does in this business.
Om: Mr. Peterffy, do you think we need more regulations in the stock market?
TP: We are competing at milliseconds. And whether you can shave three milliseconds of an order, has absolutely no social value.
Om: No social value? hmmm... What are you personally doing about this?
TP: I am voting Republican.
Om: I see. OmCheeto, what is your take on Mr. Peterffy?
OmCheeto: Well, this is just my humble opinion, but I think Mr. Peterffy would be penniless if the stock market had been well regulated, rather than a virtual gambling casino for the wealthy.
Om: You sound like a conspiracy theorist. What makes you think Mr. Peterffy isn't sincere in his statement that "America is on a slippery slope, headed towards becoming a Socialist, failed state, like his homeland of Hungary"?
OmCheeto: Several reasons:

a. America has one of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world. Ergo, we are far from being socialist.
b. Mr. Peterffy is a Wall Streeter. Wall Streeters don't want rules that impede their accumulation of wealth.
c. Other Wall Streeters use their financial power to try and influence elections, when it suits their financial interests.
d. If the Democrats had their way, as in, implementing a transaction fee on trading on the stock market, Mr. Peterffy would be broke.
e. Money is power
f. Power corrupts
g. Gob loads of money corrupts, a lot
h. Since I became an investor in the stock market, I haven't given 1/10 of what I used to, to charitable organizations. I now understand greed.​

Om: Wow. You are a whack job Mr. OmCheeto.
OmCheeto: I don't know what that means, so I'll take it as a compliment.



--------------------------------
ok to delete.

 

[russ_watters]

What was our reason for not taxing the rich more?
So we could be that much more in debt?

The amount of money we take in is not determined by the top rate alone, it is determined by the average rate. So what you just said is only half a thought. The other half, presumably, is that tax rates for everyone else should be kept the same or lowered while the tax rates for the rich are raised a lot.

So my answer to the question is: I don't think it would be fair.

 

[OmCheeto]

The amount of money we take in is not determined by the top rate alone, it is determined by the average rate. So what you just said is only half a thought. The other half, presumably, is that tax rates for everyone else should be kept the same or lowered while the tax rates for the rich are raised a lot.

So my answer to the question is: I don't think it would be fair.

Well, presumably, we lowered the taxes on the wealthiest the most, as there was supposed to be some trickle down effect. It appears to me,

that it simply trickled into their bank accounts.

Oh! Look at that bottom 40%. Virtually nothing to show for all their tax cuts.
What did they do with all that money we didn't tax them I wonder.
Probably bought crack!

 

[Pythagorean]

To be honest, you can't see trickle-down from pie portions, you have to look at whether the whole pie grew or shrunk relative to inflation and gas/food prices. I think it still fails this test, but this is also in the wake of a recession.

 

[OmCheeto]

To be honest, you can't see trickle-down from pie portions, you have to look at whether the whole pie grew or shrunk relative to inflation and gas/food prices. I think it still fails this test, but this is also in the wake of a recession.

hmmm... I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

All I know is that we are trading information, on a platform, created by, whom I would now call, hippies.

There are those with ideas, that change the world for the better. And there are those with ideas, that suck the life out of it.

Regulation decides, or, IMHO, should decide, who profits more.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh! Look at that bottom 40%. Virtually nothing to show for all their tax cuts.

How can you show the impact of a change with a chart that shows one moment in time?

Also, distribution of wealth is a very poor indicator because standard of living does not correlate well with wealth, particularly after the popping of the housing bubble inverted a lot of mortgages.

What did they do with all that money we didn't tax them I wonder.
Probably bought crack!

How is that useful?

 

[OmCheeto]

How is that useful?

Election's tomorrow.

You don't like poor people that don't pay federal taxes.

I don't like crackheads, as they steal my **** when I'm at work.

I thought maybe we had something in common.

 

[russ_watters]

I have no idea what the median income is for crackheads, but it sounds like you are implying some sort of corellation... You're kind of all over the place though, so I don't see your point.

 

[Naty1]

Jim Kata: [QUOTE..., but it doesn't matter because I am done talking to you after this post. [/QUOTE]too bad you did not quit sooner and spare us.

 

[Bacle2]

Jim Kata: [QUOTE..., but it doesn't matter because I am done talking to you after this post.

too bad you did not quit sooner and spare us.[/QUOTE]

Speak for yourself.

 

[Naty1]

Just heard a report on the news: Regulatory rules cost US business about $1 trillion annually in regulatory compliance costs.

It was not specified, but I assume this is beyond IRS tax requirements. In a $15T economy, that can't help competitiveness.

 

[DosCadenas]

Everyone.

That's what across-the-board tax cuts do, for example. A trillion dollars in tax cuts and a trillion dollars in stimulus have the same initial effect on the country's balance sheet, but the tax cuts give you the choice of how to spend the money whereas the direct stimulus is the government choosing where to spend the money (on failing alternate energy companies...?).

Wrong you fail to incorporate the multiplier effect and the marginal propensity to save. Government stimulus is a direct increase to AD while cutting taxes aren't as effective.

 

[enosis_]

Wrong you fail to incorporate the multiplier effect and the marginal propensity to save. Government stimulus is a direct increase to AD while cutting taxes aren't as effective.

Where is the multiplier in a failing alternate energy company (the example cited by Russ Waters in the post you responded to)?

 

[Bacle2]

Still, when you give tax cuts to people who can already afford every thing they
want/need and more, those cuts are not usually spent in the "real economy"
but instead are saved or used in speculation. If you can already pay for everything
you want and more, what difference is a tax stimulus going to make?

 

[ImaLooser]

How does deregulation mean more economic freedom for everyone? Wages have been going down for 20+ years now, so I don't see much of the benefits. That is, unless, I am looking at it the wrong way. But cite some sources please.

Milton Friedman opposed the Equal Rights Amendment because it took away women's economic freedom to work for less money than a man.

 

[enosis_]

Still, when you give tax cuts to people who can already afford every thing they
want/need and more, those cuts are not usually spent in the "real economy"
but instead are saved or used in speculation. If you can already pay for everything
you want and more, what difference is a tax stimulus going to make?

Tax credits can be designed to spur investment in equipment and technology.

 

[Bacle2]

Tax credits can be designed to spur investment in equipment and technology.

Sorry, I meant individuals, not corporations.

At the end of the day, I think the best idea is to have different institutions: family, government, the market,army, etc. serve as checks-and-balances on each other's power, to prevent anyone institution from gaining too much power.

 

[Bacle2]

Milton Friedman opposed the Equal Rights Amendment because it took away women's economic freedom to work for less money than a man.

I'm not sure if I ever believed that women actually do the same work as men for
less pay; no one would hire a man if this was the case. Why not hire all women, pay
them 70% of what a man earns(some women claimed they get paid "$.70 for every $1 a man was paid) and pocket the difference?

Still, for someone who so praised the "creative destruction" that resulted from free markets,
he had no problem accepting tenure. Maybe he should have let his students decide if he was good-enough to remain as a professor.

 

[ImaLooser]

I'm not sure if I ever believed that women actually do the same work as men for
less pay; no one would hire a man if this was the case. Why not hire all women, pay
them 70% of what a man earns(some women claimed they get paid "$.70 for every $1 a man was paid) and pocket the difference?

Still, for someone who so praised the "creative destruction" that resulted from free markets,
he had no problem accepting tenure. Maybe he should have let his students decide if he was good-enough to remain as a professor.

It has been my observation in twenty years in a very competitive business that profit is not the main priority of business. Maintaining the social hierarchy is more important.

Good one about the tenure. Free market for you, protection for me.

 

[Bacle2]

It has been my observation in twenty years in a very competitive business that profit is not the main priority of business. Maintaining the social hierarchy is more important.

Good one about the tenure. Free market for you, protection for me.

But, do the shareholders know about this?

It is just that I have never seen any study that support that claim,meaning the claim that women are paid less _for the same work_--and I have asked for it. There are also women demographics who do better economically than their respective male demographics, but women do not mention that, nor do they seem bothered by the fact that they do better than man in many areas (lower rate of inprisonment,of deaths on the job, lower high school dropout rate). Just like you don't see any questioning of capitalism on the hard right ( with Fox as its mouthpiece) , you don't see any questioning of feminism on the hard left ( MSNBC). It is the same in both: cherry-picking the evidence. Report on issues/news that agree with your beliefs/views and ignore those that do not.
See if you can find a story on MSNBC on the family court system and how it favors women,or the stories about false accusations (proven false) of violence and rape by women ( they somehow forgot to include provisions for this in VAWA . Of course,no provisions for violence against men.) that have destroyed men's lives, etc. , or stories questioning the rationale for war , or how oil companies who are making trillions in profit are receiving tax breaks, on pedophile priests etc. on Fox.
But, hey, I had insomnia , but not enough money for premium cable, and did not want to watch infomercials at 5 a.m . Now I just read.

 

[enosis_]

It has been my observation in twenty years in a very competitive business that profit is not the main priority of business. Maintaining the social hierarchy is more important.

Good one about the tenure. Free market for you, protection for me.

How does a business stay competitive if it's main concern is (self-imposed regulations?) maintaining the social heirarchy?