Stephen Joseph

Yeah, it did, but not much. Also, its a fallacy to be able to compare the 1920s low tax performance against periods today of higher taxes. Constraints have changed (world is global, women and blacks are voting, etc..) The libertarian view says this: Maximize utility based on your budget Budget= $ We can spend it on public or private goods Therefore, Utility = (Beta1)Public +(Beta2)Private, where Beta1 and Beta2 are the respective returns per spending, with each experiencing diminishing marginal returns. So we have to have spending on both. All you have to do now is solve the F.O. conditions, and you'll know the right level of public and private spending. Voila!

Okay, Sunday the 24th is beating the SLOP out of postponing the show a week. If you haven't voted, please do so, but it appears the show will be this Sunday. If you all can have everything in PM'ed to me when I wake up Sunday morning, that would be great. If you want things to happen in a particular point of the show, please let me know.

Well then take the character off TV and then repackage him. I suggest turning him into a Hog Farmer from Georgia that has a love for square dancing at the annual County Fairs. Popick Godwinn? Sure. He can do a reverse DDT called "The Slopick Drop". He has to come out to a hardcore rendition of Turkey in the Straw though. Have that band that did the DX theme do it. That's actually quite funny.

Tony is involved in a big match at this event and thusly can't organize the PPV. He and I talked and I still read the shows (yes, I suck at feedback) and keep track of what's going on. My creative juices are just drained, and frankly I was tired of the SJ character. So, since Tony asked if I could help out this month, I am. I still intend on returning before AngleSlam, but probably not with the same character. -sjp

I am reserving my vote in case there is a tie.

PLEASE vote in the poll to decide when this show is posted. Please 1 vote per person, since some of you guys have like 5 usernames.

Before you go criticizing me, I've been absent as a wrestler in this fed since Before I got the Italian title. Heck, I don't even know how I won it in the first place. I didn't ask to get it, nor did I write the storyline for such.

That's such a great line. And I didnt know I was a champ!

So, how about that fugly feminist?

Indeed, and the man has wrestled since. What a legend. http://www.mopsquad.com/artman/publish/article_529.htm Damn. Just Damn. It's guys like that we need to recognize more often.

*Cough* Schumpeter *Cough*

You're forgetting about the deadweight loss associated with the bureaucracy to take those taxes that would otherwise not be in place. Also, you're assuming the taxes are going towards society's best use. If they are not, then the lost utility from that best use and the use of taxes is also a deadweight opportunity cost loss. Higher taxes would not incentive those who are wealthy to work harder, that's covered in economic theory. In fact, the incentive would be to not work as much so as to not put yourself in that higher tax bracket. The libertarian argument involves the opportunity cost of money. Your argument is correct only if accounting costs matter, which is incorrect.

I think of Canada as the 51st state that was just too damn cold.

pointing out that the amount that Clinton's policies helped reduce the deficit had little effect on the overall debt? The causation you speak of is not an absolute. It CAN happen, but it might not always happen, and it might also effect it in different ways at different times. Given the multitude of other things that effect economic growth, you can't just point to one and say "this is it, this is the cause". Ceteris paribus, lowering taxes increases growth. When answering questions that in fact have multiple dependent and independent variables, you isolate the variable in question. Thusly, my answer is *economically* correct. Reality of course, does not hold to ceteris paribus. But theoretically, yes, it works. Also consider how different tax rates are targeted at specific groups. Another big thing that effects economic growth is the distribution of wealth, which tax policies are designed to address. Of Course. A tax is still a tax though, and the equation of MPC still holds for everyone, just the coefficients will be different for different groups. MPC = 1 - MPS - t

What about in the 90's when I was in high school and people were crying about national debt? Oh yeah...we paid it down when Clinton cut defense and intelligence (?) spending. The deficit *not debt* went down significantly because of the economy's growth, not Clinton's cuts. The debt, well, really didn't change that much. They taught us differently in college. That was before the mainstream advent of the internet. Makes perfect sense. When did I ever mention the internet? I'm looking and I don't see it! Whoever taught you about the 1990s did a piss-poor job. The economy's growth rate was larger than the government's growth rate, that's why we got a surplus of sorts. I swear, what's with putting words in my mouth. Then again, depending on what kind of classes in economics you took, you may have gotten the simplified versions. Nothing's simple when you're getting a doctorate.

What about in the 90's when I was in high school and people were crying about national debt? Oh yeah...we paid it down when Clinton cut defense and intelligence (?) spending. The deficit *not debt* went down significantly because of the economy's growth, not Clinton's cuts. The debt, well, really didn't change that much.

No party will slash spending when they are in firm control of power. It's not in their interest, if their interest is to remain in power. There's only 1 way to solve the problem, but it will kill any attempt to provide the economy a fiscal stimulus during a depressive episode. Hell, the 86 bill is still law, but not followed.

There are times when it is preferable to buy bonds and times when you should buy stocks. This all has to do with interest rates. Interest Rates and the stock market are inversely proportional. So, in a way, I'm backing T here. But T, It's not our deficit but our debt that is worrisome. We're slowing approaching that 8%, and should we hit that marker, well, historically for other countries, 8% is the mark at which shit hits the fan.

I *heart* you too

So Democrats are more ignorant than Republicans at all points in their lives, but all get clueless over time I'll agree. (joking!) Liberatarians are the horizontal axis right?

Quote 1: The 80% study is infamously bad. I'm quite familiar with it. I'll root around and find something here at the office today, but the actual tax rate that maximized revenue is between 40-50%. The actual tax rate that maximizes both economic growth and tax revenue is around 30%, give or take. Quaote 2: Correct. The Laffer Curve is a concept, theory. There is a maximizing point, but given all the other variables involved, it is definitely *not* a curve though it helps to think of it as one.

A guy who, like me, has blasted the Bush tax cuts. I never said I agreed with the Bush tax cuts either. In fact, on the basis of what I said, you'd find that I probably disagreed with them.

Just fyi: The best economics textbook is written by Paul Samuelson. Hands down, and both sides of the spectrum agree on this. And maybe I wouldn't be so f'ing arrogant if I didn't have to keep reading economic misconceptions.

I'm supposed to take advice from this guy? You said "growth matters," as if what I cited did not factor in growth. The stat that I cited measured "potential for the world’s economies to attain sustained economic growth over the medium and long term." You cited GDP real growth rate, stating that the "size & scope of the economy" don't matter. Based on growth, then, the greatest economies in the world are such places as Chad and the authoritarian hellholes of Turkmenistan & Equatorial Guinea. And you can quit being so condescending. Nobody was rude to you, despite the fact that you are constantly. You act like we should all bow down in reverence before the great wrestling message board "economist." No. What you cited doesn't make sense, that's my issue with it. And, quite often, it seems that what I'm trying to get at is twisted in such a way as to make me look stupid and you right. Here is what I am getting at. By all forms of measurement, the Northern European economies you cited (Denmark, Finland) are completely stagnated right now. They have high tax rates and little if any growth. Your analysis completely sidesteps the importance of history in the development of an economy. I will grant that those countries are good economically sound places to live. They are not however "The best". In previous posts, I make mention that indicators of a sound economy can be found in what your growth rate matter. Institutions also matter (That's the Virginia School of Economics, Buchanan, Tullock, et. al.) I would not say that those places you cited are great places, you missed my earlier point that the fastest growing countries are developing countries, but not the most stable. In terms of Today, I was looking at modern, industrialized nations and their growth rates and per capita figures. Did you know the unemployment rate in your Northern European countries is twice that of the US (and we BITCH about 5% unemployment)? I mean, FUCK. Tyler even disagrees with your notion. When the liberal and libertarian agree on something, you've got to wonder what's up...Remember this? MMLS- Sure. But overall economy can't suck and yield high government revenues. The entire point of the Laffer curve is to show that government revenues go up as taxes decrease -- to a certain point. That would imply that the economy DOES increase as taxes decrease -- again, to a certain point. Mathematically: Total Spending = Gross Income minus Savings minus taxes or MPC = marginal propensity to consume MPS = marginal propensity to save MPC = 1 - MPS - tax rate. As that tax rate increases, three things can occur. 1) The MPS lowers by the amount of the tax rate. Effects of MPS reduction include loss of future growth potential vis a vis Solow. 2) The MPC loweres by the amount of the tax rate. Effects of MPC reduction include less consumption (duh) 3) Some combination of the two. Taxes are beneficial to the point that they take care of needs that would not be met by the private sector. Thus there must be some tax rate. Tax rates below that amount lead to an inefficient amount of public sector production. Tax rates above lead to less private sector production than the optimal. So, BOS and anyone else, should you care to continue to say that high tax states are better than low tax states for growth, start running some math and quoting some economics from a Nobel winner. Prove your case by fact, not by parroting someone else's paper.

whatever the probability that that machine has. A time I was in Vegas, my girl decides to play slots while I'm playing NL Hold'em. After 6 grueling hours I'm up 50 bucks (wow, great money there). I find her hanging around with some friends, freaking won 500 bucks on the nickel slots. gah!