DC Tom Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 When is your best seller in economics due on the book store shelves? Are you jealous of Picketty? Yes, I'm jealous of Piketty because of your absolutely mindless worship of him. !@#$ing retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Yes, I'm jealous of Piketty because of your absolutely mindless worship of him. !@#$ing retard. Me? I don't even know much about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Me? I don't even know much about him. Why haven't you responded to my post# 60 in this thread? Have you come to the conclusion that you can't refute what I stated or are you just looking for the correct spelling of poopyhead in order to respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Yes, I'm jealous of Piketty because of your absolutely mindless worship of him. !@#$ing retard. no worship. his thesis explains the ever worsening problem of worsening wealth distribution in a more unified and complete way than anyone elses. hence, the overwhelming popularity of his book. it's a phenomenon that has largely been ignored by theorists despite it's nearly universal truth. what alternative macroeconomic theses would you counter with to his? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Why haven't you responded to my post# 60 in this thread? Have you come to the conclusion that you can't refute what I stated or are you just looking for the correct spelling of poopyhead in order to respond. I'm sorry, what was the question again? Consistent supplies and a commitment by our government to keep it that way would tip the scales in many instances and be the deciding factor in manufacturing locating in this country. Lower corporate tax rates mean more corporations to tax. I don't want to throw anyone off of their health insurance. I just don't want them on mine. Now, something for you to ponder. Wouldn't a strong, robust economy create more and better paying jobs that would make it easier for more people to pay for their own insurance? Do you remember what a rising tide does? Lowering the tax rate won't magically create new high paying jobs and more than raising the tariff will. So many other factors to consider. And ending ACA would take away people's health care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 no worship. his thesis explains the ever worsening problem of worsening wealth distribution in a more unified and complete way than anyone elses. hence, the overwhelming popularity of his book. it's a phenomenon that has largely been ignored by theorists despite it's nearly universal truth. what alternative macroeconomic theses would you counter with to his? Anyone can spin numbers and pontificate about the wrongs of capitalism from the perches of their comfy offices. He just seems to have a more dark fatalistic view of things and he's able to channel the inner anti capitalistic sentiment amongst some liberals. So what are his solutions? Global wealth tax? Could you just imagine a global and unaccountable IRS run by some socialistic French nitwit? His solutions are nothing more than the same old tired wealth distribution schemes that many others have suggested just that it's a different variation on a more global scale. The idea of taking away from some to lift others as a means to solve the widening wealth disparity gap is laughable. Would it decrease the gap? Probably, but it would also undoubtedly come at the expense of an even slower over all economy with less economic output. Globalization and technology are the main culprits of this villainous tale. The solution is more a matter of adaptation to this reality. And to be honest, the greatest transfer of wealth hasn't so much been coming from the middle class to the uber rich but more so of the developed nations to the emerging markets. Globalization may very well have had a negative impact on the US/European industry worker, but it has played a positive force not only for the US consumer but to the factory worker overseas (china, india, etc). Globalization and technology aren't going to recede, it's just a matter of reforms and adapting to the inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 When is your best seller in economics due on the book store shelves? Are you jealous of Picketty? Which Picketty is that? The economist who felt compelled to publish a clarification and specifically said that most of his admirers misunderstood his work? Kind of like the morons who think that wealth = income? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 I'm sorry, what was the question again? Lowering the tax rate won't magically create new high paying jobs and more than raising the tariff will. So many other factors to consider. And ending ACA would take away people's health care So, corporations moving their headquarters to the U.S. won't create jobs, especially high paying ones? Raising "the tariff" (whatever that means) will? Quit using health care and health insurance interchangeably. They are not the same thing as you have been made aware of numerous times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 no worship. his thesis explains the ever worsening problem of worsening wealth distribution in a more unified and complete way than anyone elses. hence, the overwhelming popularity of his book. it's a phenomenon that has largely been ignored by theorists despite it's nearly universal truth. what alternative macroeconomic theses would you counter with to his? No worship...you just bring hin up every single time you need to pretend you're objective. A NYT best-seller about a universal truth ignored by theorists? Did you put any thought in to that sentence before you wrote it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 No worship...you just bring hin up every single time you need to pretend you're objective. A NYT best-seller about a universal truth ignored by theorists? Did you put any thought in to that sentence before you wrote it? you make it sound like being a nyt bestseller makes the work illegitimate. this book has been discussed in virtually all economics periodicals and cited in muyltiple academic papers already and it's relatively new. i suspect there isn't a university economics department in the world where it's merits haven't been debated. it's a major work. oh and my sentence states that the phenomenon is a nearly universal truth. i stand by the statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Kind of funny they use a hospital as an example. How many fewer patients would they have if fewer people were insured ... if we go with lower corporate taxes ... Corporations do not really pay taxes ... they collect them. The end user of any product or service is the one who ultimately pays all the taxes. Politicians love to tax this way because it hides the tax from the end user. It appeals to a very fundamental part of human nature, greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Corporations do not really pay taxes ... they collect them. The end user of any product or service is the one who ultimately pays all the taxes. Politicians love to tax this way because it hides the tax from the end user. It appeals to a very fundamental part of human nature, greed. Of course the end user actually pays more to cover the taxes, but a lower corporate tax rate helps the corporation to compete on a global basis. If they can be more competitive by headquartering in the U.S. then the U.S. benefits from taxes from more corporations and a more robust economy. The more robust the economy the more people are working and at higher wages, thus paying more into the government coffers while receiving less in government handouts. It's called "win/win" vs. gator's approach of "lose/lose". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 you make it sound like being a nyt bestseller makes the work illegitimate. No, you make it sound like being a NYT best-seller makes the work legitimate. And I'm calling you out on that bull **** reasoning. Except for the specific sentence you're referencing, where I'm calling you out for the bull **** reasoning of calling a "universal truth" on the NYT's best-seller list "ignored." That's the stupidest !@#$ing oxymoron I've ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 Is this NYT's best seller list fiction or non-fiction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 Which Picketty is that? The economist who felt compelled to publish a clarification and specifically said that most of his admirers misunderstood his work? Kind of like the morons who think that wealth = income? Link ? So, corporations moving their headquarters to the U.S. won't create jobs, especially high paying ones? Raising "the tariff" (whatever that means) will? Quit using health care and health insurance interchangeably. They are not the same thing as you have been made aware of numerous times.Yes, having health insurance will give a person health care. And lowering taxes doesn't necessarily mean higher revenue. Bush lowered rates and created deficits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 (edited) Link ? Don't call when your head starts to explode. Here's a hint for the retarded: That said, the way in which I perceive the relationship between r>g and inequality is often not well captured in the discussion that has surrounded my book. For example, I do not view r>g as the only or even the primary tool for considering changes in income and wealth in the 20th century, or for forecasting the path of income and wealth inequality in the 21st century. Institutional changes and political shocks - which to a large extent can be viewed as endogenous to the inequality and development process itself - played a major role in the past, and it will probably be the same in the future. Edited April 7, 2015 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 Don't call when your head starts to explode. Here's a hint for the retarded: But how many books does the AEA have on the NYT best-seller list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 Don't call when your head starts to explode. Here's a hint for the retarded: Oh, you meant to say "clarifying" not "backtracking" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 Oh, you meant to say "clarifying" not "backtracking" The clarification was to tell everyone to STFU about misinterpreting his conclusions, which is another way of backtracking, especially when people pointed out the flaws in his thesis. Kudos for him to acknowledge it. Can't say the same about idiots like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 Don't call when your head starts to explode. Here's a hint for the retarded: cool. he goes on to say this: For instance, I point out in my book (particularly Chapters 8-9) that the rise of top income shares in the US over the 1980-2010 period is due for the most part to rising inequality of labor earnings, which can itself be explained by a mixture of two groups of factors: rising inequality in access to skills and to higher education over this time period in the United States, an evolution which might have been exacerbated by rising tuition fees and insufficient public investment; and exploding top managerial compensation, itself probably stimulated by changing incentives and norms, and by large cuts in top tax rates. There are easier and more immediate solutions here. they only require the political will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts