Quote :

"As to the level of competition we have now, neither AT&T nor Verizon (both baby bells that have since purchased other baby bells) really compete much, and they aren't doing anything to increase competition. In fact they keep buying up local and regional competitors in moves sanctioned by the government."

I suppose the lack of competition in the cable market is due to the government as well? It's a natural monopoly, that's not the government's fault, they did a great job breaking them up as much as they did to allow for competition in new similar markets, like cell phones. And "moves sanctioned by the government"? Quite the choice of words for what really is "the government doesn't step in and stop them".

Quote :

"For what it's worth it appears to me the level of competition we currently have in the cellular industry is a result of cellular infrastructure being a different beast than land line telephone infrastructure, not as a result of the breakup of the AT&T monopoly of the 80's. Though if you have any evidence that the breakup is what is responsible for this competition I would be happy to read it."

You know I have no more evidence on this that you. It should be obvious to anyone that if Verizon and AT&T were the same company, there would be a lot less competition.

9/14/2010 4:44:06 PM

One might have thought that Verizon would have existed all by itself, had it not been illegal to compete with AT&T for so long.

9/14/2010 7:47:14 PM

But then we come to the point that was brought up earlier, that being that the nature of that business did not lend itself to competition.

9/14/2010 7:50:44 PM

Quote :

" I suppose the lack of competition in the cable market is due to the government as well? It's a natural monopoly, that's not the government's fault, they did a great job breaking them up as much as they did to allow for competition in new similar markets, like cell phones. And "moves sanctioned by the government"? Quite the choice of words for what really is "the government doesn't step in and stop them"."

I can't speak to the cable industry, but I can certainly speak to the phone industry as history backs me up. And yes, government sanctioned actions as in:

Quote :

"For much of its history, AT&T and its Bell System functioned as a legally sanctioned, regulated monopoly. The fundamental principle, formulated by AT&T president Theodore Vail in 1907, was that the telephone by the nature of its technology would operate most efficiently as a monopoly providing universal service. Vail wrote in that year's AT&T Annual Report that government regulation, "provided it is independent, intelligent, considerate, thorough and just," was an appropriate and acceptable substitute for the competitive marketplace."

http://www.corp.att.com/history/history3.html

Quote :

"A Michigan Public Utilities Commission report (1921: 315) from that same year also illustrates this prevailing sentiment, "Competition resulted in duplication of investment. . . . The policy of the state was to eliminate this by eliminating as far as possible, duplication." Many state regulatory agencies began refusing requests by telephone companies to construct new lines in areas already served by another carrier and continued to encourage monopoly swapping and consolidation in the name of "efficient service" (Lavey 1987: 184-85). .. On August 1, 1918, in the midst of World War I, the federal government nationalized the entire telecommunications industry for national security reasons. ... it was announced that Postmaster General Albert S. Burleson, a long-time advocate of nationalizing the telegraph and telephone industries, would assume control of the market. ... Burleson appointed Vail [AT&T CEO], rated by Carlton as a genius, to manage the telephone, and Carlton to operate the telegraph." ... By January 21, 1919, just 5 1/2 months after nationalization, long-distance rates had increased by 20 percent. ... The overall hostility to competition by the FCC and the drafters of the legislation that gave birth to it is best illustrated by a 1988 Department of Commerce report on the development of the telecommunications industry. The report notes, "The chief focus of the Communications Act of 1934 was on the regulation of telecommunications, not necessarily its maximum development and promotion. "

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-6.html

Also recall that AT&T was broken up in the 80's not because they had a monopoly on telephones, but because they were abusing that [government granted] monopoly to interfere with other markets.

Also, under the assumption that the government's breakup of AT&T and it's continued acquisition of regulatory powers is to prevent the rise of market damaging monopolies in the future, I would indeed argue that the failure of the government to stop the remerging of baby bells into another Ma Bell is precisely a form of government sanction.

Quote :

"You know I have no more evidence on this that you."

And yet you're the one claiming that the competition that currently exists in the cell world is and I quote:

Quote :

"It's a direct result of that breakup that we have the level of competition we have now in the cell phone carrier industry.""

9/14/2010 9:15:25 PM

Quote :

"I can't speak to the cable industry, but I can certainly speak to the phone industry as history backs me up. And yes, government sanctioned actions as in:"

When talking about "sanctioning" you were talking about the current, not the past.

Here, you should read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

Quote :

"Also recall that AT&T was broken up in the 80's not because they had a monopoly on telephones, but because they were abusing that [government granted] monopoly to interfere with other markets."

Exactly, and had they not been broken up, in all likelyhood they would have fucked up the cell phone industry.

Quote :

"I would indeed argue that the failure of the government to stop the remerging of baby bells into another Ma Bell is precisely a form of government sanction."

So they're supposed to both break up and not break up monopolies?

Quote :

"And yet you're the one claiming that the competition that currently exists in the cell world is and I quote:"

Had the bells not been broken up, would we have the same level of competition in the related cell phone market?

9/14/2010 9:22:15 PM

Quote :

"When talking about "sanctioning" you were talking about the current, not the past."

I was speaking of the entire AT&T history, and as I mentioned before, if the government is going to claim powers to prevent monopolies for the public good, and then fails to use those powers to prevent growing monopolies, that is tantamount to sanction.

Quote :

"Exactly, and had they not been broken up, in all likelyhood they would have fucked up the cell phone industry."

As opposed to the current situation where AT&T and AT&T jr. control the two largest carriers in the US currently and frequently trade customers and properties as part of their "regulation"?

Also note you have no evidence this actually would be true. It's also possible that the massive internal inertia of AT&T would have prevented it from reacting quickly to the emerging cellular industry.

Quote :

"So they're supposed to both break up and not break up monopolies?"

Pretty much. Right now they act as interference for competitors while not actually doing anything to prevent the evil monopolies. They either need to do their job, or get out of the way.

Quote :

"Had the bells not been broken up, would we have the same level of competition in the related cell phone market?"

Do you have evidence that we wouldn't?

9/14/2010 10:05:03 PM

Quote :

"I was speaking of the entire AT&T history, and as I mentioned before"

I'm going to quote you earlier in the thread:
"As to the level of competition we have now, neither AT&T nor Verizon (both baby bells that have since purchased other baby bells) really compete much, and they aren't doing anything to increase competition. In fact they keep buying up local and regional competitors in moves sanctioned by the government."

Quote :

"if the government is going to claim powers to prevent monopolies for the public good, and then fails to use those powers to prevent growing monopolies, that is tantamount to sanction"

Awesome, you want them to break up and not break up companies.

Quote :

"As opposed to the current situation where AT&T and AT&T jr. control the two largest carriers in the US currently and frequently trade customers and properties as part of their "regulation"?"

What are you trying to say?

Quote :

"Also note you have no evidence this actually would be true. It's also possible that the massive internal inertia of AT&T would have prevented it from reacting quickly to the emerging cellular industry."

You're saying a larger company with more money would fail to invest in a growing technology? Come on.

Quote :

"Pretty much. Right now they act as interference for competitors while not actually doing anything to prevent the evil monopolies. They either need to do their job, or get out of the way."

You're arguing nothing. First off your shining example is a natural monopoly. Then you critize them for doing too much and too little at the same time. What do you suggest they do to do more? They've done a wonderful job with the bells, do you think they should socialize it?

Quote :

"Do you have evidence that we wouldn't?"

I didn't make a statement, I asked you a question.

9/14/2010 10:33:19 PM

Quote :

"I'm going to quote you earlier in the thread:"

Yes yes, for that paragraph I was speaking of current actions, but as I stated when I brought it up, the entire AT&T history is pretty much a case study in government failure.

Quote :

"Awesome, you want them to break up and not break up companies."

Yes, I want them either to do their job as they claim they are, or to give up the powers back to the people and get the fuck out of the way. How difficult is this to understand? As it stand right now, the government merely interferes with competition without actually doing anything to stop the previous AT&T monopoly nor to stop the current regrowth of the AT&T monopoly.

Quote :

"What are you trying to say?"

I'm trying to say a choice between anal rape and anal rape with a smile is still no choice at all. The current massive expansion and takeovers of both Verizon and AT&T and the frequent back and forth property divestment between the two as part of the regulatory theater are examples of continued government failure to act upon their claimed powers and purpose.

Quote :

"You're saying a larger company with more money would fail to invest in a growing technology? Come on."

History is pretty much full of such examples. For more recent ones, you need look no further than the current smart phone market, where despite the money to be had, Microsoft is nowhere to be found. History is also full of examples where even if the mega corp spends their money and invests it doesn't mean they're fast enough or smart enough to gain any real foothold. Again for a current example, look no further than the Microsoft Zune which holds a commanding 1.1% of the portable music player market share

Quote :

" You're arguing nothing. First off your shining example is a natural monopoly. Then you critize them for doing too much and too little at the same time."

A natural monopoly in large part due to regulatory interference which served to eliminate and restrict competition.

Quote :

"I didn't make a statement, I asked you a question."

You did though. You have claimed that the reason we have the competition we do is directly the result of AT&T's breakup in the 80's. You've made the claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

9/15/2010 7:35:11 AM

Quote :

"You don't raise taxes in a recession."

--President Barack Obama, August 2009

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/08/obama_no_new_taxes_in_a_recess.html

9/15/2010 8:53:06 AM

Quote :

"Yes, I want them either to do their job as they claim they are, or to give up the powers back to the people and get the fuck out of the way. How difficult is this to understand?"

As I've pointed out, it will work the same regardless, it's a natural monopoly.

Quote :

"The current massive expansion and takeovers of both Verizon and AT&T and the frequent back and forth property divestment between the two as part of the regulatory theater are examples of continued government failure to act upon their claimed powers and purpose."

These companies are still far crys from monopoly, so why should the government be breaking them up?

Quote :

"you need look no further than the current smart phone market, where despite the money to be had, Microsoft is nowhere to be found."

So then if we had broken microsoft up, it would have started to build up the smart phone market? A bit of a stretch don't you think?

Quote :

"History is also full of examples where even if the mega corp spends their money and invests it doesn't mean they're fast enough or smart enough to gain any real foothold."

But what your argument here depends on is that somehow by splitting them up they're suddenly going to get smarter and faster.

Quote :

"A natural monopoly in large part due to regulatory interference which served to eliminate and restrict competition."

Come on dude, read the article I posted. It's wikipedia, it's short and easy to follow. I shouldn't have to sit here and explain what a natural monopoly is.

Quote :

"You did though."

"Had the bells not been broken up, would we have the same level of competition in the related cell phone market?
I'm pretty sure that's a question, not a statement.

9/15/2010 10:43:21 AM

Quote :

"I suppose the lack of competition in the cable market is due to the government as well? It's a natural monopoly, that's not the government's fault, they did a great job breaking them up as much as they did to allow for competition in new similar markets, like cell phones. And "moves sanctioned by the government"? Quite the choice of words for what really is "the government doesn't step in and stop them"."

Telco monopolies exist because the fed has allowed them to. They have had many chances to stop mergers, but every time they happened the fed has approved them. The last big one, when att bought bell south, was a massive blow to consumer choice but the fed was a-ok with it and allowed the merger to happen. The cell market is just as bad. You basically have 2 big guys there, Verizon and att, who run all their shit off their own backbone. If anyone else wants on their network they have to pony up. So theres no real competition there. Even if you put up your own towers you're eventually going to need to pay att, verizon, or qwest to get on to the network. Qwest resells verizon wireless.

Cable monopolies exist for two reasons. The first is that way back when it cable tv first became a thing, the cable companies negotiated regional monopolies with local governments the same way phone providers negotiate with state and local governments for local phone monopolies. These are government mandated. Now days its less common, and the major problem is the huge up front infrastructure cost to get into the market. Thanks to the early monopolies, there are only a few cable companies in existance. The phone market is still a mandated government monopoly in most locations. Where I'm at (Maine) our LEC used to be Verizon, now its fairpoint. If you want phone service (business or residential), you go through fairpoint. It works the same way power does. You have a state-granted monopoly that owns the hardware, and then you buy service from them or (if allowed) someone else. If you're a business you have more choice, but if you're a consumer you're locked into that monopoly. And in the case of Maine, Fairpoint is a terrible shitty company thats gone bankrupt. All in the name of providing shitty copper service to the state. Antiquated technology that costs them nothing to run or maintain, but that they can charge out the ass for.

This is not to say that the infrastructure costs dont play a part in the creation of monopolies, but in heavily populated cities you still see locally mandadte monopolies either from corrupt/ignorant politicians or from bad deals left over from long ago. Boston is a great example. You'd think they'd have a whole ton of telco providers to choose from, but the city was split into zones where each telco has a guaranteed monopoly on service. Its fucking stupid shit thats 100% the fault of government.

Right now were at the point where there are some places where removing government mandated monopolies would do alot of good, and other places where they'd probably do nothing. Because we've let these big guys have these monopolies for so long, theres no one big enough to challenge them. Breaking up companies into regional providers is pointless because they maintain a monopoly in that region. You would need multiple companies in each region to really make a difference.

9/15/2010 11:24:43 AM

Well what are you going to do? These companies own the lines. I'd have no problem with the government just claiming ownership over these lines and charging themselves, but many people have a problem with that.

9/15/2010 12:28:18 PM

Quote :

"As I've pointed out, it will work the same regardless, it's a natural monopoly."

If you read the articles I've linked to, you will note that despite its "Natural monopoly" tendencies, telecommunications was still competitive before it was illegal to compete with AT&T. After all, if it really is a "natural" monopoly, why make legislation to prevent competition at all? It's also worth pointing out that telecommunications isn't necessarily natural monopoly, evidence of this is found currently in the fact that your telephone service can be provided by Time Warner on completely different lines from the ones AT&T runs to your house. Who knows what sort of services we could have had if it hadn't been illegal to compete with AT&T.

Quote :

"These companies are still far crys from monopoly, so why should the government be breaking them up? "

Since I was pointing out an example of government failure and tendency to repeat the same mistakes over and over, it seems pertinent to point out that the government, after allowing AT&T to consolidate, then breaking them up, is once again allowing them to consolidate.

Quote :

"So then if we had broken microsoft up, it would have started to build up the smart phone market? A bit of a stretch don't you think? ... But what your argument here depends on is that somehow by splitting them up they're suddenly going to get smarter and faster. "

Not at all, but you're the one that thought it incredulous that a large company with monopoly control over one market wouldn't leverage themselves into an emerging market. I was pointing out that monopoly status and investment in emerging markets is no guarantee that said monopoly will dominate or even have an effect on competition in the emerging market.

Quote :

"Come on dude, read the article I posted. It's wikipedia, it's short and easy to follow. I shouldn't have to sit here and explain what a natural monopoly is."

And I shouldn't have to sit here and continue to point out that AT&T's "natural monopoly" was largely due to the regulatory environment that made it difficult if not impossible for competitors to build. Yes, the definition of a natural monopoly includes massive barriers to entry. However, when those barriers are artificial constructs of the government, that is not a "natural" monopoly.

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure that's a question, not a statement."

Sigh.

"It's a direct result of that breakup that we have the level of competition we have now in the cell phone carrier industry."

--Kris

[Edited on September 15, 2010 at 1:08 PM. Reason : it's like you're being intentionaly dense]

9/15/2010 1:08:26 PM

Back to the original question. Seems like most "stimulus" is aimed at getting money into people's hands. Tax cuts, imo, are preferrable bc you are not punishing production(who eventually pays for other forms of stim), its more long term ( as oppossed to 100 dollar handout or cash for clunkers crap) and the govt isnt choosing WHERE and WHO to reward with the stimulus. (ie cash for clunkers temp helping autos) Instead YOU get to choose where to spend your money, not some puppet politician being pulled by various lobbying groups.

9/15/2010 1:13:32 PM

Quote :

"Well what are you going to do? These companies own the lines. I'd have no problem with the government just claiming ownership over these lines and charging themselves, but many people have a problem with that."

to start make government-mandated monopolies illegal so companies can build new lines where viable (large population centers). Smaller companies will pop up in dense areas and move outward. Start freeing up more wireless spectrum and for fucks sake dont give any specific companies complete monopoly on the space. I dont know if breaking up the big 3 would help since its more of a regional competition issue than a national one. If you break att into att east and att west either entity still maintains a monopoly in local markets.

If the fed just takes over the lines you'll have the same bad service, in addition to being overpriced. Government has no incentive to keep costs down or to respond to customer complaints. Same as any monopoly.

9/15/2010 1:38:07 PM

Quote :

"After all, if it really is a "natural" monopoly, why make legislation to prevent competition at all?"

So we don't have 50 sets of telephone lines running to every house.

Quote :

"it seems pertinent to point out that the government, after allowing AT&T to consolidate, then breaking them up, is once again allowing them to consolidate."

Sure, there's a certain breaking point here where they need to be broken up.

Quote :

"I was pointing out that monopoly status and investment in emerging markets is no guarantee that said monopoly will dominate or even have an effect on competition in the emerging market."

You're pretty good at completely losing any relevant context aren't you? I stated that breaking up the bells enhanced competition in the market, you responded by saying that had they not been broken up, the bells might not have even gotten involved in the cell phone market. This implies that somehow splitting up the company makes it either smarter or faster.

Quote :

"However, when those barriers are artificial constructs of the government"

How is a nationwide system of phone wires artifical or a construct of the government?

Quote :

"Sigh."

Are you trying to avoid the question?

But really you've completely gone off topic to make some kind of non-argument about natural monopolies. I still don't know what you're trying to say, and you don't seem to know either, you just seem to think it's a monopoly and it's the government, so it's bad.

------------------------------------------------

Quote :

"Seems like most "stimulus" is aimed at getting money into people's hands"

One part of the equation, and the lesser part. A larger goal is to extend credit.

Quote :

"Tax cuts, imo, are preferrable bc you are not punishing production(who eventually pays for other forms of stim), its more long term ( as oppossed to 100 dollar handout or cash for clunkers crap) and the govt isnt choosing WHERE and WHO to reward with the stimulus. (ie cash for clunkers temp helping autos) Instead YOU get to choose where to spend your money, not some puppet politician being pulled by various lobbying groups."

You're ignoring the problems with it. As the economy shrinks wages decrease and unemployment increases. Taxable income goes way down due to those two factors, this marginalizes the effects of a tax break. So not only is your impact smaller, but you are missing the people most likely to spend that money and get it cirrculating, those who are unemployed.

9/15/2010 1:54:50 PM

Quote :

"So we don't have 50 sets of telephone lines running to every house."

A competitive telecom system doesn't require 50 sets of telephone lines running to every house.

Quote :

"I stated that breaking up the bells enhanced competition in the market, you responded by saying that had they not been broken up, the bells might not have even gotten involved in the cell phone market. This implies that somehow splitting up the company makes it either smarter or faster."

Not at all. I merely pointed out that because a competitive cellular market occurring after the breakup of AT&T does not imply in any way shape or form that the enhanced competition was due to the breakup. I then used an example of corporate inertia as a scenario in which despite a monolithic AT&T we could still have a competitive cellular market.

IOW that q occurs after p does not mean that p implies q

Quote :

"How is a nationwide system of phone wires artifical or a construct of the government?"

Because the existence of a one nationwide system of phone wires doesn't not in any way shape or form prohibit the existence of a second set of such wires. Nor is a nation wide system of wires owned by a single company necessary for a nationwide communication system to exist. However, since the government refused to allow competitors to build a competing system, that would be an artificial construct.

Quote :

"I still don't know what you're trying to say, and you don't seem to know either, you just seem to think it's a monopoly and it's the government, so it's bad."

I know that when you do the mental gymnastics necessary to hold the rosy view of governments that you do it becomes hard to follow a conversation, so I'll help you out just this once:

Quote :

"when the government steps in, they don't learn and they make the same mistakes again and again, and we still have failures, but now they're government approved failures. As evidence I submit the entire history of ATT and it's "baby bells" from 1885 to present day. ... there is no evidence that strong government interference makes it any more efficient or eliminates the presence of these failures."

Look, I don't know if you're acting dense on purpose, if you've actually gotten dumber since the last time you were active here or I've just gotten older, but I don't find our little sparring match here entertaining; so you just continue to believe that, despite evidence to the contrary, the government doesn't fuck up the markets in its own special way and that companies like AT&T spontaneously appear out of nowhere an enjoy a market free from competition for almost 60 years without any government interference. I'm done.


[Edited on September 15, 2010 at 8:42 PM. Reason : sdfg]

9/15/2010 8:38:37 PM

Quote :

"So not only is your impact smaller, but you are missing the people most likely to spend that money and get it cirrculating, those who are unemployed. "

I disagree with you here. Giving someone 100 bucks once isnt going to turn the economy around. But cutting taxes on those working MIGHT get them to spend a bit more. After all if you feel like you are going to lose your job you tend to save, if you feel secure in your job you tend to spend. If you dont have a job?....what? Yes the govt is taking in less, but the people earning it and employed are taking home more. This is more sustainable. imo After all it is companies (some may argue workers) that pay into unemployment.

Even this Admin are saying the credit markets are fine. Now they arent to those who shouldnt have ever gotten credit in the first place...but thats what we call a market correction.

9/15/2010 8:49:02 PM

Thirty-one Democrats urge extension of all Bush tax cuts
Sept. 16, 2010

Quote :

"Thirty-one House Democrats have signed a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) urging them to renew all Bush-era tax cuts. The letter strikes at the heart of the argument posed by Democratic leaders that the country can ill-afford to extend tax cuts for the wealthy."

Quote :

"The 31 House Democrats that signed the letter are: Reps. Jim Matheson (Utah), Melissa Bean (Ill.), Glenn Nye (Va.), Mike McMahon (N.Y.), John Barrow (Ga.), Lincoln Davis (Tenn.), Dan Boren (Oka.), Brad Ellsworth (Ind.), John Salazar (Col.), Mike Ross (Ark), Rick Boucher (Va.), Harry Mitchell (Ariz.), Jim Costa (Calif.), Sanford Bishop (Ga.), Ron Klein (Fla.), Zack Space (Ohio), Jim Marshall (Ga.), Ann Kirkpatrick (Ariz.), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.), Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Gary Peters (Mich.), Jim Himes (Conn.), Frank Kratovil (Md.), Walt Minnick (Idaho), Allen Boyd (Fla.), Harry Teague (N.M.), Travis Childers (Miss.), and Jason Altmire (Pa.). Senate Democrats did not sign the letter, but more than a handful of them have also called for the extension of all Bush tax cuts. They include Sens. Evan Bayh (Ind.), Jim Webb (Va.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and independent Joe Lieberman (Conn.), who caucuses with Democrats."

http://tinyurl.com/2c8hnp7

9/16/2010 4:28:35 PM

Quote :

"A competitive telecom system doesn't require 50 sets of telephone lines running to every house."

Then who owns the lines?

Quote :

"IOW that q occurs after p does not mean that p implies q"

I'm trying to prove that by contraposition showing that -q implies -p, one occurring after the other is just part of it.

Quote :

"However, since the government refused to allow competitors to build a competing system, that would be an artificial construct."

So then you do want 50 sets of lines running to every house.

Quote :

"I disagree with you here. Giving someone 100 bucks once isnt going to turn the economy around. But cutting taxes on those working MIGHT get them to spend a bit more. After all if you feel like you are going to lose your job you tend to save, if you feel secure in your job you tend to spend. If you dont have a job?....what? Yes the govt is taking in less, but the people earning it and employed are taking home more. This is more sustainable. imo After all it is companies (some may argue workers) that pay into unemployment."

You want to give money to someone who will spend it, that is what gets the economy going. Increasing take home pay to people who already have jobs is not going to do that as well as other approaches, just learn the concept of marginal propensity to consume to understand this. We don't need permanent tax cut to create a sustainable system, we just need to get this one going again to where it was and put in safeguards to reduce the severity of ups and down to stabilize our current system. Taxes are one of these automatic stabilizers as they provide negative feedback.

[Edited on September 23, 2010 at 6:37 PM. Reason : ]

9/23/2010 6:31:47 PM

Nice, you're a Warren Mosler disciple.

9/23/2010 7:44:25 PM

Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for everyone
Sept. 20, 2010

Quote :

"But a majority of a panel of leading economists surveyed by CNNMoney.com said that the tax cuts should be renewed for everyone. The first in a series of economic surveys revealed that extending the tax cuts for all taxpayers is the most important thing Congress can do to help the economy. Of the 31 economists surveyed, 18 chose that from a list of options now being debated on Capitol Hill. 'Extend tax cuts for all income levels and do nothing else,' said Sean Snaith, economics professor at the University of Central Florida. 'More of the same piecemeal, patchwork policies put forth by this administration will undermine confidence and do little to change the path the economy is on.'"

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/19/news/economy/what_to_do_economists_survey/index.htm

[Edited on September 23, 2010 at 8:47 PM. Reason : COPYPASTA!!!1]

9/23/2010 8:45:02 PM

Same economists in 2005 ->

"Housing never goes down, buy, buy, buy."

9/23/2010 9:32:35 PM

Quote :

"Nice, you're a Warren Mosler disciple."

Me?

9/23/2010 9:58:57 PM

Quote :

"Taxes are one of these automatic stabilizers as they provide negative feedback."

This is straight out of his playbook. He advocates printing money ad infinitum and uses taxes as the throttle on the economy.

9/23/2010 10:07:11 PM

Taxes have been recognized as automatic stabilizers long before that guy wrote his magnum opus on whogivesashit.com. I did read it and thought it was interesting but nothing drastically new.

9/23/2010 10:24:24 PM

Who recognized taxes as stabilizers?

9/23/2010 10:36:22 PM

Progressive taxes are generally the main example of negative feedback, taxable income goes down, taxes go down, I first heard the concept described in my first college macro class

[Edited on September 23, 2010 at 11:23 PM. Reason : ]

9/23/2010 11:21:42 PM

They didn't do shit to prevent the past 2 bubbles.

9/24/2010 7:30:19 AM

and cars have brakes yet we still have crashes

9/24/2010 10:23:47 AM

So you're now agreeing that progressive taxes in and of themselves aren't automatic stabilizers? Or, are you going to next say that we didn't have the right tax system to do the automatic stabilizing?

9/26/2010 11:02:00 AM

2.4 trillion dollars in Bush tax cuts created 2.2 million jobs. That's over 1 MEELION dollars per job.

9/27/2010 4:44:37 PM

Where does $2.4 trillion come from? The tax cuts Obama wants to repeal are just $70 billion a year.

9/27/2010 5:07:52 PM

Quote :

"So you're now agreeing that progressive taxes in and of themselves aren't automatic stabilizers? Or, are you going to next say that we didn't have the right tax system to do the automatic stabilizing?"

I'm saying having some automatic stabilizers in place isn't always enough to prevent instabilities in the market. It helps, it's not a silver bullet.

9/27/2010 10:45:30 PM

yep. in order to counter instabilities, you got to create a fuck-ton more, lol

9/27/2010 10:52:06 PM

Progressive taxes are automatic stabilizers, they assist in stabilizing the economy, many would argue that they choke growth, but those people are faggots.

[Edited on September 27, 2010 at 11:04 PM. Reason : ]

9/27/2010 11:04:30 PM

I was hoping the economy would get stimulated so much it starts jizzing out jobs.

9/27/2010 11:16:21 PM

everytime you post you seem to just get gayer

9/28/2010 1:02:46 AM

Quote :

"GOP's lies about jobs unchallenged by Democrats And if all others accepted the lie which the party imposed - if all records told the same tale - then the lie passed into history and became the truth. - George Orwell, "1984," published in 1949 House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has been telling this whopper over and over again, in one form or another: "Cutting the federal deficit will create jobs." It's not true. Cutting the deficit will create fewer jobs. Less government spending reduces overall demand. Here are some other whoppers being repeated daily: "Cutting taxes on the rich creates jobs." Nope. Trickle-down economics has been tried for 30 years and hasn't worked. After President George W. Bush cut taxes on the rich, far fewer jobs were created than after Bill Clinton raised taxes in the 1990s. To his credit, Obama argued against Republican demands for extending the Bush tax cut for those making more than a quarter-million dollars a year. But as soon as Republicans pushed back, Obama caved. And the president hasn't even mentioned that the $61 billion of budget cuts Republicans are demanding this year is what richer Americans would have paid in taxes had he not caved. "Cutting corporate income taxes creates jobs." Baloney. American corporations don't need tax cuts. Many of them, like General Electric, manipulate the tax code so they don't pay any taxes at all. In fact, big companies are sitting on more than $1.5 trillion of cash right now. They won't invest it in additional capacity or jobs because they don't see enough customers out there with enough money in their pockets to buy what the additional capacity would produce. "

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/02/IN971ILIHF.DTL#ixzz1Ihz7SrTt

4/5/2011 11:04:41 PM

Quote :

"It's not true. Cutting the deficit will create fewer jobs. Less government spending reduces overall demand. "

Yeah... this is a topic of actual debate So declaring this as making someone else a "liar" is disingenuous. I really shouldn't need to read any more, but I'll humour you.

Quote :

""Cutting taxes on the rich creates jobs." Nope. Trickle-down economics has been tried for 30 years and hasn't worked. After President George W. Bush cut taxes on the rich, far fewer jobs were created than after Bill Clinton raised taxes in the 1990s."

Comparing the boom years of Clinton, which were wholly unconnected to anything he did, to the bust years of Dubya, is also disingenuous. Shocker.

Quote :

""Cutting corporate income taxes creates jobs." Baloney. American corporations don't need tax cuts. Many of them, like General Electric, manipulate the tax code so they don't pay any taxes at all. In fact, big companies are sitting on more than $1.5 trillion of cash right now. They won't invest it in additional capacity or jobs because they don't see enough customers out there with enough money in their pockets to buy what the additional capacity would produce."

Wow, where to begin. So, if companies are moving their headquarters overseas due to high corporate tax rates (which they are, even 60 minutes admits this), then how, exactly, does it follow that keeping tax rates high would stimulate growth? or, more succinctly, how does it follow that lowering taxes that everyone admits are onerous and moving companies overseas wouldn't create or at least keep jobs here?

And, 60 minutes already mentioned why companies are sitting on money. THEY CAN'T BRING IT HOME WITHOUT BEING TAXED A HUGE FUCKING AMOUNT. It also couldn't be that companies are still waiting to see what kind of hell Obama is going to unleash on the economy via ObamaCare and EpaIgnoringTheLawAndRegulatingCarbonDioxide could it? Naaaaaaaah. Uncertainty in the market would NEVER make companies keep their dough at home. NEVER

4/5/2011 11:29:12 PM

AHA, so after participating in our most recent economic disaster, Standard & Poor's is tagging the US with a negative outlook.

How do they even exist at this point?

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 7:53 PM. Reason : DANG IT! I DIDN'T MEAN TO POST THIS HERE.]

4/18/2011 7:45:07 PM

They exist because the government mandated that Americans buy what they are selling, regardless of how crappy their product is.

4/19/2011 1:49:26 AM

I think she's talking about S&P

4/19/2011 2:14:57 AM

Yep, S&P, the government sponsored enterprise. The American people are required by law to purchase what they sell.

4/19/2011 9:10:48 AM

Who takes these ratings seriously? How could a country like the United States, that runs HUGE deficits and can't seem to piece together a way to close the gap, be triple A? The real answer lies in the fact that S&P and the U.S. government have a relationship, and S&P can't all of the sudden admit that the whole thing is a house of cards. Otherwise, they would have done so a long time ago.

4/19/2011 12:10:03 PM

Quote :

"S&P, the government sponsored enterprise"

Please prove this.

Quote :

"The American people are required by law to purchase what they sell"

Their credit ratings? There is no law requiring me to buy thier credit ratings.

4/19/2011 3:10:39 PM

If you want to be a financial company then your reserve requirements are determined by the credit ratings offered by a government enforced oligopoly consisting of S&P, Moody's, and Fitch, which anyone creating an instrument must get rated by these and only these.

I guess you would like me to google that for you? Go have a look at the SEC's Net Capital Rule after 1975 and the more recent financial overhaul bill.

4/19/2011 7:43:43 PM

Quote :

"Please prove this."

http://www.sec.gov/answers/nrsro.htm

4/19/2011 7:50:28 PM

Chance. There's a difference between being sponsored and being recognized.

4/19/2011 8:12:32 PM

Quote :

"which anyone creating an instrument must get rated by these and only these."

I don't see how they are government sponsored, or how it must be those three, it seems anyone could become an NRSRO:
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/tmcompliance/nrsro-secg.htm

Quote :

" Go have a look at the SEC's Net Capital Rule after 1975"

That has nothing to do with credit rating agencies.

[Edited on April 19, 2011 at 9:51 PM. Reason : ]

4/19/2011 9:48:15 PM