Support NeoGAF

[Chichikov]

Our standard of living will decline in the coming decades, no matter how much we fight it or try to ignore the issues that cause it. Like Bill Clinton would say: it's arithmetic. We have some tough choices ahead, and despite my bravado about the Dems owning the Electoral College, history has a way of throwing unexpected curveballs at us.

This century is going to be fascinating to witness.

What?
There is no reason to believe that.
Our productivity will continue to grow, and with it, our ability to supply humanity needs.
Now it's true, we might end up with a resource allocation system that fails most of humanity (in fact, poor people and people in the 3rd world would argue we already living in one, but I digress) but this is our doing.
"The economy" is just a system we created.
It might be fucked.
But the real fundamentals of US are solid as fuck.
If we can't find away to bring that prosperity to everyone it's our own political doing.

 

[RDreamer]

Meh, taxation should be based on curbing inequality, not necessarily creating revenue.

 

[Gotchaye]

But when talking about actual supply side economics policy, it is based on the Laffer curve...right?

It's both in practice, but mostly it's the second thing.

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.[1]

Supply-side economics is about growing the economy so that the wealth "trickles down" and everyone has more in the future. If a low tax rate secures higher growth, then at some point in the future that lower tax rate will have generated more revenue than a higher tax rate.

In practice, advocates also mix in Laffer curve type ideas. They want to say that a lower tax rate will produce more revenue and wealth forever, but especially next year. An honest supply-sider should at some point admit that lowering tax rates will make many people worse off in the short run, but better off ten or twenty years from now.

 

[TheHeretic]

But when talking about actual supply side economics policy, it is based on the Laffer curve...right? I could be mistaken, I had read this shit up on wiki during the DNC convention, I am no economics major.

Which actually reminds, I have always though that Democrats should start talking about Demand creators, talk in their terms, talk about how driving up demand will help the economy.

Yes. Most economists agree increased taxes produce diminishing returns and they drag the economy. The laffer curve is radical in that it suggests cutting taxes may actually increase revenue - which is believed by virtually no-one that studies economics.

 

[HylianTom]

What?
There is no reason to believe that.
Our productivity will continue to grow, and with it, our ability to supply humanity needs.
Now it's true, we might end up with a resource allocation system that fails most of humanity (in fact, poor people and people in the 3rd world would argue we already living in one, but I digress) but this is our doing.
"The economy" is just a system we created.
It might be fucked.
But the real fundamentals of US are solid as fuck.
If we can't find away to bring that prosperity to everyone it's our own political doing.

I have little-to-no faith that our political system will enable us to adjust properly to the resource and financial challenges awaiting us.

 

[Gruco]

Yes. Most economists agree increased taxes produce diminishing returns and they drag the economy. The laffer curve is radical in that it suggests cutting taxes may actually increase revenue - which is believed by virtually no-one that studies economics.

I disagree with this strongly. The idea itself isn't particularly spectacular nor particularly counter-intuitive. The issue is where said peak takes place, and the insanity involved in assuming that it's always to the left of where we are now.

 

[jamesinclair]

So this intrade thing....


Looks like an easy way to make some money....

But isnt it gambling? I thought online gambling was illegal in the US?
And whats this about requiring passport + two bank statements? I dont feel comfortable sending that....

 

[PhoenixDark]

Given the freak out occurring on the far right over Romney's recent troubles, I'm starting to wonder whether the assumption that 2016 will be a year of moderation is misguided. These people don't sound like they have any intention of going out quietly: they're going to fight Obama until the very end. Running a pure "conservative" race wouldn't change things, in fact it would probably make Romney lose even more. The problem is not his ideology, it's his inability to sell himself or his ideas

 

[Pre]

Yes. Most economists agree increased taxes produce diminishing returns and they drag the economy. The laffer curve is radical in that it suggests cutting taxes may actually increase revenue - which is believed by virtually no-one that studies economics.

That's not true. There are plenty of economists that believe this. You can argue about what that point is, but I don't think it's particularly counter-intuitive to believe there are such a thing as excessively high tax rates.

For one thing, I believe very high rates encourage wealthy individuals to avoid paying taxes.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Given the freak out occurring on the far right over Romney's recent troubles, I'm starting to wonder whether the assumption that 2016 will be a year of moderation is misguided. These people don't sound like they have any intention of going out quietly: they're going to fight Obama until the very end. Running a pure "conservative" race wouldn't change things, in fact it would probably make Romney lose even more. The problem is not his ideology, it's his inability to sell himself or his ideas

Anybody who believed GOP would moderate itself if Romney lost was kidding themselves. Of course, GOP has a strong bench in Rubio and Susana Martinez, especially Martinez as she can siphon of Latino voters even more. If they make it past the primaries.

 

[Black Mamba]

Yes. Most economists agree increased taxes produce diminishing returns and they drag the economy. The laffer curve is radical in that it suggests cutting taxes may actually increase revenue - which is believed by virtually no-one that studies economics.

You can take the "virtually" out. It's been shown that cutting $1 of income taxes will bring in maybe 30-40 cents back. That's about the limit.

Anyway:

AS one who was present at the creation of “supply-side economics” back in the 1970s, I think it is long past time that the phrase be put to rest. It did its job, creating a new consensus among economists on how to look at the national economy. But today it has become a frequently misleading and meaningless buzzword that gets in the way of good economic policy.

Today, supply-side economics has become associated with an obsession for cutting taxes under any and all circumstances. No longer do its advocates in Congress and elsewhere confine themselves to cutting marginal tax rates — the tax on each additional dollar earned — as the original supply-siders did. Rather, they support even the most gimmicky, economically dubious tax cuts with the same intensity.

The original supply-siders suggested that some tax cuts, under very special circumstances, might actually raise federal revenues. For example, cutting the capital gains tax rate might induce an unlocking effect that would cause more gains to be realized, thus causing more taxes to be paid on such gains even at a lower rate.

But today it is common to hear tax cutters claim, implausibly, that all tax cuts raise revenue. Last year, President Bush said, “You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.” Senator John McCain told National Review magazine last month that “tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues.” Last week, Steve Forbes endorsed Rudolph Giuliani for the White House, saying, “He’s seen the results of supply-side economics firsthand — higher revenues from lower taxes.”

We believed that our tax plan would stimulate the economy to such a degree that the federal government would not lose $1 of revenue for every $1 of tax cut. Studies of the 1964 tax cut showed that about a third of it was recouped, and we expected similar results. Thus, contrary to common belief, neither Jack Kemp nor William Roth nor Ronald Reagan ever said that there would be no revenue loss associated with an across-the-board cut in tax rates. We just thought it wouldn’t lose as much revenue as predicted by the standard revenue forecasting models, which were based on Keynesian principles.

Furthermore, our belief that we might get back a third of the revenue loss was always a long-run proposition. Even the most rabid supply-sider knew we would lose $1 of revenue for $1 of tax cut in the short term, because it took time for incentives to work and for people to change their behavior. When President Reagan proposed a version of Kemp-Roth in 1981, every revenue estimate produced by the Treasury showed large revenue losses from its enactment, based on standard models. The independent Congressional Budget Office produced figures that were almost identical.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/opinion/06bartlett.html

One of the architects of Supply Side Economics.

An interview when he now advocates for tax raised (through consumpiton). http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/19/news/economy/Bartlett_Reaganomics.moneymag/index.htm

 

[Wray]

What?
There is no reason to believe that.
Our productivity will continue to grow, and with it, our ability to supply humanity needs.
Now it's true, we might end up with a resource allocation system that fails most of humanity (in fact, poor people and people in the 3rd world would argue we already living in one, but I digress) but this is our doing.
"The economy" is just a system we created.
It might be fucked.
But the real fundamentals of US are solid as fuck.
If we can't find away to bring that prosperity to everyone it's our own political doing.

Productivity will grow due to an increasingly large non-human labor force that can work 24/7 and advancements in other technology. For example, we'll probably have a near infinite supply of food by doing things like "growing" meat in labs and spitting out vegetables through futuristic 3d printing technologies.

The major problem I see going forward is how will people earn income?

 

[Pre]

Given the freak out occurring on the far right over Romney's recent troubles, I'm starting to wonder whether the assumption that 2016 will be a year of moderation is misguided. These people don't sound like they have any intention of going out quietly: they're going to fight Obama until the very end. Running a pure "conservative" race wouldn't change things, in fact it would probably make Romney lose even more. The problem is not his ideology, it's his inability to sell himself or his ideas

I'd strongly agree with this.

The GOP has really struggled with communicating a solid, coherent message as of late.

 

[Snake]

So this intrade thing....


Looks like an easy way to make some money....

But isnt it gambling? I thought online gambling was illegal in the US?
And whats this about requiring passport + two bank statements? I dont feel comfortable sending that....

As far as I'm aware, Intrade is indeed considered online gambling and therefore illegal in the US.

 

[worldrunover]

For one thing, I believe very high rates encourage wealthy individuals to avoid paying taxes.

They avoid paying taxes now, and they're at considerably low rates.

 

[RDreamer]

For one thing, I believe very high rates encourage wealthy individuals to avoid paying taxes.

The wealthy are going to avoid whatever they can whenever they can. Once you have enough money that you're hiring the best group of people possible to do your taxes, they're going to do whatever the hell they can with your money in order to give you more of it so they keep their jobs. If someone else can get that rich dude more money, they'll hire them instead.

 

[Black Mamba]

Given the freak out occurring on the far right over Romney's recent troubles, I'm starting to wonder whether the assumption that 2016 will be a year of moderation is misguided. These people don't sound like they have any intention of going out quietly: they're going to fight Obama until the very end. Running a pure "conservative" race wouldn't change things, in fact it would probably make Romney lose even more. The problem is not his ideology, it's his inability to sell himself or his ideas

Which is why I keep saying that the Republicans will either reform or fall apart. It's their choice.

If they don't reform, 2016 will be a massive defeat IMO and the party will fracture if it hasn't already.

I don't think anyone is saying they will reform, only that it will be their last chance to do so if they want to stay relevant as a current party.

Their stances on marriage, abortion, contraception, etc will have to change.

I'd strongly agree with this.

The GOP has really struggled with communicating a solid, coherent message as of late.

They don't have a message outside of cut taxes and pray.

 

[Wray]

Because, in reality, it's probably true -- even a reasonably decent candidate would probably beat Barack Obama this year. But the GOP was utterly incapable of producing a decent candidate this year, and it's directly traceable back to the embrace of the Tea Party. If there's anybody at the wheel, they're going to be pulling as hard as they can on it. Leftwards.

I disagree with this. Even if the GOP had an amazing candidate, you'd still see Obama winning a close election. Demographically, the math is just too hard for Republicans right now.

Obama is starting at 247 no matter who the GOP candidate is.

http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=xLg

 

[Chumly]

There is no way that the GOP reinvents itself before 2016. Your not going to see a movement that "radically" moves to the center like the tea party did to the right. Plus romney is such a poor candidate to begin with republicans are going to think its because he wasnt pure enough

 

[AlteredBeast]

I am penning my open letter for GOP party sanity right now, perhaps I will share it here before I email it to various papers around the country. We will see if anyone publishes it in their Op-Ed sections.

 

[Black Mamba]

There is no way that the GOP reinvents itself before 2016. Your not going to see a movement that "radically" moves to the center like the tea party. Plus romney is such a poor candidate to begin with republicans are going to think its because he wasnt pure enough

I agree, I think the next 4 years we're going to see them go kicking and screaming. The reform/fracture will come from 2016-2020.

 

[worldrunover]

I disagree with this. Even if the GOP had an amazing candidate, you'd still see Obama winning a close election. Demographically, the math is just too hard for Republicans right now.

Obama is starting at 247 no matter who the GOP candidate is.

http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=xLg

Don't agree with you. What I do think is that a candidate who COULD easily beat Obama would not make it out of the GOP primary, so it would be a moot point.

 

[MetatronM]

For one thing, I believe very high rates encourage wealthy individuals to avoid paying taxes.

We're at very low rates right now compared to where they've been over the last century, and wealthy individuals still take every opportunity to avoid paying taxes. The tax rate could be 2%, and they would still try to avoid paying it. That's not even really meant to be a criticism. If there are institutionalized mechanisms that would allow you to avoid paying more money, why wouldn't you take advantage of them? That's just human nature.

Whether the tax rate is low or high is going to have relatively little influence on how willing to pay high income individuals will be.

 

[Chichikov]

Productivity will grow due to an increasingly large non-human labor force that can work 24/7 and advancements in other technology. For example, we'll probably have a near infinite supply of food by doing things like "growing" meat in labs and spitting out vegetables through futuristic 3d printing technologies.

The major problem I see going forward is how will people earn income?

Marx called it superabundance.
It's coming.
And capitalism as we know it cannot survive it.

Ideas like intellectual property were at least in some part developed as an answer to this problem (which 19th century thinkers thought is mere decades away), as a way to support a market economy in a society where scarcity is eradicated.

 

[Chumly]

I agree, I think the next 4 years we're going to see them go kicking and screaming. The reform/fracture will come from 2016-2020.

Yep they need a true Goldwater election and to get destroyed in the house/senate which is very possible in 2016.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Given the freak out occurring on the far right over Romney's recent troubles, I'm starting to wonder whether the assumption that 2016 will be a year of moderation is misguided. These people don't sound like they have any intention of going out quietly: they're going to fight Obama until the very end. Running a pure "conservative" race wouldn't change things, in fact it would probably make Romney lose even more. The problem is not his ideology, it's his inability to sell himself or his ideas

But he's running the perfect campaign!

 

[TheHeretic]

There is no way that the GOP reinvents itself before 2016. Your not going to see a movement that "radically" moves to the center like the tea party did to the right. Plus romney is such a poor candidate to begin with republicans are going to think its because he wasnt pure enough

Except that was the line with McCain as well. You can only run so many flop candidates before examining what you are doing.

I'd be amazed if they want into 2016 with the strategy they have now, since the EC practically mandates it be a devastating defeat.

 

[RDreamer]

I would tend to think if something's going to happen a big catalyst would probably provoke it, and to me Obama being re-elected is a pretty big catalyst given how polarized things are and how big of a bubble the right is living in now. I think it'll almost go down that the tea party-esque right wing, the real crazies will break off the GOP with the narrative that the establishment keeps fucking them over. The way this might happen is that I think if elected Obama will (or should anyway) prod the congress to do the things he wants. He will appeal to America and really point out what's going on. The approval rate on congress is abysmally low, and so with some help from him I think come 2014 we could see a lot of people finally break off the republican party and go democrat. At the same time I could see the tea party types that have gone batshit nuts from Obama being elected picking even more crazy types for their primaries, but instead of it actually working like it did in 2010 this time they'll lose the house and senate. Once they lose that is when, I think, some of the smarter establishment republicans will push slightly left (well, just left of the tea party anyway) to try and hit the middle while losing the tea party esque hard righters that have gone nuts. They'll feel snubbed by the party because of the loss of Romney and him not running "conservative" and because the party will now be ditching them on social issues. There'll probably be an election or two where they cause a bit of chaos and pick off some races that the Republicans would have won as them and the dems track a bit left in order to meet a sort of equilibrium.

 

[Dram]

You would have to see all the tea-partiers that got elected in 2010 voted out before anything could happen. Probably would need Mcconnell, Cantor and Boehner gone as well.

 

[The Technomancer]

But he's running the perfect campaign!

Phoenix isn't sure who he is today

 

[markatisu]

You would have to see all the tea-partiers that got elected in 2010 voted out before anything could happen. Probably would need Mcconnell, Cantor and Boehner gone as well.

Boehner is fine, its McConnell and Cantor that need to go and go fast

 

[Wray]

Marx called it superabundance.
It's coming.
And capitalism as we know it cannot survive it.

Ideas like intellectual property were at least in some part developed as an answer to this problem (which 19th century thinkers thought is mere decades away), as a way to support a market economy in a society where scarcity is eradicated.

And it's coming alot sooner than people think.

Many of my conservative friends cannot wrap their head around this when I talk about capitalism being in its death throes.

 

[Forever]

The planet has limited resources which we are set to exhaust within the century and the global population explosion shows no sign of slowing. Superabundance is a fantasy.

 

[Wray]

The planet has limited resources which we are set to exhaust within the century and the global population explosion shows no sign of slowing. Superabundance is a fantasy.

You're assuming technology wont emerge to deal and/or offset these issues completely.

 

[sc0la]

Nah, the singularity is fantasy. Not so much superabundance / post scarcity.

 

[The Librarian]

The planet has limited resources which we are set to exhaust within the century and the global population explosion shows no sign of slowing. Superabundance is a fantasy.

I thought birth rates were declining all over the world?

 

[Incognito]

after what we know of the GOP based on the last 30 years or so, when have they ever moderated themselves in order to win elections? if they lose in november, they will simply move more to the right.

 

[Forever]

You're assuming technology wont emerge to deal and/or offset these issues completely.

That's a common hand wave of the fact that this planet has too many people as it is and it will soon have too many to sustain. No technology short of interstellar travel and terraforming will offset that, and that is the realm of fantasy.

Birth rates are declining all over the world.

In developed countries, sure.

 

[Clevinger]

after what we know of the GOP based on the last 30 years or so, when have they ever moderated themselves in order to win elections? if they lose in november, they will simply move more to the right.

The only big instance I know of is Bush with immigration. But the rest of the Republicans told him to fuck off with that, so...

 

[HylianTom]

The planet has limited resources which we are set to exhaust within the century and the global population explosion shows no sign of slowing. Superabundance is a fantasy.

Pretty much. To expect infinite growth on a finite planet is.. poor arithmetic. And technology is no substitute for energy. It is not the same.

This is going to be the headline of this century, the defining story.

 

[CharlieDigital]

I thought birth rates were declining all over the world?

In most post-industrial, first world countries.

In other countries? Not so much.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Wapo/ABC Poll shows no Obama bounce

Wapo/abc tonight has O 50- R44 among RVs and 49-48 among LVs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7318ea-fb79-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

 

[Chichikov]

The planet has limited resources which we are set to exhaust within the century and the global population explosion shows no sign of slowing. Superabundance is a fantasy.

The only resource we're really running out of is fossil fuel, and it's replaceable.
Our capacity to produce food and goods EASILY scale to support the projected population of the world.

We might destroy the climate in the process, but that's a different story.

 

[Forever]

Our capacity to produce food and goods EASILY scale to support the projected population of the world.

Citation needed.

To expect infinite growth on a finite planet is.. poor arithmetic.

That's what it boils down to. People have been predicting the death of capitalism for a long time. It ain't going anywhere.

 

[Pre]

I find it absolutely fascinating how many socialists/Marxists have taken hold of a supposed singularity as a final piece of the puzzle in abolishing class structures and ushering in a true collectivist society.

 

[Forever]

I find it absolutely fascinating how many socialists/Marxists have taken hold of a supposed singularity as a final piece of the puzzle in abolishing class structures and ushering in a true collectivist society.

The right doesn't have a monopoly on ideological delusions. Thankfully these folks are mostly harmless while they wait for the arrival of the Marxist Messiah.

 

[markatisu]

Wapo/ABC Poll shows no Obama bounce

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7318ea-fb79-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

Yeah but he is already ahead 6 with Registered and 1 with Likely, so with no bounce that means either Romney lost points or Obama was already ahead. Either outcome is bad news for Romney

 

[Black Mamba]

WaPo/ABC poll is right leaning I believe. Also, bit of a small sample size with +/-4. I'm guessing it is a poll closer to the edges of the confidence interval than the middle.

 

[TacticalFox88]

This weekend on Meet the Press, Romney said “there are a number of things I like” about President Obama’s health care reform law, including the popular provision on pre-exisiting conditions. Romney’s campaign, however, began walking back his statements as soon as they left his mouth.

After the NBC interview aired, a Romney aide was quick to clarify Romney was “not proposing a federal mandate to require insurance plans to offer [the] particular features” that he suggested he supported. When further pressed on Romney’s stated support for preventing discrimination against Americans with pre-existing conditions, a campaign aide explained, “Governor Romney will ensure that discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage is prohibited.”

The aide pointed to earlier statements from Romney on the subject, explaining that Romney’s current position is exactly what he expressed at a Florida rally this summer:

Romney really is a fucking POS.

 

[Red Blaster]

The Daily Beast had a nice article on how Dubya basically fucked the GOP for a generation and as the premier reason why Obama will most likely win even with a shit economy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...rge-w-bush-will-decide-the-2012-election.html