----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 10:01 PM Subject: Re: Plus the NY Times Re: The Washington Post Editorial on Iraq
> > Yes, but by what model? If what you say is true, then investors were > choosing not to realize capital gains because of high capital gains tax > rates. Following the reduction in rates, these investors then "cash out" > producing a one-off boost in capital gains revenues. Fair enough. That cash out happened in 98 and 99. > This model, however provides no scenario in which capital gains revenues > spike two years after the cuts. I found better numbers later. And yes, I accidentally included '92, which I shouldn't have. But, you claimed that the difference in capital gains was the whole difference in the 500 billion dollar swing between 2000 and 2003. > >I found that, by the OMB numbers, the average capital gains revenue for > >Clinton was 64 billion...which was more than I guessed from Cato. The > >projected average for Bush's first 2 years was 62.5 billion. > > So do all of your so-called "scientists" play as fast and loose with > Statistics as you do? I usually give my methodology, so I can be checked. When I make a mistake, I acknowledge it. > This reminds me of how you consistently used to > include the last year of Carter in Reagan's GDP numbers. No, I compared 88 to 80. Carter's last year was the baseline. > As far as I know, nobody has suggested that Clinton ran a surplus all eight > years of his term. I certainly haven't, but maybe you know somebody who > has..... No, but he improved on the previous year every year. > As such, it is completely disingenuous to average Clinton's capital gains > over all eight years of his term, especially during those years in which > Clinton was predicting annual budget deficits of between $200bil - $280bil > over the next ten years (the standard term of official budget forecasts.) And so, he was being conservative. Its always better to be pessimistic and renormalize in an optimistic manner. Lets look at 2000 vs. 2002. I'll be willing to accept that about 15% of the 400 billion change from surplus to deficit was a loss of capital gains. But, you claimed that it was all. And, this year we'll be going back to real Bush deficits...and he wants a tax cut for his rich friends? > Anyhow, my argument is that Clinton managed surpluses in large part because > of a stock market bubble. I am sure that the revenues from the > non-surplus years brings Clinton's average done substantially. Moreover, > I suspect (but am too tired to look up right now), that the stock market > bubble affected other tax revenues besides capital gains, particularly > high-income tax returns..... but maybe I shouldn't mention that until I can > think that through. The bottom line is that Clinton had a broad based boom. Reagan and Bush and Bush's GDP increase was focus on the wealthiest 5%. I know they honestly believe that the only reason people aren't rich is that they don't work hard, but I don't buy that. > > Still, I think that it is worth returning the debate to your initial > assessment, which you have yet to retract, that "Clinton showed the right > balance of taxes and spending." Yet, Clinton's surpluses were only > possible because Republicans defeated "Hillarycare." Its easy to play what if games. The bottom line is that everyone pays for folks who are not insured. > >> Yeah, Johnson and Carter were both Economic Superstars, right? > > > >A very interesting question, and I'm glad you asked it. Let me quote the > >numbers for the average GDP improvement from the last year of the previous > >administration to the last year of the administration in question. > > > >(numbers are from the bea) > > > >Johnson 5.2% > >Carter 3.3% > >Reagan 3.3% > >Bush 2.0% > >Clinton 4.3% > > > >So, I'll admit that, for overall GDP Carter was no better than Reagan, and > >not much better than Bush. He definitely was a low performance democrat. > > Yes, but GDP is hardly the only economic story.... as you remind me every > time you bring up "inequality." There are other factors involved in > economic success besides producing GDP growth, and to introduce a quote of > my own, "the economy got so bad under Carter, they had to invent a new > number - the misery index - to describe just how bad it was." ROTFLMAO. I read about the misery index in an economics textbook in 1974. Anyways, that's just good propaganda. The numbers I gave were inflation adjusted. Yes, I did make a mistake in averaging, and I acknowledged it. What is your measure of a good economy. It isn't deficits; it isn't GDP, it isn't poverty. It is how well the top 5% is doing? Well, I'll admit, by that criterion, the Republicans do almost as well as the Democrats. > And of course, by these numbers, every US President should clearly become > students of Johnsonomics - yet serious economic analysts remember what the > "Let's Have Both Guns AND Butter" policy brought us. He made mistakes, but not as bad as the ones Reagan made. You know, poverty still went down on his shift. It went up on Reagan's. > >For example, the median family income rose only 4% from 80 to 92. The top > >5% income, on the other hand, rose 31% during that period. The basis of > >the economic view of the Republicans is that the rich are the driving force > >in the economy. Thus, focusing policy on what improves their income is the > >best thing a government can do. It hasn't worked in the last 80 years, but > >it is still being pushed. That is, btw, a good indication that economics > >is not a science. That doesn't happen in the sciences. > > Of course not, after all, given your definition of Science=Physics, and > that you continually try to create post facto definitions of "science" to > eliminate those disciplines that you choose to belittle. No, physics is not the only science, it is merely the paradigm science. > Yeah, your so-called-science has never done anything wrong for 80 years. Straight? Nah. There is a lot of speculation on the Unified Field Theory, but no one claims to know what's right. John, not everything worthwhile is a science. I love philosophy, even did graduate work in it, but its no science. > And yet, this indication would preclude "evolutionary biology" from being a > science, given that so many people apparently are not yet convinced of > evolution. How many research biologists believe that evolution is an invalid scientific theory? > And of course, that presumes that your definitive statements are accurate - > of which I am hardly convinced. After all, have experiments that have > conclusively eliminated all other exogenous factors to the policy been > conducted? That's why it's not a science. I'll admit that I cannot prove my point. But, I'd bet money the next time trickle down economics is tried, the economy will do worse. I've already done a Monte Carlo model of it. > Indeed, your have based your conclusion on a subjective value judgment > about what is good for society. Yet, the science of Positive Economics > simply seeks to understand why and how things happen.... not make value > judgments. No, part of science is its predictive value. Given the fact that I had a lot of well trained folks in the field of economics tell me that I was a fool to not invest heavily in the stock market in early 2000.... > Lastly, I'm curious if your data about median income is longitudinal or > cross-sectional in nature. Given that the US was (and is) experiencing a > wave of immigration over that time period that outstrips even the Ellis > Island years, and that these immigrants are very poor - I would be shocked > if this did not have a significant impact upon that data. We can check for that by looking at the white and black population, since the change in the number of immigrants is less than the change in the number of Hispanic immigrants. We find, not surprisingly, that whites do better than the overall population. But, the median income (actually the mean income of the middle 20%, but they should be fairly close) of white families increased only 6.7% from '80 (Carter's last year) to '92 (Bush's last year). The mean income of the top 5% increased 36%. > But then again, as long as this isn't science, why be bothered by facts, > right Dan? No, facts are useful even when one is not doing science. But in physics, arguments about the validity of quantum mechanics takes place between crackpots and scientists, not scientists. There have been only 3 paradigms in 3000 years. I know in sociology, a "social science" one typically has more than 1 paradigm developed every month. The fact that respected economists can believe in very different theories with no one really being a crackpot is an indication that economics is not a science. Look, most of what I do for a living isn't science. Engineering is an art as much as a science. One does science, and then one does something else, knowing full well that the problem is to complex to be treated as simply a scientific problem. I still like what I do. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
