Re: Dickens on the Laffer Curve

[AdmrlLocke]

In a message dated 4/23/05 4:42:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Peter C. McCluskey wrote:

> Mancur Olson claims in his book Power and Prosperity that the
> marginal income tax rate was effectively zero. The effective taxes
> were near 100% of what a typical worker in any given position could
> produce, but workers producing more than expected kept all the
> unexpected wealth. That created stronger incentives on each person to
> work hard than in the west, strong incentives to prevent others from
> working hard, and some incentives for each industry to deceive the
> system about what a typical worker can produce. There were few
> problems with the total amount of economic activity under Stalin. The
> problems were with the goals which that activity satisfied.

Much as I admire Olson, this is crazy.  Collectivization didn't just
costlessly move resources from agriculture to industry/military
production.  There was an enormous deadweight cost in reduced production
*per farmer*.  Not to mention massive destruction of human capital -
i.e. death.  He has a slightly better case for industry - Stalin did
firmly back unequal pay.  But a 0% marginal tax rate cuts against
everything I've ever read about Soviet economics under Stalin.

I'd been wondering how to express the very same thoughts--I do admire Oslon a great deal, and I do find the idea crazy.  Is it possible he was employing irony?