Final Nail in Trickle-Down Coffin

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2014 3:55 PM GMT
    NYT: There’s now growing evidence for a new view — Doesn’t taxing the rich and helping the poor reduce the incentive to make money? Well, yes, but incentives aren’t the only thing that matters for economic growth. Opportunity is also crucial.

    Consider, for example, what we know about food stamps, perennially targeted by conservatives who claim that they reduce the incentive to work. The historical evidence suggests that Americans who had access to food stamps when they were children grew up to be healthier and more productive than those who didn’t, which means that they made a bigger economic contribution. The purpose of the food stamp program was to reduce misery, but it’s a good guess that the program was also good for American economic growth.

    Will the new view of inequality change our political debate? It should. Being nice to the wealthy and cruel to the poor is not, it turns out, the key to economic growth. On the contrary, making our economy fairer would also make it richer. Rest in peace, trickle-down.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/opinion/paul-krugman-inequality-is-a-drag.html?_r=0
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2014 4:53 PM GMT
    woodsmen saidNYT: There’s now growing evidence for a new view — Doesn’t taxing the rich and helping the poor reduce the incentive to make money? Well, yes, but incentives aren’t the only thing that matters for economic growth. Opportunity is also crucial.

    Consider, for example, what we know about food stamps, perennially targeted by conservatives who claim that they reduce the incentive to work. The historical evidence suggests that Americans who had access to food stamps when they were children grew up to be healthier and more productive than those who didn’t, which means that they made a bigger economic contribution. The purpose of the food stamp program was to reduce misery, but it’s a good guess that the program was also good for American economic growth.

    Will the new view of inequality change our political debate? It should. Being nice to the wealthy and cruel to the poor is not, it turns out, the key to economic growth. On the contrary, making our economy fairer would also make it richer. Rest in peace, trickle-down.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/opinion/paul-krugman-inequality-is-a-drag.html?_r=0


    Ah. Controversial NYT columnist and former Enron Economic advisor, Paul Krugman.

    He just left Princeton under a cloud:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2014/07/14/is-paul-krugman-leaving-princeton-in-quiet-disgrace/
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4432

    Aug 08, 2014 5:19 PM GMT
    rkyjockdn said
    woodsmen saidNYT: There’s now growing evidence for a new view — Doesn’t taxing the rich and helping the poor reduce the incentive to make money? Well, yes, but incentives aren’t the only thing that matters for economic growth. Opportunity is also crucial.

    Consider, for example, what we know about food stamps, perennially targeted by conservatives who claim that they reduce the incentive to work. The historical evidence suggests that Americans who had access to food stamps when they were children grew up to be healthier and more productive than those who didn’t, which means that they made a bigger economic contribution. The purpose of the food stamp program was to reduce misery, but it’s a good guess that the program was also good for American economic growth.

    Will the new view of inequality change our political debate? It should. Being nice to the wealthy and cruel to the poor is not, it turns out, the key to economic growth. On the contrary, making our economy fairer would also make it richer. Rest in peace, trickle-down.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/opinion/paul-krugman-inequality-is-a-drag.html?_r=0


    Ah. Controversial NYT columnist and former Enron Economic advisor, Paul Krugman.

    He just left Princeton under a cloud:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2014/07/14/is-paul-krugman-leaving-princeton-in-quiet-disgrace/

    Because Volcker said so? Bullshit. Volcker was Reagan's guy at the FED and endorsed trickledown. And tax cuts for the rich. And giant deficit spending under Reagan. Even the author, the inventor, of trickledown, David Stockman, agrees it was voodoo economics. Volcker is in the pocket of the Wall Street Journal. Literally. Krugman won the Nobel Prize in Economics. Krugman's thesis is that negative inflation, deflation, is worse than slight inflation and slight inflation has a positive value in that it encourages investment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2014 6:21 PM GMT
    Destinharbor said
    rkyjockdn said
    woodsmen saidNYT: There’s now growing evidence for a new view — Doesn’t taxing the rich and helping the poor reduce the incentive to make money? Well, yes, but incentives aren’t the only thing that matters for economic growth. Opportunity is also crucial.

    Consider, for example, what we know about food stamps, perennially targeted by conservatives who claim that they reduce the incentive to work. The historical evidence suggests that Americans who had access to food stamps when they were children grew up to be healthier and more productive than those who didn’t, which means that they made a bigger economic contribution. The purpose of the food stamp program was to reduce misery, but it’s a good guess that the program was also good for American economic growth.

    Will the new view of inequality change our political debate? It should. Being nice to the wealthy and cruel to the poor is not, it turns out, the key to economic growth. On the contrary, making our economy fairer would also make it richer. Rest in peace, trickle-down.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/opinion/paul-krugman-inequality-is-a-drag.html?_r=0


    Ah. Controversial NYT columnist and former Enron Economic advisor, Paul Krugman.

    He just left Princeton under a cloud:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2014/07/14/is-paul-krugman-leaving-princeton-in-quiet-disgrace/

    Because Volcker said so? Bullshit. Volcker was Reagan's guy at the FED and endorsed trickledown. And tax cuts for the rich. And giant deficit spending under Reagan. Even the author, the inventor, of trickledown, David Stockman, agrees it was voodoo economics. Volcker is in the pocket of the Wall Street Journal. Literally. Krugman won the Nobel Prize in Economics. Krugman's thesis is that negative inflation, deflation, is worse than slight inflation and slight inflation has a positive value in that it encourages investment.


    If it were only Volker, you might have a point. Krugman has taken a beating from many other economists, and as a partisan hack for the NYT, his credibility suffers.

    I place far more credibility on Forbes and financial publications than I do the NYT. It's simply too partisan.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2014 6:37 PM GMT
    ^ The author of the Forbes rumor piece on Krugman:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/

    d685a39d875f592f7cac57ce88e0a111?s=136&d

    The opinions here expressed strictly are my own. I serve as senior advisor, economics, for American Principles in Action and advisor to and editor of the Lehrman Institute's The Gold Standard Now. I was a junior official in the Reagan White House; and a member of the original Supply Side movement.

    Really impressive.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Aug 08, 2014 6:43 PM GMT
    All economics is political. Finance is math (and luck). But economics is just political bullshit by whatever name you wish to describe it.