[Wolvenbear]

I guess I was unclear in the post you quoted. I was asking you to clarify.
Until I understood your point I felt that I could not argue with it.

I still disagree that agreeing with someone else is the same as being a shameless liar.

I don't see where I called you a shameless liar, on this page, but I do believe I have done so in the past. I also see nowhere that even remotely looks like a request for clarification, so we're starting off poorly.

Nevertheless, if I post something, regardless of who the original author is, I am personally standing behind it. Since I am using it as proof of my claims, if it is wrong, I am wrong. This is pretty simple stuff. I do not see a real way you can be confused on this very basic point. Worse, when it is obviously wrong on it's face, you're ignoring error to push an obviously dishonest point. Here, when an author says "rich people make more pre-tax income, but there is no evidence of growth", he is lying, as I explained above. Whether you don't care to read the article, or you ignore obvious untruths to push your agenda, that makes you dishonest.

I do agree that your point to Rugoz is correct. However, this has little effect on the claim in the study that tax cuts on the rich increase the GDP. Increasing the GDP is the definition of "growing the economy".

If the rich made more pretax income, the GDP increased. I have already explained this, and yet you continue to persist in pushing falsehood...without so much as a counterargument. This is why I say you have a penchant for dishonesty.

Since the rest of your post seems to dance around this point, I'll simply address YOUR claim here, to end the debate.

. . . Note the word 'real', meaning adjusted for inflation. Note also the phrase 'per capita' meaning adjusted for population growth. Note the word 'significantly' meaning more than a trivial, or maybe, small way.

Inflation has never been so significant, even during the stagflation era, that year to year growth is meaningless. Moreover, if growth for the rich is significant enough to comment on, the underlying point still remains a lie. If he had said "except for the rich...." maybe I would've bitten. But he says the rich made a significant raise, which means that per capita income MUST have risen, even if no one under the top ten percent made an extra dime.

By defending this nonsensical contradiction, it IS your argument. And, since it is bizarre on its face, you are perpetuating falsehood. Especially now that it has been brought to your attention, you cannot claim ignorance for continuing to push claims that are incorrect on their face. You're trying to weasel yourself into a position where you can simultaneously advance this and disavow any responsibility for what you're advocating.

That deserves scorn

[late]

Allowing people to keep their own money is not "Redistribution", so you start from a false premise. And the fact that allowing rich people to keep more of their own money does not instantly make the poor rich does not mean that the tax cuts do not spur economic growth. And the fact that poor people do not benefit as much in actually dollars as the rich does not mean they do not benefit. Moreover, even if tax cuts do not pay for themselves, in that economic growth does not lead to higher revenues than before, this does not mean that growth does not occur.

Tax cuts, and tax cheating (which ramped up dramatically in the 80s) can distort the economy. Has distorted the economy.

This is a bit more involved than usual, so:

Price of Inequality, Stiglitz
https://www.amazon.com/Price-Inequality-Divided-Society-Endangers/dp/0393345068/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1JCYLY9LPHN2B&dchild=1&keywords=stiglitz+price+of+inequality&qid=1609110047&sprefix=stiglitz%2Caps%2C175&sr=8-1

Rise and Fall of American Growth, Gordon
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-American-Growth-Princeton/dp/0691175802/ref=sr_1_1?crid=28I4KT3TL7KB5&dchild=1&keywords=rise+and+fall+of+american+growth&qid=1609110258&sprefix=rise+and+fall+of+americ%2Caps%2C170&sr=8-1

There is a third book about taxes, covers the 80s, read it about a year ago, forgotten the title, trying to remember, will get back to you if I can find it.

[Rugoz]

If the rich made more pretax income, the GDP increased.

Nonsense, again. Am I the only one who actually read to bloody paper, or at least the intro and the conclusion?

[Steve_American]

I don't see where I called you a shameless liar, on this page, but I do believe I have done so in the past. I also see nowhere that even remotely looks like a request for clarification, so we're starting off poorly.

. . . My reply is => I quoted it and now I see that the admin. edited it in 3 places for Rule 2 violations.

Nevertheless, if I post something, regardless of who the original author is, I am personally standing behind it. Since I am using it as proof of my claims, if it is wrong, I am wrong. This is pretty simple stuff. I do not see a real way you can be confused on this very basic point. Worse, when it is obviously wrong on it's face, you're ignoring error to push an obviously dishonest point. Here, when an author says "rich people make more pre-tax income, but there is no evidence of growth", he is lying, as I explained above. Whether you don't care to read the article, or you ignore obvious untruths to push your agenda, that makes you dishonest.

If the rich made more pretax income, the GDP increased. I have already explained this, and yet you continue to persist in pushing falsehood...without so much as a counterargument. This is why I say you have a penchant for dishonesty.

Since the rest of your post seems to dance around this point, I'll simply address YOUR claim here, to end the debate.

Inflation has never been so significant, even during the stagflation era, that year to year growth is meaningless. Moreover, if growth for the rich is significant enough to comment on, the underlying point still remains a lie. If he had said "except for the rich...." maybe I would've bitten. But he says the rich made a significant raise, which means that per capita income MUST have risen, even if no one under the top ten percent made an extra dime.

By defending this nonsensical contradiction, it IS your argument. And, since it is bizarre on its face, you are perpetuating falsehood. Especially now that it has been brought to your attention, you cannot claim ignorance for continuing to push claims that are incorrect on their face. You're trying to weasel yourself into a position where you can simultaneously advance this and disavow any responsibility for what you're advocating.

That deserves scorn

OK, now I understand your point.

It does seem strange.

The private sector consists of a few groups.
1] The rich.
2] The well off.
3] Everyone else.
4] All corps.

So, one way for the rich to have more income while the well off and everyone else have zero income changes would be for the corps. to have had an income drop.
___________________________.________________________________________

Further, per papita means that they are correcting for population growth.

So, another way for the rich to have more income while the per capita GDP stayed the same would be for the population to have grown (as it certainly has for every year, at least, since 1950).

I'm not an economist so I don't normally try to read scholarly econ. papers.
.

[Wolvenbear]

OK, now I understand your point.

It does seem strange.

The private sector consists of a few groups.
1] The rich.
2] The well off.
3] Everyone else.
4] All corps.

So, one way for the rich to have more income while the well off and everyone else have zero income changes would be for the corps. to have had an income drop.
___________________________.________________________________________

Further, per papita means that they are correcting for population growth.

So, another way for the rich to have more income while the per capita GDP stayed the same would be for the population to have grown (as it certainly has for every year, at least, since 1950).

I'm not an economist so I don't normally try to read scholarly econ. papers.
.

I'm still trying to avoid facts and operate simply with the data you gave me. Since the data you gave me says that there was no drop, that explanation is inconsistent with what you have already shown. Of course all of the conclusions he draws are contradictory, meaning that they're not based on real data, or are deliberate misrepresentations of that data. So, we're back to square one.

The per capita income argument also doesn't work, because the per capita is based on earners, not total population. So new babies being born would not affect that, and new workers, by the data you gave me, were making the same wage as the year before. Moreover, the idea that a years worth of workers would significantly shift the data is suspect.

If you don't understand economics, and don't keep up on the subject, why are you trying to debate it? "I have no idea what I'm talking about, but still expect my opinion to be taken as valid." I could almost respect this, except your admission means you have been trying to influence a debate without any command of the subject matter. And, despite knowing nothing of the matter, you continue to act like those who DO know what they're talking about are dishonest.

I don't debate astrophysics or quantum theory because I have only a passing knowledge of it. If your knowledge of economics is similarly limited, you shouldn't be trying to mislead others through your ignorance.

Nonsense, again. Am I the only one who actually read to bloody paper, or at least the intro and the conclusion?

So, in other words, you didn't "read the bloody paper" at all? (I read the first and last paragraph!) And, as I keep pointing out, you have no idea what the heck you're talking about?

If it's such nonsense, explain how it is possible that no one's income shrank (even adjusting for inflation), and the top 10% all say increases in income well beyond inflation if the economy didn't grow. Of course, it's not possible. But, since you're an economic illiterate, you'll just keep insisting you're right without any sort of real argument.

[Steve_American]

...snip...

If it's such nonsense, explain how it is possible that no one's income shrank (even adjusting for inflation), and the top 10% all say increases in income well beyond inflation if the economy didn't grow. Of course, it's not possible. But, since you're an economic illiterate, you'll just keep insisting you're right without any sort of real argument.

I'm not an economist here means I have not read much by MS economists. I don't want to pollute my memory with nonsense.

[I quote again] 1. “major tax cuts for the rich increase the top 1% share of pre-tax national income in the years following the reform … The magnitude of the effect is sizeable; on average, each major reform leads to a rise in top 1% share of pre-tax national income of 0.8 percentage points.” [/quote]
. . . Here it doesn't say real income, but it would not matter much if both the top 1% and the bottom 99% were changed or not, because both would be changed about the identical amount.
. . . Also, he changed the "top 1%" to "top 10%", which is a very big change.

So, you read point #1 as saying that 0.8% is "well beyond" inflation. They claimed that the "magnitude of the effect is sizeable", not that it was 'well beyond' anything.
. . . Note that they are using pre-tax income. I *know* that after the tax cuts their after-tax percentage of national income grew more than 0.8%.

So, if (as I said could happen) the corps. got 0.8% less of the national income, then it would be enough to make everyone else's percentage of national income *not* change much.
. . . Because the 1% own most of the corps'. shares of stock the 1% could have just decided to take more income out of their corps. which made the corps'. income drop as much as the 1%'s income rose.
.

[Rugoz]

So, in other words, you didn't "read the bloody paper" at all? (I read the first and last paragraph!) And, as I keep pointing out, you have no idea what the heck you're talking about?

If it's such nonsense, explain how it is possible that no one's income shrank (even adjusting for inflation), and the top 10% all say increases in income well beyond inflation if the economy didn't grow. Of course, it's not possible. But, since you're an economic illiterate, you'll just keep insisting you're right without any sort of real argument.

I you read the intro and conclusion of the paper you wouldn't ask such stupid questions. To the extent the income of the 1% is known properly, and the change in pre-tax income is not due to different declaration (i.e. tax avoidance/shifting), its because the 1% have increased their share of the total. The whole point of the paper is that the tax cuts had no effect on GDP (i.e. total income) but instead just increased the income share of the 1%. You can criticize their methodology of course, it's only a working paper after all, but first you have to understand wtf they're doing.

[Wolvenbear]

I'm not an economist here means I have not read much by MS economists. I don't want to pollute my memory with nonsense.

Yet, this is the problem. You have no idea what you are talking about. By your admission, you are too lazy to do research or "pollute your memory" with facts, but you expect to be taken seriously.

This leads to you posting incorrect information, again and again, and then, when obvious errors are pointed out to you, saying "it's beyond me" but insisting you're right anyway.

Here's a better idea. If you don't know what you're talking about, and, more importantly, can't be bothered to learn...shut up and stop trying to influence the debate.

I you read the intro and conclusion of the paper you wouldn't ask such stupid questions. To the extent the income of the 1% is known properly, and the change in pre-tax income is not due to different declaration (i.e. tax avoidance/shifting), its because the 1% have increased their share of the total. The whole point of the paper is that the tax cuts had no effect on GDP (i.e. total income) but instead just increased the income share of the 1%. You can criticize their methodology of course, it's only a working paper after all, but first you have to understand wtf they're doing.

If you are going to criticize someone for lack of reading comprehension, you should probably be able to understand what they wrote. I didn't read the intro and conclusion to the paper...I read the whole thing, and mocked someone else for reading JUST the first and last paragraphs.

Had you read the actual paper, you'd understand why my question was not only a good one, but that the defense you've offered is a bad one. The paper does not claim that there was a difference in reporting. It simply says that GDP was unaffected, but the RICH GOT RICHER BEFORE TAXES ARE CONSIDERED. This is impossible unless everyone else got poorer (which the paper explicitly states is untrue). Thus, the paper is inherently self-contradictory and unworthy of credit.

If everyone made more pre-tax money, and if inflation didn't cancel all of it out, then GDP rose. Anyone who claims otherwise has no idea how anything works.

[Steve_American]

Yet, this is the problem. You have no idea what you are talking about. By your admission, you are too lazy to do research or "pollute your memory" with facts, but you expect to be taken seriously.

This leads to you posting incorrect information, again and again, and then, when obvious errors are pointed out to you, saying "it's beyond me" but insisting you're right anyway.

Here's a better idea. If you don't know what you're talking about, and, more importantly, can't be bothered to learn...shut up and stop trying to influence the debate.



If you are going to criticize someone for lack of reading comprehension, you should probably be able to understand what they wrote. I didn't read the intro and conclusion to the paper...I read the whole thing, and mocked someone else for reading JUST the first and last paragraphs.

Had you read the actual paper, you'd understand why my question was not only a good one, but that the defense you've offered is a bad one. The paper does not claim that there was a difference in reporting. It simply says that GDP was unaffected, but the RICH GOT RICHER BEFORE TAXES ARE CONSIDERED. This is impossible unless everyone else got poorer (which the paper explicitly states is untrue). Thus, the paper is inherently self-contradictory and unworthy of credit.

If everyone made more pre-tax money, and if inflation didn't cancel all of it out, then GDP rose. Anyone who claims otherwise has no idea how anything works.

Yes, I expect some open minded people to take me seriously.

In reply to the part I highlighted =>
I said that the Private sector of the economy consists of several parts and he JUST ignored that.

The Private Sector (or even better the Non-Gov Sector) has the following parts.
1] Foreigners.
2] The rich people.
3] The Middle-class.
4] The Lowe-class or working class.
5] All the corporations.

I think that it is possible for the #3 and #4 parts to stay close to 'no change', and have the #2 part get 0.8% more income that comes from either parts #1 or #5.
. . . The paper said the rich got 0.8% more income, and it said that this is significant, ... but I think 0.8% is not a 'large' increase. Because it is not large it is possible that it came from the shares of income increases of foreigners or corps .

I already tried to say this and he just ignored it. He just assumed that there are just 3 groups of people in the Non-Gov. Sector (from which incomes can be shifted), when there are 5 groups. I'll let the Lurkers decide who is being wrong here.

[late]

Hasn't trickle down been disproven for at least 2 decades?

It was never part of mainstream economics.

[SueDeNîmes]

It simply says that GDP was unaffected, but the RICH GOT RICHER BEFORE TAXES ARE CONSIDERED. This is impossible unless everyone else got poorer (which the paper explicitly states is untrue). Thus, the paper is inherently self-contradictory and unworthy of credit.

It's impossible if GDP growth stops altogether, but perfectly possible if - as the paper actually says - "such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth and unemployment." Positive economic growth is the norm; what matters is the growth rate. Unfortunately, humans aren't very good with dynamic quantities and confuse change in the rate of change with change in quantity - as you appear to have done. It's why scientists use calculus.

[late]

It's impossible if GDP growth stops altogether, but perfectly possible if - as the paper actually says - "such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth and unemployment." Positive economic growth is the norm; what matters is the growth rate. Unfortunately, humans aren't very good with dynamic quantities and confuse change in the rate of change with change in quantity - as you appear to have done. It's why scientists use calculus.

Nicely done.

[Rugoz]

This is impossible unless everyone else got poorer (which the paper explicitly states is untrue). Thus, the paper is inherently self-contradictory and unworthy of credit.

They say the tax cuts had no effect on GDP (=total income), but they increased the income of the 1%. Hence if follows logically that the 99% did get poorer as a consequence of the tax cuts.

If they explicitly say everyone else didn't get poorer as a result of the cuts, it would be contradictory. Point me to the part where they say this.

[Wolvenbear]

Yes, I expect some open minded people to take me seriously.

Then stop admitting you have no idea what you are talking about and are too Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation to bother learning.

I think that it is possible for the #3 and #4 parts to stay close to 'no change', and have the #2 part get 0.8% more income that comes from either parts #1 or #5.
. . . The paper said the rich got 0.8% more income, and it said that this is significant, ... but I think 0.8% is not a 'large' increase. Because it is not large it is possible that it came from the shares of income increases of foreigners or corps .

I already tried to say this and he just ignored it. He just assumed that there are just 3 groups of people in the Non-Gov. Sector (from which incomes can be shifted), when there are 5 groups. I'll let the Lurkers decide who is being wrong here.

Then, quite frankly, you are an economic illiterate. It is impossible for the overall pie to grow beyond inflation, no one's take to decrease...but the value of the pie to not grow. You don't get basic math, but you criticize others. Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation.

It's impossible if GDP growth stops altogether, but perfectly possible if - as the paper actually says - "such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth and unemployment." Positive economic growth is the norm; what matters is the growth rate. Unfortunately, humans aren't very good with dynamic quantities and confuse change in the rate of change with change in quantity - as you appear to have done. It's why scientists use calculus.

The paper concludes that AFTER admitting that the rich got significant gains AFTER inflation and no party suffered an after inflation loss. Thus, the paper's conclusion is at odds with the facts it presents. "Everyone made more or the same money, but there was no growth" is a ridiculous claim.

They say the tax cuts had no effect on GDP (=total income), but they increased the income of the 1%. Hence if follows logically that the 99% did get poorer as a consequence of the tax cuts.

If they explicitly say everyone else didn't get poorer as a result of the cuts, it would be contradictory. Point me to the part where they say this.

It depresses me that someone can accurately relate the summary of the study, but then echo the incorrect conclusion. If the rich made more money, and the poor did not make less, then the GDP went up.

[Steve_American]

...snip the quotes he quoted...

Then stop admitting you have no idea what you are talking about and are too lazy and stupid to bother learning.
...snip the quotes he quoted...
Then, quite frankly, you are an economic illiterate. It is impossible for the overall pie to grow beyond inflation, no one's take to decrease...but the value of the pie to not grow. You don't get basic math, but you criticize others. What a moron.
...snip the quotes he quoted...
The paper concludes that AFTER admitting that the rich got significant gains AFTER inflation and no party suffered an after inflation loss. Thus, the paper's conclusion is at odds with the facts it presents. "Everyone made more or the same money, but there was no growth" is a ridiculous claim.
...snip the quotes he quoted...
It depresses me that someone can accurately relate the summary of the study, but then echo the incorrect conclusion. If the rich made more money, and the poor did not make less, then the GDP went up.

Some people don't like being called a moron.

You didn't refute my reply. You just restated your original claim.

You are right, I didn't read the paper.
I just replied to your argument.
You seemed to be saying that it is impossible for the working and middle classes to not gain or lose real income, for the GDP to not change much and to have the rich gain 0.8% more real income. [Here 'real income' means after it's adjusted for inflation.]

I pointed out the there are more groups in the economy than just those 3 classes of people. That there are Corporations in the US and there is some interaction with the rest of the world. It is possible AFAIK for part of the US GDP to be bled off to the rest of the world, but I'm not sure about that. I am sure that Corps. in the US could have lost about 1% of income and this would explain where the 0.8% increase for the rich came from.

Others pointed out (if I understand them) that we could also assume that the economy is growing and the thing being studied (the effect of tax cuts for the rich) didn't change the rate off that growth enough to matter. Since the conclusion was that 'there was little effect on the GDP', this can be understood as not changing the rate of growth of GDP much.

Either way, you could be wrong with your claim that it is self-evidently nuts for the paper to come to the conclusion it came to.
.

[Rugoz]

It depresses me that someone can accurately relate the summary of the study, but then echo the incorrect conclusion. If the rich made more money, and the poor did not make less, then the GDP went up.

Jeez, are you fucking dense?

They clearly say in the conclusions that the tax cuts increase inequality (the income share of the top 1%) while not increasing GDP (total income). They also suggest more aggressive bargaining as a reason for the increase of the rich's income at the detriment of those lower in the income distribution.

[SueDeNîmes]

It's impossible if GDP growth stops altogether, but perfectly possible if - as the paper actually says - "such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth and unemployment." Positive economic growth is the norm; what matters is the growth rate. Unfortunately, humans aren't very good with dynamic quantities and confuse change in the rate of change with change in quantity - as you appear to have done. It's why scientists use calculus.

The paper concludes that AFTER admitting that the rich got significant gains AFTER inflation and no party suffered an after inflation loss. Thus, the paper's conclusion is at odds with the facts it presents. "Everyone made more or the same money, but there was no growth" is a ridiculous claim.

Which isn't what the paper claims.

'No effect on growth' does not mean 'no growth'

If something has no effect on a car's speed, it doesn't mean the car stops.

Say the economy is growing at some average percentage per year. Then something changes the distribution so that the gains go entirely or increasingly to a few. The rest aren't worse off than they were before the change, but worse off than they would have been, had the change not occurred.

It's an easy and common mistake to make, if that helps.

[Wulfschilde]

These posts are a joke, "trickle down" has literally been working for decades to make the most materially prosperous economies in history and the things they're compared to are literally always fantasies.

[Wolvenbear]

You are right, I didn't read the paper.

Then, I'm sorry, why are you replying?

This is literally the problem with politics today. The vast majority of people say "I am too lazy to actually learn what I am talking about, but take my opinion seriously anyways." That's all the worse here where you post a link THAT YOU HAVEN'T READ, and then wonder why people call you on it.

Stop.

Jeez, are you fucking dense?

They clearly say in the conclusions that the tax cuts increase inequality (the income share of the top 1%) while not increasing GDP (total income). They also suggest more aggressive bargaining as a reason for the increase of the rich's income at the detriment of those lower in the income distribution.

THIS ISN'T POSSIBLE.

It is impossible to not have growth if everyone makes the same OR MORE money. Forget economics, this is common frigging sense. When a study says that everyone is making the same amount of money, except for the rich, who are making more...it is lying. This ISN'T possible.

[Steve_American]

Which isn't what the paper claims.

'No effect on growth' does not mean 'no growth'

If something has no effect on a car's speed, it doesn't mean the car stops.

Say the economy is growing at some average percentage per year. Then something changes the distribution so that the gains go entirely or increasingly to a few. The rest aren't worse off than they were before the change, but worse off than they would have been, had the change not occurred.

It's an easy and common mistake to make, if that helps.

Sue and the lurkers.
He doesn't grok either your explanation or mine.
He just ignores both of them.
He doesn't try to refute them at all.
He just keeps saying he is right.

It is useless too talk to such people.
.