[FoRK] How far will the dollar fall? (was: Demonizing the hedge funds...)

geege schuman <geege4 at gmail.com> on Tue Apr 22 13:06:11 PDT 2008

I'm just not getting it.  Is the group that profits from investments in
Lockheed (for instance) the same group that pays for the treatment of a
wounded soldier?  Is it proportional (progressive) across tax brackets or is
the lower tax bracket actually paying more, net, during war time?

G

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Luis Villa <luis at tieguy.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
> >
> >  On Apr 19, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > BTW, one reason you don't hear "professional economists" talk much
> about
> > > > e.g. the impact of political leadership on the economy is that none
> of
> > their
> > > > models comprehend behavioral factors like that particularly well if
> at
> > all.
> > > > And even if they did, measuring quantities like that would be
> fiendishly
> > > > difficult.  So the fact that they aren't "blaming Bush" is only
> because
> > in
> > > > doing so they'd have to toss out or fight for years to amend their
> > precious
> > > > models.  Says more about the practice of economics than it does
> about
> > any
> > > > impact Bush may or may not have had.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is definitely true; in most cases (Bush I, Clinton I) it is hard
> > > to give blame or credit in large part because the impact is so small
> > > and can't be modeled well.
> > >
> >
> >  I agree (obviously, as you're agreeing with me) that the impact can't
> be
> > modeled well (using standard models) but that's precisely why we ---
> > Krugman, you, me, Kevin, etc. --- can't say with any authority that the
> > impact is large, small, or whatever.
>
> Ah. I'm not saying that the economic impact is small; I'm saying, with
> my political science hat on, that the impact of a particular president
> on the actions of government is typically small; or at least mediated
> through so many different levers and filters that it is reasonably
> correct to say that it is small.
>
> This president is an outlier in that sense- his impact has been
> unusually large on the actions of government; partially because of the
> discipline of his team; partially because of the unusual passivity of
> Congress; partially because of the 'unitary executive' theory that has
> bypassed so many checks and balances.
>
> So the economists can debate whether or not the actions of the
> government have lead to the current economic situation, but the
> political scientists will agree (very unusually) that the actions of
> the president have caused the actions of the government.
>
> Luis (probably still not being clear, but sort of in a hurry today)
>
> Now, you econ types can argue whether the actions of the government
> have had an impact on the state of the economy.
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>

More information about the FoRK mailing list