Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
What the Reagan Revolution did was to move America toward lower, flatter tax rates, sound money, freer trade and less regulation. The key to Reaganomics was to change people’s behavior with respect to working, investing and producing. To do this, personal income tax rates not only decreased significantly, but they were also indexed for inflation in 1985. The highest tax rate on “unearned” (i.e., non-wage) income dropped to 28% from 70%. The corporate tax rate also fell to 34% from 46%. And tax brackets were pushed out, so that taxpayers wouldn’t cross the threshold until their incomes were far higher.
Changing tax rates changed behavior, and changed behavior affected tax revenues. Reagan understood that lowering tax rates led to static revenue losses. But he also understood that lowering tax rates also increased taxable income, whether by increasing output or by causing less use of tax shelters and less tax cheating.
Moreover, Reagan knew from personal experience in making movies that once he was in the highest tax bracket, he’d stop making movies for the rest of the year. In other words, a lower tax rate could increase revenues. And so it was with his tax cuts. The highest 1% of income earners paid more in taxes as a share of GDP in 1988 at lower tax rates than they had in 1980 at higher tax rates. To Reagan, what’s been called the “Laffer Curve” (a concept that originated centuries ago and which I had been using without the name in my classes at the University of Chicago) was pure common sense.
:
The true lesson to be learned from the Reagan presidency is that good economics isn’t Republican or Democrat, right-wing or left-wing, liberal or conservative. It’s simply good economics. President Barack Obama should take heed and not limit his vision while seeking a workable solution to America’s tragically high unemployment rate.
There has been an effort this month to compare Obama to Reagan. After this week, though, due to events on the foreign policy front Obama is looking much more like Carter. What concerns me is, He might actually have a shot at that second term if the moderates start to say to themselves, “Conservatives compare Him to Carter and liberals compare Him to Reagan…He must be right in between those two and with all the arguing going on lately, maybe that’s exactly what we need.”
They wouldn’t, would they? Yes they would. Moderates get to be moderates through a desire to have an influence on things that outpaces their desire to learn.
The message that needs to get out, I think, is that you’re not going to have a Reagan-like period of economic growth under the policies of a liberal because it simply isn’t possible. Liberal define success as failure. If you’re rich this year but you were poor last year, the conservative will take your story as proof that the policies are working as intended. Recall Laffer’s sign-off, that good economics are just plain good economics. The liberal, meanwhile, will call you a “special interest” who needs to give back something to “the community” so we can use it to help “working families.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[…] How Wars Are Won Stop the Hate! How the New York Times Sees the Fork in the Road The Trailer Reaganomics: What We Learned On Foreign Policy Civility, Meet Equality Phil Weighs In on That “Hit Every Note” Crap […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 02/13/2011 @ 08:56