Essential Economics for Politicians

xav10 said:
They don't care. They speak from the gut, not the brain. Their gut tells them that immigrants and taxes and minorities are screwing them over and if we throw out those types and get back to being "politically incorrect" and helping out the wealthy and the large corporations, then they'll be safer and their wages will go up and we will have more jobs. It's instinctual. They are not interested in any factual underpinnings or historical evidence of whether their beliefs are the correct solution or not. Emotions are more powerful than intellect...
Click to expand...
It starts in their gut alright. It starts with the most basic of human emotions, fear, they are biologically more prone to respond irrationally to fear.

Peer-reviewed research shows that conservatives are more sensitive to threat. While this threat-bias can distort reality, fuel irrational fears, and make one more vulnerable to fear-mongering politicians, it could also promote hyper vigilance, perhaps making one better prepared to handle an immediate threat.

1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative
2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threat
3. Conservatives fear new experiences
4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...xiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes
 
Hüsker Dü said:
Sorry you don't understand how that works, or how anything works judging from your posting history. Besides the Republican caused recessions we've been through and the attempts at "trickledown economics" that have stifled the economy over the last 30+ years I've done fine . . . the $2? That was scale, on the check, I've always made over scale and unlike you have invested well. Sorry things haven't worked out for you and that you have become so bitter.
Click to expand...


Hey Mr Sad Sack.....you work for a wage. That's your limit.
Anyone who runs a business works for a profit....
You can tell us you invest, you save your nuts, whatever you want...
Good for your. But YOU do NOT dictate your wage.
Your UNION does.
I on the other hand I control my destiny and my profitability...
I can expand and make as much as I want or I can stay stable and
watch the markets and the changes to see if increases are viable.
You are collared by you employer ( The Union ).
When they say jump, you ask how high.

That's why BI has you by the short hairs and a $ 2.00 raise.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
It starts in their gut alright. It starts with the most basic of human emotions, fear, they are biologically more prone to respond irrationally to fear.

Peer-reviewed research shows that conservatives are more sensitive to threat. While this threat-bias can distort reality, fuel irrational fears, and make one more vulnerable to fear-mongering politicians, it could also promote hyper vigilance, perhaps making one better prepared to handle an immediate threat.

1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative
2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threat
3. Conservatives fear new experiences
4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...xiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes
Click to expand...


That's Fear right there in your post, and you own it.

You couldn't have made my task any easier !
 
China Is Moving in the Right Direction on Tariffs
Chinese consumers are now benefitting from more competition and lower prices.

https://fee.org/articles/china-is-moving-in-the-right-direction-on-tariffs/?utm_source=ribbon

On November 24, China’s Ministry of Finance announced that it would cut tariffs on 187 consumer products. The lower duty rate took effect on December 1, so Chinese consumers are now benefitting from more competition and lower prices. As noted in the announcement, the average tariff on the covered products will be brought down from 17.3% to 7.3%.

To give some specific examples, the tariff on cosmetics will be reduced from 10% to 5%; 30% to 10% for electronic toothbrushes; 32% to 10% for coffee makers; and 20% to 10% for mineral water. Baby formula and diapers will no longer face tariffs at all, dropping from 20% and 7.5%, respectively.
 
Nevertheless, the tariff reduction is a positive development. Commentary on this policy change suggests that the Chinese government’s goal here was, in part, to satisfy the demand of Chinese consumers and to improve the efficiency of Chinese production by introducing foreign competitors. These days, it is nice to see any government basing decisions on this kind of thinking. (And it may contribute to China soon becoming the world’s largest importer, as one report suggests.)

One can imagine that the Trump administration would try to take credit for this tariff reduction. All that badgering of China paid off, right? In reality, this is the fourth tariff cut since 2015. The previous three tariff cuts reduced tariffs on 152 consumer products totaling $11 billion per year in imports. This time the tariff cut has an even broader impact: Imports under this tariff cut are valued at up to $14 billion per year.
 
Net Neutrality Isn't Neutral At All
The Open Internet rules the FCC devised based on Title II authority expressly permit ISPs to block, filter and curate content.

https://fee.org/articles/net-neutra...il&utm_term=0_84cc8d089b-5c8e5cefac-108435785

One consideration in examining the empirical question is the history of the development of the internet in the period from the 90s to the 2015 reclassification. The most significant tech policy that applied to the early internet was the 1996 Congressional update to Title 47 telecom law in Section 230, which carved out significant legal space for an environment of permissionless online innovation.

The early 90s internet was basically just a few big newspapers and a bit of porn (with pics taking upwards of 45 frustrating seconds to load). You might check your email or maybe buy a few books (instead of, well, basically anything) on Amazon, too, but you would quickly run out of things to do. Anyway, you might need to free up the telephone line or want to turn on whatever Must See TV (literally must, since streaming options didn’t exist) happened to be programmed viewing at that precise moment.

Power of Information

But in this deregulated environment, in the span of only about 20 years, we now have access to an amazingly creative, entertaining, dynamic and connected virtual world that now even extends into meatspace (with Uber, AirBnB, etc., and driverless cars just around the corner). All this happened, of course, without FCC-enforced net neutrality regulations.
 
Actually, the early 90s internet is a strikingly accurate picture of the worst dystopian fears of net neutrality advocates who want public utility regulation for ISPs. Then, we purchased access to the internet by purchasing access to content centers, like those curated by CompuServe or AOL. These ISPs only provided access to their associated content, forum sites and users. The wider world of the web was essentially blocked. Over time though, and pretty quickly, ISPs came around to the current model where they provide genuine access, and along with FAMGA, et al., some content, apps, and other services, as well.

Again, all this happened without public utilities-style FCC prescriptive regulations. Are there reasons to think the pre-2015 environment was a bad basis for internet innovation and access to continue apace?
 
One worry I have already alluded to concerns limited ISP competition. Most customers have at least two wireline competitors, but some still only have one. ISPs will, if they can, abuse situations where they have market power. To the extent they have it, of course, they do because we mostly continue to live with the structure left over from when local telephone and cable networks were public monopolies.

But this sounds like a job for the FTC – to address complaints about anti-competitive practices (and, by the way, the FTC doesn’t have legal enforcement authority over Title II public utilities). I think more should be done to promote ISP competition, but in addition to cable broadband services, there is also competitive pressure from cellular and satellite providers. As long as barriers to market entry are sufficiently low, I would expect this pressure to induce ISPs to provide consumers with the internet they want.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
It starts in their gut alright. It starts with the most basic of human emotions, fear, they are biologically more prone to respond irrationally to fear.

Peer-reviewed research shows that conservatives are more sensitive to threat. While this threat-bias can distort reality, fuel irrational fears, and make one more vulnerable to fear-mongering politicians, it could also promote hyper vigilance, perhaps making one better prepared to handle an immediate threat.

1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative
2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threat
3. Conservatives fear new experiences
4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...xiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes
Click to expand...
So what you are trying to say is conservatives are realistic, aware, cautious and brave.
Thank you, finally you post the truth.
 
Why Cutting the US Corporate Tax Rate Is Good Foreign Policy

https://fee.org/articles/why-cuttin...ate-is-good-foreign-policy/?utm_source=ribbon

When Ronald Reagan slashed tax rates in America in the 1980s, the obvious direct effect was more prosperity in America. But the under-appreciated indirect effect of Reaganomics was that it helped generate more prosperity elsewhere in the world.

Not because Americans had higher income and could buy more products from home and abroad (though that is a nice fringe benefit), but rather because the Reagan tax cuts triggered a virtuous cycle of tax competition. Politicians in other countries had to lower their tax rates because of concerns that jobs and investment were migrating to America

tax-rates-dropping-in-oecd-nations.jpg


(Margaret Thatcher also deserves some credit since she also dramatically reduced tax rates and put even more competitive pressure on other nations to do the same thing).

If you look at the data for developed nations, the average top income tax rate in 1980 was more than 67 percent. It’s now closer to 40 percent.

And because even countries like Germany and France enacted supply-side reforms, the global economy enjoyed a 25-year renaissance of growth and prosperity.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Why Cutting the US Corporate Tax Rate Is Good Foreign Policy

https://fee.org/articles/why-cuttin...ate-is-good-foreign-policy/?utm_source=ribbon

When Ronald Reagan slashed tax rates in America in the 1980s, the obvious direct effect was more prosperity in America. But the under-appreciated indirect effect of Reaganomics was that it helped generate more prosperity elsewhere in the world.

Not because Americans had higher income and could buy more products from home and abroad (though that is a nice fringe benefit), but rather because the Reagan tax cuts triggered a virtuous cycle of tax competition. Politicians in other countries had to lower their tax rates because of concerns that jobs and investment were migrating to America

tax-rates-dropping-in-oecd-nations.jpg


(Margaret Thatcher also deserves some credit since she also dramatically reduced tax rates and put even more competitive pressure on other nations to do the same thing).

If you look at the data for developed nations, the average top income tax rate in 1980 was more than 67 percent. It’s now closer to 40 percent.

And because even countries like Germany and France enacted supply-side reforms, the global economy enjoyed a 25-year renaissance of growth and prosperity.
Click to expand...
Huh?
 
No, It’s Actually the Rich Who Deserve a Tax Break
The truth of the matter is that high-earners in America pay well beyond their fair share.

In technical terms, the ratio of the rich’s contribution to the tax pool to their share of national income is higher in the US than in European countries, e.g. Sweden, Germany, the UK, France, and so on. The Washington Post produced a fun graphic to illustrate this fun point (the figure relies on OECD data from 2008, before the expiration of the Bush tax cuts).

income_taxes_share_france_germany_sweden.png


Observe that the top 10 percent of earners in the US make 33.5% of national income, yet are responsible for 45% of tax revenues; on the other hand, Sweden’s top 10 percent make 26.6% of national income, but shoulder exactly 26.6% of the tax burden. America’s ratio of 45/33.5 is the highest in the developed world, and thus our tax code is the most progressive.
 
xav10 said:
i think the article says we reduced our tax rates and made the whole world more prosperous because they reduced their tax rates too. not very complicated, just silly and simplistic.
Click to expand...
What the hell is wrong with you? Simple is a good thing. You libs like to gum up the works with bullshit.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
No, It’s Actually the Rich Who Deserve a Tax Break
The truth of the matter is that high-earners in America pay well beyond their fair share.

In technical terms, the ratio of the rich’s contribution to the tax pool to their share of national income is higher in the US than in European countries, e.g. Sweden, Germany, the UK, France, and so on. The Washington Post produced a fun graphic to illustrate this fun point (the figure relies on OECD data from 2008, before the expiration of the Bush tax cuts).

income_taxes_share_france_germany_sweden.png


Observe that the top 10 percent of earners in the US make 33.5% of national income, yet are responsible for 45% of tax revenues; on the other hand, Sweden’s top 10 percent make 26.6% of national income, but shoulder exactly 26.6% of the tax burden. America’s ratio of 45/33.5 is the highest in the developed world, and thus our tax code is the most progressive.
Click to expand...
Can't wait for the libs to justify this and talk shit on the tax bill at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top