Just spicing it up a bit. Sterile, academic commentary - especially on an internet site, can get old.

No offense was intended. Please take none.............or send a zinger or two back!

Just curious, if Mankiw is a hack what is Krugman, a complete f*cking retard? Just curious.

After all in looking at the post that is linked here he pretty much offers the numbers with some explanation and no other comment. That qualifies for right-wing hackery?

If so, thanks for sharing your enormous bias with us. We'll all know not to take you the least bit seriously in the future.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/01/how-progressive.html

Posted by GreenVTster

Greg Mankiw has been a right-wing hack for quite some time now. And spare me the fact that he's a Hahvahd Pro-fessor; that's totally compatible with being a hack.

I'm not so sure. I have just returned from several weeks in Hawaii, with a stay at the beautiful Grand Wailea on Maui. Paris Hilton was there, as was CC Sabathia. To be sure, the current economic and tax environment did not affect their decision to go there. However, the talk among the workers was that the occupancy rate was headed to 40%. 40% !! Whatup with that??

Paris and CC aside - for they represent only a minute fraction of the population - most people are reacting to the economic environment. And so, similarly, they will react to tax policy.

Be careful what you seek, folks. The vast majority of people react to tax policy - your assertion notwithstanding. And if you REALLY care about the Average Joe - you know, the cooks, maids, waiters, bellmen, shop owners etc dependent on people going to the resort I just referenced, then you might not want to so cavalierly discount the spending behavior of those below the super-duper rich category, even though you - in your own wisdom - have deemed the less than super-duper rich to "have enough money." The Average Joe's job depends on a more thoughtful response from you.

"And since we don't want to sacrifice tax dollars needlessly, the wealthy should not (I think) get any more tax cuts. They have received quite a bit over the past 8 years."

This assumes that the tax rate was "just right" before the cuts. Just exactly what is the "right rate" and what do you say to the newly unemployed worker at the Grand - based upon your all knowing judgment?

"...please call it what it is a direct cash transfer or more simply--welfare."

Any time you borrow money in order to give out a "tax cut" it's welfare. no matter how much you pay in taxes. in this and the last century were nothing more then Keynesian stimulus and had no more or less effect on the economy then just giving borrowed money away (which is what they do when they talk about "tax cuts")

That's why cutting taxes is a dumb way to stimulate the economy. Unless the marginal rates are in the 80% range, and you are cutting from surplus, it's welfare.

"...please call it what it is a direct cash transfer or more simply--welfare."

Any time you borrow money in order to give out a "tax cut" it's welfare. no matter how much you pay in taxes. in this and the last century were nothing more then Keynesian stimulus and had no more or less effect on the economy then just giving borrowed money away (which is what they do when they talk about "tax cuts")

That's why cutting taxes is a dumb way to stimulate the economy. Unless the marginal rats are in the 80% range, and you are cutting form surplus, it's welfare.

Right. As you know, I have vilified no one. So far as cuts go, the problem with cuts for the wealthy (so far as a recovery is concerned) is that the wealthy will bank and not spend the money, since they have plenty of money already to support themselves. For the stimulus to work, the money should go to the poor and the middle class, who will spend the money and boost demand. And since we don't want to sacrifice tax dollars needlessly, the wealthy should not (I think) get any more tax cuts. They have received quite a bit over the past 8 years.

Once again, as a general rule there is little or no money to "cut" in terms of taxes for the lower portion of the income distribution if you are talking about federal income taxes...unless you want to use negative numbers, but then please call it what it is a direct cash transfer or more simply--welfare.

FWIW, my reading of all the public economists is that the stimulus by infrastructure guys have a stronger case.

Only one problem: time. Infrastructure spending is not something you do quickly and it could provide little lasting benefit if done badly (bridges to nowhere, etc.). So it is entirely possible that you could end up getting the biggest bang for your "stimulus buck" after the recession ends.

From Odograph's link,

That is where the government comes in. It serves two roles here, one is to provide the funding (and also, by offering wages, giving people the incentive to do the work instead of watching sports), but it is also important for the government to coordinate activity as well, to bring people together to work on the highest value projects in the community in whatever sector - public or private- those projects might be in.

I wonder if Mark Thoma has ever worked in government. I'm thinking no considering that he still thinks there is a pony in there somewhere.

Yes, 40 percent of the Obama stimulus package will be a tax cut. It's already a talking point that "the Democrats have lost their nerve" but the reality is not so devious. Obama wishes to deliver on his pledge to cut taxes (always electorally popular) and upon close inspection the economic team probably hasn't found a lot of first-year stimulus spending it likes.

I do not have a snap judgment on that, but if someone tells they looked for good stimulus projects and came up short, I'd lean toward believing them.

It should be a time-shifting game and not a make-work game.

This snippet seems a fair summary of the situation:

A slump is a tragedy for those who lose their jobs and also for those who fear to lose them. But it is also a logical absurdity that there should exist unsatisfied wants side by side with idle workers willing to supply them. The natural condition of mankind is one of scarcity, and conflicts are often about the allocation of scarce resources. You cannot usually have endless amounts of both guns and butter. ...

But in a slump the rule of these copybook maxims is temporarily suspended. You can have more of A without sacrificing B. You can have environmental investment without sacrificing consumer satisfaction. Indeed the slump arises because not enough is being spent. We are in a kind of parallel universe familiar to cosmologists, when the normal rules are turned upside down and the traditional prudential warnings no longer apply. ...

(arguments about who pays tax and who should get a cut seem out of sync with these special times)