Tax Cuts

[Audace]

I don't know that much about economy, so maybe somebody here can help me out....Isn't cutting the taxes on stock dividend (besides from the fact, or maybe just my opinion, that government spending has got a limited influence on economy anyways) a rather long-term solution for the economical troubles the world is in? If it's a solution at all. IMHO it's just setting the stock-market up for another bursting bubble. Then again it worked in the '90, so why not again. Still I think I'd rather opt for tax cuts for the middle incomes, that should kick-start the segments of economy that are now lagging...Oh well, I'm no expert, so please do help out...

[HighLordDave]

Tax cuts on stock dividends will benefit only those people who own stock; that is, mostly rich people.

Dubya's fiscal policy is at best puzzling and at worst irresponsible. It smacks fo the "guns and butter" policy of Lyndon Johnson; Dubya wants to cut taxes to stimulate the economy, yet at the same time he wants to pursue a war in Iraq, a possible war in North Korea and an occupation of Afghanistan, wll of which will cost lots of money. He's cutting taxes and increasing spending.

The Democrats used to be known for their "tax and spend" reputation, but it looks like Dubya is building a tendency to "spend and spend".

[fable]

It's known as "supply side" economics, @Audace, or to give it the nickname it had under Reagan in the 1980s, "Trickle Down." The concept is that you give wealthy individuals the incentive to spend, and thanks to their earning power, they spend enough to jumpstart tne economy. Bush Sr, when he was first running against Reagan in the primaries, bludgeoned it with a different nickname: Voodoo Econmics. The elder Bush never bought into the theory (which has yet to have a success wherever it's been tried), and quietly rolled it back and out the door during his administration.

The current attempt to introduce supply side theory as a cure-all is puzzling both in its intent and scope. What I fail to understand is how giving people a dividend for keeping money tied up in stocks is going to stimulate the economy, which relies upon the frequent exchange of capital. If bolstering a faltering economy is the desired goal, you can't give back money without providing significant incentives to exchange it at once for services and goods.

There have been many instances on record in recent international history where this latter point has been ignored, with devastating results as the wealthy and middle class, anxious over economic conditions, have pulled their money out of circulation and put it in stocks, or real estate. That's what happened in wartime Germany, despite an unemployment rate that was next to nothing; and it's happened recently in Argentina, where lack of faith in the government's handling of the eocnomy has (to use Fernand Braudel's exrpession) "driven the money underground." Supply siders forget that the govenrment is the Number #1 Consumer, who spends it all and drives the economy. Taking tax monies away from the government and giving it to investors to lock up in securities is only asking for a worsening spiral of recession.

So if I expected Bush's plan to have any effect at all, it would be negative to growth. But as the tax dividend is limited only to the upper class, I suspect the results will be minor, in any case.

Has anyone seen interviews with reputable economists who embrace what the Bush administration is doing; and if so, can post their reasons?

[McBane]

As GWB is "officially" unveiling his proposal today, we probably won't see any reaction from the economic community until tomorrow.

From a theoritical perspective, supply side economics should work. But Reagan's attempt proved that theory does not match reality.

[Lazarus]

Well, y’all know I just can’t resist a thread with is title! My opinion of Bush’s tax cut is mostly favorable, because I am of the opinion that tax rates are simply to high, and the idea of double-taxation is entirely wrong. But it is right to point out that Bush is heading himself towards disastrous policy if he can’t trim government in time with his tax cuts. So far, he has shown little inclination to do so.

Try this link for a starter in the politics of taxes. A lot of what is said here is pretty obvious to most of us (I would guess), but I think it is worth the read.

Try this link for a discussion of the current tax cut proposal. I would recommend also following the link associated with the first words of this article – “double taxation.”

Try this link for another view of Bush's stimulus package.

Or, from Reason magazine on-line, a bit less sanguine view: “Bush will likely start by vowing to eliminate [the dividend tax] completely, then settle for something like a 20% rate, the same as now applies to capital gains. That would still cost the Treasury about $30 billion a year--too costly, Dems will charge. Then the rhetoric about the cut skewing toward the rich will kick in.

In order to overcome this argument, Team Bush seems poised to do a couple of things. One is to pitch over the side any thought of speeding up the marginal tax rate cuts already on the books and slowly unfolding until 2010. The other--which has already drawn hoots of derision from across the economic landscape--is to claim that cutting the tax on dividends will stimulate the economy.

Not enough people pay taxes on dividends for the cut to have much stimulative effect. The dividend thing is really a reform of the corporate tax code, a necessary step on the road to taxing income just once. Why call it something else?”

So, like I say: Bush is digging himself a deep one here, but I still think the tax cut should go ahead. I’m living in Minnesota right now. Our state (like most) has a big deficit to make up. The newly-elected Republican governor has promised not to raise taxes to pay for it. What is surprising about this is that the newest poll indicates people agree, while fully understanding that this means cuts in governmental services at some point. A big headline on the newspaper the other day was: “Poll: Cuts, yes; taxes, no.” I hope they do make cuts in the state budget, and I do hope they make cuts in the national budget. They could start with – oh, I don’t know, say Star Wars and Big Brother! Er, I mean “National Missile Defense” and “The Department of Homeland Security.”

[Audace]

Thanks for the links Lazarus!

I gather the guy from the second link is a republican? This is why i dropped economics, it's to abstract for me, there always seem to be equal arguments for both sides depending on which time period you r aiming at...(if this makes any sense). Still thinks it's not a short term solution....dividends don't tend to be high when economy is bad, so a more direct cut on income tax would have a better effect(well in my very humble opinion anyways..).

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by Audace ...dividends don't tend to be high when economy is bad, so a more direct cut on income tax would have a better effect(well in my very humble opinion anyways..).

In theory, yes. But the theory has never been shown to work. No matter how much you give back to however many people, it's never been enough to boost any national economy in recorded history. Bush's last tax refund did zilch, and the same held true for Reagan's much-publicized tax cuts.

Largely because the tax pool may seem great at first, but it shrinks dramatically when you parcel it out. It doesn't really impact a economy much when you (for example) spend a $200 rebate on Gapp clothes, and I spend my $200 on Ivan Tamas wine, and somebody else spends their $200 on a new toy computer for the kids. But when the government spends $50 million dollars to buy computers--*that's* what drives the economy. Heavy government spending on items that recycle money back into the general pool.

The classic example of this is Roosevelt's New Deal. A terrible depression wa under way, and businesses were only making matters worse by laying off workers by the millions--which consolidated firms but at a cost of a further downward fiscal spiral for all. Roosevelt realized that it was up to the government, as the largest potential employer with the greatest storehouse of revenues, to generate work and jumpstart the economy. It's fashionable today for supply-siders to say that it was WWII that saved the economy, but the facts don't bear it out: the financial picture was much improved within the first three years of the New Deal.

That won't work any longer, unfortunately. The government has already forecast a tremendous deficit for the coming year, even without allowing for the attack on Iraq and Star Wars (both of which Bush wisely left out of his budget). But a government whose finances are creditably handled will preserve sufficient monetary generating power for just such a situation as occured during both the Roosevelt and Johnson administrations.

[Audace]

You are of course right...that's the problem with economics as a science, it's still largely guessing. BTW, i was thaught in HS that it was WWII that was the biggest contributor to solving the depression, not the New Deal....one of the reasons why Keynes has gone out of fashion....but i probably remember things a bit too much b/w.....

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by Audace You are of course right...that's the problem with economics as a science, it's still largely guessing. BTW, i was thaught in HS that it was WWII that was the biggest contributor to solving the depression, not the New Deal....one of the reasons why Keynes has gone out of fashion....but i probably remember things a bit too much b/w.....

It was the New Deal that killed the Depression. But WWII kicked the US economy into high gear, because suddenly everybody had a job--but note: who was the final employer? Not the (for example) steel companies manufacturing torpedo casings, but the US government that gave out contracts to the industries. The war provided the goal, but it was the US government that provided the money, the focus, the contracts and the jobs.

On a somewhat different note, I've been very impressed with Alexander Hamilton's logic and that of his fellow Federalists in managing the nascent US economy of the late 18th and early 19th century. What's interesting is that even Jefferson, a man who was ideologically opposed to the idea of anything save minimalist government, came around to seeing the necessity of using federal might as a means to raise the government's coffers, and deploy the country's power on a scale he hated in theory. Henry Adams' history of the Jefferson, Madison and early Monroe administrations takes a kind of pleasure at explaining how the early budget worked, and I find it fascinating.

[Lazarus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Audace Thanks for the links Lazarus! I gather the guy from the second link is a republican? This is why i dropped economics, it's to abstract for me, there always seem to be equal arguments for both sides depending on which time period you r aiming at...(if this makes any sense). Still thinks it's not a short term solution....dividends don't tend to be high when economy is bad, so a more direct cut on income tax would have a better effect(well in my very humble opinion anyways..).

@Audace: hey, no problem providing links - thanks for reading them!

I dunno if the guy is a "Republican." The site he writes for is sorta "Libertarian," I guess you would say. And, yeah, the stuff gets pretty complicated. That first link talks a bit about the complexity of the issues, and that is why I included it. And, yes, I guess there are always two arguments that can be made in economic matters (or any other subject) - but I am of the opinion that one is usually more right than the other.

@fable: you can get a whole lot of people to argue with your proposition that the New Deal ended the depression. I would recommend (as countermeasure to the standard statist rhetoric): Economics In One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt; or Capitalism, by George Reisman; or Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand, et al. (All are available at Amazon.com) You're a big reader, right? Have at it!

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus @fable: you can get a whole lot of people to argue with your proposition that the New Deal ended the depression. I would recommend (as countermeasure to the standard statist rhetoric): Economics In One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt; or Capitalism, by George Reisman; or Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand, et al. (All are available at Amazon.com) You're a big reader, right? Have at it!

Did many years ago. Reisman, IMO, is a political ideologue for whom economics are only a means to an end. Any study of his works will show just how much he's written for and worked at extremely conservative political thinktanks, and how little he's associated with critically respected, politcally neutral bodies. This has led him into some embarassing statements--have you read his articles defending Microsoft against any talk of monopolistic practices? Referring to the "productive genius of America's most successful software innovator, Bill Gates"...? "All branches of software production are to be open to everyone, except to Gates"...? These kind of flip statements are typical of Reisman's entire output, and dead wrong by fact rather than opinion.

Hazlitt is an empirical theorist who plays annoying debate games throughout his books--setting up straw dummies as his foes to avoid real concerns, engaging in glittering generalities, etc. His treatment of unionism is typical. He only sees unions as "monopolistic," to use his own word, and ignores practical work conditions which both led to the formation of unions, and the so-called Japanese "Z management model" that shows how much can be achieved by a united management/employee workplace ethic with equal benefits, constant discussion and interrelationship, etc. History means nothing to Hazlitt, as he has repeatedly shown over the years. His ideas exist in a vacuum, and his equations are all that matter.

Ayn Rand? I think she's an embarassment to any intelligent, reasonable capitalist. Selfishness is simply not an ethical platform that can be justified by its own existence. She was born out of her own time. She should have been an apologist for Nero or Heliogabalus. They would have loved her.

From my perspective, I will respect any economist who pays attention to facts *before ideology,* and who argues his views in a cogent, honest fashion that shows a comprehension of both historical evidence and the strongest positions of his opponents. One litmus test I espouse when reading any economist for the first time is to see if their political and social affiliations are immediately clear. If they are, it's time to read something by somebody else.

[Lazarus]

Quote:

Originally posted by fable Did many years ago. Reisman, IMO, is a political ideologue for whom economics are only a means to an end. Any study of his works will show just how much he's written for and worked at extremely conservative political thinktanks, and how little he's associated with critically respected, politcally neutral bodies.

Is this a smear against him, by attempting to label him as “extremely conservative?” In his own words, he is a “radical for capitalism” – he is not a conservative, “extreme” or otherwise. Whether he is associated with “critically respected, politically neutral bodies” is beside the point. The only question that need be applied to any individual’s argument is: is s/he right? You are free to disagree with his ideas, but simply branding him an outsider to current economic thought doesn’t cut it. And just who decides what a “critically respected, politically neutral body” is, anyway?

Quote:

Originally posted by fable This has led him into some embarassing statements--have you read his articles on Microsoft? Referring to the "productive genius of America's most successful software innovator, Bill Gates"...? "All branches of software production are to be open to everyone, except to Gates"...? These kind of flip statements are typical of Reisman's entire output, and dead wrong by fact rather than opinion.

Taking points like that out of context is dangerous. Perhaps you would care to provide links? But I would in all likelihood back his opinion on Microsoft. Gates (and other before him) have been subjected to the laws of anti-trust. As the article on the other end of that link indicates, it is bad legislation. For a blow-by-blow discussion of the Microsoft case, check this link. Again, you will have to do more than simply say his statement are “flip,” and “dead wrong.” What is dead wrong? Why? By what standard? Do you, then, agree with the morality of the anti-trust laws?

Quote:

Originally posted by fable Hazlitt is an empirical theorist who plays annoying debate games throughout his books--setting up straw dummies as his foes to avoid real concerns, engaging in glittering generalities, etc. His treatment of unionism is typical. He only sees unions as "monopolistic," to use his own word, and ignores practical work conditions which both led to the formation of unions, and the so-called Japanese "Z management model" that shows how much can be achieved by a united management/employee workplace ethic with equal benefits, constant discussion and interrelationship, etc. History means nothing to Hazlitt, as he has repeatedly shown over the years. His ideas exist in a vacuum, and his equations are all that matter.

Hazlitt may seem “annoying” to you. And, you may regard his arguments as “straw dummies.” I am of another opinion. And I would encourage anyone here to read the book for themselves rather than letting either my opinion, or yours, sway them. Again (and again and again), your negative view of the author does not an argument make.

As to unions: they are pretty monopolistic these days in the US. Neither Hazlitt, nor any free marketer would say that unions are inherently evil. But I think there is a solid argument to be made that much of what unions in the US do is counter-productive – both to the industries which they are in, and (eventually) to the people who make them up.

Quote:

Originally posted by fable Ayn Rand? I think she's an embarassment to any intelligent, reasonable capitalist. Selfishness is simply not an ethical platform that can be justified by its own existence. She was born out of her own time. She should have been an apologist for Nero. He would have loved her.

Nice back-handed swipe. Need I say it? Your negative opinion is of no import to the discussion at hand. I provided a source for people to examine and come to understand for themselves. Your comment (regarding “selfishness”) only indicates that you do not have an understanding of her beliefs. In no way did she attempt to justify selfishness as an ethical platform simply by it’s own existence. If you have read her non-fiction (it seems like you have read just about everything, so I will assume you have) you will know that she had a broad philosophy which was grounded in the metaphysics of existence. Her ethical beliefs spring from that.

Quote:

Originally posted by fable From my perspective, I will respect any economist who pays attention to facts *before ideology,* and who argues his views in a cogent, honest fashion that shows a comprehension of both historical evidence and the strongest positions of his opponents. One litmus test I espouse when reading any economist for the first time is to see if their political and social affiliations are immediately clear. If they are, it's time to read something by somebody else.

One important point to consider, however, is that a system of economics does have an ethical dimension. IMO, the economists who do not have “political and social affiliations [which] are immediately clear” are the ones who often leave aside the moral aspect of the subject. I think this is a mistake. Take the subject at hand: tax cuts. There is a moral dimension to the entire idea of taxes. One can go back and forth as to whether the dividend tax cut will benefit the wealthy or the general masses – but the economist who starts out his argument by stating that double-taxation is simply wrong is the one that will get my attention. Call me an ideologue if you will, but I cannot separate facts from philosophy.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus Is this a smear against him, by attempting to label him [Reisman] as “extremely conservative?” In his own words, he is a “radical for capitalism” – he is not a conservative, “extreme” or otherwise.

Arch-conservatives acknowledge him as one of their own, whatever label he may choose to attach to himself. The Consevative Book Club and Laissez Faire Book Club printed the following about him: "Reisman's ringing manifesto for laissez-faire capitalism free of all government influence is at once a conservative polemic..." And then there's this quote from their laudatory review: "He opposes mandatory recycling, defends insider trading of stocks as justifiable and beneficial, and condemns laws banning child labor as an "inappropriate" response to a social ill." As this is from a very positive source, it is not an exaggeration; and I find these views arch-conservative from a left-right American political perspective. I think in any case we may be splitting hairs. Suffice to say that I find him an ideologue first, who has never broken with a specific locked mindset on any issue. I'd respect him more if he would only break rank once or twice, but he can't, because he can't think outside the box.

Taking points like that out of context is dangerous. Perhaps you would care to provide links?

For starters, I'd suggest this. If you wish to discuss his views (or anybody's) on the Microsoft Anti-Trust litigation and the nature of the company itself, I suggest we create a separate topic.

Hazlitt may seem “annoying” to you. And, you may regard his arguments as “straw dummies.” I am of another opinion.

It is pretty obvious that you enjoy his writings. But as you recommended his writing to me, I am allowed to respond accordingly with my views of same.

As to unions: they are pretty monopolistic these days in the US. Neither Hazlitt, nor any free marketer would say that unions are inherently evil.

Well, if you know better than Hazlitt what his views are, I don't know why he even bothered writing them.

"Yet the blunt truth is that labor unions cannot raise the real wages of all workers."

"Therefore whenever the unions gain higher wage rates for their own members than free competition would have brought, they can do this only by increasing unemployment..."

"People could save themselves a good deal of misplaced sympathy if next time they read in their newspapers of a strike for a "decent wage," they take the trouble to compare what the strikers were already getting with, say, the official statistics of average wages for all nonagricultural workers." (As it happens, I have had direct experience of interviewing people who experienced this "before/after" effect of joining unions, from the early Garment Worker unions of NYC in the 1920s through the Latino migrant worker unions of the 1970s. They have all provided proof of the fallacy of Hazlitt's argument.)

"This is the modern Great Illusion. In fact, each union's extorted "gains," by raising a specific industry's costs and therefore its prices, reduces the real wages of all other workers." (Unions extort. Managements that employ bosses armed with shotguns--which was literally true in the US before the passage of union-friendly national legislation in the 1930s and 40s and remains true throughout much of the world, today--are, shall we say, merely making a quiet point.)

"Hence the strike gains of unions are at best short-run gains. In the long run they not only reduce employment but reduce the real wages of the whole body of workers."

In all the comments I have read over the years by Hazlitt, I have only found one reiterated statement of his that views unions positively; one in which he believes that unions could be helpful in negotiating superior working conditions for labor. But he invariably spoils the effect by arguing against the employment of any "coercive tactics to achieve any aim" (his words), which includes by Hazlitt's own definition strikes, and leaves would-be unions with the single option of wringing their hands in the face of corporate money and organization. (He never states how unions could achieve the beneficent goals he permits them.) As he puts it, the use of coercive tactics in "the long-run result is bound to be bad for the workers themselves," a statement that would provoke hilarity out of anybody who has had to work in a sweatshop for 16 hours a day.

IMO, Hazlitt is brilliant , but only when it comes to the analysis and comparison of ideas without relation to how they work out on the ground. I'd take an economic historian like Fernand Braudel over him, any day. If you want to discuss unions, let's move this into another thread, too.

Nice back-handed swipe. Need I say it? Your negative opinion is of no import to the discussion at hand.

Need I say it? -There was no discussion. You brought Ayn Rand up and recommended her to me, not the other way around. You posted several links in a general message, above; I didn't comment upon their contents, because I didn't consider it polite to criticize somebody else's recommendations and remarks to a third party. However, if you don't want my comments because they contradict yours, again, don't direct responses to me and suggest authors for my personal reading.

(it seems like you have read just about everything, so I will assume you have)

I will go on the assumption that you meant this odd remark to be somehow complimentary, because it does far less credit to you if it's considered sarcastic. Suffice to say that I enjoy reading, and always have. I used to run a book review radio (then later, television) program on Public Radio/TV in Dallas, Texas, three times a week, which meant that I read at least three books a week, sometimes more. Although I stopped watching television thirteen years ago I don't read anywhere near as much, any longer. Still, I hope I'm allowed to retain knowledge of what I've read and apply it during conversations such as these.

[Lazarus]

Quote:

Originally posted by fable Arch-conservatives acknowledge him as one of their own, whatever label he may choose to attach to himself …

Well, then, let’s just say this: the label you have put on Reisman is a barrier to an understanding of his arguments, if not for you, then for others who are reading this thread. I maintain he is not a “conservative,” but you are right: beyond that we are simply arguing over definitions (“splitting hairs”). I guess I just find it surprising that you, of all people, are so blithe with your labels. Do you remember one of our first discussions (back in the “Attack on Afghanistan” thread), where I “labeled” you a “leftist?” Your response (after stating that the mere use of the label was a flame) was: “You are very wrong. I have never believed in pigeonholing anybody, nor can I understand how people can be seen in terms of any single line.” So what have you done in terms of Reisman?

Quote:

Originally posted by fable For starters, I'd suggest this. If you wish to discuss his views (or anybody's) on the Microsoft Anti-Trust litigation and the nature of the company itself, I suggest we create a separate topic.

Cool link, but when I asked for a link at that point in my argument, I was in fact asking for some supporting evidence of Resiman’s opinion of the Microsoft case – your link is to a Hazlitt page. Again, I seriously doubt that I would disagree with anything he (Reisman) has to say about Microsoft, but you took a couple of short quotes (from somewhere) and threw them out as proving the foolishness of his view. I guess I would rather you provide more context for those third persons who may be following our discussion.

Quote:

Originally posted by fable It is pretty obvious that you enjoy his writings. But as you recommended his writing to me, I am allowed to respond accordingly with my views of same.

I did recommend his writings to you. And I would have had no problem if you had simply said you don’t care for them and left it at that, or if you had provided some reasons and arguments for your opinions. But for the most part, that first response of yours is simply calumny against the three writers that I listed. It really almost stoops to the level of name-calling at times, and I found that especially surprising from you.

Quote:

Originally posted by fable Well, if you know better than Hazlitt what his views are, I don't know why he even bothered writing them. . . .

Come, come - what I said regarding Hazlitt and unions was this: “Neither Hazlitt, nor any free marketer would say that unions are inherently evil. But I think there is a solid argument to be made that much of what unions in the US do is counter-productive – both to the industries which they are in, and (eventually) to the people who make them up.”

I stand by that. You yourself admit that Hazlitt says “unions could be helpful in negotiating superior working conditions for labor,” and I can find in the book I recommended to you Economics In One Lesson the following: “All this does not mean that unions can serve no useful or legitimate function. The central function they can serve is to improve local working conditions and to assure that all of their members get the true market value for their services.” I see no contradiction between how I have described his view of unions and what you and I have quoted as his view of unions. Again, I would suggest that if any third person reading this thread is interested, they go to the source and read Hazlitt for themselves.

As an aside, your opinion of Hazlitt seems to have shifted ever so slightly from your first post to your second. In your first, you say: “He only sees unions as ‘monopolistic,’ to use his own word, and ignores practical work conditions which both led to the formation of unions … ” Now, in this more recent post, you acknowledge that he recognizes unions can and do exist to improve working conditions.

Quote:

Originally posted by fable Need I say it? -There was no discussion. You brought Ayn Rand up and recommended her to me, not the other way around. You posted several links in a general message, above; I didn't comment upon their contents, because I didn't consider it polite to criticize somebody else's recommendations and remarks to a third party. However, if you don't want my comments because they contradict yours, again, don't direct responses to me and suggest authors for my personal reading.

“There was no discussion” - ? I suppose not. I gave you some sources that would give you a different view of the Great Depression. You came back with labels and insults. Really. Go back and read that first response of yours. “…An apologist for Nero” - ?! I can only imagine what your response would be if I posted something like that about someone whom you greatly respect.

Quote:

Originally posted by fable I will go on the assumption that you meant this odd remark to be somehow complimentary, because it does far less credit to you if it's considered sarcastic … Still, I hope I'm allowed to retain knowledge of what I've read and apply it during conversations such as these.

The remark I made (that you seem to have read everything) was neither complimentary nor sarcastic. It was an honest appraisal. I truly would not have expected you to have ever heard of Reisman – much less read him. That you have tends to make me think you have indeed read just about anything I could suggest (well, I’ve got some great engineering texts that probably aren’t on your bookshelf ). So it was surprising what you said about Rand’s ethics. It is a wrong impression which, IMO, should have been corrected by honest reading of her non-fiction (which, again, I assume you have in fact read).

Be that as it may, I would leave off this discussion by acknowledging you have every right to your opinions (and I have every right to counter them). I thought your first post was constructed so as to inflame rather than provide a basis for discussion – but maybe I’m being overly sensitive.

At any rate, if anyone would like to get back to the subject at hand – tax cuts, remember? … Oh! On that subject: I think we have mostly bandied about the “dividend” tax cut. But there is more to Bush’s plan than that. You all know my opinion, I suppose, but does anyone have anything to say about the remainder of the plan?

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus I maintain he is not a “conservative,” but you are right: beyond that we are simply arguing over definitions (“splitting hairs”). I guess I just find it surprising that you, of all people, are so blithe with your labels.

No offense meant, but I didn't label Reisman a conservative. "Reisman is a political ideologue for whom economics are only a means to an end. Any study of his works will show just how much he's written for and worked at extremely conservative political thinktanks, and how little he's associated with critically respected, politcally neutral bodies." I said he was an ideologue, and indicated what others on the political spectrum thought. As far as I'm concerned, an ideologue is beyond political measurement, because they don't understand with any depth the views they espouse. They simply blinker their minds to everything except a pre-conceived series of rules; all else follows. And that's how I've seen Reisman's opinions, marching down like a good wind-up doll over the years. It's depressing, given the acuity of his early training.

Cool link, but when I asked for a link at that point in my argument, I was in fact asking for some supporting evidence of Resiman’s opinion of the Microsoft case – your link is to a Hazlitt page.

Try this. There's a lot more, but that will do for starters. Feel free to start a thread about Gates and Microsoft, if you wish.

Again, I seriously doubt that I would disagree with anything he (Reisman) has to say about Microsoft, but you took a couple of short quotes (from somewhere) and threw them out as proving the foolishness of his view.

No, I took a few short quotes to indicate how Reisman followed the lockstep of an ideologue, in disregard of common logic. Phrases like "In other words, Gates is to be prohibited from producing and competing either in a major area..." show a complete mental block around not just the issues, but the reality of the whole Microsoft case; the federal and state cases had zip to do with prohibiting Gates from producing or competing in *any* arena. Reisman was either just whipping up anger among his ideological friends by using a straw man tactic, creating a bogeyman who was supposedly attacking Gates in ways that weren't occuring; or he genuinely didn't see the most obvious facets of the accusations (whether he agreed with them, or not).

I did recommend his writings to you. And I would have had no problem if you had simply said you don’t care for them and left it at that, or if you had provided some reasons and arguments for your opinions. But for the most part, that first response of yours is simply calumny against the three writers that I listed.

You automatically assumed I'd never read those writers, rather than asked if I had. That came across to me as rather condescending since it was a direct statement, instead of a suggestion (as you did earlier in this thread) as a general series of links to anybody for reading. As it happens, I have read these authors, and I have views on them which are strong and pungent--certainly not calumnious. Far worse has been written about all three. I did not attack you, and laughing at those three authors' works is not tantamount to waving my privates in your aunties' faces, to quote the subtle wit of Monty Python.

I stand by that. You yourself admit that Hazlitt says “unions could be helpful in negotiating superior working conditions for labor,” and I can find in the book I recommended to you Economics In One Lesson the following: “All this does not mean that unions can serve no useful or legitimate function...

You seem to have missed what I wrote about Hazlitt denying unions the right to strike. In other words, unions have a mission, provided they have no weapons to use. How do you think unions could exert any leverage--or even exist--if they can't strike or organize, which are principles that Hazlitt has explicitly denied them? If they can't hold meetings, because Hazlitt says the laws that allow this are anti-capitalist?

As an aside, your opinion of Hazlitt seems to have shifted ever so slightly from your first post to your second.

No, you're reading bits and pieces, again. I didn't "acknowledge" anything. I quoted Hazlitt, who has on several occasions referred to unions generically as monopolistic. And there's no shift there, since Hazlitt says unions can be beneficial only if they employ "no coercive tactics," which he states includes strikes. He also says that laws which allow for the organization of unions should be struck down. So there we have a union that can exist if it promises not to organize, not to go to court, not to strike. You'll pardon me if I find this absolutely hysterical. Hazlitt would IMO have made a very good economist if he had been forced to live and work in an Asian sweatshop for 2 years in his prime years. And I'm not joking.

The remark I made (that you seem to have read everything) was neither complimentary nor sarcastic. It was an honest appraisal. I truly would not have expected you to have ever heard of Reisman – much less read him. That you have tends to make me think you have indeed read just about anything I could suggest (well, I’ve got some great engineering texts that probably aren’t on your bookshelf ). So it was surprising what you said about Rand’s ethics. It is a wrong impression which, IMO, should have been corrected by honest reading of her non-fiction (which, again, I assume you have in fact read).

I have not read any engineering texts, I assure you. And compared to most people on this board, I am probably rather mathematically challenged. As to Rand, I make no bones about it: I really detest her philosophy. I also think she's a poor writer from a technical standpoint, but that's a separate issue. I see no reason to hide my views about her works, but if you'd like to start a thread discussing one of her books, we could do that. I'd probably have to reread her, though; it's been a bit of a while, if I'm to quote passages and comment specifically about them.