Thursday, May 5, 2011

Supply Side

Read an interesting and pithy quote from a guy named Fukyomama (jokes his name is Fukuyama). Granted economics is not this simple but I do like the practical simplicity of it. With no further ado:

"Prior to the 1980s, conservatives were fiscally conservative— that is, they were unwilling to spend more than they collected in taxes. But Reaganomics introduced the idea that virtually any tax cut would so stimulate growth that the government would end up taking in more revenue in the end (the so-called Laffer curve). In fact, the traditional view was correct: if you cut taxes without cutting spending, you end up with a damaging deficit. Thus the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s produced a big deficit; the Clinton tax increases of the 1990s produced a surplus; and the Bush tax cuts of the early 21st century produced an even larger deficit."

Friday, April 22, 2011

Thought experiment

Ok, so I was in the car fire a long time and that got me thinking. What would it be like if we had a split add had South United States based on ideological grounds. So obviously it wouldn't be a mason-dixon split but something that was more of a left/right political split. What do think would be the positives and negatives?

Party of my thought was based on the idea of diversity. I think that it is virtually uncontested that diversity is a good thing. That said, it seems like there come a point when diversity becomes unproductive. That's it. Your turn.

Saturday, February 12, 2011


I thought I might try to get our discussions going a little bit again. So I'll start with something that I've been wondering for a while. I figured you might have some views on it and, with your more economic mind, have some good answers. So, without further ado:

What, if any, should the role of business be in government? And, to what extent should the government and government policies be aimed at fostering business? In short, what priority should the government placed on fostering business growth?

Friday, March 5, 2010

Just say it didn't work (scott)

Wouldn't it be nice if politicians would admit they messed up. They would get up onto TV or whatever and tell everyone, their plan that they thought would work didn't. Then everyone could move on to trying to fix the problem. That goes for both sides the other side and the independent side. I would tell them "don't worry, its not as if we already think you have no clue what your doing."
just a rant for the day.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Primary Impulses and Secondary Impulses

I read "America Alone" and he describes governments in Europe and mainly Britain that they have place more importance on secondary impulses over primary ones. He explains that primary impulses for a government and for a society are things such as; national defense, family, self-reliance, and reproductive activity. Secondary impulses are and not limited to; government health-care, paternity leave, vacation lengths, pensions and so on.
I would rename the two and call them Needs and Luxuries for a society. Without the Needs there are no luxuries, without luxuries you still have needs.

What do you think are a societies Needs, and once they are met what are a societies Luxuries?

Mark Steyn (who wrote America Alone) goes on to worry that Luxuries if too many can limit and impair the Needs, thereby unstabilizing the society. Something like a snowball effect. Do you see this as the case?

Perhaps this would work if we maybe wrote down what we think are Needs for a society to function and function well. And maybe a little of Luxuries and then go from there.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Two mere observations (by nathan)

Observation 1: Today i got the picture that the US is kinda like Mike Tyson or something (don't extend the analogy too far). All i mean is that it seems like we are always looking for an enemy. I can't think of a time where we had any significant time of peace. Discuss. Or don't. Just an observation.

Speaking of Observations,

Observation 2: the two gentlemen that you have quoted on the left are men who supported one issue and they made their entire political system fit into that one issue. I know very little of Adams but have gotten to know Douglass and the more i know of him the less respect i have for him as a political figure. I am in total support of abolition but he cared of nothing else and was a very small picture person, a real Ralph Nader. The little i know of Adams gives me the same impression. So...disucss. Or don't.

by scott

I just don't understand the benefits of a social-welfare state. Can someone help me understand it? (random post I know, but i couldn't think of anything deep and felt it was better to post than to not post at all.)