Are We?

[HK.227]

The Laffer Curve is something someone once drew on a napkin while waiting for cocktails in 1974. No economist on the planet today takes it seriously. Like Bigfoot, however, it has held a strange and puzzling attraction for uneducated people, and the handful of plutocrats who have learned to exploit such abject ignorance for their own personal gain on their backs.

A Laffer Curve is a simple abstraction that visualizes approximation of outcome when tampering with a single variable. Laffer didn't invent the concept, only helped to popularize it and associate it with taxes.
I'm pretty sure most people who have bothered to look the concept up on Wikipedia are aware of that, so I'm not quite sure what that "uneducated Plutocrats" rant was about. I'm kinda getting the feeling it was more about trying to score Int3rwebz p0intz than caring about the subject of the thread.

 

[Moderate Right]

The Laffer Curve is something someone once drew on a napkin while waiting for cocktails in 1974. No economist on the planet today takes it seriously. Like Bigfoot, however, it has held a strange and puzzling attraction for uneducated people, and the handful of plutocrats who have learned to exploit such abject ignorance for their own personal gain on their backs.

The Laffer curve works great for any number of things. I have actually used it a lot in business work to set prices. You don't understand it because you have been brainwashed by both the left and the right. What you can't use if for is just to randomly claim that lowering taxes increases tax revenues. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It depends on where you are on the curve. But, the curve does work and it works well as long as you know how to use it. You can't just make random claims one way or the other.

 

[Mach]

Agreed. But that doesn't mean that we're on the optimal point on a Laffer curve.

How do you know what?
Which point it the optimal one?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Civilized? Isn't that setting the bar a bit low? I'm Enlightened. Logic and reason dictate my ethics, not authority or the establishment.

:lamo

 

[Moderate Right]

How do you know what?
Which point it the optimal one?

The optimal point is the top of the curve. Unfortunately, it's not easy to know where you are on the curve to begin with. But, if you can figure it out, or sometimes you need to experiment to find out where you are on the curve, then you will be successful. Kansas figured out that they were already on the wrong side of the curve to lower tax rates but if they had been on the other side of the curve, reducing tax rates would have led to an increase in tax revenues. So, Kansas figured out that they had either already been on the top of the curve or were on the left side of the curve. The left always assumes that we are on one side of the curve and the right always assumes we are on the other side of the curve. But, like weather reporting, the Laffer curve works 100% of the time after the fact.

 

[ecofarm]

To be enlightened means you're civilized.

Yes, instead of examining nuance let's equate the two. That's intellectually satisfying.

:thumbs:

 

[Mach]

The optimal point is the top of the curve.

I see no reason why you would know that it's even a simple curve. There may be multiple peaks of the curve, so even that's not accurate.
The point is (!pun) that while you are trying to describe a position...corrected to potential positions, on a curve, we have no curve, and no values on the axes, and no way to know if it's accurate anyway. It's a whole lot of shoulder shrugging. As such, trying to male claims about it as an answer to some other question, seems absurd.

The left always assumes that we are on one side of the curve and the right always assumes we are on the other side of the curve. But, like weather reporting, the Laffer curve works 100% of the time after the fact.

I don't see the relevance. Neither the left nor the right are monolithic. Similarly, I suspect that 99% of people on both sides, do not base their desire to raise or lower taxes on some belief about the Laffer curve.

Regardless, what I primarily take issue with is this:

Atrax-> Humans were never very good of taking care of themselves outside civilizations. That's why they created civilization, law, order, agriculture, etc...
HK-> Agreed. But that doesn't mean that we're on the optimal point on a Laffer curve.

I have no idea what the laffer curve, especially considering no one is going to demonstrate they have a firm understanding of actual numbers with accurac as it relates to the U.S., has to do with what ataraxia wrote.
That's why I responded to HK on that...

 

[HK.227]

How do you know what?
Which point it the optimal one?

I don't. It's my best guess.
We haven't defined what we consider optimal, but I'm guessing a general consensus would probably involve an X axis describing the average citizen's dependence on other humans, and the Y axis describing long term societal survivability.

 

[MSgt]

We have Big Macs, Fox News, and unnecessarily chambered pistols on our hips. Therefore, we is.

 

[AlbqOwl]

A person can be, but no "we" are not civilized as a culture. We may be advanced in relation to other nations on a social, economic, cultural or otherwise level but we are by no means evolved away from division, conflict, and ultimately way too much loss of life.

All the evidence is on my side.

As a nation going back to our founding we have spend more time in war and/or conflict and/or military engagement with someone than at peace, we spend more on our military than the next 6-8 nations combined the majority of which are our allies, we have been through multiple iterations of social evolution each time bringing division and violence, we by far lead the "developed world" in incarceration per capita *and* our police kill more per capita than just about any other comparable nation, and lastly we are no closer to dealing with our racial or economic divisions in this nation.

We are arrogant in our divisions, tend to cause a good third of the world to dislike and/or distrust us, and we have even recently taken steps backwards to encourage our own to engage in social and economic discrimination.

By no reasonable measure is the US... "civilized."

civilized
adjective

1. having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.
2. polite; refined; restrained; considerate; humane.
3. of or relating to civilized people

Re No. 1: We are civilized in the sense that we are identifiable as a civilization, a culture, a society.

Re No. 2: I think most of us would fit that description, but a whole big bunch of folks can no longer much claim that they are civilized as in polite, refined, restrained, considerate, and/or humane.

 

[OrphanSlug]

civilized
adjective

1. having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.
2. polite; refined; restrained; considerate; humane.
3. of or relating to civilized people

Re No. 1: We are civilized in the sense that we are identifiable as a civilization, a culture, a society.

Re No. 2: I think most of us would fit that description, but a whole big bunch of folks can no longer much claim that they are civilized as in polite, refined, restrained, considerate, and/or humane.

If we are going to go the strict definition route and try to box the conversation in you will not like the result.

 

[AlbqOwl]

If we are going to go the strict definition route and try to box the conversation in you will not like the result.

Use strict definition or common usage, I don't care which. I'll stand by my post.

 

[JANFU]

Overall humanity is more tolerant, less violent, more prosperous, and safer than ever before in all of human history. We certainly still have a long ways to go, but think about how far we have came in just that 150 years.

We are far from civilized, all one must do is watch the news.

 

[Waddy]

Yes, instead of examining nuance let's equate the two. That's intellectually satisfying.

:thumbs:

Yes, logic usually is intellectually satisfying.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

We are far from civilized, all one must do is watch the news.

The news reports on all the bad things that happen which gives the impression that more bad things happen today than happened before. It was not that long ago that most people saw nothing wrong with slavery, child labor, treating women as property, genocide and so on. We are far better today than we used to be.

By just about every measure, we are less violent and more tolerant overall than ever before.

 

[JANFU]

The news reports on all the bad things that happen which gives the impression that more bad things happen today than happened before. It was not that long ago that most people saw nothing wrong with slavery, child labor, treating women as property, genocide and so on. We are far better today than we used to be.

By just about every measure, we are less violent and more tolerant overall than ever before.

If we only look at statistics for1st world countries, then in many areas we have improved. As the OP is wide open, I was commenting on the world we live in, not a specific country.

 

[ChezC3]

Civilized? Isn't that setting the bar a bit low? I'm Enlightened. Logic and reason dictate my ethics, not authority or the establishment.

:lamo

 

[Moderate Right]

I see no reason why you would know that it's even a simple curve. There may be multiple peaks of the curve, so even that's not accurate.
The point is (!pun) that while you are trying to describe a position...corrected to potential positions, on a curve, we have no curve, and no values on the axes, and no way to know if it's accurate anyway. It's a whole lot of shoulder shrugging. As such, trying to male claims about it as an answer to some other question, seems absurd.


I don't see the relevance. Neither the left nor the right are monolithic. Similarly, I suspect that 99% of people on both sides, do not base their desire to raise or lower taxes on some belief about the Laffer curve.

Regardless, what I primarily take issue with is this:

Atrax-> Humans were never very good of taking care of themselves outside civilizations. That's why they created civilization, law, order, agriculture, etc...
HK-> Agreed. But that doesn't mean that we're on the optimal point on a Laffer curve.

I have no idea what the laffer curve, especially considering no one is going to demonstrate they have a firm understanding of actual numbers with accurac as it relates to the U.S., has to do with what ataraxia wrote.
That's why I responded to HK on that...

Translation: you only believe left wing talking points and ideology.

The Laffer curve is in economics books for God sakes and you think you know more than economics books.

 

[ataraxia]

A Laffer Curve is a simple abstraction that visualizes approximation of outcome when tampering with a single variable. Laffer didn't invent the concept, only helped to popularize it and associate it with taxes.
I'm pretty sure most people who have bothered to look the concept up on Wikipedia are aware of that, so I'm not quite sure what that "uneducated Plutocrats" rant was about. I'm kinda getting the feeling it was more about trying to score Int3rwebz p0intz than caring about the subject of the thread

The latest victim of the Laffer curve nonsense was the state of Kansas. Why don’t you ask them how such propaganda works in the real world when actually implemented?

More recently, based on Laffer curve arguments, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback greatly reduced state tax rates in 2012.[29][30] The state, which had previously had a budget surplus, experienced a budget deficit of about $200 million in 2012. Drastic cuts to state funding for education and infrastructure have been implemented because of the budget deficits.[31]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

The Laffer curve nonsense is exactly why our budgets always increase under Republican presidents. But it’s a great way to remove basic social safety net and societies and implement the Republican vision of social Darwinism and freedom of the jungle... ahem, I am sorry, “small government and freedom”.

 

[ecofarm]

Yes, logic usually is intellectually satisfying.

Pathetic.

 

[Moderate Right]

The latest victim of the Laffer curve nonsense was the state of Kansas. Why don’t you ask them how such propaganda works in the real world when actually implemented?




The Laffer curve nonsense is exactly why our budgets always increase under Republican presidents. But it’s a great way to remove basic social safety net and societies and implement the Republican vision of social Darwinism and freedom of the jungle... ahem, I am sorry, “small government and freedom”.

You don't understand the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve does not say that if you lower tax rates you will increase tax revenues. The curve is a graph which shows that IF TAX RATES ARE TOO HIGH, then lowering them will increase tax revenues. The Laffer curve also shows that if tax rates are exactly right already, then lowering the tax rate will result in less tax revenues. The Laffer curve also shows that if tax rates are already too low then lowering them further will result in even lower tax revenues. So, in Kansas's case, the Laffer curve was exactly right, as it always is. If your tax rates are already correct or too low, then lowering the tax rates will bring even less tax revenues. You're blaming the Laffer Curve for a screw up by Kansas.

 

[ataraxia]

You don't understand the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve does not say that if you lower tax rates you will increase tax revenues. The curve is a graph which shows that IF TAX RATES ARE TOO HIGH, then lowering them will increase tax revenues. The Laffer curve also shows that if tax rates are exactly right already, then lowering the tax rate will result in less tax revenues. The Laffer curve also shows that if tax rates are already too low then lowering them further will result in even lower tax revenues. So, in Kansas's case, the Laffer curve was exactly right, as it always is. If your tax rates are already correct or too low, then lowering the tax rates will bring even less tax revenues. You're blaming the Laffer Curve for a screw up by Kansas.

Kansas did not screw up. They’re not that stupid. This was very deliberate and done with foresight. Kansas is just following the same pattern as Republican platform policies in other states, as well as at the national level. The key is to cut taxes to their wealthy donors. If it comes at the cost of cutting basic social support and removing all safety nets and protections for the basic human rights of the vast majority of their citizens who may hit hard times, well then that’s just too bad, isn’t it?

It’s about freedom all right. Freedom of the jungle- where the strong rule and the weak and vulnerable get eaten for lunch. Darwinism works great there to weed out the weak and propagate only strength. Why not implement that at the level of human civil societies? Right?

 

[Moderate Right]

Kansas did not screw up. They’re not that stupid. This was very deliberate and done with foresight. Kansas is just following the same pattern as Republican platform policies in other states, as well as at the national level. The key is to cut taxes to their wealthy donors. If it comes at the cost of cutting basic social support and removing all safety nets and protections for the basic human rights of the vast majority of their citizens who may hit hard times, well then that’s just too bad, isn’t it?

It’s about freedom all right. Freedom of the jungle- where the strong rule and the weak and vulnerable get eaten for lunch. Darwinism works great there to weed out the weak and propagate only strength. Why not implement that at the level of human civil societies? Right?

Kansas did screw up. The Laffer Curve proves it.

 

[Howard the Duck]

I see no reason why you would know that it's even a simple curve. There may be multiple peaks of the curve, so even that's not accurate.
The point is (!pun) that while you are trying to describe a position...corrected to potential positions, on a curve, we have no curve, and no values on the axes, and no way to know if it's accurate anyway. It's a whole lot of shoulder shrugging. As such, trying to male claims about it as an answer to some other question, seems absurd.


I don't see the relevance. Neither the left nor the right are monolithic. Similarly, I suspect that 99% of people on both sides, do not base their desire to raise or lower taxes on some belief about the Laffer curve.

Regardless, what I primarily take issue with is this:

Atrax-> Humans were never very good of taking care of themselves outside civilizations. That's why they created civilization, law, order, agriculture, etc...
HK-> Agreed. But that doesn't mean that we're on the optimal point on a Laffer curve.

I have no idea what the laffer curve, especially considering no one is going to demonstrate they have a firm understanding of actual numbers with accurac as it relates to the U.S., has to do with what ataraxia wrote.
That's why I responded to HK on that...

Every location on one side of the curve will yield more revenue. Every location on the other side will yield less revenue--or so said Laffer. Meanwhile, life has shown him to be a tool. In practice he goes on tv to defend all points as revenue producers. He is a dishonest man.

He knows only a handful of people have actually read his work.

 

[ataraxia]

Kansas did screw up. The Laffer Curve proves it.

The GOP recently passed a tax cut based on such nonsense excuses. The deficits are going even higher. Did they screw up?