• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Connecticut Is Going Under

Connecticut's per capita personal income in 2015 was $67K, forty percent higher than the national average of $48K. But it has a high level of income inequality, with the top one percent in 2012 collecting nearly fifty times as much as the average resident.

And the tax system isn't helping. Families making $48K or less pay an average effective tax rate of more than 23% percent, while residents making two million or more pay a rate of only 6.5%. Somehow, I don't think raising taxes on high-income, western Connecticut residents will cause them to flee the environs of New York City.
 

That doesn't surprise me at all.
People think that these rich guys are just lined up to give their money to the government
or that upper middle class/rich families are.

they are not.

they will leave and take the money with them. this is just common sense.
 
Say something! Don't just assign reading.

Sorry, I didn't realize you had trouble reading articles written in English and not written in Canadian. I'll try to keep it as simple and short as I can for you due to the language barrier. Connecticut is going under due to liberal economic policies. I must point out, however, that whether I post a link or "say something", you are going to have to read one way or the other. I suggest it might be easier for you if you were to buy an English/Canadian dictionary.
 
I didn't realize you had trouble reading articles written in English. I'll try to keep it as simple and short as I can for you:

modern monetary theory is valid

This link provides the definitive answer to this controversy. And whether I post a link or "say something," you are going to have to read one way or the other.
 
Sorry, I didn't realize you had trouble reading articles written in English and not written in Canadian. I'll try to keep it as simple and short as I can for you due to the language barrier. Connecticut is going under due to liberal economic policies. I must point out, however, that whether I post a link or "say something", you are going to have to read one way or the other. I suggest it might be easier for you if you were to buy an English/Canadian dictionary.

Make an effort. Tell me what this is about, maybe tell me what you think of it.
As it is, I don't see any reason for me to open your link, much less comment on it.
 
Make an effort. Tell me what this is about, maybe tell me what you think of it.
As it is, I don't see any reason for me to open your link, much less comment on it.

Then don't open it. I could care less if you read it or not. It's a free country.
 
Then don't open it. I could care less if you read it or not. It's a free country.

You 'could care less'?
Maybe I need an English/American dictionary. Everyone else in the world couldn't care less.
 
modern monetary theory is valid

This link provides the definitive answer to this controversy. And whether I post a link or "say something," you are going to have to read one way or the other.

I never offered up a search engine. Your search results just talk about MMT, not necessarily that it is valid. I offered up direct evidence and papers from economists and other experts in the field who find MMT flawed, and there are many more of them than those who believe in MMT, many more.
 
Last edited:
You 'could care less'?
Maybe I need an English/American dictionary. Everyone else in the world couldn't care less.

Thanks for the English lesson but I see you got my point anyway.
 
I never offered up a search engine. Your search results just talk about MMT, not necessarily that it is valid. I offered up direct evidence and papers from economists and other experts in the field who find MMT flawed, and there are many more of them than those who believe in MMT, many more.

Here, let me help .... :)

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_778.pdf

This paper sums it up nicely (at least, I think it does, I've only gotten thru about 8 pages so far, but so far it sounds pretty reasonable). Let me know when you have gotten thru all 50-ish pages and get back to me and tell me what you think is flawed about this paper.
 
Make an effort. Tell me what this is about, maybe tell me what you think of it.
As it is, I don't see any reason for me to open your link, much less comment on it.

Then don't open it.

:roll:
 
Here, let me help .... :)

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_778.pdf

This paper sums it up nicely (at least, I think it does, I've only gotten thru about 8 pages so far, but so far it sounds pretty reasonable). Let me know when you have gotten thru all 50-ish pages and get back to me and tell me what you think is flawed about this paper.

OK. I'm not against that. I am very busy though and, believe it or not, I do like to take the time to actually understand what I'm reading. And, believe it or not, I have done that with the papers I have presented, even though I am repeatedly accused of not even reading them. Most of you, on the other hand, have confessed to not even reading the papers I presented and, it is possible to find MMT flawed while understanding it, something you guys fail to acknowledge. You guys repeatedly have the opinion that if you find MMT flawed it is because you just don't understand it. You can't tell me that all of those expert economists who find it flawed just don't understand it.
 
I never offered up a search engine.

OK, I narrowed down the list to documents that "offer up direct evidence from economists and other experts in the field who find" much of the criticism of MMT flawed, "and there are many more of them" who believe in MMT, many more:

"Ignored for Years, a Radical Economic Theory Is Gaining Converts
," Bloomberg, Mar 13, 2016

"The Federal Government CAN Afford to Invest in Infrastructure," James and Mary Quello Center at Michigan State University, Apr 16, 2016

"Warren Mosler, a Deficit Lover With a Following," NYT, Jul 4, 2013

"Revealed Biases: Why MMT Critics Continue to Rely on Strawman Arguments William Black, UMKC, NEP blog," Re-Imagining Economics, a blog, July 6, 2013
 
Sorry, I didn't realize you had trouble reading articles written in English and not written in Canadian. I'll try to keep it as simple and short as I can for you due to the language barrier. Connecticut is going under due to liberal economic policies. I must point out, however, that whether I post a link or "say something", you are going to have to read one way or the other. I suggest it might be easier for you if you were to buy an English/Canadian dictionary.

Most forums require comments from thread starters, DP is a little more lenient on this, making it more of a strong suggestion. Either way, starting a thread with nothing more than a link and nothing to make your position/opinion on the article being linked to and then insulting people for calling you out on it is pretty disrespectful.
 
Sorry, I didn't realize you had trouble reading articles written in English and not written in Canadian. I'll try to keep it as simple and short as I can for you due to the language barrier. Connecticut is going under due to liberal economic policies. I must point out, however, that whether I post a link or "say something", you are going to have to read one way or the other. I suggest it might be easier for you if you were to buy an English/Canadian dictionary.

The article uses the sad tactic of assuming correlation equals causation. While I agree that there most likely is a connection between the income tax and some of Connecticut's financial woes, the article does nothing to connect those dots and relies on making statements that are based on the conclusion without showing any actual connection. Take for example it's comments about the wealthy fleeing the state. Is there proof that the income tax was what caused that or is this simply an assumption??? Has there been any research into why they left or did someone simply find two lines on a graph that paralleled each other and assumed that they were connected??
 
modern monetary theory is valid

This link provides the definitive answer to this controversy. And whether I post a link or "say something," you are going to have to read one way or the other.

I think that you and the OP should be given a thread all to yourselves, so that you can both make zero content posts....
 
The article uses the sad tactic of assuming correlation equals causation. While I agree that there most likely is a connection between the income tax and some of Connecticut's financial woes, the article does nothing to connect those dots and relies on making statements that are based on the conclusion without showing any actual connection. Take for example it's comments about the wealthy fleeing the state. Is there proof that the income tax was what caused that or is this simply an assumption??? Has there been any research into why they left or did someone simply find two lines on a graph that paralleled each other and assumed that they were connected??

No wai!! Old rich people moved to Florida!! OH THE HUMANITY!!!

Old, rich people move to Florida all the time. CT's weather sucks in the winter, and old people don't like snow.

Boomers have been hitting retirement age since the income tax was introduced. Did some of them leave because of it? Maybe, but more of them left because Florida is warmer in the winter.
 
OK, I narrowed down the list to documents that "offer up direct evidence from economists and other experts in the field who find" much of the criticism of MMT flawed, "and there are many more of them" who believe in MMT, many more:

"Ignored for Years, a Radical Economic Theory Is Gaining Converts
," Bloomberg, Mar 13, 2016

"The Federal Government CAN Afford to Invest in Infrastructure," James and Mary Quello Center at Michigan State University, Apr 16, 2016

"Warren Mosler, a Deficit Lover With a Following," NYT, Jul 4, 2013

"Revealed Biases: Why MMT Critics Continue to Rely on Strawman Arguments William Black, UMKC, NEP blog," Re-Imagining Economics, a blog, July 6, 2013

Doesn't change the fact that MMT has but a very small minority following. Even JPH admitted that. There is a reason why for every one economist that agrees with MMT there are ten who do not. For every ten you pull up there are 100 against.
 
Last edited:
very small minority following

An exaggeration that you employ in an unsuccessful effort to decide the issue.

>>There is a reason why

I figure there are a number of reasons. One large one could be institutional bias. It took a long time for many economists to accept Keynesian theory.
 
An exaggeration that you employ in an unsuccessful effort to decide the issue.

>>There is a reason why

I figure there are a number of reasons. One large one could be institutional bias. It took a long time for many economists to accept Keynesian theory.

It's not an exaggeration. It does have a very small minority following, with 0% of the countries on the entire planet using it as an economic guide, not even the most liberal countries in the world. And, there are many liberal economists, Krugman just to name one, who said he wished he could believe in MMT but finds it flawed himself.
 
Back
Top Bottom