Obama and Economics: Intellectually Clueless

[Ockham]

Reagan significantly boosted (deficit) spending and we had 6 years of economic growth. During WW2 government spending was significantly increased and our economy was lifted out of the Great Depression.

Your right, what Obama has been doing is not particulary helpful. I am not defending Obama's style of spending. But increased government spending HAS been historically proven to help out a poor economy - you can't argue with history.

History isn't helpful as a guide to future performance in this case - at no time in our history has our country had such a high amount of deficit, high amount of spending, and high amount of welfare programs which are in the red or will be. Deficit spending was and is a boondoggle and while it may have worked in the past - an eventual reality is, it will fail as it's not sustainable. That reality is soon going to be upon us and continuing to do what we've always done is no longer acceptable.

 

[tlmorg02]

I do not understand the Republican argument for lower corporate taxes right now. Companies have a record amount of profits and holdings right now, yet they are not expanding nor hiring. Why is it that the GOP continues to call for further tax cuts that will fail to do anything other than put more in the corporate pots while millions of workers remain unemployed.

 

[imagep]

History isn't helpful as a guide to future performance in this case - at no time in our history has our country had such a high amount of deficit, high amount of spending, and high amount of welfare programs which are in the red or will be. Deficit spending was and is a boondoggle and while it may have worked in the past - an eventual reality is, it will fail as it's not sustainable. That reality is soon going to be upon us and continuing to do what we've always done is no longer acceptable.

So we should only "learn" from the parts of history which happen support our beliefs?

What the heck, lets just rewrite history to fit our beliefs better. Why don't we start ignoring the fact that government revenues dropped immediately after the Reagan tax cuts and that it took 6 years for the lost revenue to recover, and lets just start claiming that Reagan cut taxes and that government revenues went up. Oops, I forgot, most conservatives are already doing that..

 

[imagep]

I do not understand the Republican argument for lower corporate taxes right now. Companies have a record amount of profits and holdings right now, yet they are not expanding nor hiring. Why is it that the GOP continues to call for further tax cuts that will fail to do anything other than put more in the corporate pots while millions of workers remain unemployed.

Personally, I am totally against corporate income tax. But at this particular point in time, in this particular economic enviroment, you have a very good point.

 

[tlmorg02]

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the stimulus bill is that it was began under Bush, continued under Obama, and has been for the most part, payed-back. It did nothing for job growth, as has been previously stated, but it did prevent job losses to a degree. What has to occur is for corporations to take advantage of zero percent interest that the FED has slashed rates to, begin hiring so that the American people can once again make an income and once again begin spending!

 

[LaMidRighter]

I do not understand the Republican argument for lower corporate taxes right now. Companies have a record amount of profits and holdings right now, yet they are not expanding nor hiring. Why is it that the GOP continues to call for further tax cuts that will fail to do anything other than put more in the corporate pots while millions of workers remain unemployed.

Long time no see tl!

I'll give you the conservative argument since the Republican party seems to be incompatible. The idea right now isn't just tax cuts, it's a moderate deregulation and here is why: Companies are seeing record profits, but that is because the market was chugging along fine for quite a few years so those initial investments from that time are paying off. However even with that keep in mind that when one business does well it's counterpart may not, for instance new home builders or remodelers will do well dependent upon whether the housing market favors the buyer or the seller. This being said with winners and losers in any market we are in a period economically that is very difficult to predict, it isn't really going bull or bear but rather it seems to be up and down without any real direction reducing confidence.

Back to confidence, we are in a compliance nightmare right now due to years and years of onerous and unnecessary regulations that have just been compiled one after the other over the years and the beuracratic nightmare is taking it's toll, add to that the fact that government money is funded by paper rather than real value such as gold, silver, or other tangible commodities and we have a real problem. When companies need to see the next interest rate decision from the fed or worry about how many new regulations are going to depreciate the value of holdings or otherwise raise costs it's next to impossible to budget for new employees. So while the money may be there, it also may not(I know that sounds like doublespeak). So the argument is that we keep tax rates either static or slightly reduced and we trim(not eliminate) regulations to a point that only those with provable benefit remain. This would create a more stable hiring climate at least in theory and hiring then should increase because the process will be easier.

 

[tlmorg02]

Back to confidence, we are in a compliance nightmare right now due to years and years of onerous and unnecessary regulations that have just been compiled one after the other over the years and the beuracratic nightmare is taking it's toll,

It has been a long time my friend, good to see you!

Now, my problem with your statement is that GW Bush presided over the largest deregulation of industry in history. Not to mention that we are constantly learning of corrupt regulatory officials and agencies that failed to even over-see the industries they are to regulate. Whether it is coal mining, oil-drilling, banking.... in each we see the problems that deregulation and even poor regulation cause. These same companies have stacked record profits while crying that compliance costs them too much, then we find they have not complied in anyway. I just do not buy it.

 

[LaMidRighter]

It has been a long time my friend, good to see you!

Now, my problem with your statement is that GW Bush presided over the largest deregulation of industry in history. Not to mention that we are constantly learning of corrupt regulatory officials and agencies that failed to even over-see the industries they are to regulate. Whether it is coal mining, oil-drilling, banking.... in each we see the problems that deregulation and even poor regulation cause. These same companies have stacked record profits while crying that compliance costs them too much, then we find they have not complied in anyway. I just do not buy it.

Well, again it's to figure out which regulations are necessary and which ones are not. I don't think any sane individual could argue that all regulations are bad and the deregulation of the early part of the 2k millinium was done properly but the idea is to actually trim things down to what works and put in people that will enforce those. For instance OSHA, the SEC, etc. all have some things that work but others that don't. As well we saw with the gulf oil spill that even something as important as the MMS was rife with abuses so I think the regulators should be more heavily criminally and financially liable for those proper regulations they don't enforce and any harms that come from the oversight.

 

[Ockham]

I do not understand the Republican argument for lower corporate taxes right now. Companies have a record amount of profits and holdings right now, yet they are not expanding nor hiring. Why is it that the GOP continues to call for further tax cuts that will fail to do anything other than put more in the corporate pots while millions of workers remain unemployed.

You're partly right - Large corporations are doing fairly well but due to the uncertainty of the future, they are holding on to capital. The tax breaks should be more targeted to small business which actually provides the majority of fuel for our economy. The GOP is calling for lower taxes for all --- since raising taxes (and btw, the U.S. has the highest corporate tax in the world - at least the last time I checked) during a recession is like kicking the businesses in this country in the stomach while they're already down. Probably not a good idea. Therefore extend tax cuts, and cut back on spending...

 

[tlmorg02]

You're partly right - Large corporations are doing fairly well but due to the uncertainty of the future, they are holding on to capital. The tax breaks should be more targeted to small business which actually provides the majority of fuel for our economy. The GOP is calling for lower taxes for all --- since raising taxes (and btw, the U.S. has the highest corporate tax in the world - at least the last time I checked) during a recession is like kicking the businesses in this country in the stomach while they're already down. Probably not a good idea. Therefore extend tax cuts, and cut back on spending...

Today there was a report that the amount of hours employees spend at work has increased by 9%, yet productivity continues to decrease. Why, because companies are trying to squeeze their workforce dry while not hiring people needed to meet demand. If companies would simply hire more people, at least to maintain the work needed, then unemployment would drop, consumption would increase and profits rise further. With this the Bush tax cuts could be allowed to expire, and in all honesty economists on both sides of the aisle agree that the country cannot afford these cuts.

 

[Ockham]

Today there was a report that the amount of hours employees spend at work has increased by 9%, yet productivity continues to decrease. Why, because companies are trying to squeeze their workforce dry while not hiring people needed to meet demand. If companies would simply hire more people, at least to maintain the work needed, then unemployment would drop, consumption would increase and profits rise further. With this the Bush tax cuts could be allowed to expire, and in all honesty economists on both sides of the aisle agree that the country cannot afford these cuts.

I agree - that's the best solution. Hire enough to maintain.

 

[imagep]

...What has to occur is for corporations to take advantage of zero percent interest that the FED has slashed rates to, begin hiring so that the American people can once again make an income and once again begin spending!

Yes, that's absolutely true. But here is the thing, corporations act individually and only to their advantage as individual corporations. I wouldn't say that corporations don't care about the economy, they certainly do, but they care about their own profitability above anything else. The reality is that corporations are not going to start hiring people again just because interest rates are low, or because their is a lot of capital readily available. They arn't goinna hire until they have an individual need to add employees - when customer demand increases. Customers HAVE to start spending more before individual companies will hire more people, but people cant spend more if they have no job - so it is a never ending spiral downward unless something drastically changes. Unfortunately, the only thing that CAN change is governmental policy.

 

[imagep]

...The tax breaks should be more targeted to small business which actually provides the majority of fuel for our economy...

Exactly. Small businesses are mostly partnerships, sole propriatorships, LLC's, and S-Corps. I happen to own a LLC and an S-Corp. All of those entities pay taxes primarally on the owners personal income taxes. Cuting all tax rates except for the top tax rate would be the only logical way to target small businesses for tax cuts. Certainly allowing small business owners (who are mostly regular middle class folk) to keep and spend more of their own money would help to increase consumer demand. Increased consumer demand leads to increased sales, increased sales leads to business expansion.

However tax cuts on the rich will do absolutely nothing to increase consumer demand because the rich consume at a fairly stead rate regardless of income fluxuations. Bill Gates already has all the cars and houses and pots and pans that he wants, he is very unlikely to purchase more stuff just because he gets a tax cut. He also will not hire more people unless there is suffecient demand for the products that he makes to justify hiring - regardless of how much income tax he pays or doen't pay.

 

[Kushinator]

I told you what's wrong with your source. Not my problem you aren't following the argument.

You made blanket assertions without citing the specific passages that lead you to such conclusions. Please remember, my source pertained to this argument:

Completely untrue. The wealthy have the most to lose in a risk adverse market and at a much higher percentage, they are the most likely to curb spending while those at the very bottom are the most likely to have no lattitude as they are making every dollar stretch to meet necessities, if anything they would be the most likely to have static expenditure ratios and almost no savings.

You later state:

I told you exactly what's wrong with it, which you haven't refuted. The entire source uses faulty economic reasoning, not my fault.

You presented an opinion without any reference or support; so what you really "told me" was that you do not agree with it. Suddenly when the "wealthy will curb spending" argument seems fallible, you resort to:

Which has nothing to do with the core argument whatsoever. Nice strawman.

I would be most obliged to follow an argument/discussion, if presented with one (and no, your opinion does not cut it).

 

[LaMidRighter]

You made blanket assertions without citing the specific passages that lead you to such conclusions. Please remember, my source pertained to this argument:



You later state:

You presented an opinion without any reference or support; so what you really "told me" was that you do not agree with it. Suddenly when the "wealthy will curb spending" argument seems fallible, you resort to:



I would be most obliged to follow an argument/discussion, if presented with one (and no, your opinion does not cut it).

Sigh. Okay, you used a faulty source. Let me explain it. Because the wealthy are more likely to purchase high dollar items because they have the most disposable income they are the most likely to curb spending during bad economic policy periods because they can. Poor people have to eat, be sheltered, find transit sources to get to work, and pay utilities and have little to no discretionary income so they cannot curb their spending, only alter it. Your source uses a premise based on sole utility and linear logic which is not how economics work, needs and wants get filled to the best of a consumers ability.....ability being the key, necessities have a static value so they can be assessed to an extent based upon a linear equation but here's the catch, those industries tend to saturate because the value is known. Other discretionary items cannot possibly have a static value because they are based on fulfillment after needs are met which is dependent upon market climate; that is influenced by dollar value, economic political policy, desire for the product weighted against asking price and ability to purchase at said value. It's not that difficult and doesn't need an open ended and overly verbose explanation.

 

[TurtleDude]

Exactly. Small businesses are mostly partnerships, sole propriatorships, LLC's, and S-Corps. I happen to own a LLC and an S-Corp. All of those entities pay taxes primarally on the owners personal income taxes. Cuting all tax rates except for the top tax rate would be the only logical way to target small businesses for tax cuts. Certainly allowing small business owners (who are mostly regular middle class folk) to keep and spend more of their own money would help to increase consumer demand. Increased consumer demand leads to increased sales, increased sales leads to business expansion.

However tax cuts on the rich will do absolutely nothing to increase consumer demand because the rich consume at a fairly stead rate regardless of income fluxuations. Bill Gates already has all the cars and houses and pots and pans that he wants, he is very unlikely to purchase more stuff just because he gets a tax cut. He also will not hire more people unless there is suffecient demand for the products that he makes to justify hiring - regardless of how much income tax he pays or doen't pay.

it depends who you call the rich-a recent article (cannot recall where) noted that the reason why the economy is not growing much now is that those in the 200K-one million income range are not spending in anticipation of the massive clinton-obama-pelosi tax hikes and that group drives the economy. Not the billionaires the left loves to castigate nor the middle class.

 

[Kushinator]

Sigh. Okay, you used a faulty source. Let me explain it. Because the wealthy are more likely to purchase high dollar items because they have the most disposable income they are the most likely to curb spending during bad economic policy periods because they can.

I challenge you to find any sort of source that identifies those with high incomes, or high net wealth curbing spending during cyclical contractions more so than those on the opposite end of the spectrum. You are only displaying an opinion, as empirical literature states consumption smoothing during contractions is more easily attainable for the said income/wealth demographic.

Poor people have to eat, be sheltered, find transit sources to get to work, and pay utilities and have little to no discretionary income so they cannot curb their spending, only alter it.

As net wealth begins to decrease in households with lower incomes, indiscretionary spending will follow a similar downward trend; for instance the higher than average foreclosure rates among those on unemployment insurance benefits. In high net worth households, this behavior does not follow because they have the greater ability to use savings as a means to maintain similar consumption trends even if income begins to fall.

Your source uses a premise based on sole utility and linear logic which is not how economics work, needs and wants get filled to the best of a consumers ability.....ability being the key, necessities have a static value so they can be assessed to an extent based upon a linear equation but here's the catch, those industries tend to saturate because the value is known.

Please site the passage where this statement reflects any sort of relevance. I am beginning to believe you are make blanket statements that do not in any way pertain to the source i provided (not to mention you admit to not reading the paper).

Other discretionary items cannot possibly have a static value because they are based on fulfillment after needs are met which is dependent upon market climate; that is influenced by dollar value, economic political policy, desire for the product weighted against asking price and ability to purchase at said value. It's not that difficult and doesn't need an open ended and overly verbose explanation.

The paper makes no reference to discretionary static values for consumption patterns. Your critique is not only uncalled for, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I challenge you to find any sort of source that identifies those with high incomes, or high net wealth curbing spending during cyclical contractions more so than those on the opposite end of the spectrum. You are only displaying an opinion, as empirical literature states consumption smoothing during contractions is more easily attainable for the said income/wealth demographic.

It is literature, but not empirical. Basically it's an opinion piece based upon theory. It's crap, as would be any "empirical" literature stating otherwise. This ought to do, it's about as "empirical" as that crap you presented. UPSCALE BUYERS CHANGE BUYING HABITS, LUXURY IS OUT, PRACTICALITY IS IN - Vox

As net wealth begins to decrease in households with lower incomes, indiscretionary spending will follow a similar downward trend; for instance the higher than average foreclosure rates among those on unemployment insurance benefits. In high net worth households, this behavior does not follow because they have the greater ability to use savings as a means to maintain similar consumption trends even if income begins to fall.

You missed the point, there is no room for major adjustment, they weren't much of a factor in the consumer market to begin with. Losing wealthier buyers has a net negative effect.

Please site the passage where this statement reflects any sort of relevance. I am beginning to believe you are make blanket statements that do not in any way pertain to the source i provided (not to mention you admit to not reading the paper).

I haven't made blanket statements, more like basic economics. Of course then you tried to counter with that Keynsian piece of **** opinion piece of which I explained was wrong and why. Feel free to attack the messenger though.

The paper makes no reference to discretionary static values for consumption patterns. Your critique is not only uncalled for, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

My critique is spot on, you don't like that. I explained which values should and should not have been static in their "empirical"(LOL!) analysis and you called it a blanket statement. Don't get mad at me becuase the theorists missed a MAJOR component of consumer economics, it's their **** up, not mine.

 

[imagep]

I challenge you to find any sort of source that identifies those with high incomes, or high net wealth curbing spending during cyclical contractions more so than those on the opposite end of the spectrum. You are only displaying an opinion, as empirical literature states consumption smoothing during contractions is more easily attainable for the said income/wealth demographic.

As net wealth begins to decrease in households with lower incomes, indiscretionary spending will follow a similar downward trend; for instance the higher than average foreclosure rates among those on unemployment insurance benefits. In high net worth households, this behavior does not follow because they have the greater ability to use savings as a means to maintain similar consumption trends even if income begins to fall...

Golden, I tend to agree with you. It would certainly seem that the "rich" would not adjust their spending during a recession. After all they are "rich" - which to me indicates that they have more wealth than they tend to spend. Certainly a billionare does not have to cut back on his lobster meals just because his income drops from $500 million a year down to $400 million a year. He still has more income than he can spend and he still has plenty of wealth to fill in any income gaps.

However, I did see something on tv a good while back about how the shops on Rodeo Drive are suffering from reduced spending by the rich. It's hard to believe, but it could very well be true. If the rich have decreased personal consumption, I would guess that it is akin to "sympathy pains" like some men have when their wife is pregnant - they just feel like they should cut back on spending, even if there is no logical reason for them to do so. If the rich have decreased spending, for any reason, then that may be one of the reasons that we can't seem to shake this recession.

 

[Geo Patric]

I think the best policy is to balance the budget which will reduce inflation and preserve a strong currency.

there is no evidence of this whatsoever and considerable evidence to the contrary.

geo.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Golden, I tend to agree with you. It would certainly seem that the "rich" would not adjust their spending during a recession. After all they are "rich" - which to me indicates that they have more wealth than they tend to spend. Certainly a billionare does not have to cut back on his lobster meals just because his income drops from $500 million a year down to $400 million a year. He still has more income than he can spend and he still has plenty of wealth to fill in any income gaps.

However, I did see something on tv a good while back about how the shops on Rodeo Drive are suffering from reduced spending by the rich. It's hard to believe, but it could very well be true. If the rich have decreased personal consumption, I would guess that it is akin to "sympathy pains" like some men have when their wife is pregnant - they just feel like they should cut back on spending, even if there is no logical reason for them to do so. If the rich have decreased spending, for any reason, then that may be one of the reasons that we can't seem to shake this recession.

Here's the thing. "rich" as defined by tax law is anyone making over 206K a year, that is when the most punitive taxes occur, so plenty of "rich" people that were buying quite a few items are indeed participating much less than usual.

 

[Kushinator]

It is literature, but not empirical. Basically it's an opinion piece based upon theory. It's crap, as would be any "empirical" literature stating otherwise. This ought to do, it's about as "empirical" as that crap you presented. UPSCALE BUYERS CHANGE BUYING HABITS, LUXURY IS OUT, PRACTICALITY IS IN - Vox

Lets be honest, my source was a paper based on consumption smoothing, and was peer reviewed and cited multiple times in other peer reviewed papers. Instead of identifying what parts of the study apply to your "so called" critique, you post a ridiculous blog post as refutation. Therefore you really have no argument nor substantial objection to the source except for disagreeing with it for the sake of retracting your original argument. If you could have displayed any bit of irrelevance in the source, you would have done so days ago. Failure to do so speaks volumes and has been noted.

You missed the point, there is no room for major adjustment, they weren't much of a factor in the consumer market to begin with. Losing wealthier buyers has a net negative effect.

Wait wait wait, because you cannot back up your original statement, middle and lower wealth classes are not much of a factor in the consumer market?!?!?! Those who have a positive savings rate, who previously had a negative to zero rate of savings, are not much of a factor to begin with, while consumer demand is shown to be relatively low. Priceless!

I haven't made blanket statements, more like basic economics. Of course then you tried to counter with that Keynsian piece of **** opinion piece of which I explained was wrong and why. Feel free to attack the messenger though.

:lamo

You make a statement without being able to adequately back it up. Again, if you could, you would have done so days ago.

My critique is spot on, you don't like that. I explained which values should and should not have been static in their "empirical"(LOL!) analysis and you called it a blanket statement. Don't get mad at me because the theorists missed a MAJOR component of consumer economics, it's their **** up, not mine.

Actually, your argument has been about a clear as quick sand. Now that you are trapped behind an embarrassing statement that is dead wrong (the wealthy are more prone to reign in spending during cyclical contractions), you go off the deep end in claiming the rest of the consumer market does not matter.

For future reference, it would be more beneficial (and constructive) to argue under the basis of reality rather than ideology. I then throw you a bone by exposing you to Hauser's Law (a pillar for the low tax argument), you cite "statistical failure" on the basis of a news paper article about the said phenomena.

As for the bold (for the third time); if you could prove it, you would have done so days ago. Sorry LMR, your opinion does not cut it.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Lets be honest, my source was a paper based on consumption smoothing, and was peer reviewed and cited multiple times in other peer reviewed papers.

Which means exactly nothing. Peer reviewed papers are theories reviewed by theorists with no real world results. Thus it's a pseudo-intellectual circle jerk. Where's the proof it is correct? Oh yeah, it's theory, there is none.

Instead of identifying what parts of the study apply to your "so called" critique, you post a ridiculous blog post as refutation.

Yeah, and the blog post was about as relevant since it was equally based in theoretical opinion, but I explained that. My critique stands.

Therefore you really have no argument nor substantial objection to the source except for disagreeing with it for the sake of retracting your original argument. If you could have displayed any bit of irrelevance in the source, you would have done so days ago. Failure to do so speaks volumes and has been noted.

Except that I explained how basic economics works as well as a touch of macro, and what the "empirical" study was lacking, you then decided to attack the messenger without actually refuting the message. But it doesn't matter to me as it's obvious that report was full of ****.

Wait wait wait, because you cannot back up your original statement, middle and lower wealth classes are not much of a factor in the consumer market?!?!?! Those who have a positive savings rate, who previously had a negative to zero rate of savings, are not much of a factor to begin with, while consumer demand is shown to be relatively low. Priceless!

Ah, appeal to ridicule. Yet another fallacy. I explained in pretty painstaking detail what the problem with your source is and in a way that was logical, yet you defer to a slight attack on the message. Not my fault you couldn't follow the logic.

:lamo

Yeah, I know. I've been laughing the whole time.

You make a statement without being able to adequately back it up. Again, if you could, you would have done so days ago.

WOW. You really didn't see the backing huh. Might I suggest taking a few econ classes. My arguments are not only textbook but real world proven.

Actually, your argument has been about a clear as quick sand. Now that you are trapped behind an embarrassing statement that is dead wrong (the wealthy are more prone to reign in spending during cyclical contractions), you go off the deep end in claiming the rest of the consumer market does not matter.

LOL, embarrasing? Please, your source has been questioned and you go on blathering about with an appeal to ridicule, among other fallacies as appeal to authority(one that had to declare itself nonotheless, HA) and then assert that I have humiliated myself. Geez, I guess it's so then. LOL!

For future reference, it would be more beneficial (and constructive) to argue under the basis of reality rather than ideology.

And when you start to do that I'll take your debate seriously, until then I'll just continue to try to explain to you how they work. Actually I'll get back to you when you land a valid point. Again, you are showing that you've lost with all of these nice fallacies you've thrown around.

I then throw you a bone by exposing you to Hauser's Law (a pillar for the low tax argument), you cite "statistical failure" on the basis of a news paper article about the said phenomena.

*snicker* A law that was written open ended so as the method to acquire the agregate was not a factor, yeah, that isn't an economic law that is a talking point. Good try though. ROFL. 50 year average! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I mean, really!? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Dude, seriously you can't have fallen for that.

As for the bold (for the third time); if you could prove it, you would have done so days ago. Sorry LMR, your opinion does not cut it.

Go read an econ book then. It's those knuckleheads ****up and your assertation that those jokers had a good point, not mine. I already did that homework while I was in college but feel free to find something better than a "peer review" of likeminded Keynsian psuedo economists to prove yours.

 

[Kushinator]

Which means exactly nothing. Peer reviewed papers are theories reviewed by theorists with no real world results. Thus it's a pseudo-intellectual circle jerk. Where's the proof it is correct? Oh yeah, it's theory, there is none. Yeah, and the blog post was about as relevant since it was equally based in theoretical opinion, but I explained that. My critique stands. Except that I explained how basic economics works as well as a touch of macro, and what the "empirical" study was lacking, you then decided to attack the messenger without actually refuting the message. But it doesn't matter to me as it's obvious that report was full of ****.

Your so called critique does not apply to my argument nor to my source. You have made no attempt to refute my argument, only to discredit my source because it shows how consumption smoothing acts in high net worth households. So for the nth time, please show the part of the study where you so called critique applies.

Ah, appeal to ridicule. Yet another fallacy. I explained in pretty painstaking detail what the problem with your source is and in a way that was logical, yet you defer to a slight attack on the message. Not my fault you couldn't follow the logic.

Here is how it works: you make a claim "this study is irrelevant because,... (quote the exert from the original paper of which your critique identifies) and apply your logic/rebuttal. But no, you made zero effort to do so only because your issue is sheer ideology. If a movie critic were to give a movie a low review, not only without even watching it, but without identifying the so called flaws from the movie, they would be laughed into the unemployment line.

Yeah, I know. I've been laughing the whole time.

Given the nature of your rebuttal, it sure seems that way.

WOW. You really didn't see the backing huh. Might I suggest taking a few econ classes. My arguments are not only textbook but real world proven.

You have not even identified how your so called argument applies to my source; a source that identifies consumption differentials among differing wealth demographics. All you have done is disagree under the premise of ideology.

LOL, embarrasing? Please, your source has been questioned and you go on blathering about with an appeal to ridicule, among other fallacies as appeal to authority(one that had to declare itself nonotheless, HA) and then assert that I have humiliated myself. Geez, I guess it's so then. LOL!

Your statement, "the wealthy will curb spending more so than lower and middle class households" is not only embarrassing, but shows you have no limit to how far you will go to uphold ideology.

And when you start to do that I'll take your debate seriously, until then I'll just continue to try to explain to you how they work. Actually I'll get back to you when you land a valid point. Again, you are showing that you've lost with all of these nice fallacies you've thrown around. *snicker*

My original point, "high net worth/income households are more willing and able to maintain current consumption trends even during periods of economic contraction" has yet to be refuted. You were so busy trying to attack my source, you neglected to address my argument. How can i take your opinion seriously?

A law that was written open ended so as the method to acquire the agregate was not a factor, yeah, that isn't an economic law that is a talking point. Good try though. ROFL. 50 year average! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I mean, really!? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Dude, seriously you can't have fallen for that.

By attacking David Ranson's methodology without addressing the original observation made by Bill Hauser, you only strengthen my previous statement. The WSJ piece has nothing to do with Hauser's methodology; so why bring it up?

Go read an econ book then. It's those knuckleheads ****up and your assertation that those jokers had a good point, not mine. I already did that homework while I was in college but feel free to find something better than a "peer review" of likeminded Keynsian psuedo economists to prove yours.

Ah i see, when you have no where left to stand, there is always the ideological ground where opinions act as equals with academic works. You can always admit to being lazy, and having no interest for a serious debate. :shug

 

[LaMidRighter]

Your so called critique does not apply to my argument nor to my source. You have made no attempt to refute my argument, only to discredit my source because it shows how consumption smoothing acts in high net worth households. So for the nth time, please show the part of the study where you so called critique applies.



Here is how it works: you make a claim "this study is irrelevant because,... (quote the exert from the original paper of which your critique identifies) and apply your logic/rebuttal. But no, you made zero effort to do so only because your issue is sheer ideology. If a movie critic were to give a movie a low review, not only without even watching it, but without identifying the so called flaws from the movie, they would be laughed into the unemployment line.



Given the nature of your rebuttal, it sure seems that way.



You have not even identified how your so called argument applies to my source; a source that identifies consumption differentials among differing wealth demographics. All you have done is disagree under the premise of ideology.



Your statement, "the wealthy will curb spending more so than lower and middle class households" is not only embarrassing, but shows you have no limit to how far you will go to uphold ideology.



My original point, "high net worth/income households are more willing and able to maintain current consumption trends even during periods of economic contraction" has yet to be refuted. You were so busy trying to attack my source, you neglected to address my argument. How can i take your opinion seriously?



By attacking David Ranson's methodology without addressing the original observation made by Bill Hauser, you only strengthen my previous statement. The WSJ piece has nothing to do with Hauser's methodology; so why bring it up?



Ah i see, when you have no where left to stand, there is always the ideological ground where opinions act as equals with academic works. You can always admit to being lazy, and having no interest for a serious debate. :shug

:roll::lol: