dagblog - Comments for "Healthcare San Francisco Style"

I'm trying not to lose my

elliottness — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 05:37:07 +0000

In reply to Back off, guys. You're

I'm trying

not to lose

my head

Uh huh

I'm trying not to lose my

elliottness — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 05:36:50 +0000

In reply to Back off, guys. You're

I'm trying

not to lose

my head

Uh huh

Back off, guys. You're

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 03:25:00 +0000

In reply to Moreover, not one argument

Back off, guys. You're getting too close to the edge.

Moreover, not one argument

HSG — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:30:20 +0000

In reply to Aren't you the guy who tried

Moreover, not one argument that you have made or factual claim fundamentally alters my analysis. Do you seriously doubt that enacting tariffs would promote domestic manufacuring? Do you really think that anything short of raising the price of carbon-based fuels will reduce the consumption of them? Do you think we don't need to reduce the consumption of such fuels to save the planet? This whole thread is so stupid. It pisses me off. It reminds me of bull sessions in college when the point was to nit pick each other to death not to address problems in a serious manner. The bottom line is you guys got sold a bill of goods about the need to have "free trade" and that low taxes on the wealthy are efficient. That's all bs and there's nothing I could say that could convince you otherwise.

Aren't you the guy who tried

HSG — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:22:54 +0000

In reply to I am puzzled as to why you

Aren't you the guy who tried to defend current economic policy by citing the healthy California economy?

I am puzzled as to why you

DF — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:48:49 +0000

In reply to The relative price of energy

I am puzzled as to why you think this information demonstrates your claim. Surely you can see the recent disparity on the very first graph on this page.

Aside from that, your ridiculous claim that high tax rates made for the arguably desirable economic circumstances of the 50s and 60s is still nonetheless ridiculous. Not only did I make no claim about the relative price of oil in the last five decades, whether the relative price of oil has changed in that time frame does nothing to validate your claim.

Furthermore, my comment about petroleum energy had to do with the contrast in economic outcomes before that time frame and those that we've enjoyed in the post-war era. If you don't think that the cost and availability of energy inputs are fundamental to sustained periods of economic growth, then I really can't take your positions seriously. Subtracting cheap oil from 20th century America would be like subtracting coal from the British or wind from the Dutch.

You should also consider that if you find it so difficult to forward such an argument with people like myself and Deadman, who are more inclined to agree with you than many others would be, that there may be something wrong with your argument if the intent of it is to convince people of high-level changes to policy.

The relative price of energy

HSG — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 03:14:00 +0000

In reply to The economy of the 50s and

The relative price of energy has not fundamentally changed in 50 years. http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2005/el2005-28.html

The economy of the 50s and

DF — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:36:57 +0000

In reply to You guys are right. Let's

The economy of the 50s and 60s was brought to us by ridiculously cheap petroleum energy. High marginal tax rates do not make an economy. The economy has to be fundamentally strong in order for there to be incomes to tax.

See this recent editorial by Jeff Sachs for a description of what these changes may actually look like.

You guys are right. Let's

HSG — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:49:42 +0000

In reply to man, i can't say i agree with

You guys are right. Let's not go in a different direction. Things are working so well for us right now. Tariffs and high marginal tax rates on wealthy individuals and estates only brought us the economy of the 50s and 60s. If we make changes, let's make them on the margins and use complex incentives and caps that beg for both clarification and MIT grad students who can game them

man, i can't say i agree with

Deadman — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:47:40 +0000

In reply to DF - You're right, I

man, i can't say i agree with much of this - it sounds good on paper, and certainly i agree that the wealthiest of Americans will likely have to burden more of the cost of fixing our health care system, but you conveniently neglect the negative behavioral ramifications of higher taxes.

reducing taxes on businesses is great but if you make the highest marginal income tax rate so punitive and increase estate taxes to such an extent, who's to say entrepreneurs are going to have the same incentive to start/grow their businesses.

same goes with tariffs. i think we've battled this battle in the past, and i will admit free and fair trade is somewhat of a canard, but protectionism is a very dangerous path. in general, if your goal is to promote American manufacturing, I'd much rather pursue tax and other incentives designed to boost new business creation in industries deemed important rather than heavily taxing imports - it would be less harmful to economic efficiency (though still harmful) and more importantly, less likely to start a trade war, which is most certainly not in our interest.