I am in favor of a Golden Standard.
I am in favor of a Golden Standard.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
tex, I'll ask you again to follow your logic to an end. If printing money isn't inflationary then why not print 1 million for everyone in america??
If tax rates can always be cut and result in a net gain then why not cut them to zero?
I've answered both questions 100 times and you still don't listen, I want to hear your answers.
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
I'll take the second one first. I am on record advocating (although I know it will never happen) exactly that: no taxes whatsoever. I challenge anyone to prove or even state reasonably why that would not work.Originally Posted by bobblehead
As for the first question, I never stated "no inflation". I just stated there would be no excessive or unreasonable inflation. Obviously, to the extent that you stretch the concept way out of proportion, you do get excessive inflation.
A no tax scenario--starting out with a base money supply--sets the base value of the money--forget the "million dollars per person" thing unless you want to define the price for a loaf of bread as a thousand dollars or whatever. Then, let government spending happen as needed for defense, security, block grants to state and local governments, and whatever other spending a legislature representing the people decides. The money injected would result in growth multiplied as described by Keynes. There theoretically should be no inflation at all, maybe even deflation, as economic growth--growth in GDP--outstrips the growth in the money supply--keeping in mind that the P in GDP is Product i.e. production--increased dollars, but those more dollars competing for even more greatly increased goods and services. At worst, there would be a small and manageable amount of inflation--a very small price to pay for the absence of taxation.
The fairness crowd should like this concept, as whatever inflation does occur affects people equally across the income level spectrum--as opposed to the progressive taxation we have now--and if Obama gets his way, will have in a worse way.
I'd really like to hear some specifics about why you or others think this wouldn't work, Bobblehead. Apologies if you have already done that and I missed it. If that's the case, please repost it.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
But tex..how are we going to pay for all the wonderful programs that "compassionate conservatives" and "shit sucking liberals" espouse. Currently gov't spends over 20% of GDP per year. Do you really think your plan can come up with that kind of spending power without causing massive inflation and unmanageable debt??
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
At least Tex seems to acknowledge that at some threshold his wonderful multiplier would see diminishing returns from inflationary pressures. Just exactly where is that threshold, I wonder?
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
19% taxation begins to do more damage than good...several economic experts have said so and several studies have backed it up. Problem is that the 19% number assumes infrastructure spending and other beneficial spending, not transfer of wealth payments.At least Tex seems to acknowledge that at some threshold his wonderful multiplier would see diminishing returns from inflationary pressures. Just exactly where is that threshold, I wonder?
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote