by Tyler Cowen
on October 25, 2012 at 12:28 pm
1. Going back a bit in time, prior approval, a scary doctrine.
2. Profile of Tax Policy Center.
3. Colorblind casting in Cloud Atlas.
4. At least two people are overpaying markets in everything.
5. The commercialization of Mecca, and which airline routes are growing and shrinking most rapidly.
6. Gelman on Cowen and Grier and sports and politics.
3. Do we need concepts like positive versus negative racism? I doubt they intended to be racist, it was purely occidental.
I can’t wait to see Ketih David as a honkie,
It is acceptable to be racist against Asians. As Stalin might said of the Pope – how many divisions [of race lobbyists] have they got?
Nice portrait of Donald Marron and the Tax Policy Center. I also recommend his blog.
3. Who cares? If you don’t like it, make your own movie.
Weaving in yellow face looks like a Vulcan with Down Syndrome.
It certainly is an ironic complaint given the popularity of plastic surgery to make Korean performers eyes look Western.
4. I demand income equality for men in the virgin sex industry.
I know, right? Where is the outrage? Men are only making four tenths of a cent for a dollar a woman makes!
The relevant market is for 12-14 year old boys. If 50 year old women were selling their virginity, they wouldn’t get much either.
According to NYT, the Brookings Institution is non-partisan? Ha.
Looking at their study, I see they estimate the loss in revenue due to the reduction in rates without base-broadening is $360 billion in 2015. I guess this is the source Obama’s claim that Romney’s tax cut is $5 trillion dollars (over 10 years). Of course, that’s not Romney’s plan, and the $5TN is an exaggeration, so what else is new, BHO and JB were lying.
Second, they indicate that in order to get to revenue neutrality, 65% of available tax expenditures would have to be eliminated. They say, in effect, that this would be politically impossible. They do not believe in incentive effects increasing growth (i.e., supply side) but they have estimated some effects such that only 57% of tax expenditures are needed.
Third, they say that even if all these could be done, there would be a shift of $86 billion to higher income earners. Maybe so, but that’s a far cry from the $5TN tax cut canard.
They also make this claim: “While lower tax rates provide a stronger incentive for employment and saving, base-broadening measures would increase the portion of Americans’ income that is subject to tax, and this would create incentives that would work in the other direction. At the end of the day, the net effects on labor supply and saving behavior would likely be small. As Brill and Viard summarize, “lowering statutory tax rates while broadening the income tax base generally does not reduce work disincentives because it leaves the relevant effective tax rates unchanged” (Brill and Viard 2011)”.
Now, I have always understand the supply-side theory as saying that marginal rate reduction causes increased revenue compared to static analysis due to greater incentives to work and the reduction of incentives to shelter income. To claim little effect because effective rates are not changed seems obtuse.
In the end, they are demonstrating that Romney’s plan is possible – they just don’t think it is politically feasible. Ask Joe Biden if he thought the Tax Reform Act of 1986 worked. Much lower rates, same or greater revenue.
I have got to disagree with the tone of the Tax Policy Center article.
What the media — and the Obama campaign — locked onto is the conclusion that middle class tax rates will have to increase in order to meet the other constraints Romney proposed. While that is very likely true, the choice of relaxing that constraint to save the others is unconscionable from a supposedly objective and nonpartisan body.
Perhaps it is but one example of a relaxed constraint among many in the study to make the numbers work. But I don’t hear the Tax Policy Center out there saying their results were misunderstood and misused for partisan gain. Nor do I see it in this article.
I am left having to draw the conclusion that a joint project of the not very nonpartisan Brookings Institution and not very nonpartisan Urban Institute is not as nonpartisan as the article posits.
There’s also a long-standing complaint that Halle Berry always plays “the black girl who has sex with middle-aged white men”
That said, I find the idea that Asian-Americans should be able to determine what it means to be Asian (meaning in this case a citizen of South Korea and a participant in their culture) to be a fairly confusing notion as well. My vote is that Americans should stop trying to make movies about other cultures.
Hmmm, no comments about #1? Anonymity is tough to come by on the Internet. Which is why I comment under my real name.
r.e. 4, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=men-and-women-cant-be-just-friends
“These results suggest that men, relative to women, have a particularly hard time being “just friends.” What makes these results particularly interesting is that they were found within particular friendships (remember, each participant was only asked about the specific, platonic, friend with whom they entered the lab). This is not just a bit of confirmation for stereotypes about sex-hungry males and naïve females; it is direct proof that two people can experience the exact same relationship in radically different ways. Men seem to see myriad opportunities for romance in their supposedly platonic opposite-sex friendships. The women in these friendships, however, seem to have a completely different orientation—one that is actually platonic.”
The tax study’s executive summary reads like a paean against reducing or eliminating tax expenditures. Is the Tax Policy Center soliciting?
If European people complain about non-European (non-white) people playing European roles they will be called racist. Non-white people want to keep what they have for themselves while they appropriate what white people have. That is why having white actors play non-white roles bothers them while non-white actors playing white roles doesn’t. In relation to this movie and East Asians, East Asians are bothered by their natural appereance. Radical plastic surgeries, skin bleaching, colored eye contacts and hair dyes are increasingly used by East Asians to make their appearance look more like white people. Seeing white actors made to look like natural East Asians instead of Korean Air commerical actors is a reminder of their natural appearance which they desperately want to get away from and forget.
Comments on this entry are closed.
Previous post: Anthem: Ayn Rand’s Dystopian Masterpiece
Next post: Words of wisdom
Email Tyler Cowen
Follow Tyler on Twitter
Email Alex Tabarrok
Follow Alex on Twitter
Subscribe in a reader
Follow Us on Twitter
Marginal Revolution on Twitter Counter.com
Get smart with the Thesis WordPress Theme from DIYthemes.