Monday assorted links

Comments

5. I like AOC. I don't agree with her, but I really don't see an increase in diversity of opinions as a bad thing. I'd like to see more of it in Congress.

People ranting about a first year Representative also seem to have collective amnesia about the (often) much worse rantings of the other 434 House members, many of whom have been in power for many years (if not decades).

Have none of these conservative and mainstream media Cassandras ever seen a Congressional hearing? Any interviews Congressmen do with their home districts? A town hall meeting? A late night speech on the floor of the House ranting against oil, or science, or some rapper?

Didn't Cassandra accurately predict a variety of disasters, but no one believed her?

Ηello, I еnjoy reaɗing aⅼl of your post. I wantеd
to write a little cߋmment to ѕupport you.

Thіs design isѕ wicked! You certainly know hhoԝ to keep a reader entertɑined.
Between your wit aand ʏouг videos, I wass ɑlmost moѵed too start my owwn blog (well, almost...HaHa!) Wonderful job.
I reɑlⅼy loved what you had to sаy, and more than that, how you presented
it. Too cоol!

Thanks fоr finally writing about >Mondday assorted lіnks - Marginql REVOLUTION <Loved it!

Exactly. This is generational. She's a Millenial so she must be shamed by the establishment into knowing her place. Let's pretend other congresspeople who have a long history for corruption don't exist.

She is a radical in the mold of Venezuela's Chavez. She knows little to nothing about economics or reality. But her biggest problem is she doesn't know it and cannot control her desire to speak up and prove that to the world. The danger she represents is not her stupid ideas it is that so many young people think she is someone worth following. Simple as that.

The fact that she drives you nutty is the best reason to support her. Be afraid be very afraid.

So the best reason is not because she’s going to succeed in ushering in the socialist utopia that Castro and Chavez etc. failed to introduce? Got it.

I don't have much of an opinion about her one way or another. But the reaction does seem to be similar to the reaction to Palin, where both her critics and supporters are making a mountain out of a molehill.

She's an attractive but not very bright extremist freshman politician . My guess is that this is probably her 15 minutes of fame.

Agree. I also see the press as the main motive power behind these "controversies". They instigate both sides to continue the nickering, and both sides gladly agree to do so.

+1, doesn't seem like a very interesting, bright or accomplished person in her ideas or life. Standard intellectually unsophisticated middlebrow socialist graduate.

(Baffled she is regarded as particularly attractive either. Fairly average woman, not that it should have any weight on how seriously she is taken in any case).

US Cons who are responding to her are just mindlessly reacting and giving her free airtime. Stupid.

So you want stupid people trying to grow the power of the state and force you to submit to their ideas. I guess Stalin and Mao just represented a move toward diversity. How did that work out?

Hahaha. Poe's Law strikes again. You know, she can bring totalitarism back like Eisenhower's tax rates.

I wouldn’t even mind the taxation measures she is in favor of, which you refer to here as Eisenhower-like, if I wasn’t convinced that this would only be the beginning. She represents her true constituents very very accurately: they are the socialist campus left. And they are scarily anti-diverse.

It used to be that one could count on leftist firebrands mellowing once they got into power and had to pass legislation and see the financial books. We’ll see if that happens to her.

Good point, but Bernie never caved.

Bernie has never had that much influence on legislation, fortunately.

Agreed, and neither will AOC. Won't stop the Reps from obsessing over her.

I think she's a socialist nut, but I don't see her as much of a threat anytime soon. How many backbenchers in the House (as distinct from senators, who historically have a decent track record running for president) end up having major influence on policy?

I love all these people who yearn for the time when she would have had three kids by now.

Also Ann Coulter seems to be behind in the child making department.

As a traditional conservative, I find that a woman who has no children is not fit to be called a woman.

Parody account?

Dead serious. We have to save Western White civilization from feminists.

Ann is failing her biological imperative isn't she?

I knew that is what the IRS used to do: force women to have children. If we have higher taxes, will we have to de-invented the polio vaccine too?

For now, she is defending what she is defending, the radical Republican economic plataform of the 1950's

Give me the average spending and its allocation of the 1950s, and I'd take the high marginal tax rates riddled with loopholes any day: Lots of guns, very little butter (No Medicare for all)!

Actually when it comes to non-metaphorical guns, people had far less guns then

"Actually when it comes to non-metaphorical guns, people had far less guns then"

No, that's not correct. Here's the Gallup results from 1959 to present:

Do you have a gun in your home?

1959 = 49%
2018 = 43%
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

People have way more guns per home today. The heavily armed synagogue-shooting type didn't really exist then. I'm correct.

Sounds like a more egalitarian gun ownership in 1959!

I wish it was still like that.

The guns we’re undoubtedly different too. Hunting rifles and shotguns and .22s, less far out crap.

You’re both right?

More people had firearms, as % of population.

Firearms per gun owner has gone up. Less utilitarian purposes more collection hobby and cultural war signaling?

To me, the fact that gun ownership has maintained a relatively flat level given the amount Of urbanization over the past 60 years is the most interesting part.

I think it points to cultural identity.

A gun capable of killing 10 people in a minute has less utility than a gun capable of killing only one bird or one deer in a day?

"There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s."

Not to mention that as tax rates increased reported incomes declined.

Not only does she want to raise taxes but she also wants to increase the regulatory burden, a hidden tax that the 50's did not have to deal with.

The but Eisenhower!!! red herring is meaningless. He also deported over a million Latinos in a single, horribly named operation in 1953.

Repubs: immigrants and confiscatory taxes bad
Dems: immigrants and confiscatory taxes good

It’s pure signaling, as It always is.

“What group’s status is raised or lowered?” That’s the only relevant question in 2019.

"Effective tax rates on 1 percenters may not have fallen by half, as some on the left might be tempted to imagine. But they are down by about 6 percentage points1 at a time when the wealthy earn a vastly larger share of the national income. That drop represents a lot of money. Moreover, as Greenberg admits, tax rates on top 0.1 percent have fallen by about one-fifth since their 1950s heights. That rather severely undercuts the idea that taxes on the wealthy haven’t fallen “much.” -- https://slate.com/business/2017/08/the-history-of-tax-rates-for-the-rich.html

That is cherry picking cling data but still add 6% and you don’t come close to 70% never mind 91%. Not to mention the increase in the size of the regulatory state, the growth of unfunded mandates, etc. How did that work in the pre- Thatcher England

I noticed that the members of the right like Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter, and other Fox News personalities are rallying behind AOC. Personally I like that AOC pisses off the right people.

She is definitely not the brightest, but she is an iconoclast. If she could get coaching like Obama did, she might even appear intelligent. She is the classic, upper-middle class white girl Progressive though - seems also-ran in the era of Clinton, Warren, etc.

LOL, Alexandria OC isn't nearly as intelligent as Obama was. She is the Left's version of Sarah Palin. Though I do hope the Right avoids demonizing her. It was shitty what the Left did to Palin and it would be just as shitty if the Right did it to AOC.

#2 8 years ago I had the misfortune of hitting a deer, which in the process caused significant damage to the car and fortunately killed the animal outright. I did end up taking the animal home to harvest the backstraps and got a sizable amount of chuck as well. If spoilage isn't a factor there really isn't any reason one can't eat road-kills.

#5 AOC is going to flame out. Screencap this.

My reasoning for #5 above...

- She's a walking-talking gaffe machine, on a scale I don't think we've seen yet
- Rumor has it there's lots of compromising stuff out there, just waiting for the right time to be released if you know what I mean. This is a consequence of the new-fangled-curated-life these millennials lead
- I'm dubious that she has any real loyalties, or understands what that really means. I.E. She'll turn on her friends at some point. She bounces off the walls, and people who support her aren't going to be able to catch her or simply won't
- Most of her success thus far quite frankly has been two factors. 1) luck and 2) media-puffing. 1) Is unlikely to happen again and 2) is growing less efficacious even to the Dems base
- Related to the gaffe-machine but different, her shoot from the hip mentality is going to get her in some kind of ethics violation. She'll end up doing something embarrassing or plain illegal
- Lastly, she's seems completely unable to take no for an answer

"- She's a walking-talking gaffe machine, on a scale I don't think we've seen yet"

Trump?

Hahaha... just said the same thing.

"She's a walking-talking gaffe machine, on a scale I don't think we've seen yet"... ummmmm... Trump?

Right? Big miss on that one.

Does Trump even have anything as memorable to match the blank clueless sincerity of "What is a leppo?", the ludicrousness of "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully" and the pure callousness with imperialistic pretensions of "We came. We saw. He died"?

He mostly brags about himself and lies or exaggerates his accomplishments in an obvious way or is inconsistent over time, in a fairly bland and predictable manner. (e.g. "Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it!").

Still, true that Dubya shows that gaffes don't stop the rise of people who should not be president.

You have to know how to harvest the meat. This isn't as simple with roadkill as with hunting, as blunt-force trauma can rupture organs typically left alone during hunting. You also have to deal with bone fragmentation, which can be annoying--no one likes to be stabbed by their meat!

That said, yeah, it's not that big of an issue, and I'd much rather see the meat used than see it rotting on the side of the road. Ignoring the humanitarian issues, rotting meat attracts other animals, which in turn can become roadkill.

The only downside I can see is that some idiot somewhere will take this as a license to hunt deer with a car. That said, the consequences of car/deer collisions are bad enough that I think this will be a self-limiting problem.

> some idiot somewhere will take this as a license to hunt deer with a car.

You mean there is another way?

You need an old beater, cost less than $200, to hunt deer without the vehicle damage exceeding the value of the meat. Hunting elk risks injury, and hunting moose might cost your life.

One huge difference between AOC and Sarah Palin is that AOC can speck English. Sarah only speaks Sarah. Which sometimes appears to be English, but is not.

Another difference is that AOC won't attract the same kind of venom as Palin because the side poised to do that is full of men, and they think she's hot. College educated women are the core of the Dem base; non-college educated men the core of Rep base. The former has nothing but contempt for the likes of Palin; the latter think she's warm, affable and attractive.

AOC isn't running for vice-president. Careful scrutiny of Sarah Palin was justified by the circumstances.

That said, I'm a college educated man and I find Palin warm, affable, and attractive. She isn't really presidential material, but look who's president.

Trump and Occasional-Cortex are two sides of the same "Look at me, look at me!" coin. It's unsurprising that they use the same arguments.

If you love one and hate the other, you're the one being duped.

The difference is that OC is actually physically attractive while Trump looks like an overripe, split-open grapefruit.

#6: A 70% or 80% marginal federal income tax would be first and foremost a boon for tax lawyers and accountants. If one were in the mood to match Krugman's attacks of which party has which dark motives to serve which evil interest, the direction would be easy.

That line is wide of the mark, I think. The additional revenue is to buy the votes of the working class and the poor, not tax lawyers and CPA's.

The point is that the additional revenue would not be that great. On paper, taxes increase but in practice tax dodges increase. Look at Clinton, one of his favorite tactics was giving targeted tax breaks to groups that supported him. Made the tax code more complex.

I didn't think the point was about buying votes, but about channeling income to allies. A big tax increase signals "I'm for the poor," but it significantly redirects income in the direction of accountants and lawyers.

" is that AOC can speck English. "

Umm, yeah.

typo
not caught
sorry

"Hegelian agent of world-historical change"
That... didn't age well

What do you do is you need a culture medium or growth medium and hurdle technology for the toxins. You get to a temperature and the densities of the liquid and gas phases become equal and the distinction between them disappears, resulting in a single supercritical fluid phase. Even here, described as a reverse
auction, the sellers generally receive a premium as compared to the clearing price. Sad but true. Osmotic shock, water pours across toxins. Reality bites debate ensues.

The logic of dreams

5: This is another one of those AOC-whole-cloth moments, her response is obviously not "lying is fine for the right cause" but "Please correct me when my numbers are wrong, but me messing up the math doesnt change the moral truths and hyper-focusing on those minor mistakes is just a distraction." Sure its not charity she applies to opponents, politics and all, but messing up budget numbers in off-hand comments is not the pinnacle of deception.

Here's what she said in the next sentence that came after the one quoted in the tweet: "And whenever I make a mistake, I say, "OK, this was clumsy." and then I restate what my point was. But it's— it's not the same thing as— as the President lying about immigrants. It's not the same thing, at all.”

So, when Trump said Mexico is sending rapists and criminals, he then realized it was clumsy and then said "some are fine people."

Using AOC rules, we can't really fault Trump then.

Pretending not to understand the obvious difference between how Trump screws up (makes up?) facts and how normal people do is a clown move.

The AOC phenomenon is purely a media project with a short shelf life. Remember Cindy Sheehan? Nobody else does either. AOL is just as much of a political outsider as Trump. The party machinery will dispose of her in the next election cycle.

Dispose of her? No, I doubt it. I think it's more likely she'll be side lined to some marginal position but trotted out frequently as a fund raising and public speaking tool.

There's no sign she'll be a mover and a shaker, but there's plenty of reason for the party to user her assets to advance it's agenda.

AOC has much nicer assets than Cindy Sheehan....can't wait to see her move and shake 'em on Saturday Night Live

I stand corrected. ;)

Occasional-Cortex organized her own petition drive and campaign. She's a clown, but it's doubtful she's doing what she's doing because she's a convenient spectacle for deeply cynical people.

Cindy Sheehan lost her son and then did all kinds of crazy sh!t and got gobs of positive feedback for doing so (until she wasn't useful anymore).

but AOC is just so hot, which amplifies her political appeal. have you seen her dance? omg.

Pound Me too!

If she were so bright, she'd marry a rich millionaire whose father owns a liquor store.

She likely will excel in Congress. She never worked a productive day in her life and she's dumb as a bag of rocks.

The stock market has been climbing since she's been in office. I could care less about the politics.

#6. Tyler's Fact of the Day:

I have been wrong. Estimates are not facts.

#1...Nice. Interesting stuff I was completely ignorant about.

3 - if people who routinely glorify eternal torture of their opponents count as "good people", then you really didn't think it through. In the spirit of reciprocity, what do people deserve who devoted their lives to an ideology that normalizes and moralizes eternal torture?

Mormons glorify eternal torture??

Feel free to correct me if I understand their religion incorrectly.

But to my knowledge, they believe that there is an actual hell, people end up there for various reasons including suicide or atheism, that they cannot choose nonexistence instead, that they are really tortured there, and that it lasts forever.

That alone wouldn't imply moralization, but they also believe that this system was created and is continually condoned by God, who is the absolute moral authority of all existence. Now that combination does indeed imply a glorification and normalization of eternal torture.

Mormons actually believe the opposite. Nearly everyone goes to one of three heavens, with the most noble and Christlike going to the highest heaven. The lowest heaven is still a paradise.

Perhaps I remembered incorrectly. It's been a while since I read much about Mormon metaphysics, since it's so detached from scientific realism. Maybe I mixed it up with other forms of Christianity in my memory. A quick wikipedia search does lead to a "Sons of Perdition" article that sounds a lot like classical Hell, but I'm not sure I would qualify.

You are uniformed. No regular person would qualify. You have to be a prophet or apostle or something with full knowledge of God would then rebels. It's something you have to choose. Judas is a common example, but even there it's debated if he truly had sufficient knowledge to qualify.

In that case, thanks for the correction. I trust your word on it.

Gov. Palin was an experience public executive (11 years as mayor, state bureau chief, and Governor), twenty years married, and the mother of five children. She was at the time 15 years older than Occasional-Cortex is today. She was also a small-town dweller born and bred and steeped in the discrete local culture of Alaska. No clue why you would be motivated to compare these two women at all. Why not compare Occasional-Cortex to Barbara Bush, who at least grew up in Westchester?

"No clue"

Evidently

Evidently it doesn't occur to you to poke your head in Tyler's office and ask him yourself why the two are conjoined in his head.

I'm so busy living in your head I don't have the time.

lol. TTTP got pwn'd like a cuck.

They are compared because America's elites despise them both and arrogantly dismiss them the same way.

#6: I wish I could take Krugman seriously. It's got to a point where I can't really read anything he writes, it just feels like a propaganda piece no matter what the subject really is. I know he has a past that supports his current fame but to me that is just a facade. We should just give him a MSNBC show and call it a day.

How can you take John Cochrane seriously?

"No, the world is not a static, zero-sum game."

Typical free lunch economist!

While not static, the world is zero sum. Its the iron law of nature.

And economists can not escape nature.

You can not cut my cost to $50 while selling me something for $100.

Cutting taxes and government spending will cut GDP. Tansstaafl.

Until economists prove Social Security beneficiaries cash their monthy payments into $20s they then burn, any meaningful "entitlement cuts" will cut consumer spending, aka business sales aka business revenue aka GDP.

Lets say the employer part of FICA were cut to zero and benefits cut in half, would employers increase hiring of the disable and ovver 65 workers to keep labor costs constant, and thus consumer income constant, to sell exactly the same dollars in goods? Labor productivity would need to fall by roughly 7%.

Tanstaafl

Zero sum.

Krugman has been corrupted by free lunch economics and has failed to see its flaws, and thus argues Keynes using bad free lunch economics logic.

AOC is young. In her twenties. If she is smart she will move on from inevitable mistakes and play a long game. Aim for House Speaker in 2040.

At the same time she is revealing things. Like how deeply the right blew it defending the ruin of Trump, before falling now mostly into passive aggressive silence.

Which will cause more lasting damage to their respective party, AOC on yesterday's Sunday shows, or Trump tonight on his government shutdown?

The Dems get out of any AOC blunder with "she's a freshman." Republicans not so much. He is literally the leader of the Party.

The loony left wing of the Dems needs to blunder often so the sensible center-left can marginalize them. Like the sensible Reps were unable to do with Trump.

She's revealing nothing of the sort, but continue with your wishcasting if it helps you feel better.

If Occasional-Cortex were smart the broad and useful sense, she'd have a life. She doesn't have that. What she has is a berth as a parody member of Congress.

You should try to be a little cooler, and a little more self-aware. You should just move on to some issue you think important.

But sadly no, in the midst of a government shutdown, over a b.s. wall, you need to fetishize a freshman congresswoman.

Populism and Trumpism are busted.

Not to worry, the shutdown will end. Trump will lose.

We own literally every position of power minus the presidency. He loses, and more importantly the idea of limiting illegal immigration is morally tainted forever.

It’s an exciting time. I think with some effort and money we can change the Overton window to make any opposition to immigration limits a moral issue.

Trump has been fantastic. We will be able to keep wage inflation negative for another generation! And soon we can apply that to “educated workers.”

#6..."The one thing we should learn from the New York Times and others' probes in to Trump Tax Land is just how far very wealthy people will go to avoid paying taxes. Especially estate taxes -- there is nothing like the government coming for nearly half your wealth to concentrate the mind. I venture that we would have gotten a lot more out of the Trump family with a 20% VAT and no income tax or estate tax!"

Venture all you want, but a tax system devoid of Deductions And Dodges will be less liable to abuse. BTW, let them spend their money instead of passing it along. I'm fine with that.

I'm also for a progressive income tax, in which people who are demonstrably better off in a specific year, having more income, pay the taxes. If you're worse off, you don't.

But here's what really gets me irked. The reason we have all these complex laws and screwy arguments about taxation is because people don't want to pay them. The solution is a smaller, fairer, more stable social arrangement, otherwise we'll be playing musical taxes forever. This means cutting the Defense Budget, a system so riddled with pork that I'm ruling it treif.

6. I see marginal rates of 70 or 80 percent thrown around with much energy, but without tying them tightly to an income type and level. Without any ancillary rules (income averaging?)
I think that destroys the whole defense. He is not serious, while complaining that other people say he is not serious.

The point of high marginal tax rates with tax deductions for building capital is to implement Keynes policy prescription to eliminate capital scarcity.

Note, before Reagan anfd free lunch economics, capital was built with labor, not created by assset price inflation or ddebt leverage.

High tax rates plus deductions for paying workers to build factories, utility lines, power plants, drill baby drill, etc results in high employment, high wages, high production, high demand, lots of productive capital, barely enough return to capital to pay capital labor costs, and very low profits.

An efficient economy has low profits, profits being the reward for restrictions on capital to create scarcity allowing rent seeking.

5. AOC made a mistake, which she acknowledged, and made the point that her mistake didn't take away from her broader point. Since she was corrected, she hasn't repeated the mistake. She's been a Congresswoman for three days. I expect her to make a lot more mistakes, but she's doing it as one of 435 representatives. As long as she learns from her mistakes and continually improves in her role, she'll do fine. I just wish people would stop drawing false equivalencies between her and Trump. A member of the House making a mistake and correcting herself isn't in the same galaxy as a president who will repeat the same lie literally hundreds of times after being corrected.

It's sad that something so obvious has to be spelled out for some folks here.

#6 Thanks for this one. I read the Krugman article and it really rubbed me the wrong way for a number of reasons, especially some of the clearly unsound reasoning. Nice to read someone picking it apart.

Also, it was only from that Krugman article that I learned that AOC was "in trouble" for being attractive while dancing. Haven't heard any conservatives or liberals criticizing her dancing, but have heard a lot of progressives hollering about how angry the GOP is about her dancing.

Anyways thanks for the article picking apart krugman, and thanks krugman for getting me to google AOC dancing. Oh and thanks AOC for dancing.

The entire dancing clip was probably a viral trick. An account recently set up launched it and then closed. Had a suspicious name.

What a great way to get more coverage but not look narcissistic.

"Oh, we didn't release our own video of us dancing, someone else did, and boy are they dumb to be mad about it."

Nope, it is legit. For example

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/exclusive-yorktown-elitist-and-bronx-hoaxer-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-went-by-sandy-well-into-college-at-boston-u-video/

They are seriously headlining that she called herself "Sandy."

Watch memeorandum to see these things Bubble Up in real time.

https://www.memeorandum.com/m/

The only thing that article is critical of is that she's trying to misrepresent her background as being less affluent than it seemingly was.

It's not critical of her dancing, and it's not critical of her nickname (?) either.

It is literally the headline.

The headline is literally "exclusive-yorktown-elitist-and-bronx-hoaxer"

Sandy is a screamer

Right wingers losing their grey matter over Sandy is such a delight.

She misrepresented her background.

Then again, so did Trump.

The other thing they have in common is their combination of stupidity, ignorance, and malice towards The Other.

6. The three choices for high earners are: (1) pay the tax, (2) evade the tax, or (3) invest and receive the offset to income and the high tax rate. With today's relatively low tax rate, some high earners simply pay the tax. But today evasion is not only easy enough, it's pursued with the blessing of the current regime. That leaves investment to minimize the tax. It seemed to work quite well when the top marginal rate was 90% and methods of evasion were both less available and fraught with more risk (of prison). The benefit then, of course, was the incentive to invest. Today, we have easy evasion and far less investment, but far higher deficits (in the trillions). I don't expect high earners today to choose pay the tax, not with evasion so easy and risk of imprisonment remote. So we are stuck: low levels of compliance, low levels of investment, low levels of economic growth, and high levels of debt. That's a fine mess you've gotten us into for which Mr. Cochrane has no answer other than to lecture.

You can either evade the tax or pay the tax. There is no investment option that spares you from paying the tax....

I'd like to introduce you to my fishy friend (a red herring) called the Healthcare Savings account (A triple tax advantaged account) and his cousins, the 401k and the IRA.

But yes you're right generally

The limits for those aren't very high. Red herring indeed.

Then how do people such as Trump avoid the income tax? You obviously don't advise people about investments to minimize or avoid tax. In the 1980s, investment in aircraft was a common practice. Today, the preferred method is to hide assets in tax havens. I say hide because U.S. residents are taxed on worldwide income, Yea, right.

As someone on the right, every time I want to write AOC off, I just can’t.

Her problem is going to come down to the Hamptons-Hollywood wing of the Democratic Party. If she can’t get them totally on her side she’ll never have enough money.

It’s really hard to look at the democratic candidates and pick which one the hamptons-Hollywood marchine will support Hilary, Michelle, Or Biden?

Certainly they’d rather watch Bernie or the women from New England die in a tire fire....

The reason you come across so world-weary is that you have all the inside dope and saw it all coming.

Good tip on the Hamptons-Hollywood machine.

"It seemed to work quite well when the top marginal rate was 90% and methods of evasion were both less available and fraught with more risk (of prison). "

This is an ignorant comment, that borders on delusional. It's well documented that when the marginal tax rate was extremely high, people mostly avoided paying it.

In the 1950's the effective tax rate on the top 1% was 42%. In 2014 the figure was 36%.

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

The US government has never collected more than 20% of GDP in taxes. And the range has been 17% +/- 3% for the last 70 years.

Link:

http://reason.com/blog/2019/01/06/increasing-top-tax-brackets-is-easier-th

AOC could be taking the long view and playing both ends of this game -- cavort around like a fool now but then morph toward a more sober, responsible tone (by 2028!!). The media meme would be, "Look how she's grown in stature and gravitas!"

It might even be what actually is happening. She's pretty young right now, of course she will mature and grow in gravitas.

2028 might be a little soon, she will still be under 40, and after 8 years of President Beto the electorate will be ready to swing Rep again.

I don't know, President Elizabeth might have broken that likeability thing by opening a beer.

That and anybody with a pulse could beat Trump at this point. The naked president is busted.

I'm not surprised a leftist like you would prefer a very leftist president like Warren. I'm even less surprised you think Trump has no chance of winning again. Surely you felt the same in November of 2016.

The fact is, if the economy is still humming in 2020 and the Dems nominate someone terrible like they did in 2016, he probably wins again.

I thought I saw a recent two axis plot that put Warren between Obama and Hillary on the issues, well to the right of Bernie.

But I don't think you really get Trump's problem. The way you get reelected after a turnaround like 2018 is by repositioning to the center, and at least pretending bipartisanship.

Instead he thinks the way to win (or survive?) is to be even more Trumpy, and to drive away more of the principled and rational Republicans on his side.

Geez, internalize the Mattis story, would ya?

I hope you appreciate the effort, I dug up that chart.

https://twitter.com/micahcohen/status/1080435101534769152?s=19

Thanks, but that chart is trying way too hard to do something impossible, quantify in mathematical detail someone's ideological bent. Fact is these people have a 'brand', and Warren's is pretty lefty. Dems are going to vote Dem, Reps vote Rep, and all that matters are a few swing voters in Florida and the Midwest. If the economy is still good in 2020 Trump probably wins again.

Only politics geeks like us pay attention to these wonky details.

Barry Ritholtz, who we should all respect, made an observation recently. He said Trump was the only guy who could make Wall Street love Liz Warren.

You get that, right? Elizabeth Warren fundamentally believes in capitalism, but she wants laws to protect the little guy.

Wall Street might end up preferring that. Wall Street might end up preferring that to someone who does not actually respect markets.

So what? I'm talking voters, and the electoral math. Good economy probably = 4 more years of Trump, I'm sorry to say.

That is certainly conventional wisdom, and all else being the same, sure.

But my early prediction of Trump as a Carter is looking pretty good to me, even if your mileage may vary.

I say he will be one-and-done, with a tarnish on the party for decades.

Certainly possible, and I'm rooting for it too. But the party will throw him away so fast they won't be tarnished. Remember, Reps are always Reps. They will just run with the ideas Trump touts that their voters like, but without being douchebags.

Paul Ryan was still kinda douchey in his own way.

"Surely you felt the same in November of 2016."

No, I understood the possibility that an incompetent, totally unsuited to the office, *might* win.

And here we are, in shutdown over a vanity project.

My point is simply that the same incompetent might win again, because most of his voters are still right there with him. You are too confident.

How with him are they? Trumpists vintage 2016 would have been all over this page with "Yay, shutdown. Yay, wall."

Their absence is the message. He's done.

This site is a bunch of anonymous geeky political goofing off. All the Trump voters here are still voting Trump in 2020, as are almost all of Trump's voters from 2016. They are still with him.

Comes down to a few thousand swing voters. All the stuff we go on about here is totally divorced from how most of the electorate does things.

So call me a Sherlock Holmes fan, that I listen for the dog which does not bark.

Unlike Clinton, Obama did very little to reposition himself to the center after 2010, so it's not obvious that Trump needs to do much ideological repositioning. Less chaos wouldn't be what is normally regarded as an ideological shift.

Trump understands that he needs to deliver a win to his base (tax cuts and judges are only standard Republican fare), and if there's one thing that Trump has talked about ad naseum, it's the wall.

????? Barry Ritholz WHO WE SHOULD ALL RESPECT. WHY ?? He’s a jackass

and you can say that again. Sorry, staying anonymous for obvious reasons.

3. Morality is designed to keep stupid people out of trouble.

BTW, diversity breeds poverty, ignorance and violence.

Monocultures also lead to poverty, ignorance, and violence. And mentally retarded children.

5. I always thought that socialism is a religion. Another corrupt ideology where the facts are irrelevant.

2. The ongoing deregulation of roadkill consumption.
------

How do they get all the cows onto the freeways?

TC, any word on the "Sonic Attacks!" that you were trying to hype up?

"Crickets could be behind the Cuba 'sonic attack' mystery, scientists say"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/health/cuba-sonic-attack-crickets-scli-intl/index.html

3. "Poverty is strongly correlated with income..."

Truer words were never spoken.

Mormons pay an extra 10% voluntary tax to the church. One would think that would have a negative effect on poverty rates. I also wonder what Tyler thinks of the traditional gender roles Mormons espouse.

One of the stupidest comments I have seen on this blog. So lacking in understanding of basic economics that AOC could have written it.

Doesn't it depend on what the church does with the money?

No one would not. It's essentially a private welfare state. It might reduce wealth for higher-income professionals, but it is a boon to those at the low end.

Cochrane says "or even in Krugman's cherished 1950, and you look at how amazingly better off we all are today." - all?

#3 - For what it's worth, the relationship between righteousness and wealth is one of the key themes of the Book of Mormon. "Inasmuch as ye keep the commandments, ye shall prosper in the land," is a familiar phrase in the text. Righteousness leads prosperity. However, prosperity in turn tends to lead to ride and wickedness, and this eventually leads to collapse, which in turn eventually leads to humility which starts the cycle over again.

-The model described above contains a dynamic component that isn't captured with "snap-shot" correlational analyses. Rather than points, you need a three dimensional vector plus a time dimension. And there is a considerable lag on the effects, probably measured in generations.

-"Prosperity" is not really the same as GDP. The ideal is referred to as Zion, a society of unity with no rich or poor. Another ideal is "Deseret," a neologism said to mean "honey bee." The metaphor suggests a hard working unified people, a superorganism like the bee hive. This is why there are bee hives on the highway signs in Utah. Mormon prosperity might be somewhat underrated by conventional economic measures (cost of living among other things). Modern capitalism and modern conservative free market philosophy have probably changed this considerably as today it seems to be understood that Zion is unattainable ideal.

-The New Testament is pretty much anti-wealth. This fits the apocalyptic worldview of Jesus and early Christianity, i.e., what's the point of wealth if the kingdom of heaven is at hand? These ideas have influenced the Mormon worldview somewhat, but practically speaking not much aside from possibly some aversion to ostentatious wealth. A Mormon man will tend to live somewhat more downscale compared a man of similar income and profession. The Mormon is paying tithing and has a large family while the other man goes on vacations to Greece and drives a Mercedes.

#2 (Hmmm...Freudian slip?): Great recommendation coming from a classic foodie like our blog host!

Comments for this post are closed