I found this, and it's all confusing to me

[Argonath]

I found this at that Bull Frog (for those who remember) site. Kinda interesting, but skewed a bit.

http://ecolanguage.net/movieBush.html

Check it out. It's interesting, but i'm to young to really understand what's going on in it. what do you think of it?

[Devil_rules_in_extremes]

Yea that is pretty interesting... And pretty long.... But never-the-less interesting...

I wonder what our local economics professor OI VE would say about that movie...?

[erichthewebguy]

I can see why it's confusing... I only watched like 4 minutes of it and can see that it's flawed. He uses arbitrary figures and jumps around more than a pogo stick! He said "now we're ready to look at distribution" at least twice, if not three or four times. I thought it was closer to four.

If you're gonna look at distribution, then do it. Else don't say that you're ready to.

Confusing is the right word.

[Oi_Ve]

The speaker made a crack about "honest economists", suggesting anyone who does not agree with him is dishonest. I won't bother pointing out the dishonesties lying in his movie (like the down playing of corporate taxes)
Instead, I'm going to point out just one dishonesty in his movie, and its the biggest one there is.

According to the movie, "honest economists" favored tax cuts for the middle and lower class.

TRUTH: "Honest" economists (i.e. competent economists) have been and still are calling for the removal of the income tax, not tax cuts. Indeed, the removal of ALL federal taxes is a common case made by economists. Instead they've been proposing a national sales tax (not a flat tax, contrary to popular belief).

Why? Read here to find out.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa193.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-272.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-289.html

You might have to scroll down a bit to fidn the text.

Anywho, for the Reaganomics fans, here's a slightly dusty study of Reagan's economic legacy, done before the real tech bubble growth. Note though that bubbles are market caused, and are almost never good for the economy (how much did people bitch about a "recession" a few years ago?). Don't worry, it has lots of graphs and pictures, so its easy to read :icon_wink

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

[Schmitty27]

I love how he said tax cuts to the rich may, JUST MAY, help out in the long term. Yet after Bush's tax cuts our economy is doing well almost 6 years after the internet recession, seemed like it helped a lot to me.

And if you give tax cuts to the lower percentilesand raise the taxes of the richest, they will cut their spending and not invest in business. This will make fewer items available for the lower percentiles to buy. Its nice that mister narrator never touched on that piece of information.