Wintery Knight does an interesting look at the new "infrastructure" plan from the Biden administration, https://winteryknight.com/2021/11/18/how-much-does-joe-bidens-build-back-better-stimulus-cost-and-who-benefits/, and it points out something interesting. For years we've been told that tax cuts for the rich are bad, but this bill actually provides an effective federal tax cut for the rich. While at the same time, high inflation lowers the relative income of the poor. This seems like a strange set of circumstances for a progressive administration.
7 comments:
You assume they understand economics.
Not at all. I don't assume anyone in DC understands economics. I'm a little shocked at the lack of outrage over Biden cutting taxes for the 1% though. I'm also confused about how this is considered an "infrastructure" bill when the bulk of the $$$$$ doesn't go to infrastructure.
Craig... "how this is considered an "infrastructure" bill when the bulk of the $$$$$ doesn't go to infrastructure."
Thereby demonstrating profound lack of understanding of both infrastructure and economics.
I do agree that giving more tax breaks to the wealthy is not a good thing... it's a shame that the conservative democrats pushed that and they had to go along with it to get the conservative buy-in.
Economics is a strange and hard to predict science, but at least 15 Nobel Prize winning economists think that this plan will ease inflation and help otherwise. The main problem is that there's not ENOUGH investment, but we have to blame the conservatives for that, don't we?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/bidens-build-back-better-plan-will-ease-inflation-15-nobel-prize-economists-say-1629921%3famp=1
Of course we should blame "conservatives" for the fact that the Biden administration and a DFL controlled congress was unable to cram even more non infrastructure spending in this bill. Oh, if it's such a great bill, why has Biden been lying about it having "no cost" when the CBO and other non partisan scoring entities have made it clear that it'll add trillions to the debt/deficit?
Reading Dan's link, it lists these "Nobel Prize winning economists" and the first on the list was familiar. On doing some research, I found out why:
https://www.city-journal.org/joseph-stiglitz-venezuela-16181.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2015/04/24/nobel-economist-joseph-stiglitz-misdiagnoses-inequality-and-the-cause-of-middle-class-woes/?sh=1a7bed8d21c2
Clearly, like Paul Krugman, not the brightest bulb in the economics chandelier, though it seems clear he likes to think so.
I would also note the fact that a Nobel Prize doesn't mean jack except to tout the prize as a reason everyone should bow down. While Krugman is routinely mocked for stupidity in his opinions, most economists, including conservative examples, feel his work which earned him a Nobel warranted the prize.
It should also be noted that the Nobel committee is a group of lefties giving awards to lefties. How else could morons like Barrack Obama and Al Gore be given one? And in Obama's case, there far more deserving nominees as I recall.
There are clear "rules", if you will, of economics which can easily determine the potential success or failure of an policy proposal. Among them is the problem of government intervention, which typically causes far more problems than improvements. Those policies which pull back government interference to allow more freedom for the private sector have always been more successful at bringing about better economic consequences.
"Craig... "how this is considered an "infrastructure" bill when the bulk of the $$$$$ doesn't go to infrastructure."
Thereby demonstrating profound lack of understanding of both infrastructure and economics."
This is hardly a response to Craig's concern. It's no more than, "well if you have to ask, I'm certainly not going to tell you" bullshit, meant to imply understanding of which Dan is not in possession.
Post a Comment