A 1% Tells the Truth About Job Creation

http://digbysblog.blogspot.tw/2013/06/a-1-percenter-tells-truth-about-job.html?m=1

by johnjlocke • 13 years ago

25 10 13 years ago

digbysblog.blogspot.tw

tptacek• 13 years ago

I agree with I think this entire post, strongly, but would still like someone to explain how it's appropriate for HN; it reads like a top-tier /r/politics post.

rd108• 13 years ago

Here's the TED talk ("censored" from TED) A TED Talk on Income Inequality by Nick Hanauer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIhOXCgSunc

coolj2• 13 years ago

"A random guy with some money and no particular qualifications to address economic theory, addresses economic theory"

kkowalczyk• 13 years ago

"A random guy with no particular qualifications to write comments, writes a comment."

See how this is not the most productive line of "argumentation"?

CleanedStar• 13 years ago

Particular qualifications to address economic theory? What is this, quantum mechanics?

There is a fight and a struggle over how the pie is divided up. To call the arguments around this "theories" which one must be "qualified" to discuss, is a laugh. It's more akin to theologians arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Most economic "theories" boil down to who the money should go to. In your world, only people with "particular qualifications" are allowed to have a say on this topic. Also, what a surprise, the "qualified" people always say that what should be done is what is good for the heirs who bankroll their think tanks, endow their chair at their schools and whatnot.

There hasn't been any mainstream study of economics for well over a century. There has never been actually. In the time of Adam Smith, there was an area of study called political economy in which, right or wrong, there was an honest attempt to study the topic. Although honest mainstream inquiry stopped before it happened, when "political economy" was tossed and "econom-ics" (like phys-ics? mathemat-ics? genet-ics?) came into being, the field had already been completely overrun by BS.

Read Adam Smith, Ricardo, Say, Mill etc. if you're interested. There is no living mainstream "economist" who is not a complete BS artist.

coolj2• 13 years ago

In your world, only people with "particular qualifications" are allowed to have a say on this topic.

In the real world ("my world"), economics involves multiple actors in complex, dynamic relationships, which require precise, controlled examination, in order to derive theories that enable accurate predictions and insight into causes and effects.

cynicalkane• 13 years ago

In the same way that it’s a fact that the sun, not earth is the center of the solar system, it’s also a fact that the middle class, not rich business people like me are the center of America’s economy

I think the author is slightly overestimating the extent to which he understands economics. No doubt the author has some very sound data to support this thesis, although he has chosen to support it with anecdotes and incorrect economics instead.

For instance, he complains about the 39% top marginal rate on middle-class, ordinary Americans. Now, it is an actual fact that people who make this top marginal rate are not "middle class" by many common definitions. In his imaginary pro-worker universe which he incorrectly labels "Keynesian", that rate would also be a lot higher.

mapt• 13 years ago

Most people point to the reduction in the top marginal rate as the primary mechanism by which the progressive income tax has been weakened and has contributed to income inequality. Others will say this is all bunk and capital gains becoming a primary compensation mechanism is what has caused the destabilizing imbalance.

There is another thing we've been doing, though - Reagan in 1986 dramatically reduced the boundary of the top tax bracket versus its trajectory in the rest of the 20th century, to 5% of what it had been. Until then, you could reasonably argue about trashing the millionaire's extra yacht so that the $200k-ionaire could succeed. Later politicians raised it somewhat, but never to levels approaching the 50's - 70's. We appear to have tied it all together in order to mobilize the high-skill working people & entrepreneurs to defend the truly rich from having to contribute a larger share.

skybrian• 13 years ago

Why the middle class in particular? If our economy is based on spending, then it like giving money to anyone who will spend it is the answer. Could be poor, middle class, or rich, so long as they don't just put it into their bank account.

(And yes, banks could theoretically loan out the money, but currently they won't.)

goofygrin• 13 years ago

The point that drove it home is that businesses aren't in t business of "creating jobs." We're in it to make money. I hire when it hurts. I don't hire when I have an excess of cash.

If tax rates were higher I'd hire people, buy office space or equipment. Anything to keep me from having to just gift it to the idjits in Washington.

A 1% Tells the Truth About Job Creation

Related Stories