A 1% Tells the Truth About Job Creation
digbysblog.blogspot.tw
digbysblog.blogspot.tw
See how this is not the most productive line of "argumentation"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(And yes, banks could theoretically loan out the money, but currently they won't.)