Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Well, damn, ace....I guess that means no Nobel Prize for economics for Dux Deduces.
I knew I should not have been as simplistic as Hauser.
|
Perhaps one for humor or loyalty to your party's empty rhetoric.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
correlation is not causation, ace.
you can show correlation between any two variables and even produce a nifty graph that makes it appear o-so-objective--particularly if your entire information source is a wsj editorial---i was hoping to find hauser's paper in which this model was developed, but so far m intermittent net access (one of the real treats of moving house) has gotten in the way--from what i have found, however, i am more than suspicious of everything about the infotainment you provided.
so do you have the research behind this ace?
have you looked into how the modelling was done, what the methodology was?
if so, care to explain it? or post a link?
because so far as i can see, all you've got behind your supply-side cant is an editorial that presents NO information that you believe because it fits with your metaphysical understanding of markets.
if you don't have the information, and given that anyone can generate correlations using a regression analysis or any number of other relatively simple statistical models, and that no chart bit in a wsj editorial without any reference to method, without any reference to context can possibly be seen by anyone--not even a believer like yourself--as proof of fuck all, i don't really see what you've got to be so cocky about, nor do i see on what basis you get to set the criteria for refuation of hauser's "law"--PARTICULARLY given that there is already information in the thread that takes it apart.
do let me know when you find that data, ace.
|
What I did was A) show the correlation or lack of correlation and B) I gave an analysis of real world behavior that supports my conclusion. I have not seen nor have I done the math or research to show causation, nor have I been saying there is causation. At this point, I could still be wrong in my conclusion. However, no one has taken a serious approach to contradict my conclusion. Hauser's chart, is real data put in graphic form. The graphic supports "supply side" economics. Real world activities support "supply side". "Supply siders" know there is a point where marginal tax rates will have a big impact on GDP if reduced and a point where marginal tax rates will have no impact on GDP if reduced. There is a theoretical equilibrium point, given the complexities of our economy we will never know what that point is exactly.
I am not sure what takes Hauser's chart apart, please show me. All he does is show marginal tax rates (factual data) and tax revenues as a percentage of GDP (factual data).