Paul Krugman is a jackass (2 Viewers)

[Andy Dufresne]

No, Krugman advocated for a good solution.

He advocated A solution.

 

[timschochet]

Some of both. It's a fact of life in a modern economy that some skills are going to become obsolete over time; I don't see that as a major issue. Most people change careers several times during their working lives, and they seem to get by okay.

We're not talking about buggy whip manufacturers here. We're talking about technology increasingly eliminating the need for low-skilled laber across many/most industries, and there is realistically no new skill available to people that will let them earn a living. We can't all be highly skilled. What do you do with the people who are permanently left behind?

But this exact same argument was made every time technology changed. Every time it was assumed that the disruption in employment would be a permanent feature, and so redistribution of wealth was the only antidote.Your underlying assumption (and Krugman's) is that wealth is static and that new sources of wealth cannot be created from this point forward. That doesn't jibe with human history.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Your underlying assumption (and Krugman's) is that wealth is static and that new sources of wealth cannot be created from this point forward.

Neither wdcrob nor Krugman said this. Or assumed it.

 

[Slapdash]

Your underlying assumption (and Krugman's) is that wealth is static and that new sources of wealth cannot be created from this point forward.

Neither wdcrob nor Krugman said this. Or assumed it.

 

[timschochet]

Your underlying assumption (and Krugman's) is that wealth is static and that new sources of wealth cannot be created from this point forward.

Neither wdcrob nor Krugman said this. Or assumed it.

Anytime redistribution of wealth is offered as a solution to job disruption caused by technological changes, this is the underlying assumption. I use the word underlying because it doesn't require conscious acknowledgment. It's a logical progression.

 

[Slapdash]

Okay. Let's get serious a moment.

Which of these modern skills really require four year degrees? I think he tickles the edges of it when he posits:

And the modern counterparts of those woolworkers might well ask further, what will happen to us if, like so many students, we go deep into debt to acquire the skills we’re told we need, only to learn that the economy no longer wants those skills? Education, then, is no longer the answer to rising inequality, if it ever was (which I doubt).

I think the answer is an evaluation of the current education (particularly post-secondary). Should people be getting four year degrees that teach subjects broadly or is it more worthwhile to go to 1-2 year trade schools that teach specific knowledge sets?

Education isn't about skills, it is about signals. Community colleges aren't going to give a student the same signal to employers even if they impart a similar skill set.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

He raises some good points but then falls back on his tried and tired solution.

"What are we supposed to do with all these people who have skills we don't need? Pay them anyway, of course."

When have we tried to have a safety net that guarantees health care and basic income?

I just thought it was funny the way he put it:

So what is the answer? If the picture I’ve drawn is at all right, the only way we could have anything resembling a middle-class society — a society in which ordinary citizens have a reasonable assurance of maintaining a decent life as long as they work hard and play by the rules — would be by having a strong social safety net, one that guarantees not just health care but a minimum income, too. And with an ever-rising share of income going to capital rather than labor, that safety net would have to be paid for to an important extent via taxes on profits and/or investment income.

He's all but admitting that he can conceive of no other idea.

Doesn't seem like the rest of you can either.

So I'm just as useless as Krugman on the issue. Yay me!

Here's my answer:

Make pre-natal care available for every pregnancy and ensure that everyone has access to health care

Make Head Start available for all children

Work to make public schools stronger, and make charter schools available as an alternative where they're failing

Make vocational training a part of H.S. again and have similar regional centers available afterward

Eliminate tax breaks and financial incentives for companies to move jobs/industries overseas

Make the minimum wage a livable wage

Provide generous unemployment and job training for people who lose their jobs

To pay for this:

Break up the big banks and restore banking regulations such as Glass-Steagall

Ban high-frequency trading

Roll back bankruptcy laws to 1990s rules

Tax capital gains as normal income

Eliminate the current tax breaks that overwhelmingly favor the wealthiest

Raise taxes on the wealthy to 50% over the next twenty years

Legalize marijuana and tax it

Increase consumption taxes on cigarettes, alchol and gasoline

Introduce a single-payer health care system to recognize the same cost efficiencies enjoyed by Medicare

 

[Slapdash]

Your underlying assumption (and Krugman's) is that wealth is static and that new sources of wealth cannot be created from this point forward.

Neither wdcrob nor Krugman said this. Or assumed it.

Anytime redistribution of wealth is offered as a solution to job disruption caused by technological changes, this is the underlying assumption. I use the word underlying because it doesn't require conscious acknowledgment. It's a logical progression.

No, it isn't. Why don't you stop telling other people what they think?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Education isn't about skills, it is about signals. Community colleges aren't going to give a student the same signal to employers even if they impart a similar skill set.

You're talking about status? I think that's part of the thing that needs to change.

And I'm not necessarily talking about Community colleges (which, to me seem to provide the lightweight coursework required before students move on to the four year college). I'm talking more about Tech schools, which are a different thing.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Your underlying assumption (and Krugman's) is that wealth is static and that new sources of wealth cannot be created from this point forward.

Neither wdcrob nor Krugman said this. Or assumed it.

Anytime redistribution of wealth is offered as a solution to job disruption caused by technological changes, this is the underlying assumption. I use the word underlying because it doesn't require conscious acknowledgment. It's a logical progression.

No it isn't necessarily a logical progression. Krugman's op-ed talks about how technology is consolidating wealth in fewer hands. That doesn't mean there's a finite amount of wealth.

 

[Slapdash]

Education isn't about skills, it is about signals. Community colleges aren't going to give a student the same signal to employers even if they impart a similar skill set.

You're talking about status? I think that's part of the thing that needs to change.

And I'm not necessarily talking about Community colleges (which, to me seem to provide the lightweight coursework required before students move on to the four year college). I'm talking more about Tech schools, which are a different thing.

Awfully hard to change how society views education I think. Not sure how you would propose doing that.

I think they're pretty equivalent, most institutions seem to do a mix of both that I have seen.

 

[timschochet]

He raises some good points but then falls back on his tried and tired solution.

"What are we supposed to do with all these people who have skills we don't need? Pay them anyway, of course."

When have we tried to have a safety net that guarantees health care and basic income?

I just thought it was funny the way he put it:

So what is the answer? If the picture Ive drawn is at all right, the only way we could have anything resembling a middle-class society a society in which ordinary citizens have a reasonable assurance of maintaining a decent life as long as they work hard and play by the rules would be by having a strong social safety net, one that guarantees not just health care but a minimum income, too. And with an ever-rising share of income going to capital rather than labor, that safety net would have to be paid for to an important extent via taxes on profits and/or investment income.

He's all but admitting that he can conceive of no other idea.

Doesn't seem like the rest of you can either.

So I'm just as useless as Krugman on the issue. Yay me!

Here's my answer:

Make pre-natal care available for every pregnancy and ensure that everyone has access to health care

Make Head Start available for all children

Work to make public schools stronger, and make charter schools available as an alternative where they're failing

Make vocational training a part of H.S. again and have similar regional centers available afterward

Eliminate tax breaks and financial incentives for companies to move jobs/industries overseas

Make the minimum wage a livable wage

Provide generous unemployment and job training for people who lose their jobs

To pay for this:

Break up the big banks and restore banking regulations such as Glass-Steagall

Ban high-frequency trading

Roll back bankruptcy laws to 1990s rules

Tax capital gains as normal income

Eliminate the current tax breaks that overwhelmingly favor the wealthiest

Raise taxes on the wealthy to 50% over the next twenty years

Legalize marijuana and tax it

Increase consumption taxes on cigarettes, alchol and gasoline

Introduce a single-payer health care system to recognize the same cost efficiencies enjoyed by Medicare

I like some of your ideas. I dislike more, however.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'd vote for wdcrob.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Education isn't about skills, it is about signals. Community colleges aren't going to give a student the same signal to employers even if they impart a similar skill set.

You're talking about status? I think that's part of the thing that needs to change

And I'm not necessarily talking about Community colleges (which, to me seem to provide the lightweight coursework required before students move on to the four year college). I'm talking more about Tech schools, which are a different thing.

Awfully hard to change how society views education I think. Not sure how you would propose doing that.

I think they're pretty equivalent, most institutions seem to do a mix of both that I have seen.

Yes and no. You're already seeing a backlash against four year programs that charge an arm and a leg while providing knowledge that's germane to nothing.

We perceive value and if more people feel that the education they receive at the "higher" institutions doesn't provide value then they'll turn to alternative solutions. Particularly when you need to retrain yourself with new skills in a 1-2 year timeframe.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

He raises some good points but then falls back on his tried and tired solution.

"What are we supposed to do with all these people who have skills we don't need? Pay them anyway, of course."

When have we tried to have a safety net that guarantees health care and basic income?

I just thought it was funny the way he put it:

So what is the answer? If the picture Ive drawn is at all right, the only way we could have anything resembling a middle-class society a society in which ordinary citizens have a reasonable assurance of maintaining a decent life as long as they work hard and play by the rules would be by having a strong social safety net, one that guarantees not just health care but a minimum income, too. And with an ever-rising share of income going to capital rather than labor, that safety net would have to be paid for to an important extent via taxes on profits and/or investment income.

He's all but admitting that he can conceive of no other idea.

Doesn't seem like the rest of you can either.

So I'm just as useless as Krugman on the issue. Yay me!

Here's my answer:

Make pre-natal care available for every pregnancy and ensure that everyone has access to health care

Make Head Start available for all children

Work to make public schools stronger, and make charter schools available as an alternative where they're failing

Make vocational training a part of H.S. again and have similar regional centers available afterward

Eliminate tax breaks and financial incentives for companies to move jobs/industries overseas

Make the minimum wage a livable wage

Provide generous unemployment and job training for people who lose their jobs

To pay for this:

Break up the big banks and restore banking regulations such as Glass-Steagall

Ban high-frequency trading

Roll back bankruptcy laws to 1990s rules

Tax capital gains as normal income

Eliminate the current tax breaks that overwhelmingly favor the wealthiest

Raise taxes on the wealthy to 50% over the next twenty years

Legalize marijuana and tax it

Increase consumption taxes on cigarettes, alchol and gasoline

Introduce a single-payer health care system to recognize the same cost efficiencies enjoyed by Medicare

I like some of your ideas. I dislike more, however.

I'm sure most conservatives hate them.

What I don't hear though is a serious conservative proposal that addresses this and other problems faced by the working class.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

What I don't hear though is a serious conservative proposal that addresses this and other problems faced by the working class.

No need to make a proposal when people that lose their jobs generally get by OK.

 

[Slapdash]

Education isn't about skills, it is about signals. Community colleges aren't going to give a student the same signal to employers even if they impart a similar skill set.

You're talking about status? I think that's part of the thing that needs to change

And I'm not necessarily talking about Community colleges (which, to me seem to provide the lightweight coursework required before students move on to the four year college). I'm talking more about Tech schools, which are a different thing.

Awfully hard to change how society views education I think. Not sure how you would propose doing that.

I think they're pretty equivalent, most institutions seem to do a mix of both that I have seen.

Yes and no. You're already seeing a backlash against four year programs that charge an arm and a leg while providing knowledge that's germane to nothing.

We perceive value and if more people feel that the education they receive at the "higher" institutions doesn't provide value then they'll turn to alternative solutions. Particularly when you need to retrain yourself with new skills in a 1-2 year timeframe.

Link to this backlash? Not sure I have seen much of that, thought it would be welcome.

 

[Slapdash]

What I don't hear though is a serious conservative proposal that addresses this and other problems faced by the working class.

No need to make a proposal when people that lose their jobs generally get by OK.

sarcasm?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Education isn't about skills, it is about signals. Community colleges aren't going to give a student the same signal to employers even if they impart a similar skill set.

You're talking about status? I think that's part of the thing that needs to change

And I'm not necessarily talking about Community colleges (which, to me seem to provide the lightweight coursework required before students move on to the four year college). I'm talking more about Tech schools, which are a different thing.

Awfully hard to change how society views education I think. Not sure how you would propose doing that.

I think they're pretty equivalent, most institutions seem to do a mix of both that I have seen.

Yes and no. You're already seeing a backlash against four year programs that charge an arm and a leg while providing knowledge that's germane to nothing.

We perceive value and if more people feel that the education they receive at the "higher" institutions doesn't provide value then they'll turn to alternative solutions. Particularly when you need to retrain yourself with new skills in a 1-2 year timeframe.

Link to this backlash? Not sure I have seen much of that, thought it would be welcome.

Well, at least a "questioning".

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

What I don't hear though is a serious conservative proposal that addresses this and other problems faced by the working class.

No need to make a proposal when people that lose their jobs generally get by OK.

sarcasm?

It's a fact of life in a modern economy that some skills are going to become obsolete over time; I don't see that as a major issue. Most people change careers several times during their working lives, and they seem to get by okay.

 

[timschochet]

He raises some good points but then falls back on his tried and tired solution.

"What are we supposed to do with all these people who have skills we don't need? Pay them anyway, of course."

When have we tried to have a safety net that guarantees health care and basic income?

I just thought it was funny the way he put it:

So what is the answer? If the picture Ive drawn is at all right, the only way we could have anything resembling a middle-class society a society in which ordinary citizens have a reasonable assurance of maintaining a decent life as long as they work hard and play by the rules would be by having a strong social safety net, one that guarantees not just health care but a minimum income, too. And with an ever-rising share of income going to capital rather than labor, that safety net would have to be paid for to an important extent via taxes on profits and/or investment income.

He's all but admitting that he can conceive of no other idea.

Doesn't seem like the rest of you can either.

So I'm just as useless as Krugman on the issue. Yay me!

Here's my answer:

Make pre-natal care available for every pregnancy and ensure that everyone has access to health care

Make Head Start available for all children

Work to make public schools stronger, and make charter schools available as an alternative where they're failing

Make vocational training a part of H.S. again and have similar regional centers available afterward

Eliminate tax breaks and financial incentives for companies to move jobs/industries overseas

Make the minimum wage a livable wage

Provide generous unemployment and job training for people who lose their jobs

To pay for this:

Break up the big banks and restore banking regulations such as Glass-Steagall

Ban high-frequency trading

Roll back bankruptcy laws to 1990s rules

Tax capital gains as normal income

Eliminate the current tax breaks that overwhelmingly favor the wealthiest

Raise taxes on the wealthy to 50% over the next twenty years

Legalize marijuana and tax it

Increase consumption taxes on cigarettes, alchol and gasoline

Introduce a single-payer health care system to recognize the same cost efficiencies enjoyed by Medicare

I like some of your ideas. I dislike more, however.

I'm sure most conservatives hate them.

What I don't hear though is a serious conservative proposal that addresses this and other problems faced by the working class.

1. Slash corporate tax rates in half. 2. Promote free trade.

3. Have open immigration.

4. End minimum wage.

5. Remove cumbersome environmental restrictions.

6. Spend billions of tax money on repairing the nations infrastructure- whatever it costs.

7. Enact a national space program like effort to get us off fossil fuels.

8. Spend billions more on primary education.

These aren't conservative ideas, necessarily, but they're what I think will do the trick.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

1. Slash corporate tax rates in half.2. Promote free trade.3. Have open immigration.4. End minimum wage.5. Remove cumbersome environmental restrictions.6. Spend billions of tax money on repairing the nations infrastructure- whatever it costs.7. Enact a national space program like effort to get us off fossil fuels.These aren't conservative ideas, necessarily, but they're what I think will do the trick.

Do what trick? How does any of this stuff address what Krugman's talking about?

 

[timschochet]

1. Slash corporate tax rates in half.2. Promote free trade.3. Have open immigration.4. End minimum wage.5. Remove cumbersome environmental restrictions.6. Spend billions of tax money on repairing the nations infrastructure- whatever it costs.7. Enact a national space program like effort to get us off fossil fuels.These aren't conservative ideas, necessarily, but they're what I think will do the trick.

Do what trick? How does any of this stuff address what Krugman's talking about?

Well spending on infrastructure alone will help solve the unemployment issue. The rest of it will create a long term, stable, prosperous economy for the middle class so that these sorts of issues will be less troublesome in the future.

 

[DiStefano]

I think the government should guarantee everyone a middle class income. The beauty of that scheme is that once you have lifted everyone to a middle class income, you can recalculate, and the middle class income will be higher. So you can raise everyone to the higher level. And so on; thus guaranteeing a constantly rising income level for all Americans, which is what the government ought to do.

 

[Slapdash]

I think the government should guarantee everyone a middle class income. The beauty of that scheme is that once you have lifted everyone to a middle class income, you can recalculate, and the middle class income will be higher. So you can raise everyone to the higher level. And so on; thus guaranteeing a constantly rising income level for all Americans, which is what the government ought to do.

The gov't has been doing this in a round-about way for some time.

 

[Slapdash]

Education isn't about skills, it is about signals. Community colleges aren't going to give a student the same signal to employers even if they impart a similar skill set.

You're talking about status? I think that's part of the thing that needs to change

And I'm not necessarily talking about Community colleges (which, to me seem to provide the lightweight coursework required before students move on to the four year college). I'm talking more about Tech schools, which are a different thing.

Awfully hard to change how society views education I think. Not sure how you would propose doing that.

I think they're pretty equivalent, most institutions seem to do a mix of both that I have seen.

Yes and no. You're already seeing a backlash against four year programs that charge an arm and a leg while providing knowledge that's germane to nothing.

We perceive value and if more people feel that the education they receive at the "higher" institutions doesn't provide value then they'll turn to alternative solutions. Particularly when you need to retrain yourself with new skills in a 1-2 year timeframe.

Link to this backlash? Not sure I have seen much of that, thought it would be welcome.

Well, at least a "questioning".

I'm not sure what we can do on this front without employers, students, or colleges changing their behavior. I think they should and am open to ideas the gov't could use to prod them in that manner.

 

[NCCommish]

He raises some good points but then falls back on his tried and tired solution.

"What are we supposed to do with all these people who have skills we don't need? Pay them anyway, of course."

When have we tried to have a safety net that guarantees health care and basic income?

I just thought it was funny the way he put it:

So what is the answer? If the picture Ive drawn is at all right, the only way we could have anything resembling a middle-class society a society in which ordinary citizens have a reasonable assurance of maintaining a decent life as long as they work hard and play by the rules would be by having a strong social safety net, one that guarantees not just health care but a minimum income, too. And with an ever-rising share of income going to capital rather than labor, that safety net would have to be paid for to an important extent via taxes on profits and/or investment income.

He's all but admitting that he can conceive of no other idea.

Doesn't seem like the rest of you can either.

So I'm just as useless as Krugman on the issue. Yay me!

Here's my answer:

Make pre-natal care available for every pregnancy and ensure that everyone has access to health care

Make Head Start available for all children

Work to make public schools stronger, and make charter schools available as an alternative where they're failing

Make vocational training a part of H.S. again and have similar regional centers available afterward

Eliminate tax breaks and financial incentives for companies to move jobs/industries overseas

Make the minimum wage a livable wage

Provide generous unemployment and job training for people who lose their jobs

To pay for this:

Break up the big banks and restore banking regulations such as Glass-Steagall

Ban high-frequency trading

Roll back bankruptcy laws to 1990s rules

Tax capital gains as normal income

Eliminate the current tax breaks that overwhelmingly favor the wealthiest

Raise taxes on the wealthy to 50% over the next twenty years

Legalize marijuana and tax it

Increase consumption taxes on cigarettes, alchol and gasoline

Introduce a single-payer health care system to recognize the same cost efficiencies enjoyed by Medicare

I like some of your ideas. I dislike more, however.

I'm sure most conservatives hate them.

What I don't hear though is a serious conservative proposal that addresses this and other problems faced by the working class.

1. Slash corporate tax rates in half.2. Promote free trade.

3. Have open immigration.

4. End minimum wage.

5. Remove cumbersome environmental restrictions.

6. Spend billions of tax money on repairing the nations infrastructure- whatever it costs.

7. Enact a national space program like effort to get us off fossil fuels.

8. Spend billions more on primary education.

These aren't conservative ideas, necessarily, but they're what I think will do the trick.

This is just mish mash of talking points for the most part.

 

[timschochet]

So what if they're talking points? They happen to be the talking points I'm in favor of.

 

[NCCommish]

What Krugman is facing is something that is becoming more accepted. The idea that in the near future so much work will be automated there will be far fewer jobs for everyone regardless of education levels. That's just reality of where things are going. At some point the Basic Income Guarantee is something whose time will come or things are going to get very ugly.

 

[NCCommish]

So what if they're talking points? They happen to be the talking points I'm in favor of.

They haven't worked in the main. We have reached the point of diminishing returns on tax cuts for corporations already. There is no thought put into what you typed since you advocated for a bunch of failed crap that happens to suit you.

 

[Slapdash]

1. Slash corporate tax rates in half.2. Promote free trade.3. Have open immigration.4. End minimum wage.5. Remove cumbersome environmental restrictions.6. Spend billions of tax money on repairing the nations infrastructure- whatever it costs.7. Enact a national space program like effort to get us off fossil fuels.8. Spend billions more on primary education.These aren't conservative ideas, necessarily, but they're what I think will do the trick.

All of these are good ideas (save for #1&5), but you are advocating a pretty massive increase in the debt here.

 

[humpback]

I assume you guys are trying to "solve" multiple issues here, since even Krugman acknowledges that more education isn't the answer to the income inequality problem.

 

[StrikeS2k]

There are plenty of low skilled jobs out there. Construction, picking fruits in the fields, etc....But the people Tim loves are coming and taking a huge chunk of those jobs. Let low skilled Americans do those jobs and close the borders. That's something that's taboo to people like you and Tim but it would get people to work AND offer "comprehensive immigration reform" all in one. Then we can talk about a guest worker program if we need one.

 

[Slapdash]

I assume you guys are trying to "solve" multiple issues here, since even Krugman acknowledges that more education isn't the answer to the income inequality problem.

I doubt we are going to get converts to a BIG in this thread or higher taxes on investment income, so it seems we are content to argue at the margins.

 

[timschochet]

1. Slash corporate tax rates in half.2. Promote free trade.3. Have open immigration.4. End minimum wage.5. Remove cumbersome environmental restrictions.6. Spend billions of tax money on repairing the nations infrastructure- whatever it costs.7. Enact a national space program like effort to get us off fossil fuels.8. Spend billions more on primary education.These aren't conservative ideas, necessarily, but they're what I think will do the trick.

All of these are good ideas (save for #1&5), but you are advocating a pretty massive increase in the debt here.

I'm aware, but it doesn't matter. I've become convinced that the only way to deal with the debt is to grow our economy out of it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here's my answer: Make pre-natal care available for every pregnancy and ensure that everyone has access to health careMake Head Start available for all childrenWork to make public schools stronger, and make charter schools available as an alternative where they're failingMake vocational training a part of H.S. again and have similar regional centers available afterwardEliminate tax breaks and financial incentives for companies to move jobs/industries overseasMake the minimum wage a livable wageProvide generous unemployment and job training for people who lose their jobs To pay for this: Break up the big banks and restore banking regulations such as Glass-SteagallBan high-frequency tradingRoll back bankruptcy laws to 1990s rulesTax capital gains as normal incomeEliminate the current tax breaks that overwhelmingly favor the wealthiestRaise taxes on the wealthy to 50% over the next twenty yearsLegalize marijuana and tax itIncrease consumption taxes on cigarettes, alchol and gasolineIntroduce a single-payer health care system to recognize the same cost efficiencies enjoyed by Medicare

How would banning high-frequency trading increase tax revenues (or reduce government spending)?

 

[Slapdash]

Here's my answer: Make pre-natal care available for every pregnancy and ensure that everyone has access to health careMake Head Start available for all childrenWork to make public schools stronger, and make charter schools available as an alternative where they're failingMake vocational training a part of H.S. again and have similar regional centers available afterwardEliminate tax breaks and financial incentives for companies to move jobs/industries overseasMake the minimum wage a livable wageProvide generous unemployment and job training for people who lose their jobs To pay for this: Break up the big banks and restore banking regulations such as Glass-SteagallBan high-frequency tradingRoll back bankruptcy laws to 1990s rulesTax capital gains as normal incomeEliminate the current tax breaks that overwhelmingly favor the wealthiestRaise taxes on the wealthy to 50% over the next twenty yearsLegalize marijuana and tax itIncrease consumption taxes on cigarettes, alchol and gasolineIntroduce a single-payer health care system to recognize the same cost efficiencies enjoyed by Medicare

How would banning high-frequency trading increase tax revenues (or reduce government spending)?

Here's my answer: Make pre-natal care available for every pregnancy and ensure that everyone has access to health careMake Head Start available for all childrenWork to make public schools stronger, and make charter schools available as an alternative where they're failingMake vocational training a part of H.S. again and have similar regional centers available afterwardEliminate tax breaks and financial incentives for companies to move jobs/industries overseasMake the minimum wage a livable wageProvide generous unemployment and job training for people who lose their jobs To pay for this: Break up the big banks and restore banking regulations such as Glass-SteagallBan high-frequency tradingRoll back bankruptcy laws to 1990s rulesTax capital gains as normal incomeEliminate the current tax breaks that overwhelmingly favor the wealthiestRaise taxes on the wealthy to 50% over the next twenty yearsLegalize marijuana and tax itIncrease consumption taxes on cigarettes, alchol and gasolineIntroduce a single-payer health care system to recognize the same cost efficiencies enjoyed by Medicare

How would banning high-frequency trading increase tax revenues (or reduce government spending)?

Not to speak for him, but I think it could be a way to get at the income inequality problem by lessening the rents that flow the financial services industry. That income is pretty damn concentrated.

 

[humpback]

How would banning high-frequency trading increase tax revenues (or reduce government spending)?

Not to speak for him, but I think it could be a way to get at the income inequality problem by lessening the rents that flow the financial services industry. That income is pretty damn concentrated.

So if you can't raise the bottom you'd want to lower the top?

 

[humpback]

I assume you guys are trying to "solve" multiple issues here, since even Krugman acknowledges that more education isn't the answer to the income inequality problem.

I doubt we are going to get converts to a BIG in this thread or higher taxes on investment income, so it seems we are content to argue at the margins.

Eh, some people are arguing for raising taxes on investment income as well as increasing spending on education.

 

[Slapdash]

How would banning high-frequency trading increase tax revenues (or reduce government spending)?

Not to speak for him, but I think it could be a way to get at the income inequality problem by lessening the rents that flow the financial services industry. That income is pretty damn concentrated.

So if you can't raise the bottom you'd want to lower the top?

How would banning high-frequency trading increase tax revenues (or reduce government spending)?

Not to speak for him, but I think it could be a way to get at the income inequality problem by lessening the rents that flow the financial services industry. That income is pretty damn concentrated.

So if you can't raise the bottom you'd want to lower the top?

Well that would be more like the .01% benefiting at the expense of the top 10% since those rents are extracted from normal investors.

 

[Slapdash]

I ####### hate this board upgrade so ####### much

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I assume you guys are trying to "solve" multiple issues here, since even Krugman acknowledges that more education isn't the answer to the income inequality problem.

I doubt we are going to get converts to a BIG in this thread or higher taxes on investment income, so it seems we are content to argue at the margins.

Eh, some people are arguing for raising taxes on investment income as well as increasing spending on education.

I just don't see how much more we can spend. We're currently spending $781b on education in America between Fed/State/Local spending.

 

[Slapdash]

1. Slash corporate tax rates in half.2. Promote free trade.3. Have open immigration.4. End minimum wage.5. Remove cumbersome environmental restrictions.6. Spend billions of tax money on repairing the nations infrastructure- whatever it costs.7. Enact a national space program like effort to get us off fossil fuels.8. Spend billions more on primary education.These aren't conservative ideas, necessarily, but they're what I think will do the trick.

All of these are good ideas (save for #1&5), but you are advocating a pretty massive increase in the debt here.

I'm aware, but it doesn't matter. I've become convinced that the only way to deal with the debt is to grow our economy out of it.

I'm with you there.

I'll make you a trade offer. We can get rid of corporate income taxes but treat investment income as ordinary income. Would you take that deal?

 

[humpback]

So if you can't raise the bottom you'd want to lower the top?

Well that would be more like the .01% benefiting at the expense of the top 10% since those rents are extracted from normal investors.

Even if that were the case, how does that raise more revenue?

 

[humpback]

I assume you guys are trying to "solve" multiple issues here, since even Krugman acknowledges that more education isn't the answer to the income inequality problem.

I doubt we are going to get converts to a BIG in this thread or higher taxes on investment income, so it seems we are content to argue at the margins.

Eh, some people are arguing for raising taxes on investment income as well as increasing spending on education.

I just don't see how much more we can spend. We're currently spending $781b on education in America between Fed/State/Local spending.

It's obviously a debatable topic, but it's a bit strange to me to see people advocating for a lot more spending on education to try and solve this "problem", when Krugman himself said it isn't the answer.

 

[Slapdash]

So if you can't raise the bottom you'd want to lower the top?

Well that would be more like the .01% benefiting at the expense of the top 10% since those rents are extracted from normal investors.

Even if that were the case, how does that raise more revenue?

I didn't say it did.

 

[Slapdash]

I assume you guys are trying to "solve" multiple issues here, since even Krugman acknowledges that more education isn't the answer to the income inequality problem.

I doubt we are going to get converts to a BIG in this thread or higher taxes on investment income, so it seems we are content to argue at the margins.

Eh, some people are arguing for raising taxes on investment income as well as increasing spending on education.

I just don't see how much more we can spend. We're currently spending $781b on education in America between Fed/State/Local spending.

How much is that with what people spend/incurr?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

It's obviously a debatable topic, but it's a bit strange to me to see people advocating for a lot more spending on education to try and solve this "problem", when Krugman himself said it isn't the answer.

Yeah, people aren't really addressing the op-ed.

 

[timschochet]

1. Slash corporate tax rates in half.2. Promote free trade.3. Have open immigration.4. End minimum wage.5. Remove cumbersome environmental restrictions.6. Spend billions of tax money on repairing the nations infrastructure- whatever it costs.7. Enact a national space program like effort to get us off fossil fuels.8. Spend billions more on primary education.These aren't conservative ideas, necessarily, but they're what I think will do the trick.

All of these are good ideas (save for #1&5), but you are advocating a pretty massive increase in the debt here.

I'm aware, but it doesn't matter. I've become convinced that the only way to deal with the debt is to grow our economy out of it.

I'm with you there.

I'll make you a trade offer. We can get rid of corporate income taxes but treat investment income as ordinary income. Would you take that deal?

No.

Remember that I work in commercial real estate. Most of the smaller investments in real property (under 10 million dollars) are made mostly for tax reasons. If we took your proposal it would kill the smaller investors, and the only purchases of real property would be made by large corporations that could afford the taxes given their long term profits. Within a few years nearly every piece of commercial property that had any value whatsoever would be purchased by these same corporations, at cut-rate prices, further lowering their value. The individual property owners would be forced out of the marketplace completely, and the ultimate result to the state would be far less revenue than what is generated now. I don't think that's the result you want.

 

[Joe T]

I think the government should guarantee everyone a middle class income. The beauty of that scheme is that once you have lifted everyone to a middle class income, you can recalculate, and the middle class income will be higher. So you can raise everyone to the higher level. And so on; thus guaranteeing a constantly rising income level for all Americans, which is what the government ought to do.

I think the government should guarantee everyone $1m per year.