Arthur Laffer Is So Full Of It -- Here's What Tax Cuts Really Do To The Economy

The Business Insider ^ | 6-7-2010 | Asha Bangalore, Northern Trust

[higgmeister]

If Laffer's thesis about tax cuts is valid, why did the U.S. economy record the weakest period of economic expansion following the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003?

9/11 mean anything to these fools?

For a split second I started to slam in with that intuitive comment. Then I thought I would probably be jumping in really late with this masterfully obvious thought.

[LS]

Well, that's a very, very minor part of it. There were three macro events that caused the U.S. economy to "re-boom" (still growing after Reagan's tax cuts) in the 1990s:

1) The largest single market in the world since 1945 was opened up to exports with the end of Communism;

2) Energy prices (thank you G. H. W. Bush) were kept remarkably low, filtering through to every aspect of production and manufacturing in the economy; and

3) The computer revolution came on-line and the productivity vs. cost charts went crazy.

Any ONE of those events would likely have "re-boomed" the economy. All three, combined with a GOP election in 1994 that told markets that spending would not accelerate, gave us almost six solid years of growth.

[Larry Lucido]

Blam, I think you're one of the best posters here and I loved the materials you used to post (I agree, it's sad the way some of those threads devolve into religious debates).

And I'm not suggesting that there isn't lots of informative business news out there. But it just appears you've become a posting bot for this particular blog, complete with the teasers and redirect, for a blog that doesn't even require excerpting.

Am I saying that nothing good comes from a blog? No, some miniscule percent of them provide breaking news and analysis. Heck, even this one may have a gem once in a while, though I'm skeptical (see below). But in those instances when one discovers a gem worth posting, count me among those who say, post the whole thing and let others decide whether to migrate away for more. But to appear to post excerpt after excerpt for the same blog makes one appear to either be the author, or on the blog's payroll.

Now, as to this particular blog:

"Welcome! Business Insider is a new business site with deep financial, entertainment, green tech and digital industry verticals. The flagship vertical, Silicon Alley Insider, launched on July 19, 2007, led by DoubleClick founders Dwight Merriman and Kevin Ryan and former top-ranked Wall Street analyst Henry Blodget."

So this blog is run by two folks who invented popup ads! They are literally in the enemy camp! And here I digress a bit to say that one reason we don't excerpt or redirect from FR (except when required to) is to avoid subjecting FReepers to cookies, popups, flash and malware (the first three which are replete at the Popup Insider, as I will now refer to it).

Anyway, that is my piece and I'll try to back off a bit having said it. You're a good guy and I continue to respect you but hope you'll also try to vary your sources a bit and maybe help FReepers by posting whole articles instead of forcing redirects to questionable providers. But that's your judgment call. Hope you have a great day!

[Wyatt's Torch]

Actually the expansion in the 80’s was driven by both tax cuts and the productivity revolution as a result of the PC in the workplace. the 90’s was driven by the internet and networking. The 80’s was Moore’s Law and the 90’s was Metcalfe’s Law. Since then... nothing.

[TheVitaminPress]

I tried to find the clip on youtube. Funny thing it has dissapeared, just like that video of Governor Christie kicking that reporter in the ass and then taking his name.

[cranked]

Me too x2.

[blam]

Free Republic software requires that everything from the Business Insider be excerpted and posted exactly the way that I do it.

Now, go away Larry, I don't care whether you like me of not and I don't care to know your opinion on anything.

Don't ever post to me again.

[TankerKC]

I’m a 14th generation white American capitalist...I don’t take instruction from an Indian....on economics, or anything else.

Now that's thoughtful analysis. </s>

[navyguy]

Well said!

[Intolerant in NJ]

Thanks - the “peace dividend” is another factor in how well the economy did under Clinton, but I think the drive to balance the budget was maybe a more important one since it helped limit to some extent what the government spent and thus what was sucked out of the private economy. It seems to me the importance of the peace dividend was that it was in reality a chance for Clinton to divert funding from the military to other branches of government, thus significantly weakening our defenses by the end of his second term. It was in large part because of this that our deficit grew dramatically after 9/11 as Bush tried to restore the military which Clinton had depleted. This is another thing Libs like to forget, as well as the fact that because of his tax cuts Bush had all but eliminated the deficit, which dropped from $500 billion to $100 billion by 2007 when the ‘rats took control of Congress and the bottom fell out of the economy......

[Jim W N]

Arthur Laffer Business Insider Is So Full Of It

Making the Bush tax cuts permanent should be THE topic of discussion AND the talking heads on radio should be telling the American people to call their Congressmen DEMANDING to have these cuts made permanent OR THEY’LL BE VOTED OUT!

This is not only not the main topic of discussion now, hardly anyone is talking about it. That in itself is astonishing.

What would it take to get the supposed conservative talk-show brigade to tell the American people

1 – They’re about to get ripped off and demoted big time (tax increases are no different than a demotion) with the added extra bonus of the economy will also be tanked, and

2 - Call their Congressmen and give 'em hell if they don't make the cuts permanent.