Posted on 10/16/2006 6:30:33 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
NEW YORK -- When the new field of political economy emerged in the 18th century, it concerned itself largely with two questions: how societies get rich, and how they can justly divide that wealth. The thinking of this year's winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics, Columbia University professor Edmund Phelps, hews close to that tradition, seeking the roots of prosperity and ways to maintain economic justice -- not only in today's world, but across generations.
In choosing Prof. Phelps, the Nobel committee focused on his work in the area of inflation and unemployment. But that isn't all Prof. Phelps has done over the years. He has delved into various questions relevant to policy makers, such as how economies become more productive, what kind of tax system creates the best incentives, and how much a society should save and invest.
In an interview at Columbia, Prof. Phelps discussed, among other things, why he thinks Americans should be paying higher taxes and doing more to increase the wages of the poor.
The Wall Street Journal: Many economists believe that the U.S. is acting irresponsibly by spending more than it produces and building up large debts. Your "golden rule" of capital accumulation states that each generation must save a certain amount so that future generations can enjoy the same standard of living. Should we be concerned?
Prof. Phelps: When you apply the golden rule, you have to look at the world economy. Certainly the world as a whole has saved enough. China, for example, should get good marks for doing a lot of saving. I would, however, have to give bad marks to the U.S. government, which has run persistent budget deficits at a time when we have to start climbing up the mountain of pension obligations that will come due...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Er... seems like the premise starts out faulty, and goes off into la-la land from there.
Just those two questions assume a whole bunch of wrong headed nonsense.
When are these idiots going to realize that no matter how fancy you get with your explanations of how "socialism can work if we do it THIS way", that it won't? Never. Ever.
We're Atlas! Let's shrug!
If I were an economist, I would be talking about how business has become efficient and productive while government has not. The necessity to downsize is a foregone conclusion in the competitive marketplace of the private sector. But while government grows it becomes even less productive which is no surprise. As obtuse as Greenspan was, he said as much although it was so obscurely indirect as to be lost in his deliberately boring monotone.
And 95% of its population lives in absolute poverty. Moreover the vast majority of the remaining 5% have standards of living much lower than our poorest people in the US.
One of the main reasons our economy is the greatest and most powerful in the world is because we pay less taxes than any major industrial nation.
CU... the university that attacked the first amendment. commie academics at its worst!
LLS
Hey Phelps !!!! Bite me.......
Tax ahem--cuts--are temporary; hence, been talking with the Swiss about banking there, with algore or Mrs. Clinton shooin in 2008.
That's only because the 'right people' weren't doing the taxing...
Tax cuts, tax rate reductions, are revenue gnerators. We are paying more in taxes than ever before, and the annual budget deficit is falling. So to futher increase revenues to the government we need bigger, more massive tax rate reductions.
Yes, and per Bill Clinton, "I could give the American people a tax cut, but you probably wouldn't spend it right"
I signed our 2005 tax return last night. Wife is a CPA (cobbler's children and all that). It was painful to look at the number.
I like to think we bought the troops an armored HMMWV. I don't like thinking that we bought, say, crop subsidies.
China, for example, should get good marks for doing a lot of saving. I would, however, have to give bad marks to the U.S. government, which has run persistent budget deficits at a time when we have to start climbing up the mountain of pension obligations that will come due...
If these libs think that higher taxes are such a great idea, why don't they just pay more and let the rest of us pay less?
What libs really mean by
Higher taxes is that everybody "except me" pays more taxes.
On the left is a picture of the Chinese loving Columbia University professor Edmund Phelps. The professor is supposed to be smart and I expect with all the books he has written (wonder if he even sees a classroom) he has made a few bucks. The Nobel prize pays $1.4 million bucks. Turner, who is supposed to be smart and a billionaire is pictured above too (looks pretty wasted).
If these two guys are so smart and have a few bucks why can't they figure out that they can afford porcelain veneers?
Wow! This certainly opened my eyes. Does anyone have the address to the IRS handy? I'd like to begin sending my fair share today.
Why on earth does a Nobel Prize lend any weight to anything anymore? Especially politics and economics.
Gee, funny how that "lowering the tax burden increases tax revenue" thing works. Works every time it is tried. But liberals just don't get it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.