Why can't the Democrats seem to get it together? (GREAT blog post, must read!)

Asymmetrical Information ^ | August 3, 2003 | Jane Galt

[wayoverontheright]

Tax rate increases will increse revenue if the rate is above the inflection point, it will lower revenue if the rate is below the inflection point. (Speculation - rates are higher for high income people - thus rate cuts increase revenue. Rates are lower for low income people - thus rate cuts decrease revenue. Tax cuts should ONLY be for the rich!!!)

Great post!

[.cnI redruM]

They see their beliefs as part of some mystique. They are what Thomas Sowell once termed "The annointed. A self-selecting elite."

Bush will leave them to The Ben and Jerry's Country Club to eat their Cherry Garcia ice cream after he has dismantled them in election 2004. He has a country to govern.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Along these lines, I would like to see a Washington DC of constantly new faces, preferably non idealogues. Intelligent, Philosophical patriots who are self made capitalists that come to washington to make an honest contribution to the american people. Men who are fearless and honest, and who expose ALL of those that aren't as unfit to serve. I would like to see a recall process possible (strict conditions) for all of congress. Let the chips fall where they may.
Anything is better than watching pseudo intellectual fascists destroy the country over decades while the congressional opposition serves as an accessory in this crime agaist our god given and constitutional rights.

I dream about a new constitutional convention type meeting where men of good will and honor gather together in order to plan a revolution from the right- a return to our roots.

[Onelifetogive]

I am not sure your curve as described has an inflection point.

Inflection point - A point on a curve at which the sign of the curvature (i.e., the concavity) changes. Inflection points are stationary points, but not relative maxima or relative minima.

You are correct...

Should have said "relative maximum." Or in this case just "maximum."

[MoJoWork_n]

This *was* a thoughtful and interesting post. But in going for the deep, meaningful and comprehensive summary statement-- trying to leap over tall inconsistencies in a single bound, you might say-- the writer unconsciously trips a lot of readers' hair-trigger responses. Which is kind of a shame. Sort of like using a very fine-tipped pen to write a carefully reasoned essay on the outer skin of a banana, then dropping that banana into the monkey cage at the zoo. The leading thesis of the essay, the original, inescapable, unarguable point (this is a democracy, we are all sentient human beings capable of resolving complex issues by negotiation, as well as confrontation) kind of gets lost in the mad grab for the bright, yellow "prize". That prize being the proper maintenance of dogmatic, ideological purity.

[The Electrician]

Yes indeed... While reading the article there were several places where I had to restrain myself from blurting out loud the famous Galileo quote "but still it moves"... Because even though I am a sometime fan of Rashomon, the concept of objective truth still exists...

[TontoKowalski]

This reminds me of the story told by damn-I-forget-his-name-but-he-wrote-Bias of the NYT Reporter wondering,

"How did Nixon beat McGovern? I don't know anybody who voted for him."

They live in their own little circle, regurgitating their own ideas, so it wasn't incredible to old-what's-his-name that, even though Nixon carried 49 States, the NYT lady wouldn't know a single person who voted for him.

[Timm]

The asymmetry in the treatment of conservative and liberal views is a reason why liberals are more likely to be unacquainted with serious conservative ideas. This asymmetry isn't just in the media, though-- and it is there. It is in the schools and universities, as well.

There's another reason for liberals to be less likely to comprehend their opponents. When it comes to government subsidies, whether in the form of jobs or lifestyle support or what have you, there is always an asymmetry of perceived harms. Those benefiting from direct subsidies can identify themselves and can clearly identify the benefit from the subsidy; those harmed through lower growth and higher unemployment, however, may be entirely unaware of the impact of these subsidies on themselves. Which unemployed person can say for certain whether he would have a job in an economy with lower taxes, for example?

So, it usally requires more intellectual distance to appreciate the harms of a tax-subsidized economy, and hence it's more likely someone who does appreciate these harms will already be acquainted with the harms pointed to by liberals. To appreciate the harms of having your government check reduced, however, doesn't require much acquaintance with the alternative point of view.

[ccmay]

Tax rate increases will increse revenue if the rate is above the inflection point, it will lower revenue if the rate is below the inflection point.

Right you are, although your terminology is off. The inflection point is a stationary point other than a maximum or minimum, where the curvature changes from concave to convex for any given function; or put another way, where the sign of the second derivative of the function changes from positive to zero to negative (or vice versa.)

The term you are looking for is 'maximum'. 'Inflection point' is often used, perhaps because it sounds more intellectual, but is incorrect.

-ccm

[Yudan]

Ms. Galt is so wrong in her comment about tax cuts...

Cutting marginal tax rates DOES - to an extent - cause tax revenue to increase. Look at the 1980s when Reagan and Regan forced the Dims to pass tax rate reduction.

Look again at the 1990s when a Repblican Congress forced Clinton to sign tax cuts.

Problem with the Laffer Curve is that it's a dynamic relationship with a very large number of variables.

[larlaw]

It was Bernard Goldberg who wrote "Bias" and made many of the same points.

Interesting blog. Absolutely true, from my experience. I'm an attorney who now lives in Nevada, but have been to many trendy cocktail parties in New York or L.A. over the years. If you've ever been to one, you know what the writer is talking about. I can't remember how many times I have listened to conversations there where it is just a GIVEN that the Supreme Court stole the election for Bush, the Iraq war was all about oil, yada yada yada. It is simply accepted as the absolute empirical truth.

Merely being identified as a Republican in many of these settings usually results in one of two responses: One, you are not REALLY a Republican but are saying so just to play devil's advocate for entertainment purpose (How can any educated, informed person ACTUALLY be so narrow-minded) or Two,you really ARE a Republican and are therefore selfish, greedy, and mean-spirited, a warmonger wanting to turn back the clock to segregation. (How can he possibly be a Republican? He seemed like such a nice guy at first...)

[MoJo2001]

There are many issues for which I feel that neither Party will truly address.

1. Illegal immigration is wrong. If you want to protect America, why not begin here at home with the sealing of our borders. This isn't racist. This is the opportunity to actually show that the government is doing all it can to protect the American people.

2. Expansion of government spending. I'm very disturbed by the expansion of our government. I realize that 911 had an affect on that. Okay? So? Why not tighten the belt a little. Why should we pay for the airlines and other industries. Either people wanna travel on plane or they don't.

3. The majority of this country would be better off if we stopped sending monies overseas all the time. Americans work hard for the money. The government just gives it away as though the money comes from a bottomless pit. It does not.

4.Jobs being shipped overseas really disturbs me. Who is doing anything to stop the flow of the American job markets to countries like India. Our government, state governments, and local governments give tax credits and breaks to corporations. Yet, these people will save their profit and then ship over the jobs to foreign markets. Perhaps, the governments of other countries will demand that US Corporations pay their workers the same as their American counterparts. I doubt this would happen, but it would be poetic justice.

5. President Bush's educational plan is awful. Why? Because it has Ted Kennedy's signature all over it. It is wasteful spending and doesn't address the real issues regarding Education in this country.

There is much work to be done by both parties. The choice between big and bigger government is not a very good choice at all. It's depressing to see no government programs decreased in spending.

We live in the land of wealth and opportunity. We have a lot of "wealth" and if you have a scam to sell the government, they'll give you the opportunity. This is the state of our American government today. It's rather ironic. The more the government does to "protect and help America" the less protected or helped we feel.

Perhaps I am the only one not currently happy with what's going on, but I just needed to vent. Maybe I'll feel better now.

So? If Karl Rove or any other Republican Party members actually read this page, please know that my disappointment is mounting. I have voted Republican all my life, but I feel that these are some issues that need to be addressed. Not by some pansy spokesperson, but someone who can actually answer these questions and do something about it.

[optimistically_conservative]

I remember reading a Trotsky paper written in the early 1900's which proclaimed the failure and death of socialism.

Wow, how old are you?

[Tom Bombadil]

ideologically simpatico opinion column writers

Too many big words for this vwrc conservative.

[Onelifetogive]

'Inflection point' is often used, perhaps because it sounds more intellectual...

I am experiencing real "casus belli" at your unflattering insinuation.

[Teacher317]

The tenor of the blog is that political opinions are just opinions - unjustifiable except by judgment and unconvincing except by cogent argument. Only by being exposed to contrary opinions/arguments can one find truth.

Hence the genius of FR, and my delight in the number of oppositional factions on most threads.

[Teacher317]

You have the first half of the perfect 2004 Contract with America right there. Too bad the GOP is mired in self-congratulatory masturbation and desperate re-electioneering to bother with such trivialities as solid party principles.

[TontoKowalski]

It was Bernard Goldberg who wrote "Bias" and made many of the same points.

Thank you for providing this info. I swear, I wish I had never heard of Alzheimer's (sp?), because now I spend half the time forgetting basic facts and the other half wondering if I'm coming down with it.

Thanks also for sharing your personal stories about mixing with the Eastern elite. It really drives home the point that Goldberg and others make.

[Teacher317]

ideologically simpatico opinion column writers
Too many big words for this vwrc conservative.

"liberal talking heads"

Is that better? ;^)

[Timesink]

"How did Nixon beat McGovern? I don't know anybody who voted for him."

Actually, that was Pauline Kael, the film critic for The New Yorker, and there's some question as to whether even she ever really said it. (Not that it stops me from using the quote quite often myself, heh heh.)