That is just too funny. So tell me when did you join this magic
priesthood that understands things that us "laypeople" don't.
Can you read? I never said in any way, or remotely implied, that I
had the time or tools (including skills) to do it. I also said I
didn't have any real reason to doubt what Krugman reported.
Yeah, you laypeople bantering about this crap like you know what you
are talking about amount to little more than the worst sort of
hacks.
No the criticisms are correct they just disprove your pet theory so
you refuse to believe them. They look at the real data that really
does exist and like any good scientist compare them to what the theory
predicts. Since they don't belong to the church of the Laffer curve
they can point out that the theories predictions don't come true.
The theory does not say that if taxes are lowered, revenues inexorably
go up. Interesting that someone who doesn't understand what Krugman
wrote, or the basic proposition, can pretend to call out the failings
of others' "pet theorys."
Yes it does if that data shows that what Laffers claim about the shape
of the curve is and its local slope is not the case.
Nothing Krugman wrote (*your* link) showed anything of the kind. All
he essentially said is "the data does no show the that the marginal
tax rates are on any downward section." (Which again implicitly
_acknowledges the concept itself_ by Krugman.) That would include a
more complex shape including local minima and maxima. I would like
you to show me where Laffer claimed "the shape" was _literally_ as you
claim he did. You can't because your goal is to make up a strawman
for the purpose of knocking it down. It seems you are not curious
about even knowing what the argument really is. It seems you are not
curious and imaginative enough to discover a few practical
difficulties in proving or disproving such an /a priori/ concept.
I find it amusing that your understanding of the Laffer's proposition
is as least as vulgar as those for whom you argue *against*:
"[T]he whole California gang had taken [the Laffer curve] literally
(and primitively). The way they talked, they seemed to expect that
once the supply-side tax cut was in effect, additional revenue would
start to fall, manna-like, from the heavens. Since January, I had been
explaining that there is no literal Laffer curve." -- David Stockman,
Reagan OMB director
If I say that E = I * R ^(3/2) a simple experiment that produces a
couple of numbers will show me to be wrong. This is what has happened
to Laffer. He didn't just say that there was a function he said that
he knew something about its shape. He has been shown to be wrong.
Oh cute. Analyzing a complex economy and the structure of governance
over it is comparable to running an experiment on some simple widget.
Who knew? Gosh -- thanks for the lessons on models and tests.
No, you don't understand the basic proposition, that's why you come up
with innapplicable "analogies." The crude tit curve he drew was not
intended to be taken so literally -- its purpose was didactic: to
illustrate a simple concept. It no more was a literal description of
some given tax-take situation than those cute little straight lines
describing supply-and-demand. In your view of economics, all can
apparently be known with a few literal drawings on napkins, and then
those proposition are _simply_ proven or disproven with a few _simple_
experiments. That's it -- then you're done. lol
Laffer claimed more than "there is a curve"
I don't believe you know anything about what he claimed.
I'm done.
