₦airaland Forum

If the income tax rate is 0%,the govt's revenue from income tax will be 0. Under rational economic theory,what will be the Govt's revenue if the income tax rate is 100%?

DavidDylan:
John needs 13 bottles of water from the store. John can only carry 3 at a time. What's the minimum number of trips John needs to make to the store?
a. 3  
b. 4  
c. 4 1/2  
d. 5  
e. 6

5 trips. . .  .John is obviously not from rural Nigeria. I have seen people carry 3 20 litre gallons for long journeys

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=189700.msg3077702#msg3077702 date=1226511220]@4Play,
Where was that stated?[/quote]It can go either way. If you take your first pill in the first minute,it will take you roughly an hour to finish 3 pills. The question does imply fastest time possible.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=189700.msg3077682#msg3077682 date=1226510993]1st pill  - in 30 mins

2nd pill - in 30 mins

3rd pill - in 30 mins

Total = 1.5Hours[/quote]Ist pill in the first minute

Don't know whether you guys have seen this? Manchester United lose Owen Hargreaves for rest of the season

£20m for this crap. This is the biggest rip off since Russia sold oil rich Alaska to the US in 1867 for $7.2m. The sad thing is that his tendinitis problem is hardly new and its implications should have been obvious to Fergie.

Bayern is a 419 club!

Osanobua!. . . .  .Make sure you change your menstrual pads regularly,you don't want to be like Morenike with cobwebs around your vagi.  

I shave mine,thanks for the advice.

Don't mind me. . . nobody to annoy on NL. How is puberty?

"Hairy" Omoge

Did I tell you I have a fetish that involves a razor and some shaving cream?  

That hermaphrodite has nothing to do with me.

How come you have expertise on the porn industry. . . . . . I command you come out of the closet!!

Will Karma Mod come out of the closet, please? No woman uploads half-naked pics of women as much as her. . . .it's a free world,you are free to munch rugs. 

@topic

Ambassadorship to Russia will be great or to that country called Africa. 

Seriously,she is a Governor and given that many on this thread are probably menial workers or stuck in dead end jobs,there should be some perspective.

*Federal Court of Appeal Nullifies Election Results
*I Have A Mandate From God,says Obama
*The American People Are Demanding That I Carry On For 4 More Years,says Bush
*Obama Wins Illinois With 99.7% Of Votes
*Bailout Money Gone Missing!!
*Palin Offered Ambassadorship To Russia
*Joe The Plumber Has Been Arrested
*McCain Challenges Everyone To a Wrestling Match Following Rumors of His Failing Health

The name of the footballer is ''Ala na azu nwa''. . . . .we just need to get to the footballer.

tope2000:
4play don kill me with laughter. just enjoy my face for now

Do you want to help Whiteroses identify this footballer or not? Why are you obstructing the attempts to help this woman?

DavidDylan:
Jealous ke? I was mighty glad the guy won, i'd been supporting him way before the Iowa primaries when naysayers claimed he had no chance against the clinton juggernaut . . .

Come,that quote you and Osisi are parading around was from August 2007,imagine this Osisi woman. Any oldie on NL who suggests he or she foresaw an Obama victory 15 months ago is yarning dust!

Bastage:
What does reproducing have to do with leaving money to their partner?

There is no inherent right,using the term "right" in this context is even abusing its meaning, to inherit property with tax breaks.

To the extent that heterosexual couples are given tax breaks,it's driven by the objective of strengthening marriages. There is no such similar desire to strengthen homosexual relationships.

Bastage:
So two gay people who live together all their lives have no right to inherit like heterosexual people without paying huge taxes?

I don't agree with gay marriage being in the same class as a real marriage between man and wife, but there needs to be some sort of legal recognition so that gay people aren't just cynically ripped off by greedy government.

Gay couple inheriting or bequeathing you mean? If a gay couple can reproduce,they are free to bequeath.

bawomolo:
why not. those mormons are hardly ever prosecuted anyway. go on. consent among adults right??

It's one thing to turn a blind eye to those sorts of marriages,it's quite another to give them the full backing of the law.

[quote author=ife-eco-06 link=topic=192473.msg3048506#msg3048506 date=1225998330]Funmi, it appears you are on NL to attack Hausas. 75% of your posts have the word Hausa, even if the topic is Arsenal Vs Man-U. Na wa for you!!![/quote]The woman is a bit unhinged.

@Bawo

Do you agree that if gay marriages can be legalised on the grounds of ''consenting adults'',we might as well legalise incestuous marriage and polygamous marriages in the West.

grafikdon:
Nigerians and ''Quota System''. . .   Ojigbijigbi!!!!  

While you are agitating for "Black Pope" don't forget to add "Black'' Russian "President". . . 
Ahhh. . .  my bad! We deserve it. . . after all a Yoruba man is the current Governor of Anambra state while, an Igbo man is the Governor of Benue State. . .  

An indigene of Enugu state cannot go to Anambra and run for state office. It's in Nigeria that the term "indigene" has great resonance .

Ibime:
Which is more glory seeking, the Gullit-era Blue or the Fergie Red? The Jewish Oligarch fell into my lap, I didn't follow him here.

Gullit era wetin,who you dey deceive? In 2 years time,you will be supporting Man City.

Ibime:
This guy, you still dey here? All these are pre-election debates, intended to paint our preferred candidates in the best light and their opponents in the worst light. I can carry on, but I have no wish to, my man is already President-elect. .

The ideology you espouse has beaten a hasty retreat into the dark confines of the Deep South and Apalachian Mountains. If you don't like it, go and die!

Look at this Chelski glory hunter. While debates about the direction of the economy have been going on for centuries,this guy sees issues only through the prism of his homo-erotic passion for a politician.

I too I'm thrilled to have a US president of a black African father but my instincts tell me that on the cardinal issues of today's world-Islamofascism and the US economy-Obama has the wrong instincts. Obamabotism is not for me and neoliberal economics ,which neither Bush nor Obama have supported, is alive and well !!!  

DavidDylan:
4Play is still arguing? O boy change has already passed you by. Joe the plumber was even on welfare once . . . what a clueless opportunist.

Lets hope that as the joy of having a US president of African background is tempered by the mugging effects of reality over the coming months,the sort of mental confusion that leads people to proclaim that a guy whose middle name is ''Joseph'' has no business calling himself Joe dissipates.

Ibime:
If the idiot had read up on the theory, he would have seen that the premise of the theory is that Nations would learn that extreme positions on Capitalism or Communism would blow up in their face. . . . . this fool seeks to presume that the convergence referred to is a steady quasi-linear movement toward the centre. . . . . how is that possible when Governments change direction every 4 or 5 years depending on the policy of the party voted into power?. . . . . . well, as someone who is into algorithms, I need to remind this fool that convergence can occur over a handful of iterations as well as millions of iterations. . . . . . the premise of the theory was simply that convergence will be brought about by violent swings after ideological failures. . . . . . in order to support his argument, he has sought to apply a 40 year timeline to the theory. . . . . Communist convergence to the centre occured almost overnight in 1990 as a result of the failure of Communism. . . . . if the theory holds for a swing period of months in 1990, then sure as hell, it holds for the quick swing we have witnessed in the West over the last one year. . . . .we have seen a steady progression to the right, followed by a violent lurch to the left in the last few months. . .  . the fact is that the theory of Convergence was never more apt than at the present moment. . . . . .

You are a first grade charlatan. Not only have you never read Tinbergen's theory,apart from recent snippets from the net,you have demonstrated the comprehension abilities of a numskull. You have cited a 1959 theory that propounds that capitalist and communist nations are coming together towards a common centre.

I appreciate that you are a bonehead but no reading of history,no matter how twisted, will show that between 1959 and today,Western economies have converged towards the centre. Even with the last few months' emergency measures,Western economies are still far more liberalised than anyone could have conceived in the late 50s. 10 steps to the right,1 ad hoc step to the left does not amount to a convergence to the centre.

To call you a dolt will be an insult to dolts. From an inane screed about the economy being too far to the right,this googling fraud now supports a theory that capitalist economies are converging towards the centre. The inability to see the obvious contradiction demonstrates a bizarre example of mental confusion. . . . . the kind of confusion that entertains belief in a human's ability to simultaneously swim with one hand while firing AK47s with the other.

Please somebody tell this idiot that the Financial Industry is THE cornerstone of the economy. I have a beautiful picture for you. . . .
At what point do you not understand that the Financial sector dictates the economic cycle in Western markets? I have not even started to look into other sectors that Bush deregulated. This fool would have you believe that Bush regulated all sectors except the financials, which is simply not true. I pointed out the tax-policies and runaway military spending. . . . and yet, his only rebuttal is that Bush increased spending. . . . although that fell flat on it's face because I showed that Bush did not actually spend as much as he would have you believe when you adjust for inflation.

To carry on this charade of referring to the financial markets as a synonym for the economy beggars belief. Between the 2 of us,we both know that your hasty retreat into the ''safer'' confines of the financial markets is as a result of a desire not to lose face.

Financial services is a cornerstone of the economy, thanks for reciting my quote,but it is not the economy. 10% of the economy is not the economy anymore so than the heart is a synonym for the human body.

You cannot make a case for Bush deregulating the economy. I noticed your lazy nod to ''run away military spending'' under Bush,and even crasser,tax policy. How does increased  military spending advance your case that the economy is too far to the right? How is a tax regime,recently described by the OECD asthe most progressive advance your view?

Firstly, this idiot says that the FSM act was not a bad act because it saved Morgan Stanley, now he is calling it a bad policy. . . . where is the consistency in this blathering idiot's argument?

Look in the mirror please. . .  . . . . I did not blame Republicans for Clinton's policies. . . . you tried to make a biased argument about Clinton's policies, but you did not tell us the full truth. . . . I only had to correct you and give the full story: which is that the FSM act was sponsored and pushed through by a Republican congress and was opposed by many Democrats. That is the undeniable truth. Clinton also takes some blame, but tell us the full story please. The FSM act was a bi-partizan agreement. Infact, it was supported more overwhelmingly by the Republicans than the Democrats. So please, stop your beer parlour analysis. . . . .comparing the FSM act to the Sarbanes-Oxley act in an assinine attempt to draw a contrast between Bush and Clinton is as nonobjective as it gets.

I guess your crassness leads to quibbling over little details. I do not think for one moment that the 1999 Act was a bad policy measure. Perhaps,it might have negated your hunger for ''minutiae triumphs'' if I had used bad in inverted commas.

Again,Mr Non-partisan trys to reconcile the irreconcilable in his trademark moronic manner. What emerges is a confused fudge typical of a man who once attributed the US's projected social security liabilities to Bush. Clinton never signified an iota of intention to oppose the 1999 Act. He and his Treasury Secretary Rubin were as keen on it as Rubin's fellow Wall Street alumni,Phil Gramm. Saying the Republican majority Congress pushed through legislation under Clinton is as intellectually enlightening as saying that humans need food. It belies your absurd attempt to give Clinton credit for the economic successes of the 90s,while dumping purported failures on the GOP.

Make no mistake,the 1999 Act was by no means the sole example of a deregulatory policy under Clinton.

erm. . . . last time I checked, subsidizing the oil industry is actually a regular Republican habit. . . . so all this big spending you are talking about was spent on Republican issues, not socialistic. . . .

One can even say that increased spending under the GOP is habitual but a policy of subsidising the agriculture industry,bailing out the airline industry or authorizing monumental increases in health and education spending,cannot be reconciled with a daft suggestion that the economy was moved too far right.

Like you said yourself, most of this crisis was caused by unregulated derivatives. . . . I have said before that blaming the Community Reinvestment Act for the current crisis is similar to placing a grenade next to a nuclear bomb (CD's) and then blaming the grenade for acting as the detonator when the nuclear bomb blows up the whole city.

Unlike you,I'm not a simpleton who will attribute the global financial meltdown to one major cause. There were myriad causes;from boneheaded legislative measures like the CRA,to extraordinarily low interest rates,a dysfunctional remuneration regime,unregulated derivates,global imbalances,e.t.c. By no means an exclusive list but much more aligned to reality than your simple-minded idiotic attempts to boil down complex economic issues to your glib anthem:blame the GOP

Mr man, stop beating an inglorious retreat. . . . . you made an assinine comment having misread articles through your partizan lens and you have been abruptly corrected. . . . . ignoring inflation when judging Bush's spending policy is similar to stating that a house which was bought for $10,000 in 1900 is cheaper than a house which is bought for $200,000 in 2008. Only a beer parlour partizan like yourself would make a point like this without corroborating the facts and placing them in the proper context.

I can forgive you for being a mendacious charlatan but your descent into blindness is a new low. Check out the imbecilic rant about adjusting for inflation,yet,in the very post of mine he has quoted contains articles that state thus:  LBJ boosted domestic discretionary spending in inflation adjusted dollars by a mere 33.4%.In five years, Bush has increased it 35.1%. and a chart with this heading: T[b]otal and Nondefense Spending Growth During Each Presidential Term Since LBJ(Percent Changes Are Adjusted For Inflation)[/b]

Ibime,you an unbridled charlatan whose knack for copying and pasting cannot mask the fact that you are as dumb as a stump.

Bloody Chelsea supporting ashawo! Up Roma jare.

You people are still dreaming of visas as if you don't know some of Obama's policy positions:http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Obama-for-streamlining-H2B-visa-process/358108/

PepERSprAY:
I suspect that Barack Obama is the antiChrist because he fits the profile. You know, the whole world will embrace him irrespective of religion,race and culture and all that. His profile in Europe and Asia is alarming. Just my thoughts sha and am afraid I may be right.

You have never been known for thinking,how could you have thoughts?  

Now that we have Obama,Islamofascists must be quaking in their boots. Iranians in their hookah joints must be discussing sheathing their nuclear  ploughs,terrified at the prospect of a gang of screaming lefties shouting,"yes we can"!

African-Americans will discard a culture of glorifying failure and the African continent will blossom by the sheer force of mere association with Obama's African heritage.

See this one dey form ITK. Between Keynesian and Saysian economics, we have seen entrenchment, not convergence, so what does this have to do with theory of convergence? Either you dey try form ITK or you are stating the bleeding obvious. The fact that we have seen virtual nationalisation of companies like AIG and part nationalisation of many others does not tell you that there has been a shift to the left? The fact that Russia, China etc have moved toward the right does not tell you that there is a convergence toward the centre? The fact that businesses are now borrowing directly from the FEDS does not show you a convergence? Wake up and smell the coffee. Invariably, extreme forms of ideology do not work because they rely too much on human influence and humans are inefficient as George Soros taught me

This copy and paste mooncalf can't conduct a consistent argument to save his life. After kicking off the debate by glibly suggesting that the US economy has moved too far to the right,he now claims that the Theory of convergence is simultaneously apt and asks whether I haven't witnessed a shift left.

Only a first rate idiot like Ibime will simultaneously lament a right-ward  shift in economy while praising a 1960s theory which proclaimed that Western economies will be moving towards the socialist model. If your knowledge of economic history tells you that the past 4 decades has witnessed greater centralisation of Western economies,you are a dunderhead.

To try to crassly explain away this your incoherent gabble by citing events of the past few months makes you look even more stupid. Even by today's standard,as even your confused self admitted,most economies are much more liberalised than they ever were at the time the discredited theory originated. Idiot Ibime,make up your mind,is the economy ''too right-wing'' or has it been converging all along in line with the theory? 

You are on the defensive here, not me. . . . . .only a Forrest Gump incarnate would dare to dissociate the financial markets from the economy. . . . can you recall a single occasion where the financial sector took a strategic hit and the economy did not follow?. . . . we are talking about a credit-fuelled economy here, however diversified it may be. . . . a $50 trn dollar US industry which permeates all other sectors and affects all walks of life. . . . and this guy is trying to tell me that right-wing policies on the financials do not represent right-wing policies on the economy as a whole.

You are a two-faced idiot. In referring to the economy,there is no implicit understanding of it to mean the financial services industry. The fact that the financial services industry is a cornerstone of the economy doesn't make it a synonym for the economy.

Lets be honest,the reason why you retreated into yapping about the financial markets is that you made a baseless suggestion:that the economy was moving too far to the right under Bush. Caught pants down lying,you started an inglorious retreat.

In the context of a debate about deregulating the economy,deregulation of  varying sectors:airline,communication,energy,mining,manufacturing,tourism,e.t.c:cannot be narrowed down into merely a discussion about deregulating the financial markets.

Again, this is the thing that amazes me about Republicans. Their ideology must always be right. If their man phocks up, it is only because he did not carry out that ideology to the letter of the law. One simple question, if the Republicans controlled the Presidency and Congress, who else do they have to blame?

Again,the non-partisan Ibime engages in a hare-brained rant about his bogey men,Republicans. This dolt obviously doesn't know what being unbiased means. Again,let me ask,if you blame Republicans for the bad policies of the Clinton administration,who do you applaud for the good policies?

I still maintain that a President that throws money at subsidizing the agriculture and oil industry,a so-called big government conservative,the same fellow who imposed steel tariffs,cannot with a straight face be tagged as pursuing a policy of deregulating the economy.

Look at this serial denier. . . . . who introduced voluntary regulation into the financials. . . . was it not under Bush? . . . . Did Cox not say that he thought the instinct of self preservation would make voluntary regulation work?. . . . now he is admitting it was a failure. . . . no doubt, the Subprime Crisis was caused in most part by credit instruments. . . .

You copy and paste an article about a self-regulatory decision made in 2004 as evidence that Bush was deregulating the economy. . . . this is really an attempt to clutch at straws. There were far more substantive deregulatory measures under Clinton and Reagan in regards to the financial markets. The problems of the financial markets today do not largely owe to one single policy decision in 2004.

The sub-prime crisis can be blamed on a wide variety of causes including even the imposition of a regulatory measure,the Community Reinvestment Act,which required financial institutions,particularly Fannie and Freddie, to pour money into low income communities. No doubt good intentioned,it is a clear example that bad regulation is as deleterious as no regulation.

To simply hang on to one policy measure from the SEC to prove your point smacks of desperation.

You seem to forget that we are living in a globalised economy. For clarity, I shall highlight the last part of my post. . . .

The investment banks favored the SEC as their umbrella regulator because that let them avoid regulation of their European operations by the European Union

We live in a globalised world but it's an act of stupidity to blame the global financial crisis on the GOP. I asked you about the collapse of the likes of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley,your response is to cite a quote about the regulatory preferences of US investment banks. To carry on justifying blaming Northern Rock or Dexia's collapse on the GOP is lunacy.

You still haven't been able to explain why these European banks were as much at risk as US banks. Your attempts to manufacture partisan explanations are quite daft.

If I am an ignoramus, then you are ignorantus. . . . inflation adjusted yearly non-military growth was 8.6% and 6.2% for Nixon and Ford respectively. . . . and 3.8% for Dubya

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/fiscalconservative.htm

I will give you credit for this one,though,my statement earlier,reproduced here:T[i]he past 8 years has seen the biggest expansion of Government since LBJ. Indeed,if you take away defense and homeland security spending,the past 8 years has seen the biggest increase in Govt spending since the 1930s.[/i]:are also backed up if like you,we resort to googling:http://www.independent.org/images/article_images/charts/040624_spending.gif,http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article570387.ece

All show that far from moving too far to the right,Bush has overseen a major expansion of Govt.

I cannot think of any significant social policies that he implemented. . . .

You cannot think,simple. You can google though,try googling what happened to the education budget under Bush. Abi,education is not part of social policy?

Your attempt to explain away increases in social spending are plainly inane.

Obamabot? How derogatory! I am offended! What did you call Colin Powell when he cast his lot in with Obama. . . . . either he is an idiot or you are a psychophantic ideologue.

What do Colin Powell, Bill Gates, George Soros and Warren Buffet have in common?

Look at this cretinous mediocrity putting himself in the same league as Buffet and Soros. An Obamabot is anyone,including you,who trots out Obama talking points without an ability to reason for themselves. 

In your short stay on this forum,you have managed to produce some classic dumb lines(who will forget Bush has an IQ of 90)picked from a long discredited web article.

Like any clueless beer parlor style analyst,you resent any calls to stick the facts even while discussing economics. Like every Obamabot,your worldview is dictated in the strategy rooms of Axelrod and Plouffe. 

Up Roma! (Hope they finish off the job in the 2nd half)

When even Cris Cox admits that the deregulation of the SEC led to the current crisis, then you must put up your hands and admit you are talking rubbish. George Bush may have regulated many parts of the economy, but that does not extend to the financial markets and the Investment banks. Even as a fan of Reagan, there is a precedent for this in his deregulation of the Savings and Loans industry that led to the S&L crisis.

The typical tactic of the clueless when they are found out is to engage in a gradual retreat from their claims. From suggesting that the economy is too far to the right, a rather clumsy appellation,you have now narrowed it down to the financial markets.

To back up a rather baseless suggestion of a Bush policy of an overly deregulated economy,you have now cited Chris Cox . Unless you are a dolt,nowhere did Cox claim that deregulation is somewhat a recent phenomenon that started under Bush. Deregulation of financial markets go back decades and does not have a partisan face.

One of the dumbest things about the Bush deranged mob is that they try to put a partisan face to a global problem. You would think that the facts that European banks seem more vulnerable than their American counterparts would dispel some of the derangement. I wonder whether Bush and Republicans are at fault for Northern Rock,Bradford & Bingley,Dexia,Hypo Real Estate,e.t.c

For someone who is a stickler for facts, this is the most factually incorrect statement I have heard. Trust Republicans to blame everything on "liberal policies" when their man phocks up. Adjusting for inflation, both Nixon and Ford increased non-military spending by a greater margin than Bush. Republicans seem to think they have a monopoly on "small spending" but infact, Bill Clinton is the smallest spending President in history, followed by Reagan, Carter and Truman. That is three democrats in the top four. From what I can see that is a very good record of "fiscal conservatism" from the democrats. And we haven't even started talking about military spending. . . . . .

My friend,your mendacity knows no bounds. I would like to see the evidence that Nixon and Ford's real spending growth outstrips Bush's. . . .  .quite frankly,for even citing Ford,you are an ignoramus. Fact: Bush has overseen the biggest expansion of Govt since LBJ;so much for an economy to far to the right,or is it just the financial markets?

3 Democrats in the top 4? Are you now praising fiscal conservatism? For an Obamabot who just claimed the economy is too far to the right,you seem hopelessly confused.

(1.) Are you refering to regulation of the financial markets or other non-descript regulations? If it is the former, then you must be smoking seaweed.

(2.) Another evidence of "You are what you read." Are we talking about Governments or markets: because markets always prefer deregulation even to the point of self-destruction (Remember Barings Bank in Singapore?). However, the sensible amongst Wall Street warned about deregulation. Warren Buffet called for regulation of CD's back in 2003 as did many others. However, we know which crowd of Wall Street most Republicans prefer to listen to.

(1) What a stupid question! The relevant quoted post was your rants about "right-wing economics" and the "economy moving too far to the right". Thanks for narrowing it down to a sector of the economy. Deregulation of the financial markets is decades old but some discombobulated folks manage to heap praise on Clinton while simultaneously blaming everything on Bush. The latter was less of a deregulator of the financial markets than the former,that is a clear fact 

What ''crowd'' was the Clinton administration listening to,including Clinton's Treasury Sec,Rubin,who is an Obama adviser. Only the clueless  still see today's economic crisis through a partisan prism. 

Look at this nonsense. . . . . why not tell us about Phil Gramm and his Republican cohorts who sponsored and pushed the Financial Services Modernisation Act through, although most democrats opposed it?. . . . so you want to shift blame now?. . . . why did you not not use the correct name of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act so we can all see that it was a Republican move by Republican Senators? If you recall, many Democrats criticised Clinton for signing the act.

If blame attaches to the Republican Congress for the economic policies of the Clinton era you don't like,how come in your books,Clinton gets the credit for the economic successes,Mr non-partisan?

No intelligent person even thinks the 1999 Act is at fault for the current problem,it actually saved G.Sachs and Morgan Stanley from imploding. However, I  cited that Act to illustrate that deregulation was even more substantive under your beloved Clinton administration than under Bush even if you clumsily try to narrow down your description of the economy as the financial markets. 

Look at your naff attempts to explain away Sarbanes-Oxley. How would you explain away the attempts by  Bush The Deregulator to regulate Fannie and Freddie,torpedoed by Congress. Your viewpoints are an obsession in search of a justification.

Ibime:
Firstly, I am a big fan of Reagan and Thatcher. . . . . . .I am a believer that if an economy goes too far left, it must move right to go back to the centre. . . . . this was the case with Reagan and Thatcher. . . . . I also believe that if the economy moves too far right, it must move back left. . . . . hence, more right-wing economics is not the answer to George Bush''s phock ups. . . . . . that is why it is the turn of the democrats this year. . . . . One thing I virulently hate is ideology. . . . thats why people like you, Tayo-D and Kobojunkie are a serious turn-off this year. . . . if the economy were too far left, I would be on your side of the argument, probably arguing against RichyBlack. . . . . it all depends on the state of play and where the economy is at the moment. . . . I am a centrist.

Ibime,you cannot have a debate,more so on economics which takes flight from the facts. Leave that to the religion threads.

If your assertions are not backed up by the facts,then they are mere articles of faith with as much validity as assertions that planet earth is flat. Take the above suggestion that the economy has moved too far to the right. To the extent that it means that the Bush administration,over the past 8 years,has pursued neoliberal free market economics,that would amount to an abuse of truth and any basic understanding of economics .

In 1 area and 1 area alone can the Bush administration be said to have pursued neoliberal economics; tax policy. Bush did indeed cut taxes lower than Clinton,however,no sane person(not even the most rabid Obamabots) would claim that the present economic meltdown is as a result of taxes being too low. Even then,US corporate taxes are arguably higher than most states in the world,even communist China,but that is a debate for another day.

In every other respect,Bush has repudiated neoliberal economics. Take the cardinal issue of the size of the Government. The past 8 years has seen the biggest expansion of Government since LBJ. Indeed,if you take away defense and homeland security spending,the past 8 years has seen the biggest increase in Govt spending since the 1930s. In the light of this,to claim that the economy is "too far to the right" verges on lunacy.

Another cardinal principle of neoliberal economics and one which has become a common buzzword in today's debate is deregulation. Deregulation effectively refers to the reduction of or removal of Govt regulation. No person in possession of the facts can claim with a straight face that the past 8 years has witnessed a drive to reduce Govt regulation in the US. Funny enough,the general consensus up until a few months ago was on how over-regulation was stifling US growth and was prompting the gradual erosion of New York's status as the world's pre-eminent financial centre in favor of places like London,Hong Kong and Dubai.


No 2 legislative measures epitomize the contrast in regulatory policies between the Clinton and Bush eras as the Financial Services Modernization Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act respectively. Any person who claims that the Bush era has heralded a right-ward shift in economic policy,while continuing to praise Clinton,is engaging in voodoo economics.

Like I noted earlier in my previous post,you can't continue to praise the Clinton era while insisting that the real lesson of the past few years is that neoliberal economics has been repudiated. You simply can't have it both ways.

As for the actual statistics of Reagan's performance, I am not a pedantic sadist to start checking the numbers that the writer put forward. IMO, Reagan did very well and that is the end of the matter. As for your inflation argument, any economist knows that there is always a battle between hawks and doves regarding inflation and interest rate and which better serves the interest of the nation. High inflation may be good if it brings down the interest rate and high interest rates may be good if it brings down inflation, hence I do not pay much attention to those figures, and I no get time to start checking on those figures in order to make a partizan argument. I always judge an economy by real GDP and no of jobs created. Full stop.

My friend,stop waffling. What is economics without numbers? If an article ''sums up your thought perfectly'',one would expect that the numbers cited by the article would not be as far from reality as the Harry Porter epic.

Even then,the theory of convergence,again,like much of the article,falls flat in the face of reality. The tension is not between the vestiges of capitalism and communism(the latter has been thoroughly repudiated) but one version of capitalism(neo-liberal economics) and another(neoKeynesian economics) . The reality is that the past 3 decades,particularly since the Thatcher/Reaganite reforms, has seen a general shift,not towards the centre,but towards Hayek/Friedman's right of centre economics. Once again,the facts belie your points.