Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 135

Thread: New York Times Faux Economics

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    They quoted people who agreed with the hypothesis of the article. It's a terrible case study because they failed to take into account the labor laws, tax laws, environmental laws and other regulatory issues at hand. It's a terrible case study because they failed to look at how the management of the Asian/European transplants may be better than their corporate welfare-sucking American rivals who spent the 1980s designing low-quality cars.

    It's a one-dimensional portrait designed to support protectionism as a means to an end. You probably don't see a bias in it because you almost-certainly agree with the premis of the article.
    The article sucks, as it fails to see the effects of monetary policy. For years US used a model of US printing dollars and poor exporting countries producing real products, money goes to poor countries and inflation is exported as dollars are kept as reserves and money is converted to local currency that becomes devaluated. The net result is people wages in poor countries became devaluated and that made them cheaper. All this was possible thanks to monetary policy that wanted to keep dollar strong, as the reserve currency of the world.

    However, globalization changed all that. With inflation, jobs are exported as it allows more profit to corporations.

    Trying to stop globalization with a trade war seems a bit strange. It would mean less profit for corporations. It would mean to block imports, something that was already tried in the 1960s with horrible results, as companies started to become less competitive and quality went down as companies had less competitors within the country, making companies less competitive to export.

    Macroeconomically speaking, blocking imports would have an effect on excess of demand.

    Excess of demand = G+E+(X-I)*e-Y

    G: Government spending
    E: Private spending
    X: Exports
    I: Imports
    Y: GNP
    e: Money exchange rate

    Excess of demand would impact as inflation/deflation. A trade war based on nationalist feelings seems ridiculous to me. In macroeconomics, shooting a bullet has a bigger recoil effect. A "trade war" can only succeed if dollar collapses (not anymore world reserve currency), if working hard in a factory becomes more profitable than being a bureaucrat in a financial business, and Americans become as cheap as foreigners in poor countries, so US becomes more competitive, or if foreigners stop being poor and get to earn as much money as americans (not gonna happen anytime soon). Anything else would be a trade bubble that will pop horribly.

    US may go for failed initiatives that were already tried. But it means getting the results that were already obtained. nationalists would be attracted by it, but in the end they will find that the trade off is to make money or to be a poorer nationalist. Would you buy an iPhone made in China for $225 or would you pay $3400 for the very same iPhone made in US?

    A trade war would only be effective if it gets to attract manpower intensive industries, not automated ones. I am afraid that this trade war would be deemed to fail if it does not happen.
    Last edited by ar81; 09-10-2012 at 02:37 PM.
    Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.

  2. #32
    I glance at the NY Times editorials every so often and can't help but think that the editors are far to the left of European socialist parties. The editorial team also seems to be far less coherent and far less capable of defending their position than a college undergrad.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I glance at the NY Times editorials every so often and can't help but think that the editors are far to the left of European socialist parties. The editorial team also seems to be far less coherent and far less capable of defending their position than a college undergrad.
    But they don't allow comments, or their comments close early so that only the most avid/rabid liberals hound-dogs can comment. Then, poof!

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I glance at the NY Times editorials every so often and can't help but think that the editors are far to the left of European socialist parties. The editorial team also seems to be far less coherent and far less capable of defending their position than a college undergrad.
    Which one in particular are you referring to?

    I think the NYTimes comments policy may help push up their page views and interaction rates, but it makes a mockery of the Times goal of projecting impartiality. When I sign-on to NYTimes.com, I'm now greeted by their prominent opinion pieces and editorials on the upper-right corner of the page (which, historically, is where top news stories appeared in their print edition. But that's in the past.).

    If I click on an article, that article has a slew of comments on the bottom reflecting the left-wing orientation of the Times readers. Well okay, but then the Times takes things further and actively moderates the comments to exclude right-of-center views. Then they take things even further by promoting certain comments (inevitably expressing a left-wing view) with a gold "NYT Pick" badge.

  5. #35
    The constant "stimulus is great", "austerity hasn't worked in the history of the earth", "Republicans are evil", "unions are God's gift to mankind", etc.

    The problem I have isn't the slant of the editorial team (and it's a pretty damn big slant), but the fact that the arguments used to justify their positions are some of the worst I've ever seen. I have seriously seen GGT and OG better justify their views than NY Times editors on the same topic.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  6. #36


    The WSJ isn't such a hotbed of impartiality, either. I'm not a registered reader, but have clicked on enough comments to see the same drivel from the opposite side.

  7. #37
    I know reading isn't your specialty, but I pretty clearly said that my main problem is with their inability to form an argument, not with their slant.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I know reading isn't your specialty, but I pretty clearly said that my main problem is with their inability to form an argument, not with their slant.
    And you keep claiming you only debate opinions, not personalities.

    WSJ doesn't frame or support their arguments very well, either.

  9. #39
    Just because you say something doesn't make it true. Neither is "no, your mom" a very good argument.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  10. #40
    There's also faux science "reported" by CNN and picked up by Fox.




    http://fox2now.com/2012/10/24/study-...ith-ovulation/

    Study Links Women’s Voting Choices With Ovulation

    At least CNN has pulled the story, but it's still available on FauxNews.

    http://tv.yahoo.com/news/cnns-femini...154343766.html

  11. #41
    NYTimes refers to capital gains and dividend rates as "preferential" income tax rates in an article replete with left-wing talking points from think tanks.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/bu...americans.html

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    NYTimes refers to capital gains and dividend rates as "preferential" income tax rates in an article replete with left-wing talking points from think tanks.
    I didn't read your link. But why wouldn't you think taxing capital gains or dividends at lower rates than labor isn't "preferential"?

    Don't you see the difference between passive and active income?

  13. #43
    The concept of "passive" vs. "active" income is little more than a socialist farce.

  14. #44
    The NYTimes has started an unusually craptacular blog about the budget negotiations/debate in the US. Inexplicably, you can't comment on individual posts. Just on all the posts.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/u...reckoning.html

    One of the posts talks about tax-deferred savings accounts in the hallmark NYTimes bizarro world in which government not taxing something means government is spending money.

    Every year, the government spends more than $100 billion on tax breaks to encourage Americans to save more for retirement...The money that the government spends to encourage Americans to save for retirement is money that cannot be spent on deficit reduction, education, health care or other priorities. The study suggests that the money has little effect on the retirement security of lower-income families, either.
    Yes indeedy, by deferring the taxation of savings contributions until people are 65 years old, the government is "spending". By not taxing something, the government is "spending". Every dollar that isn't taxed is a gift from the government in the eyes of New York Times writers.

  15. #45
    They're not exactly the first to frame tax expenditures in that way are they now
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  16. #46
    Yes, but I believe calling deferred-taxation/untaxed money a government "expenditure" is a fairly ideological and fauxonomic way to frame things in any place beyond an opinion page.

  17. #47
    All I know is that wikipedia says that "tax expenditures" are defined in more or less the way the NYT defines them and that they are generally regarded as a form of spending by mainstream economists. If it were about across-the-board reductions in taxation perhaps things would be different.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  18. #48
    I was gonna post the WikiFist but Atard's site is even more down than it was before.

  19. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I was gonna post the WikiFist but Atard's site is even more down than it was before.
    According to wikipedia and the internet the term is explicitly defined in law as:

    those revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  20. #50
    You should realize I would never take that definition seriously.

  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    You should realize I would never take that definition seriously.
    I realise that but you should realise what the official legal definition as laid out in law from the '70s means for your earlier assertion that

    calling deferred-taxation/untaxed money a government "expenditure" is a fairly ideological and fauxonomic way to frame things in any place beyond an opinion page.
    From what I've gathered, it's also a fairly neutral and conventional term among mainstream economists. Knocking the NYT for actually using words the way they're arguably supposed to be used makes no sense.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  22. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    The concept of "passive" vs. "active" income is little more than a socialist farce.
    The 'concept' includes defining work, with some degree of tax equity for actual labor, and incentivizing certain activities.

    You can call it a socialist farce all you want....but the difference is clear between "passive" investment, inherited wealth, dividends and capital gains, stock options and golden parachutes....and "active" work wages or salaries. Lower taxes on financial instruments created bubbles in banking and Wall Street, and huge disparities between investments in monetary capital and human capital. That's what Warren Buffet has been talking about for years.

    No one begrudges wealth or wealthy people. But there's something out of kilter when just six Walton family descendants hold more wealth than the bottom half of an entire nation, it takes six years for a Walmart "associate" to move from $8/hour to $10/hour in wages, and workers pay more in tax rate/percentage of income than the billionaires.

  23. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I realise that but you should realise what the official legal definition as laid out in law from the '70s means for your earlier assertion that

    From what I've gathered, it's also a fairly neutral and conventional term among mainstream economists. Knocking the NYT for actually using words the way they're arguably supposed to be used makes no sense.
    It's not a neutral term to call not taxing something a "government expenditure". It implies that you owe the government everything you own/earn, and they are merely spending money letting you keep a portion of it. Completely backwards.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    The 'concept' includes defining work, with some degree of tax equity for actual labor, and incentivizing certain activities.

    You can call it a socialist farce all you want....but the difference is clear between "passive" investment, inherited wealth, dividends and capital gains, stock options and golden parachutes....and "active" work wages or salaries. Lower taxes on financial instruments created bubbles in banking and Wall Street, and huge disparities between investments in monetary capital and human capital. That's what Warren Buffet has been talking about for years.

    No one begrudges wealth or wealthy people. But there's something out of kilter when just six Walton family descendants hold more wealth than the bottom half of an entire nation, it takes six years for a Walmart "associate" to move from $8/hour to $10/hour in wages, and workers pay more in tax rate/percentage of income than the billionaires.
    Buzzwording again, are we?

  24. #54
    Socialist farce, eh?

  25. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    It's not a neutral term to call not taxing something a "government expenditure". It implies that you owe the government everything you own/earn
    Except that that's not the rationale behind the term.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  26. #56
    Moreover, your reading is incorrect. The term does not imply that you owe the government everything you own/earn. It implies that you owe the government a certain defined portion of your income or property in taxes. If your tax forms are at all helpful you'll find the specific number you owe before deductions etc written down somewhere on a tax form. If you add up the portion you pay in taxes and the portion you get to avoid paying specifically due to tax breaks and the like you'll likely find that it doesn't add up to 100% of your income and property. If I'm not mistaken your government does indeed have a legal right to levy taxes from you.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  27. #57
    No, either the government chooses to tax something or it doesn't. It doesn't calculate the total amount it could tax, set a rate and then call the difference an "expenditure".

  28. #58
    Picking on the NYTimes editorial page is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, but when they take themselves so seriously as to create a series of editorials telling Obama what to do and call it "THE SECOND TERM", one just can't resist.

    Their signature call in the series for tax changes outlines a lot of ways to raise taxes. They laughably claim that dramatically raising taxes "could be a cure for much of what ails the economy" and claiming that spending is somehow not a problem.

    Then, they demand a Value Added Tax and a host of other transactional taxes to Europeanize our economy into dust. Bravo, NYT editorial page. If you love increasing government revenue so much, I hope you enjoy the subway ride you'll be taking to your Upper West Side hovels when they raise subway fares in March to pay for increased union pension costs for subway workers.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/op...ax-reform.html

    December 29, 2012
    Why the Economy Needs Tax Reform

    Over the next four years, tax reform, done right, could be a cure for much of what ails the economy. Higher taxes, raised progressively, could encourage growth by helping to pay for long-neglected public investment in education, infrastructure and basic research. More revenue would also reduce budget deficits, helping to put the nation’s finances on a stable path. Greater progressivity would reduce rising income inequality, and with it, inequality of opportunity that is both an economic and social scourge.

    The big obstacle to comprehensive tax reform is the persistent Republican myth that spending cuts alone can achieve economic and budget goals. That notion was sounded rejected by voters during the election. Yet it still has adherents among many Republicans, which will make it that much harder for Congress to grapple with the bigger and more complex issue at the heart of tax reform: how to pay for government in the 21st century.

    The main problem is that the current tax code is incapable of raising the revenue needed to pay for the goods and services of government. Over the last four years, federal revenue as a share of the economy has fallen to its lowest level in nearly 60 years, a result of the recession, the weak recovery and a decade’s worth of serial tax cuts. Even with deep spending cuts, the chronic revenue shortfall is expected to continue, swelling the federal debt — unless taxes go up. To stabilize the debt over the next 10 years while financing more investment would require at least $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion in new revenue, above what could be raised by letting the top income tax rate revert to its pre-Bush-era level of 39.6 percent.

    A logical way to help raise the additional needed revenue would be to tax capital gains at the same rates as ordinary income. Capital gains on assets held for more than a year before selling are taxed at about the lowest rate in the code, currently 15 percent and expected to rise to 20 percent in 2013. That is an indefensible giveaway to the richest Americans. Research shows that the tax breaks do not add to economic growth but do contribute to inequality. Currently, the top 1 percent of taxpayers receive more than 70 percent of all capital gains, while the bottom 80 percent receive only 6 percent.

    Another sensible approach is to cap deductions at 28 percent, or to convert deductions, which disproportionately benefit high-bracket taxpayers, to tax credits, which would provide the same benefit to all taxpayers, regardless of tax bracket. President Obama must also pursue other revenue raisers, including a restoration of the estate tax, higher tax rates or surcharges on multimillion-dollar incomes, and higher corporate taxes, including an end to the deferral of tax for American companies that stash their earnings abroad.

    All that would only be a start, because the new revenue would only slow the growth of the debt in the near term. After 10 years, the pressures of an aging population and health care costs would cause the debt to accelerate again.

    With that in mind, Mr. Obama would be wise to instruct the Treasury Department to start work on tax reform now, exploring carbon taxes, both to raise revenue and to protect the environment; a value-added tax, coupled with provisions to protect lower-income taxpayers from higher prices, to tax consumption and encourage saving; and a financial transactions tax, to ensure that the financial sector, whose profits have substantially outpaced those of nonfinancial corporations, pay a fair share.

    Not all of the proposed new taxes would gain support, but all deserve to be part of the debate. Controlling the terms of that debate, and then advancing from debate to action, could well be the toughest challenge of Mr. Obama’s second term and, if met, his defining economic legacy.

  29. #59
    Former NY Mayer Ed Koch died today. So the NYT whips-up an infographic about how the city has changed since the 1980s. They post a graphic about how inflation adjusted incomes have gone up in almost every orner of the city and argue that this is a bad thing because "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer".

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...and-today.html

  30. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Former NY Mayer Ed Koch died today. So the NYT whips-up an infographic about how the city has changed since the 1980s. They post a graphic about how inflation adjusted incomes have gone up in almost every orner of the city and argue that this is a bad thing because "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer".

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...and-today.html
    This shouldn't be surprising. It seems like liberals would prefer everyone to be poor then to have some people poor and others wealthy. They rate economies by how "equal" they are as opposed to aggregate wealth.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •