…the Republicans are even worse than Obama’s – and they tend to support anti-growth tax policies (calling them pro-growth doesn’t change the data), what should a rational person do? I…

…Federal Spending and GDP, since 1995, plotted on a log scale. Constant growth results in a straight line segment, and a higher growth rate causes a steeper slope. Zero growth…

…taxes this year, it means more money in your pocket this year. Since you spend more efficiently than the government, that creates more growth this year, and that additional growth…

by Mike Kimel This post appeared in the Presimetrics blog. Presidents, the Tax Burden and Corruption – Explaining Economic Growth One of the topics we cover in Presimetrics is the…

…impact on real family income growth. Essentially, it is responsible for the fact that since 1975 real family income growth was 0.8% and married couples real income growth rate was…

PRODUCTIVITY Productivity growth is clearly slowing, and the key question is, is this a purely cyclical development or is it signaling a slowing in the long term trend growth rate….

…the growth rate being only 0.2%. Yet, Moore et al. continually misrepresent economic research by claiming a free lunch with a massive boost to the growth rate. Mark Thoma noted:…

…productivity decreases from 3.3 percent for 2003 to 1.2 percent for 2004. The reason the Trustees are forecasting this 1.9% real GDP growth is that they are assuming employment growth…

…result suggest that the top tax-growth relationship after 1975 might be placed on the upward-sloping side of the “growth-hill”. There is an even stronger positive top tax-growth relationship after 1985,…

…growth is inhibited, in spite of ever-accelerating growth in investment spending. The dead-weight loss is based on low labor costs in the face of rising output. The result is more…