Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Tax Policy Center* Says Romney Lies

Mitt Romney proposes reducing tax brackets by 20% and cutting the estate tax (to zero IIRC). He will keep or expand favored treatment of capital gains and dividends. He claims that he doesn’t plan to cut taxes for the rich. He claims that he will avoid such cuts by eliminating deductions, credits and exclusions. One of his claims must be false as they are arithmentically inconsistent.

update: Beyond parody. Romney aid Lanhee Chen says that the Tax Policy Center conclusion that Romney’s proposal is gives to the rich is “biased” because it ignores Romney’s proposed corporate income tax cuts

“The study analyzes only half of Governor Romney’s tax program, ignoring the reforms that would make America’s corporations more competitive by moving from the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world to one that is comparable to our trading partners.”

Yep that’s the way to convince the public. Note that, in addition to tax cuts for rich people, there are tax cuts for corporations. Importantly Chen does not deny that Romney lied when he said he didn’t seek tax cuts for the rich. Chen’s line is the usual supply side trickle down line that tax cuts for the rich and for corporations will help the non rich by causing greater growth. I know of no evidence which supports this claim.

I almost feel sorry for the Romney campaign.

In other breaking news (from 2002) Romney claimed he was resident in Utah in 1999 and 2000 before he claimed he was resident in Massachusetts in 1999 and 2000.

I can’t keep track of his lies (hell Steve Benen has trouble). Wouldn’t it be easier to keep track of his non-lies ?

A new report from the Brookings Institution and the Tax Policy Center includes the following.

The key intuition behind our central result is that, because the total value of the available tax expenditures (once tax expenditures for capital income are excluded) going to high-income taxpayers is smaller than the tax cuts that would accrue to high-income taxpayers, high-income taxpayers must necessarily face a lower net tax burden. As a result, maintaining revenue neutrality mathematically necessitates a shift in the tax burden of at least $86 billion away from high-income taxpayers onto lower- and middle-income taxpayers. This is true even under the assumption that the maximum amount of revenue possible is obtained from cutting tax expenditures for high-income households.

Amazingly, even if they accept Greg Mankiw’s estimates of the effect of rate cuts on growth (which assumes no increase in the deficit even in the short run). They still conclude that a Romney claim must be false.

Nevertheless, even if one were to use the model from Mankiw and Weinzierl (2006) and assume that after five years 15 percent of the $360 billion tax cut is paid for through higher economic growth, the available tax expenditures would still need to be cut by 56 percent; on net lower- and middle-income taxpayers would still need to pay higher taxes.

This analysis will come as a complete shock to exactly zero Angrybear readers (including the conservatives) but might stimulate discussion in comments.

* Title corrected. The Tax Policy Center is a joint center of the Brookings Institute and the Urban Institute not a separate entity.

Tags: , , , Comments (7) | |

Corporate/shareholder value, energy market and global warming

Updated: Renewable Germany bailing out Nuclear France

 
I just read the following in an article by a Mr. Bill McKibben and thought it to be an interesting perspective on why climate change/global warming is being so vigorously denied.

If we spew 565 gigatons more carbon into the atmosphere, we’ll quite possibly go right past that reddest of red lines. But the oil companies, private and state-owned, have current reserves on the books equivalent to 2,795 gigatons — five times more than we can ever safely burn. It has to stay in the ground.
Put another way, in ecological terms it would be extremely prudent to write off $20 trillion worth of those reserves. In economic terms, of course, it would be a disaster, first and foremost for shareholders and executives of companies like ExxonMobil (and people in places like Venezuela).
If you run an oil company, this sort of write-off is the disastrous future staring you in the face as soon as climate change is taken as seriously as it should be, and that’s far scarier than drought and flood. It’s why you’ll do anything — including fund an endless campaigns of lies — to avoid coming to terms with its reality.
Never thought of the resistance to moving away from carbon fuels as an issue of having to write off company value in order to save the planet. As shown with the housing bubble, writing off inflated value (inflated for what ever reason) is a rather difficult thing to do. I mean, when you have so much down stream of that artificial value dependent on it (think currency based on oil), the engineering challenge is like playing Jenga only no one will be laughing if you fail and the tower falls.  Also, you have a timer running in this version of Jenga.

I believe Mr. McKibben refers to the issue as a bubble in that the current price of raw carbon fuel is based on the idea that fuel in general is becoming less available. But fuel or energy is not less available. It is only one source of fuel that is becoming less in quantity. The only means to keep this conflation of less carbon based energy means less energy fuel in total is to deny the application of science in the energy market place as it relates to a competitor product. It is artificial price manipulation via psych-ops.
In other words, the only way to keep the carbon energy market alive is to not have a free energy market. Part of assuring not having a free energy market is to deny the need for a free energy market, thus, deny climate change do to human extraction of carbon from the ground and it’s ever increasing rate of conversion to a gas of CO2. It is artificial price manipulation via psych-ops.
Let’s take the write off issue one step further. How does the value of a company such as Exxon/Mobil which is based on ever rising price do to ever declining product with ever increasing demand keep this model for valuing the company if the product becomes essentially limitless? Now we’re up against our entire paradigm as to how we understand free market value and thus construct value.
Carbon based energy is currently view as land. No new land is being made and demand is rising thus ever increasing value. The proper model for carbon fuel is that of a market where over time the product becomes obsolete. This I think is the fault in thinking that has created the aberrant paradigm which lead to the bubble Mr. McKibben sees. Our entire energy market, viewed in this way is a complete illusion as seen from the owners side of the energy equation and a complete delusion as seen from the market economist side of the energy equation, though I would say the economist delusion has lead the owners to create their illusion.
Just one more problem with running an economy based on the efficiency of money as oppose to the efficiency of people.

Update:

From Real Economics I read an article from Der Spiegel regarding France struggling with electricity shortages do to the cold spell. Seem France, not normally experiencing cold winters uses electricity for heating homes. This year they needed 7000 megawatts per hour more power. 100 gigawatts one evening was need, the equivalent of 80 nuclear power plants. Germany was sending them a net 3000 megawatts/hour because:
It is interesting, said the federal environment minister, that Germany, especially in these days with a very high demand, can even export power—thanks to photovoltaic and wind energy. “We had in the last days a capacity of up to 10,000 megawatts of solar power, which corresponds to the output of ten nuclear power plants, and up to 11,000 megawatts of wind power,” said Röttgen.
Read another take here at Lenz Blog.
This is significant, because back in May of 2011 all the rage was how France was bailing out Germany after Germany announced its nuclear generation shut down. As with Jonathan Larson at Real Economics, no one is saying this means we can scrap all other power generation tomorrow as this Spiegel article notes the lack of solar generated power in Germany during a spell this winter and the need to import electricity.
The January article (not pro solar at all) notes:
Until now, Merkel had consistently touted the environmental sector’s “opportunities for exports, development, technology and jobs.” But now even members of her own staff are calling it a massive money pit.

How quickly fortunes can change. All the more reason to view carbon based energy in the energy market as a product that can be made obsolescent.  You know, a true free market with competition which purpose is to serves the efficiency of people and not money. Maybe then even Germany would not be so reactionary when their plan stumbles.  Heck, it took the Wright Brothers over a 1000 flights, just to learn how to fly!  Over 200 wings and airfoils!  They did not concern themselves with the issue of scaling it up for use by a planet of 6 billion people.

 
Stick to your plan Germany because you have the correct intention.

Tags: , , , , , , , Comments (1) | |

Screw Austerity, I have a new theme song

by Daniel Becker

Being that we’re about to experience austerity because we are convinced we can’t spend money properly such that we actually end up with more after rather than less …  which is very depressing to me and defeatist in presentation, I present my new theme song:  That’s how it goes.

I just find it fascinating that we will accept the argument that government needs to run as we run our own houses and thus need to not spend more than we have, blah, blah, blah yet we seem not willing to apply the concept that we apply daily in our own household to get ourselves an education, a house, our own business, improvement to our property and self.  We do this all the time because we understand it is building our wealth, and we do it even though we can’t print our own dollars like the government can.  (Yeah, we’re not Greece in that way.)

Really, just listen to both sides presenting the austerity program arguments.  Can’t you hear how disjointed the reasoning is?  Can’t you hear how selective they are in presenting examples of proof of their argument which is resulting is a totally disjointed line of reasoning.  Ask one question you are told we need to save to prosper.  Ask another question you are told we need to spend less just like you, to prosper.  Ask a third question and you are told we have no money, just like you.  Ask a forth question and we’re told the economy is growing (more money produced) NOT LIKE YOU.  Ask a fifth question and we are told to better yourself, NOT LIKE WE THE PEOPLE.  Ask a sixth question and we are told to get an education, NOT LIKE WE THE PEOPLE.  Ask a seventh question and we are told to…(fill in your own).

My favorite verses of the song and why it is my new theme song:

I help you and you help me
That’s the way the world should be
Tit for tat and give and take
Just be good for goodness sake
I’ll pick you up if you should fall
It works both ways if it works at all
Hold in your heart the people you love
Always thank the powers above
Everyone deserves a share
So keep your promise, fair is fair

So gather ‘round me people
And help me while I sing this song
I’d rather have you with me
Together as we travel along
It’s the feeling of the wind in your face
The sound of the music they play
The friends you make along the way
Don’t you know, that’s how it goes

Tags: , , , , , , , , , Comments (6) | |

Not Scarcity, But Surplus is the Problem

Not Scarcity, But Surplus is the Problem (Just as Dismal, though)

by Noni Mausa, lifted from comments at Economist’s View

They were discussing scarcity last week at Economist’s View. But to my mind scarcity isn’t our core problem. I wrote (and then edited a bit for this post):

=======

Yes, scarcity of resources is fundamental to econ theory, and it’s a real concern, not just an abstract factor for calculations.

But less often mentioned is the truism that human beings, working in concert, produce surplus. Generally this is very great surplus. In any society beyond the most desperately poor, this surplus is sufficient at least to support the 1/3 to 1/2 of the population who cannot support themselves– children, and the elderly and disabled…

This surplus … inevitably leads to the specialized class we would call the wealthy. This clan has existed as far back as we have written records. They may be more useful, or less useful, to their host societies, but they can only exist when those societies produce large surplus.

Economics talks about managing scarcity, but … our real problem is managing the surplus.

Sandwichman takes a stab at Ecological Headstand with Tenacity of Textbook Truism.

Tags: , , Comments (52) | |