<p>do you believe in classical economics where government should do nothing and let the free-market correct itself or believe more in keynesian economics where government should be more involved and pump money into the economy and "buy" itself out of trouble? or do you believe in more in socialism?</p>
<p>I believe the most productive and prosperous system is the one where the wellbeing of citizens is undermined. See: USSR, China, and arguably the United States in relation to western Europe. Socialism is just that–all about the people and their wellbeing, and nothing to do with economic productivity. When business is permitted to operate in an unregulated environment, it is amply productive at the expense of people, the environment, western civilization etc. It’s just a matter of knowing where to draw the line.</p>
<p>somewhere in between</p>
<p>I’m going to give a non cop-out answer and say that I think that John Maynard Keynes was pretty damn smart.</p>
<p>Arthur Pigou.</p>
<p>Raise taxes on bad things like gasoline and cigarettes.</p>
<p>Lower taxes on good things like work and investments.</p>
<p>Keynes would be the second best, and Friedman the third best. (for his work, not his policies)</p>
<p>mine is almost completely opposite of football’s --the Atlas Shrugged capitalism kind of thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not necessarily all of Classical economics. It’s Classical * Liberal * Economics, a part of some of the ideas called Conservatism and Libertarianism. The irony is lost.</p>
<p>I think that capitalism and socialism can be workably reconciled if we deal with the human buffer first. A nifty way to do that (one that would get rid of a bunch of social issues as well) would be to eradicate the family unit.
- Family has nothing positive to do with liberties or responsibilities.
- It is antiquated sometimes and malignant at other times.
Replace it with a dedicated government Ministry (or “Department” ).
After that, government could be as socialist or as capitalist as it wants to be and human capital would not nearly be as wasted as it is today.</p>
<p>I don’t approve of full-time parents without established expertise in childraising, and quite frankly while I don’t think the state should necessarily provide the service, it is possible that it * might * be defeated if commercialized.</p>
<p>Here’s why: a key point in this is to wash a newborn individual’s credit history completely clean of their parents, and to make their upbringing as efficient as possible. However, if we have the parents pay firms to raise their children, then some firms will start catering to the richer parents. Inequity all over again.</p>
<p>Here’s the semi-capitalist, semi-socialist solution: pay for it with taxes (with the amount of safe-nets, social services and counterproductives this makes redundant, taxes need not be raised). Commercial services can make bids to the Parliament/House-of-Representatives, and then the MPs/Reps decide how the payment is made, without government interference in the actual commercialized childrearing process.</p>
<p>Another point of my current idea is that unless monopoly or price-fixing is damaging the “small” people, there shouldn’t be many laws on “Financial Products”. They should not be endorsed or sanctioned because they’re not necessary. A savings account or well-managed credit card is all the individual needs, and businesses have their own versions. As for Hedge funds, if you can’t divest your own money then don’t blame the investors for manipulating abstractions with a blade on your neck.</p>
<p>So I’m a bit anti-regulation (or neutral, depending on how you/I see it) on economy, but I attach a rather strange social condition. </p>
<p>I am pragmatic on taxes, with no beliefs and no morals on the issue.</p>
<p>Why should the government subsidize the private student loan business when it’s making money for the taxpayers in the name of PLUS loans?</p>
<p>On that note, the government obviously isn’t very efficient when it pretends to act like a business but has the unlimited backing of the government’s coffers (Fannie/Freddie, GSEs gone wild).</p>
<p>Certainly, the fall of the USSR shows the failure of a system not based upon free markets.
In short, don’t be for government for government’s sake (the pro fund the broken public schools, no help/choice for private schools) but don’t afraid of it like the boogeyman considering it’s really so ingrained in our lives and let it help us where it can (making taxpayers money on student PLUS loans).</p>
<p>"
Raise taxes on bad things like gasoline and cigarettes.</p>
<p>Lower taxes on good things like work and investments."</p>
<p>yup yup. Maximize revenues while minimizing the burden by taxing things people will buy anyway, not things that people wouldn’t buy if they were taxed and would therefore cripple the economy. We shouldn’t tax for “fairness” sake ALA Obama, we need to tax for revenues.</p>
<p>I tend to go along with the the Austrian School and Mises.</p>
<p>I am a Capitalist. (ambiguous… I know I know)</p>
<p>Then again, I am also a finance major.</p>
<p>“We shouldn’t tax for “fairness” sake ALA Obama, we need to tax for revenues.”</p>
<p>I actually like Obama’s tax plan better because we are in a major deficit, and, while both candidates would increase the deficit, independent studies show McCain would increase it by $100 billion more.</p>
<p>Running a deficit is OK, but it can’t get too extreme. Like it or not, we need some tax revenue. Obama wants an upper income tax bracket of about 40%, similar to the upper tax bracket under Reagan and Clinton. That, along with the fact that he cuts more taxes for people making less than $100k than McCain (which will increase demand) is why Obama’s tax plan is superior.</p>
<p>Gibson: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?</p>
<p>Obama: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. </p>
<p>???</p>
<p>What the heck is this hooey? More revenues from cutting capital gains taxes and he wants to raise them for “fairness” sake?</p>
<p>That’s what I’m talking about. Make it good for everyone, not burden people when you don’t have to.</p>
<p>On reversing tax cuts for the wealthy: Obama: “I think we’ve got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now,”</p>
<p>I don’t take fair to be taxing the rich more and the poor less. I think that is the opposite of the definition of fair. I strong believe in poll taxing in which every citizen no matter what there yearly wages/salary’s pays the same taxes. I find this to be the fairest.</p>
<p>I find the “fairness” argument to be quite weak.</p>
<p>Better reasons for a progressive tax:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>More revenue. The Laffer curve is widely regarded as false. Taxing the rich at a higher rate is the easiest way to pay for roads, fire departments, police, etc. A 10%-40% progressive tax will generate an insanely higher amount of revenue than a 25% flat tax.</p></li>
<li><p>Strong economy. Taxing the rich does reduce supply a little, but taxing the poor/middle class sharply reduces demand. A 10%-40% progressive tax, therefore, will have less of an economic impact than a 25% flat tax, because a 15% increase on the poor will wipe out some people’s disposable income. A 15% increase in the upper bracket could hurt investment, but it wouldn’t wipe it out, and consumption would be unaffected.</p></li>
<li><p>Less BS. The rich are able to hire accountants or lawyers to find loopholes in the tax code, so they generally pay less than the stated amount. With a flat tax, the rich end up paying a smaller percentage than the poor, which exacerbates the other two problems, and eliminates the sense of fairness caused by a flat tax.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I’m all for capping tax rates at 20% (i.e. reducing tax rates by half) on the condition that all exemptions, credits, and deductions, except for education, be eliminated. Why should a 23 year old fresh out of college be subsidizing someone’s $3 million mansion? If you can afford to drop that much on a home, you can afford to pay the debt service on it. The rich benefit more from society and therefore should be bearing more of the cost of society.</p>
<p>On the other hand, there’s a societal interest in having a highly educated, skilled workforce, especially in a service sector economy. In other words, we’re in the business not of making things, but in the business of selling knowledge, or creating knowledge.</p>
<p>Call me cynical, but I have a belief that when left to their own devices, corporations will collectively screw their customers, especially when they’re in industries that are necessary for the survival of the economy. Therefore, we need to regulate the crap out of those industries. And things like healthcare should not be left to the free markets, ever. That’s a cost that we as a society should be bearing. Obesity raising the costs of healthcare? Smoking raising the cost of healthcare? Sorry, but that’s what we get when we don’t teach our kids how to cook properly, or control themselves. A 30 year old with an MA in chemistry working for big pharma developing drugs is unable to cook a single dish out of fresh ingredients.</p>
<p>Frankly I’d prefer if they tacked on a $100/pack tax on cigarettes and use that to fund nationalised healthcare. And banned high fructose corn syrup.</p>
<p>Yes yes, the rich hurt less from a 30% tax than the poor do and we get cool stuff like NASA and public schools.</p>
<p>But again, taxing to be “fair” and “equally” mean…or equally stressing is just plain dumb.</p>
<p>futurebyustudent, you do know the reason companies use HFCS is due to government regulation on Sugar farming, the sugar quotas of 1982. if we didn’t have the protectionist interventionist mentality, there would be no reason for a company to ever use HFCS. More of the contradictions I am talking about, where you want goverment to solve problems created by government.</p>
<p>“Frankly I’d prefer if they tacked on a $100/pack tax on cigarettes and use that to fund nationalised healthcare. And banned high fructose corn syrup.”</p>
<p>LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL</p>
<p>[Tax</a> incidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence]Tax”>Tax incidence - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Tax some cigs? Okay. Tax it so that no one will buy and no revenues will be had? dumb.</p>
<p>^Um that’s the point. So I don’t feel like I’m suffocating every time I walk out of my residence hall.</p>
<p>Why does economics always have to be “all or nothing”?
The two extremes were tested, tried, and failed.</p>