I stand corrected. Your blog log is irrefutable proof that arch lectures about European superiority play well with American audiences. Who'd a thunk it?
It might be easier if you use English. You have great facility in that. I have none in Latin.
Well no, you wrote in post 30 "income + tax rate = revenues." It is the first line you wrote. Honest. No wonder it didn't make any sense. It was a typo. I should have figured that.
I remember what Volcker did at the time, and I read a bunch of articles just today. He was Carter's second choice and started to try and beat inflation in Sept of 79 and nothing much worked. I remember that Reagan ran political interference for him and reappointed him. And I read that inflation started to go down in Oct of 81, which was when the first of those tax cuts hit.
So I figure that Reagan handled the 'stag' part and Reagan and Volcker probably did the 'flation' part.
What you spend may be viewed as %GDP but you actually spend dollars.
If your prime object is to please gov employees "you better keep your government revenue stable in %GDP terms". But I figure that the object of gov isn't to please gov employees, it is or should be to stay out of the way of the people and take from them as little as possible. So if you act on that, and reduce the burden public employees place upon the taxpayer, then reduction of revenue as %GDP is a good thing.
Perhaps more than a hundred million people disagree with you, not because they are gullible, but because you might, possibly, just maybe, be wrong.
Gee. Sorry about that. But be consoled that education is never wasted.
Ohhkkkay.
Yes it does. I figure the private individual is wiser at spending his money than a gov bureaucrat is at spending somebody else's. So it is best to let the private individual keep most of it.
Bookmarks