Turn on thread page Beta

THOUSANDS march through Scotland's capital against state visit by DRUMPF watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure what this whole Drumpf thing is about. If I had to guess it's because Drumpf is German sounding hence Trump must be a Nazi because his ancestor's surname is German. This is the level of debate here folks.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Correctthink)
    I'm not sure what this whole Drumpf thing is about. If I had to guess it's because Drumpf is German sounding hence Trump must be a Nazi because his ancestor's surname is German. This is the level of debate here folks.
    Pretty "racist" me being half German this offends me greatly but I forgot that liberals cant be wrong
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    gee evil capitalism look at what is has given us
    The most powerful and prosperous societies
    the ability to actually protest things PEACEFULLY
    most technology that we have today
    nearly all the comforts we enjoy.
    But noooo socialism/capitalsim is sooo much better just look at the examples of .......
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    France
    Soviet Russia vs post-Soviet Russia
    Cuba
    France isnt really socialist

    Russia is still overall a faliure they succeed due to large labour forces and massive resources, and Russia now has TONS of social issues and is quite a bad country.

    Cuba had and still has many problems its leaders comitted horrible crimes and isnt really a big player in the world
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Trump is unstumpable. What do these Haggis cucks think their whining will do against the ULTIMATE ALPHA of the West?
    All these cucks and traitors throwing themselves in front of the Trump train thinking they'll slow it down
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Proof?
    Oh wait you haven't had any this whole debate!
    What do we want? Free **** at the point of access.

    Who's gonna give it to us? Progressive wealth redistribution.

    What don't we understand? Free market fundamentalism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    What do we want? Free **** at the point of access.

    Who's gonna give it to us? Progressive wealth redistribution.

    What don't we understand? Free market fundamentalism.
    Funny how you don't actually address the actual points of the argument which are on the previous page. You clearly don't understand economics as you think the guardian disproves the most influential economist of the 20th century.
    You want progressive taxation? Exactly , you want other peoples money that you haven't earned.
    Have you learn the laffer curve , oh wait you don't understand economics so I don't expect you to.
    Lets see what happened when a 75% tax was introduced in France
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rcent-supertax
    The deficit soared , revenue fell , unemployment increased.
    Again shows you don't understand economics.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Funny how you don't actually address the actual points of the argument which are on the previous page. You clearly don't understand economics as you think the guardian disproves the most influential economist of the 20th century.
    You want progressive taxation? Exactly , you want other peoples money that you haven't earned.
    Have you learn the laffer curve , oh wait you don't understand economics so I don't expect you to.
    Lets see what happened when a 75% tax was introduced in France
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rcent-supertax
    The deficit soared , revenue fell , unemployment increased.
    Again shows you don't understand economics.
    Contain yourself
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedManc)
    Contain yourself
    lets see if they can actually respond with valid points because you haven't been able to do so.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    lets see if they can actually respond with valid points because you haven't been able to do so.
    I beat you in every debate. You're normally lazy and don't bother researching your facts. And you also make bold, false statements.
    Spoiler:
    Show

    It's a joke
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedManc)
    I beat you in every debate. You're normally lazy and don't bother researching your facts. And you also make bold, false statements.
    Spoiler:
    Show


    It's a joke

    Ik your joking because your talking about yourself.
    Nice to know you admit you lost every single debate.
    Funny how ChaoticButterfly disappeared when it actually came to debating economics....
    What a massive surprise.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Ik your joking because your talking about yourself.
    Nice to know you admit you lost every single debate.
    Funny how ChaoticButterfly disappeared when it actually came to debating economics....
    What a massive surprise.
    I've never lost a single debat. I just paused them and moved to other debates.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedManc)
    I've never lost a single debat. I just paused them and moved to other debates.
    rofl , by "paused" you mean you have no evidence and all the facts are against your argument so you give up! Then you continue to be ignorant
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Proof?
    Oh wait you haven't had any this whole debate!
    ROFL!! :rofl::rofl:

    Did you watch the Ted Cruz vs Bernie Sanders debate? It's really good. Bernie got a lesson in Economics.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Gaben)
    ROFL!! :rofl::rofl:

    Did you watch the Ted Cruz vs Bernie Sanders debate? It's really good. Bernie got a lesson in Economics.
    I watched part of it , Ted was wrecking him.
    Still funny how the left winger still hasn't replied.
    I think your dupe check is still going on , you should be accepted into the party in the next few days!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    I watched part of it , Ted was wrecking him.
    Still funny how the left winger still hasn't replied.
    I think your dupe check is still going on , you should be accepted into the party in the next few days!
    No worries, I'm looking forward to joining the party.

    Here's one of my favourite parts of the debate

    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Funny how you don't actually address the actual points of the argument which are on the previous page. You clearly don't understand economics as you think the guardian disproves the most influential economist of the 20th century.
    You want progressive taxation? Exactly , you want other peoples money that you haven't earned.
    Have you learn the laffer curve , oh wait you don't understand economics so I don't expect you to.
    Lets see what happened when a 75% tax was introduced in France
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rcent-supertax
    The deficit soared , revenue fell , unemployment increased.
    Again shows you don't understand economics.
    I know enough to know their are economists who are on my side of politics and think the current state of affairs is not ideal to say the least. yanis Varafoukis, Joseph Stiglitz, Ha-Choon Chang to name a few.

    Any honest economist knows those things are not ridiculous notions in that meme you posted. We have the NHS in the UK and we still function. Empirically it is possible to have "free things".
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I know enough to know their are economists who are on my side of politics and think the current state of affairs is not ideal to say the least. yanis Varafoukis, Joseph Stiglitz, Ha-Choon Chang to name a few.

    Any honest economist knows those things are not ridiculous notions in that meme you posted. We have the NHS in the UK and we still function. Empirically it is possible to have "free things".
    Still babbling , didn't actually respond to any points. Naming economists is not an argument.
    I used the meme after using substantial arguments, none of which you responded to. Did you respond to the laffer curve point or the French 75% tax?
    No.
    Did you respond to any of my points on the other thread about Keynesian economics and the fiscal , multiplier?
    No.
    Did you respond to my points about Thatcher and the 70's?
    No
    You have provided no evidence and not actually debated the subject matter.
    At this point your opinion is invalid.
    Don't debate subject matters you don't understand
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Funny how you don't actually address the actual points of the argument which are on the previous page. You clearly don't understand economics as you think the guardian disproves the most influential economist of the 20th century.
    You want progressive taxation? Exactly , you want other peoples money that you haven't earned.
    Have you learn the laffer curve , oh wait you don't understand economics so I don't expect you to.
    Lets see what happened when a 75% tax was introduced in France
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rcent-supertax
    The deficit soared , revenue fell , unemployment increased.
    Again shows you don't understand economics.
    Bored, so might as well help out ChaoticButterfly who's generosity towards you and humility is a prime example of the concept that "the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt".

    Progressive taxation - being something that can be supported by anyone not matter how much income they earn is clearly not about taking others' money. You cannot accuse Chaotic of wanting others' money without knowing how much they pay into the system and how much they get out. Even if you did it would be an argument against the person - i.e. Irrelevant in a discussion about economics. The Laffer Curve isn't and never has been an argument against progressive taxation, it is a theory that supposes that extremely high absolute tax rates might be counterproductive. Indeed if you are arguing that overtaxing is a show of greed then it is ridiculous to use the laffer curve as part of your argument because using the curve (which we can only guess at the shape of) is about trying to extract as much tax revenue from the taxpayer as possible before they take measures to avoid tax. I realize that some right-wingers are so limited in their thinking that they think the words 'laffer curve' constitute an argument but to anyone who's looking for a genuine low-tax economy and not a cheap (and flimsy) argument the curve has nothing to offer them.

    The hypocrisy of calling out someone for using the Guardian as a source and then doing so yourself is amusing but unimportant. Though it should be noted that Chaotic was not saying the articles 'disproved' Friedman - rather, they were showing you real life occasions when the application of his theories had failed. The exact same thing you attempted to do with your article. With regards to the example you cite, as far as I'm aware there was no significant effect on unemployment, indeed the tax was quickly abolished and the increase in the deficit would be due to falling to predict the revenues the tax would bring rather than being a direct result of the tax. Needless to say, an example of a tax not bringing in revenue is no argument against progressive taxation or public services. There is a reason why there is a near-universal consensus on both these things, regardless of the existence of a few intelligent economists who might disagree. You have been the one hiding behind Friedman's academic achievements rather than demonstrating your own understanding of economics.

    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Thanks! Don't argue about things you have no idea about.
    All I got from reading your exchange is that Chaotic is modest and doesn't wish to go in depth into economic theory because they know they only have a shallow understanding. That doesn't mean your understanding is better, it just means you're more confident - again, I'm reminded of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    The Laffer Curve isn't and never has been an argument against progressive taxation, it is a theory that supposes that extremely high absolute tax rates might be counterproductive. Indeed if you are arguing that overtaxing is a show of greed then it is ridiculous to use the laffer curve as part of your argument because using the curve (which we can only guess at the shape of) is about trying to extract as much tax revenue from the taxpayer as possible before they take measures to avoid tax. I realize that some right-wingers are so limited in their thinking that they think the words 'laffer curve' constitute an argument but to anyone who's looking for a genuine low-tax economy and not a cheap (and flimsy) argument the curve has nothing to offer them.

    .
    The laffer curve is an argument against extremely high taxation such as the 75% tax.
    After cutting the 50% tax , revenue increased.
    As corporation tax has been cut I believe revenue has increased ( I may be wrong)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...-Treasury.html
    Your blind if you can't see this.
    The fact your defending a 75% tax is farcical

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    The hypocrisy of calling out someone for using the Guardian as a source and then doing so yourself is amusing but unimportant. Though it should be noted that Chaotic was not saying the articles 'disproved' Friedman - rather, they were showing you real life occasions when the application of his theories had failed.
    And Keynes's theories haven't failed previously? , look a the 70's, Callaghan admitted it himself.
    Also those articles don't necessarily prove his theories failed.
    The funny thing is in my original post I said Friedman didn't support austerity , rofl.
    (Original post by RayApparently)

    That doesn't mean your understanding is better, it just means you're more confident - again, I'm reminded of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
    Nope I'm not confident , nor did I claim to be an expert.
    But your confidence is shining here.
    You don't know me so can't judge my knowledge and you weren't part of this argument either.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Bored, so might as well help out ChaoticButterfly who's generosity towards you and humility is a prime example of the concept that "the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt".

    Progressive taxation - being something that can be supported by anyone not matter how much income they earn is clearly not about taking others' money. You cannot accuse Chaotic of wanting others' money without knowing how much they pay into the system and how much they get out. Even if you did it would be an argument against the person - i.e. Irrelevant in a discussion about economics. .
    I was not personally attacking one , I think your the one launching personal attacks .
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 3, 2017
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.