America's Tax Burden To Rise

And now here's Pleebo trying to create an argument that there is no argument about....

Or is he going to say that I was the first to mention Economics and Accounting at the same time?

Edit: MOFOING PAGED 5 TIMES IN A ROW -.-

You, an accountant, tried to argue economic theory with an economist. And failed. The economist, in frustration, pointed out that you're an accountant, which is rather like asking a paramedic to comment on brain surgery: there's a certain relationship, but there's a clear lack of necessary knowledge and experience.

This isn't complex.

Her point was that you're trying to treat economics as a static, invariable field when it is not. Also, no one cares if you page.

Kara is an economist? I thought she was somebody who pretended to know something but continued to prove otherwise.

Like a few other posters here.

I wonder, are you deliberately trying to get written into psych textbooks as the ultimate example of projection, or is it just one of those unconscious desire type deals?

So have you found that citation yet or will you just continue stomping your feet on the ground insisting you're correct by virtue of a textbook existing?

If not, no1currs.

No, that would be you there bub.

it's pretty funny that the only person who questions her credentials is the person who demonstrates the most profound misunderstanding of the subject...

But Jass, it's all explained in the book that he clearly needed not actually quote!

I quote books all the time: "It was the best of times it was the worst of times."

And those times were called 2014.

Watch out, y'all! Charles Dickens dun hooked up with HG Wells!

That is all I remember about reading that book. Was a damn good sentence.

Also I found out how Twilight novel was written:

But Rush says its in there, isn't that enough?

Thanks Pleebo, this ^ exactly.

In regards to that book even the author discusses how economists disagree (2009 copyright p. 35) and sometimes agree, on a variety of "economic issues".

However, when discussing agreement he took a bit of liberity with quoting and presenting questions from his primary resources, but whatever. His primary resources:
Do economists agree on anything? Yes! (Pleebo you might be interested in Table 1)
Is there consensus among economists in the 1990's?

And no where in that list does he state that minimum wage sharply increases "common items" or decreases the PPP, nor that minimum wage increases poverty in short and long term. KN, you are more than welcome to argue it and I would be interested in reading the peer-reviewed studies that concluded this.

We've had this conversation before on ffxiah and I posted a few studies written in the last ten years about minimum wage and its affect on inflation and employment rates. I think this was posted in a thread that was deleted but I'll try to find the studies again. Economists have greater access to a lot more primary data than they've had before which makes testing various theories easier.

One of the studies looked at minimum wage increases in cities/counties geographically located next to ones that did not raise the wage. One of their conclusions was there was not as much hiring as previous years but there was a higher retention rate.
http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf

The other study looked at minimum wage in the resturant industry. Taking a baseline in prices before the rate increase (controlling for seasonality and other factors, iirc) and comparing it to after the rate increase. They found an increase in prices 9~ months after the wage increase that was less than 1%, iirc.

Edit: added one of the papers

Light the Ben Bernanke signal we got an economic expert on the loose!

What do we do next sir...um raise interest rates. Job well done!

The only book you need to read about economics.

Full text online, etc.

How dare you encourage me to learn something. I was busy looking up a new fetish now I'm reading about economics.

Time to get the world economy out of the Keynesian gutter it's in.

Better not tell our .

She might confuse accounting with economics again.

I understand that reading comprehension is not your forte KN.
So as Pleebo said:

I'll provide you a citation as soon as you get back to me on that quote of me saying that economics is the same as accounting, k?

You act like economic theories are set in stone, like they're laws governing them (like they are accounting principles).

Economic theories are not like theories in the physics sense (e.g. Gravity) nor principles or guidelines in the accounting sense.

The theories are still being tested that were introduced 100 years ago.

That is what I was trying to illustrate. Everyone else seemed to understand. Only you are having an issue grasping this.

As to "staples" of economics. Nothing I've asked you to cite is a staple of economics. The image of a textbook you did post specifically mentions that there are many issues economists have no consensus on.

What I normally do in my free time is I visualize Janet Yellen nude then economic thoughts come to my mind.

So... rising taxes are good? or bad? you guys lost me in the minimum wage/citation argument.

Yes sir.

I love that so many on here want to badger and put down other's and their ideas. Many on here also seem to think money just appears out of thin air. More and more there is a growing resentment against companies and the successful. People are put down for having a good job or moderate success because some see corporate success as oppression. It's also laughable that people on this thread with thoughtful ideas are demonized and made to seem uncool. It's sad that now-a-days it's more acceptable to "raise awareness" for something than actually getting a job to pay taxes and have a good life. I saw a few comments about paying "fair share" of taxes and all that, well why not go after the cronyism that happens daily? Al Sharpton's organization owes 19.1 million in back taxes or in 2012 when Facebook paid NO income taxes but instead we're given almost a 430 million dollar refund from hard working tax payers. People who actually work for a living gave all that money to an Internet company who makes fake stuff. And whoever said Rand Paul and Ted Cruz haven't done anything for tax reform; look up Ted Cruz's efforts to abolish the IRS and Rand Paul's 2014 amendment he proposed for a 17% flat tax for everyone that would slowly lower itself to 10% over the following decade. It will never get voted in because of all the lifelong politicians who don't see their job as "serving the people" anymore, but instead only view their position as power in order to harness even more power and money with their boot on the necks of the very people they are sworn to serve.

While I agree with Kara that economics theories are very dynamic, I think there are some physics theory that are similar to economics. Chaos theory would be extremely similar since if you yank something in it then everything seems to be moving differently and nobody has a clue on what will happen.

I'm an economist by definition (HBA with Economics major) and I will try to explain the tax problem in FFXI terms for common people. Imagine a common situation in FFXI.

Somebody asks a question of: if you only have 1 buff (on self) or debuff (on mob) when you fight X mob, what will it be? Haste (spell), Haste (Song), Dia, Bio, Slow, Paralyze...etc.

The answer of a known person would be "It's situational". Then you give them the actual situation then people will start cranking out maths, bickering about it, flame other people and call the whole thing stupid then set them all on fire until some admin locks the thread. The situation is partially solved when someone get an accurate simulation (praise the spread sheets!).

A similar thing happens with US economy. Somebody ask a much simpler question "Should we raise taxes or no raise taxes?". Of course the answer is also "It's situational" then they applies the US situation into it and crank out the numbers, bickering, shouting...etc Except there is no admin and this is on TV. To make matters worse, nobody could make an accurate simulation and all we get are statistics and charts and speculations.

The general consensus I could get some several sources would be this: US gov. has to make more money or go bankrupt (default on loans)

Ways to make more money:
A: Raise taxes
B: Cut expenditures
C: Makes economy stronger (raises tax income without raising taxes)
D: Borrow more money
E: All of the above
F: None of the above
G: Sell their golds

Lots of bets are on the E as that one seems to be the best but F also gets attention.

Ted Cruz's efforts to abolish the IRS... I needed a good laugh today.

People's anger towards multibillion dollar corporations and the like does have a bit to do with haves and have nots but it also has to do with the constant lobbying where these companies throw money at the political machine to get benefits that aren't always in the best interest of the nation if ever. That and the sometimes willful disregard for doing things that will harm the economy. This isn't just about oh well he has money give me money to because he has it.

It also makes me kind of chuckle with your description about politicians... Who do you think has a leash around the necks of those politicians? Who do you think is giving them all that money?

Arguably, a better example would be the use of perfect objects, e.g. a perfect sphere in physics. It is a simplification used in order to be able to solve the problem, and still remain roughly accurate.

A large problem with economics is that many of the "basic" principles or assumptions which are taught in introductory courses (and textbooks) are simply inaccurate or flat out incorrect (in wider contexts), but serve to introduce people to the topic. Frankly, a good number of the assumptions are present to try to simply bound problems just to attempt to find out if the answer is wrong.

It's a complicated and artificial system, which means that the rules are somewhat arbitrary and can change. Which brings us to the "it's situational" situation. You can get into situations which appear to be similar, but are in reality extremely different, and may have no relation to physical reality but perceptions of reality. In contrast, how fast you think a baseball is moving has no impact on how fast it actually is moving.

That is truly how it differentiates from chaos theory, which involves variance in deterministic systems. Economics just plain isn't deterministic, it just occasionally resembles it.

The TL;DR version: not disagreeing in principles, but clarifying.