Stimuls fails in any country

No country for old/ poor men...

10% PA GDP growth is not quite a failure...the economy is so on fire they are trying to SLOW IT DOWN.

a deceptive title. what a surprise.

23% of loans in doubt... what does that do to the multiplier effect?

what does that have to do with your deceptive title?

Deceptive? Defective is more like it.

Gitmo? Gitmo is more like it.

http://www.newsmax.com/LowellPonte/2010--elections--2012--nancy--pelosi--barack--obama/2010/07/23/id/365448

It is as if you saw a middle-aged man in terrible physical shape running a marathon, and you predicted that after five or six miles he would be forced to quit. If however he took out a syringe and shot himself up with crystal meth, he would be able to continue running a few more miles, but this doesn’t mean that your analysis and prediction were wrong. It means that in a few more miles he will be worse off than ever (or will have to take an even bigger dose of crystal meth).

http://www.mpettis.com/2012/10/07/how-to-be-a-china-bull/

23% of loans "in doubt" does nothing to the "multiplier effect."

Unless you can explain to us otherwise.

It's silly (and wrong) to claim that "stimulus" never works, but as it's silly (and wrong) to say that lowering tax rates from already low rates will "increase job creation."

Jobs are created by demand for goods and services. Lowering taxes on the wealthy does not create a lot of demand, if any at all. Mittens thinks it's fair that he pays essentially the same rate on $20 million in income that a self-employed person makes on $20 thousand, BEFORE federal income taxes.

Mitt doesn't need too many car elevators. A person who makes $20 thousand a year needs to eat.

Lowering taxes on businesses decreases the cost of doing business, which increases productivity and growth. A person without a job needs a business that will employ him, not a government that will take more money from business to spend it on wasteful programs.

how does a lower cost of doing business create more demand?

Didn't he just lay out his thesis for you?

Yes, I know LICC: because You Built It.

However, if what you say were true, Sweden and Switzerland wouldn't be two of the most productive countries in the world. And Alabama and Mississippi would be the most productive states in the country.

Unfortunately, Alabama and Mississippi have the lowest productivity rates in the country, and Sweden and Switzerland are two of the most productive.

Never has any empirical study ever proved that extremely low taxes increase productivity. Those taxes buy you stuff like, uhm, the Number 7 train that gets you into Manhattan in 5 minutes.

If there were any truth to the Talking Points I'd be signing up fast. But there isn't.

Peru has low taxes, too, and suffers as a result.

LICComm will be happy only when Liberia takes over the whole world.

If Alabama and Mississippi raised their taxes, would that make them more productive? What if all the money raised in taxes were thrown into education and to healthcare?

Well this blows your theory apart steve:

As described by Assar Lindbeck, Sweden%u2019s social democrats and their union allies experimented with steroidal marginal tax rates to support an unbridled entitlement state from the late 1960s through the early 1980s. Sweden then reversed course when confronted with the disastrous consequences of its policies. The Swedish story ends on an up-beat note. Sweden and Germany are today the two best performing European states, both governed by center-right parties.

In 1970, Swedish high earners paid marginal tax rates of 70 percent, rising to 85 percent by 1980. Marginal tax rates on dividends and capital gains were only slightly lower, if at all. Sweden%u2019s entitlement state featured universal benefits replacing 90 percent or more of lost income, a state monopoly of social services, and a union-inspired %u2018solidarity wage%u201D that featured (as the Swede%u2019s scornfully put it) %u201Cequal pay for all work.%u201D Sweden%u2019s distribution of income was as equal as the communist countries of Eastern Europe. Government spending rose to 60-70 percent of GDP versus the 45 to 50 percent in the rest of Europe at the time. Fifty percent more Swedes were %u201Ctax financed%u201D than worked in the private sector.

According to Diamond and Saez, Sweden%u2019s tax revenues should have grown faster than the rest of Europe as it raised its tax rates to unprecedented heights. In fact, Sweden%u2019s growth of government revenues was one quarter less than the OECD average. We have plenty of anecdotes to explain why. More than half of Sweden%u2019s billionaires live abroad according to Forbes. ABBA joined tennis star Bjorn Borg, film maker Ingmar Bergman, and many other Swedish notables abroad when the Swedish government took 85 percent of their earnings. The Swedes voted with their feet. We do not know how many, but each departure lowered tax revenues.

Diamond and Saez should note that Sweden%u2019s high marginal tax rates (and the associated Swedish welfare system) had a disastrous effect on economic growth. From 1850 to 1950, Swedish productivity growth was the fastest in the world. Sweden%u2019s stellar economic performance made it the fourth richest OECD economy in 1970. By 1995, Sweden had fallen to sixteenth place %u2013 the most dramatic relative decline of any affluent country in history. Notably, Swedish firms operating outside of Sweden remained competitive. They were not the problem. The Swedish model was.

The Swedish experiment also shows the importance of what the government does with its money. Universal benefits destroyed the work ethic. Instead of %u201Chigh return public investments,%u201D Sweden raised public employment and expanded cradle-to-grave entitlements. The solidarity wage destroyed incentives to acquire skills or enroll in higher education. Regional subsidies slowed the movement of people from stagnating to growing regions.

Sweden began to reverse course in the early 1980s, and its per capita income ranking has since risen to eighth in the OECD. Sweden%u2019s relative recovery was aided by the fact that a number of its European neighbors moved towards the Swedish model as Sweden abandoned it. Sweden%u2019s reversal has been constrained by the fact that the vast majority of its people depend on the state for employment and benefits rather than on the private sector. The situation must have been dire to convince such an electorate to reverse course.

you still haven't answered the basic question: how does a tax cut for wealthy people create increased overall demand?

I don't know what those data refer to, LICC, but at present Sweden has the second highest tax rates in the world at 56.6%:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47290212/Countries_With_the_Highest_Income_Tax_Rates?slide=10

And I quote:

"Sweden is one of eight European nations to make the list of countries with the highest income tax rates in the world. It also tops neighboring Scandinavian countries, which all have the tax brackets of over 48 percent.

"Sweden’s marginal top tax rate kicks in at $81,000. Employees pay a social security tax of 7 percent, capped at a maximum contribution of $4,300. Employers are obligated to contribute at a rate of 31.4 percent, which is reduced to 22.2 percent for foreign businesses without a permanent base in Sweden. Other notable taxes include a 30 percent tax on investment income and a municipal property tax of $960, plus a maximum fee of 0.75 percent on the property’s value."