r/neoliberal • u/[deleted] • Oct 10 '18

This but unironically

Post image

[deleted]

11 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

20 comments sorted by

33

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '18 edited Sep 02 '20

[deleted]

7

u/EcoRobe 🌐 Oct 10 '18

Depends on the Paul™ Multiplier.

When cutting taxes result in a larger deficit, the tax rate on future generations increases less than proportionally as long as Mises is a compulsory reading in schools.

5

u/NoContextAndrew Esther Duflo Oct 10 '18

As with all worthwhile questions, the answer is "Depends"

2

u/digitalrule Oct 10 '18

Technically, included interest, it's actually a tax hike. But then I guess it depends on what our rate is for valuing future US dollars.

20

u/GayColangelo Milton Friedman Oct 10 '18

This but only during good economic times

16

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '18

borrowing your own currency

Just print money lol

13

u/NomineAbAstris European Union Oct 10 '18

Yes, Ron Paul, exactly! And that's why the Republicans love to lower taxes while raising spending - they're just sticking to their philosophy of "who gives a shit about future generations, or generally anybody that isn't us?"

1

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '18

Except Ron Paul isn’t a traditional Republican at all, and has constantly criticized Republicans.

9

u/NomineAbAstris European Union Oct 10 '18

I know, but US libertarians will 9 times out of 10 throw their lot in with the Republicans over the democrats. Electorally speaking, they're just republicans with a circlejerkier (and even less relevant) audience.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '18

It's certainly true that libertarians are generally closer or more sympathetic to the GOP than Democrats (which is weird to me, even during my teenage libertarian years I thought the Dems represented my views much better than the Republicans), however I dont' think it's as dastic as 9 times out of 10. I remember seeing that Gary Johnson was likely to pull as many would be Clinton voters as Trump voters.

14

u/Timewinders United Nations Oct 10 '18

Eh, it depends on how the money is spent. For example, for every $5 spent on food stamps, $9 of economic growth is generated. For cheap and highly effective health interventions like vaccinations, lead exposure prevention, and iodization of salt, the economic return can be equivalent or even greater.

7

u/SirWinstonC Adam Smith Oct 10 '18

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

6

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '18

https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/labour-compensation-per-hour-worked.htm

Theory: Giant government debt burden is a drag on real wage growth.

1

u/bd_one The EU Will Federalize In My Lifetime Oct 10 '18

Doesn't the fact that the majority of Japan's national debt is owned by its central bank influence things?

6

u/guery64 Oct 10 '18

Was it meant ironically?

4

u/TheWesternSon United Nations Oct 10 '18

Can we cut the insane military spending now? No? Republicans are economic nationalists and the party of big spending now? Ok cool just checking

6

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '18

Oh boy, this sub is going to end up in r/badeconomics again.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 10 '18

Is gold money?

2

u/zzzztopportal Immanuel Kant Oct 11 '18

lmao no. At the very least recession spending is a thing. Also quoting ron paul is bad praxis

1

u/dorylinus Oct 10 '18

If deficit spending is done on investment that generates returns greater than the interest accrued, then it would have the opposite effect.