Guess Who Wins When Bruce Takes On Larry Kudlow?
Bookmark/Search this post with
Read Us Your Way
Track all the latest updates via RSS, Twitter or Facebook. Or get a daily digest of posts delivered straight to your inbox -- just sign up using the form below.Similar Posts
RSS Feed
Recent comments
Advertising
Order from Amazon
Copyright
The content of CapitalGainsandGames.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Need permissions beyond the scope of this license? Please submit a request here.
I wish Kudlow had let you
I wish Kudlow had let you finish regarding the similarities between the VAT and the flat tax.
I believe you were going to say that a flat tax is pretty much equivalent to a VAT plus a tax on savings. Then you would have seen Kudlow in the uncomfortable position of defending capital gains taxes ;)
No one
This is why economists need to Think Bigger. Bruce wastes his time talking to Cokehead. Cokehead doesn't learn anything from Bruce. (Watch, if you will; he'll repeat those claims with someone else in the next few days.)
Bruce could have been doing Bloggingheads, writing a CG&G post or a Fortune column, researching, or several things not generally discussed on a family web site. Instead, he was talking to a WooWoo alumnus without an economics background.
If he actually wants to do something like that, I'm listed. He can call me and I'll say something stupid until he gets past the feeling.
Captcha: Friedman fiasco. Apt.
Typical Kudlow
Larry pretty much said nothing.
TV
When you got a book to plug, you do what you gotta do.
Forgive the following mixed
Forgive the following mixed metaphor, but Kudlow shows why he's just a circus clown throwing red meat to hyperpartisans eager to gobble up oversimplified, distorted rhetoric. He's got his talking points and he's going to keep repeating them passionately regardless of what the interviewee says. Apparently his interviewing style is just a monologue with obligatory, perfunctory, intermittent gaps during which his interviewee speaks, offering (in his mind) just a handful of keywords to trigger the next segment of his repetitious, talking-point monologue.
I don't think the hyperbolic and curious argument from Bruce that (paraphrasing) "There's no income to tax" as an argument against tax cuts (for stimulus) helped either, but in fairness to Bruce, he probably knew that the host and the format precluded thoughtful discussion/debate anyway, and he seemed to be trying much harder than Kudlow to be serious.
Well I didn't get through 4 minutes of that
The only person with a brain was the guy in the middle. He's absolutely right. Massive de-leveraging of the private sector had to be countered with leveraging by the government. This recession was a credit crisis, same as the Great Depression, and it needed to be met with investment by government to unlock the frozen credit markets, maintain jobs, etc. Without it we'd be in a downward spiral, without recovery at this point.
This is why I don't watch CNBC . . . they are on the shallow end of the pool.
I'll buy your book. "Imposter" was good.
Far be it from me to tell
Far be it from me to tell another person how to spend their time, but going on CNBC (especially with cokehead Kudlow) is an extreme waste of your time. You'd have the same effect trying to talk to the lampshade in your office. It was like sending an evolutionary biologist into the Sunday school classroom at the local fundamentalist church.
Hate to say it, but Kudlow et al are right
Listened to the video.
Not explained by Barlett (points scored):
1) Why tax cuts are not going to work (why does the government have to spend money, as Barlett wants, rather than giving this money back to the taxpayers, as advocated by Kudlow). Kudlow wins.
2) Why 'this time is different' (why the 1980s is not the 2000s)? Never answered by Barlett since he simply started talking about the 1970s. Kudlow wins.
3) VAT (Europe style) to reduce the debt is not a bad idea. Barlett wins, as Kudlow could not counter that flat tax is essentially VAT.
4) "wealth effect" due to housing bubble collapse as advocated by Barlett not clear--could it simply be a panic over the finance that caused the recession? Draw.
All in all, seems like Barlett is just being Devil's advocate to conservative economics but without the full faith passion that a person like Krugman could bring.
Tax cuts won't work because
Tax cuts won't work because the real economy simply is not busting to expand at this stage, unlike the early 80s, after a decade of artificially imposed stagnation. And because 2/3 of government spending is untouchable nondiscretionary entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, which can't be cut (and the rest of government can't be cut either). Entitlement reform is something Bartlett would support. But, after a lifetime in politics, he knows this is well nigh impossible and a creep to European levels of tax inevitable. Bartlett doesn't like this but figures that ONLY the pain of higher taxes MIGHT stimulate political consideration of entitlement reform. Just as it has in Europe itself. Kudlow is repeating himself with 80s mantras without looking at the very different economic situation today.
Bruce is way too polite
I recognize he's trying to promote his book so he has to appear on nonsense fests such as this. The woman was basically dimmer than a failing light bulb while Kudlow who I see is almost universally referred to as Cokehead should actually be called Grasshopper. He just grasshoppered around shouting a host of different and very generalized talking points that were all over the board and totally disconnected from the central points that Bruce was making. It was total bs that wouldn't be tolerated for a minute in any serious business meeting where he'd rapidly be kicked in the balls. As someone above observed you might as well of been talking to a lampshade and yet this is someone MSNBC considers a financial pundit. It's a appalling commentary on where discourse is in this country. The only way to deal with people like Kudlow is to kick them in the balls I'm afradi. Bruce should have said enough of the generalized shouting Larry, why don't you stick to what we're talking about. But then he might not of been asked back I suppose.
Kudlow Backed VAT
In 1991, when Jerry Brown ran for president, Larry Kudlow backed JB's tax restructuring, which was a revenue neutral replacement of all revenues with a VAT plus a flat tax on personal income. Perhaps, he has forgotten?
An important point for the VAT apart from raising the revenue needed to reduce (spending) deficits is that it is border-adjustable under GATT rules and would work to make U.S. products and services more competitive in this era of globalization. It would restructure our economy for success.
While Bartlet might have some
While Bartlet might have some valid points regarding the differences between the 80's and today, what gets totally ignored is the simple fact that once a government program gets rolling and a government obtains a form of revenue, it is next to impossible to get that government to give it up. This must be considered when considering what type of policies to implement in the short term.
Kudlow wasted a lot of time
Kudlow wasted a lot of time just trying to pin Bartlett in a box rather than really grappling with the ideas. Lumping in the VAT with other European/"liberal" type policies being an example.
I was also a bit dissatisfied with Bartlett, saying because unemployment exists and profits are down that taxes on them are irrelevant. The unemployed are greatly outnumbered by the employed, and companies are still hiring people (just not at the same rate as they let them go, as Alex Tabbarok rightly pointed out). Not all companies are equally worse off. Lowering payroll taxes on the huge number of people still on payroll can make a difference. Lower taxes on those businesses still making money can help them expand to pick up the slack. It's not the case that supply suddenly stopped being a factor, and its disappointing that Casey Mulligan keeps on having to point out that fact which should be obvious to any economist.
Demand
The overwhelming problem with the economy today is lack of demand, not a lack of supply.