Stephen Moore Gets Slick With the Data
Early this morning, I caught a few minutes of Stephen Moore's Supply Side arguments on CNBC re Tax Cuts.
Rather than discuss what some have called Economic's biggest mistake, and what the Chairman of President Bush Council of Economic Advisors Greg Mankiw described in the third edition of his book Principles of Economics textbook as the work of "charlatans and cranks," I thought I would simply debunk his Capital Gains Tax Cut argument as increasing treasury receipts:
Moore is arguing that since tax reciepts went up after the Capital Gains Taxes were cut in 2003, it should therefore get all the credit. I would respond simply by going to the charts, and pointing out that THE ABSENCE OF CAPITAL GAINS FROM 2000-20003 is the primary reason.
This first chart shows the pre-tax cut period of October 2000 to March 2003; Gee, anyone want to hazard a guess for why Capital Gains Taxes paid were so low after the Nasdaq dropped 78%?
How about NO CAPITAL GAINS = NO CAPITAL GAINS TAXES!
>
Nasdaq 2000-03
>
The second chart shows what happened after the War began in March '03. Note that the Nasdaq selloff was very similar in depth to the initial 1929 crash.
>
Nasdaq 2003-06 
Gee, when markets rally, people pay more Capital Gains! Go figure . . .
(And this is before we even mention increased Housing sales due to half century low interest rates and the potential capital gains taxes there)
>
If you are really interested in Supply Side, have a read of this: 2004: A test of Supply Side economics
And, here is a passage from a section of N. Gregory Mankiw (1998), Principles of Economics textbook, entitled "Charlatans and Cranks":
An example of fad economics occurred in 1980, when a small group of economists advised Presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan, that an across-the-board cut in income tax rates would raise tax revenue. They argued that if people could keep a higher fraction of their income, people would work harder to earn more income. Even though tax rates would be lower, income would rise by so much, they claimed, that tax revenues would rise. Almost all professional economists, including most of those who supported Reagan's proposal to cut taxes, viewed this outcome as far too optimistic. Lower tax rates might encourage people to work harder and this extra effort would offset the direct effects of lower tax rates to some extent, but there was no credible evidence that work effort would rise by enough to cause tax revenues to rise in the face of lower tax rates. . . .
Wednesday, May 10, 2006 | 10:37 AM | Permalink
| Comments (43)
| TrackBack (0)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00d8348be0c653ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Stephen Moore Gets Slick With the Data:
Comments
Sometimes ad-hominem is the only appropriate response. I see it this way: when idiots continue to skew and spew, they create diversions and obstacles for those who want to do the right thing by addressing the statement, not the person.
But that can only go on so long. Then, after this has gone on for a time, there is only one recourse:
Name calling
Shunning
Given that Stephen Moore is still amongst the public, we can't shun him yet. Therefore I think we should name-call.
So here it goes:
Stephen Moore is an idiot.
PS: After he wrote a piece on oil prices (how they would soon drop), I sent him an email, arguing fundamentals. He said I was dead wrong. His argument: Read Julian Simon. No discussion of supply and demand. No look at production in the pipeline. Just Julian Simon.
Grrrrr.
Posted by: T.R. Elliott | May 10, 2006 12:12:29 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
