The late Fred McChesney a few years ago firmly put down "behavioral economics". Link is to the article abstract.
The idea of “trickle-down theory” is nonexistent, except as perpetuated by those opposed to across-the-board tax rate cuts that include the wealthy.
And while anecdote should never be confused with fact, the story of Coca-Cola helps disprove the emotional arguments against trickle down. With Coke we see how an immigrant rose to near billionaire status in concert with voluminous job creation, staggering amounts of educational and charitable opportunity, and even more giving by the inheritors of great wealth.
When people say “labor’s share is falling,” they surely mean income people receive from work has not kept up with income people (often the same people) receive from property: dividends, interest, and rent. But, that crude Piketty-Marx labor/capital dichotomy ignores another increasingly important source of personal income: namely, government transfer payments from taxpayers to those entitled to cash and in-kind benefits.
800 years is kind of a long time.
Repeal the Certificate of Public Need requirements in states that still have them.
If it proceeds as it almost inevitably has to, this will be one of the biggest political fights of my lifetime. This should unite all wings of the Republican Party. To borrow a phrase: Just Say No.
"Keynesian economics changed all this by constructing an intellectual justification for viewing the federal budget as a tool for managing the economy rather than a constraint under which politicians operate. Keynesianism argued that in recessions budget deficits could stimulate aggregate demand and lead to recovery, while in good times surpluses would both prevent excessive growth and pay back the debt.
"This idea, known as “functional finance,” looks good on the blackboard but has a fatal flaw."
This is a heckuva first paragraph, Kevin Williamson.
The Republican tax plan may be kind of dumb, but if it were three times as dumb as it is, it would only be half as dumb as the Washington Post’s analysis of it.
The rest of the piece is just as good.
Take a guess. Go ahead, guess. (Hint: it's not sociology.)