How Economic Ideology often parades as economic fact and science is the topic of my last friday, Sept. 15, 2017 ‘Alternative Visions’ radio show. How mainstream economist, Holtz-Eakin, continues the false argument that business tax cuts create jobs; how NY Times columnist, David Brooks, repeats the 19th century mainstream economics notion that one’s income is the result of one’s productivity contribution (or lack thereof) and thus Income Inequality trends are the fault of the victims, not the wealthy investors, their corporations, and 1% households that have been accruing 95% of all income gains since 2008 for themselves. As manipulated data in support of the latter, the US Commerce Dept’s Census Bureau last week reports median family incomes have been rising 2015-16, reversing prior trends. Why this is based on select data and ignores mountains of contradictory facts, listen to the radio show below.
To Listen to the show, GO TO:
http://prn.fm/?s=Alternative+Visions
Or GO TO: http://www.alternativevisions.podbean.com
SHOW ANNOUNCEMENT
Dr. Jack Rasmus explains the notion of ideology in mainstream economics and how it works to create false arguments like ‘business tax cuts create jobs’, ‘free trade lifts all boats’, ‘markets are efficient’, ‘inflation is always caused by too much money chasing too few goods’, recessions are caused by external shocks to a stable (equilibrium) economic system, interest rates determine investment, a global savings glut caused the housing bust and crisis of 2008, ‘central banks are independent of the banks’, and one’s ‘income is determined by one’s productivity’. Rasmus defines ideology as ‘purposeful falsification of original ideas’ on behalf of the interests of those who benefit from the falsification, and describes language manipulation techniques of how this is done, like inversion of propositions, reversal of cause-effect, converting correlations to causation, inserting contradictory elements, deleting original elements of the idea, etc. The latest version of tax cuts create jobs, by economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin is explain, as is the US Dept. of Commerce’s recent report on incomes and poverty results and its interpretation by NY Times columnist, David Brooks.
(Check out Dr. Rasmus’s website, http://www.kyklosproductions.com, later today for re-posting of his prior essay, ‘Applications of Ideology in Economic Policy’, for a print publication of how the ideology of ‘tax cuts create jobs’ that has emerged under US Neoliberalism since the 1980s functions in terms of the various language manipulation techniques Rasmus discusses on the radio show above).
Dr. Jack Rasmus @drjackrasmus
EQUITABLE TAX RECONFIGURATION-PLUS
Would create >4% GDP growth and 4-6 million jobs per year:
Congress and the Administration are contemplating tax changes. Sadly, it appears that both may be led by ignorance, bias, and axes to grind which is a losing formula for We, the People.
There should be a discussion regarding the concepts of evolutionary versus revolutionary changes. There is substantially greater risk of problematic and unintended consequences
when employing revolutionary changes.
It is being promoted by “talking heads” and politicians that a reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% would create jobs. The jobs created would be insignificant, thus that promotion is nonsense, at best. Yes, it would offer greater profits for corporations, which would benefit stockholders. That would reflect very limited economic benefits, which would be further reduced by the hit to our national debt.
The main catalyst to enable businesses to increase sales and profits is energized consumers.
What effect upon consumers would a permanent income tax credit equal to 100% of the Social Security taxes paid on the first $40,000 of income? The maximum credit would be $2,480 per year ($206.67 per month).
The effect upon consumers would be substantial, thus benefiting business sales and profits, i.e., the old “two birds with one stone”.
The funding of this tax credit would come from the elimination of the “ceiling” upon which Social Security taxes are levied and by making all other types of income subject to SS tax, without limitations.
An additional “adjustment” to Social Security should be a ten percent increase to SS recipients.
Since our economics would be greatly stimulated, a different method of controlling the pace of the economy would be initiated. A separate withholding would be established and would be controlled by the Federal Reserve Board. The Fed, on a monthly basis, would publish a factor (a % of gross pay) which would cause a reduction or increase in net pay, thus affecting the strength of our economics, immediately.
Interest rates would be market based, i.e., the Fed would not control rates via Discount and Federal Funds rates.
PLUS:
1. Eliminate the anti-trust exemption for unions – http://writerbeat.com/articles/7399-TRADE-AND-SERVICE-UNIONS
2. Reverse all minimum wage laws – http://writerbeat.com/articles/11328-THE-CONCEPT-OF-ldquo-MINIMUM-WAGE-rdquo-IS-A-CANCER-TO-OUR-NATION-S-ECONOMICS-SINCE-IT-TENDS-TO-CREATE-A-PERMANENT-UNDERCLASS-AND-
mz
mikiesmoky@aol.com
04/21/17
EQUITABLE TAX RECONFIGURATION-PLUS Would create >4% GDP growth and 4-6 million jobsper year: Congress and the Administration are contemplating taxchanges. Sadly, it appears that both maybe led by ignorance, bias, and axes to grind which is a losing formula for We,the People. There should be a discussion regarding the concepts ofevolutionary versus revolutionary changes. There is substantially greater risk of problematic and unintendedconsequences when employing revolutionary changes. It is being promoted by “talking heads” andpoliticians that a reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% wouldcreate jobs. The jobs created would beinsignificant, thus that promotion is nonsense, at best. Yes, it would offer greater profits forcorporations, which would benefit stockholders. That would reflect very limited economic benefits, which would befurther reduced by the hit to our national debt. The main catalyst to enable businesses to increase sales andprofits is energized consumers. What effect upon consumers would a permanent income taxcredit equal to 100% of the Social Security taxes paid on the first $40,000 ofincome? The maximum credit would be$2,480 per year ($206.67 per month). The effect upon consumers would be substantial, thusbenefiting business sales and profits, i.e., the old “two birds with onestone”. The funding of this tax credit would come from theelimination of the “ceiling” upon which Social Security taxes arelevied and by making all other types of income subject to SS tax, withoutlimitations. An additional “adjustment” to Social Securityshould be a ten percent increase to SS recipients. Since our economics would be greatly stimulated, a differentmethod of controlling the pace of the economy would be initiated. A separate withholding would be establishedand would be controlled by the Federal Reserve Board. The Fed, on a monthly basis, would publish afactor (a % of gross pay) which would cause a reduction or increase in net pay,thus affecting the strength of our economics, immediately. Interest rates would be market based, i.e., the Fed wouldnot control rates via Discount and Federal Funds rates. PLUS: Eliminate the anti-trust exemption for unions – http://writerbeat.com/articles/7399-TRADE-AND-SERVICE-UNIONS Reverse all minimum wage laws – http://writerbeat.com/articles/11328-THE-CONCEPT-OF-ldquo-MINIMUM-WAGE-rdquo-IS-A-CANCER-TO-OUR-NATION-S-ECONOMICS-SINCE-IT-TENDS-TO-CREATE-A-PERMANENT-UNDERCLASS-AND-
mz mikiesmoky@aol.com 04/21/17
Michael Zitterman mikiesmoky@aol.com