http://www.economist.com/node/18560525?story_id=18560525

That should answer both your objections. Also I'll find that congressional testimony to show you it's accuracy. I'm sure that's enough for you to cede we are well over the laffer peak, when tax cuts lose the economy 70% of their value that's when you need to stop.

So I assume you realize if you accept marx's source you will cede you are wrong in this respect?

The Economist article says "China?s central bank has a lot of money but not a lot of imagination." I think it has more imagination than the article suggests. For example, a blue water navy. A Chinese warship showed up for the first time ever in the Mediterranean at the flareup of the Libya crisis. If I were in charge of Chinese purchases of foreign assets I would be secretive in what I was doing.

I presume in regard to the congressional stuff that you are referring to your post 94 in the leave it here thread.

There is a minimum amount of taxation needed to finance the minimum amount of government that conservatives think we have. So conservatives would not cut spending for things that are of interest to conservatives. Like a blue water navy.

http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/aug/article223.html

Supply side economics have done nothing they promised and have only served to funnel wealth to the richest 1%. This is called wealth condensation. Your livelihood has been stolen by the wealthy.

Interesting article but it says nothing about whether MPC decreases with income.

The article's author says some dubious things, for example, that Arthur Laffer had no refereed journal articles.

Incidentally, Arthur Laffer did not invent the Laffer curve. He says he got the idea from some old Arab that lived about 1400 A.D. and from John Maynard Keynes!

I refuse to research the subject because no one will change their mind based on this thread or any information provided within.

That said, just logically it would make sense that MPC would shrink as income rises. A person making 1500 dollars a month will for sure spend the extra dollar if they got a raise to 1501 dollars. A person making 1,000,000 seems more likely to save the next dollar if they get a raise to 1,000,001.

No matter what data says, the logic of that makes sense right?

What logic?

All you have said is something that "makes sense". To you.

If it's so logical, how about some numbers? That's all I have been asking for ever since this whole MPC thing started.

I already showed him evidence and he refuses to accept it. It is clearly noted in the other thread that the bush tax breaks actually subtract from our economy, not add to it.

That's proof right there that either the laffer curve is bullshit or the rich have very low MPC.

Here is the actual testimony to congress: http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Small%20Business_7_24_08.pdf

I'd like to note that if any of this information was fabricated not only would this economist be risking his credibility for the future, but also jail time. Since lying would be perjury.

So there you have it. The tax cuts damage the economy as per their demonstrated decrease in APC. Not only does this put the nail in the coffin of supply-side economics, it also proves that social spending is greatly beneficial to our economy.

Just look at how well china is doing, and you can note the efficacy of social spending.