I love the Christmas season. However, I can see how the financial pressure to meet each family member’s unrealistic expectations can become a real buzz kill!
Per Krugman, if I worked hard enough to become an executive (NOT easy) I would fail to find his nostalgia in the days where executives were “relatively impoverished.”
“About 41 percent said they would only be able to get by for two weeks without a paycheck, while an additional 25 percent say they could only survive a month.”
Krugman: Bring back the 91% tax rate.
Krugman’s overly-simplistic argument is that the U.S. economy grew faster in the 1950s when marginal tax rates were sky high. I suspect Krugman is guilty of being disingenuous because he is obviously smart enough to know that during the 1950s, the post-war economy was one where the U.S. had no manufacturing competitors. Moreover, the Great Depression and mandatory war production resulted in a huge amount of pent up demand for consumer goods — that in turn employed workers. The post war era was characterized by a housing shortage and a Baby Boom boosted demand. I don’t think Krugman actually believes that boosting the marginal tax rate to 91% would result in the same economic growth that occurred in the 1950s. What I really suspect is that Krugman secretly likes the idea of oligarchs being knocked down off their “high horse” and a wholesale redistribution of resources from rich to poor. The economy wouldn’t grow, but there’d be a measure of equity and lower resource use. Some liberals long for the 1950s and 1960s as a simpler time when the gap between rich and poor was smaller. Most families crammed into smaller homes and made due with only one car. That’s probably what Krugman actually likes about high marginal tax rates.
@Jeff: Agreed. The 50’s saw the end of the European Recovery Program, where American manufacturing was supporting the reindustrialization of western Europe.
American talent going “Galt” assumes that they had a choice. Instead an outrageous percentage of top 100 U.S. corporations have CEOs which are foreign born (something like 14 percent). Half of the engineers in silicon valley are foreigners! The 50’s must have just existed in a vacuum, seeing as economic climate over the last 60 years must not have been influenced in anyway by the glory days of unionized labor and “economic justice.”
Fighting my way through department stores in a never ending quest for the “perfect gift” that my wife won’t make me return does take some of the joy out of Christmas.
I highly dislike how the mentality for the holidays has become more about buying things, spending money, having the best decorations, giving the best gifts…and not so much about spending quality time with family and friends. Whether you spend $20 or $1,000, it’s is frankly your choice. If you are a conscious buyer then you know what your limitations are, and if you can’t afford to spend a whole lot during Christmas then you won’t. It won’t make your Christmas season better or worst than anyone else’s. Ultimately, it’s what you make of what you got what matters.
Is Krugman implying that we should be greatful for our current system (even though it is OBVIOUSLY breaking us apart) because apparently we have it eaiser than people 60 years ago did? Bizarre.
The best way to get marijuana off the Schedule 1 list is to prove its medical merit. As the prevailing opinions on marijuana change this might change, but don’t expect it soon
How about a special tax on Krugman of 91%.
I love the Christmas season. However, I can see how the financial pressure to meet each family member’s unrealistic expectations can become a real buzz kill!
Per Krugman, if I worked hard enough to become an executive (NOT easy) I would fail to find his nostalgia in the days where executives were “relatively impoverished.”
Just saying.
“About 41 percent said they would only be able to get by for two weeks without a paycheck, while an additional 25 percent say they could only survive a month.”
Not very merry news at all.
Krugman: Bring back the 91% tax rate.
Krugman’s overly-simplistic argument is that the U.S. economy grew faster in the 1950s when marginal tax rates were sky high. I suspect Krugman is guilty of being disingenuous because he is obviously smart enough to know that during the 1950s, the post-war economy was one where the U.S. had no manufacturing competitors. Moreover, the Great Depression and mandatory war production resulted in a huge amount of pent up demand for consumer goods — that in turn employed workers. The post war era was characterized by a housing shortage and a Baby Boom boosted demand. I don’t think Krugman actually believes that boosting the marginal tax rate to 91% would result in the same economic growth that occurred in the 1950s. What I really suspect is that Krugman secretly likes the idea of oligarchs being knocked down off their “high horse” and a wholesale redistribution of resources from rich to poor. The economy wouldn’t grow, but there’d be a measure of equity and lower resource use. Some liberals long for the 1950s and 1960s as a simpler time when the gap between rich and poor was smaller. Most families crammed into smaller homes and made due with only one car. That’s probably what Krugman actually likes about high marginal tax rates.
While I never placed a bet on Intrade, I liked to think I had the option. Too bad the SEC is shutting it down for Americans.
@Jeff: Agreed. The 50’s saw the end of the European Recovery Program, where American manufacturing was supporting the reindustrialization of western Europe.
American talent going “Galt” assumes that they had a choice. Instead an outrageous percentage of top 100 U.S. corporations have CEOs which are foreign born (something like 14 percent). Half of the engineers in silicon valley are foreigners! The 50’s must have just existed in a vacuum, seeing as economic climate over the last 60 years must not have been influenced in anyway by the glory days of unionized labor and “economic justice.”
Fighting my way through department stores in a never ending quest for the “perfect gift” that my wife won’t make me return does take some of the joy out of Christmas.
45% would rather skip Christmas.
I highly dislike how the mentality for the holidays has become more about buying things, spending money, having the best decorations, giving the best gifts…and not so much about spending quality time with family and friends. Whether you spend $20 or $1,000, it’s is frankly your choice. If you are a conscious buyer then you know what your limitations are, and if you can’t afford to spend a whole lot during Christmas then you won’t. It won’t make your Christmas season better or worst than anyone else’s. Ultimately, it’s what you make of what you got what matters.
Is Krugman implying that we should be greatful for our current system (even though it is OBVIOUSLY breaking us apart) because apparently we have it eaiser than people 60 years ago did? Bizarre.
New take on an old story “How Consumerism Stole Christmas”
The best way to get marijuana off the Schedule 1 list is to prove its medical merit. As the prevailing opinions on marijuana change this might change, but don’t expect it soon