Thursday, April 27, 2017

Former Treasury Secretary Summers: I would have quit rather than announce the absurd Trump tax proposal."

President Donald Trump's plan to roll back taxes in the hope that doing so will generate robust economic growth with little impact on debt and deficits is "absurd," former Treasury Secretary and White House economic advisor Larry Summers said.

In fact, Summers added in an interview with CNBC, had he been asked to present such a plan with the notion that it would pay for itself, he would have refused.

"If I had been asked by the White House to assert a proposition as demonstrably false as the claim that this plan would produce revenue, I would have resigned rather than put the credibility of the department behind a proposition that no one with real experience would believe was true," he said.

Trump really needs to shrink government, which he is not going to do. Thus his tax reform proposal is based on \the shaky Laffer curve notion put on steroids.

Murray Rothbard warned about the dubious Laffer Curve:

Once again, compared to Trump, the generally weak[policy analyst Summers looks like a serious economic commentator.

"Most presidential campaigns during the primaries, when they put out a tax plan, they put out more than one page. They put out some analysis, some models, some careful articulation of the proposal and estimate its effects," he said.

"There's none of that coming from the administration, and yet there's this confident statement that it will pay for itself," Summers added. "I don't know how they could possibly know without having done economic work."

"I just don't understand what could cause an administration to put its secretary of the Treasury in a position to assert something ... that is generally regarded by economists as absurd," he added.



  1. Why is RW flip-flopping?

    You used to be against any "revenue neutral" tax cuts but you are also against tax cuts that drop revenue?

    Cutting spending is a "fantasy", you will never get congress to cut spending on military or SS/Medicare. Good luck with that.

    I'll take tax cuts even if it eats a whole in the deficit. Who gives a shit?

    1. This is some confused shit. RW is consistently for less government spending. He points out that Trump's advisors want a "revenue neutral" tax plan. This means he is warning to watch out for sneaky tax increases.

      That some of it may be financed by an increased budget deficit is not a positive.

      It's the government using resources that we won't be able to. Is this what you are in favor of?

    2. This proposed tax cut is looking like it is NOT revenue neutral and RW doesn't think it is either. He even links to a video of David Stockman saying how we can't "pay for" these tax cuts.

      Rothbard on the hand has the correct position that we should cut taxes no matter what happens to the deficit.

      I'm in favor of less taxes no matter what. Cutting spending would be an even bigger positive but again, that is a "fantasy". They won't cut military or SS/Medicare. The best we can hope for is tax cuts, so why is RW complaining so much about the tax cuts?

  2. Silly Wenzel. From the video you posted:
    "I'm in favor of cutting taxes regardless of what happens to the budget."

    Rothbard is correct. Wenzel is wrong.

    Who gives a shit if this increases the deficit?

    1. Idiot, Rothbard doesn't say deficits are good he says they are preferable to higher taxes.

      But if you knew any Rothbard you would know he was against taxes and government spending.

    2. Did I ever say Rothbard said deficits are good? I said Rothbard said you should cut taxes even if it increases the deficit.

      Learn to read.

      Of course Rothbard is against taxes and government spending, so am I.

    3. Oh yeah keep on changing the focus of the discussion.

      Wenzel reported above that Rothbard warned about the phony Laffer curve which is exactly what Trump is doing to promote is BIG government program:

      "Trump really needs to shrink government, which he is not going to do. Thus his tax reform proposal is based on \the shaky Laffer curve notion put on steroids.

      "Murray Rothbard warned about the dubious Laffer Curve:"

      That's what the video is about TRUMP FRAUD.

    4. "What this tax cut is based on"

      Who gives a shit what this tax is "based on". Its a tax cut, a tax cut that is large enough to reduce revenue. I couldn't care less about the shaky theories behind it.

      I wouldn't care if they said they cut taxes because a little leprechaun told them they should.

    5. You're a clown. The idea that budget deficits are good--which ultimately result in inflation-- is good, is off the wall. Tell your crazy theory to anyone retired and stuck on a fixed income.

      Is this how low you will stoop to support Trump?

    6. Well then he's going against his own video that he posted in which Rothbard says that tax cuts are preferable EVEN IF THEY MAKE THE DEFICIT LARGER.

      On one hand RW rails against tax cuts that "revenue neutral tax reform" but he's also against this tax cut which will increase deficits.

      Obviously the optimal is tax cuts + spending cuts BUT WE ARE NEVER GONNA GET SPENDING CUTS. Get that through your damn head. In RW's words. It's a "fantasy".

      So all we can hope for is tax cuts, which are better than not doing anything. Again, like Rothbard said.

      "I'm for tax cuts at any time in any form, even if they increase the deficit."

      Yeah..."destroyed". Sure.

    7. First, I have seen Wenzel post Krugman and Stockman and he doesn't always agree with them. I think if some quote is 90% correct he will post it but make clear where he disagrees as he did in this post with his comment just above the Rothbard clip.

      Second by hanging on to Rothbard's off cuff remark you are making the logical fallacy of appealing to authority.

      When you break it down, Wenzel is correct both are terrible deficits and revenue neutral tax cuts. Finally, at the end of the clip with Rothbard discussing the Laffer cure and the deficits it causes, he calls it a terrible outcome.

      In other words, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

  3. Who cares what 'Bailout Bankster' Larry Summers has to say?