Economic Voodoo Weasel Style

Bill C wrote:

gwhite wrote:
"B. Lafferty" wrote:


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AGGVBUOVE1.DTL

The Laffer Curve is real. Here it is a question of where SF and the
race tax
revenues are on the curve.

Considering that one of SF's big economic activities is tourism, and
given the fact that they get a fair number of Euro riders who have done
well here. It seems to me that they could pretty easily make up a
couple hundred grand difference just with the amount of advertising
they could get for tourism by giving/selling Euro broadcast rights to
say Eurosport or Sky.
There are so many ways to cover that amount of money in tourism
marketing from the race it's ridiculously short sighted to not use it
that way. I'm not sure what the advertising budget, and what the
returns for SF are from it's tourism and convention bureau, but my
guess is that they could come up with a lot of ways to turn a profit
well above the disputed figure from Euro tourism and the businesses
that would gain from it for the whole year.

Uhmmm... I don't know anything about the balance sheet.

IIRC, the term "voodoo economics" was used by George Bush "against" Ron Reagan
when Reagan campaigned saying that he could simultaneously cut taxes but yet
increase tax revenue. The idea behind this is the Laffer Curve. Revenues did
go up under Reagan, but spending went up faster.

For my part, I like to put tax rate on the vertical and revenue on the
horizontal and instead call it the "Tit Curve" with the max revenue point
referred to as the "nipple." Politicians and the helpless idiots that elect
them seek the nipple for maximum suckage. Maybe there is some underlying wisdom
to DH's "nipplehead" headers in rbr.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/laffercu.html
http://www.gmu.edu/jbc/fest/files/Monissen.htm


As far as the SF race goes, the SF government has a monopoly on both the roads
and the security forces, and thus they also represent a singular deep pocket
target of liability suit. There is no way to know what the "real costs" are
beyond a tax revenue type analysis (we'd need to remove the monopoly to have a
chance of knowing). The situation is completely muddled.

gwhite wrote:
IIRC, the term "voodoo economics" was used by George Bush "against" Ron
Reagan when Reagan campaigned saying that he could simultaneously cut
taxes but yet increase tax revenue.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0091042/quotes#qt0091090

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
gwhite wrote:
IIRC, the term "voodoo economics" was used by George Bush "against" Ron
Reagan when Reagan campaigned saying that he could simultaneously cut
taxes but yet increase tax revenue.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0091042/quotes#qt0091090

Ed Rooney *is* Jeff Jones.

gwhite wrote:
Revenues did go up under Reagan, but spending went up faster.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/deficit.png

Robert Chung wrote:

gwhite wrote:
Revenues did go up under Reagan, but spending went up faster.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/deficit.png

Let me be sure of your question. Are you asking if the "best combination" is a
democrat president and a republican congress? LOL

Hey, things went pretty well on the domestic end of the deal with Clinton
and a less conservative Republican majority in both houses.

The nation as a whole needs to come toward the middle. The far and out left
needs to put down the pot and the right needs to smoke a little of it.

We know you wank off the Bush posters, Gwhite, so no need to explain. Just
kidding you, but seriously you must spend more time praying than thinking if
you think we're headed in the right direction with all three branches of
government being controlled by one party.

"gwhite" wrote in message
...
Robert Chung wrote:

gwhite wrote:
Revenues did go up under Reagan, but spending went up faster.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/deficit.png

Let me be sure of your question. Are you asking if the "best combination"
is a
democrat president and a republican congress? LOL

B. Lafferty wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AGGVBUOVE1.DTL




Dumbass -

I agree, I prefer that my money go to Halliburton and other assorted
well-connected groups.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

"Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote:

Hey, things went pretty well on the domestic end of the deal with Clinton
and a less conservative Republican majority in both houses.

The nation as a whole needs to come toward the middle. The far and out left
needs to put down the pot and the right needs to smoke a little of it.

We know you wank off the Bush posters, Gwhite, so no need to explain. Just
kidding you, but seriously you must spend more time praying than thinking if
you think we're headed in the right direction with all three branches of
government being controlled by one party.

****ing-A. You are a moron.