David Sirota -- learn economics

Yesterday, in In These Times, David Sirota wrote a piece in which he stated that the best way to encourage economic growth would be to raise income taxes substantially. The whole article was based upon a line out of an article written by disgraced former New York governor Elliot Spitzer. The piece was so completely wrong that I wrote to Sirota as follows:


"I read your piece in In These Times in which you discuss if low tax rates are threatening the economy.

I was trying to decide while reading the article if it was tongue in cheek. I concluded that you actually meant what you said. Too bad. The idea that low taxes are bad for the economy is not just wrong; it is idiotic. No kind of economic analysis would support that position. It is just an ideological rant.

There is so much misinformation that is strewn around in the media regarding economics, that it is unfortunate to have another sewer opened up by your article. I suggest that in the future you stick in your writing about your health and the weather. Hopefully, you know something about them.

Sincerely,

Jeff Aronson
Greenwich, CT"


This morning Sirota responded:


"Right, it's just an ideological rant...except for all the data there.

Can't say I'm surprised that someone from Greenwich, CT is writing me complaining about the idea of paying higher taxes. You are a walking cliche.

D"

Of course, this led to a further exchange which I reproduce below:


"It is interesting to see that your response is to attack me for where I live. I guess when you have nothing else to say you have to go with the nonsense attacks. In any event, your supposed “data” is non-existent and you know it.

Have a nice day. Then take tomorrow to try to learn something about economics. "

Sirota's response:

"It's "non-existent and I know it" - even though I cited it - and all of its concrete sources - all in the original column.

Enjoy Greenwich.

D"

My last response:

"I do enjoy living in Greenwich. After I got your latest, I went back to look at the data of which you speak. I reread your piece, but I still see no meaningful data. You do cite to growth figures for 1951 to 1963 and compare them to recent growth figures covering the last seven years. If you were to do something other than to cite Client Nine’s numbers (like think about what you are saying) you might realize that in 1951 to 1963 the post war boom was in full swing. All those people who could not buy homes during the depression (when, by the way, tax rates were very high compared to today) were now forming families and having boatloads of kids. That meant new houses and other construction. The US population increased by roughly 20% from 1950 to 1960, and that means a lot of economic growth for GDP. Of course, you then compare it to a period which ends in a severe recession so that the rate for the seven years is lower than before. Why not compare the growth rate for 1933-1940 with that of 1982-1991. The former period had high marginal rates (over 90%) while the latter had low rates (under 28%). The former had negative growth. The latter was the biggest period of growth and job creation in the post war period.

You and I both know that using one lame statistic that you cherry pick out of an article by Spitzer is not realistic or accurate data. Adding a quote from Clinton does not make it better.

“Concrete sources” and “data”?? what a joke.

Jeff Aronson"


Many thanks to Sirota for revealing the true nature and understanding of the liberal mind.