Ekonomska stvarnost protiv empirijski osporenih fantazija

aben wrote:
ti bi da stručnjaci određuju koliko ćemo štediti, koliko trošiti. 

ne stručnjaci nego tržište, novac će biti u funkciji postizanja pune zaposlenosti, te ovisno o stanju tržišta rada vrijednost novca se mijenja

sad je novac u funkciji rentijerstva, država subvencionira zaradu od kamate, te takav način zarade od rente ne oporezuje, a oporezuje rad po stopi od 40%, oni koji rade sve su siromašniji, a oni koji žive od rente sve su bogatiji, na kraju takav kapitalistički model propada jer radnici više ne mogu generirati potrošnju, a štediše nemaju razloga trošiti

ono što ti abene zagovaraš je socijalizam za milijunaše, a da toga nisi ni svjestan, jer ne možeš zbrojiti 2 i 2

deda na aparatima wrote:ne stručnjaci nego tržište, novac će biti u funkciji postizanja pune zaposlenosti, te ovisno o stanju tržišta rada vrijednost novca se mijenja

sad je novac u funkciji rentijerstva, država subvencionira zaradu od kamate, te takav način zarade od rente ne oporezuje, a oporezuje rad po stopi od 40%, oni koji rade sve su siromašniji, a oni koji žive od rente sve su bogatiji, na kraju takav kapitalistički model propada jer radnici više ne mogu generirati potrošnju, a štediše nemaju razloga trošiti

ma ne, treba samo pustiti i sve će to najbolje regulirati navodna i sveta 'nevidljiva ruka tržišta' o kojoj stalno mantraju adamsmithovci, a koja se u općoj gospodarskoj nestabilnosti toliko boji mogućih gubitaka da panično čuva novac i od straha se više ne usuđuje ni disati, a kamo li trošiti i investirati .. eto, ta i takva 'ruka' će nas zasigurno izvući :/

deda na aparatima wrote:

aben wrote:
ti bi da stručnjaci određuju koliko ćemo štediti, koliko trošiti. 

ne stručnjaci nego tržište, novac će biti u funkciji postizanja pune zaposlenosti, te ovisno o stanju tržišta rada vrijednost novca se mijenja

sad je novac u funkciji rentijerstva, država subvencionira zaradu od kamate, te takav način zarade od rente ne oporezuje, a oporezuje rad po stopi od 40%, oni koji rade sve su siromašniji, a oni koji žive od rente sve su bogatiji, na kraju takav kapitalistički model propada jer radnici više ne mogu generirati potrošnju, a štediše nemaju razloga trošiti

ono što ti abene zagovaraš je socijalizam za milijunaše, a da toga nisi ni svjestan, jer ne možeš zbrojiti 2 i 2

druže, 
ono ča jo zagovaran je free banking. dati državi da ti pričuva kokoš je opasno, a novac- smrtno opasno.

znun jo da ćete vi nojti puno funkcija za moje šolde. u to ne sumnjan. pa vi me stalno pokušavate potaknuti da radim ča ne želim, a sve za moje dobro, isto ko provokator.

r_nevjesta wrote:

deda na aparatima wrote:ne stručnjaci nego tržište, novac će biti u funkciji postizanja pune zaposlenosti, te ovisno o stanju tržišta rada vrijednost novca se mijenja

sad je novac u funkciji rentijerstva, država subvencionira zaradu od kamate, te takav način zarade od rente ne oporezuje, a oporezuje rad po stopi od 40%, oni koji rade sve su siromašniji, a oni koji žive od rente sve su bogatiji, na kraju takav kapitalistički model propada jer radnici više ne mogu generirati potrošnju, a štediše nemaju razloga trošiti

ma ne, treba samo pustiti i sve će to najbolje regulirati navodna i sveta 'nevidljiva ruka tržišta' o kojoj stalno mantraju adamsmithovci, a koja se u općoj gospodarskoj nestabilnosti toliko boji mogućih gubitaka da panično čuva novac i od straha se više ne usuđuje ni disati, a kamo li trošiti i investirati .. eto, ta i takva 'ruka' će nas zasigurno izvući :/

Veličina države i gospodarski rast:

• Connors, J., Norton, S., The Scope of Government and the Wealth of Nations Revisited (link)
  

Zaključak: “Countries where total government spending was less than 25 percent of GDP experienced an average annual real GDP growth rate of 6.8 percent. As the size of government increases the annual growth rate falls. Countries at the opposite end of the spectrum, those with governments larger than 60 percent of GDP, had an average annual growth rate of 1.4 percent.”

• Bergh, A., Henrekson, M., Government Size and Growth: A Survey and Interpretation of Evidence (link)
  

Zaključak: “The most recent studies find a significant negative correlation: An increase in government size by 10 percentage points is associated with a 0.5 to 1 percent lower annual growth rate.”

• Di Matteo, L., Measuring Government in the 21st Century (link)
  

Zaključak: “All other things given, annual per capita GDP growth is maximized at 3.1 percent at a government expenditure to GDP ratio of 26 percent; beyond that ratio, economic growth rates decline.”

• Chobanov, D., Mladenova, A., What is the Optimum Size of Government (link)
  

Zaključak: “The overall results suggest that the optimal level of government spending is 25% according to the Scully model. However, due to model and data limitations, the evidence is that the results are biased upwards, and the “true” optimum government level is even smaller and depends also on the quality of a government, and not only its size.”

• Bourne, R., Oechsle, T., Small is Best – Lessons from Advanced Economies (link)
  

Zaključak: “Between 2003 and 2012, real GDP growth was 3.1% a year for small government countries (i.e. where both government outlays and receipts were on average below 40% of GDP for the years 1999 to 2009), compared to 2.0% for big government countries.”; “The statistical analysis presented here is supportive of the assertion made by supplyside economists that the growth performance of countries with smaller governments will be better than those with bigger governments. Furthermore, small governments do not appear to deliver worse social outcomes.”

• Davies, A., Human Development and the Optimal Size of Government (link)
  

Zaključak: “The results indicate that, over all countries, the estimated levels of government consumption and investment expenditures that are associated with maximal growth in per-capita RGDP are 8.5% and 6.2%, respectively. This implies an optimal level of government expenditures of 14.7%.”

• Vedder, R., Gallaway, L., Government Size and Economic Growth ([url=https://www.google.hr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgarrido.pe%2Flecturasydocumentos%2FVEDDER GALLAWAY %281998%29 Government size and economic growht.pdf&ei=a_vtVKuWIoXxULuPgsgG&usg=AFQjCNGT5VdU33zeW1LBvaulB0iPdRMTbQ&bvm=bv.86956481,d.d24]link[/url])
  

Zaključak: “The data here suggest that a further reduction in government size to 17.45 percent of GDP would be growth enhancing. The positive impact of government downsizing at the margin gets smaller as we approach the optimum.” ; “Furthermore, additional empirical work below suggests that the optimal size of government may well be smaller than 17.45 percent.”
Veličina države i nezaposlenost:

• Wang, S., Abrams, B., Government Outlays, Economic Growth and Unemployment (link)
  

Zaključak: “We find that increases in government outlays hamper economic growth and raise the unemployment rate.”

• Feldmann, H., Government Size and Unemployment: Evidence from Industrial Countries (link)
  

Zaključak: “In industrial countries, a large government sector appears to have an adverse impact on unemployment. According to our regression results, it has a particularly adverse impact on women and the low skilled. Furthermore, it is likely to substantially increase long-term unemployment. It seems that dominant state-owned enterprises, a large share of public investment in total investment as well as high top marginal income tax rates and low income threshold levels at which they apply are particularly detrimental. Therefore, countries with both high unemployment and a large government sector should consider a reduction of the size of the government sector as a means of fighting unemployment.”
Porezno opterećenje i gospodarski rast:

• Romer, C., Romer, D., The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks (link)
  

Zaključak: “Our results indicate that tax changes have very large effects on output. Our baseline specification implies that an exogenous tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by almost three percent. Our many robustness checks for the most part point to a slightly smaller decline, but one that is still typically over 2.5 percent. In addition, we find that the output effects of tax changes are much more closely tied to the actual changes in taxes than to news about future changes, and that investment falls sharply in response to exogenous tax increases.”

• Dackehag, M., Hansson, A., Taxation of Income and Economic Growth: An Empirical Analysis od 25 Rich OECD Countries (link)
  

Zaključak: “We find that both taxation of corporate and personal income negatively influence economic growth. The correlation between corporate income taxation and economic growth is more robust, however. ” ; “Both low taxation of corporate and personal labor income enhance growth while higher rates retard growth. While the result for taxation of personal income is less stable, the results for the corporate tax rate are robust across specifications and choice of included variables. In addition, we find support for taxation of dividends having a negative impact on economic growth even though this result is also less robust than that for the corporate tax rate. The results from this paper hence suggest that taxation of corporate income has a robust harmful impact on economic growth, a result that is consistent with more recent research.”

• Gordon, R., Lee, Y., Tax Structure and Economic Growth (link)
  

Zaključak: “This paper finds that the corporate tax rate is significantly negatively correlated with economic growth in a cross-section data set of 70 countries during 1970-1997, controlling for many other determinants/covariates of economic growth.” ; “The estimates suggest that cutting the corporate tax rate by 10 percentage points can increase the annual growth rate by around 1.1%.  In fixed-effects estimates using a panel data set constructed for the same overall time period, estimated effects are larger, with the same tax change implying an increase in the annual growth rate of around 1.8%.”

• Ferede, E., Dahlby, B., The Impact of Tax Cuts on Economic Growth: Evidence from the Canadian Provinces (link)
  

Zaključak: “We find that a higher provincial statutory corporate income tax rate is associated with lower private investment and slower economic growth. Our empirical estimates suggest that a 1 percentage point cut in the corporate tax rate is related to a 0.1–0.2 percentage point increase in the annual growth rate.” ; “The results indicate that in the long run BC’s per capita GDP with the CIT tax cut will be about 16 percent higher than in the absence of the tax cut.”

• Mertens, K., Ravn, M., The Dynamic Effects of Personal and Corporate Income Tax Changes in the United States (link)
  

Zaključak: “One percentage point cut in the average personal income tax rate raises real GDP per capita on impact by 1.4 percent and by up to 1.8 percent after three quarters. A one percentage point cut in the average corporate income tax rate raises real GDP per capita on impact by 0.4 percent and by up to 0.6 percent after one year.”

• Johansson, A., Heady, C., Arnold, J., Brys, B., Vartia, L., Taxation and Economic Growth (link)
  

Zaključak: “This paper investigates the design of tax structures to promote economic growth. It suggests a ‘tax and growth’ ranking of taxes, confirming results from earlier literature but providing a more detailed disaggregation of taxes. Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes.”

• Cloyne, J., What are the Effects of Tax Changes in United Kingdom? (link)
  

Zaključak: “I find that a 1 per cent cut in taxes stimulates GDP by 0.6 per cent on impact and by 2.5 per cent over three years. These findings are remarkably similar to the corresponding estimates for the United States. The results reinforce the view that tax changes do indeed have powerful, persistent and significant effects on the economy. Finally, ‘exogenous’ tax changes are shown to have contributed to major episodes in the U.K. business cycle.”

• Djankov, C., Gasner, T., McLiesh, C., Ramalho, R., Shleifer, A., The Effect of Corporate Taxes on Investment and Entrepreneurship (link)
  

Zaključak: “In a cross-section of countries, our estimates of the effective corporate tax rate have a large adverse impact on aggregate investment, FDI, and entrepreneurial activity.”

• Hassett, K., Mathur, A., Taxes and Wages (link)
  

Zaključak: “The results in this paper suggest that corporate tax rates affect wage levels across countries. Higher corporate taxes lead to lower wages. A 1 percent increase in corporate tax rates is associated with nearly a 1 percent drop in wage rates. The intuition for this comes from a simple analysis of the Solow model that reveals that higher capital labor ratios lead to higher wages, by enhancing worker productivity.”

• Arulampalam, W., Devereux, M., Maffini, G., The Direct Incidence of Corporate Income Tax and Wages (link)
  

Zaključak: “We provide rigorous empirical evidence that, in this bargaining framework, a significant part of the corporation income tax is passed on to the labour force in the form of lower wages. Our central estimates show that, conditional on value added per employee, in the long run and evaluated at the mean, an exogenous $1 increase in the tax bill tends to reduce real wages by 49 cents.”

• Felix, R. A., Passing the Burden: Corporate Tax Incidence in Open Economies (link)
  

Zaključak: “Using cross-country data I estimate that a ten percentage point increase in the corporate tax rate of high-income countries reduces mean annual gross wages by seven percent.”

• Business Roundtable, Corporate Tax Reform – The Time is Now (link)
  

Zaključak: “A vast analysis of the corporate income tax in countries around the world — both industrialized and developing countries — finds that the corporate income tax reduces gross domestic product (GDP) growth, reduces worker productivity, reduces domestic investment by domestic and foreign companies, and reduces entrepreneurship.”

• Schwellnus, C., Arnold, J., Do Corporate Taxes Reduce Productivity and Investment at the Firm Level? (link)
  

Zaključak: “The empirical analysis presented here provides evidence of substantial negative effects of corporate taxation on productivity and investment.”

• Schuyler, M., Growth Dividend from a Lower Corporate Tax Rate (link)
  

Zaključak: “The model estimates, for example, that cutting the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent would raise GDP by 2.2 percent, increase the private-business capital stock by 6.2 percent, boost wages and hours of work by 1.9 percent and 0.3 percent, respectively, and increase total federal revenues by 0.8 percent.”

• Vartia, L., How Do Taxes Affect Investment and Productivity (link)
  

Zaključak: “The paper finds evidence that corporate and top personal income taxes have a negative effect on productivity. In contrast, tax incentives for research and development (R&D) are found to have a positive effect on productivity.”

• Hood, J., Lower Taxes, Higher Growth (link)
  

Zaključak: “I was able to find 115 studies published in peer-reviewed journals since 1990 that examined overall state or local tax burdens, measured as either total tax revenue per capita or total tax revenue as a share of income. In 63 percent of the studies, tax burdens were negatively associated with economic performance. In only three of the 115 studies were taxes positively associated with economic performance, all other things being held equal.”
https://tkojejohngalt.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/empiricizam-2-dio/

aben wrote:
druže, 
ono ča jo zagovaran je free banking

za tebe je najgore što smo ušli na slobodno europsko tržište, i što će Hrvatska postati dio Eurozone uvođenjem Eura, a ECB stimulirati ekonomiju
ti bi da da se odvojimo, da uvedemo izolacionizam i merkantilizam jer je to u skladu sa tvojim ekonomskim svjetonazorom iz 18. /19. stoljeća, pa bi ti onda preko slobodnog bankarstva zarađivao od rente kad banka nekome posudi tvoj novac po kamati od 20%, jer je količina novca fiksna

eh ta stara vremena, kad nije bilo slobodnog tržišta, nego su cehovi određivali kvote i tarife kako bi zaštitili svoju proizvodnju, to je bilo nešto predivno

deda na aparatima wrote:

aben wrote:
druže, 
ono ča jo zagovaran je free banking

za tebe je najgore što smo ušli na slobodno europsko tržište, i što će Hrvatska postati dio Eurozone uvođenjem Eura, a ECB stimulirati ekonomiju
ti bi da da se odvojimo, da uvedemo izolacionizam i merkantilizam jer je to u skladu sa tvojim ekonomskim svjetonazorom iz 18. /19. stoljeća, pa bi ti onda preko slobodnog bankarstva zarađivao od rente kad banka nekome posudi tvoj novac po kamati od 20%, jer je količina novca fiksna

eh ta stara vremena, kad nije bilo slobodnog tržišta, nego su cehovi određivali kvote i tarife kako bi zaštitili svoju proizvodnju, to je bilo nešto predivno

iskreno, ne znan ni da će mi biti bolje ni gore pod drugom centralnom bankom, vjerojatno isto.

izolazionizam?! merkantilizam?! sačuvaj bože. 

al da bi voli da mogu kupiti kruh u dolarima, bi.

aben wrote:
izolazionizam?! merkantilizam?! sačuvaj bože. 

Zar nisi ti protiv ulaska Hrvatske u Eu, protiv Eura kao zajedničke jedinstvene valute i zajedničkog tržišta, zajedničke centralne banke?
Ili opet ne znaš zbrojiti 2 i 2, pa ne znaš što točno znači to što zapravo zagovaraš.

Slično kao što bi legalizirao droge, jer je za tebe fizička ovisnost o opijatu zapravo slobodan izbor onog koji ju konzumira.

deda na aparatima wrote:

aben wrote:
izolazionizam?! merkantilizam?! sačuvaj bože. 

Zar nisi ti protiv ulaska Hrvatske u Eu, protiv Eura kao zajedničke jedinstvene valute i zajedničkog tržišta, zajedničke centralne banke?
Ili opet ne znaš zbrojiti 2 i 2, pa ne znaš što točno znači to što zapravo zagovaraš.

Slično kao što bi legalizirao droge, jer je za tebe fizička ovisnost o opijatu zapravo slobodan izbor onog koji ju konzumira.

protiv ulaska u eu sam bio,
za euro mi je sve isto,
centralna banka, sve isto, nije toliko važno ki vuče loše poteze.

ali tržište bi tribalo biti jedno, bar s naše strone bez "pomoći" od države. tako da eu  građani subsidiziraju mliko nama, a ne obratno.

a ne, fizička ovisnost je stvar centralnog komiteta

aben wrote:

deda na aparatima wrote:

aben wrote:
izolazionizam?! merkantilizam?! sačuvaj bože. 

Zar nisi ti protiv ulaska Hrvatske u Eu, protiv Eura kao zajedničke jedinstvene valute i zajedničkog tržišta, zajedničke centralne banke?
Ili opet ne znaš zbrojiti 2 i 2, pa ne znaš što točno znači to što zapravo zagovaraš.

Slično kao što bi legalizirao droge, jer je za tebe fizička ovisnost o opijatu zapravo slobodan izbor onog koji ju konzumira.

protiv ulaska u eu sam bio,
za euro mi je sve isto,
centralna banka, sve isto, nije toliko važno ki vuče loše poteze.

ali tržište bi tribalo biti jedno, bar s naše strone bez "pomoći" od države. tako da eu  građani subsidiziraju mliko nama, a ne obratno.

a ne, fizička ovisnost je stvar centralnog komiteta

dobro, ukratko ti snemaš pojma što pričaš, ne bi u EU i na zajedničko otvoreno tržište, ali bi da tebi netko drugi plaća mlijeko i paštetu ili što ti je već bitno u životu, te bi kupovao u dolarima umjesto u kunama ili eurima, a dolarima nemaš pristup, tako da neki Hedge fond poput Soroševog može doći i fino zaraditi na idijotima koji žele biti ovisni o vanjskoj valuti i riziku koji ona nosi, naravno za tvoj idiotizam kriva je država

deda na aparatima wrote:

aben wrote:

deda na aparatima wrote:

aben wrote:
izolazionizam?! merkantilizam?! sačuvaj bože. 

Zar nisi ti protiv ulaska Hrvatske u Eu, protiv Eura kao zajedničke jedinstvene valute i zajedničkog tržišta, zajedničke centralne banke?
Ili opet ne znaš zbrojiti 2 i 2, pa ne znaš što točno znači to što zapravo zagovaraš.

Slično kao što bi legalizirao droge, jer je za tebe fizička ovisnost o opijatu zapravo slobodan izbor onog koji ju konzumira.

protiv ulaska u eu sam bio,
za euro mi je sve isto,
centralna banka, sve isto, nije toliko važno ki vuče loše poteze.

ali tržište bi tribalo biti jedno, bar s naše strone bez "pomoći" od države. tako da eu  građani subsidiziraju mliko nama, a ne obratno.

a ne, fizička ovisnost je stvar centralnog komiteta

dobro, ukratko ti snemaš pojma što pričaš, ne bi u EU ali bi da tebi netko drugi plaća mlijeko i paštetu ili što ti je već bitno u životu, te bi kupovao u dolarima umjesto u kunama, tako da neki Hedge fond poput Soroševog može doći i fino zaraditi na idijotima koji žele biti ovisni o vanjskoj valuti i riziku koji nosi akumulacija deviznih rezervi, naravno za tvoj idiotizam kriva je država

pisa čovik tebi ne pisa, ti uvik isto:(


reci, ti se drage volje potčinjavaš centralnim banksterima? 
mislin, nije da će te pitati za mišljenje, al isto?

aben wrote:
reci, ti se drage volje potčinjavaš centralnim banksterima? 

ti imaš problema sa određenim duševnim i mentalnim poremećajima, potrebno ti je psihijatrijsko liječenje te cijeloživotna terapija lijekovima
patiš od paranoja i halucinacija

deda na aparatima wrote:

aben wrote:
reci, ti se drage volje potčinjavaš centralnim banksterima? 

ti imaš problema sa određenim duševnim i mentalnim poremećajima, potrebno ti je psihijatrijsko liječenje te cijeloživotna terapija lijekovima
patiš od paranoja i halucinacija

možda, 
al moja vridnost je zakopana u ćupu na sigurnom, a tvojom c banksteri raspolažu kako želu.