[ SECRET POST #3155 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3155 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 039 secrets from Secret Submission Post #451.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Question Thread

[(Anonymous)]

Well, wouldn't taxing transactions have significantly different effects compared to actually taxing capital reserves? I mean it kind of seems to me that the purpose of this is two-fold: first, you want to raise money to pay for fiscal policies to increase demand, but you also want to incentivize people to actually invest capital reserves, right? And it doesn't seem like a transaction tax would really do much to accomplish the second aim.

I mean, I don't really know - I'm kind of trying to learn economics atm from a pretty low ground knowledge, so yeah. Actually via reading a literal economics textbook (I am the biggest dork in existence). I'm not a huge fan of Krugman or Reich just on grounds of style and a few questions of political orientation (not really content, more strategy I guess). Wren-Lewis seems much better though.

Re: Question Thread

[raspberryrain]

Yeah, I don't think Reich moves in the same circles. Someone like Bernanke or Wren-Lewis is probably deeper into the state of the science on monetary and banking issues.

Reich works a bit more on the populist/labour political advocacy side than the technical macroeconomics side. He probably talks more about fiscal policy history. But if you're looking at fiscal policy, you're probably dealing with guys like him to do it.