Centerfield

...But mainly because I've got a comment that fits in this sort of context. Can we get a feature added to Centerfield? Specifically, a "recent comments" section; I think it really helps foster debate when people don't have to go through a whole bunch of pages to see if anyone's replied. I've semi-regularly gone back to look for a comment to quote, only to discover that someone's posted a reply three days later that I'd have liked to respond to.

Barbara Boxer's (apparently excreable) new novel (about a liberal senator from California faced with a Republican Supreme Court nomination - really stretching the old empathy and imagination bones there, Babs; 2005: noted liberal Alan Alda convincingly plays GOP Presidential Candidate, California liberal senator writes book about, um, herself) gets taken apart by John J. Miller (author of the excellent The Unmaking of Americans, lamenting the demise of the melting pot immigration strategy) here. It looks grizzly.

Senator Kerry gets taken down a peg by James Taranto here:

If this passage from an Associated Press dispatch doesn't crack you up, you have no sense of humor: "Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who voted for invasion, said it's 'hard to name a government official with less credibility on Iraq' than Cheney." Really? What about the guy who voted for the war in October 2002; declared in March 2003, with Howard Dean nipping at his heels, that he was against the war; said in August 2004 that he would have voted for the war even if there had been no weapons of mass destruction; and is now joining the chorus of dupes claiming President Bush hoodwinked them into thinking there were weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously arguing that there weren't enough troops and that there are too many?

If we're going to start talking about format changes, I've got a laundry list... But I don't have the inclination to volunteer my technical services, so I've kept my mouth shut so far!

Who wants to share their thoughts on supply-side economics? I can’t seem to get an opinion on the subject that doesn’t appear to be tainted by an agenda. I don’t care from a political standpoint if it’s a valid theory or not. I just want to know. I’ve seen it characterized as a bogus theory pushed by academically discredited cranks, and I’ve seen it espoused by seemingly reputable economic experts. Is there a mainstream academic consensus on this subject?

I’ll start with my own musings on the Laffer Curve. Obviously, at a 0% tax rate, revenue would be zero. At a 100% tax rate, there would be no incentive for engaging in legal commerce. Revenue might not necessarily be zero (in this unrealistic theoretical scenario), because people have to do something. But all revenue would (again, in this unrealistic theoretical scenario) come from foiling tax avoiders, so you can safely assume that revenue would be far lower than at some maximum value on the curve between 0% and 100% tax rates.

I would further assume that this curve is continuous, given the nature of what we’re talking about. I would also assume that there would be a single max value, not some greater-than-one number of local maximums at which the slope of the curve would be zero and the second derivative negative. The curve might remain at some max with a zero slope over some single continuous range of tax rates, but it would not go down and back up again (no local minimums either).

So, the question in my mind is - where is this max? And how does the curve slope on either side of it? On either side of the max, there would be equal revenue values at different tax rates. Does the maximum lie within the range of realistic tax rates? Or is the max, as I would assume supply-side discreditors would contend, not actually reachable within the range of realistic tax rates?

I guess the other question in my mind is – does anyone “know”? Any thoughts, maybe from someone with an economics degree?

Supply-side has some strong areas, but there's no "Grand Unified Theory" of economics. At least, not one that works. Without getting into the theories of supply-side economics as a whole (which could take years, and cost thousands of lives...):

The Laffer curve is a deceptively simple concept. The problem with the Laffer Curve is the problem found so often with any economic model, especially uni-dimensional ones such as the Laffer curve. Namely, that while it's for real, it's not an immutable constant. There is no point on the curve that you can designate as optimal for more than a single moment in time. As the determinants of economic production and the economy as a whole change, so shifts your optimal point.

That the effect exists has been demonstrated, but the only way to determine the curve itself would be to "experiment" your way to it. Good luck there, for the obvious reason that you're trying to measure one variable as a constant, all in a sea of noise. (And because you'd really piss off your experimental subjects.) About all you can do to determine which side of the curve you're on is to alter the tax rates and watch the results--and the rest of the world will keep interfering with the observations by shifting absolutely everything else around.

Neat theory. For real. No way to to peg down the parameters in real life for more than a moment, and then just enough to know which side of the curve you're currently on. The curve itself isn't constant, but a variable function of a gazillion-variable world economy.

Happy weekend everyone.

My congressional district still has no Democratic candidate.

The House GOP has called the Democrat's bluff, and pushed Murtha's "Good Sir Robin" Iraq bill onto the floor for an immediate debate and vote.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., offered the resolution demanding a pullout. The GOP-run House was expected to reject it _ and make a prominent statement about where Congress stands on Iraq _ as the chamber scurried toward a Thanksgiving break.

"We'll let the members debate it and then let them vote on it," said Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the acting majority leader.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's office had no immediate comment.

I'll bet not. Not for the public, anyway. But I'll bet someone blistered some paint. Show your cards, Congresscritters....

I don't know how to add recent comments, but I can try to figure it out. Don't have time right now. Maybe in a couple weeks.

I think today's leadership could use a gentle reminder as to the origins of the 16th Amendment, to which this tactic bears considerable resemblance.

On the other hand, since this bill has no real force but does means that the dems have to actually piss or get off the pot, so it does have that devilishly fun feeling of really rich chocolate.

I'm having great fun reading the various rightwing/leftwing blogs about the Murtha turned Hunter bill. The moonbats are out tonight! There is a virtual riot over at Kos. (If the intelligence police are monitoring this I am just kidding about visiting the daily kos). "Foul, foul", they cry, "political tricks are our pervue".

Seriously though. I feel my viewpoints are fairly well grounded on most things, but sometimes I wonder how I could be so out of touch with so many other's thought processes. I can grasp both sides of most issues, and I understand the reasoning of both sides here at Centerist Coalition most of the time (although I don't always agree with the conclusions drawn, of course). But when I visit Kos (just kidding) self doubt creeps in. What am I missing? Most of my life I thought the huge majority of humankind was rational. Doubt creeps in.

Dennis, for the same effect on the other side, try visiting Little Green Footballs sometime. Charles Johnson isn't so bad, but his "Lizardoids" in the comments tend to be whackos. Forget rational discussion when you enter.

What Pat said. In Kos some of the wingnuts are on parade as thread authors. In LGF they're mostly stuck in the comments section--Johnson doesn't have co-posters. Johnson seems to limit his monomania to open threads, bicycling, and beating the panic drum about the impending global Jihad.

What are you missing, Dennis? It might be a massive streak of paranoia or rabid partisanship. They seems required in the echo chambers of the wings.

Dennis, most of humankind is rational. But the wingnut echo chambers are like a feedback loop; they amplify the worst elements of the mob. As Publius said: "In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob."

Thanks for the replies. I guess a lot of my dismay stems from the fact that the echo chamber is exerting too much influence on policy decisions. And the internet seems to be serving as an amplifier.