Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius (Post 11828889)

"...

The results will be truly dramatic. According to the well-respected Tax Foundation, the Simple Flat Tax will deliver an economic boost of tremendous magnitude. In the first decade, the Simple Flat Tax will:

• Boost Gross Domestic Product by 13.9 percent above what is currently projected.
• Increase wages by 12.2 percent.
• Create 4,861,000 additional jobs." https://www.tedcruz.org/tax_plan/

Originally Posted by Giantaxe (Post 11828938)

"The Tax Foundation has received funding from ExxonMobil[citation needed] and from conservative political groups such as the Koch Family Foundations"

Oh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation

Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius (Post 11828935)

It is important to note that you only quoted that portion of the Tax Foundation's report that was based on a "static" analysis. The Tax Foundation article went on to look at the growth result of the plan. If that were taken into account, the expected growth in the economy would reduce the deficit to $768 billion over the same period.
I don't necessarily support a return to the Gold Standard without greater analysis, but the major reason some Republican candidates support it is to prevent the "quantitative easing" manipulation of the currency and therefore the economy based on Keynsian theories of economics. (With, in my opinion, decidedly mixed results. It has propped up the stock market and otherwise so distorted the economy we could see a major crash as a result.)

Nathan Lewis, also writing in Forbes, provides an interesting history of the results of the major European and Asian countries being on the gold standard between 1870 and 1914. It's worth a read: Forbes Welcome

As for 40 or so of economists thinking a return to the gold standard would be "nuts" don't forget that, as one president said: we could use some one-armed economists - when pressed, they always say, "On the one hand, this...but on the other hand, that."

Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius (Post 11828942)

You're relentless. Apparently the Tax Foundation was good enough for you to quote them to make your point. But now...

Originally Posted by zargof (Post 11828949)

I actually did say that, but you failed to read it. Admittedly, there was a typo where I put M instead of B, oops. But anyway, if as Giantaxe suggests the Tax Foundation are going to do a favourable analysis and they still find a $768B shortfall, then it doesn't look that good.

Originally Posted by Giantaxe (Post 11828955)

Take a look at the board of directors (present and past) in the link I provided and you'll see that at the very least there's a distinct conservative bias.

Originally Posted by CelticRover (Post 11828975)

Originally Posted by CelticRover (Post 11828975)

Originally Posted by Giantaxe (Post 11828976)

Lamestream media article.

Originally Posted by zargof (Post 11828977)

That's still based on the figures from the Tax Foundation.

Originally Posted by zargof (Post 11828949)

It's interesting that you think Bernie's supposed 1930s solutions aren't relevant to the 21st century economy, but somehow the 19th century economy is. There is nothing in that article to show causality between the Gold Standard and the level of growth, to me it seems nothing more that correlation.

Originally Posted by Philk (Post 11829703)

Gulp, The Trump Organization warns the UK - they might stop investing in Turnberry!!!

Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing (Post 11829705)

That man is a wanker.

I hope Cameron flips the twat a V, just to see what he does.

Originally Posted by sir_eccles (Post 11829710)

We are talking about a guy who habitually makes out with pigs heads. More likely is the debate will be a sham.

Originally Posted by sir_eccles (Post 11829710)

I'd be more interested to hear about the candidate's opinions on North Korea's latest bomb test. Either it was another fake or it fizzled.