It’s time again for weekend reflections, which makes space for longer than usual comments on any topic. As always, civilised discussion and no coarse language please.
"I do not know how he is a professor, but anyway he purports to be an economist" Senator Richard Alston, ex-Minister for Communications
"One of the elder statesmen of the Oz blogosphere" - Age Media Blog
"More intelligent than Britney Spears"Jason Soon
"The great neo-classical iconoclast"Ross Gittins
"A green activist with a totalitarian mindset", editorial, The Australian
"would argue under a pile of wet statistics and produces more copy than Xerox". Stephen Matchett in the Australian
"the odd Quiggan (sic) is good mental exercise; all part of life's rich tapestry et al."Peter Jonson
"Wrong", "incorrect", "off the mark again" Institute for Public Affairs, Institute for Private Enterprise, Centre for Independent Studies etc.
"Never wrong"Tim Blair
"A compassionate exponent of the dismal science" Stewart Fist
"An indispensable weblog"Bear Left
"Quiggin strikes me as the stereotype of an Australian - joyful, hearty, and not particularly aware of his own strength."SomeCallMeTim
"Krugman of the Antipodes"Christopher Joye
" ... his chief delight was drinking cups of coffee at odd hours" Anthony Powell A Dance to the Music of Time
Anyone can profit from their own labour, but not by exploiting other people (or nations). There are also windfall profits.
So if per capita GDP growth is x%, this is a reasonable level of profits.
Windfall profits are not available in the long-run.
Any long-run profits over x% are super profits.
So which is it:-
x = 0
x = 5
x = 32.7
Say the economy is growing at 6%. You define super profits as anything over 6% and slap a tax on it. As a consequence growth slips to 3% so you tax profits harder. Soon growth is at 0% and all profit is a crime. Way to go socialist.
Gee-sus! don’t be a slow learner.
If I say:
“if per capita GDP growth is x%”
then, obviously;
x = (per capita growth).
All this 0; 5, 32.7 is nonsense.
Chris – yes I failed to comprehend what you were saying at first. Now I’ve comprehended it I think it is crazy, as per my comment after the one you quoted.