Comments on: Inverse Nixon Theory http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/currencies/inverse-nixon-theory/ European Opinion Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:05:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Klaus http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/currencies/inverse-nixon-theory/#comment-17616 Klaus Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:11:31 +0000 http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/governments-and-parties/inverse-nixon-theory#comment-17616 I'll go with Factory's argument. When the Social Democrats in 1992 took the reins in Denmark after a long period of Conservative/Liberal rule, the prime minister (Poul Nyrup) privatized lots and lots, and tightened unemployment rules, to the benefit of all. Third way, and long before Blair and Clinton. A Tory would never have gotten away with it. I’ll go with Factory’s argument. When the Social Democrats in 1992 took the reins in Denmark after a long period of Conservative/Liberal rule, the prime minister (Poul Nyrup) privatized lots and lots, and tightened unemployment rules, to the benefit of all. Third way, and long before Blair and Clinton. A Tory would never have gotten away with it.

]]> By: Noel Maurer http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/currencies/inverse-nixon-theory/#comment-17613 Noel Maurer Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:36:31 +0000 http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/governments-and-parties/inverse-nixon-theory#comment-17613 "One of Angela Merkel’s first acts on taking office was to announce a future rise in consumption taxes, which isn’t very much different in terms of public perception to cutting them in the meantime." Excuse me? Alex, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain what you meant to say here, because as written it doesn't make much sense. I don't see how announcing a future tax hike is the same as a temporary tax cut. With perfect foresight, the first depresses current consumption (because people save now to pay higher future taxes), while the second has no effect on consumption (because people save the tax cut, correctly thinking it temporary). Conversely, with imperfect foresight, the effects are still different. Announcing a future tax hilke has no effect (because you're assuming that people don't consider future tax payments or discount them heavily), and the second increases current consumption (because people consider the future tax hike far away and treat their income gain from the tax cut as if it were permanent). Either way, they're very different, so I'm not at all clear as to your point. Are you saying that conservative governments have abandoned maintaining a short-term fiscal balance? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that happened a long time ago. “One of Angela Merkel’s first acts on taking office was to announce a future rise in consumption taxes, which isn’t very much different in terms of public perception to cutting them in the meantime.”

Excuse me? Alex, I’d appreciate it if you’d explain what you meant to say here, because as written it doesn’t make much sense.

I don’t see how announcing a future tax hike is the same as a temporary tax cut. With perfect foresight, the first depresses current consumption (because people save now to pay higher future taxes), while the second has no effect on consumption (because people save the tax cut, correctly thinking it temporary).

Conversely, with imperfect foresight, the effects are still different. Announcing a future tax hilke has no effect (because you’re assuming that people don’t consider future tax payments or discount them heavily), and the second increases current consumption (because people consider the future tax hike far away and treat their income gain from the tax cut as if it were permanent).

Either way, they’re very different, so I’m not at all clear as to your point. Are you saying that conservative governments have abandoned maintaining a short-term fiscal balance? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that happened a long time ago.

]]> By: Factory http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/currencies/inverse-nixon-theory/#comment-17611 Factory Mon, 11 Jun 2007 04:26:45 +0000 http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/governments-and-parties/inverse-nixon-theory#comment-17611 The "only nixon can go to china" saying is implying that when: - Faction A is ideologically opposed to a certain policy (say the US right and diplomacy with China) - Faction B (say the US left) is in favour of the policy - The leader of faction A can successfully enact that policy whereas the leader of faction B would not be able to. Primarily because it means that faction A would be unable to oppose the without also opposing the leader, and faction B doesn't want to oppose the policy at all, thus neutering the opposition. I've never seen it referring only to the right wing exclusively. The events in the article seem to support this Nixon theory, not to suggest a reversal of it. The “only nixon can go to china” saying is implying that when:
- Faction A is ideologically opposed to a certain policy (say the US right and diplomacy with China)
- Faction B (say the US left) is in favour of the policy
- The leader of faction A can successfully enact that policy whereas the leader of faction B would not be able to. Primarily because it means that faction A would be unable to oppose the without also opposing the leader, and faction B doesn’t want to oppose the policy at all, thus neutering the opposition.

I’ve never seen it referring only to the right wing exclusively. The events in the article seem to support this Nixon theory, not to suggest a reversal of it.

]]> By: David Weman http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/currencies/inverse-nixon-theory/#comment-17610 David Weman Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:08:32 +0000 http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/governments-and-parties/inverse-nixon-theory#comment-17610 Fun post, but I'm not sure I buy it. The pact's been gradually undermined, is all. Schröder's more rwsponsible than anyone. Fun post, but I’m not sure I buy it. The pact’s been gradually undermined, is all. Schröder’s more rwsponsible than anyone.

]]>