Is ProgArchives still an AnCap forum, primarily?

That's exactly what's happening.  The thing is as much as economics has changed, the basic tenets were laid down way back in the mercantile age and refined through the industrial age which all presume that labour will keep growing as long as capital grows. I.e. a supply side focus.  That's not what's being observed in the post industrial age. It was clear that things had changed back in the 1930s when Keynesian economics had to be applied for the first time but the demand focus approach of Keynes was discredited too much after the hyperinflation of the 70s.  The focus should have shifted back to jobs after the necessary repair work of the economies was carried out in the 80s but that never happened and instead the market-oriented pivot only grew sharper. 

Bringing down top tax is not a great idea.  Although it is not a great model of taxation long term, in the medium term with the middle and lower class being squeezed, I would rather there were more slabs of taxation to discriminate between different income bands from upper middle class through to the rich.  I don't know what the slabs exactly are in USA but say in India we have one rate of tax for all income over $15000 up to infinity (with a surcharge for income exceeding $150000).  I think this does not discriminate enough between middle, upper middle and rich.  And meanwhile you could lower or do away with taxes on income below a certain level.  In the past, this would have been argued to a bad idea on the grounds that the 'rich' would use various legal loopholes to conceal taxable income anyway.  But today you have heads of conglomerates commanding huge salaries (some who make multi million dollar salaries, even in India).  That's salary and tax deducted at source, so it should be an easy way to mop up higher tax revenue without significantly denting consumption.  There is either a lack of imagination on the part of govt or a stubborn desire to protect the well heeled or a combination of both.  It's not that I want to advocate for a way to pull down the rich to get them on par with the poor or some such communist agenda.  But I fear we will permanently kill demand if we do not shift the burden of tax to those who can bear it more easily than the majority.  And even if suppose there is a good case for limited govt in the long run, in the medium term it is govt which will have to crowd in the private sector as the latter still seems to lack confidence given the bleak business environment of today.   That is, we are not going to be able to do away with taxes, so why not tax higher income levels at higher rates?

That's the rub.  To create more jobs, either govt can cut taxes even more to make it more attractive for investment or get involved in business itself.  There are limits to the former given the independence of states in your country and the latter is anathema in the US.  

Ah well that is always encouraged! 

Hmmmm perhaps, I dont know, much was said over the 700 pages and 3 threads during my libertarian-ish phase I voted third party, and I always thought the Repubs were the worst but who knows. I did flirt with the idea of Ron Paul for a while but I was never hardcore enough to go that far, and a bit too socially conservative for me, though he actually has left the Repub party recently. 

Yeah, the mainstream is, naturally, slow to adapt and I've found out econ is pretty dogmatic. Will try any unorthodox money policy, creating trillions, but the idea to spend $1 trillion over 10 years on jobs: madness!!

I was just joking re Trump.  Sorry, hard to resist.  

Ah, I remember you once mentioned in the Lib thread that you'd consider voting for the Republicans as a better option than Democrats so I guess I mistakenly inferred that you were Republican at the time.  

Funny that everybody except policy makers thinks we need to focus on jobs!  Wonder what is it that they know that we don't or are they just stuck head firmly in the sand with the old economic apparatuses of fiscal expansion/monetary easing.