Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, arg said:

Just asked my 9 year old what he would do if he sold a toy for $10 and the government decided to start taking an extra $100 a month from him in taxes? He replied, “I’d sell my toy for $15.” This was with no leading questions/information or previous discussion of this article. So yeah, a 9 year old understands basic economics better than the President’s press secretary (or worse, the entire administration...if her statement truly represents the administration’s position).

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, brabus said:

Just asked my 9 year old what he would do if he sold a toy for $10 and the government decided to start taking an extra $100 a month from him in taxes? He replied, “I’d sell my toy for $15.” This was with no leading questions/information or previous discussion of this article. So yeah, a 9 year old understands basic economics better than the President’s press secretary (or worse, the entire administration...if her statement truly represents the administration’s position).

This response is a meme within economics and he would lose more money in doing so than if he kept the price roughly the same for consumers due the highly elastic demand of unnecessary consumer products like toys. Sounds like he needs to study a bit more "basic economics" but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since he's 9 😉. Good reading for you guys though.

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ref/econ101e.html

Don't expect Psaki to know what she's talking about with regard to economics, but even if she did I doubt she would answer that question with a nuanced discussion on the implications of demand elasticity, money velocity, tax revenue optimization, etc., with respect to the new policy. To think those writing policy within the administration would lack a basic understanding of economics is disingenuous.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DosXX said:

To think those writing policy within the administration would lack a basic understanding of economics is disingenuous.

 

Errr, same crew that says white extremism is the #1 threat for the Defense Department?

I'm pretty genuine in my opinion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DosXX said:

This response is a meme within economics and he would lose more money in doing so than if he kept the price roughly the same for consumers due the highly elastic demand of unnecessary consumer products like toys. Sounds like he needs to study a bit more "basic economics" but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since he's 9 😉. Good reading for you guys though.

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ref/econ101e.html

Don't expect Psaki to know what she's talking about with regard to economics, but even if she did I doubt she would answer that question with a nuanced discussion on the implications of demand elasticity, money velocity, tax revenue optimization, etc., with respect to the new policy. To think those writing policy within the administration would lack a basic understanding of economics is disingenuous.

 

Well yeah, it was a basic scenario for a 9 yr old. Doesn’t change the fact it’s an incredibly stupid/naive statement to say raising taxes on businesses, raw materials, etc. won’t affect things like consumer prices, employee benefits, employee hours, or even job availability. 

Edited by brabus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DosXX said:

This response is a meme within economics and he would lose more money in doing so than if he kept the price roughly the same for consumers due the highly elastic demand of unnecessary consumer products like toys. Sounds like he needs to study a bit more "basic economics" but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since he's 9 😉. Good reading for you guys though.

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ref/econ101e.html

Don't expect Psaki to know what she's talking about with regard to economics, but even if she did I doubt she would answer that question with a nuanced discussion on the implications of demand elasticity, money velocity, tax revenue optimization, etc., with respect to the new policy. To think those writing policy within the administration would lack a basic understanding of economics is disingenuous.

 

Ah yes, economics. Incredibly complex and counterintuitive answers to simple questions, requiring even more complicated explanations when the aforementioned answers prove incorrect.

I really liked when the fed, which is fully staffed with economists, admitted that they simply can't explain the rates of inflation over the past years, so maybe they just need different goals...

https://econofact.org/why-did-the-fed-change-its-framework-and-why-does-it-matter

Sometimes I think economists were invented to take the heat off of meteorologists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yeah, it was a basic scenario for a 9 yr old. Doesn’t change the fact it’s an incredibly stupid/naive statement to say raising taxes on businesses, raw materials, etc. won’t affect things like consumer prices, employee benefits, employee hours, or even job availability. 
I'm not arguing either way, I honestly think taxes have a smaller impact on large businesses than we think. Their armies of accountants move enough around that they'll make the math work out in their favor.

It's not like they ever lower prices when their taxes go down. Remember all the companies that said the tax cuts they got would go to their employees? That didn't happen in 99% of the companies that claimed the tax cuts were a win for workers and consumers.

Businesses are inherently selfish, which they should be without an incentive to act otherwise. We know that they'll consistently raise prices regardless of need until their demand goes down to the point they can make more by selling their products at a lower price.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Ah yes, economics. Incredibly complex and counterintuitive answers to simple questions, requiring even more complicated explanations when the aforementioned answers prove incorrect.

I really liked when the fed, which is fully staffed with economists, admitted that they simply can't explain the rates of inflation over the past years, so maybe they just need different goals...

https://econofact.org/why-did-the-fed-change-its-framework-and-why-does-it-matter

Sometimes I think economists were invented to take the heat off of meteorologists.

IMO, what is driving low interest rates is a desire to make up for a variety of deflationary forces at work in the world:

  1. Technology.
  2. Aging demographics (see Japan and USA) - most modern countries have populations that are "aging out" and past something known as "peak spending" which occurs at age 46 (approximately).
  3. Globalization - outsourcing of production - i.e. a drastic increase in the availability of labor.

In order to counteract these forces, the fed allows grossly low interest rates in order to stimulate spending that wouldn't otherwise happen - which is all to counteract the aforementioned factors that work in one direction. There is no confusion about how the world works. There's only the "show" that we all watch and wonder "why?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, N730 said:

I'm not arguing either way, I honestly think taxes have a smaller impact on large businesses than we think. Their armies of accountants move enough around that they'll make the math work out in their favor.

It's not like they ever lower prices when their taxes go down. Remember all the companies that said the tax cuts they got would go to their employees? That didn't happen in 99% of the companies that claimed the tax cuts were a win for workers and consumers.

Businesses are inherently selfish, which they should be without an incentive to act otherwise. We know that they'll consistently raise prices regardless of need until their demand goes down to the point they can make more by selling their products at a lower price.

Riddle me this then: why doesn't the government just "move enough around" (likewise) to make it work out in their favor? They're bigger than any one company and can afford more accountants, right?

Better yet, ask yourself why do we need taxes at all if the government can just run the money printer and just make themselves however much money they need...

Edited by ViperMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

IMO, what is driving low interest rates is a desire to make up for a variety of deflationary forces at work in the world:

  1. Technology.
  2. Aging demographics (see Japan and USA) - most modern countries have populations that are "aging out" and past something known as "peak spending" which occurs at age 46 (approximately).
  3. Globalization - outsourcing of production - i.e. a drastic increase in the availability of labor.

In order to counteract these forces, the fed allows grossly low interest rates in order to stimulate spending that wouldn't otherwise happen - which is all to counteract the aforementioned factors that work in one direction. There is no confusion about how the world works. There's only the "show" that we all watch and wonder "why?".

I agree completely. Massive, massive deflationary forces from unfathomable progress on automation and exploiting foreign labor have made the inflation from runaway government spending invisible.

 

But the geniuses at the Fed haven't put that together. Problem is, there aren't many places left in the world to get nearly-free labor. If we can't keep dropping the prices on TVs and t-shirts, the stagnation in wage growth for the past couple decades and the aforementioned spending spree is going to kick us in the teeth. And the Fed has nowhere to go with rates at zero. Get ready...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2021 at 11:16 PM, ViperMan said:

Riddle me this then: why doesn't the government just "move enough around" (likewise) to make it work out in their favor? They're bigger than any one company and can afford more accountants, right?

Better yet, ask yourself why do we need taxes at all if the government can just run the money printer and just make themselves however much money they need...

Great question, it's explained briefly in this video at 10:40. Put (very) simply, it is in fact true the government doesn't need taxes to fund anything within the modern system of centralized banking and money printing; taxes are a means to end. Taxes give the dollar stability and value because it creates demand for it as the primary currency. 

https://youtu.be/N8HOWh8HPTo

 

On 3/20/2021 at 8:47 PM, Lord Ratner said:

Ah yes, economics. Incredibly complex and counterintuitive answers to simple questions, requiring even more complicated explanations when the aforementioned answers prove incorrect.

Do you think all 'simple' questions should have simple answers? 

Why do things fall? A simple question. You can start with newtonian theory gravity and get as complicated as Relativistic theory and spacetime curvature.  Newtonian gravity was also proved incorrect outside regimes common to our experience, I don't see what's wrong with furthering our understanding of reality with more data and theory, even if it is more complicated in the end. Relativity is far more unintuitive and complicated, but that is no reason to reject it when it is undeniably a more accurate theory.

Economics has had and continues to have its own set of issues, but data based empirical research is becoming a bigger part of the field every year. Not that that's relevant for the original point anyways, elastic demand is econ101. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2021 at 6:40 PM, brabus said:

Well yeah, it was a basic scenario for a 9 yr old. Doesn’t change the fact it’s an incredibly stupid/naive statement to say raising taxes on businesses, raw materials, etc. won’t affect things like consumer prices, employee benefits, employee hours, or even job availability

Yeah I know but you seem to imply there will obviously be negative effects with tax raising and that policy makers could be oblivious to this basic fact. It's not as simple as raising taxes -> higher prices, less jobs, less benefits -> bad for economy. Depending on the tax rate and other factors (like elastic demand for the industry being taxed), it can be a net positive on the economy, and there may be a negligible effect on prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2021 at 4:51 PM, brickhistory said:

same crew that says white extremism is the #1 threat for the Defense Department?

Source? Can't find anyone who has said this. I'm pretty sure defense policy writers in the admin would not agree with this even if some clueless figurehead like the press secretary said it lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riddle me this then: why doesn't the government just "move enough around" (likewise) to make it work out in their favor? They're bigger than any one company and can afford more accountants, right?

Better yet, ask yourself why do we need taxes at all if the government can just run the money printer and just make themselves however much money they need...
What? The government doesn't pay taxes to itself.

I'm saying the gigantic companies (Amazon, Walmart, etc.) "move enough around" to minimize how much they pay in taxes.

I'm not saying they create money that isn't there.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app



Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DosXX said:

Great question, it's explained briefly in this video at 10:40. Put (very) simply, it is in fact true the government doesn't need taxes to fund anything within the modern system of centralized banking and money printing; taxes are a means to end. Taxes give the dollar stability and value because it creates demand for it as the primary currency. 

https://youtu.be/N8HOWh8HPTo

Nicely put explanation that jives with my instinctual view that it is 'part of the system.' The US government requires payment in dollars and thereby implements taxation as a means to ensure that there is demand for their currency. This 'demand' is where its (the dollar's) legitimacy is derived.

One of my biggest personal lamentations is that the your average American has no idea why dollars are so important to the world, and also that there are enormous powers that want to usurp it (China, Russia, Iran). We have immense privilege being host to the world's reserve currency and if that status changed, I think people would lose their minds overnight with how rapidly the status quo in this country changed.

In other news, bitcoin has been bouncing around $60K for at least a few weeks now. Disintermediated transfer and store of value is a massive threat to the "system", and I would be shocked if it wasn't the soup of the day in board rooms around the world - which likely smell of rich mahogany. Personally, I spend a decent amount of time considering why such an asset could be considered so valuable. My conclusion is that it is because it's finite - which is in direct opposition to the central themes of MMT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, N730 said:

What? The government doesn't pay taxes to itself.

I'm saying the gigantic companies (Amazon, Walmart, etc.) "move enough around" to minimize how they pay in taxes.

I'm not saying they create money that isn't there.

Better yet, ask yourself why do we need taxes at all if the government can just run the money printer and just make themselves however much money they need...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some pretty funny stuff coming out about Sidney Powell's defamation lawsuit right now. Apparently the only strategy left for her is to intentionally dumpster her own lawyer credentials in the hopes a judge will deem her election fraud claims too far fetched to be believed by any reasonable person. 
 

..which is true. No one with half a brain should have believed her.  
 

But she was serious at the time and that's what matters. Trump seems to have this weird effect on people where they, like him, think they could get away with saying anything they want.  Here's to hoping trump and his merry band of idiots get absolutely cleaned out through these embarrassing lawsuits. Republicans need that if they want to take back control of their party. 
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Some pretty funny stuff coming out about Sidney Powell's defamation lawsuit right now. Apparently the only strategy left for her is to intentionally dumpster her own lawyer credentials in the hopes a judge will deem her election fraud claims too far fetched to be believed by any reasonable person. 
 

..which is true. No one with half a brain should have believed her.  
 

But she was serious at the time and that's what matters. Trump seems to have this weird effect on people where they, like him, think they could get away with saying anything they want.  Here's to hoping trump and his merry band of idiots get absolutely cleaned out through these embarrassing lawsuits. Republicans need that if they want to take back control of their party. 
 

 

It's the same legal defense that Fox News used, that no reasonable person should have considered them anything more than entertainment. 

Sadly I work with more than one person, all college educated and literate, that still believe the election was stolen. You're right, the party needs to alienate and shun these people if they want to stay relevant and viable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Country really going down the tubes amongst other things. At least nearly 50% of the country disagrees with the other so we have reached middle ground on a playing field which is not ideal. Now a *$4 Trillion package in the works. We get what we get and it’s the whole lot of them that aren’t relevant or viable and not just the one who got lucky he fell on the way up the stairs. Things keep printing under this admin and it will be like falling down the stairs = Nothing stops you all the way down right down to the bottom and as seen no one moves a muscle to help the Leader of the free world supposedly which was sad... as human nature should not be this way. Not the only President who battled the stairs repeatedly, but I do believe the only one to do it all at once. 45 more months left = We can afford to put in an escalator type air stairs in the next “rescue package.”
Most recent 1.9T Package - Saving crippled criminal states with your tax money since they are not fiscally responsible and other undeserving sectors. You might not pay for it, your kids and theirs will or most likely we won’t get out of it as some of mentioned before and yes this currency must remain relevant, but that’s not what the rest world or let’s just say China wants. Especially as China has now obtained full control of their money laundering system known as Hong Kong. Thank God for Brexit, that put a huge glitch in the one currency to rule them all mission as well as the politics that goes with it. Reset is another story. There will be consequences and that’s the greatest issue of a lot of attitudes now as they have not felt any. Granted, some never will as they have never lost anything they have earned thru hard work, it’s always been someone else’s effort. Interestingly enough, “Riots” continue with a bit more resistance than last year, sounds like their needs aren’t being met; therefore, like their sponsors the tantrum continues. Thankful our state did/does not succumb to weakness such as lack of intestinal fortitude and stamps that crap down. For those who fall back to 6 Jan as a distraction which wasn’t right by any means (small percentage actually crossing the line/barriers=stupid). If just half of the entire crowd participated and really had destruction on their minds, it would have been far greater of a loss of life/property than the unforgettable/unfortunate/unforgivable loss of 5. Truth be told, the entire Capital would have fallen and there were no true weapons of significance. Not good, but it’s telling on the overall intent despite a strategic mistake during such a critical time. At least the flag of Virginia says it all if this country goes full retro, but maybe that’s what the future holds by purity of the vote so be it.

There should never be a get out of jail free pass. But that really doesn’t matter anymore now does it as we all just have to “circle back to that” and never really do. That in a nutshell is what we have. We can do better on every front which is sad.

 

Edited by AirGuardianC141747
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So for the progressives on here who labeled Trump as a fascist...what say you about Biden and the Dems wanting to ban certain kinds of popular firearms?  You know...the same type of firearms that are only used in a small percentage of all murders.  Also, Biden supports (see link below), the police being able to go into your house and seize weapons without a warrant...also sounds a bit like what a fascist would want to do.

But in its first amicus brief before the High Court, the Biden Administration glossed over these concerns and called on the justices to uphold the First Circuit’s ruling. Noting that “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’” the Justice Department argued that warrants should not be “presumptively required when a government official’s action is objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2021/03/23/biden-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-let-cops-enter-homes-and-seize-guns-without-a-warrant/?sh=7f258e082829

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

So for the progressives on here who labeled Trump as a fascist...what say you about Biden and the Dems wanting to ban certain kinds of popular firearms?  You know...the same type of firearms that are only used in a small percentage of all murders.  Also, Biden supports (see link below), the police being able to go into your house and seize weapons without a warrant...also sounds a bit like what a fascist would want to do.

 I don't think anyone here views trump as a fascist. He's just an egomaniac who says stupid things and didn't take the office seriously.. which culminated in some pretty damaging stuff happening. 
 

but to answer your question, this is terrible policy from the left. They always try to leverage emotion after shootings to pass stuff like this and it's bullshit. But that's the democrat M.O... trash policies papered over by emotional appeals, media top cover, and coordinated messaging. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...