Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Homestar said:

Everyone keeps saying this, as if Twitter was an actual issue and not incompetence. 

I refer the poster to the preceding lines in the post excerpted as examples of "competence."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The border situation is a literal shit show and this administration has done absolutely nothing other than tacitly, if not openly, encourage the rush to the Rio Grande. 
 

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/a-man-made-disaster-at-the-border/

It’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that this is not even incompetence, but a deliberate long game strategy of obtaining a super majority of voters for one political party. 
 

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...