patrick.net

Corporate tax breaks do NOT create jobs

Fresh from today's headlines:

https://www.politicususa.com/2018/08/03/trump-flops-as-jobs-president-as-job-growth-numbers-post-5-year-low.html

"The U.S. economy added a disappointing 157,000 jobs in July, and the unemployment rate fell to 3.9%. This is the slowest job growth in five years, as the numbers fell shot of expectations.
Economists predicted 190,000 jobs, instead the number is 157,000. 157,000 is not good, according to Donald Trump grading President Obama back in December of 2012."


Care to revise that statement?

Not at all. More available jobs than takers. You can't get better numbers than that. No point creating more jobs.

We had bigly tax cuts, quickly followed by a record number of new jobs.

Corporate tax breaks do NOT create jobs

Taxing corporations does not create jobs either.

Actually it does. It encourages investment which typically creates jobs.

So why not just tax corporations at 100% and creates lots of jobs?

I think trolling is against the rules here.

It is. So you going to answer the question?

How do you square your theory that there are more jobs than people with this though:

Strategist says

Not at all. More available jobs than takers. You can't get better numbers than that. No point creating more jobs.

lol--but this is what you said:

Strategist says

We had bigly tax cuts, quickly followed by a record number of new jobs.

So, now you agree that the tax cuts didn't create jobs. Good.

Simple. The participation rate takes into account those who cannot work. If you cannot work you will not be a job taker.

Where did I say "tax cuts didn't create job

Strategist says

Simple. The participation rate takes into account those who cannot work. If you cannot work you will not be a job taker.

Interesting. So all those people got disabled from 2008 to 2014 and then suddenly the disease stopped? Did we create a new vaccine when I wasn't looking? How do you account for that?

Goran_K says

It is. So you going to answer the question?

The question is an obvious troll, but I'll play.

If raising tariffs is good for the economy, why not put a 1000% tariff on everything?

If raising tariffs is good for the economy, why not put a 1000% tariff on everything?

Look closely at your participation rate chart. We hit a new low just before the 2016 election. As soon as Trump won, the trend changed for the better.

Strategist says

Look closely at your participation rate chart. We hit a new low just before the 2016 election. As soon as Trump won, the trend changed for the better.

I don't see a trend change at all. I see it flattening out at a low level, A process that started before the 2016 election. I do see a lowest low in mid 2015, but then the next five "highs" of the little gyrations are at about the same level.

A change in trend would show higher highs.

A downward trend that goes to a flat trend, is still a change in trend.

If raising tariffs is good for the economy, why not put a 1000% tariff on everything?

oran did not ask you to "play" He just asked you to answer a very simple question, but you didn't because you couldn't.

The demand would be the same, but the tariff would make it no longer viable to purchase equipment from German companies, that would be replaced by domestic production.

Trump is not using tariffs because "they're good for the economy" he used them as a bargaining tool to gain leverage in negotiations with the EU which obviously worked since there is a new deal between the EU and the United States where the EU gave the US some of the concessions Trump was looking for and the tariffs are now going to disappear.

ook closely at your participation rate chart. We hit a new low just before the 2016 election. As soon as Trump won, the trend changed for the better.
Yes, we created a new vaccine when you weren't looking. It's a not so secret formula called "Trump's Tax Cuts"

Strategist says

A downward trend that goes to a flat trend, is still a change in trend.

Okay, a trend that started in 2015 (or early 2016 depending on how you define it).

And now, even with massive increase in deficit spending (massive increase compared to what it would have been without the tax cuts), we don't see the labor participation rate trending higher.

Obama could claim credit for reducing unemployment. Turning people from unemployed to disabled isn’t a noble deed, however, and this cup and ball magic trick was not explained to the public.
What Obama’s real legacy will show is that he transformed millions of able workers into dependent derelicts, drug addicted and hopeless.

The demand would be the same, but the tariff would make it eno longer viable to purchase equipment from German companies, that would be replaced by domestic production.

Look at the graph again. The lowest point reached was late 2016, exactly when Trump was elected. That is when the trend changed.
Without the tax cuts and without the confidence boost that Trump gave, the downward trend would have continued.

Strategist says

oran did not ask you to "play" He just asked you to answer a very simple question, but you didn't because you couldn't.

lol--you're kidding, right? He asked a very trollish, meme like question.

I thought the answer was fairly obvious. The way our tax structure gives breaks to capital investment encourages more investment as taxes are raised. Obviously, if you go to the extreme limit, then other problems are encountered.

The former were run by rich mine and plantation owners who had no protective tariffs and imported all their finished and luxury goods from Europe for much of their first part of existence. Hence no industry developed, and no middle class, and weak taxation, infrastructure, and economy.

The latter tariffed the fuck out of imported finished goods and made everything at home, and then for export.

The UK also. The "Invisible Hand" of Tariffs on Linen brought the Textile Industry to England, and then the Industrial Revolution happened because England had captured the Textile market with Protectionist Mercantilism.

Goran_K says

Trump is not using tariffs because "they're good for the economy" he used them as a bargaining tool to gain leverage in negotiations with the EU which obviously worked since there is a new deal between the EU and the United States where the EU gave the US some of the concessions Trump was looking for and the tariffs are now going to disappear.

#1--there is no new deal. If you really think there is a concrete agreement, please link to it.

Strategist says

ook closely at your participation rate chart. We hit a new low just before the 2016 election. As soon as Trump won, the trend changed for the better.
Yes, we created a new vaccine when you weren't looking. It's a not so secret formula called "Trump's Tax Cuts"

You're kidding. The tax law didn't take effect until 2018. It cannot possibly explain anything happening in 2016

A concrete agreement never was and never can be expected instantly. You have to wait until the end of the negotiations.

That's incorrect. The demand would be less as prices rose.

Actually it does. It encourages investment which typically creates jobs.

I thought the answer was fairly obvious. The way our tax structure gives breaks to capital investment encourages more investment as taxes are raised. Obviously, if you go to the extreme limit, then other problems are encountered.