patrick.net

rd6B says

thomasdong1776 says

The tax cuts were supposed to spur a new wave of investment. Instead, they triggered an all-time record binge of share buybacks – some $800 billion in 2018 – by some of America’s most profitable companies, and led to record peacetime deficits (almost $1 trillion in fiscal 2019) in a country supposedly near full employment.

Tax cuts did not lead to increased deficits unless FACTS DO NOT MATTER:

U.S. Tax Revenue by Year
FY 2020 - $3.64 trillion, budgeted
 FY 2019 - $3.44 trillion, estimated
FY 2018 - $3.33 trillion
FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion
FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion
FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion

Seems to me that problem is NOT tax receipts and tax cuts (receipts went up after cuts), but out-of-control spending, which is the thing tRUMP should be criticized for.

Agree with share buybacks tho, this should be made illegal - but ...

How is a company supposed to shrink shares from the float if they deem it necessary? Why shouldn't they be able to buy back their own shares? I can see nothing wrong with it. The market is "manipulated" at all times, when you announce news, share dilution, etc. etc. If you can dilute shares there must also be a way to shrink them besides a reverse split which also changes the price proportionally and is essentially a no-op.

mell says

How is a company supposed to shrink shares from the float if they deem it necessary? Why shouldn't they be able to buy back their own shares? I can see nothing wrong with it. The market is "manipulated" at all times, when you announce news, share dilution, etc. etc. If you can dilute shares there must also be a way to shrink them besides a reverse split which also changes the price proportionally and is essentially a no-op.

Problem is that share buyback can and is used by executives to goose their compensation.

rd6B says

Problem is that share buyback can and is used by executives to goose their compensation.

Wouldn’t this be better resolved with laws against excessive executive compensation?

rd6B says

mell says

How is a company supposed to shrink shares from the float if they deem it necessary? Why shouldn't they be able to buy back their own shares? I can see nothing wrong with it. The market is "manipulated" at all times, when you announce news, share dilution, etc. etc. If you can dilute shares there must also be a way to shrink them besides a reverse split which also changes the price proportionally and is essentially a no-op.

Problem is that share buyback can and is used by executives to goose their compensation.

True, but they could simply raise their base salary or yearly bonus, at least with the share buyback the investors (and many employees) participate too.

Shaman says

rd6B says

Problem is that share buyback can and is used by executives to goose their compensation.

Wouldn’t this be better resolved with laws against excessive executive compensation?

I'm really uncomfortable with "compensation laws", but surely one has to ask what happened between the times where executive to worker comp ratio was anywhere between 10:1 and 50:1 and nowadays where it is pretty much anywhere from 500:1 to 10000:1. Maybe we need some sort of inner/outer bounds for compensation codified into law.

Shaman says

Wouldn’t this be better resolved with laws against excessive executive compensation?

I don't know, perhaps executive compensation needs to be delayed for a few yrs to see if what they did to company works. Otherwise, we will have Boeing buying shares back like crazy and hiring "engineers" in foreign countries for $6/hr to design and program airplanes, with predictable results...no doubt money saved on hiring Americans was well-spent on buybacks.

mell says

I'm really uncomfortable with "compensation laws", but surely one has to ask what happened between the times where executive to worker comp ratio was anywhere between 10:1 and 50:1 and nowadays where it is pretty much anywhere from 500:1 to 10000:1. Maybe we need some sort of inner/outer bounds fro compensation codified into law.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, Wall Street Weasels will find a way to get around any laws...remember how they paid themselves $TRILLIONS in bonuses after Obama and Bush bailed them out on backs of taxpayers...

What we could use is some more shareholder control.

For example, demanding the Board demonstrate how 1000:1 compensation for executives provides returns superior to a 50:1 ratio, of course that cannot be done.

I believe many excellent Asian companies have senior Execs making a fraction of US Execs, but are the market leaders with superior sales and ROI.

I also don't like that many of the same Fortune 500 companies have shared board members across multiple huge multinational companies.

Shouldn't board members be focused on basically one huge company? Can they execute the same oversight of 8 companies vs. 1? Probably not.

Some dishonesty here, perhaps:

"The tax cuts were supposed to spur a new wave of investment. Instead, they triggered an all-time record binge of share buybacks – some $800 billion in 2018 – by some of America’s most profitable companies, and led to record peacetime deficits"

The stock buybacks were redomiciled corporate cash, formerly outside the US, brought back under Trump's 15.5% tax offer. Additional cash in the US economy, whether used for buybacks or not, is NOT the cause of deficits. As Mell above points out, tax receipts have increased under Trump. But yes, spending (particularly military) needs to be reduced.

"Likewise, Trump’s trade wars, for all their sound and fury, have not reduced the US trade deficit, which was one-quarter higher in 2018 than it was in 2016."

The NAFTA rework has only recently been adopted. 2018 will not show those results (nor will 2019). Likewise tariffs have only been levied against China in 2019. The 2018 results tell us nothing about the efficacy of Trump's "trade wars."

"And despite Trump’s vaunted promises to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US, the increase in manufacturing employment is still lower than it was under his predecessor, Barack Obama, once the post-2008 recovery set in, and is still markedly below its pre-crisis level."

I would like to see proof of this. Does manufacturing here mean "sandwich creator" as it did under GWB?

From a Quartz article (left-leaning), the top 10 industries that grew faster under Trump than Obama are heavy industry and resource-extraction related: mining (support), oil/gas, primary metals mfg, machinery mfg, mining (primary), fabricated metals mfg, rail transportation, electrical equipment mfg, computer/electronics mfg, rental/leasing services.

The top 10 industries that grew faster under Obama than Trump are service related: warehousing and storage, motion pictures/sound recording, other information services, department/general good stores, travel arrangement services, health/personal care stores, textile product mills, clothing stores, specialized design services.

https://qz.com/1347200/the-jobs-created-under-trump-are-different-than-under-obama/

"the low employment rate is not a surprise, not least because unhealthy people can’t work. Moreover, those on disability benefits, in prison – the US incarceration rate has increased more than sixfold since 1970"

Unhealthy people, disability, prison -- none have increased under Trump, compared with Obama. The low unemployment rate on the other hand IS improving under Trump.

goofus says

But yes, spending (particularly military) needs to be reduced.

Disagree here because for the most part, our boys aren't getting killed under Trump.

https://patrick.net/post/1329577

What Trump is doing is feeding the Pentagon cash but not allowing them to send the boys into harm's way w/o his oversight.

Remember, if you don't feed the Pentagon, you get assassinated. Just ask Jack (or Bobbie) Kennedy.

True enough, Rin. Some parts of the swamp are more lethal than others.

mell says

FY 2020 - $3.64 trillion, budgeted
 FY 2019 - $3.44 trillion, estimated
FY 2018 - $3.33 trillion
FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion
FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion
FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion

That's pretty thin tea to claim the tax cuts worked. Not sure where these numbers arrived from. But an increase of .01 Trillion recieved is nothing, wont keep up with low inflation. Everything else is estimated, by who?. Remember we are in an expanding ecconomy around 2 % growth but it was supposed be higher 3 4 5 6% according Trumpian economics. And the mojo Is fizzling but the cuts continue. TRILLION DOLLAR deficits as far as the eye can see. Real wages are flat. No question it has juiced the stock market. What happens when the economy flatens or goes into recession? Trump and the Republicans are praying it doesn't happen before the election.

And the hand wringing about the spending tuggs at the heart strings. Hardly a peep when this was passed. I remember Corker was oh so worried about the debt and voted for it anyway. They didnt want spending cuts they wanted stimulus if this was deficit neutral, no stimulus for the their corporate masters.

Chiromancer says

mell says

FY 2020 - $3.64 trillion, budgeted
 FY 2019 - $3.44 trillion, estimated
FY 2018 - $3.33 trillion
FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion
FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion
FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion

That's pretty thin tea to claim the tax cuts worked. Not sure where these numbers arrived from. But an increase of .01 Trillion recieved is nothing, wont keep up with low inflation. Everything else is estimated, by who?. Remember we are in an expanding ecconomy around 2 % growth but it was supposed be higher 3 4 5 6% according Trumpian economics. And the mojo Is fizzling but the cuts continue. TRILLION DOLLAR deficits as far as the eye can see. Real wages are flat. No question it has juiced the stock market. What happens when the economy flatens or goes into recession? Trump and the Republicans are praying it doesn't happen before the election.

And the hand wringing about...

The argument to cut spending is valid but there's no doubt the economy has been on fire under Trump, why is this even questioned when we have record low UE and fastest wage increases in the lower earners. We need to cut spending, the problem is that the leftoids and some of the mainstream Republicans have made it impossible to cut the most useless and largest segment: welfare and immigration, esp. illegal. If you take away all the incentives you'd save tens of billions each year and would reduce the amount of immigrants coming naturally. Revoke birthplace citizen right - it's a joke. Cut welfare and government fat, cut subsidies to big corporations, remove all unconstitutional "diversity"/AA laws and lay off anybody working in these useless positions sucking on the taxpayer's teat. To balance the budget, have a temporary wealth tax on the top 0.1% until the budget is balanced, which can and should only be implemented after all the steps mentioned before have been implemented, the removal of all money going to deadbeats and illegals.

goofus says

True enough, Rin. Some parts of the swamp are more lethal than others.

Which indicates that Trump cares about the lives of Ivanka, Don Jr, Eric, Tiffany, & Barron. Sure, he's a self-centered egotist but he also doesn't want to lose his children to 'unforeseen' accidents.

No doubt a classic which will be praised for generations.

Oh, it's actually a comedy. Darn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_VelociPastor

Finally, a decent Bee movie again. What a drought. Now, if VelociPastor devours a few IHL's and simpering cucks, the movie will be a timeless classic.

Blacks get Reparations, Muslims get Raperations, and HonkeyFucks get ReaperAtions.

:
What's this ? Integrity and intellectual honesty Trumping greed ?

Wtf ?

That's so un-American.

Chiromancer says

Not sure where these numbers arrived from.

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762

:
Reality check on the employment situation. For the illiterate out there, (or if you can't read the small print), low labor participation is a bad thing. It means the complete opposite of what low unemployment rate stats supposedly indicate.



Weird right ?

The unemployment numbers everyone gets so excited about represents the number of people eligible for unemployment benefits.

One would think male labor participation rates could go up at least a couple percent if the economy is so great.

mell says

there's no doubt the economy has been on fire under Trump

In my book there's plenty of doubt if male labor participation can't even inch up a little, not even with trillion dollar deficits.

marcus says

Reality check on the employment situation. For the illiterate out there, (or if you can't read the small print), low labor participation is a bad thing. It means the complete opposite of what low unemployment rate stats supposedly indicate.

Marcus, can you think of any unstoppable trend that would result in labor force participation dropping?

Something that had been known for decades would happen about now?

Here's a hint: 1950 + 65 = ???

I've brought this up with you over and over again, but maybe it's worth a third or forth or more try.

marcus says

The unemployment numbers everyone gets so excited about represents the number of people eligible for unemployment benefits.

Correct. People should at least know what the number is saying, and unemployment is literally the number of people on unemployment benefits list/ working population. It's not necessarily all unemployed people / working population.

marcus says

One would think male labor participation rates could go up at least a couple percent if the economy is so great.

Males are discriminated against in current labor market, in child custody, in criminal system (they get stiffer penalties than womyn for the same crimes by far), demoralized about "toxic masculinity", drugged at school for their natural behavior, and basically they all should go and just jump into sea so that womyn could live freely without being oppressed. No surprises then that they withdraw from society and become basement-dwelling losers. Trump has nothing to do with that.

NoCoupForYou says

I've brought this up with you over and over again, but maybe it's worth a third or forth or more try.

Just beCAUSE!

Why not just colonize the moon? A lot closer, and same issues.

Too easy to send distress signals from.

HeadSet says

Why not just colonize the moon? A lot closer, and same issues.

HeadSet says

Why not just colonize the moon? A lot closer, and same issues.

I believe Mars is much closer to the earth's atmosphere and has many more minerals and potential of water compared to the moon. I think they say it is actually easier to land on Mars than the moon - other than the longer journey.

OccasionalCortex says

So oh yeah, Musk Fluffers! Go ahead and drink the Flavor Aid....join the colony and D-I-E.

He will have no shortage of volunteers.

Regardless if going to Mars is worthwhile or not, the work that Space X has already achieved toward this goal has dramatically reducing the cost of space travel by pioneering the ability to reuse rockets.

Later this year, SpaceX will be sending astronauts up to the ISS. We no longer have to hitch rides on Russian rockets.

If you watch the opening to the Expanse series (on Amazon Prime) to can see lights in the canyon walls. Valles Marineris is 2500 miles long, 225 miles wide and up to 6 miles deep. You could fit several entire Grand Canyons inside it. That's a LOT of real estate. Probably water ice somewhere inside the structure that could be mined. Living under several meters of rock is good enough rad protection. And if it gets terrible, docs do research to mitigate radiation and promote DNA repair. Probably leading to life extension treatments as well.

socal2 says

HeadSet says

Why not just colonize the moon? A lot closer, and same issues.

I believe Mars is much closer to the earth's atmosphere and has many more minerals and potential of water compared to the moon. I think they say it is actually easier to land on Mars than the moon - other than the longer journey.

Closer? The pressure that exists on Mars is 2hat we refer to a vacuum by Earth standards. It's .006 atm.

The best option is Venus, in airship floating cities (think Bespin from Star Wars 2: ESB), 50+ miles above the surface, where the atmospheric pressure is ~1 earth atmosphere & where the gravity is similar to earth's own.

This way, ppl may need to wear an acid resistant suit while walking outdoors, along with a gas mask to an O2 tank, but won't have to be in pressurized space suits all day along.

Sure, if you fall off the airship, you're pretty much dead even before hitting the ground but at least it'll be quicker than long term radiation sickness for almost anyone deciding upon Mars.

long term radiation sickness for almost anyone deciding upon Mars.

Venus has no magnetic field, so radiation may still be an issue.

The moon is a much better bet. Not only is there a permanent dark side which would be virtually radiation free, but it’s close to Earth for resupply and such, and the regolith is full of Helium 3, which would be great fuel for fusion reactors. The moon would be an excellent Gas n Go for the rest of the solar system.
All habitations should be underground of course.

Mars is a death trap at this point. Not only is there no reasonable atmosphere, but the soil is HIGHLY toxic with heavy metals and arsenic pervasive. Cleaning it would be a highly involved and extremely intensive process. And importing soil to use to grow food would be ridiculously expensive. Add to this a gravity well that is significant, and it’s quite likely that any trip to mars would be both one way and a death sentence.

I’d want to look out a bit further to the planetoids like Ceres for bases off of Earth. Less gravity, radiation, and possible water to use. Some have mentioned the moons of Jupiter, but the planet itself is close and emits a ridiculous level of radiation which the moons provide no defense against.

Space is going to be difficult. Our best bet is to construct a large space station/hotel/shipyard in the LaGrange point between the moon and the Earth (the point at which the gravity of the moon and the Earth balances to zero.).
Near earth asteroids could be mined and their usable mass of water and minerals sent on unmanned vehicles back to this LaGrange Station, allowing for construction materials for both the station and larger more capable deep space ships which could try out various drives. With the means to test different engines, we might arrive at a truly revolutionary technology which would open the solar system to human exploration and exploitation. But we have to construct many of these ships outside a gravity well.

For example of a drive which would send us around much faster, check out the microwave drive. The thrust seems minimal, maybe 1/100th of a G, but it is constant and can be maintained indefinitely with a nuclear reactor on board. Constant thrust builds to significant velocities over time, which would allow us to make much longer journeys in a fraction of the time.

HeadSet says

long term radiation sickness for almost anyone deciding upon Mars.

Venus has no magnetic field, so radiation may still be an issue.

Oddly enough, given Venus's atmosphere, its ionsphere does interact with the Solar winds to generate a type of slim magnetosphere.

https://www.astrobio.net/also-in-news/a-magnetic-surprise-from-venus/

So while it's not as protective as the earth's intrinsically occurring one, it does give a bit for protection for the twilight and night time sides of the airships so that walking outdoors may still be a possibility whereas during let's say midday, all personnel may need to be indoors and under the airship's coverings ( varied composites summing up to 4" of lead in total), for maximum protection. All and all, while it ain't perfect, it certainly beats the automatic radiation sickness which will occur on Mars unless everyone lives underground in heavily lead shielded prison compartments. Seriously, if one wants to live like that, basically like a rat, it's better to be onboard a spaceship towards Alpha Centauri than rotting on a dead world like Mars.

Mars:
- gravity 38% of earth, no guaranty humans can live long term in such gravity.
- pressure low enough so the fluids in your lungs will start to boil instantly and kill you
- radiations: no magnetic field and atmosphere not thick enough to protect from deadly radiations
- temperatures: outer edge of habitable zone. Usually too cold.

Titan:
- gravity: 0.138 g: slightly less than moon. Too low for humans.
- pressure: 150% of earth. Good.
- radiations: thick atmosphere offers protection from radiations.
- temperature: receives 1% the sun light of earth, and 90% of that is absorbed by the atmosphere, leaving you with 0.1% of earth sunlight, and external temps of −180 °C.
- other challenges:
- Titan's atmosphere contains hydrogen cyanide, and is extremely toxic for humans, and it contains no oxygen.
- very very long trip to get there.

Venus:
- gravity: 90% of earth: check
- pressure on surface: 90x that of earth, around the same as 1000m under water. Enough to crush a car. But at 50km elevation: around 1 atmosphere.
- radiations: no magnetic field, but thick atmosphere can protect from radiations.
- temperatures: around 1000 degrees F on surface. At 50km elevation: 0-50C so good for humans.
- Other challenges:
- sulfuric acid
- constant lightening storms.
- days 117 earth days long, meaning long eras of frying followed by freezing. But high elevation winds circle the planet every four Earth days.


I feel pretty good here on earth. It's way easier to build artificial islands or live underground on earth.

I don't foresee colonies of people living on Mars ever. It will probably be more like small outposts of scientists like we have in Antarctica.

By the time we are ready to send the first humans, SpaceX will have already landed and retrieved the big Starship rockets and will have several more rockets pre-positioned for supplies.

the funny thing is, the same group of people that insist that a one degree shift in temperature is going to cause mass migrations and ecosystem devastation somehow think we can colonize a planet that has no atmosphere, ultrafreezing temperatures, solar radiation, and poisonous soil.

Shaman says

The moon is a much better bet. Not only is there a permanent dark side

It's called the dark side because we never see it. Which also helps to make it the ideal off planet launch pad. The moon always shows the same face to us while the rest of it faces the universe.