patrick.net

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.

The disability system is being massively abused. Plenty of able bodied people are registered as disabled when they are nothing of the sort. This kind of corruption was actively encouraged during Obama’s reign of terror. Mostly because disabled people may be struck from the ranks of the unemployed, thus driving that number down to territory where 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.

Not what most of us were hoping for when 0 offered us “hope and change.”

11th Record Setting Month: 155M+ Employed

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/155965000-employed-june-11th-record-setter-under-trump

LeonDurham says

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

If you applied that to Seimans and Bose Radio, yeah, it could create a shitton of medical equipment and audio research, design, and manufacturing jobs.

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.

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.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

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.

This is proven by the histories of Central America vs. the Asian Tigers.

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.
#2--You're splitting hairs with the explanation.

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

marcus says

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.

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.

Quigley says

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.

That is what the worst recession since the Great Depression did. Blaming it on Obama is idiotic.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

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.

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

Strategist says

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.

bwahahahahahahaha. And unicorns started dancing on gumdrop hills while leprechauns played.

LeonDurham says

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.

Not really. I think he was just trying to make a point.

LeonDurham says

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.

Tax cuts on the bottom line is what encourages the most investment. All else is just accounting gimmicks.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

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.

Yes, if you want the American consumers to subsidize and protect certain industries as a strategic play to make your country a stronghold in those industries, it can be done.

LeonDurham says

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.

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

LeonDurham says

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

Businesses make decisions in advance, in anticipation of a favorable business climate. That's how it works.

Strategist says

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

Fair enough--but let's not pretend that there's a deal already then.

Didn't you guys learn already from the "deal" that Trump made with N. Korea?

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2018/jul/31/n-korea-still-building-missiles-u-s-obs-1/

"U.S. spy agencies are seeing signs that North Korea is constructing new missiles at a factory that produced the country's first intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States, according to officials familiar with the intelligence."

LeonDurham says

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

CAT scans are needed, they will be made and brought.

It's not like US made CAT machines are going to cost 10x what German ones did.

LeonDurham says

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

So at what percentage should corporations be taxed ? At 100% there is no incentive to risk capital and labor if you know all your profits will be confiscated. How does taxing corporations encourage investment? Please explain as it makes no sense.

LeonDurham says

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.

Tax breaks encourage investment as taxes are raised?
Still makes no sense.
Oh wait, you are saying that our tax structure is the problem and corporations are incentivised to reinvest their profits instead of letting the profits be taxed. Is this correct?
And if this is correct would it not be better to lower all taxes so that successful companies can decide how to invest their money and create more jobs? Or are you in favor of redistribution and incentivizing people to go on the dole?

Tax breaks and deductions are bs and lead inevitably to crony capitalism/socialism. Just keep taxes at zero or as low as possible and eliminate all breaks, incentives, loopholes.

Onvacation says

At 100% there is no incentive to risk capital and labor if you know all your profits will be confiscated. How does taxing corporations encourage investment? Please explain as it makes no sense.

Yes, I agree. I would like to know what the perfect balance of taxation is to "create jobs".

The tax breaks for corporations was intended to make the US more competitive in a global market.

There are some advantages to lower taxes on corporations that do business internationally.

If the corporate taxes are too high, companies like Apple keep profits in foreign countries. This capital is lost from the USA economy.

Lower taxes meant many workers got more pay in the USA, which is now in the USA economy. Capital has many uses in an economy. If you want to see some effects of a lack of capital in an economy, visit Mexico.

Shareholders of companies that have more money from lower taxes gain with higher dividends and share prices. This means they can invest this capital or spend it. This is in the USA economy instead of languishing in foreign countries.

Lower taxes are a benefit to the USA economy and its workers and investors. The government is not a responsible user of your money.

Onvacation says

Oh wait, you are saying that our tax structure is the problem and corporations are incentivised to reinvest their profits instead of letting the profits be taxed. Is this correct?
And if this is correct would it not be better to lower all taxes so that successful companies can decide how to invest their money and create more jobs? Or are you in favor of redistribution and incentivizing people to go on the dole?

No, as the Trump tax cut has shown, companies will almost always take the money and give it to the top officers and shareholders instead of investing it:

http://time.com/money/5267940/companies-spending-trump-tax-cuts-stock-buybacks/

"We’re starting to learn what America’s biggest companies are doing with the huge windfalls from President Donald Trump’s tax cuts. And the answer is great for investors – but not so great for workers. That’s because many companies are returning huge portions of their billions in tax savings to shareholders in the form of share buybacks and dividend increases — not necessarily new hiring and investment."

https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/16/investing/stock-buybacks-tax-law-bonuses/index.html

"American companies have lavished Wall Street with $171 billion of stock buyback announcements so far this year, according to research firm Birinyi Associates."

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/what-did-corporate-america-do-tax-break-buy-record-amounts-n886621

"The Republican tax reform package that was supposed to raise wages and spur hiring has instead funded a record stock buyback and dividend spree, benefiting investors and company executives over workers."

Having a decent business tax rate along with benefits for investment helps create jobs.

It's funny. Obama created more jobs in his last 18 months than Trump did in his first 18 months.

Obama had multiple quarters of 4% growth.

But the sheeple somehow still believe that Trump has helped the economy. lol.

LeonDurham says

Goran_K says

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

I think trolling is against the rules here.

That's not trolling, that's simply asking about the logical conclusion of the assertion that taxing corporations creates jobs.

In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

LeonDurham says

It's funny. Obama created more jobs in his last 18 months than Trump did in his first 18 months.

It's funny, why not do it apples to apples, compare Obama's first 18 months to Trumps first 18.

How much QE has Trump added to economy to get new jobs? Obama added $4 Trillion.

LeonDurham says

But the sheeple somehow still believe that Trump has helped the economy. lol.

LoL..

MrMagic says

LeonDurham says

It's funny. Obama created more jobs in his last 18 months than Trump did in his first 18 months.

It's funny, why not do it apples to apples, compare Obama's first 18 months to Trumps first 18.

If someone really wanted to compare apples to apples, which they don't, then the 18 months before the inauguration would have to be included to see the trend going into the new presidency.

bob2356 says

If someone really wanted to compare apples to apples, which they don't, then the 18 months before the inauguration would have to be included to see the trend going into the new presidency.

Feel free to step up and provide some FACTS, DATA and links, instead of your normal hyperbole.

We'll be waiting...... and waiting....... and waiting....... and waiting......

MrMagic says

It's funny, why not do it apples to apples, compare Obama's first 18 months to Trumps first 18.

How much QE has Trump added to economy to get new jobs? Obama added $4 Trillion.

I thought the point was obvious. All the Trumpkins claim that Trump has done great things for the economy. If that were the case, I would have expected better job numbers after his election than immediately before his election. But the opposite is the case. Things have gotten worse, despite his tax plan borrowing trillions from future generations.

TrumpingTits says

Why @Patrick tolerates trolls like you here is beyond me.

TrumpingTits says

LeonDurham says

I think trolling is against the rules here.

Then why are you still allowed to post?

Seriously, it really doesn't get anymore blatant then what Leon posts on a daily basis.

LeonDurham says

MrMagic says

It's funny, why not do it apples to apples, compare Obama's first 18 months to Trumps first 18.

How much QE has Trump added to economy to get new jobs? Obama added $4 Trillion.

I thought the point was obvious. All the Trumpkins claim that Trump has done great things for the economy.

Nope, not obvious, but it will be as soon as you post Obama's numbers from his first 18 months as a comparison...

We'll be waiting...

TrumpingTits says

Then why are you still allowed to post?

Excellent--could you point to the post that you think is trolling?

MrMagic says

Nope, not obvious, but it will be as soon as you post Obama's numbers from his first 18 months as a comparison...

We'll be waiting...

No problem--I post data all the time. Here you go:



Trump first 18 months -- 3,432K jobs created
Obama last 18 months-- 3709K jobs created

TrumpingTits says

Are YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? No, really? That was a serious question. Especially since a) things are a helluva lot better no matter how you spin things (or try to) and b) he isn't borrowing TRILLIONS. The new econ stats prove that was a bunch of total crap! Larry Kudlow has been vindicated, pal.

Yes, I'm serious. Things are not better. Jobs created is down. GDP is the same. All the tax savings have gone to the 1% in the favor of stock buybacks and bonuses.

And the only reason that revenue is up is Trump gave in to multinational companies and let them bring their money back to the US. Once all the money is back, you can be certain the revenues will be down. And the trillions will be borrowed.

LeonDurham says

Trump first 18 months -- 3,432K jobs created
Obama last 18 months-- 3709K jobs created

Wow, now let's try this again, but this time, really try to use reading comprehension, OK?

MrMagic says

It's funny, why not do it apples to apples, compare Obama's first 18 months to Trumps first 18.

Leon, do you see the operative word in that sentence, "first". This is how you do an apples to apples comparison.

A "first" and "last" comparison shows absolutely nothing, except that you're just trolling again and being dishonest.

LeonDurham says

Excellent--could you point to the post that you think is trolling?

I just did.

LeonDurham says

Obama had multiple quarters of 4% growth.

But the sheeple somehow still believe that Trump has helped the economy. lol.

LOL

MrMagic says

Leon, do you see the operative word in that sentence, "first". This is how you do an apples to apples comparison.

A "first" and "last" comparison shows absolutely nothing, except that you're just trolling again and being dishonest.

That would be a dumb comparison. If Trump has helped the economy, you'd see a difference in the trend when he took over. The only difference is that Trump has made things worse. MrMagic says

LOL

lol--can you show me where Trump is improving things? Lest you forget, you are the one saying Trump is making things better. I am the one supplying the data proving that he is not.