When liberals get into taxing vs spending debate with conservatives, conservatives always win because even if they lose, the entire premise of the argument upholds their notion that government spending is coming from tax dollars. All because a complete lack of understanding for how treasury works.

Why are you so concerned about a little inflation anyway? Who does that protect? People with stored cash. Who has a lot of cash sitting in accounts? So here you are arguing over a wealth tax so that you can carry out essential spending without a little more inflation which would diminish the value of...wealth

This also plays into the myth that "the rich" are paying for public services instead of "the country" paying for public services.

This fuels the idea that the poor are being carried on the backs of the rich and not the other way around.

I wish democrats would stop falling for this and stop subscribing to a fiscally conservative economic ideology.

7/23/2020 4:24:16 PM

Quote :

"So you agree that rents includes capital...which is my entire argument."

No, rents don't include capital. I agree that capital includes rents [as part of the whole of capital]. You say that is your entire argument is confusing since your early implications were that tax cuts cause employment and you didn't mention capital and tax cuts as a part of that until much later. If your entire argument is that people use capital to hire people, then I agree (actually I agree more about prospect of capital, but sure). However, where your frequent references to the benefits of reduced tax rates leads me to believe we disagree is on the subject of if extra capital (to use your term) from reduced taxes has a meaningful impact on hiring. The evidence discussed up to this point would say no since the same people would be hired with or without the tax cuts.

Property and income are both means of wealth, so extending your logic one could say wealth, and by inclusion property, are responsible for paying one's bills on time. But we would not because we understand the distinction that income has a much larger effect and if someone were to lose their job (i.e. income), paying those bills becomes near impossible, especially if that bill is a mortgage. Not a perfect analogy but mutatis mutandis.

As for https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5055

That is not a real life example, as in a study of the cause and effect link between something that happened at time 0 and outcomes at time n. It's a study on what they project the tax and jobs act would do for the economy, and when considering missed projects in areas such as tax receipts the projects do not prove out.

Do you have an example of a cause and effect link between reduced tax rates and direct growth of jobs as a result of those tax rates? Just so you know, saying no is okay. I don't think anyone is fooled and the items you keep cherry picking to support what you say don't support your claims at all. You might be surprised, but we'd actually respect you more if you speak honestly rather than digging in deeper.

7/23/2020 4:24:44 PM

Quote :

"HCH: That's what you got from that report? Let me guess, you didn't actually read the report because it conflicts with your world view. Sit down."

Quote :

" you literally posted that it would marginally increase the size of the economy and boost job creation"

this is a perfect encapsulation of what dude still does on here

7/23/2020 4:26:00 PM

Quote :

"No, rents don't include capital. I agree that capital includes rents [as part of the whole of capital]"

Then you are still not understanding rents. Here, I'll post the definition for you.

Quote :

"ec·o·nom·ic rent nounECONOMICS noun: economic rent; plural noun: economic rents the extra amount earned by a resource (e.g., land, capital, or labor) by virtue of its present use."

Quote :

"you didn't mention capital and tax cuts as a part of that until much later."

Typically it's assumed that tax cuts leads to capital going back to the business, since that capital is not being spent on the tax that was cut. One of the ways it is utilized is in additional hiring.

Quote :

"If your entire argument is that people use capital to hire people, then I agree (actually I agree more about prospect of capital, but sure)."

So this is the second area we have agreed on. Are we best friends now? Honestly, I have appreciated this conversation with you. It's made me recall some concepts on things like rents that I haven't had to think about since my grad school days.

Quote :

"However, where your frequent references to the benefits of reduced tax rates leads me to believe we disagree is on the subject of if extra capital (to use your term) from reduced taxes has a meaningful impact on hiring. The evidence discussed up to this point would say no since the same people would be hired with or without the tax cuts."

Again, I never argued how much of an impact tax cuts have on hiring, because that is impossible to argue. I've just argued the basic concept that additional capital allows for hiring (leading to lower unempolyment).

Quote :

"Do you have an example of a cause and effect link between reduced tax rates and direct growth of jobs as a result of those tax rates?"

First off, I will agree that measuring the impact of tax cuts is an inexact science, because cuts may not be fully felt for several months. However, the CBO actually did a comprehensive study of the number of jobs created by different government policies. It analyzed seven types of tax cuts. It found that the most cost-effective policy was payroll tax cuts targeted to new employees.

Quote :

"B A temporary reduction in payroll taxes—especially in the share of taxes paid by employers—would also have a significant positive shortterm effect on the economy. This approach would boost output and employment both by increasing demand for goods and services and by providing an incentive for additional hiring."

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11874/09-28-economicoutlook_testimony.pdf

Quote :

"Payroll tax cuts are the most cost-effective ways to increase jobs because they lower the cost of labor. These cuts create jobs in four specific ways: Companies with popular products immediately use the savings to hire more workers. Other companies use the savings to reduce prices. That increases demand, which necessitates hiring more workers. Some firms use tax savings to allow them to buy more goods. This benefits manufacturers. Many businesses use the cuts to raise wages to retain good workers. The workers spend more, increasing demand. According to the CBO, every $1 million in payroll tax cuts creates 13 new jobs."

Quote :

"I don't think anyone is fooled and the items you keep cherry picking to support what you say don't support your claims at all. You might be surprised, but we'd actually respect you more if you speak honestly rather than digging in deeper."

Iron sharpens iron. My arguments have been consistent and my sources have been clear and factual. Meanwhile you haven't provided a single source and you cant even get the definition of rents right. Also, I am not concerned about the respect of TWW.

[Edited on July 23, 2020 at 5:05 PM. Reason : 1]

[Edited on July 23, 2020 at 5:11 PM. Reason : double quote]

7/23/2020 5:01:15 PM

Quote :

"Then you are still not understanding rents. Here, I'll post the definition for you. Quote : "ec·o·nom·ic rent nounECONOMICS noun: economic rent; plural noun: economic rents the extra amount earned by a resource (e.g., land, capital, or labor) by virtue of its present use.""

I've emphasized the definition you provided, but it directly reflects what I described as rents early on. Rents come from capital, just as paper comes from trees. But rents are not capital in these definitions. While I'd say this definition also doesn't support your claim, I agree that the context of capital within these definitions is outside the general purpose context (i.e. monies), so I understand the confusion and think we can move beyond discussing these terms because now that we understand each other's context and can address premises within that context.

On the subject of premises:

Quote :

"since that capital is not being spent on the tax that was cut. One of the ways it is utilized is in additional hiring."

Quote :

"argued the basic concept that additional capital allows for hiring (leading to lower unempolyment)."

This is more congruent with the premise that I was challenging. This and the implied causation between TCJA and record unemployment . While I did not provide sources to counter that premise, as you justly pointed out, I did provide several examples employing classic economic theory and then cite trends seen post TCJA that refute the premise. I'll include the sources for those trends now

Unemployment by year: https://www.thebalance.com/unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506

and I have mapped it to show the change. Looking at the slope, if anything the evidence suggests job growth worsened following the cut, but I'm willing to stick with my original assertion that job growth did not improve (i.e. likely neutral but possibly worse).



But stock buybacks did certainly increase, and clearly more so than job growth. You'll notice it clearly in exhibit 2.
source: https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market-share-buyback-programs-fading-gone-years-coronavirus-bernstein-2020-4-1029068723#

Between the economic examples and post-TCJA data, I will stand by my premise because, despite CBO projections, the data available following the TCJA suggests the theorized connection between the cuts and employment did not pan out.

I'll note here that I do thank you for sharing something that supports your premise in your last post. When I say it supports your premise, I mean the initially inferred one of tax cuts raise employment (excludes how), and not the one you identified a few posts ago that tax cuts through employer capital raises employment. The latter CBO projections refute, assigning tax cuts to increased demand and demand then driving employment (demand as a primary driver being something to which we have already agreed).

Quote :

"GDP is pushed up in relation to potential GDP because the act increases overall demand for goods and services (by raising households’ and businesses’ after-tax income). The heightened economic activity subsequently generates more demand for labor and consequently higher wages. In response, the labor force participation rate (which is the percentage of people in the civilian noninstitutionalized population who are at least 16 years old and either working or seeking work) rises, as do the number of hours worked, and the unemployment rate goes down."

So here we are two days later or so and able to agree that demand is what really drives hiring and that tax cuts, presumably through demand generation through public discretionary funds rather than excess capital for the employer, put upward momentum on that demand even if that influence is hard to measure.

My thinking is that this particular instance, with an existing environment of low unemployment, relatively high wages, low taxes, and low interest rates, was not conducive to generating meaningful incremental demand through reduced tax rates, and that is why the TCJA impact on employment has been negligible. Likewise I'm willing to accept that the impact could be different if each of those environmental factors were reversed. This could also be an explanation for why in this scenario excess capital went to stock buybacks instead.

[Edited on July 24, 2020 at 10:29 AM. Reason : .'s]

7/24/2020 10:26:54 AM

I don't really have any interest in arguing over the definition of rents, when it clearly states that capital is a component of economic rents.

Quote :

"the evidence suggests job growth worsened following the cut, but I'm willing to stick with my original assertion that job growth did not improve (i.e. likely neutral but possibly worse). "

The decrease in job growth (even though we were still seeing growth) has been primarily attributed to approaching a near 0 unemployment rate. As unemployment decreases, you will naturally see a decrease of the slope due to the ever decreasing supply of unemployed workers. Now, obviously there are a ton of factors that influence that slope (decreasing supply in the job pool, recession, tax cuts just to name a few). But I think it's rational to assume any tax cut will have a lesser impact on a level of unemployment that we haven't seen in 50 years.

Quote :

"But stock buybacks did certainly increase, and clearly more so than job growth. You'll notice it clearly in exhibit 2."

I don't recall ever mentioning stock buybacks, but agree that one of the ways companies use additional capital, either by increased revenue or tax breaks, is with stock buybacks. They can also use that additional capital on new employees or capital and operating expenditures or to pay down debt or to pay dividends... The complicated part is figuring out the best way to encourage companies toward a certain behavior (such as hiring new employees). One of the bullets a government has is tax cuts, and as indicated in the CBO report, one of the most effective ways to increase employment is specifically thru a payroll tax cut.

Quote :

"The latter CBO projections refute, assigning tax cuts to increased demand and demand then driving employment (demand as a primary driver being something to which we have already agreed)."

I never disputed that demand drives employment, in fact that was the first item we agreed on. However, whether the capital comes from increased consumer spending or tax cuts, you cant hire new people if you don't have the money.

Quote :

"My thinking is that this particular instance, with an existing environment of low unemployment, relatively high wages, low taxes, and low interest rates, was not conducive to generating meaningful incremental demand through reduced tax rates, and that is why the TCJA impact on employment has been negligible. Likewise I'm willing to accept that the impact could be different if each of those environmental factors were reversed. This could also be an explanation for why in this scenario excess capital went to stock buybacks instead."

Completely agree. This is why economics is called the dismal science.

7/24/2020 11:20:47 AM

Any credit for the drug pricing EOs issued today?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/24/trump-executive-orders-drug-pricing-election/

7/24/2020 5:37:51 PM

No can do

[Edited on July 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM. Reason : ]

7/24/2020 5:42:23 PM

Go read the EOs. They don't do much if anything.

7/24/2020 6:20:36 PM

They cancelled Paw Patrol

7/24/2020 8:25:47 PM

I don't know if you're making a joke on the their attempt or not but it isn't canceled

7/24/2020 8:40:41 PM

I'm quoting Kayleigh McEnany. Are you telling me I can't trust the White House Press Secretary on a basic statement of fact?

7/24/2020 8:56:12 PM

I would tell you she is the worst.

7/24/2020 8:56:56 PM

^^Hmmm good point, I'll check my priors and withhold my biases

7/24/2020 10:47:40 PM

^^^lol

7/24/2020 11:06:43 PM

Fuck, if only. I’d probably vote for Trump if I never had to head Mayor Goodway’s voice again.

7/25/2020 7:22:57 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/26/sports/baseball/trump-yankees-pitch-deblasio.html?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage

What a bitch, -100 credibility

7/26/2020 8:01:03 PM

As much as I want to hate on the guy, I know I've seen him throw solid pitches somewhere before. As much as he is into machismo, I'd suspect he actually wants to go out and throw. I doubt he's focusing on the response, but I am curious what is holding him back.

7/27/2020 11:14:20 AM

It's a non story either way and shouldn't be in the news at all.

7/27/2020 11:37:58 AM

Other than just another example of his obvious and bewildering lies

7/27/2020 11:48:19 AM

Supposedly he Tweeted without clearing it with the Yankees and no one wanted him to do the pitch and all the players were going to kneel during the anthem anyway (and they did).

He Just saw the new about fauci throwing the pitch and wanted to counter it

7/27/2020 1:27:10 PM

Quote :

"Go read the EOs. They don't do much if anything."

Apparently they do enough to piss off the drug lobbyists.

Quote :

"A meeting with top #pharmaceutical executives that President Donald #Trump promised for Tuesday has been called #off Politico earlier reported because major drug lobbies, reeling from a series of executive orders, #refused to send any members."

7/27/2020 4:27:47 PM

Jr got suspended from Twitter for sharing hcq video

7/28/2020 10:24:13 AM

was that trump's deleted tweet too?

already seeing that crap fly around on facebook with the usual #wakeUp !!!! nonsense

7/28/2020 11:49:27 AM

Quote :

"A Houston doctor who praises hydroxychloroquine and says that face masks aren’t necessary to stop transmission of the highly contagious coronavirus has become a star on the right-wing internet, garnering tens of millions of views on Facebook on Monday alone. Donald Trump Jr. declared the video of Stella Immanuel a “must watch,” while Donald Trump himself retweeted the video. Before Trump and his supporters embrace Immanuel’s medical expertise, though, they should consider other medical claims Immanuel has made—including those about alien DNA and the physical effects of having sex with witches and demons in your dreams. Immanuel, a pediatrician and a religious minister, has a history of making bizarre claims about medical topics and other issues. She has often claimed that gynecological problems like cysts and endometriosis are in fact caused by people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches. She alleges alien DNA is currently used in medical treatments, and that scientists are cooking up a vaccine to prevent people from being religious. And, despite appearing in Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress on Monday, she has said that the government is run in part not by humans but by “reptilians” and other aliens."

7/28/2020 2:00:32 PM

hahaha

7/28/2020 6:51:14 PM

Can’t possibly want trump right? Like guy is a clown joe biden 2020 right?

7/28/2020 8:14:42 PM

He's going to take this country into another civil war without even lifting a finger. The Kyle Rittenhouses and Proud Boys will do it for him.

11/4/2020 7:07:18 PM

I'm not necessarily surprised, but i'm still amazed at how many of his supporters are on social media talking about vote fraud, with absolutely no evidence or factual basis, other than trump is mad.

I can't figure out what drives people to be so gullible and ignorant. I saw democrats buying into the fake melania thing, but that seems to be very different than believing someone is magically changing hundreds of thousands of votes while they're counting them.

11/5/2020 11:41:12 AM

Regardless of what you think is happening you have to admit the process breeds suspicion. Its perfect ammunition for Trump and groups like Qanon to recruit for the next 4 years.

I don't care about this outcome but I know what it feels like to be cheated. There may not be non-circumstantial "evidence" but there is definitely a lot of room for doubt being left by this insidious process especially when everyone already knows democrats rig their primaries.

There isn't enough transparency all around. What are the odds that the polls, media, democrats, and ballot timing all coincide to favor biden by a wide margin in these swing states and then he ends up barely winning them all by getting almost the exact number of mail in ballots he needed?

How did a massive state like Michigan cover the windows and count everything suddenly yesterday morning but NC and Georgia are stuck with 50,000 left for a day?

Georgia counted 250k this time yesterday but only 50k today. (Just when I posted this georgia and Nevada released some more votes at the exact same time. What are the odds of THAT?

They called Wisconsin and Michigan quickly with small margins but ts like they are trying to marinate a Biden lead instead of calling Trump state like North Carolina.

I get that Fairfax (where all the democrats are) hadn't posted any results but they called virginia with 1% reporting and trump up 12%. All of that stuff breeds suspicion even when its completely legitimate.

We also need to face the fact that the polls might not just be wrong, they might be rigged.


[Edited on November 5, 2020 at 12:28 PM. Reason : we already pay for the UN premium membership so why not use their election management feature?]

11/5/2020 12:11:36 PM

I, too, don't understand that different states have different election laws Earl.

11/5/2020 1:03:07 PM

Tell that to the MSM who keeps saying the "stop the vote" and "count the vote" stances in different states are contradicting.

11/5/2020 1:17:49 PM

Since they are all counting legitimate ballots, the chants ARE in fact contradictory

11/5/2020 1:26:52 PM

Quote :

"Its perfect ammunition for Trump and groups like Qanon to recruit for the next 4 years."

lol, Q is the fault of smug liberals.

Also, nice misleading picture and description.

11/5/2020 1:38:25 PM

Please explain the picture to me then.

Also I see what they are doing now after John King just stated the president cannot possibly win if he loses Pennsylvania.

They are waiting for The PA votes to come in and give Biden the lead so they can announce he won PA before other states finish counting. This will put Biden over 270 according to MSM and he will declare victory. Then they will tell all the red states they are allowed to finish counting. Controlling the narrative and public perception is what they do. Just like how most of the country believes Trump killed 230k people and some believe he killed 230 million because thats always how Biden exaggerated it in his harmless "gaffes".

[Edited on November 5, 2020 at 1:56 PM. Reason : don't play your hand until you know the cards left]

11/5/2020 1:55:52 PM

Boy I missed you

11/5/2020 2:01:17 PM

^^ Observers from both parties were in the room.

11/5/2020 2:13:22 PM

^3

1) Trump is the one who has come out twice to say he's won and has gone as far to say that he easily won. If anyone is trying to control the narrative about who has won it is Trump. He did this before votes were counted. If Biden does that after votes are counted, it isn't called a narrative but, rather, a victory speech.

2) The window covering is really fucking easy if you've read almost anything about it. Seriously, anything.

a) Each side already exceeded the 150 observers they could have inside. The people outside were being intimidating by both banging on the windows loudly and yelling at people working hard to count votes for the republic and also by taking photos of sensitive, private information on vote cards. It is very reasonable to cover windows to deter unrest and protect information of voters. I don't see how anyone could argue against it. But in case you could...

b) As the law states, there were already individuals inside the room. A ruling within the PA supreme court (not Michigan but bare with me) that was siding with Trump's requests for observations states that being far away when observing ballots has no value. This means there is legal standing to say those who were outside and removed from close observation were getting no value in the process. i.e. they already had no value in the process, so they lost no value and were not infringed upon when their view was further obstructed.

I have missed you, too, and that's why I'm going easy here. But seriously, like, any information available could have solved that question before you even posted it here. But then again, not doing that is why we need you

11/6/2020 9:21:31 AM

Trump has stated many times that he says what he wants and makes his spin to counter the media who is doing that against him. The difference is the media is full of professionals including neuroscientists and are psychology experts controling perception through their stories anyone opposing their narrative is mostly ineffective. The media narrative always comes out on top.

Quote :

"If anyone is trying to control the narrative about who has won it is Trump. He did this before votes were counted. If Biden does that after votes are counted, it isn't called a narrative but, rather, a victory speech."

The difference is that its ok when the media says its ok to and the perfect example is Pete Buttigeig in Iowa. He did exactly what Trump did and the media rolled with the flow. It was wrong in both cases but they treated the same situation two different ways depending on their alignment with the person doing it. By the time the media let the false narrative go, perception about what happened had already been instilled. They do this a lot. Install a fake narrative to deliver when everyone's attention is on a subject, then correct it days weeks or months later to avoid having their credibility challenged.

Quote :

" The window covering is really fucking easy if you've read almost anything about it. Seriously, anything."

Thats the point. Things we see with our own eyes become easy to accept after and only after we consume the media's narrative on it. Of course they always have a valid explanation. I'm not saying they don't. The point is that the media are the gatekeepers of what gets to be real and what gets to be fake when in reality, situations are often more complicated than that.

[Edited on November 6, 2020 at 10:41 AM. Reason : its scary genius how they use fake polls to persuade people how to vote. ]

11/6/2020 10:36:42 AM

So you're saying that you think both groups are creating a winning narrative, but it's okay that Trump has done it because he just happens to be bad at it and few people are buying into it? That doesn't seem like a logically consistent position to hold. Certainly not one based on any sort of conviction.

As for Mayor Pete, he was actually up without a statistically significant number of votes to keep counting. This was also for a primary. Surely you understand that announcing that you've won when you're ahead and all indications suggest you'll win one primary of many is much different than claiming victory when the trendline is not in your and as a result instilling distrust in our republic and the election of the president. Surely you do.

Also you must be rusty. Your edit is too obvious that it is a bait. I know it has been months but I'd like to think you can return to more subtle ways to trigger people.

11/6/2020 2:07:14 PM

^^

11/6/2020 2:10:05 PM

q curious

11/6/2020 2:12:24 PM

Quote :

"So you're saying that you think both groups are creating a winning narrative, but it's *not* okay that Trump has done it because he just happens to be bad at it and few people are buying into it?"

Fixed it. I was saying the opposite. Whoever wins the narrative, gets to set the bar on what is acceptable and what is not. The democratic party controled the primary data so of course they were able to reveal inaccurate data to make it look like it was what they wanted it to look like and then push that out through their MSM apparatus. They kept tidy as part of the scheme to get people like you to defend its credibility. Trump's intention is the same but he lacks that type of power and control.

When your party cheats its an honest mistake but when the other party cheat its because they hate democracy.

Quote :

"Surely you understand that announcing that you've won when you're ahead and all indications suggest you'll win one primary of many is much different than claiming victory when the trendline is not in your and as a result instilling distrust in our republic and the election of the president. Surely you do."

Being good at successfully cheating and getting away with it is a lot different from being bad at trying to cheat and failing.

The edit was more gloating than bait. I called the polls out as being unreliable months ago and you guys dragged me for it so now I can take this victory lap.

Hell yeah I'm rusty. I've been in an echo-chamber for months because MAGA and BLUEMAGA have been insufferable.

11/6/2020 4:38:38 PM

“ Trump Team Holds News Conference Outside Drab Landscaping Firm, Next to Adult Book Store”

https://apple.news/A919uAtJPQlyLwwQXzrzWOA

11/7/2020 11:27:24 PM

Oh, you meant the other Four Seasons.

11/8/2020 11:19:19 AM

^^ I hope we get the story behind that, too perfect an analogy for the trump admin

11/8/2020 12:47:13 PM

It’s truly perfect

https://www.curbed.com/2020/11/four-seasons-total-landscaping-trump-giuliani-philadelphia-perfect.html

11/8/2020 11:27:44 PM

Turns out one of the speakers at Four Seasons Total Landscaping is a convicted sex offender.

[Edited on November 9, 2020 at 12:57 PM. Reason : (not Giuliani)]

11/9/2020 12:55:58 PM

^ and? If he’s served his time and showed no signs of relapse, that doesn’t mean he can’t speak.

It’s more sketchy that he has a history of continually running for office, Trump’s claims of fraud are already ridiculous, but this guy is probably just trying to get free publicity.

11/9/2020 1:03:54 PM

I just think it's funny that a party obsessed with pedophilia-centric conspiracy theories chooses to give a convicted sex offender (two girls, 7 and 11) a prominent a speaking position.

In the reality-based world, I agree Brooks' history paints him as more of a gadfly than anything else. He told Giuliani what he wanted to hear and that was enough for the Trump campaign.

11/9/2020 1:51:48 PM