Can Trumps economic plan work?

[GMDino]

(01-10-2017, 12:57 PM)Benton Wrote: That's been the weird trend when Republicans gain Legislative and Executive control. I say weird because I don't think the real plan has ever been to break the country with excessive spending, but that's the direction the "conservative" party tends to swing when they get enough majorities.

And that's pretty frustrating for anyone with a fiscally responsible vote to cast. There really isn't anyone to throw the vote at, just two parties looking to spend, spend, spend.

Usually accompanied by "we don't have enough money (can't afford) to cover  a,b,c."

Look to Kansas.  Look to Kansas.... 

[*bfine32*]

The short answer is: Nobady knows.

You could get two MacroEconomists with Masters degrees from the most prestigious University and they would come to different conclusions.

I hope it does; I'm just not sure everyone else does.

[Benton]

(01-10-2017, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The short answer is: Nobady knows.

You could get two MacroEconomists with Masters degrees from the most prestigious University and they would come to different conclusions.

I hope it does; I'm just not sure everyone else does.

To be bold, then bring Nobady in. If he knows if it will work, we can either sit back and leave Trump alone, or fix it before it goes off the rails.

To the last line, then those cheering for failure are morons. Trump's one of the last people I'd want as president as he embodies 90% of what I think is wrong with the country the last several decades. But I hope he's the most successful president in history. Same with Obama (who was the other 10% of what's wrong), as with Bush The W (back to that 90%), Clinton, Bush The First. I was too young during the Reagan era, but I'd have rooted for him to get his head out of his rear, too.

But being supportive shouldn't blur the line of holding them accountable. I was supportive of Bush The W; I still criticized going to war and reducing taxes. I was supportive of HCR; I still criticized having a system mandating single payers without enough price controls (outside of just throwing tax money as a deduction). I was supportive of getting a blow job in the Oval Office; I still criticized NAFTA.

[Bengalzona]

(01-10-2017, 12:57 PM)Benton Wrote: That's been the weird trend when Republicans gain Legislative and Executive control. I say weird because I don't think the real plan has ever been to break the country with excessive spending, but that's the direction the "conservative" party tends to swing when they get enough majorities.

And that's pretty frustrating for anyone with a fiscally responsible vote to cast. There really isn't anyone to throw the vote at, just two parties looking to spend, spend, spend.

I didn't mean government spending, although that did happen during the Reagan and Bush admins and could happen again with Trump's planned public work projects and his planned Navy expansion. I meant public spending. Businesses will expand because of tax breaks and deregulation opening new opportunities. Individuals will have a little more money to spend due to planned tax breaks and due to reduced lending requirements from deregulation. The same deregulation will eventually cause a financial crisis. When that happens, traditional conservative thought is to let it "run it's course" and not have government interference. 

[GMDino]

(01-10-2017, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The short answer is: Nobady knows.

You could get two MacroEconomists with Masters degrees from the most prestigious University and they would come to different conclusions.

I hope it does; I'm just not sure everyone else does.

(01-10-2017, 03:26 PM)Benton Wrote: To be bold, then bring Nobady in. If he knows if it will work, we can either sit back and leave Trump alone, or fix it before it goes off the rails.

To the last line, then those cheering for failure are morons. Trump's one of the last people I'd want as president as he embodies 90% of what I think is wrong with the country the last several decades. But I hope he's the most successful president in history. Same with Obama (who was the other 10% of what's wrong), as with Bush The W (back to that 90%), Clinton, Bush The First. I was too young during the Reagan era, but I'd have rooted for him to get his head out of his rear, too.

But being supportive shouldn't blur the line of holding them accountable. I was supportive of Bush The W; I still criticized going to war and reducing taxes. I was supportive of HCR; I still criticized having a system mandating single payers without enough price controls (outside of just throwing tax money as a deduction). I was supportive of getting a blow job in the Oval Office; I still criticized NAFTA.

I am sure there are plenty of morons.

Personally, since the night of the election, I have said I hope I am wrong.  I hope that somehow Trump will make the country booming again.

But like Benton said that doesn't mean he is free from criticism or mocking when he acts the fool.

Don't let that be confused with rooting against him.  It's pointing out his flaws.

[Bengalzona]

(01-10-2017, 03:26 PM)Benton Wrote: I was supportive of getting a blow job in the Oval Office; I still criticized NAFTA.

I think the occasional Presidential hummer could be a tremendous asset to their decision making.   

[Rotobeast]

(01-10-2017, 03:26 PM)Benton Wrote: To be bold, then bring Nobady in. If he knows if it will work, we can either sit back and leave Trump alone, or fix it before it goes off the rails.

I see what you did there.

Where the hell is Agoody, when you need him ?

[hollodero]

(01-10-2017, 11:22 AM)Benton Wrote: The flip side of that is when companies like Hostess. Back when we had Twinkiegeddon, the CEO of Hostess was quick to point out that workers refused to take another pay cut (they'd already accepted reduced wages and decreased benefits to keep the doors open). The union moved forward with a strike because during that same time, the CEO got a 300% pay raise and most of the upper management got significant pay increases as well.

Well isn't that cute.

(01-10-2017, 11:22 AM)Benton Wrote: As far as the tariffs and effect on other markets, don't know. But it's doubtful it will have a huge impact.

Using India, a quick search had a Toyota Corolla going for about the same in India as it does in the U.S. (just under $20k or 1,493,491 rupees). They're going to sell more Corolla's here than India (according to one web site, it's about 7 times more right now). If US made goods cost more, they're still going to sell more because US workers still make more.

Sure, that is true for the home market. I more referred to the fact that Americans pretty much have cars already and just need to replace the broken ones... but there are soo many Chinese people without one. From what I've heard more and more of them don't dig walking any longer. You want access to those markets, or your production is limited and your trade deficit is still here to stay - just with less goods overall. That would have been my point.

(01-10-2017, 12:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The decreased reliance on the top category, which includes tariffs as they are a type of excise tax, and corporate tax has caused the increased reliance on the payroll taxes (OASDI, HI, FUTA) which are paid part by corporate and part by individual. This is a result of globalization, and whether it is something that should be reversed somewhat and how much is a matter of great debate among economists. So that is what I tend to look at, is the revenue generation.

Would it help our economy? Who would pay the price for it? If other countries aren't taking similar measures, will we just be shooting ourselves in the foot? Are we going to cut in other places and ignore the massive debt?

Sure, very complicated.
Might be my being a naive leftie (in reality I'm just naive), but it sure would help to smoke out tax-evading havens like Cayman et al. Isn't that just a very simple truth behind that very complicated graph.

(01-10-2017, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The short answer is: Nobady knows.

Vontaze?

(01-10-2017, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I hope it does; I'm just not sure everyone else does.

Hmm. On the one side, you guys would face an easier, happier living if it works out. On the other hand, it would mean I was wrong and that very much not likeable Donald guy would be a success.
Guess to me it depends how nice you are towards me.

[Benton]

(01-10-2017, 03:35 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I didn't mean government spending, although that did happen during the Reagan and Bush admins and could happen again with Trump's planned public work projects and his planned Navy expansion. I meant public spending. Businesses will expand because of tax breaks and deregulation opening new opportunities. Individuals will have a little more money to spend due to planned tax breaks and due to reduced lending requirements from deregulation. The same deregulation will eventually cause a financial crisis. When that happens, traditional conservative thought is to let it "run it's course" and not have government interference. 

Ah. I getcha. 

What businesses do is concerning, but ultimately it's up to them. My first thought (and personal concern) is how much the government involves itself in that.

(01-10-2017, 10:30 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure, that is true for the home market. I more referred to the fact that Americans pretty much have cars already and just need to replace the broken ones... but there are soo many Chinese people without one. From what I've heard more and more of them don't dig walking any longer. You want access to those markets, or your production is limited and your trade deficit is still here to stay - just with less goods overall. That would have been my point.

I should have explained it better. 

Keeping with the India example (because I already looked up the Corolla cost), there's lots of folks needing a car, as opposed to here where they're replacing cars. But the issue is, even though there's a lot of folks without a car, there's not a lot of folks who can afford one. The car is basically the same price, but the wages to buy the car are very different. In India, the 1.7 million rupees is a large sum. In America, $20k isn't as bad even for lower paid workers. You'd have to bring massive amounts of cash or assets into a society to elevate those large populations to the degree where they have the purchasing power of smaller countries. And that's not generating wealth, it's only moving it around.

There may be a lot of people to tap into in markets like India and China, but I don't know if their population with extra income will ever offset the population that's in abject poverty. America — and in most of Europe — you've got enough people making money to afford vacuum cleaners and shoes. If wages rise with the cost of goods, they can keep buying, which keeps the economy going. 

[hollodero]

(01-11-2017, 01:30 AM)Benton Wrote: I should have explained it better. 

Keeping with the India example (because I already looked up the Corolla cost), there's lots of folks needing a car, as opposed to here where they're replacing cars. But the issue is, even though there's a lot of folks without a car, there's not a lot of folks who can afford one. The car is basically the same price, but the wages to buy the car are very different. In India, the 1.7 million rupees is a large sum. In America, $20k isn't as bad even for lower paid workers. You'd have to bring massive amounts of cash or assets into a society to elevate those large populations to the degree where they have the purchasing power of smaller countries. And that's not generating wealth, it's only moving it around.

There may be a lot of people to tap into in markets like India and China, but I don't know if their population with extra income will ever offset the population that's in abject poverty. America — and in most of Europe — you've got enough people making money to afford vacuum cleaners and shoes. If wages rise with the cost of goods, they can keep buying, which keeps the economy going. 

OK, sounds all logical and educating (although I always feel that this has to lead into armageddon since the ressources and the planet don't grow accordingly, but be it, what do I know. Ignore these brackets).
A Corolla now certainly is one distinct product, whilst "growth" as you define it (keeping the economy going) is a result of a span over all sorts of products, the important factor being overall purchasing power. Maybe Corollas isn't what the Indian market needs, but incomes are growing, hence demand is growing, after whatever rocks an Indian's boat.

Now in your model the US salary grows, prices grow, products get still sold and we created more zeros behind the numbers of our balances. We buy new cars, TVs, magic pyramids and easter themed socks and keep the wheel spinning. 
Problem is - it was assumed earlier that US workers would take an actual paycut. At least not a substantial raise. Which kind of seems contradictory. In this case, Indian and Chinese (and other) markets would have to be growth providers (for the wages there are on a more distinct rise, so products of heightened total price can be sold there). These markets would bear the potential, while American wages at least grow less rapidly and hence can't provide what you call growth in a similar extent; hence there's a "growth potential gradient"; hence the foreign markets are utterly important for potential growth; hence tariffs make everything worse. Isn't that true?

[JustWinBaby]

(01-10-2017, 07:50 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You have to show me the evidence before I can refute it. 

In case you haven't figured it out (and you haven't), I'm just repurposing your own drunken logic against you. 

The challenge is for you to present evidence that supports what you're claiming.  That's kind of how the scientific method works, which you show yet again you're either ignorant of or that science is just too hard. I don't have to prove man isn't causing catastrophic global warming, that's not how this works.

In case you haven't figured it out, I'm demonstrating you're complete lack of logic and the fact that your claims aren't based on anything scientific you've actually read.

So, one more time - what jobs and how many jobs?  I honestly don't know and would like to know.  Or perhaps it's the case you were just parroting some article on HuffPo and actually have no idea.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-11-2017, 03:17 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The challenge is for you to present evidence that supports what you're claiming.

That's exactly what I and many others have asked of you.  The studies you have read indicate climate change is a hoax.  If so, I should come to the same conclusion after I read the studies.  Or you could at least explain why climate change is a hoax based upon your reading of the studies.

After all, you want me to post a study so you can critique it.  I haven't read any studies.  So just critique the ones you have read for me.

Quote:That's kind of how the scientific method works, which you show yet again you're either ignorant of or that science is just too hard.  I don't have to prove man isn't causing catastrophic global warming, that's not how this works.

The scientific method doesn't involve me reading a study, posting a study, and you telling me the study is wrong.  That's not how the scientific method works at all.  That's how internet trolls who don't understand the scientific method work, though.  Although it is comically amusing to me to watch you pretend like it is.

Quote:In case you haven't figured it out, I'm demonstrating you're complete lack of logic and the fact that your claims aren't based on anything scientific you've actually read.

I haven't claimed climate change is real or a hoax.  I haven't claimed I've read any studies on climate change.  The only actual claim I have made is that my mind isn't made up and I'm open to either possibility based upon the evidence.  

You made the claim you have read actual studies on climate change.  You further claimed climate change is a hoax based upon those studies.  I want to read what you read.  So I can make an informed opinion.  You're not demonstrating any flaw in my logic because the only thing I have done is asked to read the studies. I have withheld forming an opinion on the legitimacy of climate change claims until I can make an informed opinion.  But, you're withholding the information you read which proves climate change is a hoax.  

You can just as easily comment on the studies you have read as any study I might post. In fact, it would be easier for you to critique the studies you have read since you have already reviewed the material and have formed an opinion.  Even you aren't obtuse enough or drank enough alcohol to think you're fooling anyone with this charade.

Quote:So, one more time - what jobs and how many jobs?  I honestly don't know and would like to know.  Or perhaps it's the case you were just parroting some article on HuffPo and actually have no idea.

You show me yours, I'll show you mine.  Maybe you're just parroting something you read on Grindr.

[GMDino]

(01-11-2017, 03:17 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The challenge is for you to present evidence that supports what you're claiming.  That's kind of how the scientific method works, which you show yet again you're either ignorant of or that science is just too hard.  I don't have to prove man isn't causing catastrophic global warming, that's not how this works.

In case you haven't figured it out, I'm demonstrating you're complete lack of logic and the fact that your claims aren't based on anything scientific you've actually read.

So, one more time - what jobs and how many jobs?  I honestly don't know and would like to know.  Or perhaps it's the case you were just parroting some article on HuffPo and actually have no idea.

You're just bringing this on yourself.

The climate studies you claimed to have read and never produced is just going to keep biting you in the arse when you demand others provide proof and youdon't even share a link.

[hollodero]

(01-11-2017, 07:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: You're just bringing this on yourself.

The climate studies you claimed to have read and never produced is just going to keep biting you in the arse when you demand others provide proof and youdon't even share a link.

...and fair enough. Really.
But is it really necessary to derail my beautiful, orgasm-inducing economics thread with pointless tirades about the admittedly quirky behaviour of a climate change denier?
At this point, it becomes pointless to do so. There's no subbstantial debate to be expected from that, and everyone probably already saw what you want everyone to see.

[GMDino]

(01-11-2017, 08:05 AM)hollodero Wrote: ...and fair enough. Really.
But is it really necessary to derail my beautiful, orgasm-inducing economics thread with pointless tirades about the admittedly quirky behaviour of a climate change denier?
At this point, it becomes pointless to do so. There's no subbstantial debate to be expected from that, and everyone probably already saw what you want everyone to see.

I agree with you, but he wants to derail it, not me.  I was enjoying reading but he wants to play a game and change the rules as he goes along.  These discussions work better when there is an exchange of ideas and information, not when one or two decide they demand info from someone else when they won't provide it themselves.

[hollodero]

(01-11-2017, 08:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: I agree with you, but he wants to derail it, not me.  I was enjoying reading but he wants to play a game and change the rules as he goes along.  These discussions work better when there is an exchange of ideas and information, not when one or two decide they demand info from someone else when they won't provide it themselves.

be that as it may. You're right and I see it the same way - it just remains a pointless game, and it's a game that takes more than one person to play. He wants to play and you - play along.
Or as you rightfully said: That discussion doesn't work. And it will never work. I even threw him a link and he ignored it. So why not leave it at that and treat people like they deserve to be treated - which, in this case, is with ignorance. 

Mind, I do not take issue with derailing threads per se, as long as they derail into something funny, entertaining, interesting, substantial or sexy... this current derailment just fulfils none of these criteria to even the tiniest amount. Just my stance, though. Do, of course, as you please. It's a free thread after all.

[GMDino]

(01-11-2017, 08:32 AM)hollodero Wrote: be that as it may. You're right and I see it the same way - it just remains a pointless game, and it's a game that takes more than one person to play. He wants to play and you - play along.
Or as you rightfully said: That discussion doesn't work. And it will never work. I even threw him a link and he ignored it. So why not leave it at that and treat people like they deserve to be treated - which, in this case, is with ignorance. 

Mind, I do not take issue with derailing threads per se, as long as they derail into something funny, entertaining, interesting, substantial or sexy... this current derailment just fulfils none of these criteria to even the tiniest amount. Just my stance, though. Do, of course, as you please. It's a free thread after all.

Well sometimes (and this may just be me) I feel the need to add another voice to try and gt things back on track by asking for info or pointing out what's going on again.  It's a personal fault!  LOL!

I will continue perusing the thread when it gets back on topic!  

[Benton]

(01-11-2017, 02:47 AM)hollodero Wrote: OK, sounds all logical and educating (although I always feel that this has to lead into armageddon since the ressources and the planet don't grow accordingly, but be it, what do I know. Ignore these brackets).
A Corolla now certainly is one distinct product, whilst "growth" as you define it (keeping the economy going) is a result of a span over all sorts of products, the important factor being overall purchasing power. Maybe Corollas isn't what the Indian market needs, but incomes are growing, hence demand is growing, after whatever rocks an Indian's boat.

Now in your model the US salary grows, prices grow, products get still sold and we created more zeros behind the numbers of our balances. We buy new cars, TVs, magic pyramids and easter themed socks and keep the wheel spinning. 
Problem is - it was assumed earlier that US workers would take an actual paycut. At least not a substantial raise. Which kind of seems contradictory. In this case, Indian and Chinese (and other) markets would have to be growth providers (for the wages there are on a more distinct rise, so products of heightened total price can be sold there). These markets would bear the potential, while American wages at least grow less rapidly and hence can't provide what you call growth in a similar extent; hence there's a "growth potential gradient"; hence the foreign markets are utterly important for potential growth; hence tariffs make everything worse. Isn't that true?

good points. I guess my only issue it's going to take India and other countries a long time before the purchasing power gets big enough to comparative to the us.

[hollodero]

(01-11-2017, 10:02 AM)Benton Wrote: good points. I guess my only issue it's going to take India and other countries a long time before the purchasing power gets big enough to comparative to the us.

Now that is undisputed.
The growth of purchasing power, however... I mean, I don't know, I kind of can't tell whether this remark was clever or stupid anymore. It's more of a hunch that Chinese/Indian people might be on an economic uprise and soon it might be a good thing to have access to these markets. Growth of purchasing power. They can buy things they don't yet have in high numbers, iPhones or whatever. I see the irony in that example. I don't know. 
I don't even know if tariffs would limit your access to these markets at all. I guess it would, because, well, I would buy stuff from someone else if  someone didn't want to buy mine. Then again, I'm not Chinese.

[CKwi88]

I don't know if even Trump knows exactly what the economic plan is. But going off what he said it seems like whatever it is, to work for the common American group that he appealed to the most it will depend on the benevolence of the richest.

People can take a look at history and make a determination as to how successful that might be.