TPS Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 (edited) I'll weigh in on that. Down here on the ground running a business, we've had little wage growth for our employees over the past 5 years or so. However, my cost of doing business has risen substantially during this time. Health insurance and in great part due to Obamacare has risen more than 60% during this period. Property taxes have risen probably 20% during the same period. Liability insurance, workmans comp and unemployment ins have risen a lot and we've had zero claims. State income tax here rose 60% a few years ago and then settled back to a lesser increase but we are left with a state corporate tax in Illinois that many states don't have. Regulations on fire extinguishers and fire alarm systems have changed resulting in higher annual costs. Shipping, packaging and other costs have risen much faster than inflation. Now I know that the Federal gubmint doesn't directly control many of the items I've mentioned, but collectively the various taxing bodies have substantially raised our cost of doing business and shippers like fedex and ups have cited increased employee costs and other rising expenses as their reasons for significant price increases. All while this has happened our revenues and margins have been mostly flat. I doubt I'm the only business owner that can tell this story. Point is that the federal government and other municipal bodies are tone deaf on the real world of running a business Those that study or are educated in economics can look at lots of numbers from 50,000 feet but I believe that our experience of the last several years is typical or many businesses and that any increased dollars that have to be directed toward taxes and other regulatory expenses have to be taken from profits and what is available for payroll, inventory and expansion. All of this would be easy to solve if we could simply "pass this on to the consumer" but we're in a highly price sensitive business where that is simply not possible. We've been able to tweak some gross margin improvement but that has more than been consumed by increases in the cost of other items. So we're a microcosm of the greater economy of 1% growth, stagnant wages and low confidence while we spend more on anything that touches government or insurance. That is how government(s) have crowded this private enterprise. Once again, a semantic issue. There is a specific definition of "crowding out" in economics, relating to government deficits causing higher interest rates. You are describing government regulatory and tax impacts, and as I said above I know they impact, but you also stay in business because there is sufficient demand for your product or service. In debates years ago I said I thought one of the best policies for small businesses and employment would be to reduce the tax on hiring workers, the FICA, unemployment taxes, and your ACA GG. Despite the increased cost of doing business, the annual number of start ups in the US is back to historical norms (you can find that on the BLS web site). There is no single factor that is the answer, and we all tend to focus on certain aspects that suit our beliefs. A lot of people paint me as pro-government, but my view is government pursues the policies for those who actually control it, and it ain't workers and the poor. They have to throw bones to keep the people from revolting, but that's a cost they need to pay. It's a $3 trillion racket, and there are a lot of vested interests who sop that up. Keynesian policy focuses on spending and taxes, not monetary policy. GG and I agree on this point, that low interest rates have done nothing but exacerbate the problems. Edited September 1, 2016 by TPS
TPS Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 (edited) Oh look, a bunch of shitheels talking macroeconomics. Hey clowns: what would an immediate reduction in the capital gains tax to 15% from 35% do to any 1st world economy? F, I might as well ask: what did the introduction of the credit card do to the 1st world economies? Those of us who actually went to school for this, know the answer. Those of us who who don't know F all about macroeconomics, because we never took the classes, have no idea. These aren't opinion questions. These are textbook questions. In my case, these are test questions. Donald Trump will cut the tax to 15%, and, drop the small business tax to 10%. Now, CFO nerds, don't lie: I know what that does, and so do you. The only question that remains is: are you going to lie to yourself, and not vote for Trump, when he is proposing the very thing you've been wanting, most of your adult lives...because your panties get bunched over...how he speaks? WTF is wrong with you? The only thing you should be worried about is the Fed, and whether they are going to adjust correctly to the immediate and massive availability of capital, NOT DEBT, that is the inevitable response to such cuts. But, by all means: keep telling us why we shouldn't vote for Trump, you unmitigated morons. Ummm...for those who make less than $415K, the long term cap gains tax is 15% (+3.8% ACA). For those above, it's 20% +ACA. Yes, jump on board that "Trump Train"....a new song by Cat Stevens.... Edited September 1, 2016 by TPS
IDBillzFan Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Does anyone remember the comments Nancy Pelosi used to make when monthly job creation was at 150,000? CNN called today's report "respectable,' but I'm pretty sure that's not the phrase she used.
GG Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Oh look, a bunch of shitheels talking macroeconomics. Hey clowns: what would an immediate reduction in the capital gains tax to 15% from 35% do to any 1st world economy? F, I might as well ask: what did the introduction of the credit card do to the 1st world economies? Those of us who actually went to school for this, know the answer. Those of us who who don't know F all about macroeconomics, because we never took the classes, have no idea. These aren't opinion questions. These are textbook questions. In my case, these are test questions. Donald Trump will cut the tax to 15%, and, drop the small business tax to 10%. Now, CFO nerds, don't lie: I know what that does, and so do you. The only question that remains is: are you going to lie to yourself, and not vote for Trump, when he is proposing the very thing you've been wanting, most of your adult lives...because your panties get bunched over...how he speaks? WTF is wrong with you? The only thing you should be worried about is the Fed, and whether they are going to adjust correctly to the immediate and massive availability of capital, NOT DEBT, that is the inevitable response to such cuts. But, by all means: keep telling us why we shouldn't vote for Trump, you unmitigated morons. It's clear that you dont understand macroeconomics because you're a trump supporter. The arguments I've had with the professor dating back a decade are usually between the revenue and expense side. And regarding trump, I think we're both in agreement that his math doesn't add up, because trump as always wants to suspend reality. Hey kiddies, I'm going to cut taxes in half. But wait there's more! For this special offer, he will double government spending. Don't miss out on this deal of the century. Because the deficit won't be paid with DEBT, but with .... Something that looks and behaves like DEBT, but we just won't call it DEBT. We'll call it trump dollars. It won't be DEBT. No sirreee ...
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2016 Posted September 3, 2016 It's clear that you dont understand macroeconomics because you're a trump supporter. The arguments I've had with the professor dating back a decade are usually between the revenue and expense side. And regarding trump, I think we're both in agreement that his math doesn't add up, because trump as always wants to suspend reality. Hey kiddies, I'm going to cut taxes in half. But wait there's more! For this special offer, he will double government spending. Don't miss out on this deal of the century. Because the deficit won't be paid with DEBT, but with .... Something that looks and behaves like DEBT, but we just won't call it DEBT. We'll call it trump dollars. It won't be DEBT. No sirreee ... Knowing Trump, it'll be bankruptcy.
/dev/null Posted September 3, 2016 Author Posted September 3, 2016 Once again, a semantic issue. There is a specific definition of "crowding out" in economics, relating to government deficits causing higher interest rates. You are describing government regulatory and tax impacts, and as I said above I know they impact, but you also stay in business because there is sufficient demand for your product or service. In debates years ago I said I thought one of the best policies for small businesses and employment would be to reduce the tax on hiring workers, the FICA, unemployment taxes, and your ACA GG. Despite the increased cost of doing business, the annual number of start ups in the US is back to historical norms (you can find that on the BLS web site). There is no single factor that is the answer, and we all tend to focus on certain aspects that suit our beliefs. A lot of people paint me as pro-government, but my view is government pursues the policies for those who actually control it, and it ain't workers and the poor. They have to throw bones to keep the people from revolting, but that's a cost they need to pay. It's a $3 trillion racket, and there are a lot of vested interests who sop that up. Keynesian policy focuses on spending and taxes, not monetary policy. GG and I agree on this point, that low interest rates have done nothing but exacerbate the problems. But how does Government finance it's spending? More to the point, would you say that ZIRP helps or hinders Government spending?
TPS Posted September 4, 2016 Posted September 4, 2016 It's clear that you dont understand macroeconomics because you're a trump supporter. The arguments I've had with the professor dating back a decade are usually between the revenue and expense side. And regarding trump, I think we're both in agreement that his math doesn't add up, because trump as always wants to suspend reality. Hey kiddies, I'm going to cut taxes in half. But wait there's more! For this special offer, he will double government spending. Don't miss out on this deal of the century. Because the deficit won't be paid with DEBT, but with .... Something that looks and behaves like DEBT, but we just won't call it DEBT. We'll call it trump dollars. It won't be DEBT. No sirreee ... Decade? C'mon we go back longer than that G. Time flies... Btw, watching right vs far right in the Trump thread has been very entertaining.
TPS Posted September 4, 2016 Posted September 4, 2016 But how does Government finance it's spending? More to the point, would you say that ZIRP helps or hinders Government spending? The answer people believe: it borrows in excess of its taxes. The way the mechanics actually work: federal government spending (transferred from the Treasury's account at the Fed) in excess of its taxes generates new deposits at banks, and Primary Dealers (determined by and interacting with the NYFED), the 23 largest global banks and financial entities who receive most of those deposits, are required to "make the Treasury market." These 23 large financial entities are required by the FED to ensure Treasury bills sold at its auctions are filled. By law, the federal government has to sell securities in excess of taxes (the Treasury is not allowed to print money, but the Fed can), but its spending in excess of taxes generates the deposits the banking system (the dealers) uses to "fund" those securities. The Fed stands ready to make sure the market functions to meet its interest rate target. The interest rate on T-Bills is a function of the Fed's target rate. Since the US government's short-term borrowing costs are governed by the Fed, by definition the low Fed target keeps the government's cost down (if this is what you mean by ZIRP helping "government spending", yes), though the low target is a consequence of the sluggish US and world economies. The key issue, then, is knowing what causes the Fed to change its target and therefore short term T-bill rates...
B-Man Posted September 23, 2016 Posted September 23, 2016 Obama’s Non-Recovery Isn’t Due to the Size of the Recession by Veronique De Rugy Harvard University’s Robert Barro has a great piece over at the Wall Street Journal debunking the claim the Obama non-recovery was the result of the 2008 recession’s severity and the accompanying financial crisis. He writes that the administration’s explanation for the weak recovery conflicts with the evidence, which shows that a large decline predicts a stronger recovery:http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-reasons-behind-the-obama-non-recovery-1474412963 Yet in a recent study of economic downturns in the U.S. and elsewhere since 1870, economist Tao Jin and I found that historically the opposite has been true. Empirically, the growth rate during a recovery relates positively to the magnitude of decline during the downturn. On average, during a recovery, an economy recoups about half the GDP lost during the downturn. The recovery is typically quick, with an average duration around two years. For example, a 4% decline in per capita GDP during a contraction predicts subsequent recovery of 2%, implying 1% per year higher growth than normal during the recovery. Hence, the growth rate of U.S. per capita GDP from 2009 to 2011 should have been around 3% per year, rather than the 1.5% that materialized. . . . Moreover, many of the biggest downturns featured financial crises. For example, the U.S. per capita GDP growth rate from 1933-40 was 6.5% per year, the highest of any peacetime interval of several years, despite the 1937 recession. This strong recovery followed the cumulative decline in the level of per capita GDP by around 29% from 1929-33 during the Great Depression. Instead of counterproductive stimulus spending, new regulations of the labor and financial markets, and a large Federal Reserve expansion, Barro suggests that we should have enhanced economic freedom: Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner It's what most of us have been saying...............
B-Man Posted September 29, 2016 Posted September 29, 2016 THE NEW NORMAL ANEMIA: Final Q2 GDP Comes At 1.4%: US Set To Grow At Slowest Pace Since Financial Crisis. If the Obama “recovery” had done no better than match the postwar average, the US economy would be more than two trillion dollars richer than it is — which translates to thousands of dollars per American household. Heckuva job, Barry.
B-Man Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 FOX Business @FoxBusiness 3h3 hours ago U.S. employment growth unexpectedly slowed for the third straight month in September. http://fxn.ws/2djPNdj #JobsReport Unexpectedly ? Not to people in the real world.
TH3 Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 Obama’s Non-Recovery Isn’t Due to the Size of the Recession by Veronique De Rugy Harvard University’s Robert Barro has a great piece over at the Wall Street Journal debunking the claim the Obama non-recovery was the result of the 2008 recession’s severity and the accompanying financial crisis. He writes that the administration’s explanation for the weak recovery conflicts with the evidence, which shows that a large decline predicts a stronger recovery:http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-reasons-behind-the-obama-non-recovery-1474412963 Instead of counterproductive stimulus spending, new regulations of the labor and financial markets, and a large Federal Reserve expansion, Barro suggests that we should have enhanced economic freedom: Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner It's what most of us have been saying............... So this guy - instead of examining the specific causes of each recession and the specifics of each response - looks at a graphs and says - Hey the recovery isn't as steep as the downturn - Thanks Obama!! Got it.... Unexpectedly ? Not to people in the real world. So GROWTH has slowed.... still growth.... Seriously - what other country would you rather live in? ....If you spent your time trying to get better at your occupation, trying to start something, trying to create something maybe you wouldn't be such a whiny B word constantly complaining about BO and posting links When you got up this morning name ONE THING preventing you from becoming rich/successful/happy?
B-Man Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 So this guy - instead of examining the specific causes of each recession and the specifics of each response - looks at a graphs and says - Hey the recovery isn't as steep as the downturn - Thanks Obama!! Got it.... No.........you don't So GROWTH has slowed.... still growth.... Seriously - what other country would you rather live in? ....If you spent your time trying to get better at your occupation, trying to start something, trying to create something maybe you wouldn't be such a whiny B word constantly complaining about BO and posting links When you got up this morning name ONE THING preventing you from becoming rich/successful/happy? How can I go on ?.................... I am very successful at what I do..........and very happy. I have explained my posting reasons before...........but like all things, you cannot seem to grasp it.
TPS Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 So this guy - instead of examining the specific causes of each recession and the specifics of each response - looks at a graphs and says - Hey the recovery isn't as steep as the downturn - Thanks Obama!! Got it.... So GROWTH has slowed.... still growth.... Seriously - what other country would you rather live in? ....If you spent your time trying to get better at your occupation, trying to start something, trying to create something maybe you wouldn't be such a whiny B word constantly complaining about BO and posting links When you got up this morning name ONE THING preventing you from becoming rich/successful/happy? Anyone who posts something from Robert Barro and thinks his ideas apply to the real world will be sadly disappointed. This is a guy who went into economics because he couldn't cut it in physics. His models are designed to give the outcome that fits his politics. For example, his view on fiscal policy is based on what's known as Ricardian Equivalence, which assumes that consumers will offset any fiscal stimulus by decreasing their spending and increase their saving to prepare to pay future higher taxes. Fiscal policy has no impact according to Barro because the government's spending is offset by an equal reduction in consumer spending. My working class students laugh when I tell them about this concept. Barro is the epitome of an "ivory tower" economist. I doubt that he ever worked a day in the real world....
Magox Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 Barro Krugman is the epitome of an "ivory tower" economist. I doubt that he ever worked a day in the real world.... Fixed it for you
TPS Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 Fixed it for you It would be fixed if you added him and not crossed out Barro.
Magox Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 It would be fixed if you added him and not crossed out Barro. Yeah, but it looked a lot cooler doing it this way.
IDBillzFan Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) When you got up this morning name ONE THING preventing you from becoming rich/successful/happy?Now you've confused everyone. I thought everything was rigged by the big banks and the 1%! I thought the rich keep the poor people down, and that we have to have massive safety nets like Obamacare because only the privileged white have a chance at success! Now you're trying to tell us that the only thing keeping people from being rich and successful every day in the economic age of the Obama presidency is your own self? You really are a batschit crazy. Edited October 8, 2016 by LABillzFan
GG Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 Obama's economic & regulatory pet projects can't even survive his own term. Sorry, Saint Elizabeth, but your grand plans are not Constitutional. So long to the star chamber. A federal appeals panel ruled on Tuesday that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Wall Street watchdog conceived by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), is unconstitutional. Rather than disband the CFPB entirely, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the agency will now function under direct oversight of the president, who will have the power to fire the agency’s director at will.
Chef Jim Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 Obama's economic & regulatory pet projects can't even survive his own term. Sorry, Saint Elizabeth, but your grand plans are not Constitutional. So long to the star chamber. In LA now for two days of meetings on the new DOL Fiduciary Rule. Oh happy days.
Recommended Posts