GG Posted February 1, 2019 Author Posted February 1, 2019 On 1/24/2019 at 5:32 PM, TPS said: The model you're advocating for was blown up in the '70s when the rest of the world started to catch up to US manufacturing. It's a pipe dream to think that you can stand vanguard and maintain the same employment in the same industries and grow wages. It just doesn't work. Doesn't mean that there aren't temporary economic dislocations which naturally mostly hurt the least able and the least prepared. That's why there should be a temporary social safety net. Free Trade argument was used just like the law and econ "what's best for the average consumer" argument to justify outsourcing our industrial base. Except the benefits of free trade are based on the assumption that nations trade goods produced in respective countries--both nations benefit in this case. When you allow for capital to move, one nation (China) tends to benefit at the expense of another (US). This is why I am okay with Trump going after China, even though it was US corps who moved. With monopolies, by focusing solely on the question is the average consumer better off, you ignore the macro effects of monopolies which has harmed the average consumer over time. If the average consumer has been made better off, then why is all of the income being more and more concentrated at the top? There are all kinds of problems with monopolies and the overall impact on the macroeconomy AND therefore the average consumer. Your simple question simply supports the continued concentration of economic power, and they get away with it because they can pay economic consultants a lot of money to provide the results they ask for... As for the last point, single payer health insurance will only mean broader access to worse healthcare. That's why I don't support it. Your criteria--the average consumer. The US has the worst health outcomes ON AVERAGE of the developed world. The average consumer would be better off under single payer. YOU might not be better off, but you're not average joe... Finally getting around to this. Free trade theories most certainly precede China, and until that episode it has been proven to be successful for everyone involved. It worked to get post war Europe & Japan out of their depths, and worked for much of South East Asia. Now with the China experiment in full swing there's no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water. China has thrown the proverbial monkey wrench into the trade argument, because they've changed the equation from economic trade to a geo-political issue. I'm certain that the initial goal of promoting trade with China was to open up its vast market and by promoting capitalism, the yoke of the repressive Communist hold would loosen. So far, only a part of that wish has come true, because the regime has managed to hold on tighter and use trade to bolster its position. That's why I'm not arguing against Trump's hard line stance against China, because they're not playing by the rules. Because Chinese elevated a trade spat into a new front in this Cold War, I have no problem with Trump pushing their economy into the dumpster. Xi needs to see what a downturn will do to his regime. I'm not certain he'll be as cavalier to send in tanks in the next Tianmen. --------- Your monopoly argument has zero supporting facts, other than the big companies are getting bigger and their owners are getting richer. Boo ho. Where's the consumer harm? True monopolistic behavior exhibits harm very quickly, but you can't point to anything tangible other than worrying about what could theoretically happen. In 40 years of WalMart's rise, there's only been a benefit to the consumers. The theory has to be prove at some point, don't you think? Your only examples are employment cases that have been brought to the courts, and the alleged wrongs have been corrected. You seem to think that if Bezos & company pay their workers a bit more, it will lessen the monopolistic effect. It will not. It will surely dampen profits and workers will be happy, but it will do nothing to how Amazon & WalMart dominate their industries by superior execution and productivity. So you will take a hatchet to equity prices and private wealth, but that won't aid competition at all, because the smaller start ups won't be able to invest or pay at the same rate. That's the biggest part that you are missing about the evils of trying to corral bigness. The more regulations that you place on the market, the greater the moat you place around the incumbents. That in turn begets complacency and the market starts to stagnate. Welcome to Europe. On 1/24/2019 at 5:32 PM, TPS said: It's amazing that Trump was able to keep the expansion going for almost ten years in only his first two years! What's more impressive, delivering strong growth and jobs without stimulous in year 10 after a major recession, or subpar growth with major stimulous spending immediately after a major recession?
TPS Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 33 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: The comments... How many are part-time? How many were government workers looking for a second job? But unemployment was up! My questions for those people ... how come everything was swell under Obama as more people left the workforce, worked two low-paying jobs, and people got shoved onto welfare in record numbers? Why can't people just enjoy the ride and look to better themselves in a growing economy? Apparently, some people are (the unemployment numbers are more people deciding to look for a job as there are more jobs than people available at the moment), but the eeyores really are something else. My criticisms usually reflect the opposite issue--no recognition that the economy expanded for 7 years under BO, albeit at a mediocre rate. As I posted previously, average monthly employment growth in 2017 was actually below Obama's last 4 years. 2018 is a good year driven by the tax cuts and spending increases which have caused higher deficits--which is why I predicted 3-4% RGDP growth. We'll see how the economy fares over his 4-year term. Even though his tariffs are creating problems, I've also stated that I support this policy given China's track record. Good numbers today.
row_33 Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 10 minutes ago, TPS said: My criticisms usually reflect the opposite issue--no recognition that the economy expanded for 7 years under BO, albeit at a mediocre rate. As I posted previously, average monthly employment growth in 2017 was actually below Obama's last 4 years. 2018 is a good year driven by the tax cuts and spending increases which have caused higher deficits--which is why I predicted 3-4% RGDP growth. We'll see how the economy fares over his 4-year term. Even though his tariffs are creating problems, I've also stated that I support this policy given China's track record. Good numbers today. blah blah blah..... does this patter every change???
TPS Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 5 minutes ago, GG said: Finally getting around to this. Free trade theories most certainly precede China, and until that episode it has been proven to be successful for everyone involved. It worked to get post war Europe & Japan out of their depths, and worked for much of South East Asia. Now with the China experiment in full swing there's no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water. China has thrown the proverbial monkey wrench into the trade argument, because they've changed the equation from economic trade to a geo-political issue. I'm certain that the initial goal of promoting trade with China was to open up its vast market and by promoting capitalism, the yoke of the repressive Communist hold would loosen. So far, only a part of that wish has come true, because the regime has managed to hold on tighter and use trade to bolster its position. That's why I'm not arguing against Trump's hard line stance against China, because they're not playing by the rules. Because Chinese elevated a trade spat into a new front in this Cold War, I have no problem with Trump pushing their economy into the dumpster. Xi needs to see what a downturn will do to his regime. I'm not certain he'll be as cavalier to send in tanks in the next Tianmen. --------- Your monopoly argument has zero supporting facts, other than the big companies are getting bigger and their owners are getting richer. Boo ho. Where's the consumer harm? True monopolistic behavior exhibits harm very quickly, but you can't point to anything tangible other than worrying about what could theoretically happen. In 40 years of WalMart's rise, there's only been a benefit to the consumers. The theory has to be prove at some point, don't you think? Your only examples are employment cases that have been brought to the courts, and the alleged wrongs have been corrected. You seem to think that if Bezos & company pay their workers a bit more, it will lessen the monopolistic effect. It will not. It will surely dampen profits and workers will be happy, but it will do nothing to how Amazon & WalMart dominate their industries by superior execution and productivity. So you will take a hatchet to equity prices and private wealth, but that won't aid competition at all, because the smaller start ups won't be able to invest or pay at the same rate. That's the biggest part that you are missing about the evils of trying to corral bigness. The more regulations that you place on the market, the greater the moat you place around the incumbents. That in turn begets complacency and the market starts to stagnate. Welcome to Europe. What's more impressive, delivering strong growth and jobs without stimulous in year 10 after a major recession, or subpar growth with major stimulous spending immediately after a major recession? I'll come back to the first part, but are you seriously saying Trump did not provide a "stimulus"?!? Are you going to tell us that bigger deficits don't stimulate economies?
GG Posted February 1, 2019 Author Posted February 1, 2019 Just now, TPS said: I'll come back to the first part, but are you seriously saying Trump did not provide a "stimulus"?!? Are you going to tell us that bigger deficits don't stimulate economies? Different kind of stimuli. Free money and zero interest rates are a bit different than allowing people to keep more of their stuff and worrying less about the regulator beating them down. The results are indisputable if you're wiling to acknowledge the obvious. 1
Foxx Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: It's great that our economy can hum along with a complete idiot at the helm. a not so great that the economy couldn't get out of it's own way with Obummer running it.
Tiberius Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Foxx said: a not so great that the economy couldn't get out of it's own way with Obummer running it. it grew!
B-Man Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 Nifty little headline change on the same story from the Times: ...... It's like they don't realize the game is up
TPS Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 3 hours ago, GG said: Different kind of stimuli. Free money and zero interest rates are a bit different than allowing people to keep more of their stuff and worrying less about the regulator beating them down. The results are indisputable if you're wiling to acknowledge the obvious. The president isn't in control of the Fed. As I've said, Obama's economy was mediocre, and over his last 4 years, the economy's performance was no different than Trump's first year. If you want to try and compare the first 4 years of the worst crisis since the 1930s, that is not very objective... I have acknowledged that Trump's bigger deficits created by spending increases and tax cuts would juice the economy, and they have--I assume you saw my predictions a year ago? Now we'll see if there's any longer lasting effect in his next last two years which will be a better gauge on whether his policies can create sustained growth, though deficits will still have a significant impact since they are projected to hit $1 trillion by 2020.
Foxx Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 10 minutes ago, TPS said: The president isn't in control of the Fed. As I've said, Obama's economy was mediocre, and over his last 4 years, the economy's performance was no different than Trump's first year. If you want to try and compare the first 4 years of the worst crisis since the 1930s, that is not very objective... I have acknowledged that Trump's bigger deficits created by spending increases and tax cuts would juice the economy, and they have--I assume you saw my predictions a year ago? Now we'll see if there's any longer lasting effect in his next last two years which will be a better gauge on whether his policies can create sustained growth, though deficits will still have a significant impact since they are projected to hit $1 trillion by 2020. did obummers deficits in excess of $1trillion have a significant impact?
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 Not sure what will happen, but WI voters... SMH 1
keepthefaith Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 2 hours ago, TPS said: The president isn't in control of the Fed. As I've said, Obama's economy was mediocre, and over his last 4 years, the economy's performance was no different than Trump's first year. If you want to try and compare the first 4 years of the worst crisis since the 1930s, that is not very objective... I have acknowledged that Trump's bigger deficits created by spending increases and tax cuts would juice the economy, and they have--I assume you saw my predictions a year ago? Now we'll see if there's any longer lasting effect in his next last two years which will be a better gauge on whether his policies can create sustained growth, though deficits will still have a significant impact since they are projected to hit $1 trillion by 2020. Trump, like the 2 Presidents before him guilty of presiding over huge deficits. The House and Senate share in this. It would have been smart to have made some spending revisions (downward) in recent times of a growing economy to change the debt trajectory. Very poor of Trump and Republicans over the past couple of years to not have addressed that. With Nancy running the house, there is zero chance of spending being addressed even if Trump wants to pursue it. If SS, Medicare and Medicaid continue to be underfunded and cuts are not in the cards then it's time to adjust taxation of those specific programs and be honest with American people.
row_33 Posted February 1, 2019 Posted February 1, 2019 24 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: Trump, like the 2 Presidents before him guilty of presiding over huge deficits. The House and Senate share in this. It would have been smart to have made some spending revisions (downward) in recent times of a growing economy to change the debt trajectory. Very poor of Trump and Republicans over the past couple of years to not have addressed that. With Nancy running the house, there is zero chance of spending being addressed even if Trump wants to pursue it. If SS, Medicare and Medicaid continue to be underfunded and cuts are not in the cards then it's time to adjust taxation of those specific programs and be honest with American people. Yadda yadda yadda cite usual crap....
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 2, 2019 Posted February 2, 2019 58 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: Trump, like the 2 Presidents before him guilty of presiding over huge deficits. The House and Senate share in this. It would have been smart to have made some spending revisions (downward) in recent times of a growing economy to change the debt trajectory. Very poor of Trump and Republicans over the past couple of years to not have addressed that. With Nancy running the house, there is zero chance of spending being addressed even if Trump wants to pursue it. If SS, Medicare and Medicaid continue to be underfunded and cuts are not in the cards then it's time to adjust taxation of those specific programs and be honest with American people. Trump was in real estate. RE guys use other people's money like it falls from trees. I'd be shocked and amazed if President Trump ever took on the debt or deficit spending.
row_33 Posted February 2, 2019 Posted February 2, 2019 Debt doesn’t matter, no political party has done a thing about it for 50 years
keepthefaith Posted February 2, 2019 Posted February 2, 2019 57 minutes ago, row_33 said: Debt doesn’t matter, no political party has done a thing about it for 50 years Right, it doesn't matter until it does.
TPS Posted February 2, 2019 Posted February 2, 2019 6 hours ago, Foxx said: did obummers deficits in excess of $1trillion have a significant impact? If you don’t understand the difference between deficits in a recession vs deficits at the peak of a business cycle, you should take an economics course. 3 hours ago, keepthefaith said: Trump, like the 2 Presidents before him guilty of presiding over huge deficits. The House and Senate share in this. It would have been smart to have made some spending revisions (downward) in recent times of a growing economy to change the debt trajectory. Very poor of Trump and Republicans over the past couple of years to not have addressed that. With Nancy running the house, there is zero chance of spending being addressed even if Trump wants to pursue it. If SS, Medicare and Medicaid continue to be underfunded and cuts are not in the cards then it's time to adjust taxation of those specific programs and be honest with American people. You should know my position by now. I’m not criticizing his deficits. I’m saying they are the reason for faster growth in 2018.
Foxx Posted February 2, 2019 Posted February 2, 2019 8 hours ago, TPS said: If you don’t understand the difference between deficits in a recession vs deficits at the peak of a business cycle, you should take an economics course. ... if you can print trillions of dollars out of thin air with no real repercussions, does debt/deficits matter?
TPS Posted February 2, 2019 Posted February 2, 2019 9 hours ago, Foxx said: if you can print trillions of dollars out of thin air with no real repercussions, does debt/deficits matter? Only when you're near full employment. I've said this a few times, Trump's deficits are an interesting experiment from my perspective. Workers have been beaten down for the past 30-40 years, meaning they have lost bargaining power through outsourcing and monopsony power of large corporations. Trump creating a fiscal stimulus when unemployment was approaching 4% is one way to give workers bargaining power. The fiscal stimulus that pushed GDP growth over 3% last year is helping workers achieve higher wage growth. Of course, this is also what could set the Fed back on its course of raising interest rates. Interesting times for an economist... 1
Foxx Posted February 2, 2019 Posted February 2, 2019 5 minutes ago, TPS said: Only when you're near full employment. I've said this a few times, Trump's deficits are an interesting experiment from my perspective. Workers have been beaten down for the past 30-40 years, meaning they have lost bargaining power through outsourcing and monopsony power of large corporations. Trump creating a fiscal stimulus when unemployment was approaching 4% is one way to give workers bargaining power. The fiscal stimulus that pushed GDP growth over 3% last year is helping workers achieve higher wage growth. Of course, this is also what could set the Fed back on its course of raising interest rates. Interesting times for an economist... what does full employment have to do with creating money out of thin air? are you saying that if employment goes under full, then all that money that was created will come home to roost in hyperinflation? or are you saying that only when you have full employment it won't return as hyperinflation? we were no where near full employment when that money was dreamt into existence. if it didn't come home to roost by now, it can be logically be argued that it never will. i agree, the wage growth has been on the uptick since Trump took office, i don't know that it is a direct result of his stimulus though. often wages rise when there is full employment due to several factors. one being the supply and demand aspect and another being companies wanting better employees so they have to pay more. the reason why the FED didn't raise rates was because Trump backed them into a corner. had they raised them and the economy started to tank , then Trump would have lambasted them, whether they were the real reason or not.
Recommended Posts