Fake News Reporting Thread

[Proteus_MST]

Well, then just look at what happened during the last time that someone thought it would be smart tzo make tax cuts ... Bush jr.

Bush jr. inherited a hefty surplus (of ~200 Mio $) from Clinton and a well running economy.
Then Bush jr. had the glorious idea of a hefty tax cut.

End results?
Well, when Bush jr. left the stage he left a deficit of 1.4 Trillion $ and a wrecked economy.

Something that Obama afterwards managed to decrease to just 400 Mio $.

So, the question is only, what a deficit the USA will have after Trumps reign.
I guess, in the worst case (Senate and Congress stay in GOP hands and Trump stays in power for a full 8 years) it may be 2 Trillion or more

But the GOP claims to be the party of fiscal responsibility ... sure ... it is responsible for losts of deficits

[Kidlicious]

I would like to point out that at the time of the Trump Tax Cuts, I predicted that wages would not increase, but that stock buy backs would. Of course, Kid disagreed with me.


Now we see, that wages have basically increased to match inflation (or fall just shy of matching inflation) and stock buybacks have reached record levels. I am only a small player, but I estimate that stock buybacks have netted me at least an extra $40,000 in income so far this year since the tax cuts were enacted. Meanwhile, any take home wage increases have been negligible.

Nominal Wage Growth hasn't changed much. But it will because the unemployment rate is so low. I will take this post as you doubling down, insisting that wages won't increase.

[Proteus_MST]

Nominal Wage Growth hasn't changed much. But it will because the unemployment rate is so low. I will take this post as you doubling down, insisting that wages won't increase.

You mean just like Trump this season is forced to increase wages in order to attract personnel for Mar-A-Lago and his other golf resorts,
instead of just filling out the necessary forms in order to be allowed to hire the necessary number of Mexicans who work for peanuts?

[Kidlicious]

You mean just like Trump this season is forced to increase wages in order to attract personnel for Mar-A-Lago and his other golf resorts,
instead of just filling out the necessary forms in order to be allowed to hire the necessary number of Mexicans who work for peanuts?

He always says that loopholes are not his fault. They are the government's fault. So true.

[-Jrabbit]

POTUS (especially with control of Congress) is not allowed to blame "the government."

[Kidlicious]

Trump can because he's a populist.

[Proteus_MST]

He always says that loopholes are not his fault. They are the government's fault. So true.

Then it is his damned job as PotUS to take steps to close them ... instead he just continues to profit from them
(which (i.e. continuing to profit from the loopholes) should have been prevented firstplace, by forcing Trump to really divest himself from his companies, instead of being allowed to keep his companies and just pro forma hand over the leadership to his sons)

[JohnT]

The Laffer Curve demonstrates maximization of tax revenue, which has nothing to do with wage growth due to increased employer revenue. This is awesome!

And corporate finance has nothing to do with economic theory. My point, which seems to have escaped you, was to see how much you understood "trickle down" economics (which my original point referenced) vis-a-vis the primary economic theory which pundits use to describe how it works on a macroeconomic basis.

Given you have gotten all of this... literally, all of this... incorrect, it may behoove you to listen more and emoji less, especially given your claim to "understand economics". But that's just me.

[Kidlicious]

And corporate finance has nothing to do with economic theory. My point, which seems to have escaped you, was to see how much you understood "trickle down" economics (which my original point referenced) vis-a-vis the primary economic theory which pundits use to describe how it works on a macroeconomic basis.

Given you have gotten all of this... literally, all of this... incorrect, it may behoove you to listen more and emoji less, especially given your claim to "understand economics". But that's just me.

Eh, you probably think cutting corporate taxes is "trickle down economics" and must have something to do with the Laffer Curve. Did anyone tell you that?

[Kidlicious]

Then it is his damned job as PotUS to take steps to close them ... instead he just continues to profit from them
(which (i.e. continuing to profit from the loopholes) should have been prevented firstplace, by forcing Trump to really divest himself from his companies, instead of being allowed to keep his companies and just pro forma hand over the leadership to his sons)

Change the law, and stop complaining about law abiding citizens.

[JohnT]

Eh, you probably think cutting corporate taxes is "trickle down economics" and must have something to do with the Laffer Curve. Did anyone tell you that?

Of course. The use of the Laffer Curve viz corporate tax rates was covered in my economics classes as I was earning my economics degree from a then-ranked* Top-30 Business School.

I don't understand your point, which appears to be that corporate tax rates are not considered as part and parcel of the Laffer Curve, aka Voodoo Economics, aka Trickle Down theory. If that is your point, then please: stop. You are just embarrassing yourself.

*Have no idea where TSoB ranks today.

[Kidlicious]

Of course. The use of the Laffer Curve viz corporate tax rates was covered in my economics classes as I was earning my economics degree from a then-ranked* Top-30 Business School.

I don't understand your point, which appears to be that corporate tax rates are not considered as part and parcel of the Laffer Curve, aka Voodoo Economics, aka Trickle Down theory. If that is your point, then please: stop. You are just embarrassing yourself.

*Have no idea where TSoB ranks today.

You're insisting that I advocate Trickle Down Economics, which you haven't defined except to associate it with the Laffer Curve, which is kind of funny (but I'm not supposed to laugh).

I maintain that the tax cuts are creating jobs, and that will eventually cause wages to increase, which again is BASIC ECONOMICS.

[JohnT]

My pay is going up, but I don't get wages. I get a portion of the revenue that I create. This is going to trickle to wage workers. That's how the economy works.

... how this whole sidebar discussion was started. Emphasis mine.

https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572

Trickle-down economic theory is similar to supply-side economics. That theory states that all tax cuts, regardless of whether they are for businesses or workers, spur economic growth.

Trickle-down theory is more specific. It says targeted tax cuts work better than general ones. It advocates cuts to corporations, capital gains, and savings taxes. It doesn't promote across-the-board tax cuts. Instead, the tax cuts go to the wealthy.

Both trickle-down and supply-side proponents use the Laffer Curve to prove their theories.

I mean, I can keep kicking your ass all day, Kid, but my leg is getting tired.

[Kidlicious]

... how this whole sidebar discussion was started. Emphasis mine.

Oh so you think that since I used the word "trickle" that I believe in Trickle Down Economics. No. As you should know, there is a thing called the multiplier effect in economics. When ANYONE gets money it has a multiplying effect, because they spend it. So when corporations get more revenue their costs will generally go up, including their labor costs.

[JohnT]

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. None. I can easily cite both theoretical and historical examples which prove this... have done so, in fact... but you still have no idea what you are talking about.

JohnT Inc sells 100 units of JT Meth Cubes @ $5000.00/each with a ped of 1 (my Cubes are extremely popular... and addictive, the perfect Giffen good) and a profit margin of 10%. I decide that, because I'm a nice person and extremely lazy to boot (making 100 Meth Cubes takes me 2 days), to only raise my FY19 price to $5000.01, continue to cap production at 100 units, and see revenues increase from $5,000,000 to $5,000,001. I put the extra $1 into retained earnings, i.e., my sock drawer.

Did my revenues increase? Yes
Did my inputs change in price? No
Did I spend more money? No

So shut the hell up.

[Ming]

Watching Kidiot getting his ass kicked every which way to Sunday

[Kidlicious]

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. None. I can easily cite both theoretical and historical examples which prove this... have done so, in fact... but you still have no idea what you are talking about.

JohnT Inc sells 100 units of JT Meth Cubes @ $5000.00/each with a ped of 1 (my Cubes are extremely popular... and addictive, the perfect Giffen good) and a profit margin of 10%. I decide that, because I'm a nice person and extremely lazy to boot (making 100 Meth Cubes takes me 2 days), to only raise my FY19 price to $5000.01, continue to cap production at 100 units, and see revenues increase from $5,000,000 to $5,000,001. I put the extra $1 into retained earnings, i.e., my sock drawer.

Did my revenues increase? Yes
Did my inputs change in price? No
Did I spend more money? No

So shut the hell up.

Did I say that it's not possible not to save all your money? No. I said, that's stupid and people don't do that. People don't save all their money you idiot.