Lets make fun of Obama while he is still relevant.

[Odin]

(11-22-2016, 03:15 AM)Galen Wrote: The corporate income tax rate goes to 15%, same as Ireland, which should help the US to retain and attract businesses.  Its the economy stupid!

The last thing any government should do is pandering this kind of destructive race-to-the-bottom nonsense. Because then what happens when another country makes THEIR taxes lower?

[Warren Dew]

(11-22-2016, 08:03 AM)Odin Wrote:

(11-22-2016, 03:15 AM)Galen Wrote: The corporate income tax rate goes to 15%, same as Ireland, which should help the US to retain and attract businesses.  Its the economy stupid!

The last thing any government should do is pandering this kind of destructive race-to-the-bottom nonsense. Because then what happens when another country makes THEIR taxes lower?

Eventually corporate taxes go to zero, which is where they used to be until the 1930s.  The money gets taxed eventually when dividends get distributed or people sell the stock and take capital gains; the only problem with that is that it encourages corporations to hoard cash instead of returning it in dividends.  We should probably return to a corporate tax that taxes only retained income and not income distributed as dividends.

[Galen]

(11-22-2016, 08:03 AM)Odin Wrote:

(11-22-2016, 03:15 AM)Galen Wrote: The corporate income tax rate goes to 15%, same as Ireland, which should help the US to retain and attract businesses.  Its the economy stupid!

The last thing any government should do is pandering this kind of destructive race-to-the-bottom nonsense. Because then what happens when another country makes THEIR taxes lower?

If a business can reduce its costs by relocating their headquarters to a lower tax jurisdiction then they will do it.  This is particularly useful if the business in question is pursuing a low price strategy which is beneficial to their customers.

[Eric the Green]

Too bad a Democrat is leaving the White House in poor hands again, just like Bill Clinton did, so another Republican can mess up everything he achieved. But such is the stupid decisions we make too often in the USA.

[Warren Dew]

None of which does any good when wages are stagnant.

[Galen]

(11-25-2016, 12:28 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: None of which does any good when wages are stagnant.

Not to mention that the full time jobs were replaced with part time jobs.  While the unemployment rate is low the labor utilization rate is about where it was during the Carter years.  It a few of the little things you learn when you go past the headline numbers or listen to Peter Schiff on his podcast.

[Warren Dew]

(11-28-2016, 12:28 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: In addition to all that, he has been reinvigorating our nuclear forces.

Where in the world do you get that idea?  The bulk of our nuclear triad is still composed of Tridents, Minuteman IIIs, and B-52s, which all date back to Reagan or before.  There have been ongoing studies about the next generation of weapons, but no money allocated to building them - not even to replace B-52s with B-2s, which Obama could have done without waiting for development time.

It would be nice to see money freed up for Trident and Minuteman III replacements, but getting that through Congress may not be easy.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-28-2016, 12:54 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 12:28 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: In addition to all that, he has been reinvigorating our nuclear forces.

Where in the world do you get that idea?  The bulk of our nuclear triad is still composed of Tridents, Minuteman IIIs, and B-52s, which all date back to Reagan or before.  There have been ongoing studies about the next generation of weapons, but no money allocated to building them - not even to replace B-52s with B-2s, which Obama could have done without waiting for development time.

It would be nice to see money freed up for Trident and Minuteman III replacements, but getting that through Congress may not be easy.

Bombs deteriorate with age.  When refined to weapons grade, even if the fissionable materials aren't at critical mass, the half life is short enough that you want to replace the weapon every once in a while.  Much of the recent work on the nuclear forces has been to replace old bombs with new, to insure that they will function as intended.

Why would one want a better delivery platform the Tridents or Minutemen IIIs?  How would you improve them?  Missiles also have limited lives.  They can only sit in their holes for so long before one wants to replace them.  Last I knew this was an ongoing process.

The aircraft third of the triad is the most vulnerable to an active defense.  It might be cheapest.  You can reuse the delivery platform.  A B2 is pretty survivable stealth wise.  Wiki says 20 of them remain in service.  That would be adequate for small strikes.  Grand strikes would be apt to use the missiles, may the lord forbid.

While the B 52 still has its uses, I wouldn't use one for a nuke mission unless one has complete control of the air over the target.  They are old, slow, and designed well before modern stealth technology.  Still, if one does have control of the air, and we expect such in the sort of war we have been fighting recently, they will do the job relatively cheaply.

Northrop Grumman is currently working on a project originally called the Long Range Bomber, now called the B 21.  The project was initiated in 2009 and was awarded to Northrop Grumman in 2015.  They are hoping to build 80 to 100 planes, with the first arriving around 2025.  After recent aircraft such as the B1, B2, and F-35 really pushed the state of the art resulting in massive cost overruns and few aircraft being produced, the B 21 is designed around existing technology.  The aircraft looks much like a B 2 or a stealth fighter.  Hopefully the relatively conservative design won't result in massive overruns.  Perhaps we can afford to build the full run.

Of course, the greatest problem with Obama upgrading the nuclear force is that the nuclear codes are about to be given to somebody else.

[Warren Dew]

(11-28-2016, 02:19 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 12:54 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 12:28 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: In addition to all that, he has been reinvigorating our nuclear forces.

Where in the world do you get that idea?  The bulk of our nuclear triad is still composed of Tridents, Minuteman IIIs, and B-52s, which all date back to Reagan or before.  There have been ongoing studies about the next generation of weapons, but no money allocated to building them - not even to replace B-52s with B-2s, which Obama could have done without waiting for development time.

It would be nice to see money freed up for Trident and Minuteman III replacements, but getting that through Congress may not be easy.

Bombs deteriorate with age.  When refined to weapons grade, even if the fissionable materials aren't at critical mass, the half life is short enough that you want to replace the weapon every once in a while.  Much of the recent work on the nuclear forces has been to replace old bombs with new, to insure that they will function as intended.

Sure.  Tritium has a 12 year half life, so fusion warheads have to be replaced every few years.  As you note, though, this is an ongoing process; there wasn't anything special Obama was doing.

Quote:Why would one want a better delivery platform the Tridents or Minutemen IIIs?  How would you improve them?  Missiles also have limited lives.  They can only sit in their holes for so long before one wants to replace them.  Last I knew this was an ongoing process.

With respect to the Tridents, like all ships, submarines wear out eventually.  They will need to be replaced starting in 2031 or so.  There have been significant advances in submarine technology since the Tridents were designed - some of which were used in the Seawolf and Virginia class attack submarines - so it makes sense to incorporate those advances in the Trident replacements.

The Peacekeeper was an improvement over the Minuteman III, but they may be restricted by treaty.

Quote:The aircraft third of the triad is the most vulnerable to an active defense.  It might be cheapest.  You can reuse the delivery platform.  A B2 is pretty survivable stealth wise.  Wiki says 20 of them remain in service.  That would be adequate for small strikes.  Grand strikes would be apt to use the missiles, may the lord forbid.

While the B 52 still has its uses, I wouldn't use one for a nuke mission unless one has complete control of the air over the target.  They are old, slow, and designed well before modern stealth technology.  Still, if one does have control of the air, and we expect such in the sort of war we have been fighting recently, they will do the job relatively cheaply.

Northrop Grumman is currently working on a project originally called the Long Range Bomber, now called the B 21.  The project was initiated in 2009 and was awarded to Northrop Grumman in 2015.  They are hoping to build 80 to 100 planes, with the first arriving around 2025.  After recent aircraft such as the B1, B2, and F-35 really pushed the state of the art resulting in massive cost overruns and few aircraft being produced, the B 21 is designed around existing technology.  The aircraft looks much like a B 2 or a stealth fighter.  Hopefully the relatively conservative design won't result in massive overruns.  Perhaps we can afford to build the full run.

Of course, the greatest problem with Obama upgrading the nuclear force is that the nuclear codes are about to be given to somebody else.

Actually building the B-21 sounds like it would be good.  No need to repeat the F-35 boondoggle fiasco, of course.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-28-2016, 02:58 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: With respect to the Tridents, like all ships, submarines wear out eventually.  They will need to be replaced starting in 2031 or so.  There have been significant advances in submarine technology since the Tridents were designed - some of which were used in the Seawolf and Virginia class attack submarines - so it makes sense to incorporate those advances in the Trident replacements.

Agreed, though 2031 is a bit far out.  It's way early to spend much money on the design work.

[Eric the Green]

(11-25-2016, 12:28 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: None of which does any good when wages are stagnant.

Thanks entirely to Republicans blocking raises in the minimum wage, and granting tax breaks to the wealthy while they are allowed by weak unions to make 300 times more than the folks who do the work for them. And thanks to the strong labor market created by CEOs who send factories overseas for cheap labor and replace workers with machines, while simultaneously justifying trickle-down economics by denouncing social safety nets as merely "benefits for people who don't work---" the people THEY have thrown out of work. And by the cuts to education that make it less likely that people can qualify for the high-income tech jobs that still exist. And thanks to the 36 years and counting of trickle-down economics that reduces the demand side, thus keeping the economy and its businesses slow and thus wages stagnant.

And not at all thanks to illegal immigrants who take the jobs no-one else wants for a pittance, likely below minimum wage.

We are STILL WAITING FOR THE TRICKLE that will never come.

[Galen]

(11-28-2016, 02:58 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 02:19 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 12:54 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 12:28 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: In addition to all that, he has been reinvigorating our nuclear forces.

Where in the world do you get that idea?  The bulk of our nuclear triad is still composed of Tridents, Minuteman IIIs, and B-52s, which all date back to Reagan or before.  There have been ongoing studies about the next generation of weapons, but no money allocated to building them - not even to replace B-52s with B-2s, which Obama could have done without waiting for development time.

It would be nice to see money freed up for Trident and Minuteman III replacements, but getting that through Congress may not be easy.

Bombs deteriorate with age.  When refined to weapons grade, even if the fissionable materials aren't at critical mass, the half life is short enough that you want to replace the weapon every once in a while.  Much of the recent work on the nuclear forces has been to replace old bombs with new, to insure that they will function as intended.

Sure.  Tritium has a 12 year half life, so fusion warheads have to be replaced every few years.  As you note, though, this is an ongoing process; there wasn't anything special Obama was doing.

Fusion weapons use Lithium-6 Deuteride because it is stable and easy to store.  The Polonium in the neutron source on the other hand has a fairly short half-life.

[Warren Dew]

Thanks for the correction, Galen.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-28-2016, 02:58 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The Peacekeeper was an improvement over the Minuteman III, but they may be restricted by treaty.

There is a treaty banning missiles with multiple warheads, but that provision is no longer in effect. There were 50 Peacekeepers based in fixed silos, but the last one was taken off line in 2005. The Peacekeeper warheads were moved to Minutemen, while some Peacekeeper missile components are being reused by Orbital Science Corporation for their Minotaur IV satellite launch system.

Peacekeeper was somewhat of a fiasco, not so much as the F 35, but the Pentagon tends to ask developers for systems beyond the affordable state of the art. The result is often overrun. Fewer Peacekeepers were built than planned, but the break up of the Soviet Union had something to do with this. Currently, with the various components scattered to other uses, going back to Peacekeeper is absurdly unlikely.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-29-2016, 11:52 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Next gen land based ICBM will probably be a TEL served system similar to more recent Russian ones. Silos are so 20th century.

Another intriguing notion is air launched ICBMs. Demoed by crews at Vandenberg AFB. The ICBM is carried aloft in a C17's cargo bay. The bay gets opened and a drogue deployed. The drogue pulls the ICBM out of the bay and orients it into launch position. A few seconds after being drogued out and positioned, with the plane now clear, engines are ignited and the drogue jettisoned. Missile launches.

I'm thinking mutual assured destruction is so 20th Century. It's hard to make land based stuff survivable, though TEL or air launch would definitely help.

Do we need to spend a lot of money on making the land based stuff survivable when the submarines are still good? The Minuteman family is almost as old as the B 52, and might still be as capable of doing the job. While maintaining some degree of MADness might make some sort of Dr Strangelove sense, the hot wars have involved insurgencies and low tech opponents that often hide among the population. While totally abandoning MAD may not be prudent, there are other priorities.

[Warren Dew]

MAD can be credited with preventing an all out nuclear war - or, in fact, any nuclear war since 1945. Abandoning it might not be that great an idea.

Whether we still need a triad is another question.

[David Horn]

(11-17-2016, 10:18 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: While I wouldn't mind that, that's not my reasoning.  I will point out one thing:  the important issue is debt service, not debt.  With interest rates at 1%, ten times as much debt is sustainable as is sustainable with interest rates at 10%.  And I can remember when the latter was the case.

Both true and not true. True, in the short term, but not the longer. High interest rates are indicative of inflation which makes fixed debt smaller by making the economy 'bigger'. Of course, 'bigger' may not be anything more than a monetary effect, but the debt to GDP ratio will still drop.

Warren Wrote:Truth.  But I don't advocate any spending increase at all.  Rather, I advocate increasing the deficit through massive income tax reductions.

Why? We have objectively among the smallest tax burdens in modern times, and much less than other advanced economies. More to the point, Thomas Picketty showed how foolish under taxation is if r > g, with r being the rate of return on investments and talent exploitation and g is the growth of the overall economy. The rich merely get richer, and the net worth of nation steadily flows into fewer and fewer hands. Oligarchy is why we're in the mess we're in.

[Mikebert]

(11-12-2016, 11:31 PM)Galen Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 11:23 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 11:15 PM)Galen Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 11:07 PM)taramarie Wrote: Nice one. Spit in the eye for Eric. But is it helpful?

Do you really think its going to matter?  If the left has no sense of humor then that is their problem.  I expect Kinser79 will be chuckling for days after he sees it.  I hope he isn't drinking anything at the time because then he will probably have to clean his computer screen.

I just think it is lowering down to his standard. I thought when he started his thread it was petty and childish. Oh well let him have his bitch slap. I just do not know how effective that approach is.

It wasn't really directed at him.  I just thought of it as a really good parody of the kind of shit the left and the press would say.  You could change the picture of Obama's family to that of Hillary and rewrite the headline and it would still be funny.  How does "Trump Denies Woman a Home" sound?  The joke still works.

(11-29-2016, 01:32 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: MAD can be credited with preventing an all out nuclear war - or, in fact, any nuclear war since 1945.  Abandoning it might not be that great an idea.

Whether we still need a triad is another question.

We never needed a triad. It was purely internal politics.

[David Horn]

(11-18-2016, 10:53 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-17-2016, 04:43 PM)Galen Wrote:

(11-17-2016, 04:04 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I suspect I'm the only one who actively wants more debt, because I think it's necessary to the ideal handling of the demographic slowdown.  Japan has shown that a debt level of 3x GDP is sustainable and even good, given that the demographic slowdown causes exceptionally low or even negative natural interest rates.  We're far below that.

I suspect Galen wants to reduce spending to the point that taxes can also be reduced while reducing the deficit, though I'd be interested in hearing from him.

I'd also be interested in hearing from Classic Xer.

Are you insane?  Japan is working on their third lost decade.  No doubt someone will tell me that Fukishima is responsible for their current problems but this has been going on since about 1990.  It will no doubt be someone who, when a Hurricane next levels a city, says  that it is good for the economy because of the rebuilding.

Japan has been following the Keynesian prescription since the early nineties and it has gotten them nowhere.  Abenomics is Keynesianism on steroids.  The only reason their debt appears sustainable is because of the artificially low interest rates caused by the bank of Japan.

The Harding's response to the Depression of 1920 violated all of the rules of modern macroeconomics and it only lasted eighteen months, typical of recessions prior to the Great Depression.  Hoover and Roosevelt borrowed, taxed and spent like most modern economists say should be done and the Depression dragged on for fourteen years.  The only reason the Depression didn't resume is because FDR was dead and Truman vastly reduced spending after World War II.  Keynesian economists were predicting that the Depression would resume and were absolutely shocked when it didn't.  1946 was one of the best years ever in terms of GDP.  Look up Robert Higgs to understand why the GDP measurements during the war years are completely bogus.  Hint:  It involves the US being turned into a command economy.

Completely agreed regarding Harding, Hoover, and Roosevelt.

Japan's situation is not the same.  It's not a business cycle recession.  In fact, it's not fundamentally an economic issue at all, although it manifests that way; it's a political issue.

Japan's baby boom came two decades before ours.  While we were having a depression in the 1930s and corresponding low birth rates, they were conquering resources in southeastern Asia  and had high birth rates.   It was followed by a bust at the same time as our boom after the war since they lost when we won.  As a result, their big generation started retiring in 1990 instead of 2010.

Since Japan allows virtually no immigration, the retirements and low birth rates resulted in a severe shortage of labor, and, of course, a recession.

If market forces had been at work, the price of labor - wages - would have increased and unemployment would have dropped.  The pain of the depression would have fallen primarily on the nonworking retired as the value of labor went up relative to the value of savings.

However, because of the political power of the swollen retired age groups, the opposite happened.  The living standards of the retirees was maintained with less of the economic output going to the workers.  This resulted in less incentive to work and thus higher unemployment.

Japan did not use serious keynesian stimulus until Abenomics in 2012, not that that would have made a difference.

More detail on my thoughts here:

http://psychohist.livejournal.com/73820....iew=261980
http://psychohist.livejournal.com/74190.html

We're entering a period similar to Japan in the 1990s.  What that says for us is that we need to take all possible measures to increase labor participation.  One of the best tools to do that is heavy cuts to income tax rates.  We need that even if it results in bigger deficits.

You explained the problem, then ignored your own argument.  Japan is not growing, because it's short of young people and the elderly tend to live forever.  It's nearly impossible to create growth in that condition ... and Europe is heading that way too.

Unlimited expansion of the population is impossible, and stagnant growth of the population tends to stagnate the economy.  I've seen no model that fixes that state other than agreeing to lower growth and monetizing the debt to keep things in perspective (growth in the monetary side of the equation with enough inflation to make bonds viable). 

I'm sure you hate that to death.

[Eric the Green]

(11-29-2016, 12:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I'm thinking mutual assured destruction is so 20th Century.

I hear this phrase nowadays, especially in the wake of Trump, and I wonder what on Earth it means. Progress is what was so 20th century, in the USA especially. I miss it.

Better gismos, whether consumer or military, is not progress.