Lets make fun of Obama while he is still relevant.

[playwrite]

(12-11-2016, 10:37 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Economics isn't about making money for oneself, you know.  It's about helping other people make money.

That's what all Zero Hedgers tell each other as they commensurate with each other over that mean old irrational market taking their lunch money.  Me?  I just smile and take their lunch money, it adds up, you know.

[playwrite]

Warren, let me see if I can help just a tad.

Get that Econ book and really focus on what it says about micro-econ vis-a-vis macro-econ. In particular, re-read the section on the Fallacy of Composition several times.

[Warren Dew]

(12-11-2016, 10:51 PM)playwrite Wrote: Warren, let me see if I can help just a tad.

Thanks for the offer, but I'm not actually interested in taking peoples' lunch money, even if you are expert at it.

[Eric the Green]

(12-11-2016, 06:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-11-2016, 04:33 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

Warren Dew Wrote:From the standpoint of desirability, as discussed at the links I provided, we need to start with the need to increase the labor force participation rate, or at least keep it from decreasing any faster than necessary, to maintain living standards.  As discussed at the links I provided, that involves either or both of increasing incentives to work or reducing subsidies for not working.

The obvious way to increase incentives to work is to reduce income tax rates.  Past a certain point, reductions in income tax rates will increase the deficit and thus the debt.  That's a reason increased debt would be desirable.

This makes no sense. You give an example of a plumber who if you cut his taxes, we will be incented to lower his prices to drum up more business (i.e. more hours). That is if you subsidize the plumber so that he can maintain his standard of living while working for less money per hour, he will opt to do this. Why?  Why not just use the extra income from the tax cut to pay down debt, sock more away for retirement, pay for the kid’s college or increase his standard of living? Why would he choose to work more to less money (per hour)?  Would YOU do that?

Why in the world do you think he's making less money?  Do you understand the difference between cutting his taxes and cutting his tax rate?  They aren't synonymous.

Since words aren't working, let's use numbers.  Suppose the plumber is in a 35% marginal tax bracket, state plus federal.  He charges $100 per hour, and takes home $65 per hour.

Now reduce his marginal tax rate to 20%.  Now he can charge $90 per hour - less than before - while taking home $72 per hour - more than before.  With a 10% discount, I have an incentive finally to hire him to do the bathroom work I've been putting off.  With him making 11% more per hour, he has an incentive to schedule me in addition to his other work, working more hours.

Would I do that?  Absolutely I would do that.

Galen, if you are reading this, can I ask a question, since you know people here a lot better than I do?  Is there any chance of getting Mikebert to understand supply curves and demand curves and how they interact?  Obviously he's not going to understand supply side economics without understanding how the supply curve acts.

You don't have to be an expert economist to see the trickle-down scam when it's presented. That's what you presented here Mr. Dew.

[David Horn]

(12-08-2016, 11:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-08-2016, 02:07 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-08-2016, 09:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The 5% <unemployment> figure is relevant to the people in the labor market - that is, looking for jobs.  People who aren't looking for jobs are not part of the labor supply and bringing them back into the labor market is exactly what supply side policies are designed for.

Figures on job openings are extremely high, so the labor demand is there.  It's just that the amount employers are willing to pay doesn't match the amount people are willing to work for.  Supply side policies can help close that gap by removing extraneous costs that employers have to pay but employees don't consider to be worthwhile in terms of compensation.  Reducing taxes would be part of that.  Costs that act like taxes, such as the requirement for gold plated health care for fast food workers working more than 30 hours a week would be another part.  A lot of workers would be happier working 40 hours a week, but getting the health care costs in the form of dollars of direct pay instead.

So your idea is this.  The taxpayers subsidize employers and/or give them dispensation to reduce benefits in return for hiring people they wouldn't hire unless they needed them.  I assume this is an end run around the ACA plus tax cuts for all.  I don't see it working, and, if it does, being anywhere near as effective as direct spending.

No, it's demand side stimulus that subsidizes employers, not supply side stimulus.

H-m-m-m.  Proving subsidies to potential employers seems too be a very supply side policy to me.

[David Horn]

(12-10-2016, 09:53 AM)playwrite Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 04:13 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm not assuming negative GDP growth; I'm looking at statistics from Japan, that show all the things I said.

What I am assuming is that with the US doing the same demographic transition to a retiree heavy population that Japan did 2 decades ago, the effect on us is going to be similar, unless we use different policies.

But the result of the declining population ISN'T a supply issue.  Do you really believe the Japanese are limited in how many Toyotas they can produce or sale?  Have you ever seen a Japanese robotic assembly plant?  I have, and I can tell you there's nothing holding back production other than someone there buying what comes out at the end.

It is a DEMAND issue, and their is a positive feedback element in that as people get freaked by the decline and they spend less and save more.  That savings goess into non-productive JGBs.  Then the interest-differential currency carry trade makes it even worse.  They're stuck because there is not enough economic demand.  Monetary policy or supply side fiscal policy isn't going to do jack.  They've done demand stimulus spending but if you look at the ACTUAL 30 year record, it has been half-ass with plenty of stops and starts for the usual political austerity horseshit reasons.

Let's not discount the obvious: the population of Japan is aging and declining.  The old growth model is hard to maintain in that environment, so some other measure is needed.  It's easy to analyze rising per capita productivity, but the residual per capita debt is also rising.  It's inevitable.  Monetizing the debt over time may be the only choice they have, and it may add a bit of needed inflation too.  Other than that, I'm at a loss.

[David Horn]

(12-11-2016, 06:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-11-2016, 04:33 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

Warren Dew Wrote:From the standpoint of desirability, as discussed at the links I provided, we need to start with the need to increase the labor force participation rate, or at least keep it from decreasing any faster than necessary, to maintain living standards.  As discussed at the links I provided, that involves either or both of increasing incentives to work or reducing subsidies for not working.

The obvious way to increase incentives to work is to reduce income tax rates.  Past a certain point, reductions in income tax rates will increase the deficit and thus the debt.  That's a reason increased debt would be desirable.

This makes no sense. You give an example of a plumber who if you cut his taxes, we will be incented to lower his prices to drum up more business (i.e. more hours). That is if you subsidize the plumber so that he can maintain his standard of living while working for less money per hour, he will opt to do this. Why?  Why not just use the extra income from the tax cut to pay down debt, sock more away for retirement, pay for the kid’s college or increase his standard of living? Why would he choose to work more to less money (per hour)?  Would YOU do that?

Why in the world do you think he's making less money?  Do you understand the difference between cutting his taxes and cutting his tax rate?  They aren't synonymous.

Since words aren't working, let's use numbers.  Suppose the plumber is in a 35% marginal tax bracket, state plus federal.  He charges $100 per hour, and takes home $65 per hour.

Now reduce his marginal tax rate to 20%.  Now he can charge $90 per hour - less than before - while taking home $72 per hour - more than before.  With a 10% discount, I have an incentive finally to hire him to do the bathroom work I've been putting off.  With him making 11% more per hour, he has an incentive to schedule me in addition to his other work, working more hours.

Would I do that?  Absolutely I would do that.

Galen, if you are reading this, can I ask a question, since you know people here a lot better than I do?  Is there any chance of getting Mikebert to understand supply curves and demand curves and how they interact?  Obviously he's not going to understand supply side economics without understanding how the supply curve acts.

Butting in here, but I have to go with Mike.  If you cut my tax rates, it will merely take me less time to achieve the amount of after-tax income I need to be comfortable.  I may elect to work as much and use the extra for <insert savings or spending preference of your choice>.  I could also use the subsidy to work less for the same income.  The only time your model works well is when demand is already high and more income is needed.  Even then, the odds aren't high at the rates you're discussing.  If the cuts were temporary, then there may be a real incentive to 'get while the getting is good'.  Otherwise, why hurry?  The money can be earned later if needed.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-13-2016, 03:27 PM)David Horn Wrote: Butting in here, but I have to go with Mike.  If you cut my tax rates, it will merely take me less time to achieve the amount of after-tax income I need to be comfortable.  I may elect to work as much and use the extra for <insert savings or spending preference of your choice>.  I could also use the subsidy to work less for the same income.  The only time your model works well is when demand is already high and more income is needed.  Even then, the odds aren't high at the rates you're discussing.  If the cuts were temporary, then there may be a real incentive to 'get while the getting is good'.  Otherwise, why hurry?  The money can be earned later if needed.

Seconded.

[Warren Dew]

(12-13-2016, 03:27 PM)David Horn Wrote: Butting in here, but I have to go with Mike.  If you cut my tax rates, it will merely take me less time to achieve the amount of after-tax income I need to be comfortable.

You're assuming I'm cutting your taxes as well as your tax rates.  That might not be a good assumption.  For example, I might be taking away all your deductions, leaving your tax burden as high or higher than before, even with the reduced tax rates.

[David Horn]

(12-13-2016, 09:53 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 03:27 PM)David Horn Wrote: Butting in here, but I have to go with Mike.  If you cut my tax rates, it will merely take me less time to achieve the amount of after-tax income I need to be comfortable.

You're assuming I'm cutting your taxes as well as your tax rates.  That might not be a good assumption.  For example, I might be taking away all your deductions, leaving your tax burden as high or higher than before, even with the reduced tax rates.

A self-employed plumber will have business deductions that are never going to be cut.  The outrage from the business community makes that simply impossible.  Of course, a suicidal maniac might get it done, but the result would never hold.  That POTUS and all enabling members of Congress would lose their jobs in the next election -- and they know it.

[playwrite]

(12-11-2016, 11:03 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-11-2016, 10:51 PM)playwrite Wrote: Warren, let me see if I can help just a tad.

Thanks for the offer, but I'm not actually interested in taking peoples' lunch money, even if you are expert at it.

Well, it could also lead to people not laughing at you.

[playwrite]

(12-08-2016, 11:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-08-2016, 02:07 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-08-2016, 09:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The 5% <unemployment> figure is relevant to the people in the labor market - that is, looking for jobs.  People who aren't looking for jobs are not part of the labor supply and bringing them back into the labor market is exactly what supply side policies are designed for.

Figures on job openings are extremely high, so the labor demand is there.  It's just that the amount employers are willing to pay doesn't match the amount people are willing to work for.  Supply side policies can help close that gap by removing extraneous costs that employers have to pay but employees don't consider to be worthwhile in terms of compensation.  Reducing taxes would be part of that.  Costs that act like taxes, such as the requirement for gold plated health care for fast food workers working more than 30 hours a week would be another part.  A lot of workers would be happier working 40 hours a week, but getting the health care costs in the form of dollars of direct pay instead.

So your idea is this.  The taxpayers subsidize employers and/or give them dispensation to reduce benefits in return for hiring people they wouldn't hire unless they needed them.  I assume this is an end run around the ACA plus tax cuts for all.  I don't see it working, and, if it does, being anywhere near as effective as direct spending.

No, it's demand side stimulus that subsidizes employers, not supply side stimulus.

Consumers create demand both directly and indirectly (business spend to better meet consumer demand).

By far, most consumers are employees, not employers.

You've really got twisted up somewhere along the way.  Go back, start again, and stay as far away from the Zero Hedge types as you possible can!

[playwrite]

(12-13-2016, 03:16 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-10-2016, 09:53 AM)playwrite Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 04:13 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm not assuming negative GDP growth; I'm looking at statistics from Japan, that show all the things I said.

What I am assuming is that with the US doing the same demographic transition to a retiree heavy population that Japan did 2 decades ago, the effect on us is going to be similar, unless we use different policies.

But the result of the declining population ISN'T a supply issue.  Do you really believe the Japanese are limited in how many Toyotas they can produce or sale?  Have you ever seen a Japanese robotic assembly plant?  I have, and I can tell you there's nothing holding back production other than someone there buying what comes out at the end.

It is a DEMAND issue, and their is a positive feedback element in that as people get freaked by the decline and they spend less and save more.  That savings goess into non-productive JGBs.  Then the interest-differential currency carry trade makes it even worse.  They're stuck because there is not enough economic demand.  Monetary policy or supply side fiscal policy isn't going to do jack.  They've done demand stimulus spending but if you look at the ACTUAL 30 year record, it has been half-ass with plenty of stops and starts for the usual political austerity horseshit reasons.

Let's not discount the obvious: the population of Japan is aging and declining.  The old growth model is hard to maintain in that environment, so some other measure is needed.  It's easy to analyze rising per capita productivity, but the residual per capita debt is also rising.  It's inevitable.  Monetizing the debt over time may be the only choice they have, and it may add a bit of needed inflation too.  Other than that, I'm at a loss.

All correct.  And, if that debt is central govt debt, it doesn't matter as long as inflation stays below harmful levels

That's because the debt of a monetary soverign is not really debt.  There is an inherent assumption that debt is eventually paid back, but a monetary soverign's debt., like the US government debt,  is never paid back.  A monetary soverign's debt is 'rolled over' - the US government debt is rolled over in its entirety about every 3--4 months - always has, always will with two possible exceptions -
- Congressional morons don't raise the debt ceiling, or
- President Pussygrabber gets his panties in a wade over something and pushes the nukes button.

[playwrite]

(12-13-2016, 03:27 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-11-2016, 06:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-11-2016, 04:33 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

Warren Dew Wrote:From the standpoint of desirability, as discussed at the links I provided, we need to start with the need to increase the labor force participation rate, or at least keep it from decreasing any faster than necessary, to maintain living standards.  As discussed at the links I provided, that involves either or both of increasing incentives to work or reducing subsidies for not working.

The obvious way to increase incentives to work is to reduce income tax rates.  Past a certain point, reductions in income tax rates will increase the deficit and thus the debt.  That's a reason increased debt would be desirable.

This makes no sense. You give an example of a plumber who if you cut his taxes, we will be incented to lower his prices to drum up more business (i.e. more hours). That is if you subsidize the plumber so that he can maintain his standard of living while working for less money per hour, he will opt to do this. Why?  Why not just use the extra income from the tax cut to pay down debt, sock more away for retirement, pay for the kid’s college or increase his standard of living? Why would he choose to work more to less money (per hour)?  Would YOU do that?

Why in the world do you think he's making less money?  Do you understand the difference between cutting his taxes and cutting his tax rate?  They aren't synonymous.

Since words aren't working, let's use numbers.  Suppose the plumber is in a 35% marginal tax bracket, state plus federal.  He charges $100 per hour, and takes home $65 per hour.

Now reduce his marginal tax rate to 20%.  Now he can charge $90 per hour - less than before - while taking home $72 per hour - more than before.  With a 10% discount, I have an incentive finally to hire him to do the bathroom work I've been putting off.  With him making 11% more per hour, he has an incentive to schedule me in addition to his other work, working more hours.

Would I do that?  Absolutely I would do that.

Galen, if you are reading this, can I ask a question, since you know people here a lot better than I do?  Is there any chance of getting Mikebert to understand supply curves and demand curves and how they interact?  Obviously he's not going to understand supply side economics without understanding how the supply curve acts.

Butting in here, but I have to go with Mike.  If you cut my tax rates, it will merely take me less time to achieve the amount of after-tax income I need to be comfortable.  I may elect to work as much and use the extra for <insert savings or spending preference of your choice>.  I could also use the subsidy to work less for the same income.  The only time your model works well is when demand is already high and more income is needed.  Even then, the odds aren't high at the rates you're discussing.  If the cuts were temporary, then there may be a real incentive to 'get while the getting is good'.  Otherwise, why hurry?  The money can be earned later if needed.

You've touched on one element of "wage stickiness" - it is really hard to reduce wages.  Imagine a plumbing firm telling their plumbers that wages will be cut but the good news is the firm is also cutting prices so there will be more demand - and more job sites for the plumbers to get done each day!  Can't you just hear the cheering?!

The bigger problem with wage stickiness is when we're in a deflationary period.  Macro-wise, it would make better sense to cut everyones' wages a tad, but most businesses will NOT do that.  Instead, they lay people off which has much more socioeconomic downsides than simply reducing wages.  Probable the biggest downside of layoffs instead of wage declines is the former creates much more of a drag once the economy starts to rebound.

[Warren Dew]

(12-14-2016, 03:01 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(12-08-2016, 11:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-08-2016, 02:07 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-08-2016, 09:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The 5% <unemployment> figure is relevant to the people in the labor market - that is, looking for jobs.  People who aren't looking for jobs are not part of the labor supply and bringing them back into the labor market is exactly what supply side policies are designed for.

Figures on job openings are extremely high, so the labor demand is there.  It's just that the amount employers are willing to pay doesn't match the amount people are willing to work for.  Supply side policies can help close that gap by removing extraneous costs that employers have to pay but employees don't consider to be worthwhile in terms of compensation.  Reducing taxes would be part of that.  Costs that act like taxes, such as the requirement for gold plated health care for fast food workers working more than 30 hours a week would be another part.  A lot of workers would be happier working 40 hours a week, but getting the health care costs in the form of dollars of direct pay instead.

So your idea is this.  The taxpayers subsidize employers and/or give them dispensation to reduce benefits in return for hiring people they wouldn't hire unless they needed them.  I assume this is an end run around the ACA plus tax cuts for all.  I don't see it working, and, if it does, being anywhere near as effective as direct spending.

No, it's demand side stimulus that subsidizes employers, not supply side stimulus.

Consumers create demand both directly and indirectly (business spend to better meet consumer demand).

By far, most consumers are employees, not employers.

You've really got twisted up somewhere along the way.  Go back, start again, and stay as far away from the Zero Hedge types as you possible can!

By far the biggest consumer is the federal government.  If you think the government is an "employee", your definitions are seriously off base.

[David Horn]

(12-15-2016, 12:20 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: By far the biggest consumer is the federal government.  If you think the government is an "employee", your definitions are seriously off base.

The Federal government is a lot of things.  It has the world's largest wallet, but spending is controlled by the House of Representatives, and the Tea Party House hasn't been interested in spending, even for the military.  More to the point, the Feds spend anytime they get the votes.  They don't need "income" to fund it.  A bit more spending by the Feds on broadband, roads, the power grid and renewable energy would pay massive benefits, but the GOP is not in the mood.

[Eric the Green]

(12-15-2016, 12:20 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-14-2016, 03:01 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(12-08-2016, 11:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-08-2016, 02:07 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-08-2016, 09:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The 5% <unemployment> figure is relevant to the people in the labor market - that is, looking for jobs.  People who aren't looking for jobs are not part of the labor supply and bringing them back into the labor market is exactly what supply side policies are designed for.

Figures on job openings are extremely high, so the labor demand is there.  It's just that the amount employers are willing to pay doesn't match the amount people are willing to work for.  Supply side policies can help close that gap by removing extraneous costs that employers have to pay but employees don't consider to be worthwhile in terms of compensation.  Reducing taxes would be part of that.  Costs that act like taxes, such as the requirement for gold plated health care for fast food workers working more than 30 hours a week would be another part.  A lot of workers would be happier working 40 hours a week, but getting the health care costs in the form of dollars of direct pay instead.

So your idea is this.  The taxpayers subsidize employers and/or give them dispensation to reduce benefits in return for hiring people they wouldn't hire unless they needed them.  I assume this is an end run around the ACA plus tax cuts for all.  I don't see it working, and, if it does, being anywhere near as effective as direct spending.

No, it's demand side stimulus that subsidizes employers, not supply side stimulus.

Consumers create demand both directly and indirectly (business spend to better meet consumer demand).

By far, most consumers are employees, not employers.

You've really got twisted up somewhere along the way.  Go back, start again, and stay as far away from the Zero Hedge types as you possible can!

By far the biggest consumer is the federal government.  If you think the government is an "employee", your definitions are seriously off base.

Most government workers are employees. They are all employees of the people. Somebody even pays the president's salary. But no doubt he's an employer too, himself. He hires and fires thousands of people. I guess Trump has had some virtual practice at that job.

There's no doubt at all that when the Tea Party fired thousands of government workers in 2011, it slowed the recovery to a crawl. That gave Romney his slogan. This policy was deliberate on the part of the Republicans. Slow the recovery so that Obama would not be re-elected. McConnell made that specific promise.

[Mikebert]

Warren Dew Wrote:Suppose the plumber is in a 35% marginal tax bracket, state plus federal.  He charges $100 per hour, and takes home $65 per hour.

The proposal is to cut tax rates at all brackets.  If the marginal tax rate is being cut by three-sevenths so are the lower rates.  So I will treat the tax cut as being applied to average tax rates.
 
So working 2000 hrs a year he grosses 200K and keeps 130K under the current system.

Quote:Now reduce his marginal tax rate to 20%. 

Now his take home is 160K

Quote:Now he can charge $90 per hour - less than before - while taking home $72 per hour

This gives him a take home income of 144K. Why would he take a 16K pay cut for the same work?

Quote:With a 10% discount, I have an incentive finally to hire him to do the bathroom work I've been putting off.

Yeah sure, but where’s his incentive?
 
The error you are making is you are tying together the lower tax rate and the plumber’s decision to cut his rates as one event. Thus you see the plumber working 2000 hours at 100/hr and taking home 130K versus the plumber working 2000 hours at 90/hr and taking home 144K—14K more. At the same time he is saving his customers 20K for a total gain of 34K at a cost of 30K in lost revenue to the government, which they make up with increasing borrowing. That is borrow 30K get 34K, which seems like free money.

But actually the two events are separate. The tax cut comes first. This boosts the plumber’s income to 160K.  This is now the new basis for comparison for the decision to lower his rates. He could choose to keep the entire 30K bonus and not share any with you.  Why wouldn't he do that? That’s what I would do. What would you do?

[Warren Dew]

(12-15-2016, 06:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-15-2016, 12:20 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-14-2016, 03:01 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(12-08-2016, 11:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-08-2016, 02:07 PM)David Horn Wrote: So your idea is this.  The taxpayers subsidize employers and/or give them dispensation to reduce benefits in return for hiring people they wouldn't hire unless they needed them.  I assume this is an end run around the ACA plus tax cuts for all.  I don't see it working, and, if it does, being anywhere near as effective as direct spending.

No, it's demand side stimulus that subsidizes employers, not supply side stimulus.

Consumers create demand both directly and indirectly (business spend to better meet consumer demand).

By far, most consumers are employees, not employers.

You've really got twisted up somewhere along the way.  Go back, start again, and stay as far away from the Zero Hedge types as you possible can!

By far the biggest consumer is the federal government.  If you think the government is an "employee", your definitions are seriously off base.

Most government workers are employees. They are all employees of the people. Somebody even pays the president's salary. But no doubt he's an employer too, himself. He hires and fires thousands of people. I guess Trump has had some virtual practice at that job.

It's not government employees that are buying the tanks, it's the government as an organization.

Quote:There's no doubt at all that when the Tea Party fired thousands of government workers in 2011, it slowed the recovery to a crawl. That gave Romney his slogan. This policy was deliberate on the part of the Republicans. Slow the recovery so that Obama would not be re-elected. McConnell made that specific promise.

And yet, 2011 is when the unemployment rate finally started coming down again, after going up every year under Pelosi's House leadership.

[pbrower2a]

Unemployment is a lagging indicator in an economic downturn and subsequent recovery. It takes time for companies to realize that their sales volumes are falling, and in the first few weeks of an economic downturn, companies are likely to have the optimism of the boom in which nobody wants to be caught with inadequate inventories or inadequate potential for service. It takes time for businesses to recognize the need to do lay-offs; they would rather cut back on hours (which results in lesser pay but not in people being unemployed) or rely upon normal attrition. On the other side, as things start to improve, businesses generally see any uptick as a fluke until it is sustained. Businesses may prefer to lengthen hours even to the extent of authorizing overtime before hiring new workers or bringing back laid-off workers.

Businesses can rarely know when an economic downturn or an economic upswing begins until after the fact. t