Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Report Card for Donald Trump
#21
(12-10-2016, 01:07 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
Warren Dew Wrote:When agriculture was taken over by machines, somehow people still remained employed.  When ditch digging was taken over by machines, somehow the economy came up with the jobs.

The same will happen this time around.

Yeah, but baristas , waiters, and fast foodies jobs are shit jobs.

Good waiters make good money, though they have to have the right kind of personality.  Fast food jobs are among those that will be replaced.

Quote:
Quote:Tax cuts were not Reagan's signature issue during the campaign, though.  "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" was.

Yup, I remember that one.  How about are you better off now then you were in 2008?  The answer here is a resounding no. Say, let's also have a bull market in torches and pitchforks! Tongue  Btw, here's hoping for a cat 5 hurricane to take out the Wall $treet Hamptons hangout.  That would make my day you know.

It's a no for me, too.  It was also a no for me in 2012, which is why I voted against Obama.
Reply
#22
(12-10-2016, 02:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
Warren Dew Wrote:Good waiters make good money, though they have to have the right kind of personality.  Fast food jobs are among those that will be replaced.

Yeah, but there's a lot of us who are introverts/misanthropes. I think a better idea would be to slash defense spending and redirect that money to reducing the SS eligibility age to age 50 and Medicare to age 0. Other funds can be had by printing the same amount of money that equals the trade deficit. [I don't mind other countries sending us real goods for green pieces of paper, mind you. ]  I'd also delete all government rules that support oligopolies like the inability to get health insurance across state lines, reduce copyright length to 15 years, [take that Micky Mouse!], and open up prescription drug imports [take that Big Pharma], and impose pollution sanctions on cheap goods regardless of source that just go from store to landfill within a year.
Then, there's MMT for tasks that need to be done like super fund cleanups, acid mine drainage cleanup, etc.
There is no economic system that has all of the answers.

Quote:It's a no for me, too.  It was also a no for me in 2012, which is why I voted against Obama.

I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. Obamacare, while imperfect is a lot better than nothing which is what the Republicans offered.  The Republicans still believe in magic unicorns that shit golden bricks. Global Warming is real and joints like Wally World are never going to provide meaningful health insurance for their employees. The retraining as such is a joke. If you're over 50 , a student loan is the kiss of death for one's finances and age discrimination still exists.  Maybe we need a "Joneser lives Matter" or somesuch.
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#23
(12-10-2016, 01:50 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Reagan's 1981 tax cut was an across the board cut of 23%, between 3 percentage points and 20 percentage points depending on your bracket.  The social security tax rate increase was less than 1 percentage point.  Only by being ignorant of basic arithmetic can one believe that Reagan increased tax rates overall.

Not overall, but he definitely does not deserve an A on lower taxes, since he raised them again somewhat. And your figures are completely bogus about social security taxes. However you figure it, it was a substantial increase for working people, while he lowered taxes on the wealthy.

Quote:China could reduce tariffs on our products, and improve intellectual property law enforcement.

Mexico could impose worker and environmental protections similar to our own to help level costs.

That would be interesting. Trump would demand environmental protections by Mexico while he utterly destroys them here in the USA. NO, that will not sell. And we have no power over Mexico's environmental laws, or worker protection laws either, which Trump wants to destroy here too.

China or Mexico reducing tariffs on our products, will do diddly shit to make companies here in the USA stop going there to replace their American workers here with their cheap labor. No, Trump definitely promised tariffs, not free trade. NAFTA is free trade; he called it the worst deal ever. He wants to impose 35% tariffs on companies that leave. That's not free trade; it's a promise for tariffs.

Trump's plan and the plans of libertarians like yourself is to make America more like Mexico. Or really, let's say it like it is-- even WORSE than Mexico. Well, that's one way to reduce immigration, I guess. That's all he cares about. Just get rid of the people coming here who are not like him, that only rate a 4 by his standards of appearances.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#24
Will Trump impose tariffs? Would they work? Have they worked before? Here's an analysis by an expert.



"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#25
Quote:If you grade him on tax cuts, he gets an A too.

He also promised to balance the budget.  That’s what I graded him and all presidents on until 2002, when I gave up on the idea as hopeless.


Quote:No one thinks it's likely Trump would withdraw from NATO or let Japan or South Korea get nuclear weapons;

I don’t either.
 
Quote:they would be incompatible with his core promise of making America great again. 

No they are not.
 
Quote:..my judgement is that you would be more likely to have changed your mind realized those were stupid ideas

They are not stupid ideas, Trump is right. I just don’t think the idea is important enough to him to actually pursue.


Quote:He's talked about lots of things that were not promises.  Tariffs were one of them.

He presented himself as opposed to free trade.  That means tariffs.  Otherwise it’s all talk. This country was built on tariffs.  American became great on the strength of those tariffs.  Since they were withdrawn America has become progressively weaker and weaker.


Quote:Trump is not the first choice of us Austrian Tea Party folks; for most of us, Cruz was.  We don't necessarily expect Trump to follow our policies in every respect.  Certainly the "do nothing" response worked great in 1920 and that's what we would hope for, but I certainly don't view it as a promise.

I never said it was a promise.  But with the Tea Party caucus it will be hard to get a Republican majority for any action, unless Trump goes all out to sell it.  All I am asking is that he not make the effort.  Hold rallies instead.
Reply
#26
(12-10-2016, 04:15 PM)Mikebert Wrote:
Quote:He's talked about lots of things that were not promises.  Tariffs were one of them.

He presented himself as opposed to free trade.  That means tariffs.  Otherwise it’s all talk. This country was built on tariffs.  American became great on the strength of those tariffs.  Since they were withdrawn America has become progressively weaker and weaker.

He had said the problem is not that the trade deals exist; it's that they are bad deals.  He wants to renegotiate them, not get rid of them.  Reducing China's tariffs on us to the level of our tariffs on China, for example, would substantially expand a huge market for US exports.

The country was virtually destroyed by tariffs in the Great Depression.  The global economic advantage of the U.S. is our position on both of the world's big ocean systems, giving us a huge advantage in global commerce.  The higher the levels of international trade, the better it is for the US.

Quote:
Quote:Trump is not the first choice of us Austrian Tea Party folks; for most of us, Cruz was.  We don't necessarily expect Trump to follow our policies in every respect.  Certainly the "do nothing" response worked great in 1920 and that's what we would hope for, but I certainly don't view it as a promise.

I never said it was a promise.  But with the Tea Party caucus it will be hard to get a Republican majority for any action, unless Trump goes all out to sell it.  All I am asking is that he not make the effort.  Hold rallies instead.

With a former Goldman person at Treasury, I think it's likely that any risk to the big banks will be met with bailouts.  The Tea Party folks are not yet numerous enough to dictate Republican legislative policy.  But we can always hope, I suppose.
Reply
#27
(12-11-2016, 02:57 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(12-10-2016, 04:15 PM)Mikebert Wrote:
Quote:He's talked about lots of things that were not promises.  Tariffs were one of them.

He presented himself as opposed to free trade.  That means tariffs.  Otherwise it’s all talk. This country was built on tariffs.  American became great on the strength of those tariffs.  Since they were withdrawn America has become progressively weaker and weaker.

He had said the problem is not that the trade deals exist; it's that they are bad deals.  He wants to renegotiate them, not get rid of them.  Reducing China's tariffs on us to the level of our tariffs on China, for example, would substantially expand a huge market for US exports.
That's just a talking point.  I interpret Trump's "bad deals" to mean "free trade with Mexico/China that has been bad for the US".  What MAKEs those deals bad is they don't protect American jobs from unfair competition. The solution is protectionism, and that means tariffs. People get all itchy about the word tariff (example, YOU) so Trump used other language, but if he actually wants to get serious about free trade, then yeah he means tariffs.

Quote:The country was virtually destroyed by tariffs in the Great Depression.

That is a line of horseshit that has been bandied about by the pro-trade folks (i.e. Republican Chamber of Commerce types and Democratic neoliberals) as justification for their trade policy. Trump believes it less than I do and I don't believe it all. Look I felt the way you do in the 1990's and only saw through the BS about 15 years ago.  Trump was seeing things the way I do now thirty years ago. He never bought the horseshit in the first place.
Reply
#28
(12-11-2016, 04:51 PM)Mikebert Wrote:
(12-11-2016, 02:57 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(12-10-2016, 04:15 PM)Mikebert Wrote:
Quote:He's talked about lots of things that were not promises.  Tariffs were one of them.

He presented himself as opposed to free trade.  That means tariffs.  Otherwise it’s all talk. This country was built on tariffs.  American became great on the strength of those tariffs.  Since they were withdrawn America has become progressively weaker and weaker.

He had said the problem is not that the trade deals exist; it's that they are bad deals.  He wants to renegotiate them, not get rid of them.  Reducing China's tariffs on us to the level of our tariffs on China, for example, would substantially expand a huge market for US exports.

That's just a talking point.  I interpret Trump's "bad deals" to mean "free trade with Mexico/China that has been bad for the US".  What MAKEs those deals bad is they don't protect American jobs from unfair competition.

If the competition under those deals is unfair, then they aren't free trade deals - they're just trade deals.  The solution is to fix the unfairness.

Quote:
Quote:The country was virtually destroyed by tariffs in the Great Depression.

That is a line of horseshit that has been bandied about by the pro-trade folks (i.e. Republican Chamber of Commerce types and Democratic neoliberals) as justification for their trade policy. Trump believes it less than I do and I don't believe it all. Look I felt the way you do in the 1990's and only saw through the BS about 15 years ago.  Trump was seeing things the way I do now thirty years ago. He never bought the horseshit in the first place.

Today isn't 30 years ago.  30 years ago, the free and not so free trade agreements didn't exist; Japan was the primary problem then, and Japan had huge tariffs and nontariff barriers to US goods and services.

Today, the world is dominated by regional trade agreements.  The ones most problematic to the US are not the ones that we're part of, but the ones that we aren't part of - for example the EU, which is basically a protectionist agreement as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

If you think Smoot Hawley and the resultant retaliations helped the US economy, you're ignoring all of the empirical evidence about it.
Reply
#29
(12-09-2016, 08:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: So the question is, what supports the economy, then? Who buys all the stuff and services that the machines churn out for us? And most of all, why should a few CEOs and a few engineers get ALL the fucking money for what the MACHINES produce? Who invented and built these machines? The workers, the people did. The people should get the rewards for this work-saving revolution. Good. We don't have to work anymore. So the owners and managers of the machines will have to COUGH UP THE DOUGH! No more trickle-down economics. No more blaming poor ethnic freeloaders for your problems, libertarians! We all should get the money we need directly from government taxes on the machine owners, and then and only then will they have any customers. I don't see how that's not the future.

This is the dilemma inherent to modernity.  We can do everything cheaper, quicker and easier, but we can't have any of it because we can't afford it.  It's the largest and most complete oxymoron ever.  Yet here we are.

That's why any 4T resolution will be incomplete at best.  We haven't the foggiest idea how to resolve this core issue, but can't avoid it either.  Add climate change to the mix (also resolvable by machines) and the challenge only gets greater.  Capital won't tolerate confiscation of their property, but they can't get paid for it if no one has the wherewithal.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#30
(12-10-2016, 12:07 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: When agriculture was taken over by machines, somehow people still remained employed.  When ditch digging was taken over by machines, somehow the economy came up with the jobs.

The same will happen this time around.

This assumes that the economy can expand infinitely. As agriculture died, industrial production increased to pick up the slack. But this time, we're talking about machines that replace humans completely. They no longer needed human operators or even maintenance personnel. Other than the arts, what is uniquely human that will continue to have value? Can we all be creatives? I doubt it. Most of us have zero inherent talent.

Warren Dew Wrote:
Eric the Green Wrote:So the question is, what supports the economy, then? Who buys all the stuff and services that the machines churn out for us? And most of all, why should a few CEOs and a few engineers get ALL the fucking money for what the MACHINES produce? Who invented and built these machines? The workers, the people did. The people should get the rewards for this work-saving revolution.

Actually, the engineers built the machines, facilitated by the CEOs, and investors paid for the machines.

You ignored the real question to answer the softball that followed it. The real question is still there. Or we can simplify it to, how does the economy work with no need for human labor? Most of us are not capitalists.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#31
(12-10-2016, 01:50 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Reagan's 1981 tax cut was an across the board cut of 23%, between 3 percentage points and 20 percentage points depending on your bracket.  The social security tax rate increase was less than 1 percentage point.  Only by being ignorant of basic arithmetic can one believe that Reagan increased tax rates overall.

It may be worth noting that this guy actually understand Reaganomics, and argues against it today.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#32
(12-13-2016, 01:24 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(12-10-2016, 12:07 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: When agriculture was taken over by machines, somehow people still remained employed.  When ditch digging was taken over by machines, somehow the economy came up with the jobs.

The same will happen this time around.

This assumes that the economy can expand infinitely.  As agriculture died, industrial production increased to pick up the slack.  But this time, we're talking about machines that replace humans completely.  They no longer needed human operators or even maintenance personnel.  Other than the arts, what is uniquely human that will continue to have value?  Can we all be creatives?  I doubt it.  Most of us have zero inherent talent.

There's human creativity tied up in the design of every product, because the end users are humans.  There's also plenty of creativity in creating the software infrastructure for virtual products and services.  We may not all be able to be artists, but we all have some degree of useful creativity and mental flexibility that software doesn't yet have.  And that's aside from the fact that you're being overly optimistic regarding complete replacement of human operators and maintenance.

Quote:
Warren Dew Wrote:
Eric the Green Wrote:So the question is, what supports the economy, then? Who buys all the stuff and services that the machines churn out for us? And most of all, why should a few CEOs and a few engineers get ALL the fucking money for what the MACHINES produce? Who invented and built these machines? The workers, the people did. The people should get the rewards for this work-saving revolution.

Actually, the engineers built the machines, facilitated by the CEOs, and investors paid for the machines.

You ignored the real question to answer the softball that followed it.  The real question is still there.  Or we can simplify it to, how does the economy work with no need for human labor?  Most of us are not capitalists.

There will still be a need for human labor.  Even if CEOs and engineers were the only ones making money from manufacturing, they could consume plenty of services if they had the money to pay for it.
Reply
#33
(12-13-2016, 01:47 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(12-10-2016, 01:50 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Reagan's 1981 tax cut was an across the board cut of 23%, between 3 percentage points and 20 percentage points depending on your bracket.  The social security tax rate increase was less than 1 percentage point.  Only by being ignorant of basic arithmetic can one believe that Reagan increased tax rates overall.

It may be worth noting that this guy actually understand Reaganomics, and argues against it today.

He also argues that it worked well when it was used.  Do you agree with that?  If not, why are you bothering to bring him up?
Reply
#34
(12-16-2016, 11:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(12-13-2016, 01:47 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(12-10-2016, 01:50 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Reagan's 1981 tax cut was an across the board cut of 23%, between 3 percentage points and 20 percentage points depending on your bracket.  The social security tax rate increase was less than 1 percentage point.  Only by being ignorant of basic arithmetic can one believe that Reagan increased tax rates overall.

It may be worth noting that this guy actually understand Reaganomics, and argues against it today.

He also argues that it worked well when it was used.  Do you agree with that?  If not, why are you bothering to bring him up?

Reaganomics? Donald Trump could go beyond Reaganomics.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#35
Warren Dew Wrote:There's human creativity tied up in the design of every product, because the end users are humans.  There's also plenty of creativity in creating the software infrastructure for virtual products and services.  We may not all be able to be artists, but we all have some degree of useful creativity and mental flexibility that software doesn't yet have.  And that's aside from the fact that you're being overly optimistic regarding complete replacement of human operators and maintenance.

Let's just say that this is highly unlikely, and leave it at that. What you are suggesting is a wholesale transformation of humanity. Many social conservatives will not adapt, even though they can, because they are wired to seek continuity. Just this group alone will present decades of challenges, and these people will not "conform" without a fight.

Most people are not mentally equipped to be self directed. What does leadership mean in a society with no real structure?

Warren Dew Wrote:
David Horn Wrote:You ignored the real question to answer the softball that followed it.  The real question is still there.  Or we can simplify it to, how does the economy work with no need for human labor?  Most of us are not capitalists.

There will still be a need for human labor.  Even if CEOs and engineers were the only ones making money from manufacturing, they could consume plenty of services if they had the money to pay for it.

Under that model, the rest of humanity begs on street corners. And, of course, no one rebels.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#36
(12-16-2016, 11:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(12-13-2016, 01:47 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(12-10-2016, 01:50 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Reagan's 1981 tax cut was an across the board cut of 23%, between 3 percentage points and 20 percentage points depending on your bracket.  The social security tax rate increase was less than 1 percentage point.  Only by being ignorant of basic arithmetic can one believe that Reagan increased tax rates overall.

It may be worth noting that this guy actually understand Reaganomics, and argues against it today.

He also argues that it worked well when it was used.  Do you agree with that?  If not, why are you bothering to bring him up?

Ok course he liked it then.  Bruce Bartlett designed the system Reagan used.  Other economists argued then, and now, that it was mostly smoke and mirrors, but I cited Bartlett because he saw real value ... then.  He sees it as unusable to counterproductive now.

If the architect says the building is falling, it may be a good time to evacuate.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#37
Warren Dew Wrote:If you think Smoot Hawley and the resultant retaliations helped the US economy, you're ignoring all of the empirical evidence about it.
I didn't say it was good for the economy.  You said it destroyed the economy. I said that was horseshit. That is, there is little evidence that the tariff was a significant factor in the downturn over 1929-30.  I believe it had a mildly negative impact because of this identity:

GDP = Aggregate demand - trade deficit.

Since we had a trade surplus back then, trade volume added (modestly) to GDP.  So an effort to reduce the volume of trade (which is what Smooth Hawley was intended to do) would have a modest negative impact on GDP, all else being the same.  Today we have a large trade deficit and so reducing trade volume will make GDP modestly larger, all else being the same.  But the impact is secondary to the larger impact from tax and monetary policy.  The Fed response to the Credit Anstalt collapse was a more important factor than Smoot Hawley  Similarly part of our economic problems stem from the "October revolution" in Fed policy.
Reply
#38
(12-16-2016, 11:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: He also argues that it worked well when it was used.  Do you agree with that?  If not, why are you bothering to bring him up?
Short and sandals work well in the summer when it is hot outside. Unless you live in the Southern hemisphere (hi, Tara Marie!), they are completely inappropriate now. Same with tax cuts; perhaps they were needed back in 1980 (during the late Awakening, when it was our saecular summer) but now in our saecular winter, we need other tools.
Reply
#39
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#40
(12-17-2016, 08:24 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(12-16-2016, 11:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(12-13-2016, 01:47 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(12-10-2016, 01:50 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Reagan's 1981 tax cut was an across the board cut of 23%, between 3 percentage points and 20 percentage points depending on your bracket.  The social security tax rate increase was less than 1 percentage point.  Only by being ignorant of basic arithmetic can one believe that Reagan increased tax rates overall.

It may be worth noting that this guy actually understand Reaganomics, and argues against it today.

He also argues that it worked well when it was used.  Do you agree with that?  If not, why are you bothering to bring him up?

Ok course he liked it then.  Bruce Bartlett designed the system Reagan used.  Other economists argued then, and now, that it was mostly smoke and mirrors, but I cited Bartlett because he saw real value ... then.  He sees it as unusable to counterproductive now.

If you don't believe he was right then, you have no reason to believe he is right now.  In other words, you're just fishing up a red herring.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Trump's real German analog Donald Trump takes office on Friday, and the world hol pbrower2a 2 1,197 02-09-2017, 05:52 PM
Last Post: freivolk

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)