US Elections 2016 Part II: The Debates & General Election

[Ithekro]

Black Friday is coming.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by MCAL

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/30...th-argentinian

Hmmmmmmmmm....

This one's suspicious indeed.

https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/st...14713740853249

Meanwhile some Republicans are very happy people aren't being payed for working OT. So much for being for the middle class.

My understanding is that the Court got it right in terms of legality, though US law isn't my area of expertise.

From an economic perspective, however, I fully support the decision, and I'm saying this as someone who sometimes undertakes unpaid overtime work. For example, I stayed back an extra 3 hours yesterday evening on only one hour of notice.

This is because "reasonable overtime" is an unstated provision of my employment contract, and those potential overtime hours are implicitly factored into my annual pay. Under this arrangement, should my company do poorly - such that I am not required to work overtime at all - then my salary will still remain constant. On the other hand, were the Australian government to require all employment contracts to include time-and-a-half overtime pay, then my annual salary would be cut if no overtime hours are required. I prefer the stability of my fixed salary in the face of variability in my overtime hours, as opposed to the other way round. Any of my colleagues with different preferences are free to negotiate their own arrangements as they see fit.

Ultimately, employment contracts for the middle class are best left as a matter of negotiation between the employer and employee, and the government should be cautious about imposing excessive regulation that very often harms instead of helps.

[Draco Spirit]

Cutting taxes does tends to stimulate the economy. Course it also mean less money to spend as a government, but most take the gamble that it will lead to bigger pie to tax in the long run.

I guess at the moment the big question to ask Trump is how he's going to pay for the infrastructure improvements that he wants to do soonish?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Brother Coa

US stocks hit new highs after Trump win: a breakdown of the rally.



At least now we know "economy will collapse because Trump is president" will not come true, at least not for now.

It is a false rally. Trump is seen as a corporate, which means what if corporates benefit, Wall St and investors do.

Still it has not said what he will implement in his term. His major issues are long term employment and reducing the government debt (which doubled during Obama's presidency).

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by ChuckE

Nah. I still think that won't work in such diverse country like USA

Then call it for what it is and say you don't believe in democracy

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kousaka

Then call it for what it is and say you don't believe in democracy

Well it is a republic.

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by Brother Coa

US stocks hit new highs after Trump win: a breakdown of the rally.



At least now we know "economy will collapse because Trump is president" will not come true, at least not for now.

All that goes up must come down. I actually noticed the raise myself on my own investments. It's kind of scary how easily it's creeping up and it's actually making me a bit paranoid that it might just go bust in a year or so.

[Jaden]

What is Jill Stein doing?

https://news.vice.com/story/jill-ste...e-swing-states

During the election, she seemed to be blasting Clinton a lot, so what is this? I wouldn't donate any money to this, by the way. Even if you are rigidly anti-Trump, it's likely a futile effort. And that Stein grandma is a loose cannon, I tell you. She might be planning to embezzle the money, disappear somewhere and spend it all on cool designer drugs and eco-terrorism.

[monir]

Watch out Russia if Romney becomes the secretary of state. Brother Coa may have to build that bomb shelter after all

[Brother Coa]

@Monir Well these are highly unstable time, we are going toward bad times as world political focus slowly shifts once again.
Having shelter in these kind of times can be really handy.

[Ayato_kanzaki]

[QUOTE=Draco Spirit;5986305]Cutting taxes does tends to stimulate the economy. Course it also mean less money to spend as a government, but most take the gamble that it will lead to bigger pie to tax in the long run.

Not when most of your tax cuts concentrate on the already wealthy. It's pretty clear Trump is a believer of trickle-down economics. But this is a principle that only work if the rich decide to reinvest all the money saved instead of fattening their bank accounts.

Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin, is also a believer of trickle-down economics. Wisconsin was in good economic wealth when he got the job, and four years later, the state was deep in the red, with little job creations to show for it.

I guess at the moment the big question to ask Trump is how he's going to pay for the infrastructure improvements that he wants to do soonish?

I saw an article a few days ago where his economic support for infrastructure improvement, turned out to be only more tax breaks for the companies that would work on those projects. It is far less effective than direct support to create jobs.

And you can be sure that the construction companies belonging to Trump will get the lion's share.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Ayato_kanzaki

Not when most of your tax cuts concentrate on the already wealthy. It's pretty clear Trump is a believer of trickle-down economics. But this is a principle that only work if the rich decide to reinvest all the money saved instead of fattening their bank accounts.

Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin, is also a believer of trickle-down economics. Wisconsin was in good economic wealth when he got the job, and four years later, the state was deep in the red, with little job creations to show for it.

It is true that reducing taxes on the rich will be of little benefit if they simply choose to hoard their wealth, but the rich generally invest a larger proportion of their wealth compared to other segments of the population, which then helps to create more jobs.

As Thomas Sowell pointed out:

"In 1920, when the top tax rate was 73 percent, for people making over $100,000 a year, the federal government collected just over $700 million in income taxes-- and 30 percent of that was paid by people making over $100,000. After a series of tax cuts brought the top rate down to 24 percent, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income tax revenue-- and people making over $100,000 a year now paid 65 percent of the taxes."

Wisconsin isn't deep in the red. It has a budget shortfall but not a budget deficit.

Both fact checks made similar points: Wisconsin, under state law, is required to have a balanced budget. There had once been a projected budget shortfall of $2.2 billion over two years, back in November 2014, after an earlier projection of a $1 billion surplus. But the shortfall was never a deficit — because the law requires a balanced budget.

Indeed, on July 12, two weeks before Trump made the comments that were fact checked, Walker signed into law a two-year balanced budget.

Meanwhile, Wisconsin's 4.1% unemployment rate is at a 15-year low in spite of a 2.5% increase in the participation rate as at May 2015.

Scott Walker's main fault is his overhyped promise of creating 250,000 jobs, of which only half that number was created during his term.

I saw an article a few days ago where his economic support for infrastructure improvement, turned out to be only more tax breaks for the companies that would work on those projects. It is far less effective than direct support to create jobs.

And you can be sure that the construction companies belonging to Trump will get the lion's share.

If you're referring to the increased Keynesian multiplier from direct government expenditure compared to tax cuts, then that's only true if you accept the assumption that the government is able to able to identify the net benefits of potential projects as accurately as the private sector does, and can carry out the constructions as efficiently as the private sector. If you reject those assumptions, then direct government expenditure will only serve to crowd out private investment by diverting capital away from the private sector.

That aside, I agree that conflict of interest is a big problem with Trump's policy positions.

[MCAL]

http://time.com/4582868/donald-trump.../?xid=tcoshare
https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/802652302855311360

Nice to see Trump and his team are continuing their undermining of democracy.

https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/802652302855311360

Tell me again how the media was biased against Trump?

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by frivolity

It is true that reducing taxes on the rich will be of little benefit if they simply choose to hoard their wealth, but the rich generally invest a larger proportion of their wealth compared to other segments of the population, which then helps to create more jobs.

Investing wealth does not mean more jobs even if we see huge GDP gains, and much of the workforce isn't properly trained for jobs of the future. How many times do we have to see your glorious trickle down theory fail for people to get the picture? The whole problem with trickle down economics is that it leads to massive income inequality. There is no incentive to create middle class jobs if the bottom line isn't in the cards for their bank accounts. If trumps victory with his free trade nonsense in indicative of something besides a much larger than anticipated white nationalist sentiment, it's that voters are tired of being forgotten about in this globalist corporatocracy. Sadly I feel they're being utterly conned by Trump but they're about to reap what they sowed.

When economic gains come into conflict with public welfare you need to consider better options.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Investing wealth does not mean more jobs even if we see huge GDP gains, and much of the workforce isn't properly trained for jobs of the future. How many times do we have to see your glorious trickle down theory fail for people to get the picture? The whole problem with trickle down economics is that it leads to massive income inequality. There is no incentive to create middle class jobs if the bottom line isn't in the cards for their bank accounts. If trumps victory with his free trade nonsense in indicative of something besides a much larger than anticipated white nationalist sentiment, it's that voters are tired of being forgotten about in this globalist corporatocracy. Sadly I feel they're being utterly conned by Trump but they're about to reap what they sowed.

When economic gains come into conflict with public welfare you need to consider better options.

Supply-side economics has not failed. The whole buzz-phrase about "trickle down economics" and its supposed failure has become a statement that is treated as a truism and a whipping boy for people in support of bigger government; I would know that, given how I used to be one of them as recently as four years back. Aside from that, income inequality on its own is not a bad thing if society as a whole is better off even if some segments of the population benefit more than others, as opposed to the alternative where everyone benefits equally in terms of being worse off. Upward mobility in the US still remains high even today.

One thing I will agree with is that many people in the US are at risk of losing their rice bowls if they aren't sufficiently trained for future jobs. Perhaps more students should start factoring in their future career prospects when choosing majors instead of enrolling in programs that ultimately take them nowhere!

There was NO significant white nationalist movement that swung the election in Trump's victory. The white vote percentage for Trump is in line with Romney's in 2012 and Bush's in 2004, though Obama made gains in 2008. Hillary lost because she failed to get the minorities to get out and vote for her - not even Kaepernick, the NFL Quarterback who gained fame for refusing to stand for the national anthem.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by frivolity

Supply-side economics has not failed. The whole buzz-phrase about "trickle down economics" and its supposed failure has become a statement that is treated as a truism and a whipping boy for people in support of bigger government; I would know that, given how I used to be one of them as recently as four years back. Aside from that, income inequality on its own is not a bad thing if society as a whole is better off even if some segments of the population benefit more than others, as opposed to the alternative where everyone benefits equally in terms of being worse off. Upward mobility in the US still remains high even today.

One thing I will agree with is that many people in the US are at risk of losing their rice bowls if they aren't sufficiently trained for future jobs. Perhaps more students should start factoring in their future career prospects when choosing majors instead of enrolling in programs that ultimately take them nowhere!

There was NO significant white nationalist movement that swung the election in Trump's victory. The white vote percentage for Trump is in line with Romney's in 2012 and Bush's in 2004, though Obama made gains in 2008. Hillary lost because she failed to get the minorities to get out and vote for her - not even Kaepernick, the NFL Quarterback who gained fame for refusing to stand for the national anthem.

I would take a look at Kansas to see how the Republican wet dream has worked out for them. Supply side economics screws over the middle class in practice. I would also disagree about the nature of income inequality. It gives power disproportionately to too few hands and that's not healthy for the overall economy or politics as a whole. Nonetheless, it's clear that the US is NOT benefiting at the moment from this huge income gap. This does not mean we have to go with extreme Keynesian techniques but we have ample evidence that just cutting taxes for the rich has simply not worked out.

On a semi-related note, I'm actually quite curious about economic ideas such as guaranteed basic income.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I would take a look at Kansas to see how the Republican wet dream has worked out for them. Supply side economics screws over the middle class in practice. I would also disagree about the nature of income inequality. It gives power disproportionately to too few hands and that's not healthy for the overall economy or politics as a whole. Nonetheless, it's clear that the US is NOT benefiting at the moment from this huge income gap. This does not mean we have to go with extreme Keynesian techniques but we have ample evidence that just cutting taxes for the rich has simply not worked out.

On a semi-related note, I'm actually quite curious about economic ideas such as guaranteed basic income.

Kansas' policy did not succeed because Gov Brownback implemented the first half of supply-side economics (tax cuts) but left out the second half of supply-side economics, which is the cutting of government spending. This relates to the point I talked about in my previous post, which is that government expenditure crowds out private investment by diverting capital away from the private sector. Gov Brownback tried to have his cake and eat it too by cutting taxes without cutting spending sufficiently (note that most of the purported cuts are simply reductions in the growth of spending instead of actual reductions in spending), which is why his policies failed.

The best example of supply side economics in the US would be the great depression in the early 1920s that nobody remembers because it did not occur. Within the span of one year, GDP fell 5%, unemployment nearly doubled to double digits, and prices fell 10% (approximate figures since multiple studies have different estimates). Herbert Hoover did nothing, Andrew Mellon pushed for lower taxes, and the economy rebounded into the roaring twenties.

Contrast that with the actual Great Depression that did occur 8 years later in October 1929. Unemployment peaked at 9% and drifted down to 6.3% by June 1930. This time, Herbert Hoover decided to intervene with trade tariffs and the economy tanked into the Great Depression that we all know about.

My counter-example with regard to tax policy is Detroit, which used to be the manufacturing powerhouse of the US. The Detroit Free Press investigated the collapse thoroughly.

Spoiler for Quoting from article:

Instead, amid a huge exodus of residents, plummeting tax revenues and skyrocketing home abandonment, Detroit’s leaders engaged in a billion-dollar borrowing binge, created new taxes and failed to cut expenses when they needed to. Simultaneously, they gifted workers and retirees with generous bonuses. And under pressure from unions and, sometimes, arbitrators, they failed to cut health care benefits — saddling the city with staggering costs that today threaten the safety and quality of life of people who live here.

The numbers, most from records deeply buried in the public library, lay waste to misconceptions about the roots of Detroit’s economic crisis. For critics who want to blame Mayor Coleman Young for starting this mess, think again. The mayor’s sometimes fiery rhetoric may have contributed to metro Detroit’s racial divide, but he was an astute money manager who recognized, early on, the challenges the city faced and began slashing staff and spending to address them.

And Wall Street types who applauded Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick’s financial acumen following his 2005 deal to restructure city pension debt should consider this: The numbers prove that his plan devastated the city’s finances and was a key factor that drove Detroit to file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy in July...

Decades of mismanagement added to Detroit’s fiscal woes. The city notoriously bungled multiple federal aid programs and overpaid outrageously to incentivize projects such as the Chrysler Jefferson North plant. Bureaucracy bogged down even the simplest deals and contracts. In a city that needed urgency, major city functions often seemed rudderless.

When all the numbers are crunched, one fact is crystal clear: Yes, a disaster was looming for Detroit. But there were ample opportunities when decisive action by city leaders might have fended off bankruptcy.

If Mayors Jerome Cavanagh and Roman Gribbs had cut the workforce in the 1960s and early 1970s as the population and property values dropped. If Mayor Dennis Archer hadn’t added more than 1,100 employees in the 1990s when the city was flush but still losing population. If Kilpatrick had shown more fiscal discipline and not launched a borrowing spree to cover operating expenses that continued into Mayor Dave Bing’s tenure. Over five decades, there were many ‘if only’ moments.

“Detroit got into a trap of doing a lot of borrowing for cash flow purposes and then trying to figure out how to push costs (out) as much as possible,” said Bettie Buss, a former city budget staffer who spent years analyzing city finances for the nonpartisan Citizens Research Council of Michigan. “That was the whole culture — how do we get what we want and not pay for it until tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow?”

Ultimately, Detroit ended up with $18 billion to $20 billion in debt and unfunded pension and health care liabilities. Gov. Rick Snyder appointed bankruptcy attorney Kevyn Orr as the city’s emergency manager, and Orr filed for Chapter 9 on July 18.

If you consider that putting disproportionate power in the hands of too few is bad for the economy and for politics - a position that I agree with by the way - then why would you be in favour of higher taxes and bigger government? Those, by definition, are all about putting power in fewer hands instead of allowing individuals to make decisions for themselves.

It probably goes without saying that I am heavily against the idea of a universal basic income and consider to it to be a terrible, terrible policy.


Edit: missing paragraph in above quote.

The State of Michigan also bears some blame. Lansing politicians reduced Detroit’s state-shared revenue by 48% from 1998 to 2012, withholding $172 million from the city, according to state records.

[Ithekro]

The problem has always been where to cut spending. The GOP and like minded are for cutting social programs, which after this many decades is starting to become considered abhorrent by a larger segment of the population.

Others would want to cut back on the military, and while it could use a trim, it is unclear if trimming would cause problem depending on what was cut. While the US military is huge, it also shows signs of age in its equipment and a lot of the new tech stuff is too bleeding edge advanced sometime that it doesn't work as needed to replace ships, planes, and other equipment built or designed in the 1970s and 1980s. The Navy has been cutting back on nuclear aircraft carriers since the end of the Cold War and they are getting to the point were they could be stretched too thinly, as with the present rate of construction, the older ships will phase out before all the new ones are built, with the last of the newer class likely needing to be built to replace the first of her class in some 50 years. And that is just ten ships going down to nine, with one always going to be out of service for a refueling or refit, and likely a second one out for crew rotations and training. We presently have a lot of ocean commitments for those ten carriers we have in service.

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by MCAL

http://time.com/4582868/donald-trump.../?xid=tcoshare
https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/802652302855311360

Nice to see Trump and his team are continuing their undermining of democracy.

Very presidential, calling millions of people who voted for Clinton "illegal". He is doing nothing to calm the situation.

[Ithekro]

Likely fighting stupid with stupid....doesn't help very often, but sometimes it becomes funny later.