Bruddah IZ
DA
Wrong
Essential Economics for Politicians
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
-
- Tags
- finance too
Multi Sport
DA
Who was Du? And what ever became of Grandpa Duck?
Du was Rat Patrol.
Multi Sport
DA
Lol... makes sense. All that was missing was the R, N and K.
Bruddah IZ
DA
– let’s say that Beijing subsidized the successful development of a pill that cures all cancers. The pill need be taken only once, it has no ill side-effects, and it is sold globally by Chinese pharmaceutical companies for $10 apiece. This pill would destroy the comparative advantage long enjoyed by American oncologists. Do you believe that Uncle Sam should obstruct Americans who are victimized by cancer from having access to this pill on the grounds that its development is the result of foreign-government intervention that destroyed the comparative advantage of some very high-wage American workers? If not, why do you think that Uncle Sam should obstruct Americans who are victimized by, say, unnecessarily high prices of steel or of solar panels from having access to steel and solar panels whose prices are made lower on global markets by foreign-government subsidies?--Donald J. Boudreaux
Bruddah IZ
DA
Stop "Protecting" Us from Affordable Washing Machines
More "American Consumers Last" trade policy.
by Mark J. Perry
In his latest Boston Globe column, Jeff Jacoby (“Donald Trump protects Americans from affordable washing machines“) explains how Donald Trump’s “American Consumers Last” trade policies are an act of economic aggression that victimize US consumers and make America poorer, not more prosperous:
In his Oval Office statement announcing the tariffs on imported solar cells and washing machines, President Trump said their purpose was to “uphold a principle of fair trade and demonstrate to the world that the United States will not be taken advantage of anymore.”
This is the way protectionists [scarcityists] always talk. They portray foreign sellers as economic aggressors, who “dump” their wares on the US market and “take advantage” of Americans by engaging in “unfair” trade.
Yet the overseas manufacturers have taken advantage of nobody. Samsung and LG don’t force Americans to buy their machines — they encourage them to do so, by offering features and designs that Americans like at prices Americans find attractive. Not a single Samsung or LG washer enters the United States unless a buyer has chosen to import it. The only party engaging in economic aggression here is the White House. Trump’s tariffs will penalize the Korean companies not for doing something wrong, but for supplying Americans with choices Whirlpool wasn’t giving them. Consumers will be the losers, victimized by a government more interested in protecting a peevish company from lively competition than in protecting the gains that lively competition yields.
More "American Consumers Last" trade policy.
by Mark J. Perry
In his latest Boston Globe column, Jeff Jacoby (“Donald Trump protects Americans from affordable washing machines“) explains how Donald Trump’s “American Consumers Last” trade policies are an act of economic aggression that victimize US consumers and make America poorer, not more prosperous:
In his Oval Office statement announcing the tariffs on imported solar cells and washing machines, President Trump said their purpose was to “uphold a principle of fair trade and demonstrate to the world that the United States will not be taken advantage of anymore.”
This is the way protectionists [scarcityists] always talk. They portray foreign sellers as economic aggressors, who “dump” their wares on the US market and “take advantage” of Americans by engaging in “unfair” trade.
Yet the overseas manufacturers have taken advantage of nobody. Samsung and LG don’t force Americans to buy their machines — they encourage them to do so, by offering features and designs that Americans like at prices Americans find attractive. Not a single Samsung or LG washer enters the United States unless a buyer has chosen to import it. The only party engaging in economic aggression here is the White House. Trump’s tariffs will penalize the Korean companies not for doing something wrong, but for supplying Americans with choices Whirlpool wasn’t giving them. Consumers will be the losers, victimized by a government more interested in protecting a peevish company from lively competition than in protecting the gains that lively competition yields.
So you're a Globalist?Stop "Protecting" Us from Affordable Washing Machines
More "American Consumers Last" trade policy.
by Mark J. Perry
In his latest Boston Globe column, Jeff Jacoby (“Donald Trump protects Americans from affordable washing machines“) explains how Donald Trump’s “American Consumers Last” trade policies are an act of economic aggression that victimize US consumers and make America poorer, not more prosperous:
In his Oval Office statement announcing the tariffs on imported solar cells and washing machines, President Trump said their purpose was to “uphold a principle of fair trade and demonstrate to the world that the United States will not be taken advantage of anymore.”
This is the way protectionists [scarcityists] always talk. They portray foreign sellers as economic aggressors, who “dump” their wares on the US market and “take advantage” of Americans by engaging in “unfair” trade.
Yet the overseas manufacturers have taken advantage of nobody. Samsung and LG don’t force Americans to buy their machines — they encourage them to do so, by offering features and designs that Americans like at prices Americans find attractive. Not a single Samsung or LG washer enters the United States unless a buyer has chosen to import it. The only party engaging in economic aggression here is the White House. Trump’s tariffs will penalize the Korean companies not for doing something wrong, but for supplying Americans with choices Whirlpool wasn’t giving them. Consumers will be the losers, victimized by a government more interested in protecting a peevish company from lively competition than in protecting the gains that lively competition yields.
Bruddah IZ
DA
What does that mean?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Why am I not worried that some group of people or the entire world are "moving towards socialism"?
Because I have eyes.
Everywhere I look — every state, country, city, or region in every culture and tongue — everywhere I have ever been or heard about consists of people who daily reveal their love for markets. People the world over love free trade and the fruits thereof. They seek it. They find it even when governments try to stamp it out. It cannot die.
People love to create, exchange, produce, consume, innovate, improve, and seek material and spiritual progress, happiness, and comfort. The remotest place on earth, if humans live there, will have shops and markets and trading of some kind.
Everywhere capitalism has an ounce of oxygen or an inch of space, it explodes with a force untouchable by any do-gooder scheme of violence and control.
Show me a protester, and I will show you his closet full of the fruits of capitalism. Show me an advocate of redistributionism, and I’ll show you her interest-yielding accounts. Show me an unruly mob, and I’ll show you a group of consumers and producers who jump at every chance to engage in peaceful, self-interested trade.--I. Morehouse
Because I have eyes.
Everywhere I look — every state, country, city, or region in every culture and tongue — everywhere I have ever been or heard about consists of people who daily reveal their love for markets. People the world over love free trade and the fruits thereof. They seek it. They find it even when governments try to stamp it out. It cannot die.
People love to create, exchange, produce, consume, innovate, improve, and seek material and spiritual progress, happiness, and comfort. The remotest place on earth, if humans live there, will have shops and markets and trading of some kind.
Everywhere capitalism has an ounce of oxygen or an inch of space, it explodes with a force untouchable by any do-gooder scheme of violence and control.
Show me a protester, and I will show you his closet full of the fruits of capitalism. Show me an advocate of redistributionism, and I’ll show you her interest-yielding accounts. Show me an unruly mob, and I’ll show you a group of consumers and producers who jump at every chance to engage in peaceful, self-interested trade.--I. Morehouse
Hüsker Dü
DA
Do you drool a lot? Were you made to wear a helmet on the small yellow bus you rode to school?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Still mad about the Snopes and FEE article that agreed with each other and made you look like a fool for saying otherwise.
Bruddah IZ
DA
The Laffer Curve: It's Time to Stop Laughing
The new tax plan has shown that Arthur Laffer’s analysis was correct.
The new tax plan has shown that Arthur Laffer’s analysis was correct.
Bruddah IZ
DA
The Laffer Curve shows the direct correlation between tax rates and tax revenue. The graph suggests that there is a certain tax rate the government should impose. To better understand the graph, you have to understand where placing the tax rate at either end of the X-axis would mean. If the government imposed a tax rate of 0 percent, the government would not collect any revenue. If the government imposed a tax rate of 100 percent, individuals would no longer work and businesses would no longer produce goods as there would be no incentive to do so.
Bruddah IZ
DA
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/mts0118.pdf
The intended effect of cutting taxes is to accelerate economic growth. An unintended consequence of cutting taxes is raising government revenue. The January 2018 Monthly Treasury Statement showed that the U.S. Department of Treasury received $361 billion in tax revenue. In January 2018, the Treasury received $212 billion in individual income taxes, $113 billion in payroll taxes, $13 billion in corporate income taxes, and $23 billion in other taxes. For January, it was the most tax revenue collected in American history.
The intended effect of cutting taxes is to accelerate economic growth. An unintended consequence of cutting taxes is raising government revenue. The January 2018 Monthly Treasury Statement showed that the U.S. Department of Treasury received $361 billion in tax revenue. In January 2018, the Treasury received $212 billion in individual income taxes, $113 billion in payroll taxes, $13 billion in corporate income taxes, and $23 billion in other taxes. For January, it was the most tax revenue collected in American history.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Furthermore, taxes received in the first four months of fiscal year 2018 (FY18) are also the most in American history. Thus far, tax revenue for FY18 has come from $603 billion in individual taxes, $372 billion in payroll taxes, $76 billion in corporate taxes, and $81 billion in other taxes.
Bruddah IZ
DA
President Trump's Predecessors Learned about Steel Tariffs the Hard Way
The costs of protectionism always outweigh the benefits.
M. Perry
The costs of protectionism always outweigh the benefits.
M. Perry
Bruddah IZ
DA
The chart above displays a comparison of market returns today. The overall market, measured by the S&P 500, was down by 36 points and by 1.3% today; while the shares of steel-using companies like GM, Ford, and Boeing all fell more than twice that amount, or between 3-4%.
In contrast, US Steel shares soared by nearly 5.8%, which boosted the steelmaker’s market cap value by almost half a billion dollars. The costs of protectionism always outweigh the benefits, and the jobs lost always outweigh the jobs saved, and perhaps that net loss of economic value is also reflected in stock market values — the losses in market value suffered broadly by steel-using industries always outweigh the concentrated gains to the firms in the protected industry.
In contrast, US Steel shares soared by nearly 5.8%, which boosted the steelmaker’s market cap value by almost half a billion dollars. The costs of protectionism always outweigh the benefits, and the jobs lost always outweigh the jobs saved, and perhaps that net loss of economic value is also reflected in stock market values — the losses in market value suffered broadly by steel-using industries always outweigh the concentrated gains to the firms in the protected industry.
Guess what states the newly protected industries are in? Trump is thinking about the electoral college.