I support him as much as I supported Obama.
I didn't vote for either one. Didn't give money to their campaigns.
They are both liars. They are both narcissistic. Both have served as our president.
Bless your little heart, you have a nice day....
Essential Economics for Politicians
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
-
- Tags
- finance too
I support him as much as I supported Obama.
I didn't vote for either one. Didn't give money to their campaigns.
They are both liars. They are both narcissistic. Both have served as our president.
Bless your little heart, you have a nice day....
Bruddah IZ
DA
You people have been falling for the same word salad in your posted article since the great depression. Do you even know what a “commitment to monetary expansion” means?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Imagine, if you will, that the United States federal government somehow received all of the money it normally would for the entire year on January 1st. The day it would have spent it all and started deficit spending (that is, spending money it simply doesn’t have) could be dubbed “Deficit Day.” This year, 2018, that day falls on October 19th. From this day until the end of the year, the US Federal Government is spending money it doesn’t have to the tune of about $11 billion per day. So what does that mean for the government. What does it mean for the people?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Politicians' Deceitful Promise
John Stossel | Oct 24, 2018 12:01 AM
Will you be able to retire? Maybe not.
Will your state pay what its politicians promised? Almost certainly not.
Politicians in Connecticut, New Jersey and Illinois are especially irresponsible when it comes to not funding pension plans, but most every municipality has promised more than it will have.
John Stossel | Oct 24, 2018 12:01 AM
Will you be able to retire? Maybe not.
Will your state pay what its politicians promised? Almost certainly not.
Politicians in Connecticut, New Jersey and Illinois are especially irresponsible when it comes to not funding pension plans, but most every municipality has promised more than it will have.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Fake news
Bruddah IZ
DA
"The money hasn't been set aside for years and years," says City Journal editor Daniel DiSalvo in my new internet video. "Nobody was paying attention."
His colleague Steve Malanga complains that the media rarely report on the coming crisis.
"To a certain extent, I have sympathy with the media, because the media's looking for what happens next," says Malanga. "This is not something that's going to happen next week."
Trump’s bailout for farmers hit by trade war will also benefit Chinese companies
American taxpayers are now footing the bill for the president’s failed trade war.
The president decided to use millions of American taxpayer dollars to bail them out — but that money may also end up helping Chinese-owned and foreign-owned agriculture companies operating in the US.
The US Department of Agriculture told the Washington Post this week that a Chinese-owned pork producer that operates in the United States, Smithfield Foods, qualifies for a government bailout check, and so does a Brazilian-owned pork producer called JBS. Both corporations are the two largest pork producers in the country.
The Trump administration cut more than $25 million worth of bailout checks to the agriculture industry in September, just a few months after the president announced a $12 billion aid package for US farmers coping with retaliatory tariffs that foreign countries have imposed on their products.
But now it’s clear that the tax subsidies won’t just help US farmers — they’ll help their foreign competitors too, and will likely benefit many of the countries Trump is supposedly targeting.
The news is the latest twist in the president’s trade war with China, which was supposed to help American workers and businesses but has been hurting them instead. Trump’s trade war is failing, and hurting the US economy, and he doesn't seem to care.
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/23/18013734/trump-china-trade-war-steel-tariffs
TRUMP IS AN IDIOT JUST LIKE THE NUTTERS HERE THAT SUPPORT HIM.
American taxpayers are now footing the bill for the president’s failed trade war.
The president decided to use millions of American taxpayer dollars to bail them out — but that money may also end up helping Chinese-owned and foreign-owned agriculture companies operating in the US.
The US Department of Agriculture told the Washington Post this week that a Chinese-owned pork producer that operates in the United States, Smithfield Foods, qualifies for a government bailout check, and so does a Brazilian-owned pork producer called JBS. Both corporations are the two largest pork producers in the country.
The Trump administration cut more than $25 million worth of bailout checks to the agriculture industry in September, just a few months after the president announced a $12 billion aid package for US farmers coping with retaliatory tariffs that foreign countries have imposed on their products.
But now it’s clear that the tax subsidies won’t just help US farmers — they’ll help their foreign competitors too, and will likely benefit many of the countries Trump is supposedly targeting.
The news is the latest twist in the president’s trade war with China, which was supposed to help American workers and businesses but has been hurting them instead. Trump’s trade war is failing, and hurting the US economy, and he doesn't seem to care.
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/23/18013734/trump-china-trade-war-steel-tariffs
TRUMP IS AN IDIOT JUST LIKE THE NUTTERS HERE THAT SUPPORT HIM.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Fake News.
Bruddah IZ
DA
You non-reading nutters crack me up. "qualifies" and received have different meanings. Reminds me of the Science Guy article that you people got all spun up about.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Oh it's real news alright. It just isn't saying what Bootsie wants it to say. He comprehends not. Nutters lacks attention to detail.
Sheriff Joe
DA
‘Where Do We Have Tariffs?’ Trump Asks. He’s Got A Point
EmailGoogle+Twitter
AP Photo/Evan Vucci
25 Oct 2018262
3:34
Donald Trump threw financial pundits back on their heels this week when he told the Wall Street Journal, “We don’t have tariffs anywhere.”
The financial press has obsessed over tariffs for most of the year, first declaring that the tariffs were a tax on consumers and would cost Americans jobs. And when those predictions did not pan out–consumer price levels are in line with the Fed’s target and layoffs are at record low levels–carefully looking for and extensively reporting anecdotal evidence of claims not supported by data.
President Trump’s comments to the Wall Street Journal, however, went even further.
Ads by Revcontent
https://trends.revcontent.com/click...9o0C6f5gI2hD6defSVSXX0n3Ju3uNcg==&viewed=true
“We don’t even have tariffs,” he said in the interview. “I’m using tariffs to negotiate. I mean, other than some tariffs on steel—which is actually small, what do we have? … Where do we have tariffs? We don’t have tariffs anywhere.”
That might sound shocking but Trump is mostly right on this.
The claim that we don’t have tariffs anywhere is an exaggeration–but only a small one. The U.S. has imposed tariffs on just under $300 billion of imports. Forty-seven billion, or around 15 percent, of those tariffs are on the steel and aluminum tariffs, which Trump mentioned. The bulk of the rest is aimed at just one country, China. The remainder are on individual products, such as solar panels and washing machines. A bit here and there for specific violations of U.S. anti-dumping laws. For almost all other imports and all other trading partners, Trump has not increased tariffs at all.
The total dollar value of goods the Trump administration has imposed tariffs on is small when compared to the $2.9 trillion of imported goods and service the U.S. took in last year. The new tariffs range from 10 percent to 25 percent on around 10 percent of all of our imports. Call it a 1 percent to 2.5 percent import tariff, at least in the short term. That’s not exactly disruptive. It’s certainly not a screeching halt to global trade.
Subtract out China and the U.S. has raised tariffs on less than 2 percent of our imports. The new Trump tariff “wall” amounts to a fraction of a percent hike in tariffs on the rest of the world. Vanishingly small.
In other words, Trump has not built a wall around the U.S. economy. This is not the protectionist presidency that haunts the pages of the financial press.
Importantly, since the biggest part of the tariffs are aimed at just one country, the medium term impact is likely to be minimal everywhere except China. Many corporations will have to extricate supply chains from China to avoid the higher costs imposed by tariffs but these are short-term problems.
That’s the view of the Federal Reserve. In the minutes of its most recent meeting, the Fed said that its “projection for the medium term was not materially changed, in part because the recently enacted tariffs on Chinese goods and the retaliatory actions of China were judged to have only a small net effect on U.S. real GDP growth over the next few years.”
The most serious hiccup for U.S. companies is likely not directly from U.S. tariffs at all but from China’s reaction. Sales to China will shrink as its trade deficit contracts, its economy slows, and its retaliatory tariffs raise prices for its own consumers. China will not be as big of a market for U.S. goods as some U.S. global corporations hoped–unless it relents to the demands of the Trump administration to give up its predatory trade practices.
In fact, some U.S. tariffs may be too low to accomplish Trump’s goals. The U.S. Mexico Canada Trade Agreement tightens the rules of origin for auto manufacturing but because the tariff for not meeting the new rules is so low, many automakers may just ignore it and keep on shipping jobs to cheaper labor markets
EmailGoogle+Twitter
AP Photo/Evan Vucci
25 Oct 2018262
3:34
Donald Trump threw financial pundits back on their heels this week when he told the Wall Street Journal, “We don’t have tariffs anywhere.”
The financial press has obsessed over tariffs for most of the year, first declaring that the tariffs were a tax on consumers and would cost Americans jobs. And when those predictions did not pan out–consumer price levels are in line with the Fed’s target and layoffs are at record low levels–carefully looking for and extensively reporting anecdotal evidence of claims not supported by data.
President Trump’s comments to the Wall Street Journal, however, went even further.
Ads by Revcontent
https://trends.revcontent.com/click...9o0C6f5gI2hD6defSVSXX0n3Ju3uNcg==&viewed=true
“We don’t even have tariffs,” he said in the interview. “I’m using tariffs to negotiate. I mean, other than some tariffs on steel—which is actually small, what do we have? … Where do we have tariffs? We don’t have tariffs anywhere.”
That might sound shocking but Trump is mostly right on this.
The claim that we don’t have tariffs anywhere is an exaggeration–but only a small one. The U.S. has imposed tariffs on just under $300 billion of imports. Forty-seven billion, or around 15 percent, of those tariffs are on the steel and aluminum tariffs, which Trump mentioned. The bulk of the rest is aimed at just one country, China. The remainder are on individual products, such as solar panels and washing machines. A bit here and there for specific violations of U.S. anti-dumping laws. For almost all other imports and all other trading partners, Trump has not increased tariffs at all.
The total dollar value of goods the Trump administration has imposed tariffs on is small when compared to the $2.9 trillion of imported goods and service the U.S. took in last year. The new tariffs range from 10 percent to 25 percent on around 10 percent of all of our imports. Call it a 1 percent to 2.5 percent import tariff, at least in the short term. That’s not exactly disruptive. It’s certainly not a screeching halt to global trade.
Subtract out China and the U.S. has raised tariffs on less than 2 percent of our imports. The new Trump tariff “wall” amounts to a fraction of a percent hike in tariffs on the rest of the world. Vanishingly small.
In other words, Trump has not built a wall around the U.S. economy. This is not the protectionist presidency that haunts the pages of the financial press.
Importantly, since the biggest part of the tariffs are aimed at just one country, the medium term impact is likely to be minimal everywhere except China. Many corporations will have to extricate supply chains from China to avoid the higher costs imposed by tariffs but these are short-term problems.
That’s the view of the Federal Reserve. In the minutes of its most recent meeting, the Fed said that its “projection for the medium term was not materially changed, in part because the recently enacted tariffs on Chinese goods and the retaliatory actions of China were judged to have only a small net effect on U.S. real GDP growth over the next few years.”
The most serious hiccup for U.S. companies is likely not directly from U.S. tariffs at all but from China’s reaction. Sales to China will shrink as its trade deficit contracts, its economy slows, and its retaliatory tariffs raise prices for its own consumers. China will not be as big of a market for U.S. goods as some U.S. global corporations hoped–unless it relents to the demands of the Trump administration to give up its predatory trade practices.
In fact, some U.S. tariffs may be too low to accomplish Trump’s goals. The U.S. Mexico Canada Trade Agreement tightens the rules of origin for auto manufacturing but because the tariff for not meeting the new rules is so low, many automakers may just ignore it and keep on shipping jobs to cheaper labor markets
Izzy the Nutter - look what you have been reduced to. Defending Tariffs and the related bailouts to the farmers. You are indeed cracked up.
More "free thinking"?
Bruddah IZ
DA
So there are people that despise Trumps tax cuts, meaning they like more taxes. Then those same people despise tariffs, not grasping that tariffs are a form of taxation. Wait for it. Those people do not have a need for intellectual consistency. I wasn't defending tariffs that haven't been paid to Smith Foods, but rather definitions of words that make you intellectually inconsistent at best and dumb at worst. It's times like this that you remind me of Espola.
Sheriff Joe
DA
T-D-S
Q-E-D
Bruddah IZ
DA
Interest rates are prices. They impart information. They tell a business person whether or not to undertake a certain capital investment. They measure financial risk. They translate the value of future cash flows into present-day dollars. Manipulate those prices — as central banks the world over compulsively do — and you distort information, therefore perception and judgment.
Interest rates ought to be discovered in the market, not administered from on high. They can’t do their essential work if someone, say a central bank, is muscling them around. Let’s get the central banks out of the business of using interest rates — and stock prices and exchange rates, too – as instruments of national policy. Today, investors live in a hall of mirrors: They don’t know which values are real and which are distorted by monetary manipulation. Market-determined rates will help restore clarity.--http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441128/james-grant-monetary-manipulation-must-end
Interest rates ought to be discovered in the market, not administered from on high. They can’t do their essential work if someone, say a central bank, is muscling them around. Let’s get the central banks out of the business of using interest rates — and stock prices and exchange rates, too – as instruments of national policy. Today, investors live in a hall of mirrors: They don’t know which values are real and which are distorted by monetary manipulation. Market-determined rates will help restore clarity.--http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441128/james-grant-monetary-manipulation-must-end
Bruddah IZ
DA
The Federal Reserve Is Hillary Clinton’s Secret Weapon
https://mises.org/blog/federal-reserve-hillary-clinton’s-secret-weapon
Say what you want about Donald J. Trump, but he is correct about one thing: the Federal Reserve has, with near certainty, been holding interest rates down for political purposes — namely, to aid Hillary Clinton in getting elected president of the United States.
In September’s first presidential debate, Mr. Trump said:
We have a Fed that’s doing political things. … The Fed is [being awfully] political by keeping the interest rates at this level. And believe me: The day Obama goes off, and he leaves [office], and goes out to the golf course for the rest of his life to play golf, [is the day that] they raise interest rates. … The Fed is being more political than Secretary Clinton.
The Federal Open Market Committee's (FOMC) September meeting minutes, released on Wednesday, have proven Mr. Trump’s assertion to be true. As the 2016 election season draws to a close, the Fed has suddenly become more bullish on the prospect of raising interest rates — and this precipitous change-of-heart has come despite there being few notable signs of hope in the US’s economic data.
https://mises.org/blog/federal-reserve-hillary-clinton’s-secret-weapon
Say what you want about Donald J. Trump, but he is correct about one thing: the Federal Reserve has, with near certainty, been holding interest rates down for political purposes — namely, to aid Hillary Clinton in getting elected president of the United States.
In September’s first presidential debate, Mr. Trump said:
We have a Fed that’s doing political things. … The Fed is [being awfully] political by keeping the interest rates at this level. And believe me: The day Obama goes off, and he leaves [office], and goes out to the golf course for the rest of his life to play golf, [is the day that] they raise interest rates. … The Fed is being more political than Secretary Clinton.
The Federal Open Market Committee's (FOMC) September meeting minutes, released on Wednesday, have proven Mr. Trump’s assertion to be true. As the 2016 election season draws to a close, the Fed has suddenly become more bullish on the prospect of raising interest rates — and this precipitous change-of-heart has come despite there being few notable signs of hope in the US’s economic data.
Bruddah IZ
DA
The U.S. Government Led a Program That Forcibly Sterilized Thousands of Peruvian Women
The program is said to have led to the forced sterilization of over 200,000 women in the late 1990s.
Friday, October 26, 2018
Nevertheless, forced sterilizations in the name of "improving" or shrinking the global population have long been an element of progressive politics in the US, as is well-documented in Angela Franks's 2005 book Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility.
https://fee.org/articles/the-us-gov...cibly-sterilized-thousands-of-peruvian-women/
The program is said to have led to the forced sterilization of over 200,000 women in the late 1990s.
Friday, October 26, 2018
Nevertheless, forced sterilizations in the name of "improving" or shrinking the global population have long been an element of progressive politics in the US, as is well-documented in Angela Franks's 2005 book Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility.
https://fee.org/articles/the-us-gov...cibly-sterilized-thousands-of-peruvian-women/
Bruddah IZ
DA
a.k.a. QE......
The Cantillon Effect: Because of Inflation, We’re Financing the Financiers
Not to mention actively harming the living standards of low-income earners.
Sunday, October 28, 2018
https://fee.org/articles/the-cantillon-effect-because-of-inflation-we-re-financing-the-financiers/
A Regressive Tax?
In the modern financial system, the current realization of the Cantillon Effect looks quite similar to a regressive tax. The first to benefit are often corporations with plenty of investors, whether publicly traded or financed through private equity. Next, raw goods benefit from increased prices, including already heavily subsidized industries such as steel and aluminum. Technology also benefits, for it is utilized as an intermediate good for many companies. Even within the raw goods and technology sectors, the quickest corporations to turn investments into production—larger corporations like Amazon or Microsoft, which have the infrastructure to expand—benefit disproportionately.
On the consumer side, people investing most of their savings in the stock market benefit from increased investment bidding up prices. On the other hand, individuals living from paycheck to paycheck, or even those who just have a savings account in a bank, lose money to price increases.
Nonetheless, policymakers neglect these effects in an effort to reign in the economy without considering the consequences of their actions. Often, they justify surprise inflation by claiming it will “help the poor.” However, any inflationary monetary policy regime suffers from the ramifications of the Cantillon Effect.
In fact, even a price-stable economy requires money injection to counter the deflationary effects of growth. This money injection may keep prices for real goods stable, but asset prices continue to rise. It’s true that most economists accept a low level of inflation as fine—healthy, even. But when our current expansionary system, however well-intentioned, ends up exacerbating inequalities in the marketplace under the pretense of egalitarian stability, we ought to examine its true consequences more thoroughly.
The Cantillon Effect: Because of Inflation, We’re Financing the Financiers
Not to mention actively harming the living standards of low-income earners.
Sunday, October 28, 2018
https://fee.org/articles/the-cantillon-effect-because-of-inflation-we-re-financing-the-financiers/
A Regressive Tax?
In the modern financial system, the current realization of the Cantillon Effect looks quite similar to a regressive tax. The first to benefit are often corporations with plenty of investors, whether publicly traded or financed through private equity. Next, raw goods benefit from increased prices, including already heavily subsidized industries such as steel and aluminum. Technology also benefits, for it is utilized as an intermediate good for many companies. Even within the raw goods and technology sectors, the quickest corporations to turn investments into production—larger corporations like Amazon or Microsoft, which have the infrastructure to expand—benefit disproportionately.
On the consumer side, people investing most of their savings in the stock market benefit from increased investment bidding up prices. On the other hand, individuals living from paycheck to paycheck, or even those who just have a savings account in a bank, lose money to price increases.
Nonetheless, policymakers neglect these effects in an effort to reign in the economy without considering the consequences of their actions. Often, they justify surprise inflation by claiming it will “help the poor.” However, any inflationary monetary policy regime suffers from the ramifications of the Cantillon Effect.
In fact, even a price-stable economy requires money injection to counter the deflationary effects of growth. This money injection may keep prices for real goods stable, but asset prices continue to rise. It’s true that most economists accept a low level of inflation as fine—healthy, even. But when our current expansionary system, however well-intentioned, ends up exacerbating inequalities in the marketplace under the pretense of egalitarian stability, we ought to examine its true consequences more thoroughly.