RACIST!!! Resurfaced video shows Elijah Cummings calling Baltimore 'drug infested,' likening residents to 'zombies'
Probably some truth to this, which is why I say some of it is undisciplined. I think ripping AOC and her bands of idiots is wise and calculated. It forces the Democratic leadership to defend them and provides material for Trump to link the Democrats on general to AOC. However, I think that incorrectly classifying them as foreigners was undisciplined. I don't think he meant to do that.
I guess that's true if you want to compare low end service jobs to the better jobs under Trump. GDP under Trump vs Obama pretty much proves my point.
Difficult to say. Supposedly the economy under Obama was Bush's fault and the economy under Trump is due to Obama.
Reads like China is walking closely to being named currency manipulator again (not since 1994). As a factual matter, there is zero doubt they do, they are and everyone knows it. But politics ....
Currency manipulation doesn't really do anything beneficial for the country. Trump is right with his last sentence. It will weaken China. So my question is why has he been urging the Fed to cut the rate again? That is how you drop the price of a currency. Sometimes Trump needs to listen more carefully to himself.
Fun with numbers. Trump is now experiencing the law of large numbers. Real GDP growth gets harder to have bigger numbers as the economy gets larger. Same with job growth numbers. It's harder to have bigger numbers when more poeple are employed and productivity is high. This economy was growing under Obama and became supercharged with Trump's economic stimulus disguised as a tax cut. Of course, the numbers show that the vast majority of the corporate tax cuts benefitted stockholders (~90%). It went to stock buy-backs. Little went to infrastructure investments and aside from the prescripted one-time bonuses the Admin touted, real wage growth has been nominal during this boon.
Let's do that. Let's look at the economic trends heading into those first 30 months. That gives us context of who did more with less. Deal?
I absolutely HATE this mindset which assumes that money is the government's which is being distributed back out. Your point also proves the liberal mindset incorrect that when rich people get tax breaks they hoard the money and just get richer. In fact you just agreed that letting people keep THEIR OWN MONEY is more beneficial to the economy than the government taking it. They invest it into something like expanding business. Nice!!
What's the National Debt again? I'd rather have had legislation requiring that money to go towards paying it down. THEN we can talk about a tax cut. Do you want to look at how much money went towards "hoarding" vs. "Expansion"? Hint: hoarding wins by a 5-fold margin.
Here are a few articles on the effects of the tax cuts. Opinion piece from Marketwatch with cited studies. Here is a June article from Barron's, hardly a liberal rag. Here is an opinion piece in May from the LA times. In the piece it cites a paper put out by the Congressional Research Service, an office like the CBO. Here is a passage from the summary. There is a lot more info on the report to go through. I'm trying to use as unbiased as sources and/or reputable sites. There are more but this is s good start.
Not sure about the others but I assume they are all about the same as the first one. Downplaying the doubling of the GDP as "only" increasing that much or "only" certain job growth. A couple "probably" assertions that it didn't work. Then the comments about spending lots of the money on stock buybacks. I assume that's where you talk about greed/hoarding? Do you know why companies do that? Do you think it's just so owners and shareholders get rich? I know that's a side effect, but why else would they do this?
Yes, the "hoarding" comment was a direct reference to how companies on average are spending their windfalls from repatriation of foreign profits and massive tax breaks. Simply put the ratio of stock buybacks to investment (employee or infrastructure) is heavily skewed to the former. This props up the stock market, making, greatly benefits shareholders and consolidates voting power for the company, none of which directly helps that individual contributor at said company.
I am no fan of stock buybacks, because executives benefit too directly for me to trust them to do it. However, there is an important point which is the answer to Vol's question below. Purchasing stock is investing in your business. If I purchase a companies stock, they get that money to use for investment in people and infrastructure. I get paid only if that money was used wisely and it grew the business. If it is not, then I lose money because the company spent my money on something that lost money for them. Some of that money can be held as cash by the company. I get that, but when a company holds cash that will not lead to a higher stock prices in the next 6-24 months. It will actually lead to a loss of production and therefore a loss in stock price. However, with the way the government over the last decade has increased the debt and the Democrats are threatening to increase taxes again soon, and with the Fed pumping more money into the market, causing instability, companies do the wise thing and hold onto some of the cash in case the economy falters again. If you want to decrease a company's demand for cash, continue to reduce taxes, regulations, and crazy proposals like Medicare For All and the Green New Death.
So you think they do it for no other reason than to get richer and there are no other benefits to the company nor the workforce?
I actually have to admit that my comments about corporate stock buy backs are *** backwards. The corporation is buying the stocks back. So they are giving money away not investing in themselves. I have heard two comments about stock buy backs. #1, they temporarily, artificially increase the stock price. This helps executives make a little more money with out having to improve their company. #2, it signals that the executives don't have any better ideas or places to put their money within the company. For the purpose of the one company, there is not a good effect, unless someone knows of one. However, the effect on the overall economy is good. Bear with me on this example. Corporation A is run by a set of uncreative, lazy Board of Directors. All they can think of to do with the money is buy back stock. That way they all get a nice payday somewhere in the near future. All they have to do is watch the stock market and sell their shares once they think the price has peaked. Corporation B is run by a set of very creative, productive Board of Directors. Their problem is they don't have any money to invest for capital. If only there was some available money on the market somewhere. Lo and behold, investor X comes along with a fat wad of cash, which he just received from Corporation A as result of him selling his shares to them. Investor X sees that Corporation B is on the verge of releasing product G for sale, but they need some money in order to do that to fill out their head count and infrastructure to support production and sales. Investor X invests in Corporation B. Voila. The economy just grew. It is a win win as long as the capital system is free and unhindered.
Wanted to give Trump some credit for a good decision, signaling he has a better monetary policy than I thought. If his calls against increasing the Fed rate come from the thinking in the article below, then I am optimistic. We need more Fed Board members like Judy Shelton. Like all of them. The Econ Establishment Teams Up To Denounce Judy Shelton | Robert P. Murphy
Monahorns second reply matches my understanding of stock buybacks. Virtually the only scenarios in which the average employee benefits in a stock buyback is it artificially pumps up the value by reducing the supply of shares on the market. It also helps replenish stock option pools. In both cases employees who are shareholders benefit. As someone who works in HR Systems, the pool of employee shareholders is heavily tilted towards the Executive wrung of the corporate ladder.
SH, we totally agree! All the benefits you listed advantage the higher ups way more than anyone else. I still don't stock options and I don't carry any stock in the company I work for in my 401(k).
Working in Hi-Tech, stock options are common place for all employees. Heck, even Starbucks offered stock options. I'm generally in favor of option as they give everyone some skin in the game. The industry is moving towards stock grants because the previous tax advantages that companies enjoyed in granting options have disappeared. Like you, I'd never carry company stock in my portfolio of a company I work for. I am still carrying some stock grants of prior companies in my portfolio.
The poor Koch Brothers They gonna have to hire some actual American citizens now What is the world coming to?
