Essential Economics for Politicians

I only do it to Iz, who always talks like he's the econ genius...
Genius not required for econ. 3rd grade gets it....for some. Oh and Btw we talk mostly finance. At least one of us does. Again, 3rd grade math gets it.
 
Seems diz and aff are in the same financial boat paddling upstream.
Seems the plumber wants to have it both ways. He has the retailer paying the tax on deliver and the consumer paying the tax at the pump . . . that is if he is aware of what he has said in the last 15 minutes.
Retail outlets collect sales tax at the time of sale, based on the sale price, and forward the money they collect to the state on a regular basis. Not doing so gets them in serious trouble.
Not surprised that the father son combo got this so wrong.
 
One Size Does Not Fit All
In 1988, George McGovern opened the Stratford Inn in Connecticut. As the owner of this hotel, Mr. McGovern had to deal with the regulations, taxes, mandates, and legal costs of frivolous lawsuits that he passed or supported. In about four years, the Stratford Inn went bankrupt.

In a famous 1992 letter to the Wall Street Journal entitled “A Politician's Dream Is a Businessman's Nightmare,” McGovern stated:

While I never doubted the worthiness of any of these goals, the concept that most often eludes legislators is: ‘Can we make consumers pay the higher prices for the increased operating costs that accompany public regulation and government reporting requirements with reams of red tape.’ It is a simple concern that is nonetheless often ignored by legislators.

https://fee.org/articles/what-george-mcgovern-learned-from-running-his-own-business/?utm_campaign=FEE Daily&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=75735384&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9FcXKk1gWijEj1LuDV_sv90ZunEWhnyUdULHJu1HYzhydXAPut2ZDuhUA92-A7F_Kmje6Ajif7QMSWjV2GQqLv9qCZXQ&_hsmi=75735384
 

messy

PREMIER
One Size Does Not Fit All
In 1988, George McGovern opened the Stratford Inn in Connecticut. As the owner of this hotel, Mr. McGovern had to deal with the regulations, taxes, mandates, and legal costs of frivolous lawsuits that he passed or supported. In about four years, the Stratford Inn went bankrupt.

In a famous 1992 letter to the Wall Street Journal entitled “A Politician's Dream Is a Businessman's Nightmare,” McGovern stated:

While I never doubted the worthiness of any of these goals, the concept that most often eludes legislators is: ‘Can we make consumers pay the higher prices for the increased operating costs that accompany public regulation and government reporting requirements with reams of red tape.’ It is a simple concern that is nonetheless often ignored by legislators.

https://fee.org/articles/what-george-mcgovern-learned-from-running-his-own-business/?utm_campaign=FEE Daily&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=75735384&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9FcXKk1gWijEj1LuDV_sv90ZunEWhnyUdULHJu1HYzhydXAPut2ZDuhUA92-A7F_Kmje6Ajif7QMSWjV2GQqLv9qCZXQ&_hsmi=75735384
Can you imagine being such a bad businessman that you have a casino that goes bankrupt? I can’t.
 
The Dow Gains 74 Points Because the U.S. Consumer Is Strong


Ben Walsh

Aug. 15, 2019 12:45 pm ET

A Bounce. U.S. stocks were in better shape Thursday after investors got positive news on the U.S. consumer from strong Commerce Department spending data and better-than-expected earnings results from Walmart. But with dropping U.S. Treasury yields and the Chinese government saying it would take “necessary counter-measures” against U.S. tariffs, optimism was kept in check.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 74 points, or 0.3%. The S&P 500 gained 0.2%, and the Nasdaq Composite was nearly flat.

Midday Movers

Agilent Technologies (ticker: A) rose 6.8% after the lab instrument-maker beat Wall Street’s earnings and revenue expectations and raised its guidance.

Walmart (WMT) was up 4.9% after it topped analysts’ estimates for the second quarter and raised its full-year outlook.

ADVERTISEMENT

Tapestry (TPR) fell 19.9% after the owner of Coach missed fiscal fourth-quarter estimates and reported that weakness in its Kate Spade brand led it to forecast a fall in earnings and revenue next quarter.

General Electric (GE) dropped 12.5% after the forensic accountant who correctly identified the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme released a report accusing the company of accounting fraud. A GE spokeswoman said the claims were “meritless” and that the company operated “at the highest level of integrity and stands behind its financial reporting.”

Cisco (CSCO) stock was down 7.3% after the company gave investors disappointing guidance for the coming first fiscal quarter.



 
AUGUST 20, 2019
Figures Don't Lie, but Liars Can Figure
By Daniel G. Jones
Last week, two events of smallish note occurred. On August 13 and 14, the stock market suffered its biggest losses of the year. Also, an “inverted-yield curve” formed. The yield on the 10-year bond briefly slipped below the yield on the two-year note. By day’s end, the interest rates had righted themselves.

I didn’t realize it at the time, but the combination of these events foretold the end of the Trump economy. By the next day, the news was everywhere.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman announced “Trump Boom to Trump Gloom” and added that “…an inverted-yield curve… predicted six of the last six recessions.” The Guardian asked: “Is a recession coming to the U. S.? Here’s what to watch for.” The Capitol Spectatornoted: “The Bond Market’s All-In On Its Recession Forecast.” CNN declared: “A global recession may be coming a lot sooner than anyone thought.”

CNN also published an article titled“From Reagan to Trump: Here’s how stocks performed under each president.” They graphed the performance of the S&P during the administrations of the past five presidents.

Set against the four- and eight-year terms of his predecessors, Trump’s performance looks mediocre. And his modest 25% gain in the S&P to date puts him in the middle of the pack, ahead of only Reagan and last-place George W. Bush.

Ronald Reagan’s second-to-last position got me checking CNN’s figures (they were correct), and thinking about presidential legacies, and how the policies of one president might affect the success of another. So as Paul Harvey used to say: “Here’s the rest of the story.”

Ronald Reagan succeeded the second-worst president in my lifetime, and he inherited Jimmy Carter’s legacy of double-digit inflation and unemployment. During his first term, Reagan and Fed chief Paul Volcker bit the bullet and increased federal interest rates in order to tame inflation, which had reached 13.5% in 1980. These actions depressed the stock market for a while, but ultimately they worked and the market rebounded. By the end of Reagan’s first term, the economy had become robust and the S&P had risen 23%. Reagan won 49 states in 1984.

Near the end of his second term, Ronald Reagan signed a bill to drop marginal income tax rates from 50% to 28%. This would prove a gift to the legacies of his successors.

More in Home

Weaponizing Compassion in Dallas


Hey, Pichai! Here's My Advice for Google

Joe Biden’s long goodbye

The climate change crisis racket

The US Congress has decided to scrap the Constitution
George H.W. Bush started the first Gulf War and won it within 100 days, and he became immensely popular. But a broken promise (“Read my lips. No new taxes.”) damaged his reputation, and a brief recession during his last year in office allowed Bill Clinton to win by campaigning against “the worst economy in history.” Still, by the end of his term the S&P had gained over 50%.

Bill Clinton was the luckiest president in the 20th century. He benefitted from Reagan’s economic policies; and his mistakes, especially regarding foreign terrorism, would have their greatest impact on his successor. The Clinton years were marked by personal scandal, but little of national import. The S&P gained 210% during his term.

George W. was star-crossed, with disastrous events bookending his presidency. The 9/11 attack that struck nine months into his term was the culmination of planning and lesser foreign attacks that had occurred during the Clinton presidency. Bush was solely responsible, however, for his own ill-conceived decisions to execute wars for democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq. The great recession, which started a year before the end of his second term (the S&P peaked at 1562 on October 10, 2007), was the consequence of home-lending policies that had begun earlier but were continued by the Bush administration. The S&P ended down40% during his eight years.

Barack Obama came to power under the fortuitous, for him, effects of the great recession. On election day, 2008, the S&P closed at 1005. By the day of his inauguration, it had fallen to 805. By the time the collapse had spent itself, on March 9, 2009, the S&P stood at 667. Then the markets began to retrace.

The S&P didn’t reach its previous high of 1562 until March 26, 2013, more than a year into Obama’s second term. Thus, Obama’s policies, or lack thereof, caused the great recession to last nearly six years, our longest economic downturn since the great depression. Yet, if I had to rate Obama by the increase in the S&P during his full term, he’d come out as second-best (after Clinton!), instead of the worst in my lifetime.

Finally, Trump. Given that he inherited the sclerotic economy of the Obama years, he’s turned things around pretty well. Employment across all classes is up, manufacturing is up, and, as CNN has reported, the S&P is up 25% (even after a downturn). But there’s more to the story.

The markets began to rise immediately after Trump was elected. On election day, the S&P stood at 2139. By the day of his inauguration, it had risen to 2271. Measured from the day the real Trump boom began, the S&P has risen 35%.

But we know (even CNN must know, surely) that a president’s legacy rests upon much more than stock prices. It also rests upon peace, tranquility, love of country, and respect for law and order. These things are the very opposite of what news organizations like CNN long for in their quest for headline-grabbing news. So we can count on them, especially during the rest of the Trump presidency, to continue to do their best to do their worst.
 
The Long-Term Benefits of Corporate Tax Cuts Are Undeniable
Every tax cut in recent decades has been denigrated as a trickle-down fraud benefiting the rich at the expense of the rest.
Saturday, September 7, 2019

Every tax cut in recent decades has been denigrated as a trickle-down fraud (whose family tree also includes “voodoo” and even “déjà voodoo” economics) benefiting the rich at the expense of the rest. President Trump’s corporate tax rate cuts were just the most recent illustration. But with next year’s election getting ever closer, such attacks are picking up again.

Are Tax Cuts Fraudulent?

Those attacks, however, are built on several faulty premises. They rely on a zero-sum view of the world in which gains to some are taken to mean harm to others. They assume corporation owners capture virtually all the benefits of corporate tax cuts. And they rely on highly skewed data to make their case.

The zero-sum view ignores that voluntary market arrangements benefit all participants. Consequently, increasing mutually beneficial trade, as with reduced taxation, benefits both buyers and sellers. In contrast, punishing sellers with higher taxes also induces them to do less with their resources in the service of others.

https://fee.org/articles/the-long-term-benefits-of-corporate-tax-cuts-are-undeniable/?utm_campaign=FEE Daily&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=76563533&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8jRItdE2PeHlX7BFbWhGOfOjatd7n0rfAevLwVx2YYHmekyuqj8ZaMN_j52HP4FzzVR7xqrlLhYKJY1uQ0hG7KIXhsMg&_hsmi=76563533
 
Lower corporate taxes increase rewards for improving techniques, technology, and increasing capital investments, which increase worker productivity and earnings. They expand rewards for risk-taking and entrepreneurship in service of consumers. They reduce the substantial distortions caused by the tax. And those changes benefit others, such as workers and consumers.
 

Booter

GOLD
Lower corporate taxes increase rewards for improving techniques, technology, and increasing capital investments, which increase worker productivity and earnings. They expand rewards for risk-taking and entrepreneurship in service of consumers. They reduce the substantial distortions caused by the tax. And those changes benefit others, such as workers and consumers.
The federal corporate income tax rates were the highest in US history when the unemployment rates were the lowest in US history.
From 1951, when the top marginal corporate income tax rate rose from 42% to 50.75%, to 1969, when rates peaked at 52.8%, the unemployment rate moved from 3.3% to 3.5%. From 1986 to 2011, when the top marginal corporate income tax rate declined from 46% to 35%, the unemployment rate increased from 7% to 8.9%
 
QUOTE="messy, post: 278824, member: 3299"

I make much more in passive income every year than you do from your job.
Stocks, bonds and rent.
Tell me what else you know about money that I don't, fool.


/QUOTE

Hey Braggart.....
Tell us all about Atlantic City Casino failures.....
You might want to do some research before responding...
 
The federal corporate income tax rates were the highest in US history when the unemployment rates were the lowest in US history.
From 1951, when the top marginal corporate income tax rate rose from 42% to 50.75%, to 1969, when rates peaked at 52.8%, the unemployment rate moved from 3.3% to 3.5%. From 1986 to 2011, when the top marginal corporate income tax rate declined from 46% to 35%, the unemployment rate increased from 7% to 8.9%
Speaking of picking fruit, we harvested about 3 1/2 tons of Sangiovese last week and destemmed them in preparation for fermentation. The Syrah in the steel vat is still too sweet but promising nonetheless. The tempranillo and grenache are almost at zero. Picked Falanghina yesterday. I see some medals coming out of this harvest.
 
New York State Drew Up a Tax to Punish Opioid Makers—But Found Some Unanticipated Side Effects
By
Anastassia Gliadkovskaya
September 16, 2019

https://fortune.com/2019/09/16/new-york-opioid-tax-drugmakers-side-effects/?fbclid=IwAR1K_NH5XbocAfT5mODw86TQwyR452jm1MH9oxMcDtO_7DwioG2KYh4fZdA

Earlier this summer, New York became the first state to place an excise tax on opioids sold to or within the state. Backers expect the tax to generate $100 million in revenue for the state, which Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his administration have said will be plowed into helping victims of the opioid crisis.

The idea was to punish pharmaceutical companies for their role in the opioid epidemic: Pay a tax on opioids you sell to the state, and we'll use that money to fund treatment and recovery programs. Sounds simple. But the reality has been much more complicated. The tax, which went into effect July 1, has already set off a ripple effect across the entire supply chain, as manufacturers and distributors have either stopped shipping to the state altogether or passed the tax onto each other. The law allows the cost to be passed on further, to pharmacies and even consumers.

And then there are the feared social costs. Health officials worry the tax could drive patients to seek out opioids on the black market.


New York's experiment is both a cautionary tale for other states—and a look at how difficult it is to make drugmakers pay for fueling the opioid crisis.
 
Speaking of picking fruit, we harvested about 3 1/2 tons of Sangiovese last week and destemmed them in preparation for fermentation. The Syrah in the steel vat is still too sweet but promising nonetheless. The tempranillo and grenache are almost at zero. Picked Falanghina yesterday. I see some medals coming out of this harvest.
Too sweet you say? How about some Port?
 
Speaking of picking fruit, we harvested about 3 1/2 tons of Sangiovese last week and destemmed them in preparation for fermentation. The Syrah in the steel vat is still too sweet but promising nonetheless. The tempranillo and grenache are almost at zero. Picked Falanghina yesterday. I see some medals coming out of this harvest.
I had no idea you were a wine mavin.
 
Top