chasfh Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said: without running any numbers I'm going to make a 1st pass assumption that the number won't match up. Tariffs were the primary income for the Federal government prior to the income tax and simply were not yielding enough money, which is why the income tax was established in the 1st place. I pretty seriously doubt you could come close to replacing the income tax with tariffs. Not to mention the elasticity effect. If you push tariffs up to get more revenue, imports will just fall in response. That might be a nice outcome for US manufacturer's but it would still leave the Treasury empty. You also have a stability problem. The income tax is a popular tax with governments because after property taxes, it is the most stable. The business cycle plays havoc with consumption taxes and would even more-so on tariffs, leaving the gov with a huge headache over year to year variability. Isn’t decimating the stability of the federal government through its finances the feature of the idea and not the bug? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 6 minutes ago, chasfh said: Isn’t decimating the stability of the federal government through its finances the feature of the idea and not the bug? Yes. That's the concise version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 40 minutes ago, chasfh said: Isn’t decimating the stability of the federal government through its finances the feature of the idea and not the bug? Point taken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 Birds of a feather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 The Robert DeNiro commercial that Biden had playing during the Tiger game was fire. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 I know of several racist MAGA types that were very anti Kwame… so… not sure on that appeal. And I don’t know he has much sway in the black community either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 I voted for Kwame. Still not voting for Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 Kwame is a criminal. They flock together. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Uhhh 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Glad at least one outlet noticed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 On 6/14/2024 at 9:04 PM, gehringer_2 said: Yup, this too. But do you think anyone in the US media will actually provide a serious challenge to the stupidity of any of this? No, the Media (including lineral outlets) want him around for as long as possible because he helps them make a profit. He is an absolute lunatic who has been normalized for 8 years because they want him stay in the news. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 9 hours ago, Tiger337 said: .... He is an absolute lunatic who has been normalized for 48 years because ... FTFY. But yeah, particularly the past 8 years they've made a bonanza off of his rantings and ravings. But he was also normalized on The Apprentice. A complete and total abject failure touted on the show as an "amazing businessman". It was Howard Stern milking him before that. The New York tabloids and other rags in the 1980's before that.. A long, long, long history of media milking his obnoxious, grotesque drivel... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 13 hours ago, mtutiger said: Uhhh And he said it TWICE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 "Susie" is Susan Wiles the respected normie who is running Trump's campaign. Her team's stories will be very interesting when this election ends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Remember how conservatives would always blast Democrats for buying votes from black people by promising free welfare and other stuff? Ah yes, good times ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Do we really believe that Trump will show up to debate Biden on June 27? I sure don't. The question is just how is Trump going to bail? I think the way he might do it is to demand at least one additional debate under his rules, in front of a hand-picked audience with 100% hot mics, and the "talent" coming from his choice of TV network (Newsmax, OAN), and once Biden refuses, Trump claims unfair and bails. And when people bring up that Trump agreed to the original debate rules without even requesting changes, the campaign will simply ignore it until the news cycle flips over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Today's JVL on Trump and Big Business...(he ain't wrong) Quote So pretend you’re Thurston Moneygood, the CEO of Widget AI. Your business is doing well, but the future is uncertain. What should you do about Trump and Biden? There are four possible pathways. (1) You support Biden and Biden wins. You continue as you are now. The overall economic climate remains good. The rule of law stays intact. Maybe the second Biden administration will grant you an audience and listen to your concerns or advice. But you can’t expect special favors. You’re still pretty much on your own, competing against all the other AI companies. (2) You support Biden and Trump wins. Not great. Trump and his people keep score and if the CEO of a competing AI company goes to Trump and asks for his help kneecapping you and Widget AI . . . well, you know what Trump thinks about loyalty. (3) You support Trump and Trump wins. At the very least, this guarantees your status quo. At best? Sky’s the limit: You would not want to trade places with the CEOs of the AI company who supported Biden. And if you ever get crosswise with the DoJ or the SEC, you can expect a helping hand to make the problem go away. (4) You support Trump and Biden wins. What happens? Nothing. Literally nothing. Elon Musk’s businesses are built on exploiting the federal government through tax breaks and Defense contracts. Musk has been railing against Biden for four years. And he is fine. His businesses are fine. There is no retaliation. (Which is as it should be!) In sum: If you’re a CEO and you support Biden, the best-case outcome is the status quo and the worst case outcome is that you’re screwed. Support Trump, the best-case outcome is that you get to write your own rules—while the worst-case outcome is the status quo. These guys may be idiots, but they’re not stupid. Quote What we’re talking about here is a fundamental weakness in liberal democracy.⁴ In the long run, the best thing for business in general is the rule of law. That’s what allows the most efficient allocation of capital and functioning of markets. But for an individual business, the best thing is a bent market where the government helps your company and hobbles your competitors. So when an election offers a choice between a traditional small-d democrat and an illiberal, aspiring authoritarian, businesses will choose the strongman nine times out of ten. https://open.substack.com/pub/thebulwark/p/why-ceos-play-nice-with-dictators?r=45wcm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 4 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said: Today's JVL on Trump and Big Business...(he ain't wrong) https://open.substack.com/pub/thebulwark/p/why-ceos-play-nice-with-dictators?r=45wcm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email Your presentation is exactly the argument why corporations should never be seen to have fundamental rights under the constitution. As long Thurgood has exactly one vote, we don't have to care too much about which side he sees his bread as buttered on, but if you let him marshal all the resources of Widget AI as a direct player in the political process, you are one big step on the road to perdition. There is a fundamental conflict of interest at work. An easy majority of individuals have some sense that there are linkages between their liberty and welfare that of others. The only way around that is by defining some souls as non-human, which always has to be combated but is a battle we know the process can win. But a corporation has no shared interest in anyone's liberty or welfare. They are purely nihilistic players at the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) 5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: Your presentation is exactly the argument why corporations should never be seen to have fundamental rights under the constitution. As long Thurgood has exactly one vote, we don't have to care too much about which side he sees his bread as buttered on, but if you let him marshal all the resources of Widget AI as a direct player in the political process, you are one big step on the road to perdition. There is a fundamental conflict of interest at work. An easy majority of individuals have some sense that there are linkages between their liberty and welfare that of others. The only way around that is by defining some souls as non-human, which always has to be combated but is a battle we know the process can win. But a corporation has no shared interest in anyone's liberty or welfare. They are purely nihilistic players at the table. The socialist system has a problem with this phenomenon as well. When state owned enterprises or quasi SOE companies are at risk due to stupid decisions or just the way technology and society evolve, the government steps in because they don't want to unduly risk all the jobs. It was the sickness of 1970s Britain that required Thatcher's shock therapy. In those scenarios they were worried about the overweighted votes of the union leaders. Now, to keep it real, the US does not have that problem at all in any sectors except sports and entertainment. E.g., If a union of nurses were to fight a labor action to keep a hospital open, people would laugh and jeer at the ridiculous nurses. Edited June 17 by romad1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) 11 minutes ago, romad1 said: When state owned enterprises or quasi SOE companies This is true, and the big mistake that the guys like Hayak fans and the Austrian school make in seeing the US as on the road to that kind of socialism is mistaking government expenditure for government management of the economy. In Hayak's theory, government spending as % of GDP is the indicator variable for Government or political management/intrusion into markets and production, economic ossification and a concomitant lose of personal liberties. But this completely misses that in a modern state like the US, the *majority* of government spending is transfer payment to individuals, who then use that money to make free decisions in a market economy. Ergo - the modern transfer payment based welfare state is not Socialism as government control of the means of production (the road Britain certainly had traveled down too far) despite high percentages of GDP government spending. Edited June 17 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 51 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: This is true, and the big mistake that the guys like Hayak fans and the Austrian school make in seeing the US as on the road to that kind of socialism is mistaking government expenditure for government management of the economy. In Hayak's theory, government spending as % of GDP is the indicator variable for Government or political management/intrusion into markets and production, economic ossification and a concomitant lose of personal liberties. But this completely misses that in a modern state like the US, the *majority* of government spending is transfer payment to individuals, who then use that money to make free decisions in a market economy. Ergo - the modern transfer payment based welfare state is not Socialism as government control of the means of production (the road Britain certainly had traveled down too far) despite high percentages of GDP government spending. Rent-seeking is the truth. the "pure market" is the joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, romad1 said: Rent-seeking is the truth. the "pure market" is the joke. rent seeking is bad news, but I take that as more a function of the regulatory state, which to me is a separate issue from economics. Technology requires the regulatory state exist, because it is too dangerous and too arcane for any public to deal with without dedicated professionals in public service. A malfunctioning regulatory state can certainly lead to bad economic outcomes - witness the affordable housing shortage crisis in CA, but those are often as not unintended consequences of bad policy making. I don't know any good way of to deal with rent seeking other than electing good people to do the legislative oversight of the regulatory system, and so full circle we are back to a malfunctioning election funding system as the root of another evil. Edited June 17 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: rent seeking is bad news, but I take that as more a function of the regulatory state, which to me is a separate issue from economics. Technology requires the regulatory state exist, because it is too dangerous and too arcane for any public to deal with without dedicated professionals in public service. A malfunctioning regulatory state can certainly lead to bad economic outcomes - witness the affordable housing shortage crisis in CA, but those are often as not unintended consequences of bad policy making. I don't know any good way of to deal with rent seeking other than electing good people to do the legislative oversight of the regulatory system, and so full circle we are back to a malfunctioning election funding system as the root of another evil. Good empowered IGs make for good-ish government which makes for stable and secure economics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 22 minutes ago, romad1 said: Good empowered IGs make for good-ish government which makes for stable and secure economics. Yes - and we have to hope we don't end up with more corrupted legislatures neutering them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.