Still Taxing the Rich?

[Fuzzy1975]

If that's true, then it's proof that free markets provide better results than the more controlled, pseudo-socialist economies typical of the EU.

Since Trump became president and reversed many of the previous administrations' high tax and oppressive regulatory policies, the USA's annual GDP growth has significantly outperformed that of the EU.

Thank you, The_Trouvere, for supporting the thesis of this thread.

Forecast of US from same site:


https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth-annual

Forecast of EU GDP from the same site.

https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/gdp-annual-growth-rate

Looks to be a world recession on the horizon....

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

Forecast of US from same site:


https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth-annual

Forecast of EU GDP from the same site.

https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/gdp-annual-growth-rate

Looks to be a world recession on the horizon....

Dawn cites facts, your answer in forecasts.

That's "fuzzy" thinking.

 

[icanhelp1]

According to some definition of "freedom" that doesn't include the freedom to keep your property/labor.

BTW Finland isn't socialist, it's a highly capitalistic mixed economy like most nordic states.



Better by destroying everything it's been and that which has made it so great??

Better by turning into a socialist shit hole???

Equity or freedom, can't have both...they are opposed to one another.

That's why the USA is and has been all about freedom for 243 years, not equity.

Do you think Dan and Fuzzy's last name is Marx? Just thinking out loud!

 

[gunthernehmen]

Trying to recall what the forecast was for the winner of the 2016 election, prior to election day.

Anybody remember?

I'll keep my bets where they are, for now.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Dawn cites facts, your answer in forecasts.

That's "fuzzy" thinking.

As to the facts, GDP is not a determination of how well off fiscally a country is, nor to the shape of their economy. It is a measurement of how much the internal economy changed from one year to the next as well as showing which economies are the largest. Many countries have double digit GDP figures. Are they better off than the US, or the EU?

If you wish to talk about economics, GDP is only a value point, nothing more, nothing less. In times of economic boom it grows, in times of economic decline it shrinks. GDP is a nice valuation, since it is easy to model predictions for across a wide scale. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_GDP)

Look to the fundamentals of the country, ( which the US numbers are very good right now, employment wise) such as the four basic components, employment, productivity, national debt, investment.

However the GDP is shrinking in the US, the question to ask then, is why is it shrinking?

Have you run out of room for growth? ( this means companies can't find buyers for their goods and or services) Can't find the workers to increase productivity? ( several reason for a shortage of available employees) Paying too much money to finance your debt? ( no money to reinvest internally to increase profits/productivity) No one is investing new capital into the economy?( drop in foreign investments, or even worse capital fleeing the country and being invested else where).

Dawn cited a very simple ( and pretty useless) GDP tracking graph. I just added in that the curve appears to keep trending lower, both in the US and the EU. I suggest you start looking at the REAL factors in an economy, those are the ones that matter.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

As to the facts, GDP is not a determination of how well off fiscally a country is, nor to the shape of their economy. It is a measurement of how much the internal economy changed from one year to the next as well as showing which economies are the largest. Many countries have double digit GDP figures. Are they better off than the US, or the EU?

If you wish to talk about economics, GDP is only a value point, nothing more, nothing less. In times of economic boom it grows, in times of economic decline it shrinks. GDP is a nice valuation, since it is easy to model predictions for across a wide scale. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_GDP)

Look to the fundamentals of the country, ( which the US numbers are very good right now, employment wise) such as the four basic components, employment, productivity, national debt, investment.

However the GDP is shrinking in the US, the question to ask then, is why is it shrinking?

Have you run out of room for growth? ( this means companies can't find buyers for their goods and or services) Can't find the workers to increase productivity? ( several reason for a shortage of available employees) Paying too much money to finance your debt? ( no money to reinvest internally to increase profits/productivity) No one is investing new capital into the economy?( drop in foreign investments, or even worse capital fleeing the country and being invested else where).

Dawn cited a very simple ( and pretty useless) GDP tracking graph. I just added in that the curve appears to keep trending lower, both in the US and the EU. I suggest you start looking at the REAL factors in an economy, those are the ones that matter.

First off, let me commend you on actually having the ability and inclination to thoughtfully discuss issues with Conservatives with whom you disagree, rather than simply calling them names, like so many others do here.

Many of your points have validity. The importance of GDP change as an economic indicator is debated among economists. I, as a casual investor fairly well schooled in economics, give it middling significance.

You make one assertion above, however, that is factually incorrect. You write: "GDP is shrinking in the US." That it simply untrue. The rate of GDP growth has slowed, but it remains healthy. In fact, this slowing has helped stabilize the economy and stave off inflation (which, incidentally, as a casual investor, remains my biggest worry).

Many economists are now wondering if this business cycle will avoid recession altogether and instead have a "soft landing." There are a number of reasons to think so. The USA is now a net energy exporter. The pending passage of the USMCA should firm up a few soft spots in our economy and the recent trade successes in East Asia, including this week's easing in trade tension with China, should do the rest.

The bottom line is that you can debate some of the details around the edges, but Dawn's point that "free markets provide better results" is correct. Don't you agree, Fuzzy?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

However the GDP is shrinking in the US, the question to ask then, is why is it shrinking?

Dawn cited a very simple ( and pretty useless) GDP tracking graph.

No, GDP is not shrinking. Perhaps the reason you think Dawn’s chart is “pretty useless” is because you don’t know how to read it. It tracks GDP growth. The rate of growth is slowing, but growth is continuing.

 

[icanhelp1]

First off, let me commend you on actually having the ability and inclination to thoughtfully discuss issues with Conservatives with whom you disagree, rather than simply calling them names, like so many others do here.

Many of your points have validity. The importance of GDP change as an economic indicator is debated among economists. I, as a casual investor fairly well schooled in economics, give it middling significance.

You make one assertion above, however, that is factually incorrect. You write: "GDP is shrinking in the US." That it simply untrue. The rate of GDP growth has slowed, but it remains healthy. In fact, this slowing has helped stabilize the economy and stave off inflation (which, incidentally, as a casual investor, remains my biggest worry).

Many economists are now wondering if this business cycle will avoid recession altogether and instead have a "soft landing." There are a number of reasons to think so. The USA is now a net energy exporter. The pending passage of the USMCA should firm up a few soft spots in our economy and the recent trade successes in East Asia, including this week's easing in trade tension with China, should do the rest.

The bottom line is that you can debate some of the details around the edges, but Dawn's point that "free markets provide better results" is correct. Don't you agree, Fuzzy?

GDP growth is solid but slowing which is a good thing. It makes no sense to promote an overheated economy What's ironic is that in the face of negative global interest rates, an inverted yield curve, investors are still buying mortgage back securities which seems to contradict a threat of inflationary pressures or a threat of a looming recession. I think a fed race to zero would be a big mistake and would leave very little in the way of a response to elevated inflationary pressures. Good employment figures, market resiliency combined with good corporate earnings, well we have something to truly marvel at. I think the passage of USMCA will keep us on a nice even glide path for the foreseeable future barring a major catastrophe. Just my humble opinion. I think the UK getting out of the EU deems well for both the US and GB. China is coming around and we're at full employment, all seems good! Goldilocks!

One more thing! We'll never pay down debt but the one thing that could ruin our economic resilience is out of control spending and the lack of a balanced budget. Spending deficits are killing us. Trillions in unfunded liabilities, not good!!

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

* * *

One more thing! We'll never pay down debt but the one thing that could ruin our economic resilience is out of control spending and the lack of a balanced budget. Spending deficits are killing us. Trillions in unfunded liabilities, not good!!

Excellent point. That's the biggest problem with "Trumponomics."

The 2017 tax reforms, contrary to Democrat predictions, increased tax revenues due to the economic activity they spurred. Had we brought spending under control, we could be reducing the debt without seriously affecting government functions. That simply didn't interest Trump or the mainstream Republicans.

 

[icanhelp1]

Excellent point. That's the biggest problem with "Trumponomics."

The 2017 tax reforms, contrary to Democrat predictions, increased tax revenues due to the economic activity they spurred. Had we brought spending under control, we could be reducing the debt without seriously affecting government functions. That simply didn't interest Trump or the mainstream Republicans.

I think that has more to do with a two party system than with Trump. In order to recover from sequestration and to fix a depleted military Trump has had to accept all the additional add-on from both parties, I believe an additional 168 billion a year.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

I think that has more to do with a two party system than with Trump. In order to recover from sequestration and to fix a depleted military Trump has had to accept all the additional add-on from both parties, I believe an additional 168 billion a year.

Reagan had the same problem when he wanted to reduce government spending.

 

[icanhelp1]

Reagan had the same problem when he wanted to reduce government spending.

That's what happens when you just give away free shit. We can't consolidate redundant government programs, God forbid get rid of one or two.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

First off, let me commend you on actually having the ability and inclination to thoughtfully discuss issues with Conservatives with whom you disagree, rather than simply calling them names, like so many others do here.

Thank you. I am not here as an idealist/party supporter, I am not an American, so I have no vestment in your politics. I find no value in name calling, in fact it's pretty childish and tends to diminish one's opinions. I do though enjoy a debate, but to debate, facts matter. ( Note I fact check on everyone) but i find certain people tend to exaggerate...and lets leave it at that.

Many of your points have validity. The importance of GDP change as an economic indicator is debated among economists. I, as a casual investor fairly well schooled in economics, give it middling significance.

As I laid out earlier it is a very good tool to show how an economy is performing. But not a deciding factor in ones economy.

You make one assertion above, however, that is factually incorrect. You write: "GDP is shrinking in the US." That it simply untrue. The rate of GDP growth has slowed, but it remains healthy. In fact, this slowing has helped stabilize the economy and stave off inflation (which, incidentally, as a casual investor, remains my biggest worry).

Slowed, shrinking, in decline, devalued...pick a word, and insert...
But yes the US's GDP is still healthy, and I was not trying to say it wasn't. However it was also healthy through the last 5-6 years of Obama.

Many economists are now wondering if this business cycle will avoid recession altogether and instead have a "soft landing." There are a number of reasons to think so. The USA is now a net energy exporter. The pending passage of the USMCA should firm up a few soft spots in our economy and the recent trade successes in East Asia, including this week's easing in trade tension with China, should do the rest.

While I agree in principle with the trade problems with China, and how China goes about allowing/controlling capital investments and demanding proprietary intelligence, I have not agreed with how Trump has dealt with China. If the economy is slowing due solely to this dispute, then it is China who has the stronger hand now, not the US. Which adds problems to trying to find a soft landing if a possible recession is on the horizon. I am still not sure there is one coming, or if the world economy is just slowing down after Trump's proverbial " gasoline on to the roaring fire" tax cut has now burned down.

The CUSMA ( USMCA is not a word, so it fails as an acronym), with the added strength of getting Mexico to agree to a higher wage standard will ( should?) be of great benefit to both the US and Canada, and the Mexican employees. Other than that, it now has a much needed update. I doubt from ether side it will prove to add much to either economy outside of mutual market growth, but it should stop some further bleeding of manufacturing jobs out of both Canada and the US. Which is a good thing for all three economies.

I am still at a loss as to why the US pulled out of the Trans-Pacific deal? If you can actually get better bilateral agreements, cool, but deals take time, and time is lost business opportunities. Correct me if I am wrong, but the only bilateral deal made was with Japan so far? 9 more countries to go?

The bottom line is that you can debate some of the details around the edges, but Dawn's point that "free markets provide better results" is correct. Don't you agree, Fuzzy?

Free markets, ( which in most western civilisations still operate under certain government controls) have proven to be more robust over the long run. However they do have bumps too. But I do agree whole heartily with them as better performers.

Yet all I did in regards to Dawn, was post extra information, that was from the same source she used, yet strangely left out her original post.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

No, GDP is not shrinking. Perhaps the reason you think Dawn’s chart is “pretty useless” is because you don’t know how to read it. It tracks GDP growth. The rate of growth is slowing, but growth is continuing.

The term "pretty useless" is aimed at the point Dawn was making using GDP percentage. GDP is an indicator term in economics. Yet Dawn was trying to say the US ( @ 1.8) GDP was out performing the EU (@ 1.4) GDP. So you tell me, what does that mean? Lybia's GDP percentage is 17.8%, what does that tell you? Lybia is out performing the US and the EU?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

GDP growth is solid but slowing which is a good thing.

I hope slowing, not burning out after an unneeded Tax cut.

It makes no sense to promote an overheated economy

unless the fundamentals are there to allow the growth. The question is, are they?

What's ironic is that in the face of negative global interest rates, an inverted yield curve, investors are still buying mortgage back securities which seems to contradict a threat of inflationary pressures or a threat of a looming recession. I think a fed race to zero would be a big mistake and would leave very little in the way of a response to elevated inflationary pressures. Good employment figures, market resiliency combined with good corporate earnings, well we have something to truly marvel at. I think the passage of USMCA will keep us on a nice even glide path for the foreseeable future barring a major catastrophe. Just my humble opinion. I think the UK getting out of the EU deems well for both the US and GB. China is coming around and we're at full employment, all seems good! Goldilocks!

Economies at there heart are a test of confidence. I hate when governments, ( any ones) sticks their nose in them, when not needed.

One more thing! We'll never pay down debt but the one thing that could ruin our economic resilience is out of control spending and the lack of a balanced budget. Spending deficits are killing us. Trillions in unfunded liabilities, not good!!

Debts growing are the issue, and getting to the point where you cannot pay even the interest. None of us are at that point yet.

 

[icanhelp1]

Thank you. I am not here as an idealist/party supporter, I am not an American, so I have no vestment in your politics. I find no value in name calling, in fact it's pretty childish and tends to diminish one's opinions. I do though enjoy a debate, but to debate, facts matter. ( Note I fact check on everyone) but i find certain people tend to exaggerate...and lets leave it at that.



As I laid out earlier it is a very good tool to show how an economy is performing. But not a deciding factor in ones economy.



Slowed, shrinking, in decline, devalued...pick a word, and insert...
But yes the US's GDP is still healthy, and I was not trying to say it wasn't. However it was also healthy through the last 5-6 years of Obama.

Just my opinion, GDP is up from 2nd Qtr numbers and is doing just fine. You don't want a 3% burn rate and risk deflation which currently is a bigger risk than inflation.

While I agree in principle with the trade problems with China, and how China goes about allowing/controlling capital investments and demanding proprietary intelligence, I have not agreed with how Trump has dealt with China. If the economy is slowing due solely to this dispute, then it is China who has the stronger hand now, not the US. Which adds problems to trying to find a soft landing if a possible recession is on the horizon. I am still not sure there is one coming, or if the world economy is just slowing down after Trump's proverbial " gasoline on to the roaring fire" tax cut has now burned down.

We don't have a trade problem with China, they have one with us. They've been manipulating their currency using unfair banking practices. Now, with established tariffs we have forced them to devalue their currency to keep up. They subsidize their manufacturing sector forcing them to lower their prices to make up for increased tariffs on our side, so net...net were even. Our big AGRI took a hit and Trump subsidized them to a certain degree but it also taught them a big lesson. Just like the manufacturing sector, AGRI needs to be able to adjust to market conditions and grow what's selling on the world market and develop other customers ( markets ). They got lazy and I believe they're stronger for it today, but I could be wrong. Our economy is booming theirs is shrinking. The world is bracing for a recession. How can any economy function for any amount of time with negative interest rates.

Stealing intellectual property is a no go at this station and we're winning that battle. The first phase of the trade agreement is working on a written compliance agreement.

The CUSMA ( USMCA is not a word, so it fails as an acronym), with the added strength of getting Mexico to agree to a higher wage standard will ( should?) be of great benefit to both the US and Canada, and the Mexican employees. Other than that, it now has a much needed update. I doubt from ether side it will prove to add much to either economy outside of mutual market growth, but it should stop some further bleeding of manufacturing jobs out of both Canada and the US. Which is a good thing for all three economies.

USMCA is just an abbreviation of the countries involved. I fully agree with your assessment that labor and wage standards has to be competitive between both countries M/US. The USCIS's H2A will help AGRI with worker shortage. Lowering corporate tax rate is helping to keep US businesses stateside and to bring them back, contrary to popular belief that the tax cuts only help the rich, it helps create jobs. We're at the lowest unemployment rate in decades and includes a stable labor participation rate.

I am still at a loss as to why the US pulled out of the Trans-Pacific deal? If you can actually get better bilateral agreements, cool, but deals take time, and time is lost business opportunities. Correct me if I am wrong, but the only bilateral deal made was with Japan so far? 9 more countries to go?

We can get better trade deals bilaterally

Free markets, ( which in most western civilisations still operate under certain government controls) have proven to be more robust over the long run. However they do have bumps too. But I do agree whole heartily with them as better performers.

Not sure what that means?

Yet all I did in regards to Dawn, was post extra information, that was from the same source she used, yet strangely left out her original post.

I guess our stock market doesn't count for anything. LOL

 

[DawnONight]

Do you think Dan and Fuzzy's last name is Marx? Just thinking out loud!

Maybe, but even Karl was smarter than them. He just had a poor understanding of history.

If their last name is Marx, I'd say they're probably brothers like these three:

https://ilarge.lisimg.com/image/3263328/740full-a-day-at-the-races-photo.jpg

 

[DawnONight]

...

Many economists are now wondering if this business cycle will avoid recession altogether and instead have a "soft landing." There are a number of reasons to think so. The USA is now a net energy exporter. The pending passage of the USMCA should firm up a few soft spots in our economy and the recent trade successes in East Asia, including this week's easing in trade tension with China, should do the rest....

It just got better!

L. Bayly, Trump confirms U.S. and China have reached agreement on trade deal, NBC (Dec. 13, 2019).