Economy close to tanking?

Hey, counselor! Aren't you lawyers the champions of "waxing poetic?"

During my skool daze (long, long ago) I've enjoyed this saw about lawyers (and my late father was one).

"If the facts are on his side, an attorney should argue the facts -- and if the law is on his side, he should argue the law. If neither is on his side, he should POUND THE FUCKING TABLE!"

Well, now, that sounds a bit rude and crude, doesn't it? Instead of doing something so crass, maybe the modern, refined attorney just keeps claiming that the guys on the other side are continually "waxing poetic." (That seems like a sure-fire way to convince the jury!)

Speaking of waxing ... (Well, maybe not quite so "poetic") ...

Would any of you Biden-Harris fanboys like to take a stab at translating this?

In a short 100-second clip, Biden's Council of Economic Advisers chair Jared Bernstein manages to pack a quantity of confused babble that may so far be unmatched by any of the ECCIE Political Forum's progressives!



(Ouch! That was almost painful to watch!) Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

It's a classic, was painful to watch

Wall Street Journal says next president will inherent a remarkable economy.

Again. Without going on for paragraphs of waxing poetic I was correct.

https://www.wsj.com/economy/the-next...onomy-7be2d059

Wall Street Journal says next president will inherent a remarkable economy.

Again. Without going on for paragraphs of waxing poetic I was correct.

https://www.wsj.com/economy/the-next...onomy-7be2d059 Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Here's a counterpoint to that article:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...-about-economy

But the October Jobs report shows a weakening economy. They revised the last couple lower later, and this was actually showed a negative job growth if you take out increases in Government hiring. Increased government hiring is a drag on the economy as it increases costs with producing anything.


Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway has a large cash position because stocks are over valued.


Not sure where WSJ is coming up with the strong economy nonsense.

It's a classic, was painful to watch Originally Posted by TravelingHere

That is a hoot. Honestly its pretty similar to most of the interviews you see of Harris. They ask her a question and she's gone on for some time with words coming out of her mouth and NONE of them have a thing to do with the question..

Wall Street Journal says next president will inherent a remarkable economy.

Again. Without going on for paragraphs of waxing poetic I was correct.

https://www.wsj.com/economy/the-next...onomy-7be2d059 Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Reporters with a history of serving up happy talk about the economic outlook are a dime a dozen, as we continually see.

Would you care to make an effort to dispute any of the facts I posted, or are you just going to "claim victory" and run away? (Don't answer that!) We'll see how the landscape looks at the (inevitable) time when policymakers are forced to deal with our perilous debt-accumulation trajectory.

You progressives think our only problem is that the "rich" and "big, greedy corporations" don't pay their fair share of taxes. Right?

That is a hoot. Honestly its pretty similar to most of the interviews you see of Harris. They ask her a question and she's gone on for some time with words coming out of her mouth and NONE of them have a thing to do with the question.. Originally Posted by KCFalcon77

Harris is incoherent, but one would expect the proxies they put on tv to be more competent.
But just tune in to Squawk Box on CNBC when they have them on and you see there isn't much substance there.

Reporters with a history of serving up happy talk about the economic outlook are a dime a dozen, as we continually see.

Would you care to make an effort to dispute any of the facts I posted, or are you just going to "claim victory" and run away? (Don't answer that!) We'll see how the landscape looks at the (inevitable) time when policymakers are forced to deal with our perilous debt-accumulation trajectory.

You progressives think our only problem is that the "rich" and "big, greedy corporations" don't pay their fair share of taxes. Right? Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

I’m claiming victory because I’m correct. The economy is strong and isn’t tanking. The WSJ doubled down after the jobs report saying the economy and outlook is strong.

Issues with debt isn’t on dispute but we’re not suffering because of it. Austerity or freezing govt spending would be all good except that it ain’t happening in any meaningful way under either party. Discretionary spending isn’t enough even if we completely cut it out.

After all it was the republicans that said “deficits don’t matter”.

But the October Jobs report shows a weakening economy. They revised the last couple lower later, and this was actually showed a negative job growth if you take out increases in Government hiring. Increased government hiring is a drag on the economy as it increases costs with producing anything. Originally Posted by farmstud60

October jobs were affected by the hurricane but that was still an anemic report. The economy's been on a sugar high. TC's post provides reasons for and evidence of unwinding -- no more pre-election stimulus, lower personal savings rate, lower household savings and disposable personal income, and a higher credit card default rate. A colleague who follows the big picture closely wrote me last night that "treasuries now look like they are getting hammered due to too much supply from big deficits." Translation: interest rates farther out on the curve are going up.

Wall Street Journal says next president will inherent a remarkable economy.

Again. Without going on for paragraphs of waxing poetic I was correct.

https://www.wsj.com/economy/the-next...onomy-7be2d059 Originally Posted by 1blackman1

The Argentine economy was remarkable too during the rein of the Kirchner's. The only thing remarkable about ours is a deficit of 6%+ of GDP (despite a YoY GDP growth rate of 2.7%!) and federal debt held by the public of 95% of GDP.

Your WSJ link describes productivity growth from technology, like artificial investment and data centers, which has been much higher in the USA than Europe. It also further highlights the importance of technology to our success: "No EU company worth more than 100 billion euros, equivalent to $108 billion, has been set up from scratch in the last 50 years, while all six U.S. companies worth more than $1.08 trillion were created in this period."

If our corporate tax rate (state + federal) were still around 40%, which it was before the Republican tax cuts, I bet a significant part of the investment in technology that's occurred in recent years would have occurred in Europe instead of the USA. The average corporate rate in the EU is 21%. The economy during the Biden administration benefited from that, more so than during the Trump years based on the NBER research LustyLad and I posted about some time ago.

And Kamala's proposed mark-to-market tax on capital gains is a great way to level the playing field with Europe. People like Bill Gates and Elon Musk are going to have a tougher time building great companies when they have to sell part of their businesses every year to pay taxes.

All of which would have only marginal effects on the overall economy. The economy is not tanking. Maybe toe OP could provide precise figures for what "tanking" would be.

Sports teams tank. The Russian army is tanking.


This famous quotation applies to the bloviating in this thread:

"If all the economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion”

All of which would have only marginal effects on the overall economy. The economy is not tanking. Maybe toe OP could provide precise figures for what "tanking" would be.

Sports teams tank. The Russian army is tanking.


This famous quotation applies to the bloviating in this thread:

"If all the economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion” Originally Posted by VitaMan

Tanking too strong a word, but it is far from being healthy and robust.

Maybe the OP could provide precise figures for what "tanking" would be. Originally Posted by VitaMan

To which the reply was:

Tanking too strong a word, but it is far from being healthy and robust. Originally Posted by farmstud60

No, it certainly isn't, for the reasons I summarily elucidated in a previous post.

The current run rate of deficit spending as a percentage of GDP vastly outstrips the Y/Y growth in aggregate output. It would be entertaining to see someone try to proffer a coherent narrative in support of the 2021-22 fiscal blowout. (Remember the famous Herb Stein quote from about a half-century ago?)

The economy's been on a sugar high. Originally Posted by Tiny

Indeed. A rather unpleasant hangover is likely to be in the cards sooner or later. And if it's later, it could be even more unpleasant, as the problem grows larger and thus even more difficult and painful to address with a suitable course-correction.

I’ll be the first to agree deficits need to be reigned [SIC] - The correct word is "reined," not reigned. in. It’s also true that recent democrat presidents have had lower deficits than republicans. Obama had notably low deficits and Biden's aren't horrible Whoa, Nellie! Seriously? considering the recession he was handed. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Biden was not "handed a recession." If you're going to go around snarking at people for supposedly "waxing poetic," why don't you at least try to get the basic facts straight? That shouldn't be very difficult if you're willing to take a few minutes to read about the history of waning and waxing covid-era output.

Remember the beginning of Obama's first term, when his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said that a crisis shouldn't go to waste?

Well, doesn't it seem quite obvious that Joe took those words to heart, acceding to his party's left wing's desire to cram through massive surges of excessive and unnecessary deficit spending, and that the consequent inflation surge (along with the border fiascoes) is the primary reason that Biden's approval ratings are so low?

Kamala has been the co-captain of this frighteningly incompetent and irresponsible ship of fools for almost four years, yet in a recent TV interview couldn't think of a single thing that the Biden-Harris regency should have done differently.

No wonder our nation is in such a mess; adrift with no serious leadership.

More prognosticating aside TC, nothing I’ve said is incorrect, just because you disagree. Covid has caused global inflation which was exacerbated by a war in Eastern Europe. Your complaints regarding a misspelling I’ll attribute to Apple autocorrect aside, your facts don’t change the reality. Global inflation wasn’t the result of the Biden administration. Neither were high gas prices. In any event both of those are currently well under control. The economy isn’t tanking and it’s fundamentally sound. Republicans always try to out grow deficits and debt which doesn’t work as each Republican administration has handed the democratic successor a terrible economy.

Bill Gates and Elon Musk are going to have a tougher time building great companies when they have to sell part of their businesses every year to pay taxes. Originally Posted by Tiny

@Tiny, You do know Bill Gates donated $50 million dollars to the campaign of V.P. Harris. I doubt if he is concerned about having to pay a little more tax when she gets elected President.

Shark tank judge Mark Cuban is voting for Harris too. I wonder why these two billionaries don't like Trump.

BTW, Biden had proposed that the corporate tax rate go back to 25% not back to 39%. Which is where it was before Trump implemented his tax cuts for the 1%.


https://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=3007124