How are we going to pay for all this shit?

Now that made me laugh out loud. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Admit it, you’re a lonely guy. Keep your chin up. Adopt a dog.

That is why Bush Sr called this new economic model called supply side, Voodoo economics! Originally Posted by WTF

and promptly stfu about it when Reagan made him his vp pick. then what did he do about it when he succeeded Reagan? he tried to do what you think is the solution, raise taxes .. without cutting any spending



1989 $2,857 51% S&L Crisis
1990 $3,233 54% First Iraq War
1991 $3,665 58% Recession
1992 $4,065 61%


of course this was all Reagan's fault .. right??

I mean....I want to think that bambino is pulling our leg.

He sounds like a flat earther.

Do you really believe this shit bambam?

I mean....I want to think that bambino is pulling our leg.

He sounds like a flat earther.

Do you really believe this shit bambam? Originally Posted by WTF

Try answering TWK’s question instead of deflecting to me. What I posted is fact. The Bush’s are worse than the Clintons, Obamas and Bidens. But they’re all criminals. They’ve been at it a lot longer. If you can’t see that, shame on you.

Do you really believe this shit bambam? Originally Posted by WTF

Cult followers will believe anything. Just ask Jim Jones (rest in hell) and Nike.

I would not say everything...I did not expect you not to know that the number Laffer speaks of is fluid. Jesus.

I find it strange that as soon as I provided that fact.. you started asking about inequality and debt and now you are asking the specific number. Originally Posted by WTF

What are you talking about? I never asked about a specific number. Or a specific tax. Nor did I say whatever you call the "sweet spot" can't be fluid.

Time for you to stop deflecting by accusing me of not reading your mind correctly. Here's your statement again. What's it mean in practice?

...we definitely should be seeking the sweet spot to maximize revenue. It is the most efficient course of action. Originally Posted by WTF

I'm the one giving YOU the benefit of the doubt. Stop fretting about "trick questions". Just tell us specifically what you mean. Feel free to give us an example of how the concept works in practice.

.

I have long held that mean reversion is possibly the most powerful force in economics and finance.

Someone just sent me this earlier this afternoon. The author makes the same inflation case I have been making, although in much greater detail and much more creative and colorful fashion with all the metaphors.

https://americanconsequences.com/ame...llwhip-effect/

Money quote:

"The 'bullwhip effect' is what happens when demand distortion misinforms the supply chain."

- Kim Iskyan

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Well if Biden had the good sense to get rid of Trump's China Tariffs that would help. But he's not going to do it.

An example, there's a huge, entire supply chain for production of textiles in China. Separate companies process cotton, make yarns, produce the chemicals for polyesters and dies, manufacture the fabrics, and make the finished garments. They're often located close together, minimizing transportation costs and the cost of holding inventory.

So you stick a 25% tariff on Chinese textiles. What happens? Well, the American companies that buy the Chinese textiles increase their prices by 25%. Alternative supply chains that are more spread out, and more susceptible to the disruptions like what Iskyan's describing, take over to an extent. But they don't have sufficient capacity to satisfy demand. So the Chinese start building fabric and dyeing plants in Vietnam, and garment factories in Cambodia and Myanmar. The Indians build more factories. That takes time. This has been going on for years now. You've got idle capacity in China, and the customers of Chinese textile manufacturers are still begging them to get more capacity going in Vietnam. To be fair, it's not just the USA, Trump and Biden who are responsible. The Europeans and to a lesser extent Japanese also have tariff regimes that favor moving production away from China.

The situation is similar with consumer electronics. A huge and complete supply chain in southeastern China is being replaced by factories in Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Mexico, etc. Instead of taking components twenty or thirty miles down the road for the next step they go a thousand miles.

I realize we've got inflationary pressures coming from industries where China's not a factor, like automobiles and energy. Still I wonder whether this may take longer to straighten out than Iskyan suspects.

Your explanation is better and more convincing than his btw.

and promptly stfu about it when Reagan made him his vp pick. then what did he do about it when he succeeded Reagan? he tried to do what you think is the solution, raise taxes .. without cutting any spending



1989 $2,857 51% S&L Crisis
1990 $3,233 54% First Iraq War
1991 $3,665 58% Recession
1992 $4,065 61%


of course this was all Reagan's fault .. right?? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Your ignorance on this is apparent.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-deficit-taxes


The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 legislated caps on discretionary spending and created constraints known as “pay-as-you-go” (paygo) rules: if Congress wanted to cut a tax or increase entitlement spending it had to pay for the cost in some other part of the budget. When Bill Clinton became president in January 1993, he sent legislation to Congress to renew the system of spending caps and paygo. It passed, though without a single Republican vote.

The fiscal system instituted by Bush remained in place throughout the remainder of Clinton’s eight-year presidency. Tight budget policy, together with strong economic growth, steadily reduced the deficit and converted it to rising surpluses in 1998, 1999 and 2000. But in January 2001, after Bush’s son, George W. Bush, assumed office, the Republicans allowed the budget caps and paygo rule to lapse. They cut taxes and raised spending rapidly, resulting in the return of record deficits

Just tell us specifically what you mean. Feel free to give us an example of how the concept works in practice. Originally Posted by lustylad

I will give you what a SC Justice said about hard core pronograhy...

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.[3]

If you read my prior post to Wacko...you will see an example of the sweet spot.

What are you talking about? I never asked about a specific number. Or a specific tax. Nor did I say whatever you call the "sweet spot" can't be fluid.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

So you now know that there is a sweet spot and that number is fluid.

Good for you!

So may I ask wtf was this question in relationship to Laffer's concept?

Ok, I'll play!

You said you want the federal government to maximize its tax revenues. So do you support policies that will increase income/wealth inequality? Originally Posted by lustylad

Whaaaaat?

Remember we were pretending to be nice.

I could have just as easily asked wtf is this nonsense about supporting inequality. In fact I sorta did in a nice way...when instead of making fun of you mixing the concept of Laffer's Curve and inequality...I simply asked you to give me a specific example of wtf it was you were trying to get at with that silly ass question.

Admit it, you’re a lonely guy. Keep your chin up. Adopt a dog. Originally Posted by bambino

Try answering TWK’s question instead of deflecting to me. What I posted is fact. The Bush’s are worse than the Clintons, Obamas and Bidens. But they’re all criminals. They’ve been at it a lot longer. If you can’t see that, shame on you. Originally Posted by bambino

I've answered Wacko's lies and distortions.

Back to you....do you really believe this Q nonsense?

First you believed that Trump won, then that it would be overturned in the courts, then that Cingress wouldn't certify the election results, then that Trump wouldn't hand over the key...

Good vs Evil , right koolaid bambam.

Well if Biden had the good sense to get rid of Trump's China Tariffs that would help. But he's not going to do it... Originally Posted by Tiny

You do recall the reason for the tariffs was because the China was not purchasing our goods that they had committed to buy, in spite of us generously exporting to them the pollution and slave labor. Right?

I will give you what a SC Justice said about hard core pronograhy...

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.[3]

If you read my prior post to Wacko...you will see an example of the sweet spot. Originally Posted by WTF

No, you didn't. The only example you gave is an example of your trollish ignorance and pathetic inability to answer even the simplest, most basic questions regarding the superficial buzzwords you spout in your always futile efforts to make it look like you know anything about economics.

You can't give us a single fucking example of how govt might maximize its so-called "sweet spot" tax revenues. So you just admitted your stupid idea has no real world applications, other than as a guide to Supreme Court decisions on pornography. You're a fucking joke and a fraud and everyone on this board knows it.

Well if Biden had the good sense to get rid of Trump's China Tariffs that would help. But he's not going to do it.

An example, there's a huge, entire supply chain for production of textiles in China. Separate companies process cotton, make yarns, produce the chemicals for polyesters and dies, manufacture the fabrics, and make the finished garments. They're often located close together, minimizing transportation costs and the cost of holding inventory.

So you stick a 25% tariff on Chinese textiles. What happens? Well, the American companies that buy the Chinese textiles increase their prices by 25%. Alternative supply chains that are more spread out, and more susceptible to the disruptions like what Iskyan's describing, take over to an extent. But they don't have sufficient capacity to satisfy demand. So the Chinese start building fabric and dyeing plants in Vietnam, and garment factories in Cambodia and Myanmar. The Indians build more factories. That takes time. This has been going on for years now. You've got idle capacity in China, and the customers of Chinese textile manufacturers are still begging them to get more capacity going in Vietnam. To be fair, it's not just the USA, Trump and Biden who are responsible. The Europeans and to a lesser extent Japanese also have tariff regimes that favor moving production away from China.

The situation is similar with consumer electronics. A huge and complete supply chain in southeastern China is being replaced by factories in Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Mexico, etc. Instead of taking components twenty or thirty miles down the road for the next step they go a thousand miles.

I realize we've got inflationary pressures coming from industries where China's not a factor, like automobiles and energy. Still I wonder whether this may take longer to straighten out than Iskyan suspects.

Your explanation is better and more convincing than his btw. Originally Posted by Tiny

Very interesting observations; thanks for posting.

It seems that one thing people often forget is that tariffs impose costs and produce a number of unintended consequences, especially when clumsily and incompetently implemented, as has been the case recently.

If the primary goal is pushback against Chinese neo-mercantilism and the ultimate fulfillment of their global hegemonic lusts, we should recruit the Europeans and the Canadians to our side, instead of alienating them with tariff practices we've sometimes aimed at them over the last few years.

To this end, a few conservative economists, including Peter Morici and the three generations of Richmans (conservative/libertarian economists) have advocated for a regime of scaled tariffs, with rates that rise and fall with the relative bilateral trade balances between the US and the subject country. For instance, the rate would be low (or zero) for a number of nations, but much higher for nations with which we run a big trade deficit (such as China).

Although I have no idea how well this would work in practice, I suspect it's got to be better than what we do now.

Still, I think our main problem is that we, as a nation, consume way too much relative to what we save, produce, and export. Many economists (even conservatives like Bob Barro) have opined, therefore, that we would do better to largely replace our income and payroll tax system with a consumption tax, such as a VAT. In fact, Rand Paul advocated this idea during his 2016 campaign, suggesting a combination of a low-rate flat income tax and a consumption tax which was described by one observer as simply a subtraction method VAT.

This would, at least in some measure, disincentivize consumption of all that crap we import, and incentivize saving and investment.

.