Another two trillion from the economic ignoramus

just for the record. stockman does not like trump.

Fiscal conservatives don't like him. It's gone from trickle down to down right "just shit on them" economics. For the record.

just for the record. stockman does not like trump. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

you shoulda known better dilbert .. this is what ya get when you feed the trolls. ..

Fiscal conservatives don't like him. It's gone from trickle down to down right "just shit on them" economics. For the record.

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

you sad, bro?

It sounds like there are a lot of ignoramuses. In addition to Trump, weren't Pelosi, Schumer, McConell and a lot of other Congressmen instrumental in this?

To me, everything Stockman said makes a lot of sense. Keeping interest rates below the rate of inflation for 10 years, and thus encouraging government, businesses and people to run up huge debts, seems nuts. I'm not an economist though. It would be interesting to get LustyLad's take on Stockman's view.

you sad, bro?


Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

If corporations continue to buy their own stock, it artificially inflates the value of their business. They do not reinvest their capital. Just keep hording their funds. Nothing goes back into the economy. Wouldn't they want to give their tax break to their workers who have to spend it on necessary goods and services? In turn paying state and federal taxes which in turn can be spent on medical research, infrastructure, public housing, food stamps, Medicaid . . . etc.

But, why should I care? Right?

Trumps strategy is simple. Look at all of his business dealings. Run up huge debt and then don't pay the bills. It really is that simple. That is what he has done his entire life.

Simple is the only way he understands.

If corporations continue to buy their own stock, it artificially inflates the value of their business. They do not reinvest their capital. Just keep hording their funds. Nothing goes back into the economy. Wouldn't they want to give their tax break to their workers who have to spend it on necessary goods and services? In turn paying state and federal taxes which in turn can be spent on medical research, infrastructure, public housing, food stamps, Medicaid . . . etc.

But, why should I care? Right?

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

So ... these companies buy back their stock ... which insulates them from the profit expectations of those evil Wall Street analysts .. (or didn't you think that part through ..) then simply go out of business?

oh they don't? well .. that implies they continue to contribute to the economy. Why? by continuing to be profitable. Which means they keep their employees working .. which .. wait for it ... contributes to the Economy!

you really don't think this stuff through do you? you think you have all the answers. what you have is a load of leftist dogshit.

Name the most successful socialist economy?

Then name the ones that have failed?

let's compare .. shall we?

you socialist, bro?

If corporations continue to buy their own stock, it artificially inflates the value of their business. They do not reinvest their capital. Just keep hording their funds. Nothing goes back into the economy. Wouldn't they want to give their tax break to their workers who have to spend it on necessary goods and services? In turn paying state and federal taxes which in turn can be spent on medical research, infrastructure, public housing, food stamps, Medicaid . . . etc.

But, why should I care? Right? Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Corporations that do well are, in general, going to pay their employees more and hire more employees than corporations that do poorly. Compare Amazon and Sears for example. Amazon can afford to pay $15 an hour and is growing. Sears can't and is not. You'd like to see capital migrate from the companies that are doing poorly to the ones that are doing well. Share buybacks and dividends are one way this happens. And, OK, Sears may not be the best example, because it can't afford to pay for dividends or buybacks. But I think you should get the idea.

Anyway, a corporation can do three things with its net income or cash flow,

1. Reinvest it in the business
2. Pay dividends to shareholders
3. Buy back corporate stock

Reinvesting makes sense, both for the business and the American economy, only if the corporation is going to receive an adequate return on the investment. If it's, only, say, a 2% or 3% per year return, or negative, you'd rather see the corporation pay dividends or buy back stock.

Shareholders receive cash as a result of dividends and buybacks. Most of this cash is reinvested. If everything's working the way it should, the return on those new investments is greater than the return that the corporation would have made on that cash if it had kept it.

Here's an example. You have shares in a newspaper company. Its business is declining, as advertising dollars migrate to the web, but it's still generating good cash flow. The newspaper takes its excess cash and buys back shares. You sell your shares and thus get money from the buyback. You take that money and invest it in an IPO for some tech company with good prospects. The tech company achieves a 20% return on its capital. It takes your money, grows, hires more employees, and through the years pays a lot of money in taxes.
Everybody wins.

Fiscal conservatives don't like him. It's gone from trickle down to down right "just shit on them" economics. For the record.

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

It's called "Voodoo Economics" That boring ass teacher didn't explain it. In the 80's with the direction of VP George H. Bush Economists sat around with dolls dressed like strippers they would put Monopoly money in their garters in hopes it would influence the economy. Well it didn't work.

It's called "Voodoo Economics" That boring ass teacher didn't explain it. In the 80's with the direction of VP George H. Bush Economists sat around with dolls dressed like strippers they would put Monopoly money in their garters in hopes it would influence the economy. Well it didn't work. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Right, but simplifying the tax system and lowering rates did work. Even far left economists are going to agree with the Laffer curve. The question is about the shape of the curve. Lefties like Krugman and Saez will tell you that government will collect less taxes once you boost rates beyond about 75%. I think the number is a lot lower.

Maybe if they'd tried it with real strippers and real money it would have worked. Money spent on cocaine and hairdressers makes more sense than bridges to nowhere and a war in Iraq.

Here's an example. You have shares in a newspaper company. Its business is declining, as advertising dollars migrate to the web, but it's still generating good cash flow. The newspaper takes its excess cash and buys back shares. You sell your shares and thus get money from the buyback. You take that money and invest it in an IPO for some tech company with good prospects. The tech company achieves a 20% return on its capital. It takes your money, grows, hires more employees, and through the years pays a lot of money in taxes.
Everybody wins. Originally Posted by Tiny

looks like you copied and pasted from a 1986 Business Finance book. the real world does not operate very close to this example.

that same text book told you government deficits would sink the economy.. the dollar would weaken, nobody would buy our Bonds, inflation would spiral, stagflation would follow.

instead, interest rates are at historic LOWS, employment at historic HIGHS, the US is THE place to buy Bonds, all while the deficit has spiraled to outrageous heights!

but as I have told you (and maybe one or two of you grudgingly sort of believe me), deficits don't matter.

Trumps strategy is simple. Look at all of his business dealings. Run up huge debt and then don't pay the bills. It really is that simple. That is what he has done his entire life. Originally Posted by themystic

Yeah this is Trump's fault alone and no one else on the left is responsible...no you're NON explanation isn't that simple...as ALWAYS!!
I have read ALL your post concerning the deficit issue...
Thank you valued thug supporting poster!!

95k you always take about things you know nothing about...more of you lack of knowledge.

It's called "Voodoo Economics" That boring ass teacher didn't explain it. In the 80's with the direction of VP George H. Bush Economists sat around with dolls dressed like strippers they would put Monopoly money in their garters in hopes it would influence the economy. Well it didn't work.

Is that so....you just know so much that isn't so!!

This is what "voodoo economics" does to the economy!!
Something VERY seldom seen...

https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/usa?year=1984


https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...s-and-figures/