"Unexpectedly" poor jobs report...

[jamil]

I still haven't seen the answer to my question of who raised these entitled brats?

Democrats.

 

[sparky32]

Democrats.

Ding ding ding !!!!

 

[bobzilla]

.... And a few years of high interest in the mid to late 70's doesn't change that.

Wait .... what? Are we rewriting history here again? Double digit mortgage rates started around 1978 and didn’t get below 10% until 1991. 80-84 were the peak at 13-16% average rates for a mortgage.

 

[jamil]

Wait .... what? Are we rewriting history here again? Double digit mortgage rates started around 1978 and didn’t get below 10% until 1991. 80-84 were the peak at 13-16% average rates for a mortgage.

After having learned how to calculate compound interest in my mid teens I mapped out a plan to be rich and retire by age 42. I just had to get a decent paying job, live below my means, keep reinvesting in CD's, not take out a mortgage, or any loans.

High interest rates were the norm. Interest rates had been high for so long that I thought they would always be high. So much for that plan, eh?

 

[bobzilla]

After having learned how to calculate compound interest in my mid teens I mapped out a plan to be rich and retire by age 42. I just had to get a decent paying job, live below my means, keep reinvesting in CD's, not take out a mortgage, or any loans.

High interest rates were the norm. Interest rates had been high for so long that I thought they would always be high. So much for that plan, eh?

I mean according to sone it only lasted a couple years so....

 

[rooster]

Sigh. So, basically, 'It's different this time'

Something something history something repeat it

If it helps think about it this way. The previous way the government cooked the GDP books and stroked the economy was to spend money inefficiently. We all know the government overpays for hammers, nails, and the works. Thing is that’s a feature of the system not a bug. Now with direct money to consumers by direct payment, lower tax burden on the blue collar workers or higher wages the money is being spent ,according to capitalism, in the most efficient manner possible and is creating the most jobs as growth.

Free market capitalists, like many here claim to be, should be jumping for joy at the efficiency of the system. Who knew if the tax burden and wage system was structured in such a way that people of a lower class had just a little extra the system would work much better?

 

[jamil]

I mean according to sone it only lasted a couple years so....

Well, keeping it in perspective, it lasted long enough for a teenager to think that's always what the rates would always be, but not long enough for the plan to work. The 70's were a decade of ****.

Since we're in that era, I'll say this much. Reagan seemed to change the whole mood of the nation. To me it seemed like everyone **** on America. We didn't seem to do anything right. Even ****ed up the hostage rescue. LIke you said, the high mortgages stayed with us a long time.

 

[jamil]

If it helps think about it this way. The previous way the government cooked the GDP books and stroked the economy was to spend money inefficiently. We all know the government overpays for hammers, nails, and the works. Thing is that’s a feature of the system not a bug. Now with direct money to consumers by direct payment, lower tax burden on the blue collar workers or higher wages the money is being spent ,according to capitalism, in the most efficient manner possible and is creating the most jobs as growth.

Free market capitalists, like many here claim to be, should be jumping for joy at the efficiency of the system. Who knew if the tax burden and wage system was structured in such a way that people of a lower class had just a little extra the system would work much better?

Uh, have you ever taken an economics class? Trickle down is not a policy. It's just how **** works.

 

[Jaybird1980]

Uh, have you ever taken an economics class? Trickle down is not a policy. It's just how **** works.

That's probably the kind of crap they are teaching in economics now.

 

[jamil]

That's probably the kind of crap they are teaching in economics now.

Well, not really. My son is an economics major for his undergrad and I ask him pretty often about that. It's the standard macro/micro economics so far. Heavy on math, light on ideology. The business school seems to be run mostly by libertarians.

But then AOC was an economics major. She went to University of Boston I think?

 

[Jaybird1980]

Well, not really. My son is an economics major for his undergrad and I ask him pretty often about that. It's the standard macro/micro economics so far. Heavy on math, light on ideology. The business school seems to be run mostly by libertarians.

But then AOC was an economics major. She went to University of Boston I think?

I probably wouldn't judge all the schools by the one your son attends. People are getting these thoughts from somewhere.

This is where he lost me.

Government debt doesn't matter? WTH

Yes that’s how demand is created. Trickle down has been failing for decades. .gov gave a consumers just a small percentage of what they gave businesses and now demand is booming for everything. Hence inflation.
And government debt doesn’t matter. We have moved on as a global system to demand centered economics and “modern monetary theory” that says gov debt doesn’t matter and printer goes brrr forever handing out free money.

 

[bwframe]

Second question...

 

[rooster]

Uh, have you ever taken an economics class? Trickle down is not a policy. It's just how **** works.

It doesn’t work. In a study of countries that passed Reagan type tax cuts vs those that didn’t

“Per capita gross domestic product and unemployment rates were nearly identical after five years in countries that slashed taxes on the rich and in those that didn't, the study found. But the analysis discovered one major change: The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries where tax rates were lowered”

50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says

Tax cuts for the wealthy didn't boost the economies of the U.S. and 17 other countries — but they did worsen income inequality.

www.google.com

 

[rooster]

Uh, have you ever taken an economics class? Trickle down is not a policy. It's just how **** works.

Have you ever listened to the fed president remarks? This is what they are saying not what’s being taught in school. Jpow talks pretty often and the other fed presidents get interviewed regularly. If one wants to stay current then listening to their remarks is the way to do it.

jpow on debt levels.

Current US debt level 'very sustainable', says Fed chairman Jerome Powell

US government debt is on an "unsustainable path", but the current level of debt is fine. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

 

[buckwacker]

Uh, have you ever taken an economics class? Trickle down is not a policy. It's just how **** works.

Those arguments are kinda like arguing that gravity doesn't exist because you want to fly. The difference with making bad economics decisions as opposed to bad physics decisions, is that the consequences of bad physics decisions develop rather quickly and no one is going to argue that the reason you hit the dirt at terminal velocity wasn't because of gravity. You have a whole host of people willing to argue that the bad economics decisions wasn't due to the misunderstanding of the economic science, it's that's we didn't implement the policy just right.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It doesn’t work. In a study of countries that passed Reagan type tax cuts vs those that didn’t

“Per capita gross domestic product and unemployment rates were nearly identical after five years in countries that slashed taxes on the rich and in those that didn't, the study found. But the analysis discovered one major change: The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries where tax rates were lowered”

50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says

Tax cuts for the wealthy didn't boost the economies of the U.S. and 17 other countries — but they did worsen income inequality.

www.google.com

Your statement and your quoted article are severely flawed. The Reagan tax cuts did in fact cut the marginal tax rates dramatically, but then again deductions were cut dramatically. In the end it was more a truth in taxation than a huge tax cut. Incidentally, federal revenue did go up after this.

 

[BugI02]

After having learned how to calculate compound interest in my mid teens I mapped out a plan to be rich and retire by age 42. I just had to get a decent paying job, live below my means, keep reinvesting in CD's, not take out a mortgage, or any loans.

High interest rates were the norm. Interest rates had been high for so long that I thought they would always be high. So much for that plan, eh?

An investment account that is 50% stocks and 50% bonds has historically returned 9.0% annualized witha standard deviation of 8.1%

You should have just retargeted

 

[BugI02]

If it helps think about it this way. The previous way the government cooked the GDP books and stroked the economy was to spend money inefficiently. We all know the government overpays for hammers, nails, and the works. Thing is that’s a feature of the system not a bug. Now with direct money to consumers by direct payment, lower tax burden on the blue collar workers or higher wages the money is being spent ,according to capitalism, in the most efficient manner possible and is creating the most jobs as growth.

Free market capitalists, like many here claim to be, should be jumping for joy at the efficiency of the system. Who knew if the tax burden and wage system was structured in such a way that people of a lower class had just a little extra the system would work much better?

Too great a gulf between our beliefs, my friend

Whatever lets you sleep

 

[churchmouse]

Your statement and your quoted article are severely flawed. The Reagan tax cuts did in fact cut the marginal tax rates dramatically, but then again deductions were cut dramatically. In the end it was more a truth in taxation than a huge tax cut. Incidentally, federal revenue did go up after this.

Bingo

 

[rooster]

Incidentally, federal revenue did go up after this.

Federal revenues go up and down in response to behavior of taxpayers post tax cuts. The info is out there on how to dodge taxes in the event of new taxes or increases in taxes. For instance in some of the circles I am involved in have already put out info on how to evade the new 1031 rules.

refinance or reinvest real estate money in economic impact zone.

new capital gains taxes? Easy just take a loan on your stocks like the big boys. Heck stock loans only pay a couple points and if your talking about a couple million or even a couple hundred thousand in stock those points are nothing compared to the proposed 40% capital gains. Stock price goes up and the points are wiped out anyway right?

when taxes are cut then the rich have the freedom to move their money to cash without paying Uncle Sam his share. This is why those in power are freaking out and publishing hit pieces on the proposed regulations. These regulations will directly tax them in the typical avenues of moving profits without paying taxes.

I doubt many if anyone here have anything to worry about making more than 500k profit on a real estate transaction or paying capital gains on income over 1 million and yet as a group us blue collar republicans like robots fight tooth and nail over these tax increases. It makes no sense.