sturg33
I
Better be careful or he might just stop responding to you!
(And argue with the air instead)
Economics Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
Better be careful or he might just stop responding to you!
(And argue with the air instead)
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
It would be good to have more libertarian data points. Maybe Milei will provide one that advances the cause of knowledge. It is a shame the Truss-Kwarteng partnership was so short-lived. Although it is a data point nonetheless
It depends on the starting point. If you start from an absolutely devastated state like Argentina then by all means Libertarian away.
acesfull86
Well-known member
FWIW, the author of the WSJ article that started this little back-and-forth is a Republican, according to her Wiki page. And sadly, there remain no (L) elected to major office north of Buenos Aires.
But I love how any post vaguely supporting something right-of-center economically, and/or erring on the side of individual liberty, no matter how mundane or benign the issue, necessitates yet another grand trial of Libertarianism as a political ideology and governing philosophy. Generally following the same script of (1) declaring libertarianism morally bankrupt and impractical, followed by (2) the throat-clearing acknowledgement of its potential positive contributions, especially in a more perfect society, but ultimately concluding with (3) the proclamation that it's unable to comprehend and deal with the nuance of reality and the practical world.
For those catching up on the proposed expansion of the child credit, here's one example of a potential change:
Consider a single parent with two children who earns $13,000 working part time as a home health aide. Under current law, the family receives a credit of $1,575 — 15 percent of $10,500, their earnings above $2,500.
Under the proposal, they would receive $1,575 per child — or $3,150, meaning the family’s credit would double.
Now, if you prefer the current law where said parent would continue to receive $1,575:
* you hold a position that we shouldn't value families
* you think each man is an island unto himself
* you lack the ability to comprehend nuance and the reality of the world around you
* you are naively married to standard textbook economic models
* you might as well hand the world over to the CCP
* you probably think the 2020 election wasn't stolen
But if you support the new law where said parent would receive $3,150:
* you are family first (I mean, $3150 vs $1575, come on!)
* you have astutely recognized and accounted for the positive externalities of population growth, have synthesized the pros and cons of any unintended consequences or changes in incentive structures, and you have correctly landed on YES when it comes to the proposed bill
* you are neither naive nor trapped by silly textbook models
* you recognize the existential threat of the CCP and have proudly taken us one step closer toward its destruction
But I love how any post vaguely supporting something right-of-center economically, and/or erring on the side of individual liberty, no matter how mundane or benign the issue, necessitates yet another grand trial of Libertarianism as a political ideology and governing philosophy. Generally following the same script of (1) declaring libertarianism morally bankrupt and impractical, followed by (2) the throat-clearing acknowledgement of its potential positive contributions, especially in a more perfect society, but ultimately concluding with (3) the proclamation that it's unable to comprehend and deal with the nuance of reality and the practical world.
For those catching up on the proposed expansion of the child credit, here's one example of a potential change:
Consider a single parent with two children who earns $13,000 working part time as a home health aide. Under current law, the family receives a credit of $1,575 — 15 percent of $10,500, their earnings above $2,500.
Under the proposal, they would receive $1,575 per child — or $3,150, meaning the family’s credit would double.
Now, if you prefer the current law where said parent would continue to receive $1,575:
* you hold a position that we shouldn't value families
* you think each man is an island unto himself
* you lack the ability to comprehend nuance and the reality of the world around you
* you are naively married to standard textbook economic models
* you might as well hand the world over to the CCP
* you probably think the 2020 election wasn't stolen
But if you support the new law where said parent would receive $3,150:
* you are family first (I mean, $3150 vs $1575, come on!)
* you have astutely recognized and accounted for the positive externalities of population growth, have synthesized the pros and cons of any unintended consequences or changes in incentive structures, and you have correctly landed on YES when it comes to the proposed bill
* you are neither naive nor trapped by silly textbook models
* you recognize the existential threat of the CCP and have proudly taken us one step closer toward its destruction
sturg33
I
Unfortunately, you are debating with someone who thinks he's brilliant but is actually incredibly stupid
I’m not in favor of incentivizing single family households. The family unit is the crux of a functioning society.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/01/no-trump-the-u-s-cant-pay-down-the-national-debt-with-oil/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=top-stories&utm_term=second
Trump said in his Iowa victory speech, “We’re going to drill. We’re going to use that money to lower your taxes even further. We gave you the biggest tax cut in history, and we’re going to lower them further. And we’re also going to pay off national debt.”
First of all, lowering taxes, even if desirable for other reasons, would contribute to increasing the debt if not offset with spending cuts. So Trump’s own promises are already working at cross purposes.
But the larger idea — that proceeds from energy production will pay off the national debt — is pure nonsense. Many of the things Trump says are difficult to take seriously, but given that he is increasingly likely to be the Republican nominee, and he has said this line repeatedly, it’s worth illustrating that this is simply a Trumpian version of the fiscal delusion that both parties are now committed to.
Let’s count the ways in which this makes no sense:
1) The national debt is $34 trillion. That’s about $8 trillion greater than the entire GDP of the United States. There’s no way it’s getting paid off.
2) Total U.S. proved reserves of crude oil were 41 billion barrels in 2021. The average price of a barrel of oil in 2023 was $78. Even if the U.S. somehow pumped all those reserves at once, sold all of them at double the average price of a barrel of oil in 2023, and gave all the money directly to the Treasury, it would only raise $6.4 trillion.
3) Let’s assume, for charity’s sake, that Trump meant the deficit, not the debt. The deficit last year was $2 trillion. The U.S. produced about 4.5 billion barrels of crude oil last year. At $78 per barrel, that comes out to total U.S. oil production valued at about $350 billion — not even close to covering the deficit.
4) Trump talked about how Saudi Arabia is wealthy because of oil. Total Saudi government revenue in 2023 was $318 billion. Over a third of that was from non-oil sources. And Saudi Arabia ran a budget deficit last year.
5) The revenues of the five largest U.S. oil companies (ExxonMobil, Chevron, Marathon, Valero, and Phillips 66) in 2023 totaled about $1 trillion. So even if there was a way for the federal government to confiscate all of that revenue, it still wouldn’t pay for half of the deficit last year.
6) The U.S. energy sector, unlike the energy sectors of Saudi Arabia and many other countries, is dominated by private companies. Their profits belong to them, not the government. They pay taxes on their profits like other companies, but Trump (correctly) cut corporate taxes while in office.
7) Using oil companies as cash cows is usually something Democrats want to do. Joe Biden’s most recent budget proposed several new taxes on fossil-fuel producers. Even so, those taxes were only projected to raise $97 billion over ten years.
8) U.S. oil production in 2023 was at an all-time high. Trump and the other Republican candidates blame Biden for reducing oil production, but that has not happened. (There are plenty of other, more legitimate criticisms of Biden’s energy policies.) Perhaps oil production would be even higher without Biden’s policies, and tangling up new projects in lengthy environmental reviews definitely doesn’t help. But oil is traded on a global market in which the U.S. is a major but by no means determinative player. Oil companies base production decisions primarily on global market conditions, not on who the president is.
Trump said in his Iowa victory speech, “We’re going to drill. We’re going to use that money to lower your taxes even further. We gave you the biggest tax cut in history, and we’re going to lower them further. And we’re also going to pay off national debt.”
First of all, lowering taxes, even if desirable for other reasons, would contribute to increasing the debt if not offset with spending cuts. So Trump’s own promises are already working at cross purposes.
But the larger idea — that proceeds from energy production will pay off the national debt — is pure nonsense. Many of the things Trump says are difficult to take seriously, but given that he is increasingly likely to be the Republican nominee, and he has said this line repeatedly, it’s worth illustrating that this is simply a Trumpian version of the fiscal delusion that both parties are now committed to.
Let’s count the ways in which this makes no sense:
1) The national debt is $34 trillion. That’s about $8 trillion greater than the entire GDP of the United States. There’s no way it’s getting paid off.
2) Total U.S. proved reserves of crude oil were 41 billion barrels in 2021. The average price of a barrel of oil in 2023 was $78. Even if the U.S. somehow pumped all those reserves at once, sold all of them at double the average price of a barrel of oil in 2023, and gave all the money directly to the Treasury, it would only raise $6.4 trillion.
3) Let’s assume, for charity’s sake, that Trump meant the deficit, not the debt. The deficit last year was $2 trillion. The U.S. produced about 4.5 billion barrels of crude oil last year. At $78 per barrel, that comes out to total U.S. oil production valued at about $350 billion — not even close to covering the deficit.
4) Trump talked about how Saudi Arabia is wealthy because of oil. Total Saudi government revenue in 2023 was $318 billion. Over a third of that was from non-oil sources. And Saudi Arabia ran a budget deficit last year.
5) The revenues of the five largest U.S. oil companies (ExxonMobil, Chevron, Marathon, Valero, and Phillips 66) in 2023 totaled about $1 trillion. So even if there was a way for the federal government to confiscate all of that revenue, it still wouldn’t pay for half of the deficit last year.
6) The U.S. energy sector, unlike the energy sectors of Saudi Arabia and many other countries, is dominated by private companies. Their profits belong to them, not the government. They pay taxes on their profits like other companies, but Trump (correctly) cut corporate taxes while in office.
7) Using oil companies as cash cows is usually something Democrats want to do. Joe Biden’s most recent budget proposed several new taxes on fossil-fuel producers. Even so, those taxes were only projected to raise $97 billion over ten years.
8) U.S. oil production in 2023 was at an all-time high. Trump and the other Republican candidates blame Biden for reducing oil production, but that has not happened. (There are plenty of other, more legitimate criticisms of Biden’s energy policies.) Perhaps oil production would be even higher without Biden’s policies, and tangling up new projects in lengthy environmental reviews definitely doesn’t help. But oil is traded on a global market in which the U.S. is a major but by no means determinative player. Oil companies base production decisions primarily on global market conditions, not on who the president is.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Trump knows he can make any promises he wants because he has conditioned his cult to attack anyone who calls him out on his false promises.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://reason.com/2024/02/04/the-bankruptcy-of-bidenomics/
An unsigned July 2022 editorial in The Wall Street Journal bore the headline "Bidenomics 101." It took issue with Biden's public demand that "companies running gas stations and setting prices at the pump" bring down their prices—a sort of Nixonian jawboning where you respond to inflation by trying to bully companies into keeping prices low. The president, the editorial charged, "doesn't appear to know anything about how the private economy works."
Nearly a year later, in a speech in Chicago, Biden set out to claim Bidenomics as his own. The president framed his approach as "a fundamental break from the economic theory that has failed America's middle class for decades now."
…
Biden's speeches were defensive in tone, and for a reason: Voters have consistently reported broad unhappiness with the economy. Surveys find low support for Biden's handling of economic policy across nearly every demographic, including the younger voters and minorities who are typically Democratic stalwarts. The president's embrace of Bidenomics was an attempt to convert skeptics into believers by arguing, more or less, that the economy was actually pretty great and that this was because of him and his policies.
The Bidenomics push was best understood as a messaging strategy rather than a shift in policy vision; the White House memo announcing the Chicago speech was crafted by two political messaging operatives rather than anyone on the administration's policy team. But it did capture an underlying policy vision, a distinct approach to the economy that came to the fore during Biden's first term. That vision had many facets—pandemic aid, industrial policy, handouts for labor unions and public workers—but in many ways, it could be reduced to a single, overriding response: government spending.
Bidenomics was, at heart, a philosophy of throwing money at programs, people, political allies, and favored constituencies. That spending contributed directly and significantly to the rapid rise in inflation that helped fuel voter dissatisfaction with the state of affairs. Thanks to misallocation, poor implementation, and self-contradictory regulatory requirements, the substantive public payoffs to that spending have been weak at best and counterproductive at worst.
—————
Long article worth a read… I submit as a data point of on the failings of government intervention in markets and deficit spending in general.
Can’t forget how terrible Biden has been on economy.
An unsigned July 2022 editorial in The Wall Street Journal bore the headline "Bidenomics 101." It took issue with Biden's public demand that "companies running gas stations and setting prices at the pump" bring down their prices—a sort of Nixonian jawboning where you respond to inflation by trying to bully companies into keeping prices low. The president, the editorial charged, "doesn't appear to know anything about how the private economy works."
Nearly a year later, in a speech in Chicago, Biden set out to claim Bidenomics as his own. The president framed his approach as "a fundamental break from the economic theory that has failed America's middle class for decades now."
…
Biden's speeches were defensive in tone, and for a reason: Voters have consistently reported broad unhappiness with the economy. Surveys find low support for Biden's handling of economic policy across nearly every demographic, including the younger voters and minorities who are typically Democratic stalwarts. The president's embrace of Bidenomics was an attempt to convert skeptics into believers by arguing, more or less, that the economy was actually pretty great and that this was because of him and his policies.
The Bidenomics push was best understood as a messaging strategy rather than a shift in policy vision; the White House memo announcing the Chicago speech was crafted by two political messaging operatives rather than anyone on the administration's policy team. But it did capture an underlying policy vision, a distinct approach to the economy that came to the fore during Biden's first term. That vision had many facets—pandemic aid, industrial policy, handouts for labor unions and public workers—but in many ways, it could be reduced to a single, overriding response: government spending.
Bidenomics was, at heart, a philosophy of throwing money at programs, people, political allies, and favored constituencies. That spending contributed directly and significantly to the rapid rise in inflation that helped fuel voter dissatisfaction with the state of affairs. Thanks to misallocation, poor implementation, and self-contradictory regulatory requirements, the substantive public payoffs to that spending have been weak at best and counterproductive at worst.
—————
Long article worth a read… I submit as a data point of on the failings of government intervention in markets and deficit spending in general.
Can’t forget how terrible Biden has been on economy.
Tapate50
Well-known member
And then revised down.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Surely a new phenomenon.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.king5.com/amp/article/news/local/seattle-ordinance-intended-app-delivery-workers-hurting-them/281-9516c79c-3161-41f3-a662-798b9db16d3f
SEATTLE — A new Seattle City ordinance designed to give food delivery app drivers a more livable wage is "backfiring," according to several drivers.
You may have noticed that new $5 fee on Doordash and Uber Eats orders, but it is not just causing frustrated customers to delete their apps, as we reported. We are now learning the people the ordinance was designed to help are hurting.
…
"Sundays before the ordinance," Lardizabal. "You know, we'd be thinking breakfast. Today, I didn't even touch it. They're not going to order. It is definitely backfiring.”
Since the ordinance went into effect last month, Mia Shagen said her delivery opportunities have been slashed.
"I've got nothin," Shagen said. "I'm not gonna sit here for hours for one frickin' order."
…
The Pay Up Legislation, as the city regards it, was meant to improve wages for gig workers by entitling them to "minimum pay," or in other words, pay based on the time worked and miles traveled for each offer.
Doordash, as we've reported, has stated their Dashers will get paid more: at least $26.40 per hour before tips, in their estimation.
"They’re not telling the whole story," Shagen said. "Assuming that you are working constantly, then yes, you're going to be making that much money. But that's not what's happening right now. Because people are not ordering as much anymore. The tips are going down because they think we're making all this money."
One driver shared how much he made on this week last year: $931. But this week, he only made $464.81.
——————
Who could have possibly seen this coming!?
SEATTLE — A new Seattle City ordinance designed to give food delivery app drivers a more livable wage is "backfiring," according to several drivers.
You may have noticed that new $5 fee on Doordash and Uber Eats orders, but it is not just causing frustrated customers to delete their apps, as we reported. We are now learning the people the ordinance was designed to help are hurting.
…
"Sundays before the ordinance," Lardizabal. "You know, we'd be thinking breakfast. Today, I didn't even touch it. They're not going to order. It is definitely backfiring.”
Since the ordinance went into effect last month, Mia Shagen said her delivery opportunities have been slashed.
"I've got nothin," Shagen said. "I'm not gonna sit here for hours for one frickin' order."
…
The Pay Up Legislation, as the city regards it, was meant to improve wages for gig workers by entitling them to "minimum pay," or in other words, pay based on the time worked and miles traveled for each offer.
Doordash, as we've reported, has stated their Dashers will get paid more: at least $26.40 per hour before tips, in their estimation.
"They’re not telling the whole story," Shagen said. "Assuming that you are working constantly, then yes, you're going to be making that much money. But that's not what's happening right now. Because people are not ordering as much anymore. The tips are going down because they think we're making all this money."
One driver shared how much he made on this week last year: $931. But this week, he only made $464.81.
——————
Who could have possibly seen this coming!?
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-cuts-welfare-checks-government-spending-976667f0?mod=letterstoeditor_article_pos3
I found the Orwellian inversion of reality in the new tax bill astounding. A regular program of welfare checks to people with children is now called a tax cut (“A Tax Bill for Gucci Gulch,” Review & Outlook, Feb. 2).
I have an idea. In the future, let’s funnel all government spending via the Internal Revenue Service and call it tax cuts. Spending to expand the food-stamps program? Tax cuts! Pell grants and scholarships? More tax cuts. The Federal Emergency Management Agency giving free water and food to a disaster stricken area? Targeted tax cuts. You send your kid to public school for free? You have received a tax cut.
I generally don’t like it when people insult my intelligence. I don’t know how these lawmakers get away with insulting the intelligence of their voters.
—————
Sadly, this would prb work
I found the Orwellian inversion of reality in the new tax bill astounding. A regular program of welfare checks to people with children is now called a tax cut (“A Tax Bill for Gucci Gulch,” Review & Outlook, Feb. 2).
I have an idea. In the future, let’s funnel all government spending via the Internal Revenue Service and call it tax cuts. Spending to expand the food-stamps program? Tax cuts! Pell grants and scholarships? More tax cuts. The Federal Emergency Management Agency giving free water and food to a disaster stricken area? Targeted tax cuts. You send your kid to public school for free? You have received a tax cut.
I generally don’t like it when people insult my intelligence. I don’t know how these lawmakers get away with insulting the intelligence of their voters.
—————
Sadly, this would prb work
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://reason.com/2024/02/07/elizabeth-warrens-shrinkflation-rant-is-an-incredible-exercise-in-blame-shifting/
Do you hate it when the big bag of chips you bought turns out to contain mostly air inside? Well, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) does, and she's crusading to end this injustice.
In a series of tweets and videos over the past few days, Warren has come out swinging against the "shrinkflation" of Doritos, Oreos, and other store-bought products whose sizes have shrunk even as their prices remain the same.
"These big corporations are shrinking how much they give us, but they're charging the same amount or sometimes even more. Corporate executives thought we wouldn't notice, but they're wrong," said Warren in a video posted to X (formerly known as Twitter) earlier this week.
Another word for shrinkflation is an obscure concept economists call "inflation"—where general price increases erode the purchasing power of consumers' dollars. Inflation can appear when the price of a same-sized bag of chips increases, and when the size of a same-priced bag of chips decreases. Both phenomena are still just the per-unit cost of a good increasing.
Warren's rant about shrinking Oreo packages is just the senator's way of adding a conspiratorial gloss to the painfully obvious effects of decades-high inflation the country's lived through during and after the pandemic.
But one doesn't need conspiracy theories to explain recent inflation. The federal government's $4 trillion in fiscal stimulus during the pandemic put a lot of cash in people's hands right as production was falling. The inevitable result of more money chasing fewer goods is higher inflation.
The Biden administration and a Democratic Congress made things even worse by passing a $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan in March 2021, when an economic recovery was already underway.
Warren supported all these massive spending bills and at times even advocated for more generous spending on things like rent subsidies. If the senator is looking for someone to blame for shrinking cookie packages, she need only look in the mirror.
—————
Another gem from Elizabeth Big Sandwich Warren
But just imagine how many new bureaucrats we could put to work counting the amount of Doritos per bag, ensuring the government set Dorito per bag minimum is properly reached. Jobs!
Do you hate it when the big bag of chips you bought turns out to contain mostly air inside? Well, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) does, and she's crusading to end this injustice.
In a series of tweets and videos over the past few days, Warren has come out swinging against the "shrinkflation" of Doritos, Oreos, and other store-bought products whose sizes have shrunk even as their prices remain the same.
"These big corporations are shrinking how much they give us, but they're charging the same amount or sometimes even more. Corporate executives thought we wouldn't notice, but they're wrong," said Warren in a video posted to X (formerly known as Twitter) earlier this week.
Another word for shrinkflation is an obscure concept economists call "inflation"—where general price increases erode the purchasing power of consumers' dollars. Inflation can appear when the price of a same-sized bag of chips increases, and when the size of a same-priced bag of chips decreases. Both phenomena are still just the per-unit cost of a good increasing.
Warren's rant about shrinking Oreo packages is just the senator's way of adding a conspiratorial gloss to the painfully obvious effects of decades-high inflation the country's lived through during and after the pandemic.
But one doesn't need conspiracy theories to explain recent inflation. The federal government's $4 trillion in fiscal stimulus during the pandemic put a lot of cash in people's hands right as production was falling. The inevitable result of more money chasing fewer goods is higher inflation.
The Biden administration and a Democratic Congress made things even worse by passing a $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan in March 2021, when an economic recovery was already underway.
Warren supported all these massive spending bills and at times even advocated for more generous spending on things like rent subsidies. If the senator is looking for someone to blame for shrinking cookie packages, she need only look in the mirror.
—————
Another gem from Elizabeth Big Sandwich Warren
But just imagine how many new bureaucrats we could put to work counting the amount of Doritos per bag, ensuring the government set Dorito per bag minimum is properly reached. Jobs!
Last edited: