Economics Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
The stock market has been rallying in anticipation of his return.
Eh - that’s going to burst either way. I’m more concerned with blue collar wages. I’ll be fine either way.
sturg33
I
I hope Don will wipe out the debt like he said he'd do the first time.
Or just a single surpless would be nice
msstate7
Well-known member
Unfortunately, we will max out the credit card from here forward. We don't care about future generations, and we elect people who don't either
Tapate50
Well-known member
No one is willing to vote against their own self interests. No one
acesfull86
Well-known member
Chef’s kiss
Tapate50
Well-known member
I was told reliably this was the answer
Where did all the people go touting this as so good for the economy?
Last edited:
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/06/07/biden-progressive-presidency/
Having unleashed the worst inflation in 40 years, Biden is banning (through a 100 percent tariff) Chinese electric vehicles. This will keep U.S.-made EVs prohibitively expensive for most consumers, giving Biden a reason to continue subsidizing purchasers. Protected U.S. vehicle manufacturers will raise prices, enabling Biden to call this “reindustrialization.” This artificial (because government-subsidized) manufacturing “revival” will stop if the subsidies do, so they won’t.
Progressives focus on jobs protected or provided by government, especially since the 2000-2015 “China shock,” although the Economist calls this supposed shock “insignificant”: “A plausible upper limit for American jobs lost … is around 2m. That is a small fraction of the size of the workforce (130m in 2000). Over that period people left jobs about 900m times … The vast majority found work again quickly … ‘Despite some localised hardships, the China shock is really a rounding error for the US workforce overall,’ says Adam Posen of the Peterson Institute.”
The “shock” is the gift that keeps giving progressives an excuse to socialize the economy through government “partnerships.” While denouncing “tax breaks” for “Big Pharma” and “Big Oil,” Biden (notes the Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards) favors trillions of dollars for “Big Semiconductor, Big Wind, Big Solar, Big Battery, Big Automaker, Big Utility.”
Automakers are now public utilities, whose future investments and product decisions are dictated by government. Twenty-first-century progressives preserve the shell of the (formerly) private sector as government’s appendage, but any vestiges of private autonomy are subordinated to the “existential” urgency of decarbonizing, which makes everything the government’s concern.
Jake Sullivan — technically, Biden’s national security adviser; actually, a roving savant-without-borders — says government dispensing trillions of dollars is “not picking winners and losers,” it is merely picking “sectors vital to our national well-being.” This is a distinction without a difference because “well-being” encompasses everything.
Having unleashed the worst inflation in 40 years, Biden is banning (through a 100 percent tariff) Chinese electric vehicles. This will keep U.S.-made EVs prohibitively expensive for most consumers, giving Biden a reason to continue subsidizing purchasers. Protected U.S. vehicle manufacturers will raise prices, enabling Biden to call this “reindustrialization.” This artificial (because government-subsidized) manufacturing “revival” will stop if the subsidies do, so they won’t.
Progressives focus on jobs protected or provided by government, especially since the 2000-2015 “China shock,” although the Economist calls this supposed shock “insignificant”: “A plausible upper limit for American jobs lost … is around 2m. That is a small fraction of the size of the workforce (130m in 2000). Over that period people left jobs about 900m times … The vast majority found work again quickly … ‘Despite some localised hardships, the China shock is really a rounding error for the US workforce overall,’ says Adam Posen of the Peterson Institute.”
The “shock” is the gift that keeps giving progressives an excuse to socialize the economy through government “partnerships.” While denouncing “tax breaks” for “Big Pharma” and “Big Oil,” Biden (notes the Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards) favors trillions of dollars for “Big Semiconductor, Big Wind, Big Solar, Big Battery, Big Automaker, Big Utility.”
Automakers are now public utilities, whose future investments and product decisions are dictated by government. Twenty-first-century progressives preserve the shell of the (formerly) private sector as government’s appendage, but any vestiges of private autonomy are subordinated to the “existential” urgency of decarbonizing, which makes everything the government’s concern.
Jake Sullivan — technically, Biden’s national security adviser; actually, a roving savant-without-borders — says government dispensing trillions of dollars is “not picking winners and losers,” it is merely picking “sectors vital to our national well-being.” This is a distinction without a difference because “well-being” encompasses everything.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
For the first time, researchers have detected a significant dip in atmospheric levels of hydrochlorofluorocarbons — harmful gases that deplete the ozone layer and warm the planet.
Almost 30 years after nations first agreed to phase out these chemicals, which were widely used for air conditioning and refrigeration, scientists say global concentrations peaked in 2021. Since then, the ozone-depleting potential of HCFCs in the atmosphere has fallen by about three-quarters of a percentage point, according to findings published Tuesday in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Though small, that decline comes sooner than expected, scientists say — and it represents a significant milestone for the international effort to preserve the layer of Earth’s stratosphere that blocks dangerous ultraviolet sunlight.
Just over 50 years ago, researchers realized that a hole was forming in the ozone layer over Antarctica, allowing cancer-causing radiation to reach Earth’s surface. The main culprits were chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which could destroy thousands of ozone molecules with a single chlorine atom and linger in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.
The discovery prompted countries to sign the 1987 Montreal Protocol, agreeing to phase out production of CFCs. Under the terms of the agreement, rich countries would halt production first and provide financial and technical assistance to low-income nations as they also moved away from the polluting chemicals. Production of CFCs has been banned globally since 2010.
But the most common replacements were HCFCs — compounds that have about one-tenth of the ozone-depleting potential of CFCs, but could still cause significant damage. The most commonly used HCFC also has roughly 2,000 times the heat-trapping potential of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. So in 1992 nations agreed they would abandon these chemicals as well.
“The transition has been pretty successful,” said University of Bristol researcher Luke Western, the lead author of the Nature Climate Change study.
The United Nations estimates that the world has curbed 98 percent of the ozone-depleting substances being produced in 1990. It takes decades for those manufacturing bans to translate into fewer products sold and fewer HCFCs in the atmosphere. But Western’s research, which drew on data from two global air monitoring programs, shows that turning point has finally arrived.
https://wapo.st/4bUznW6
What's interesting is that the President who decided to undertake the negotiations that led to this outcome was a conservative Republican. Ronald Reagan.
George H.W. Bush, as president, negotiated a treaty with Canada that has been very successful in curbing acid rain.
Almost 30 years after nations first agreed to phase out these chemicals, which were widely used for air conditioning and refrigeration, scientists say global concentrations peaked in 2021. Since then, the ozone-depleting potential of HCFCs in the atmosphere has fallen by about three-quarters of a percentage point, according to findings published Tuesday in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Though small, that decline comes sooner than expected, scientists say — and it represents a significant milestone for the international effort to preserve the layer of Earth’s stratosphere that blocks dangerous ultraviolet sunlight.
Just over 50 years ago, researchers realized that a hole was forming in the ozone layer over Antarctica, allowing cancer-causing radiation to reach Earth’s surface. The main culprits were chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which could destroy thousands of ozone molecules with a single chlorine atom and linger in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.
The discovery prompted countries to sign the 1987 Montreal Protocol, agreeing to phase out production of CFCs. Under the terms of the agreement, rich countries would halt production first and provide financial and technical assistance to low-income nations as they also moved away from the polluting chemicals. Production of CFCs has been banned globally since 2010.
But the most common replacements were HCFCs — compounds that have about one-tenth of the ozone-depleting potential of CFCs, but could still cause significant damage. The most commonly used HCFC also has roughly 2,000 times the heat-trapping potential of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. So in 1992 nations agreed they would abandon these chemicals as well.
“The transition has been pretty successful,” said University of Bristol researcher Luke Western, the lead author of the Nature Climate Change study.
The United Nations estimates that the world has curbed 98 percent of the ozone-depleting substances being produced in 1990. It takes decades for those manufacturing bans to translate into fewer products sold and fewer HCFCs in the atmosphere. But Western’s research, which drew on data from two global air monitoring programs, shows that turning point has finally arrived.
https://wapo.st/4bUznW6
What's interesting is that the President who decided to undertake the negotiations that led to this outcome was a conservative Republican. Ronald Reagan.
George H.W. Bush, as president, negotiated a treaty with Canada that has been very successful in curbing acid rain.
Last edited:
msstate7
Well-known member
Lol
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/07/15/rent-cap-biden-housing/
President Biden will unveil a new proposal in Nevada on Tuesday to cap rental costs nationwide, according to three people familiar with the matter, as he works to assuage Democratic concerns about the viability of his candidacy while the Republican convention gets underway.
Biden’s plan — which would need to be approved by Congress — calls for stripping a tax benefit from landlords who increase their tenants’ rent more than 5 percent per year, the people said. The measure would only apply to landlords who own more than 50 units, which represents roughly half of all rental properties, the people said. It wouldn’t cover units that have not yet been built, in an attempt to ensure that the policy does not discourage construction of new rental housing. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a proposal that isn’t yet public.
…
“Rent control has been about as disgraced as any economic policy in the tool kit. The idea we’d be reviving and expanding it will ultimately make our housing supply problems worse, not better,” said Jason Furman, who served as a top economist in the Obama administration and is now a professor at Harvard.
—————
Just when I think I can’t hate the economic policies of our leading presidential candidates even more…
President Biden will unveil a new proposal in Nevada on Tuesday to cap rental costs nationwide, according to three people familiar with the matter, as he works to assuage Democratic concerns about the viability of his candidacy while the Republican convention gets underway.
Biden’s plan — which would need to be approved by Congress — calls for stripping a tax benefit from landlords who increase their tenants’ rent more than 5 percent per year, the people said. The measure would only apply to landlords who own more than 50 units, which represents roughly half of all rental properties, the people said. It wouldn’t cover units that have not yet been built, in an attempt to ensure that the policy does not discourage construction of new rental housing. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a proposal that isn’t yet public.
…
“Rent control has been about as disgraced as any economic policy in the tool kit. The idea we’d be reviving and expanding it will ultimately make our housing supply problems worse, not better,” said Jason Furman, who served as a top economist in the Obama administration and is now a professor at Harvard.
—————
Just when I think I can’t hate the economic policies of our leading presidential candidates even more…