Author Topic: Political Economics  (Read 888606 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2500 on: July 10, 2024, 11:46:36 AM »
Doug:

Thank you for keeping us in touch with Scott's thinking.  IMHO he is a real gem.

Yes he makes the most powerful point I know.  Our economy underperforming by 1% over 17 years cost us 25% of additional national income, (GDP). If you are a liberal, if you care about Healthcare, if you want to do something about the environment, if you want to help the needy, what could this economy have done with that additional $6.5 Trillion per year of income?

The 17 years coincides with the election of the Pelosi Reid Congress that I harped on for so long.  It was the change of the policy direction arrow starting January 2007. We immediately had the stoppage of growth. Then we had the financial meltdown of 2008. Then we had 8 years of Obama. It was interrupted by 3 years of Trump, immediately reversed by Covid and Biden. And now here we are, deeply in debt, over-taxed, over-regulated, inflated, stagnated and losing world reserve currency status, while being told everything is great.

Additional 6.5 trillion of private sector activity would make balancing the budget doable, cancel the need for excess spending and make inflation obsolete. But no. The party in power wants to double down on the same policies and results and label any blueprint for change a threat to democracy.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2024, 11:50:52 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Political Economics, real wages Trump, Biden, game, set, match
« Reply #2501 on: July 10, 2024, 02:52:38 PM »
One of the most meaningful ways to measure whether a president’s economic policies have worked is to examine the change in real (inflation-adjusted) earnings for the average worker. The comparison numbers for Trump and Biden are shown below (through May 2024).

It’s a plus $4,200 in wages and salaries under Trump and a negative $2,100 for Biden.

No spin. Just the facts, ma’am.



https://committeetounleashprosperity.com/hotlines/game-set-match/

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
The Term Which Can’t be Spoken: Bidenomics
« Reply #2502 on: July 16, 2024, 10:37:20 PM »
A survey of what costs have risen on Biden’s watch. Short answer? The list of what items haven’t risen in real cost is far shorter as “zero” makes for a short ledger:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/faith-freedom-self-reliance/3078357/hardworking-people-telling-their-stories-bidenomics-failure/#google_vignette

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Federal Waste & Its Impacts
« Reply #2503 on: July 18, 2024, 03:41:45 PM »
Ran into a ten year old Cato report on government waste and its consequences. Still working my way through its 48 pages, but its a fascinating read, with the introduction shown below:

Most Americans think that the federal
government is incompetent and
wasteful. Their negative view is not
surprising given the steady stream of
scandals emanating from Washing-
ton. Scholarly studies support the idea that many federal
activities are misguided and harmful. A recent book on
federal performance by Yale University law professor
Peter Schuck concluded that failure is “endemic.”
What causes all the failures?

First, federal policies rely on top-down planning
and coercion. That tends to create winners and losers,
which is unlike the mutually beneficial relationships of
markets. It also means that federal policies are based
on guesswork because there is no price system to guide
decisionmaking. A further problem is that failed policies
are not weeded out because they are funded by taxes,
which are compulsory and not contingent on perfor-
mance.

Second, the government lacks knowledge about our
complex society. That ignorance is behind many unin-
tended and harmful side effects of federal policies. While
markets gather knowledge from the bottom up and are
rooted in individual preferences, the government’s ac-
tions destroy knowledge and squelch diversity.

Third, legislators often act counter to the general
public interest. They use debt, an opaque tax system,
and other techniques to hide the full costs of programs.
Furthermore, they use logrolling to pass harmful policies
that do not have broad public support.

Fourth, civil servants act within a bureaucratic system
that rewards inertia, not the creation of value. Various re-
forms over the decades have tried to fix the bureaucracy,
but the incentives that generate poor performance are
deeply entrenched in the executive branch.

Fifth, the federal government has grown enormous in
size and scope. Each increment of spending has produced
less value but rising taxpayer costs. Failure has increased
as legislators have become overloaded by the vast array of
programs they have created. Today’s federal budget is 100
times larger than the average state budget, and it is far too
large to adequately oversee.

Management reforms and changes to budget rules
might reduce some types of failure. But the only way to
create a major improvement in performance is to cut the
overall size of the federal government.

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa777.pdf

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Political Economics, GDPP, Gross Domestic Private Product
« Reply #2504 on: July 29, 2024, 11:10:51 AM »
I was looking for something like this

https://www.aier.org/article/take-the-government-out-of-gdp/

Take Government out of GDP

“Gross Domestic Private Product” (GDP excluding government purchases) based on the work of economists such as Robert Higgs, Ryan McMaken, and Matthew Mitchell using updated data from the BEA.

{Doug]  They don't count 'transfer payments' as 'government', so it's not exactly what I'm looking for.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72282
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2505 on: July 29, 2024, 11:54:28 AM »
Once stated, it is obvious!

Let's continue to apply this concept moving forward!

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2506 on: July 29, 2024, 06:47:22 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72282
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2507 on: July 30, 2024, 05:31:11 AM »
Please post in Real Estate/Housing thread as well.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
“Just Because You Worked Hard Doesn’t Mean You Created Value”
« Reply #2508 on: July 31, 2024, 08:56:13 PM »
Don’t think of it as a “glass ceiling,” think of it as a value proposition you failed to evaluate properly:

Labor Isn’t Value

July 31, 2024

By ART CARDEN

Also published in American Institute for Economic Research Tue. July 30, 2024

Many people think it’s unfair for some people to earn a lot more than others for jobs that look similar on the surface. Consider pro sports, where recently people learned that rising stars like Caitlin Clark, Cameron Brink, Angel Reese, and others earn a tiny fraction of what male NBA players make. President Biden didn’t miss the opportunity to comment. “Why do players in the WNBA earn so little when their counterparts in the NBA earn so much? They work just as hard, and it isn’t fair. There ought to be a law.”

For Forbes, Caroline Reid reports a gender wage gap in the production of Disney’s famously progressive new show, The Acolyte.

Alas, it’s hardly clear people are underpaid, given that the WNBA has always been a money-loser rather than a money-maker (though the unprecedented attention on the WNBA means that might change), and The Acolyte has not been especially well-received by the Star Wars fandom.

Just because you have worked hard does not mean you have created value. Here’s an example to illustrate.

I recently decided to get back into collecting trading cards, toys, and other memorabilia. I’m selling a lot of it on eBay to learn more about online commerce—what better way to study transaction costs than to transact?—maybe breaking even with periodic great finds offsetting what I’m spending on stuff I just want to have (like a vintage Birmingham Steeldogs hat), and collecting fresh examples for the classroom.

One recent exercise illustrates why the labor theory of value is wrong. It can be summarized with a quote I’ve heard attributed to former Alabama football coach Gene Stallings (but sadly can’t verify): “Let’s not confuse effort with achievement.” Just because you worked hard at something doesn’t mean you have produced anything worthwhile.

That’s what happened when I opened 180 packs of 1990 Donruss baseball cards—about 3000 cards—and tried to assemble a complete set of about 750 cards, plus all the pieces to the Carl Yastrzemski puzzle that accompanied the set. Sorting the cards was fun and easy to do while watching TV or doing something equally brainless. By the time I was finished, I was about three cards short of the complete set.

So I ordered more.

Another thirty-six packs later, I had a complete set. It was the first time I’d assembled a set by hand. It took a while, but it was strangely satisfying.

So what is the set worth? I don’t think I will ever be used to the fact that as a highly educated middle-aged professional, my time is worth quite a lot more than it was when I was a preteen for whom there was no greater joy than buying a pack of baseball cards with fifty cents I had somehow scraped together. Would the set I assembled recently be worth more than the set I might have assembled 34 years ago, had I been willing and able to spend the kind of money that would have been necessary?

No. eBay says it’s worth maybe $20, and the time and energy I poured into it is irrelevant. I remember reading years ago someone speculating that Wayne Gretzky’s T206 Honus Wagner card might sell for $1 million, in part because the buyer would want the notoriety of having bought the world’s most valuable sports collectible from history’s greatest hockey player (the Great One ultimately sold it for a mere $500,000). I have yet to pay extra for anything on eBay because of who was selling it, nor have I ever asked how hard someone worked to find what I was bidding on. I’ve only asked, “is this the best price I can get?”

Labor is not, in itself, a source of value. Labor is expended in the pursuit of value, and the market process’s competing bids and offers convert people’s individual, subjective assessments into intelligible data called prices. Altogether, these create valuable signals called profits and losses, and the economic losses I’m incurring to assemble sets of borderline-worthless baseball cards from my childhood are the entire world coming together and screaming with one voice, “we hope you’re enjoying yourself, because in our estimation, you’re wasting your time.”

I am, thank you very much. And what better way to spend one’s time than to turn a hobby into an economics lesson?

 
ART CARDEN is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=15017
« Last Edit: July 31, 2024, 08:58:02 PM by Body-by-Guinness »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72282
    • View Profile
The Perils of Industrial Policy
« Reply #2509 on: August 01, 2024, 06:24:43 AM »
Industrial Policy Job Losers: Stellantis and Intel
The car maker and the chip maker, both big subsidy beneficiaries, announce layoffs.
By The Editorial Board
July 31, 2024 6:25 pm ET
WSJ

Almost every day we get a White House press release touting jobs created by its political handouts. Where’s the memo this week about the looming job cuts at Intel and Stellantis, two beneficiaries of this corporate welfare? Both were supposed to be industrial policy winners.

Stellantis on Tuesday announced employee buyouts and warned about layoffs for salaried workers after its profit during the last two quarters plunged by nearly half from a year ago. CEO Carlos Tavares said the auto industry is squeezed by consumers looking for cheaper cars and the need to spend more on the government-mandated electric-vehicle transition.

Auto makers use profits from gas-powered cars to finance EV production. But consumers are balking at paying more for cars after the run-up in inflation and the higher interest rates to reduce it. Demand for EVs has also fallen, forcing automakers to slash their prices. Ford lost an astonishing $47,585 for every EV sold in the second quarter.

Auto makers are trying to get leaner, which for Stellantis means slashing jobs. The Biden Administration is trying to mitigate EV-caused job losses with taxpayer largesse. The Energy Department in July announced $1.7 billion in grants to convert 11 “shuttered or at-risk” auto plants for EV production. Stellantis is in line for $585 million.

But what the Administration giveth in subsidies, it taketh in the higher costs imposed by its EV mandate. New emissions standards will effectively require companies to produce one to two electric trucks for every gas-powered truck in 2027 and nearly four to one by 2032. It’s hard to imagine how this will be financially sustainable.

In other bad industrial policy news, Bloomberg reported this week that Intel is planning to cut thousands of additional jobs. This would be the chip maker’s third large workforce reduction since Congress passed the $280 billion chips subsidy bill that CEO Patrick Gelsinger lobbied for. Intel has been awarded $8.5 billion in grants and up to $11 billion in loans to expand U.S. manufacturing production.

While chasing subsidies, Intel missed out on the AI boom, which has cost it dearly as competitors surge ahead. Now it’s playing catch-up. When government steers capital, companies sometimes get distracted and drive into a cul-de-sac. Donald Trump might take note, lest he reprise such industrial policy mistakes if he wins a second term.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Political Economics, Household Survey is the most accurate data
« Reply #2510 on: August 02, 2024, 05:15:24 PM »
https://committeetounleashprosperity.com/hotlines/from-july-2023-to-july-2024-the-economy-has-added-all-of-57000-jobs/

https://committeetounleashprosperity.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/unnamed-5-1.png

The takeaway from the household survey in today’s job report. Here are the numbers:
An economy of 160 million jobs added all of 57,000 jobs in the past 12 months.

"Given the boom in government hiring this means that private sector hiring may be a net negative over the last year."

Also, not too good when you figure a few million more people just flooded across the open and lawless southern border.

« Last Edit: August 02, 2024, 05:26:34 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Middle America rattled by jobs report, By Salena Zito
« Reply #2511 on: August 04, 2024, 10:27:15 AM »
Middle America rattled by jobs report, By Salena Zito

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3109500/middle-america-rattled-by-jobs-report/

On Friday, things just became worse for middle America’s economic concerns when the latest jobs report for July showed that not only has job growth slowed to an alarming number, only adding 114,000 jobs on a seasonally adjusted basis when experts had been expecting 176,00 new jobs, but the June and May jobs reports were revised lower by 29,000 jobs.

This means that 10 out of the last 14 reports have now been revised lower.

Which means all of those jobs report headlines that we’ve read for the past year, suggesting the economy is booming, were mistaken. The truth is that jobs numbers in this country are weak and the new unemployment rate of 4.3% is now the highest it has been since 2021.  (More at the link)

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
I don't understand
« Reply #2512 on: August 04, 2024, 10:48:20 AM »
how the unemployment rate is so low while it is obvious illegals are working around me in NJ every where I go.
All fast foods ,  support people with foreign accents on the phone ,  everywhere I go.

Some are certainly legal but many are obviously not.  How many are and how many are not is impossible to discern.

Yet unemployment is higher?

So are illegals taking all the jobs away and thus fewer than expected reported new jobs?

Just thinking.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2513 on: August 04, 2024, 11:09:02 AM »
A lot of them work in the underground, off the books economy, and you don't count as unemployed unless you jump through a few government hoops, actively applying and interviewing etc.

The unemployment rate is still low, just trending wrong.  It doesn't count the nearly 40% of working age adults not looking for work.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
The 'real' unemployment rate is 4 times higher than reported?? Rasmussen
« Reply #2514 on: August 05, 2024, 11:40:45 AM »
30% of adult Americans are employed by a private company.

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2024/08/05/i-just-learned-the-real-unemployment-rate-and-it-sucks-n4931352

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/indexes/rasmussen_reports_unemployment_update/rasmussen_reports_unemployment_update

One in four adult Americans is retired, which is nice for them. Fifteen percent say they're entrepreneurs (that can be anything from driving an Uber to launching a Silicon Valley startup), and just under 30% are employed by a private company.

Nearly one in 10 work for the government at one level or another. Those workers are supported entirely by tax dollars without producing any material wealth. Every government employee involved in regulation makes it harder for the rest of us to do so.

If you've been keeping track of these numbers in your head, you might notice they don't add up to anything close to 100%. About three percent of adults surveyed answered "not sure" about their employment situation, the kind of answer that I assume involves smoking weed. The remaining 9.7% said they were unemployed but not looking — i.e., "Not in Workforce."

That means the percentage of Americans who could be working and perhaps would really like to be working but either can't find work or have given up finding work is 18.1%. That's more than four times the official unemployment rate.

It also means that the 45% of Americans who do work in the private sector are, in one way or another, supporting the 55% who don't, can't, or won't work.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2515 on: August 05, 2024, 12:36:56 PM »
really good post Doug

PS :

I am correcting what I wrote two posts ago:
"how the unemployment rate is so low while it is obvious illegals are working around me in NJ every where I go.
All fast foods ,  support people with foreign accents on the phone ,  everywhere I go."

What I meant was how could employment numbers be so low this month and keep revising downward when I see illegals working in the God knows how many numbers all over?

Yes, they are not counted

So 45% who work provide for 55% who don't need to or, won't want to or, can't do so.

My God.

Who will pay the debt?

And no the answer is not more immigrants.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: The 'real' unemployment rate is 4 times higher than reported?? Rasmussen
« Reply #2516 on: August 05, 2024, 01:19:29 PM »
I should have emphasized this is a poll and polls have errors.  Even if close to accurate, it leaves questions unanswered.  Still, it gives a rare look at some numbers we need to know.

Of the working age adults 'out of the workforce', how many retired, self sufficient, investors, etc and how many are reliant on the public dole.  Am I 'out of the workforce' because I don't have a 'job'?  This study estimates the portion that are entrepreneurs, whether that means self employed Uber worker or billionaire.

Of those working full time, how many are in the private sector paying in and how many are in the public sector, receiving a check.

Many public sector and government employees, school teachers, police, judges, firefighters, water dept and so on work hard and perform valuable service to society, so counting them as receiving a check is not a slur.  Still, there has to be a manageable ratio of people paying to thise receiving a check.  Some receiving a check like social security worked and paid in previously, earned what they get. Some receiving a check do not and did not work for it.  We need to know these numbers and get a handle on it. 
« Last Edit: August 06, 2024, 07:58:58 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72282
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2517 on: August 05, 2024, 06:54:51 PM »
YES.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Political Economics, Mohamed A. El-Erian
« Reply #2518 on: August 08, 2024, 05:40:36 AM »
Mohamed A. El-Erian:

[Doug]  I had him down as a neutral economist, economic adviser to the world's largest insurance company Allianz.  I've noticed he's no supply sider but forgot he was an Obama adviser.  This piece is missing a point.  I add my view at the end of the excerpt.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Repeatedly over the last two decades, central banks have attempted to take the difficult but necessary steps to deal with economic and financial imbalances only to fold under market pressure. The more often they concede, the higher the moral hazard and the greater they have empowered markets to demand policy changes that favor them immediately even when in conflict with the requirements of economic health. And the longer this goes on, the greater the underlying economic vulnerabilities and the larger the risk of unsettling financial instability.

The system needs a Volcker moment, one similar to the early 1980s, when as head of the Fed, he boldly sought to and succeeded in breaking an inflation’s grip on the economy, which also contaminated mindsets. What is needed now is to break the de facto ability of markets to bully central banks. (Source: bloomberg.com)...



[Doug]   Volcker did not succeed in breaking inflation.  Reagan did.

Volcker started the tight money policy in 1979.  Throwing on the brakes is a one-pronged solution to a two-pronged problem, throwing the brakes on when the engine is running on 3 out of 8 cylinders.

Too much money chasing too few goods (and services) has two sides to it.

Robert Mundell, Nobel prize winning economist from Columbia University, described the tax (and regulatory) environment (of the late 70s) as "asphyxiating". 

Stagflation by definition had two components, stagnation and inflation, and it's no different now. 

Tight money addresses one side of it. That alone is a miss, sorry.  Volcker did that and he triggered a recession - worse than anything since the Great Depression.  A real recession where family and neighbors really can't find jobs, if it didn't hit you directly.

Mundell wrote that the two pronged problem needed a two pronged solution.  (We've been through this before but Democrats in power aren't reading the forum.)

Tight money alone put the economy in a tailspin.  Reagan proposed 30% across the board tax cuts.  Bold, crazy, except nothing else was working.  Reagan got elected with a mandate and DEMOCRAT Congress scaled them back to 25% and phased them in.  (Can you imagine a Dem House passing such a thing today?!)  The phase-in caused investors to wait and the great results did not come until the cuts were fully in place.  1983 when the election was in 1980 and the tight money started in 1979.

The two prongs of policy needed to be simultaneous, but the second prong of policy wasn't possible with 'Trifecta' Democrat rule in Washington in 1979.  It wasn't possible without Mundell, without Reagan, and without the American people waking up.  So we got the damage of a completely unnecessary recession before we got the solution - a four year lag. 

With all this experience behind us the electorate mostly still lives in a George Orwell world where none of this happened and we have no idea how to address the same thing now.

Trump is clear on his proposals now, see the recent Maria Bartiloma interview.  His policies will stimulate economic activity.  "Build Baby Build."  But he will not get that done without a like-minded House and Senate.  In other words, he won't get it done with a like-minded electorate.

Meanwhile we debate whether or not JD Vance is 'weird'.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Political Economics, Kamalaflationomics
« Reply #2519 on: August 15, 2024, 04:27:49 PM »
Does anyone remember when liberals in particular told us women make 77 cents on the dollar of men's pay, even though we know by various measures such as deaths on the job that women work different jobs than men PARTLY because women are different than men.

In any case making 77 cents when you should make 1.00 is terrible and unacceptable, right?

What is the Democrat regime answer to that?  They came to office with the 'trifecta', White House, House and Senate, passed their agenda through spending bills, executive orders and all other means possible and now we have more than 3 1/2 years results to judge them by.

The key economic indicator of this moment is prices up by more than 20% already with 5 1/2 months to go. 

Consumer prices have soared 20.2 percent since Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden took office 42 months ago, according to the Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index (CPI).
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCNS

I think we can safely project that out to mean that EVERYONE is now being paid only 77 cents on the dollar.

Every dollar that Trump left in the economy for his successor is already worth 79 Cents and it's still falling uncontrollably.
--------------------------------

Kamala announces price controls, blames inflation on grocers, merchants.  Good God.

Does any one of her non-degreed economists know that when Nixon, now classified as a Democrat, announced his price wage freeze in 1971 when inflation was at 7, that by the end of the decade it had doubled to 14%?

Administration response, history is for wusses. 
-------------------------------
More:
https://confoundedinterest.net/2024/08/15/its-communism-kamalas-first-economic-plan-proposes-price-controls-to-combat-inflation/
« Last Edit: August 15, 2024, 04:42:06 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72282
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2520 on: August 15, 2024, 04:31:13 PM »
BTW that 77% number, which is very old, did not screen for age i.e. in the younger demographics, the disparity is little to none.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2521 on: August 15, 2024, 04:41:24 PM »
BTW that 77% number, which is very old, did not screen for age i.e. in the younger demographics, the disparity is little to none.

Right. That number was never true measuring apples and apples, but it wasn't intended to be.  In one age group women were making $1.05 to the men 1.00.  Women are getting more college degrees than men.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2522 on: August 16, 2024, 05:20:31 PM »
Respected blogger, didn't list source. CPI should mean Govt data: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/

Charlie Bilello
@charliebilello
Price Increases over last 4 years...
CPI Medical Care: +7.9%
CPI Apparel: +12.7%
CPI New Cars: +20.4%
CPI Food at home: +21.4%
CPI Shelter: +22.9%
CPI Food away from home: +25.4%
CPI Used Cars: +26.6%
CPI Electricity: +30.3%
CPI Gas Utilities: +37.3%
CPI Transportation: +38.3%
US Home Prices: +48.0%
CPI Auto Insurance: +52.4%
CPI Gasoline: +59.6%
CPI Fuel Oil: +61.4%


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Mark Levin on Harris' economic "plan" or phony facade
« Reply #2524 on: August 18, 2024, 08:11:35 AM »
For those who missed it .

Marc Levin's discussion of Harris' so called economic  plan and explaining why it is a dangerous sham:

listen to 8/16/24:

https://cumuluspodcastnetwork.com/pods/the-mark-levin-podcast/

If only Trump could explain it such, instead of simply calling it Communist, Maduro all true but the name calling without the reasons behind the names is not going to win any undecideds over.

Of course the MSM will ignore everything said anyway pick the names he uses to personally insult the DEMS and play ONLY THAT 24/7.

I don't know how we can have a better intellectual spokesperson who can reach the undecideds.

If a person is still undecided with the contrast in opposing policy offerings then they are till persuadable ,  yet name calling and the Media's rush to only print and broadcast THAT will NOT win anyone over.

Any substance of Trump's speeches is literally all blacked out.

Begging and warning Trump and advising Trump to be a tad more Presidential is a waste of time but does show how we are so frustrated with him (except for the die hard MAGAs for some reason)


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
" making sure capitalism stays within the guardrails"
« Reply #2525 on: August 18, 2024, 02:21:25 PM »
I will watch that, thank you.

I agree with Beshear here, but that's not what Harris (and Marx) are saying.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4833377-andy-beshear-kamala-harris-economic-plan-economy-work-properly/


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Another Economic Indicator Up under Biden Harris, Business Start up Failures
« Reply #2526 on: August 19, 2024, 09:48:22 AM »
Start-up failures rise 60% as founders face hangover from boom years

https://www.ft.com/content/2808ad4c-783f-4475-bcda-bddc0299095e
Paywall of course, but the title tells the story.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Highest US Household Debt in History
« Reply #2527 on: August 19, 2024, 08:15:49 PM »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Political Economics, Why equal outcomes is a very bad idea
« Reply #2529 on: August 20, 2024, 04:07:49 PM »
Liberal Media AI wrote this for me.  (Even they get it.) This follows the Kamala post voicing support for "equal outcomes".  They missed something BIG.  It can only be done with coercion, oppression and tyranny.  People don't go against the natural order of things and against their own best interest willingly.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Why is equal outcomes a bad idea
Based on the provided search results, here are some key points highlighting why equal outcomes might be a bad idea:

1. Reduces Incentives: When everyone is guaranteed equal outcomes, there is no motivation to work harder, innovate, or strive for excellence. As Ronda Rousey, former UFC champion, put it, “I think that how much you get paid should have something to do with how much you bring in.”

2. Fosters Mediocrity: In a society where everyone is expected to end up at the same place, there is no room for individual differences, talents, or achievements. This can lead to a culture of mediocrity, where people are not encouraged to excel or push themselves to improve.

3. Ignores Natural Dominance Hierarchies: Human societies, like many animal species, naturally exhibit dominance hierarchies. Forcing equal outcomes can disrupt these natural dynamics, leading to unintended consequences, such as increased conflict or reduced cooperation.

4. Undermines Personal Responsibility: When outcomes are predetermined, individuals may feel less accountable for their own successes or failures. This can erode personal responsibility and initiative, as people rely on external factors rather than their own efforts to achieve their goals.

5. Inhibits Innovation and Progress: High taxes, a consequence of redistributive policies aimed at achieving equal outcomes, can stifle innovation and economic growth. A study found that a one percentage point increase in the median or top tax rate is associated with a 4% decline in patents, citations, and inventors.

6. Fosters Dependence and Entitlement: Generous government handouts and guaranteed equal outcomes can create a culture of dependency and entitlement, rather than encouraging self-sufficiency and personal initiative.

7. Ignores Academic Deficiencies: Focusing solely on equal outcomes can overlook serious academic deficiencies, particularly among disadvantaged students. Instead of addressing these underlying issues, educators may resort to changing grading policies or providing additional chances to revise work, rather than addressing the root causes of these deficiencies.

8. Reduces Social Mobility: By eliminating differences in outcomes, equal outcomes policies can reduce social mobility, as individuals are not incentivized to improve their circumstances or strive for better opportunities.

In summary, equal outcomes can be a bad idea because it:

Reduces incentives and fosters mediocrity
Ignores natural dominance hierarchies and personal responsibility
Undermines innovation and progress
Fosters dependence and entitlement
Ignores academic deficiencies
Reduces social mobility
These concerns highlight the potential drawbacks of pursuing equal outcomes as a societal goal, and suggest that a more nuanced approach, focusing on equal opportunities and addressing underlying systemic issues, may be a more effective and sustainable strategy.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Flashback, how deep the shutdown was?
« Reply #2530 on: August 20, 2024, 10:36:25 PM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Political Economics, Scott Grannis latest
« Reply #2531 on: August 21, 2024, 04:48:14 AM »
 Scott Grannis 8/19/2024:
"I still think that the Fed has done enough to tame inflation, which, if measured correctly, is running comfortably within the Fed's target range. The economy is growing at an unspectacular pace, with risks slightly skewed to the downside (but no signs of a recession). Most importantly, financial liquidity conditions are strong, and the outlook for corporate profits remains healthy.

Political risks probably outweigh economic risks at this point. Harris and Trump appear to be running neck-to-neck, and both espouse economic policies that are troubling. Trump is fixated on tariffs, while Harris is fixated on price controls, and either one would hamstring the economy. As much as I dislike Trump's current stance, his intelligence and executive experience clearly "trump" Harris', and the political leanings of Harris and Walz are way too far to the left for my taste. In any event, I can't imagine Harris will survive close scrutiny, and she could easily implode as did Biden in his debate with Trump.




 I still think that the Fed has done enough to tame inflation, which, if measured correctly, is running comfortably within the Fed's target range. The economy is growing at an unspectacular pace, with risks slightly skewed to the downside (but no signs of a recession). Most importantly, financial liquidity conditions are strong, and the outlook for corporate profits remains healthy.

Political risks probably outweigh economic risks at this point. Harris and Trump appear to be running neck-to-neck, and both espouse economic policies that are troubling. Trump is fixated on tariffs, while Harris is fixated on price controls, and either one would hamstring the economy. As much as I dislike Trump's current stance, his intelligence and executive experience clearly "trump" Harris', and the political leanings of Harris and Walz are way too far to the left for my taste. In any event, I can't imagine Harris will survive close scrutiny, and she could easily implode as did Biden in his debate with Trump."

As Chart #1 shows, the US economy has been growing at about a 2.2% annual rate since mid-2009. No boom or bust is yet in sight.





Private sector jobs growth (Chart #2) has been slowing for the past two years. At the current rate of about 1.5% per year, this is not enough to deliver overall growth of more than 2% or so (as Chart #3 suggests).

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh80AYpNurOVOzYLBcLauA1TfWDZD46hw4BJYjCmsepjfIBrZBVyhxQySAIEF1A6NKByMQBM6jlxoByqf-hW95h6RwCHblneK5-tscNLmJFVKthMyJa4jC4rgQXLZlHPWHlHgdFbih3FheK_c5g04fzGgQa312jlfvOKuXYHkfn7KkJ7bEUN-WLHxSFYBw/w400-h243/M2%20vs%206%25%2095-.jpg

M2 growth continues to slow as well, as Chart #4 shows. The huge bulge in M2 was the by-product of $6 trillion of fiscal "stimulus" doled out by the Trump and Biden administrations, and it was in turn the proximate cause of the inflation bulge. Both are now in the past, and monetary conditions continue to return to some semblance of "normal."



I have argued for years now that the behavior of money demand and money supply easily explain the rise in inflation which began in early 2021 and which peaked in mid-2022. The initial surge in money was offset by an equal surge in the demand for money, which is why inflation didn't surge until early 2021. But after that, and as the economy got back on its feet post-Covid, the demand for money (Chart #5) collapsed. The public began spending the money that had been stockpiled during the Covid shutdowns, and it was a classic case of too much money chasing too few goods (which were constrained because of supply-chain shortages). Money demand is now approaching some semblance of normal.



(skipping forward)



The Consumer Price Index rose 2.9% in the year ended July '24, but roughly one-third of that increase came from shelter costs (as I've explained repeatedly over the past year or so). Chart #10 shows the changes in the CPI and the ex-shelter version of the CPI, the latter of which has increased by 1.78% in the past year and only 1.45% annualized over the past two years.

Moreover, the CPI is up at an annualized rate of only 0.4% annualized in the past three months, while the ex shelter version has fallen at an annualized rate of -1.5%! "
(More at link)
« Last Edit: August 21, 2024, 06:00:50 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72282
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2532 on: August 21, 2024, 05:25:08 AM »
Always good to hear from Scott Grannis, for whom I have great respect.

That said, I am not on board with his commentary about tariffs (echoed by the WSJ and Chamber of Commerce types)

I used to hold similar thoughts but now I have changed my mind.

The laissez faire approach to international trade has left us fuct.   We rely on China for antibiotics for God's sake!! And computer chips, etc etc.   Our skilled blue collar class similarly is fuct, and we cannot produce enough ammo to supply the Ukes to match the Russians, let alone keep our own armory well stocked.

I readily grant that there are deep risks of crony capitalism and economic inefficiency with "strategic mercantilism" but so too with laissez faire free trade.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2533 on: August 21, 2024, 05:33:08 AM »
I agree and have traveled a similar journey.  Free trade must be two-way.  Our tariffs, in my view, are aimed at bringing down their barriers.  Temporary, hopefully, and strategic.

Also, unrestricted private sector trade does not apply when it involves a national security risk.  Foreign policy, national security comes first.  China, for example, is a supplier, a buyer, a competitor, a rival, and something between a threat and an enemy.  There isn't a simple formula for that.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Nobel Prize winning Economists theories tested in the real world
« Reply #2537 on: August 21, 2024, 09:25:19 AM »
Look at the chart below. Why are we still arguing with Democrats about this? These policies destroy countries, including ours.  If you are a liberal, these policies don't put us in a better position to help the poor or clean up the environment.  It can't happen here?  That's what they said in once-rich Venezuela.  Yes it can.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From CTUP

Speaking of the great Milton Friedman, the world recently has had a natural experiment comparing his favored policies with those of another Nobel Prize winner from the opposite end of the political spectrum: Joseph Stiglitz.

Charles Lajoie wrote on X:

If you want to know the difference between Milton Friedman and Joseph Stiglitz, I present to you 4 countries with a GDP per capita of about $15,000 in 1998 (Poland being a bit poorer back then).

The first one, Estonia, reformed its way out of socialism through shock therapy. Mart Laar, the architect of the reforms, cited Free to Choose as his main inspiration.

The second, Poland, also reformed its way out of socialism, and it did so through even more radical shock therapy than Estonia. Leszek Balcerowicz, who's widely seen as the main actor behind those reforms, has won the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty in 2014, a reflection of his reforms' adherence to Friedman's (and tbf, Austrian school economists') ideas.

The third one, Argentina, has followed the ideas of Néstor Kirchner since 2003, a man who was directly advised and praised by Joseph Stiglitz. As late as 2022, Stiglitz praised its economic policies.

The fourth, Venezuela, followed economic policies that were openly praised by Stiglitz as late as 2007, although he didn't directly advise its leader.

And, there you go. That's the difference between Milton Friedman and Joseph Stiglitz.

[Doug]  Four stories that won't be told this week at the DNC.  Can't we all just share??
 
« Last Edit: August 21, 2024, 12:05:44 PM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
job growth revised down
« Reply #2538 on: August 21, 2024, 07:51:04 PM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics, Scott Grannis latest
« Reply #2539 on: August 22, 2024, 07:37:09 AM »
I posted a comment on Scott's site and received a positive response.   )

https://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2024/08/gdp-jobs-money-and-inflation-overview.html

Scott Grannis said...
I agree that the right target for inflation should be 0%. Inflation is indeed a tax, and it is paid by those who are least able to afford it. If I were on the board of the Fed I would resolutely argue for zero inflation. But I wouldn’t be too upset if inflation averaged 1% per year.
August 21, 2024 at 10:24 PM

---------------------------------
[Doug]  I did not put this in my comment, but my proposal is for the Fed to target 0.2% instead of 2%.  Still an arbitrary target greater than zero (we are scared to death of deflation), but doesn't compound as quickly as targeting 2% and getting 3-10%.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
re. Actual job growth was nearly 30% less than the initially reported
« Reply #2540 on: August 22, 2024, 11:53:30 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/us-added-818000-fewer-jobs-than-previously-thought-from-march-2023-to-march-2024-government-says/ar-AA1pbCag?ocid=BingNewsSerp

But don't fret
100,000s jobs were not included because they went to illegals says Goldman Sachs guy.

Another report, same story:
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/21/nonfarm-payroll-growth-revised-down-by-818000-labor-department-says.html

"Nonfarm payroll growth revised down by 818,000, Labor Department says"
Published Wed, Aug 21 2024

This brings up SO many questions.

Was it a deep state misinformation scheme or incompetence or just impossible to get good data?

And why correct it now, when they were okay with being wrong for so long?  Why is this wrong by more than let's say polling published margin of error, 3-4%?  This is 10-fold that.

I would argue all economic data is bad data, but not this bad.  You just look for trends when the data collection techniques remain constant. That said, why do we pay these people?  Why do we have a Dept of Labor?  Dept of Commerce?  Aren't those private sector functions?  State level responsibilities?

How come they didn't overstate government jobs?  That was the fastest growing sector.

Will the Harris campaign revise their false claims?  If it was important that they "added 3 million jobs", will they downgrade their view of themselves and their 'great' economic record?  Are we still behind Trump pre-covid, pre blue state shutdown levels?

Full time or part time?  We are still talking about number of jobs, not number of people working.

What about the 12-20 million migrants?  If all of them got jobs, then millions of Americans must have lost jobs, right??  Or didn't they come here for work...

How many people and what percentage of the population, work full time, private sector jobs, paying the expenses of this great nation?  Nobody knows. Certainly not the US Dept of Labor.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2024, 12:28:32 PM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Paul Krugman defends Harris price controls
« Reply #2541 on: August 23, 2024, 06:43:47 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/economist-paul-krugman-defends-harris-price-gouging-plan-but-shark-tank-star-kevin-o-leary-calls-it-a-horror-film/ar-AA1piT39?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=766239659a884f04ba42fe9ed4119675&ei=12

the Larry Tribe of economics

both twist the interpretation of their respective fields to fit the C
DNC narrative their entire professional lives.

Two Jewish die hard Dems in a pod.
I am sure Robert Reich would rush to support all that Harris does too.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Political Economics, Kamalaflation
« Reply #2542 on: August 24, 2024, 06:40:23 AM »


StLouisFed.org

She cast the deciding votes, brags of it.

I can't see the part on the chart where prices drop back down to Trump levels.

We had better price stability even under Covid than we did under Kamalanomics.
----------------------------------------------------------

Fox News:
Kamala Harris, you can't run from America's cost-of-living crisis. And your price-gouging claims equal no sale
Biden-Harris economic policies drove the debilitating inflation we’ve been experiencing over the past three and a half years

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/kamala-harris-you-cant-run-from-americas-cost-of-living-crisis-your-price-gouging-claims-equal-no-sale
« Last Edit: August 24, 2024, 06:45:39 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2543 on: August 24, 2024, 07:31:24 AM »
"Fox News:
Kamala Harris, you can't run from America's cost-of-living crisis. "

True but she can hide with MSM support, and government media censorship and propaganda.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
2-3% inflation? Inflation under control? Near target?? Car insurance is up 54%!
« Reply #2544 on: August 26, 2024, 01:41:04 PM »
Bureau of Labor Statistics

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2024/08/26/joy-and-hope-in-kamala-harriss-america-car-insurance-prices-up-54/

And they REQUIRE you to buy it.

For most, don't drive means don't work.

What is car insurance?  You're paying for materials, labor, shop time, health care.  A pretty good measure of inflation overall - unless they are price-'guaging'.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2024, 01:44:50 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
First, mentioned once before, Congressman James Clyburn’s statement “all of us knew” refers to the Democratic Party’s awareness of the potential consequences of their policies on inflation. Specifically:

In a January 2022 interview, Clyburn acknowledged that “all of us” in the Democratic Party were concerned about rising costs (inflation) and that “all of us knew” this would happen when implementing the recovery program. He attributed this understanding to the fact that “any time you put more money into the economy, prices tend to rise.”

MSNBC Video: https://hannity.com/media-room/there-it-is-clyburn-admits-all-democrats-knew-american-rescue-plan-would-cause-inflation/
------------------------------------------------
[Doug] One reason they all knew is because former Secretary of the Treasury, Harvard Economics Professor Lawrence Summers told them.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/12/politics/inflation-worries-larry-summers/index.html

New York
CNN Business
 —
Larry Summers is urging Washington to tap the brakes on stimulus — or risk unleashing a serious burst of inflation.

“I think policy is rather overdoing it,” Summers said (in May 2021) in recorded comments at a CoinDesk conference that were released Wednesday. “The sense of serenity and complacency being projected by the economic policymakers, that this is all something that can easily be managed, is misplaced.”

The former Clinton and Obama official took issue with how the Federal Reserve and fiscal powers continue to turbo-charge the economy even though the once-real risk of a catastrophic deflationary spiral has since faded.

Stacks of lumber are offered for sale at a home center on April 05, 2021 in Chicago, Illinois. Lumber prices have more than tripled since last April due in part to COVID-19 restrictions hampering sawmills and low home mortgage rates driving new home construction, causing an increase in demand.

“We’re taking very substantial risks on the inflation side,” Summers said (May 2021)in remarks originally made May 18, adding to a series of warnings the former Harvard president has issued in recent weeks.

Prices have risen sharply on everything from used cars and lumber to steel and food. The return of inflation is especially costly to low-income families, who are most likely to have been hit hardest by the pandemic.

Once viewed as a candidate to run the Fed, Summers pointed to how the Central Bank is signaling that interest rates will remain very low for the foreseeable future and continues to buy $120 billion of bonds each month.

“The Fed’s idea used to be that it removed the punchbowl before the party got good,” Summer said. “Now, the Fed’s doctrine is that it will only remove the punchbowl after it sees some people staggering around drunk.”

Summers said that while he supports Biden’s efforts to raise the minimum wage, step up regulation and boost unions, he warned that these policies can be inflationary. That’s why he’s been “troubled by the policy posture” of the Biden administration and pointed to how inflation helped elect Republicans in 1968 and 1980.

“Joe Biden has a historic opportunity to be a great president,” Summer said. “But I think they should learn the lesson of the Johnson administration’s errors that elected Richard Nixon and the Carter administration’s errors that elected Ronald Reagan.”

“We are printing money, we are creating government bonds, we are borrowing on unprecedented scales,” Summers said. (May 2021) “Those are things that surely create more of a risk of a sharp dollar decline than we had before. And sharp dollar declines are much more likely to translate themselves into inflation than they were historically.”
« Last Edit: August 28, 2024, 07:27:29 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Libertarian Economist Dan Mitchell now at freedom and prosperity.org
« Reply #2546 on: August 28, 2024, 09:15:39 PM »
"If you want mass prosperity, there’s no substitute for limited government and free markets."

https://freedomandprosperity.org/2024/blog/the-non-mystery-of-economic-growth/

Follow this blog.  https://freedomandprosperity.org/

Daniel J. Mitchell is a co-founder of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity and the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation. Dr. Mitchell advocates supply-side tax cuts and fundamental tax reform, and is the nation’s leading opponent of tax harmonization schemes developed by the Brussels-based European Union, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the United Nations.

Dr. Mitchell is one of the nation’s leading experts on tax reform and supply-side tax policy, and he knows how to explain the politics and complexities of tax policy in easy-to-understand terms. As former Presidential candidate Steve Forbes said of Mitchell’s 1996 book, The Flat Tax: Freedom, Fairness, Jobs, and Growth, “Mitchell marvelously demonstrates how the flat tax will rip away the principal source of political pollution in Washington.” In addition to tax policy, Dr. Mitchell is a trenchant observer of economic developments and an expert on Social Security privatization – particularly the fiscal policy impact of reform and what the US can learn from other nations that have created personal retirement accounts.

Dr. Mitchell’s by-line can be found in such national publications as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Investor’s Business Daily, and Washington Times. He is a frequent guest on radio and television and a popular speaker on the lecture circuit. Dr. Mitchell holds a Ph.D. in Economics from George Mason University and master’s and bachelor’s degrees in economics from the University of Georgia. Mitchell was a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Kamalanomics continued, Household Debt Reaches Record Levels
« Reply #2547 on: August 30, 2024, 08:20:18 AM »


https://www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2024/08/Housegold-debt.png

Household Debt Reaches Record Levels

Source:  Federal Reserve Bank of New York, published by the Washington Post.
Sorry graph doesn't show here.  Needless to say, line goes upward under Biden-Harris.

What's wrong with a nation spending 39% more than it takes in full of people who can't afford their bills either.

"We're proud of our record."  It's called Bidenomics"  It's now called Kamalanomics.  She owns it.

« Last Edit: August 30, 2024, 08:23:02 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
"A New Way Forward" equals Stagflation
« Reply #2548 on: September 03, 2024, 10:25:48 AM »
https://twitter.com/jameslavish/status/1830990216569725123/photo/1

Funny that the line,
"meet the new boss,
same as the old boss"
comes from a song called,
"We Won't Get Fooled Again."

Or will we?
« Last Edit: September 03, 2024, 10:36:57 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
New Jobs Report Disappoints, worst since 2021
« Reply #2549 on: September 05, 2024, 07:29:39 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/august-private-payrolls-rose-by-99000-smallest-gain-since-2021-and-far-below-estimates-adp-says/ar-AA1q2TTc

CBS News, More Americans are having to choose between food and energy bills:
https://x.com/CBSNews/status/1831270985044992393

Or as their standard bearer calls it, "a new way forward".
« Last Edit: September 05, 2024, 07:37:58 AM by DougMacG »