Trump: "Americans paid too much" & "We must keep wages low"

Not sure if this has to do with Chile or post war America. Editing can be your friend.

Consider this an intervention. One doesn't (or at least shouldn't have to) ask for pity really; it is given when needed without preconditions or request. I would add that perhaps eliminating some ignorance would cure your hatred and bitterness. Some enlightenment that different tactics to solve issues don't equate to "not valuing the working man" might be just what the doctor ordered. First, admit the sickness. Second, follow doctor's orders.

 

a) Morals and ethics have their place everywhere. Of course it is just as moral to avoid economic waste. It's also moral to adhere to the near fiduciary duty of Management to maximize profits. It's also moral not to hide wars, taxes and welfare from the citizens. b) It obviously didn't work, and according to the reports I've seen, isn't working for Gravity Payments. c) You completely ignored my "prisoner's dilemma" analysis which is a rather incontrovertible counter to your position.

You would evidence good faith and understanding of these issues if you would address all of the material portions of my responses to you. As you are not so addressing, I must conclude either a failure of understanding (which is bad, but not criminal) or bad faith (which is unforgivable for a forum such as this).

 

I support, illustrate and example my definitions of artificial. You offer the above.

Honest question, do you want to do actual good or does just believing that you are doing good suffice? Sometimes (maybe oftentimes), one must accept that actually doing good requires understanding counter-intuitive facts. It may require revisiting things that you have counted on as gospel. Most importantly, it may require abandoning a sense of moral superiority from the illusion of caring more than others, being more open minded and tolerate, etc. Unfortunately, while the most important, the latter is likely the hardest requirement of all.

 

I gave you the example of "crony capitalism"; all you have is diversion.

 

Ahh no; furthermore, I explained in detail why it wasn't. And with another "diversion" you fail (yet again) to address that material portions of my responses. Bad faith it is. Goodbye.

 

And the fact is, that in the mid 1960's minimum wage workers could do all of these things. Had minimum wages kept pace with inflation it would be about $15 dollars per hour today.

 

Do you have ADD or just a propensity for idiotic bombast...

My comment about "short term" had nothing whatsoever to do with Chile/

It was in response this this.

"As for post war America, yeah, the fact that the rest of the then modern world was devasated by the War had nothing to do with it huh? Also, in case you didn't notice, the Marshall Plan was a short-term fix and didn't last forever. Keynesian (in theory) is perfectly fine for a short-term emergency situation. The problem is that political forces overwhelm it, and the gov't spending to trigger demand never goes away."

Surprising that you got so confused...it was your post

 

Thank you for the edit this time. As you generally just ramble with gibberish, at least only quote the portion to which you refer. Of course you didn't reiterate your response, so I'm left guessing yet again (but will rely on your added emphasis). (~Grins~ ADD? I'm not the one who can't remember to edit or actually type relevant text.)

Non-market driven, heavy gov't spending is generally only advisable for emergencies (e.g. major wars) or to jolt an economy out of recession. The latter is essentially Keynesian economic theory, but such spending is supposed to be targeted and short-term. If such spending lingers, it overly distorts the actual economy and sectors get reliant on the spending. Moreover, such spending is typically financed via debt, which is (of course) unstainable in the longer term. I referenced political forces, as those directly benefiting from Keynesian spending never want it to end, notwithstanding the damage it does to the overall economy. Lastly under K Theory, the gov't is supposed to reduce spending in boom times to both a) build reserves to finance increased spending during the next bust and b) keep the boom from overheating. Such responsible governance doesn't exist in the U.S., so spending never falls. (Ironically, the Left, which is the biggest advocate of Keynes, always want to increase the size and spending of gov't no matter the state of the economy.)

Anyway, given all of the above, due to the nature and goal of K spending, one cannot (in good faith) point to its past successes as evidence of the advantages of a permenant command economy.

Have a nice day!

 

Your detail was nothing but diversion. What material portions of your responses? You are welcome to restate your assertions in a more concise manner and fashion.

- - - Updated - - -

Only the right is cognitively dissonant enough to have nothing but "fiat" arguments while claiming to be for sound money policies.

 

And with another "diversion" you fail (yet again, again) to address that material portions of my responses. Bad faith it is. Goodbye.

 

You are welcome to restate your assertions in a more concise manner and fashion. Unless, you have nothing but diversion.

 

Consider, not once, not once did I ever refuse or otherwise fail to respond to any of your comments as a "distraction". I responded and when applicable (which was a lot) explained why that comment was a random, irrelevant concept or point. You, on the other hand, have ignored the majority of the content of my responses to you, only irrationally saying "diversion" or "distraction" when called out on it. The sad truth is that you have amply evidenced that you have neither the intellectual honesty nor the intellectual capacity to discuss this (and likely any other) matter. Frankly, the only reason I continued was for the benefit of any others who may have been following this thread, and they are certainly welcome to respond as they see fit.

The term "respect" is thrown around a lot these days. Most think respect is to be earned; however I see it as something to be lost. You have earned that dubious distinction. Good bye.

 

Wages are wages; why distinguish between management and Labor?

 

There is no economic evidence about the luxury tax and job growth. The luxury tax generated little revenue for what it was intended. Job growth was still going strong at that time. It was part of the longest job growth period in our nation's history. IT was unique at that time because of technological innovations were generating a lot of those jobs with wealth, especially Foreign Direct Investment, flowing into the country for that growth.

Dynamic methodology has numerous flaws and can be very subjective in predicting job growth or job loss. A classic example are tax cuts. Tax cuts are not precise in its application nor in its timing for net positive effect, in the real life. This is what happened with the Reaganomics methodology of predicting tax revenues with broad based tax cuts. Furthermore, dynamic scoring of tax policy ignores the other economic realities of how people will react and choose substitutes to those tax policies. The JCT is going to come up with numbers on the proposed GOP budgets that will have the net costs and benefits far lower than predicted or anticipated by the GOP. In other words, they will not be able to sell those plans on being revenue neutral.

I seriously doubt you have the practical experience or the theoretical experience to be familiar on how tax matters should be analyzed. Tax laws do not change frequently on the fundamental side. Most of the changes year after year are the annual cost of living adjustments of deductions, credits, and exemptions. These come out in various revenue procedures where the increases, or no increase on contributions to various tax deferred plans, amount of credit for EITC and other refundable credits, exemptions, standard deductions, contributions, and a whole sort of other adjustments. But these are not tax law changes, but adjustments. Other tax law changes have been reincorporating expired tax laws to be reintroduced.

 

In most cities across the United States, the law says you must provide a right of way to fire and ambulances in the performance of their duties. In some cities, you cannot follow such vehicles to their ultimate destination either. Thus, your example is not how much or less value a human has, but whether or not you are obeying the laws of the area you live in.

 

He is not a corporate republican. I am not really sure if he is a republican. He is more like a Rand Paul type of guy with a dose of Ted Cruz. You are debating a person who does not understand how businesses operate in this country or any other country, much less understand how the economy works.

Most corporations do value their employees under corporate governance policies. It is why companies have, if it is affordable to both the employer and employee, sick leave, maternity leave, retirement plans, etc. If the company cannot afford such benefits, then the cost is too high mostly for the employee to take. Only a few companies are bad to work for.

 

this is like the Romney comments about the 47%, this could kill the Trump campaign

 

the problem is we have not evened the playing field, when a corporations competition uses 3rd world labor, it's hard for them to compete with that unless they do the same

free trade has been abused, foreign outsourcing has been abused, the corps got greedy, just like we have speed limits on our roads, we need them in business...

we need to tax corps that do these things, make sure it cost them the same as hiring in the USA

.

 

Right. Because a deflationary spiral is much more pleasurable. Some people can't think.

 

This is a misnomer about third world labor and why companies go to those countries for production. But then again, when Japanese, Korean, BMW, Volkswagon, and other European or Asian car companies come here to the United States, then we must be a third world country. Right?

 

you come to the USA for quality, you go to 3rd world wages for cheap

.

 

management wages must be too high. what about h1b visas or illegal management to lower costs?

It may have saved Hostess.

 

I have found quality on some products to be superior to that of some first world countries, namely mahogany wood products. But custom laws prevent me from importing such products under reasonable prices. Care to guess why?

 

Wow. Thought this thread was dead. (In my best Curtis Mayfield... thread is dead."

I don't recall tying the luxury tax to overall job growth, but rather compared its revenue generated with how much it cost the government due to triggered loss of economic activity. While overall job growth may have been strong, jobs (for instance) related to expensive boats were lost.

Yes and no. Dynamic methodology isn't perfect and relies on good faith assumptions that should be adjusted based on actual experience; however, static methodology doesn't even attempt to make good faith assumptions to account for changing behavior. I make no claims that politicians (left or right) don't skew assumptions to persuade politically. You cited Reagan's tax cuts; I will cite Obamacare. The JCT can do their own good faith analysis of GOP proposed tax policies, and I welcome it. Did the JCT analyze Obamacare or Bernie's tax proposals? What is the JCT's analysis of hard socialism given its history in most other areas?

I once dealt with tax matters professionally. While I make no claims of current expertise, I imagine I have the "practical experience or the theoretical experience" the same or more than you. I am aware of the difference between a material and immaterial change in the tax law. I would argue (for instance) unifying the gift and estate tax structures was material, a tweak of the standard mileage rate is not.

 

You mean like the high school dropouts that were making union wages in factories that are now gone overseas?