I seem to remember a certain liberal economist named Kruger telling the

Sign up, and you can customize which countdowns you see. Sign up

Report problem with this ad

Dec 14, 2018
2:37:05pm

Monomachos All-American

I seem to remember a certain liberal economist named Kruger telling the

nation on election day that the markets were going to crash and never recover. Instead the next day, it took off. Any fair-minded assessment is that it was because the market was responding to Trump's win and his promises of a tax cut and deregulation.
That is the real starting point.

Report problem with this ad

Monomachos

Previous username: zordan
Bio page: Monomachos
Joined: Jul 9, 2007
Last login: May 3, 2024
Total posts: 32,138 (666 FO)

Report problem with this ad

Messages

Author

Time

In the 23 months since Trump's inauguration, the S&P has yielded an average annual return of 7.9%. Below the S&P's

Pimpin4Paradise All-American

12/14/18 10:32am

Anyone who believes the president is directly responsible for the stock market

SandYFan

12/14/18 10:33am

Including the President

CSoul

12/14/18 10:34am

Correct.

SandYFan

12/14/18 10:34am

Then Individual 1 is The Quintessential Idiot

Uncle Bluto

12/14/18 11:29am

I guess I’m an idiot then, thanks for pointing that out.

chazen

12/14/18 12:48pm

The S&P is a horrible indicator for how well the economy is doing

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:36am

I'm just going off Trump's own measure. He's the one that has cited stock market performance as a testament to his

Pimpin4Paradise

12/14/18 10:52am

That's because he is a moron

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:52am

Which was really my initial point.

Pimpin4Paradise

12/14/18 10:54am

I’m confused, you’re down the rabbit hole defending him, yet u recognize that

MatthiasG

12/15/18 5:56pm

Please stop making sense. You’re ruining the whole vibe of this board !

chazen

12/14/18 12:48pm

uh, is that how we measure it?

jwf

12/14/18 10:36am

And it's impossible to have a fiscally irresponsible tax cut. Spending defines

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:36am

So if you pass a huge tax cut without cutting spending, what is that called?

mik3

12/14/18 10:40am

Spending too much

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:40am

And what do you think will happen to the deficit in that scenario, when you

mik3

12/14/18 10:48am

Time to cut spending, looks like.

SandYFan

12/14/18 10:49am

Overdue time to cut spending, actually. It should have been done when the tax

mik3

12/14/18 10:57am

Again, revenue hasn't been cut

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:58am

RE: Again, revenue hasn't been cut

mik3

12/14/18 11:05am

No way anyone could ever know that.

jkccoug

12/14/18 4:04pm

Federal revenues have never been higher,

HenderCoug

12/14/18 5:16pm

Inverse democrat policy

pegushin

12/14/18 10:41am

Here's the funny thing: Democrats passing a tax hike along with increased

mik3

12/14/18 10:49am

No tax hike is ever fiscally responsible

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:56am

That's not accurate. It might not be fiscally conservative, but if it reduces

mik3

12/14/18 10:58am

No, fiscal responsibility is defined by what the money is spent on, now how that

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:08am

Not sure what definition you're using. The uber-libs over at AEI make the point

mik3

12/14/18 11:11am

Let me put it this way

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:19am

That's based on SO's definition of "fiscal responsibility" being limited to

mik3

12/14/18 11:24am

That's based on common sense. Governments have been issuing debt securities

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:33am

So it is your personal definition. I cited AEI. It's okay if it's your

mik3

12/14/18 11:38am

No, both are important. In a household, fiscal responsibility is defined by how

chilango

12/14/18 11:15am

So by your definition, somebody who earns $100k and spends it all on hookers

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:18am

If they make $100 million a year, then sure, that's play money. If they earn

chilango

12/14/18 11:23am

If I make $100k and spend $99k on hookers, I'm spending less than I earned. But

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:34am

Of course you're not, because you need more that $1 K to cover all your other

chilango

12/14/18 11:36am

Obviously in this example you would be a bum living on the street

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:43am

I agree, because you don't earn enough to support your hooker habit.

chilango

12/14/18 11:46am

Are you really arguing that more income would make this responsible?

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:56am

Fiscally speaking, yes. Or at least less irresponsible. Morally or ethically is

chilango

12/14/18 11:58am

Let me put it this way. What is more fiscally responsible:

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 12:05pm

The latter. Now let me put it this way — which of these is more fiscally

chilango

12/14/18 12:20pm

Actually, in the context of government, the first is preferred

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 12:56pm

So you think it's more fiscally responsible for a government to spend more than

chilango

12/14/18 1:05pm

No, I said it's irresponsible for the government to accumulate assets from

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 1:10pm

Now this I can agree with.

chilango

12/14/18 1:13pm

The problem is that the govt has cut revenues and increased spending. It is

chilango

12/14/18 10:41am

I read an article yesterday saying receipts were essentially the same before and

byubyu

12/14/18 10:45am

If you exclude the revenue increases from increased tariffs, which are just

chilango

12/14/18 10:54am

And tax cuts have no effect on whether the economy expands or not?

rcbyufan

12/14/18 10:56am

Increased deficit spending does, which can take the form of tax cuts combined

chilango

12/14/18 11:00am

It's certainly not proven that they cut revenues. That's a faith position.

rcbyufan

12/14/18 10:45am

Not really, it's a math question.

chilango

12/14/18 10:55am

Tariff revenues are less than 1% of budgeted revenues

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:57am

They're much higher now than in many decades, and without them, revenues would

chilango

12/14/18 11:01am

Ha. You really believe that? The overall economy is so complex there is

rcbyufan

12/14/18 10:59am

"A few months before they passed, the Congressional Budget Office predicted the

chilango

12/14/18 11:39am

CBO forecasts are not anywhere near science. Closer to astrology. Now I'm not

rcbyufan

12/14/18 11:44am

CBO forecasts are non-partisan & infinitely closer to science than to astrology.

chilango

12/14/18 11:51am

If you taught 1000 people to do CBO forecasts and then locked then in separate

rcbyufan

12/14/18 12:01pm

Depends on the economists and the astrologers. And more importantly, every one

chilango

12/14/18 12:23pm

Ha. True. I'm obviously taking an extreme position here. I don't mean to malign

rcbyufan

12/14/18 2:09pm

No revenues have been cut

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:55am

The government revenue is up 3.5% year on year. Nice try.

AZ Coug

12/14/18 4:32pm

"Let's decrease tax revenues and not touch spending" being sold as not being

mik3

12/14/18 10:50am

The tax cuts did not decrease revenues

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:54am

Would tax revenues had been higher with higher tax rates? There's your

mik3

12/14/18 10:57am

No. How much money the government seizes from the private sector

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:59am

That's not how it works. By the way, your faith based position is just as

rcbyufan

12/14/18 11:01am

I understand there are dynamic effects, and lowering tax rates will have an

mik3

12/14/18 11:08am

Yes they did, they are lower than they would have been without the tax cuts.

chilango

12/14/18 11:03am

Incorrect. Customs duties are only $3.1 billion higher than projected

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:16am

Nope. "A few months before they passed, the Congressional Budget Office

chilango

12/14/18 11:27am

And incremental tariff revenues collected were over $4 billion as of mid-Sept.,

chilango

12/14/18 11:33am

Read the Treasury report. Tariffs are $41.3 billion out of $3.3 Trillion in

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:38am

The math doesn't work if they collected $4.1 billion of revenue from incremental

chilango

12/14/18 11:49am

The figure I'm quoting comes directly from the Treasury report this week

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:55am

Ramped debt. Period

MatthiasG

12/15/18 5:53pm

Fiscally irresponsible? Cut all taxes for anyone earning more than 150,000/year.

Y2k

12/14/18 11:58pm

Wasting recession fighting tools at peak stock mkt, yeah, such thing exists

MatthiasG

12/15/18 5:43pm

A tax cut means more money in my pocket. I'm done caring about how much those

byubyu

12/14/18 10:37am

A sour market is money out of your pocket. A lot more than the pittance you probably saw from a

Pimpin4Paradise

12/14/18 10:53am

No it's not.

byubyu

12/14/18 10:55am

A sour market is a great opportunity to put money in your pocket

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:27am

Ha Ha Ha Ha

Uncle Bluto

12/14/18 11:30am

The S&P is not the economy.

zonacougar

12/14/18 11:03am

Markets don’t wait for inauguration, start your measurement on 11/9/2016

DirtyWater

12/14/18 11:04am

Someone has bought into the Trump idea that his administration started on

mik3

12/14/18 11:14am

You don’t think markets started pricing before he was officially in office?

itsuptoyou

12/14/18 12:25pm

To an extent, sure. But I don't buy that everything that happened starting then

mik3

12/14/18 1:54pm

I seem to remember a certain liberal economist named Kruger telling the

Monomachos

12/14/18 2:37pm

I think the numbers are different if you do it from the election results instead

AFewThoughts

12/14/18 11:37am

Oops looks like I didn't scan all the comments see argument above. I'm a hack!

AFewThoughts

12/14/18 11:39am

Very biased.it's more fair to measure market performance from election night.

roseyscenario

12/14/18 2:47pm

Haven't tax revenues gone up? What are you talking about?

byuwahoo

12/14/18 3:46pm

No, down slightly. And spending up. Deficit is mushrooming.

chilango

12/14/18 3:52pm

I know spending is up, in part because of increased interest rates.

byuwahoo

12/14/18 4:02pm

Interest rates impact private spending, not government spending

Sumguy

12/15/18 7:34am

Dead wrong.

AZ Coug

12/14/18 4:46pm

Do you have any data to support that claim?

Pimpin4Paradise

12/14/18 5:04pm

Yep. Easy to find online. Up 3.5% year on year.

AZ Coug

12/14/18 5:07pm

RE: Yep. Easy to find online. Up 3.5% year on year.

Sandstone Cougar

12/14/18 5:20pm

Wrong. Here is the actual data, which I also posted above: "A few months before

chilango

12/14/18 8:43pm

Yes, you are dead wrong. Actual data with links posted above.

chilango

12/14/18 8:45pm

Report problem with this ad

Posting on CougarBoard

In order to post, you will need to either sign up or log in.

Report problem with this ad