US manufacturing survey shows worst reading in a decade

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by MrTLegal, Oct 2, 2019.

  1. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First off, minor tariffs on China? They are sitting at what? Like 20% on nearly 300 billion worth of goods?

    Second, I mentioned the impacts of his tariffs on Europe because he also imposed trade tariffs on Europe. He also put them on Canada, India, and Mexico.

    Finally, I do not need an education from you when the OP is about a survey from US manufacturers across the country and THEY are the ones blaming international trade.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  2. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe I made a mistake by assuming you could read a graph.
    [​IMG]
    Was GDP higher when taxes were higher?
     
    Quantum Nerd likes this.
  3. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Flamebaiting noted and ignored for derogatory reasons.
     
  4. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where EXACTLY did Ukraine stipulate that Biden NEVER paid any taxes?
     
  5. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Barr BEHAVES as though he is the BLOTUS's personal attorney which is a violation of Barr's oath of Office.
     
    MrTLegal likes this.
  6. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your BLOTUS's "minor tariffs" are COSTING hardworking Americans $1000 a year that they cannot afford.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/19/heres-what-new-tariffs-will-cost-an-average-american-household.html

     
  7. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never said they did they turned over the information they gathered to the doj recently
     
  8. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Moving the goalposts duly noted FTR!

     
  9. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How is that moving the goalpost?
     
  10. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Specious excuses noted.
    Note he absence of flamebaiting.


    How when the government has taxed it away?
    The fiscal malfeasance of the Democrats and clearly stated intentions to gut the capital markets and gut the profits of private businesses and tax away wealth has all but stopped investments for future growth.
    How is money being "given away".
     
  11. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which tax rate, and where is the link to your graph, and how does taking more money out of the markets grow those markets?
     
  12. AtsamattaU

    AtsamattaU Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Messages:
    5,123
    Likes Received:
    1,569
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL, Donald Trump bases his entire economic “achievement” platform on those frog farts. What a rube.
     
    MrTLegal and Derideo_Te like this.
  13. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Gee, that's two mistakes. :( I really did think you would know which tax rates those are. But let me anticipate your next excuse:
    [​IMG]
    I made the graph using data from the Federal Reserve.
    Let me know if you want the raw data.

    There have been a lot of theories about tax rates and investment. One of them that makes a little sense is this one.
    Alas we have been on the downhill side for quite some time.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  14. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh YOU made the graph, spare me. And it's the EFFECTIVE tax rate that matters. Again how do you grow the economy when government takes more and more capital out of the markets? What economic theory is that and how exactly does that work?
     
  15. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'll await your graph using effective tax rates.
     
    Quantum Nerd and Derideo_Te like this.
  16. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually there is a good example. The recent corporate tax cuts where offshore money was returned.
    Was all that money reinvested in the economy? No. It was accumulated.
    Had it been taxed it could have been invested in infrastructure for example.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  17. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Had it been.........pure conjecture. Had it still been subject to the tax it would not have been returned. Where was it all accumulated?
     
  18. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have no obligation to create one.
     
  19. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think it was in stock buy backs. But you can do the math for yourself.
    There was 776 billion returned in 2018. An increase of almost 700 billion.
    According to you this should have increased GDP by 3.5% (700 billion / 20 trillion). But strangely enough the GDP in 2018 was only 2.9% an increase of only .6 % over 2017.
    The only growth seen was from the 100 billion we borrowed to inject into the economy. And of course that was only a sugar high that has since worn off.
     
    Quantum Nerd likes this.
  20. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Two things; you are in the minority, and, many want cuts until it directly effects them...
     
    Quantum Nerd likes this.
  21. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, since you have shown no long term economic growth from of all the tax cuts, I guess your done with that myth.
     
    Quantum Nerd likes this.
  22. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Who do they buy the stock back from and what do they do with the money they receive? And you now asserting that it would be a direct dollar for dollar immediate increase in GDP is another absurdity.
    Again how does government taking money out of the markets and capital investment grow the economy?

    And I have asked repeatedly from the anti-Trumpers what are the Democrats offering to increase growth and ramp up manufacturing?
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2019
  23. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1992q1 6.6 4.5
    1992q2 6.9 4.3
    1992q3 6.1 4.2
    1992q4 6.7 4.3
    1993q1 3.2 0.7 Clinton passes tax rate increases but additional tax revenues allowed to be differed until 1995 and 1996
    1993q2 4.9 2.6
    1993q3 4.0 2.1
    1993q4 7.7 5.4
    1994q1 6.2 4.0
    1994q2 7.6 5.6
    1994q3 5.1 2.6
    1994q4 6.7 4.5
    1995q1 3.3 1.0 additional tax revenues come due
    1995q2 2.7 0.9
    1995q3 5.4 3.4
    1995q4 4.9 2.8
    1996q1 5.2 2.8
    1996q2 8.7 7.1
    1996q3 4.8 3.5
    1996q4 6.8 4.4
    1997q1 5.8 3.1 Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts
    1997q2 7.1 6.1
    1997q3 6.6 5.1
    1997q4 4.6 3.1
    1998q1 4.5 3.8
    1998q2 4.6 3.6
    1998q3 7.0 5.4
    1998q4 8.4 7.1
    1999q1 5.5 3.6
    1999q2 4.6 3.2
    1999q3 6.8 5.2
    1999q4 8.9 7.4
    2000q1 4.3 1.1
    2000q2 10.2 8.0
    2000q3 2.8 0.3
    2000q4 4.6 2.4
    2001q1 1.4 -1.3 Bush tax rate cuts passed but to be phased in through 2006
    2001q2 5.5 2.7
    2001q3 0.2 -1.1
    2001q4 2.7 1.4
    2002q1 4.9 3.5
    2002q2 4.0 2.1
    2002q3 3.8 2.0
    2002q4 2.5 0.1
    2003q1 4.5 1.7 Bush tax rate cuts accelerated and fully implimented
    2003q2 4.6 3.4
    2003q3 9.1 6.7
    2003q4 5.8 3.7
    2004q1 6.3 2.7
    2004q2 6.1 2.6
    2004q3 6.0 3.0
    2004q4 6.4 3.3
    2005q1 8.1 4.2
    2005q2 4.5 1.8
    2005q3 7.5 3.2
    2005q4 5.5 2.1
    2006q1 8.3 5.1
    2006q2 5.2 1.6
    2006q3 3.1 0.1
    2006q4 4.6 2.7
    2007q1 5.2 0.5
    OMB tables

    Comparing the Periods

    The Clinton years present two consecutive periods as experiments of the effects of tax policy. The first period, from 1993 to 1996, began with a significant tax increase as the economy was accelerating out of recession. The second period, from 1997 to 2000, began with a modest tax cut as the economy should have settled into a normal growth period. The economy was decidedly stronger following the tax cut than it was following the tax increase.

    [​IMG]

    The economy averaged 4.2 percent real growth per year from 1997 to 2000--a full percentage point higher than during the expansion following the 1993 tax hike (illustrated in the graph above). Employment increased by another 11.5 million jobs, which is roughly comparable to the job growth in the preceding four-year period. Real wages, however, grew at 6.5 percent, which is much stronger than the 0.8 percent growth of the preceding period (illustrated in the graph below). Finally, total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose an astounding 95 percent. The period from 1997 to 2000 forms the memory of the booming 1990s, and it followed the passage of tax relief that was originally opposed by President Clinton.

    [​IMG]

    In summary, coming out of a recession into a period when the economy should grow relatively rapidly, President Clinton signed a major tax increase. The average growth rate over his first term was a solid 3.2 percent. In 1997, at a time when the expansion was well along and economic growth should have slowed, Congress passed a modest net tax cut. The economy grew by a full percentage point-per-year faster over his second term than over Clinton's first term.

    The evidence is fairly clear: The tax cuts, especially the reduction in the capital gains tax rate, made a major contribution to a strong economy. Given this observation, it seems likely, though admittedly less certain, that the tax increases in 1993, while not derailing the economy as many had forecast at the time, did indeed slow the recovery compared to what the economy could have achieved.
    https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/tax-cuts-not-the-clinton-tax-hike-produced-the-1990s-boom

    It is widely believed, with plenty of evidence to support the hypothesis, that tax cuts spur economic growth. Over the past six decades, tax cut legislation has been implemented by elected officials of both political parties. The Kennedy tax cuts in 1964, Reagan’s tax cuts in 1981, the Clinton/Gingrich tax cuts in 1997, the Trump tax cuts in 2017, and more locally North Carolina’s tax cuts and reforms in 2013 all did what their advocates said the tax cuts would do: they increased economic growth rates and secondarily enhanced government revenues.

    Spending is not what drives economic growth; earning is.

    No one can spend income that they haven’t first earned either through work, entrepreneurial activity, or investment. And tax cuts of any form, particularly if they come in the form of rate reductions on income, enhance the incentive to earn or, more accurately, reduce the disincentive to earn. And how do people earn the money that ultimately translates into the spending that so many would-be economic analysts focus on? It is through the production of goods and services that other people want. In other words, increased production is what drives economic growth and increased consumer demand. And it is the drive and effort to increase one’s earnings that ultimately increase production.

    Taxation is a disincentive to earning. The higher the marginal tax rate on any form of income, the less one is allowed to keep from any additional dollar earned. This means that it is less likely that the income-earner will do what it takes, i.e., work more, invest more, build more, hire more people, etc., to earn an extra dollar. The higher the tax, the lower the production and therefore earnings.
    https://www.johnlocke.org/update/how-do-tax-cuts-spur-economic-growth/
     
  24. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you keep trying to draw a correlation between random events?
    If there was a long term relationship between tax cuts and the economy the GDP growth would be higher now. It is not. It is lower. If what your really trying to do is say they are a short term stimulus you could maybe make a case. But the minute the tax cut goes on the credit card you would be better off to just borrow the money and give it away to the bottom 50% where it is more likely to be spent instead of squirreled away by the rich never to be seen again.
    As far as how long it takes it would appear it didn't happen in 2018 and things don't look good for 2019, and the forecasts don't look to good either. I mean really blues. It was almost a trillion dollars and the needle hasn't moved. The fact of the matter is they didn't need the money because the demand isn't there.
    They call it accumulated wealth.
    [​IMG]
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  25. TheKeefer

    TheKeefer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2016
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    43
    <Mod Edit>

    The biggest increase in employment numbers is small business.

    <Rule 3>
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 9, 2019

Share This Page