For once, I would like a GOP president to clean up their own economic mess

Again, that's not what I asked... You do know that it is intellectually dishonest not to cite your sources. Why can't you just tell me where you got the graphs from?

You know, if you wanted to be an economist, perhaps you should have hit the books a little harder when you were in college (if you attended college; if you haven't, that is also fine).

If I learn something, it most likely will not be economics from you...

 

The Dems were the majority then

 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...linton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/

Pretty obvious it didn't.

 

I've wondered myself why the Glass-Steagall myth is so persistent. Glass-Steagall wasn't repealed, only a small part as incorporated in Gramm–Leach–Bliley, and that had nothing to do with the crash. European Banks never had the firewall separating regular banking and investments and the crash didn't originate there, it originated in the US.

But that's why we can never really fix things because certain explanations become part of ideology.

 

Not as intellectually dishonest as claiming that I didn't cite my sources, when the sources are right there: CBO, JCT, and TPC

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53429
https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5040
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/pub...is-conference-agreement-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act

An economist? I have no interest in becoming an economist. Mandatory courses I received as required by my curricula were good enough from an academic point of view. But your question is not even at a college level. To understand it all you needed to do was pay attention in elementary school.

Quod natura non dat, Golem non præstat

 

Thanks for citing your sources; now we have discovered a bigger problem: You don't know what you're looking at. The information you've provided are estimates/projections of the effects; not the effects themselves. Have you looked at the publish year of these reports? They're published at the end of 2017. You would need something more recent if you wanted to measure the effects of the tax cut, which has been in effect for one year.

How could you have made such an asinine, simple mistake? I guess I will just chalk it up to your lack of knowledge and experience on the subject matter...

It was surprising that you even managed to get through college; you didn't even bother reading any of your sources. You posted estimates of the distribution effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, not the effects.

Rénmen qīpiàn zìjǐ, nǐ yě bù lìwài...

 

The provision of the Banking Act of 1933, which separated Retail and Wholesale banking, was repealed. Yes, for the most part, it is true that other nations didn't have the same separation in banking that the United States has, which was the argument used to eliminate it in the first place. However, other nations have far less banks than the United States. The number of U.S. banks is getting small, as more banks are consolidating.

It's very easy to blame large banks for financial crisises, but there is only one U.S. bank listed in the top 5 global financial institutions by assets.

Other than that, Glass Steagall is largely a red-herring; perpetuated by people who don't understand finance or banking.

 

You're kidding me! You're not going to tell me that in 2017 the CBO and the others didn't know the real effects of Trump cuts 10 years later??? Only projections? How disappointing! All the billions of taxpayer money invested in time travel just so this wouldn't happen... All a complete waste.... What a scandal!

And, of course, you want me to find one for you in which those making under $75K obtain over $65K benefit, and those over a million have to pay more taxes. Because you believe that I should be the one finding support for your nutty Conspiracy Theory.

Oh.... what a waste of time!

I guess it's partly my fault. The second you made it clear you didn't even understand what GDP was I should have realized that this discussion was not going to be productive. At least not for me. You, on the other hand, have actually learned quite a bit. Assuming that you understood even part of what you read.

Thanks anyway. Your posts were good for a couple of laughs. Not much more, though.

 

Imagine being an adult and not understanding the difference between projections and empirical data. Nobody has a cystral ball; the government institutions can only estimate what the effect will be.


Do you have an information from 2018/2019 that shows the aggregate tax distribution data?

You've confused yourself, to no one's surprised. You claimed, "the bulk of the tax cuts went to the wealthy;" I asked you, "How do you know this? Can you demonstrate this?" You not only repeated, not to demonstrate this, you cite information, incorrectly.

Maybe you're confused. I didn't ask you to show me the effects would be 10 year later. I asked you to demonstrate who is benefiting from the tax cuts, RIGHT NOW. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

I'm asking you to prove what you know. Can you prove, using recent data and evidence, who is benefiting more from recent fiscal policy?

Apparently, GDP is something that you elementary school, but you can't explain it in a sufficient manner.

I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't learn anything from you. The only thing I've learned is that you're not as knowledgable as you think you are.

FYI; the government institutions that record tax benefits on the economy is the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), not the CBO.

 

What economic mess? Has the recession happened yet?

 

Imagine being an adult and not understanding that that is so obvious only a child would need to mention it. Well... to give you the benefit of the doubt, it might also be said by an adult who had no real arguments.

I have everything. I store it on a web site I am part-owner of. You can access it at the following address: google.com Fill in what you are looking for in the "search" box, and you'll see it. Since I own an I.T. consulting business, sometimes I even teach people how to use it. For a fee, of course.

I think I posted it correctly, given the tools provided by the forum. If you mean that the information is not correct.... why... that's easy for you to demonstrate. Won't accomplish it by whining about mine, though. You'd have to show the correct one.

I don't have to prove what I know. All I have to do is prove I'm right! I showed graphs, data, references... So I'm very much on track to accomplishing my objective, given that no counter-data has been presented. You, on the other hand, have whined quite a bit about what I "should" and "should not" present. But, so far, other that... nothing. Not even an argument.

Very few of us on this forum (and I'm one of the few) actually admit when they are proven wrong. For that reason, we assume that if the other poster presents no data, no facts, no references.... more so when they don't even have a counter-argument... they are implicitly admitting they are wrong. So, at this point, unless I see something from you.... my job is done. Thanks for playing....

 

Well, if you managed to do it correctly, then I wouldn't need to mention it, now would it?

They're YOUR claims. It's not my obligation to prove your assertions, which you failed to do.

First: I've already demonstrated it. It's information from Oct 2017; the TCJA passed Dec 2017. There is no way they could have data on the effects of the TCJA without the TCJA being passed. In other words, they're estimates of the effects, not the data of the actual effects.

Second: Again, that's not how it works. You make the claim; you substantiate your claim. It's not up to me to support your claims. As you've mentioned, that is something "adults" do. Isn't that what you think you are?

Not only are you very wrong; you're very confused. I don't recall ever making a counter-argument. I only asked one question, which is, ""How do you know this? Can you demonstrate this?" Now, I just have more questions:

These are your sources. Did you look at the dates for these three sources? Did you not realize that they're were published BEFORE the TCJA was passed? Do you now understand why I asked you to source your information? Some part of me knew that you weren't smart enough to look up information on your own.

 

I made a statement. I showed my arguments, links and references. I don't know if my arguments, links or references "prove" them or not. But you just saying "you failed" won't help us establish that. Counter-arguments are required. If the data is incorrect, you show the correct data. If you don't, then my data is the only one available and therefore, we are forced to accept it as factual. But you repeating the same nonsense over and over is not a rebuttal.

Obviously this is a waste of time. Not only have your statements displayed a complete lack of understanding on this matter, but they also show an inability on your part to carry out a meaningful debate.

“The more you know, the more you know you don't know.” -Socrates (Attributed)

Nah... I thought they had gone to the future in their trusty "time machine".