-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Not really, he's also trying to destroy NATO. He is most likely a racist, which means he will go after non-white countries for racist reasons, but he's also doing Vladimir Putin's bidding and Vlad wants the EU broken as well as all alliances in Europe.
When someone tried to point out to him that a lot of European cars were made in the US, he dismissed it as fake news.
I'm hoping to stay on the subject and have a discussion about the likelihood of a tariff against European being implemented or not. Going into the weeds about racism does not move the discussion forward.
I believe @Papafox is suggesting a change of venue, not terminating the discussion.Huh? I'm sorry that this conversation that you started just a couple posts ago is bothering you... ? I don't get this.
My thought on the tariffs is that this is a move to bring the EU to the negiotiating table. He is not one to bluff and to not follow through. The tariffs would be significantly more harmful to the EU than the US. There must be something ongoing with trade negotiations that the US is not satisfied with and they are at an impasse. Trump will use the tariffs as a mechanism to allow for more change. I’m not sure if they will be implemented because I think the EU will negotiate before they can be implemented. But I think he will implement if he is not satisfied with the progress.
Huh I would say his base for the most part doesn’t give a damn about European cars.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
The white guy who is driving a BMW next to you likely voted for Trump - just going by race, gender & income
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Trump has no interest in actual policies - so who is unsatisfied with the negotiations ? Are the demands practical ? All Trump is interested is in a "win".
Lucky_Man
Member
We've had one revolution already and we'll have another, if such a drastic measure is ultimately the last possible choice. I know which side I'll fight for.
Brando
Active Member
Trump strongest base = Congress and main stream media - they all love the distractions.
No one gives a dam about voters after an election - which is why we are fighting 8 wars currently AND all the wars we have had since WWII which was the last time Congress approved a war - of course funding wars never a problem.
No one gives a dam about voters after an election - which is why we are fighting 8 wars currently AND all the wars we have had since WWII which was the last time Congress approved a war - of course funding wars never a problem.
Lucky_Man
Member
Based on recent reports, Trump doesn't really care about what his base believes, as much as what the "Alt-Presidential" staff at Fox thinks. BTW, does anyone know what "Alt-President Hannity" drives? [my personal apology is hearby offered in advance of any perceived offense]
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Hopefully in two years we will stop feeding the Gremlin after midnight and he can go back to being a discounted clown.
Heartland,
I really do wish you had been on the receiving end of one of Trump's masterful negotiations. His vendors do not speak highly of him when it comes to time to pay; that is, when he does pay. The idea that the mastermind BS has survived as long as it has simply defies reality but then I guess that is the definition of a reality distortion field.
Heartland,
I really do wish you had been on the receiving end of one of Trump's masterful negotiations. His vendors do not speak highly of him when it comes to time to pay; that is, when he does pay. The idea that the mastermind BS has survived as long as it has simply defies reality but then I guess that is the definition of a reality distortion field.
Krugman is flat-out wrong here, because he *still* doesn't understand that the government can actually print money (non-interest bearing) rather than issuing T-bills (interest-bearing). Lincoln did it -- the first "Greenbacks" -- and if you're worried about the downsides of it, that's the case study to look at. (It worked out fine, though there was a strange period when gold-backed and Greenback money both traded, and the Greenback was somewhat discounted.)
I've been trying to communicate to Krugman about this for 10 years but I haven't managed to get it through the right channel to get to him. He's got a blind spot.
This is actually why the private banking interests fight so hard to prevent the government from printing Lincoln-style "Greenbacks". They want to print the money themselves and they see the government as competition. They spew all kinds of bogus lies about "budget balancing" but it's basically a scheme to keep the profits from money-printing for themselves.
This is pretty much documented: during the 19th century fight over the Federal Reserve, the private banking interests were called the "Money Trust" and were pretty open about their goals.
Someone in my town -- his name was Paul Glover -- successfully started his own currency (Ithaca Hours). Yes, he printed them. Yes, people accepted them. It went quite well until he left town, but didn't survive his leaving town.
It made for an interesting lesson in what makes money money. It's based on trust that other people will accept it.
Trust can come from charisma, as in the case of Paul Glover!
The MMTers suggest that the value of money issued by the government is that you can use it to pay your taxes. (So, taxes give value to money!)
That's why you monetize the debt. Issue greenbacks. In short, not a problem.
Never a problem. Print it.
The limiting factor is inflation, which is why the printing should be done during a period of disinflation or deflationary pressure, i.e. it should have already been done under Obama.
To paraphrase Professor Stephanie Kelton -- our actual limits are REAL RESOURCE LIMITS. How much lithium do we have? How much energy? How many workers? How much oil? How much time? How much fresh water?
Not paper money. which is a shared illusion. Money can be printed until we hit a real resource limit -- at which point further money printing will cause inflation. That's how it works.
Amend that to "remove money from circulation in good times and print money in bad times", and you've got it right.
Most terrorists in the US are right-wing Republican terrorists, like Christopher Hasson.
Christopher Hasson, Coast Guard Officer, Plotted Attacks at His Desk, Filings Say
Or, of course, Timothy McVeigh. Or the "Operation Rescue" guys who bomb doctors. SPLC keeps track of these terrorist groups.
Stats show that these homegrown right-wing terrorists account for the majority of terrorist attacks in the US.
Well, the US's treatment of Native American refugees (who were mostly created by the US policy of "Indian Removal") was probably comparable. But that's our greatest national disgrace ever.
Your back!
Someone pointed out that there were limits on the value of gold and silver coins, but the value of platinum coins is unregulated. The US mint could strike a handful of platinum coins valued at $1 trillion each and hand them over to the fed to pay off the national debt.
Paying off the debt that way might send a wave of panic through the markets though.
I was also thinking about Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax idea and the more I think about it, the more I think it's a bad idea. Most of the wealthy people who would be subject to the tax have all their wealth tied up in investments. Most have the bulk of their money invested in one company, like Bezos.
To pay the wealth tax, they would have to sell their stock which would crash the stock market and their wealth on tax day would be significantly less than it was when their wealth was evaluated for tax purposes. For example someone has $10 billion invested in stocks in a particular corporation on Dec 31 when the line is drawn for how much they owe. Then as April 15 approaches, they need to pay the 70% tax, but because everyone is selling their stock to pay the tax, their stock is now worth only $5 billion. The tax would end up being more than a 100% tax, they would be left owing billions they don't have.
Because all the richest Americans would be liquidating their assets, foreign investors would flock in to buy up all the stock going for fire sale prices and the Chinese would take advantage to take over American flagship companies like Tesla, SpaceX, Google, Apple, etc. Then all the tech owned by those companies would belong to people connected to the Chinese government. To avoid having to pay the US tax, the Chinese would move the corporate HQs to China leaving the US gutted.
Instead a better way would be a carrot/stick approach. Institute a different capital gains tax on anyone who earns more than $1 million a year from capital gains. If their capital gains from from a company that is making things in the US for export or domestic consumption (products or services), then those profits are taxes like capital gains are now. If capital gains come from a company importing products or services, or uses a lot of imported products, then the gains are taxed like regular income.
That would put a lot of pressure on to invest in companies designing and making things in the US. All that money would stay onshore and be reinvested here, which would percolate through the economy and end up getting taxed by the government.
It would be slower than a wealth tax, but would be far less destructive and would pump a lot of money into the US economy. It would reward companies like Tesla that make products here in the US.
Additionally we need to revamp the higher education system. The cost of an education has become ridiculous, and we need to do some investigation into the price gouging. But we also need to reverse the Reagan era tax code change that started taxing grant and scholarship money as regular income. We also need to start giving lots of grants for lower income people who get into STEM programs. Right now a lot of the Americans who would qualify for STEM degree programs go into other professions where the money is easier, but really doesn't contribute much to the overall economy.
If a person considering their options could get a STEM degree for almost nothing, or get a business degree and end up $80K in debt, more would opt for the STEM degree. The conservatives will whine and moan about "enabling" but give someone a free education who will likely make more than $100K a year soon after college and will continue to make that kind of money for 40 years or more and the government will get several times what the education cost back in tax revenue, not only from the individual who got the education, but through all the other economic activity those people will produce throughout their life. middle class people tend to spend a large percentage of their income and that ends up in other people's pockets who also pay taxes.
In the short term we would have to open the doors to more immigration to people with STEM degrees as more companies produce their products onshore, but if we encourage STEM degrees, we can taper down that immigration as more native born people get degrees and enter those professions.
And ultimately the rich will do quite well with this plan too. Bottom up economics works to lift all boats, even the biggest yachts. It just takes a little longer to percolate up from the bottom to the top.
- Status
Similar threads
