Economic, taxes, and tariffs discussion

[nots]

I'm not discussing the relative merits of the deal. I am pushing back on the notion that Paul Krugman's tweets are facts and not opinions and that his opinions have a pretty low batting average when it comes to the Trump economy.

[revo]

I'm not discussing the relative merits of the deal. I am pushing back on the notion that Paul Krugman's tweets are facts and not opinions and that his opinions have a pretty low batting average when it comes to the Trump economy.

Fair enough. Maybe he's an anti-Trumper, maybe he's a Bear. Many widely-recognized economists are routinely wrong, but then when they're finally right, that's when they gain their coveted recognition.

[The Feral Slasher]

Fair enough. Maybe he's an anti-Trumper, maybe he's a Bear. Many widely-recognized economists are routinely wrong, but then when they're finally right, that's when they gain their coveted recognition.

I don't read him often, but pretty much everything I've seen from him the last 10 years is more focused on politics and supporting his side as opposed to real economics stuff.

[nullnor]

when you watch Krugman on TV he looks unhinged and exhausted. lol

he's interesting but I think he would've been right if we had done austerity about it tanking shit. that's one example of a prediction that never had the chance to come true. also, I know there are a lot of noble prizes but dam, they gave a peace prize to the Burma president who then committed genocide.

[Sour Masher]

Lesson learned: don't cite an article by Krugman, because folks will see his bias over his point. Understandable, but based on what we know right now, the point of the article seems sound--we got little to nothing out of this trade war. Revo was right all along.

[Gregg]

Lesson learned: don't cite an article by Krugman, because folks will see his bias over his point. Understandable, but based on what we know right now, the point of the article seems sound--we got little to nothing out of this trade war. Revo was right all along.

Just brushing the main part of the phase one away with this statement shows bias.



In exchange, the Trump administration said that China would spend at least $16 billion more on agricultural goods in each of the next two years and that overall US exports to China would nearly double. Experts, however, are skeptical whether those volumes are realistic, and China hasn't publicly committed to specific targets. excerpt from Krugman.

Skeptical why? Well because he is trump.

And yet:

Global stocks surged to all-time highs Friday after US President Donald Trump offered to scrap tariffs on Chinese goods set to go live Sunday and slash existing tariffs.

[revo]

Just brushing the main part of the phase one away with this statement shows bias.



In exchange, the Trump administration said that China would spend at least $16 billion more on agricultural goods in each of the next two years and that overall US exports to China would nearly double. Experts, however, are skeptical whether those volumes are realistic, and China hasn't publicly committed to specific targets. excerpt from Krugman.

Skeptical why? Well because he is trump.

And yet:

Global stocks surged to all-time highs Friday after US President Donald Trump offered to scrap tariffs on Chinese goods set to go live Sunday and slash existing tariffs.

Nope, not skeptical because he is Trump, but because they committed before to buying a significant amount of agricultural products and didn’t.

[nullnor]

i'm confused. i read recently that the lower corporate tax rate of 21% mostly just boosted EPS and stocks. and the money went in stock buy back which boosted it further. so if you were a market guy, why would you be against everything that happened?

it barely boosted the fed revenues. yet created 6 million jobs. how can you create 6 million jobs but not boost tax revenues? yet increase the deficit to a trillion. or 4.6 trillion vs 3.5 tax revenue. and the stock market exploded upwards. lol. unlike most americans not invested in the stock market, if you were you should be pretty happy with everything.

[revo]

i'm confused. i read recently that the lower corporate tax rate of 21% mostly just boosted EPS and stocks. and the money went in stock buy back which boosted it further. so if you were a market guy, why would you be against everything that happened?

it barely boosted the fed revenues. yet created 6 million jobs. how can you create 6 million jobs but not boost tax revenues? yet increase the deficit to a trillion. or 4.6 trillion vs 3.5 tax revenue. and the stock market exploded upwards. lol. unlike most americans not invested in the stock market, if you were you should be pretty happy with everything.

It created a sugar high, which is now expiring. The market isn't meant for sugar highs. The market should not be used to further one's own re-election campaign.

And like I've told many people, including my clients -- the market exploded upwards during the Obama and Clinton years, too.

[onejayhawk]

It created a sugar high, which is now expiring. The market isn't meant for sugar highs. The market should not be used to further one's own re-election campaign. And like I've told many people, including my clients -- the market exploded upwards during the Obama and Clinton years, too.

It also cleaned up the workspace. The tax reform part put us on a level import/export field with other industrial countries. That's routine maintenance that had not been done on schedule.

I said it in the virus thread, but I'll say it here. The Corona virus has done more to bring about change in US/China relations than Trump's tariffs. Point for you.

J

[nots]

10,000+ points over 37 months is a heck of a sugar high especially Krugman et al were predicting a market crash upon his election.

[revo]

10,000+ points over 37 months is a heck of a sugar high especially Krugman et al were predicting a market crash upon his election.

Nully was taking specifically about the tax cuts.

The S&P500 performance over Trump's regime to date is 3rd among the four most recent presidents after today's 3%+ drop.

[nots]

Nully was taking specifically about the tax cuts.

The S&P500 performance over Trump's regime to date is 3rd among the four most recent presidents after today's 3%+ drop.

I don’t think today’s drop has much to do with Trump, nor do I think it’s anything more than a blip that will correct once the Coronavirus is more contained.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I don’t think today’s drop has much to do with Trump, nor do I think it’s anything more than a blip that will correct once the Coronavirus is more contained.

there was a piece today regarding how the Coronavirus has really impacted China's economy, which in turn is effecting everyone's economy.

[nots]

there was a piece today regarding how the Coronavirus has really impacted China's economy, which in turn is effecting everyone's economy.

Yes, I understand its having an enormous effect and the effect probably hasnt been fully accounted for by China.
I also want to adjust my phrasing in my previous post. I should have written 'IF the virus is more contained'. If it gets worse and begins to decimate Europe, all markets will be in serious decline.