President Trump

[Emily's Cat]

My understanding is that Trump is under no obligation to put his business in a blind trust. Sure it's the usual thing to do (at least since LBJ) to either put your interests in a blind trust or, like Obama, to invest in mutual funds over which you as President have no direct influence. Then again it was usual to reveal your tax records and Trump simply refused to do that with absolutely no ill effects to his candidacy...

I was trying to find more info on this. As a citizen, I wouldn't want to reveal my tax records either. From what I could tell, most presidents release the tax records from the times they were in office. Releasing your tax records from the years prior to the presidency seems to have started with Obama. Not sure that makes any difference to this discussion, I just thought it was interesting.

http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's an impressive number, but only when you assume that all of them are incriminating, when the actual number is zero.

So I know I'm missing a bit of intel here... but how do you conclude that 0% of those emails were incriminating, given they were super-double-deleted and nobody could review them?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah, sure, but that requires a STEEP increase in taxes. Is that really what we're discussing?

It doesn't though, not really. It's marginal value of a dollar versus marginal value of leisure traded.

Take it at the extreme ends - if you work 0 hours, then the marginal value of an hour worked, in financial terms, is much, much higher than the marginal value of the leisure that you're giving up. You have a lot of leisure and little money. At the other end of the spectrum, if you're working 22 hour days, you'd probably happily forego an hour of pay in order to get one more hour of downtime. There's a trade-off formula in there, and at some point, you'll cross that line.

The tax rate effects the marginal value of that additional hour worked. If you increase the tax rate, it reduces the value of that additional work, which shifts the trade-off point lower down the scale.

 

[newyorkguy]

Left wing nutjob? So? It's a STUPID comment without a great deal of context that changes its meaning dramatically. It simply is NOT TRUE that the purpose of taxes is to create unemployment...

I agree, simply stated -- the purpose of taxes is to cause unemployment -- it does seem stupid. Just stating that without context is stupid. I'm not going to go through this thread looking for cites -- some people are notorious for never supplying them -- but here's one I found from L. Randall Wray, written in 2014:

Warren Mosler puts it this way: the purpose of the tax is to create unemployment. That might sound a bit strange, but if we define unemployment as a situation in which job seekers want to work for money wages, then government can hire them by offering its currency. The tax frees resources from private use so that government can employ them in public use. To greatly simplify, money is a measuring unit, originally created by rulers to value the fees, fines, and taxes owed. By putting the subjects or citizens into debt, real resources could be moved to serve the public purpose. Taxes drive money.

Wray goes on to 'explain:'

But our tax system is already doing a HECKUV A JOB creating unemployed resources. We can spend on the poor (and on a full range of other public policies) and thereby mobilize those unemployed resources. We do not need more taxes—now—to cause even more unemployment.

If Congress ever got hold of its senses (no, I’m not holding my breath), it would increase spending (or reduce taxes) to employ idle resources. At some point (probably later rather than sooner) we could come up against resource constraints. At that point we might need to curtail spending and/or raise taxes. Link

In searching I didn't find many sources for "The purpose of taxes is to create unemployment." After just a few relevant links most seemed to involve discussions of unemployment insurance. I did find this quote from Warren Mosler on a site named Mike Norman Economics. [Mike Norman is a currency trader and economist who is a proponent of Modern Monetary Theory.] (Link). Mosler himself posted a comment referring to an earlier message:

warren mosler says:
Monday, November 25, 2013 at 23:07
Good post, as always!
Let me add that I like to say it this way.
The purpose of taxation is to create unemployment as defined: people looking for paid work.

It's interesting to read some of the other comments such as this one:

"bottom line- unemployment is always and necessarily the evidence that the govt hasn’t spent enough to cover the need to pay taxes and the desire to save."

What that seems to suggest is that the private sector is capable of maintaining 'full employment'. (here defined as truely FULL employment, not NAIRU [non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, a level of unemployment below which inflation rises] or any other similar notion).

It seems to me that the private sector will never 100% hire everyone 'willing and able' to work. The lower unemployment gets, the more bargaining power Labor gets, which tends to induce Capitalists to increasingly look to mechanize their production as a response to increasing wages squeezing profit margins. Note: this is not a bad thing. It's a good thing. It spurs technological advancement. My point is that it doesn't seem accurate to say:

 

[logger]

The purpose of taxes is not to create unemployment. Only a biased IDIOT would say that.
Taxes are needed to pay for the services and needs that the private sector will not and cannot perform without major problems to the common good.

And yet they seem to create some unemployment. Taxes certainly create winners and losers.

How about regulation, is that sometimes done to create unemployment?

 

[acbytesla]

And yet they seem to create some unemployment. Taxes certainly create winners and losers.

How about regulation, is that sometimes done to create unemployment?

Do we need roads? Do we need schools? Do we need a military? Do we need the police and courts? Do we need laws ?

Regulations, another necessary evil. Should there be laws or regulations on clear cutting or harvesting too much salmon or Dungeness crabs? Should we protect our streams and rivers or other fresh water supplies? Do we value wildlife and the food chain? Should we protect estuaries? We already destroyed the greatest salmon fishery in the Western Hemisphere. Should our children have clean water to drink or clean air to breathe? What good is a job if you can't breathe the air?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

And yet they seem to create some unemployment. Taxes certainly create winners and losers.

How about regulation, is that sometimes done to create unemployment?

Yes, and as a parent of teens lemme tell you, those job killing child labor laws and expensive Occupational Health and Safety regulations are destroying the economy.

Make America Great Again: deregulate Teh Eveythings

 

[Belz...]

So I know I'm missing a bit of intel here... but how do you conclude that 0% of those emails were incriminating, given they were super-double-deleted and nobody could review them?

I'm not. I'm ignoring the ones no one can know about because what's the point of speculating about them? From what we know, zero e-mails were incriminating. But citing the 30,000 number sounds a lot more impressive than "we have nothing".

 

[Belz...]

It doesn't though, not really. It's marginal value of a dollar versus marginal value of leisure traded.

Take it at the extreme ends - if you work 0 hours, then the marginal value of an hour worked, in financial terms, is much, much higher than the marginal value of the leisure that you're giving up. You have a lot of leisure and little money. At the other end of the spectrum, if you're working 22 hour days, you'd probably happily forego an hour of pay in order to get one more hour of downtime. There's a trade-off formula in there, and at some point, you'll cross that line.

But none of that changes for only a slight percentage of tax increase (say, 3%). It'd take, as I said, a steep increase to make it _more_ marginal than otherwise.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Responding question...

How man y of the people in this thread have, in the past, voiced the opinion that it was childish and inappropriate to call Obama names... and yet go on to call Trump names here?

I'll stop calling Trump name when he stops calling people names.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree, simply stated -- the purpose of taxes is to cause unemployment -- it does seem stupid. Just stating that without context is stupid. I'm not going to go through this thread looking for cites -- some people are notorious for never supplying them -- but here's one I found from L. Randall Wray, written in 2014:


Wray goes on to 'explain:'

In searching I didn't find many sources for "The purpose of taxes is to create unemployment." After just a few relevant links most seemed to involve discussions of unemployment insurance. I did find this quote from Warren Mosler on a site named Mike Norman Economics. [Mike Norman is a currency trader and economist who is a proponent of Modern Monetary Theory.] (Link). Mosler himself posted a comment referring to an earlier message:



It's interesting to read some of the other comments such as this one:

What bothers me about the quote is they make it sound like government is trying to cause unemployment when that simply isn't true. There simply are societal values that the private has no incentive or cannot be trusted to perform and government must pay for those services.

 

[acbytesla]

I'll stop calling Trump name when he stops calling people names.

I love it. In other words....never.

Personally, I call him Trump the Turd or my dump Trump. After all Donald Trump is a sleazy POS. The idea that we should be civil to a man as scummy and sleazy as Donald Trump is risible.

 

[Minoosh]

He's already shown that he intends to use the presidency to enrich himself. I honestly can't believe that the US population isn't up in arms over this. It's outrageous.

This is just a hunch, but people may be tempering their outrage to see how far he goes with this. Also, many people seem to admire his behavior - he's a smart man using the letter of the law to enrich himself.

Outraged media professionals sometimes betrayed their very thin skin when it came to Trump's mockery of media. Making a story out of the fact that he ditched the press pool - in some ways that just made the media look stupid. It was pack journalism at its worse. How dare he!

Trump seems to thrive on outrage. So like I said, this is just a guess but having nothing to push back against might be a sign of revised strategy.

 

[acbytesla]

This is just a hunch, but people may be tempering their outrage to see how far he goes with this. Also, many people seem to admire his behavior - he's a smart man using the letter of the law to enrich himself.

Outraged media professionals sometimes betrayed their very thin skin when it came to Trump's mockery of media. Making a story out of the fact that he ditched the press pool - in some ways that just made the media look stupid. It was pack journalism at its worse. How dare he!

Trump seems to thrive on outrage. So like I said, this is just a guess but having nothing to push back against might be a sign of revised strategy.

Trump is the ultimate troll. I keep trying to hold my opinion of him as President thinking ...or (maybe it is hoping) that he will better than I think. But then he opens his mouth or I see who he hires and think no, I'm right this guy is the world's biggest a-hole. I keep wishing that as President he'll rise above who he has been his entire life ...but that's like how I feel after I buy a Powerball ticket. It's basically a ticket to dream. You don't really believe you might win...but wouldn't it be nice.

I keep saying to myself, please prove me wrong...please, please.

 

[Minoosh]

Trump is the ultimate troll. I keep trying to hold my opinion of him as President thinking ...or (maybe it is hoping) that he will better than I think. But then he opens his mouth or I see who he hires and think no, I'm right this guy is the world's biggest a-hole. I keep wishing that as President he'll rise above who he has been his entire life ...but that's like how I feel after I buy a Powerball ticket. It's basically a ticket to dream. You don't really believe you might win...but wouldn't it be nice.

I keep saying to myself, please prove me wrong...please, please.

I predict he will do something that will alienate even many among his supporters - but I have no idea what that will be. None of the usual scandals is doing it.

 

[sunmaster14]

What bothers me about the quote is they make it sound like government is trying to cause unemployment when that simply isn't true. There simply are societal values that the private has no incentive or cannot be trusted to perform and government must pay for those services.

It's a clever statement that gets people to think because it sounds ridiculous. It's not meant to mislead people into thinking the government is trying to cause unemployment. The statement turns on the economist's definition of unemployment. You are only unemployed if you want to work in exchange for the fiat currency created by the government, but can't find work. If you want to work for pigs or food or sex, and you can't find any takers, then you are not considered unemployed. If you don't want to work, you are not considered unemployed.

So, the purpose of taxes is to make it so that somebody wants to do real work in exchange for an otherwise worthless piece of green paper (i.e. the fiat currency, which has no tangible value). Taxes imbue the fiat currency with value by creating demand for it. As long as somebody somewhere needs that fiat currency to extinguish a tax liability, and hence be able to keep his material possessions or stay out of jail (or both), then there will be demand for it, and it will have value.

Taxes therefore create the situation where people want to work in exchange for fiat currency. The fact that the private sector does not have enough work (or rather enough money to pay for that work) means that unemployed workers have to look to the government to provide paid work. The government uses this work to do the things that we want the government to do.

 

[acbytesla]

It's a clever statement that gets people to think because it sounds ridiculous. It's not meant to mislead people into thinking the government is trying to cause unemployment. The statement turns on the economist's definition of unemployment. You are only unemployed if you want to work in exchange for the fiat currency created by the government, but can't find work. If you want to work for pigs or food or sex, and you can't find any takers, then you are not considered unemployed. If you don't want to work, you are not considered unemployed.

So, the purpose of taxes is to make it so that somebody wants to do real work in exchange for an otherwise worthless piece of green paper (i.e. the fiat currency, which has no tangible value). Taxes imbue the fiat currency with value by creating demand for it. As long as somebody somewhere needs that fiat currency to extinguish a tax liability, and hence be able to keep his material possessions or stay out of jail (or both), then there will be demand for it, and it will have value.

Taxes therefore create the situation where people want to work in exchange for fiat currency. The fact that the private sector does not have enough work (or rather enough money to pay for that work) means that unemployed workers have to look to the government to provide paid work. The government uses this work to do the things that we want the government to do.

But FIAT currency is what every modern economy has. And the barter system simply is not efficient. Currency is simply the lubricant of an economy. The bizarre thing is today it's less than a piece of paper, it's more electronic ones and zeros.

I don't like the quote because at it's base it is disingenuous. They are trying to be provocative as opposed to solving a problem.

 

[sunmaster14]

But FIAT currency is what every modern economy has. And the barter system simply is not efficient. Currency is simply the lubricant of an economy. The bizarre thing is today it's less than a piece of paper, it's more electronic ones and zeros.

Fiat currency is more than just a lubricant to facilitate trade. It is also a means to tweak aggregate demand and satisfy savings desire. It provides a simple way for people to save for the future, or borrow from the future to meet needs now (although it cannot do that on an aggregate basis for real resources).

In any case, you are wrong that every modern economy has a fiat currency. Here is a list of countries which don't, although admittedly many are hellholes which have fixed exchange rates in theory only. But Hong Kong is one.

Also, I would argue that all of the members of the Eurozone do not have a fiat currency (i.e. Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, etc.). Their currencies are fixed to the Euro, which is controlled by a central authority that no one member's government has control over. Not a good situation in my opinion, but I suppose it is better than having another Franco-German war.

I don't like the quote because at it's base it is disingenuous. They are trying to be provocative as opposed to solving a problem.

They are trying to provoke understanding of a fiat currency system, which far less than 0.1% of people do (in my estimation). It would solve a lot of problems if more people understood how fiat currencies work.

 

[acbytesla]

Fiat currency is more than just a lubricant to facilitate trade. It is also a means to tweak aggregate demand and satisfy savings desire. It provides a simple way for people to save for the future, or borrow from the future to meet needs now (although it cannot do that on an aggregate basis for real resources).

In any case, you are wrong that every modern economy has a fiat currency. Here is a list of countries which don't, although admittedly many are hellholes which have fixed exchange rates in theory only. But Hong Kong is one.

Also, I would argue that all of the members of the Eurozone do not have a fiat currency (i.e. Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, etc.). Their currencies are fixed to the Euro, which is controlled by a central authority that no one member's government has control over. Not a good situation in my opinion, but I suppose it is better than having another Franco-German war.


They are trying to provoke understanding of a fiat currency system, which far less than 0.1% of people do (in my estimation). It would solve a lot of problems if more people understood how fiat currencies work.

Those currencies are still FIAT since the Euro itself is a a FIAT currency. They are just giving up their own sovereignty to manage their own currency. As for the Euro zone nations France, Italy, Germany and Ireland all use the Euro as their currency. They use the European Central Bank like we use the Fed.

"FIAT" just means arbitrary order. as opposed to tying the value to gold or silver.

 

[TofuFighter]

Responding question...

How man y of the people in this thread have, in the past, voiced the opinion that it was childish and inappropriate to call Obama names... and yet go on to call Trump names here?

How many?