Merged Economics, politics and the election

[a_unique_person]

what about insulin

That's not price control, it's about bargaining. The fact is the American food system is systematically doing all it can to be monopolistic and not competitive. Mars, for example, is doing a massive merger to profit from domination of the market.

America knew over a century so that monopolies and cartels destroy competition. Being aware of this fact does not make one a communist.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's long been observed that big businesses want socialism (I.e. safety nets and rules and regulations) for them, Capitalism for the rest of us which pretty much is the worst of both worlds.

Nothing could be less capitalistic than the owner of a bajillion dollar company begging to help because he's "too big to fail."

"We can't afford to pay out lawsuits to families just because our planes fell out of the sky."

Then you go under. That's how capitalism works.

 

[Solitaire]

The current CTC is $2000. The proposed increase is not $600. It would be $1000 per child or $1600 per child under 6. Also in 2026 when the Trump Tax cuts expire it will revert back to its base of $1000 per child. So for that timeframe of the 10 year window add an extra 1k to that number. It also expands the income requirements, including more families. I am not sure why there is such bad faith in how these numbers were arrived at without any research. Just blind faith everything that is not slanted positive is wrong.

Hm. How were those numbers arrived at without any research?

That's something I'd like to know. Did they use Chat-GPT or something else?

It forces me to go back to original sources and do my own work on the subject.

IRS Publication 1304

Child tax credit—Under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the child tax credit has been enhanced for 2021. The child tax credit was extended to qualifying children under age 18. Depending on AGI, a taxpayer received an enhanced credit amount of up to $3,600 for a qualifying child under age 6 and up to $3,000 for a qualifying child over age 5 and under age 18.

On page 27, we have the $2000 CTC with a cost of 33.665 billion dollars in 2020. And we have the $3000 CTC with a cost of 115.869 billion dollars in 2021. So at best, the expanded program will cost 82.204 billion dollars per year.

 

[acbytesla]

That's not price control, it's about bargaining. The fact is the American food system is systematically doing all it can to be monopolistic and not competitive. Mars, for example, is doing a massive merger to profit from domination of the market.

America knew over a century so that monopolies and cartels destroy competition. Being aware of this fact does not make one a communist.

It was a Republican who pushed through and signed the Sherman AntiTrust Act. This made all forms of restraint of trade illegal. All of this consolidation that keeps happening has more to do with restraint of trade than anything else.

 

[rdwight]

Yes there are bright spots. But almost all of it is in luxury items and electronics. It's insane how inexpensive those things can be.

However, when it comes to the staples, housing, transportation, food and medical expenses it is unaffordable.

Food is not unaffordable. Spending habits have changed. People eat out to much and purchases too much junk. Check out food at home price changes and you will see my point in the categories. Transportation in regards to vehicle purchases has all but cratered to no growth year over year. I haven't really delved into medical expenses but that leads me to something.

My gripe is these fall more heavily on middle class earners but are presented as problems of the poor. Between medicaid, charity care etc the poor are not really burdened the same. Medicaid expansion is a no brainer that I still dont get why some Republican states still reject.

I didn't say that. And if you look at my history, it is almost always fairly even keel.

I don't trust Republicans at all. But that doesn't mean they can't be reasonable. Still, they go crazy about the debt and at the same time propose tax cuts that help the wealthy. Ever since Ronald Reagan proposed that we cut taxes, increase military spending and at the same time reduce the deficit. Something his running mate described as "voodoo economics." Of course H.W. Bush was right. The debt ballooned. Republicans only care about the debt when it means actually helping people. For decades I heard Republicans cry about the National Debt and the negative effects. But for three years Clinton balanced the budget and was on pace to eliminate the National Debt by 2025. What did George W Bush do when he took over? He cut taxes and increased military expenses and ushered in the biggest financial crisis since The Great Depression.

Sorry if I implied you don't discuss things in good faith. We probably don't see eye to eye on everything but I enjoy your perspective. I don't think either party really wants to tackle the debt situation. But they both approach it in different ways. To be charitable, Republicans want to lower the burden of surplus earners, Democrats want to supplement the burden of deficit earners. While I don't agree with the idea of trickle down, I do think there is a difference in letting people keep more of the money they earn and giving money to those that didn't earn enough.

That's not price control, it's about bargaining. The fact is the American food system is systematically doing all it can to be monopolistic and not competitive. Mars, for example, is doing a massive merger to profit from domination of the market.

America knew over a century so that monopolies and cartels destroy competition. Being aware of this fact does not make one a communist.

Mars is a candy company. I can see the complaints about meat manufacturers but I need to see some data on where people are coming from exactly. I've already referenced Kroger operating profit but since Tyson has been brought up I wanted to see their numbers. They have a negative profit margin -1.28% this year. Their highest was 8.59% during the pandemic, up from around 6.5% in the preceding timeframe from 2016. If a 2% increase is price gouging I feel like the discussion is about nonsensical.

Hm. How were those numbers arrived at without any research?

That's something I'd like to know. Did they use Chat-GPT or something else?

It forces me to go back to original sources and do my own work on the subject.

On page 27, we have the $2000 CTC with a cost of 33.665 billion dollars in 2020. And we have the $3000 CTC with a cost of 115.869 billion dollars in 2021. So at best, the expanded program will cost 82.204 billion dollars per year.

Not that I blindly trust but the estimate is in line with others I've seen. Wartons. Tax Foundation. Joint Committee on Taxation Are you taking into account the expanded eligibility and refundable aspects? I'd assume there are specifics that make back of an envelope calculations less accurate.

 

[Brainster]

Okay, now what if you're living paycheck to paycheck and need to drive to and from work?

If you were running on fumes you'd be out of luck like I was; not able to go to work because you couldn't wait in line to hope to get a couple of gallons, when the risk is you run out of gas just as the station does.

 

[Brainster]

That's not price control, it's about bargaining. The fact is the American food system is systematically doing all it can to be monopolistic and not competitive. Mars, for example, is doing a massive merger to profit from domination of the market.

So now we've got to worry about Big Candy?

 

[acbytesla]

Food is not unaffordable. Spending habits have changed. People eat out to much and purchases too much junk. Check out food at home price changes and you will see my point in the categories. Transportation in regards to vehicle purchases has all but cratered to no growth year over year. I haven't really delved into medical expenses but that leads me to something.

Food is unaffordable. But the trend towards eating out and eating processed food started in the 1950s. So let's not pretend it is some kind of new phenomenon. And I don't do much of either. I taught myself how to cook and garden. (Thank you internet) Both of which make a pretty good dent into how much I spend on groceries. I trade tomatoes etc with my neighbor for eggs and jam they make from my fruit trees. But it's not just the processed junk that has gone up in price, fresh produce can be ridiculously expensive. especially when it's off season. Then it's a choice between grotesquely overpriced produce that is so so or overpriced process crap.

Sorry if I implied you don't discuss things in good faith. We probably don't see eye to eye on everything but I enjoy your perspective. I don't think either party really wants to tackle the debt situation. But they both approach it in different ways. To be charitable, Republicans want to lower the burden of surplus earners, Democrats want to supplement the burden of deficit earners.

Yeah, that is being charitable.

While I don't agree with the idea of trickle down, I do think there is a difference in letting people keep more of the money they earn and giving money to those that didn't earn enough.

I would rather not tax the rich more. I would much rather the rest of society did better. Not just the middle class, but America's poor and elderly. What has been a continuing reality is that workers have grown more and more obsolete and making less because of huge leaps in productivity. Yet the benefit gains from that productivity goes to fewer and fewer people. This idea that it is better to let the rich keep all the resources and sacrifice the rest of the world is not good. Not even for the rich. (At least in the long term) They're just inviting a revolution.

One of the first things they teach in Economics is that it is the study of the allocation of resources. It is the study of choices. Where we invest our resources. And the effects of those choices have on the future. This massive imbalance of wealth and income has led to boutique industries that cater to the wealthy to do well. But it has also led to the death of industries that marketed itself to the masses.

Maybe you have forgotten K Mart, Sears and JC Penny.

Let me give you some examples. Baseball and Football stadiums today are smaller than they use to be and much of those stadiums is dedicated to luxury suites. I use to buy season tickets to the Seahawks and probably see 10 to 15 Ms games each year. Now I do neither. I simply cannot afford them any more. The days of Joe Six Pack at a sporting event is ancient history.

I mentioned the exorbitant cost of a new car today. What difference does it make if sales have cratered if they're not selling affordable cars to the masses? Where is today's Model A or T that was sold to the masses or the cheap Ford Pinto or Mustang? They made crappy cars back then. But at least they were affordable.

More and more companies are chasing the wealthy's dollars. High dollar, high profit sales are more attractive than high volume lower profit sales.
I would love to buy a new truck. But the prices for them are insane. I don't need a luxury truck. I would be thrilled to buy a stripped down new truck. But they don't make those any more. I know, because I have looked high and low for one.

My neighbor bought a new truck a couple of years ago. No kidding, it was 6 figures.

If income and wealth was greater dispersed in the US. Industries would manufacture for the middle class and the poor could afford to buy it used.

Then there has been the rise of the investor class and the demise of anyone without the resources to be a part of it.

There is no excuse that Fortune 500 CEO today make on average 200 times what their employees earn. In the 1950s, it was a tenth of that. There is no excuse that corporate executives buy and fly private jets or buy super yachts.

There is no excuse that a country as rich as the United States has even a fraction the number of homeless people we have. There is no excuse that we have ignored our infrastructure for the last five decades.

Letting the rich keep more of their income when we view the results holistically is the definition of insanity. IMV, there is only one reasonable choice. Either corporations sigificantly increase the incomes of their employees or government supplements incomes by taxing the rich significantly more. Neither of which are acceptable to most of the wealthy and the GOP

When it comes to addressing housing costs, I would start with nationwide changes in zoning. We cannot make affordable housing in our metropolitan cities with the restrictive zoning laws that don't allow for higher residential density. There are too many NIMBY laws.

Most politicians ignore how much this plays into unaffordable housing. Or they understand it well enough to know that creating affordable housing threatens the value of people's homes/nest egg.

.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If you want to boost the Economy, that's incredibly simple to do.
We have known how since forever.

It is, and has always been: put the Money where it will lead to the biggest increase in Consumer Spending.

the Billionaires have doubled their wealth in recent years, but, wonder oh wonder, they have not doubled their consumption. Shockingly, they are spending far, far, far less per wealth than anyone not a multi-millionaire. Not redistributing wealth has drained the economy of spending power - obviously.

Whereas it is a undisputable fact that giving the people with lowest or no income money instantly leads to them spending it in ways that will lead to wealth and/or skill accumulation as well as productivity: if you don't have to spend most of your time thinking about surviving the month, you can plan and invest in your future and that of your kids. And you don't have to spend half your money on pay-day loan interests.

Demand Side Economics is a thing, as everyone knows, but for some reason everyone pretends it isn't.

 

[acbytesla]

If you want to boost the Economy, that's incredibly simple to do.
We have known how since forever.

It is, and has always been: put the Money where it will lead to the biggest increase in Consumer Spending.

the Billionaires have doubled their wealth in recent years, but, wonder oh wonder, they have not doubled their consumption. Shockingly, they are spending far, far, far less per wealth than anyone not a multi-millionaire. Not redistributing wealth has drained the economy of spending power - obviously.

Whereas it is a undisputable fact that giving the people with lowest or no income money instantly leads to them spending it in ways that will lead to wealth and/or skill accumulation as well as productivity: if you don't have to spend most of your time thinking about surviving the month, you can plan and invest in your future and that of your kids. And you don't have to spend half your money on pay-day loan interests.

Demand Side Economics is a thing, as everyone knows, but for some reason everyone pretends it isn't.

Yep. Right on.

Ever since the GOP put everything behind supply side, I mean voodoo economics, the result gas been an erosion of the great American middle class and a massive expansion of the poor and the homeless.

 

[Darat]

Except there are laws against that. Specifically in the US Constitution. You can't deprive people of their property without due process.

Sorry but it's now been shown been shown beyond the slightest doubt that the magic of the USA constitution never existed.

 

[Darat]

Brainsters story demonstrates exactly what he thinks it is.

Keeping prices artificially low meant folks bought more than they needed because were worried about shortages. Let prices rise, folks buy only what they need and suppliers are encouraged to provide more supply. They might ship it from a refinery that is farther away and not worth shipping from at lower prices for instance. The classic example is anything in a hurricane. You let folks' gouge and some guy three states away is going to think, I can make some money and start driving with a truck load of water. Don't let the prices rise and there will be no additional supply and no reduction in demand. Demand will probably go up in most cases.

And those who needed it and wouldn't have been able to afford the increased pricing?

 

[Darat]

If you want to ration a good, ration it. Don't screw with the prices in the hopes that "the market" will somehow distribute it fairly.

This.

 

[Darat]

Irony is a great deal of how the economy performs is really beyond the power of the POTUS to control.
As a result, the POTUS gets the blame for things they could not have fixed.
But also they get credit for things they had little do wo with in the economy.
But that is fact of life: If you are POTUS you get both blame and credit when you really don't deserve it. I don't see that changing.

This.

 

[Darat]

It is not possible that companies raise prices and increase profits in a Free Market - this combination can only occur if there is a monopoly or cartel at work.

Hush you, the free market is magic.. One of the best cons ever is making people believe there is a free market

 

[Darat]

It is totally justified because it signals what the gas is actually worth and encourages more supply. You clearly haven't taken basic economics or forgot the most basic part of economics that almost every economist agrees on. Supply demand curves. In a shortage, the stations aren't anymore limited in distribution than they were before, they are limited in supply. High prices encourage more supply.

Doesn't need to be transparent and even elasticity is fungible, but you are correct there needs to be a functional market.

Sticking with gas prices, price goes up. People still need to get from one place to another so you'd think that's inelastic, it is in some places but in others bikes and public transit exist. Even in a place where folks don't have that option the high price is an important signal and incentive. If it isn't allowed to go up there will be no conservation, if it does there will be. If it doesn't go up there is no incentive to increase supply or supply from otherwise unprofitable sources. If prices go up, there is. Honestly, ask almost anyone, would you rather pay a confiscatory price for gas or not have the option to buy gas? Economics and reality are about trade offs, you can't have all good things, you can have some but not others.

Economics as a science hasn't even got to the stage of spherical cows in a vacuum...

Milk production at a dairy farm was low, so the farmer wrote to the local university, asking for help from academia. A multidisciplinary team of professors was assembled, headed by a theoretical physicist, and two weeks of intensive on-site investigation took place. The scholars then returned to the university, notebooks crammed with data, where the task of writing the report was left to the team leader. Shortly thereafter the physicist returned to the farm, saying to the farmer, "I have the solution, but it works only in the case of spherical cows in a vacuum."​

 

[Donal]

It is totally justified because it signals what the gas is actually worth and encourages more supply. You clearly haven't taken basic economics or forgot the most basic part of economics that almost every economist agrees on. Supply demand curves. In a shortage, the stations aren't anymore limited in distribution than they were before, they are limited in supply. High prices encourage more supply.

Perhaps you should learn more than "basic" economics. Those intro courses are really just about giving out definitions and starter concepts. No one who completes one is all that knowledgble in real world economics. Its why I hate when politicians talk about "Economics 101".

Doesn't need to be transparent and even elasticity is fungible, but you are correct there needs to be a functional market.

There absolutey needs to be transparency. Especially when these companies get patent protections and subsidies.

Sticking with gas prices, price goes up. People still need to get from one place to another so you'd think that's inelastic, it is in some places but in others bikes and public transit exist. Even in a place where folks don't have that option the high price is an important signal and incentive. If it isn't allowed to go up there will be no conservation, if it does there will be. If it doesn't go up there is no incentive to increase supply or supply from otherwise unprofitable sources. If prices go up, there is. Honestly, ask almost anyone, would you rather pay a confiscatory price for gas or not have the option to buy gas? Economics and reality are about trade offs, you can't have all good things, you can have some but not others.

All this does is argue for lowering the demand for gas.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Transparent pricing. If "The Free Market" is king then there should be no issues with making a law where if I buy a product I can easily find out how much went to manufacturing, distribution, marketing, R&D, and how much went into corporate executive salaries.

 

[Darat]

Transparent pricing. If "The Free Market" is king then there should be no issues with making a law where if I buy a product I can easily find out how much went to manufacturing, distribution, marketing, R&D, and how much went into corporate executive salaries.

Hang on a mo' - who said the billionaires want captitalism.....

 

[acbytesla]

Sorry but it's now been shown been shown beyond the slightest doubt that the magic of the USA constitution never existed.

What magic? I never implied the Constitution was remotely magical. Still, it is the supreme law of the land. The only magic I see is how SCOTUS employs slight of hand and misdirection when they interpret it.