WWTBAM Bored

The Falcons decided to try something crazy. They made their concession prices reasonable. Result: They made less money per sale, but they made a lot more sales and therefore made a bigger profit.

Extrapolating this lesson: Although I totally disagree with the way they did it, if the recent changes in the tax code actually reduced the percentage of our money the federal government takes from us, we will have more money to spend, per capita. That will increase economic activity, grow the economy and increase the total amount of revenue the federal government will take in. Of course, they will find a way to waste this increased revenue and still have to increase our debt, but that is what they believe their job is. I believe this is a much better alternative than taking more money from those who earned it and redistributing it to those who didn't.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/spor ... sions.html

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The Falcons decided to try something crazy. They made their concession prices reasonable. Result: They made less money per sale, but they made a lot more sales and therefore made a bigger profit.

Extrapolating this lesson: Although I totally disagree with the way they did it, if the recent changes in the tax code actually reduced the percentage of our money the federal government takes from us, we will have more money to spend, per capita. That will increase economic activity, grow the economy and increase the total amount of revenue the federal government will take in. Of course, they will find a way to waste this increased revenue and still have to increase our debt, but that is what they believe their job is. I believe this is a much better alternative than taking more money from those who earned it and redistributing it to those who didn't.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/spor ... sions.html

If course I’m glad the Falcons made their prices more reasonable. On the national scale, this is the unfortunately named Laffer curve. The Reagan administration made the same prediction and it never happened.

Liberal economists like Krugman say income redistribution actually spurs the economy because the poor spend more of their income than the rich. But since you oppose redistribution on principle, it doesn’t matter to you if Krugman’s right or not.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: we will have more money to spend, per capita. That will increase economic activity, grow the economy and increase the total amount of revenue the federal government will take in.

Unfortunately, your theory has never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, worked. The only time that tax cuts were accompanied by boosts in economic activity were the Kennedy tax cuts and the Reagan tax cuts (which were largely rolled back a few years later). And, in both cases, what really boosted the economy wasn't the tax cut but the massive increases in defense spending for Vietnam and Reagan's Cold War policies.

But, Republican economists are like those alchemists trying to turn lead into gold. Just give them more time and it just might work and wouldn't that be wonderful.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Extrapolating this lesson: Although I totally disagree with the way they did it, if the recent changes in the tax code actually reduced the percentage of our money the federal government takes from us, we will have more money to spend, per capita. That will increase economic activity, grow the economy and increase the total amount of revenue the federal government will take in.

That wouldn't be true in my case. I already spend as much as I feel like spending. For me, any extra money sits in a mutual fund somewhere waiting more than a decade until I'm ready to retire. That doesn't contribute to economic activity. It merely increases asset prices. --Bob

This story is getting a lot of play in Atlanta. There are still plenty of expensive items on the menu at MB Stadium. But if you can get a hot dog for $2, it helps erode the chip on your shoulder if otherwise faced with exorbitant prices. I wouldn't say "loss leader" because they're still making money, even on $2 hot dogs.

The appropriate graphical representation would be: x-axis = the price of a beer and the y-axis = total dollars spent on food concessions. There's a sweet spot in there to maximize profit.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The Falcons decided to try something crazy. They made their concession prices reasonable. Result: They made less money per sale, but they made a lot more sales and therefore made a bigger profit.

Extrapolating this lesson: Although I totally disagree with the way they did it, if the recent changes in the tax code actually reduced the percentage of our money the federal government takes from us, we will have more money to spend, per capita. That will increase economic activity, grow the economy and increase the total amount of revenue the federal government will take in. Of course, they will find a way to waste this increased revenue and still have to increase our debt, but that is what they believe their job is. I believe this is a much better alternative than taking more money from those who earned it and redistributing it to those who didn't.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/spor ... sions.html

The article does not suggest that they made a "bigger profit." I would be willing to bet that they did not.

You might want to check with Davis Stockman about the nonsensical "extrapolating."

jarnon wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The Falcons decided to try something crazy. They made their concession prices reasonable. Result: They made less money per sale, but they made a lot more sales and therefore made a bigger profit.

Extrapolating this lesson: Although I totally disagree with the way they did it, if the recent changes in the tax code actually reduced the percentage of our money the federal government takes from us, we will have more money to spend, per capita. That will increase economic activity, grow the economy and increase the total amount of revenue the federal government will take in. Of course, they will find a way to waste this increased revenue and still have to increase our debt, but that is what they believe their job is. I believe this is a much better alternative than taking more money from those who earned it and redistributing it to those who didn't.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/spor ... sions.html

If course I’m glad the Falcons made their prices more reasonable. On the national scale, this is the unfortunately named Laffer curve. The Reagan administration made the same prediction and it never happened.

Liberal economists like Krugman say income redistribution actually spurs the economy because the poor spend more of their income than the rich. But since you oppose redistribution on principle, it doesn’t matter to you if Krugman’s right or not.

Krugman loudly predicted the economy would tank with trump in charge. He had to pull back on that one. Krugman is just another liberal loudmouth with an economics degree.
Gutfeld is an answer to Bill Maher, except he actually knows what he's talking about, and is not vulgar.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/ ... trump.html

I believe that Reagan's use of the Laffer curve produced the longest peacetime expansion of the economy ever.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I believe that Reagan's use of the Laffer curve produced the longest peacetime expansion of the economy ever.

You probably also believe that magicians make people disappear and then reappear. It wasn't the Laughable curve (which George Bush Sr. labeled "voodoo economics") that helped expand the economy but massive military spending increases. Now you can argue about whether it was necessary or worth it in terms of foreign policy, but there's no question that pumping that many dollars (and increasing the deficit accordingly) into the economy helps. And, while a company that gets a big tax cut can simply buy back stock or increase dividends, a company that gets a major defense contract has to hire people to do the work and buy materials to build the equipment. That's what Democrats and liberals have always advocated to boost the economy, and Reagan was able to pass it off with conservatives by saying he was fighting the Soviet Union. He and Tip O'Neill got along well because they would trade off ... money for defense spending here, money on social programs there (unlike our current "dealmaker" in the White House, Reagan was easy to get along with and actually knew the art of deal making).

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te ... story.html

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

jarnon wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The Falcons decided to try something crazy. They made their concession prices reasonable. Result: They made less money per sale, but they made a lot more sales and therefore made a bigger profit.

Extrapolating this lesson: Although I totally disagree with the way they did it, if the recent changes in the tax code actually reduced the percentage of our money the federal government takes from us, we will have more money to spend, per capita. That will increase economic activity, grow the economy and increase the total amount of revenue the federal government will take in. Of course, they will find a way to waste this increased revenue and still have to increase our debt, but that is what they believe their job is. I believe this is a much better alternative than taking more money from those who earned it and redistributing it to those who didn't.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/spor ... sions.html

If course I’m glad the Falcons made their prices more reasonable. On the national scale, this is the unfortunately named Laffer curve. The Reagan administration made the same prediction and it never happened.

Liberal economists like Krugman say income redistribution actually spurs the economy because the poor spend more of their income than the rich. But since you oppose redistribution on principle, it doesn’t matter to you if Krugman’s right or not.

Krugman loudly predicted the economy would tank with trump in charge. He had to pull back on that one. Krugman is just another liberal loudmouth with an economics degree.
Gutfeld is an answer to Bill Maher, except he actually knows what he's talking about, and is not vulgar.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/ ... trump.html

I believe that Reagan's use of the Laffer curve produced the longest peacetime expansion of the economy ever.

Actually, Krugman didn't make that prediction. It's notable that the piece you linked doesn't include any links to Krugman actually writing any of the things attributed to him. And in any event, he didn't have any actual economic policy to work with.

Now he does. And Krugman's economic analysis of that bill that got signed, contrary to his political preferences, was that it probably wouldn't hurt the economy as a whole. It wouldn't help and it will certainly contribute to income inequality (as well as the deficit), but he wasn't expecting a slump to result from the bill. That was in one of his columns sometime in December. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

jarnon wrote:If course I’m glad the Falcons made their prices more reasonable. On the national scale, this is the unfortunately named Laffer curve. The Reagan administration made the same prediction and it never happened.

Liberal economists like Krugman say income redistribution actually spurs the economy because the poor spend more of their income than the rich. But since you oppose redistribution on principle, it doesn’t matter to you if Krugman’s right or not.

Krugman loudly predicted the economy would tank with trump in charge. He had to pull back on that one. Krugman is just another liberal loudmouth with an economics degree.
Gutfeld is an answer to Bill Maher, except he actually knows what he's talking about, and is not vulgar.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/ ... trump.html

I believe that Reagan's use of the Laffer curve produced the longest peacetime expansion of the economy ever.

Actually, Krugman didn't make that prediction. It's notable that the piece you linked doesn't include any links to Krugman actually writing any of the things attributed to him. And in any event, he didn't have any actual economic policy to work with.

Now he does. And Krugman's economic analysis of that bill that got signed, contrary to his political preferences, was that it probably wouldn't hurt the economy as a whole. It wouldn't help and it will certainly contribute to income inequality (as well as the deficit), but he wasn't expecting a slump to result from the bill. That was in one of his columns sometime in December. --Bob

He's a liberal first, then a liberal.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/pro ... night-2016

It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?

Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.

Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.

Bob78164 wrote: it probably wouldn't hurt the economy as a whole. It wouldn't help and it will certainly contribute to income inequality (as well as the deficit), but he wasn't expecting a slump to result from the bill.

And those who got suckered into the "Make America Great Again" rhetoric probably didn't want a tax bill that contributes to income inequality and doesn't help the economy as a whole. These probably include a number of the ex-Walmart and ex-Kimberly Clark employees who will have to wait a good bit longer to see their personal situations get great, or even back to where they were under Obama.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I believe that Reagan's use of the Laffer curve produced the longest peacetime expansion of the economy ever.

You probably also believe that magicians make people disappear and then reappear. It wasn't the Laughable curve (which George Bush Sr. labeled "voodoo economics") that helped expand the economy but massive military spending increases. Now you can argue about whether it was necessary or worth it in terms of foreign policy, but there's no question that pumping that many dollars (and increasing the deficit accordingly) into the economy helps. And, while a company that gets a big tax cut can simply buy back stock or increase dividends, a company that gets a major defense contract has to hire people to do the work and buy materials to build the equipment. That's what Democrats and liberals have always advocated to boost the economy, and Reagan was able to pass it off with conservatives by saying he was fighting the Soviet Union. He and Tip O'Neill got along well because they would trade off ... money for defense spending here, money on social programs there (unlike our current "dealmaker" in the White House, Reagan was easy to get along with and actually knew the art of deal making).

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te ... story.html

OK, his policies created the greatest peacetime economic expansion AND he won the Cold War. Thanks for pointing that out. I remember it well. Everyone I knew worked for some defense contractor. Which one did you work for, SSS? If he only could have gotten Congress to stop spending.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: it probably wouldn't hurt the economy as a whole. It wouldn't help and it will certainly contribute to income inequality (as well as the deficit), but he wasn't expecting a slump to result from the bill.

And those who got suckered into the "Make America Great Again" rhetoric probably didn't want a tax bill that contributes to income inequality and doesn't help the economy as a whole. These probably include a number of the ex-Walmart and ex-Kimberly Clark employees who will have to wait a good bit longer to see their personal situations get great, or even back to where they were under Obama.

It seems to me that it's you that have been suckered into the 'let's hate trump and everything we can attach to him' rhetoric. Pretty gloomy place to be. You've got to look for black clouds everywhere.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: You've got to look for black clouds everywhere.

With Trump, they're darned easy to find unless you spend all your time on Fox and Friends.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: OK, his policies created the greatest peacetime economic expansion AND he won the Cold War. Thanks for pointing that out. I remember it well. Everyone I knew worked for some defense contractor. Which one did you work for, SSS? If he only could have gotten Congress to stop spending.

And what policies were those?

Spend money like crazy on every bit of military hardware imaginable. The operative word here is "spend."

Reagan combined Republican rhetoric with Democratic economic policies and then got suckers like you to blame the Democrats for the ballooning deficits his policies caused.

I really hope you've got a good spam filter on your computer because if any of those Nigerian oil minister e-mails get through to you, your retirement is going to get shot all to hell in the time it takes to reply to one single e-mail.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Krugman loudly predicted the economy would tank with trump in charge. He had to pull back on that one. Krugman is just another liberal loudmouth with an economics degree.
Gutfeld is an answer to Bill Maher, except he actually knows what he's talking about, and is not vulgar.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/ ... trump.html

I believe that Reagan's use of the Laffer curve produced the longest peacetime expansion of the economy ever.

Actually, Krugman didn't make that prediction. It's notable that the piece you linked doesn't include any links to Krugman actually writing any of the things attributed to him. And in any event, he didn't have any actual economic policy to work with.

Now he does. And Krugman's economic analysis of that bill that got signed, contrary to his political preferences, was that it probably wouldn't hurt the economy as a whole. It wouldn't help and it will certainly contribute to income inequality (as well as the deficit), but he wasn't expecting a slump to result from the bill. That was in one of his columns sometime in December. --Bob

He's a liberal first, then a liberal.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/pro ... night-2016

It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?

Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.

Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.

How does a rising stock market help the average worker who doesn't have a 401(k)?