TPS

It's almost as objective as this thread. here's another for you: https://outline.com/KLmAdB

https://newrepublic.com/article/153118/beginning-real-israel-debate-looks-like Something I mentioned in a post above, the debate that needs to take place is the outsized influence of the "The Lobby."

I guess I failed to get that from the OP....

The problems with Trump's tax policies: 1. While it is good to cut corporate taxes to be more competitive with other advanced countries, it does not do much for corporate investment spending. They did give corps the ability to fully expense some equipment last year, which helped in Q1, but most of the money has gone to buybacks. 2. What trickled down to the bottom 90% helped last year, and provided an extra spurt when consumers increased debt-financed spending, but, yes, that jolt is wearing off. Most predictions I've seen for this year suggest growth will be near 2% again. The one possible boost this year could come from Trade depending on how things turn out...

The most recent deficit data makes it clear the Trump economy has been juiced by the bigger deficits created by the tax cuts and spending increases. For the 2018 calendar year, which coincides with the tax cuts and some spending increases, the deficit is up 28%, from $680 billion to $872 billion. That $190 billion jolt, by my estimate, is equivalent to 1% of Nominal GDP. Revenues were down 0.4% and spending was up 4.4%. The first estimate of 2018 Real GDP growth will be published 2/28 and is expected to be in the 3-3.5% range. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-tax-revenue-declined-0-4-in-2018-11550084426 The Treasury's most recent monthly statement provides detailed data for the first quarter of the government's fiscal year, which begins on 10/1. From Oct to Dec, Total revenues are up by close to $12 billion, but personal and corporate tax revenues are down by $24 billion. Individual revenues are down from the previous year by $13 billion for the quarter despite more people working; and corporate revenues are down $11 billion. The areas that made up for the lower revenues from the tax cuts were SS (up about $18 billion--from more workers), and tariffs and excise taxes each added $8 billion. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts1218.pdf

Again, you can try to change my point all you want, but it remains: criticizing the policies of the current Israeli regime and/or the activities and influence of AIPAC is not antisemitism. Shall we revisit the Mearsheimer and Walt discussion?

The point that that should be clear is that criticizing AIPAC's influence on US politics or criticizing the policies of the current right-wing Israeli administration is NOT engaging in anti-semitism. She criticized policy and AIPAC's influence. Heck, AIPAC has pushed US pols to enact laws that make it a crime to support BDS. https://www.timesofisrael.com/rand-paul-becomes-first-gop-senator-to-oppose-anti-bds-bills/ You can start another thread if you'd like about progressives and their "crimes against Jewry"....

yep, say it’s about the money and you must be anti-Semitic...

The other thing some people don't realize about those crappy late round picks is they provide ammo for jumping other teams, which McBean have done quite a bit when a guy is there they really like (Edmunds, Jones, and Dawkins). For example in R3, the Bills have the 74th pick worth 220 points and the Pats are at 73. The Bills second R4 pick is worth 48 points (Draftek chart) which could put them at the top of R1 in a trade with AZ, jumping ahead of the Pats and the Jets in the process. Or, they could use their own R4 pick worth 84 points which would get them back into R2.

As stated, it's the first improvement in 6 months, as this year's will be larger than last year's deficit. That said, his strategy of taking on China is long term, so hopefully this marks that turning point. Despite the sniping from the cheap seats, i've stated several times I support his trade strategy.

ZZzzzz....wake me up when it's 2029.....

Yes, on 12/31/18, which will effect wage gains over the next 12 months. https://www.ny.gov/new-york-states-minimum-wage/new-york-states-minimum-wage

It depends on a few factors, like market competition for one. Firms with pricing power (concentrated markets) can pass costs along; firms in competitive markets can't. For those without market power, there's an incentive to mechanize--the essence of capitalism, tech change and rising productivity over time. Because of this, prices will rise less than the wage. It puts a floor on wages offered. The current min wage outside of NYC is $11.10.

You can’t even get your own quote right....?

4, 5, and 7 each have two picks They essentially found 5 starters in the last two years in Rounds 4 and higher: Taron Johnson in R4 last year Matt Milano in R5 2 years ago, and Teller last year in R5 They might have found two undrafted gems in Wallace and Foster last year, and both were starters. No one hits on all of their picks, but these guys are developing a pretty good track record in the draft.

What I stated: "maybe this (minimum wage hikes) explains part of it?" Not ALL, part. A Hike in the minimum wage filters up the chain and is one factor influencing all wages since more skilled workers will push for higher wages as a result. As I've also stated, Trump's deficit stimulus done when the economy is approaching the end of a cycle is a very important factor too. Both help workers in bargaining for better wages. That will be $75 please.

I wonder if this explains part of it....? Here are the states with new minimum wages, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank that tracks minimum wage legislation (the change over 2017): Alaska: $9.84, $.04 increase Arizona: $10.50, $.50 increase California: $11.00, $.50 increase Colorado: $10.20, $.90 increase Florida: $8.25, $.15 increase Hawaii: $10.10, $.85 increase Maine: $10.00, $1.00 increase Michigan: $9.25, $.35 increase Minnesota: $9.65, $.15 increase Missouri: $7.85, $.15 increase Montana: $8.30, $.15 increase New Jersey: $8.60, $.16 increase New York: $10.40, $.70 increase Ohio: $8.30, $.15 increase Rhode Island: $10.10, $.50 increase South Dakota: $8.85, $.20 increase Vermont: $10.50, $.50 increase Washington: $11.50, $.50 increase

Sort of. I've tried to describe MMT positions here, and that is their view. Deficits inject spending into the economy, so if you inject too much spending via deficits as labor becomes scarce (low unemployment levels), then that additional demand will put upward pressure on prices--higher inflation, NOT hyperinflation. They would argue you need to scale back deficits (either through reduced spending or higher taxes) to reduce that inflationary pressure. One more important point that a lot of people don't seem to understand--the nature of modern money. Money is no longer a commodity or backed by a commodity. When money was a metal, once it got put into circulation it tended to stay in circulation. Gold discoveries caused inflation. Most money is now made up of bank deposits. New money gets created when banks make loans, and gets destroyed when the public pays off more loans than are created in any given time period. Money isn't something created by the Fed and then stays in the economy. For the most part, The Fed only creates electronic reserves which are used by the banking system to meet the Fed's reserve requirements which is a (pretty weak) tool that helps the Fed restrain loan creation by the banking system. The Fed creates (destroys) reserves when it buys (sells) an asset. When the FED bought $1 trillion of bad mortgages, they did so by crediting BANK reserve accounts held on the Fed's balance sheet--they open up their spreadsheet and increase the value of bank reserves by the amount they "paid" for the assets. [If you want the balance sheet changes: The Fed now has $1 trillion in additional assets--the bad mortgages, "purchased" by increasing bank reserve accounts by the same value, and those are a liability on its balance sheet; the banks now have $1 trillion in reserves on their asset side offset by a decline in mortgage loans by same--it's a swap of assets for them] Btw, the amount of paper money in circulation is determined by us--how much do we want to carry around rather than leave in our demand deposit (debit and credit cards reduce the need for physical cash). In fact, The majority of the paper money in circulation is driven by illegal activity--drug cartels, the Mafia, CIA, etc.... The Fed's actions from 2008 to 2014 raised the level of bank reserves by over $2 trillion. Excess reserves give banks the ability to make more loans which is the only way this "money printing" by the Fed will have an impact on inflation--new loans create new money because they create new demand deposits. Hopefully you'll now see the connection between "money and inflation." Money (demand deposits) is created when banks make more loans to the private sector than are paid off, and if there is too much financed demand relative to the ability to produce more goods (this comes back to the level of unemployment), then it will tend to cause inflation. Too much private sector demand or too much government deficit spending when unemployment is very low can generate inflation--not hyperinflation, just good ol' inflation. If you think this explanation is "utopian," then maybe you should take a seat in row_33....

row is probably still mad at me because I borrowed Tom's patented line (I believe I did use quotes) in a response to him. He's yet to prove me wrong....

Only when you're near full employment. I've said this a few times, Trump's deficits are an interesting experiment from my perspective. Workers have been beaten down for the past 30-40 years, meaning they have lost bargaining power through outsourcing and monopsony power of large corporations. Trump creating a fiscal stimulus when unemployment was approaching 4% is one way to give workers bargaining power. The fiscal stimulus that pushed GDP growth over 3% last year is helping workers achieve higher wage growth. Of course, this is also what could set the Fed back on its course of raising interest rates. Interesting times for an economist...

If you don’t understand the difference between deficits in a recession vs deficits at the peak of a business cycle, you should take an economics course. You should know my position by now. I’m not criticizing his deficits. I’m saying they are the reason for faster growth in 2018.

The president isn't in control of the Fed. As I've said, Obama's economy was mediocre, and over his last 4 years, the economy's performance was no different than Trump's first year. If you want to try and compare the first 4 years of the worst crisis since the 1930s, that is not very objective... I have acknowledged that Trump's bigger deficits created by spending increases and tax cuts would juice the economy, and they have--I assume you saw my predictions a year ago? Now we'll see if there's any longer lasting effect in his next last two years which will be a better gauge on whether his policies can create sustained growth, though deficits will still have a significant impact since they are projected to hit $1 trillion by 2020.

I'll come back to the first part, but are you seriously saying Trump did not provide a "stimulus"?!? Are you going to tell us that bigger deficits don't stimulate economies?

My criticisms usually reflect the opposite issue--no recognition that the economy expanded for 7 years under BO, albeit at a mediocre rate. As I posted previously, average monthly employment growth in 2017 was actually below Obama's last 4 years. 2018 is a good year driven by the tax cuts and spending increases which have caused higher deficits--which is why I predicted 3-4% RGDP growth. We'll see how the economy fares over his 4-year term. Even though his tariffs are creating problems, I've also stated that I support this policy given China's track record. Good numbers today.

Yes, Tariffs are good for US manufacturing. It's a miracle. Some things are better and some are worse, but the fact is the economy is now almost 10 years into its expansion. In the end, his four years won't be much different than average, though Here's a piece suggesting Trump currently doesn't fare well compared to some of his predecessors. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-28/trump-economy-lags-clinton-s-obama-s-reagan-s-and-even-carter-s