Wal-Mart the ugly...handing out raises FDX next?

[bacha29]

Take your pick.



Take your pick.

Why should I believe Bill Dudley instead of other similarly qualified folks who say otherwise?

Just who are the "other similarly qualified" individuals?

 

[59 Dano]

You told me to believe Bill. I didn't say whether I thought he was right or wrong, but asked why I should believe him. Still waiting on an answer, though I know why you've yet to give one

 

[Cactus]

You told me to believe Bill. I didn't say whether I thought he was right or wrong, but asked why I should believe him. Still waiting on an answer, though I know why you've yet to give one

That's on "a need to know basis" and obviously, you don't.

 

[bacha29]

You told me to believe Bill. I didn't say whether I thought he was right or wrong, but asked why I should believe him. Still waiting on an answer, though I know why you've yet to give one

Nowhere in my comments did I tell you BELIEVE what Dudley said. I simply pointed to his assessment as to what impact the tax cuts will have on the economy both in the short and longer term. Now given his position as president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank a position I'll never ascend to and a position you'll never ascend to makes his position his credentials and his analysis worthy of attention. Now YOU are the one who says that there are other similarly qualified individuals with opposing views regarding the matter. Ok that's nice, but just who are some of those people and what do they have to say?

 

[59 Dano]

Nowhere in my comments did I tell you BELIEVE what Dudley said. I simply pointed to his assessment as to what impact the tax cuts will have on the economy both in the short and longer term. Now given his position as president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank a position I'll never ascend to and a position you'll never ascend to makes his position his credentials and his analysis worthy of attention. Now YOU are the one who says that there are other similarly qualified individuals with opposing views regarding the matter. Ok that's nice, but just who are some of those people and what do they have to say?

The executives of multiple companies who are giving out raises because they see long/short term benefits in the tax cuts and what they'll do for the overall economy.

 

[bacha29]

The executives of multiple companies who are giving out raises because they see long/short term benefits in the tax cuts and what they'll do for the overall economy.

They milked it for all the PR they can get out of it in addition to simply following a pattern someone else started. At the same time what are leading economists and Fed board members saying about it? What's the CBO saying about it? These are people who have the good of the nation to think about. They're not just CEO's of a single company who only have the interest of it's shareholders to think about.

 

[vantexan]

They milked it for all the PR they can get out of it in addition to simply following a pattern someone else started. At the same time what are leading economists and Fed board members saying about it? What's the CBO saying about it? These are people who have the good of the nation to think about. They're not just CEO's of a single company who only have the interest of it's shareholders to think about.

Y'all really can't have it both ways. How many were saying the corporations were going to pocket that extra money for themselves? Corporations do have to think of stockholders, so they don't hand out raises and bonuses without good reason. And who is benefiting? Employees are. Doing it for PR? Doubtful, but if so when that dies down the employees are still getting better pay. Honestly there's just no satisfying you. If the economy is to succeed money has to be put into more hands, both corporations and individuals. You can't smother companies with costly regulations and high taxes and expect them to pay better. But put them in a position where they can keep more of what they make and good things start happening. Paying better is a good thing, right?

 

[59 Dano]

They milked it for all the PR they can get out of it in addition to simply following a pattern someone else started. At the same time what are leading economists and Fed board members saying about it? What's the CBO saying about it? These are people who have the good of the nation to think about. They're not just CEO's of a single company who only have the interest of it's shareholders to think about.

I'm telling you what the active participants who have a vested interest in the long-term growth of the economy think about it. You're obsessed with the opinions of people who have the interest of no one to think about because they pay no price for being wrong and don't stand to gain anything for being right.

If big greedy corporations are betting big on the future, there's probably a good reason.

 

[bacha29]

I'm telling you what the active participants who have a vested interest in the long-term growth of the economy think about it. You're obsessed with the opinions of people who have the interest of no one to think about because they pay no price for being wrong and don't stand to gain anything for being right.

If big greedy corporations are betting big on the future, there's probably a good reason.

That's what I'm getting at. The people who shape banking and economic policy have no personal agenda no quarterly EPS to worry about no stock options to protect . As a result they can provide unbiased assessments of how markets may perform going forward . They reason why is simple......conflict of interest. Granted you do have people such as Ross and Mnuchin who are barely legal from a conflict of interest standpoint but until enough evidence of a conflict of interest can be collected we'll have to live with these Trump nominations . In the meantime I wouldn't consider a one time $1000 bonus to be a reliable indicator of future economic growth.

 

[floridays]

Nowhere in my comments did I tell you BELIEVE what Dudley said. I simply pointed to his assessment as to what impact the tax cuts will have on the economy both in the short and longer term.

I'm an economic illiterate, please tell me what the following means in layman's terms, and how and why he takes this position.

Despite his longer-term pessimism, Dudley raised his outlook for 2018 GDP growth from 2.5 percent to 2.75 percent. He also expressed confidence that inflation will continue to tick up until it meets the Fed's 2 percent goal for healthy growth.

For the long term, he warned not only of the costs the tax cuts will impose on the deficit but also damage down to high-end housing by elimination of state and local property tax deductions.

 

[59 Dano]

That's what I'm getting at. The people who shape banking and economic policy have no personal agenda no quarterly EPS to worry about no stock options to protect . As a result they can provide unbiased assessments of how markets may perform going forward .

I'm supposed to trust someone who has nothing to gain from being right and nothing to lose from being wrong as opposed to someone who puts his money where his mouth is?

 

[floridays]

I'm supposed to trust someone who has nothing to gain from being right and nothing to lose from being wrong as opposed to someone who puts his money where his mouth is?

That's right buddy,
I hope you can draw him out, I want him to explain my above question.

 

[59 Dano]

I'm an economic illiterate, please tell me what the following means in layman's terms, and how and why he takes this position.

Despite his longer-term pessimism, Dudley raised his outlook for 2018 GDP growth from 2.5 percent to 2.75 percent. He also expressed confidence that inflation will continue to tick up until it meets the Fed's 2 percent goal for healthy growth.

He sees economic growth arising from the tax cuts.

For the long term, he warned not only of the costs the tax cuts will impose on the deficit but also damage down to high-end housing by elimination of state and local property tax deductions.

He thinks tax cuts cause deficits (they don't). Some folks won't be able to deduct state and local taxes on their federal returns and that may deter them from buying more expensive homes.

 

[floridays]

He sees economic growth arising from the tax cuts.



He thinks tax cuts cause deficits (they don't). Some folks won't be able to deduct state and local taxes on their federal returns and that may deter them from buying more expensive homes.

I understand it, I want the Bacha answer, I'm curious if he is aware of how it was derived. I appreciate the input though.

 

[59 Dano]

I understand it, I want the Bacha answer

Why in the world would you want to subject yourself to that?

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

He thinks tax cuts cause deficits (they don't).

They do when Republicans and Democrats make the budget.

 

[floridays]

Why in the world would you want to subject yourself to that?

It doesn't hurt anymore when I hit myself with a hammer.

 

[59 Dano]

They do when Republicans and Democrats make the budget.

Never in the history of humanity has a tax cut caused a deficit.

 

[Fred's Myth]

"Deficits aren't an accident; they don't happen due to a sudden shortfall in revenue or a series of unexpected expenses. Increased government spending is what causes the deficit to grow, not tax rate cuts. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true. History shows us that reducing marginal tax rate leads to greater economic expansion and more tax revenue. Further proof of Leonhardt's (New York Times, David Leonhardt) faulty reasoning is provided by the fact that while there have been no tax cuts in the last 8 years, only tax increases, government debt grew by nearly 10 trillion dollars. Tax cuts did not produce the 10 trillion dollars of additional debt. Deficit spending plans were the culprit."
If Tax Cuts Cause "Deficits," How Does The Left Explain the Obama Years? | RealClearMarkets

 

[bacha29]

"Deficits aren't an accident; they don't happen due to a sudden shortfall in revenue or a series of unexpected expenses. Increased government spending is what causes the deficit to grow, not tax rate cuts. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true. History shows us that reducing marginal tax rate leads to greater economic expansion and more tax revenue. Further proof of Leonhardt's (New York Times, David Leonhardt) faulty reasoning is provided by the fact that while there have been no tax cuts in the last 8 years, only tax increases, government debt grew by nearly 10 trillion dollars. Tax cuts did not produce the 10 trillion dollars of additional debt. Deficit spending plans were the culprit."
If Tax Cuts Cause "Deficits," How Does The Left Explain the Obama Years? | RealClearMarkets

If you noticed Crippin fails to mention that Obama inherited Bush's recession the worst in 80 years. I wonder why? Would you care to explain? I trust that you guys have taken notice that while the standard deduction has been raised to $24,000 for married couples you will lose your personal exemptions. So where is the real benefit for the average person? Likewise Crippin makes no mention of the fact that the carried interest rule was not repealed. What do you have to say about that? Reps like you keep calling for cuts in spending. Ok, so where do you want to start? BTW the market shifted 400 points today. Is this just a one day matter or is the tax cut punch bowl starting to run dry?