First Native American POTUS?

[Leonhard]

here is an article from 2016 talking about the "new normal" and poo-pooing Trumps claim to beat 4%

If you selectively pick the right financial quarter, Trump beat 4% growth rate.

If you don't and look at what the average growth rate is (which all that matters). Then the average growth rate so far is around 2.9% (as the most optimistic source I can find). This is still more than the average of 2% during Obama, who was a president just as the Great Recession occured. You have to zoom in one quarter period of Trump's presidency to get that 4% spike and I think even Obama got over 4% during one of the months as well.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...-growth-annual

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...=us&start=2006


Edit: Forgot to say thanks for the link. Just doesn't look like it was pushed that much to me. Seems more like conservative commentators were throwing around the term.

[Sparko]

I don't think they should pay you three times as much. But a complete wage stagnation seems strange to me. I don't mind inequality, but it does seem that the lowest rungs on the hierarchy are paying for it.



Actually they are, but the money is flowing upwards. The workers are making the companies more money, but the money isn't being paid back to them. It goes elsewhere.



I'm not against increased productivity, but the situation between the US and Denmark isn't comparable. You follow a quasi-free market economics, but in a society without social welfare (at least not as tightly knitted as it is in Denmark). Companies in the US have to pay more income taxes than danish companies, and they need to provide welfare as benefits to workers. In Denmark a company doens't have to provide health insurance, as that's paid for via taxes. We also don't have a legal definition of minimum pay. We just have aggressive collective bargaining on behalf of workers, where as you guys seem to want to make workers bargaining collectively legally difficult. Politically our countries are also very different. You have a two-party system, winner takes all, republic, situation. And we have a democracy where as many parties you want earn mandates based on public votes, and whichever cause earns the highest number of mandates gets pushed through, which causes the parties to create various alliances and compromises.

The budgets of the danish government are very stable. Its estimated that little more than 1% of the budget is moved around per year. In comparison to the US where I see you guys having a president who raises federal taxes to 75%, and the next one lowering them 30%.

Not saying Denmark is superior either. You guys indisputably have the biggest industry on the planet. Just saying that I was before quick to make comparisons and now its very difficult.

As for more "money" being generated from productivity. You're right Sparko. But I'm looking at what's happening to it. Apple, infamously, is just sitting on their money mostly. They've amased 173 billion dollars, most of which they've avoided paying taxes on. Microsoft and other huge companies I've followed have gotten away with similar tax scams. And it seems in general its hard for the bigger companies to invest them.

The money the money they get from tax cuts doesn't seem to go anywhere in the large scheme of things.

I have no problem with making more billionaires. Because the more billionaires we have, the more companies we have and the more jobs we have. We have a lot more rich people in the country now than we had in the 70s. True. And it is probably due to higher production and profits, true. But Leonhard, that is the basis of capitalism, you can start a business and make as much money as you can and it's all great. Become rich and retire, or rich and philanthropic, or rich and good, or rich and bad, it's all up to YOU as the individual and your skill set. Individual ownership is the cornerstone of our society. Is it fair for everyone? No. But that's OK because our society is better for everyone than the societies that socialism and communism produce. They claim they want everyone to be equal but what they really want is everyone to be the same. So the only way to do that is to make everyone the same and equal at the lowest common denominator, and everyone is poor.

But in a free market society you will end up with a few rich people, more middle class, and some poor people. Hopefully the well off will take care of the poor, but the real benefit is that the society as a whole progresses and is better than any alternative. IF there is nothing to strive for or gain, there will be no progress. The rich end of the spectrum is there as a goal to work towards. some make it, others don't. Most if us end up in the middle, living fairly comfortable lives with all of our needs met and all the luxuries we want and can afford.

Life is good.

[Sparko]

If you selectively pick the right financial quarter, Trump beat 4% growth rate.

If you don't and look at what the average growth rate is (which all that matters). Then the average growth rate so far is around 2.9% (as the most optimistic source I can find). This is still more than the average of 2% during Obama, who was a president just as the Great Recession occured. You have to zoom in one quarter period of Trump's presidency to get that 4% spike and I think even Obama got over 4% during one of the months as well.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...-growth-annual

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...=us&start=2006


Edit: Forgot to say thanks for the link. Just doesn't look like it was pushed that much to me. Seems more like conservative commentators were throwing around the term.

found this too:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110705223.html

[rogue06]

If you selectively pick the right financial quarter, Trump beat 4% growth rate.

If you don't and look at what the average growth rate is (which all that matters). Then the average growth rate so far is around 2.9% (as the most optimistic source I can find). This is still more than the average of 2% during Obama, who was a president just as the Great Recession occured. You have to zoom in one quarter period of Trump's presidency to get that 4% spike and I think even Obama got over 4% during one of the months as well.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...-growth-annual

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...=us&start=2006


Edit: Forgot to say thanks for the link. Just doesn't look like it was pushed that much to me. Seems more like conservative commentators were throwing around the term.

I've seen Obama's numbers for average GDP being as high as 2% and as low as under 1.5% with most placing them closer to the latter than the former. Moreover, Trump has not even been in office two years and the GDP has been trending upwards under him (with most forecasts I've seen putting this quarter at or slightly better than 4% again). Considering the positive jolt the economy has seen since the announcement of the new trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, along with the much less publicized announcement that China has agreed to significantly reduce tariffs on U.S. goods, another 4% quarter would not be surprising at all.

[Leonhard]

I have no problem with making more billionaires. Because the more billionaires we have, the more companies we have and the more jobs we have.

I don't think trickle-down economics works. It seems more like the richer getting richer, and exploiting labor because they can. Companies are ruthless, and pays will be squashed as far down as possible, unless the workers are allowed to unionize and bargain collective. Something, ironically, Republicans want to prevent using the government.

I support a welfare system. A comprehensive one. Cradle to grave. Sick or old. Anyone should be able to have a roof over their head, access to education, to libraries (an inherently anti-capitalist idea btw), to medicine and to retirement. Doesn't have to be a lap of luxury, but it should be more than homelessness. Denmark has been able to give the citizens of Denmark just that. And while I don't think the same system can be implemented in the US, I think it would be a good for them to do something similar.

Which I believe the US will do eventually.

We have a lot more rich people in the country now than we had in the 70s. True.

The majority of the wealth, is owned by a minority of the people. It doesn't seem properly balanced.

But Leonhard, that is the basis of capitalism, you can start a business and make as much money as you can and it's all great. Become rich and retire, or rich and philanthropic, or rich and good, or rich and bad, it's all up to YOU ... But that's OK because our society is better for everyone than the societies that socialism and communism produce.

Denmark has comprehensive welfare and collective bargaining, and according to several discussion on tweb, you guys believe Denmark is capitalistic. Our economy is growing, we're better educated, more danish people are part of the work force than is comparable in your own country, etc...

I have to honest, if welfare is so dangerous, Denmark should have collapsed generations ago. We've had this system since the thirties, when prime minister Stauning saved Denmark from pretty much becoming outright Communism, since the workers who had been defrauded of their wages for years had gotten fed up with it.

They claim they want everyone to be equal but what they really want is everyone to be the same. So the only way to do that is to make everyone the same and equal at the lowest common denominator, and everyone is poor.

You do realize that there are other options between Ayn Rand or Stalin, right? I dislike both.

But in a free market society you will end up with a few rich people, more middle class, and some poor people. Hopefully the well off will take care of the poor, but the real benefit is that the society as a whole progresses and is better than any alternative. IF there is nothing to strive for or gain, there will be no progress. The rich end of the spectrum is there as a goal to work towards. some make it, others don't. Most if us end up in the middle, living fairly comfortable lives with all of our needs met and all the luxuries we want and can afford.

Life is good.

Life is good. This century is a better century than any other century ever before.

[Leonhard]

I've seen Obama's numbers for average GDP being as high as 2% and as low as under 1.5% with most placing them closer to the latter than the former.

I took the upper range estimates for either. If I had to take the lower level estimates for Trump you get 2.3%.

Better than Obama, but its only 4% if you cherry pick the data.

(with most forecasts I've seen putting this quarter at or slightly better than 4% again).

With emphasis on 'this quarter', you do realise that the next quarter is like 0% or negative. As it is most years as the market goes through a cycle. Its a bit like saying that there's an explosive temperature increase under Trump, if you measure how the temperature is increasing as you go from winter to summer.

The only question to me is what the average growth rate is. And that's definitely not 4%, but somewhere between 2.3% and 2.9%.

[Sparko]

I don't think trickle-down economics works. It seems more like the richer getting richer, and exploiting labor because they can. Companies are ruthless, and pays will be squashed as far down as possible, unless the workers are allowed to unionize and bargain collective. Something, ironically, Republicans want to prevent using the government.

I support a welfare system. A comprehensive one. Cradle to grave. Sick or old. Anyone should be able to have a roof over their head, access to education, to libraries (an inherently anti-capitalist idea btw), to medicine and to retirement. Doesn't have to be a lap of luxury, but it should be more than homelessness. Denmark has been able to give the citizens of Denmark just that. And while I don't think the same system can be implemented in the US, I think it would be a good for them to do something similar.

That's great. you must have a wonderful life over there that is to your satisfaction. But your country still has rich and poor. So does China and Cuba and every other country in the world. And they usually have a lot more poor, and a wider gap with little or no middle class.

Which I believe the US will do eventually.

Why do you care? We are happy here, too. You are happy where you are, and don't have to live here.

The majority of the wealth, is owned by a minority of the people. It doesn't seem properly balanced.

So? What gives you the right to tell someone who earned their money to give it to someone else? Hopefully they will share their wealth through charity and other means, but it is theirs to decide, not yours or any one elses. They or their families earned the money. They didn't steal it.

Life is good. This century is a better century than any other century ever before.

Then enjoy!

[Leonhard]

That's great. you must have a wonderful life over there that is to your satisfaction. But your country still has rich and poor. So does China and Cuba and every other country in the world. And they usually have a lot more poor, and a wider gap with little or no middle class.

I thought we agreed that Denmark wasn't communistic? Cube and China are (edit: I'm actually not sure what China is at this point). I think we both agree on the failure of communism.

Why do you care? We are happy here, too. You are happy where you are, and don't have to live here.

I am voicing my opinion, why is that such a trouble?

So? What gives you the right to tell someone who earned their money to give it to someone else?

Presumably, freedom of speech, and my responsibility as a citizen of my country to take a moral interest in the democratic decisions of my country. I am part of this website, so that means I'm often involved in discussing politics about the US, since most people are are American.

Hopefully they will share their wealth through charity and other means, but it is theirs to decide, not yours or any one elses. They or their families earned the money. They didn't steal it.

Actually the workers earned it. They collected it, and then avoided paying due taxes on it. If the latter occured, I doubt it would be so bad. But the law is rife with tax loop holes. Always have been. I've seen friends of mine exploit a few of them at times.

Its all legal crime in my eyes Sparko. Its immoral.

Then enjoy!

I am.

[Sparko]

I thought we agreed that Denmark wasn't communistic? Cube and China are (edit: I'm actually not sure what China is at this point). I think we both agree on the failure of communism.



I am voicing my opinion, why is that such a trouble?

because you are voicing it about an economy and a country you don't even know except through websites and new reports.

Presumably, freedom of speech, and my responsibility as a citizen of my country to take a moral interest in the democratic decisions of my country. I am part of this website, so that means I'm often involved in discussing politics about the US, since most people are are American.

You know what I mean. I was speaking about ANYONE having the right to make someone else do what they want to do with their money. It's not your money. Not your property. You can't pick someone else's pockets to help the poor.

Actually the workers earned it. They collected it, and then avoided paying due taxes on it. If the latter occured, I doubt it would be so bad. But the law is rife with tax loop holes. Always have been. I've seen friends of mine exploit a few of them at times.

No the workers were paid for it. They entered a contract with the company to do such and such work for such and such compensation. Entirely freely and they can go elsewhere any time they want and even start their own business like millions of people do every year. The profit the company earns is legally obtained by selling good on the free market. The profit is usually mostly used to grow the company even more, to pay people more and to pay the salaries of the owners and board. Do they earn more than the workers? OF course. That is the whole point of owning a business. Getting rich, and doing it legally is what capitalism is about. The opportunity to do as well as you can in a free market. It is your choice to work for wages in a company, or take the risk and start your own company to make more. Personally, I don't have the ambition or courage to start my own business and risk everything. I prefer the relative safety and convenience of working for another company and moving to a different one any time I want. My reward is less, but so is my risk and responsibility.

Its all legal crime in my eyes Sparko. Its immoral.

It's not illegal or immoral to earn as much as you want. Sure you COULD do it illegally, but we are not discussing that. It is immoral to take someone elses money and give it to yourself or a third party. That is theft. Of course when goverments do it it is called taxation. Some is needed but when you extend it to the point of making it pointless to earn enough money to be "rich" then those people and companies will just stop trying or go elsewhere. Why would anyone work themselves to the bone starting a company, making profits and getting rich only to have it all taken away from them and given to people who just sit on their butts on welfare all day?

I am.

Are you though? Do you have a nice comfy life with no worries? Able to buy all the luxuries you want? your dream job?

[JimL]

If you selectively pick the right financial quarter, Trump beat 4% growth rate.

If you don't and look at what the average growth rate is (which all that matters). Then the average growth rate so far is around 2.9% (as the most optimistic source I can find). This is still more than the average of 2% during Obama, who was a president just as the Great Recession occured. You have to zoom in one quarter period of Trump's presidency to get that 4% spike and I think even Obama got over 4% during one of the months as well.

Actually the U.S. hit 4% GDP growth 4 times under Obama.

[Sparko]

Actually the U.S. hit 4% GDP growth 4 times under Obama.

source?

[Leonhard]

You know what I mean. I was speaking about ANYONE having the right to make someone else do what they want to do with their money. It's not your money. Not your property. You can't pick someone else's pockets to help the poor.

Taxation is not theft. There is nothing wrong with citizens engaging in the licit channels of the governance of a country to change how it budgets its expenses and how much taxes are collected.

Taxation is 100% voluntary, because its 100% voluntary to be a citizen of our respective countries. You're free to leave Sparko, and search for a magical country without taxes. Or find some land nobody has declared a nation and found your own, with zero taxes. Or create a raft and built a floating city out at sea, as I've seen some libertarians dreaming of doing for ages. I wish them well. I want to see as many different kinds of governance on this planet as possible. I believe most attempts at creating new government types are doomed to fail, but I want to see people try.

But you live in the US. You're bound by the social contract you agree on implicitly by being a citizen, that a certain portion of your income will go to the government, for various services the government performs. One of them being a military. Justice, courts and law enforcement. Infrastructure maintainance. Highways and railways (largely impossible to build for private companies). Basic scientific research. Education. Social security.

You might not like paying for these things. But you have the free right to advocate for these services being taken away from people.

But if you have the right to advocate for that, I most certainly have the right to do the opposite.

No the workers were paid for it.

Let me put it differently. If all the workers left the company, could those CEO's and managers magically generate all that income on their own? Clearly its the workers generating the wealth for the company.

The profit is usually mostly used to grow the company even more, to pay people more and to pay the salaries of the owners and board.

I've looked at the bigger companies, they seem mostly just to pay back investors or loans, and invest in very safe investments that carry little risk. Very few large companies are aggressively reinvesting their money into their own company. Apple infamously is just accumulating money in offshore bank accounts (in ways that allows them to avoid paying taxes). Tesla is one of the few companies that largely reinvests all that they earn right back into the company.

Small businesses are different, though they're largely crushed by bigger businesses who are the ones controlling the government.

Do they earn more than the workers? OF course. That is the whole point of owning a business.

Sparko, again I feel you're arguing a case I don't disagree with. I don't disagree that a CEO that works 80 hours per week, and has a special skillset for growing and managing the company, or others in similar positions can rightfully negotiate for a bigger cut. There's nothing wrong with that.

If you're arguing that we shouldn't all have equal pay, you're arguing against a strawman. I don't mind people being paid less, or more, depending on the demands for their job and the value they generate. That's all fine. I'm saying though that the system looks highly unbalanced right now.

Workers pay have largely stagnated since the seventies once you control for inflation. There's just no getting around that. The question is what it means, especially in the light of the fact that the value the workers generate have increased. If the value was constant, for instance because they were becoming more productive, but the value of the work is diminishing so you have to produce more to generate the same value... that would be different.

They're not paid more for their work, even though they're generating more and more income for the same amount of work. The increased income doesn't reach their pockets, it almost exclusively flows upwards. And the reinvestments, when they happen, aren't really all in job creation opportunities, but mostly in ultra-safe long term investments.

It seems wrong to me.

It's not illegal or immoral to earn as much as you want.

I can't agree unqualified to that statement. Greed is a sin at the very least.

Some [taxation] is needed but when you extend it to the point of making it pointless to earn enough money to be "rich" then those people and companies will just stop trying or go elsewhere.

I agree, which is why its balancing act.

And yet it is just as easy to start a company in Denmark as it is in the US. The taxes we have on our companies are ironically less than yours, and companies here don't have to pay for health insurance, worker benefits, etc... It works. Its proof of concept.

One of the largest shipping companies in the world Maersk operates out of Denmark. Ikea, the largest furniture producing company operates out of Norway under a similar taxation scheme.

Why would anyone work themselves to the bone starting a company, making profits and getting rich only to have it all taken away from them and given to people who just sit on their butts on welfare all day?

I'm sorry you have such a low view of poor people, or people who are sick. Its honestly not selling me on US-style Conservatism, Sparko.

I personally believe we have a moral responsibility to create a society where they can have a roof over their head, meals, access to education. We have that in Denmark. And there's hardly anyone on welfare in Denmark who can work because we have systems for finding jobs to those people who are simply unemployed. If Christians in the US were providing this comprehensively, that is, almost all poor people, etc... had roof over their heads thanks to charity. I would agree with your system. But that's not the case.

I believe we have a moral duty to provide something other than random charity. I believe the only way this can be achieved is by welfare.

Are you though? Do you have a nice comfy life with no worries?

Yes. I'm not sure what you imagine my life to me?

Able to buy all the luxuries you want? your dream job?

All the luxuries?! Of the world?!

I doubt you have the ability to buy all the luxuries in the world Sparko. But if I understand you right and you're just talking about ordinary luxturies, then I'm living good, saving up money and buying things I want to buy when the time is right. In my job I work with computers, developing software, I have a career track and I'm going through promotions, and there's other companies in the future I'd love to work for in the future as well.

[Leonhard]

source?

It indisputably happened in

Q4 2011
Q2 2014
Q3 2014

Which is also how the claim that Trump broke 4% happened. I'm still not sure about these numbers, but it does appear that a geometric mean of them represents the yearly growth. Though I really need to dive into it at some point. That way for instance you get 2.3% annual gdp growth in 2016. For Obama it was in the low 1.5% and 1.4% for 2011 and 2012, shooting up to 2.6% in 2013 and 2014

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...gdp-in-the-us/

[Leonhard]

I'm still not sure about these numbers, but it does appear that a geometric mean of them represents the yearly growth.

Found out that they're the annualized growth rates, so to get the correct average of a year's growth rate you indeed have to take the geometric mean of them.

[Sparko]

Taxation is not theft. There is nothing wrong with citizens engaging in the licit channels of the governance of a country to change how it budgets its expenses and how much taxes are collected.

Taxation is 100% voluntary, because its 100% voluntary to be a citizen of our respective countries. You're free to leave Sparko, and search for a magical country without taxes. Or find some land nobody has declared a nation and found your own, with zero taxes. Or create a raft and built a floating city out at sea, as I've seen some libertarians dreaming of doing for ages. I wish them well. I want to see as many different kinds of governance on this planet as possible. I believe most attempts at creating new government types are doomed to fail, but I want to see people try.

But you live in the US. You're bound by the social contract you agree on implicitly by being a citizen, that a certain portion of your income will go to the government, for various services the government performs. One of them being a military. Justice, courts and law enforcement. Infrastructure maintainance. Highways and railways (largely impossible to build for private companies). Basic scientific research. Education. Social security.

You might not like paying for these things. But you have the free right to advocate for these services being taken away from people.

But if you have the right to advocate for that, I most certainly have the right to do the opposite.

It's like you are just ignoring my entire point and focusing on a single bit that you can argue against to change the subject. It's called burning a straw man. I never said we should not pay taxes. read what I said again.

Let me put it differently. If all the workers left the company, could those CEO's and managers magically generate all that income on their own? Clearly its the workers generating the wealth for the company.

No they would unmagically hire new workers. The wealth comes from the SELLING of the products. The workers are an EXPENSE. I can easily say, what if all the machines break down? then they can't make any products! the machines make the wealth! no the sale of the product makes the wealth. The wealth to buy or fix the machines, the wealth to make more product, the wealth to hire and pay the workers.

I've looked at the bigger companies, they seem mostly just to pay back investors or loans, and invest in very safe investments that carry little risk. Very few large companies are aggressively reinvesting their money into their own company. Apple infamously is just accumulating money in offshore bank accounts (in ways that allows them to avoid paying taxes). Tesla is one of the few companies that largely reinvests all that they earn right back into the company.

And Apple pays out wealth in the form of Stock and Dividends. I know. I own some of Apple and my wealth earned from them has increased over 500% from when I bought it. I just wish I owned a larger chunk. That is what public companies are: the public owns them through stock. Them paying less taxes means more money for me.

Small businesses are different, though they're largely crushed by bigger businesses who are the ones controlling the government.

If the large companies are controlling the government why does Apple have to hide its money offshore?

Sparko, again I feel you're arguing a case I don't disagree with. I don't disagree that a CEO that works 80 hours per week, and has a special skillset for growing and managing the company, or others in similar positions can rightfully negotiate for a bigger cut. There's nothing wrong with that.

If you're arguing that we shouldn't all have equal pay, you're arguing against a strawman. I don't mind people being paid less, or more, depending on the demands for their job and the value they generate. That's all fine. I'm saying though that the system looks highly unbalanced right now.

Workers pay have largely stagnated since the seventies once you control for inflation. There's just no getting around that. The question is what it means, especially in the light of the fact that the value the workers generate have increased. If the value was constant, for instance because they were becoming more productive, but the value of the work is diminishing so you have to produce more to generate the same value... that would be different.

They're not paid more for their work, even though they're generating more and more income for the same amount of work. The increased income doesn't reach their pockets, it almost exclusively flows upwards. And the reinvestments, when they happen, aren't really all in job creation opportunities, but mostly in ultra-safe long term investments.

It seems wrong to me.



I can't agree unqualified to that statement. Greed is a sin at the very least.

yes it is a sin. But you are assuming all rich people are greedy and hoarding their money. I don't believe that is the case. Most businessmen invest back into their companies, many like Bill Gates, start foundations to give lots of money back to the community. Sure there are some who don't, but that is just a consequence of the free market and private ownership. You end up with a few bad apples. But I would say the majority are good. and do good.

I agree, which is why its balancing act.

And yet it is just as easy to start a company in Denmark as it is in the US. The taxes we have on our companies are ironically less than yours, and companies here don't have to pay for health insurance, worker benefits, etc... It works. Its proof of concept.

One of the largest shipping companies in the world Maersk operates out of Denmark. Ikea, the largest furniture producing company operates out of Norway under a similar taxation scheme.

Great, but your entire country is the size of one of our states. What works for you won't necessarily work on a larger scale. Entire swathes of laws would have to be changed. Entire industries would have to be dismantled. The entire economy would collapse.

I'm sorry you have such a low view of poor people, or people who are sick. Its honestly not selling me on US-style Conservatism, Sparko.

All the luxuries?! Of the world?!

Is that what I said, Mr. Strawman?

I doubt you have the ability to buy all the luxuries in the world Sparko. But if I understand you right and you're just talking about ordinary luxturies, then I'm living good, saving up money and buying things I want to buy when the time is right. In my job I work with computers, developing software, I have a career track and I'm going through promotions, and there's other companies in the future I'd love to work for in the future as well.

Great.