NAOS
Well-Known Member
Ok sure deregulate everything no biggieWhy worry about something that's not remotely concerning?
Ok sure deregulate everything no biggieWhy worry about something that's not remotely concerning?
I mean say I am able to donate 6% of my salary to my my 401k, and then just based of the company that hired me the next guy gets a 2% match, and another company the guy gets a 3%, and the next random company the guy gets a full 6% match. That ads up to a lot in the end. It's really weird.
Even more absurd with health insurance. One guy has a $800 a month premium and a $10,000 deductible, but the next guys is $400 a month and a $1,500, and next guys is fully covered and $0 deductible. All based off the chance they randomly get hired at a random place with random plans.
It is just as stupid as @The Thriller and @babe are.
Yes but that is his point. The company match, or lack thereof, can make a big difference in the final outcome.Isn’t it the company matching?
Ok sure deregulate everything no biggie
Trump gets false praise for his economic track record. That’s the principle point. You can’t take a strong economy, dump gas on it (tax cuts to your constituents and/or deregulate things such that your constituents can create weird little values and bubbles) and then flex. It’s ********.What?
Trump gets false praise for his economic track record. That’s the principle point. You can’t take a strong economy, dump gas on it (tax cuts to your constituents and/or deregulate things such that your constituents can create weird little values and bubbles) and then flex. It’s ********.
This is far from accurate. Trump tried to politicize the Fed and failed. They were raising rates for no economic reasons whatsoever, but because of preconceived notion/belief that we must get back to "normal", and because nobody has a ****ing clue what full employment is anymore. They tried to get in front of impending wage inflation, err FAILED STATE's theoretical overheating. What wage inflation, what full employment, what overheating? They didn't begin cutting until after causing unnecessary economic harm and wisening up, and in this case Trump was 100% correct about their folly.Trump took a functioning economy (granted with plenty of underlying problems but functioning nonetheless) and pumped steroids into it. Insane top heavy tax cuts, politicized the fed which led to unwarranted interest rates cuts, quantitative easing of the overnight lending markets - which started BEFORE the pandemic when we weren't even in a recession......we were headed for the mother of all bubbles.
Sure. I didn't see where overheating economy had a place in a rant that is essentially the traditional Chicago school critique of Keynesianism.Trump gets false praise for his economic track record. That’s the principle point. You can’t take a strong economy, dump gas on it (tax cuts to your constituents and/or deregulate things such that your constituents can create weird little values and bubbles) and then flex. It’s ********.
This was an interesting read. Seems like a bad idea.
![]()
Why experts on both political sides say Biden's corporate tax proposal is 'problematic'
Many tax experts say Biden's proposed minimum 15% tax on corporate book income is a bad idea.www.yahoo.com
Whether you follow neoclassical theory or keynesian, one thing is clear for both: you don't pursue pro cyclical policies in the boom phase of the economic cycle, as the economy either self regulates or overheats, respectively. In that sense, there was no need to drastically reduce corporate taxes and regulations in an already booming economy. Unless of course, you wanted short term gains and win an election...Sure. I didn't see where overheating economy had a place in a rant that is essentially the traditional Chicago school critique of Keynesianism.