Moonbox

Ding Ding Ding!!!! Like clockwork, User falls back on whining about dishonesty when he can't refute a point. If this forum got a nickel for every time you tossed this wet rag out into a debate, it'd be the richest website on the interweb. 🙄

Then what's with fragile, impotent rage? Why are you so threatened by women *gasp* pursuing higher education and positions in its administration? Nobody's going to miss you and your bed-wetting. Bye.

Lower supply input costs are. Fewer supply bottlenecks are. More efficient transportation is. Lower energy costs are. Higher production is. Your assumptions and your logic miss +95% of the variables. That's not how it works big guy. By this wonderful logic, Biden and Trudeau's spending and deficits aren't inflationary, because inflation has been going down for the last year. 👌 It's almost like there's more to this than you seem to understand (or admit?).

Funny, considering the reason your tribe is going extinct is because it never feels the touch of a woman. Go have sex, incel.

...and you're one of those "tough guys?" 🤣 The best way to show your manliness is to whine and moan like a little girl about how the woeman are to blame for all of your failures, while men still earn more and hold higher positions across the board.

Or don't bother because they can make more in the trades than they'd make with a degree. An electrician is going to make a buttload more money in his lifetime than the Masters in Child, Youth and Family. (I'm totally not speaking about my ex who, last time I checked, was still doing her PhD in something useless).

If it pays for itself over time, that's because it sufficient improved the supply side of the equation. That's deflationary. If tax cuts "don't work" that means they didn't improve the supply side. If the tax cuts lead to increase borrowing, then all you've done is increased liquidity in the economy, and thus increased demand. That's inflationary. There are always two sides to the equation. People forget that when they're schilling for their parties, left or right.

It's fascinating how quickly and how regularly you fall back on this when you don't actually have an argument to make. What preface are you referring to, and how have I ignored it? 🥱

When you write was pseudo-intellectual nonsense, it's not above anyone's knowledge. You contradict yourself here. Unless tax cuts come with corresponding decreases to spending, you are financing them with borrowing, which is injecting liquidity into the system and doing exactly what you describe above. There are all sorts of reasons why government spending may (or often would be) highly inflationary, but as I've already said there are cases where it wouldn't. Runaway program spending and a ballooning, overpaid public service? Very inflationary. Critical infrastructure spending? The opposite. The same works for tax cuts. Well-timed, properly targeted tax cuts might spur investment and innovation in the economy and therefore boost supply. Tax cuts at the top of the cycle, with near-full employment and corporations already sitting on piles of cash usually do the opposite.

Inconvenient information is discarded and ignored. We're just left with more donkey logic from our resident brick.

Why don't you whine some more here about people using insults? FFS you are cringe sometimes.

You did. 🤡

Not inherently. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Government spending on critical infrastructure can boost the supply side of the equation, thereby lowering inflation (new port terminals, highways, rails, power generation etc). Conversely, poorly timed and poorly targeted tax cuts can do the opposite. Pseudo-economic gobbledygook. What sort of choice is this!? You can have tax cuts or you can have deficit spending? All else is never equal in economics. At least you acknowledge it's "slightly" more complex....

Is the money being borrowed? Yes. Is it being added to the economy? Yes. Unless you figure they are piling it into rockets and then firing it all into the sun, what about that was BS? 😑

He doesn't read the articles he links. He rips them off of Twitter or 4chan and reposts them like a zombie.

I'm not here every day. Sorry? 🙃 The way dollars are spent matters, the way tax cuts are targeted matters, the timing of both matter, as does an exhaustive list of other factors. Saying "tax cuts are less inflationary than government spending", as you did, is pseudo-economic bullshit. Whether you knew that already and just view the topic with your usual orange-tinted goggles, or you're just another ill-informed dupe here to sing us the virtues of trickle-down economics is the question.

It’s not supposed to be a cat 5 when it lands. the peninsula looks like it’s going to get washed away (goodbye, John’s Pass), and the lower lying areas are going to get mega flooded, but Tampa will recover. It’s a cool city.

Canada spends something like +$300B a year on healthcare alone.

Why would you brag about giving a 62% raise for workers? I don't know the specifics of their last contract and how long it's been since they had their wages increased, but unless it was like 10 years or something, then a 62% raise is...a lot. Caving to monopolistic infrastructure union demands is not great politics...usually.

I saw the thread title, saw who posted it, and had a good laugh. I didn't even need to read the OP.

Yes, that's really basic "economics", like saying the answer to the following equation: X= 2+2[(3 / y^5)*(z)] is 4, because 2+2 = 4. You're absolutely right that 2+2 =4, and I suppose that is basic math, but it's not really algebra, just like what you offered above isn't really economics.

I don't have a great answer for that, especially in the current environment. I'm just pushing back at the idea that local governments are any less prone to f*ckery, or that the only thing you should care about with the federal government is what handouts its offering you locally.

At they had the tradition and the Book to rave about. Now it's just whatever random shit the clown parade is talking about online...