That jackass Nick Hanauer, famous for falsifying data in his economically illiterate Ted Talk about economics, and then throwing a fit when they didn't feature it in their curated collection of talks?
Taxes on profits actually aren't passed on to consumers in the way tariffs are. When a tariff is levied on your products, it doesn't make your profit-maximizing price go down by anywhere near as much as the tariff, so you charge more or less the same price, maybe a bit less to account for reduced demand, but pretty much the whole tariff is just passed on to the consumers.
Having a corporate income tax levied on your profits doesn't really change your pricing strategy. The pre-tax profit-maximizing price is still the same as your after-tax profit-maximizing price. What does change is your incentive to invest in the jurisdiction where the tax is levied. The investments you've already made there are largely sunk costs, but you're going to be looking elsewhere for a lot of your future investments.
Less investment means less growth and lower real wages. This is why the corporate income tax is an incredibly stupid and myopic way to raise revenue. The Biden administration negotiated a 15% minimum corporate income tax, and we should absolutely be taking full advantage of it by lowering our corporate income tax rate to 15% and raising other taxes and/or cutting spending to make up the difference.
Federal minimum wage is an obvious one, but there are a ton of other federal regulations on strictly intrastate activity. I don't object to a reasonably broad interpretation of "commerce between the states," and think it should cover things that genuinely can't be regulated at a state level, like air pollution and things related to interstate waters, but Wickard v. Fillburn had no legitimate Constitutional basis.
More generally, acknowledging that Congress has no legitimate powers other than those enumerated in Article I Section 8 or subsequent Amendments reminds us that Congress also doesn't have the authority to do most of the spending it does. The legal basis for the entire federal welfare state rests on a disingenuous reading of the Taxing and Spending clause so obviously wrong that when anti-federalists warned that it would one day be interpreted as giving Congress the power to spend money on anything they deemed to promote the general welfare, James Madison called them bad-faith trolls and said it showed that they had no legitimate arguments to make against ratifying the Constitution.
I'm surprised to see an acknowledgement of the answer to point 3 in the Washington Post. Denying this limitation of Congress's authority has been at the heart of the Democratic agenda for the past 90 years.
I got 9/10, missing only the last one about "Common Sense." This is definitely not a test an average 8th grader could pass.
Every developed country in the world experienced inflation
In Switzerland and several East Asian economies, inflation peaked around 3%. Inflation for most European countries was linked due to a shared currency and central bank, so it's not surprising that it happened in a lot of European countries.
9% inflation was not inevitable, and as I've pointed out here a couple times before, macroeconomic data clearly show that about 10-12 percentage points of cumulative inflation between 2021 and 2024 is attributable to excess growth in nominal consumer spending, which can't be pinned on supply-side factors. There was just too much growth in nominal spending power for real production of goods and services to keep up.
I wonder how much overlap there is between people who think that the corporate income tax cut in the TCJA was a giveaway to the rich and people who think the stock market hitting record highs is proof that Bidenomics works.
Because when her name wasn’t on her proposals her stuff way outpolled his stuff.
Again, weird flex. If people aren't smart or well-informed enough to figure out which candidate supports which policies, how can they possibly be smart or well-informed enough to know which policies will produce results they will like? The latter is much, much harder than the former.
You take pride in the fact that people who are completely clueless support the same policies you do. And I have no desire to challenge you on that point.
I don't think you understand how that overused cliche works. Buyer's remorse may well come, but it's too early for that. This is a Harris voter predicting that Trump voters will regret it later, not a Trump voter already regretting it.
Why do lefties keep stressing the fact that people who know nothing about economics support your preferred economic policies? It's like you're proud of the fact that your ideology is consistent with profound ignorance.
The best argument for voting for Harris was that maybe she had no convictions whatsoever and was just telling (2020) primary voters what they wanted to hear.
Come to think of it, that was the best argument for voting for Trump, too.
No, I think many of them were specifically attracted by the incompetence, or more precisely by the way the output skewed because of that incompetence. Most of the Washington Post's subscribers don't want a paper written by people capable of seeing the holes in the Narrative and what lies beyond.
It seems silly to blame the dog for not eating the dog food.
Well...sort of. Let's talk about human food instead, because the analogy to dog food breaks down when you take into account the fact that humans, who may have different desires for dogs, are the ones making the choices about what dog food to buy.
Whether it seems silly to blame consumers for not eating the food you're selling depends on your goals. If you just want to make money, sure. It's up to you to sell what consumers want to buy, and if they don't buy what you sell, you're the one who's failed.
But if your goal is to make people healthier, and you do your best to make reasonably palatable, nutritious food that doesn't stimulate overeating, then I think it is fair to bemoan the fact that people still choose junk food because it tastes better and they're not thinking about how it will affect their health in the future.
Bringing it back to journalism, if you just want to sell papers, sure, it's on you to give people what they want. If they want tabloids, and you don't sell tabloids, you have no one to blame but yourself for not making money. But if your goal is to enlighten people and make them better citizens and voters---and you put out a product that genuinely would serve that purpose if people read it---then I think it's fair to get angry about the fact that people would rather read misinformation that makes them feel good.
The thing is, most journalists at the Washington Post haven't earned the right to feel that way, because that's not what they've been doing. They may think that's what they're doing, but they're doing a crap job of it. I suspect that this is because they're not smart enough or don't have the analytical skills needed to understand the topics they're reporting on.
Bezos was too kind: He acknowledged that journalism is facing a crisis of credibility, but he didn't acknowledge that this is, in part, because it's facing a crisis of competence.
Kamala Harris has secured the coveted Richard Spencer endorsement. I'm sure that the media will cover this with the same zeal with which they covered his support for Donald Trump in 2016.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “From the New York Post: UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson fatally shot outside Hilton hotel in Midtown in targeted attack: cops”
That jackass Nick Hanauer, famous for falsifying data in his economically illiterate Ted Talk about economics, and then throwing a fit when they didn't feature it in their curated collection of talks?
On “Joe Biden Pardons Local Man”
He's obeying in advance!
That's what the kids are calling it when Democrats fail to fall in line and act like shameless partisan hacks, right?
On “Huffpo reports that Harris internals *NEVER* had her ahead.”
Sure it does. What causes inflation? Excessive stimulus. Who fired a huge blast of excessive stimulus right before inflation took off? The Democrats.
On “Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024”
Taxes on profits actually aren't passed on to consumers in the way tariffs are. When a tariff is levied on your products, it doesn't make your profit-maximizing price go down by anywhere near as much as the tariff, so you charge more or less the same price, maybe a bit less to account for reduced demand, but pretty much the whole tariff is just passed on to the consumers.
Having a corporate income tax levied on your profits doesn't really change your pricing strategy. The pre-tax profit-maximizing price is still the same as your after-tax profit-maximizing price. What does change is your incentive to invest in the jurisdiction where the tax is levied. The investments you've already made there are largely sunk costs, but you're going to be looking elsewhere for a lot of your future investments.
Less investment means less growth and lower real wages. This is why the corporate income tax is an incredibly stupid and myopic way to raise revenue. The Biden administration negotiated a 15% minimum corporate income tax, and we should absolutely be taking full advantage of it by lowering our corporate income tax rate to 15% and raising other taxes and/or cutting spending to make up the difference.
On “Group Activity: Are You Smarter Than an Eighth-grade Civics Test”
Federal minimum wage is an obvious one, but there are a ton of other federal regulations on strictly intrastate activity. I don't object to a reasonably broad interpretation of "commerce between the states," and think it should cover things that genuinely can't be regulated at a state level, like air pollution and things related to interstate waters, but Wickard v. Fillburn had no legitimate Constitutional basis.
More generally, acknowledging that Congress has no legitimate powers other than those enumerated in Article I Section 8 or subsequent Amendments reminds us that Congress also doesn't have the authority to do most of the spending it does. The legal basis for the entire federal welfare state rests on a disingenuous reading of the Taxing and Spending clause so obviously wrong that when anti-federalists warned that it would one day be interpreted as giving Congress the power to spend money on anything they deemed to promote the general welfare, James Madison called them bad-faith trolls and said it showed that they had no legitimate arguments to make against ratifying the Constitution.
"
I'm surprised to see an acknowledgement of the answer to point 3 in the Washington Post. Denying this limitation of Congress's authority has been at the heart of the Democratic agenda for the past 90 years.
I got 9/10, missing only the last one about "Common Sense." This is definitely not a test an average 8th grader could pass.
On “Paper: Inflation and the 2024 US Presidential Election”
In Switzerland and several East Asian economies, inflation peaked around 3%. Inflation for most European countries was linked due to a shared currency and central bank, so it's not surprising that it happened in a lot of European countries.
9% inflation was not inevitable, and as I've pointed out here a couple times before, macroeconomic data clearly show that about 10-12 percentage points of cumulative inflation between 2021 and 2024 is attributable to excess growth in nominal consumer spending, which can't be pinned on supply-side factors. There was just too much growth in nominal spending power for real production of goods and services to keep up.
On “Open Mic for the week of 11/18/2024”
I wonder how much overlap there is between people who think that the corporate income tax cut in the TCJA was a giveaway to the rich and people who think the stock market hitting record highs is proof that Bidenomics works.
On “How Republicans Can Save Trump’s Presidency”
You forgot to say "in advance." How will people know that you're a good person if you don't say the whole catchphrase?
On “Open Mic for the week of 11/11/2024”
Did he go off in a huff or something?
"
Given that upzoning actually increases property values, they'd probably rarely, if ever, actually have to pay out on this.
On “The Four Stages of Post-election Cruelty”
Again, weird flex. If people aren't smart or well-informed enough to figure out which candidate supports which policies, how can they possibly be smart or well-informed enough to know which policies will produce results they will like? The latter is much, much harder than the former.
You take pride in the fact that people who are completely clueless support the same policies you do. And I have no desire to challenge you on that point.
On “Open Mic for the week of 11/11/2024”
There's no one less liberal than a leftist.
"
Come on...Jared Polis!
"
I don't think you understand how that overused cliche works. Buyer's remorse may well come, but it's too early for that. This is a Harris voter predicting that Trump voters will regret it later, not a Trump voter already regretting it.
"
This is about the level of intelligence I expect from people who would vote for her.
On “Trumped”
Why do lefties keep stressing the fact that people who know nothing about economics support your preferred economic policies? It's like you're proud of the fact that your ideology is consistent with profound ignorance.
"
If only Jeff Bezos had allowed the Washington Post's editorial board to run that endorsement.
"
The best argument for voting for Harris was that maybe she had no convictions whatsoever and was just telling (2020) primary voters what they wanted to hear.
Come to think of it, that was the best argument for voting for Trump, too.
We need better primary voters. They're the worst.
On “2024 Election Day Live Stream, Reaction, Open Thread”
Ugh. Not only is Trump going to be the President again, but partisan Democrats are going to spend the next five years being utterly insufferable.
More than usual, I mean.
On “Open Mic for the week of 11/4/2024”
I see you've learned your lines. Good job!
On “2024 Election Day Live Stream, Reaction, Open Thread”
She's not my congresscritter!
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/28/2024”
No, I think many of them were specifically attracted by the incompetence, or more precisely by the way the output skewed because of that incompetence. Most of the Washington Post's subscribers don't want a paper written by people capable of seeing the holes in the Narrative and what lies beyond.
"
Well...sort of. Let's talk about human food instead, because the analogy to dog food breaks down when you take into account the fact that humans, who may have different desires for dogs, are the ones making the choices about what dog food to buy.
Whether it seems silly to blame consumers for not eating the food you're selling depends on your goals. If you just want to make money, sure. It's up to you to sell what consumers want to buy, and if they don't buy what you sell, you're the one who's failed.
But if your goal is to make people healthier, and you do your best to make reasonably palatable, nutritious food that doesn't stimulate overeating, then I think it is fair to bemoan the fact that people still choose junk food because it tastes better and they're not thinking about how it will affect their health in the future.
Bringing it back to journalism, if you just want to sell papers, sure, it's on you to give people what they want. If they want tabloids, and you don't sell tabloids, you have no one to blame but yourself for not making money. But if your goal is to enlighten people and make them better citizens and voters---and you put out a product that genuinely would serve that purpose if people read it---then I think it's fair to get angry about the fact that people would rather read misinformation that makes them feel good.
The thing is, most journalists at the Washington Post haven't earned the right to feel that way, because that's not what they've been doing. They may think that's what they're doing, but they're doing a crap job of it. I suspect that this is because they're not smart enough or don't have the analytical skills needed to understand the topics they're reporting on.
Bezos was too kind: He acknowledged that journalism is facing a crisis of credibility, but he didn't acknowledge that this is, in part, because it's facing a crisis of competence.
"
Kamala Harris has secured the coveted Richard Spencer endorsement. I'm sure that the media will cover this with the same zeal with which they covered his support for Donald Trump in 2016.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.