Paths for Trump on the Economy

[WillFarnaby]

@Fear_Itself

Because Trump’s plan has no way to pay for it, and it will balloon the deficit. Clinton raised taxes so it was revenue neutral. Math is hard.

Krugman should have admonished Clinton for not growing the deficit. Unfortunately he wanted a job with her. That didn’t pan out.

[Kimstu]

@Ravenman

He wants more infrastructure spending

Well, what he seems to want are investor tax breaks that will make it more profitable to support some kinds of infrastructure projects.

The proposal would offer $137 billion in federal tax credits to private investors who want to back transportation projects […]

Critics of Trump’s private financing plan, however, say that private investors would only fund projects that have tolls or user fees that can recoup investment costs.

Therefore, critical infrastructure needs like repairing aging pipes, deepening ports or fixing existing roads and bridges without tolls may go neglected under Trump’s plan.

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) “only work on projects that create revenues,” said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), ranking member on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. “The vast majority of the national highway system, and our bridge problems and all our transit problems, do not generate revenues. It will not help them.”

In other words, what Trump’s proposing is a tax-revenue giveaway that will enrich investors and contractors but not actually fix roads and bridges.

[Ravenman]

@WillFarnaby

When he turns the spigots on, the Democrats will be right there in line with the rest of them.

I don’t think he has a policy to turn the spigots on. He must stumble into that somehow, but it would probably be by accident. Maybe after the 2018 elections if Dems took control of a chamber (just saying that’s a possibility, not making a prediction).

[BobLibDem]

@WillFarnaby

What do you think happens with the money? Just curious.

It goes either into the banks of the wealthy or they use it to buy stuff that doesn’t create jobs- trips to Europe and such.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@WillFarnaby

“Crucially, it’s not a plan to borrow $1 trillion and spend it on much-needed projects — which would be the straightforward, obvious thing to do. It is, instead, supposed to involve having private investors do the work both of raising money and building the projects — with the aid of a huge tax credit that gives them back 82 percent of the equity they put in. To compensate for the small sliver of additional equity and the interest on their borrowing, the private investors then have to somehow make profits on the assets they end up owning.”

He comes out against huge tax credits. Tax credits increase the deficit. Therefore Krugman is lamenting the increase in the deficit. It’s not hard to connect the dots with Krugman. He’s a party hack. A cunning party hack, but a hack nonetheless.

:smack:

Literally my immediate reaction on this post. You do realize that if Trump had advocated cashing out a large portion of the US’s budget and burning it in a pile on the white house lawn, that would also “increase the deficit”? And clearly, it would do so in a non-productive and very stupid way. Had that been Trump’s proposal, would you have said, “He comes out against Throwing-The-Money-In-A-Pile-And-Burning-It. TTMIAPABI increases the deficit. Therefore Krugman is lamenting the increase in the deficit”?

Your argument is bad and you should feel bad.

[WillFarnaby]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

:smack:

Literally my immediate reaction on this post. You do realize that if Trump had advocated cashing out a large portion of the US’s budget and burning it in a pile on the white house lawn, that would also “increase the deficit”? And clearly, it would do so in a non-productive and very stupid way. Had that been Trump’s proposal, would you have said, “He comes out against Throwing-The-Money-In-A-Pile-And-Burning-It. TTMIAPABI increases the deficit. Therefore Krugman is lamenting the increase in the deficit”?

Your argument is bad and you should feel bad.

Except tax breaks are good ways to increase the deficit according to Keynesians, burning money is not considered a legitimate way to increase the deficit.

Krugman literally said that if the world’s governments mistakenly believed an alien invasion was imminent and they built up utterly useless defenses through deficit spending that it would help boost the economy. “Trump Tunnel? Hold on there buddy, are you scamming the taxpayers?”

[WillFarnaby]

@BobLibDem

It goes either into the banks of the wealthy or they use it to buy stuff that doesn’t create jobs- trips to Europe and such.

Ok let’s assume no aircraft manufacturers, airlines, restaurants, and hotels employ humans.

What do the banks do with the money?

[WillFarnaby]

@Ravenman

I don’t think he has a policy to turn the spigots on. He must stumble into that somehow, but it would probably be by accident. Maybe after the 2018 elections if Dems took control of a chamber (just saying that’s a possibility, not making a prediction).

He wants to increase defense spending. He also wants a huge infrastructure plan. The defense manufacturers have cunningly spread their operations over as many congressional districts as possible. Many Dems will go along for both of these spending schemes.

[Fear_Itself]

@WillFarnaby

Krugman should have admonished Clinton for not growing the deficit. Unfortunately he wanted a job with her. That didn’t pan out.

I don’t know what this means. Why would Krugman want to grow the deficit?

[Ramira]

@WillFarnaby

“Crucially, it’s not a plan to borrow $1 trillion and spend it on much-needed projects — which would be the straightforward, obvious thing to do. It is, instead, supposed to involve having private investors do the work both of raising money and building the projects — with the aid of a huge tax credit that gives them back 82 percent of the equity they put in. To compensate for the small sliver of additional equity and the interest on their borrowing, the private investors then have to somehow make profits on the assets they end up owning.”

He comes out against huge tax credits. Tax credits increase the deficit. Therefore Krugman is lamenting the increase in the deficit. It’s not hard to connect the dots with Krugman.

You have a truly strange and bizarre way of reading what this text is saying… connecting the dots by imagination.

Without needing to agree with Krugman or not about the criticism, the criticism of Krugman is very clear to be about the efficiency and the effectiveness of the method of spending, it has nothing to do with a deficit or not.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@WillFarnaby

Except tax breaks are good ways to increase the deficit according to Keynesians, burning money is not considered a legitimate way to increase the deficit.

Krugman literally said that if the world’s governments mistakenly believed an alien invasion was imminent and they built up utterly useless defenses through deficit spending that it would help boost the economy. “Trump Tunnel? Hold on there buddy, are you scamming the taxpayers?”

Your method of connecting the dots reminds me of this comic. Your critique of Krugman is nonsense and does not match what he is actually saying at all.

[WillFarnaby]

Nm

[WillFarnaby]

@Ramira

You have a truly strange and bizarre way of reading what this text is saying… connecting the dots by imagination.

Without needing to agree with Krugman or not about the criticism, the criticism of Krugman is very clear to be about the efficiency and the effectiveness of the method of spending, it has nothing to do with a deficit or not.

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Your method of connecting the dots reminds me of this comic. Your critique of Krugman is nonsense and does not match what he is actually saying at all.

If folks want to live in a world where a guy can call for vast spending to prepare for a nonexistent alien invasion and then criticize a grandiose infrastructure plan on the grounds of efficiency and effectiveness, and not be considered a hypocrite, I don’t have the heart to burst their bubble.

Ramira, if you can make a post without ad hominem attacks, I may send you a Christmas card. Thankfully you left out your favorite perjorative, “american”.

[Ramira]

@WillFarnaby

…then criticize a grandiose infrastructure plan on the grounds of efficiency and effectiveness, and not be considered a hypocrite, I don’t have the heart to burst their bubble.

There is absolutely not any hypocrisy in a criticism of a large infrastrcuture program from an analysis of a poor structural efficiency and effectiveness. It is simply bizarre and incoherent to think there is.

Krugman may or may not be correct in his analysis, I take no position on that. But the actual point of the analysis - to focus on the relative effectiveness of the transmision mechanism is simply standard.

Ramira, if you can make a post without ad hominem attacks, I may send you a Christmas card. Thankfully you left out your favorite perjorative, “american”.

There is no “ad hominem” - your statement / interpretation of what Krugman wrote has not any basis in the actual words and is a bizarre distortion that is completely incoherent.

[Gukumatz]

Well. First thing Trump is going to do is cut US internationals a sweetheart deal to repatriate money they’ve been holding outside the country in order to blackmail the US government for just such a deal. (Like 2004 under W)

That should net him a startup capital of 250-300 billion of “spending money.” Not using that for infrastructure projects (lots of low-entry jobs) would be dumb. Then he’ll probably slash corporate taxes by roughly half.

Sent from mTalk

[Quartz]

@WillFarnaby

Historically, a recession is overdue. Many assets are in a bubble right now.

Cite? Which assets are in a bubble right now?

He has a few choices on how to deal with this.

Try demonstrating that the problem exists in the first place first.

[WillFarnaby]

@Ramira

There is absolutely not any hypocrisy in a criticism of a large infrastrcuture program from an analysis of a poor structural efficiency and effectiveness. It is simply bizarre and incoherent to think there is.

Krugman may or may not be correct in his analysis, I take no position on that. But the actual point of the analysis - to focus on the relative effectiveness of the transmision mechanism is simply standard.

There is no “ad hominem” - your statement / interpretation of what Krugman wrote has not any basis in the actual words and is a bizarre distortion that is completely incoherent.

Hypocrisy comes in on the part of the sentence you chopped off. Reread it and/or the definition of hypocrisy. It is not “bizarre” to suggest someone calling for alien defense buildup should not criticize a program on the grounds of effectiveness.

[Ramira]

No, I have no need to reread, your completely bizarre reading remains bizarre. That Krugman made a jokein a TV interview about the idea of an Alien invasion being needed to get the decisioin makers out of what he views as an incorrect policy framework is completely irrelevant. What is as bizarre as your bizarre and complete distortion is the equally bizarre way you read the joking.

This is not to take a position to agree with Krugman or to disagree with Krugman.

[WillFarnaby]

@Ramira

No, I have no need to reread, your completely bizarre reading remains bizarre. That Krugman made a jokein a TV interview about the idea of an Alien invasion being needed to get the decisioin makers out of what he views as an incorrect policy framework is completely irrelevant. What is as bizarre as your bizarre and complete distortion is the equally bizarre way you read the joking.

This is not to take a position to agree with Krugman or to disagree with Krugman.

Maybe you’re not getting the point. Lost in translation perhaps. You’ve expressed bewilderment about American sensibilities several times.

[Ramira]

I am sure I am getting the point, as it is not just my observation of course, also the others in this thread, of your bizarre misreading and mischaracterization.