WebsterMark wrote on 03/06/19 at 14:47:53:


Technically economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Economics focuses on the behaviour and interactions of economic agents and how economies work.

 Just Google "Economics" and most of the initial results will toss out the generic definition which is hard to change and still be correct.

 The phrase "production, distribution and consumption of goods and services" is the basis of most of it, which is why its so easy to Google.

WebsterMark wrote on 03/06/19 at 18:24:09:


Hey mark, the year 2000 called, it wants it's catchphrase back.

Eegore wrote on 03/06/19 at 19:27:13:


Here's my point Eeg; here's the title of an article I saw this morning.
So Far, Donald Trump’s Trade War Is an Utter Failure

Now then, the article TT never read, points out that the impact of the tariffs according to their method of study, was .01% so far. I posted a note yesterday which pointed out China had made adjustments to their economic policies in part due to pressures from the tariff. That's good for the USA. However, this guy calls the tariffs an Utter Failure. Not a little bit of a failure, not a work in progress, but an utter failure.

Multiple people with access to a wide variety of data come up with different opinions on what that data means. Hence my point that economics is opinion.

Also, saw another article this morning how Whole Foods signed on to the socialist idea of a livable wage and boosted pay to $15 an hour for which they were roundly praised and predictions made of how that would positively impact not only the individual's personal 'economy' but the community's economy as a whole. Only problem, Whole Foods predictably cut hours so as to maintain their margins. Yet, two different people will have opposite takeaways from that episode. Again, economics is opinion.

Finally, my friend TT was yacking about the 1950's tax rates and how we need to look at those again. That's a popular refrain with socialist today. However, a quick look at the data shows practically no one paid those 90% rates and the overall tax burden on individuals from a percentage point of view has changed very little. Yet, I guarantee we'll hear repeatedly the phrase soak the rich or pay their fair share etc...  Part of opinion is ignoring inconvenient facts. Confirmation Bias I believe it's called.

The point that the conservatives on this post keep missing is this:

What was the point of the tariffs in the first place?  What did trump hope to accomplish?

So conservatives, if you ask yourself these two questions - and then answer them truthfully, you'll see that they have in fact, had the opposite effect that trump had wanted.  Look no further than the farmers.

But then, most conservatives on this board don't care to answer the tough questions truthfully.  No surprise.


Oh, and someone felt the need to bring up the 50's tax rates and how very few (if any) actually paid those high rates.  That is actually correct.  But once again, the conservative mindset doesn't care to find out why so few paid it.  Perhaps if they knew why, they they'd understand the need for them today.  Especially in this toxic environment of oligarchs.

“…don’t lie yet again and tell us if you had 10 million, you’d fork over a huge percentage of it because you wouldn’t….”

Of course the tt would, say, it would.
(Never do it, but certainly say it)

Just like the tt wants Trumps taxes, and everyone knows Trump has/had/used/etc, a/or rather large sums of money.

YET, has no interest in Al Frankens Taxes, who was ‘Deeply In Debt’, after he won the first election, (by fraud), and a year later, on a 150,000.00 salary, became a Millionaire.

The tt has absolutely  NO curiosity how that is done ?

MnSpring wrote on 03/07/19 at 07:53:50:


Um, you realize that Franken wrote several books while in office (which is very legal), right?

Naw - you don't care.

You want to justify trump's failure by pointing to someone else.  Whatever...


Here's a suggestion mn.  Why not once try to stay on point?  Why constantly hijack threads?

This is about the trump tariffs, not his taxes.  I could fill up an entire forum with his tax dodging and probable corruption - but that's not the subject of this thread.


It's funny really.... vers calls me out for being a troll, yet somehow he lets you go.

Gee, I wonder why?.....

verslagen1 wrote on 03/07/19 at 09:38:55:


Well, fortunately vers, anyone with half a brain can figure out how to go back and look at the history of this forum and my comments (not to mention all the comments from mn, jog, you, mark, pg, etc.)

But go right ahead and blame me - the truth doesn't care what you believe.  Your attitude and childishness is just par for the course of today's conservative.