Great! So we do not need backup coal and natural gas to supply the power that renewables don't provide? That pollution - on behalf of supporting renewables - is free? The reality is that until we are 100% renewable, renewables will bear the cost of environmental impact of all the fossil fuel plants needed to keep the grid up.
First off, they are not subsidies - they are deductible expenses. Much like salaries, leases, and IT costs are deductible by all businesses. That comes from gross revenues, and as these are business expenses related to running the business, they are deductible against your taxable income (you spend the money, but you're not taxed on that money).
Secondly, all these deductions have direct analogies in other industries, they just may have different names (exploration and development is basic R&D, for example).
Now, if you want to talk subsidies, ask the EIA. You'll see that rather than subsidies, fossil fuels receive basically zero dollars (between coal and natural gas). Biofuels, solar, and wind get about $5.2 billion. Far from fossil fuels being subsidies, the Federal Government dumps billions in that "cheaper renewable" power and gives zero to fossil fuels.
The reality is those subsidies oft-trumpeted about "big oil" don't really exist. And additionally, renewables in the US REQUIRE us to have nuclear, natural gas, and coal as backup for the times (which is almost always) when they cannot supply all our power needs. So those renewables benefit from the exact same "subsidies" that "big oil" gets - because using renewables relies upon primary power generation from "big oil".
They keep saying "you are what you eat", and since cattle eat grass, I figure by eating a steak I'm eating vegetables... Time for another salad - a nice, big, New York Strip salad, medium rare!
The statement was that the markets had lost throughout that year. That is provably false. If you have a problem with it - take it up with the original AC (or yourself).
Go to China and try to start a telecom or financial business. Go to China and try to start an automotive, steel, or airplane company. Good luck. Closed market. Much of the bigger, more important industries are either 100% owned by the Chinese Government, or legally are required to be owned by at least 51% Chinese Government agencies. Not so in the US or the EU.
So it's quite possible that there were no jobs lost due to the tariffs. In other words - a lot of angst about a lot of possibilities, and precious few facts.
Obama had a filibuster-proof majority in Congress for about half of his first term. Democrats controlled everything. He did nothing except up the amount of deficit spending. And then stated that "2% GDP and 6% unemployment is the new normal - get used to it".
A 0% corporate income tax on any company domiciled in the US.To be domiciled in the US, you must meet the following criteria:
1. Your headquarters must be located within the 50 States
2. Your primary financial institutions and auditors must be domiciled within the 50 States
3. At least 60% of your VP-or-higher executives must live at least 200 days a year within the 50 States
4. At least 67% of your board of directors must live at least 200 days a year within the 50 States
You meet all those - and you're a US domiciled corporation, and subject to 0% corporate income tax. I suspect the increase in personal income taxes and employment - without a single change to taxation rates - would more than offset the "loss" of corporate income tax revenues the Federal government receives. Pretty much all major players worldwide would want to relocate to the US. Yes, it's an inconvenience for the executive leadership, but for the vast majority of workers and shareholders it would be a significant benefit.
Guess what - if you have a patent in France, I can go to Germany and copy it! Patents - worldwide - are on a country-by-country basis. The issue is that China FORCED you to transfer IP - even the EU took China to the WTO over the practice. China forces companies to share - and grant - IP to Chinese companies, if a foreign company wants to do business in many industries in China. That's against WTO rules.
For those "journalists", anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is a Nazi, and even Bernie is suspect sometimes... The Nazis were all about socialized healthcare, Government control of the economy via heavy regulation, and 100% confiscation of personal firearms. What's President Trump's stance on those issues? Where do those "journalists" stand on those issues? I believe the "Nazi accusers" doth protest too much.
Nope. The 10% in place stays in place. China agreed (finally) to talk about IP theft, trade balance, and drug controls. And for that they get a 90 day stay against an INCREASE from 10% to 25%.
OTOH Trump probably couldn't have done those tariffs anyway. Not without wrecking the economy.
No sign that the tariffs in place since September have done much to the economy or country, so what makes you think you'd have bigger impacts from the additional tariffs on $200 billion in trade? We're talking about tariffs going from $20 billion to $50 billion.
Meanwhile the outsourcing continues, with GM moving 14,000 jobs to Mexico (and rather cleverly blaming it on declining demand for cars vs SUVs while ignoring the new SUV & Truck factories in Mexico).
Yep! And thanks to the President, when GM does move those jobs, they have to pay at least $16/hour for the labor in Mexico, meaning there is a LOT less incentive to move the jobs in the first place - and it will rapidly build up the Mexican economy too.
Nothing change. Everything continues apace. Well, except we borrowed another $1 trillion as a giveaway to Trump's wealthy friends in the top 1%.
Yeah, he's got another $9 trillion to go before he equals his predecessor, who also gave away 17% of the economy to his friends in Big Pharma and Big Healthcare...
So how many jobs were lost due to the tariffs? GM claims they will say $6 billion per year with the cuts of 14,000 people - that's about $480,000 per employee. Clearly there is some funny accounting going on there... If it was the tariffs, why isn't Ford, or Chrysler laying people off as well? So just how many jobs were lost from the tariffs?
Are we talking taking the debt back down to ~$20 trillion, when President Trump took office, or ~$10 trillion, when President Obama took office? How far back? Back to the last time we actually paid down the debt?
So what makes you think that these tariffs increased unemployment? That's the question I was answering - what data do you have that says the tariffs have increased unemployment?
Short of dying, how would he not make it? The Republicans still control the Senate, and the Senate is where Impeachment starts.
False. Impeachment is what the House does; trial is what the Senate does. The House can impeach President Trump, like they did President Clinton. But unless the Senate votes to convict - it's nothing. A charge, an allegation, a trial - and an acquittal.
The first two treaties were not treaties; they were never ratified. They were a handshake by President Obama and carried no weight. The 3rd, well, even the UN couldn't back Russia's desire to keep the treaty in light of their continued violations of the treaty. As far as the UN goes, it was predominantly over the fact we were paying 25% of the entire UN budget, and was re-negotiated down to "just" 22%. It's been underpaid since 1985 - meaning it's been under-paid for 5 previous Presidents, as well as the current President.
Slashdot Mirror
Great! So we do not need backup coal and natural gas to supply the power that renewables don't provide? That pollution - on behalf of supporting renewables - is free? The reality is that until we are 100% renewable, renewables will bear the cost of environmental impact of all the fossil fuel plants needed to keep the grid up.
First off, they are not subsidies - they are deductible expenses. Much like salaries, leases, and IT costs are deductible by all businesses. That comes from gross revenues, and as these are business expenses related to running the business, they are deductible against your taxable income (you spend the money, but you're not taxed on that money).
Secondly, all these deductions have direct analogies in other industries, they just may have different names (exploration and development is basic R&D, for example).
Now, if you want to talk subsidies, ask the EIA. You'll see that rather than subsidies, fossil fuels receive basically zero dollars (between coal and natural gas). Biofuels, solar, and wind get about $5.2 billion. Far from fossil fuels being subsidies, the Federal Government dumps billions in that "cheaper renewable" power and gives zero to fossil fuels.
The reality is those subsidies oft-trumpeted about "big oil" don't really exist. And additionally, renewables in the US REQUIRE us to have nuclear, natural gas, and coal as backup for the times (which is almost always) when they cannot supply all our power needs. So those renewables benefit from the exact same "subsidies" that "big oil" gets - because using renewables relies upon primary power generation from "big oil".
They keep saying "you are what you eat", and since cattle eat grass, I figure by eating a steak I'm eating vegetables... Time for another salad - a nice, big, New York Strip salad, medium rare!
The statement was that the markets had lost throughout that year. That is provably false. If you have a problem with it - take it up with the original AC (or yourself).
Go to China and try to start a telecom or financial business. Go to China and try to start an automotive, steel, or airplane company. Good luck. Closed market. Much of the bigger, more important industries are either 100% owned by the Chinese Government, or legally are required to be owned by at least 51% Chinese Government agencies. Not so in the US or the EU.
So it's quite possible that there were no jobs lost due to the tariffs. In other words - a lot of angst about a lot of possibilities, and precious few facts.
Obama had a filibuster-proof majority in Congress for about half of his first term. Democrats controlled everything. He did nothing except up the amount of deficit spending. And then stated that "2% GDP and 6% unemployment is the new normal - get used to it".
Check Jan 2 to Nov 30th (the last trade day at this point) - both up! Sucks to be wrong, doesn't AC?
Use non-Chinese sources where possible?
I would love to see the following:
A 0% corporate income tax on any company domiciled in the US.To be domiciled in the US, you must meet the following criteria:
1. Your headquarters must be located within the 50 States
2. Your primary financial institutions and auditors must be domiciled within the 50 States
3. At least 60% of your VP-or-higher executives must live at least 200 days a year within the 50 States
4. At least 67% of your board of directors must live at least 200 days a year within the 50 States
You meet all those - and you're a US domiciled corporation, and subject to 0% corporate income tax. I suspect the increase in personal income taxes and employment - without a single change to taxation rates - would more than offset the "loss" of corporate income tax revenues the Federal government receives. Pretty much all major players worldwide would want to relocate to the US. Yes, it's an inconvenience for the executive leadership, but for the vast majority of workers and shareholders it would be a significant benefit.
Guess what - if you have a patent in France, I can go to Germany and copy it! Patents - worldwide - are on a country-by-country basis. The issue is that China FORCED you to transfer IP - even the EU took China to the WTO over the practice. China forces companies to share - and grant - IP to Chinese companies, if a foreign company wants to do business in many industries in China. That's against WTO rules.
For those "journalists", anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is a Nazi, and even Bernie is suspect sometimes... The Nazis were all about socialized healthcare, Government control of the economy via heavy regulation, and 100% confiscation of personal firearms. What's President Trump's stance on those issues? Where do those "journalists" stand on those issues? I believe the "Nazi accusers" doth protest too much.
The TPP was never in place - and Hillary also opposed it. So using it as justification for some weird fantasy you have is, well, a fantasy.
China agrees to buy more US agriculture products. China agrees to make Fentanyl a controlled substance. China agrees to negotiate on forced technology transfer. Yeah, China won on everything, for just a 90 day stay, didn't they?
they got us to back down on tariffs.
Nope. The 10% in place stays in place. China agreed (finally) to talk about IP theft, trade balance, and drug controls. And for that they get a 90 day stay against an INCREASE from 10% to 25%.
OTOH Trump probably couldn't have done those tariffs anyway. Not without wrecking the economy.
No sign that the tariffs in place since September have done much to the economy or country, so what makes you think you'd have bigger impacts from the additional tariffs on $200 billion in trade? We're talking about tariffs going from $20 billion to $50 billion.
Meanwhile the outsourcing continues, with GM moving 14,000 jobs to Mexico (and rather cleverly blaming it on declining demand for cars vs SUVs while ignoring the new SUV & Truck factories in Mexico).
Yep! And thanks to the President, when GM does move those jobs, they have to pay at least $16/hour for the labor in Mexico, meaning there is a LOT less incentive to move the jobs in the first place - and it will rapidly build up the Mexican economy too.
Nothing change. Everything continues apace. Well, except we borrowed another $1 trillion as a giveaway to Trump's wealthy friends in the top 1%.
Yeah, he's got another $9 trillion to go before he equals his predecessor, who also gave away 17% of the economy to his friends in Big Pharma and Big Healthcare...
So how many jobs were lost due to the tariffs? GM claims they will say $6 billion per year with the cuts of 14,000 people - that's about $480,000 per employee. Clearly there is some funny accounting going on there... If it was the tariffs, why isn't Ford, or Chrysler laying people off as well? So just how many jobs were lost from the tariffs?
NASDAQ and DJIA were up for the year, from Jan 21 to Nov 30.
GM says the cuts will save $6 billion a year. That's $480,000 per job. Yeah - GM has other issues if each job costs them $40,000 per month...
So then our share of the UN budget should be cut from 22% to 20%. Either way - we're overpaying...
Are we talking taking the debt back down to ~$20 trillion, when President Trump took office, or ~$10 trillion, when President Obama took office? How far back? Back to the last time we actually paid down the debt?
So what makes you think that these tariffs increased unemployment? That's the question I was answering - what data do you have that says the tariffs have increased unemployment?
Good point! It's about 15% and falling. We should push for another cut in our share of UN costs...
Trump may not make it to the next election...
Short of dying, how would he not make it? The Republicans still control the Senate, and the Senate is where Impeachment starts.
False. Impeachment is what the House does; trial is what the Senate does. The House can impeach President Trump, like they did President Clinton. But unless the Senate votes to convict - it's nothing. A charge, an allegation, a trial - and an acquittal.
The first two treaties were not treaties; they were never ratified. They were a handshake by President Obama and carried no weight. The 3rd, well, even the UN couldn't back Russia's desire to keep the treaty in light of their continued violations of the treaty. As far as the UN goes, it was predominantly over the fact we were paying 25% of the entire UN budget, and was re-negotiated down to "just" 22%. It's been underpaid since 1985 - meaning it's been under-paid for 5 previous Presidents, as well as the current President.