Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They used a lot of money to create a $17 trillion economy and will need a lot more to grow it to a $20 or $30 trillion economy.
Why would you expand your business if your revenues aren't growing?
Cash is fungible. Buybacks and dividends also create jobs and boost consumer spending.
Yup, despite bringing back cash they did those things. Not because they brought back cash.
Unless they brought back cash and then burned it, there were beneficial effects.
Owners and shareholders benefitted and when they spent this cash, the economy benefitted. Thanks.
The repatriation holiday “did not reduce domestic investment, employment, or [research and development],”
TLOL! Such a stupid claim.
No, the wealthy do not consume more the more money they get. It doesn't happen. Trickle-down is not real.
you supply new inventions that expand your business and make revenues grow.
"If you build it, they will come"...except they don't and that only works in the movies...specifically with regard to ghostly ballplayers.
No it didn't. Companies with more cash cut fewer jobs, not more.
It's not cash, it's profits. They are increasing their profits, but they're not doing so by increasing their revenues. Companies slash workforce in order to achieve higher profit margins all the time. Once again, the equation is:
Profit (P) = Tax Rate (t) x (Revenues (r) - Expenses (e))
P can increase without also increasing r. Usually, it's done by reducing e. And the biggest share of e is always payroll. So if your r is flat or in decline, but you need to increase your P to satisfy the Board, you cut e. It doesn't matter how much "cash" the company has on hand. If r isn't increasing, then the business isn't growing. But to satisfy P, companies reduce e.
Baloney. Anything the companies do with repatriated cash eventually hits consumer demand.
No it doesn't. In fact, repatriation encourages more foreign offshoring of profits, as the Joint Committee determined in 2014.
You said a rich person benefits from cash held by IBM overseas.
Explain how I benefit from the cash IBM holds in any other country.
You're not a rich person, why are you pretending to be one? IBM holding cash in another company benefits a wealthy shareholder because the P is higher because the t is lower. But that does nothing to increase r, which is the goal.
No it didn't. The Treasury got money they would not have otherwise received.
According to the Joint Committee, it did. Check out page 2 of this letter the Joint Committee sent to Hatch in 2014.
Cash is fungible. Buybacks and dividends also create jobs and boost consumer spending.
No they don't. This is trickle-down theory poking its turtle head out again. Supply side, voodoo economics by just another form of phrasing. The guiding philosophy -and let's be clear, it's a philosophy- is that the windfall from profits will trickle-down by way of boosting consumer spending. Even though that has never been the case, ever. And certainly was not the case in 2004. Bush's 2004 growth was due 100% to the housing bubble. Corporate repatriation did nothing to help the economy. Instead, it hurt it by killing jobs.
Yup, despite bringing back cash they did those things. Not because they brought back cash.
No, it was because they brought the cash back. That's what the Senate Committee and the Joint Committee said.
Unless they brought back cash and then burned it, there were beneficial effects.
No, there were no beneficial effects...as evidenced by the fact that you can't seem to articulate them beyond your own personal theory of trickle-down. A theory that is just as cotton-brained now as it was back in 1980.
Owners and shareholders benefitted and when they spent this cash, the economy benefitted. Thanks.
Who says they spent the cash? During the Bush Tax Cuts, the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending. And again, you are just espousing more of the same trickle-down snake oil we've been fed the last 37 years. No, the wealthy do not consume more the more money they get. It doesn't happen. Trickle-down is not real.
The repatriation holiday “did not reduce domestic investment, employment, or [research and development],”
So, you're arguing that it was beneficial because it didn't reduce those things? Ummm...talk about setting a low bar...so that's a benefit? That it didn't make things worse???? The promise was that it would increase those things. That was the promise made in 2004, and it's the promise you and your fellow Russians are making on this board right now.
TLOL! Such a stupid claim.
Not my claim, the claim of the Senate Committee and the Joint Committee.
you supply new inventions that expand your business and make revenues grow.
"If you build it, they will come"...except they don't and that only works in the movies...specifically with regard to ghostly ballplayers.
So what? Nobody said they got them all at once???The issue is whether supply side miracles happen right under your nose or only in the movies. Now do you understand?you mean 100 million Americans have smart phone super computers in their pockets that were supplied or trickled down to them only in the movies???
Did all 100,000,000 get those things all at once? No.
So what? Nobody said they got them all at once???The issue is whether supply side miracles happen right under your nose or only in the movies. Now do you understand?
I've explain to you five times now what supply side economics is. Supply creates demand. When you supply an affordable new invention the demand is automatic and economy grows. 1+1 = 2So what? Nobody said they got them all at once???The issue is whether supply side miracles happen right under your nose or only in the movies. Now do you understand?
If there is no demand, then why oversupply? You can't will demand into being by giving rich people more money. Trickle down doesn't work. We've suffered through this crap for 37 years. Time to give it a rest.
Supply-side does not lead to economic growth. It may lead to profit growth, but profit growth and economic growth are not the same thing.
you supply new inventions that expand your business and make revenues grow.
"If you build it, they will come"...except they don't and that only works in the movies...specifically with regard to ghostly ballplayers.
I've explain to you five times now what supply side economics is. Supply creates demand. When you supply an affordable new invention the demand is automatic and economy grows. 1+1 = 2
You ever hear of the billing dollars plus sales industry?
A good salesman can sell ice to a Eskimo..
Or how about the computer, what you think consumers sat around and thought we need personal computers and inventors made one?.
So what? Nobody said they got them all at once???The issue is whether supply side miracles happen right under your nose or only in the movies. Now do you understand?
If there is no demand, then why oversupply? You can't will demand into being by giving rich people more money. Trickle down doesn't work. We've suffered through this crap for 37 years. Time to give it a rest.
Supply-side does not lead to economic growth. It may lead to profit growth, but profit growth and economic growth are not the same thing.
You ever hear of the billing dollars plus sales industry?
Retailers typically sell back inventory. You think everything at WalMart gets sold? Ridiculous.
A good salesman can sell ice to a Eskimo..
No.
Or how about the computer, what you think consumers sat around and thought we need personal computers and inventors made one?.
Computers already existed prior to PC's. The demand was already there.
Prove your claim.
You ever hear of the billing dollars plus sales industry?
Retailers typically sell back inventory. You think everything at WalMart gets sold? Ridiculous.
A good salesman can sell ice to a Eskimo..
No.
Or how about the computer, what you think consumers sat around and thought we need personal computers and inventors made one?.
Computers already existed prior to PC's. The demand was already there.
