Trickle down Econ already working for AT&T, Wells Fargo and Comcast employees...Thanks Donny!

[The Derp]

Yes, if you look at Q2 growth and say, "Wow, earnings only increased by 1% over Q1...while Q1 earnings increased by 21.5% over Q4, business must suck because earnings didn't increase by 21.5% again", you are an ignorant twat.

That is exactly what happens and exactly what will happen as soon as the Q2 quarterly earnings reports are released, and the CEO/CFO's have to reveal that their earnings increased at a fraction of the rate they did one quarter before. THAT IS WHAT CAUSES A BEAR MARKET, YOU STUPID FUCKING KNOW-NOTHING.

Last year, each and every quarter we earned $25 a share.
This year, each and every quarter, we're going to earn at least $30 a share.
If you think those earnings calls are going to be somber, you may be an ignorant twat.

Again, this is your lack of experience showing...CFOs loathe having to tell shareholders that the growth in profits from quarter-to-quarter comes in lower. Because it leaves shareholders with the question of; why was the profit increase so large to start? And if it wasn't a result of increased sales revenues but a change in the rate, then that says the company isn't strong enough to reach those levels of profitability from before, levels that prompted an increase to the share price, then those shareholders sell off the stock, lowering the price per share and ending the irrational exuberance because the company can't attain the levels of profit increases that caused the share price to rise.

You should really give up on this thread...all it's doing is proving you don't know anything about this subject. Stick to coloring with crayons...that's more your speed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have a funny feeling that meeting increased demand by producing coffee in Chicago may not be profitable.

First of all, coffee doesn't grow in Chicago, so if you're going to make a shitty point, at least make one that makes sense. Secondly, why would producing more coffee result in less profits if there's demand for the coffee? Oh because according to you: Some production is less profitable than some other production. OK, so what specific type of coffee production is less profitable than what other specific type of coffee production? Why am I even asking you this? You just made up the coffee analogy on the spot without bothering to think about it first. But that's really your MO; you post without thinking, then have to spend the thread walking back everything you just said.

The money available to pay owners is reduced by taxes.

Which has nothing to do with expansion. So what fucking point are you trying to make? Your argument has migrated from "lowering corporate profit tax will create jobs and expansion" to "lowering the corporate profit tax will enrich owners". So your original arguments are completely abandoned for this new tract which makes little sense and speaks in contradiction to your earlier points.

Owners are very concerned about taxes reducing profits.
If you owned any stock, you might understand that. Maybe.

LOL! What's hilarious is that someone who has no clue what a bear market is, what causes a bear market, and what effects a bear market has on an economy, thinks they know anything about the stock market. Owners are concerned about taxes reducing profits, you say...well you know how you get around that problem? INCREASE REVENUES. You do that through expansion. Expansion that happens before a cent of profit is taxed. You're telling me that lowering the corporate tax rate is what makes a company profitable and not expanding the company to collect more revenues (sales). So you think that businesses just voluntarily stop growing because they don't want to make too much money? What kind of fucking idiot thinks that? The same kind who doesn't understand that shareholders look at quarterly profit gains and not year-over-year, and who postures economic knowledge on anonymous internet message boards. Pfft.

So owners aren't concerned about taxes reducing profits, owners are concerned about soft sales that reduce revenues. As any business owner will tell you, the key to profits isn't the tax rate, but demand and sales of your product/service. But you don't think that way because you're an economic illiterate. You only pay taxes on profits.

What if a profit tax is 10% in California and 5% across the state line in Nevada?
Any incentive to locate in Nevada? Or is a tax on profit of no concern at all for a corporation?

So you're talking about relocating a tax HQ, you're not talking about expanding into the NV and CA market. Your claim is that by lowering the corporate tax rate, companies would expand and invest...but here you are, claiming the exact opposite. So since this corporate tax cut isn't going to prompt expansion, isn't going to create a single job, and leaves a rate still higher than those countries you screeched about businesses relocating to...why the fuck was it necessary? All it did is temporarily boost earnings for a quarter, priming the market for a switch from bull to bear.

Where the HQ is located has no determination on whether or not the business expands into or within the consumer market. Your claim, and the claim of frauds like you, is that it somehow does and that's why we needed to cut the corporate tax rate to a rate that is still above that of countries like Ireland.

Expansion has everything to do with after tax profit.
Because that's how investors get paid. That's how loans get repaid.

LOL! You fucking moron. First of all, expansion happens pre-tax. And expansion increases revenues. Profit comes after expansion, not before it. This is just your lack of experience showing. You don't even know how or when a business expands. Apparently, you think they do that after they pay a profit tax...and you think that because you're a fucking fraud.

How expensive is coffee production in Chicago? More expensive than production in Mexico?
More expensive than production in Costa Rica? Why?

Coffee doesn't grow in Chicago so pick something that does and let's talk about it. Your arguments never deviate from hypothetical a priori. That's what makes you such a sophist and dishonest, lying fuckwad.

I want to buy a corporation. I find two that look promising. Their prices are identical.
Assets and debts are identical. Sales are identical.
One has $395,000 after-tax earnings the other $325,000 after-tax earnings.
Which one would you choose?

I'd choose the one that has the strongest revenue growth...like any smart investor would.

OK, so what specific type of coffee production is less profitable than what other specific type of coffee production?

Coffee production in Chicago is less profitable than coffee production in Mexico.

The money available to pay owners is reduced by taxes.
​

Which has nothing to do with expansion. ​

I'm going to borrow $1,000,000 to fund my expansion.
Can I repay that loan faster with $325,000 in annual after-tax profits, or with $395,000 in annual after-tax profits?
I'd like to pay a reasonable dividend. Is that more likely with $325,000 in annual after-tax profits, or with $395,000 in annual after-tax profits?
​

What's hilarious is that someone who has no clue what a bear market is, what causes a bear market, and what effects a bear market has on an economy, thinks they know anything about the stock market. ​

When you get a chance, list all the bear markets that started with a 20% earnings increase over the previous year.
​

The same kind who doesn't understand that shareholders look at quarterly profit gains and not year-over-year,​

You should have a friend, one who actually owns stock, ask his broker if he should sell all his shares before Q2 earnings come out, to avoid the sell-off caused by lower quarterly earnings growth. DURR.....
​

Coffee doesn't grow in Chicago ​

So expanding production that loses money is a bad idea? Golly, that was my point Mr. Buffett.
​

First of all, expansion happens pre-tax. ​

Second of all, dividends and loan repayments happen after-tax.
​

I'd choose the one that has the strongest revenue growth..​

​

Their revenue growth is identical, which one would you buy?​

​

So you're talking about relocating a tax HQ.​

​

No, I'm deciding where I want to locate my factory.​

Where I'll pay a 10% state tax, or where I'll pay a 5% state tax?​

​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, if you look at Q2 growth and say, "Wow, earnings only increased by 1% over Q1...while Q1 earnings increased by 21.5% over Q4, business must suck because earnings didn't increase by 21.5% again", you are an ignorant twat.

That is exactly what happens and exactly what will happen as soon as the Q2 quarterly earnings reports are released, and the CEO/CFO's have to reveal that their earnings increased at a fraction of the rate they did one quarter before. THAT IS WHAT CAUSES A BEAR MARKET, YOU STUPID FUCKING KNOW-NOTHING.

Last year, each and every quarter we earned $25 a share.
This year, each and every quarter, we're going to earn at least $30 a share.
If you think those earnings calls are going to be somber, you may be an ignorant twat.

Again, this is your lack of experience showing...CFOs loathe having to tell shareholders that the growth in profits from quarter-to-quarter comes in lower. Because it leaves shareholders with the question of; why was the profit increase so large to start? And if it wasn't a result of increased sales revenues but a change in the rate, then that says the company isn't strong enough to reach those levels of profitability from before, levels that prompted an increase to the share price, then those shareholders sell off the stock, lowering the price per share and ending the irrational exuberance because the company can't attain the levels of profit increases that caused the share price to rise.

You should really give up on this thread...all it's doing is proving you don't know anything about this subject. Stick to coloring with crayons...that's more your speed.

That is exactly what happens

If a moron goes short because Q2 2018 earnings increased by less than the 20% increase in Q1 2018, they deserve to miss the future gains.

the CEO/CFO's have to reveal that their earnings increased at a fraction of the rate they did one quarter before.

If a moron like you already realizes that Q2 quarter-over-quarter growth will be less than 20%, why in the hell do you think CEO/CFOs or the market will be surprised?

Because it leaves shareholders with the question of; why was the profit increase so large to start?

If a moron like you understands that the profit increase was due to the tax cut,
why is the market ignorant of that fact?

then those shareholders sell off the stock, lowering the price per share and ending the irrational exuberance because the company can't attain the levels of profit increases that caused the share price to rise.

The 21% increase in after tax earnings doesn't go away after the first quarter.
The company that earned $100 a share in 2017 is going to earn $121 in 2018, $121 in 2019 and $121 in 2020, even if revenues and margins remain exactly the same, that's not a reason to sell your shares. Idiot.

 

[The Derp]

If a moron goes short because Q2 2018 earnings increased by less than the 20% increase in Q1 2018, they deserve to miss the future gains.

There won't be future gains because you've done nothing to increase sales and revenue. All you've done is make the company more profitable, but not more successful. Profits aren't an indicator of economic growth...REVENUES ARE. That's always been the case. So you can prime the market all you'd like, it's not going to increase consumer demand in any way that leads to an increase in sales and revenue for your business. They teach this stuff in Econ 101...so what's your excuse for getting it so wrong? And shareholders definitely look at quarterly profit growth as an indicator of whether or not they're going to short the stock, as you say. If you go from a 21% growth in profits to a 1% growth, then the share price goes from what it was with a 21% profit growth down to the value of 1% profit growth. Share prices are the measurement of the value of a company's future worth. If the future worth of the company goes from 21% increase in profits down to a 1% increase, then the future worth of the company also goes down. That is what causes a bear market. We saw it play out in 1928-9, 1988-9, 2000-1, and 2007-8.

I sincerely hope you don't do any trading on the market, because you clearly don't know what you're doing or talking about. It's really sad.

If a moron like you already realizes that Q2 quarter-over-quarter growth will be less than 20%, why in the hell do you think CEO/CFOs or the market will be surprised?

Because shareholders don't look at trends like this...they look at comparatively quarterly earnings in a vacuum. The context you think exists doesn't. It never has and it never will.

And furthermore, if you're saying that profit increases will return to the rates they were prior to the tax cut, then all that proves is that the tax cut didn't increase revenues and sales. So you can't claim that the tax cut spurred growth if growth returns to the rate it was prior to the tax cut. All you've done is prime the market for a massive sell-off and transformation from bull to bear, while adding at least $1.5T to the debt (the thing you screeched about for 8 years during Obama like some kind of rabid barnyard animal)...YOU FUCKING IGNORANT, ARROGANT, DUPLICITOUS MORON.

If a moron like you understands that the profit increase was due to the tax cut,
why is the market ignorant of that fact?

So the profit increase was thanks to the tax cut and not the economic growth that was used to sell the tax cut in the first place. Remember, you all said that cutting the corporate profit tax would lead to astounding growth. Now you're telling me that growth will return to the levels it was at before the tax cut, one quarter later. So since growth will just simply return to what it was before the tax cut, then that means the tax cut was completely unnecessary and destructive because it prompts a switch to a bear market. Remember, the share price increases because of the anticipation of future earnings at that rate. So when the earnings don't grow at that rate, the share price gets lowered to reflect that. What you morons have done is prime the market to do exactly that...so here's what's gonna happen:

1. Q1 2018 profits are going to be terrific, astronomical, outstanding, great. The market will soar, share prices will rise, and everyone will be happy until...
2. Q2 2018 profits come in at increases far below that of the previous quarter.
3. Since earnings will come in at a rate significantly below the rate for Q1, the market will "correct" itself accordingly by transforming from a bull to a bear and when that happens we will get...
4. A recession.

The 21% increase in after tax earnings doesn't go away after the first quarter.

Yes, it does. Because you're not cutting the tax rate every quarter. And you just said in your post that earnings for Q1 are due entirely to the tax cut, and not to economic growth generated by the tax cut, like you promise and hypothesize. So you'll probably make the same profit you made in Q1, but there will be negligible growth in revenues because you've done nothing to increase consumer demand which increases revenues and sales, which is what makes a company profitable. Then you theorize that trickle-down philosophy, that somehow increasing after-tax profits will translate to pre-tax expansion...and you assume consistent growth which, why? Why do you assume the company will grow earnings at any rate if the company's not increasing revenues collected, and quarterly profit growth returns to the levels it was prior to the cut?

The company that earned $100 a share in 2017 is going to earn $121 in 2018, $121 in 2019 and $121 in 2020, even if revenues and margins remain exactly the same, that's not a reason to sell your shares. Idiot.

Why do you think the share price stays the same if quarterly earnings rates decline? You know nothing, Jon Snow. The share price is the reflection of the company's future growth and profitability. If the company's growth doesn't maintain the levels that prompted the share price to rise, what do you think happens to the share price!?!?!? So say Company X's share price is $50, then the company's profit grows by 21% in Q1 because of the tax cut, so investors buy the stock and increase the share price to, for the sake of argument, $75, because the company had a huge gain in profits. Then Q2's earnings come in and Company X's profits only grow 1%, so what happens to the $75 stock price, then? It fucking falls because the company's future prospective increases to profit aren't going to be as high as they were in Q1...so yes, you're going to see people shorting the company. Just like you're going to see investors shorting the stock market because all corporations will see this happen.

 

[The Derp]

Coffee production in Chicago is less profitable than coffee production in Mexico.

Coffee doesn't grow in Chicago, so try thinking of something that does and forming a cogent and coherent argument.

CI'm going to borrow $1,000,000 to fund my expansion.

Can I repay that loan faster with $325,000 in annual after-tax profits, or with $395,000 in annual after-tax profits?
I'd like to pay a reasonable dividend. Is that more likely with $325,000 in annual after-tax profits, or with $395,000 in annual after-tax profits?​

So again, here's a perfect example of your inexperience and lack of formal business knowledge.

YOU PAY THE LOAN BEFORE YOU PAY ANY TAX ON PROFITS.

It doesn't matter what the tax rate is, you're not paying the loan back after you pay taxes. For God's sake, can you please stop pretending like you know what you're talking about? Everything you say seems to come right off the top of your head. And you're not even good at improvising right-wing garbage.

When you get a chance, list all the bear markets that started with a 20% earnings increase over the previous year.

You fucking idiot, the bear market doesn't start the quarter of sky-high earnings, it will start once earnings for Q2 reveal themselves to be earnings at a much lower rate than Q1. Seriously, do some research into "irrational exuberance", because that's what your stupid tax cut primed. What's so fucking bizarre about this is that we just lived through something like this 20 years ago when we cut capital gains. It was the same fucking thing...internet companies were over-valued because of the tax cut pouring money into them...then when their earnings fell short, stagnated, or turned negative, the high-flying bull market quickly turned into a bear one, and a recession happened less than six months later. THE SAME THING IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN 2018.

The difference is that in 2000, we had a $236B surplus...we're going to have a $1T deficit facing us in 2018 thanks to this tax cut.

You should have a friend, one who actually owns stock, ask his broker if he should sell all his shares before Q2 earnings come out, to avoid the sell-off caused by lower quarterly earnings growth. DURR.....

The broker doesn't give a shit one way or another because the broker gets a fee regardless. In fact, the broker doesn't even have to be truthful with you about prospective quarterly earnings thanks to the Obama-era fiscal rules you morons removed. Brokers don't care if you win or lose in the market, silly person.

So expanding production that loses money is a bad idea? Golly, that was my point Mr. Buffett.

That point means nothing. If you're importing coffee beans, then to meet demand you'd expand how much you're importing. That's why I told you to choose something other than coffee since it doesn't grow in Chicago and thus, isn't "processed" there. You couldn't do that, mostly because you don't even know the point you're arguing. You're just arguing with me for the sake of arguing, it seems. What "production" of coffee beans are you talking about? See, your argument falls apart because it's stupid, lazy, and lacks effort.

No, I'm deciding where I want to locate my factory.
Where I'll pay a 10% state tax, or where I'll pay a 5% state tax?

It doesn't matter because you're paying the same corporate profit tax rate (21%).

So is this the part of the debate where you switch the subject of what you were arguing? What taxes on the factory are you paying from revenues? The factory isn't generating the sales, it's producing the product. So it doesn't really matter where you put the factory, what matters is where you locate the HQ that pays the tax on profits.

More of your inexperience, sloppiness, and laziness showing.​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If a moron goes short because Q2 2018 earnings increased by less than the 20% increase in Q1 2018, they deserve to miss the future gains.

There won't be future gains because you've done nothing to increase sales and revenue. All you've done is make the company more profitable, but not more successful. Profits aren't an indicator of economic growth...REVENUES ARE. That's always been the case. So you can prime the market all you'd like, it's not going to increase consumer demand in any way that leads to an increase in sales and revenue for your business. They teach this stuff in Econ 101...so what's your excuse for getting it so wrong? And shareholders definitely look at quarterly profit growth as an indicator of whether or not they're going to short the stock, as you say. If you go from a 21% growth in profits to a 1% growth, then the share price goes from what it was with a 21% profit growth down to the value of 1% profit growth. Share prices are the measurement of the value of a company's future worth. If the future worth of the company goes from 21% increase in profits down to a 1% increase, then the future worth of the company also goes down. That is what causes a bear market. We saw it play out in 1928-9, 1988-9, 2000-1, and 2007-8.

I sincerely hope you don't do any trading on the market, because you clearly don't know what you're doing or talking about. It's really sad.

If a moron like you already realizes that Q2 quarter-over-quarter growth will be less than 20%, why in the hell do you think CEO/CFOs or the market will be surprised?

Because shareholders don't look at trends like this...they look at comparatively quarterly earnings in a vacuum. The context you think exists doesn't. It never has and it never will.

And furthermore, if you're saying that profit increases will return to the rates they were prior to the tax cut, then all that proves is that the tax cut didn't increase revenues and sales. So you can't claim that the tax cut spurred growth if growth returns to the rate it was prior to the tax cut. All you've done is prime the market for a massive sell-off and transformation from bull to bear, while adding at least $1.5T to the debt (the thing you screeched about for 8 years during Obama like some kind of rabid barnyard animal)...YOU FUCKING IGNORANT, ARROGANT, DUPLICITOUS MORON.

If a moron like you understands that the profit increase was due to the tax cut,
why is the market ignorant of that fact?

So the profit increase was thanks to the tax cut and not the economic growth that was used to sell the tax cut in the first place. Remember, you all said that cutting the corporate profit tax would lead to astounding growth. Now you're telling me that growth will return to the levels it was at before the tax cut, one quarter later. So since growth will just simply return to what it was before the tax cut, then that means the tax cut was completely unnecessary and destructive because it prompts a switch to a bear market. Remember, the share price increases because of the anticipation of future earnings at that rate. So when the earnings don't grow at that rate, the share price gets lowered to reflect that. What you morons have done is prime the market to do exactly that...so here's what's gonna happen:

1. Q1 2018 profits are going to be terrific, astronomical, outstanding, great. The market will soar, share prices will rise, and everyone will be happy until...
2. Q2 2018 profits come in at increases far below that of the previous quarter.
3. Since earnings will come in at a rate significantly below the rate for Q1, the market will "correct" itself accordingly by transforming from a bull to a bear and when that happens we will get...
4. A recession.

The 21% increase in after tax earnings doesn't go away after the first quarter.

Yes, it does. Because you're not cutting the tax rate every quarter. And you just said in your post that earnings for Q1 are due entirely to the tax cut, and not to economic growth generated by the tax cut, like you promise and hypothesize. So you'll probably make the same profit you made in Q1, but there will be negligible growth in revenues because you've done nothing to increase consumer demand which increases revenues and sales, which is what makes a company profitable. Then you theorize that trickle-down philosophy, that somehow increasing after-tax profits will translate to pre-tax expansion...and you assume consistent growth which, why? Why do you assume the company will grow earnings at any rate if the company's not increasing revenues collected, and quarterly profit growth returns to the levels it was prior to the cut?

The company that earned $100 a share in 2017 is going to earn $121 in 2018, $121 in 2019 and $121 in 2020, even if revenues and margins remain exactly the same, that's not a reason to sell your shares. Idiot.

Why do you think the share price stays the same if quarterly earnings rates decline? You know nothing, Jon Snow. The share price is the reflection of the company's future growth and profitability. If the company's growth doesn't maintain the levels that prompted the share price to rise, what do you think happens to the share price!?!?!?

So say Company X's share price is $50, then the company's profit grows by 21% in Q1 because of the tax cut, so investors buy the stock and increase the share price to, for the sake of argument, $75, because the company had a huge gain in profits. Then Q2's earnings come in and Company X's profits only grow 1%, so what happens to the $75 stock price, then? It fucking falls because the company's future prospective increases to profit aren't going to be as high as they were in Q1...so yes, you're going to see people shorting the company. Just like you're going to see investors shorting the stock market because all corporations will see this happen.

ll you've done is make the company more profitable, but not more successful.

Yeah, I hate those more profitable, less successful stocks.

If you go from a 21% growth in profits to a 1% growth, then the share price goes from what it was with a 21% profit growth down to the value of 1% profit growth.

Only an ignorant twat will be surprised when Q2 earnings don't grow 21.5% over Q1 earnings.

Share prices are the measurement of the value of a company's future worth.

Excellent!
This years earnings were $100 a share. Next years will be at least $121.50. 2019 at least $121.50.
I value $121.50 a year more highly than I value $100 a year.

Why do you think the share price stays the same if quarterly earnings rates decline?

Because the after tax earnings just kept growing.

So say Company X's share price is $50, then the company's profit grows by 21% in Q1 because of the tax cut, so investors buy the stock and increase the share price to, for the sake of argument, $75, because the company had a huge gain in profits.

Good point. PE ratios may expand because the long term expected profits are so much higher.

Then Q2's earnings come in and Company X's profits only grow 1%, so what happens to the $75 stock price, then?

If tax rates and expected profit growth hasn't changed for the worse, it will probably remain steady.

Because shareholders don't look at trends like this..

A few shareholders are morons. Most won't be shocked at the big Q1 jump and then the return to more normal growth.

So the profit increase was thanks to the tax cut and not the economic growth

Yes, twat, no one expects economic growth to be 21.5% between Q4 2017 and Q1 2018.

Remember, you all said that cutting the corporate profit tax would lead to astounding growth.

It will add to growth. How much growth remains to be seen.

Why do you think the share price stays the same if quarterly earnings rates decline?

Why do you expect share prices to crater if earnings remain steady?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, if you look at Q2 growth and say, "Wow, earnings only increased by 1% over Q1...while Q1 earnings increased by 21.5% over Q4, business must suck because earnings didn't increase by 21.5% again", you are an ignorant twat.

That is exactly what happens and exactly what will happen as soon as the Q2 quarterly earnings reports are released, and the CEO/CFO's have to reveal that their earnings increased at a fraction of the rate they did one quarter before. THAT IS WHAT CAUSES A BEAR MARKET, YOU STUPID FUCKING KNOW-NOTHING.

Last year, each and every quarter we earned $25 a share.
This year, each and every quarter, we're going to earn at least $30 a share.
If you think those earnings calls are going to be somber, you may be an ignorant twat.

Again, this is your lack of experience showing...CFOs loathe having to tell shareholders that the growth in profits from quarter-to-quarter comes in lower. Because it leaves shareholders with the question of; why was the profit increase so large to start? And if it wasn't a result of increased sales revenues but a change in the rate, then that says the company isn't strong enough to reach those levels of profitability from before, levels that prompted an increase to the share price, then those shareholders sell off the stock, lowering the price per share and ending the irrational exuberance because the company can't attain the levels of profit increases that caused the share price to rise.

You should really give up on this thread...all it's doing is proving you don't know anything about this subject. Stick to coloring with crayons...that's more your speed.

Toro, can you help this guy out?

 

[Toro]

Yes, if you look at Q2 growth and say, "Wow, earnings only increased by 1% over Q1...while Q1 earnings increased by 21.5% over Q4, business must suck because earnings didn't increase by 21.5% again", you are an ignorant twat.

That is exactly what happens and exactly what will happen as soon as the Q2 quarterly earnings reports are released, and the CEO/CFO's have to reveal that their earnings increased at a fraction of the rate they did one quarter before. THAT IS WHAT CAUSES A BEAR MARKET, YOU STUPID FUCKING KNOW-NOTHING.

Last year, each and every quarter we earned $25 a share.
This year, each and every quarter, we're going to earn at least $30 a share.
If you think those earnings calls are going to be somber, you may be an ignorant twat.

Again, this is your lack of experience showing...CFOs loathe having to tell shareholders that the growth in profits from quarter-to-quarter comes in lower. Because it leaves shareholders with the question of; why was the profit increase so large to start? And if it wasn't a result of increased sales revenues but a change in the rate, then that says the company isn't strong enough to reach those levels of profitability from before, levels that prompted an increase to the share price, then those shareholders sell off the stock, lowering the price per share and ending the irrational exuberance because the company can't attain the levels of profit increases that caused the share price to rise.

You should really give up on this thread...all it's doing is proving you don't know anything about this subject. Stick to coloring with crayons...that's more your speed.

Toro, can you help this guy out?

The Derp is incorrect.

I know of no bear market that has been caused by the second derivative in the change in corporate profits when corporate profits are still rising.

In fact, the second derivative in the change in profits is at its highest rate at the very bottom of the market, and generally turns negative as the economy improves.

CFOs aren't loathe to tell shareholders that the second derivative in the change in corporate profits. CFOs are loathe to tell shareholders what they are not expecting. Shareholders understand that the second derivative in the change in corporate profits is not necessarily what matters.

What matters is the absolute change in profits relative to expectations.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Coffee production in Chicago is less profitable than coffee production in Mexico.

Coffee doesn't grow in Chicago, so try thinking of something that does and forming a cogent and coherent argument.

CI'm going to borrow $1,000,000 to fund my expansion.

Can I repay that loan faster with $325,000 in annual after-tax profits, or with $395,000 in annual after-tax profits?
I'd like to pay a reasonable dividend. Is that more likely with $325,000 in annual after-tax profits, or with $395,000 in annual after-tax profits?​

So again, here's a perfect example of your inexperience and lack of formal business knowledge.

YOU PAY THE LOAN BEFORE YOU PAY ANY TAX ON PROFITS.

It doesn't matter what the tax rate is, you're not paying the loan back after you pay taxes. For God's sake, can you please stop pretending like you know what you're talking about? Everything you say seems to come right off the top of your head. And you're not even good at improvising right-wing garbage.

When you get a chance, list all the bear markets that started with a 20% earnings increase over the previous year.

You fucking idiot, the bear market doesn't start the quarter of sky-high earnings, it will start once earnings for Q2 reveal themselves to be earnings at a much lower rate than Q1. Seriously, do some research into "irrational exuberance", because that's what your stupid tax cut primed. What's so fucking bizarre about this is that we just lived through something like this 20 years ago when we cut capital gains. It was the same fucking thing...internet companies were over-valued because of the tax cut pouring money into them...then when their earnings fell short, stagnated, or turned negative, the high-flying bull market quickly turned into a bear one, and a recession happened less than six months later. THE SAME THING IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN 2018.

The difference is that in 2000, we had a $236B surplus...we're going to have a $1T deficit facing us in 2018 thanks to this tax cut.

You should have a friend, one who actually owns stock, ask his broker if he should sell all his shares before Q2 earnings come out, to avoid the sell-off caused by lower quarterly earnings growth. DURR.....

The broker doesn't give a shit one way or another because the broker gets a fee regardless. In fact, the broker doesn't even have to be truthful with you about prospective quarterly earnings thanks to the Obama-era fiscal rules you morons removed. Brokers don't care if you win or lose in the market, silly person.

So expanding production that loses money is a bad idea? Golly, that was my point Mr. Buffett.

That point means nothing. If you're importing coffee beans, then to meet demand you'd expand how much you're importing. That's why I told you to choose something other than coffee since it doesn't grow in Chicago and thus, isn't "processed" there. You couldn't do that, mostly because you don't even know the point you're arguing. You're just arguing with me for the sake of arguing, it seems. What "production" of coffee beans are you talking about? See, your argument falls apart because it's stupid, lazy, and lacks effort.

No, I'm deciding where I want to locate my factory.
Where I'll pay a 10% state tax, or where I'll pay a 5% state tax?

It doesn't matter because you're paying the same corporate profit tax rate (21%).

So is this the part of the debate where you switch the subject of what you were arguing? What taxes on the factory are you paying from revenues? The factory isn't generating the sales, it's producing the product. So it doesn't really matter where you put the factory, what matters is where you locate the HQ that pays the tax on profits.

More of your inexperience, sloppiness, and laziness showing.​

Coffee doesn't grow in Chicago,

If you throw enough money at it, you can grow anything, anywhere.
But does it make economic sense?
That's why I've been mocking your idiotic claim.....


Me>>>>>I expand with future profits in mind.

DERP>>>>>NO! You expand with future revenues in mind. Revenues = sales = demand. Your profit margin has no bearing on whether or not you're expanding your business to meet demand.

Trickle down Econ already working for AT&T, Wells Fargo and Comcast employees...Thanks Donny!

YOU PAY THE LOAN BEFORE YOU PAY ANY TAX ON PROFITS.

Only the interest, idiot.

You fucking idiot, the bear market doesn't start the quarter of sky-high earnings, it will start once earnings for Q2 reveal themselves to be earnings at a much lower rate than Q1.

The sky high earnings are still sky high in Q2. Because the massive tax cut, hurray!!

The broker doesn't give a shit one way or another because the broker gets a fee regardless.

Brokers get fewer fees after they give crappy, idiotic advice.
Advice like, "Go short, because no one expects Q2 earnings growth to be less than Q1 earnings growth".

Dividends do, but loan repayment ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT! The principle in corporate/business loans are paid pre-tax.

Principle? DURR!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, if you look at Q2 growth and say, "Wow, earnings only increased by 1% over Q1...while Q1 earnings increased by 21.5% over Q4, business must suck because earnings didn't increase by 21.5% again", you are an ignorant twat.

That is exactly what happens and exactly what will happen as soon as the Q2 quarterly earnings reports are released, and the CEO/CFO's have to reveal that their earnings increased at a fraction of the rate they did one quarter before. THAT IS WHAT CAUSES A BEAR MARKET, YOU STUPID FUCKING KNOW-NOTHING.

Last year, each and every quarter we earned $25 a share.
This year, each and every quarter, we're going to earn at least $30 a share.
If you think those earnings calls are going to be somber, you may be an ignorant twat.

Again, this is your lack of experience showing...CFOs loathe having to tell shareholders that the growth in profits from quarter-to-quarter comes in lower. Because it leaves shareholders with the question of; why was the profit increase so large to start? And if it wasn't a result of increased sales revenues but a change in the rate, then that says the company isn't strong enough to reach those levels of profitability from before, levels that prompted an increase to the share price, then those shareholders sell off the stock, lowering the price per share and ending the irrational exuberance because the company can't attain the levels of profit increases that caused the share price to rise.

You should really give up on this thread...all it's doing is proving you don't know anything about this subject. Stick to coloring with crayons...that's more your speed.

Toro, can you help this guy out?

The Derp is incorrect.

I know of no bear market that has been caused by the second derivative in the change in corporate profits when corporate profits are still rising.

In fact, the second derivative in the change in profits is at its highest rate at the very bottom of the market, and generally turns negative as the economy improves.

CFOs aren't loathe to tell shareholders that the second derivative in the change in corporate profits. CFOs are loathe to tell shareholders what they are not expecting. Shareholders understand that the second derivative in the change in corporate profits is not necessarily what matters.

What matters is the absolute change in profits relative to expectations.

Thanks Toro.

 

[Toro]

You fucking idiot, the bear market doesn't start the quarter of sky-high earnings, it will start once earnings for Q2 reveal themselves to be earnings at a much lower rate than Q1.

It is not about the rate that matters.

It is about the level that matters, particularly relative to expectations.

 

[Toro]

Here is what I mean.

You can get the S&P 500 reported GAAP earnings from the Standards & Poor's website.

In Q1/09, earnings were $6.86. Earnings in Q2/09 were $7.51. In Q3, they were $12.54. The rate of growth in earnings was 67% between Q2 and Q3 of 2009.

That was the highest rate of change in profit growth during this bull market. The S&P 500 was at 919 at the end of Q3/09.

It closed today at 2674.

So clearly, the rate of change in earnings does not matter.

What matters is the level of earnings.

At the peak of the last two bull markets, earnings peaked within two quarters of the peak in the index. As earnings fell, so did the index price.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, if you look at Q2 growth and say, "Wow, earnings only increased by 1% over Q1...while Q1 earnings increased by 21.5% over Q4, business must suck because earnings didn't increase by 21.5% again", you are an ignorant twat.

That is exactly what happens and exactly what will happen as soon as the Q2 quarterly earnings reports are released, and the CEO/CFO's have to reveal that their earnings increased at a fraction of the rate they did one quarter before. THAT IS WHAT CAUSES A BEAR MARKET, YOU STUPID FUCKING KNOW-NOTHING.

Last year, each and every quarter we earned $25 a share.
This year, each and every quarter, we're going to earn at least $30 a share.
If you think those earnings calls are going to be somber, you may be an ignorant twat.

Again, this is your lack of experience showing...CFOs loathe having to tell shareholders that the growth in profits from quarter-to-quarter comes in lower. Because it leaves shareholders with the question of; why was the profit increase so large to start? And if it wasn't a result of increased sales revenues but a change in the rate, then that says the company isn't strong enough to reach those levels of profitability from before, levels that prompted an increase to the share price, then those shareholders sell off the stock, lowering the price per share and ending the irrational exuberance because the company can't attain the levels of profit increases that caused the share price to rise.

You should really give up on this thread...all it's doing is proving you don't know anything about this subject. Stick to coloring with crayons...that's more your speed.

Toro, can you help this guy out?

The Derp is incorrect.

I know of no bear market that has been caused by the second derivative in the change in corporate profits when corporate profits are still rising.

In fact, the second derivative in the change in profits is at its highest rate at the very bottom of the market, and generally turns negative as the economy improves.

CFOs aren't loathe to tell shareholders that the second derivative in the change in corporate profits. CFOs are loathe to tell shareholders what they are not expecting. Shareholders understand that the second derivative in the change in corporate profits is not necessarily what matters.

What matters is the absolute change in profits relative to expectations.

Or, simply lie to your stockholders to collect your multimillion dollar bonus.

 

[Dschrute3]

It was also reported last week, that African Americans are experiencing their lowest Unemployment Rate in 17yrs. So Trump is actually doing more for African Americans than Hussein did.

It never ceases to amaze me at how utterly rightarded conservatives are. Here’s one who moronically claims trump has done more for blacks than Obama did in terms of employment.

So let’s take a look at this, shall we?

When Obama became president, unemployment of blacks aged 16 and over was 12.7% (it was 8.2% when Bush became president). Black unemployment was 7.7% when Obama left office. It’s currently at 7.3%.

According to the brain-dead right, a meager drop of 0.4 points, a decrease of 5.2%; is better for blacks than the 5.0 drop, or 39.4% decrease, under Obama.

And the fuzzy ”mathematicians” on the right are baffled why sane folks laugh at them. <smh>

Now let’s look a little deeper at these figures...

When Obama became president, white unemployment was at 7.1%. It fell to 4.3% (a 39.4% decrease) when he left and is currently at 3.6% (a 16.3% decrease).

That means under Obama, blacks did as well as whites in that the unemployment dropped by 39.4% for both blacks and whites, while under trump, whites (16.3% drop) have done more than 3 times better than blacks (5.2% drop).

So again, we laugh at the ignorant conservatives who think blacks are doing better under trump than they did under Obama.

Wow kid, you sound so butthurt deranged. The fact is, the Unemployment Rate for African Americans is the lowest in 17yrs. Sorry that makes your butt hurt so much, but it is the reality. Trump's on a roll. It is what it is.

 

[Faun]

It was also reported last week, that African Americans are experiencing their lowest Unemployment Rate in 17yrs. So Trump is actually doing more for African Americans than Hussein did.

It never ceases to amaze me at how utterly rightarded conservatives are. Here’s one who moronically claims trump has done more for blacks than Obama did in terms of employment.

So let’s take a look at this, shall we?

When Obama became president, unemployment of blacks aged 16 and over was 12.7% (it was 8.2% when Bush became president). Black unemployment was 7.7% when Obama left office. It’s currently at 7.3%.

According to the brain-dead right, a meager drop of 0.4 points, a decrease of 5.2%; is better for blacks than the 5.0 drop, or 39.4% decrease, under Obama.

And the fuzzy ”mathematicians” on the right are baffled why sane folks laugh at them. <smh>

Now let’s look a little deeper at these figures...

When Obama became president, white unemployment was at 7.1%. It fell to 4.3% (a 39.4% decrease) when he left and is currently at 3.6% (a 16.3% decrease).

That means under Obama, blacks did as well as whites in that the unemployment dropped by 39.4% for both blacks and whites, while under trump, whites (16.3% drop) have done more than 3 times better than blacks (5.2% drop).

So again, we laugh at the ignorant conservatives who think blacks are doing better under trump than they did under Obama.

Wow kid, you sound so butthurt deranged. The fact is, the Unemployment Rate for African Americans is the lowest in 17yrs. Sorry that makes your butt hurt so much, but it is the reality. Trump's on a roll. It is what it is.

I understand, facts and reality hurts your tiny brain.

 

[Dschrute3]

It was also reported last week, that African Americans are experiencing their lowest Unemployment Rate in 17yrs. So Trump is actually doing more for African Americans than Hussein did.

It never ceases to amaze me at how utterly rightarded conservatives are. Here’s one who moronically claims trump has done more for blacks than Obama did in terms of employment.

So let’s take a look at this, shall we?

When Obama became president, unemployment of blacks aged 16 and over was 12.7% (it was 8.2% when Bush became president). Black unemployment was 7.7% when Obama left office. It’s currently at 7.3%.

According to the brain-dead right, a meager drop of 0.4 points, a decrease of 5.2%; is better for blacks than the 5.0 drop, or 39.4% decrease, under Obama.

And the fuzzy ”mathematicians” on the right are baffled why sane folks laugh at them. <smh>

Now let’s look a little deeper at these figures...

When Obama became president, white unemployment was at 7.1%. It fell to 4.3% (a 39.4% decrease) when he left and is currently at 3.6% (a 16.3% decrease).

That means under Obama, blacks did as well as whites in that the unemployment dropped by 39.4% for both blacks and whites, while under trump, whites (16.3% drop) have done more than 3 times better than blacks (5.2% drop).

So again, we laugh at the ignorant conservatives who think blacks are doing better under trump than they did under Obama.

Wow kid, you sound so butthurt deranged. The fact is, the Unemployment Rate for African Americans is the lowest in 17yrs. Sorry that makes your butt hurt so much, but it is the reality. Trump's on a roll. It is what it is.

I understand, facts and reality hurts your tiny brain.

The reality is, under Trump the African Unemployment Rate has been reduced to its lowest level in 17yrs. So i'm pretty sure it's just your misguided reliance on Democrat Fake News, that's convincing you to ignore reality. You're allowing your bitter butthurt to cloud your judgement. But hey, whatever floats your boat i guess. Take care.

 

[danielpalos]

This is great news. Let's get big American businesses thinking America again. I'd liked to have seen the Corporate Tax Rate lowered even more, but it's still gonna have a big impact on businesses considering coming to America. Great move by Trump. It should have been done years ago.

It is being financed by debt.

 

[danielpalos]

It was also reported last week, that African Americans are experiencing their lowest Unemployment Rate in 17yrs. So Trump is actually doing more for African Americans than Hussein did.

It never ceases to amaze me at how utterly rightarded conservatives are. Here’s one who moronically claims trump has done more for blacks than Obama did in terms of employment.

So let’s take a look at this, shall we?

When Obama became president, unemployment of blacks aged 16 and over was 12.7% (it was 8.2% when Bush became president). Black unemployment was 7.7% when Obama left office. It’s currently at 7.3%.

According to the brain-dead right, a meager drop of 0.4 points, a decrease of 5.2%; is better for blacks than the 5.0 drop, or 39.4% decrease, under Obama.

And the fuzzy ”mathematicians” on the right are baffled why sane folks laugh at them. <smh>

Now let’s look a little deeper at these figures...

When Obama became president, white unemployment was at 7.1%. It fell to 4.3% (a 39.4% decrease) when he left and is currently at 3.6% (a 16.3% decrease).

That means under Obama, blacks did as well as whites in that the unemployment dropped by 39.4% for both blacks and whites, while under trump, whites (16.3% drop) have done more than 3 times better than blacks (5.2% drop).

So again, we laugh at the ignorant conservatives who think blacks are doing better under trump than they did under Obama.

Wow kid, you sound so butthurt deranged. The fact is, the Unemployment Rate for African Americans is the lowest in 17yrs. Sorry that makes your butt hurt so much, but it is the reality. Trump's on a roll. It is what it is.

I understand, facts and reality hurts your tiny brain.

The reality is, under Trump the African Unemployment Rate has been reduced to its lowest level in 17yrs. So i'm pretty sure it's just your misguided reliance on Democrat Fake News, that's convincing you to ignore reality. You're allowing your bitter butthurt to cloud your judgement. But hey, whatever floats your boat i guess. Take care.

What specific policies helped blacks under our current president?

The trend was lower, not higher.

 

[Faun]

It was also reported last week, that African Americans are experiencing their lowest Unemployment Rate in 17yrs. So Trump is actually doing more for African Americans than Hussein did.

It never ceases to amaze me at how utterly rightarded conservatives are. Here’s one who moronically claims trump has done more for blacks than Obama did in terms of employment.

So let’s take a look at this, shall we?

When Obama became president, unemployment of blacks aged 16 and over was 12.7% (it was 8.2% when Bush became president). Black unemployment was 7.7% when Obama left office. It’s currently at 7.3%.

According to the brain-dead right, a meager drop of 0.4 points, a decrease of 5.2%; is better for blacks than the 5.0 drop, or 39.4% decrease, under Obama.

And the fuzzy ”mathematicians” on the right are baffled why sane folks laugh at them. <smh>

Now let’s look a little deeper at these figures...

When Obama became president, white unemployment was at 7.1%. It fell to 4.3% (a 39.4% decrease) when he left and is currently at 3.6% (a 16.3% decrease).

That means under Obama, blacks did as well as whites in that the unemployment dropped by 39.4% for both blacks and whites, while under trump, whites (16.3% drop) have done more than 3 times better than blacks (5.2% drop).

So again, we laugh at the ignorant conservatives who think blacks are doing better under trump than they did under Obama.

Wow kid, you sound so butthurt deranged. The fact is, the Unemployment Rate for African Americans is the lowest in 17yrs. Sorry that makes your butt hurt so much, but it is the reality. Trump's on a roll. It is what it is.

I understand, facts and reality hurts your tiny brain.

The reality is, under Trump the African Unemployment Rate has been reduced to its lowest level in 17yrs. So i'm pretty sure it's just your misguided reliance on Democrat Fake News, that's convincing you to ignore reality. You're allowing your bitter butthurt to cloud your judgement. But hey, whatever floats your boat i guess. Take care.

Sadly, you are painfully retarded. Typical for conservatives. I never denied black unemployment is the lowest it’s been in 17 years, so who knows what brain disorder you have to think I ignored reality. What I did do, was point out you’re an abject imbecile for thinking Trump did more towards that than Obama.

Trump lowered black unemployment 5% while Obama lowered it 39%. Seems in the alternate universe where you dwell, 5% is greater than 39%.

That would be sort of like Obama handing you $80 ... and then trump handing you another $10 ... and then you moronically crediting trump for giving you more than Obama did because you have more money than you’ve had for years.

See now why folks here laugh at you?

 

[danielpalos]

What growth, specifically will cutting taxes accomplish?

Infrastructure development and upgrade uses our tax monies for the general welfare and general prosperity.

simple speculation on growth, is not very fiscally responsible of Congress.