Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

The 10-year bond yield went up about 20 basis points (.2%) on Wednesday to over 2%. That is an enormous increase, actually historic. Dow up 250 after an 800 point plunge when it became clear that the exit polls were off. So it took the US about 12 hours to recoup the "losses" created by the uncertainty of a Trump Presidency. The rise of the ten-year to over 2% means that the demand for money is up sharply, probably because businesses are gearing up to invest. That creates jobs, and no matter our political persuasion, that is a very good thing.

When bonds go up it means increased risks are perceived. I don't know what you're saying there but it doesn't seem to jive with what I know about bonds, and what businesses invest in. I can certainly see that Trump pledging to cut regulations would spur some businesses to invest, but it doesn't follow from that that there will be more demand for government bonds. It suggests there should be less.

As for the rest of it, OK -- I get it. Your assumption is that all those trillions are going to be spent by the corporations that repatriate it, which is one hell of an assumption. Even if anyone were to be charitable enough to assume that, there's still the difference bewteen one-time gains in metrics and actual, real economic growth. I know you well enough to know that you know the difference. Is your support for Trump so significant that you are going to drop a long-held belief about real economic activity to defend tangential one-off gains and sleight-of-hand statistics? I certainly hope not.

Bottom line: there's no way it's coming from the private sector. The private sector doesn't see any opportunity. That's why I assumed it would be public spending. And, also, because Trump can't ``get a piece'' of private growth, as he says he wants with other big infrastructure projects.

[froot loops]

See it now, thanks. I think it was The Windsor Star story from a few weeks ago that anticipated that as a sign. Glad to hear that next steps are being taken. It may not be a walled off Mexico, but here's something the neighboring country will build and pay for and even share in the profits, so Trump can claim an Art of the Deal victory. That support could be needed if Moroun can keep the land-seizure suits going until Snyder's out, and then get the next governor to reverse the executive decision that cut out the state leg. I'm gonna read up on this fuller next week and get a fuller understanding of the MI politics side of it.

The Moroun thing is weird because the Snyder and Duggan side isn't publicly trying to thwart a second span at the ambassador, just that the new bridge is a priority. Duggan just did a land swap with Moroun that would help him with that span.

[hack]

Thwart it downriver, you mean? Certainly it seems that Duggan is a friend to Moroun. Is that the land swap of a few years ago that gave Moroun the train station? Or another?

[hack]

let me just use a proposition I heard Rand Paul make this morning. He proposed to charge corporations 6.5% on repatriated money from the $ 3T now stashed overseas

I recall that Google, or Alphabet, a while back bragged that its global average effective tax rate is 6%. So on the one side, I wonder how Google's going to take to repatriating its money and having that number go up. On the other, if I'm the Dems, and I'm ready to play by today's rules, I note the gap between that and what most people's average rate is, and start screaming about corporate fat cats and their Washington lap dogs.

But, overall, it sure does seem like the big tax reform is a possibility. Then again from what I've read tax reform tends to be a first-year-of-the-administration kind of thing, historically. I wonder if Trump trades something with Hatch and whomever his house counterpart is to allow their reform to go through.

[Wild Hoss]

I appreciate the tone.

I don't understand how the empty churches of Europe are a "fact denial". That is one thing that Evangelicals are afraid of. Remember, we were talking about freedom of "worship" versus of "religion" and about manipulation of language. What I hear you saying, please correct me, is that to fear the destruction of what I hold dear, as has already happened in a cultural milieu very similar to ours, by progressive policies, defies reason. I disagree.

I was reading Thursday's WSJ. In it, Dan Henninger has an article called "The Trump Opportunity". Read it. I just don't see where what he says is "1=potato". You might disagree, but it is not beyond your scope of comprehension. I might sue the guy for plagiarism.

What I'd like to know is what is it in the progressive mind that seems to say " I'm talking facts....but you are talking nonsense" without any argumentation or evidence. My fear is that you have these beliefs as handed-down facts from our education system. You are able to understand a "living" constitution, but you somehow can't seem to see that most of what you think are "facts" are really "evolving" opinion. Maybe you can start by explaining to me why it is nonsense to make a statement like " I think the SC will hold that the Bible is hate speech if Hillary appoints another Justice".

Getting late.

Well, what I am seeing is a correlation between empty churches in Europe to the banishment of religious speech and practice in the United States. Surely you can understand why I would find this conclusion to be a bit of a stretch? It doesn't even follow the logic you have proscribed here, in saying that churches are supposedly the only place religion could be practiced. If the churches are empty then, its because people don't want to go. 1=potato, once again.

This is a move that no serious political player in this country has ever mentioned. Its one that frankly couldn't be done legally, could not be enforced if it was, and would never happen if, for no other reason, because politically speaking, it would suicidal.

Churches are tax-free entities...but we're going to ban religion? C'mon now. Eval have better issues to be getting worked up over than this nonsense.

[Wild Hoss]

Geezer has provided an incredible amount of well-reasoned thought and evidence to support his argument that the Supreme Court is about to ban the Bible as hate speech, and you fools are too blinded by your book learning and education system to see the truth!!!

We challenge you to prove a negative! Prove it wouldn't happen!

When Trump is sworn in a copy of Dianetics, we'll know.

[AlabamAlum]

He actually has a choice of Dianetics or Atlas Shrugged.

[Wild Hoss]

No Mein Kampf?

[froot loops]

Thwart it downriver, you mean? Certainly it seems that Duggan is a friend to Moroun. Is that the land swap of a few years ago that gave Moroun the train station? Or another?

No there was a land swap that gave him land on for his second span in exchange for land to expand Riverside Park. Actually the agreement happened in 2015, but the razing of the warehouse for the additional Riverside land happened this year. Here is an article from Crains, it says the Maroun's are trying to use this to stave off the new bridge. But at the time this happened both Duggan and Snyder said that the new bridge was first priority but they wouldn't stand in the way of a second span

Http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20160822/NEWS/160829964/demo-of-old-warehouse-for-riverside-park-upgrades-begins-more-than-2?X-IgnoreUserAgent=1

[froot loops]

No Mein Kampf?

Does a book of Hitler's count as close enough?

[entropy]

does anyone know the actual rate corporations pay for taxes... on average? Hoss and I were talking about it last night. I doubt very many are paying the full tax amount. My question is what is the actual effect rate?

I'm a big fan of limiting exclusions, simplifying the tax code combine with a reduction in the rate. The net impact would be same/similar tax $$$'s but less overhead to manage that "income".

[entropy]

Does a book of Hitler's count as close enough?

Harbaugh has an autobiography?

[hack]

Gotcha, thanks.

[Da Geezer]

When bonds go up it means increased risks are perceived. I don't know what you're saying there but it doesn't seem to jive with what I know about bonds, and what businesses invest in. I can certainly see that Trump pledging to cut regulations would spur some businesses to invest, but it doesn't follow from that that there will be more demand for government bonds. It suggests there should be less.

Certainly, there is an element of "risk" involved in bond pricing. That is why I used the US government bond, because that bond is as close to risk-free as possible. Bonds are also reflective of the demand for money, which is the point I was making. For example, after Brexit, the 10-year dropped to 1.54% (all numbers from memory) because folks were expecting a disaster in Europe and they wanted to put their money in a safe place, so the demand for bonds went up, the rate down. That bond is at 2.11% today.

Dow hit a new all-time high this morning. IMO, that won't hold because earnings are not good enough to support it. But it does reflect real people putting their money at risk expecting real growth.

[Da Geezer]

I'm a big fan of limiting exclusions, simplifying the tax code combine with a reduction in the rate. The net impact would be same/similar tax $$$'s but less overhead to manage that "income".

Amen to that. I'd be in favor of no or very few deductions. Deductions are the vehicle for social engineering using the tax code.