First presidential debate - September 26: Trump vs Hillary

[Endus]

Only if he sells his property.

The $600 million in income wasn't his property; he was clear that his owned property value is in the billions, during the debate. It's clearly two separate things.

And owning $600 million in property is not the same as having $600 million in income, which is what he claimed.

[Stommped]

Buying more ingredients doesn't create more people who want brownies. That's not how markets work.

If you mean she could spend it on better ingredients, sure, but now you run into the question of whether 50 people will pay more for those brownies, because if they won't, you're losing money.

You're literally changing the example. I clearly stated that she'd tried making more than 50 brownies in the past, and was never able to sell more than 50. You don't get to just change the example, and then pretend you've made a point.

You're making arguments that literally no reasonable economist would support. They don't make sense on any level. Trickle-down economic theory has been tried, and it does not work. Nothing "trickles down".

But you didn't say how many people were at the fair. Just because there was only 50 people buying brownies doesn't mean there isn't 50 people who will buy brownies AND 50 other people who will buy cookies. I'm not changing it, you didn't specify.

[alexw]

Your point about France is entirely inaccurate. They tried exactly what you're proposing and it failed. You can't spin it any other way than that.

Again no. You clearly don't have a clue on this issue. France's gov has been forced to significantly cut expenditure to meet EU rules on budget deficits. Moreover the whole ECB system has a contractionary bias in terms of demand. Together this has significantly reduced consumer demand in France. That has then resulted in lowered employment. Moreover its not just an issue in France, it exists across all of the eurozone countries. Its why Italy's economy has been stagnant and unemployment high in Spain too.

I suggest you actually learn something about economics before trying to discuss this topic as its clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Endus]

I am not saying to vote for trump, I do not support him. But attacking him for not paying taxes is the most ridiculous thing to do. Neither Clinton nor Trump are going to make any progress with taxes and corporate loopholes since they are both on the side of corporations.

That's a pretty odd statement when Clinton's entire economic policy as framed in the debate involves increasing corporate taxes, removing loopholes, and boosting the consumer class.

[Kellhound]

Not really, Sally knows the demand is usually around 50. Making more brownies will not magically make more people appear at the school fair

Unless they're fucking amazing brownies and people come to the fair just to get them, I guess

Unless of course the person she bought the supplies from suddenly has more money to spend and goes to the fair and spends it on, say, brownies. You are assuming static demand when you cannot actually do so because you have altered the entire balance.

[Celista]

He is doing what every businessman does. Like he said at the debates tonight, he is following the law and if you believe it should be different you should change the law. There is nothing illegal about what he does, and there is nothing immoral about what he does.

Illegal, no. Immoral? Subjective.

Laws are in place as a dividing line in regards to what society considers acceptable versus unacceptable. That line is often a grey area, whether in regards to our ever-changing societal standards or our interpretation of the law, which is not immutable.

In regards to business practices, I don't think companies should try to straddle the line between legal and illegal. Businesses can and often do hold themselves to a higher standard. It is the reason why companies like Costco pay their employees $17 an hour and are closed on holidays...they know they don't *have* to do these things, yet they do so anyway.

Having scruples is often good business, people shop at Costco for reasons other than low prices. It's also the reason why some people avoid shopping at Walmart, if they can help it.

[Gray_Matter]

Ah. Think I've heard that tune before. It's not because, you know, Trump flat-out said things that were false more often?

Not just tonight, but in general?

"I never said that" six times, by the way. The last was in the crowd after the fight. Would you like to know which times he did say that?

A week of fact checking both candidates. Trump had 87 erroneous statements in 5 days and Clinton had 8 erroneous statements in 5 days.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ck-week-214287

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ck-week-214286

[Katchii]

He is doing what every businessman does. Like he said at the debates tonight, he is following the law and if you believe it should be different you should change the law. There is nothing illegal about what he does, and there is nothing immoral about what he does.

But even he knows the law SHOULD be changed, that's why he suggested it...he just doesn't want it to be changed. I can't blame him for doing it as a businessman it's smart business, but he's not vying for a business position, he's trying to become POTUS.... who shouldn't be doing everything he can to make money or "evade" paying taxes by working the system he KNOWS is fucked up.

My favorite part about the whole thing was when he talked about bringing jobs back, and making sure they don't leave, etc.... and I'm in my room yelling YOU FIRST you hypocrite.

[TheRabidDeer]

The $600 million in income wasn't his property; he was clear that his owned property value is in the billions, during the debate. It's clearly two separate things.

And owning $600 million in property is not the same as having $600 million in income, which is what he claimed.

I don't have his financial statements, if his net worth/revenue increased $600 million that is one thing if he said he got $600 million in actual income that is something else. If he found a way to not pay tax on $600 million in income that would be stunning but I doubt that is the case. Odds are Trump is just being stupid in his wording again. He is good at abusing the system to further his wealth but is not really that smart in a lot of other areas.

[LilSaihah]

This is exactly why he shouldn't be president. He is going to want those laws to still exist. He is going to keep abusing them to take advantage of people, cheat them off their money and gain more personal wealth.

Those are not good traits for a president

But everyone has that motive. It's easy to fling it at trump but hillary has the same thing going on; who do you think's holding her leash?
If we assume ill intent then they both end up with the same result; no change
If we assume good intent, Donald has a massive amount more experience than Hillary on how to actually create effective change to reduce these practices

[Breccia]

Only if he sells his property.

So, he didn't actually make money, he sat there and let his properties increase in value, and didn't sell anything.

....did he make money or not? I'm not an expert, but if the only income he got was property value increase and he didn't sell them, did he really make money?

[Endus]

But you didn't say how many people were at the fair. Just because there was only 50 people buying brownies doesn't mean there isn't 50 people who will buy brownies AND 50 other people who will buy cookies. I'm not changing it, you didn't specify.

You're explicitly changing it. She makes brownies. Your argument was that giving her more money to spend on making more brownies would necessarily result in her selling more brownies at that same price point, because sales are, in your mind, directly tied to production.

That's what trickle-down economics is.

I'm pointing out how ridiculous that is. If she makes 50,000 brownies for her school fair, and keeps her price point the same, she isn't going to magically sell more brownies, just because she's got a lot more waiting in the minivan outside. That's not how markets work. Demand drives markets, not production. This is like first day of Economics 101 level stuff.

[breadisfunny]

Illegal, no. Immoral? Subjective.

Laws are in place as a dividing line in regards to what society considers acceptable versus unacceptable. That line is often a grey area, whether in regards to our ever-changing societal standards or our interpretation of the law, which is not immutable.

In regards to business practices, I don't think companies should try to straddle the line between legal and illegal. Businesses can and often do hold themselves to a higher standard. It is the reason why companies like Costco pay their employees $17 an hour and are closed on holidays...they know they don't *have* to do these things, yet they do so anyway.

Having scruples is often good business, people shop at Costco for reasons other than low prices. It's also the reason why some people avoid shopping at Walmart, if they can help it.

wish i would make 17$ an hour. would be able to afford to eat more than the measly amount i do now. i'm constantly starving. i would kill for 17$ an hour.

[Endus]

I don't have his financial statements, if his net worth/revenue increased $600 million that is one thing if he said he got $600 million in actual income that is something else.

I'm going by what he said in the debate. He said that he made an income of something like $640 million last year (I think it was $648 or $649 million, specifically, but he definitely used the word "income). He then later specified that it was NOT the value of his properties, that was upwards of $3 billion.

If he found a way to not pay tax on $600 million in income that would be stunning but I doubt that is the case.

That's the point I'm making. I cannot believe there's a legitimate way to make $600 million of gross income all be untaxable income.

And the other greater point is that nobody has his financial information. Unlike any other candidate for President in the last 40 years or so. Because he just won't release them, because he doesn't want to. That's literally the only reason he's given that holds up. He's claimed (and again, during the debate) that he "can't" because he's under IRS audit, but the head of the IRS has stated that being under audit does not mean he can't release his tax records. So that's a direct lie, by Trump.

[Celista]

wish i would make 17$ an hour. would be able to afford to eat more than the measly amount i do now. i'm constantly starving. i would kill for 17$ an hour.

Rice and beans, very filling and you get a complete protein. Buy both in bulk and learn to soak beans before cooking. Pasta is cheap too, but not quite as cheap.

[alexw]

Then, in this fairy tale world, the increased spending on materials (thereby meaning the brownies should taste incredibly better), she can now charge more for each brownie. The idea that you can't do anything with your money in capitalism is pure insanity.

Oh bloody hell. If the consumer has only $10 it doesn't matter a damn how many you bake, how good the ingredients are, if she bakes cakes instead of brownies, the consumer will still only be able to buy $10 of output. There will be no increase in employment because demand is still capped at $10.

The only way demand will rise is if the amount consumers have rises. That used to be via pay rises. That stopped in the late 1970's. To have consumer demand continue to rise consumers were and are being loaded up with debt.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It works in the small Scandinavian countries, not 300 million people. Take money out of the hands of the job makers and there are no jobs for the consumer class. We can debate this for years.

Consumers have money, they can go out and spend money, it creates demand for goods and services which requires labor which creates demand for jobs. If a company has higher demand than their current employees can handle, then they're losing business and are forced to hire more people.

If consumers don't have money, they don't spend it. You can flood the pockets of employers with money all day. They're not going to hire people just because they have the money. Let me repeat this. Just because you give them bunches of money doesn't mean they're going to hire someone because they have that money. If that person is going to... sit around and do nothing all day because there's no reason for them to work, no demand for their work, employers aren't just going to hire people out of the goodness of their hearts.

There is a limit of course, you can't overtax, but what people are talking about when they say they want to tax the ultra wealthy are the companies that are making record profits every year, even during the recession. These people have billions if not hundreds of billions in assets. If your entire theory is that they would hire people if they had money, these people would have created thousands of jobs from all the money they have. But they haven't created jobs. And you're arguing that we should give them EVEN MORE money. Which you think they'll create jobs with. In reality, that money gets shoved in overseas banks.

So to stimulate job growth? You put more money in the hands of citizens, who will spend that money and create demand.

We can debate this for years, and you'd still be wrong.

[Zervek]

Trump has some fantastic ideas! He is going to make a great leader for this country; a much better one than Obama. Trump is one of the few that wants to return America to its former glory. I've been pretty hyped all night

[Kellhound]

Buying more ingredients doesn't create more people who want brownies. That's not how markets work.

If you mean she could spend it on better ingredients, sure, but now you run into the question of whether 50 people will pay more for those brownies, because if they won't, you're losing money.



You're literally changing the example. I clearly stated that she'd tried making more than 50 brownies in the past, and was never able to sell more than 50. You don't get to just change the example, and then pretend you've made a point.

You're making arguments that literally no reasonable economist would support. They don't make sense on any level. Trickle-down economic theory has been tried, and it does not work. Nothing "trickles down".

Markets work by increasing demand, by buying more material she is increasing demand in the system.

[Stommped]

Again no. You clearly don't have a clue on this issue. France's gov has been forced to significantly cut expenditure to meet EU rules on budget deficits. Moreover the whole ECB system has a contractionary bias in terms of demand. Together this has significantly reduced consumer demand in France. That has then resulted in lowered employment. Moreover its not just an issue in France, it exists across all of the eurozone countries. Its why Italy's economy has been stagnant and unemployment high in Spain too.

I suggest you actually learn something about economics before trying to discuss this topic as its clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

And you clearly aren't listening to a word I'm saying. I'm telling you the reason for France's economic problems is because they started super taxing the rich back in 2010, your using a completely separate issue to pinpoint the problem and completely ignoring the actual problem. Please don't me to learn something about economics again when you are just clearly not listening.