'That’s not how it works boss': Critics pounce on Biden tweet that suggests having 'corporations pay their fair share' would help to reduce inflation

SugarDaddy1

Literotica Guru
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Posts
1,904
The Biden administration is suggesting that making corporations cough up "their fair share" would help alleviate the nation's inflation problem.

"You want to bring down inflation? Let’s make sure the wealthiest corporations pay their fair share," a tweet posted Friday on President Joe Biden's "@JoeBiden" Twitter account declared.

"That’s not how it works boss. Stop printing so much money and the free market will take care of the rest," Anthony Pompliano tweeted.

"The newly created Disinformation Board should review this tweet, or maybe they need to form a new Non Sequitur Board instead. Raising corp taxes is fine to discuss. Taming inflation is critical to discuss. Mushing them together is just misdirection," Amazon founder Jeff Bezos tweeted.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/biden-inflation-corporations-fair-share
 
Omfg! Too funny. You can't make this shit up. 🤷🏾‍♀️

"...Mushing them together is just misdirection," Amazon founder Jeff Bezos tweeted.

Thanks, Daddy, I needed a laugh. 😆
 
It's more than misdirection, it's a failure to understand the causes or what policies need changed. Instead, this admin trots out a bumper sticker meme, an old and tired one at that, and expects everyone to just nod along like they used to before they started to wake up and realize how fucking big of a mistake they made in Nov 2020.
 
Remember this is an economically illiterate administration. They simply have no clue what they are doing. We'll be lucky to survive as a nation until 2024.
 
Remember this is an economically illiterate administration. They simply have no clue what they are doing. We'll be lucky to survive as a nation until 2024.
Trump bankrupted and entire pro football league - not just a team - the entire freaking league.
 
Trump bankrupted and entire pro football league - not just a team - the entire freaking league.
He owned the New Jersey Generals of the USFL. Are you suggesting his signing of Hershel Walker and Brian Sipe bankrupted the entire league?
 
"That’s not how it works boss. Stop printing so much money and the free market will take care of the rest,"

If that guy isn't joking, he's insane - pants-on-head out of his mind. There is no free market. It cannot take care of anything, because it does not exist. "The free market" is a fantastical ideal that is about as realistic as implementing honest-to-goodness communism in any human society with more than 100 people in it.

Redistribution can serve as a substitute to "just printing money." You can, in fact, affect inflation even if you tax after you distribute. It's not nearly as elegant, but the modern global economy is advanced and robust enough to survive the hiccups.

If you consistently fail to tax the rich while also trying to help the poor win the rigged game on said game's own terms, then yes, you're overwhelmingly likely to cause inflation. I'm sure there are plenty of people in the world who would prefer the simple, psychopathic answer: fuck the poor outright.

Meanwhile, tons of corporations are posting record profits even accounting for inflation. When that's happening, there's more to the story. Occam's Razor doesn't begin applying until your explanation actually fits all the available data.
 
"That’s not how it works boss. Stop printing so much money and the free market will take care of the rest,"

If that guy isn't joking, he's insane - pants-on-head out of his mind. There is no free market. It cannot take care of anything, because it does not exist. "The free market" is a fantastical ideal that is about as realistic as implementing honest-to-goodness communism in any human society with more than 100 people in it.

Redistribution can serve as a substitute to "just printing money." You can, in fact, affect inflation even if you tax after you distribute. It's not nearly as elegant, but the modern global economy is advanced and robust enough to survive the hiccups.

If you consistently fail to tax the rich while also trying to help the poor win the rigged game on said game's own terms, then yes, you're overwhelmingly likely to cause inflation. I'm sure there are plenty of people in the world who would prefer the simple, psychopathic answer: fuck the poor outright.

Meanwhile, tons of corporations are posting record profits even accounting for inflation. When that's happening, there's more to the story. Occam's Razor doesn't begin applying until your explanation actually fits all the available data.
There is an inherent fallacy in this, one that economically illiterate people love to spout,

"Tax the Rich, Tax them more and tax them higher."

But an examination of the rich outside of the tiny percentage of inherited wealth (which has been taxed),
starkly demonstrates the fallacy in thinking in that they have the means to extract that tax from their
customers, the very people who enact laws taxing the rich to provide the societal benefits that they
themselves cannot provide in the amounts that they feel are sufficient to alleviate need. If you raise taxes
on the rich, they are happy to pay them and give lip service as a means of indulgence, but then they just
add that into the cost of business and pass it on, as I said already, to those people who "soaked" them...
__________________________________________
Democrat born. Democrat bred. Libertarian led (by Democrats).
 
We have a free society that does not significantly hinder either upward or downward economic mobility.

What economic freedom has proven, even with redistributive progressive taxation,
is that personal behavior, more than access to wealth, determines poverty.

I submit that there will always be an impoverished class,
but many due to sympathetic circumstance, some
real handicap, which we understand and as a
society strive to alleviate, but far too many
are there of and by their own devices...

For those, I have little sympathy.
__________________________________________
Democrat born. Democrat bred. Libertarian led (by Democrats).
 
Well, it would create inflation and that would certainly give Democrats something to run on:

We can beat inflation! The Republicans hate you! They LIKE inflation: makes them rich!
(Makes Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg...,* rich too!)


* Just part of the list of Ultra-rich Democrats
__________________________________________
Democrat born. Democrat bred. Libertarian led (by Democrats).
 
No, I'm suggesting that you do a better job comprehending the facts.

Trump did not sign Herschel Walker​

https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/13255737/five-things-know-donald-trump-usfl-experience
No, actually you said Trump bankrupted the USFL which is nonsense. Trump didn’t own the USFL. He owned one franchise. Because other franchises, including LA Express, the Boston/New Orleans/Portland Breakers, the Birmingham Stallions, the Pittsburg Maulers, the San Antonio Gunslingers, the Houston Gamblers, and the Memphis Showboats were in financial crisis mode and failing, the league was doomed.

Trump and Chicago Blitz Owner Eddie Einhorn did urge the switch from summer to fall as a last ditch effort to salvage the situation, and a majority of other owners agreed because it had become obvious that spring/summer football was unsustainable. As we’ve seen with numerous attempts since those days, it simply doesn’t work. The USFL’s strategy was to force a merger with the NFL in hopes that at least some franchises would survive. The effort failed. It was a league decision and not the reason for its collapse. The ESPN writer simply didn’t do his homework. The history of the USFL is well documented.
 
No, actually ....
YOU ignorantly said Trump signed Walker, genius.

and then there's this:
The league soon folded, and Trump's push for the fall schedule and a lawsuit against the NFL is generally cited as the main reason.
 
YOU ignorantly said Trump signed Walker, genius.

and then there's this:
The league soon folded, and Trump's push for the fall schedule and a lawsuit against the NFL is generally cited as the main reason.
Yes, I was wrong on that. The ESPN writer‘s claim that “Trump’s push for the fall schedule and a lawsuit against the NFL is generally cited as the main reason” is ridiculous. Franchises were already folding when that decision was made, and it was not Trump’s sole decision. He and another owner were the most vocal advocates, but it was league decision. The ESPN writer could have easily googled the voluminous body of information about the league and learned this. Professional football leagues in the spring and summer have failed every time they’ve been tried.
 
There is an inherent fallacy in this, one that economically illiterate people love to spout,

"Tax the Rich, Tax them more and tax them higher."

But an examination of the rich outside of the tiny percentage of inherited wealth (which has been taxed),
starkly demonstrates the fallacy in thinking in that they have the means to extract that tax from their
customers, the very people who enact laws taxing the rich to provide the societal benefits that they
themselves cannot provide in the amounts that they feel are sufficient to alleviate need. If you raise taxes
on the rich, they are happy to pay them and give lip service as a means of indulgence, but then they just
add that into the cost of business and pass it on, as I said already, to those people who "soaked" them...
__________________________________________
Democrat born. Democrat bred. Libertarian led (by Democrats).
That sounds an awful lot like you're admitting that the "free market" either 1) doesn't exist, or 2) becomes functionally indistinguishable from a cartel. You seem to have very little faith in the idea that somebody who's squeezing consumers for extra money will be vulnerable to a competitor who realizes they can win business by lowering the margin, and yet still be successful.

Careful. You may find yourself admitting that capitalism needs to be spanked really, really hard.

As far as inherited wealth goes, you're technically correct that some of it is taxed. The taxes on the largest estates is a joke, however. If we truly believed in "equality of opportunity," we'd be starting the conversation by taxing all estates at 100%, because that would only begin to level out the playing field between Bill Gates's children and some random crackhead's children.

There's really no third way, here. It's very difficult to disguise Option #1 - fuck the poor - if you're speaking to anybody with a reasonable level of education. Thankfully for the rich, that's a vanishingly small number of people - and many of them are greedy little fuckers regardless.
 
There is an inherent fallacy in this, one that economically illiterate people love to spout,

"Tax the Rich, Tax them more and tax them higher."

But an examination of the rich outside of the tiny percentage of inherited wealth (which has been taxed),
starkly demonstrates the fallacy in thinking in that they have the means to extract that tax from their
customers, the very people who enact laws taxing the rich to provide the societal benefits that they
themselves cannot provide in the amounts that they feel are sufficient to alleviate need. If you raise taxes
on the rich, they are happy to pay them and give lip service as a means of indulgence, but then they just
add that into the cost of business and pass it on, as I said already, to those people who "soaked" them...
__________________________________________
Democrat born. Democrat bred. Libertarian led (by Democrats).
No, the relationship you refer to is not even close to being perfectly elastic. And furthermore, few if any of the people we're talking about have the ability to unilaterally raise prices in their companies to offset their taxes. In a company small enough for the CEO to be able to do that, s/he almost certainly won't be rich enough to be subject to the taxes in question.
 
Back
Top