It's the only one proven to actually work over thousands of years of human history. You socialists are all alike - wait for someone else to actually produce it before taking it and handing it out. Problem is - when the incentives to produce are gone, NOTHING happens. And of course "trickle-up" economics works so well - unskilled and uneducated homeless people make the best entrepreneurs!
I know what it means. It's a derisive term first used by Will Rogers during the depression. It's not found in any economic textbook, and is a classic economic straw man. It basically posits that we somehow make everyone better off by "giving" more and more to those with the most in hopes that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. NO ONE is made better off by giving something to one person which is first taken from another (government). People are better off only when something of value is first PRODUCED. Production in turn comes from combining capital (savings), entrepreneurship (know-how combined with risk taking) and labor. If the incentives for production are reduced enough (by - say - confiscatory tax rates), eventually nothing is produced. I inverted the term to "trickle-up" to simply point out that the absurdity of homeless people becoming entrepreneurs is just as great as that of taxing productive people at 85% or 90% and expecting a healthy economy.
"NO ONE is made better off by giving something to one person which is first taken from another (government)"
Not really true. When you have billionaires in the same country as starving people, taxing billionaires to fund a social safety net means the poor stop starving, and doesn't really affect the standard of living of the billionaires (they're still billionaires).
Redistribution can be a net positive as long as it doesn't go completely overboard and disincentivize employment and/or entrepreneurship.
a 90% tax rate is one blunt-force way to compensate for the fact that sufficiently rich people can hide a lot of their income (e.g. the Panama Papers). So by taxing 90% of their declared income, you're taxing maybe 45% of their actual income. A 90% tax bracket only makes sense for people with 7-figure incomes and up though.
"...and doesn't really affect the standard of living of the billionaires (they're still billionaires)."
So a few billionaires can consume less so millions of poor can consume more, with the government taking a cut? Is that what you're advocating? You're essentially advocating a zero-sum setup (no new production), with the least efficient institution acting as middleman and thereby directly incentivized to grow ever larger as the poor figure out there's a free lunch available. (See the U.S. border crisis.) Further, what about the millions of productive people who make a living selling goods and services to billionaires? Their incomes have been reduced by the amount of the transfer that otherwise would've been spent on consumption. What about the effects on capital markets and interest rates as billionaires reduce their savings (which are substantial) to pay for it all? The aggregate economic incentives/disincentives and effects all need to be taken into consideration. Forcing someone else to pay for your own moral purity is obviously not free.
Define your term. Because it sounds like you believe the government owns a persons wealth and production and then determines how much of both that person can keep. But of course that would be nonsense.
The Laffer Curve is one of the most elegant depictions of basic human incentives and behavior in economic history. It shows humanity as it IS, rather than how ivory tower economists might wish it to be.
smits3 I know this is off topic but your reference to a straw man reminded me of a recent segment on Bill Maher's show. He brings out an actual man made of straw and has a "discussion" with it. It was hilarious in its brilliance and I hope he makes it a regular feature.
Lol. Once again...it seems the only options anyone can concive of are "trickle down economics" or the SoCIALIsm.
Yes....we have socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor. (BTW, that's a quote from a famous guy. You probably know a partial, out-of-context quote of his that everyone knows and loves.)
Have made substantial money in the market, always made the most when people lost their jobs or were automated/offshore, or stock buybacks.
“Trickle-down economics” is the most hilarious and oxymoronic statement on capitalism in the world, and it makes me laugh every time I read it. In one market place the money is literally centralized by the government and dripped to the citizens and in the other it’s assembled in all crazy forms and fashions all FREE to structure and distribute however they believe will best fit their financial objectives (from co-op to not for profit, limited partnership to corporation). Do people still literally believe that “trickle-down” is a euphemism for capitalism that anyone takes seriously?
"Trickle-down economics" is not a euphemism for "capitalism." It's an accurate description for tax cuts of the Reagan/Bush/Trump variety, which vastly reduced the taxes paid by the rich and Big Corporate. The theory was the Bigs would invest all that money they didn't spend on taxes into capitalist ventures, and the resulting jobs and revenue boom would "trickle down" onto everyone and make us all Scrooge McDuck.
Problem is, it didn't work. The rich-n-corporate either offshored much of their money as savings rather than spending it; "invested" in stock buybacks to inflate the value of their holdings; and lavished CEOs and investors with billions of dollars of raises while income stagnated for the middle and working classes. What the rich and corporate didn't do with all that tax-cut money was invest in capitalist ventures.
It was absolute bullshit when it was proposed, absolute bullshit now, and gave the working and middle classes of America a financial enema. We should NEVER have taken it seriously as an economic system that would work, but the Smart People thought it was swell and off to the races we went.
There's a couple major problems with this. First, and most importantly, the data says exactly the opposite of what you're arguing above. I did an entire stack on this and you can find the relevant financial data all included. The largest wealth transfer is human history is happening as we speak, under a democrat, and the second largest wealth transfer in human history happened under Obama, and the data is very, very clear on this.
Second, read back what you said. You are arguing that tax breaks caused business to hide money offshore. Read that, and tell me if it makes sense. Taxes went down, and there response was to offshore more money? So when taxes were high they were gladly paying them, but then when taxes went down they decided it'd be better to offshore money? Does that seem practical or logical to you?
Trump's economy was the first in my life time to see real income gains for the bottom quintile of the company. Obama on the other hand? The top 1% saw an almost unmeasurable increase in wealth, and the bottom quintile's income actually declined over his 8 years.
The modern wealth transfers we've seen are the singular goal of modern monetary theory - Obama's pet financial angel. Lend money, at 0%, to the wealthiest institutions and individuals in the country (only for the rich, by definition, because you have to have assets in the first place to borrow against - and the more assets you have the more money you can borrow, again, at zero percent interest rates), and then watch as their wealth skyrockets while inflation embeds (when you lend people money based on their assets and not their economic production, decreasing production naturally occurs) and the poor suffer even more.
I realize people love to bash tax cuts (why ANYONE thinks federal taxes at this point are a good idea literally blows my mind, but hey, if you like the largest bureaucracy in human history, that's your right) by highlighting the benefit to the wealthy (when you pay the vast majority of taxes by definition you have to take the majority of the benefit of tax cuts - it's very simple math) but the micro economic data says very, very different things about what actually occurred as the results of these "tax cuts."
I'm happy to read your essay, and thanks for offering the links. Quick observations about your comments:
1. No, I didn't argue that tax breaks caused business to hide money offshore. I said Big Corporate used its tax cuts not to expand production or hire more workers, but primarily to fund stock buybacks that enriched investors and CEOs.
Wealthy individuals likewise didn't spend their windfalls on expanding businesses, hiring workers, or engaging in other spend-the-money pursuits. They largely banked the money, in a variety of ways, including offshore accounts as well as onshore. By "offshoring it," I didn't mean to suggest they were hiding money from the IRS, though more than a few did; but that they planted their extra money in investment vehicles around the world. The market boom made them even wealthier, but the middle and working classes didn't see a raise for decades.
2. "why ANYONE thinks federal taxes at this point are a good idea literally blows my mind." How do you suggest funding the operations of federal government if not with federal taxes. Bake sales? Taxes are the price of civilization, so how would you propose replacing that income?
3. I agree with you about MMT and how dangerous it is to overload the rich with even more free money. I also abhor the Fed buying trillions of dollars of corporate debt during Covid to keep Big Corporate afloat ... while not spending much, if any, helping ordinary citizens. That's one reason Biden opened the spending floodgates---where were citizens and businesses wrecked by Covid shutdowns supposed to get income if not from federal printing presses? It worked, you know ... no starvation, no housing collapse, no 80 percent unemployment. The feds vastly overdid the spending in the second year of Covid, and now inflation is eating us alive. But for that first year of Covid, that "biggest wealth transfer in history was under a Democrat" was justified to keep people, landlord, and small businesses alive.
4. Of course the top 10 percent pay the majority of the income taxes in this country: they control most of the money. I don't want to tax them out of existence, because they DID earn that money in some fashion. But someone has to pay our common bills, and if the working and middle classes can't, guess who's left? As you pointed out, MMT injected massive funds into the financial arteries of the rich, and they made out like bandits. Time for them to give some of it back for everybody's sake, including their own.
I'm going to respond bottom up because I think it will make more sense that way...
4. Ironically, I don't agree the majority of these people earned their money. You can draw a direct line between the amount of regulation in a marketplace and the likelihood that someone earned their wealth. The more regulated the market the more likely it was 90% who they knew, 5% luck, and 5% timing. If the market isn't highly regulated, then it's something like 30% skill, 30% luck, 40% timing - and anyone in the market looking honestly at the numbers will come up with a relatively similar algorithm for wealth. The sort of wealth we see in America, which now exceeds the wealth gaps we see in Russia, Saudia Arabia, the Netherlands and others DEPENDS on massive government centralization. You simply cannot have this level of wealth imbalance without a massive centralization of resources through government. It's impossible. True market competition would never allow for it... but remove market competition, allow regulators to simply choose the winners and losers and distribute something like $9T back to the market exactly as those regulators see fit and then you see wealth concentration like we have today. There is literally no other way to get there.
3. We'll put this aside cause it's obvious from the inference we aren't going to find common ground here. The government doesn't get to set your house on fire and then get praised for sending 100,000 firefighters to put out the fire they started in the first place - which includes 99,990 of them standing around and 10 of them actually putting out the fire. The argument also holds no water since "the first year" of the pandemic COVID payments, enhanced unemployment, etc... all happened under Trump. It shouldn't have, it was a MASSIVE failure on Trump's part, but giving credit to Biden for "spending" a bunch more money the market didn't need after the "crisis" payments had already been paid and more than 90% of company restrictions across the country were already eliminated doesn't make much sense.
2. We lived without federal income taxes until 1916, we could easily do it again. And we'd all be better off for it. Centralized government does nothing but transfer money from the poor to the rich. It has in every single civilization before us and it is again in our civilization and will again in every civilization that comes after us that decides to centralize wealth at the expense of market competition. The data, again, are VERY clear on this subject. We could eliminate something like 90% of the federal government and all be substantially better off for it. As for the funding of the remaining 10%, we do it the same way we used too - import taxes, and state payments for shared/common goods (highways, airports, railways, etc...) Or we could keep funding our ponzi scheme federal government so we can pay more for worse education that any developed nation in the world, pay more for healthcare that's leading to a declining life expectancy that leaves us at the bottom of the developed nations in terms of overall health and at the top in terms of cost, by almost 2x the next closest country, and so we can have an immigration crisis worse than anywhere else in the world, which is only exasperating the wealth disparity in this country (but the government needs some excuse to keep taking your money and making rich people richer, so let it be...). The one thing our government has been VERY good at is selling our debt - so MMT can reign supreme and the wealth transfer can continue. But that hen is coming to roost soon enough, and once again, we'll all be the ones paying for it.
1. The largest stock buyback in US history will occur in 2022. Under a fully Big D controlled government. Which again, makes perfect sense if you actually look at the data. At some point everyone will have to accept that the Big D's (and it's really the uniparty for clarity sake, the uniparty is just made up primarily of D's at this point because they like HUGE government the most) ARE the party of GIANT business and even more giant government (but the two always move in concert). As for the stock buyback record setting in 2022, you can do with that what you'd like...
I have enjoyed this discourse and you both have merit to your arguments. But I feel the need to weigh in on who pays when the poor and middle class can't and "taxes are the cost of civilization." At some point spending must be controlled. Otherwise the goose laying the golden egg will be killed. And it seems to me that the trend toward cradle to grave social services is doing exactly that. In essence, it has disincentivised the productivity of far too many citizens. The much lauded, IMO erroneously, FDR set us on this path and now approaching a hundred years later we are drowning in it. And the waste in non-social service federal agencies and departments is out of control as well. Add to that the pass down by the federal government to state and local government of massive amounts of funds and we have a bureaucracy that is so massive that it cannot be effectively administered. Then there is the massive foreign aid spending when our own citizens are not doing particularly well. We are hemmoraghing treasure. And the federal government response is to arm and fund the IRS to squeeze the citizenry, corporate and individual, of more. Except the favored ones who are subsidized. I think if anything demands an audit it is the governments. Other than the tax cuts you find so problematic, taxes have increased steadily post Civil War. The rational for taxes is in essence public safety and many governments fail completely in that regard. For example a significant portion of any budget traditionally was, and should be, defense - law enforcement for state and local, particularly local, and military and border for the federal government. Many cities across the country have completely abdicated that responsibility. The federal government is gutting the military to take care of Ukraine and has abandoned the borders except maybe port authorities (perhaps I am cynical but those customs charges must be levied). Everytime I have entered the US from Canada I dealt with Canadian border patrol , no USBP. The southern border is wide open, despite protestations to the contrary. Citizens along the border suffer property damage on a daily basis and there are reports of bodily injury as well. The preferred vehicle to transport those who do not turn-themselves-in-and-seek-asylum (and who knows how many there are but the estimate is 500,000 this year) are large, double cab pick-up trucks and thefts thereof are astronomical. I am guessing the costs to insure them are, or will be, as well. I have not even touched on the failings of the federal Departments of Education, Energy, and Transportation. What we need is a re-evaluation of what the government is and what it needs to be to work for us. Otherwise you are all going to be on the federal plantation (that is what socialism.is) and it will be far from civilized.
Here we agree completely, DH. I'd argue that the income tax burden should apply to everyone. The amount can be small on poor people: make 10k a year, pay a hundred dolllars in taxes. Or ten. Or something. Everybody pays.
If you have zero tax liability, you don't give much of a damn about how government spends tax money, and that lets politicians suck up to the half who do pay, which are the well-to-do. Spreading the tax pain to everyone makes politicians pay attention to everyone.
And pigs do fly. Agreed. Skin in the game tends to make voters hold elected officials to account. Or at least it might be the best way to accomplish that end.
As to whom politicians appeal; that is hardly monolithic. It is often bizarre. The left, currently has the patronage of the wealthy white elite while claiming to represent the down-trodden (but asking carpenters to pay off college students’ debts?) An odd shift that started with Clinton but made whole by Obama. The right was traditionally the realm of the self-made nouveaux riche. Oddly, at least counterintuitively to history, it is attracting more working class, blue collar and minorities. The sides are switching sides so to speak.
But you know, science is just pure empiricism and by virtue of its method it excludes metaphysics. It’s hard to know what to believe in. Lucky for me I still have my astrology mood ring.
Most definitely. It's the entire financial/economic theory of the GOP. However, once Bush Sr. was no longer Reagan's VP - called it "voodoo economics"....but no one listened.
Again, for those in the back, free market capitalism is great....we should try it sometime.
Capping energy costs per household doesn’t sound like trickle down economics to me. Containing the chaos the elitist admin state has created deserves a new name don’t you think?
Name another economic system that is and has improved the lot of all mankind the world over. And dramatically. Besides free-market capitalism all the others just feed and take care of the elite. Or kill most people. Tell me why millions upon millions are trying to get into those countries that are capitalistic. On the other hand, don’t bother.
We should actually try it sometime, instead of what we have.
So, YOU can name it.
Lol. Actually, tens of millions aren't trying to get anywhere. For the US substantial immigration comes from only about 4 countries, all of which are failed states due to far more than economics. As far as the UK/refugee immigrant issue, might be doing it for more than lower taxes.
Glad you agree or could not think of a system better than capitalism. But your just wrong on who is coming to this country and why. The majority are coming for economic freedom. And we will have this issue as long as we are free. Which of course is in doubt currently as to how much longer. The fascist democrats are hell bent on snuffing out our liberty and freedoms. The red wave must happen this fall
Also, you seem to have missed my point earlier. "Capitalism" in theory is great....we should try it sometimes, instead of the diseased version we have now. I've made substantial money in the market over the years, you know how?
1. Companies fire/lay off employees and either automate or offshore their jobs.
2. Cheap-out on healthcare for employees.
3. Utilize undocumented labor in order to reduce production cost.
4. Produce products that break in 2 years, so people have to buy it again.
No. You're wrong. They're coming because of crime, war, famine and due to failed states. They're leaving because they have no choice.
People from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras are not coming for "economic freedom" they're coming to fill jobs American won't do or fleeing MS-13. They're coming for basic safety and basic wages to send back home.
The majority of the world is free-market capitalist. America is nothing special. Undocumented immigration is only coming from a small, handful of countries. No one from Canada, Australia, UK, etc. is trying to get to the U.S. for "economic freedom." Hell, for many, the U.S., currently, is the LAST place they'd want to be. Who wants to get shot up at the mall or go bankrupt if they get sick?
For those that come on a student visa for an American education are statistically more likely to return back to their home country than stay.
Really? Exactly how is your liberty and freedom being snuffed out?
Well, if you want a Red Wave, the GOP should try to regain some sense of sanity and cut loose from the deranged QAnon/MAGA cult.
😂 those who come on student visas are NOT going back. There is a 15 YEAR (not month) wait for Indians waiting on their greencard via EB2. India is a democratic country with a free economy. I work in academia. I have lots of students from EU coming here for grad school and NOT going back. Other than the South Koreans who are most of the time forced to go back because they come funded by their employers, every single international student I have stays here even if they have to wait 15 years for that card.
Free-market capitalism has improved the world, yes. But the "trickle-down economics" version of it is a scam that needs a silver bullet to make sure it dies. If we want to give money to Americans, then give money to Americans directly Don't turn the rich and corporate into the middlemen in hopes they trickle it down to the rest of us. They don't.
Not sure who advocated for the trickle down version. Seems that was a derogatory label slapped on the economic policy of the Reagan admin. Supply side I think was their preferred term.
I don't know where the term came from, either. Another commenter here said it originated with Will Rogers well before Reaganism, but I've no way to know. Remember George Bush Sr. calling Reaganomics "voodoo economics?" He was correct.
I dropped stats after the first class. The professor gleefully said "[Y]ou can say anything with statistics." I looked around the class to see if that struck anyone else the same way it did me and they were gleefully nodding or furiously taking notes. I dropped the class. I figured on the off chance I needed stats to support an argument I was making I could find a minion.
Half the world has bought it though. And many people are going to die because of it. Each winter more and more people die in Europe due to a lack of heating fuel due to insane climate policies. People before grifters.
I know I am breaking my promise not to post to you because you are like every other left winger, never specific and always insulting but here I am posting to you.
When are you moving to Panama and where in Panama are you moving to in Panama? Remember to take your flak jacket. I will never go back to that banana republic but if I did, I would settle in Bocas del Toro.
Yeah, ignore my 40 years living in that country where on some nights my wife and I would go to sleep to the sound of gunfire.
I know you uneducated left wingers love to portray the US as a police state but during the Noriega years I lived in a real police state. I had friends murdered and incarcerate by Noriega's thugs. One of my collogues was dragged out of his house in front of his wife and children and shot in the back of the head.
My sister moved back to Panama. I told her the disadvantage of moving back to Panam is if you want something done, like have you phone hooked up, you will have to bribe someone. The advantage of moving there is if you want something done you can bribe someone.
Now unlike most if the ill-informed Americans that move to Panama, my sister is fluent in Spanish and the Panamanian people she went to high school with are now movers and shakers in Panama and if she has trouble with a Panama official, she can ask one of her friends to clear it up.
Do you speak Spanish? Do you know any high ranking Panamanian officials?
Take your flak jacket.
I know you won't pay any attention to what I just wrote but when you finally realize what I said is true, please write me on this BBS and tell me I was right and you were an idiot for not listening to me.
Noriega is dead, good but this country turns on a dime and a new strongman is just a blink of an eye away.. It has been my experience that most police don't speak English and the police in Panama is judge, jury and executioner.
I'm not trying to be a smart ass but here is a tip I was taught by a Panamanian cop. Carry a ten dollar bill folded behind your driver's license. When you are stopped hand your license and the tenner to the cop. The cop will pretend to look at your license, pocket the ten and wish you a good day.
I may disagree with you and think you are a vile name call jerk but I do wish you well living in Panama.
I haven't been back to Panama in over 20 years but there used to be a restaurant called Marbella on Ave Balboa that served a delicious garlic lobster The native food is really good. Try the pata cones, the fried yucca and the soup, sancocho and of course the arroz con pollo. Their tamales are good but be aware they prepare it with an olive that has the pit still in it. They look nothing like a Mexican tamale. They are wrapped in a banana leaf.
Read VDH’s article today at the unfortunately mediocre site American Greatness and get a clue. Or read any of Julie Kelly’s J6 articles on the same site
The Reagan and Trump economies were much better for the middle and working classes than the Obama and Biden economies and no amount of leftist spin can change that.
And do you know WHY? The answer is freedom. If people are free to choose among competing goods and services, the system weeds out the weakest providers. If people are coerced or forced to choose the weakest provider (government), government grows ever larger even though it eventually "serves" no one but bureaucrats.
Sorry. You're adjusting the argument. Your colleague said "ECONOMIC Freedom." Which is patently incorrect.
Now, you're saying "Freedom"....yet still talking about competing goods and services. The amount of choices of ketchup or cable providers is not the definition of "freedom."
You know Mexico is a democracy, right? You know Honduras has elections, right?
The system weeds out the weakest? Then why is Elon Musk still in business....yeah, 4.9 Billion from the government (weakest provider). Wonder how all those "Real American" farmers feel about all that socialism money they get from the government as well.
Tell you what, maybe you should stop trying to make immigration from the border such a high-minded enterprise where immigrants are being called by the sweet siren song of the perfect, infallible "shining city on the hill" and "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and the perfection of the deity ordained Constitution.
They're coming because they're broke and hungry. Not that complicated.
Obviously not the only two choices. BUT a "mixed" economy which is not at least 80% private (free) will never be as dynamic, nor produce the innovations and growth that it might.
Well, from your earlier response, it certainly seemed that way.
I have no problem with free market capitalism. I've made a substantial sum in the market over the years. However, I've always made the most money when people have been fired/laid off. So, something is a bit diseased. In general, companies don't produce as much innovation as we are told.
What they're really good at doing cutting jobs, doing stock buybacks with all that extra money that they don't pay in taxes because that would hurt their "innovative capability" and we'd all be living holes in the ground.
I would make an exception for the R&D for healthcare, though. That is something with more real ntrinsic and extrinsic value.
Which is fine, cause that's the system we have, and I make a lot more money, but let's not pretend that's not what they're doing 95% of the time.
Maybe if CEOs didn't have so much of their compensation tied to stock price/stock options, things would be different.
Over 50% of American have zero income tax liability.
The top 10% paid 71% of all income tax collected.
The top 1% paid 38.8% of all income tax collected.
Nearly 40% of the tax revenue collected from 1% is a model of unsustainability.
But you probably are right. Taxation is too narrowly and deeply collected. A product of supply side. We need to follow your, implied, tax model and start collecting more broadly (get those 50+% paying too) and less deeply. So, I guess we agree.
Girl, I voted for Biden, and the Covid lunacy forever changed me. Never again. I am in Georgia (yay!). My vote for Brian Kemp will be for him protecting my job for not taking their fucking injection and my vote for Herschel Walker will be dedicated with special sparkles of anger to Novak Djokovic and the absurdity of him not playing his favorite GS open. 🙌
And Donna, isn't it ironic that Conservative Truss got mugged by reality again? With the prospect of the English freezing in their beds this coming winter, Truss froze (pun intended) the costs of household heating - which is estimated to cost the British Treasury over a 150 billion pounds. Sounds all rather socialist to me.
Yes, what the climate alarmists are doing is very dangerous. I’ve not seen one government official present a coherent transition plan. Europe is in deep over its head. We just have to hope that the US doesn’t doing anything stupid. France gets 70% of its electric generation from nuclear. That’s makes good sense. Germany was going to shut down its nukes but put the brakes on at the last minute.
I am a big fan of Maggie Thatcher and I wish Liz the all the. best. the Limeys are ahead of us. They have had three female PMs and we are yet to have one female President.
I'd like to see Nikki Haley as president. She was born a Sikh. but converted to Christianity. The Sikhs are a warrior class. And we need a warrior in these troubled times, not some senile, racist, moron as President.
Why you may ask is the idiot a racist? Well, he said I will appoint a woman of color as Vice President and a woman of color as supreme court justice. That in itself is racist. What if a politician had said I will appoint a white male as Vice President? Well, the left and the obsequious press would have been all over him as a racist. We heard nothing from the left or the press when the racist idiot said he would appoint a woman of color to high office.
Being liberal means no first principles. Racism being just one of the principles they shun because, you know, a little racism to fight racism is ok. Smfh.
I am a big fan of Nikki Haley and would love to see her as first woman POTUS. Primarily because of her support for Israel while Ambassador to the UN. She has been doing a lot of Republican support and out reach as of late. But practically speaking, I believe the best ticket for 2024 would be DeSantis as POTUS and Haley as VP. The dream team.
Haley’s decision to resign her position shortly before the 2020 election seemed a not so subtle repudiation of Trump. She is either disloyal or stupid.
I don't go for that. First, she resigned in December 2018, after having announced her resignation some time before, well outside the window for the next election cycle. To me her position there was important to give her some foreign affairs experience ahead of a 2024 run, but nothing she needed to do for all four years.
I don't go for that. First, she resigned in December 2018, after having announced her resignation some time before, well outside the window for the next election cycle. To me her position there was important to give her some foreign affairs experience ahead of a 2024 run, but nothing she needed to do for all four years.
The optics were not good. I doubt she does anything without thoughtful reflection. My guess is that she made the wrong bet on Trump. I seem to recall post inauguration lots of GOP hopefuls making the pilgrimage to Mar a Lago to kiss the ring. She begged an invitation and was denied. But, she's been working hard to overcome that faux pas. I think she made a stupid mistake and I hope the powers that be will regard her efforts as atonement. I'd vote for her in a heart beat.
Up here in the "Frozen Land of Studied and Sincere Under-performance" (Canada, just so we're clear) where we have made trying hard to be second-rate or worse a sign of virtue, we'll trade you one whole Unbelievably Incompetent Liberal Cabinet led by Prime Minister Fop-Boy (aka Peter Pandemic) for 1/2 Liz Truss.
I'm not fussed about crypto - for now. If it leads to a central bank digital currency then you have my attention. Not sure if PP wants to "get rid" of the Bank of Canada - just that they've been so focused on ESG, climate and all the other blah blah that they took their eye of the ball.
If Pierre can think, plan and execute in his Adult Ego State while the hurricane of "the next new now" nonsense swirls around us, then he has my vote. I'm a Maslow's Hierarchy guy. Vanilla fundamentals. Kitchen table economics. Can you explain it to others as you have explained it to yourself so that it continues to make sense in good or bad times and doesn't accidently impinge on the Law of Unintended Consequences?
It drives me nuts to witness the level of incompetence, chicanery and narcissism that passes for leadership and management by our elites in this day and age. Just sayin'.
“At the moment, we import two-thirds of all of our apples, we import nine-tenths of all of our pears, we import two-thirds of our cheese. That. Is. A. Disgrace.” More bafflement, then laughter, but not the good kind. It was an odd combination, like Thatcher but with sports bras and a capacity for alarmingly nonsensical statements.
How is it "alarmingly nonsensical" to want your nation to be more self-sufficient? Only a wild-eyed globalist would see it that way.
Also: "...she forged a political career in sharp opposition to the politics of her home—which were, in her mathematician father’s case, socialist. (John Truss is said to be “appalled” by his daughter’s “conversion to extreme right-wing politics.”)
How can one be a socialist and a mathematician simultaneously - since under socialism nobody is counting, and on the odd occasion when they do, nothing adds up?
How? It’s simple: most people, even intelligent people, aren’t rational. They are highly susceptible to influence, and they believe what they want to to believe. Also, any time someone points out widely-held beliefs that make absolutely no sense, they get attacked so that everyone else can feel comfortable about their irrational beliefs.
Great article. Real journalism of the caliber I expect to see on this page. Thankyou.
My take on Liz is that she is what most countries in the western world need now. She is capable of seeing the changes that are neccessary and understands what the people need and want. Of course that's not a view that's accepted by most politicians as they've forgotten they are there to do the bidding of the people who elected them.
It is why so many of them have such a sour expression these days...they know that could have been them had they cared to actually do thier jobs.
I agree, this was a really nice informative piece, though I couldn't care less about her blouses.
I have only seen Truss made fun of, or called a globalist stooge. Sounds like she's unglamorous and pragmatic with a mix of conservatism and populism. Sounds good to me.
So a person interviews a bunch of people about another person. Uses a mix of her quotes. Talks a lot about what she wears. Says she has a bossy “head girl” vibe and lacks charisma. There’s a special set of misogyny for women in leadership and I think this piece has more than a bit.
And I’m with the other readers who pointed out that self-sufficiency is a thing. Sometimes useful, as in European energy.
A good bit of this article is about others' perception of Truss, so maybe a description of her appearance is relevant. Like describing Johnson as always looking like he just got out of bed.
At least our Master of Senility knows how to read and understands not to bring highly classified documents to his beachfront basement for all his Arab friends to see..
Gee, even a high schooler could figure that one out. But I guess one guy is as mentally deficient as the other..
Yes, though can't believe another summer has flown by. I remember the old NBC New anchor John Chancellor musing about how few summers we really are allotted and how we should savor them. How right he was.
This summer has flown, you're right. But it was a good one, as I hope yours was..
Every sunny summer day has to be relished (savor is a better word..) - and I often forget that. But I enjoy autumn as well, so there's that to look forward to..
John Chancellor, Walter Cronkite - the Three Channel Universe. What they spoke actually mattered.
“…the U.S. is clawing itself to pieces” - brilliant in its simplicity, accuracy, and imagery. We face the greatest international instability since 1939 and an energy crisis unlike anything the world has seen in decades and Brandon is doing his best Great Cornholio impression to blood red backdrop, citing Americans as the greatest threat to democracy while he destroys our democracy. Heaven help us all.
God help us Shirley whatever faith we are! Brandon and the Democrats are poison, think we 50 days out from the midterms we really have to vote in person on masse we have to turn America around.
Great piece. Politics apart, I've been confused by so many politicians/journalists/experts accusing Truss of stupidity, before she's even really started her job.
For any Conservative politician, being accused of ‘being stupid’ by the press and progressive politicos (but I repeat myself) is par for the course. If the politician is a woman, magnify the charge of being ‘stupid’ by 2, and throw in tons of misogynist comments about her appearance for good measure. This is the current progressive political zeitgeist in a nutshell.
Tim Scott is old school GOP in a lot of ways. Establishment, corporate, in some ways milquetoast. But I think the tent should be more than big enough for him. The alternative is disaster, we need to win, and I think he does what he feels is right more than a lot of politicians.
Oh, yes. And don't forget "far Right". Anyone to the right of Joe Manchin is described as 'far Right'. You never see any radical progressive described by the press as "far Left". I challenge anyone to find a mainstream press story where an American Progressive is labeled as 'far Left'
Liz Truss has started by legalizing fracking. All EU countries should follow. The US should return to the Republican energy policies that encouraged drilling.
It makes no sense to import natural gas and oil that can be produced domestically. It should be obvious by now that Net Zero is not possible with current technology without massive costs, and it's causing a massive energy crisis. Virtue signalling by importing fossil fuels instead of producing them more economically and securely at home is ridiculous.
Restricting fossil fuel extraction in homage to the enviro-altar is, as are so many liberal inanities, incredibly short on wisdom and long on virtue signaling.
Demand does not shrink and production merely shifts to places where extraction methods are much less responsible and environmentally harmful.
But hey, they get to think themselves successful warriors for mother earth.
Watched her on Questions to the Prime Minister. In that setting, she proved herself to be knowledgeable, able to give succinct answers, and showed great charisma and leadership. How refreshing to hear a leader say that a country cannot tax themselves out of every problem. Envy inspiring to have a politician state a proposition and without ever flinching or name calling answer the oppositions challenges to the proposition.
Fascinating, informative article. Hints that we may have a first on-the-spectrum prime minister. Numerate. Rare, promising.
I so deeply admire Margaret Thatcher and am delighted to read that Truss does, too. It was surprising and troubling to read of her energy price controls. This article explained that decision, logically, without embedded editorializing ("baffling" is a fair, descriptive characterization). This is one of many reasons to support Common Sense.
A motivated on-the-spectrum person has little innate emotional intelligence yet studies others thoughtfully and analytically. How can she endure the constant social contact and talking-talking-talking of politics? Apparently some can turn it on as part of a purposeful job, as long as they have a home to retreat to. Perhaps one can envision people as talking chess pieces, letting go of the exhausting attempt to care personally in favor of an overall caring agape.
I feel hopeful about Truss. Where is our own Truss in the U.S.? Neither major party offers such hope.
I wish her success in helping the people of the U.K. with economic and political challenges looming.
Truss was facing the potential of millions of Britons freezing this winter. She had no choice but to cap their heating bills. Not 'baffling' at all - just smart politically and morally correct.
Zoe, in writing, if you say Boris Johnson cheated on his second wife, then at least put in that Liz Truss also cheated on her husband. That at least gives an even handed picture and avoids the guy is a rat picture. He might be, but let's be fair here and report all sides.
As for actually reading and studying issues, hell give me Liz. Much better rather then calling a lid and going for ice cream while Rome burns and the border is secure from illegals and fentanyl. At least she will be versed on the issues and not try the BS of inflation isn't up, it just raised before and now isn't spiking. Yeah your investments, 401K, and other future assets are shit, but you know todays special is vanilla with sprinkles. Excuse me, was that you or me that hit the atmosphere with a gas bomb?
I for one am more than willing to give the ladies a chance versus the crap hole our fearless brave draft dodgers and get filthy rich politicians have given us in the last how many years?
She sounds like a likable oddity, but the undercurrents in the article suggest a Machiavellian individual whose political nose can smell blood from a good distance. She certainly has her work cut out for her, as does any world leader today.
Of course she was liberal...before she got mugged by reality.
Weren't we all? Then, whoops, big smack in the face when adult life kicks in well. 🤣
When I was a kid, my dad told me that he’d rather vote for a dead dog than a Democrat.
Wise words from a wise man
1948 Senate race COMPLETELY STOLEN. Took decades for truth to come out though. Just like 2020 truth will come out.
You were just ahead of the rest of us, I guess. Good on ya!
No one in Britain is far right.
Joe Biden at royal funeral:
https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-tearfully-gives-queen-one-final-sniff
Proving the old saw about abandoning socialism with attaining wisdom.
Apparently her father failed at that.
He was in academia. Duh.
Yes. Trickle-down economics is a wonderful, highly effective economic theory.
It's the only one proven to actually work over thousands of years of human history. You socialists are all alike - wait for someone else to actually produce it before taking it and handing it out. Problem is - when the incentives to produce are gone, NOTHING happens. And of course "trickle-up" economics works so well - unskilled and uneducated homeless people make the best entrepreneurs!
If nothing else, your comment has convinced me you don't actually know what the term trickle down economics even means.
I know what it means. It's a derisive term first used by Will Rogers during the depression. It's not found in any economic textbook, and is a classic economic straw man. It basically posits that we somehow make everyone better off by "giving" more and more to those with the most in hopes that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. NO ONE is made better off by giving something to one person which is first taken from another (government). People are better off only when something of value is first PRODUCED. Production in turn comes from combining capital (savings), entrepreneurship (know-how combined with risk taking) and labor. If the incentives for production are reduced enough (by - say - confiscatory tax rates), eventually nothing is produced. I inverted the term to "trickle-up" to simply point out that the absurdity of homeless people becoming entrepreneurs is just as great as that of taxing productive people at 85% or 90% and expecting a healthy economy.
"NO ONE is made better off by giving something to one person which is first taken from another (government)"
Not really true. When you have billionaires in the same country as starving people, taxing billionaires to fund a social safety net means the poor stop starving, and doesn't really affect the standard of living of the billionaires (they're still billionaires).
Redistribution can be a net positive as long as it doesn't go completely overboard and disincentivize employment and/or entrepreneurship.
a 90% tax rate is one blunt-force way to compensate for the fact that sufficiently rich people can hide a lot of their income (e.g. the Panama Papers). So by taxing 90% of their declared income, you're taxing maybe 45% of their actual income. A 90% tax bracket only makes sense for people with 7-figure incomes and up though.
"...and doesn't really affect the standard of living of the billionaires (they're still billionaires)."
So a few billionaires can consume less so millions of poor can consume more, with the government taking a cut? Is that what you're advocating? You're essentially advocating a zero-sum setup (no new production), with the least efficient institution acting as middleman and thereby directly incentivized to grow ever larger as the poor figure out there's a free lunch available. (See the U.S. border crisis.) Further, what about the millions of productive people who make a living selling goods and services to billionaires? Their incomes have been reduced by the amount of the transfer that otherwise would've been spent on consumption. What about the effects on capital markets and interest rates as billionaires reduce their savings (which are substantial) to pay for it all? The aggregate economic incentives/disincentives and effects all need to be taken into consideration. Forcing someone else to pay for your own moral purity is obviously not free.
“Sufficiently rich”
Define your term. Because it sounds like you believe the government owns a persons wealth and production and then determines how much of both that person can keep. But of course that would be nonsense.
Not really a strawman. Usually sold/massaged as "Supply-side economics.", Laffer Curve nonsense.
When Bush, Sr. left VP under Reagan, he called it "voodoo economics."
The Laffer Curve is one of the most elegant depictions of basic human incentives and behavior in economic history. It shows humanity as it IS, rather than how ivory tower economists might wish it to be.
Really....so the average American is going to be taxed 85 -90% in your world?
The average American isn't making 10 million a year, so no.
Again, thats not how brackets work
smits3 I know this is off topic but your reference to a straw man reminded me of a recent segment on Bill Maher's show. He brings out an actual man made of straw and has a "discussion" with it. It was hilarious in its brilliance and I hope he makes it a regular feature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTFnj-9EY4M
Lol. Once again...it seems the only options anyone can concive of are "trickle down economics" or the SoCIALIsm.
Yes....we have socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor. (BTW, that's a quote from a famous guy. You probably know a partial, out-of-context quote of his that everyone knows and loves.)
Have made substantial money in the market, always made the most when people lost their jobs or were automated/offshore, or stock buybacks.
Oh, well.
“Trickle-down economics” is the most hilarious and oxymoronic statement on capitalism in the world, and it makes me laugh every time I read it. In one market place the money is literally centralized by the government and dripped to the citizens and in the other it’s assembled in all crazy forms and fashions all FREE to structure and distribute however they believe will best fit their financial objectives (from co-op to not for profit, limited partnership to corporation). Do people still literally believe that “trickle-down” is a euphemism for capitalism that anyone takes seriously?
"Trickle-down economics" is not a euphemism for "capitalism." It's an accurate description for tax cuts of the Reagan/Bush/Trump variety, which vastly reduced the taxes paid by the rich and Big Corporate. The theory was the Bigs would invest all that money they didn't spend on taxes into capitalist ventures, and the resulting jobs and revenue boom would "trickle down" onto everyone and make us all Scrooge McDuck.
Problem is, it didn't work. The rich-n-corporate either offshored much of their money as savings rather than spending it; "invested" in stock buybacks to inflate the value of their holdings; and lavished CEOs and investors with billions of dollars of raises while income stagnated for the middle and working classes. What the rich and corporate didn't do with all that tax-cut money was invest in capitalist ventures.
It was absolute bullshit when it was proposed, absolute bullshit now, and gave the working and middle classes of America a financial enema. We should NEVER have taken it seriously as an economic system that would work, but the Smart People thought it was swell and off to the races we went.
There's a couple major problems with this. First, and most importantly, the data says exactly the opposite of what you're arguing above. I did an entire stack on this and you can find the relevant financial data all included. The largest wealth transfer is human history is happening as we speak, under a democrat, and the second largest wealth transfer in human history happened under Obama, and the data is very, very clear on this.
Second, read back what you said. You are arguing that tax breaks caused business to hide money offshore. Read that, and tell me if it makes sense. Taxes went down, and there response was to offshore more money? So when taxes were high they were gladly paying them, but then when taxes went down they decided it'd be better to offshore money? Does that seem practical or logical to you?
Trump's economy was the first in my life time to see real income gains for the bottom quintile of the company. Obama on the other hand? The top 1% saw an almost unmeasurable increase in wealth, and the bottom quintile's income actually declined over his 8 years.
The modern wealth transfers we've seen are the singular goal of modern monetary theory - Obama's pet financial angel. Lend money, at 0%, to the wealthiest institutions and individuals in the country (only for the rich, by definition, because you have to have assets in the first place to borrow against - and the more assets you have the more money you can borrow, again, at zero percent interest rates), and then watch as their wealth skyrockets while inflation embeds (when you lend people money based on their assets and not their economic production, decreasing production naturally occurs) and the poor suffer even more.
I realize people love to bash tax cuts (why ANYONE thinks federal taxes at this point are a good idea literally blows my mind, but hey, if you like the largest bureaucracy in human history, that's your right) by highlighting the benefit to the wealthy (when you pay the vast majority of taxes by definition you have to take the majority of the benefit of tax cuts - it's very simple math) but the micro economic data says very, very different things about what actually occurred as the results of these "tax cuts."
https://butthedatasays.substack.com/p/has-the-american-dream-been-eaten
👏👏👏
I'm happy to read your essay, and thanks for offering the links. Quick observations about your comments:
1. No, I didn't argue that tax breaks caused business to hide money offshore. I said Big Corporate used its tax cuts not to expand production or hire more workers, but primarily to fund stock buybacks that enriched investors and CEOs.
Wealthy individuals likewise didn't spend their windfalls on expanding businesses, hiring workers, or engaging in other spend-the-money pursuits. They largely banked the money, in a variety of ways, including offshore accounts as well as onshore. By "offshoring it," I didn't mean to suggest they were hiding money from the IRS, though more than a few did; but that they planted their extra money in investment vehicles around the world. The market boom made them even wealthier, but the middle and working classes didn't see a raise for decades.
2. "why ANYONE thinks federal taxes at this point are a good idea literally blows my mind." How do you suggest funding the operations of federal government if not with federal taxes. Bake sales? Taxes are the price of civilization, so how would you propose replacing that income?
3. I agree with you about MMT and how dangerous it is to overload the rich with even more free money. I also abhor the Fed buying trillions of dollars of corporate debt during Covid to keep Big Corporate afloat ... while not spending much, if any, helping ordinary citizens. That's one reason Biden opened the spending floodgates---where were citizens and businesses wrecked by Covid shutdowns supposed to get income if not from federal printing presses? It worked, you know ... no starvation, no housing collapse, no 80 percent unemployment. The feds vastly overdid the spending in the second year of Covid, and now inflation is eating us alive. But for that first year of Covid, that "biggest wealth transfer in history was under a Democrat" was justified to keep people, landlord, and small businesses alive.
4. Of course the top 10 percent pay the majority of the income taxes in this country: they control most of the money. I don't want to tax them out of existence, because they DID earn that money in some fashion. But someone has to pay our common bills, and if the working and middle classes can't, guess who's left? As you pointed out, MMT injected massive funds into the financial arteries of the rich, and they made out like bandits. Time for them to give some of it back for everybody's sake, including their own.
I'm going to respond bottom up because I think it will make more sense that way...
4. Ironically, I don't agree the majority of these people earned their money. You can draw a direct line between the amount of regulation in a marketplace and the likelihood that someone earned their wealth. The more regulated the market the more likely it was 90% who they knew, 5% luck, and 5% timing. If the market isn't highly regulated, then it's something like 30% skill, 30% luck, 40% timing - and anyone in the market looking honestly at the numbers will come up with a relatively similar algorithm for wealth. The sort of wealth we see in America, which now exceeds the wealth gaps we see in Russia, Saudia Arabia, the Netherlands and others DEPENDS on massive government centralization. You simply cannot have this level of wealth imbalance without a massive centralization of resources through government. It's impossible. True market competition would never allow for it... but remove market competition, allow regulators to simply choose the winners and losers and distribute something like $9T back to the market exactly as those regulators see fit and then you see wealth concentration like we have today. There is literally no other way to get there.
3. We'll put this aside cause it's obvious from the inference we aren't going to find common ground here. The government doesn't get to set your house on fire and then get praised for sending 100,000 firefighters to put out the fire they started in the first place - which includes 99,990 of them standing around and 10 of them actually putting out the fire. The argument also holds no water since "the first year" of the pandemic COVID payments, enhanced unemployment, etc... all happened under Trump. It shouldn't have, it was a MASSIVE failure on Trump's part, but giving credit to Biden for "spending" a bunch more money the market didn't need after the "crisis" payments had already been paid and more than 90% of company restrictions across the country were already eliminated doesn't make much sense.
2. We lived without federal income taxes until 1916, we could easily do it again. And we'd all be better off for it. Centralized government does nothing but transfer money from the poor to the rich. It has in every single civilization before us and it is again in our civilization and will again in every civilization that comes after us that decides to centralize wealth at the expense of market competition. The data, again, are VERY clear on this subject. We could eliminate something like 90% of the federal government and all be substantially better off for it. As for the funding of the remaining 10%, we do it the same way we used too - import taxes, and state payments for shared/common goods (highways, airports, railways, etc...) Or we could keep funding our ponzi scheme federal government so we can pay more for worse education that any developed nation in the world, pay more for healthcare that's leading to a declining life expectancy that leaves us at the bottom of the developed nations in terms of overall health and at the top in terms of cost, by almost 2x the next closest country, and so we can have an immigration crisis worse than anywhere else in the world, which is only exasperating the wealth disparity in this country (but the government needs some excuse to keep taking your money and making rich people richer, so let it be...). The one thing our government has been VERY good at is selling our debt - so MMT can reign supreme and the wealth transfer can continue. But that hen is coming to roost soon enough, and once again, we'll all be the ones paying for it.
1. The largest stock buyback in US history will occur in 2022. Under a fully Big D controlled government. Which again, makes perfect sense if you actually look at the data. At some point everyone will have to accept that the Big D's (and it's really the uniparty for clarity sake, the uniparty is just made up primarily of D's at this point because they like HUGE government the most) ARE the party of GIANT business and even more giant government (but the two always move in concert). As for the stock buyback record setting in 2022, you can do with that what you'd like...
I have enjoyed this discourse and you both have merit to your arguments. But I feel the need to weigh in on who pays when the poor and middle class can't and "taxes are the cost of civilization." At some point spending must be controlled. Otherwise the goose laying the golden egg will be killed. And it seems to me that the trend toward cradle to grave social services is doing exactly that. In essence, it has disincentivised the productivity of far too many citizens. The much lauded, IMO erroneously, FDR set us on this path and now approaching a hundred years later we are drowning in it. And the waste in non-social service federal agencies and departments is out of control as well. Add to that the pass down by the federal government to state and local government of massive amounts of funds and we have a bureaucracy that is so massive that it cannot be effectively administered. Then there is the massive foreign aid spending when our own citizens are not doing particularly well. We are hemmoraghing treasure. And the federal government response is to arm and fund the IRS to squeeze the citizenry, corporate and individual, of more. Except the favored ones who are subsidized. I think if anything demands an audit it is the governments. Other than the tax cuts you find so problematic, taxes have increased steadily post Civil War. The rational for taxes is in essence public safety and many governments fail completely in that regard. For example a significant portion of any budget traditionally was, and should be, defense - law enforcement for state and local, particularly local, and military and border for the federal government. Many cities across the country have completely abdicated that responsibility. The federal government is gutting the military to take care of Ukraine and has abandoned the borders except maybe port authorities (perhaps I am cynical but those customs charges must be levied). Everytime I have entered the US from Canada I dealt with Canadian border patrol , no USBP. The southern border is wide open, despite protestations to the contrary. Citizens along the border suffer property damage on a daily basis and there are reports of bodily injury as well. The preferred vehicle to transport those who do not turn-themselves-in-and-seek-asylum (and who knows how many there are but the estimate is 500,000 this year) are large, double cab pick-up trucks and thefts thereof are astronomical. I am guessing the costs to insure them are, or will be, as well. I have not even touched on the failings of the federal Departments of Education, Energy, and Transportation. What we need is a re-evaluation of what the government is and what it needs to be to work for us. Otherwise you are all going to be on the federal plantation (that is what socialism.is) and it will be far from civilized.
Tax cuts necessarily benefit those paying the most tax.
Said another way, tax cut do not benefit those who pay no tax.
50+% have zero income tax liability.
Here we agree completely, DH. I'd argue that the income tax burden should apply to everyone. The amount can be small on poor people: make 10k a year, pay a hundred dolllars in taxes. Or ten. Or something. Everybody pays.
If you have zero tax liability, you don't give much of a damn about how government spends tax money, and that lets politicians suck up to the half who do pay, which are the well-to-do. Spreading the tax pain to everyone makes politicians pay attention to everyone.
And pigs do fly. Agreed. Skin in the game tends to make voters hold elected officials to account. Or at least it might be the best way to accomplish that end.
As to whom politicians appeal; that is hardly monolithic. It is often bizarre. The left, currently has the patronage of the wealthy white elite while claiming to represent the down-trodden (but asking carpenters to pay off college students’ debts?) An odd shift that started with Clinton but made whole by Obama. The right was traditionally the realm of the self-made nouveaux riche. Oddly, at least counterintuitively to history, it is attracting more working class, blue collar and minorities. The sides are switching sides so to speak.
But you know, science is just pure empiricism and by virtue of its method it excludes metaphysics. It’s hard to know what to believe in. Lucky for me I still have my astrology mood ring.
Most definitely. It's the entire financial/economic theory of the GOP. However, once Bush Sr. was no longer Reagan's VP - called it "voodoo economics"....but no one listened.
Again, for those in the back, free market capitalism is great....we should try it sometime.
Capping energy costs per household doesn’t sound like trickle down economics to me. Containing the chaos the elitist admin state has created deserves a new name don’t you think?
I’m a producer of X. Gov’t caps the cost of X to consumers.
If I cannot make money producing X at that price I stop producing X.
Now consider that scenario where X is a critical good. Price caps are pennywise and pound foolish.
Name another economic system that is and has improved the lot of all mankind the world over. And dramatically. Besides free-market capitalism all the others just feed and take care of the elite. Or kill most people. Tell me why millions upon millions are trying to get into those countries that are capitalistic. On the other hand, don’t bother.
Oh, no. I will bother.
"Capitalism" is great.
We should actually try it sometime, instead of what we have.
So, YOU can name it.
Lol. Actually, tens of millions aren't trying to get anywhere. For the US substantial immigration comes from only about 4 countries, all of which are failed states due to far more than economics. As far as the UK/refugee immigrant issue, might be doing it for more than lower taxes.
Glad you agree or could not think of a system better than capitalism. But your just wrong on who is coming to this country and why. The majority are coming for economic freedom. And we will have this issue as long as we are free. Which of course is in doubt currently as to how much longer. The fascist democrats are hell bent on snuffing out our liberty and freedoms. The red wave must happen this fall
Also, you seem to have missed my point earlier. "Capitalism" in theory is great....we should try it sometimes, instead of the diseased version we have now. I've made substantial money in the market over the years, you know how?
1. Companies fire/lay off employees and either automate or offshore their jobs.
2. Cheap-out on healthcare for employees.
3. Utilize undocumented labor in order to reduce production cost.
4. Produce products that break in 2 years, so people have to buy it again.
So, no, we really don't agree.
No. You're wrong. They're coming because of crime, war, famine and due to failed states. They're leaving because they have no choice.
People from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras are not coming for "economic freedom" they're coming to fill jobs American won't do or fleeing MS-13. They're coming for basic safety and basic wages to send back home.
The majority of the world is free-market capitalist. America is nothing special. Undocumented immigration is only coming from a small, handful of countries. No one from Canada, Australia, UK, etc. is trying to get to the U.S. for "economic freedom." Hell, for many, the U.S., currently, is the LAST place they'd want to be. Who wants to get shot up at the mall or go bankrupt if they get sick?
For those that come on a student visa for an American education are statistically more likely to return back to their home country than stay.
Really? Exactly how is your liberty and freedom being snuffed out?
Well, if you want a Red Wave, the GOP should try to regain some sense of sanity and cut loose from the deranged QAnon/MAGA cult.
😂 those who come on student visas are NOT going back. There is a 15 YEAR (not month) wait for Indians waiting on their greencard via EB2. India is a democratic country with a free economy. I work in academia. I have lots of students from EU coming here for grad school and NOT going back. Other than the South Koreans who are most of the time forced to go back because they come funded by their employers, every single international student I have stays here even if they have to wait 15 years for that card.
Free-market capitalism has improved the world, yes. But the "trickle-down economics" version of it is a scam that needs a silver bullet to make sure it dies. If we want to give money to Americans, then give money to Americans directly Don't turn the rich and corporate into the middlemen in hopes they trickle it down to the rest of us. They don't.
Not sure who advocated for the trickle down version. Seems that was a derogatory label slapped on the economic policy of the Reagan admin. Supply side I think was their preferred term.
I don't know where the term came from, either. Another commenter here said it originated with Will Rogers well before Reaganism, but I've no way to know. Remember George Bush Sr. calling Reaganomics "voodoo economics?" He was correct.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-21/trickle-down-economics-fails-a-sophisticated-statistical-test
I dropped stats after the first class. The professor gleefully said "[Y]ou can say anything with statistics." I looked around the class to see if that struck anyone else the same way it did me and they were gleefully nodding or furiously taking notes. I dropped the class. I figured on the off chance I needed stats to support an argument I was making I could find a minion.
Lol. SelfAware Wolves.
I'm gonna go with the longitudinal study examining all industrialized nations, ok?
That's what minions do. Peruse a study.
Works much better than Climate Alarmism and Socialism.
Climate change is a hoax.
Half the world has bought it though. And many people are going to die because of it. Each winter more and more people die in Europe due to a lack of heating fuel due to insane climate policies. People before grifters.
But an expensive hoax
I know I am breaking my promise not to post to you because you are like every other left winger, never specific and always insulting but here I am posting to you.
When are you moving to Panama and where in Panama are you moving to in Panama? Remember to take your flak jacket. I will never go back to that banana republic but if I did, I would settle in Bocas del Toro.
Yes, not worshiping Trump and believing in ginned-up, nonexistent moral panics is being a "left-winger."
Been exceptionally specific. You just don't like my specificty in debunking the fake moral panics and ignorant buffonery so prevalent on this board.
1. 2028.
2. None of your business.
Flak jacket. "Banana Republic" Yeah... ok.
You established LPs points with this reply.
Specific? What you just posted are generalities. Is everyone who disagrees with your generalities ignorant and a buffoon?
BTW, I think Trump is a jerk.
I bet comprof thinks Scandinavian countries are perfect too.
Yeah, ignore my 40 years living in that country where on some nights my wife and I would go to sleep to the sound of gunfire.
I know you uneducated left wingers love to portray the US as a police state but during the Noriega years I lived in a real police state. I had friends murdered and incarcerate by Noriega's thugs. One of my collogues was dragged out of his house in front of his wife and children and shot in the back of the head.
My sister moved back to Panama. I told her the disadvantage of moving back to Panam is if you want something done, like have you phone hooked up, you will have to bribe someone. The advantage of moving there is if you want something done you can bribe someone.
Now unlike most if the ill-informed Americans that move to Panama, my sister is fluent in Spanish and the Panamanian people she went to high school with are now movers and shakers in Panama and if she has trouble with a Panama official, she can ask one of her friends to clear it up.
Do you speak Spanish? Do you know any high ranking Panamanian officials?
Take your flak jacket.
I know you won't pay any attention to what I just wrote but when you finally realize what I said is true, please write me on this BBS and tell me I was right and you were an idiot for not listening to me.
I think you are an idiot anyway but let me know.
Yeah...never had any problems. Already have property there. Live there approx. 6 months out of the year. Not a Third World country.
Don't need a flak jacket.
Considering English is widely spoken and the dollar is used, being bilingual isn't that impressive.
News flash....Noriega is no longer the leader of the country.
Perhaps I should bring Grenades next summer, too.
Why are you so invested/opinionated about where I'm moving to? Aren't you people always saying if you don't 100% love America, leave!
Lol. Well....I'm leaving. Mind your business.
Noriega is dead, good but this country turns on a dime and a new strongman is just a blink of an eye away.. It has been my experience that most police don't speak English and the police in Panama is judge, jury and executioner.
I'm not trying to be a smart ass but here is a tip I was taught by a Panamanian cop. Carry a ten dollar bill folded behind your driver's license. When you are stopped hand your license and the tenner to the cop. The cop will pretend to look at your license, pocket the ten and wish you a good day.
I may disagree with you and think you are a vile name call jerk but I do wish you well living in Panama.
I haven't been back to Panama in over 20 years but there used to be a restaurant called Marbella on Ave Balboa that served a delicious garlic lobster The native food is really good. Try the pata cones, the fried yucca and the soup, sancocho and of course the arroz con pollo. Their tamales are good but be aware they prepare it with an olive that has the pit still in it. They look nothing like a Mexican tamale. They are wrapped in a banana leaf.
I wish you well.
Read VDH’s article today at the unfortunately mediocre site American Greatness and get a clue. Or read any of Julie Kelly’s J6 articles on the same site
Laffer Curve is bullshit, too.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-21/trickle-down-economics-fails-a-sophisticated-statistical-test
No, you get a clue.
The Reagan and Trump economies were much better for the middle and working classes than the Obama and Biden economies and no amount of leftist spin can change that.
Trickle-down economics trumps trickle-down Government every time.
And do you know WHY? The answer is freedom. If people are free to choose among competing goods and services, the system weeds out the weakest providers. If people are coerced or forced to choose the weakest provider (government), government grows ever larger even though it eventually "serves" no one but bureaucrats.
"...free to choose..." This would make a great book title :-) .
Unfortunately, Milton beat me to it.
Sorry. You're adjusting the argument. Your colleague said "ECONOMIC Freedom." Which is patently incorrect.
Now, you're saying "Freedom"....yet still talking about competing goods and services. The amount of choices of ketchup or cable providers is not the definition of "freedom."
You know Mexico is a democracy, right? You know Honduras has elections, right?
The system weeds out the weakest? Then why is Elon Musk still in business....yeah, 4.9 Billion from the government (weakest provider). Wonder how all those "Real American" farmers feel about all that socialism money they get from the government as well.
Tell you what, maybe you should stop trying to make immigration from the border such a high-minded enterprise where immigrants are being called by the sweet siren song of the perfect, infallible "shining city on the hill" and "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and the perfection of the deity ordained Constitution.
They're coming because they're broke and hungry. Not that complicated.
All examples of the market corrupted by...government.
Yeah...ok.
Yep. Those are only two possible choices.
Debunked, economic theory written on a cocktail napkin or SoCIaLISM.
Obviously not the only two choices. BUT a "mixed" economy which is not at least 80% private (free) will never be as dynamic, nor produce the innovations and growth that it might.
Well, from your earlier response, it certainly seemed that way.
I have no problem with free market capitalism. I've made a substantial sum in the market over the years. However, I've always made the most money when people have been fired/laid off. So, something is a bit diseased. In general, companies don't produce as much innovation as we are told.
What they're really good at doing cutting jobs, doing stock buybacks with all that extra money that they don't pay in taxes because that would hurt their "innovative capability" and we'd all be living holes in the ground.
I would make an exception for the R&D for healthcare, though. That is something with more real ntrinsic and extrinsic value.
Which is fine, cause that's the system we have, and I make a lot more money, but let's not pretend that's not what they're doing 95% of the time.
Maybe if CEOs didn't have so much of their compensation tied to stock price/stock options, things would be different.
Indeed. Taxation at penal levels proved much more effective. 🧐
Yes, cause if there's one thing the 1% have to deal with is a heavy tax burden.
Hey, any economic policy written on the back of a cocktail napkin has to be effective
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-21/trickle-down-economics-fails-a-sophisticated-statistical-test
Over 50% of American have zero income tax liability.
The top 10% paid 71% of all income tax collected.
The top 1% paid 38.8% of all income tax collected.
Nearly 40% of the tax revenue collected from 1% is a model of unsustainability.
But you probably are right. Taxation is too narrowly and deeply collected. A product of supply side. We need to follow your, implied, tax model and start collecting more broadly (get those 50+% paying too) and less deeply. So, I guess we agree.
Edit: https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/
Now those are stats I can get behind. 😉
Only 50%? How is that possible with all the money that was supposed to "trickle down" to them, raise wages etc.
Ah, so what you really want is all those other people to pay for your lunch.
How about I agree and you say "thank you" and then stfu?
But rather than either you'll complain that you were not given enough.
Share of Total U.S Income Taxes Paid in Tax Year 2019 (latest available):
Top 1% of Income Earners - 38.8%
Top 5% of Income Earners - 59.4%
Those too.
Girl, I voted for Biden, and the Covid lunacy forever changed me. Never again. I am in Georgia (yay!). My vote for Brian Kemp will be for him protecting my job for not taking their fucking injection and my vote for Herschel Walker will be dedicated with special sparkles of anger to Novak Djokovic and the absurdity of him not playing his favorite GS open. 🙌
Really? That's all it took?
Hershel Walker is a moron (by his own admission)
I would take a moron who votes to protect my freedoms that a mob of fucking liars who came after my livelihood and my well being.
No one came after your livelihood and we'll being. Quit being dramatic.
Yes. Have no doubt you'd take/vote for a moron.
Glad to hear you’re such an expert in my we’ll being. Do tell me more 🤣🤣🤣.
Hershey Walker has many illegitimate kids, threatened to kill his wife with a handgun and lied about being an FBI agent.
And Donna, isn't it ironic that Conservative Truss got mugged by reality again? With the prospect of the English freezing in their beds this coming winter, Truss froze (pun intended) the costs of household heating - which is estimated to cost the British Treasury over a 150 billion pounds. Sounds all rather socialist to me.
Perhaps she never really changed..
Loved her first move, open up the energy markets. The climate ideology is going to destroy our economies and hurt many people
Yes, what the climate alarmists are doing is very dangerous. I’ve not seen one government official present a coherent transition plan. Europe is in deep over its head. We just have to hope that the US doesn’t doing anything stupid. France gets 70% of its electric generation from nuclear. That’s makes good sense. Germany was going to shut down its nukes but put the brakes on at the last minute.
“We just have to hope that the US doesn’t doing anything stupid.”.
Uh…..
Too late
I am a big fan of Maggie Thatcher and I wish Liz the all the. best. the Limeys are ahead of us. They have had three female PMs and we are yet to have one female President.
I'd like to see Nikki Haley as president. She was born a Sikh. but converted to Christianity. The Sikhs are a warrior class. And we need a warrior in these troubled times, not some senile, racist, moron as President.
Why you may ask is the idiot a racist? Well, he said I will appoint a woman of color as Vice President and a woman of color as supreme court justice. That in itself is racist. What if a politician had said I will appoint a white male as Vice President? Well, the left and the obsequious press would have been all over him as a racist. We heard nothing from the left or the press when the racist idiot said he would appoint a woman of color to high office.
Being liberal means no first principles. Racism being just one of the principles they shun because, you know, a little racism to fight racism is ok. Smfh.
Any means to an end.
Not just racist but illegal. You cannot hire based on race/gender.
Sure can appoint (with the blessing of the Senate) though. 😒
I am a big fan of Nikki Haley and would love to see her as first woman POTUS. Primarily because of her support for Israel while Ambassador to the UN. She has been doing a lot of Republican support and out reach as of late. But practically speaking, I believe the best ticket for 2024 would be DeSantis as POTUS and Haley as VP. The dream team.
Loved Maggie but not a fan of Nikki.
I can accept that but why not a fan?
Haley’s decision to resign her position shortly before the 2020 election seemed a not so subtle repudiation of Trump. She is either disloyal or stupid.
I don't go for that. First, she resigned in December 2018, after having announced her resignation some time before, well outside the window for the next election cycle. To me her position there was important to give her some foreign affairs experience ahead of a 2024 run, but nothing she needed to do for all four years.
I don't go for that. First, she resigned in December 2018, after having announced her resignation some time before, well outside the window for the next election cycle. To me her position there was important to give her some foreign affairs experience ahead of a 2024 run, but nothing she needed to do for all four years.
The optics were not good. I doubt she does anything without thoughtful reflection. My guess is that she made the wrong bet on Trump. I seem to recall post inauguration lots of GOP hopefuls making the pilgrimage to Mar a Lago to kiss the ring. She begged an invitation and was denied. But, she's been working hard to overcome that faux pas. I think she made a stupid mistake and I hope the powers that be will regard her efforts as atonement. I'd vote for her in a heart beat.
I disagree.
Great article. Thank you for giving us an education on this new PM. Im definitely going to be following her now.
Up here in the "Frozen Land of Studied and Sincere Under-performance" (Canada, just so we're clear) where we have made trying hard to be second-rate or worse a sign of virtue, we'll trade you one whole Unbelievably Incompetent Liberal Cabinet led by Prime Minister Fop-Boy (aka Peter Pandemic) for 1/2 Liz Truss.
👏👏👏👏👏
So is Poilievre your guy? The man who apparently loves crypto currency and wants to get rid of the Bank of Canada?
I'd take Truss too if the only choice would be Trudeau or the new Conservative General..
I'm not fussed about crypto - for now. If it leads to a central bank digital currency then you have my attention. Not sure if PP wants to "get rid" of the Bank of Canada - just that they've been so focused on ESG, climate and all the other blah blah that they took their eye of the ball.
If Pierre can think, plan and execute in his Adult Ego State while the hurricane of "the next new now" nonsense swirls around us, then he has my vote. I'm a Maslow's Hierarchy guy. Vanilla fundamentals. Kitchen table economics. Can you explain it to others as you have explained it to yourself so that it continues to make sense in good or bad times and doesn't accidently impinge on the Law of Unintended Consequences?
It drives me nuts to witness the level of incompetence, chicanery and narcissism that passes for leadership and management by our elites in this day and age. Just sayin'.
“At the moment, we import two-thirds of all of our apples, we import nine-tenths of all of our pears, we import two-thirds of our cheese. That. Is. A. Disgrace.” More bafflement, then laughter, but not the good kind. It was an odd combination, like Thatcher but with sports bras and a capacity for alarmingly nonsensical statements.
How is it "alarmingly nonsensical" to want your nation to be more self-sufficient? Only a wild-eyed globalist would see it that way.
Also: "...she forged a political career in sharp opposition to the politics of her home—which were, in her mathematician father’s case, socialist. (John Truss is said to be “appalled” by his daughter’s “conversion to extreme right-wing politics.”)
How can one be a socialist and a mathematician simultaneously - since under socialism nobody is counting, and on the odd occasion when they do, nothing adds up?
How? It’s simple: most people, even intelligent people, aren’t rational. They are highly susceptible to influence, and they believe what they want to to believe. Also, any time someone points out widely-held beliefs that make absolutely no sense, they get attacked so that everyone else can feel comfortable about their irrational beliefs.
Great article. Real journalism of the caliber I expect to see on this page. Thankyou.
My take on Liz is that she is what most countries in the western world need now. She is capable of seeing the changes that are neccessary and understands what the people need and want. Of course that's not a view that's accepted by most politicians as they've forgotten they are there to do the bidding of the people who elected them.
It is why so many of them have such a sour expression these days...they know that could have been them had they cared to actually do thier jobs.
I agree, this was a really nice informative piece, though I couldn't care less about her blouses.
I have only seen Truss made fun of, or called a globalist stooge. Sounds like she's unglamorous and pragmatic with a mix of conservatism and populism. Sounds good to me.
So a person interviews a bunch of people about another person. Uses a mix of her quotes. Talks a lot about what she wears. Says she has a bossy “head girl” vibe and lacks charisma. There’s a special set of misogyny for women in leadership and I think this piece has more than a bit.
And I’m with the other readers who pointed out that self-sufficiency is a thing. Sometimes useful, as in European energy.
Good summary of this article. There is some good background material on Liz Truss, but the comments about what she wears are superficial.
A good bit of this article is about others' perception of Truss, so maybe a description of her appearance is relevant. Like describing Johnson as always looking like he just got out of bed.
It's not misogyny if you're on the left saying it about someone on the right. Then it's just, I don't know. "My truth."
Women are there own worst critics. Men find it baffling and make it a rule to get the hell out of the way when it issues forth.
Excellent insight into Liz Truss, can we now have some insight into our wonderful Brandon?
"Insight?" Other than that we are led by a demented, senile fool. Oh and thoroughly corrupt and in the pocket of our enemies.
You forgot predatory on females of any age.
At least our Master of Senility knows how to read and understands not to bring highly classified documents to his beachfront basement for all his Arab friends to see..
Gee, even a high schooler could figure that one out. But I guess one guy is as mentally deficient as the other..
I digress, of course.
How've you been? Well, I hope.
:)
Yes, though can't believe another summer has flown by. I remember the old NBC New anchor John Chancellor musing about how few summers we really are allotted and how we should savor them. How right he was.
How was yours? A good one, I hope.
This summer has flown, you're right. But it was a good one, as I hope yours was..
Every sunny summer day has to be relished (savor is a better word..) - and I often forget that. But I enjoy autumn as well, so there's that to look forward to..
John Chancellor, Walter Cronkite - the Three Channel Universe. What they spoke actually mattered.
My, my, how far have we gone??
Stay well.
Aptly put as always Bruce!
“…the U.S. is clawing itself to pieces” - brilliant in its simplicity, accuracy, and imagery. We face the greatest international instability since 1939 and an energy crisis unlike anything the world has seen in decades and Brandon is doing his best Great Cornholio impression to blood red backdrop, citing Americans as the greatest threat to democracy while he destroys our democracy. Heaven help us all.
God help us Shirley whatever faith we are! Brandon and the Democrats are poison, think we 50 days out from the midterms we really have to vote in person on masse we have to turn America around.
A pragmatic libertarian with iffy social skills. Sounds like a woman after my own heart.
Me too!
Likewise!
Great piece. Politics apart, I've been confused by so many politicians/journalists/experts accusing Truss of stupidity, before she's even really started her job.
For any Conservative politician, being accused of ‘being stupid’ by the press and progressive politicos (but I repeat myself) is par for the course. If the politician is a woman, magnify the charge of being ‘stupid’ by 2, and throw in tons of misogynist comments about her appearance for good measure. This is the current progressive political zeitgeist in a nutshell.
Somewhat like what our press has tried to do to Sen. Tim Scott.
But of course. Black conservatives are maligned as dim-witted Uncle Toms doing Amos and Andy routines for their white supremacist patrons.
But he did endorse Murkowski-perplexing
Tim Scott is old school GOP in a lot of ways. Establishment, corporate, in some ways milquetoast. But I think the tent should be more than big enough for him. The alternative is disaster, we need to win, and I think he does what he feels is right more than a lot of politicians.
All while they tout their self-perceived virtues.
And let's not forget the extremist label. "Right wing extremists!" It just never fails. I think the only accusation missing is racist.
Oh, yes. And don't forget "far Right". Anyone to the right of Joe Manchin is described as 'far Right'. You never see any radical progressive described by the press as "far Left". I challenge anyone to find a mainstream press story where an American Progressive is labeled as 'far Left'
Liz Truss has started by legalizing fracking. All EU countries should follow. The US should return to the Republican energy policies that encouraged drilling.
It makes no sense to import natural gas and oil that can be produced domestically. It should be obvious by now that Net Zero is not possible with current technology without massive costs, and it's causing a massive energy crisis. Virtue signalling by importing fossil fuels instead of producing them more economically and securely at home is ridiculous.
Restricting production of fossil fuels before we have practical replacements for them can only be described as insane.
Restricting fossil fuel extraction in homage to the enviro-altar is, as are so many liberal inanities, incredibly short on wisdom and long on virtue signaling.
Demand does not shrink and production merely shifts to places where extraction methods are much less responsible and environmentally harmful.
But hey, they get to think themselves successful warriors for mother earth.
Watched her on Questions to the Prime Minister. In that setting, she proved herself to be knowledgeable, able to give succinct answers, and showed great charisma and leadership. How refreshing to hear a leader say that a country cannot tax themselves out of every problem. Envy inspiring to have a politician state a proposition and without ever flinching or name calling answer the oppositions challenges to the proposition.
Fascinating, informative article. Hints that we may have a first on-the-spectrum prime minister. Numerate. Rare, promising.
I so deeply admire Margaret Thatcher and am delighted to read that Truss does, too. It was surprising and troubling to read of her energy price controls. This article explained that decision, logically, without embedded editorializing ("baffling" is a fair, descriptive characterization). This is one of many reasons to support Common Sense.
A motivated on-the-spectrum person has little innate emotional intelligence yet studies others thoughtfully and analytically. How can she endure the constant social contact and talking-talking-talking of politics? Apparently some can turn it on as part of a purposeful job, as long as they have a home to retreat to. Perhaps one can envision people as talking chess pieces, letting go of the exhausting attempt to care personally in favor of an overall caring agape.
I feel hopeful about Truss. Where is our own Truss in the U.S.? Neither major party offers such hope.
I wish her success in helping the people of the U.K. with economic and political challenges looming.
Truss was facing the potential of millions of Britons freezing this winter. She had no choice but to cap their heating bills. Not 'baffling' at all - just smart politically and morally correct.
Zoe, in writing, if you say Boris Johnson cheated on his second wife, then at least put in that Liz Truss also cheated on her husband. That at least gives an even handed picture and avoids the guy is a rat picture. He might be, but let's be fair here and report all sides.
As for actually reading and studying issues, hell give me Liz. Much better rather then calling a lid and going for ice cream while Rome burns and the border is secure from illegals and fentanyl. At least she will be versed on the issues and not try the BS of inflation isn't up, it just raised before and now isn't spiking. Yeah your investments, 401K, and other future assets are shit, but you know todays special is vanilla with sprinkles. Excuse me, was that you or me that hit the atmosphere with a gas bomb?
I for one am more than willing to give the ladies a chance versus the crap hole our fearless brave draft dodgers and get filthy rich politicians have given us in the last how many years?
She sounds like a likable oddity, but the undercurrents in the article suggest a Machiavellian individual whose political nose can smell blood from a good distance. She certainly has her work cut out for her, as does any world leader today.
"Pounced?" Seems like she has spent her adult years preparing herself for larger things.