Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (961349)	9/5/2016 6:57:01 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575153

Mostly high single digit years to low decades range, but the effect should continue in a very modest way indefinitely so it could be centuries as well, except that 1 - There would be a billion other factors to tease out, and 2 - Policies rarely stat in place decades let alone centuries. Right. So nothing much happens for a decade or more. Even then, that doesn't take into account the fact that negative economic effects are felt immediately, so there is a growing shortfall in the economy that also needs to be addressed. Not to mention the economic effects of pullbacks in public education and infrastructure that goes without maintenance over those decades, greatly increasing the cost of bringing it up to snuff. So even when the economy recovers to its pre-tax cut highs, it has a significant economic debt that needs to be paid. And this doesn't even address the increased mortality due to cuts in Medicaid. Especially maternal. I suppose you could argue that anyone who requires Medicaid and any possible children will never be all that productive because of the cuts in schools that always seem to impact poorer school districts the most, but that seems rather cynical. So it very well could be a century or more. And then when you factor in what you say about policy changes over that stretch of time... Now why should anybody do such a thing? It doesn't make sense in the short, medium or long term. Unless, of course, you are wealthy since the tax cuts benefit those at the top the most. Arguably they are better off then they would have been already. By what metric? The economy got worse and still trails surrounding states with similar demographics that didn't cut taxes. The cutbacks in school funding has impaired the education of children in the state. The lack of infrastructure maintenance means it will require significantly more spending at some point in the future. And mortality of the poor has gone up. Since that has especially impacted blacks, there are some who might consider that a plus. Like Old Boothy...