SI
SI
discoversearch

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: John Vosilla who wrote (1114229)1/31/2019 8:24:53 AM
From: sylvester801 Recommendation

Recommended By
ryanaka

  Respond to of 1575941
 
"I TOLD YOU SO": You, trumptards and LYING CORRUPT CRIMINAL RACIST TRAITOR POS tRump are all MORON DUMBASSES AND TRAITORS TO YOUR COUNTRY....

"I TOLD YOU SO" you dumbass...



To: John Vosilla who wrote (1114229)1/31/2019 8:29:33 AM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 1575941
 
"I TOLD YOU SO": It’s official: The Trump tax cuts were a bust
Lower taxes helped goose profits and stocks, but did little for jobs or the economy
Published: Jan 30, 2019 8:36 a.m. ET
marketwatch.com

Right before Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in December 2017, President Trump proclaimed:

“It’ll be fantastic for the middle-income people and for jobs, most of all ... I think we could go to 4%, 5% or even 6% [GDP growth], ultimately. We are back. We are really going to start to rock.”

A year later, it’s very clear that the tax cuts boosted gross domestic product and jobs a bit — and just for one year. Its effects are fading as U.S. GDP growth appears likely to weaken in 2019. The only thing that “rocked” were corporate profits and the stock market. And we’re facing trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act made small cuts in rates to most individual taxpayers, while cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, expanding deductions for “pass-through” companies, and taxing only corporate income earned in the U.S., not worldwide. That theoretically removed a major barrier to U.S.-based multinational corporations repatriating the estimated $2.6 trillion in accumulated earnings they’re holding overseas.

Read: The slump in global trade is a bigger threat than markets imagine

Muted hiring, investment plansThe failure of the tax cut bill to achieve those intended results was made clear Monday when the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) released its January Business Conditions Survey. This is a poll of more than 100 economists employed by major firms in corporate America, so they’re hardly lefties. But they are guided by facts and hard data, not supply-side delusions.

Some 84% of these economists reported that in the year since their passage, the tax cuts “have not caused their firms to change hiring or investment plans.”

Actually, data show that firms did boost capital spending in the first half of last year, but that was fading by the third quarter. And an analysis by Daniel Alpert of Westwood Capital, reported by the Financial Times, showed that businesses put more than half of that into technology and intellectual capital, and only 28.6% in new structures and equipment, the opposite of 1998, a year when GDP grew by 4.5% and income was rising.

Buyback bonanzaSo where is all that money going? Where else? Share buybacks, which hit a record $1.1 trillion in 2018. Companies actually spent more on buybacks than on capital investments in 2018’s first half, and remember, capex weakened as the year went on. Buybacks shrink the number of shares, boosting earnings per share and eventually, the stock price. That helps all shareholders, of course, but especially corporate executives, more than half of whose total compensation is in stock.

And what happened to all the trillions of dollars the president promised corporations would bring back to the U.S.A. from overseas? That, too, has turned out to be a bust — the amount dropped 50% in the third quarter after starting out strong in the first half of 2018. See a pattern here?

As economists projected, the tax cuts did boost GDP a bit: When 2018’s final numbers are in, GDP probably will have grown 2.9-3%. That’s a nice jump from 2.2% in 2017 and the anemic 1.5% in 2016, the year Trump was elected. But it will be virtually identical with the 2.9% GDP growth recorded in 2015, the highest of the Obama years. Since economists expect U.S. GDP growth to slow to the mid-2% level this year — and some are even predicting a recession — that may turn out to be the peak of the Trump years, too.

Job growth has picked up, having risen by 2.6 million in 2018, vs. a gain of 2.2 million in 2017. It’s unclear how much of that can be attributed to the tax cut, since health care and professional and business services set the pace again, as they have for the past 30 years. As my MarketWatch colleague Tim Mullaney pointed out, the gains in manufacturing — which the president promised would go through a revival — have been pretty modest.

Booming company profitsSo, who gained? Well, corporate profits surged $78.2 billion in the third quarter, accelerating over the second quarter’s $65 billion gain. Earnings for the companies in the S&P 500 Index SPX, +1.55% probably topped $148 per share last year, about a 40% gain from the end of 2016. That’s exactly what the S&P 500 gained from just before the election to its October 2018 all-time high.

The numbers couldn’t be clearer: Corporations, big shareholders and top corporate executives reap the lion’s share of the gains from the 2017 tax cut, which should be renamed the Shareholder and CEO Enrichment Act of 2017. It didn’t boost economic growth that much, didn’t start a capital spending boom or U.S. manufacturing renaissance, didn’t bring overseas profits back home, and might have led to modest job growth but little discernible wage increases. And we’ll all be stuck with the bill for a long, long time.

Howard R. Gold is a MarketWatch columnist. Follow him on Twitter @howardrgold.



To: John Vosilla who wrote (1114229)1/31/2019 8:32:03 AM
From: sylvester801 Recommendation

Recommended By
ryanaka

  Respond to of 1575941
 
"I TOLD YOU SO": POS tRump is THE WORST MOST LYING RACIST CRIMINAL CORRUPT TRAITOR potus of MY LIFE TIME... and EVERYONE but the RACIST MORON DUMBASS trumptards that are left KNOW IT...



To: John Vosilla who wrote (1114229)1/31/2019 8:47:26 AM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 1575941
 
"I TOLD YOU SO": Denuclearization talks with North Korea 'got nowhere'; POS tRump is the MOST INEPT LYING CORRUPT CRIMINAL RACIST potus IN WORLD HISTORY
cnn.com



To: John Vosilla who wrote (1114229)1/31/2019 7:18:25 PM
From: RetiredNow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575941
 
I hate to say it, but the only way out of the current entitlement mess is for the Baby Boomers to die off. But then we'll have the next entitlement mess to deal with, which is all the new entitlement legislation the Socialists are cooking up.



To: John Vosilla who wrote (1114229)2/24/2019 12:18:51 PM
From: RetiredNow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575941
 
Good article on the perils of the current Central Bank excess.

---------
If Central Banks Are the Only Game in Town, We’ve Lost

Relying on monetary policy to prop up asset prices and smooth out global volatility is a recipe for disaster.
Satyajit Das

Satyajit Das is a former banker, whom Bloomberg named one of the world's 50 most influential financial figures in 2014. His latest book is "A Banquet of Consequences" (published in North America and India as "The Age of Stagnation"). He is also the author of "Extreme Money" and "Traders, Guns & Money."


Just since December 2018, central banks have collectively injected as much as $500 billion of liquidity to stabilize economic conditions. The U.S. Federal Reserve has put interest rate increases on hold and is contemplating a halt to its balance-sheet reduction plan. Other central banks have taken similar actions, fueling a new phase of the “everything bubble” as markets careen from December’s indiscriminate selling to January’s indiscriminate buying.

The monetary onslaught appears a reaction to financial factors -- falling equity markets, rising credit spreads, increased volatility -- and a perceived weakening of economic activity, primarily in Europe and China. If they heeded Walter Bagehot’s oft-cited rule, central banks would act only as lenders of last resort in times of financial crisis, lending without limit to solvent firms against good collateral at high rates. Instead, they’ve become lenders of first resort, expected to step in at any sign of problems. U.S. central bankers are currently debating whether quantitative-easing programs should be used purely in emergency situations or more routinely.

Since 2008, the global economy has grown far too dependent on huge central bank balance sheets and accommodative monetary policy. The U.S. economic boom President Donald Trump loves to tout is largely fake, engineered by artificial policy settings. Such dependence is dangerous and, for various reasons, could well backfire.

For one thing, central banks are poor forecasters. GDP growth, inflation and labor markets may prove more resilient than feared, remaining at or above trend. Key risks, such as the trade dispute between the U.S. and China, may recede. Financial markets and asset prices have already recovered substantially. It’s possible that central banks may be forced to make another U-turn to reduce the risk of reflating asset price bubbles and overheating economies. This flip-flop would be destabilizing and affect decisionmakers’ credibility.

While monetary measures boost asset prices, too, their influence on consumption and investment is unclear. Unlike fiscal or micro-economic initiatives, they can’t target specific sectors or precise objectives. Where central banks finance governments, they blur the distinction between fiscal and monetary policy.

In fact, lowering the cost of money and increasing liquidity may reduce rather than boost economic activity. Lower costs of capital encourage automation, displacing workers and reducing bargaining power for higher wages. This problem is compounded when low interest rates encourage investors to look to shares for income; that forces companies to increase dividends or buy back stock, frequently by reducing their workforce to improve earnings and cash flow.

Lower rates reduce the incomes of retirees and thus their spending power. They also increase the funding gap of defined benefit pension plans, which could lead to a reduction in benefits. With investment yields low, investors have to set aside additional savings for future needs, shrinking their disposable income. If consumers then borrow more to finance routine consumption, debt levels will rise.

Indeed, central bank actions are already an implicit acknowledgement that rising debt levels are unsustainable at higher rates and under tighter liquidity conditions. In the U.S., a record 7 million Americans are 90 days or more behind on their auto-loan payments, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York -- a significant signal of distress among low-income groups who typically prioritize such payments. The actions also recognize that government funding needs, for example in the U.S., require central bank support.

Easy monetary conditions also perpetuate the problems of zombie borrowers, weak businesses that survive only because cash flows cover loan interest at low rates. This prevents the reallocation of capital from underperforming businesses.

An overreliance on central banks exacerbates the crisis of trust. The emphasis shifts from elected governments to unelected finance officials, reducing accountability and undermining democratic forces. That allows other economic actors to avoid dealing with the real issues. It creates the impression that the central banks favor banks and the financial system, rather than the real economy.

Central banks’ new activism looks like a panicked capitulation to markets and political pressure. This encourages market participants to expect intervention regularly to prop up asset prices and smooth out volatility. Ultimately, this reduces the effectiveness of lower rates and additional liquidity infusions. As with any addiction, increasing doses become necessary. That will increase the strains on central bank balance sheets and tools, undermining their ability to respond in a real crisis.

Printing money was always going to be easier than withdrawing it later. In effect, central banks are boxed into a situation where they can’t normalize policy and must maintain low rates and abundant liquidity, lest they destabilize fragile asset markets and spur low growth and disinflation. This state of “infinite QE” risks miscalculations and major policy errors. If central banks are, as is now fashionable to state, the only game in town, then the game is lost.

To contact the author of this story:
Satyajit Das at sdassydney@gmail.com

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Nisid Hajari at nhajari@bloomberg.net