it's actually very simple math, and the benefit is obvious - - for the US on it's own, the tax rate should not matter, because 1 dollar out of the gov's pocket is now 1 dollar in the private sector. and that 1 dollar in the private will always work more efficiently than in the gov's pocket; - but the US is not isolated. on this globe today money flows like water towards gravity, towards low tax rate... as a consultant I have worked on projects for multiple F500 companies to shift tax burden to lower rates... very simple - global companies have separate legal entities that deal with each other, and the price structure is set up such that big portion of the profit is shifted overseas. so you see, tax cuts come down to 2 simple maths, both bring benefits to the economy.
[underlining mine] Many are able to say this, no one has been able to prove it. To disprove it, however, seems almost a trivial task. All you need is one example. We wouldn't need to tax at all at the federal level. The government could just credit it's reserve account with as much money as it needed. The MMT economists say that taxation is what gives fiat money value, because a particular fiat money is the only thing the government will accept in payment for taxes. It seems this might be wrong, and it is really productivity and the goods and services produced that gives money value, or alternatively it is what you can buy with money that gives it value. But then you have to ask what will happen if the government just spends money into the economy and never takes any back out in taxes? Will the value of money drop rapidly to zero? So I am not so sure anymore. The MMT economists may be right after all.
you are splitting hair... sure we need some essential gov functions, but that doesn't mean the gov dollar works more efficiently, just look at all the waste by the DoD... if there is a way to privatize these things, they sure will work better.... right now we just have other fish to fry first. doesn't need proof... just common sense. "Nobody spends somebody else's money as wisely as he spends his own" Milton Friedman.
Unfortunately a single example to the contrary shows that your dictum, as you stated it in absolutes, is not correct, despite expressing common wisdom. Gore Vidal said "Common wisdom is nearly always wrong." I don't agree, but I do think it is often wrong. It is not when we believe something is true, but rather the moment we believe it is invariably true, and therefore accept it as an axiom, that we risk believing something nonsensical is common sense. And that leads to bad decision making.
President Trump is trying to fix the problem created by past US Presidents kicking the can down the road! Congress did not care either because all they wanted was to remain in power! How many politicians in Congress have been there 30-40 years now? Too many corrupt individuals only out to enrich themselves! Politicians used to be called public servants but, who actually, serve the public these days? Most if not all, serve special interests be it companies, unions, big rich billionaires promoting their agendas! Americans if they were smart will support President Trump's economic policies. The fact that liberals in other countries are unhinged proves that he is doing something right! He is our President, not the President of the European Union, China, Mexico or other foreign country! First, we need to reduce the huge trade deficits. If not, you are just piling on more and more debt. That is why he is seeking fair trade. This is not rocket science, hard to figure out! We have been taken advantage off! Sold off by our no good politicians signing those unfair trade deals!
I want you to stop and really think about that throwaway statement you just made "just look at all the waste by the DoD". What "waste" exactly are you talking about? The "waste" paid to private companies who make all the U.S. weapons systems? But I thought private industry was always better? Or are you stuck on the Myth of the $600 hammer that is both 40 years old and never happened https://m.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the-600-hammer/5271/ Take a read on OMB circular A-76 some day, everything that can be privatized by DoD and any other federal agency has to be privatized. If there's a private company willing to do it, they can force an A-76 determination. So if there's anything at the federal level that isn't privatized it's either inherently governmental (i.e. enforcing laws or shooting enemies) or no private company wants to do it. Government is full of smart people at the GS 14 to SES level, they face tough nuancd problems that don't yield to trite sound bite solutions. There's a fine line between "common sense" and ignorant naivety. If you can provide a concrete example of this "waste" you seem to take for granted, along with an intelligent discussion of all the factors that went into it and the solution that should have been applied, without the benefit of hindsight, I'd be interested in hearing it. I will agree that a bullet proof desk for the EPA administrator is an unmitigated unjustifiable waste, but hey he's busy destroying the environment and who doesn't hate clean air and water, so I guess we should let him get away with that right?
that all sounds good on paper.. but it's common sense that gov operates less efficiently than private... and what looks good on paper is subject to interpretation anyway... most recent example being Trump negotiated better pricing from Boeing, and how about those no bid contracts with Halliburton? any chance for price improvement there? Naivety much, just because the DoD put up some guidelines for themselves and magically all waste is gone? destroying the environment? or unleash the economy? which is the bigger evil- more pollution, or more poverty?
Weimar Germany (1919-1933)? Not sure what you mean by "pulled that off" two pillars of US power: military, petrodollar, especially the latter. That's why anyone who tried to move away from the petrodollar had to be eliminated under false pretext - Quaddafi of Libya (gold-backed dinar), Saddam Hussein of Iraq (the Euro), ... Argentina, Brazil, ... and now the Establishment is working on regime changes / chaos in Venezuela, Iran, even Russia. Of course, Russia, India, and China are just too big and strong to deal with. So big question marks there. I doubt that the Chinese, Japanese, and the Europeans lost more than the American taxpayers, including future taxpayers. Foreign dollar assets were mostly US treasuries. Not much loss there. It's beginning to change as de-dollarization around the world accelerates in the years to come. I believe gold is meant to be used to shield your savings / assets from hyperinflation during a crisis. I concur on the bitcoin bubble.
That's exactly the nativity I'm reffering to! The Air Force One project is huge and complex, and if you buy the whole "Trump negotiated" line of bullshit it demonstrates ones lack of knowledge on that particular procurement is eclipsed only by one's blind acceptance of the tweets of an imbicle with a similarly limited understanding of complexity ("who knew health care was so complicated"!). But more importantly, you are either contradicting yourself or don't realize that Halliburton is the private sector which you seem to think is universally more efficient than government? Are you asserting that the government should have outsourced the outsourcing of providing combat civil engineering support? What would have been your "private sector" solution to the Halliburton debacle that Bush/Cheney foisted on us? I agree, that no bid contract was horrible. I see no way you could have "privatized" that decision though, what's your "private industry" solution to that. It's really a textbook case of why we need government, you do realize that sole source contracts in the private sector are more the rule than the exception, don't you? So go private sector and you get sole source contracts everywhere. What's your private industry solution to Air Force One, again Boeing is a private company. You're really making little sense here. And seriously, controlling pollution causes poverty? What kind of fever dream does the idea that you have to trade one off the other come from! Its actually the opposite, pollution is a massive drag on the economy, $5 Trillion dollars a year, worldwide, to put a number on it https://www.theguardian.com/global-...rillions-holds-back-poor-countries-world-bank You seriously think we need thousands of hospitalizations, lost work days, and premature deaths to "unleash the economy"? That's some messed up thinking, on so many levels.