Depleting US Strategic Oil reserves is all about election year damage control.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am going to give you some information in the hopes that you are more than

a brain dead Republican dumbshit. Basically, I am giving you more credit than you deserve. First, the quip about Clinton made a similar stupid claim.

Top Ten Presidents With Best Economic Growth

Economic growth of a nation is one of the best performance indicators of the leader heading it. The same is true for the U.S. as well. Over the past century

www.valuewalk.com

Top ten presidents for economic growth, Roosevelt, Johnson, Kennedy, and then Clinton. Pretty telling, all democrats.

But then, to rent seeking and the corporate tax rate.

http://rcbrnet.com/journals/rcbr/Vol_5_No_1_June_2016/3.pdf

https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/files/documents/Ten_Reasons_Full_Report.pdf

A white paper, and an analysis of the corporate tax rate from an institution that has no ax to grind.

but intuitively, it makes perfect since. The Internal Rate of Return of any acceptable capital expansion is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. That is not an opinion, it is a mathematical reality. And most business evaluate capital investment with a Monte Carlo stimulation of the potential internal rate of return. As the capital tax rate decreases the marginal rate of return for acceptable investments, using the Monte Carlo method, INCREASES. Companies become risk averse, which is why oil companies are not expanding drilling and why all companies are seeking opportunities to gather rents instead of expanding markets. The old take more of the pie that is already there than make more pie. I mean this shit is really simple for anyone with even a minimal amount of economic and financial education. I suggest you take some time to educate yourself. Read that white paper, read that analysis, educate yourself, and maybe take a basic financial accounting course on line to improve your understanding.

I am going to give you some information in the hopes that.....

I won't notice you didn't answer my questions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

but intuitively, it makes perfect since. The Internal Rate of Return of any acceptable capital expansion is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. That is not an opinion, it is a mathematical reality

Great. Show that someone is more likely to invest at a 35% corporate rate than at a 21% corporate rate. Assume a pre-tax profit of $1 million.......

 

[Smokin' OP]

So biden was lying to the gullible little snowflake?

Yes, there is no way in hell the US can eliminate fossil fuel, anytime soon.
Reduce it?
Yes, but not eliminate.

He is a proven liar

That would be your dear leader.

but there are so many ways for government to covertly hamper production

Yes, they can, on the 10% of the production they have jurisdiction over.
Poor snowflake, still whining about the 10% the feds control, as the cause of everything from prices to production.

 

[Smokin' OP]

If not for private land that democrats dont control most people would be riding the bus to do their grocery shopping

Of course, they would.
The rest would be hitching a ride from JFK Jr.

 

[Smokin' OP]

It means that liberals lie.

Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday described Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “genius” and “savvy," praising his onetime counterpart for a move that has spurred sanctions and universal condemnation from the U.S. government and its trans-Atlantic allies.

"I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that's wonderful," Trump said in a radio interview with “The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show." "He used the word ‘independent’ and 'we're gonna go out and we're gonna go in and we're gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that's pretty savvy."


Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday denied that he ever called Russian President Vladimir Putin a “genius” and argued that the media misconstrued his previous statements.

The only people that lie worse than Trump..............................his cult.

 

[Mac-7]

Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday described Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “genius” and “savvy," praising his onetime counterpart for a move that has spurred sanctions and universal condemnation from the U.S. government and its trans-Atlantic allies.

"I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that's wonderful," Trump said in a radio interview with “The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show." "He used the word ‘independent’ and 'we're gonna go out and we're gonna go in and we're gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that's pretty savvy."


Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday denied that he ever called Russian President Vladimir Putin a “genius” and argued that the media misconstrued his previous statements.

The only people that lie worse than Trump..............................his cult.

Biden is worse

he not only says stupid things but backs them up with action

 

[Smokin' OP]

Biden is worse

he not only says stupid things but backs them up with action

Not even close to the orange retard.

January 5 2019
"In June of 1775, the Continental Congress created a unified Army out of the Revolutionary Forces encamped around Boston and New York, and named after the great George Washington, commander in chief," Trump said during his address Thursday.
"Our Army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do, and at Fort McHenry, under the rocket's red glare it had nothing but victory."

 

[Mac-7]

Not even close to the orange retard.

January 5 2019
"In June of 1775, the Continental Congress created a unified Army out of the Revolutionary Forces encamped around Boston and New York, and named after the great George Washington, commander in chief," Trump said during his address Thursday.
"Our Army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do, and at Fort McHenry, under the rocket's red glare it had nothing but victory."

I see no link from you to back that up

 

[Smokin' OP]

I see no link from you to back that up

www.cnet.com › culture › internetTrump's Revolutionary War airport quote creates high-flying ...​

time.com › 5620936 › donald-trump-revolutionary-warTrump Says Revolutionary War Troops 'Took Over the ... - Time​

thehill.com › homenews › administrationTrump mistakenly claims Revolutionary War soldiers ... - TheHill​

www.newsweek.com › donald-trump-blamesDonald Trump Blames Revolutionary War 'Airport' Gaffe on ...​

No, FOX link...................too embarrassed for their daddy.

 

[Mac-7]

www.cnet.com › culture › internetTrump's Revolutionary War airport quote creates high-flying ...​

time.com › 5620936 › donald-trump-revolutionary-warTrump Says Revolutionary War Troops 'Took Over the ... - Time​

thehill.com › homenews › administrationTrump mistakenly claims Revolutionary War soldiers ... - TheHill​

www.newsweek.com › donald-trump-blamesDonald Trump Blames Revolutionary War 'Airport' Gaffe on ...​

No, FOX link...................too embarrassed for their daddy.

You - I dont know

but me, I think he misspoke and do not believe it was ignorance of history

 

[Winston]

Great. Show that someone is more likely to invest at a 35% corporate rate than at a 21% corporate rate. Assume a pre-tax profit of $1 million.......

Look, we been down this road before. Did you read the white paper? Maybe try this,

Trump’s Corporate Tax Cut Is Not Trickling Down

Business investment is slowing, despite lofty promises, and worker bonuses were a mirage.

www.americanprogress.org

But your scenario above is indicative of your inexperience and lack of understand as to how capital decisions are made. There is no assuming a one million dollar profit. I mean let's be honest, if you knew you were going to make a million bucks the tax rate wouldn't make a happy damn. Risk is a factor that must be evaluated. And higher corporate tax rates decrease the cost of risk because of the ability to write off losses. It is that simple. Corporations have become less willing to take on risk, the oil drilling example is a perfect one. The linked article clearly predicted that the savings from the corporate tax cut would be passed on to shareholders rather than be reinvested, and that is precisely what happened. Mostly because corporate power, and profits, are now derived more from economic rents rather than return on investments.

Like the stock buybacks that you seem to applaud. The company bought back stock, the stock went up, whoo hoo. That is so wonderful. No it is not. In effect, the company said, "we don't have any acceptable capital investments at the moment so we are giving the money to the shareholders. You want to talk about the frontier curve now? Because here is the deal, the frontier curve can be expanded outward by an increase in capital, but the corporate tax cut has not increased capital, if anything, it has contracted it for two reasons. First, companies are more risk averse and are distributing capital to shareholders. Second, the budget deficit, which consumes capital in the form of the purchase of Treasury bonds.

The truth is in the numbers. I have been plugged in to business for more than fifty years. I was charting stocks at the age of eight. Back then, double digit GDP growth was the norm, now it is a celebration if we break four percent. Why? I have seen it at every level. Companies are too risk averse, hell, they don't even want to train workers anymore, better to steal them from competitors.

I grew up in the grocery business, my father worked his way into upper management, but I remember when he was just a store manager. Back then, it was dog eat dog, competition was fierce, and margins were between one and two percent. Today, those margins are three times that amount and rent seeking is the norm. Collusion is a big part of it, competitors will carve up entire states. In this market, well Lowe's holds sway. The western part of the state, it is Ingles. The Charlotte metro area, Harris Teeter gets the pick. Until corporate tax rates are increased companies will continue to seek out rent seeking opportunities and refuse to take the risk of "making more pie". Back in the day, the 50's and 60's, corporate taxes accounted for almost a quarter of the federal government's revenue. Now, it is in the single digits. Double digit GDP growth, corporations pay a fourth of the taxes. Two to three percent GDP growth, corporations throw in a nickel for every dollar everyone else does. This ain't rocket science, it is common sense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Look, we been down this road before. Did you read the white paper? Maybe try this,

Trump’s Corporate Tax Cut Is Not Trickling Down

Business investment is slowing, despite lofty promises, and worker bonuses were a mirage.

www.americanprogress.org

But your scenario above is indicative of your inexperience and lack of understand as to how capital decisions are made. There is no assuming a one million dollar profit. I mean let's be honest, if you knew you were going to make a million bucks the tax rate wouldn't make a happy damn. Risk is a factor that must be evaluated. And higher corporate tax rates decrease the cost of risk because of the ability to write off losses. It is that simple. Corporations have become less willing to take on risk, the oil drilling example is a perfect one. The linked article clearly predicted that the savings from the corporate tax cut would be passed on to shareholders rather than be reinvested, and that is precisely what happened. Mostly because corporate power, and profits, are now derived more from economic rents rather than return on investments.

Like the stock buybacks that you seem to applaud. The company bought back stock, the stock went up, whoo hoo. That is so wonderful. No it is not. In effect, the company said, "we don't have any acceptable capital investments at the moment so we are giving the money to the shareholders. You want to talk about the frontier curve now? Because here is the deal, the frontier curve can be expanded outward by an increase in capital, but the corporate tax cut has not increased capital, if anything, it has contracted it for two reasons. First, companies are more risk averse and are distributing capital to shareholders. Second, the budget deficit, which consumes capital in the form of the purchase of Treasury bonds.

The truth is in the numbers. I have been plugged in to business for more than fifty years. I was charting stocks at the age of eight. Back then, double digit GDP growth was the norm, now it is a celebration if we break four percent. Why? I have seen it at every level. Companies are too risk averse, hell, they don't even want to train workers anymore, better to steal them from competitors.

I grew up in the grocery business, my father worked his way into upper management, but I remember when he was just a store manager. Back then, it was dog eat dog, competition was fierce, and margins were between one and two percent. Today, those margins are three times that amount and rent seeking is the norm. Collusion is a big part of it, competitors will carve up entire states. In this market, well Lowe's holds sway. The western part of the state, it is Ingles. The Charlotte metro area, Harris Teeter gets the pick. Until corporate tax rates are increased companies will continue to seek out rent seeking opportunities and refuse to take the risk of "making more pie". Back in the day, the 50's and 60's, corporate taxes accounted for almost a quarter of the federal government's revenue. Now, it is in the single digits. Double digit GDP growth, corporations pay a fourth of the taxes. Two to three percent GDP growth, corporations throw in a nickel for every dollar everyone else does. This ain't rocket science, it is common sense.

Look, we been down this road before

And you never ran any numbers.

And higher corporate tax rates decrease the cost of risk because of the ability to write off losses. It is that simple.

Higher corporate tax rates make the risk less likely to happen in the first place. It is that simple.

The linked article clearly predicted that the savings from the corporate tax cut would be passed on to shareholders rather than be reinvested, and that is precisely what happened.

Shareholders would see higher returns?
No way shareholders would take those higher returns and invest them in more production.

Mostly because corporate power, and profits, are now derived more from economic rents rather than return on investments.

You never said why they'd work more on extracting rents at 21% than at 35%.

Like the stock buybacks that you seem to applaud. The company bought back stock, the stock went up, whoo hoo. That is so wonderful. No it is not. In effect, the company said, "we don't have any acceptable capital investments at the moment so we are giving the money to the shareholders.

Returning money to the shareholders? That's outrageous!
They should keep all that money and make unwise investments with it. DURR.

The truth is in the numbers. I have been plugged in to business for more than fifty years.

Hopefully you weren't responsible for making the investment decisions.

Back then, it was dog eat dog, competition was fierce, and margins were between one and two percent. Today, those margins are three times that amount

Which grocery chain has a 6% margin? What is the margin for Kroger's?

 

[Papageorgio]

Twisted logic. Face it, you just hate not to bitch.

We saw nonstop bitching under Bush, Obama, Trump and now Biden. All the same, they just switch which side bitches.

 

[Smokin' OP]

You - I dont know

but me, I think he misspoke and do not believe it was ignorance of history

Sure, he isn't ignorant about American history.

Then why lie about it?

"Continental Congress created a unified Army out of the Revolutionary Forces encamped around Boston and New York, and named after the great George Washington, commander in chief."

It was named after the congress that created it, the continental congress.

Of course, it wasn't TRUMP'S fault, it NEVER is.

Trump, speaking to reporters on the White House lawn en route to his property in Bedminster, New Jersey, acknowledged Friday he had some technical problems because of the soggy conditions during his speech.

"We had a lot of rain. I stood in the rain. The teleprompter went out," he said in response to a question from NBC's Kelly O'Donnell. "It kept going on, and then at the end, it just went out. It went kaput!"

The teleprompter screen had been "hard to look at anyway cause it was raining all over it."

It wasn't raining on the teleprompters, they were as dry as Trump was, behind the bulletproof plexiglass.

 

[Mac-7]

Sure, he isn't ignorant about American history.

Then why lie about it?

"Continental Congress created a unified Army out of the Revolutionary Forces encamped around Boston and New York, and named after the great George Washington, commander in chief."

It was named after the congress that created it, the continental congress.

Of course, it wasn't TRUMP'S fault, it NEVER is.

Trump, speaking to reporters on the White House lawn en route to his property in Bedminster, New Jersey, acknowledged Friday he had some technical problems because of the soggy conditions during his speech.

"We had a lot of rain. I stood in the rain. The teleprompter went out," he said in response to a question from NBC's Kelly O'Donnell. "It kept going on, and then at the end, it just went out. It went kaput!"

The teleprompter screen had been "hard to look at anyway cause it was raining all over it."

It wasn't raining on the teleprompters, they were as dry as Trump was, behind the bulletproof plexiglass.

Trump misspoke

it happens to everyone

 

[Smokin' OP]

Trump misspoke

it happens to everyone

No, confusion about a subject is misspeaking.
Getting a date or person's name wrong.

Trump lied.
Just like everything that comes out of his big mac-eating hole.

September 22 2017
"I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart," Trump claimed. "And he was really angry that . . . he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War. He said, 'There's no reason for this.'"

Really?
Andrew Jackson died in 1845.
The civil war didn't start until 1861.

Trump followed with another bizarre assertion. "People don't realize, you know, the Civil War — if you think about it, why," Trump wondered. "People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

 

[Mac-7]

No, confusion about a subject is misspeaking.
Getting a date or person's name wrong.

Trump lied.
Just like everything that comes out of his big mac-eating hole.

September 22 2017
"I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart," Trump claimed. "And he was really angry that . . . he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War. He said, 'There's no reason for this.'"

Really?
Andrew Jackson died in 1845.
The civil war didn't start until 1861.

Trump followed with another bizarre assertion. "People don't realize, you know, the Civil War — if you think about it, why," Trump wondered. "People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

No link?

Too bad

I have no response

 

[Winston]

Look, we been down this road before

And you never ran any numbers.

And higher corporate tax rates decrease the cost of risk because of the ability to write off losses. It is that simple.

Higher corporate tax rates make the risk less likely to happen in the first place. It is that simple.

The linked article clearly predicted that the savings from the corporate tax cut would be passed on to shareholders rather than be reinvested, and that is precisely what happened.

Shareholders would see higher returns?
No way shareholders would take those higher returns and invest them in more production.

Mostly because corporate power, and profits, are now derived more from economic rents rather than return on investments.

You never said why they'd work more on extracting rents at 21% than at 35%.

Like the stock buybacks that you seem to applaud. The company bought back stock, the stock went up, whoo hoo. That is so wonderful. No it is not. In effect, the company said, "we don't have any acceptable capital investments at the moment so we are giving the money to the shareholders.

Returning money to the shareholders? That's outrageous!
They should keep all that money and make unwise investments with it. DURR.

The truth is in the numbers. I have been plugged in to business for more than fifty years.

Hopefully you weren't responsible for making the investment decisions.

Back then, it was dog eat dog, competition was fierce, and margins were between one and two percent. Today, those margins are three times that amount

Which grocery chain has a 6% margin? What is the margin for Kroger's?

Higher corporate tax rates make the risk less likely to happen in the first place. It is that simple.

Nonsense. Risk is evaluated and reducing the cost of loss, which is what higher corporate tax rates do, increases the amount of risk that is tolerable. Yes, I have ran the numbers and demonstrated it to you. I mean here is the formula,

WACC Formula = [Cost of Equity * % of Equity] + [Cost of Debt * % of Debt * (1-Tax Rate)]

Increasing tax rates do not increase the cost of capital only in cases where there is no debt. And when calculating the IRR needed to justify an investments cash flows are discounted by the WACC exponentially through each year of analyzed cash flows. Even a small increase in the WACC, like that from a corporate tax cut, can dramatically impact the present value of anticipated future cash flows.

You never said why they'd work more on extracting rents at 21% than at 35%.

Actually I have, you just don't understand it. Lower corporate tax rates and the higher WACC resulting demands that companies take on less risk. There is much less risk in seeking rents than actually increasing production. For instance, if the decision is to purchase property and build a new store, or purchase property to keep a competitor out, there is less risk in the later

Shareholders would see higher returns?
No way shareholders would take those higher returns and invest them in more production.

Returning money to the shareholders? That's outrageous!
They should keep all that money and make unwise investments with it. DURR.

I put those two together because they exhibit, first, a real naivety. But second, after a little thought, I realized that it is just indicative of the whole problem of minimal GDP growth, unrelenting rent seeking, and a lack of real investment in advancing that frontier curve. To the naivety--if the shareholders had investment options that involved increasing production they would have invested in them instead of purchasing the damn stock. And stock buybacks are like a game of hot potato, like I said, the company is saying that they don't have any appropriate capital expenditures so here, you take the money back. You find an appropriate capital expenditure.

But then the second part--instead of purchasing stock in a company that you believe is set for growth going forward, investors buy stocks in companies they think are going to buy back their stock. The entire market is not directed toward expanding the frontier curve, toward making more pie. It is now a dog eat dog zero sum game where companies seek means of taking the pie that is already there rather than making more pie.

Hopefully you weren't responsible for making the investment decisions.

Actually, I have been pretty successful at it for more than two decades. I have a strong reputation, a large client base, and have spent nothing on marketing in more than ten years. Word of mouth, and I pick and choose my clients. And I might think I am good at it, but I am proud to say that my sons are better. I have been delivering market winners since the 1970's, then it was gold, later it was sugar, during the Clinton administration it was lumber. I delivered Tesla early and Bitcoin even earlier. Copper is tricky, rotating out at the moment. Pork bellies, feeder cattle, soybeans, corn--I have won with all of them. High risk, high return, you come to me first. Low risk, low returns, I got you covered. The day Obama took office I drove all day collecting money and placing it in the market. When Trump showed up I liquidated. I have forgot more about the market and investing than you will ever know, as indicated by your unwillingness to learn the number one rule. Clients are more interested in return of principal than return on principal. That is why they call on me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Higher corporate tax rates make the risk less likely to happen in the first place. It is that simple.

Nonsense. Risk is evaluated and reducing the cost of loss, which is what higher corporate tax rates do, increases the amount of risk that is tolerable. Yes, I have ran the numbers and demonstrated it to you. I mean here is the formula,

WACC Formula = [Cost of Equity * % of Equity] + [Cost of Debt * % of Debt * (1-Tax Rate)]

Increasing tax rates do not increase the cost of capital only in cases where there is no debt. And when calculating the IRR needed to justify an investments cash flows are discounted by the WACC exponentially through each year of analyzed cash flows. Even a small increase in the WACC, like that from a corporate tax cut, can dramatically impact the present value of anticipated future cash flows.

You never said why they'd work more on extracting rents at 21% than at 35%.

Actually I have, you just don't understand it. Lower corporate tax rates and the higher WACC resulting demands that companies take on less risk. There is much less risk in seeking rents than actually increasing production. For instance, if the decision is to purchase property and build a new store, or purchase property to keep a competitor out, there is less risk in the later

Shareholders would see higher returns?
No way shareholders would take those higher returns and invest them in more production.

Returning money to the shareholders? That's outrageous!
They should keep all that money and make unwise investments with it. DURR.

I put those two together because they exhibit, first, a real naivety. But second, after a little thought, I realized that it is just indicative of the whole problem of minimal GDP growth, unrelenting rent seeking, and a lack of real investment in advancing that frontier curve. To the naivety--if the shareholders had investment options that involved increasing production they would have invested in them instead of purchasing the damn stock. And stock buybacks are like a game of hot potato, like I said, the company is saying that they don't have any appropriate capital expenditures so here, you take the money back. You find an appropriate capital expenditure.

But then the second part--instead of purchasing stock in a company that you believe is set for growth going forward, investors buy stocks in companies they think are going to buy back their stock. The entire market is not directed toward expanding the frontier curve, toward making more pie. It is now a dog eat dog zero sum game where companies seek means of taking the pie that is already there rather than making more pie.

Hopefully you weren't responsible for making the investment decisions.

Actually, I have been pretty successful at it for more than two decades. I have a strong reputation, a large client base, and have spent nothing on marketing in more than ten years. Word of mouth, and I pick and choose my clients. And I might think I am good at it, but I am proud to say that my sons are better. I have been delivering market winners since the 1970's, then it was gold, later it was sugar, during the Clinton administration it was lumber. I delivered Tesla early and Bitcoin even earlier. Copper is tricky, rotating out at the moment. Pork bellies, feeder cattle, soybeans, corn--I have won with all of them. High risk, high return, you come to me first. Low risk, low returns, I got you covered. The day Obama took office I drove all day collecting money and placing it in the market. When Trump showed up I liquidated. I have forgot more about the market and investing than you will ever know, as indicated by your unwillingness to learn the number one rule. Clients are more interested in return of principal than return on principal. That is why they call on me.

WACC Formula = [Cost of Equity * % of Equity] + [Cost of Debt * % of Debt * (1-Tax Rate)]

Increasing tax rates do not increase the cost of capital only in cases where there is no debt. And when calculating the IRR needed to justify an investments cash flows are discounted by the WACC exponentially through each year of analyzed cash flows. Even a small increase in the WACC, like that from a corporate tax cut, can dramatically impact the present value of anticipated future cash flows.

Plug some numbers into the formula.
For fun, do it at a 35% tax rate and at a 21% tax rate.

Then we can see how the IRR looks under identical scenarios.

I put those two together because they exhibit, first, a real naivety.

Why? You and most Dems treat shareholder returns as a bad thing.

But second, after a little thought, I realized that it is just indicative of the whole problem of minimal GDP growth, unrelenting rent seeking, and a lack of real investment in advancing that frontier curve.

Still waiting for you to show me that increasing tax rates would advance that frontier curve.

And stock buybacks are like a game of hot potato, like I said, the company is saying that they don't have any appropriate capital expenditures so here, you take the money back. You find an appropriate capital expenditure.

In the old days, the company would keep the capital and build a conglomerate.
Even when it made little or no sense. I'd rather get the capital back than watch the company
make a stupid acquisition.

The entire market is not directed toward expanding the frontier curve, toward making more pie.

And you think that giving more money to the government is going to convince the
market to make more pie.

 

[Winston]

WACC Formula = [Cost of Equity * % of Equity] + [Cost of Debt * % of Debt * (1-Tax Rate)]

Increasing tax rates do not increase the cost of capital only in cases where there is no debt. And when calculating the IRR needed to justify an investments cash flows are discounted by the WACC exponentially through each year of analyzed cash flows. Even a small increase in the WACC, like that from a corporate tax cut, can dramatically impact the present value of anticipated future cash flows.

Plug some numbers into the formula.
For fun, do it at a 35% tax rate and at a 21% tax rate.

Then we can see how the IRR looks under identical scenarios.

I put those two together because they exhibit, first, a real naivety.

Why? You and most Dems treat shareholder returns as a bad thing.

But second, after a little thought, I realized that it is just indicative of the whole problem of minimal GDP growth, unrelenting rent seeking, and a lack of real investment in advancing that frontier curve.

Still waiting for you to show me that increasing tax rates would advance that frontier curve.

And stock buybacks are like a game of hot potato, like I said, the company is saying that they don't have any appropriate capital expenditures so here, you take the money back. You find an appropriate capital expenditure.

In the old days, the company would keep the capital and build a conglomerate.
Even when it made little or no sense. I'd rather get the capital back than watch the company
make a stupid acquisition.

The entire market is not directed toward expanding the frontier curve, toward making more pie.

And you think that giving more money to the government is going to convince the
market to make more pie.

Seriously, is that all you got. I don't need to plug in any numbers, the formula is right there--are you mathematically challenged? What part of "1- the tax rate" do you not understand? And increasing tax rates, tell me, what is your reason that we had double digit GDP growth when corporate tax rates were higher, like in the 50's and 60's, and now we are lucky to hit three percent? Give me an alternative reason. Mathematically, historically, intuitively if you can think, support my position.

Look, corporate tax rates can be too high, but they can also be too low. But when corporations account for over sixty percent of all business revenue and pay less than five percent of all taxes, well we are getting fucked And if you are so foolish as to believe the little bit of money you got in your 401K, which you will pay income taxes on and not capital gains, justifies that screwing, well you are a flippin idiot, a useful idiot.