It’s really not a complicated argument. If you take a few trillion totally unproductive dollars and free them up for investment in the USA, the domestic economy will grow faster than it would otherwise. Some investments will aim to increase productivity, which will reduce demand for workers. But other investments will aim to create demand by expanding markets, improving products and services, or creating ones that don’t even exist today. Job creation is a byproduct, an accident if you will — but for the foreseeable future it’s an unavoidable accident.

Per the ADP National Employment Report® released yesterday:

“As the labor market continues to tighten and wages increase it will become increasingly difficult for
employers to attract and retain skilled talent.” — Ahu Yildirmaz, ADP Research Institute

“The job market is red hot, with broad-based job gains across industries and company sizes.” — Mark Zandi, Moody’s Analytics

Incremental economic growth — from tax reform, spending reform, and Trump’s bold regulatory reform — can only further bolster workers’ position.

I have no problem with the policy of making it easier for businesses to bring their money back. I have a problem with the GOP telling everyone it’s a job-creating move. It’s not. It will not create jobs.

Companies do not create jobs for altruistic reasons. They create them because there is a greater demand for their goods or services. The tax cuts to the middle class will create a small amount of extra demand. The tax cuts for big business are not necessary. They already have capital and access to capital.

This tax package will increase the debt and the deficit, especially if the middle class cuts are not made permanent.

And by the way, if wealthy donors are responsible for this progress, I’d like to thank them. The other side not only has its own extremely wealthy donors, but also controls the media as well as our academic and cultural institutions.

We’re mixing up a couple of different issues.

One, foreign profits: Aren’t you always haranguing us for our exceptionalism? Here’s a case where we’re bringing policy more in line with 28 OECD countries. You should be head over heels.

Two, “None of [that] money will go where it’s needed.” No, to the contrary, left to its own devices, free of political meddling, greed guarantees that capital will always flow where it’s most needed. As I said, if it’s returned to shareholders through dividends or buy-backs, they will find better uses for it.

Three, “It’s about enriching wealthy donors.” Huh? If I confiscate less of your property, I have not “enriched” you.

People can’t buy more if they have no income to buy it with. Multiple big firms have already stated that the money they bring back will be used to buy back shares. None of money will go where it’s needed. It is only big companies that have money overseas, but most job creation and innovation is actually done by small businesses. They are getting less of a tax break than the big corporations. It’s about enriching wealthy donors, not ordinary USians.

U.S. firms will be able to repatriate foreign profits and either reinvest them here or return them to shareholders. They can’t do that now without paying a big penalty. If management fails to find productive uses for that capital, then shareholders will demand it back and do it themselves. Not all those investments will be in the U.S., but any number above zero will be a net increase.

Demand is not static. Income influences demand, but doesn’t create it. Investment and innovation create demand by introducing new products and services and lowering costs.

Yes, in a perfect world they would have reformed spending first. Alas, it’s not a perfect world.

I think it might be to stress the “fact” that there is a creator rather than natural processes creating everything. I suspect she’s stressing the word in context.

I’ll try again: creator, with the stress on ‘tor’, instead of creator (stress on ‘a’. Does that mean anything?

Yes, I guess Dawkins is not representative. Nevertheless, this interruption thing is interesting.
There are quite a few other discussions I’d like to tally.
I also note that Ms Wright is not just a dimwit (well, it is difficult to describe her otherwise), but has some special pronunciations, eg. creator instead of creator. Wonder if that means something in particular?

Why do you believe that firms will invest the money they will be able to bring back? What is the incentive for that? They have plenty of capital now and aren’t creating jobs so why would that change? First, you have to create demand. That is being done to a small extent by reducing taxes on the middle-class. However, because the tax cuts aren’t permanent, there’s less incentive for people to spend the money.

The tax cuts for the wealthy will blow out the deficit, the GOP will use the excuse to cut benefits for the poor, and the death spiral will begin.