'Macro' Q&A: Too much labor?: Forces in Market Confound Stock Pickers - WSJ.com: "
Question:
Forget about unions,they're an endangered species at this point.The competition American workers have will work for $1/hr.Essentially,the potential American worker has to think about giving up flushing toilets and luxuries such as meat.The only way out is war on a large scale against the east.We both need massive casualties to bring supply and demand for labor back to balance.The real problem,there are too many of us.
Answer:
You'd seem to have missed some alternate lessons of history.
While it is true that those who don't produce are a social burden, what China has clearly shown is that with leadership (i.e. entrepreneurs), the overall wealth of society can be vastly expanded.
We've seen cycles of this in the US - from the vast wealth created by the advent of corporations and the use of industrial technologies in the 19th century to the 1980's when lower taxes and a better tax code enabled the economy to grow again. (recall the debate in the 1980 election: Democrats believed the economy couldn't grow so everyone should concentrate on how to fairly distribute that wealth; the Republicans thought the economy could grow - and, proved it!
If one takes a look around, the are limitless opportunities for our economy to grow. But, we've decided to consume and not invest. It's very simple.
Read any science journal and see all the things that we could invest in. We could invest in the space program, better transportation, etc. - but, this will mean no fat government retirements at age 50, no free healthcare for all, no school dropouts because teachers unions want to preserve a seniority system that resists measuring any quality criteria of teacher performance, etc., etc., etc.
If you read the Pulitzer Prize book on Cornelius Vanderbilt, you see what can happen when society accepts a rough and ready, opportunity for all approach.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Friday, September 24, 2010
Change in Tone Depends on Obama - WSJ.com
WRONG FROM SQUARE ONE: Change in Tone Depends on Obama - WSJ.com: "
Whatever else might be said about the Administration - the bottom line is their economic policies are making things worse for adding jobs and building up the American economy. And they just don't believe this is the case. So, one can only suggest the apropos word would be 'deluded'.
That the Administration believes that by borrowing and taxing money from anyone other than the poor or middle class to expand entitlements and benefits will revive and build the economy is also clear from actions, statements and priorities.
Where the Administration focus on the middle class and ignorance of the overtaxing of the economy is evident in states like Michigan where a once extremely vibrant business sector and economy is now more of a ghost - as evident in Detroit.
So, the choice is to do what the Asian success stories do - rely on entrepreneurs, cut back on government and invest for the future; or, do like the US is doing now - tax and beat up on investors and business and hope they aren't so terribly beaten up that they will still be able to pay the country's bills.
2 years in on this policy would strongly suggest that it not only isn't working, but that things are getting worse.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Whatever else might be said about the Administration - the bottom line is their economic policies are making things worse for adding jobs and building up the American economy. And they just don't believe this is the case. So, one can only suggest the apropos word would be 'deluded'.
That the Administration believes that by borrowing and taxing money from anyone other than the poor or middle class to expand entitlements and benefits will revive and build the economy is also clear from actions, statements and priorities.
Where the Administration focus on the middle class and ignorance of the overtaxing of the economy is evident in states like Michigan where a once extremely vibrant business sector and economy is now more of a ghost - as evident in Detroit.
So, the choice is to do what the Asian success stories do - rely on entrepreneurs, cut back on government and invest for the future; or, do like the US is doing now - tax and beat up on investors and business and hope they aren't so terribly beaten up that they will still be able to pay the country's bills.
2 years in on this policy would strongly suggest that it not only isn't working, but that things are getting worse.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
'Macro' Forces in Market Confound Stock Pickers - WSJ.com
' WHAT WILL BALANCE OUT LABOR SUPPLY AND DEMAND?: Macro' Forces in Market Confound Stock Pickers - WSJ.com: "
Here is the key and the obvious answer to high unemployment:
'...economic overcapacity that has resulted in persistent high unemployment rates...'
Labor is one of the production inputs. Since it is clearly being substituted for, it is clearly too expensive. But, of course, that's the problem that can't be touched (see union strikes and government policies to raise both the direct and indirect costs of labor to satisfy social concerns more important than joblessness, like fancy healthcare, early retirement, unsaved for pensions, etc.).
To bring the labor cost and demand equation back into balance will certainly take something that's not in the 'macro' picture now. Someone could start taking bets; but, then again, some already have.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Here is the key and the obvious answer to high unemployment:
'...economic overcapacity that has resulted in persistent high unemployment rates...'
Labor is one of the production inputs. Since it is clearly being substituted for, it is clearly too expensive. But, of course, that's the problem that can't be touched (see union strikes and government policies to raise both the direct and indirect costs of labor to satisfy social concerns more important than joblessness, like fancy healthcare, early retirement, unsaved for pensions, etc.).
To bring the labor cost and demand equation back into balance will certainly take something that's not in the 'macro' picture now. Someone could start taking bets; but, then again, some already have.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Answer to Debt Woes Eludes Cities, States - WSJ.com
WHAT WILL GET US TO THE FOURTH INNING?: Answer to Debt Woes Eludes Cities, States - WSJ.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Clearly, the inability to consider, let alone act on programs that will be necessary in the long run, lead one to believe that we are owning in the 3rd inning of getting our economy to get back into a leadership and growing role.
Something needs to awaken the public to the fact that blaming the Chinese for what we have failed to do ourselves is a red herring.
Clearly also, the administration can't understand why one more credit card to the middle class won't get the economy growing. The administration seems to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that credit cards aren't income and that more buying power with constraints on business growth and investment seem contradictory.
But, then again, the 'world of entitlement' is one of give-me not let me earn and choose it myself.
What will move us to the fourth inning?
Clearly, the inability to consider, let alone act on programs that will be necessary in the long run, lead one to believe that we are owning in the 3rd inning of getting our economy to get back into a leadership and growing role.
Something needs to awaken the public to the fact that blaming the Chinese for what we have failed to do ourselves is a red herring.
Clearly also, the administration can't understand why one more credit card to the middle class won't get the economy growing. The administration seems to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that credit cards aren't income and that more buying power with constraints on business growth and investment seem contradictory.
But, then again, the 'world of entitlement' is one of give-me not let me earn and choose it myself.
What will move us to the fourth inning?
Monday, September 20, 2010
Eurocracy Fiddles as the Economy Falters - WSJ.com
AN OXYMORON: Eurocracy Fiddles as the Economy Falters - WSJ.com: "
Stimulating growth through higher taxes and union work rules is an oxymoron. Thus, Obama is blind to the idea that UAW policies create growth and sustainable economic prosperity.
All of these socialist policies are like the family with credit cards. They want a higher and higher standard of living every year and to do so, they keep adding to their credit card debt.
Everyone knows you reach a tipping point. At some point the interest and minimal fixed expenses exceed the ability of the cardholder (read, in this case, government) to sustain the debt.
The papers are full of how public union pension plans are having to face this same problem with too rich benefits and maxed out taxes.
One either supports growth with free labor and low taxes or it seems the opposite (e.g. US, France, Greece, etc.) - and, as with irrigated crops or rain starved crops, the results are as expected - either a bountiful harvest or a sparse one.
Obama thinks a failure to irrigate the US economy shouldn't change the results - well, it sure seems from this article that much of Europe has the same problem.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Stimulating growth through higher taxes and union work rules is an oxymoron. Thus, Obama is blind to the idea that UAW policies create growth and sustainable economic prosperity.
All of these socialist policies are like the family with credit cards. They want a higher and higher standard of living every year and to do so, they keep adding to their credit card debt.
Everyone knows you reach a tipping point. At some point the interest and minimal fixed expenses exceed the ability of the cardholder (read, in this case, government) to sustain the debt.
The papers are full of how public union pension plans are having to face this same problem with too rich benefits and maxed out taxes.
One either supports growth with free labor and low taxes or it seems the opposite (e.g. US, France, Greece, etc.) - and, as with irrigated crops or rain starved crops, the results are as expected - either a bountiful harvest or a sparse one.
Obama thinks a failure to irrigate the US economy shouldn't change the results - well, it sure seems from this article that much of Europe has the same problem.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Friday, September 17, 2010
China's Real Monetary Problem - WSJ.com
Q&A, A BETTER SOLUTION:China's Real Monetary Problem - WSJ.com:
Brad writes:
Everyone will have a different opinion on what went wrong with the theory that if we opened up our markets and had free trade with China we would be able to sell American products to China's one billion population.
None of that happened. Instead American surrendered it's manufacturing capacity to a socialist country.
Answer:
"What you might give some thought to is why the US is moaning about China instead of doing positive things to enrich America.
There is no reason America should not be growing and rich with jobs - right now!
But the policies of both administrations, Obama and the Democrats coming later and acting even more stupidly, is of course making a problem worse and worse by the day.
The US needs to open itself up to being business-friendly. This includes regulatory, investment and immigration friendliness. It is doing the exact opposite (and in terms of immigration policy, the Republicans are the worst offender!).
In terms of realizing that it takes capital to create new businesses, Bush was right on with tax cuts. But, he also failed to rein in entitlements. This includes public union benefit packages, which are out-of-touch with the rest of the economy.
Right now, the Democrats are borrowing way beyond the country's means to further expand and extend entitlements of all kinds. This is exactly the wrong policy!
The US has all the potential to compete and create jobs; but, the economic ineptness of the administration and the Republicans is holding back and wearing away that potential. And, while the Republicans may have 'some' clue as to what is going on; the Democrats clearly have 'none'!
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Brad writes:
Everyone will have a different opinion on what went wrong with the theory that if we opened up our markets and had free trade with China we would be able to sell American products to China's one billion population.
None of that happened. Instead American surrendered it's manufacturing capacity to a socialist country.
Answer:
"What you might give some thought to is why the US is moaning about China instead of doing positive things to enrich America.
There is no reason America should not be growing and rich with jobs - right now!
But the policies of both administrations, Obama and the Democrats coming later and acting even more stupidly, is of course making a problem worse and worse by the day.
The US needs to open itself up to being business-friendly. This includes regulatory, investment and immigration friendliness. It is doing the exact opposite (and in terms of immigration policy, the Republicans are the worst offender!).
In terms of realizing that it takes capital to create new businesses, Bush was right on with tax cuts. But, he also failed to rein in entitlements. This includes public union benefit packages, which are out-of-touch with the rest of the economy.
Right now, the Democrats are borrowing way beyond the country's means to further expand and extend entitlements of all kinds. This is exactly the wrong policy!
The US has all the potential to compete and create jobs; but, the economic ineptness of the administration and the Republicans is holding back and wearing away that potential. And, while the Republicans may have 'some' clue as to what is going on; the Democrats clearly have 'none'!
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
China's Real Monetary Problem - WSJ.com
PONTIFICATING CONGRESS SHOWS ECONOMIC MYOPIA: China's Real Monetary Problem - WSJ.com:
"What was amazing listening to Bloomberg over the past day was to see and hear all the pontificating members of Congress talk about job losses due to the yuan valuation, but they said nothing about wanting higher prices at Walmart for every American or potentially much higher interest rates if the Chinese sell their holdings of US bonds.
Clearly America isn't going to set up factories to sell the consumer goods at Walmart; and, if we effectively boycott Chinese goods, then they will reciprocate.
So would the US rather have jobs making clothes or selling computers and technology?
The fact that the Congressmen were pontificating with such a UAW view of the world is certainly another reason to be worried about the impact of government on the economy.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
"What was amazing listening to Bloomberg over the past day was to see and hear all the pontificating members of Congress talk about job losses due to the yuan valuation, but they said nothing about wanting higher prices at Walmart for every American or potentially much higher interest rates if the Chinese sell their holdings of US bonds.
Clearly America isn't going to set up factories to sell the consumer goods at Walmart; and, if we effectively boycott Chinese goods, then they will reciprocate.
So would the US rather have jobs making clothes or selling computers and technology?
The fact that the Congressmen were pontificating with such a UAW view of the world is certainly another reason to be worried about the impact of government on the economy.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Thursday, September 16, 2010
With Voters Divided, Leadership Is Crucial - WSJ.com
FALSE PROPHETS: With Voters Divided, Leadership Is Crucial - WSJ.com:
"Ah, but this article seems to put it well - the people don't really know.
When one reads the myriad comments, lots of people 'hope' Obama has an answer and blame Bush. Others excoriate Obama and want smaller government.
It's interesting to be reading the biography of Cornelius Vanderbilt and realize how the country was built by people who saw the benefits of their efforts accrue to themselves.
Right now government wants to take from some and equalize the benefits to those who'd rather be given than earn on their own.
That strategy of taking to produce growth would seem such anathema that any logical person would shy away from it. But, then again, people listen to religious leaders of myriad persuasions and accept that one religion has answers that others make clear are false prophets. All very interesting.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
"Ah, but this article seems to put it well - the people don't really know.
When one reads the myriad comments, lots of people 'hope' Obama has an answer and blame Bush. Others excoriate Obama and want smaller government.
It's interesting to be reading the biography of Cornelius Vanderbilt and realize how the country was built by people who saw the benefits of their efforts accrue to themselves.
Right now government wants to take from some and equalize the benefits to those who'd rather be given than earn on their own.
That strategy of taking to produce growth would seem such anathema that any logical person would shy away from it. But, then again, people listen to religious leaders of myriad persuasions and accept that one religion has answers that others make clear are false prophets. All very interesting.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Small-Business Bill Clears Senate Hurdle - WSJ.com
WHAT'S LACKING: Small-Business Bill Clears Senate Hurdle - WSJ.com:
"This is so typical of what is wrong (or just totally missing) from administration attempts to restore faith in the economy.
They are making life harder on anyone trying to run a business with the $600 reporting requirement (clearly because they are trying to 'tax Peter to pay for benefits for Paul').
The administration also fails to comprehend that people go into business to make money for themselves - not the government, not their employees, etc.
People save money and lend money for the same reasons.
The spottiness and shabbiness and disjointed nature of the administration's policies can't help but make any business person wary.
As Roubini highlighted on Bloomberg today, the stock market has basically done nothing for a decade.
Democrats and their supporters may berate business for outsourcing, etc. - but, bottom line, business has basically just survived for a decade.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
"This is so typical of what is wrong (or just totally missing) from administration attempts to restore faith in the economy.
They are making life harder on anyone trying to run a business with the $600 reporting requirement (clearly because they are trying to 'tax Peter to pay for benefits for Paul').
The administration also fails to comprehend that people go into business to make money for themselves - not the government, not their employees, etc.
People save money and lend money for the same reasons.
The spottiness and shabbiness and disjointed nature of the administration's policies can't help but make any business person wary.
As Roubini highlighted on Bloomberg today, the stock market has basically done nothing for a decade.
Democrats and their supporters may berate business for outsourcing, etc. - but, bottom line, business has basically just survived for a decade.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Review & Outlook: The Small Beer Bill - WSJ.com
Q&A: Review & Outlook: The Small Beer Bill - WSJ.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Question:
The eight years prior to Obama resulted in what? A strong healthy economy? or a disaster of epic proportions? Hopefully Obama will be rewarded by another six years to dig us out of the mess
Answer:
I fear you are very easily misled into buying into only big government.
You might consider that with the rise of China and the sudden emergence of very cheap labor, the old US union model of high school educated blue collar labor being able to enjoy a preponderance of the world's resources by a very small percentage of its population had come to an end.
This of course is something that the current administration just can't understand.
So Bush cut taxes and tried to get the economy to restart. To some extent he succeeded.
But, the Democrats and Barney Frank in particular was continuing with the idea of expanded entitlements so he pushed for lower to no loan standards - and furthered this goal by empowering Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with unprecedented support. We all saw the housing bubble that resulted.
However, neither party has had the guts to try and tell middle America that all the entitlements they've grown accustomed to an large government is unaffordable.
Thus, you have to ask yourself whether more entitlements, more transfer of wealth to government to handout for free or whether greater rewards for investment into new technologies would more likely create jobs and good-paying jobs?
All one has to do is look around at states and countries that let government get to big to see what happens. And, if you support big government you obviously are in favor of high unemployment and reduced living standards.
But, I really don't think you have the right to impose that view on the rest of society! Do you?
Question:
The eight years prior to Obama resulted in what? A strong healthy economy? or a disaster of epic proportions? Hopefully Obama will be rewarded by another six years to dig us out of the mess
Answer:
I fear you are very easily misled into buying into only big government.
You might consider that with the rise of China and the sudden emergence of very cheap labor, the old US union model of high school educated blue collar labor being able to enjoy a preponderance of the world's resources by a very small percentage of its population had come to an end.
This of course is something that the current administration just can't understand.
So Bush cut taxes and tried to get the economy to restart. To some extent he succeeded.
But, the Democrats and Barney Frank in particular was continuing with the idea of expanded entitlements so he pushed for lower to no loan standards - and furthered this goal by empowering Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with unprecedented support. We all saw the housing bubble that resulted.
However, neither party has had the guts to try and tell middle America that all the entitlements they've grown accustomed to an large government is unaffordable.
Thus, you have to ask yourself whether more entitlements, more transfer of wealth to government to handout for free or whether greater rewards for investment into new technologies would more likely create jobs and good-paying jobs?
All one has to do is look around at states and countries that let government get to big to see what happens. And, if you support big government you obviously are in favor of high unemployment and reduced living standards.
But, I really don't think you have the right to impose that view on the rest of society! Do you?
Gloomy Economic Outlook Continues - Barrons.com
ROOMIE POLICIES: Gloomy Economic Outlook Continues - Barrons.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
How can one not feel a bit gloomy when the Obama Administration's economic policies are so 'roomie'?
A quick example comes to mind with respect to the idea of moving the tax rates up on the 'rich'.
If the rich started to pay a larger and larger share of all personal income taxes when their rates were cut by Mr. Bush (from roughly 42% to 50%+), then is boggles the mind to think these numbers won't also work in reverse.
Thus, by letting the rates go back up, the most basic math would say that the rich will soon be contributing 42% of what will be a reduced tax collection pie.
It might be possible to argue this would be in the vein of 'unexpected consequences' - but the old saw of 'regression to the mean' would argue otherwise. In other words - HIGHLY EXPECTED CONSEQUENCES!
Why are reporters missing this?
How can one not feel a bit gloomy when the Obama Administration's economic policies are so 'roomie'?
A quick example comes to mind with respect to the idea of moving the tax rates up on the 'rich'.
If the rich started to pay a larger and larger share of all personal income taxes when their rates were cut by Mr. Bush (from roughly 42% to 50%+), then is boggles the mind to think these numbers won't also work in reverse.
Thus, by letting the rates go back up, the most basic math would say that the rich will soon be contributing 42% of what will be a reduced tax collection pie.
It might be possible to argue this would be in the vein of 'unexpected consequences' - but the old saw of 'regression to the mean' would argue otherwise. In other words - HIGHLY EXPECTED CONSEQUENCES!
Why are reporters missing this?
Review & Outlook: The Small Beer Bill - WSJ.com
ECONOMY LIKE A LARGE SHIP - ONCE SLOWED, HARDER TO GET MOVING AGAIN AND UP TO SPEED; HARD TO MAKE UP FOR LOST GROUND: Review & Outlook: The Small Beer Bill - WSJ.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
To see what heavy unionism, taxation and government interference mean, it's interesting to read the article in the Weekend WSJ on the new French cuisine - i.e. the government (France in this case) takes so much out of the economy and transfers it to unions and rewards for poor and no productivity (early retirement) that the economy can no longer support fancier, higher priced restaurants.
Clearly the Dems don't realize that at the end of the day, success should be rewarded and lack of interest, laziness, stupidity, etc. - if not discouraged, at least not rewarded.
One somehow thinks of the energy to keep a large economy, like a large battleship or aircraft carrier going? In other words, once it slows down (as the Obama policies are doing to the US economy), it is much harder to get it back up to speed (in terms of both time and energy).
As the Obama policies are holding back and slowing the economy, every day that goes by with these policies in force means it is going to take longer and more energy (effort, investment, etc.) to get it back going again.
Of course there is also the fact that the economy has permanently fallen behind where it could have been (can we think the 1970's)?
To see what heavy unionism, taxation and government interference mean, it's interesting to read the article in the Weekend WSJ on the new French cuisine - i.e. the government (France in this case) takes so much out of the economy and transfers it to unions and rewards for poor and no productivity (early retirement) that the economy can no longer support fancier, higher priced restaurants.
Clearly the Dems don't realize that at the end of the day, success should be rewarded and lack of interest, laziness, stupidity, etc. - if not discouraged, at least not rewarded.
One somehow thinks of the energy to keep a large economy, like a large battleship or aircraft carrier going? In other words, once it slows down (as the Obama policies are doing to the US economy), it is much harder to get it back up to speed (in terms of both time and energy).
As the Obama policies are holding back and slowing the economy, every day that goes by with these policies in force means it is going to take longer and more energy (effort, investment, etc.) to get it back going again.
Of course there is also the fact that the economy has permanently fallen behind where it could have been (can we think the 1970's)?
Tax-Cut Debate Becomes Cloudier - WSJ.com
ILLOGICAL CONGERING BY OBAMA ON TAXES: Tax-Cut Debate Becomes Cloudier - WSJ.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Where in this article or discussion is a reflection of what took place when the tax cuts were put in place?
I.e. (per a recent WSJ article, which one needs to review for the exact figures), it was shown that the top 2% went from paying about 42% of all personal income taxes to over 50%.
Now one can logically assume that personal behavior is relatively consistent over time. Thus, those strategies which recognized more income (esp. probably capital gains, etc.) after the Bush tax cuts, will likely revert to pre-tax cut behavior. This would only be logical (and, of course, anathema to Democrats).
As a result, one could imagine logically that with higher tax rates, the top 2% might revert to paying in only 42% of what is collected.
Now, if the economy isn't growing, is Obama's 700 billion dollars a figment of some unskilled economic congering? Sure would seem so!
Where in this article or discussion is a reflection of what took place when the tax cuts were put in place?
I.e. (per a recent WSJ article, which one needs to review for the exact figures), it was shown that the top 2% went from paying about 42% of all personal income taxes to over 50%.
Now one can logically assume that personal behavior is relatively consistent over time. Thus, those strategies which recognized more income (esp. probably capital gains, etc.) after the Bush tax cuts, will likely revert to pre-tax cut behavior. This would only be logical (and, of course, anathema to Democrats).
As a result, one could imagine logically that with higher tax rates, the top 2% might revert to paying in only 42% of what is collected.
Now, if the economy isn't growing, is Obama's 700 billion dollars a figment of some unskilled economic congering? Sure would seem so!
Friday, September 10, 2010
A Rerun of 1982's Election Is Unlikely Despite Similar Economies - Barrons.com
OBAMA'S NEVER NEVER LAND: A Rerun of 1982's Election Is Unlikely Despite Similar Economies - Barrons.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Let's see. In one sense you reward savings and investment.
In the other, you feel so badly that the workers and non-workers may be getting less, so you borrow as much as you can and argue that anyone earning or making (above an average) is going to have to pay for everyone else.
Oh yes, and if you thought the US might want globally competitive benefit and tax rates - well, you are living in never-never-land.
Let's see. In one sense you reward savings and investment.
In the other, you feel so badly that the workers and non-workers may be getting less, so you borrow as much as you can and argue that anyone earning or making (above an average) is going to have to pay for everyone else.
Oh yes, and if you thought the US might want globally competitive benefit and tax rates - well, you are living in never-never-land.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Budget Deficit at $1.3 Trillion So Far in Fiscal 2010 - WSJ.com
CREDIT CARD PRESIDENT, PLASTIC CONGRESS: Budget Deficit at $1.3 Trillion So Far in Fiscal 2010 - WSJ.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Can we say the "credit card president" and "plastic congress"?
One just wonders how they think they'll ever pay these debts off?
After all, families are led to think there is nothing wrong with running high credit card balances - even though they soon realize that most of what they would like to spend is actually going just to pay interest.
And, even though they hope for some fabulous new job or legacy to bail them out, when the debts get out of hand, it's usually Chapter 7 (or maybe 13 they turn to).
With our current leadership, Obama was vowing just yesterday how he's out to defend the middle class. So spending isn't going to be cut.
And, since he thinks the rich will earn the same gross taxable income with higher rates (which everyone who has made the slightest study of history or human behavior knows to be false), then income tax rates may be up but in all liklihood the total take will be down (check out the recent article showing how the percent of total tax receipts paid by the 'rich' went up when Bush lowered rates; assume the percentage goes back to where it was before Bush's tax cuts, then ... you see where it gets us.).
So, with UAW-type economic policies (i.e. the company eventually goes bankrupt; and, until then shrinks), it's hard to see the economy doing much growing.
The picture looks pretty horrible. But, then again, as someone said today, "sadly we knew the administration didn't have an economic clue; now, we know they don't even know basic arithmetic".
Can we say the "credit card president" and "plastic congress"?
One just wonders how they think they'll ever pay these debts off?
After all, families are led to think there is nothing wrong with running high credit card balances - even though they soon realize that most of what they would like to spend is actually going just to pay interest.
And, even though they hope for some fabulous new job or legacy to bail them out, when the debts get out of hand, it's usually Chapter 7 (or maybe 13 they turn to).
With our current leadership, Obama was vowing just yesterday how he's out to defend the middle class. So spending isn't going to be cut.
And, since he thinks the rich will earn the same gross taxable income with higher rates (which everyone who has made the slightest study of history or human behavior knows to be false), then income tax rates may be up but in all liklihood the total take will be down (check out the recent article showing how the percent of total tax receipts paid by the 'rich' went up when Bush lowered rates; assume the percentage goes back to where it was before Bush's tax cuts, then ... you see where it gets us.).
So, with UAW-type economic policies (i.e. the company eventually goes bankrupt; and, until then shrinks), it's hard to see the economy doing much growing.
The picture looks pretty horrible. But, then again, as someone said today, "sadly we knew the administration didn't have an economic clue; now, we know they don't even know basic arithmetic".
Overhaul Not Expected to Change Health Spending - WSJ.com
CREDIT CARD GOVERNMENT: Overhaul Not Expected to Change Health Spending - WSJ.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
LATEST DEFICIT ESTIMATE: $ 1.45 TRILLION.
And, add to the overall problem of the economy the fact that the money to pay for all of this is based on taxing someone else to pay for all of it (direct taxes, mandated premiums, etc.).
So there is less efficiency in the economy overall and the Democrats again show a basic lack of economic understanding.
It's like the family that has two choices - get a better job to spend more; or, just put it on plastic.
Clearly the Democrats are on the credit card binge - and, we all know what usually happens: the income won't increase to pay for it (they only know how to screw the economy up worse and worse) and eventually bankruptcy (or, more likely hyperinflation).
Both the US and England are talking about more quantitative easing (or in common terms - printing the money that you've run out of).
LATEST DEFICIT ESTIMATE: $ 1.45 TRILLION.
And, add to the overall problem of the economy the fact that the money to pay for all of this is based on taxing someone else to pay for all of it (direct taxes, mandated premiums, etc.).
So there is less efficiency in the economy overall and the Democrats again show a basic lack of economic understanding.
It's like the family that has two choices - get a better job to spend more; or, just put it on plastic.
Clearly the Democrats are on the credit card binge - and, we all know what usually happens: the income won't increase to pay for it (they only know how to screw the economy up worse and worse) and eventually bankruptcy (or, more likely hyperinflation).
Both the US and England are talking about more quantitative easing (or in common terms - printing the money that you've run out of).
Overhaul Not Expected to Change Health Spending - WSJ.com
HMMM...MORE GRIST FOR THE DOUBLE-DIP: Overhaul Not Expected to Change Health Spending - WSJ.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Would it be an understatement to say these charts should scare the bejesus out of someone?
Niel Ferguson was right yesterday on Bloomberg (Wed) that its unlikely either party can really be counted on to rein in the entitlement spending spree Americans are addicted to.
After all, it took a bankruptcy to even start to rein in the UAW and their approach to economics seems to be the playbook of the Democrats and Obama.
(It's also interesting to see how the odds of a double-dip seem to be increasing. If I recall correctly, Roubini's odds this morning were reported to now be 40%.)
Would it be an understatement to say these charts should scare the bejesus out of someone?
Niel Ferguson was right yesterday on Bloomberg (Wed) that its unlikely either party can really be counted on to rein in the entitlement spending spree Americans are addicted to.
After all, it took a bankruptcy to even start to rein in the UAW and their approach to economics seems to be the playbook of the Democrats and Obama.
(It's also interesting to see how the odds of a double-dip seem to be increasing. If I recall correctly, Roubini's odds this morning were reported to now be 40%.)
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Review & Outlook: The Obama Economy - WSJ.com
BLEEDING THE ECONOMY TO CURE ITS ILLS: Review & Outlook: The Obama Economy - WSJ.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Do the Democrats and President Obama remind anyone of 17th century doctors? All thought highly of as their time; but, of course in light of modern medicine they would be 'quacks'?
Clearly the stab in the dark attempts to give the economy a transitory boost with the proposed tax cuts and spending are a further indication that the President, his advisors and the Democrats are flailing and really have no idea how to get the economy on a healing path.
They don't know why their policies have failed because the overriding goal was to restore the middle class standards by borrowing and imposing burdens on business. They clearly don't have any type of grasp of the fact that American needs to do a fundamental rethink of the idea that a high school education or less and early and lush retirements and medical care can go hand in hand in today's global economy.
Instead of having a modern vision that can provide a better standard of living for average Americans, the Democrats just push through the UAW mentality of strike and demand because somehow they are "entitled". Never does the idea of earning the entitlement come into the equation.
Obama could have looked at what government largess brings about in those states like California that practiced the fine art. But, that wouldn't have been wise because it might have raised questions. The Democrats in California didn't raise such questions - nor their leader sent to Washington, Ms. Pelosi.
Sadly, every day the Dems are in office the problem grows greater. This is because while doing the wrong things, time and again, the festering sores wrought by their actions go untreated.
The Dems may know something is wrong, but they are more like doctors in the 1700's that though bleeding a patient would cure the patient's ills. What they are doing is bleeding the economy - and, they think it's the only answer.
How wrong they are!
Do the Democrats and President Obama remind anyone of 17th century doctors? All thought highly of as their time; but, of course in light of modern medicine they would be 'quacks'?
Clearly the stab in the dark attempts to give the economy a transitory boost with the proposed tax cuts and spending are a further indication that the President, his advisors and the Democrats are flailing and really have no idea how to get the economy on a healing path.
They don't know why their policies have failed because the overriding goal was to restore the middle class standards by borrowing and imposing burdens on business. They clearly don't have any type of grasp of the fact that American needs to do a fundamental rethink of the idea that a high school education or less and early and lush retirements and medical care can go hand in hand in today's global economy.
Instead of having a modern vision that can provide a better standard of living for average Americans, the Democrats just push through the UAW mentality of strike and demand because somehow they are "entitled". Never does the idea of earning the entitlement come into the equation.
Obama could have looked at what government largess brings about in those states like California that practiced the fine art. But, that wouldn't have been wise because it might have raised questions. The Democrats in California didn't raise such questions - nor their leader sent to Washington, Ms. Pelosi.
Sadly, every day the Dems are in office the problem grows greater. This is because while doing the wrong things, time and again, the festering sores wrought by their actions go untreated.
The Dems may know something is wrong, but they are more like doctors in the 1700's that though bleeding a patient would cure the patient's ills. What they are doing is bleeding the economy - and, they think it's the only answer.
How wrong they are!
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Wall Street Journal: State of the Economy Can more government stimulus lower the nation's unemployment rate?
IS THIS A DUMB QUESTION OR WHAT?: Wall Street Journal: State of the Economy Can more government stimulus lower the nation's unemployment rate?: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Why ask about more stimulus without looking at the causes of the problem first?
Each government policy, directive, regulation, etc. might be put on the table with the question, "Does it encourage investors and/or businesses to hire, start, expand a business - in the US?
Clearly the answer to almost everything touched by Obama and Pelosi would get a "no" answer.
As seen with Obamacare, it sounds nice but raises the costs of employment, investment and wealth creation. The list doesn't end quickly.
The US can't go back to the UAW world of the 1950's but clearly that's where the current administration and Democrats think they can take the economy.
Those individual states with the most Democratic-oriented policies, and especially those that have had them in place for a long time, clearly lead in all the wrong things - i.e. higher average unemployment, job creation and budget deficits (plus higher taxes).
It would seem to an unbiased observer that current policies are anathema to a job creating solution.
Why ask about more stimulus without looking at the causes of the problem first?
Each government policy, directive, regulation, etc. might be put on the table with the question, "Does it encourage investors and/or businesses to hire, start, expand a business - in the US?
Clearly the answer to almost everything touched by Obama and Pelosi would get a "no" answer.
As seen with Obamacare, it sounds nice but raises the costs of employment, investment and wealth creation. The list doesn't end quickly.
The US can't go back to the UAW world of the 1950's but clearly that's where the current administration and Democrats think they can take the economy.
Those individual states with the most Democratic-oriented policies, and especially those that have had them in place for a long time, clearly lead in all the wrong things - i.e. higher average unemployment, job creation and budget deficits (plus higher taxes).
It would seem to an unbiased observer that current policies are anathema to a job creating solution.
Friday, September 3, 2010
It's Not Just the Jobs. It's the Jobs Machine. - WSJ.com
It's Not Just the Jobs. Q&A: It's the Jobs Machine. - WSJ.com:
Question:
AP asks: I think that CEO pay at over 400 times the salary of a worker is a job destroyer.
Answer:
"Clearly you don't believe in supply and demand.
What you are also missing and is the big question that should be in everyone's mind is:
If interest rates are so low, so many people need jobs, there are so many great ideas for products, services, etc. (read any tech or science journal; witness the commercial success of the iPad), then why aren't businesses being set up?
Likewise, rather than rant at overpaid (your judgment) executives and bankers, ask why there isn't more competition for these jobs and salaries?
Clearly government and unions and taxes are at work here - because, in other parts of the world this growth of jobs, businesses and technologies is advancing (see China, Singapore, etc.).
You may not like the effects that you see (high wage differentials), but you should be looking at causes. Why aren't more people seeking these jobs or trying to compete for them?
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Question:
AP asks: I think that CEO pay at over 400 times the salary of a worker is a job destroyer.
Answer:
"Clearly you don't believe in supply and demand.
What you are also missing and is the big question that should be in everyone's mind is:
If interest rates are so low, so many people need jobs, there are so many great ideas for products, services, etc. (read any tech or science journal; witness the commercial success of the iPad), then why aren't businesses being set up?
Likewise, rather than rant at overpaid (your judgment) executives and bankers, ask why there isn't more competition for these jobs and salaries?
Clearly government and unions and taxes are at work here - because, in other parts of the world this growth of jobs, businesses and technologies is advancing (see China, Singapore, etc.).
You may not like the effects that you see (high wage differentials), but you should be looking at causes. Why aren't more people seeking these jobs or trying to compete for them?
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Thursday, September 2, 2010
It's Not Just the Jobs. It's the Jobs Machine. - WSJ.com
HOBS, SMOBS: It's Not Just the Jobs. It's the Jobs Machine. - WSJ.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
The overall rubric could be to make the economy and the country "business friendly" - which it clearly is not.
Globally, the US needs to recognize that things want to regress to the mean. Thus, if someone is poor and wants to work hard and someone else is (relatively) rich and doesn't want to work hard, then it is likely that the poor person is going to enjoy an improving standard of living and (relatively) the richer person a declining standard of living!
And, guess what? America is seeing this happen and doesn't like it.
But, what does an American union like the UAW say? Damm, let's ..... it. Can we say Ostrich?
And, the public employee unions look to France and have no inhibitions in taxing and underperforming.
Thus, the issue is broadly definable - or, so it would seem. Is the US going to have policies that encourage and reward work, saving, investment, entrepreneurship and global competitiveness or does it want to preserve benefits and policies that are recognized to not be competitive globally.
It's revolting to think that jobs are all equal and pay should be equal. If a job is priced above its value to the employer, then the job won't get done. Minimum wages and extravagant benefits are job destroyers.
The overall rubric could be to make the economy and the country "business friendly" - which it clearly is not.
Globally, the US needs to recognize that things want to regress to the mean. Thus, if someone is poor and wants to work hard and someone else is (relatively) rich and doesn't want to work hard, then it is likely that the poor person is going to enjoy an improving standard of living and (relatively) the richer person a declining standard of living!
And, guess what? America is seeing this happen and doesn't like it.
But, what does an American union like the UAW say? Damm, let's ..... it. Can we say Ostrich?
And, the public employee unions look to France and have no inhibitions in taxing and underperforming.
Thus, the issue is broadly definable - or, so it would seem. Is the US going to have policies that encourage and reward work, saving, investment, entrepreneurship and global competitiveness or does it want to preserve benefits and policies that are recognized to not be competitive globally.
It's revolting to think that jobs are all equal and pay should be equal. If a job is priced above its value to the employer, then the job won't get done. Minimum wages and extravagant benefits are job destroyers.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Spain's Zapatero Hopes China Will Increase Holdings of Spanish Bonds - WSJ.com
ENTITLEMENT WITHDRAWAL: Spain's Zapatero Hopes China Will Increase Holdings of Spanish Bonds - WSJ.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
The article's title says it all!
Let China support the weakening of Spain by investing in government (read income transfer programs, retirement programs, uncompetitive work rules, etc.) - all of which only go to further strengthen the competitive advantages of China.
The European and American sense of 'entitlement' to all these benefits is clearly a drug from which recovery is more difficult seemingly than heroin or cocaine.
The article's title says it all!
Let China support the weakening of Spain by investing in government (read income transfer programs, retirement programs, uncompetitive work rules, etc.) - all of which only go to further strengthen the competitive advantages of China.
The European and American sense of 'entitlement' to all these benefits is clearly a drug from which recovery is more difficult seemingly than heroin or cocaine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
