Q&A on Beating Up on Banks: Goldman Warns of Layoffs - WSJ.com
Frank's question:
"...bashing the banks had no consequences in the 1920's and 30's in Germany when they blamed the banks (and the Jews who supposedly controlled them) for their hyper-inflation and weak economy. It won't have any negative effects here either..."
answer:
Gee Frank, somehow one does think of Hitler and the war-time destruction of Germany as a consequence.
And, the US benefited from all the Jewish scientists, etc. who left Germany in the 30's.
Right now, one does seem to see lots of American capital leaving the US along with lots of jobs.
So, I'd ponder if there aren't some pretty extreme consequences.
But, then again, lots of Americans don't know who to blame and they don't want to have to blame liberal, Democratic, entitlement policies that they enjoy the upfront benefits of.
Somehow the old saw about 'no-free-lunch' seems to always reassert itself.
Wealth creation is far better than redistribution and no wealth creation. But Democrats rarely know how to support wealth creation - etc., etc.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
As QE2 Sets Sail, Bond Rally Sinks - WSJ.com
THREE BIG DRIVERS OF THE ECONOMY: As QE2 Sets Sail, Bond Rally Sinks - WSJ.com
THREE BIG DRIVERS OF THE ECONOMY
Recall from the 1930's analysis the players:
(1) Monetarists - they blamed the ongoing recession on tight money (thus, Bernanke is trying to do what he can to make sure there is plenty of 'loose' money around).
(2) Keynesians - they said government needed to spend to boost demand (a policy dear to the heart of Obama and Democrats and unions).
(3) Laffer and the Laffer Curve - it says taxes have a roll to play and the continuing increases in tax rates in the 1930's, were a major negative to the income (i.e. reducing the return on investment and raising taxes on corporations and business people)
combined with the additional power given to unions to raise the cost of doing business with additional uncertainty.
TAKE from the above what you want to believe in.
Bernanke's efforts (1) would seem to show that a loose money supply policy on its own, even with strong Keynesian Spending (2) is unable to counter policies that go against the Laffer Curve (3).
However, those like Obama who don't believe in Laffer continue to hope that Bernanke (1) can overcome any drag caused by high debt and high tax policies.
Yes, it is true that taxes have yet to be raised (although Obama is trying right now as part of the Debt limit talks); but, the corporate tax rate is clearly acknowledged even by some Keynesians like Obama to maybe need lowering.
Just know that if the Laffer Curve is right, it may not be the central bankers - certainly alone - that need to be worried about - its those who support big government and big government spending (read Obama and most European unions).
And also, it's not the central bankers who are really responsible as much as those who thought there was a 'free lunch' - in housing, entitlements, etc.
THREE BIG DRIVERS OF THE ECONOMY
Recall from the 1930's analysis the players:
(1) Monetarists - they blamed the ongoing recession on tight money (thus, Bernanke is trying to do what he can to make sure there is plenty of 'loose' money around).
(2) Keynesians - they said government needed to spend to boost demand (a policy dear to the heart of Obama and Democrats and unions).
(3) Laffer and the Laffer Curve - it says taxes have a roll to play and the continuing increases in tax rates in the 1930's, were a major negative to the income (i.e. reducing the return on investment and raising taxes on corporations and business people)
combined with the additional power given to unions to raise the cost of doing business with additional uncertainty.
TAKE from the above what you want to believe in.
Bernanke's efforts (1) would seem to show that a loose money supply policy on its own, even with strong Keynesian Spending (2) is unable to counter policies that go against the Laffer Curve (3).
However, those like Obama who don't believe in Laffer continue to hope that Bernanke (1) can overcome any drag caused by high debt and high tax policies.
Yes, it is true that taxes have yet to be raised (although Obama is trying right now as part of the Debt limit talks); but, the corporate tax rate is clearly acknowledged even by some Keynesians like Obama to maybe need lowering.
Just know that if the Laffer Curve is right, it may not be the central bankers - certainly alone - that need to be worried about - its those who support big government and big government spending (read Obama and most European unions).
And also, it's not the central bankers who are really responsible as much as those who thought there was a 'free lunch' - in housing, entitlements, etc.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Portugal to Speed Austerity Measures - WSJ.com
PORTUGAL AND THE LAFFER CURVE: Portugal to Speed Austerity Measures - WSJ.com
One wonders if Portugal isn't already on the down slope side of the Laffer Curve - i.e. taxes can be raised; but, with each raise, less total gross tax revenue is received.
An easy example is to think of sales taxes and the economic-utility function. As some point, no matter what the 'utility' the cost will trump the combined please and value of buying something. When that happens, something isn't bought.
It may be that with a 23% VAT tax or the almost 50% car tax, people buy 2-3 fewer cars and they substitute food for that new dress or washing machine.
From the stores that are going out of business, it would certainly seem on the retail side of things, there must be less business and fewer jobs - all of which would seem to indicate the peak of the Laffer Curve tax take has been reached - and, sometime back!
One wonders if Portugal isn't already on the down slope side of the Laffer Curve - i.e. taxes can be raised; but, with each raise, less total gross tax revenue is received.
An easy example is to think of sales taxes and the economic-utility function. As some point, no matter what the 'utility' the cost will trump the combined please and value of buying something. When that happens, something isn't bought.
It may be that with a 23% VAT tax or the almost 50% car tax, people buy 2-3 fewer cars and they substitute food for that new dress or washing machine.
From the stores that are going out of business, it would certainly seem on the retail side of things, there must be less business and fewer jobs - all of which would seem to indicate the peak of the Laffer Curve tax take has been reached - and, sometime back!
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Lawrence B. Lindsey: The Deficit Is Worse Than We Think - WSJ.com
THE UNION-CENTRIC, LIBERAL RELIGION BELIES CHANGE: Lawrence B. Lindsey: The Deficit Is Worse Than We Think - WSJ.com
Let's see? The UAW knew GM was in trouble but saw nothing wrong with still requiring the company to fully pay laid off union workers. Eventually, the taxpayer had to help the union keep its jobs.
A Greek school teacher was quoted on Bloomberg today as saying the Greek government is going down the wrong path - of course, the school teacher had no idea where the money for his salary would be coming from.
Thus, the unreality of unions and socialists and liberals doesn't bode well for any serious consideration to be paid to the problems dealt with in this article - just the opposite.
Maybe we'll see more honesty in the upcoming political campaigns but those who feel 'entitled' will want to believe the pablum they are being fed by the Democrats and thus, anything short of some sort of fiscal disaster will likely not change their thinking.
Even then, it's like trying to change someone's religion. Never an easy or even possible task.
Let's see? The UAW knew GM was in trouble but saw nothing wrong with still requiring the company to fully pay laid off union workers. Eventually, the taxpayer had to help the union keep its jobs.
A Greek school teacher was quoted on Bloomberg today as saying the Greek government is going down the wrong path - of course, the school teacher had no idea where the money for his salary would be coming from.
Thus, the unreality of unions and socialists and liberals doesn't bode well for any serious consideration to be paid to the problems dealt with in this article - just the opposite.
Maybe we'll see more honesty in the upcoming political campaigns but those who feel 'entitled' will want to believe the pablum they are being fed by the Democrats and thus, anything short of some sort of fiscal disaster will likely not change their thinking.
Even then, it's like trying to change someone's religion. Never an easy or even possible task.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Review & Outlook: Spending His Way to Austerity - WSJ.com
PICKING AND CHOOSING FROM HISTORY (Lack of an objective view): Review & Outlook: Spending His Way to Austerity - WSJ.com
Clearly Obama discounts the 'Laffer Curve' - it relates to an economic reality (think religion) that is beyond his comprehension.
One reason people should realize that those who really caused the housing bubble (i.e. those in an economic cloud of unreality) are still trying to control the US government, its budget, tax system and economy.
What will hindsight bring us?
(It would seem as though it already has since the Laffer argument about tax increases prolonging the Depression of the 30's seems to have been proven by the loose money of Bernanke and the Keynesian spending of Obama having failed to cure the current economic downturn in the face of the huge deficits (going to social consumption rather than investment) and obvious attempts to massively increase taxes on those able to both pay or to grow the economy.
Hindsight is there; too many people just don't know history or choose to ignore it and pick and choose.
Clearly Obama discounts the 'Laffer Curve' - it relates to an economic reality (think religion) that is beyond his comprehension.
One reason people should realize that those who really caused the housing bubble (i.e. those in an economic cloud of unreality) are still trying to control the US government, its budget, tax system and economy.
What will hindsight bring us?
(It would seem as though it already has since the Laffer argument about tax increases prolonging the Depression of the 30's seems to have been proven by the loose money of Bernanke and the Keynesian spending of Obama having failed to cure the current economic downturn in the face of the huge deficits (going to social consumption rather than investment) and obvious attempts to massively increase taxes on those able to both pay or to grow the economy.
Hindsight is there; too many people just don't know history or choose to ignore it and pick and choose.
Government, Individual Debt Hamstrings Recovery - WSJ.com
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES 'HERDED AWAY': Government, Individual Debt Hamstrings Recovery - WSJ.com
You are absolutely right about 'being herded away'.
Anytime the 'economic-utility' function is skewed, then things change.
Government substitutes both liberal and conservative utility functions by subsidizing and legislating.
It's very apparent here in Europe where so much low-tech and small-business is just taxed and regulated to the point business quits. A lot of it has to do with labor taxes and labor legislation.
Driving around today paying 23% VAT and almost 50% in taxes on buying a new car, one can't help but think of the Laffer Curve's law of diminished returns. It may seem like more income is going to government, but I doubt it; and, within a few years, the adjustments people make (like moving and closing businesses, having to make do with inefficient and costly to repair equipment, etc.) clearly weaken the economic foundations of the economy.
Socialists and Obama and his Democrats haven't a clue. It's like a totally different economic religion.
That's why people are rightly scared - i.e. those who likely also avoided the worst parts of the housing bubble.
But sadly, as I recall, they were in the minority.
You are absolutely right about 'being herded away'.
Anytime the 'economic-utility' function is skewed, then things change.
Government substitutes both liberal and conservative utility functions by subsidizing and legislating.
It's very apparent here in Europe where so much low-tech and small-business is just taxed and regulated to the point business quits. A lot of it has to do with labor taxes and labor legislation.
Driving around today paying 23% VAT and almost 50% in taxes on buying a new car, one can't help but think of the Laffer Curve's law of diminished returns. It may seem like more income is going to government, but I doubt it; and, within a few years, the adjustments people make (like moving and closing businesses, having to make do with inefficient and costly to repair equipment, etc.) clearly weaken the economic foundations of the economy.
Socialists and Obama and his Democrats haven't a clue. It's like a totally different economic religion.
That's why people are rightly scared - i.e. those who likely also avoided the worst parts of the housing bubble.
But sadly, as I recall, they were in the minority.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Capital Market Conditions Eerily Recall 2007 - The CFO Report - WSJ
PARALLELS WITH THE TITANIC: Capital Market Conditions Eerily Recall 2007 - The CFO Report - WSJ
Could it be that the free 'booze' for the economy from the Fed is coming to an end and there's still enough in the glasses for many people not to be sober enough to reassess or pay heed to what is really happening around them (i.e. bad policies leading to the inevitable icebergs); or,
Could it be that while some people are worried that the economy, like the Titanic, may be in trouble for hitting an iceberg, others - like the President and most Democrats - are still too drunk with power and enthusiasm to realize their policies have positioned the economy to sink and instead they are wondering what all the fuss is about (with how they've handled the ship of the economy)?
Could it be that the free 'booze' for the economy from the Fed is coming to an end and there's still enough in the glasses for many people not to be sober enough to reassess or pay heed to what is really happening around them (i.e. bad policies leading to the inevitable icebergs); or,
Could it be that while some people are worried that the economy, like the Titanic, may be in trouble for hitting an iceberg, others - like the President and most Democrats - are still too drunk with power and enthusiasm to realize their policies have positioned the economy to sink and instead they are wondering what all the fuss is about (with how they've handled the ship of the economy)?
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Bernanke Downgrades Growth Outlook, Provides No New Answers - Barrons.com
OBAMA DOESN'T GET IT BECAUSE HE CAN'T: Bernanke Downgrades Growth Outlook, Provides No New Answers - Barrons.com
"...policy makers are out of answers."
Or, one might say, their old strategies have been wrung dry and they can't buy in to a strategy that becomes business and investor friendly.
Somehow, to Keynesians and union members and most Democrats and liberals, the idea of growing the economy first - before every this and that entitlement and overbearing regulation - well, it just doesn't make sense.
One could look at Greece (and Obama's vision of America) and laugh or cry.
Cry because its such a mess.
Or, laugh because the idiots just don't get it (Obama beats up on Boeing over a new factory in a non-union state and thinks that will get more union jobs in the US - how many jobs will just permanently move offshore?)
"...policy makers are out of answers."
Or, one might say, their old strategies have been wrung dry and they can't buy in to a strategy that becomes business and investor friendly.
Somehow, to Keynesians and union members and most Democrats and liberals, the idea of growing the economy first - before every this and that entitlement and overbearing regulation - well, it just doesn't make sense.
One could look at Greece (and Obama's vision of America) and laugh or cry.
Cry because its such a mess.
Or, laugh because the idiots just don't get it (Obama beats up on Boeing over a new factory in a non-union state and thinks that will get more union jobs in the US - how many jobs will just permanently move offshore?)
Is Bernanke Playing Politics? - Barrons.com
MORE ON FRIEDMAN AND LAFFER: Is Bernanke Playing Politics? - Barrons.com
Somehow all of this opposite approach (of Zandi and Taylor) to the economy reminds me of Milton Friedman and Art Laffer.
Laffer points to the increasing taxes Democrats pushed through in the 1930's as an inhibitor to economic growth. Back in the 70's, Friedman focused on the impact of tight money.
We've now shown that loose money, in the face of (- if not immediate higher taxes) higher government spending and massive borrowing, can't counter the effects of poor fiscal policy.
Thus, it would seem as though Laffer is vindicated by empirical evidence (i.e. the economy isn't doing very well and we may well have a 1937/8 downturn next year).
One would hope that advocates of big government and high taxes would reconsider their modus operandi; but, evidence isn't pointing that way.
One does wonder if the electorate would rather listen to pablum from the pols like Obama or really find a change (and, whether the Republicans or a third party might be needed to bring about such a change)?
Somehow all of this opposite approach (of Zandi and Taylor) to the economy reminds me of Milton Friedman and Art Laffer.
Laffer points to the increasing taxes Democrats pushed through in the 1930's as an inhibitor to economic growth. Back in the 70's, Friedman focused on the impact of tight money.
We've now shown that loose money, in the face of (- if not immediate higher taxes) higher government spending and massive borrowing, can't counter the effects of poor fiscal policy.
Thus, it would seem as though Laffer is vindicated by empirical evidence (i.e. the economy isn't doing very well and we may well have a 1937/8 downturn next year).
One would hope that advocates of big government and high taxes would reconsider their modus operandi; but, evidence isn't pointing that way.
One does wonder if the electorate would rather listen to pablum from the pols like Obama or really find a change (and, whether the Republicans or a third party might be needed to bring about such a change)?
Obama Joins Tense Debt Talks - WSJ.com
LAFFER AND FRIEDMAN, THE EVIDENCE IS IN: Obama Joins Tense Debt Talks - WSJ.com
There are clearly two opposing views of how to restart / maintain a strong and vigorous economy.
Sadly, Obama is in the camp of the Roosevelt Democrats of the 1930's; and, now the evidence seems to be piling up that what Milton Friedman thought was the reason for the ongoing Depression of the '30's may have been less correct than Art Laffers (i.e. tax policy).
We now have Bernanke clearly fighting the tight money issue. Loose money isn't working in the face of bad fiscal policy.
And, bad fiscal policy (both Roosevelt and Obama are Keynesians) trumps loose money.
The logic is there. Keynesians believe the producing and investing sectors of the economy are not influenced by tax and regulatory policy (thus, if the US has higher tax rates than other jurisdictions, more regulatory hurtles, more pro-union (anti-employer) policies, the Keynesians ignore this in favor of just trying to boost consumption.
Keynesians ignore the logic of a company or investor putting their money where they create a better rate of return, make a more competitive product, operate with greater business freedom, etc.
Clearly, the evidence is there that Obama's policies have failed; but, he hopes that more of the same will produce a different result.
As Mark Twain used to say in a famous quote, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
There are clearly two opposing views of how to restart / maintain a strong and vigorous economy.
Sadly, Obama is in the camp of the Roosevelt Democrats of the 1930's; and, now the evidence seems to be piling up that what Milton Friedman thought was the reason for the ongoing Depression of the '30's may have been less correct than Art Laffers (i.e. tax policy).
We now have Bernanke clearly fighting the tight money issue. Loose money isn't working in the face of bad fiscal policy.
And, bad fiscal policy (both Roosevelt and Obama are Keynesians) trumps loose money.
The logic is there. Keynesians believe the producing and investing sectors of the economy are not influenced by tax and regulatory policy (thus, if the US has higher tax rates than other jurisdictions, more regulatory hurtles, more pro-union (anti-employer) policies, the Keynesians ignore this in favor of just trying to boost consumption.
Keynesians ignore the logic of a company or investor putting their money where they create a better rate of return, make a more competitive product, operate with greater business freedom, etc.
Clearly, the evidence is there that Obama's policies have failed; but, he hopes that more of the same will produce a different result.
As Mark Twain used to say in a famous quote, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Bill Gross Is Right About This - MarketBeat - WSJ
LOGICAL PARALLELS: Bill Gross Is Right About This - MarketBeat - WSJ
Why can't Americans be taught to think like they act and realize that others do the same.
As an example, everyone likes a discount coupon and a sale (my gosh, look at the lineups for special bargains on Black Friday after Thanksgiving).
So, why is it that policy wonks and politicians think businesses and investors behave differently. That they are immune to the affects of taxes and regulations?
How do teachers unions believe that they can teach to the lowest common denominator, waste huge sums on people who will never produce, require no competitive incentives to teach well or not teach at all and that somehow they'll have lavish pensions with early retirement.
The logic is just gone.
Somehow, it all reminds one of the kid who 'wants' and doesn't understand that his/her parents can afford something and provide it.
Why can't Americans be taught to think like they act and realize that others do the same.
As an example, everyone likes a discount coupon and a sale (my gosh, look at the lineups for special bargains on Black Friday after Thanksgiving).
So, why is it that policy wonks and politicians think businesses and investors behave differently. That they are immune to the affects of taxes and regulations?
How do teachers unions believe that they can teach to the lowest common denominator, waste huge sums on people who will never produce, require no competitive incentives to teach well or not teach at all and that somehow they'll have lavish pensions with early retirement.
The logic is just gone.
Somehow, it all reminds one of the kid who 'wants' and doesn't understand that his/her parents can afford something and provide it.
Review & Outlook: Shutting Up McKinsey - WSJ.com
MORE ON HOW THE WHITE HOUSE AND DEMS FIT THE DEFINITION OF AN IDIOT: Review &Outlook: Shutting Up McKinsey - WSJ.com
Not that we want to call the White House a cabal of idiots - no, they make that identification themselves.
After all, what is a good definition of an idiot - isn't it someone who keeps doing the same thing, yet hoping for and expecting a different result?
The impact of the Democratic policies on job creation, business investment, education, healthcare, etc. are all around all of us. Some of us see the results and are not happy with them; however, some at least look at policies that can be seen to have produced better outcomes and try to support implementing them.
Democrats however see outcomes they don't like and think more of the policies that produced these untoward results will somehow - in this particular, hoped-for situation, suddenly produce the opposite results.
The Democrats remind one of the farmer who puts a few seeds in the ground, doesn't fertilize and doesn't water and yet believes they'll get the bountiful harvest of the farmer who fully seeds, fertilizes and properly waters his/her crop.
Clearly Obama's White House has learned something from history (oh, or maybe they are just so far behind) - wasn't there something about shooting the messenger because you don't like the news they bring?
Not that we want to call the White House a cabal of idiots - no, they make that identification themselves.
After all, what is a good definition of an idiot - isn't it someone who keeps doing the same thing, yet hoping for and expecting a different result?
The impact of the Democratic policies on job creation, business investment, education, healthcare, etc. are all around all of us. Some of us see the results and are not happy with them; however, some at least look at policies that can be seen to have produced better outcomes and try to support implementing them.
Democrats however see outcomes they don't like and think more of the policies that produced these untoward results will somehow - in this particular, hoped-for situation, suddenly produce the opposite results.
The Democrats remind one of the farmer who puts a few seeds in the ground, doesn't fertilize and doesn't water and yet believes they'll get the bountiful harvest of the farmer who fully seeds, fertilizes and properly waters his/her crop.
Clearly Obama's White House has learned something from history (oh, or maybe they are just so far behind) - wasn't there something about shooting the messenger because you don't like the news they bring?
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Labor Board to Speed Up Union Elections - WSJ.com
CLASSIC DEFINITION OF AN IDIOT FITS THE DEMOCRATS: Labor Board to Speed Up Union Elections - WSJ.com
Unions are like spoiled bratty children. They run amuck and think they can get away with anything.
But just because you want a high paying job or job security, doesn't mean the employer can afford to give it to you. And, when the employer has to compete with other suppliers of a good or service, overpaid, featherbedded union employees have found the employer either dies (or maybe gets a taxpayer subsidy like GM to prevent it from dying) or moves production out of the US.
The unions, Obama and the Democrats seem to perfectly fit the definition of an idiot - (i.e. they like and keep doing the same things and just don't like the result, hoping for a different one).
The tremendous vitality of the US economy is clearly shown in its ability to have done as well as it has with the Democrats anti-business policies so rife.
Unions are like spoiled bratty children. They run amuck and think they can get away with anything.
But just because you want a high paying job or job security, doesn't mean the employer can afford to give it to you. And, when the employer has to compete with other suppliers of a good or service, overpaid, featherbedded union employees have found the employer either dies (or maybe gets a taxpayer subsidy like GM to prevent it from dying) or moves production out of the US.
The unions, Obama and the Democrats seem to perfectly fit the definition of an idiot - (i.e. they like and keep doing the same things and just don't like the result, hoping for a different one).
The tremendous vitality of the US economy is clearly shown in its ability to have done as well as it has with the Democrats anti-business policies so rife.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Alan Blinder: The GOP Myth of 'Job-Killing' Spending - WSJ.com
BLAH-BLAH BLINDER: Alan Blinder: The GOP Myth of 'Job-Killing' Spending - WSJ.com
Somehow Blinder is into the world of 'blah-blah'.
He seems to regularly ignore a trenchant question that was raised in today's commentary by Irwin Kellner (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jobs-reach-fork-in-the-road-2011-06-21?siteid=nbch) - "Give business reasons to hire people while removing the reasons why they don’t."
Likewise, it would be good if all of these pontificating economists and politicians would ask themselves what they would do if they were the business men and business women and investors that they would hope would create American jobs.
It's all part of thinking what the other person should do rather than what you would do in their place in terms of job creation, saving and investment.
Somehow Blinder is into the world of 'blah-blah'.
He seems to regularly ignore a trenchant question that was raised in today's commentary by Irwin Kellner (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jobs-reach-fork-in-the-road-2011-06-21?siteid=nbch) - "Give business reasons to hire people while removing the reasons why they don’t."
Likewise, it would be good if all of these pontificating economists and politicians would ask themselves what they would do if they were the business men and business women and investors that they would hope would create American jobs.
It's all part of thinking what the other person should do rather than what you would do in their place in terms of job creation, saving and investment.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Prospect of a Double-Dip Recession - WSJ.com
OBAMA NOT AN 'ECONOMIC' FARMER: Prospect of a Double-Dip Recession - WSJ.com
Do a bit more research.
Pelosi wanted to take government spending as a share of GDP to 30%.
When Obama came into office - deficit and all - he increased Bush's proposed budget substantially.
And, the 800 billion stimulus largely went to keep state payrolls of public employee unions and public benefits intact.
The US needs to be investing in education and jobs and have a pro-business policy. All of which Obama is refusing to do because it means giving up the entitlements of the welfare state.
Just sit back and watch. Obama's plan for the economy was lots of talk and anti-jobs and what has he gotten - actually a better jobs picture than expected.
But, it's been done by printing money.
If one wants to see what Obama policies do, look at the economy in Michigan or Greece. Excuses can be made, but the policies are basically the same - entitlements, too high taxes and too much debt, pandering in unions, etc.
It's like a garden - tend it, care for it, plant good seeds and water it and give it some sun and, low and behold, verdant growth.
Indiscriminated weed, fail to water, fail to supply fertilizer, etc. and you get a poor garden.
Obama hasn't a clue how to farm the economy. He grew up like the kids who think food magically appears at the supermarket - it's there; they're entitled to it; and, they really don't know where it comes from or how it is produced.
Do a bit more research.
Pelosi wanted to take government spending as a share of GDP to 30%.
When Obama came into office - deficit and all - he increased Bush's proposed budget substantially.
And, the 800 billion stimulus largely went to keep state payrolls of public employee unions and public benefits intact.
The US needs to be investing in education and jobs and have a pro-business policy. All of which Obama is refusing to do because it means giving up the entitlements of the welfare state.
Just sit back and watch. Obama's plan for the economy was lots of talk and anti-jobs and what has he gotten - actually a better jobs picture than expected.
But, it's been done by printing money.
If one wants to see what Obama policies do, look at the economy in Michigan or Greece. Excuses can be made, but the policies are basically the same - entitlements, too high taxes and too much debt, pandering in unions, etc.
It's like a garden - tend it, care for it, plant good seeds and water it and give it some sun and, low and behold, verdant growth.
Indiscriminated weed, fail to water, fail to supply fertilizer, etc. and you get a poor garden.
Obama hasn't a clue how to farm the economy. He grew up like the kids who think food magically appears at the supermarket - it's there; they're entitled to it; and, they really don't know where it comes from or how it is produced.
The Hidden Cost of Letting Workers Telecommute - WSJ.com
HOW GOVERNMENT THINKS ONLY SHORT TERM: The Hidden Cost of Letting Workers Telecommute - WSJ.com
(ARTICLE) "...Matthew Bobman, a certified public accountant in New York City, warns that companies have been found liable for state corporate tax "when the only connection to that state was that they had an employee telecommuting in that state."
In March 2010, for instance, the Tax Court of New Jersey ruled that a company whose main offices are in Maryland was "doing business" in New Jersey because an employee telecommutes from there..."
Gee, and to think we were wondering what businesses could do to create jobs?
Clearly, the answer is "what can government do to stop holding back job creation?"
(ARTICLE) "...Matthew Bobman, a certified public accountant in New York City, warns that companies have been found liable for state corporate tax "when the only connection to that state was that they had an employee telecommuting in that state."
In March 2010, for instance, the Tax Court of New Jersey ruled that a company whose main offices are in Maryland was "doing business" in New Jersey because an employee telecommutes from there..."
Gee, and to think we were wondering what businesses could do to create jobs?
Clearly, the answer is "what can government do to stop holding back job creation?"
Prospect of a Double-Dip Recession - WSJ.com
BIG PICTURE - SMALL PICTURE: Prospect of a Double-Dip Recession - WSJ.com
One thing missing from this analysis is a comparison of the share of GDP to be taken and being taken by government - i.e. the BIG PICTURE!
> Back in the early 80's, the share of GDP was coming down (and not from as high as Obama's 25%) and it was determined that the US economy needed the Feds to take about 19.8% or so for the economy to move out of stagnation.
> Now we have a president (Obama) who thinks 25% of GDP won't impact the economy.
I'd like to see some reference to what happens to an economy when more of what it produces goes to social consumption and not investment or into the pockets of producers and investors.
(The recent example of Illinois having to pay out more money in tax breaks to keep companies from leaving than it planned to earn with its corporate tax increase is rather emblematic - WSJ, Thurs. 6/9 I believe.)
Or, the impact on jobs and earnings of the financial industry of Obama policies. Well, who'd-a-believed that earnings and returns are down and people are going to be fired!
Democrats like to see all the contentedness of the 'entitled' with their government programs. They seem to ignore the other side of the coin - which is the cost and what is forgone as a result.
One thing missing from this analysis is a comparison of the share of GDP to be taken and being taken by government - i.e. the BIG PICTURE!
> Back in the early 80's, the share of GDP was coming down (and not from as high as Obama's 25%) and it was determined that the US economy needed the Feds to take about 19.8% or so for the economy to move out of stagnation.
> Now we have a president (Obama) who thinks 25% of GDP won't impact the economy.
I'd like to see some reference to what happens to an economy when more of what it produces goes to social consumption and not investment or into the pockets of producers and investors.
(The recent example of Illinois having to pay out more money in tax breaks to keep companies from leaving than it planned to earn with its corporate tax increase is rather emblematic - WSJ, Thurs. 6/9 I believe.)
Or, the impact on jobs and earnings of the financial industry of Obama policies. Well, who'd-a-believed that earnings and returns are down and people are going to be fired!
Democrats like to see all the contentedness of the 'entitled' with their government programs. They seem to ignore the other side of the coin - which is the cost and what is forgone as a result.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Auto Bailout Was a Bargain for Taxpayers, Economy — Letters to the Editor - WSJ.com
RATTNER DOESN'T HIDE HIS BIAS VERY WELL: Auto Bailout Was a Bargain for Taxpayers, Economy — Letters to the Editor - WSJ.com
Clearly and brazenly Rattner omits any discussion of the favoritism shown the UAW and the disdain shown investors.
As such, Rattner and the Obama crowd show utter ignorance of how the free market works.
Clearly they know how to bend over for the unions.
The article in this Thursday's paper on Illinois is emblematic of the deep divide (can we say 'through the looking glass' divide) that exists between the Democrats and their liberal, union and welfare-centric policies and the globally competitive economic environment faced by the US collectively and private businesses generally.
As further shown by Obama's floating of the idea of a social security tax holiday for employers, he and his administration seem totally out-of-touch with the broader problems of the economy that can be laid directly at his feet and the feet of government.
As such, it is hard to imagine anything but the long slog that characterized the 1970's economy and its mismanagement and disappointment.
Clearly and brazenly Rattner omits any discussion of the favoritism shown the UAW and the disdain shown investors.
As such, Rattner and the Obama crowd show utter ignorance of how the free market works.
Clearly they know how to bend over for the unions.
The article in this Thursday's paper on Illinois is emblematic of the deep divide (can we say 'through the looking glass' divide) that exists between the Democrats and their liberal, union and welfare-centric policies and the globally competitive economic environment faced by the US collectively and private businesses generally.
As further shown by Obama's floating of the idea of a social security tax holiday for employers, he and his administration seem totally out-of-touch with the broader problems of the economy that can be laid directly at his feet and the feet of government.
As such, it is hard to imagine anything but the long slog that characterized the 1970's economy and its mismanagement and disappointment.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Martin Feldstein: The Economy Is Worse Than You Think - WSJ.com
HOW TO GET TO ROUND FOUR OF THE 9 INNING GAME?: Martin Feldstein: The Economy Is Worse Than You Think - WSJ.com
Great article.
The Democrats remind me of the family that always overspends its budget with too much consumption funded by running up the credit cards.
The Democrats don't realize that there are consequences - they just want to give away government benefits to those they believe deserve them.
And, like people with credit cards, they believe the banks should just keep increasing the amount of credit.
In this way, American Democrats are like Greek and other union-thralled socialists in Europe who believe the government can keep borrowing to pay for bloated payrolls and unaffordable social benefits.
The real question is what it will take to force a change? Is there really anything on the horizon?
Great article.
The Democrats remind me of the family that always overspends its budget with too much consumption funded by running up the credit cards.
The Democrats don't realize that there are consequences - they just want to give away government benefits to those they believe deserve them.
And, like people with credit cards, they believe the banks should just keep increasing the amount of credit.
In this way, American Democrats are like Greek and other union-thralled socialists in Europe who believe the government can keep borrowing to pay for bloated payrolls and unaffordable social benefits.
The real question is what it will take to force a change? Is there really anything on the horizon?
WSJ: Do you think US economic recovery strengthen second half 2011
DEMOCRAT LIES AND A CREDIT CARD MENTALITY: WSJ: Do you think US economic recovery strengthen second half 2011
Question:
"Banks are again moaning obscene profits; CEO's are making money hand over fist. In other words, everyone who counts is doing swell... The only ones not are the middle class. No one cares about them, so things will not get better, they will only get worse."
Answer:
I might suggest that the biggest concern of the middle class should be what they are hearing (and not hearing) from Democrats - i.e. they are totally failing to first recognize (and of course then come up with workable policies) to address the bifurcated nature of the US labor market where high skilled, educated people already (Dec. 2010) had unemployment rates less than 5%.
Instead, the Democrats are saying more government and taxing the rich can both grow the economy (provide jobs) and keep all handouts from government. This just isn't so.
Sure, it sounds good to be told you can have all of this entitlement 'candy' (which is what the Democrats are doing); but, it just isn't so. (Think of the family where one spouse wants to live within a budget and the other spouse believes there's always more room on the credit cards. The Democrats are the party that always believes there is nothing wrong with just spending and spending. The economy is reflecting the results of such mismanagement.)
If people with minimal education and skills aren't getting jobs, then government policies should do things to support employment of such people. There are many options here - almost all of which the Democrats not only ignore but work against (e.g. Obamacare).
As for businesses that might expand or hire, any moderate degree of reading evidences how the US has anti-business policies out of Washington. You don't add jobs when the government is against you and raising your costs unnecessarily.
Put the blame where it belongs - and, that is Washington.
Question:
"Banks are again moaning obscene profits; CEO's are making money hand over fist. In other words, everyone who counts is doing swell... The only ones not are the middle class. No one cares about them, so things will not get better, they will only get worse."
Answer:
I might suggest that the biggest concern of the middle class should be what they are hearing (and not hearing) from Democrats - i.e. they are totally failing to first recognize (and of course then come up with workable policies) to address the bifurcated nature of the US labor market where high skilled, educated people already (Dec. 2010) had unemployment rates less than 5%.
Instead, the Democrats are saying more government and taxing the rich can both grow the economy (provide jobs) and keep all handouts from government. This just isn't so.
Sure, it sounds good to be told you can have all of this entitlement 'candy' (which is what the Democrats are doing); but, it just isn't so. (Think of the family where one spouse wants to live within a budget and the other spouse believes there's always more room on the credit cards. The Democrats are the party that always believes there is nothing wrong with just spending and spending. The economy is reflecting the results of such mismanagement.)
If people with minimal education and skills aren't getting jobs, then government policies should do things to support employment of such people. There are many options here - almost all of which the Democrats not only ignore but work against (e.g. Obamacare).
As for businesses that might expand or hire, any moderate degree of reading evidences how the US has anti-business policies out of Washington. You don't add jobs when the government is against you and raising your costs unnecessarily.
Put the blame where it belongs - and, that is Washington.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Bernanke Expects Economy to Pick Up This Year, but Recovery 'Uneven' - WSJ.com
DEMOCRATIC ECONOMIC INCOMPETENCE - NOT SEEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CARRYING AN 80 POUND PACK OR A 20 POUND PACK: Bernanke Expects Economy to Pick Up This Year, but Recovery 'Uneven' - WSJ.com
Wouldn't the fiscal austerity or fiscal deficit be different if the debate was over investment into the economy vs. spending on entitlement consumption?
Sadly, Democrats don't get it (nor do many Republicans).
With the rush of technological innovation and change, its a shame the government is ignoring the need to recognize there is a large part of the economy that is under-educated for the current economy and/or under the thrall of unions and this situation needs to be addressed (witness the government's reaction to Boeing putting a new plant in a non-union state!).
Democratic economic policies seem akin to having a hiker carry an 80 pound pack instead of a 20 pound pack - still expecting that the hiker (read: the economy) will act as if it is only carrying 20 pounds. The Democrats seem totally incompetent to turn around the economy but they keep hoping the same old policies will some how create different results.
Wouldn't the fiscal austerity or fiscal deficit be different if the debate was over investment into the economy vs. spending on entitlement consumption?
Sadly, Democrats don't get it (nor do many Republicans).
With the rush of technological innovation and change, its a shame the government is ignoring the need to recognize there is a large part of the economy that is under-educated for the current economy and/or under the thrall of unions and this situation needs to be addressed (witness the government's reaction to Boeing putting a new plant in a non-union state!).
Democratic economic policies seem akin to having a hiker carry an 80 pound pack instead of a 20 pound pack - still expecting that the hiker (read: the economy) will act as if it is only carrying 20 pounds. The Democrats seem totally incompetent to turn around the economy but they keep hoping the same old policies will some how create different results.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
An Economic Coma - WSJ.com
SEED CORN AND THE GREEKS: An Economic Coma - WSJ.com
Wouldn't it be better if the economic policies supported 'job growth' and 'investment' rather than 'transfer payments' and 'entitlements'.
Your comments somehow remind me of the average American experiencing the euphoria of rising housing prices in the recent bubble. They never thought about what would support this ever-rising pricing with no constraints on supply!
Likewise, it would appear as though you don't realize how fiscal policy and tax policy and regulations impact decisions to invest and create jobs.
As a result, we have a Greek-like economy run by Greek-like politicians. Lots of company doesn't mean these politicians will lead their citizens to a better life in the future nor the ability to sustain what they think they have now.
It's like the old story of 'seed corn'. The one who saves it has it for the next planting season. The one who doesn't feels nothing wrong with taxing away what the saving farmer has left.
Again, not unlike the Greeks. They retire at 50 on lavish pensions and believe in government jobs where people don't even have to show up for work to get a paycheck. Meanwhile the hardworking, prudent Germans have a good economy so the Greeks thing the Germans 'should pay' the Greeks.
Wouldn't it be better if the economic policies supported 'job growth' and 'investment' rather than 'transfer payments' and 'entitlements'.
Your comments somehow remind me of the average American experiencing the euphoria of rising housing prices in the recent bubble. They never thought about what would support this ever-rising pricing with no constraints on supply!
Likewise, it would appear as though you don't realize how fiscal policy and tax policy and regulations impact decisions to invest and create jobs.
As a result, we have a Greek-like economy run by Greek-like politicians. Lots of company doesn't mean these politicians will lead their citizens to a better life in the future nor the ability to sustain what they think they have now.
It's like the old story of 'seed corn'. The one who saves it has it for the next planting season. The one who doesn't feels nothing wrong with taxing away what the saving farmer has left.
Again, not unlike the Greeks. They retire at 50 on lavish pensions and believe in government jobs where people don't even have to show up for work to get a paycheck. Meanwhile the hardworking, prudent Germans have a good economy so the Greeks thing the Germans 'should pay' the Greeks.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Strapped States Curb Spending on Safety Net - WSJ.com
A SUGGESTION OF ONE WAY TO CREATE LOW INCOME JOBS: Strapped States Curb Spending on Safety Net - WSJ.com
Missing from both this article and policy are ways to support the creation of low-income jobs.
Here, in particular one can't help but think of programs to make it easier for small employers (read families) to hire low-skilled domestic labor - i.e. let people be hired as independent contractors and let anyone with a salary (or earned income) fully deduct from that income the cost of paying domestic labor?
Right now, a mom who could work or stay home has to face becoming a form-filing-employer paying employment taxes, etc. if she would hire some domestic help.And, if the working couple have a good income, they are paying too much in taxes; so, Is it any wonder many working spouses decide one should stay home when raising kids?
No one is saying domestic labor jobs are perfect jobs - but, they would be jobs. They'd help put food on the table of the worker and give that person the dignity of work vs. welfare.
Missing from both this article and policy are ways to support the creation of low-income jobs.
Here, in particular one can't help but think of programs to make it easier for small employers (read families) to hire low-skilled domestic labor - i.e. let people be hired as independent contractors and let anyone with a salary (or earned income) fully deduct from that income the cost of paying domestic labor?
Right now, a mom who could work or stay home has to face becoming a form-filing-employer paying employment taxes, etc. if she would hire some domestic help.And, if the working couple have a good income, they are paying too much in taxes; so, Is it any wonder many working spouses decide one should stay home when raising kids?
No one is saying domestic labor jobs are perfect jobs - but, they would be jobs. They'd help put food on the table of the worker and give that person the dignity of work vs. welfare.
Democrats Ponder Next Step on Jobs - WSJ.com
MORE OF THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND: Democrats Ponder Next Step on Jobs - WSJ.com
Recalling the proffered one-liner for Obama (Pelosi) and his administration - "He made things worse".
Wouldn't it be nice if there was more emphasis on constructive solutions to the economy that can be seen all around us; rather than those things that, when we look around, haven't worked - e.g. socialism holds an economy back and support for business, innovation and investment helps it grow.
Sadly, Obama thinks he is doing the latter when he is doing the former.
In some ways, the Republican religious right doesn't see the 'hate' that their proscriptive faith-based policies engender; neither do the Democrats see the downside of their pro-union, heavily regulated, heavily taxed and out-of-control spending policies.
As the old saying does - it appears the blind are leading the blind.
Recalling the proffered one-liner for Obama (Pelosi) and his administration - "He made things worse".
Wouldn't it be nice if there was more emphasis on constructive solutions to the economy that can be seen all around us; rather than those things that, when we look around, haven't worked - e.g. socialism holds an economy back and support for business, innovation and investment helps it grow.
Sadly, Obama thinks he is doing the latter when he is doing the former.
In some ways, the Republican religious right doesn't see the 'hate' that their proscriptive faith-based policies engender; neither do the Democrats see the downside of their pro-union, heavily regulated, heavily taxed and out-of-control spending policies.
As the old saying does - it appears the blind are leading the blind.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Jobless Rate Rises as Pace of Hiring Slows - WSJ.com
Jobless Rate Rises as Pace of Hiring Slows - WSJ.com
Sounds like a mirror of the housing bubble when people felt prices could keep going up without relating housing prices to incomes or supply shortages.
Likewise now, the Dems expect they can pull income and capital out of the economy for entitlements and that somehow the economy can add jobs as though the income and capital wasn't removed.
Likewise, Dem policies are anti-business and pro-regulation and they expect this will have no negative impact on American jobs.
Can we say delusional if not insidiously stupid and economically illiterate? (Maybe its the fault of approaching economics looking for an equality of outcome rather than an equality of opportunity?)
Sounds like a mirror of the housing bubble when people felt prices could keep going up without relating housing prices to incomes or supply shortages.
Likewise now, the Dems expect they can pull income and capital out of the economy for entitlements and that somehow the economy can add jobs as though the income and capital wasn't removed.
Likewise, Dem policies are anti-business and pro-regulation and they expect this will have no negative impact on American jobs.
Can we say delusional if not insidiously stupid and economically illiterate? (Maybe its the fault of approaching economics looking for an equality of outcome rather than an equality of opportunity?)
Thursday, June 2, 2011
May Data Indicate Slowdown - WSJ.com
A SIMPLE REASON WHY (FARMER): May Data Indicate Slowdown - WSJ.com
Let's see:
> I'm a farmer who knows he has to plant the ground for each year's crop.
> I know it takes 10% of my harvest to provide this seed.
> My family should live on 90% of the harvest, but they won't. So I borrow.
> As I borrow, more of my harvest goes to pay interest. My family thinks we are living well - as they are 'entitled'. They don't see anything wrong.
> Suddenly, I can't borrow anymore and I don't have seed to plant all my land.
Gee Democrats, does this sound like your management of the economy (with the acquiescence of all too many Republicans)?
Let's see:
> I'm a farmer who knows he has to plant the ground for each year's crop.
> I know it takes 10% of my harvest to provide this seed.
> My family should live on 90% of the harvest, but they won't. So I borrow.
> As I borrow, more of my harvest goes to pay interest. My family thinks we are living well - as they are 'entitled'. They don't see anything wrong.
> Suddenly, I can't borrow anymore and I don't have seed to plant all my land.
Gee Democrats, does this sound like your management of the economy (with the acquiescence of all too many Republicans)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
