Henninger: Taking Cain Seriously - WSJ.com
I keep thinking - re: health insurance - that it would be nice if people had a few choices. Among them could be: (1) The Leftist Everything We Think You Need Plan (i.e. cost e.g. $1000); (2) You Get to Pick and Choose Your Insured Events Plan (i.e. cost e.g. $300 - $1,000); and, (3) The Healthy Choice Plan (with no subsidies for other plans) (i.e. cost $100).
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Saturday, September 24, 2011
UAW eating seed-corn: Twisting the Night Away - Barrons.com
Twisting the Night Away - Barrons.com
The litany of the horrid mindset in Washington goes on.
The other telling and scary allision of the week is to look at the UAW's settlement with GM (cash bonuses, salary increases) at the same time that the Democrats are more interested in having taxpayers subsidize the research into new car technologies that the US auto companies should be doing with their money.
So, instead of disaster relief funding, the Dems are glad to have taxpayers keep overpaying UAW auto workers. So, all taxpayers should subsidize those who are members of unions and who would rather eat the seed-corn of their company's futures rather than forgo immediate gratification.
Since the UAW economic model seems to be that of the current administration, is it any wonder the economy is in the doldrums?
The litany of the horrid mindset in Washington goes on.
The other telling and scary allision of the week is to look at the UAW's settlement with GM (cash bonuses, salary increases) at the same time that the Democrats are more interested in having taxpayers subsidize the research into new car technologies that the US auto companies should be doing with their money.
So, instead of disaster relief funding, the Dems are glad to have taxpayers keep overpaying UAW auto workers. So, all taxpayers should subsidize those who are members of unions and who would rather eat the seed-corn of their company's futures rather than forgo immediate gratification.
Since the UAW economic model seems to be that of the current administration, is it any wonder the economy is in the doldrums?
OBAMA'S UAW MODEL FOR THE ECONOMY: Obama's Jobs Act: Too Little, Too Late - Barrons.com
Obama's Jobs Act: Too Little, Too Late - Barrons.com
All of the above would seem to be vastly too kind and ignorant of the long-term and current maliciousness of Obama's policies to economic growth.
As his view of the economy is basically a UAW-type mindset, it all depends on whether one thinks running a policy from the perspective of a UAW union official or from the perspective of an investor or entrepreneur will create economic growth?
Frankly, the UAW doesn't have much of a record - having wiped out the previous set of investors (i.e. private) and looking like it would rather take current bonuses and increased wages with the taxpayer not getting back their investment (i.e. public) and the industry and unions (US car makers and the UAW) wanting the public to bankrupt their investment into technologies to keep them in business.
What a scary model for the running of the US economy!
All of the above would seem to be vastly too kind and ignorant of the long-term and current maliciousness of Obama's policies to economic growth.
As his view of the economy is basically a UAW-type mindset, it all depends on whether one thinks running a policy from the perspective of a UAW union official or from the perspective of an investor or entrepreneur will create economic growth?
Frankly, the UAW doesn't have much of a record - having wiped out the previous set of investors (i.e. private) and looking like it would rather take current bonuses and increased wages with the taxpayer not getting back their investment (i.e. public) and the industry and unions (US car makers and the UAW) wanting the public to bankrupt their investment into technologies to keep them in business.
What a scary model for the running of the US economy!
Friday, September 23, 2011
On Democratic Tax Cuts: Economic Signals Heighten Worries of a Double-Dip - WSJ.com
Economic Signals Heighten Worries of a Double-Dip - WSJ.com
As for Democratic tax cuts, it might be noted that the populist nature of these cuts ignores what most business economists would call common sense - i.e. they are short term and balanced with proposed higher taxes on entrepreneurs and investors.
Bottom line, investors want the money in their pocket - not their employees or those on the Federal dole.
As for Democratic tax cuts, it might be noted that the populist nature of these cuts ignores what most business economists would call common sense - i.e. they are short term and balanced with proposed higher taxes on entrepreneurs and investors.
Bottom line, investors want the money in their pocket - not their employees or those on the Federal dole.
ONE OF THE THINGS WRONG WITH THE DEMOCRAT'S APPROACH TO INVESTMENT IN THE ECONOMY: Economic Signals Heighten Worries of a Double-Dip - WSJ.com
Economic Signals Heighten Worries of a Double-Dip - WSJ.com
Another sign of what's wrong with Democratic economic policies (unless you favor the right of unions to be subsidized by everyone else in the economy) is the Democrats desire to fund research into next generation automotive technologies to "keep car production in this country".
Let's just admit that its UAW car production and that the union would rather have bonuses, higher wages and benefits with their new contract than to make sure there employers have the funds to invest in the future of their industry.
Clearly Obama and the unions see nothing wrong with this. Why should they forego current rewards and sacrifice for the future.
Clearly again this is emblematic of the antipodal beliefs unions and the Democrats have with respect to restoring economic growth. They want the benefits of growth but don't want to pay for it. Take it from someone else!
Another sign of what's wrong with Democratic economic policies (unless you favor the right of unions to be subsidized by everyone else in the economy) is the Democrats desire to fund research into next generation automotive technologies to "keep car production in this country".
Let's just admit that its UAW car production and that the union would rather have bonuses, higher wages and benefits with their new contract than to make sure there employers have the funds to invest in the future of their industry.
Clearly Obama and the unions see nothing wrong with this. Why should they forego current rewards and sacrifice for the future.
Clearly again this is emblematic of the antipodal beliefs unions and the Democrats have with respect to restoring economic growth. They want the benefits of growth but don't want to pay for it. Take it from someone else!
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
OBAMA'S UAW AND ZIMBABWE ECONOMY STRATEGY: Don't Shout for Operation Twist - Barrons.com
Don't Shout for Operation Twist - Barrons.com
It is evident on Bloomberg now for weeks that there is the feeling that 'inflation' as noted above can be benign. But like all things that history says are too good to be true, while housing may be bailed out, everyone has to be ignoring the history of the 1970's and 1980's.
We know there has been a government bond and interest rate bubble building, but, with every utterance, the Keynesians shown their utter lack of understanding of realistic economic principles.
They think they can encourage a revival of the economy by flooding entitlement money. But, they do everything in their power to make producers realize the government is out to get them. They just don't see it!
A visit to Europe shows what union-centric, socialist policies do. But, closer to home, there is the UAW. As Obama would like to make the US economy into the image of what the UAW would like to see - high union wages, a closed union shop, etc. - he fails to realize that the UAW brought down General Motors and forced it into bankruptcy.
Private sector taxpayers under the tax gun of government and the borrowing capacity of these taxpayers and the printing press of the Federal Reserve bailed out the UAW.
If the Fed is left to have to bail out the entire country - just think Zimbabwe.
It is evident on Bloomberg now for weeks that there is the feeling that 'inflation' as noted above can be benign. But like all things that history says are too good to be true, while housing may be bailed out, everyone has to be ignoring the history of the 1970's and 1980's.
We know there has been a government bond and interest rate bubble building, but, with every utterance, the Keynesians shown their utter lack of understanding of realistic economic principles.
They think they can encourage a revival of the economy by flooding entitlement money. But, they do everything in their power to make producers realize the government is out to get them. They just don't see it!
A visit to Europe shows what union-centric, socialist policies do. But, closer to home, there is the UAW. As Obama would like to make the US economy into the image of what the UAW would like to see - high union wages, a closed union shop, etc. - he fails to realize that the UAW brought down General Motors and forced it into bankruptcy.
Private sector taxpayers under the tax gun of government and the borrowing capacity of these taxpayers and the printing press of the Federal Reserve bailed out the UAW.
If the Fed is left to have to bail out the entire country - just think Zimbabwe.
THE UNPOPULAR DILEMMA: The Fed's Operation Twist Plan Unnerves Investors - Barrons.com
The Fed's Operation Twist Plan Unnerves Investors - Barrons.com
What's really scary is that Obama keeps putting his economic foot in his mouth with almost every utterance; yet, these utterances sound logical to the economically ill-informed.
Thus, there won't be any economic rebound and the stagflation of the 1970s is likely to look halcyon to what Obama and his Keynesians are cooking up.
It may be that some actual pro-growth, anti-union, anti-government policies will emerge to slow and/or try to turn around the slide into the increasingly greater mismatch between what government takes in (and/or can take in) and what it spends.
But, there's no evidence to date of this happening. Both in Europe and the US, those who want aren't those producing enough to provide what they want - so, they have to take, print or borrow.
What's really scary is that Obama keeps putting his economic foot in his mouth with almost every utterance; yet, these utterances sound logical to the economically ill-informed.
Thus, there won't be any economic rebound and the stagflation of the 1970s is likely to look halcyon to what Obama and his Keynesians are cooking up.
It may be that some actual pro-growth, anti-union, anti-government policies will emerge to slow and/or try to turn around the slide into the increasingly greater mismatch between what government takes in (and/or can take in) and what it spends.
But, there's no evidence to date of this happening. Both in Europe and the US, those who want aren't those producing enough to provide what they want - so, they have to take, print or borrow.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
THE END OF THE FREE LUNCH: SShould Busted Greece - WSJ.com
Should Busted Greece - WSJ.com
Think where all the money really went?
In other words, unions and labor laws are part of why the economy isn't growing and there are too many public employees (almost totally non-productive) and too much is going out in entitlements and retirement benefits.
And, money is borrowed from savers and spent by non-producers. So, don't blame the bankers, blame the politicians and those they dole out the taxpayers and lenders money too.
All these western democracies have allowed a build-up of entitlements, etc. that the economies can't support. The politicians would rather have the lenders blamed because they won't lend anymore. They certainly don't want to blame themselves and those vast members of the public who've been led to believe there is a 'free lunch'.
Suddenly, people are finding out there is a bill due for that free lunch and they can't understand why things 'have-to' change. Which is understandable, but doesn't solve the problems at hand.
Think where all the money really went?
In other words, unions and labor laws are part of why the economy isn't growing and there are too many public employees (almost totally non-productive) and too much is going out in entitlements and retirement benefits.
And, money is borrowed from savers and spent by non-producers. So, don't blame the bankers, blame the politicians and those they dole out the taxpayers and lenders money too.
All these western democracies have allowed a build-up of entitlements, etc. that the economies can't support. The politicians would rather have the lenders blamed because they won't lend anymore. They certainly don't want to blame themselves and those vast members of the public who've been led to believe there is a 'free lunch'.
Suddenly, people are finding out there is a bill due for that free lunch and they can't understand why things 'have-to' change. Which is understandable, but doesn't solve the problems at hand.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Throwing out incumbents in Congress: Are we heading into another recession? - Irwin Kellner - MarketWatch
Are we heading into another recession? - Irwin Kellner - MarketWatch
Q: Would it be a bad thing to throw out all incumbents in Congress?
A: The bad thing could be that the problems in Washington reflect the divide in the American public with liberals wanting big government, lots of regulations and higher taxes (countries doing this having no growth) and conservatives wanting smaller government, less regulations and lower taxes (which produce growth).
Obama and liberals see no relationship between their policies and high jobless rates. They follow a Keynesian economic policy. They don't recognize it as failed and would run the economy as the UAW drove GM into the ground. But, the liberals expect a different outcome.
The Republicans are plagued by the religious right and aren't very gutsy (excludes Ron Paul).
What the country probably needs is Ron Paul's aggressive libertarian policies - if it wants to restore growth and maintain a high standard of living (if you aren't living on entitlements).
So, the country is divided and thus Congress is deadlocked - for good reason. It reflects the antipodal and divided view of the electorate.
Q: Would it be a bad thing to throw out all incumbents in Congress?
A: The bad thing could be that the problems in Washington reflect the divide in the American public with liberals wanting big government, lots of regulations and higher taxes (countries doing this having no growth) and conservatives wanting smaller government, less regulations and lower taxes (which produce growth).
Obama and liberals see no relationship between their policies and high jobless rates. They follow a Keynesian economic policy. They don't recognize it as failed and would run the economy as the UAW drove GM into the ground. But, the liberals expect a different outcome.
The Republicans are plagued by the religious right and aren't very gutsy (excludes Ron Paul).
What the country probably needs is Ron Paul's aggressive libertarian policies - if it wants to restore growth and maintain a high standard of living (if you aren't living on entitlements).
So, the country is divided and thus Congress is deadlocked - for good reason. It reflects the antipodal and divided view of the electorate.
WHAT THE FED IS OVERLOOKING: Fed Ponders Jobs, Inflation Targets - WSJ.com
Fed Ponders Jobs, Inflation Targets - WSJ.com
What the Fed seems to be grossly overlooking was brought home by some recent conversations with people back in the US (and, it's also somewhat reported in the media).
In other words, a lack of credit. In part brought about by regulatory excess (i.e. the banks are afraid to lend); and, in part brought about by government policies such as the lawsuit against mortgage loan originators to the tune of 100's of billions of dollars.
With absolutely insane economic policies from the Administration (such as today's tax the millionaires and don't recognize the value of capital gains - or, in other words, stop the investment and venture machine - after all, it doesn't create government jobs or union jobs, so what good is it) and bureaucrats and regulators out to punish lending and investment, is it any wonder that houses don't sell and businesses don't borrow.
The Fed needs to recognize that the credit / lending relationship in the country is broken. The government wants to convince the public (which is easily led along unfortunately) to believe that it isn't at fault for the economic policies holding back the economy, etc. Rather, it's the banks and greedy private business people.
Things are clearly getting worse and the Administration can't seem to stop coming up with policies, almost daily, to reinforce its incompetent management of a free economy. Until this freedom is restored, the Fed's policies are a bubble that is only going to appear to ameliorate what is rotting from within due to the policies of Obama.
What the Fed seems to be grossly overlooking was brought home by some recent conversations with people back in the US (and, it's also somewhat reported in the media).
In other words, a lack of credit. In part brought about by regulatory excess (i.e. the banks are afraid to lend); and, in part brought about by government policies such as the lawsuit against mortgage loan originators to the tune of 100's of billions of dollars.
With absolutely insane economic policies from the Administration (such as today's tax the millionaires and don't recognize the value of capital gains - or, in other words, stop the investment and venture machine - after all, it doesn't create government jobs or union jobs, so what good is it) and bureaucrats and regulators out to punish lending and investment, is it any wonder that houses don't sell and businesses don't borrow.
The Fed needs to recognize that the credit / lending relationship in the country is broken. The government wants to convince the public (which is easily led along unfortunately) to believe that it isn't at fault for the economic policies holding back the economy, etc. Rather, it's the banks and greedy private business people.
Things are clearly getting worse and the Administration can't seem to stop coming up with policies, almost daily, to reinforce its incompetent management of a free economy. Until this freedom is restored, the Fed's policies are a bubble that is only going to appear to ameliorate what is rotting from within due to the policies of Obama.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Worth a Read: Henninger: Obama's Two Economies - WSJ.com
Henninger: Obama's Two Economies - WSJ.com
"WONDER LAND SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
Obama's Two Economies
For Barack Obama, the private economy is an intellectual abstraction.
Thus repeated Barack Obama on Monday, promoting his jobs plan: "Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires?"
So said a news report Monday on the plan's tax details: "The largest chunk of Mr. Obama's tax package comes from limiting itemized deductions for families with more than $250,000 in yearly taxable income and individuals with more than $200,000, including those for home-mortgage interest, state and local property taxes and charitable donations. The White House says that measure would raise roughly $400 billion over 10 years."
There was more clarity in a previous presidency about the meaning of "is" than about Barack Obama's elastic definition of a millionaire. Another familiar part of the political background noise in politics is the president's animus toward something called "business." This is taken to mean he dislikes the undeserving fat cats of banking and corporate management. At this level, the president's American Jobs Act is progress: From its details emerges a clear understanding of Mr. Obama's beliefs about what he takes to be the engines of the American economy. How it works. How it grows.
For Barack Obama, the private economy is an intellectual abstraction.
For Mr. Obama, there is no such thing as the American economy. Instead, there are two Americas with separate economies—one public, the other private. The economy of the public sector—the money it spends and the direct or indirect recipients of its spending—is the real economy, the one that matters for the health of the country. Mr. Obama's second economy, the one most people think of as the private sector, is an intellectual abstraction. It's like the distant planets that astronomers regard as real but have discovered using mathematical calculations. It is believed that life forms exist in the private economy, but they do so as datapoints inside the White House Office of Management and Budget.
The plan's biggest outlays are the payroll tax cut and tax credit for new hires. Few owners in the private economy would have identified a 12-month break from payroll taxes or the credit as the best incentive for elevating long-term employment. The payroll tax cut's primary purpose is to enable an Obama mathematical abstraction known as the Keynesian multiplier.
By the way, the plan's third-to-last paragraph—call it the Rick Perry Footnote—says the $175 billion payroll tax holiday won't impact Social Security payments: "Social Security will still receive every dollar it would have gotten otherwise, through a transfer from the General Fund into the Social Security Trust Fund." This sounds like a Ponzi scheme.
Once past the tax-cuts-for-temps, the jobs plan drops anchor in the public economy. The "targets" of the plan's $447 billion of spending are industries and people who are or always will be dependent on payments from public budgets. The plan's parts operate almost entirely inside the public-sector ecosystem.
The primary categories of workers identified helped by the plan are teachers, police, firefighters, construction workers, "boiler repairmen." The plan would put people to work modernizing 35,000 public schools, repairing transit systems and airports, and developing "high-speed rail corridors." The $10 billion National Infrastructure Bank is a "government-owned entity," with the government guaranteeing loans due to "market gaps" for infrastructure financing. The American Jobs Act sounds like a jobs plan more for developing China than for the 21st century U.S. economy.
The plan asserts it will put people back to work "in key areas that are central to America's future competitiveness." Then it says it will allow the rehiring of teachers, police and firefighters "who have been laid off because of budget cuts." But people have been laid off in the other economy, too. This week Bank of America said it would lay off 30,000 people. Last month, HSBC bank announced massive layoffs. Stories abound of new college graduates living at home, unemployed. A study out this week from the Institute for Financial Literacy says college graduates have become the fastest-growing group of bankruptcy filers.
The Obama $0.5 trillion jobs plan reflects no recognition of the unemployed people connected to the U.S.'s most competitive and dynamic industries. Notwithstanding all that Democratic intellectuals such as Richard Florida have written about the party's future lying with sophisticated knowledge workers, these people fall outside the president's field of vision. Barack Obama (and his activist base) has talked nonstop about helping "the middle class," but it's clear this is a static, backward-looking notion of what makes up the American middle class.
Because Mr. Obama and his circle divide the economy into two parts, with the private economy merely a satellite orbiting the public sun, he has proven incapable of offering policies for the whole nation. A Whole America plan to lift both blue-collar and white-collar workers would have included some gesture toward a broad-based Bowles-Simpson tax reform, rather than wait for the debt panel to act. The plan's mention of reforming Sarbanes-Oxley (for small and new business only) merely promises to "work with" the SEC to "explore ways." A pipedream.
The American Jobs Act is a jobs plan for Barack Obama's America. The United States is a bigger country than that.
Write to henninger@wsj.com"
"WONDER LAND SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
Obama's Two Economies
For Barack Obama, the private economy is an intellectual abstraction.
Thus repeated Barack Obama on Monday, promoting his jobs plan: "Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires?"
So said a news report Monday on the plan's tax details: "The largest chunk of Mr. Obama's tax package comes from limiting itemized deductions for families with more than $250,000 in yearly taxable income and individuals with more than $200,000, including those for home-mortgage interest, state and local property taxes and charitable donations. The White House says that measure would raise roughly $400 billion over 10 years."
There was more clarity in a previous presidency about the meaning of "is" than about Barack Obama's elastic definition of a millionaire. Another familiar part of the political background noise in politics is the president's animus toward something called "business." This is taken to mean he dislikes the undeserving fat cats of banking and corporate management. At this level, the president's American Jobs Act is progress: From its details emerges a clear understanding of Mr. Obama's beliefs about what he takes to be the engines of the American economy. How it works. How it grows.
For Barack Obama, the private economy is an intellectual abstraction.
For Mr. Obama, there is no such thing as the American economy. Instead, there are two Americas with separate economies—one public, the other private. The economy of the public sector—the money it spends and the direct or indirect recipients of its spending—is the real economy, the one that matters for the health of the country. Mr. Obama's second economy, the one most people think of as the private sector, is an intellectual abstraction. It's like the distant planets that astronomers regard as real but have discovered using mathematical calculations. It is believed that life forms exist in the private economy, but they do so as datapoints inside the White House Office of Management and Budget.
The plan's biggest outlays are the payroll tax cut and tax credit for new hires. Few owners in the private economy would have identified a 12-month break from payroll taxes or the credit as the best incentive for elevating long-term employment. The payroll tax cut's primary purpose is to enable an Obama mathematical abstraction known as the Keynesian multiplier.
By the way, the plan's third-to-last paragraph—call it the Rick Perry Footnote—says the $175 billion payroll tax holiday won't impact Social Security payments: "Social Security will still receive every dollar it would have gotten otherwise, through a transfer from the General Fund into the Social Security Trust Fund." This sounds like a Ponzi scheme.
Once past the tax-cuts-for-temps, the jobs plan drops anchor in the public economy. The "targets" of the plan's $447 billion of spending are industries and people who are or always will be dependent on payments from public budgets. The plan's parts operate almost entirely inside the public-sector ecosystem.
The primary categories of workers identified helped by the plan are teachers, police, firefighters, construction workers, "boiler repairmen." The plan would put people to work modernizing 35,000 public schools, repairing transit systems and airports, and developing "high-speed rail corridors." The $10 billion National Infrastructure Bank is a "government-owned entity," with the government guaranteeing loans due to "market gaps" for infrastructure financing. The American Jobs Act sounds like a jobs plan more for developing China than for the 21st century U.S. economy.
The plan asserts it will put people back to work "in key areas that are central to America's future competitiveness." Then it says it will allow the rehiring of teachers, police and firefighters "who have been laid off because of budget cuts." But people have been laid off in the other economy, too. This week Bank of America said it would lay off 30,000 people. Last month, HSBC bank announced massive layoffs. Stories abound of new college graduates living at home, unemployed. A study out this week from the Institute for Financial Literacy says college graduates have become the fastest-growing group of bankruptcy filers.
The Obama $0.5 trillion jobs plan reflects no recognition of the unemployed people connected to the U.S.'s most competitive and dynamic industries. Notwithstanding all that Democratic intellectuals such as Richard Florida have written about the party's future lying with sophisticated knowledge workers, these people fall outside the president's field of vision. Barack Obama (and his activist base) has talked nonstop about helping "the middle class," but it's clear this is a static, backward-looking notion of what makes up the American middle class.
Because Mr. Obama and his circle divide the economy into two parts, with the private economy merely a satellite orbiting the public sun, he has proven incapable of offering policies for the whole nation. A Whole America plan to lift both blue-collar and white-collar workers would have included some gesture toward a broad-based Bowles-Simpson tax reform, rather than wait for the debt panel to act. The plan's mention of reforming Sarbanes-Oxley (for small and new business only) merely promises to "work with" the SEC to "explore ways." A pipedream.
The American Jobs Act is a jobs plan for Barack Obama's America. The United States is a bigger country than that.
Write to henninger@wsj.com"
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
WHAT THE TIMES PORTEND: Fed Policies to Lower Rates Further Could Hurt Stocks - Barrons.com
Fed Policies to Lower Rates Further Could Hurt Stocks - Barrons.com
Just think 1937 and Art Laffer's view of why.
Then ask, is Obama following any different policies?
With government in the way, the US is squandering opportunities - but, of course there are two viewpoints, as in Greece. In one case, the workers are so important, that they will sacrifice the economy, perhaps slowly, as median income figures show in the US in recent days.
The alternative of rewarding saving and investment means the transfer payments have to be cut way back and many policies (sacred cows that they may be such as the drug war and hate of immigrants) may have to be changed.
Clearly Obama is continuing to really ramp up the pro-union, anti-business policies and oblivious to what he is really doing.
Some may applaud his actions; others will take notice and act according to their own viewpoints.
So far, it would appear as though Obama policies aren't helping the overall economy and those needing jobs. But, as with any religion, there are those who 'want-to-believe' and they will believe - hoping for a different outcome, this time!
Just think 1937 and Art Laffer's view of why.
Then ask, is Obama following any different policies?
With government in the way, the US is squandering opportunities - but, of course there are two viewpoints, as in Greece. In one case, the workers are so important, that they will sacrifice the economy, perhaps slowly, as median income figures show in the US in recent days.
The alternative of rewarding saving and investment means the transfer payments have to be cut way back and many policies (sacred cows that they may be such as the drug war and hate of immigrants) may have to be changed.
Clearly Obama is continuing to really ramp up the pro-union, anti-business policies and oblivious to what he is really doing.
Some may applaud his actions; others will take notice and act according to their own viewpoints.
So far, it would appear as though Obama policies aren't helping the overall economy and those needing jobs. But, as with any religion, there are those who 'want-to-believe' and they will believe - hoping for a different outcome, this time!
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
WHY STIMULUS II IS A BAD IDEA - OPTIONS: Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan - WSJ.com
Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan - WSJ.com
Let's hope the Republicans balk at this squandering of resources to support public unions, etc.
Let's also hope the Republicans can come up with a gutsy alternative.
Now a serious stimulus would be to hold up on ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank and have them have to be re-voted on by a subsequent Congress. Also, to cut the corporate income tax and show a serious effort to control entitlement costs (i.e. 18-19% of GDP cap) so investors would know their taxes aren't going to go through the roof.
Also, Art Laffer had a good idea for enterprise zones in poor neighborhoods.
These would be serious attempts to make the business climate in America more job-friendly.
Obama's plan is Stimulus II and we all know how unsuccessful Stimulus I was.
Let's hope the Republicans balk at this squandering of resources to support public unions, etc.
Let's also hope the Republicans can come up with a gutsy alternative.
Now a serious stimulus would be to hold up on ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank and have them have to be re-voted on by a subsequent Congress. Also, to cut the corporate income tax and show a serious effort to control entitlement costs (i.e. 18-19% of GDP cap) so investors would know their taxes aren't going to go through the roof.
Also, Art Laffer had a good idea for enterprise zones in poor neighborhoods.
These would be serious attempts to make the business climate in America more job-friendly.
Obama's plan is Stimulus II and we all know how unsuccessful Stimulus I was.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Tradeoff Math: Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan - WSJ.com
Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan - WSJ.com
So let's see?
Take from some high paying productive jobs. Discourage those people from working, reinvesting in their businesses and paying people for real work; and, instead, keep some public employee union hacks on their jobs.
So, what will be the present value of the net impact on jobs?
I'd say we lose 2 good jobs for every hack union job. But, that's just a guess.
So let's see?
Take from some high paying productive jobs. Discourage those people from working, reinvesting in their businesses and paying people for real work; and, instead, keep some public employee union hacks on their jobs.
So, what will be the present value of the net impact on jobs?
I'd say we lose 2 good jobs for every hack union job. But, that's just a guess.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
CPI-U and Real Inflation Numbers in the US: Barron's: More Quantitative Easing By Fed Is Needed - Barrons.com
Barron's: More Quantitative Easing By Fed Is Needed - Barrons.com
Someone else just provided the following information on inflation:
"I believe that even this number vastly understates true inflation, because of a major underweighting of medical costs, but pretend it is as good as gold. The 12-month trend in annual CPI-U has been as follows:
CPI Index …. Annual
..Month .... Change
..Aug-10 ……. 1.15%
..Sep-10 ……. 1.14%
..Oct-10 ……. 1.17%
..Nov-10 ……. 1.14%
..Dec-10 ….. 1.50%
..Jan-11 ……. 1.63%
..Feb-11 ……. 2.11%
..Mar-11 ……. 2.68%
..Apr-11 ……. 3.16%
..May-11 ……. 3.57%
..Jun-11 ……. 3.56%
..Jul-11 …. 3.63%
Does this trend look like inflation is under contol, and that QE3 will be a painless slam dunk for the Fed?"
Someone else just provided the following information on inflation:
"I believe that even this number vastly understates true inflation, because of a major underweighting of medical costs, but pretend it is as good as gold. The 12-month trend in annual CPI-U has been as follows:
CPI Index …. Annual
..Month .... Change
..Aug-10 ……. 1.15%
..Sep-10 ……. 1.14%
..Oct-10 ……. 1.17%
..Nov-10 ……. 1.14%
..Dec-10 ….. 1.50%
..Jan-11 ……. 1.63%
..Feb-11 ……. 2.11%
..Mar-11 ……. 2.68%
..Apr-11 ……. 3.16%
..May-11 ……. 3.57%
..Jun-11 ……. 3.56%
..Jul-11 …. 3.63%
Does this trend look like inflation is under contol, and that QE3 will be a painless slam dunk for the Fed?"
The Failure of Outcome-Based Policies vs. Opportunity-Based Ones: Barron's: More Quantitative Easing By Fed Is Needed - Barrons.com
Barron's: More Quantitative Easing By Fed Is Needed - Barrons.com
Outcome based policies and true belief.
Liberals seem to have this belief that they should focus on equality of outcomes. Thus, entitlement policies that run off the cliff and support for unionization with the belief that somehow salaries and benefits can be whatever one wants with no economic consequences.
The same is the liberal belief in education. Reduce excellence and performance so the weakest students don't feel left out.
And, what-do-you-know? Both the economy and educational levels of young people are below par! Could there be something about outcome-based vs. opportunity-based policies that is similar and that only appears to be successful?
Clearly the economy is suffering from unrealistic and putative regulatory policies. Most of the media can't stand Ron Paul for being the most vocal critic of what ails the economy.
Outcome based policies and true belief.
Liberals seem to have this belief that they should focus on equality of outcomes. Thus, entitlement policies that run off the cliff and support for unionization with the belief that somehow salaries and benefits can be whatever one wants with no economic consequences.
The same is the liberal belief in education. Reduce excellence and performance so the weakest students don't feel left out.
And, what-do-you-know? Both the economy and educational levels of young people are below par! Could there be something about outcome-based vs. opportunity-based policies that is similar and that only appears to be successful?
Clearly the economy is suffering from unrealistic and putative regulatory policies. Most of the media can't stand Ron Paul for being the most vocal critic of what ails the economy.
On Economic Engines, Foot-on-Brake and Long-Lasting Damage: Barron's: More Quantitative Easing By Fed Is Needed - Barrons.com
Barron's: More Quantitative Easing By Fed Is Needed - Barrons.com
The comment "to lower interest rates..." would seem rather meaningless in the light of the Administration's ongoing efforts to vilify and punish the banking system.
Whether it is the large banks with regulatory and legal attacks to contend with or the smaller banks that would logically help to fun smaller businesses, the banks aren't going to be lending! (See the article in the last few weeks on the small Texas bank giving back its charter because of the putative nature of regulatory excess.)
This is the apparent delusion of Democrats and liberals - i.e. that they can regulate their vision of a better world and that it has no consequences in the real world.
The fallacy is that there are consequences and none of the liberal establishment's effort to blame anyone but government and to have regulations to protect consumers but not encourage investors or business is blatant. Yet, the media is giving Obama and his pals a veritable 'free ride'.
Liberal policies are a heavy foot on the brake. Their accelerator efforts can't easily overcome the foot on the brake and to try and change the monetary fuel mix is going to have long-term deleterious consequences on the economic engine.
We saw this in the 1970s in the US. An ultimate extreme has been Zimbabwe. Moderate cases exist in Venezuela and an in-your-face case is Greece.
The comment "to lower interest rates..." would seem rather meaningless in the light of the Administration's ongoing efforts to vilify and punish the banking system.
Whether it is the large banks with regulatory and legal attacks to contend with or the smaller banks that would logically help to fun smaller businesses, the banks aren't going to be lending! (See the article in the last few weeks on the small Texas bank giving back its charter because of the putative nature of regulatory excess.)
This is the apparent delusion of Democrats and liberals - i.e. that they can regulate their vision of a better world and that it has no consequences in the real world.
The fallacy is that there are consequences and none of the liberal establishment's effort to blame anyone but government and to have regulations to protect consumers but not encourage investors or business is blatant. Yet, the media is giving Obama and his pals a veritable 'free ride'.
Liberal policies are a heavy foot on the brake. Their accelerator efforts can't easily overcome the foot on the brake and to try and change the monetary fuel mix is going to have long-term deleterious consequences on the economic engine.
We saw this in the 1970s in the US. An ultimate extreme has been Zimbabwe. Moderate cases exist in Venezuela and an in-your-face case is Greece.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
A NON-KEYNESIAN JOB CREATION SUGGESTION: U.S. Hits Builders With Pay Probe - WSJ.com
U.S. Hits Builders With Pay Probe - WSJ.com
Another example of union-pandering and job destruction!
Wouldn't it be nice to see a Republican response to Obama's Keynesian speech tonight on job creation a proposal to make the entire US a right-to-work labor environment. Also, disband the NLRB.
If one took a vote, I'd strongly expect the Republican response to be far better at job creation.
Another example of union-pandering and job destruction!
Wouldn't it be nice to see a Republican response to Obama's Keynesian speech tonight on job creation a proposal to make the entire US a right-to-work labor environment. Also, disband the NLRB.
If one took a vote, I'd strongly expect the Republican response to be far better at job creation.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
THE QUAGMIRE OF DECLINE AND STAGNATION: European Stock Drop Reflects Global Economic Worries - WSJ.com
European Stock Drop Reflects Global Economic Worries - WSJ.com
Ah but the 'right' thing is exactly the opposite for major parts of the population.
Those with jobs like all the protections - even if it means few new jobs are created and their own jobs are increasingly at risk.
Others see the need for growth and that it will take regulatory changes and tax changes to support growth.
These are opposite points of view.
As in the US, with roughly half of the people paying no income taxes, raising taxes on the rich is very appealing.
Meanwhile, those with capital realize it doesn't pay to take any risks with it so jobs are both not created and moved offshore.
People who currently rely on government will have to rely less or the economy will slowly decay. Is there anyone with the political will to take this on anywhere? You are right that none appear to be there. And, the public in most countries doesn't see the necessity of doing anything. They believe an unstable economic situation isn't really unstable and that by borrowing and taxing somehow jobs will eventually be created and benefits won't need to be cut.
This is truly 'la-la-land'. (See yesterday's Los Angeles Times article on how those on the right and left, while broadly unhappy with the economy, want only 'their solution' to be used. And, on the left, it is more of what has gotten the economy into its current quagmire of decline and stagnation.
Ah but the 'right' thing is exactly the opposite for major parts of the population.
Those with jobs like all the protections - even if it means few new jobs are created and their own jobs are increasingly at risk.
Others see the need for growth and that it will take regulatory changes and tax changes to support growth.
These are opposite points of view.
As in the US, with roughly half of the people paying no income taxes, raising taxes on the rich is very appealing.
Meanwhile, those with capital realize it doesn't pay to take any risks with it so jobs are both not created and moved offshore.
People who currently rely on government will have to rely less or the economy will slowly decay. Is there anyone with the political will to take this on anywhere? You are right that none appear to be there. And, the public in most countries doesn't see the necessity of doing anything. They believe an unstable economic situation isn't really unstable and that by borrowing and taxing somehow jobs will eventually be created and benefits won't need to be cut.
This is truly 'la-la-land'. (See yesterday's Los Angeles Times article on how those on the right and left, while broadly unhappy with the economy, want only 'their solution' to be used. And, on the left, it is more of what has gotten the economy into its current quagmire of decline and stagnation.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
2nd century AD similarities: HEARD ON THE STREET: Bank Suits Pinch Investors - WSJ.com
HEARD ON THE STREET: Bank Suits Pinch Investors - WSJ.com
Who to blame? Bankers?
Sorry, but everyone was buying houses with the same beliefs.
It's fun and easy to blame people for following along with the general belief systems, but the real problem was that no one was doing any serious thinking about the relationship of housing, incomes and limitations on supply.
The same is going on now with the free lunch of low interest rates supporting unaffordable government spending while pursuing and supporting policies that discourage risk taking and economic growth (both in the US and Europe).
Whatever is out there can't be good!
The blame has to start with the politicians; but, at the same time, they reflect popular will - as well expressed in today's LA Times, which reports partisans of both parties wanting to fight it out.
But, there are three basic viewpoints on the economy - Keynesians, monetarists and Lafferities.
I'm a Lafferite in that I see anti-business polices overwhelming monetary stimulus. This affects both Europe and the US.
I don't know if you caught the comments from one of the finance ministers today - I think it was on Bloomberg, about how austerity policies raising taxes do nothing to encourage risk taking and growth.
It's like the 2nd century AD with plague decimating the population and the barbarian hordes active on the periphery of the empire.
The plague of socialist entitlements is decimating everything. So, beware and do your best to find a refuge.
Who to blame? Bankers?
Sorry, but everyone was buying houses with the same beliefs.
It's fun and easy to blame people for following along with the general belief systems, but the real problem was that no one was doing any serious thinking about the relationship of housing, incomes and limitations on supply.
The same is going on now with the free lunch of low interest rates supporting unaffordable government spending while pursuing and supporting policies that discourage risk taking and economic growth (both in the US and Europe).
Whatever is out there can't be good!
The blame has to start with the politicians; but, at the same time, they reflect popular will - as well expressed in today's LA Times, which reports partisans of both parties wanting to fight it out.
But, there are three basic viewpoints on the economy - Keynesians, monetarists and Lafferities.
I'm a Lafferite in that I see anti-business polices overwhelming monetary stimulus. This affects both Europe and the US.
I don't know if you caught the comments from one of the finance ministers today - I think it was on Bloomberg, about how austerity policies raising taxes do nothing to encourage risk taking and growth.
It's like the 2nd century AD with plague decimating the population and the barbarian hordes active on the periphery of the empire.
The plague of socialist entitlements is decimating everything. So, beware and do your best to find a refuge.
ISSUES & COMMENTS: Poll Shows Voter Discontent Deepens Ahead of Obama Jobs Plan - WSJ.com
Poll Shows Voter Discontent Deepens Ahead of Obama Jobs Plan - WSJ.com
Yes, there are many issues - but, I feel as though the Laffer argument about what continued the Depression in the 1930's has now been validated by the facts.
I.e. we had the monetarists, Keynesians and Laffer. The Keynesian policies didn't work in the 30s, so we had the other two.
Now that monetarist and Keynesian policies have been shown not to work when faced with anti-business fiscal policies, it is clear to me that Laffer was onto something - i.e. when you push taxes up (with Obama implied but misallocations as you note) and support unions (Boeing, Gibson Guitar, NLRB, etc.) - the economy isn't going to rise.
There is also the 'regression to the mean' where the US has 3% of the world's population and uses 25% of its resources.
So, one would think that the government (except liberal policies find such anathema) would have pro-business policies knowing we need to create jobs.
We have to recognize there are clearing prices for labor as a component of production (we are talking here gross expense not net pay). This is ignored by gross policies and a short term 2% cut of employee sharing costs doesn't work.
There are tons of wonderful articles on what the Obama Admin, is doing that is anti-business.
What isn't talked about is the philosophy of liberals to try and equalize outcomes vs. opportunity. The results are seen all over the economy and in society. Education that isn't geared to excellence but equal outcomes is the mantra in California and other states.
To not allow competitive vouchers to support educational excellence is but one example.
We can't have an unequal and globally non-competitive tax rate. Japan has the same thing so companies locate production offshore.
You may recall the buzz-word of a few years back - the 'platform economy'.
Here big companies want to offload the equity cost and business risk of variable production.
This risk isn't being taken up domestically. I'd say Bush's tax cuts helped rather than hurt here as small business could more quickly build equity.
Ah well. The LA Times reported a hardening of positions on both the left and right - even though many on the left think the economy is going down the wrong road.
So, it makes sense for gold to go up; and, last I recall at the beginning of the year the forecasts were for 3%+ growth by the 4th quarter of 2011 and just now on Tom Keene on Bloomberg an actual decline was discussed.
Yes, there are many issues - but, I feel as though the Laffer argument about what continued the Depression in the 1930's has now been validated by the facts.
I.e. we had the monetarists, Keynesians and Laffer. The Keynesian policies didn't work in the 30s, so we had the other two.
Now that monetarist and Keynesian policies have been shown not to work when faced with anti-business fiscal policies, it is clear to me that Laffer was onto something - i.e. when you push taxes up (with Obama implied but misallocations as you note) and support unions (Boeing, Gibson Guitar, NLRB, etc.) - the economy isn't going to rise.
There is also the 'regression to the mean' where the US has 3% of the world's population and uses 25% of its resources.
So, one would think that the government (except liberal policies find such anathema) would have pro-business policies knowing we need to create jobs.
We have to recognize there are clearing prices for labor as a component of production (we are talking here gross expense not net pay). This is ignored by gross policies and a short term 2% cut of employee sharing costs doesn't work.
There are tons of wonderful articles on what the Obama Admin, is doing that is anti-business.
What isn't talked about is the philosophy of liberals to try and equalize outcomes vs. opportunity. The results are seen all over the economy and in society. Education that isn't geared to excellence but equal outcomes is the mantra in California and other states.
To not allow competitive vouchers to support educational excellence is but one example.
We can't have an unequal and globally non-competitive tax rate. Japan has the same thing so companies locate production offshore.
You may recall the buzz-word of a few years back - the 'platform economy'.
Here big companies want to offload the equity cost and business risk of variable production.
This risk isn't being taken up domestically. I'd say Bush's tax cuts helped rather than hurt here as small business could more quickly build equity.
Ah well. The LA Times reported a hardening of positions on both the left and right - even though many on the left think the economy is going down the wrong road.
So, it makes sense for gold to go up; and, last I recall at the beginning of the year the forecasts were for 3%+ growth by the 4th quarter of 2011 and just now on Tom Keene on Bloomberg an actual decline was discussed.
Q&A - Bush Tax Cuts, Obama Choices: Poll Shows Voter Discontent Deepens Ahead of Obama Jobs Plan - WSJ.com
Poll Shows Voter Discontent Deepens Ahead of Obama Jobs Plan - WSJ.com
Question:
The problem is that, given the situation, there is really nothing that anyone can do - even the President - no matter who he is and what position he holds. The economy was gutted by W who pushed through massive tax cuts ... Tax cuts DO NOT create jobs.
Answer:
As long as you believe Bush's tax cuts cost the economy, you haven't really read the data and are believing the cant from the Democrats.
Check the percentage of all income taxes paid by the top 1 and 2% of taxpayers before and after the tax cuts.
You will obviously be surprised.
You also have no idea of how small business people accumulate equity to start and sustain and grow a business; nor, apparently, do you have a clue how loans are paid off with after-tax income.
Your feelings are the best example of why the current recession will deepen. Take a look at Arthur Laffer's description of why the Great Depression saw another dip in 1937.
But feel free to be angry at the wrong people and policies and feel free to look for the wrong solutions. Obviously, we've had three years of progressive failure under Obama and, like a gambler, he now wants to double down on what didn't work to begin with.
His (and obviously your) anti-business policies are too big a mountain for any stimulus plan to overcome.
Question:
The problem is that, given the situation, there is really nothing that anyone can do - even the President - no matter who he is and what position he holds. The economy was gutted by W who pushed through massive tax cuts ... Tax cuts DO NOT create jobs.
Answer:
As long as you believe Bush's tax cuts cost the economy, you haven't really read the data and are believing the cant from the Democrats.
Check the percentage of all income taxes paid by the top 1 and 2% of taxpayers before and after the tax cuts.
You will obviously be surprised.
You also have no idea of how small business people accumulate equity to start and sustain and grow a business; nor, apparently, do you have a clue how loans are paid off with after-tax income.
Your feelings are the best example of why the current recession will deepen. Take a look at Arthur Laffer's description of why the Great Depression saw another dip in 1937.
But feel free to be angry at the wrong people and policies and feel free to look for the wrong solutions. Obviously, we've had three years of progressive failure under Obama and, like a gambler, he now wants to double down on what didn't work to begin with.
His (and obviously your) anti-business policies are too big a mountain for any stimulus plan to overcome.
WHAT TO EXPECT FROM OBAMA: Poll Shows Voter Discontent Deepens Ahead of Obama Jobs Plan - WSJ.com
Poll Shows Voter Discontent Deepens Ahead of Obama Jobs Plan - WSJ.com
It would be nice if Obama understood that stopping his pro-union activities (Boeing, Gibson Guitar, NLRB decisions, etc.) would be more conducive to job creation than pandering to union hopes for a public works program that was already shown in Stimulus 1 to have far less 'shovel-ready' work than advertised.
Unions and Obama clearly have no sense of the cost of labor and regulatory burdens having any impact on the ability of a company to be profitable.
A scary statistic discussed in several articles over the weekend was to take the amount of borrowed money spent by the government and subtract it from nominal GDP. When done, the actual economy has had no growth over the last three years.
So, when we read and hear that people think inflation might be a way to grow the economy, we again see delusions - see:
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904199404576536930606933332.html?mod=wsjproe_article_MoreIn
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216068265150.htm
It would be nice if Obama understood that stopping his pro-union activities (Boeing, Gibson Guitar, NLRB decisions, etc.) would be more conducive to job creation than pandering to union hopes for a public works program that was already shown in Stimulus 1 to have far less 'shovel-ready' work than advertised.
Unions and Obama clearly have no sense of the cost of labor and regulatory burdens having any impact on the ability of a company to be profitable.
A scary statistic discussed in several articles over the weekend was to take the amount of borrowed money spent by the government and subtract it from nominal GDP. When done, the actual economy has had no growth over the last three years.
So, when we read and hear that people think inflation might be a way to grow the economy, we again see delusions - see:
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904199404576536930606933332.html?mod=wsjproe_article_MoreIn
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216068265150.htm
Monday, September 5, 2011
THE INFLATION SOLUTION: Why we cannot inflate our way out of debt - FT.com
Why we cannot inflate our way out of debt - FT.com
If, as seems well documented, much of what is holding back the economy are regulatory policies and putative pro-union policies, etc. of the current (Obama) administration, none of these will go away with inflation targeting.
(Consider the Boeing case or the recent Gibson Guitar case - both of which have been widely reported.)
If, as seems well documented, much of what is holding back the economy are regulatory policies and putative pro-union policies, etc. of the current (Obama) administration, none of these will go away with inflation targeting.
(Consider the Boeing case or the recent Gibson Guitar case - both of which have been widely reported.)
Sunday, September 4, 2011
TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT: Gary Becker: The Great Recession and Government Failure - WSJ.com
Gary Becker: The Great Recession and Government Failure - WSJ.com
Government does reflect the people and people, like little kids, prefer the parent that gives them candy rather than the one that says eat some vegetables and don't rot your teeth.
And, while almost all of us tend to prefer buying things when they are on sale (i.e. at lower prices), when it comes to how we expect 'others' (i.e. those who pay taxes, run businesses, make investments, etc.) to behave for the benefit of society at large, we expect them to relish and disregard burdensome regulations, union labor, high taxes, etc. (just what Becker refers to as government impediments to efficiency and growth).
So, we can clearly blame government actions (i.e. Obama administration liberal policies) for the state of the economy. As is being broadly said, "he has made things worse".
His policies have made things worse and he continues to support those policies with his new appointment to the Council of Economic Advisers - a man who has argued against any impact on job creation of increases to the minimum wage.
If you think government isn't at fault for the non-growth and non-recovery of the economy, I'd suggest a bit more reading and logical thinking with open eyes. Put yourself in the position of a business person faced with what the government has been dishing out.
California is a perfect example of what business people think of too much government - they are and have been leaving the state and many have moved to Texas.
If you think government isn't a problem, just look at Greece.
Government does reflect the people and people, like little kids, prefer the parent that gives them candy rather than the one that says eat some vegetables and don't rot your teeth.
And, while almost all of us tend to prefer buying things when they are on sale (i.e. at lower prices), when it comes to how we expect 'others' (i.e. those who pay taxes, run businesses, make investments, etc.) to behave for the benefit of society at large, we expect them to relish and disregard burdensome regulations, union labor, high taxes, etc. (just what Becker refers to as government impediments to efficiency and growth).
So, we can clearly blame government actions (i.e. Obama administration liberal policies) for the state of the economy. As is being broadly said, "he has made things worse".
His policies have made things worse and he continues to support those policies with his new appointment to the Council of Economic Advisers - a man who has argued against any impact on job creation of increases to the minimum wage.
If you think government isn't at fault for the non-growth and non-recovery of the economy, I'd suggest a bit more reading and logical thinking with open eyes. Put yourself in the position of a business person faced with what the government has been dishing out.
California is a perfect example of what business people think of too much government - they are and have been leaving the state and many have moved to Texas.
If you think government isn't a problem, just look at Greece.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
PAYING THE NEIGHBOR KID TO MOW THE LAWN: Perry and Romney's First Face-Off - WSJ.com
Perry and Romney's First Face-Off - WSJ.com
It's hard to conger up a situation in which any type of realistic plan can come from the Obama Administration with respect to job creation and a realistic plan upon which economic growth can take place.
How can this be?
One reason would be that far too many people in this country (die-hard liberals and union types excepted of course) have to question whether the new appointment to the President's Council of Economic Advisers has his head on straight.
What am I talking about? Well, of course, his idea that higher minimum wage rates don't impact job creation.
And, in particular, how many people have either hired the neighbor kid (or been the neighbor kid) who mows a lawn. I'm older, so I recall 25 cents an hour or something like that. But, at some price, the cost of paying someone else to mow the lawn just gets too great. How can one argue it doesn't?
So, we know what Obama's plan it. It's the plan of a social neighborhood or union organizer. A plan where wages don't matter, benefit costs don't matter and it's someone else's job to worry about production costs and business viability.
It's hard to conger up a situation in which any type of realistic plan can come from the Obama Administration with respect to job creation and a realistic plan upon which economic growth can take place.
How can this be?
One reason would be that far too many people in this country (die-hard liberals and union types excepted of course) have to question whether the new appointment to the President's Council of Economic Advisers has his head on straight.
What am I talking about? Well, of course, his idea that higher minimum wage rates don't impact job creation.
And, in particular, how many people have either hired the neighbor kid (or been the neighbor kid) who mows a lawn. I'm older, so I recall 25 cents an hour or something like that. But, at some price, the cost of paying someone else to mow the lawn just gets too great. How can one argue it doesn't?
So, we know what Obama's plan it. It's the plan of a social neighborhood or union organizer. A plan where wages don't matter, benefit costs don't matter and it's someone else's job to worry about production costs and business viability.
CLEARING PRICES FOR LABOR TO START ADDING JOBS: A Doleful Jobs Report - Barrons.com
A Doleful Jobs Report - Barrons.com
Another favorite question for the Big O would be to start to think about clearing prices for labor.
In particular this would apply to new highway jobs.
Why not get rid of the requirement to pay prevailing union wages?
Sure, it would be nice to have everyone making lots of money; but, if there is high unemployment, let the market determine when someone is willing to work.
And, besides being willing to work, why encourage not working with generous benefits and extended unemployment?
The economy should be focused on production and putting people to work.
Tom Keene has been on almost a tirade about thinking a bit more inflation can cure what is ailing the economy. I'm not sure of his real thinking here; but, he sure seems to be warming to the thought.
But, as I recall this was one of the big mistakes of the 1970s.
And, inflation does nothing to balance out the supply and demand issues for labor and investment and production.
As a clear example here one can look at the labor and regulatory environments of Texas and California.
So far, Obama is a California regulatory type and last I read, California has been particularly out of it in terms of job creation lately - unlike Texas.
So, if Obama doesn't do more than deal with ozone regulations and changes to the cost of labor from government spending, his speech will be hollow at best. In fact, it will be Greek-like.
Another favorite question for the Big O would be to start to think about clearing prices for labor.
In particular this would apply to new highway jobs.
Why not get rid of the requirement to pay prevailing union wages?
Sure, it would be nice to have everyone making lots of money; but, if there is high unemployment, let the market determine when someone is willing to work.
And, besides being willing to work, why encourage not working with generous benefits and extended unemployment?
The economy should be focused on production and putting people to work.
Tom Keene has been on almost a tirade about thinking a bit more inflation can cure what is ailing the economy. I'm not sure of his real thinking here; but, he sure seems to be warming to the thought.
But, as I recall this was one of the big mistakes of the 1970s.
And, inflation does nothing to balance out the supply and demand issues for labor and investment and production.
As a clear example here one can look at the labor and regulatory environments of Texas and California.
So far, Obama is a California regulatory type and last I read, California has been particularly out of it in terms of job creation lately - unlike Texas.
So, if Obama doesn't do more than deal with ozone regulations and changes to the cost of labor from government spending, his speech will be hollow at best. In fact, it will be Greek-like.
THE 'NOT MY FAULT' AND 'GOTCHA' EXCUSES: A Doleful Jobs Report - Barrons.com
A Doleful Jobs Report - Barrons.com
What I missed this week is something about the "gotcha - it ain't my fault I was stupid" attitude so prevalent in government and the public.
As an example, suing the banks for being stupid enough to issue mortgages for overpriced real estate.
Gee, it can't be that the banks made the same mistakes the public did in buying, the government did in advocating, the regulators didn't question at the time or, gosh-by-golly, the rating agencies saw no problem with?
What I missed this week is something about the "gotcha - it ain't my fault I was stupid" attitude so prevalent in government and the public.
As an example, suing the banks for being stupid enough to issue mortgages for overpriced real estate.
Gee, it can't be that the banks made the same mistakes the public did in buying, the government did in advocating, the regulators didn't question at the time or, gosh-by-golly, the rating agencies saw no problem with?
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Q&A, TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS: Global Factory Activity Stalls - WSJ.com
Global Factory Activity Stalls - WSJ.com
Question (JS):
"It’s pretty obvious the “Trickle Down Theory” does not work!"
Answer:
Sorry but you may have failed basic skills in college or probably high school.
The unemployment rates (as reported in this week's Barrons) were 4%, 9% and 14% respectively for those with college, a high school diploma and no high school diploma.
So, it would seem as though liberal views of education and reward have failed. Not trickle down but liberal trickle up!
Liberals believe in equality of outcome not of opportunity. Thus, things will have to be given to you and taken from someone else. You really don't need to worry about anything on the liberal 'plantation' - they know you can't compete with Chinese peasants so why should you try!
Those who can compete in terms of education are doing OK. Those with no education (they even failed the liberal view of education) are cut out of employment by having the government raise the price of labor. But, of course, the liberals mean well. (Something about the road to hell and good intentions...)
This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what Kreiger, the President's new appointment to his Council of Economic Advisers would say with his right hand - i.e. that minimum wages (and the indirect costs of hiring someone) are meaningless. Of course, the President with his left hand wants to subsidize job creation.
Some people would say people are talking out of both sides of their mouth.
You also should consider that the US has 3% of the world's population and consumes 25% of its resources.
As a country with incomes above the regression line, it has to work to stay there. Liberals believe it happens by magic - that anti-business regulations and taxes, etc. don't matter.
Of course, there is utter disbelief that policies matter and you clearly don't believe in supply and demand or your right to buy a cheap toaster at Walmart vs. a very expensive one.
Oh yes, if you need a car, thank the government for raising the price without the added cost to you going to higher wage rates. But, then again, this is liberal economics.
Question (JS):
"It’s pretty obvious the “Trickle Down Theory” does not work!"
Answer:
Sorry but you may have failed basic skills in college or probably high school.
The unemployment rates (as reported in this week's Barrons) were 4%, 9% and 14% respectively for those with college, a high school diploma and no high school diploma.
So, it would seem as though liberal views of education and reward have failed. Not trickle down but liberal trickle up!
Liberals believe in equality of outcome not of opportunity. Thus, things will have to be given to you and taken from someone else. You really don't need to worry about anything on the liberal 'plantation' - they know you can't compete with Chinese peasants so why should you try!
Those who can compete in terms of education are doing OK. Those with no education (they even failed the liberal view of education) are cut out of employment by having the government raise the price of labor. But, of course, the liberals mean well. (Something about the road to hell and good intentions...)
This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what Kreiger, the President's new appointment to his Council of Economic Advisers would say with his right hand - i.e. that minimum wages (and the indirect costs of hiring someone) are meaningless. Of course, the President with his left hand wants to subsidize job creation.
Some people would say people are talking out of both sides of their mouth.
You also should consider that the US has 3% of the world's population and consumes 25% of its resources.
As a country with incomes above the regression line, it has to work to stay there. Liberals believe it happens by magic - that anti-business regulations and taxes, etc. don't matter.
Of course, there is utter disbelief that policies matter and you clearly don't believe in supply and demand or your right to buy a cheap toaster at Walmart vs. a very expensive one.
Oh yes, if you need a car, thank the government for raising the price without the added cost to you going to higher wage rates. But, then again, this is liberal economics.
Q&A - same ol, same ol: Global Factory Activity Stalls - WSJ.com
Global Factory Activity Stalls - WSJ.com
Question (AF):
">Right... GE pays no U.S. taxes. How "demonic".
Also read that most CEO's are paid more than their company pays in total taxes. Just wicked, eh? how can those companies survive? ROFL.
Answer:
Ah, it is such a pleasure to see vindication of the rule of lemmings.
You've clearly been easily convinced of a red herring to distract you from what is really going on.
Do you see businesses wanting to invest in America first? Do you see a strong dollar, which will imply rising standards of living?
Do you see educational policies that speak of excellence instead of regression to below the mean?
No, you don't.
And, if you happen to be relying on any income other than social security, perhaps you have an equity or bond investment that you hope will prosper.
So, should you wonder if a company will be able to stay in business, you might ask yourself whether they are doing their best to keep producing competitive products.
If you think CEOs are overpaid, then - should it be a free market - you should be able to set up a competing company. You say you can't? Well, why not - either you or someone else.
Did you say regulatory constraints. Capital raising constraints. What's the problem?????
You are a true spirit of liberalism. You don't have to think logically. You can buy into the cant of the politicians trying to shift aim from themselves.
And, you are making the problem worse!
Sad, sad, sad - but who can blame you. You've been indoctrinated and mesmerized. Sadly, it is such an easy task.
But, the bottom line is that the Obama policies (and their kin in other countries around the world) seem to miraculously always produce the same desultory results.
Gee, its same-ol, same-ol and the hope that, as the old saying goes, somehow "this time is different" or "...going to be different".
Don't be surprised if it's not!
Question (AF):
">Right... GE pays no U.S. taxes. How "demonic".
Also read that most CEO's are paid more than their company pays in total taxes. Just wicked, eh? how can those companies survive? ROFL.
Answer:
Ah, it is such a pleasure to see vindication of the rule of lemmings.
You've clearly been easily convinced of a red herring to distract you from what is really going on.
Do you see businesses wanting to invest in America first? Do you see a strong dollar, which will imply rising standards of living?
Do you see educational policies that speak of excellence instead of regression to below the mean?
No, you don't.
And, if you happen to be relying on any income other than social security, perhaps you have an equity or bond investment that you hope will prosper.
So, should you wonder if a company will be able to stay in business, you might ask yourself whether they are doing their best to keep producing competitive products.
If you think CEOs are overpaid, then - should it be a free market - you should be able to set up a competing company. You say you can't? Well, why not - either you or someone else.
Did you say regulatory constraints. Capital raising constraints. What's the problem?????
You are a true spirit of liberalism. You don't have to think logically. You can buy into the cant of the politicians trying to shift aim from themselves.
And, you are making the problem worse!
Sad, sad, sad - but who can blame you. You've been indoctrinated and mesmerized. Sadly, it is such an easy task.
But, the bottom line is that the Obama policies (and their kin in other countries around the world) seem to miraculously always produce the same desultory results.
Gee, its same-ol, same-ol and the hope that, as the old saying goes, somehow "this time is different" or "...going to be different".
Don't be surprised if it's not!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
