The Markets & The 'NON-SEX-ED ECONOMIC POLICIES: Teen Drama Economy' - MarketBeat - WSJ: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Isn't the question more like that of the (idiotic) parent who believes they can tell the kid not to masturbate and think the message gets through?
There are tons of things that the masters of the economy and the law need to address - all of which are geared to support the unproductive and the 'entitled' (read: religiously prescripted) vs. those with a hand on reality and producers.
It reminds me of the Chicago school program years ago that didn't want to teach sex education amidst an upswing in teen pregnancies. A 16 (or so) aged girl was interviewed on TV and her comment was something like "well, my boyfriend said I wouldn't get pregnant 'that way'"!
Oh yeah, we'll create jobs with current Democratic policies!
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Bernanke Signals Continued Low Interest Rates - Barrons.com
MR > TITANIC BAND LEADER: Bernanke Signals Continued Low Interest Rates - Barrons.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Seemingly, what Bernanke can't say (and perhaps has to block form his mind) is that the policies from the Congress and White House will be accelerating any jobs created to move outside the country.
Yes, companies may do reasonably well. After all, they are nothing but abstract impersonal entities that are charged with providing affordable goods and services to a global (and globally competitive) market.
But, the angst resplendent in comment after comment in the WSJ is that these companies should care about American's who need (good paying) jobs.
However, when people buy goods and services they are looking for value for money, which usually means the lowest priced equivalent product.
The US tax, regulatory, immigration and labor policies make this a joke. Bernanke doesn't say it; much of the world is still thinking about the US as it was, not as it is.
But, the true job picture tells a different story. (As friends from Europe say, the US calculates unemployment statistics in an almost opposite way to Europe - i.e. in the US, if you've given up hope, you're no longer unemployed; in Europe, if you can't get welfare anymore, then you register as unemployed and have to take jobs the labor office finds you.
One does feel that in the US one is listening to the equivalent of the band on the Titanic, an hour or so after it struck the iceberg - but, high on cocaine (or similar) everything seems a-ok.
Seemingly, what Bernanke can't say (and perhaps has to block form his mind) is that the policies from the Congress and White House will be accelerating any jobs created to move outside the country.
Yes, companies may do reasonably well. After all, they are nothing but abstract impersonal entities that are charged with providing affordable goods and services to a global (and globally competitive) market.
But, the angst resplendent in comment after comment in the WSJ is that these companies should care about American's who need (good paying) jobs.
However, when people buy goods and services they are looking for value for money, which usually means the lowest priced equivalent product.
The US tax, regulatory, immigration and labor policies make this a joke. Bernanke doesn't say it; much of the world is still thinking about the US as it was, not as it is.
But, the true job picture tells a different story. (As friends from Europe say, the US calculates unemployment statistics in an almost opposite way to Europe - i.e. in the US, if you've given up hope, you're no longer unemployed; in Europe, if you can't get welfare anymore, then you register as unemployed and have to take jobs the labor office finds you.
One does feel that in the US one is listening to the equivalent of the band on the Titanic, an hour or so after it struck the iceberg - but, high on cocaine (or similar) everything seems a-ok.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Bernanke Signals No Policy Shift - WSJ.com
LOGIC VS. LA-LA-LAND: Bernanke Signals No Policy Shift - WSJ.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Let's ponder?
If 'number of jobs' is equivalent to the 'total labor expense / cost of labor' in the production equation;
and, if 'production' is really equivalent to the price at which goods can be sold (with some elasticity of demand);
and, if 'cost of capital' includes the idea of the necessary after-tax return on capital required by investors;
then,
when one looks at the production equation:
production = cost of labor + cost of capital + cost of raw materials
it would sure seem that the administration has raised the cost of labor and capital and is pushing against the value at which goods can be sold. And, if US production can be substituted for with foreign production (goods from China or India, say), then it's hard to believe that the US production capacity doesn't have to shrink.
And, gee, that's exactly what's staring us in the face.
(And, should the Senator harping about the Chinese yuan revaluation be other than drunk or stoned, it's hard to believe there aren't other countries that won't substitute their low cost production for, should it be, the higher cost production from China. But, these people must have been trained for the law and not business, economics or finance.)
Let's ponder?
If 'number of jobs' is equivalent to the 'total labor expense / cost of labor' in the production equation;
and, if 'production' is really equivalent to the price at which goods can be sold (with some elasticity of demand);
and, if 'cost of capital' includes the idea of the necessary after-tax return on capital required by investors;
then,
when one looks at the production equation:
production = cost of labor + cost of capital + cost of raw materials
it would sure seem that the administration has raised the cost of labor and capital and is pushing against the value at which goods can be sold. And, if US production can be substituted for with foreign production (goods from China or India, say), then it's hard to believe that the US production capacity doesn't have to shrink.
And, gee, that's exactly what's staring us in the face.
(And, should the Senator harping about the Chinese yuan revaluation be other than drunk or stoned, it's hard to believe there aren't other countries that won't substitute their low cost production for, should it be, the higher cost production from China. But, these people must have been trained for the law and not business, economics or finance.)
The View From Bernanke's Perch at the Fed - WSJ.com
Q&A: CART AND HORSE: The View From Bernanke's Perch at the Fed - WSJ.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Question:
People keep saying that an "anti-business" climate in Washington is preventing the private sector from putting unemployed Americans back to work. That's nonsense. Isn't it that businesses aren't hiring because the economy isn't looking very good?
Answer:
What also needs to be considered is that the 1970's was also a relative poor climate for business fiscally.
If you recall one of the issues in the 1980 election - the Democrats thought the economy couldn't grow, so they were only concerned about redistribution; the Republicans under Reagan however saw lower taxes and less regulation as a way in which business could grow.
We all know Reagan won and we all know that that economy did grow again.
You are right in terms of what business is doing now (above); however, the causes are in part that the US economy has to undergo changes which much of it is ill-equipped and opposed to doing (not too dissimilar to the 1970's and 80's (remember junk bonds?).
And today, the incentives for the economy and businesses to grow are all working against supporting the business community.
The 'cart' of a poor business climate is being led by the 'horse' of abominable fiscal and other anti-business policies.
Question:
People keep saying that an "anti-business" climate in Washington is preventing the private sector from putting unemployed Americans back to work. That's nonsense. Isn't it that businesses aren't hiring because the economy isn't looking very good?
Answer:
What also needs to be considered is that the 1970's was also a relative poor climate for business fiscally.
If you recall one of the issues in the 1980 election - the Democrats thought the economy couldn't grow, so they were only concerned about redistribution; the Republicans under Reagan however saw lower taxes and less regulation as a way in which business could grow.
We all know Reagan won and we all know that that economy did grow again.
You are right in terms of what business is doing now (above); however, the causes are in part that the US economy has to undergo changes which much of it is ill-equipped and opposed to doing (not too dissimilar to the 1970's and 80's (remember junk bonds?).
And today, the incentives for the economy and businesses to grow are all working against supporting the business community.
The 'cart' of a poor business climate is being led by the 'horse' of abominable fiscal and other anti-business policies.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Martin Feldstein: The 'Tax Expenditure' Solution for Our National Debt - WSJ.com
BEYOND STUPID: Martin Feldstein: The 'Tax Expenditure' Solution for Our National Debt - WSJ.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
What puzzles me is why any expense of a household to support the work of the income earner isn't deductible - in particular, this would include any kind of servants and staff.
After all, how many smart, educated, talented and trained individuals decide to stay home because the net return from working doesn't compute tax wise.
Meanwhile, a number of people that could fulfill such domestic support functions have no work. And, many of the people who could provide jobs to these people and have the skills to compete on a global job market decide the after-tax benefits are greater for not working.
Can anything be more insidiously stupid?
What puzzles me is why any expense of a household to support the work of the income earner isn't deductible - in particular, this would include any kind of servants and staff.
After all, how many smart, educated, talented and trained individuals decide to stay home because the net return from working doesn't compute tax wise.
Meanwhile, a number of people that could fulfill such domestic support functions have no work. And, many of the people who could provide jobs to these people and have the skills to compete on a global job market decide the after-tax benefits are greater for not working.
Can anything be more insidiously stupid?
Letters to the Editor: Real Wages Don't Tell the Whole Compensation Story - WSJ.com
DOWN TO BASICS: Letters to the Editor: Real Wages Don't Tell the Whole Compensation Story - WSJ.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
The best equation I know of is that "production = labor + capital + raw materials".
If production is equal to the price at which the market will buy a product, then the other factors all need to be considered to make the production cost competitive.
This of course is what is totally ignored by the Democratic bills that are increasing the cost of labor (so many bills), the cost of capital (the new financial reform bill comes to mind plus the open ended increases to taxes) and the cost of raw materials (here the misguided pandering to environmentalists is clearly increasing this cost for energy).
So, if the production cost in the US can't be competitive, it is hard to see how job growth in the US can take root.
Clearly, the Administration and Congress are blind to the realities of this type of production equation (as was and I am rather confident is the UAW, etc.).
The best equation I know of is that "production = labor + capital + raw materials".
If production is equal to the price at which the market will buy a product, then the other factors all need to be considered to make the production cost competitive.
This of course is what is totally ignored by the Democratic bills that are increasing the cost of labor (so many bills), the cost of capital (the new financial reform bill comes to mind plus the open ended increases to taxes) and the cost of raw materials (here the misguided pandering to environmentalists is clearly increasing this cost for energy).
So, if the production cost in the US can't be competitive, it is hard to see how job growth in the US can take root.
Clearly, the Administration and Congress are blind to the realities of this type of production equation (as was and I am rather confident is the UAW, etc.).
Monday, July 19, 2010
Deutsche Bank Chief to Asia: Avoid West's Levies - WSJ.com
US BLIND TO CONSEQUENCES: Deutsche Bank Chief to Asia: Avoid West's Levies - WSJ.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"
There is certainly one thing that socialists and populists abhor and try to ignore - and that is competition.
Clearly the US is going down a two-lane road going in the wrong direction: in one lane, it is creating an increasingly less job friendly and a more anti-business climate; in the other lane, it is going after any money it can find to support its gargantuan appetite for government largess.
One wonders if the US is even replacing its capital stock used up each year. One kind of doubts it. But these are issues the current administration couldn't understand. Oh my, it's like speaking Chinese to them (and they only understand American English).
There is certainly one thing that socialists and populists abhor and try to ignore - and that is competition.
Clearly the US is going down a two-lane road going in the wrong direction: in one lane, it is creating an increasingly less job friendly and a more anti-business climate; in the other lane, it is going after any money it can find to support its gargantuan appetite for government largess.
One wonders if the US is even replacing its capital stock used up each year. One kind of doubts it. But these are issues the current administration couldn't understand. Oh my, it's like speaking Chinese to them (and they only understand American English).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
