WHAT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S TAKE GOING TO BE?:Alan Abelson's Up & Down Wall Street - Barrons.com
What puzzles me is the lack of attention to climate - and, by this I mean the climate to reward investors and entrepreneurs vs. bureaucrats and 'the entitled'?
Just casually looking at reports of new factories, it would seem as though huge investment sums are needed for the creation of a rather paltry number of jobs. To wit, if the US is going to be creating seriously well-paying jobs, the amount of investment will have to go up.
One of the things that will have to be resolved would seem to be whether the federal government is going to be taking 25% of GDP (Obama and liberals) or less (Republicans).
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Plans for Slashing Corporate Taxes Worry Some Firms - WSJ.com
KEY IS THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT: Plans for Slashing Corporate Taxes Worry Some Firms - WSJ.com
S-Corps that have a small ownership are likely also entities run by very bright people. With all of the changes in technology, the US should be paying attention to the ability of very bright business owners that have businesses built around intellectual capital to just move out of the US.
The smarter and more affluent you are, the easier it is to do so.
The critical issue is really the ability, need or implications of letting the size of government grow.
Everything one hears about the education system suggests the current generation is less educated than the last. It's hard not to consider this failure has to be laid clearly on the government and teachers unions. Thus, they both need to be cutback and their power and influence markedly reduced.
S-Corps that have a small ownership are likely also entities run by very bright people. With all of the changes in technology, the US should be paying attention to the ability of very bright business owners that have businesses built around intellectual capital to just move out of the US.
The smarter and more affluent you are, the easier it is to do so.
The critical issue is really the ability, need or implications of letting the size of government grow.
Everything one hears about the education system suggests the current generation is less educated than the last. It's hard not to consider this failure has to be laid clearly on the government and teachers unions. Thus, they both need to be cutback and their power and influence markedly reduced.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Review & Outlook: The New Lackluster - WSJ.com
Review & Outlook: The New Lackluster - WSJ.com
Some less than educated but highly politicized liberal wrote:
"History does not support your assertion that less government = higher prosperity.
If that were the case, then Somalia, with no government would be the most prosperous country on earth.
In the US in the 1960's and 1970's - one average working person could support a family with a house and car
That was with a lot of government vs. today.
The real difference is more one-way trade agreements & global labor arbitrage = less prosperity for the average American."
In response:
Ah, but do some math and check the percent of GDP taken by government!
Also, since the liberal education reforms and teachers unions have throttled and despoiled the educational system, the US now has a less-educated workforce (according to recent articles) than back a generation or more back.
And, if we have even more skilled and aggressive economic competitors, then, like with any business, one would think we would want to invest more in the economy to stay competitive. But no, not in liberal thinking. Instead, the US has said no cutbacks to expenditure programs like Medicaid and Medicare. These are consumption - not investments.
As for "less prosperity for the average American", Americans were told back in the 1960's and 70's to recognize that their outsized demand for the world's resources were something they should pay attention to. Now that other countries are demanding access to and a greater (more equal) sharing of those resources, many Americans may not like what this means (i.e. a change in US living standards); but, sadly, the politicians of the day (read; Obama, et al) haven't a clue (or choose to ignore) the basic economics.
Where are positive policies? Even a village idiot can see where liberal policies lead. But, as the old saying goes - "it's the blind leading the blind"; and, as Mark Twain would say, "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."
Some less than educated but highly politicized liberal wrote:
"History does not support your assertion that less government = higher prosperity.
If that were the case, then Somalia, with no government would be the most prosperous country on earth.
In the US in the 1960's and 1970's - one average working person could support a family with a house and car
That was with a lot of government vs. today.
The real difference is more one-way trade agreements & global labor arbitrage = less prosperity for the average American."
In response:
Ah, but do some math and check the percent of GDP taken by government!
Also, since the liberal education reforms and teachers unions have throttled and despoiled the educational system, the US now has a less-educated workforce (according to recent articles) than back a generation or more back.
And, if we have even more skilled and aggressive economic competitors, then, like with any business, one would think we would want to invest more in the economy to stay competitive. But no, not in liberal thinking. Instead, the US has said no cutbacks to expenditure programs like Medicaid and Medicare. These are consumption - not investments.
As for "less prosperity for the average American", Americans were told back in the 1960's and 70's to recognize that their outsized demand for the world's resources were something they should pay attention to. Now that other countries are demanding access to and a greater (more equal) sharing of those resources, many Americans may not like what this means (i.e. a change in US living standards); but, sadly, the politicians of the day (read; Obama, et al) haven't a clue (or choose to ignore) the basic economics.
Where are positive policies? Even a village idiot can see where liberal policies lead. But, as the old saying goes - "it's the blind leading the blind"; and, as Mark Twain would say, "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."
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Loan Appetite in Emerging World Is Strong - WSJ.com
THE US SHOULD STOP BLAMING OTHERS AND LOOK WITHIN: Loan Appetite in Emerging World Is Strong - WSJ.com
Friedrich, all you say about China may well be true. It was certainly true in the US at that stage of the game.
But, the US shouldn't try to make believe that only the Chinese have glass houses. (A clear subject of discussion in the US is the impact of all the chemicals we have to ostensibly make life better and more comfortable.)
Notwithstanding the environmental lessons, it should be clear that to create economically competitive jobs, the US will need to have a better educated work force backed by larger amounts of capital.
Pandering to the liberal and teachers union academic agenda has reportedly left the current generation of US citizens less-well educated than earlier generations. And, all the hue and cry about wage gaps is a logical consequence of failures to educate and train.
As for additional investment, all it takes is a brief look at the cost of some new plant going in and a mathematical reflection on the cost per new permanent job to realize the US is under-investing. So, what do the politicians do? They beat up on investors and blame them for too few jobs. Instead the politicians should look in the mirror. Etc.
Americans should consider making positive changes to the American economy - rather than trying to make excuses to obviate the need for domestic structural economic changes!
Friedrich, all you say about China may well be true. It was certainly true in the US at that stage of the game.
But, the US shouldn't try to make believe that only the Chinese have glass houses. (A clear subject of discussion in the US is the impact of all the chemicals we have to ostensibly make life better and more comfortable.)
Notwithstanding the environmental lessons, it should be clear that to create economically competitive jobs, the US will need to have a better educated work force backed by larger amounts of capital.
Pandering to the liberal and teachers union academic agenda has reportedly left the current generation of US citizens less-well educated than earlier generations. And, all the hue and cry about wage gaps is a logical consequence of failures to educate and train.
As for additional investment, all it takes is a brief look at the cost of some new plant going in and a mathematical reflection on the cost per new permanent job to realize the US is under-investing. So, what do the politicians do? They beat up on investors and blame them for too few jobs. Instead the politicians should look in the mirror. Etc.
Americans should consider making positive changes to the American economy - rather than trying to make excuses to obviate the need for domestic structural economic changes!
Loan Appetite in Emerging World Is Strong - WSJ.com
IS THE US TRYING ALL THE WRONG SOLUTIONS?: Loan Appetite in Emerging World Is Strong - WSJ.com
There was an interesting book from the late 1960's or early 70's that talked about how hard it is for leading economies to stay in the lead and easy for emerging economies to catch up.
Someone from China must have read that book and a number of people in the US must have failed to read it (or forgotten about it).
There are lots of lamentations in the press and by comment leavers to the WSJ that bemoan all of the fall in wages, serious unemployment issues, etc. - but, there is a distinct lack of realization that the US (and those workers whom the educational establishment and unions have failed to provide the training and opportunities necessary - but that's another issue) consumes an absolutely disproportionate share of the world's resources.
Now that competition for those resources has been heating up, Americans should be helped to realize that economic growth is needed and it is difficult and expensive.
Instead, Bernanke seems to be acting like the person flooding their car with gas when it won't get started - and, we all know that doesn't really work.
Likewise, US immigration policies are cutting off the life-blood of future growth and instead sending all those entrepreneurial, highly-trained foreigners back home to create more-and-more competition for the American economy.
As for entitlements, the Democrats clearly think (along with the unions) that taking from one part of the economy (either through taxes or borrowing), that there is no impact or counter-pressure on the economy. To even believe this where the evidence in the US is so clear that these policies have disastrous longer-term results is 'the blind leading the blind'.
And, to put the icing on the cake, there was the press conference yesterday where reporters seemed concerned that the US Seal Team might have killed an 'unarmed' Bin Laden. Like, he was a criminal and his guilt was certainly not questionable. And, why should footsoldiers have the right to be killed but the government have decided it is wrong to knock off top management? Could this be an rather too obvious disingenuousness on the part of political leaders?
There was an interesting book from the late 1960's or early 70's that talked about how hard it is for leading economies to stay in the lead and easy for emerging economies to catch up.
Someone from China must have read that book and a number of people in the US must have failed to read it (or forgotten about it).
There are lots of lamentations in the press and by comment leavers to the WSJ that bemoan all of the fall in wages, serious unemployment issues, etc. - but, there is a distinct lack of realization that the US (and those workers whom the educational establishment and unions have failed to provide the training and opportunities necessary - but that's another issue) consumes an absolutely disproportionate share of the world's resources.
Now that competition for those resources has been heating up, Americans should be helped to realize that economic growth is needed and it is difficult and expensive.
Instead, Bernanke seems to be acting like the person flooding their car with gas when it won't get started - and, we all know that doesn't really work.
Likewise, US immigration policies are cutting off the life-blood of future growth and instead sending all those entrepreneurial, highly-trained foreigners back home to create more-and-more competition for the American economy.
As for entitlements, the Democrats clearly think (along with the unions) that taking from one part of the economy (either through taxes or borrowing), that there is no impact or counter-pressure on the economy. To even believe this where the evidence in the US is so clear that these policies have disastrous longer-term results is 'the blind leading the blind'.
And, to put the icing on the cake, there was the press conference yesterday where reporters seemed concerned that the US Seal Team might have killed an 'unarmed' Bin Laden. Like, he was a criminal and his guilt was certainly not questionable. And, why should footsoldiers have the right to be killed but the government have decided it is wrong to knock off top management? Could this be an rather too obvious disingenuousness on the part of political leaders?
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
High-Earning Households Pay Growing Share of Taxes - WSJ.com
High-Earning Households Pay Growing Share of Taxes - WSJ.com
Part and parcel to the above is that the country should be talking honestly about the employment situation - i.e. there is low unemployment for those with skills and an education.
Likewise, we've allowed overpaid teachers unions with restrictive educational mandates to degrade the educational system that is an absolute pre-requisite for better paying jobs. The number of anti-job policies from both parties is a very long list.
It's too bad an honest discussion of what could be done to improve the economy doesn't take on some of the sacred cows of the right (anti-immigrant, religious right, etc.) and the left (too much socialism, too little accountability, regulatory and tax policies, etc.).
We need to make America the place people want to live in to start and make prosperous businesses.
The disconnect is that many people feel this to be the case wherein the factual evidence is just the opposite.
As such, people can't make informed decisions because the politicians and media are insidiously undereducated.
Thus, the old Mark Twain saying, ""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."
Part and parcel to the above is that the country should be talking honestly about the employment situation - i.e. there is low unemployment for those with skills and an education.
Likewise, we've allowed overpaid teachers unions with restrictive educational mandates to degrade the educational system that is an absolute pre-requisite for better paying jobs. The number of anti-job policies from both parties is a very long list.
It's too bad an honest discussion of what could be done to improve the economy doesn't take on some of the sacred cows of the right (anti-immigrant, religious right, etc.) and the left (too much socialism, too little accountability, regulatory and tax policies, etc.).
We need to make America the place people want to live in to start and make prosperous businesses.
The disconnect is that many people feel this to be the case wherein the factual evidence is just the opposite.
As such, people can't make informed decisions because the politicians and media are insidiously undereducated.
Thus, the old Mark Twain saying, ""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."
Monday, May 2, 2011
States' Pay Cuts Present Mixed Economic Blessing - WSJ.com
States' LET'S EMPHASIZE THE 'NET POSITIVE': Pay Cuts Present Mixed Economic Blessing - WSJ.com
Gee - and, by not raising taxes, maybe more private sector employers will stay in the state or not close up shop.
There is an old saying about "economic utility", which is fostered by the ideas of supply and demand and choice.
When government decides to intervene with supply, demand or choice, the results are always net negative. But, Obama and the liberals and the unions don't get it. They think taking from workers and giving to non-workers is a net positive. As a result the economic rebound has been moribund at best.
The Republicans and their religious mullahs aren't off the hook either. The hate they preach has probably led to a decade of future foreign business leaders not coming to the US. The impact of this is still a few years off - but, it is clearly evident in the lack of economic growth.
Gee - and, by not raising taxes, maybe more private sector employers will stay in the state or not close up shop.
There is an old saying about "economic utility", which is fostered by the ideas of supply and demand and choice.
When government decides to intervene with supply, demand or choice, the results are always net negative. But, Obama and the liberals and the unions don't get it. They think taking from workers and giving to non-workers is a net positive. As a result the economic rebound has been moribund at best.
The Republicans and their religious mullahs aren't off the hook either. The hate they preach has probably led to a decade of future foreign business leaders not coming to the US. The impact of this is still a few years off - but, it is clearly evident in the lack of economic growth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
