Seeking Alpha

Kimball Corson

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Kimball Corson's Comments BY TICKER:
AIG, C, DIA, GS, GSI, IYR, MFB, SPY, XLF
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • The Core Problem Of The World Economy And With Capitalism Is Income Distribution [View article]
    There is more fact implicit in the essay that you are willing to recognize. See also my essay, I published immediately before this one, on the state of the world economies. I don't write in a vacuum and reams of footnotes are not appropriate to this forum.
    Nov 23, 2014. 05:41 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Core Problem Of The World Economy And With Capitalism Is Income Distribution [View article]
    Nonsense. It is not working just fine.
    Nov 22, 2014. 09:41 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Core Problem Of The World Economy And With Capitalism Is Income Distribution [View article]
    I have an article pending which addresses the tax factors.
    Nov 22, 2014. 01:36 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Core Problem Of The World Economy And With Capitalism Is Income Distribution [View article]
    I take a much more macro view, but agree that the mal-distribution of income derives from labor's falling share of national income. Taking production abroad increases capital's share and lower's our labor's share, of course/
    Nov 22, 2014. 02:31 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Our Precarious World Economy And Its Prospects [View article]
    There is no timing prediction on the US stock market in my article. You misread it. Several, however, agree with my assessment that the market is bubbled up, including several economic Nobel laureates, including at least one who accurately predicted the housing and financial crashes of 2008 and the following recession. Too much ad hominem from NeedLessCoffee.
    Nov 21, 2014. 05:12 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Our Precarious World Economy And Its Prospects [View article]
    You misread the article. No one said Rome is burning. It is only a possibility.
    Nov 21, 2014. 05:06 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Bernanke Doesn't Quite Understand That's Important [View article]
    Good and thoughtful comment, especially your last one when we consider that income to labor as a percentage of national income is near its all time low. The median wage hasn't budged this century. Corporate profits, on the other hand, are near an all time high. So Washington, with its exquisite sense of fairness, takes ever more tax revenue from workers as payroll taxes and ever less tax revenue from corporate profits, while pocketing cash donations from corporate lobbyists. This is not a stable system.
    Jun 23, 2013. 05:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Bernanke Doesn't Quite Understand That's Important [View article]
    cannot default . . . unless it wants to, I should have said.
    Apr 28, 2013. 07:55 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Bernanke Doesn't Quite Understand That's Important [View article]
    Inflation is not an imperative. Study the article to understand why. Republicans have been claiming inflation is at hand for almost a decade now. They too don't understand. There is too much under and unemployment of too much. Deflation more threatens.

    Also, unlike Greece and other members of the EU with a common, centrally controlled currency, a nation with its own sovereign fiat money system cannot default. Learn modern money theory.
    Apr 28, 2013. 02:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Bernanke Doesn't Quite Understand That's Important [View article]
    I disagree. Point out a single instance of this proposal being made elsewhere.
    Apr 28, 2013. 02:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Bernanke Doesn't Quite Understand That's Important [View article]
    Increasing aggregate demand. As for the inflation you worry about, re-read the article. Your school grading analogy fails.
    Apr 28, 2013. 02:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Bernanke Doesn't Quite Understand That's Important [View article]
    But I have not seen the proposal even made until I made it here. It is too new. There has been no great discussion of it. No one is pushing for enabling law, not even Bernanke.
    Apr 28, 2013. 02:36 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Bernanke Doesn't Quite Understand That's Important [View article]
    You correctly understand the legality of it. Morally and to conventional thinkers, I agree it is radical. But so is much in modern money theory. The paradigm has irreversibly shifted. We are going to have to learn and adjust.
    Apr 28, 2013. 02:32 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Bernanke Doesn't Quite Understand That's Important [View article]
    You misread the proposal. It is a flat and equal sum to all. The amount is determined by the boost thought necessary for aggregate demand. There are no refinements suggested or needed. They would only generate controversy. Also, it is not required to be paid back, as you suggest, except possibly and partially and then only in a special and rare case. I am amazed at how few here seem to understand what is being proposed and why. I have encountered much better results elsewhere.
    Apr 21, 2013. 01:03 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • What Bernanke Doesn't Quite Understand That's Important [View article]
    Some further explanation: It can take six months to two years or more for a "money drop" to work through the economy, and from the multiplier effect, any new equilibrium would be at a much higher national income level with more resources employed. If done well without inflation in reaching a new higher equilibrium, there would be no need to any non-income tax increase, so then there could be no rational expectations of one, as Chicago always argues. Incomes would be raised for all, but it is correct that, in the normal course, a percentage of any negative non-income tax or any income increase for that matter, would be saved, used to pay down debt or both.

    Friedman's explanatory concept that all real variables revert to prior levels before the drop assumes too much remains the same and the idea has been proved historically wrong in situations where we have been in the doldrums with many resources unemployed. If done at full employment, the work through tends to have real variables revert to what they were but that is because there are no additional real resources to be put to work by any means.

    There is no natural reversion in our situation. For example, we did not lose the benefit of Reagan's $1 trillion dollar deficit spending program timed perfectly to get us out of the 1980-81 recession. The economy climbed to new and "permanent" higher levels. There was no natural reversion in real variables because of the multiplier effect and the unemployed resources put to work. We did stupid things thereafter which caused problems -- the dot com bubble and the housing bubble -- to be sure, but that was subsequent and unnecessary silliness we could have done without.
    Apr 19, 2013. 04:10 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
876 Comments
1,453 Likes