Comments on Robert A. Weigand's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/robert-a-weigand/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-590487 590487 Herein lies the ultimate question. Is a person entitled to keep > what he/she earns since gains are ultimately a product of superior > efforts, or is success equally a product of luck, timing, and surroundings? > If the former, then taxes should be low and spending reduced along > with it, if the latter, then everyone should get over themselves > and chip in for the greater good. > > We all like to believe we rise or fall on our steam, but based on > those I've met in this world, I would only ascribe 50% of any given > outcome (on average) to the underlying persona. > > Bring back the estate tax, raise taxes on the wealthy, lower gov't > spending across the board, nationalize healthcare, and provide economic > incentives to help make the U.S. energy independent. These are > the keys to our long term success, but I have no confidence that > they will be undertaken.]]> Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:04:48 -0400
I'd like to pay lower prices for everything. Nationalize the whole economy.

On Jul 10 07:52 PM stopwhining wrote:

> Herein lies the ultimate question. Is a person entitled to keep
> what he/she earns since gains are ultimately a product of superior
> efforts, or is success equally a product of luck, timing, and surroundings?
> If the former, then taxes should be low and spending reduced along
> with it, if the latter, then everyone should get over themselves
> and chip in for the greater good.
>
> We all like to believe we rise or fall on our steam, but based on
> those I've met in this world, I would only ascribe 50% of any given
> outcome (on average) to the underlying persona.
>
> Bring back the estate tax, raise taxes on the wealthy, lower gov't
> spending across the board, nationalize healthcare, and provide economic
> incentives to help make the U.S. energy independent. These are
> the keys to our long term success, but I have no confidence that
> they will be undertaken.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-585821 585821 > Learn all you can about it! > > Paul Katchings > Business Engineer-Inventor Has Amway© morphed again? Not that this is a bad thing, but in addition to a receipt for my purchase, should I now expect a 1099 at the end of this and every year to come too? So now, there's nothing I can do that's not part of my "business"? This is sounding more and more like Congress, where all I have to do all day (and night), is spend. I won't even have to both about re-election. Where do I sign up? ]]> Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:35:33 -0400

On Jul 12 02:38 AM drpaul1139 wrote:

Help make Product Equity Value© a reality and not a perception!
>
> Learn all you can about it!
>
> Paul Katchings
> Business Engineer-Inventor

Has Amway© morphed again?

Not that this is a bad thing, but in addition to a receipt for my purchase, should I now expect a 1099 at the end of this and every year to come too?

So now, there's nothing I can do that's not part of my "business"? This is sounding more and more like Congress, where all I have to do all day (and night), is spend. I won't even have to both about re-election.
Where do I sign up?
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-584941 584941 I'm not going to take the time to break this all down so let me just > point out one critical factor glaringly conspicuous in its absence. > Mr. Wiegand states, "...Americans' longstanding (and misguided) obsession > with cutting taxes, which is the primary reason the federal debt > has been allowed to explode out of control (and California is on > the brink of bankruptcy)". So, if this is true, government spending > only played a minor role? Talk about cognitive dissonance...]]> Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:15:56 -0400

On Jul 10 10:28 AM TKA wrote:
you missed the part about "borrow and spend' cognitive dissonance back at ya
> I'm not going to take the time to break this all down so let me just
> point out one critical factor glaringly conspicuous in its absence.
> Mr. Wiegand states, "...Americans' longstanding (and misguided) obsession
> with cutting taxes, which is the primary reason the federal debt
> has been allowed to explode out of control (and California is on
> the brink of bankruptcy)". So, if this is true, government spending
> only played a minor role? Talk about cognitive dissonance...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-584257 584257 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:59:24 -0400
My inadequate acquaintance with economics reminds me that Adam Smith advanced the theory that the "Wealth of Nations" would be maximized if each person was allowed to pursue his or her private interests free of most constraints. Private enterprise has been the foundation of capitalism ever since and has been a major force in the achievement of rising living standards for a large part of the developed world.

But the world that Adam Smith knew has long since vanished. We are now in possession of a whole variety of "weapons of mass destruction" including fossil fuel based climate change, nuclear waste and weapons, international terrorism and global economic meltdown. Since this entire discussion is taking place on the internet, perhaps I need to add the enormous enabling and disabling potential of the dissemination of rumor, fact, fiction, information and disinformation worldwide.

Lets simplify the whole discussion by turning to the concept of
"sustainability" as the cornerstone of value assessment. Short run gains are no longer positive if they creat long term losses that cannot be reversed. If we burn up so many fossil fuels in the next 50 years that the ability of the planet to support life is reduced by
50% and our grandchildren and great grandchildren will lead lives of desparation, are we justified in pursuing our own interests by burning those fuels?

No. Case closed. It is time to alter Adam Smith. Sustainability rather than short term private profit must become the measure of value in the new economics. Private enterprise is great. But toward what end? We cannot do short term good by doing long term evil. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-584146 584146 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:38:53 -0400
Good common sense article, thanks. Good comments too. It is time to bring the country back to 'the middle'. I hope we can do it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-584143 584143 "For example, this problem is responsible for many Americans' longstanding > (and misguided) obsession with cutting taxes, which is the primary > reason the federal debt has been allowed to explode out of control..." > > > Um...NO!!! Author is a Big Government ideologue, apparently! I > quit reading after this patently false line. It has never been more > clear that the problem is out of control SPENDING, not inadequate > taxation!! The real problem causing ballooning federal debt is SOCIALIST > ENTITLEMENT GOVERNMENT, and the seemingly unending growth of such > into every facet of our lives and business!! It has resulted in > a large non-productive class, and high penalties for the most productive. > And yes, Mr. Wiegand, we DO have an obsession with cutting taxes > in the U.S. -- because this nation was founded on a few basic principles, > among them the notion of personal property rights! Our Founders > thought confiscatory taxation to be anathema to Liberty. Alas that > you and your ilk have strayed so far from their philosophy yet still > believe yourselves free.]]> Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:36:09 -0400
Andy Jackson followed in the tradition of Jeffersonian Democrats to become the only Prez ever to pay off the national debt.
"Following Jefferson, Jackson supported an 'agricultural republic' and felt the Bank improved the fortunes of an 'elite circle' of commercial and industrial entrepreneurs at the expense of farmers and laborers. After a titanic struggle, Jackson succeeded in destroying the Bank by vetoing its 1832 re-charter by Congress and by withdrawing U.S. funds in 1833." We had terrible recessions in the 1830's.

U.S. Grant (Republican) presided over the worst US depression ever in 1873. After the Panic of 1907 under Teddy Roosevelt (Republican) and the collapse of the Knickerbocker Trust (where we begged JP Morgan to bailout the economy), big government Dem. Woody Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act.

I don't want to confuse you with the facts, but the world is not as you imagine it was. In case you thought Woody was a socialist, I can tell you the Bolshevik red scare resulted in federal laws stricter than the Patriot Act ever thought about being. Just consult The Google. Its all there.

On Jul 10 12:56 PM Socialism cannot compete! wrote:

> "For example, this problem is responsible for many Americans' longstanding
> (and misguided) obsession with cutting taxes, which is the primary
> reason the federal debt has been allowed to explode out of control..."
>
>
> Um...NO!!! Author is a Big Government ideologue, apparently! I
> quit reading after this patently false line. It has never been more
> clear that the problem is out of control SPENDING, not inadequate
> taxation!! The real problem causing ballooning federal debt is SOCIALIST
> ENTITLEMENT GOVERNMENT, and the seemingly unending growth of such
> into every facet of our lives and business!! It has resulted in
> a large non-productive class, and high penalties for the most productive.
> And yes, Mr. Wiegand, we DO have an obsession with cutting taxes
> in the U.S. -- because this nation was founded on a few basic principles,
> among them the notion of personal property rights! Our Founders
> thought confiscatory taxation to be anathema to Liberty. Alas that
> you and your ilk have strayed so far from their philosophy yet still
> believe yourselves free.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-584118 584118 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 07:53:00 -0400
Should we also talk about the over spending by the general consumption driven society?

The tax code (fairness) is one thing but over spending, and particularly wasting, is another thing.

Who should be responsible for Americans, on average, consuming (e.g. housing, recreation, auto, medical) more of everything than many other people while investing (e.g. saving) less than many other people?

The dogma of goodness of generocity (spend more to boost economy and to boost self indulgence) and democracy (everyone should live in large house, drive big car, and afford high cost services) should be balanced by the facts of reality, those of productive (not just serving each other's indulgence) work, global competitiion (not just competing with each other inside), and long term strategic goals (not just short term financial results by any means).

Capitalism or socialism can work or fail, depending on how the details are being addressed.

Work to balance the budget is needed by individuals as well as the government.

One interesting thought: since there are so much blames on the super rich getting richer and on corporations making more profits, are these happening because many people are over consuming and over paying? Are we forgetting that consumers can at least choose to consume less and to shop for lowest prices or to do them by ourselves?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-584054 584054 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:27:24 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-584047 584047 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:38:53 -0400
It was obvious written out compassion and with comprehensive data to back up the compassion. Please permit a less than politically correct person to weigh in on this dead horse with an observations and a simple solution to credit, debt, and interest.

What Mr. Weigand is saying (and many of the brilliant comments) are that most Americans are economically stupid and we get the government that we have. I was not a fan of President Clinton but if I am not mistaken he left the country with $3 plus trillion in surpluses and the Republican administrations gave us trillions of dollars in debt, and now a new democratic president is giving us trillions of more dollars of debt?

And now we have a $14 trillion national debt, which is about 100% of gross domestic product and on average $90,322 for 155 million labor units? And as Jeff Nielson is pointing out for us which we all had better be aware of if we indeed want an immediate solution, and an immediate solution is possible when we are clear on the numbers.

“1% of the U.S. population holds more than 35% of ALL wealth - and 55% of ALL stock. And their grip on America's wealth grows stronger every year.

Meanwhile 80% of the U.S. population holds only 15% of total wealth (about 25% less than in other industrialized nations).” Jeff Nielson

Thanks Rob Weigand for the Article, thanks Jeff Nielson for these numbers…

To make a third contributions with solution numbers, what I will attempt to do here is get us out of this mess with some new economic thought so that all of the Americans without economic and political sophistication, and I doubt that they will ever gained these two will just shop and be happy and all is well.

The problem is not only the perceptions of reality but also no reality at all by all of us when it comes to the so-called capitalistic model.

Lets build this capitalistic 101 model from the ground up and we can solve this economic mess that we find ourselves in quickly and together. Presupposing one fundamental, undeviating, and permanent understanding about capital, indeed a mastery washing the mental slate clean of credit, debt, and interest which are the hindrance to both 100% employment and non debt driven consumption.

Capital should be the primary tool of a capitalist economic model. But we need to understand what capital is. Capital means to capitalize or the bringing in of cash value from the future for present use. The vehicle for bringing in capital from the future for present use is the public corporation by its ability to issue unlimited upside and unlimited downside ‘risk-reward’ shares where the earnings of the public corporation determines the up and down sides.

The earnings for the corporation starts from the labor units demand for products and services, spending called consumption, which is the revenue of the public corporations and then the earnings as a percentage of revenue driving share prices causing the equity to rise in value.

Equity is the differences between the revenue of the public corporation and the total value of the corporation called capitalization, notice that the concepts of credit, debt, and interest are nowhere in our descriptions of capital which is the foundation of capitalism?

Please! Lets be clear here. Look at that last sentence and see the connections between capital and equity the two pillars of capitalism.

Therefore any country with a stock market is practicing capitalism to the degree of the number of public traded companies, and the total value of its stock market exceed the countries gross domestic product.

What class of economics does credit, debt, and interest belong to? Creditism? It is this creditism that permits the 1% of the populations to control.

The perceptions that credit belongs in the lexicon of capitalism and that credit is free is a drug worst than ‘crack cocaine’. So the question is how do we end credit, and its three negatives of debt, interest, and unemployment?

As we see massive unemployment is triggered primary by the labor units inability to pay the interest on free credit. A critical number of unemployed brings the whole economy down traced solely to free credit, debt, and interest, which are the real cause of boom-bust-economic cycles, not the perceptions of something else. The total interest will never match free the credit, credit is a slave to interest.

Now mathematically when we ask what is the opposite of free credit then the answer is equity, free equity.

Permit me to explain.

The assumption is that a person will have a job to pay the debt with interest. But a job for most people will never keep up with the cumulative effect of interest. So a job is tied to the negative concept of credit.

If a job is tied to the negative concept of credit, then purchases are tied to the positive concept of equity for public companies. As of this moment 99.99% of the economist have no ideal of the power of positive equity for public companies so we MUST take this equity matter into our own hands!

Why do I say this, how do we do this?

By this secret multiple value creation formula of x=(a*b)/c where X is stock price, A is revenue, B is earnings as a percentage of revenue, and C is a rate of return with 1 share outstanding ALWAYS creates more value for a public company than a non public company solely by the ability of a public companies to issue shares when X-A-B can be predicted.

Who creates the earnings for a public company causing the stock price to be multiples of revenue? The consumers.

Ok if the consumers are the ones who create the earnings for a public company where 1% currently own 55% of the equity then what percentage of the earnings and stock price of a public company can be attributed to the consumers?

When we can answer this question then we can replace free negative credit with free positive equity and we will have a new instant economic paradigm.

What we know now, from careful investigation of the multiple value creation variables for public companies, is that when 46% to 69% of the equity of new public corporations are given free to a precise number of customers simultaneous to the product or service purchases then the prices of the free shares are ALWAYS greater by 3, 5, 11, 20, and over 40 times the price of the product or services by x=(a*b)/c.

The determination of the precise number of customers prior to a new public company’s registration process and the giving of the free shares after the cash purchases-consumption of the new public companies products and services causes A revenue, B earnings, and X stock prices to be precise predictions.

The free giving of the 46% to 69% of the shares of a new public company is the sharing of the percentage of the multiple equity value created and attributed directly to the consumer’s purchases providing the stability of share prices for the remaining non-customer investors who pays cash directly for their shares.

This free sharing in exchange for cash purchases by the 46% to 69% customer-owners of new public corporations is called Product Equity Value©.
www.productequityvalue...

It is the free Product Equity Value© contained in each product or service that causes the global economy to become a willing, renewable, and stable one of equity driven demand consumption replacing unstable credit-debt-interest driven demand consumption.

This means that an average American spending just one third, or $12,000 with new public companies giving Product Equity Value© will have $138,000 in liquid savings an average PEV© ratio of 11.5 to 1.

Product Equity Value© will add a minimum of $21.39 trillion to a US stock market already valued at $19 trillion.

Hey folks! We are not taking about a perception or some far off event! We are talking about something that is in motion now and will be a reality for at least 14 million American in 2009-2010! Help make Product Equity Value© a reality and not a perception!

Learn all you can about it!

Paul Katchings
Business Engineer-Inventor
www.productequityvalue...




]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-584041 584041 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:17:15 -0400
Government is always much more efficient and much wiser than the private sector in spending money, because the private sector is concerned about taking risks and making icky profits, while government is concerned about everyone's welfare and happy children.

So what we need are bigger and more powerful public sector unions with larger pensions and more middle management. We need card-check legislation to force all workers to join unions.

Yes, California is now bankrupt because prop 13 kept the politicians from taking more taxes and requiring a 2/3 majority to raise more taxes. True California has the second highest income tax in the country, some of the highest sales taxes, and high business taxes, but its property taxes are only average. This is wrong because our public servants need more money so that they can continue to enjoy the sensible, lavish lifestyles to which they have become accustomed. This will keep our public servant bureaucrats happy and more productive so they can retire at age 50 with 100% salaries and full medical care. If only we could hire more unionized bureaucrats who work 40-hour weeks while charging 10 hours of overtime, then California will return to fiscal health.

If only the government would tax me more, I know I would immediately become more productive and prosperous.

I'm sure that government bureaucrats will spend my money and my grandchildrens' money much better than we ordinary citizens ever could. So please, please raise my taxes.

This is an excellent article and you are obviously a genius.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-584032 584032 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:20:29 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-584026 584026 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:07:15 -0400 I gave a talk on the economy recently, and my last slide was borrowed from Liz Ann Sonders at Charles Schwab Market Research (reproduced below). It’s entitled “The Market’s Emotional Roller Coaster,” and it depicts 12 stages of emotion that investors go through in a full bear-to-bull-market cycle.

...Optimism, enthusiasm, exhilaration, euphoria, unease, denial, pessimism, panic, capitulation, despair, hope, relief, returning to optimism...

Someone asked where I thought we were in the emotional cycle..."


OK, I’ll play along. Now that the bull has capitulated, or tapped out so to speak, what’s to prevent the owners of the show from bringing in a fresh bull to fight the exhausted bear chained and pegged in the ring? I realize the up and down oscillation in your model is based on the historical techniques of these animals fighting styles*, but the emotions attributed to the model belie a cognitive dissonance in favor of the bull. As an example, if I was someone with skin in the game on say, gold for example, (I bet on the bear), my emotions are opposite the ones shown. What’s more, I’m going to be pretty upset for the crowd to approve bringing in another bull just to finish the bear off without settling out the bets from the first bout. To me, that’s the difference this time around. The rules of engagement have changed causing the stakes to be much more perilous. (*Illustration taken from a history of Mokelumne Hill, Ca)
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-583983 583983 Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:52:00 -0400
Under both Reagan and W, tax revenues increased with lowered rates, yet under Clinton an increase in the tax rate also raised revenues, indicating that we're probably close to the Laffer maximum at current rates. [Note that several high tax states have pushed the combined tax rate above the Laffer maximum and are suffering revenue declines.]

While revenues are relatively fixed, spending has no limit [we certainly have seen that recently]. If we're going to target spending relative to expected tax revenues what should be the limit?

Over the long term, increases in National Debt are not a problem, as long as the economy is growing faster than the debt, in nominal terms. For example, a 3% increase is debt over a period when the economy grew at 5% [including the inflation that has the effect of lowering the "real" value of the debt], is a decrease in debt relative to GDP and the ability of the economy to pay the interest on that debt, since revenues are tied to GDP growth.

In order to achieve this target, legislators must not only constrain themselves [fat chance], but spending patterns must reflect the fact that the economy goes through business cycles. If there is any attempt to have counter-cyclical spending at the same time that revenues are falling [now], targets will be blown out of the water.

I am in no way condoning excessive deficit spending. I also believe that spending relative to GDP could be cut way back or made more productive. If that could happen, a slight amount of deficit spending may allow for decreasing tax rates, in order to stimulate current and future GDP growth.

For a complete description of how this could be done, look for my upcoming book, "Fixing Everything". ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-583964 583964 Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:00:21 -0400
During the Reagan years total government receipts nearly doubled from 517 billion in 1980 to 991 billion in 1990. The reduction in marginal tax rates could not have caused to increase in national debt because total tax receipts increase substantially during the Reagan years. Rather, it was the inexorable increase in spending over and above the increase in tax revenue that cause the increase in the national debt during the Reagan years.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-583957 583957 Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:38:32 -0400
Wanted "dead or alive", a hollywood ending, for the GFC.

Unfortunately, this is not a movie and the real economy is in the process of finding a new level.

The major concern that I have, is that events re-inforce themselves and as the situation deteriorates, earning get worse, which makes the situation deteriorate further, etc and the 50-60% fall in equities becomes something much worse.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-583948 583948 Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:09:02 -0400
However, the chance of either happening are slim and none and slim just walked out the door.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-583942 583942 Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:54:38 -0400
We had marginal federal tax rates then between 80% - 94%. They were 70% until Reagan, and we had a low, stable national debt. After Reagan cut taxes the national debt exploded. Not a debatable point except among the ignorant.

Yet we had the greatest rise in living standards in American history. We had the largest expansion of the middle class in human history. We had the greatest period of entrepreneurial capital and business formation in human history. We had the most fertile period of technological innovation in human history. On top of that, we built the institutional and physical infrastructure that we've been allowing to run down ever since Reagan, because we can't afford to keep it up.

The greed-mongers who think that if we pay higher taxes it will cause the decline of American business are simple, ignoramuses. They should just admit that they'd rather spend their money on SUVs and granite kitchen countertops than provide health care for the poor, and stop pretending to be human beings.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-583939 583939 Only an idiot could possibly believe that we are taxing too little. > > For every dollar you give the gov they will spend a dollar twenty. > Spending always out paces the revenue. Since spending has never gone > down and taxes have always gone up we should be in utopia by now > according to the idiot from the university cocoon.]]> Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:50:28 -0400
hint: 6 figure pensions (tax free in NY state) to state employees before they are 55.

Some poor fellow is paying for those.

Public sector wages and pensions(especially at the State and local level) are out of control. The same profession can pay 5 - 6 times more as a state employee compared to the private sector. And _very_ generous lifelong pensions (pensions are unheard of in private sector now - 401ks are a joke).

That is a clear indication that democracy did not work as well as was claimed in the report card.

On Jul 11 06:14 PM Northstar10000 wrote:

> Only an idiot could possibly believe that we are taxing too little.
>
> For every dollar you give the gov they will spend a dollar twenty.
> Spending always out paces the revenue. Since spending has never gone
> down and taxes have always gone up we should be in utopia by now
> according to the idiot from the university cocoon.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-583933 583933 Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:39:06 -0400
And that is why we get fraudsters like Clinton, Greenspan, Summers, Rubin, and Bernanke. Because they tell us not the truth that is good for us and that we don't want to hear - but those sweet nothings that make us fuzzy and warm and lower our guard.

By speculating on real estate, countries do not become great. Great countries are destroyed that way.

By "cleaning up the after effects of bubbles" (as the Maestros said), the taxpayer becomes the chump and the fraudsters become rich.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-583867 583867 Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:52:15 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-583848 583848 Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:14:19 -0400 For every dollar you give the gov they will spend a dollar twenty. Spending always out paces the revenue. Since spending has never gone down and taxes have always gone up we should be in utopia by now according to the idiot from the university cocoon. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-583843 583843 And stock returns and corporate profitability were strong for decades > afterwards!]]> Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:07:31 -0400

On Jul 11 09:08 AM Washburn University Market Commentary wrote:

> And stock returns and corporate profitability were strong for decades
> afterwards!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-583840 583840 "We owe the government all of our wealth . . . " I don't believe > those words, or any combination of words that could be construed > to have that meaning, appear anywhere in the article. But, thank > you for illustrating an extreme form of cognitive consonance. Your > mind read what I wrote and overwrote it with what you think. > > On Jul 11 03:55 PM CLH wrote:]]> Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:02:30 -0400
According to tax policy facts, total federal tax receipts in 1980 were 517 billion. This of course was before the Reagan tax cuts. At the end or Reagan's term in 1989, total federal tax receipts were 991.2 billion. Therefore, federal tax receipts almost doubled during the Reagan administration.

Also, there Reagan tax cuts were not just for wealthy as millions of American families had their taxes cut.

So, when you look at the facts, it appears that there was nothing immoral about Reagan tax and they did pay for themselves.

Now let's look at the Bush tax cuts.

According to the tax policy center, total government receipts in 2002 were 1.853 trillion. The Bush tax cuts were initiated in May 2002. Total government revenue at the end of Bush's term was 2.524 trillion, a total increase of $671.00 billion. So, based the facts, it appears again that the Bush tax custs paid for themselves.

The tax policy facts can be viewed at www.taxpolicycenter.or...


On Jul 11 03:57 PM Washburn University Market Commentary wrote:

> "We owe the government all of our wealth . . . " I don't believe
> those words, or any combination of words that could be construed
> to have that meaning, appear anywhere in the article. But, thank
> you for illustrating an extreme form of cognitive consonance. Your
> mind read what I wrote and overwrote it with what you think.
>
> On Jul 11 03:55 PM CLH wrote:]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-583830 583830 An interesting article..In America you have an aristocracy, a few > people holding all the power, which is not much of a democracy to > the rest of us. > There is a book called "The Third Wave" by Alvin Toffler, which may > ease the way forward, and is a more interesting book than The Downwave > by Robert Beckman, that predicted this crisis, aping as it does the > last 300 years of mans' finance. > We certainly have to change the way we organise our affairs, and > the conundrum is -can it be done without (your) bloodshed.? > Your surviving genes need you all to use your undoubted collective > intellects in SA to support a program for a sustainable future, in > this time of denial. > Just a macro view from one who knows little]]> Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:48:55 -0400 www.washburn.edu/facul...


On Jul 11 05:19 PM UK farmer wrote:

> An interesting article..In America you have an aristocracy, a few
> people holding all the power, which is not much of a democracy to
> the rest of us.
> There is a book called "The Third Wave" by Alvin Toffler, which may
> ease the way forward, and is a more interesting book than The Downwave
> by Robert Beckman, that predicted this crisis, aping as it does the
> last 300 years of mans' finance.
> We certainly have to change the way we organise our affairs, and
> the conundrum is -can it be done without (your) bloodshed.?
> Your surviving genes need you all to use your undoubted collective
> intellects in SA to support a program for a sustainable future, in
> this time of denial.
> Just a macro view from one who knows little]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-583800 583800 Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:19:25 -0400 There is a book called "The Third Wave" by Alvin Toffler, which may ease the way forward, and is a more interesting book than The Downwave by Robert Beckman, that predicted this crisis, aping as it does the last 300 years of mans' finance.
We certainly have to change the way we organise our affairs, and the conundrum is -can it be done without (your) bloodshed.?
Your surviving genes need you all to use your undoubted collective intellects in SA to support a program for a sustainable future, in this time of denial.
Just a macro view from one who knows little
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-583755 583755 What complete garbage this article is. We owe th govt. all of our > wealth? We have a party and president who believe this.]]> Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:57:40 -0400
On Jul 11 03:55 PM CLH wrote:

> What complete garbage this article is. We owe th govt. all of our
> wealth? We have a party and president who believe this.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-583753 583753 Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:55:17 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-583743 583743 Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:42:00 -0400
Great article.

However, a few quibbles.

I think you're making an awful caricature of Arthur Laffer's idea.

The Laffer Curve illustrates the deadweight loss from taxation insofar as deadweight loss is a function of the elasticity of the supply curve. Laffer has stated as much that the shape of the Laffer curve was not meant to be precise, but rather a useful teaching tool for his students to get the concept of the elasticity of the supply curve, with implications for government revenue with resulting changes in taxation policy.

It reflects poorly on your overall point (that biases are blinding individuals to the rough times ahead) if your own biases--it appears here, your distaste for supply-side economics--blind you to what the Laffer curve was, as opposed to the caricature believed by both Democrats and Republicans.

Despite Laffer's critics (a prominent Keynesian one time "disproved" the curve using a traditional Keynesian model), a multitude of countries (not just the US and the UK!) cut marginal income tax rates with much success, whether you count that success as increasing taxes as a share of GDP or income reported by those in the top 1%.

For example, after the 81' tax cuts, the percentage of total income tax paid by the top .5% rose from 14% (in 1981) to 18% (in 1984-85).

In my opinion, the most important contribution of Ronald Reagan's efforts to cut marginal income tax rates in order to spur long-term growth was a shift in the terms of the debate. It raised new questions regarding static versus dynamic econometric models measuring changes in tax receipts due to behavioral changes (not merely portfolio changes, such as the desire to hold tax-exempt bonds) that might effect income reporting and supply-side changes.

Is health-care too much of an untouchable topic that we cannot consider traditional notions of scarcity when discussing it? You may say it is a moral peril to bring scarcity into those discussions, but without that backstop, such visions may soon turn into a mortal peril.

As to the substance of your post, it seems you combine two variables ("expert" opinion and high P/E ratios) to come to the conclusion we are slouching toward Tokyo circa the 1990s. But, the former is hardly indicative that we are headed towards a catastrophe, as opposed to the "shoots" are more yellow-ish green than forest green.

Do high P/E ratios really need earnings to rebound immediately? Most equities, save for a few, have horrible earnings, as this recession as existed predominantly upon corporations balance-sheets in regards to earnings. I could see your point if we did not have an output gap of -6.1%, but this may merely be a sign of the times.

Have the commentators you've enlisted as comrades-in-arms said the same regarding P/E ratios? ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-583695 583695 "For example, this problem is responsible for many Americans' longstanding > (and misguided) obsession with cutting taxes, which is the primary > reason the federal debt has been allowed to explode out of control..." > > > Um...NO!!! Author is a Big Government ideologue, apparently! I quit > reading after this patently false line. It has never been more clear > that the problem is out of control SPENDING, not inadequate taxation!! > The real problem causing ballooning federal debt is SOCIALIST ENTITLEMENT > GOVERNMENT, and the seemingly unending growth of such into every > facet of our lives and business!! It has resulted in a large non-productive > class, and high penalties for the most productive. And yes, Mr. Wiegand, > we DO have an obsession with cutting taxes in the U.S. -- because > this nation was founded on a few basic principles, among them the > notion of personal property rights! Our Founders thought confiscatory > taxation to be anathema to Liberty. Alas that you and your ilk have > strayed so far from their philosophy yet still believe yourselves > free.]]> Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:15:07 -0400
Spending? I suppose the money spent on the Iraq fiasco is socialist
entitlement? That is a huge part of the deficit that is ignored by the pundits.


On Jul 10 12:56 PM Socialism cannot compete! wrote:

> "For example, this problem is responsible for many Americans' longstanding
> (and misguided) obsession with cutting taxes, which is the primary
> reason the federal debt has been allowed to explode out of control..."
>
>
> Um...NO!!! Author is a Big Government ideologue, apparently! I quit
> reading after this patently false line. It has never been more clear
> that the problem is out of control SPENDING, not inadequate taxation!!
> The real problem causing ballooning federal debt is SOCIALIST ENTITLEMENT
> GOVERNMENT, and the seemingly unending growth of such into every
> facet of our lives and business!! It has resulted in a large non-productive
> class, and high penalties for the most productive. And yes, Mr. Wiegand,
> we DO have an obsession with cutting taxes in the U.S. -- because
> this nation was founded on a few basic principles, among them the
> notion of personal property rights! Our Founders thought confiscatory
> taxation to be anathema to Liberty. Alas that you and your ilk have
> strayed so far from their philosophy yet still believe yourselves
> free.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148095-why-economic-dogma-threatens-our-future-prosperity?source=feed#comment-583680 583680 Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:52:45 -0400
Unfortunately, you are smoking the hookah of politics.

We do this because we are gibbering monkeys, not becuase monkey liberal or monkey conservative is holding the coconuts at any one time.

No government formulae, conservative or liberal, will fix this.

The only thing that will fix it is death, and a lot of it.

Normal human cycle, unfortunately.

]]>