Seeking Alpha

Albert Meyer

Albert Meyer
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Albert Meyer's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Keynesian Ideologue Joseph Stiglitz Opines On 'Austerity' [View article]
    "All of this should be blindingly obvious." Apparently not, to reinforce the blindingly obvious:

    Government spending is prosperity-negative.

    If you take $100 million from the private sector and give it to Washington (as done through the tax system), Washington could use this booty to create jobs. The question is: how many jobs? Nobody knows, but the exact number doesn’t matter. Just call it “X” number of jobs.

    If we keep the $100 million in the private sector, it will also lead to job creation. Again, we do not know how many, but we can call it “Y” number of jobs.
    We are now faced with a very simple mathematical equation:

    Is X > Y?

    Or is Y > X?

    The folk who lived in the old Soviet Union, where the ruling class laid claim to virtually all of the country’s production and labor, know without a shadow of doubt that Y is always bigger than X. There was a direct correlation between the decline in jobs (increase in poverty) and growth in the size of the Soviet government.

    We can’t hope to raise the water level in a swimming pool by taking water from the deep end and pouring it into the shallow end. In the same way, we can’t generate prosperity as a nation by taking hard-earned wages from the subject class and giving it to the ruling class. The ruling class can create a modicum of prosperity, especially when the illusion is reinforced by talking heads on TV.

    Job creation and, by implication, prosperity, thrives in a country where the size of government is kept as small as possible. Singapore has grown its economy by more than +9% p.a. over the past 40-plus years. They have done so, because they have adhered strictly to the rule that kept the size of government to 12.5% of GDP. It is the fourth wealthiest country in the world, measured on a per capita basis. It has no natural resources to boost its GDP, for example, as is seen in oil rich countries. Singapore is a pure economic miracle based on the simple equation: Y is always > than X.
    Oct 3 01:03 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Anatomy Of A Market Bubble [View article]
    Brilliant... thanks for sharing your research with us.

    I wonder if the army of Ph.Ds. at the Fed ever tracked all this great stuff that you highlight. If not why not? And if now, I wonder if they will be proactive in sharing their findings with the markets and act to curb investor enthusiasm?
    Sep 30 09:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Common Sense And The Foolishness Of Income Redistribution [View article]
    I love your 4X4 matrix. Who can argue against that?

    An illustration of Category IV spending:

    It was reported in July that in an audit released to the public, the DOD disclosed that the agency rewarded a company that had fleeced it with a monstrous no-bid contract extension worth more than $4 billion. The outrageous deal, one of the largest U.S. military contracts in Afghanistan, involved a private firm hired to provide food and water to U.S. troops. The company, Supreme Foodservice GmbH, “overbilled” taxpayers by $757 million and, rather than severing ties, the Pentagon rewarded it with more business.

    The purpose of public schools is not to educate our kids, but to find a legitimate way into our wallets to diverts cash to administrators and their lucrative pension funds, with a little bit of it going to teachers and children. For anyone arguing this point, do yourself a favor and research the salaries and pensions fund entitlements of the administrators in your school district. Unless you work at Goldman Sachs, you are not going to be happy with what you see.
    Sep 29 08:11 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Common Sense And The Foolishness Of Income Redistribution [View article]
    "By the way, I'm Canadian and we have higher levels of wealth redistribution than the US." You are also very smart.

    Your government spends a pittance, approx. $22 billion, on defense every year. One could argue that this is $20 billion too much, because nobody would attack Canada and if they do the folk in Washington would step in.

    After all, the warmongers and their friends in the war profiteering business have made the US the policemen of the world, with a trillion dollar defense and ancillaries budget. In this sense, the US is the biggest "wealth distributor" of them all, although Geo. Bush preferred to call it the distribution of "democracy" across the globe.

    A bit off the topic, but imagine if we could cut the defense budget to about 1.5% of GDP, say, $350 billion and deploy the additional $650 billion every year to worthy causes, almost exclusively, as I argued above, causes undertaken by the private sector, but even $650 billion of taxpayers' sweat and tears could be better applied that distributing "democracy" across the globe and act as the defender of 130 countries. Sheer madness, but then I have never voted for anyone of them and never would. It's a one-party state masquerading as party in government with a puerile opposition.
    Sep 29 07:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Long-Term Outlook - Bleak! Part 2 [View article]
    "D. Payroll taxes need abolishing..." Not going to happen unless we actively agitate for it. Here is a website that leads the way:

    http://on.fb.me/1rxlW2T
    Sep 29 07:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Common Sense And The Foolishness Of Income Redistribution [View article]
    Government spending is prosperity-negative.

    If you take $100 million from the private sector and give it to Washington (as done through the tax system), Washington could use this booty to create jobs. The question is: how many jobs? Nobody knows, but the exact number doesn’t matter. Just call it “X” number of jobs.

    If we keep the $100 million in the private sector, it will also lead to job creation. Again, we do not know how many, but we can call it “Y” number of jobs.
    We are now faced with a very simple mathematical equation:

    Is X > Y?

    Or is Y > X?

    The folk who lived in the old Soviet Union, where the ruling class laid claim to virtually all of the country’s production and labor, know without a shadow of doubt that Y is always bigger than X. There was a direct correlation between the decline in jobs (increase in poverty) and growth in the size of the Soviet government.
    We can’t hope to raise the water level in a swimming pool by taking water from the deep end and pouring it into the shallow end. In the same way, we can’t generate prosperity as a nation by taking hard-earned wages from the subject class and giving it to the ruling class. The ruling class can create a modicum of prosperity, especially when the illusion is reinforced by talking heads on TV.

    Job creation and, by implication, prosperity, thrives in a country where the size of government is kept as small as possible. Singapore has grown its economy by more than +9% p.a. over the past 40-plus years. They have done so, because they have adhered strictly to the rule that kept the size of government to 12.5% of GDP. It is the fourth wealthiest country in the world, measured on a per capita basis. It has no natural resources to boost its GDP, for example, as is seen in oil rich countries. Singapore is a pure economic miracle based on the simple equation: Y is always > than X.
    Sep 29 09:43 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • My Outlook On The Economy Going Forward: Part Two [View article]
    The Modern Monetary Theorists assert that government debt doesn't matter, if I understand them correctly.

    http://bit.ly/1vnACTN

    William (Bill) Mitchell is a prominent protagonist. Perhaps you want to write an article challenging their assertions.
    Sep 26 11:08 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Will Start Social Security At Age 62 [View article]
    For young people I suggest you opt out of SS. Not possible? Hey, the Amish opted out. Not Amish? Well, here's a start. This website (see below) is a grassroots attempt to fire up the young to demand a choice whether or not they want to flush 15% of their wages down the toilet every month...

    Social "Security" - Get Me Out Now

    http://on.fb.me/1oAeUeH
    Aug 27 10:32 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Taxes Don't Lie [View article]
    The ruling class in the UK are good at handing out subsidies, always the case when a nanny govt. promises to take care of the subject class who duley votes them into power.

    I sent this question to Ed Miliband (leader of the Labour - UK spelling - Party) who has never seen a subsidy he hasn't liked. Not that the Tories are subsidy-shy. They just appear more discerning:

    If the British government, in the interest of promoting physical fitness, gave everyone a £50 voucher to buy a pair of running shoes (trainers),
    (a) would the price of trainers decline?
    (b) would the price of trainers stay the same?
    (c) would the price of trainers go up?

    Miliband has obviously not responded to me, but if pressed in public, he would no doubt argue for (b), perhaps even (a), you never know.

    Now substitute trainer subsidies for student fee, home loan, auto loan, etc. etc. subsidies. As Reagan said: "The most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.'"
    Aug 15 09:02 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Taxes Don't Lie [View article]
    Thanks much... so true...
    Aug 15 08:52 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Taxes Don't Lie [View article]
    "... but you no doubt always vote for anyone that will give you MORE." No ways! Not me..

    http://on.fb.me/1oAeUeH
    Aug 15 08:48 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Taxes Don't Lie [View article]
    Well, some folk studied under Krugman. The big beast in Washington needs fodder and if it means we have to surrender (by force) our hard-earned wages to satisfy the beast's appetite so be it. How about making taxes voluntary and let's how the majority reacts? Funny isn't it. We won't pay our taxes voluntarily, but we vote (not me) for the folks who confiscate our hard-earned wages by force to go and fight trillion dollar wars that benefit the war profiteers.
    Aug 14 02:36 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Taxes Don't Lie [View article]
    Splitting hairs... the point is, over the long-term, when govt. takes from us (through the tax system), in terms of economic growth it is a net negative event. Wealth creation in the private sector > Wealth creation in the public sector (some may question the notion that the government creates enduring and sustainable wealth... just giving govt. benefit of the doubt).

    Not implying from your response, which is much appreciated, that you favor a socialistic approach to governing, but these quotes come to mind in the context of the discussion:

    Churchill:

    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

    The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

    Thatcher:

    The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
    Aug 14 01:18 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Taxes Don't Lie [View article]
    "As a supply sider, I don't see the logic behind the theory that more government spending is stimulative and less is restrictive. How can taking money from those who are working and giving it to those who aren't create a bigger economic pie?"

    You mean I can't take water from deep end and pour it in the shallow end to raise the water level? Isn't that's what Krugman teaches... and he's a genius. To be fair to him, I think he wants govt. to print more money and not take it out of our paychecks. $18 trillion in Federal debt is apparently not a major issue. I'm not smart enough to debate the like of Krugman, but...

    $100 million in taxes from the private sector to govt. will create X number of jobs.

    $100 million retained in the private sector will create Y number of jobs.

    Y is always > than X... right?

    So, shrink the size of govt to about 12% of GDP and prosperity will descend upon the nation. Singapore, with its small government and low tax policies, is living proof that Y is always > than X... 9% p.a. economic growth over the past 40 years, making it today the 4th wealthiest country in terms of GDP per capita. That economic paradise called Cuba runs a ratio of govt. spending to GDP of about 80%.

    The biggest hurdle to economic growth and prosperity is the size of govt. Modern monetary theorists (NYSE:MMT) dispute this notion. Both parties in Washington are Keynesian devotees and are happy to print money with gay abandonment, much to the delight of MMT. I prefer the more straightforward honest approach of individual freedom within the context of a small government... not in my lifetime.
    Aug 14 08:31 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Leucadia National Corp Has Too Many Moving Parts [View article]
    "Leucadia's management team has not made things any easier for investors to evaluate the business..." Smoke and mirror show, but insiders made out like bandits.
    Jul 30 05:52 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
359 Comments
485 Likes