milkchaser

Back in the U.S.S.A.

Europe does not have and never has had anything like Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall is a red herring.


On Jun 21 11:55 AM Sunnsea wrote:

> Peter:
> Unless I mssed something, you did not mention the repeal of Glass-Steagall
> in 1999. Returning to this act and simply prohibiting banks from
> speculating in financial markets and enforcing it would end the inherent
> financial conflict of interest that has contributed mightily to the
> dotcom, housing and credit bubbles.

Back in the U.S.S.A.

It is our duty? Our duty to whom? From whence does this duty arrive and at what cost? The cost is a meddlesome gov't.

Some of us believe in self-reliance. Wealth and poverty are often not accidental.


On Jun 21 10:58 AM User 357705 wrote:

> There will always be poor and dependent people. It is the duty of
> those of us who have much to raise all of us, ourselves included,
> higher than we could individually achieve by helping those less fortunate.
>

Back in the U.S.S.A.

What do you expect? His Treasury Sec'y was baffled by TurboTax.


On Jun 21 04:48 AM capitalisthero.com wrote:

> Poor Obama. He didn't create this mess, but every step a misstep;
> every decision the wrong one. It's like being on the Titanic and
> finding out the captain is Homer Simpson. The guy just has no understanding
> of economics or basic mathematics.

Why Macroeconomists Are Particularly Obtuse

I meant to say that we would not find all of the same occupants of the upper quintile in that same quintile the following year. Certainly most stay put from year to year. Still, over time, in a growing economy, many are crowded out as more productive people rise to displace them.

The author praises the war years for tending to flattening income distribution. Those years were years of privation and rationing: Stamps for sugar, flour, tobacco and gasoline. Yeah, let's go back to that.

Why Macroeconomists Are Particularly Obtuse

I have never understood how the ability of a rich person to buy ever more extravagant goods changes the inclination or ability of the poor to buy more or worse quality oatmeal or laundry soap.

Nor are we likely to find the occupants of the upper quintile this year in the same quintile next year. For every one who moves from the nth percentile to the [n-1]th percentile, there is one moving up to take his place (a mathematical tautology that explains nothing, except that the rich do not always get richer). If the one moving up the scale manages to create more wealth for himself than the other one being crowded out, how exactly does that hurt all of the rest?

Envy explains why some people watch income distribution and envy produces nothing, certainly not an explanation of declining demand.


On Jun 21 01:00 PM Gregman2 wrote:

> Excellent post. "Not one macroeconomist acknowledges what I believe
> to be the true cause of the current collapse of effective demand:
> the extreme skewness of the income distribution and the attendant
> indebtedness and inability to spend at previous levels of the bottom
> half or better of the household income distribution." Kevin Phillips
> wrote about this in "Wealth & Democracy."

Why Macroeconomists Are Particularly Obtuse

I don't think that Carter had much choice but to appoint someone like Volcker, since his first choice Burns had been unable to contain inflation. Even Carter had to face reality.

There was a notable rise in corporate profits after Reagan's tax rate cuts, although deficits were quite high. Given the outcome of the Cold War, defense spending was arguably justified. We reap the dividend today and for the last two decades. Reagan deserves more credit than the author gives him.

Intelligent folk disagree as to the stupidity of the war. Time will tell. One wonders whether the millions of Iranians risking life and limb to protest in the streets today would be so emboldened had they not the examples of democracies to the east and to the west, brought to being by wars the author declares to be stupid. Given that the rulers of Iran undoubtedly form a fierce enemy of the United States, examples of democracy may prove to have been well worth the cost in blood and treasure if they bring about another democracy and end yet another brutal tyrannical power is brought down. I submit they are worth the cost even if they do no more than they have done: inspire peaceful demands for freedom and democracy from amongst an oppressed people.

As for Bush 43's tax rate cuts, tax revenues did rise with the economy from 2003-2006, and the ensuing deficits pale in comparison to this year's deficit (and those predicted over the next 10 years). And yet, the President behind those massive deficits, which make the Reagan Era deficits look small, is not mentioned by the author: an odd omission.

National Sales Tax on the Way?

Before considering any major tax reform, whether VAT or flat or fair tax, we need spending limits. We need constitutional spending limits. We almost had a balanced budget amendment but Clinton personally lobbied 4 Senators to switch their votes. If any one of them had voted Yes (as they had in the past when the amendment was voted on), the amendment would have been sent to the states.

I propose the grand solution: No person shall serve more than six years in Congress during which the annual expenditures of the US gov't exceeds revenue. All Federal gov't revenues and all Federal gov't expenditures are counted in the budget (no off-budget items) when calculating budget balance. Budget surpluses in excess of 3% of total expenditures must be immediately rebated to the states in proportion to their relative population.

The beauty of this proposal is that it combines term limits with the balanced budget amendment. The people would be allowed to elect whomever they like, but they would not be able to vote money into their own pockets (for long). We all know that politicians chief concern is staying in office. They would not risk a budget deficit.

National Sales Tax on the Way?

On Jun 04 12:55 PM Sunnsea wrote:

> Also, Canadians are covered whether they are
> employed or not and also pay into the health system. For example
> about $100 for a family of four for complete coverage, no b.s. from
> private for-proft insurers like co-pays and deductibles.
Canadians only pay $100 (is that per year? per week? per incident?) If Canadians pay only $100, is $100 the total cost? If not, who pays the rest? Good health care is expensive. Making somebody else does not make it cheaper, just cheaper for the recipient and more expensive for the payor.

> Here in the US taxes are a shell
> game in which the rich rob the middle class and if anyone dares complain,
> it's class warfare. Income taxes of 90% on incomes of $3.2 million
> would take care of overpaid rock stars, sports figures, movie actors,
> CEOs of health insurers and leveraged hedge fund mangers pretty quickly.
> These are your societal parasites and they should be taxed accordingly.
Class warfare! Seriously, the rich pay most of the taxes already. If you think otherwise, you have not done much research. Or are you being sarcastic?

> We had a 90% tax rate until 1963 and a 75% rate until around 1983.
> From 1933 to 1983, there weren't any bubbles in real estate or stocks,
> get it?
We also had higher rates of heart disease and various cancers. What does one thing have to do with another? High tax rates do not prevent or correlate in any way to real estate or stock bubbles.

Vonage Q1: Shares Soar on Profit, But Watch Out for Churn

I just discovered that my cable company, Verizon, is going to raise the cost of high-speed internet access by $17/month now that I have dropped phone and TV. But I can add back telephone service for just $22/month more. It makes no economic sense to keep Vonage given that the cable provider is charging its non-phone customers a 33% premium.

However, an alternate cable company offers lower rates with a very seductive 6-month intro offer. As much as I like Verizon FIOS internet service, if they are going to jack my rate up 33%, they must not want to keep me as a customer.

As soon as they have killed Vonage and its like, the cable company phone bundles will disappear.


On May 11 12:22 PM milkchaser wrote:

> The unbundled cost of cable phone is nowhere near as cheap as Vonage.
> Nor do the cables offer the number of features that come standard
> with Vonage, so Vonage has a superior product.
>
> Vonage is an excellent solution for those who prefer to select the
> best internet service, TV service and telephone service separately
> without paying higher cable telephone prices.

Federal U.S. Debt Has Ballooned to Over $100 Trillion!

It's $3 million for every American alive today, however, there will be more than the current 300 million paying in over the next 75-100 years (assuming the Ponzi scheme is allowed to continue).

Assuming the population has an average population double today's over that time period, that makes a mere $1.5 million each. Far more affordable. ;-)


On May 27 12:55 PM carey_jim wrote:

> We need to keep looking at the facts and talking rationally because
> we are facing a massive advertising-propaganda attempt to hide the
> obvious.
>
> But all the hot air on earth wont make a 100 trillion dollar elephant
> fly.
>
> 1 trillion is a million million or,
>
> 1 followed by 12 zeroes.
>
> Therefore, 100 trillion is 1 followed by 14 zeros.
>
> 300 million Americans is 3 followed by 8 zeros.
>
> Doing the math:
>
> A $100 trillion debt represents a debt of about $3,000,000 for every
> man, woman and child in the United States.

Paul Krugman, Please Call Ben on This 'Printing Money' Thing

What is the purpose of printing the money if indeed the banks do not need the money and won't do anything with it? If it is useless and ineffective, as Krugman claims, then they could immediately stop and sop up the $$. But that's not what they're doing.

And the banks are not giving the money back to the Fed as Krugman says. They are sitting on the cash, true, but it is still available for loan eventually. Then the floodgates open.


On May 31 06:22 PM User 422996 wrote:

> Actually, what Professor Krugman stated is that: “Banks aren’t lending
> out their extra reserves. They’re just sitting on them — in effect,
> they’re sending the money right back to the Fed. So the Fed isn’t
> really printing money after all.”
>
> It would behoove you to read the article more than once before commenting,
> in the manner you have, so hastily. You hack!

Paul Krugman, Please Call Ben on This 'Printing Money' Thing

But if the Fed is uselessly filling these banks up with cash they don't need and won't use -- they could just stop. However, the money is indeed out there and who knows when velocity will pick up and the money will spill out.


On May 31 03:35 PM Vox Rationalis wrote:

> "Oh, so the Fed is not printing "lots of money"? We'll, let's just
> ask the Chairman of the Fed and see what he says."
>
> Say, why didn't you include Krugman's following explanation? <br/>
>
> "[The Fed]has been buying lots of debt both from the government and
> from the private sector, and paying for these purchases by crediting
> banks with extra reserves. And in ordinary times, this would be
> highly inflationary: banks, flush with reserves, would increase loans,
> which would drive up demand, which would push up prices. But these
> aren’t ordinary times. Banks aren’t lending out their extra reserves.
> They’re just sitting on them — in effect, they’re sending the money
> right back to the Fed. So the Fed isn’t really printing money after
> all."
>
> Nah, that wouldn't have helped at all. Wouldn't have helped your
> argument, that is.
>
> "No Paul, just people being intellectually honest about what is happening....give
> it a try sometime."
>
> Pot, meet kettle.

The Economic Trifecta: Inflation, Devaluation, High Interest

Carlos Lam -- agree with most of your plan except for halving he military. They are there for a good reason, the expense is necessary. Allowing failures to fail is painful, but distributing the pain across the entire American economy (if not the globe) is worse.


On May 31 10:39 PM Carlos Lam wrote:

> On May 31 11:22 AM thotdoc wrote:

The Economic Trifecta: Inflation, Devaluation, High Interest

Is this a prediction or real numbers? If so, what is the time period? Time to go with EEM, I suppose.


On May 30 06:38 PM Donald Ingram wrote:

> Agreed.
>
> World stock markets (BRIC countries) versus S&amp;P 500
> Russia up 72.1%
> India up 51.6%
> China up 44.6%
> Brazil up 39.7%
> S&amp;P 500 up 0.22%
>
> Nuff said.
> On May 30 03:35 PM Jeff Nielson wrote:

Six Trends to Profit From

The problem is not credit, per se. We should all use as much credit as we possibly can afford. The problem is using credit unwisely (e.g. to buy a house that subsequently declines in value or to buy too much of something instantly consumed, like an expensive vacation). A country or company that does not wisely exploit its ability to borrow is leaving money on the table.

That said, $1.8 Trillion in debt in a single year that largely finances political pay-offs is a frightening example or irresponsible credit.


On May 31 04:40 PM Stomarkt wrote:

>
> Total credit market debt as a percentage of GDP has risen from 130%
> of GDP in 1952 to 350% of GDP today. The various bailout
> and stimulus schemes enacted in the last year will drive this percentage
> above 400% in the near future. When a country allows
> this much debt to accumulate versus its GDP, they have done something
> seriously wrong. The country’s politicians, business
> leaders, and citizens have all contributed to this disaster.
>
> I came across this interesting site..check it out url.moosaico.com/10424
> Econ &amp; Finance Articles Updated Daily