How The U.S. Is Quickly Becoming A Third World Country (Part 1) [View article]
Come on, people!!!
Those whining graduates who have debts of $30,000, those complaining about school lunch program inadequacies, complaints about roads and bridges is disrepair, those complaining about not extending long-term unemployment benefits, et cetera just do not comprehend that those phenomena must remain, because they cannot be resolved and still offer the benefits to the top 0.1% of low tax rates.
Keeping up what has been accomplished during these past 30 years will enable the U.S. to compete with 3rd world nations, because wages will be lower with the passage of time.
You Need To Pay Higher Taxes So We Don't Become Greece Or Italy [View article]
OXYMORON CONFLICT: Raising taxes and lowering taxes is bad economics, yet raising taxes and lowering taxes is good economics.
Raising taxes on the middle-class and lowering taxes on the top 2% would be very poor economics. (See below)
Raising taxes on the top 2% and lowering taxes on the middle-class would be excellent economics. (See below)
The economics of a given venue depends upon the demand wherewithal and energy of that venue. If the demand wherewithal and energy is increased, the economics of that venue should be increased.
Congress controls the logistics of our income taxes. The adjustments of the logistics should affect the demand and energy wherewithal. There are five scenario options:
1. No change of taxation policies. 2. Lower income taxes on everyone. 3. Raise income taxes on everyone. 4. Raise taxes on the middle-class and lower taxes on the top 2%. 5. Raise taxes on the top 2% and lower taxes on the middle-class.
The probable results of these options:
1. No effect. 2. Should materially increase demand, increase employment, but should have a net adverse effect upon the budget. 3. Should materially decrease demand, decrease employment, and have a questionable effect upon the budget. 4. Should materially decrease demand, decrease employment, and have a negative effect upon the budget. 5. Should materially increase demand, increase employment, and have a very positive effect upon the budget.
The most beneficial option appears to be #5.
The first legislative action to take should be to reverse the Bush tax error of 2001, based upon questionable (at best) testimony by Alan Greenspan on January 25, 2001, before the Senate’s Committee on the Budget.
You Need To Pay Higher Taxes So We Don't Become Greece Or Italy [View article]
OXYMORON CONFLICT: Raising taxes and lowering taxes is bad economics, yet raising taxes and lowering taxes is good economics.
Raising taxes on the middle-class and lowering taxes on the top 2% would be very poor economics. (See below)
Raising taxes on the top 2% and lowering taxes on the middle-class would be excellent economics. (See below)
The economics of a given venue depends upon the demand wherewithal and energy of that venue. If the demand wherewithal and energy is increased, the economics of that venue should be increased.
Congress controls the logistics of our income taxes. The adjustments of the logistics should affect the demand and energy wherewithal. There are five scenario options:
1. No change of taxation policies. 2. Lower income taxes on everyone. 3. Raise income taxes on everyone. 4. Raise taxes on the middle-class and lower taxes on the top 2%. 5. Raise taxes on the top 2% and lower taxes on the middle-class.
The probable results of these options:
1. No effect. 2. Should materially increase demand, increase employment, but should have a net adverse effect upon the budget. 3. Should materially decrease demand, decrease employment, and have a questionable effect upon the budget. 4. Should materially decrease demand, decrease employment, and have a negative effect upon the budget. 5. Should materially increase demand, increase employment, and have a very positive effect upon the budget.
The most beneficial option appears to be #5.
The first legislative action to take should be to reverse the Bush tax error of 2001, based upon questionable (at best) testimony by Alan Greenspan on January 25, 2001, before the Senate’s Committee on the Budget.
You Need To Pay Higher Taxes So We Don't Become Greece Or Italy [View article]
INCOME TAXES
A few TRUISMS (promulgated by “talking heads” and many politicians): 1. Increasing tax rates would inhibit people from working, since they would keep less per dollar earned. 2. Tax cuts and tax credits for small businesses would be stimulative to our economics. 3. Tax increases would inhibit businesses from making capital investments. 4. During a recession, no income taxes should be increased, including on the very wealthy. 5. “Death” taxes are unfair and inappropriate, because income taxes have already been assessed. 6. The rich pay most of the income taxes.
Discussions regarding these “truisms”: 1. Increasing tax rates on individuals would have the opposite effect, i.e., to maintain one’s standard of living one would have to work more. If one’s take-home is reduced, he or she will have to work longer hours, seek another job, ask for a raise, take a second job, cut standard of living (negative for the economy), et cetera. If one’s take-home pay is increased, due to a tax reduction, some may decide to work less, e.g., spend more time with family. 2. Tax cuts and tax credits for small businesses would only increase the bottom lines of those businesses, i.e., it would not create additional demand for products and services. Job #1 for any business is to create or find additional demand for its goods and services. 3. Capital investment decisions are based upon projected “pre-tax” income, i.e., the tax rate is a negligible factor. The ‘test’ to determine if an investment should be made depends upon the projected return on that investment, e.g., if the ROI were insufficient, an income tax rate of zero would not stimulate one to make such an investment. 4. Obviously, not all income tax increases or decreases are the same. An income tax increase on bottom 90% of the populace would have an adverse effect upon macro demand, thus would be damaging to our economics, whereas decreasing income taxes on that demographic would have a positive effect upon our economics. An income tax increase or decrease on the extremely wealthy (top 0.1%) would have a negligible effect upon our economics, thus should be only used for equity (fairness…., that ship has sailed, long ago) purposes. Therefore, based upon these assumptions, income taxes should be raised on the “wealthy” and recycled to the 90%, which would stimulate our economics and would be beneficial to the “wealthy”, insofar as earnings from management and capital would be benefited. During the past 30 years (since John Hinckley), the reverse has occurred, i.e., there have been massive transfers of wealth from the middleclass to the extremely (top 0.1%) wealthy, which has reduced the capitalistic energies of the middleclass, and has been a critical factor that has contributed to our current economics. 5. The “Death” tax AKA estate tax is a revenue source and if that source were reduced, all other phenomena being equal, income taxes would have to be increased. Furthermore, the estate tax is assessed upon wealth, which includes assets that have increased in value and that incremental value has never been taxed. 6. All income taxes, all costs of production of goods and services are paid at the point of purchase. Further, social security and Medicare taxes are income taxes, i.e., they are taxes on income. Congress has legislated a massive shift of wealth from the middle-class to the top 0.1% based upon tax legislation during the past 30 years.
The above is food for thought. I will appreciate responses, thereto. Bon appetite……..…
mz mikiesmoky@aol.com Original: 09/12/10 Previous revision: 12/05/10 Last revision: 04/22/11
You Need To Pay Higher Taxes So We Don't Become Greece Or Italy [View article]
INCOME TAXES
A few TRUISMS (promulgated by “talking heads” and many politicians): 1. Increasing tax rates would inhibit people from working, since they would keep less per dollar earned. 2. Tax cuts and tax credits for small businesses would be stimulative to our economics. 3. Tax increases would inhibit businesses from making capital investments. 4. During a recession, no income taxes should be increased, including on the very wealthy. 5. “Death” taxes are unfair and inappropriate, because income taxes have already been assessed. 6. The rich pay most of the income taxes.
Discussions regarding these “truisms”: 1. Increasing tax rates on individuals would have the opposite effect, i.e., to maintain one’s standard of living one would have to work more. If one’s take-home is reduced, he or she will have to work longer hours, seek another job, ask for a raise, take a second job, cut standard of living (negative for the economy), et cetera. If one’s take-home pay is increased, due to a tax reduction, some may decide to work less, e.g., spend more time with family. 2. Tax cuts and tax credits for small businesses would only increase the bottom lines of those businesses, i.e., it would not create additional demand for products and services. Job #1 for any business is to create or find additional demand for its goods and services. 3. Capital investment decisions are based upon projected “pre-tax” income, i.e., the tax rate is a negligible factor. The ‘test’ to determine if an investment should be made depends upon the projected return on that investment, e.g., if the ROI were insufficient, an income tax rate of zero would not stimulate one to make such an investment. 4. Obviously, not all income tax increases or decreases are the same. An income tax increase on bottom 90% of the populace would have an adverse effect upon macro demand, thus would be damaging to our economics, whereas decreasing income taxes on that demographic would have a positive effect upon our economics. An income tax increase or decrease on the extremely wealthy (top 0.1%) would have a negligible effect upon our economics, thus should be only used for equity (fairness…., that ship has sailed, long ago) purposes. Therefore, based upon these assumptions, income taxes should be raised on the “wealthy” and recycled to the 90%, which would stimulate our economics and would be beneficial to the “wealthy”, insofar as earnings from management and capital would be benefited. During the past 30 years (since John Hinckley), the reverse has occurred, i.e., there have been massive transfers of wealth from the middleclass to the extremely (top 0.1%) wealthy, which has reduced the capitalistic energies of the middleclass, and has been a critical factor that has contributed to our current economics. 5. The “Death” tax AKA estate tax is a revenue source and if that source were reduced, all other phenomena being equal, income taxes would have to be increased. Furthermore, the estate tax is assessed upon wealth, which includes assets that have increased in value and that incremental value has never been taxed. 6. All income taxes, all costs of production of goods and services are paid at the point of purchase. Further, social security and Medicare taxes are income taxes, i.e., they are taxes on income. Congress has legislated a massive shift of wealth from the middle-class to the top 0.1% based upon tax legislation during the past 30 years.
The above is food for thought. I will appreciate responses, thereto. Bon appetite……..…
MZ Original: 09/12/10 Previous revision: 12/05/10 Last revision: 04/22/11 mikiesmoky@aol.com
Gold On The Verge Of A Major Collapse [View article]
winningtrader...
REGARDING: Does anybody have any idea what Greenspan invests in now? I am just curious. He understands all that very well. I think he is quite clever actually.
RESPONSE: He was insidiously clever with his January 25, 2001 presentation to the Senate.
A few months ago, he was a guest on Meet The Press and said, "I am scared; we should go back to the Clinton-era tax rates".
Gold On The Verge Of A Major Collapse [View article]
REGARDING: so I guess what your saying is that taxes dont matter ... or are you saying that higher taxes are better for the economy ?
RESPONSE: The tax structure is critical to a healthy functioning capitalistic economy.
My comment regarding the Reagan era is to emphasize that the release of the "interest" brakes was a far more stimulative factor than the tax changes promulgated by Congress giving Reagan what he wanted (subsequent to John Hinckley).
Unfortunately, since 1981, Congress has wrecked havoc upon the tax structure, causing a massive shift of wealth from the middle-class to the top 0.1%, with the coup de grace being the (fradulent) 2001 Bush tax "deal".
This shift of wealth is the most substantial factor that has weakened our economic engine, during these past 30 years.
Capitalism is an economic engine, and for this engine to run with reasonable efficiency, the tax structure must be rational, enabling the energies to flow, appropriately.
I wrote a piece entitled, "Tax increases are good and bad, and tax decreases are good and bad".
Gold On The Verge Of A Major Collapse [View article]
REGARDING: Deflation has nothing to do with gold going down, maybe short term if the economy goes down. If there is deflation (which I consider highly unlikely), the FED is likely to print more money via some sort of a QE program and that will kill deflation. I think that they will do QE anyway and timing is within 3-6 months. This will be an orgy of money printing.
RESPONSE: The Fed has been fighting deflation since January 3, 2001, when they reduced the Fed Funds rate and Discount Rate by 50 basis points. On January 31, 2001, there was another 50 bps reduction, and, during the next 8 months, 300 more bps.
These actions created "funny money" in the first part of the first decade, which is what enabled our economy to withstand the deflationary pressures, i.e., mission accomplished.
That mission was shortsighted and gave rise to our economy falling from the 22nd floor (circa 2008) rather than from the 2nd floor.
Alan Greenspan was involved in a conspiracy when, during his testimony before the Senate's Committee on the Budget on January 25, 2001 (this was between the two 50bps reductions of January 3 and January 31, 2001), he testified that his #1 concern was how problematic it would be when we paid off the national debt with the projected "burgeoning" surpluses.
OXYMORON: The Fed panicked, reflected by the 400bps reduction of short-term rates VS. Mr. Greenspan stating that there were projected "burgeoning" surpluses.
Gold On The Verge Of A Major Collapse [View article]
REGARDING: Digital or actually printed[you do have some in your wallet do you not?] .Sitting in your account as digital money, their digital value will buy increasingly little until their value is ZERO! Suit yourself MicahelZZ. We will soon see which view is correct. You seem almost irrational in your response! Almost AFRAID! Thou pribbling flop-mouthed miscreant!
RESPONSE: Whereas I do not intend to be condescending, you, "apparently" didn't take my advice to "think" about what I was stating.
Let me try this: You have money (energy) in your checking account You take money (cash) from your account to enable cash transactions
That money, which is made of a special "paper", is exchanged to goods and services.
The "paper", itself, has no value, i.e., the representation has value.
At some point in time, the government will destroy the “paper”. Are you sitting down??? Get this...., when that paper is destroyed, no "value", other than the residual worth of that used "document", is destroyed or lost.
Do I have to offer a clearer explanation or do you, now, comprehend?
I know, I know...., I appear to be condescending, but I am only attempting to be explicit.
By the way, do I still appear "irrational" and "afraid"? lol
Gold On The Verge Of A Major Collapse [View article]
REGARDING: Bryce,
if you believe that gold is purely and inflation hedge then you should be selling. The price increase of gold over the last 10 years is up 700% while the dollar has dropped 35%
Gold is an emotional and speculative play for many people. Eclipse of reason is very common. Gold on a purchase parrity basis is way over valued.
RESPONSE: Bryce, whereas, conceptually, I agree with you, 700% should be adjusted to around 450%. lol
Gold On The Verge Of A Major Collapse [View article]
REGARDING: Hollywood65 Comments (2819) I would guess the cost of production of $, is a fraction of a cent per piece of paper/cloth,so therefore yes it will go to its' real Value,at some point. Gold/Silver NO CHANCE!
RESPONSE: This is one of the most inane remarks I have ever seen from one, who it might be assumed had a modicum of rationality, since he is able to write.
A "paper dollar" is a REPRESENTATION of a value stored. (Please try to "think" about this and, hopefully, you will comprehend)
Gold On The Verge Of A Major Collapse [View article]
Actually, the Fed did cause the 20-21% rates.
I went to a small seminar in Century City where Paul Volker’s Vice-Chairman spoke. At the end, I suggested to him that what the Fed was doing was extremely damaging. His response was that he agreed, but that there was so much blood in the streets, they couldn't stop until they achieved the bottom line, i.e., mitigating inflation.
Economists, at the time, were calling for 25% unemployment to break the back of inflation.
NOTE: Reagan's tax cuts had almost nothing to do with the economics. The economy improved because the Fed's monumental foot was being released in the early 80's.
BIGGER NOTE: Those calling for "flat tax", "fair tax", "9-9-9", et cetera should be characterized as some combination of foolish, naive, infantile, inept, liars, confused, etc..
The politicians and "talking heads" are a scary lot.
Exhausted Unemployment Benefits Could Pull Economy Under [View article]
Until "they" understand why we are where we are, "they" will not resolve what I call "economic erosion".
The provenance must be recognized and, although there are rational actions which can and should be taken, "greed" will continue to show it is alive and well, thus Congress will continue to flail and fail.
How The U.S. Is Quickly Becoming A Third World Country (Part 1) [View article]
Those whining graduates who have debts of $30,000, those complaining about school lunch program inadequacies, complaints about roads and bridges is disrepair, those complaining about not extending long-term unemployment benefits, et cetera just do not comprehend that those phenomena must remain, because they cannot be resolved and still offer the benefits to the top 0.1% of low tax rates.
Keeping up what has been accomplished during these past 30 years will enable the U.S. to compete with 3rd world nations, because wages will be lower with the passage of time.
It's almost time to grovel.
mz
You Need To Pay Higher Taxes So We Don't Become Greece Or Italy [View article]
Raising taxes on the middle-class and lowering taxes on the top 2% would be very poor economics. (See below)
Raising taxes on the top 2% and lowering taxes on the middle-class would be excellent economics. (See below)
The economics of a given venue depends upon the demand wherewithal and energy of that venue. If the demand wherewithal and energy is increased, the economics of that venue should be increased.
Congress controls the logistics of our income taxes. The adjustments of the logistics should affect the demand and energy wherewithal. There are five scenario options:
1. No change of taxation policies.
2. Lower income taxes on everyone.
3. Raise income taxes on everyone.
4. Raise taxes on the middle-class and lower taxes on the top 2%.
5. Raise taxes on the top 2% and lower taxes on the middle-class.
The probable results of these options:
1. No effect.
2. Should materially increase demand, increase employment, but should have a net adverse effect upon the budget.
3. Should materially decrease demand, decrease employment, and have a questionable effect upon the budget.
4. Should materially decrease demand, decrease employment, and have a negative effect upon the budget.
5. Should materially increase demand, increase employment, and have a very positive effect upon the budget.
The most beneficial option appears to be #5.
The first legislative action to take should be to reverse the Bush tax error of 2001, based upon questionable (at best) testimony by Alan Greenspan on January 25, 2001, before the Senate’s Committee on the Budget.
mz
You Need To Pay Higher Taxes So We Don't Become Greece Or Italy [View article]
Raising taxes on the middle-class and lowering taxes on the top 2% would be very poor economics. (See below)
Raising taxes on the top 2% and lowering taxes on the middle-class would be excellent economics. (See below)
The economics of a given venue depends upon the demand wherewithal and energy of that venue. If the demand wherewithal and energy is increased, the economics of that venue should be increased.
Congress controls the logistics of our income taxes. The adjustments of the logistics should affect the demand and energy wherewithal. There are five scenario options:
1. No change of taxation policies.
2. Lower income taxes on everyone.
3. Raise income taxes on everyone.
4. Raise taxes on the middle-class and lower taxes on the top 2%.
5. Raise taxes on the top 2% and lower taxes on the middle-class.
The probable results of these options:
1. No effect.
2. Should materially increase demand, increase employment, but should have a net adverse effect upon the budget.
3. Should materially decrease demand, decrease employment, and have a questionable effect upon the budget.
4. Should materially decrease demand, decrease employment, and have a negative effect upon the budget.
5. Should materially increase demand, increase employment, and have a very positive effect upon the budget.
The most beneficial option appears to be #5.
The first legislative action to take should be to reverse the Bush tax error of 2001, based upon questionable (at best) testimony by Alan Greenspan on January 25, 2001, before the Senate’s Committee on the Budget.
mz
mikiesmoky@aol.com
You Need To Pay Higher Taxes So We Don't Become Greece Or Italy [View article]
A few TRUISMS (promulgated by “talking heads” and many politicians):
1. Increasing tax rates would inhibit people from working, since they would keep less per dollar earned.
2. Tax cuts and tax credits for small businesses would be stimulative to our economics.
3. Tax increases would inhibit businesses from making capital investments.
4. During a recession, no income taxes should be increased, including on the very wealthy.
5. “Death” taxes are unfair and inappropriate, because income taxes have already been assessed.
6. The rich pay most of the income taxes.
Discussions regarding these “truisms”:
1. Increasing tax rates on individuals would have the opposite effect, i.e., to maintain one’s standard of living one would have to work more. If one’s take-home is reduced, he or she will have to work longer hours, seek another job, ask for a raise, take a second job, cut standard of living (negative for the economy), et cetera. If one’s take-home pay is increased, due to a tax reduction, some may decide to work less, e.g., spend more time with family.
2. Tax cuts and tax credits for small businesses would only increase the bottom lines of those businesses, i.e., it would not create additional demand for products and services. Job #1 for any business is to create or find additional demand for its goods and services.
3. Capital investment decisions are based upon projected “pre-tax” income, i.e., the tax rate is a negligible factor. The ‘test’ to determine if an investment should be made depends upon the projected return on that investment, e.g., if the ROI were insufficient, an income tax rate of zero would not stimulate one to make such an investment.
4. Obviously, not all income tax increases or decreases are the same. An income tax increase on bottom 90% of the populace would have an adverse effect upon macro demand, thus would be damaging to our economics, whereas decreasing income taxes on that demographic would have a positive effect upon our economics. An income tax increase or decrease on the extremely wealthy (top 0.1%) would have a negligible effect upon our economics, thus should be only used for equity (fairness…., that ship has sailed, long ago) purposes. Therefore, based upon these assumptions, income taxes should be raised on the “wealthy” and recycled to the 90%, which would stimulate our economics and would be beneficial to the “wealthy”, insofar as earnings from management and capital would be benefited. During the past 30 years (since John Hinckley), the reverse has occurred, i.e., there have been massive transfers of wealth from the middleclass to the extremely (top 0.1%) wealthy, which has reduced the capitalistic energies of the middleclass, and has been a critical factor that has contributed to our current economics.
5. The “Death” tax AKA estate tax is a revenue source and if that source were reduced, all other phenomena being equal, income taxes would have to be increased. Furthermore, the estate tax is assessed upon wealth, which includes assets that have increased in value and that incremental value has never been taxed.
6. All income taxes, all costs of production of goods and services are paid at the point of purchase. Further, social security and Medicare taxes are income taxes, i.e., they are taxes on income. Congress has legislated a massive shift of wealth from the middle-class to the top 0.1% based upon tax legislation during the past 30 years.
The above is food for thought.
I will appreciate responses, thereto.
Bon appetite……..…
mz
mikiesmoky@aol.com
Original: 09/12/10
Previous revision: 12/05/10
Last revision: 04/22/11
You Need To Pay Higher Taxes So We Don't Become Greece Or Italy [View article]
A few TRUISMS (promulgated by “talking heads” and many politicians):
1. Increasing tax rates would inhibit people from working, since they would keep less per dollar earned.
2. Tax cuts and tax credits for small businesses would be stimulative to our economics.
3. Tax increases would inhibit businesses from making capital investments.
4. During a recession, no income taxes should be increased, including on the very wealthy.
5. “Death” taxes are unfair and inappropriate, because income taxes have already been assessed.
6. The rich pay most of the income taxes.
Discussions regarding these “truisms”:
1. Increasing tax rates on individuals would have the opposite effect, i.e., to maintain one’s standard of living one would have to work more. If one’s take-home is reduced, he or she will have to work longer hours, seek another job, ask for a raise, take a second job, cut standard of living (negative for the economy), et cetera. If one’s take-home pay is increased, due to a tax reduction, some may decide to work less, e.g., spend more time with family.
2. Tax cuts and tax credits for small businesses would only increase the bottom lines of those businesses, i.e., it would not create additional demand for products and services. Job #1 for any business is to create or find additional demand for its goods and services.
3. Capital investment decisions are based upon projected “pre-tax” income, i.e., the tax rate is a negligible factor. The ‘test’ to determine if an investment should be made depends upon the projected return on that investment, e.g., if the ROI were insufficient, an income tax rate of zero would not stimulate one to make such an investment.
4. Obviously, not all income tax increases or decreases are the same. An income tax increase on bottom 90% of the populace would have an adverse effect upon macro demand, thus would be damaging to our economics, whereas decreasing income taxes on that demographic would have a positive effect upon our economics. An income tax increase or decrease on the extremely wealthy (top 0.1%) would have a negligible effect upon our economics, thus should be only used for equity (fairness…., that ship has sailed, long ago) purposes. Therefore, based upon these assumptions, income taxes should be raised on the “wealthy” and recycled to the 90%, which would stimulate our economics and would be beneficial to the “wealthy”, insofar as earnings from management and capital would be benefited. During the past 30 years (since John Hinckley), the reverse has occurred, i.e., there have been massive transfers of wealth from the middleclass to the extremely (top 0.1%) wealthy, which has reduced the capitalistic energies of the middleclass, and has been a critical factor that has contributed to our current economics.
5. The “Death” tax AKA estate tax is a revenue source and if that source were reduced, all other phenomena being equal, income taxes would have to be increased. Furthermore, the estate tax is assessed upon wealth, which includes assets that have increased in value and that incremental value has never been taxed.
6. All income taxes, all costs of production of goods and services are paid at the point of purchase. Further, social security and Medicare taxes are income taxes, i.e., they are taxes on income. Congress has legislated a massive shift of wealth from the middle-class to the top 0.1% based upon tax legislation during the past 30 years.
The above is food for thought.
I will appreciate responses, thereto.
Bon appetite……..…
MZ
Original: 09/12/10
Previous revision: 12/05/10
Last revision: 04/22/11
mikiesmoky@aol.com
Gold On The Verge Of A Major Collapse [View article]
REGARDING: Does anybody have any idea what Greenspan invests in now? I am just curious. He understands all that very well. I think he is quite clever actually.
RESPONSE: He was insidiously clever with his January 25, 2001 presentation to the Senate.
A few months ago, he was a guest on Meet The Press and said, "I am scared; we should go back to the Clinton-era tax rates".
He was quite aware of what he had enabled.
mz
Gold On The Verge Of A Major Collapse [View article]
RESPONSE: The tax structure is critical to a healthy functioning capitalistic economy.
My comment regarding the Reagan era is to emphasize that the release of the "interest" brakes was a far more stimulative factor than the tax changes promulgated by Congress giving Reagan what he wanted (subsequent to John Hinckley).
Unfortunately, since 1981, Congress has wrecked havoc upon the tax structure, causing a massive shift of wealth from the middle-class to the top 0.1%, with the coup de grace being the (fradulent) 2001 Bush tax "deal".
This shift of wealth is the most substantial factor that has weakened our economic engine, during these past 30 years.
Capitalism is an economic engine, and for this engine to run with reasonable efficiency, the tax structure must be rational, enabling the energies to flow, appropriately.
I wrote a piece entitled, "Tax increases are good and bad, and tax decreases are good and bad".
If you are interested, e-mail me your request.
mz
mikiesmoky@aol.com
Gold On The Verge Of A Major Collapse [View article]
RESPONSE: The Fed has been fighting deflation since January 3, 2001, when they reduced the Fed Funds rate and Discount Rate by 50 basis points.
On January 31, 2001, there was another 50 bps reduction, and, during the next 8 months, 300 more bps.
These actions created "funny money" in the first part of the first decade, which is what enabled our economy to withstand the deflationary pressures, i.e., mission accomplished.
That mission was shortsighted and gave rise to our economy falling from the 22nd floor (circa 2008) rather than from the 2nd floor.
Alan Greenspan was involved in a conspiracy when, during his testimony before the Senate's Committee on the Budget on January 25, 2001 (this was between the two 50bps reductions of January 3 and January 31, 2001), he testified that his #1 concern was how problematic it would be when we paid off the national debt with the projected "burgeoning" surpluses.
OXYMORON: The Fed panicked, reflected by the 400bps reduction of short-term rates VS. Mr. Greenspan stating that there were projected "burgeoning" surpluses.
His remarks appear to have been scripted.
http://1.usa.gov/oJ4lT6
Please note his caveat in the first paragraph, i.e., these remarks were his and had nothing to do with the FOMC. lol
The Fed is still fighting deflation; QE1, QE2, QEX.
The Fed is attempting to keep asset pricings from collapsing.
Have fun..............
mz
Gold On The Verge Of A Major Collapse [View article]
We will soon see which view is correct. You seem almost irrational in your response! Almost AFRAID! Thou pribbling flop-mouthed miscreant!
RESPONSE: Whereas I do not intend to be condescending, you, "apparently" didn't take my advice to "think" about what I was stating.
Let me try this:
You have money (energy) in your checking account
You take money (cash) from your account to enable cash transactions
That money, which is made of a special "paper", is exchanged to goods and services.
The "paper", itself, has no value, i.e., the representation has value.
At some point in time, the government will destroy the “paper”. Are you sitting down??? Get this...., when that paper is destroyed, no "value", other than the residual worth of that used "document", is destroyed or lost.
Do I have to offer a clearer explanation or do you, now, comprehend?
I know, I know...., I appear to be condescending, but I am only attempting to be explicit.
By the way, do I still appear "irrational" and "afraid"?
lol
Enjoy,
mz
mikiesmoky@aol.com
Gold On The Verge Of A Major Collapse [View article]
if you believe that gold is purely and inflation hedge then you should be selling. The price increase of gold over the last 10 years is up 700% while the dollar has dropped 35%
Gold is an emotional and speculative play for many people. Eclipse of reason is very common. Gold on a purchase parrity basis is way over valued.
RESPONSE: Bryce, whereas, conceptually, I agree with you, 700% should be adjusted to around 450%. lol
mz
Gold On The Verge Of A Major Collapse [View article]
REGARDING: Hollywood65 Comments (2819) I would guess the cost of production of $, is a fraction of a cent per piece of paper/cloth,so therefore yes it will go to its' real Value,at some point. Gold/Silver NO CHANCE!
RESPONSE: This is one of the most inane remarks I have ever seen from one, who it might be assumed had a modicum of rationality, since he is able to write.
A "paper dollar" is a REPRESENTATION of a value stored.
(Please try to "think" about this and, hopefully, you will comprehend)
WOW!!!!
mz
Gold On The Verge Of A Major Collapse [View article]
Gold has been, is, and may continue to be overpriced.
"Timing" is a bitch, isn't it? lol
Good luck.
mz
Gold On The Verge Of A Major Collapse [View article]
mz
Gold On The Verge Of A Major Collapse [View article]
I went to a small seminar in Century City where Paul Volker’s Vice-Chairman spoke.
At the end, I suggested to him that what the Fed was doing was extremely damaging.
His response was that he agreed, but that there was so much blood in the streets, they couldn't stop until they achieved the bottom line, i.e., mitigating inflation.
Economists, at the time, were calling for 25% unemployment to break the back of inflation.
NOTE: Reagan's tax cuts had almost nothing to do with the economics. The economy improved because the Fed's monumental foot was being released in the early 80's.
BIGGER NOTE: Those calling for "flat tax", "fair tax", "9-9-9", et cetera should be characterized as some combination of foolish, naive, infantile, inept, liars, confused, etc..
The politicians and "talking heads" are a scary lot.
mz
mikiesmoky@aol.com
Exhausted Unemployment Benefits Could Pull Economy Under [View article]
The provenance must be recognized and, although there are rational actions which can and should be taken, "greed" will continue to show it is alive and well, thus Congress will continue to flail and fail.
Remaining quasi-optimistic,
mz
mikiesmoky@aol.com