1RuleNoRules

Orwellian Finance: Is 1984 Happening in 2009?

Ron Paul is a whack job.
Poor people need homes.
Tax the rich and corporations and give the middle class a break.
Taxation is the cost of civilization.
Terrorists are everywhere waiting to attack us.
The world would fall apart if the US military came home from their overseas bases.
Homeland Security is necessary to protect us.
The media is free and open and will point out the corruption and our failings.
Now, let me finish my Kool-Aid in peace.

Service-Based Economy Is Progress? Show Me the Money

On Nov 26 03:44 PM BS Detector wrote:

> "The free market is always right."
>
> Hardly. Ask Ben Graham (well, okay, he's dead) or Warren Buffett
> (well, okay, you couldn't possibly). At any time, the markets are
> full of inefficiencies, improper valuations, and opportunities.
> When was the market right: when it valued Berkshire Hathaway shares
> at $95,000 on 11/18 and 11/25, or when it valued it at $75,000 on
> 11/20?
>

Yes it was! Continually evaluating and correcting.


> "Capital and investment flow to where the market is the most free.
> Oddly, that is China and India(at least more than us). "
>
> Nonsense. You clearly have no idea of the conditions the Chinese
> typically place on non-Chinese companies. Capital flows not to where
> the market is "most free," but to where the risk-adjusted return
> is highest. Basic, basic capitalism.
>
The risk-adjusted return is highest because their markets have suddenly been allowed the freedom to self adjust and correct.


> "We have government encouraged labor cartels(UAW, AFL-CIO etc.),"
>
>
> Which have created work conditions which are not as favorable to
> labor as exist in much of Europe. By the way, I think you need to
> look up the word "cartel."
>
Unemployment is very safe.

From Wikipedia
"A cartel is a formal (explicit) agreement among firms." (<---firms here being Labor Unions)
"Cartels usually occur in an oligopolistic industry, where there is a small number of sellers and usually involve homogeneous products." (<-- here the product is labor. They especially are Labor cartels.)

> "We tax consumption and labor and savings and investment."
>
> And yet our taxes are lower than Germany, France, Canada, Austria,
> Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Switzerland, Turkey,
> the UK, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Norway, Spain, Italy, Australia,
> New Zealand, Korea, Luxembourg, Poland, and of course Sweden. Of
> the OECD countries, only Ireland and Iceland have a lower tax burden.
>
In the 80's maybe. During the campaign it was stated that corporate taxes are the 3rd highest in the world. We constantly tell ourselves how low are taxes are. That so you won't mind paying. When everybody pays for every tax.
>
> "We should be taxing what we don't want."
>
> We do. But this could quite obviously not be the source of a meaningful
> amount of revenue.
>
Meaningful to who, bureaucrats.


> "Our nations economist have not spoken with a unified voice to say
> 'taxes bad' ,'government spending bad', 'market intervention bad'."
>
>
> Funny that you didn't say "deficit spending bad"; how very Reaganesque
> of you. By the way, there's been no unified statement like you want
> because NOBODY BELIEVES IT. Economists tend to agree with Holmes'
> statement that taxes are the price we pay for civilization. And
> clearly, not all government spending is bad, and not all market interventions
> are bad.
>
Tax revenue double under Reagan. During his term Democrats complained loudly about cuts to future spending. Those deficits clearly belonged to Democrats.
Are you say the more one pays in taxes the more civilized one is? Socialism is not Civilization and thats what our liberal friends arguing for when the quote Holmes, socialism.
The burden of proof is on Market intervention as a being even marginally productive in the long term.


> "I think we need this calamity, so that to remember Milton Friedman,
> and oust the Keynesian's. The strength of Keynesianism was it attempt
> to explain the success of the Soviet Unions command economy."
>
> You demonstrate once again that you don't know anything about Keynes'
> theories. Please, go ahead and make some connection between Keynesianism
> and the failure of the credit markets. I need something more to
> discredit.

The Failure of credit market is a failure of government. Government intervention to put poor people in their own homes "the American Dream". The predominant economic theory in practice today is Keynesianism. Through Keynes the argument is made for government to grow and spend us out of trouble. Isn't that exactly what Obama is planning now? We need to tax cut our way out of this. And not by cutting taxes of those who don't pay them now, but those who pay the bulk of them.

Service-Based Economy Is Progress? Show Me the Money

The free market is always right. Capital and investment flow to where the market is the most free. Oddly, that is China and India(at least more than us). We have government encouraged labor cartels(UAW, AFL-CIO etc.), government market intervention into milk, butter, ethanol, wheat and how about home mortgages (<--how long is this list?). We tax consumption and labor and savings and investment. And what else did I miss?. What kind of imbalances has this created? We should be taxing what we don't want. This is a failure of democracy not free markets! Smart and knowledgeable people have either said nothing or where not heard. Our nations economist have not spoken with a unified voice to say "taxes bad" ,"government spending bad", "market intervention bad".
I think we need this calamity, so that to remember Milton Friedman, and oust the Keynesian's. The strength of Keynesianism was it attempt to explain the success of the Soviet Unions command economy. Now we follow in their footsteps.

The Downfall of Keynesian Economics and the U.S. (Part 3 of 3)

On Nov 21 08:58 AM BS Detector wrote:

> Once again, the author fails in his stated attempt to lay blame for
> our ills at the feet of John Maynard Keynes. The discussions here
> have very little to do with Keynesian theory at all.
>
> Now, specific problems:
>
> 1. If the banker is aware that there is only $300 in the monetary
> base, and he has it all, he won't be a banker. Why would he lend
> out money if there isn't any money to repay as interest?
>
> 2. "The answer is hyperinflation, and that is most likely the course
> that the Federal Reserve will take." Most likely based on what?
>
>
> 3. You show the scary monetary base chart, which takes off higher
> in the end. What you don't show is the actions of banks in the last
> year, while they have been deleveraging like mad to raise their capital
> levels. This IS a decrease in the overall money supply (which we
> used to measure - M3), and the fed's recent actions are meant to
> counteract this hugely deflationary action by the banking industry.
>
>
> 4. "Those signs come in the form of negative net sales of U.S. treasuries
> by foreigners..." Really? Why then is the dollar appreciating against
> all currencies except the Yen and why then are treasuries currently
> trading at historically low yields?
>
> 5. "...credit crunch making new loans more and more unavailable..."
> Which is because the banks have had to deleverage in response to
> much greater potential losses than previously expected.
>
> 6. "...and the deflation seen in financial markets." And commodity
> markets. And all other markets EXCEPT for US Treasury securities,
> which are seen by the market as SAFER THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
>
> 7. "The U.S. government and Federal Reserve will fight this with
> every tool they have, resulting in an end game of hyperinflation."
> Hogwash. The preferred share investments by the TARP aer structured
> such that as the banks regain their footing, take their losses, and
> start to function normally again, they will have a strong incentive
> to pay off the loans (reducing the monetary base) as they increase
> to normal levels their leverage (increasing the monetary base).
> The Fed and Treasury are well aware that in normal times their actions
> would be highly inflationary. These are not normal times.
>
> 8. More worthless, unsupported attacks on Keynesianism. And then:
> "We had a near implosion as a result of these theories in the early
> 1980’s." Without even a mention of the oil shocks of the early
> 1970s, which sent inflation rippling through the economy, or of the
> institution and repeal of wage and price controls, which, like a
> coiled spring, sent prices much higher. These had nothing to do
> with Keynes, and had much more impact on prices in the late 1970s
> than anything related to theory specific to Keynes'.
>
> 9. Let us not forget that Ronald Reagan's huge deficit spending
> (well, at least at first, during the recessions) fell nicely into
> line with Keynesian theory.

Tax revenue doubled under Reagan tax cuts. The Spending belonged to the Dems in congress. The cuts were Supply Side, I believe they call it. Don't confuse the politics by saying Reagan used Keynesian theory. We will never get this right if we can't figure who, did what, when, to what affect. On that note, would we have to throw Keynesian theory in the garbage if Reagan tax cut effectively cured the economy in the 80's. Do Keynesian's hold onto Keynesian theory like Chicago football fans love the Bears, thick and thin. It seams this about the politics of economics and not economics. Face it somebody f&#ked up and have been for a long time and it wasn't the Chicago Bears.