Seeking Alpha

jhooper

jhooper
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View jhooper's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Bernanke To Savers: We Don't Owe You A Living [View article]
    "Property rights are dependent on social acceptance"

    The slave south voted not to accept the property rights of black people, so based on your rules, this would not be called theft?
    Feb 4 07:36 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Bernanke To Savers: We Don't Owe You A Living [View article]
    So, do you think stealing is wrong?
    Feb 3 08:42 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Bernanke To Savers: We Don't Owe You A Living [View article]
    You say "robbed" as if there is something wrong with "robbing". Do you think stealing is wrong?
    Feb 3 08:17 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • "High taxes help the richest, too" asserts Cornell economics professor Robert Frank, as the increased public spending would "produce clear gains in satisfaction for the wealthy," such as better-maintained roads. And besides, what difference does it make it if you have a home that's 15,000 square feet or one that's 10,000?  [View news story]
    WMARKW

    Is there some way on SA to see which articles have the most comments? This ones up to 285. I was wondering if we could get it to 500 and maybe set some sort of record.
    Feb 3 08:13 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • "High taxes help the richest, too" asserts Cornell economics professor Robert Frank, as the increased public spending would "produce clear gains in satisfaction for the wealthy," such as better-maintained roads. And besides, what difference does it make it if you have a home that's 15,000 square feet or one that's 10,000?  [View news story]
    "what else is there to do?"

    Get people to stop making excuses for taking the food out of the mouths of my children and giving it to themselves via gov and calling their theft compassion.

    We now both agree that there are black and white positions in the world. So before we go and start taking huge risks in the areas where we aren't sure what the black and white positions are, we should remember that we are not sure what we are doing. There are alot of people in this thread suggesting I should let them violate the rights of me and my family based on their unproven assumptions.

    Granted, I can't prove my assumptions either, but I'm not the one saying I should be able to use force and fraud to put their labor and time at risk. I am saying the only thing gov force should be used for is to repel illegitimate force between two individuals. The rest is up to our ingenuity, reason, and instincts. If I am limited from stealing by people in gov, and if people in gov are limited from stealing from me, the only alternative left for survival and improving my standard of living is voluntary cooperation. In such a system, no one can get rich while someone else gets poor. The only time that can happen is in a system where force is being used, and it doesn't matter if the force is used by gov or by private actors. What is being argued here in this thread is a series of excuses, unsupported assumptions, and specious reasoning by a bunch of self righteous pietist to make excuses why some stealing is justified. This is called fraud.
    Feb 3 03:21 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • "High taxes help the richest, too" asserts Cornell economics professor Robert Frank, as the increased public spending would "produce clear gains in satisfaction for the wealthy," such as better-maintained roads. And besides, what difference does it make it if you have a home that's 15,000 square feet or one that's 10,000?  [View news story]
    "it is a persistent mistake to cast all opinion about the wisdom or quality"

    Interesting. A binary statement being used to condem binary statements. Its like saying, "There are no black and white positions", but the presence of the word "no" then means that the position of "no black and white positions", is a black and white postion.
    Feb 3 02:43 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Wrangling Over Income Inequality: A Comprehensive Review And Critique Of Robert Reich's Book 'Aftershock' [View article]
    But did you see AI?
    Feb 3 01:16 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Wrangling Over Income Inequality: A Comprehensive Review And Critique Of Robert Reich's Book 'Aftershock' [View article]
    What else could be hoarded? Could physical affection also be hoarded? Perhaps we need a new "physical affection redistribution paradigm", wherein some level of rape is accepted to allow for a growth in the economy of physical affection by forcing some people to engage in physical affection that are just too selfish to do it othewise. The other problem is that there are too many robots replacing humans when it comes to physical affection. These robots should be outlawed so human beings could take over these positions (and I mean positions) that have been lost to technology.
    Feb 3 12:53 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • De-Mystifying The Central Bank Balance Sheets [View article]
    Based on what you said here, I have completely given you the wrong impression. I kick myself for writing comments that are too long, maybe I should kick myself when they are too short.

    All I am saying is that it is easy to get lost in semantics, and fail to see the big picture of what is going on. All I am getting at here is that the Fed is a taxing mechanism (it moves around purchasing power). Perhaps you have a negative view of taxes (which is quite normal - we all tend to hate it because it is so misused), and that makes you think that all taxes are bad. I don't share this view, so you may be imposing some of your biases into my comments and misinterpreting (my fault for not being clearer).

    Taxes are bad when they are used to damage the capital creation abilities of our society. Taxes are good when they are used to fund the only legitimate function of gov that makes any sense, which is to make people free from force and fraud. Taxes can be a tool for stealing, and stealing diminishes capital creation. This is why we limit gov, because its access to force blinds it to pricing mechanisms and makes it very dangerous. Its blindness to pricing mechanisms can allow it to make investment mistakes for very long periods of time, thus making the population poorer than it would probably otherwise have been (ceteris paribus). Even if the economy had been growing, it may have been growing even more had gov not been misused.

    Ultimately, there is no logic to absolutely needing a central bank. It is just a taxing mechanism. If we could come to understand that, we could use a central bank as our only taxing mechanism, but since we don't understand its nature, we misuse it. As such, all it does is become part of the asset bubble and popping system we have created via our monetary and fiscal policy. By understanding this big picture, you can better understand where and when the assets are going to inflate, and hopefully when and where they are going to deflate. No easy task to be sure, but still much easier when you at least understand the big picture of what is going on by pushing past the semantics.

    Right now monetary policy and fiscal policy are at odds. We have monetary policy taxing, via the Fed, to transfer wealth to bid up prices of risk assets, at the same time fiscal policy is transferring wealth away from the very risk assets that monetary policy is trying to bid up (BBs wealth effect). Is there any wonder then, why the banks are stuffed with cash? Now, amid all this is a real economy where people are figuring out every day how to be more productive (make more and better things in less time). Even with headwinds from the policy conflict above, this new productivity would eventually justify the prices of the equities that have been bid up, assuming fiscal policy doesn't increases taxes (and by taxes I mean things other than expropriation taxes, regulations are taxes too) to damage productivity.

    So to me, this means that as long as the Fed is taxing via ongoing QE, ZIRP, OT, etc, and fiscal policy taxation doesn't ramp up higher than it is, then equities will tend to do well. Europe is also a wild card here. They too don't understand what a CB is, and who knows what they are going to do, but if they do something stupid, I think the Fed will come in with more purchasing power transfer via QE, and prop equities up again. Granted there are limits to this scenario, but the US has a TON of capital (national wealth and wealth creating abilities) and we could keep this up for years.

    In all of the points I have made, I am not advocating for our misunderstanding of fiscal and monetary policy, there is a much better way to use gov and improve all our standards of living, but that ain't never going to happen. The flat worlders are running our round earth taxing mechanisms, thus we have what we have. What I suggest people do is to understand that this tax policy dynamic will transfer wealth in such a way as to bid up asset prices but not add to productivity, which is the only real source of economic growth. Figure out where the wealth is going to go, and be there when it gets there. I would prefer another reality, but this is the only one we have.
    Feb 3 12:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Bernanke To Savers: We Don't Owe You A Living [View article]
    I've been wondering if Volker didn't raise rates because he wanted to bring on a recession and make Reagan look bad and possibly make him a one termer. If so, it back fired, because the wealth transfer he engaged in away from business and towards savers combined with the expanded economic opportunities provided by giving business and risk takers via lower top marginal rates from Reagan, more than made up for the margin compression on business as a result of paying more for debt.
    Feb 3 10:48 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Bullish: The Tooth Fairy And The EU [View article]
    Good article.
    Feb 3 10:33 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • S&P Target 1600: Europe Shrugged, Not Atlas (Part III) [View article]
    Govs have a monopoly of legitimate force. This access to force blurs natures pricing mechanisms. Pricing mechanisms provide information about what is efficient production and what is not. Without this information, the chances a gov will find better production methods (research) is extremely slim. The chances of their force being captured by special interests and causing their investing mistakes to carry on for decades is very high however. Because of this, gov is the absolute worst entity in society to do research.
    Feb 3 09:33 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • "High taxes help the richest, too" asserts Cornell economics professor Robert Frank, as the increased public spending would "produce clear gains in satisfaction for the wealthy," such as better-maintained roads. And besides, what difference does it make it if you have a home that's 15,000 square feet or one that's 10,000?  [View news story]
    No, you are confusing a scenario of denial about what is real and what is not, with a scenario that deals with consistency with a person's profession to adherence to a belief system. If hell is real, then there is nothing anyone can do about getting rid of it. If it exists, it exists, and your beliefs do nothing to change that reality. However, what you can get rid of is your belief that it doesn't exist. If you now believe it does exist, then your behaviour should change accordingly. You become a hypocrit when you say you believe it exists, but then don't change your behaviour.

    The same is true for people who say they don't believe in property. If they make such a profession, then they should live with actions that are consistent with that profession. If they don't believe in property, then they shouldn't have anything or want anything. However, they do want and they do have, and what they want and what the want to have, is someone elses property. They are being inconsistent with regards to what they profess to believe. In other words they are committing fraud so they can steal.
    Feb 3 09:22 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • De-Mystifying The Central Bank Balance Sheets [View article]
    So for the income tax, gov force caused you to loose purchasing power.

    So for the CB action, gov force caused the bank to loose purchasing power manifested in lower margins, which the bank then passed on to depositors.

    Both situations are a tax. The main difference between a CB and a private bank is force. Any entity in society with access to gov's monopoly of legitimate force is gov, and govs impose taxes. If you think about it, all taxes are wealth transfers. It is wealth transfered to the gov for the gov to do things. What those things are can be good or bad, but the action, regardless of what is done with the wealth, is a tax whether it comes from the IRS or whether it comes from the Fed. It is wealth transferred via the benefits of income (which is purchasing power) being transferred somewhere else.

    "People with CDs have the freedom to go elswhere with their money. They will have to take greater risks."

    Boy, do I see this all the time. So lets say, people move some of their deposits looking for more yield by taking on risk, and what's more, the deposits that they may have made don't go into the bank. Let's say they take some of their deposits and the deposits they would have made, and put it all into equities. Now, you have more equity purchasers. If the number of shares doesn't change because companies aren't growing because of a down economy, but the numbers of bidders for those fixed number of shares increases, will the price of equities go up or down?

    "By your theory, if interests rates were higher, then the CB would have to be considered a subsidizer of citizens ... a sugar daddy"

    Possibly. Did CD rates go up under Volker?

    Again, keep in mind, the Fed is just one part of the gov. There are lots of other gov vehicles for taxing (transferring wealth), and they all have the ability to create inflation for certain asset classes, by changing the number of buyers of certain asset classes. These gov taxing mechanisms can either work in concert or against one another.

    The benefit of income is purchasing power. Force can move that purchasing power from the person creating the income to someone else. A CB has access to gov force (as you stated) above. When it uses this force to transfer purchasing power, it has taxed just a sure as if it were the IRS.

    When you figure out to where the Fed is going to move purchasing power, you will figure out what asset classes are going to be bid up.
    Feb 3 06:50 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • "High taxes help the richest, too" asserts Cornell economics professor Robert Frank, as the increased public spending would "produce clear gains in satisfaction for the wealthy," such as better-maintained roads. And besides, what difference does it make it if you have a home that's 15,000 square feet or one that's 10,000?  [View news story]
    "So the concept of fraud is not unique to government, it is human nature and as such infiltrates into both governmental and corporate actions."

    "A corporation can force a homeowner to sell their property and relocate if they buy off enough local zoning officials"

    Are you suggesting that gov is a possible threat, and that private business can be dangerous when it has access to gov force?
    Feb 2 05:02 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
5,328 Comments
5,579 Likes