Bits Bucket for June 20, 2012
Post off-topic ideas, links, and Craigslist finds here.
The Housing Bubble
Examining the home price boom and its effect on owners, lenders, regulators, realtors and the economy as a whole.
About Me
Name:Ben Jones
Location:Northern Arizona, United States
To donate by mail, or to otherwise contact this blogger, please send emails to: thehousingbubble@gmail.com
PayPal is a secure online payment method which accepts ALL major credit cards.
Links
-
May 2024 M T W T F S S « Sep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Photo Submission: hbbphotos@gmail.com
View the HBB Photo Gallery *updated 4/13/2008
it’s been slow here, so here’s the last part on creating jobs, with a couple predictions for investment ideas at the end. somehow, we need to get politicians to understand how jobs come into being.. at present, none of them do.
JOB CREATION (part deux, the phinal chapter)
in order to better explain how jobs are created, it’s better to go as far back to the beginning as you can. we can look at the early caveman era, before there were any jobs.. a ‘job’ being defined as ‘work being done for someone else for pay’.
here’s an example that will illustrate the process..
two cavemen meet. one has learned how to make high quality spears and the other has learned how to make warm, long lasting animal hides (their production). the one with the spears is almost never hungry, but he does often get cold. the one with the hides doesn’t get cold, but often gets hungry because he can’t hunt well with just a club.
after a time spent bargaining, they both decide that 2 spears are worth 1 hide. they agree to a trade. one has 16 spears (call it 16 wealth points) and the other has 5 hides (10 wealth points). the one with the spears is obviously statistically wealthier. he trades 4 of his spears for 2 of the other’s hides. his 12 spears and 2 hides is still 16 wealth points. and the other’s 3 hides with 4 spears is still 10 wealth points. statistically, their wealth hasn’t changed. but their wealth has been enhanced by the trade. their survivability has increased. one will be warmer than before, and the other will be better fed than before. it’s easy to see both of them benefit from the trade. that’s obviously the true purpose of trade. to this point there are still no jobs. no one is working for anyone else.
but now that the two cavemen are wealthier, their survival is easier, they have more time for production, and they can hire others to do some of their less important work, by paying them in spears or hides. their skill has enabled them to build up wealth that has in turn enabled needed, productive jobs to be created. without wealth, no jobs are possible.
SAY’S LAW (not say’s ‘theory’) stipulates that supply creates demand. supply must come first. not only is this shown in logic, but it is part of nature. for instance, it is known that carnivores didn’t evolve first, demanding to have some herbivores to eat. and herbivores didn’t show up before grass, demanding something to eat. first there was the supply of grass that created the demand for herbivores, then the supply of herbivores created the demand for carnivores. it’s the same way that the supply of wealth creates the demand for jobs.
only a good supply of wealth can create demand for jobs, but wealth can be used for anything. its first, or primary purpose, is to increase chances to survive. the wealthier a society is, the easier survival becomes for all. and the wealthier a society becomes, the more and better paying jobs there are. you can see by the example that useful production makes what i call ’statistical wealth’, and trade enhances wealth. trade makes job creation even easier and gives us useful products that often couldn’t be gotten any other way. but someone has to produce the wealth or all the rest of it can’t get started. creating wealth is a much more sophisticated way to get new jobs in an economy, than trying to ‘create’ jobs.
====
a couple more things that may interest you if you’re investing..
i’ve been saying for years on other blogs that the euro can’t survive. you know how to tell if i’m right? if i’m right, the euro will never be out of trouble. it will only last as long as they’re willing to bail it out. the idea of, as i call it, a ‘fractured fiat’ currency, is a flawed concept and proves that the people who put the euro together don’t understand how a fiat currency works, or they wouldn’t have even tried it. i argued this point with peter schiff. he told me that the dollar would fail before the euro. i claimed that the euro would go first. that was some time ago, and it’s looking more and more that i was right and he was wrong.
of course all the euro problems will eventually be good for gold. here’s what the most knowledgeable economist i know of, said earlier this month.. the italics are the questioner, the regular type is his response.
“What Fed activities, if any , are ‘debasing’ the dollar?
In principle, some. In fact, none. Since no markets are in equilibrium because FED interferes, it isn’t known what the proper(equilibrium) interest rate should be and thus what the actual value of money is. This is the main reason for holding gold. No one knows what anything is worth. Gold cleans up this ambiguity, sooner or later. Given that the debt call on money is a thousand times as large as gold’s call on money, one could conclude that gold has a long way to go.
What non-Fed activities debase the dollar?
Mortgage securitization. Black market transactions. Drug dealing. When Treasury supports the dollar that can debase it if other actions aren’t taken although FED acts as agent for Treasury in the forex. There are quite a few others.”
====
95% of the time he doesn’t like gold at all. he likes it now. he thinks holding actual gold coins is better than owning gold stocks, but he still owns the stocks as well.
“…only a good supply of wealth” + “No one knows what anything is worth.” + “Gold cleans up this ambiguity, sooner or later.”
Take ALL the borders of the x50 USA States, lump ‘em together with “everything” [ideas. people, infrastructures, natural resources, friendlies to the North & South, Vast Oceans to the East & West]
5th grade student economics question:
“Why does Wall $t./MegaIBankerInc.’$ get to “profit” [feed themselves 1st] from the peon-citizen’s who, through blood & treasure, created & sacrificed for this “UNDETERMINED/Ambigou$” National a$$et?”
Before there were “jobs” there were slaves, serfs and chattel.
Never forget this.
All right you folks in the chains, …listen up, Eye/”we” risked quite a bit capturing you, to show you all my benevolence, eye hold in my hand a device to spark yer “enthusiasm” towards me & my fellow “Bidne$$” risk-taking fellas, this here device is called a whip, it is only used in $it-u-a-$huns where there is a distinctive lack of $weat coming off your flesh, bear that in mind. Now, let’s get to work, together, as a team, it’s a bright sunny day!
There’s my problem.
I should be getting paid in hides and spears.
Especially spears. I like spears.
Hey, maybe that old “bidne$$” fella that sets up his blade sharpening in front of the grocery store every Tuesday morning can help ya out one day X-GSfixr. You can “work” as a team: he sharpens, you throw!
I didn’t think that was the oldest profession.
There’s no denyin’, you is a wise fella Steve J,
[So, which is the oldest ProFEE$sion?] might come up, … on a quiz.
Before there were “jobs” there were slaves, serfs and chattel.
Never forget this.
there’s no way to prove that assertion. and even if there were, it’s a non-sequitur. slavery has nothing to do with how jobs get created.
Payment came only after someone found they couldn’t bully someone else into doing something.
Or the spear maker didn’t just use his spears to rob the hidemaker, who had less to do with the hide being “warm and long lasting” than the animal he robbed it from.
Payment came only after someone found they couldn’t bully someone else into doing something.
records don’t go back far enough to say one way or the other. but it doesn’t matter.
things that keep people from working, have nothing to do with creating jobs for those that can work.
things that keep people from working, have nothing to do with creating jobs for those that can work.
Did the Cotton-Ginny deduct (-) worker-$laves from production job$ or create (+) the need for more worker-$laves?
Please explain?
“Records don’t go back far enough…….”
But those of us with kids have had our own little “primitive humans” to observe.
In which case (even with girls), the bullies/older/bigger ones impose their will on the smaller/weaker ones, until the weaker ones can inflict enough pain on the bullies, and the bullies eventually get the message that it’s less painful to cooperate/make a deal, than it is to inflict their will by force.
See Iraq, 2004-present for an example of how this plays out on a larger scale.
Unfortunately, co-operation is not as profitable as bullying. Witness the jobs transfer to countries with poor, powerless workers, and companies with business plans/contracts designed to screw the other guy over, and leave him few alternatives for “fighting”.
Like a cellphone contract,for example. Current ones are longer than the contract on my first house. Pages of “rights” defined by the carrier, designed to give them “outs” for crappy service, and limiting your rights for protesting charges/crappy service, or taking your business elsewhere.
Did the Cotton-Ginny deduct (-) worker-$laves from production job$ or create (+) the need for more worker-$laves?
the cotton gin made it possible to separate the seeds more efficiently. it was used after slavery was abolished also.
people believed slavery was efficient. so what? people used to believe that the earth was flat too. they are both wrong. paying wages is much more efficient than slavery ever could be.
“…things that keep people from working, have nothing to do with creating jobs for those that can work.”
Try another explanation, that last one didn’t make the cut.
Records don’t go back far enough? Chimpanzees attack other family groups to take their resources. If you think early human ancestors didn’t do the same, you are nuts.
But those of us with kids have had our own little “primitive humans” to observe.
why is everyone harping about slavery?? it has nothing to do with job creation.
if a king locked everyone in a huge pen and wouldn’t let them work, what does that have to do with how jobs come into being?
You are confusing “slavery” with “imprisonment”.
Bosses/businessmen throughout history prefer slaves, given a choice.
If slavery is illegal, then by setting up the circumstances to attain “Slavery by other means”.
-Debt serfdom? Check.
-Debasing the labor market, via illegals, work visas, Check.
-Undermining the bargaining power of skilled employees, by whining about being unable to find “qualified workers”, then lobbying government to pay for job training, increasing the supply of skilled workers, and reducing their bargaining power (whether a Union is involved or not)? Check.
-Exporting jobs to locations where government and businesses are partners, and the police state is used to crush dissent? Check.
-Just by having a “my way, or the highway” attitude, because you happen to (theoretically) “own the place”? Double check.
The trouble with slaves and near-slaves, is that they aren’t very good paying customers.
“only a good supply of wealth can create demand for jobs”
I could almost buy this as an axiom, but a few questions:
How much is a good supply? What happens when extreme concentration of this supply in the hands of the very few becomes an enabling factor for subjugation and exploitation? What controls would you put in place to prevent situations like the giant factory tenements of the early industrial revolution where little kids were forced to work incredibly long hours, often losing body parts in the machines they were tasked with maintaining?
The free market sounds wonderful, but why is it that its staunchest advocates are completely clueless when it comes to the abuses it inevitably leads to?
To paraphrase Emil Vrabie: Under communism man exploits man. Under capitalism it’s the other way around.
Why not have a balanced system where the incentives are still intact, but the excesses are curbed? Of course that would require complete financial transparency to keep everyone honest.
One last note - am I the only one that has notice that many/most of the largest corporations and their beneficiaries are heavily sucking off the government teat? Our single largest export is weapons - made largely by defense contractors that hugely bilk the taxpayer (google GSA pricing sometime). Energy companies - sell massive amounts to the government(at WAY overinflated prices I’m sure) while also getting HUGE subsidies. Big food / agriculture - ginormous subsidies.
Why is it that the greatest capitalists seem to get a huge amount(if not the majority) of their revenue from government handouts? How come they’re not all bootstrappy? And by handouts I’m talking about the ridiculously overpriced ripoff amounts that every major contractor charges and gets paid(thanks in no small part to well placed campaign contributions) by our government. Google the medicare medication program which BY LAW disallows medicare from even negotiating prices with drug companies - they must pay the highest amount possible.
I’m a capitalist myself. I even want to start my own business. But I recognize that limits need to be in place. We need the incentives of the free market to spur innovation and efficient resource distribution, but there HAVE to be limits or sooner or later it will always evolve into pure exploitation.
Want proof? Look at any third world nation where those with “a good supply of wealth” have been allowed to proceed completely unfettered by any societal/governmental/legal regulations or limits - instant banana republic. And not the kind with shitty khaki casuals either.
Their completely unfettered because they OWN their respective governments. This is the result of corruption, and now with citizens united, the same bacchanalian orgy of unbridled greed and ruin is coming soon to a Congress near you!
Is that really what you want for this country?
Bring back the 90% top tier tax rate - Eisenhower was right.
How much is a good supply?
a good supply of wealth, is enough to make an entrepreneur feel confident enough to start a business.
What happens when extreme concentration of this supply in the hands of the very few becomes an enabling factor for subjugation and exploitation?
subjugation only happens with the force of government. exploitation is a subjective term. if you feel you’re being exploited, don’t hire on.
What controls would you put in place to prevent situations like the giant factory tenements of the early industrial revolution where little kids were forced to work incredibly long hours, often losing body parts in the machines they were tasked with maintaining?
it’s the parents responsibility whether and where their little kids work.
The free market sounds wonderful, but why is it that its staunchest advocates are completely clueless when it comes to the abuses it inevitably leads to?
why are the free market’s detractors completely clueless when it comes to the bounty it inevitably leads to?
To paraphrase Emil Vrabie: Under communism man exploits man. Under capitalism it’s the other way around.
under capitalism, production is ‘exploited’ to everyone’s benefit. even its detractors, that don’t deserve its benefit.
Why not have a balanced system where the incentives are still intact, but the excesses are curbed?
a fully free market is in equilibrium so incentives and excesses are in balance.
One last note - am I the only one that has notice that many/most of the largest corporations and their beneficiaries are heavily sucking off the government teat?
government has no teats to suck. all it has is a gun.
Our single largest export is weapons - made largely by defense contractors that hugely bilk the taxpayer (google GSA pricing sometime).
who takes the money from the taxpayer? contractors? no, it’s the government.
Energy companies - sell massive amounts to the government(at WAY overinflated prices I’m sure) while also getting HUGE subsidies. Big food / agriculture - ginormous subsidies.
EVERYTHING you’ve named above from government.
Why is it that the greatest capitalists seem to get a huge amount(if not the majority) of their revenue from government handouts?
because we haven’t followed the constitution.
I’m a capitalist myself.
you don’t sound like one.
I even want to start my own business.
big government will make you fail, unless you’ve bought government power.
But I recognize that limits need to be in place.
yes, you want big government.
We need the incentives of the free market to spur innovation and efficient resource distribution, but there HAVE to be limits or sooner or later it will always evolve into pure exploitation.
purely liberal dogma.
Look at any third world nation where those with “a good supply of wealth” have been allowed to proceed completely unfettered by any societal/governmental/legal regulations or limits - instant banana republic.
all banana republics were caused by crushing big government.
This is the result of corruption, and now with citizens united, the same bacchanalian orgy of unbridled greed and ruin is coming soon to a Congress near you!
i’m not gekko. i never said “greed, for the lack of a better word, is good.” greed isn’t good. but ambition is good. and self-interest is good and doesn’t mean ’selfishness’.
Is that really what you want for this country?
i want freedom, with personal and property rights protected. i want the constantly rising standard of living that free market capitalism brings.
Records don’t back that far? Are you serious?
Never forget this.
How can we forget what never actually went away? The commoner always get screwed, for the elite always arrange society in such a manner so that the commoner has to work his entire life just to fit into that society.
In Western terms, it was chattel slavery to wage slavery; up to about 1850. Wage slavery to debt slavery; up to about 1950. And we’re now in the transition from debt slavery to tax slavery; by 2050 AD a lot of Americans will live in government housing (since the feds will have taken total control of housing by then) and report to government-ordered jobs and pay huge taxes on everything they (are forced to) buy. Freedom will be a memory; the government will borrow 90% of its budget every year. Bankers will totally control the American economy, and in fact will be indistinguishable from government officials. Bankers and politicians will be one and the same.
Great post.
Isn’t chattel slavery the same as debt slavery?
No. With chattel slaves, you have to provide their means of living, like food and shelter. Wage slavery was a much better invention for capitalists since it put the onus of self support upon the workers. But debt slavery came along, with all the advantages (for the capitalists) of wage slavery, and did it one better (for the capitalists): It captured FUTURE labor, not just the labor of today.
I hope that clears it up for you.
All that’s left is to capture your kids’ future labor from you, too, and we’ll be back to all the advantages of chattel slaves. But with none of the disadvantages.
SAY’S LAW (not say’s ‘theory’) stipulates that supply creates demand. supply must come first. not only is this shown in logic, but it is part of nature. ;;;. first there was the supply of grass that created the demand for herbivores, then the supply of herbivores created the demand for carnivores. it’s the same way that the supply of wealth creates the demand for jobs.
1. Supply and demand are both important. No one is going to supply something if they don’t think there will be demand for this. Thus I would stipulate that demand must be present before there is supply. If you have a closed country with 1,000,000 people and 999,900 of them make less than 10,000 a year while 100 make 10,000,000 or more a year no one is going to build a factory that makes a mercedes. The 100 at the top will probably fly everywhere in helicopters and the bottom 999,900 will probably get around on bikes, buses and taxis. No need for a mid range luxury car.
2. Your herbivore argument is ridiculous. Supply of grass did not create demand for herbivores, grass can survive quite well without herbivores.
only a good supply of wealth can create demand for jobs,
1. True but if that wealth is concentrated you won’t create many jobs
but wealth can be used for anything. its first, or primary purpose, is to increase chances to survive.
1. Yes wealth can be used for anything. In third world countries oil barons and dictators use wealth to control armies that keep the starving poor masses in line.
the wealthier a society is, the easier survival becomes for all. and the wealthier a society becomes, the more and better paying jobs there are.
1. This is pure BS. What about a society that allows slavery, is everyone better off, are there better paying jobs? No even the non slaves that work for a living do worse because they have to compete with slave labor. Where do you come up with this stuff?
trade makes job creation even easier and gives us useful products that often couldn’t be gotten any other way. but someone has to produce the wealth or all the rest of it can’t get started. creating wealth is a much more sophisticated way to get new jobs in an economy, than trying to ‘create’ jobs.
Oh you supply side zombies talk circles and gobbly gook to make a point. Free trade with china did not create jobs in the US. Productive jobs left the US and were replaced with credit bubble jobs. I think the facts speak for themselves. Now the word finds that as workers pay goes to zero due to technology and slave labor in third world countries global demand starts to fall and the wealthy stop investing in production. Thus the central banks keep pumping money into the system hoping some of it creates demand. So far I’d say they are teetering on the edge at best.
1. Supply and demand are both important. No one is going to supply something if they don’t think there will be demand for this.
yes, both these statements are true.
Thus I would stipulate that demand must be present before there is supply.
demand is always present, but you must have a way to pay for it. that only comes from production.
If you have a closed country with 1,000,000 people and 999,900 of them make less than 10,000 a year while 100 make 10,000,000 or more a year no one is going to build a factory that makes a mercedes. The 100 at the top will probably fly everywhere in helicopters and the bottom 999,900 will probably get around on bikes, buses and taxis. No need for a mid range luxury car.
the way to raise everyone’s wages is through free market capitalism. if that happens, it won’t be long before the 999,900 can afford a mercedes.
only a good supply of wealth can create demand for jobs,
1. True but if that wealth is concentrated you won’t create many jobs
concentrated wealth creates MORE jobs than diluted wealth.
1. Yes wealth can be used for anything. In third world countries oil barons and dictators use wealth to control armies that keep the starving poor masses in line.
that’s big government using wealth it took from people. the problem is big government, not wealth.
1. This is pure BS. What about a society that allows slavery, is everyone better off, are there better paying jobs? No even the non slaves that work for a living do worse because they have to compete with slave labor.
no, they do worse because slavery is a very inefficient use of labor. inefficient labor is paid for in low wages.
Free trade with china did not create jobs in the US.
free trade with any country creates more wealth and therefore more jobs.
Productive jobs left the US and were replaced with credit bubble jobs. I think the facts speak for themselves.
yes, they do. jobs left the USA mainly for lower taxes and less regulation. many companies had to do this just to survive.
Now the word finds that as workers pay goes to zero due to technology
technology raises efficiency and wages. it frees up more labor to do more productive work.
and slave labor in third world countries
slave labor lowers wages for everyone else through the inefficiency of its labor.
global demand starts to fall and the wealthy stop investing in production.
demand for everything falls when economies weaken. prices can rise even as demand falls. of course i know you don’t believe that. you believe in ‘demand management’.
Thus the central banks keep pumping money into the system hoping some of it creates demand. So far I’d say they are teetering on the edge at best.
most central bankers are keynesians like the bernanke.
“jobs left the USA mainly for lower taxes and less regulation.”
“and slave labor in third world countries”
slave labor lowers wages for everyone else through the inefficiency of its labor.
Wal-Fart & The entire Walton Gang would have a good chuckle listening to your a$$ertion$
$o funny, … it hurt$!
“concentrated wealth creates MORE jobs than diluted wealth” Al “ChainSaw” Dunlap, 1997 speaking to a Sunbeam “team building” rally.
“technology raises efficiency and wages. it frees up more labor to do more productive work.”…. like sign-twirling and handing out “we buy gold” flyers.
“jobs left the USA mainly for lower taxes and less regulation” …..unlike Brazil where more regulations discouraging offshoring and higher taxes for offshoring KEPT the jobs in Brazil. (But America is “different”)
“demand is always present” BUT “say’s law (not say’s ‘theory’) stipulates that supply creates demand. supply must come first.” …..So I guess “something” coming “first exists before something “always” existed. (Yea….That’s the ticket but my head hurts)
“free trade with any country creates more wealth “…. That’s why America’s middle class wealth is back to 1992 levels and the .01’s percent of wealth has more than tripled since GAT, NAFTA and all the other cool stuff.
Good one Rio!
TJ, to follow your logic to to its natural conclusion then, if one guy had ALL the money in the world, there would be more and higher paying jobs than in any time in history.
For some reason it just doesn’t seem like it would work out that way though….
to follow your logic to to its natural conclusion then, if one guy had ALL the money in the world, there would be more and higher paying jobs than in any time in history.
if you really understood free markets, you’d know that it’s impossible for one man to have ALL the money in the world..
“Free trade with china did not create jobs in the US.
free trade with any country creates more wealth and therefore more jobs.”
tjj,
The theory makes sense on paper and I believe generally holds true, but can’t be applied to every situation. Instead of assuming that this rule of thumb will apply let’s look at the specifics.
Whenever competition increases, there will always we winners and losers. That’s Capitalism. If one company gains a strategic advantage over another, the second company need to duplicate it, find an alternate advantage to offset it or fail. Free trade has created a situation where using cheap foreign labor represents a significant strategic advantage. Companies, regardless of their nationality of origin, find themselves forced to utilize the cheap foreign labor or fail. Even if they find an offetting strategic advantage, other companies can likely duplicate it. Under free trade, labor forces of western nations will be forced to match the strategic advantage of low wages.
Don’t you find this analysis a little more compelling?
Trade has been proven to work better than protectionism for thousands of years. Yet people still insist on closing up the borders to eeeeevil foreign products and services. Mind blowing.
Whenever competition increases, there will always we winners and losers. That’s Capitalism.
yes
If one company gains a strategic advantage over another, the second company need to duplicate it, find an alternate advantage to offset it or fail.
yes
Free trade has created a situation where using cheap foreign labor represents a significant strategic advantage.
cheap labor represents inefficient markets. the efficiency of production is all we should care about if we want to keep jobs here. taxes and regulations among other things, affect the efficiency of our markets.
Companies, regardless of their nationality of origin, find themselves forced to utilize the cheap foreign labor or fail.
sometimes they find out that the labor isn’t as cheap as they thought it would be, and return. we could keep most of our jobs here if we didn’t chase them away. we shouldn’t be trying to manage wages and jobs. we should be trying to make our markets, the most inviting and efficient in the world.
Under free trade, labor forces of western nations will be forced to match the strategic advantage of low wages.
you might be tired of hearing it, but low wages aren’t as important as the efficiency of labor. as a matter of fact, efficiency of labor determines wages. employers have to compete in free markets. workers have to compete in government interfered with markets. for workers, it’s best to have employers compete.
Ummm, tj, have you heard of that thing called the shift key? It’s really helpful when it comes to capitalizing the first letters of the words at the start of your sentences.
“cheap labor represents inefficient markets.”
What? If you can produce more widgets at a lower cost, that’s efficient.
“sometimes they find out that the labor isn’t as cheap as they thought it would be, and return.”
Yes, the news is full of stories of the tidal wave of jobs flowing from developing nations to developed ones.
“efficiency of labor determines wages.”
Not true. Supply and demand determines wages just like the price of everything else. The stuff you said after that makes even less sense.
“Trade has been proven to work better than protectionism for thousands of years.”
Trade has proven to work better most of the time, but not all. In this case, can you dispute my analysis?
If you can produce more widgets at a lower cost, that’s efficient.
yes, but part of the lower cost is in the efficient way it gets produced, which includes more than wage cost.
Supply and demand determines wages just like the price of everything else. The stuff you said after that makes even less sense.
you don’t have a good understanding of what efficiency of labor is. prove me wrong. name 4 or more things that help determine how efficient labor is..
Trade has proven to work better most of the time, but not all.
when do you think protectionism has worked well?
How about right now, tj? Protectionism worked VERY well for Germany over the past decade, well enough that they are now the go-to country for European bailouts.
But of course, as Darrell says, not every country can be a net exporter, for the same reason that not all the kids can be above average.
I take it you’re going back on your assertion that wages are determined by efficiency of labor. That’s good because it’s nonsense.
Now let’s address your second point; efficiency which I understand just fine. Wastage of material, defects, excessive use of energy, theft, etc all count into your COGS. The fact is the jobs are leaving and not coming back in significant numbers.
Just because someone is willing to work for a low wage does not mean they are inefficient. It just means that they have lower expectations.
Protectionism has worked well for most of the US’s trading partners.
“Trade has been proven to work better than protectionism for thousands of years.”
And making blanket statements with broadly undefined terms has proven to be easier than using facts and logic. (For thousands of years.)
“Yet people still insist on closing up the borders to eeeeevil foreign products and services”
(”eeeeeevil”? Is that a buzzword?) Like when someone says the rich should pay more taxes I’ll say that someone thinks the rich are eeeeeevil? Does that even work on some people?
In some way we have to begin looking out for our own borders, infrastructure, culture and jobs. We have been giving away the store for decades and it has to stop. However, we may be past the point of no return in terms of corruption and the influence of corporations and special interest groups on our elected officials.
Look at the greed and lust for power of your average multi-term politician, they would sell their mothers in order to say “I got mines” and live among the glitterati. Then we have other intrenched politicians who attempt to subvert the progress, well being and constitution of our great nation in the name of “Social Justice”, Multiculturalism or some other post American philosophy.
Your left with a handful of elected officials on both sides of the aisle that may actually care about the future of our country and its once great middle class, but they will never get a bill out of committee and you will rarely see them on the talking head shows. Our divisions are too vast and their points of view do not make for good television.
. Supply and demand are both important. No one is going to supply something if they don’t think there will be demand for this.
yes, both these statements are true.
Thus I would stipulate that demand must be present before there is supply.
demand is always present, but you must have a way to pay for it. that only comes from production.
A: Just to complete this circle, you must have demand for what you produce to be able to pay for other things. Demand has to come first.
1. True but if that wealth is concentrated you won’t create many jobs
concentrated wealth creates MORE jobs than diluted wealth.
A: Really so if 10 people in the US owned 99% of the land food and fuel that would create more demand for manufactured goods than if the means of production land etc were divided equally between the people. You are completely wrong on this.
1. Yes wealth can be used for anything. In third world countries oil barons and dictators use wealth to control armies that keep the starving poor masses in line.
that’s big government using wealth it took from people. the problem is big government, not wealth.
A; at some point the two blur, when business consolidates wealth and power they own gov and use it to crush everyone else. We are approaching that point.
1. This is pure BS. What about a society that allows slavery, is everyone better off, are there better paying jobs? No even the non slaves that work for a living do worse because they have to compete with slave labor.
no, they do worse because slavery is a very inefficient use of labor. inefficient labor is paid for in low wages.
A: I’d say slave labor is very efficient, I spend x and get 10x. If it weren’t efficient it wouldn’t have been practiced across the globe. It greatly increases the wealth of the slave owner at the expense of the worker. I don’t know how you can say it’s inefficient.
yes, they do. jobs left the USA mainly for lower taxes and less regulation. many companies had to do this just to survive.
A: no they left for lower wages. That is by far the biggest reason they left.
Now the word finds that as workers pay goes to zero due to technology
technology raises efficiency and wages. it frees up more labor to do more productive work.
A: This may be true for a while but technology is starting to eat into all jobs. Everyone can’t be an engineer. This is why the global economy is falling. I saw a guy on Bloomberg suggesting that total global manufacturing jobs have been in decline for some time. At some point they will have robots that can do just about anything. The Pentagon is working on a way to create uniforms that require no labor. They have robots that can mow your lawn, vacume your house, they are working on trucks that won’t require drivers, we have automated the military drones are doing much of hte work. Sales jobs are now done via computer. More and more communication jobs are falling to the computer. Tell us what more productive jobs will be available for the masses.
global demand starts to fall and the wealthy stop investing in production.
demand for everything falls when economies weaken. prices can rise even as demand falls. of course i know you don’t believe that. you believe in ‘demand management’.
A: No I believe in more even wealth distribution, ie progressive taxation, trade policy, and regulation that prevents oligopoly and monopoly formation. Capitalism I believe in. Let’s take a look at the internet and cable. Unregulated internet/cable providers eventually consolidate down to a small number, then use their wealth to control gov, and content. Vs having a socialized or well regulated (ie like a public utility profits adn ceo pay limited) internet system that allows everyone that wants to provide a product the ability to do so on an even playing field. In your system people get fewer choices and higher prices. In my system you get competition based on content. The content providers make money by producing a better product.
Thus the central banks keep pumping money into the system hoping some of it creates demand. So far I’d say they are teetering on the edge at best.
most central bankers are keynesians like the bernanke.
A; Yes and the austerity folks are doing so well in Europe. Ireland the poster child for austerity is still paying very high rates.
tj - demand is always present, but you must have a way to pay for it. that only comes from production.
Answer: To complete the circle. You can only pay for it if you produce something that is in demand. I want a BMW, I plan on producing 300 bags of flaming crap to pay for it.
tj - the way to raise everyone’s wages is through free market capitalism. if that happens, it won’t be long before the 999,900 can afford a mercedes.
Answer: I’m just going to let this one stand alone. It’s really a ridiculous.
tj: slave labor lowers wages for everyone else through the inefficiency of its labor.
It doesn’t lower income for slave masters. There were quite a few rich slave owners in colonial America and through out history. Getting people to work against their will 16 hours a day 7 days a week for nothing more than food and shelter is about as efficient as it gets. I guess Germany ran a ssytem where they worked for less than required food and shelter but eventually that comes to an end.
tj demand for everything falls when economies weaken. prices can rise even as demand falls. of course i know you don’t believe that. you believe in ‘demand management’.
Answer: You mean economies weaken when demand falls. Prices can only rise when demand falls if supply falls faster or the market is rigged, of course I know you don’t believe that. You believe in the fantasy that rich people will create jobs in the US if we just cut their taxes a bit more.
To complete the circle. You can only pay for it if you produce something that is in demand.
you can pay for it with whatever the seller will accept.
I want a BMW, I plan on producing 300 bags of flaming crap to pay for it.
you’re smarter than to write such nonsense. it doesn’t further your argument.
I’m just going to let this one stand alone. It’s really a ridiculous.
yet you make no logical refutation.
It doesn’t lower income for slave masters.
yes it did. inefficient labor helps to lower everyone’s wages, even though it hurts the inefficient laborer the most.
they’d have gotten even richer if they’d have hired their workers.
Getting people to work against their will 16 hours a day 7 days a week for nothing more than food and shelter is about as efficient as it gets.
it’s the most inefficient labor there is. someone has calculated it’s about 10% as efficient as paying people to work would be. if you’re interested, look it up.
i’ve got to hang it up here. i’m really tired. you guys wore me out.
i’ll just close with this.. say’s law is interesting and subtle. for instance, to me, it’s more accurate to say “supply creates demand”, than “supply creates its own demand”. why? maybe i’ll explain it another time. what i can say is that keynes misunderstood the subtlety of say’s law. it’s an easy thing to do..
The one who produced the cave art got nothing for his efforts, unless he could convince someone that it was worthwhile. It is not obviously valuable like spears or hides. Supply does not automatically create demand. Where is the demand for the waste I produce every day?
Where is the demand for the waste I produce every day?
your waste isn’t production. although if there was a big enough supply, someone might find a use for it.
True. Modern manufacturing is a wonder of waste controls, albeit always dependent on volume. This is best shown in the use of a cow. We use everything AND the “moo” (as a sound sample, which can be sold). Manufacturing businesses get above a certain size for certain materials in their waste stream, and suddenly one of the spreadsheet-tweakers notices that Waste Material Type 3A (say, “ethlyene glycol at 30% water contamination”) can be boxed up or loaded into barrels and then sold for $X to another business that uses said material in some fashion.
Note that cheap petroleum enabled this sort of thing, and as the cheap stuff is already gone, forever, then waste controls will start to slip, causing actual garbage streams to expand. The drop in overall business activity will moderate that expansion, of course; less manufacturing means less waste material.
@BetterRenter
you’re absolutely correct, and made your point well.
If supply creates demand, why are there so many sales people?
If supply creates demand, why are there so many sales people?
sellers always want to sell as much as they can. but there will still be a saturation point.
a man with 4 million dollars probably won’t drink any more beer than if he only had 2 million dollars.
Pet Rocks, hon. No demand whatsoever until someone did a sales job on the supply.
Beanie Babies. Supply. No demand.
Pet Rocks, hon. No demand whatsoever until someone did a sales job on the supply.
Beanie Babies. Supply. No demand.
frivolous production happens when there’s lots of wealth. pet rocks and the like don’t happen much in poor countries. we won’t be seeing things like pet rocks again for a long time.
I use the example as demonstrative. Your “law” has some serious flaws, namely that the inverse, “demand creates supply” also holds true. And that that demand can be created artificially. And that supply doesn’t necessarily create demand.
This smacks of another Darrellism. Please don’t?
“If supply creates demand, why are there so many sales people?”
You’re confusing macro with micro forces.
The sales rep works for an individual company. He tries to maximize the market share of his company (or employer). But the macro effect will not be affected since the same amount of product will be sold regardless of how the share is allocated among producers.
Think of a car salesman. He doesn’t go out and try to get people off the street to buy a car. He’s only selling to people who have already decided they want a car and walk into the dealership. All he’s doing is trying to get them to buy his car as opposed to the car next door at the other dealership. And the other sales rep is doing the same thing. Take away the sales reps and the buyer is still buying a car.
“He doesn’t try to get people off the street to buy a car.”
LMFAO……..you must not know very many car salesman.
Agreed, X-GS.
I go to a weekly walking event in Downtown Tucson. And you know me: I ride my bike to and from this two-footed soiree.
It’s sponsored by a local car dealer, and one of their sales reps comes with a car from the showroom stock. Every week, he gives me that look. Especially when he sees my beat-up old bike.
I’m tempted to tell him that I bought that bike with 100% down and no additional payments.
You should have told him you bike came with a $500 rebate, and 0% financing for five years.
You should have told him you bike came with a $500 rebate, and 0% financing for five years.
I’m tempted to tell this guy a lot of things. But I don’t. I just get on my paid-for bike and cruise around until it’s time to go home, hit the shower, and make some dinner.
“Think of a car salesman.
Cars are a mature market. There is now a built in demand for them. Consider instead an innovative product where a market does not yet exist, like the computer circa 1946. The marketing and sales force now has to convince the buyer of a need for the product.
The marketing and sales force now has to convince the buyer of a need for the product.
actually no. there were people who would have clawed their way through a cement wall to get their hands on one. lots of people paid a high price for them. that’s the way it always starts out for a new product. some people want things just because they’re new, or novel.
You’re talking about early adopters here. Any company launching a new product that doesn’t try to expand their customer base beyond the early adopters will have their lunch eaten by competitors. Think about the efforts to get cell phones into the hands of kids to expand market share.
There are other ways marketers generate demand. Remember those ads about how cup of soup makes a great snack? Or the concentrated marketing that convinced people to buy water in a bottle instead of just taking it out of the tap.
“They clawed their way” would indicate demand. It seems like a chicken/egg thing. They clawed their way because they became aware that the solution was there or would be there. But I don’t think supply happens until demand is established. And that demand happens either by the demanders saying “I wish I had…” or the suppliers saying “If I could provide X, could you use it?”
Consider instead an innovative product where a market does not yet exist, like the computer circa 1946. The marketing and sales force now has to convince the buyer of a need for the product.
Demand came first.
People will always demand devices that will make their lives easier and more productive. The computer did that.
The PET rock is a perfect example. Supply was present for millions of years, it wasn’t until they created demand with a witty story that people could sell a plain rock for money.
You’re confusing macro with micro forces.
….The rich have macro moolah to push “supply-side” policies while most of America only has micro moolah to counter.
Then he’s not really “selling” anything, is he. He’s merely servicing the supplier.
IIRC, to create AROUSAL, followed by INTEREST, then leading to DESIRE, and finally ACTION.
Could also be achieved by targeted advertising in concert with better quality or lower pricing than the competition.
IIRC, to create AROUSAL, followed by INTEREST, then leading to DESIRE, and finally ACTION.
Robin, I love it when you talk that way.
So, you’re saying that we should dump the concept of money and just return to barter?
What if there is ample supply of furs and spears being cranked out by Asians? What is a North American to make to trade for rent when their cost of producing a spear or blanket is less than the price they sell for?
Or, is what you are saying is that the USA need to turn into Chinda or Mexico with an elite few very rich and powerful and the masses living near starvation level?
What is your actual point?
Eurozone economies “on the brink of collapse,” with no international consensus on a solution? I guess it’s clear that there has never been a better time to buy a home in the U.S. After all, what could be safer than houses as an investment in these troubled times?
World Leaders Weigh Stimulus Vs. Austerity at G-20
By E. EDUARDO CASTILLO and JACK CHANG Associated Press
LOS CABOS, Mexico June 18, 2012 (AP)
With major European economies on the brink of collapse, leaders concluding an annual Group of 20 meeting sought Tuesday to reassure the world that they would find a way to put out the debt-fueled economic wildfire that has threatened banks, wiped out jobs and toppled governments across the continent.
But the presidents and prime ministers gathered in this seaside resort seemed content to delay any major decisions for a while longer, releasing only a general statement that stopped short of committing any nations to greater spending unless conditions worsen and urging fiscal responsibility.
For months, governments and economists have weighed two different paths to ease the financial crisis: spending more to try to stimulate growth or slashing budgets. European leaders headed home without announcing any significant agreements, and they aimed to meet again later this month in Brussels, with a goal of adopting a more detailed plan.
…
Perhaps if the Euro “collapses” below $1.21, which is where it was when we took a trip to Italy, or below $1.10, where it was introduced, I’ll go there.
Me too. I was quite the little jet-setter back in the 90s before the Euro was invented. It used to be chaper to vacation in France, even if you counted the airfare.
“For months, governments and economists have weighed two different paths to ease the financial crisis: spending more to try to stimulate growth or slashing budgets.”
Every country uses the same value euro coin$, BUT, every country gets to create their own unique version of peon-citizen & Benevolent “Bidne$$ tax $tructures.
What could po$$ibly go wrong with that $it-u-a-$hun? :-/
‘MADRID/ATHENS (Reuters) - Spain lurched closer to becoming the largest euro zone country yet to be shut out of credit markets when it had to pay a euro era record price to sell short-term debt on Tuesday.’
‘Others voiced doubt that Spain, a proud, ancient nation that was a fast-growing star of the euro zone for a decade until a housing bubble burst in 2008, could avoid a sovereign rescue. Spain’s problems are already having an impact elsewhere. French food group Danone warned of a hit to its profits this year, partly because Spanish consumers have switched to cheaper yoghurts.’
Woe to the makers of yoghurts. A proud ancient nation, humbled by a housing bubble, is going for the cheap stuff.
‘a gap yawned between the ambitious objectives for more time and easier conditions of the Greek pro-bailout parties and the willingness of European partners to make minor adjustments to the austerity and reform package.’
Pro-bailout party? Well now we’re making progress! Let’s have politics reflect what’s really at stake here. We could have the Bailout Party, (the BOP), and the Proud Ancient Nation Party (PAN), and the Cheap Yoghurts Party, (CYP).
Also from Yahoo this morning:
‘Let’s be honest. Will pushing record low interest rates even lower really make a difference in the pace of growth and hiring in the U.S.?’
‘We need a lot more young people having the opportunity to go to college,’ says Education Secretary Arne Duncan. ‘Anything that takes us in the opposite direction actually hurts our country.’
As the founder of the CYP, I’m taking a firm stand against these Opposite Direction hardliners.
{Laughing heartily!} … that’s it Mr. Ben eye’s joining the HESHUASDB! Builder$ A$$ociation.
(Higher Education Student Housing Used As $afety Depo$it Boxe$!)
(that did it, now eye’s gonna wonder all day what those letters can be re-arranged to spell … )
‘We need a lot more young people having the opportunity to go to college,’
While higher education is a good thing …
1) It’s too expensive in the USA. Our current model was designed to educate the offspring of the wealthy elite, with its sprawling (and expensive to upkeep) campuses, tenured faculty, student housing, student dining, student activities (gyms, student centers, endless campus funded orgs, etc.), etc. In other countries colleges are housed in plain multistory buildings, and there are no frills. You go, attend class, and leave when class is over. The average American high school has more frills.
2) There are no jobs for most grads. Even those with “hard” majors need to be at the top of their class if they are to have any hope of landing a job after graduating.
‘It’s too expensive in the USA.’
Hence the surge in the ranks of the Bailout Party. What the Education Secretary is saying is, we can’t stand in the way of the American Dream of being up to your eyeballs in debt before you’re 25 YO.
The Cheap Yoghurts Party is not going to take a position on the Secretary’s plan until we hear what Donald Trump has to say about it.
It’s too expensive in the USA. Our current model was designed to educate the offspring of the wealthy elite, with its sprawling (and expensive to upkeep) campuses, tenured faculty, student housing, student dining, student activities (gyms, student centers, endless campus funded orgs, etc.), etc. In other countries colleges are housed in plain multistory buildings, and there are no frills. You go, attend class, and leave when class is over. The average American high school has more frills.
A little like the average America McMansion.
Gee, I wonder if the easy availability of credit (mortgages or student loans) had anything to do with the high cost of higher education? Could it be? Maybe? Possibly?
“I wonder if the easy availability of credit”
Now come on, The True$erialEnabler$, would never, ever “allow-create-de$ign-enhance-promote-foi$tupon” to million$ & million$ of citizen-peons, any such $cheme$! It’s against their deep-rooted Ethic$ & a $evere damage to their reputation$ & Benevolence$
There are no jobs for most grads ??
Which is why they need to network with people in school that are very rich or family is well connected if you want some strategic advantage after graduation…I am sure Romney’s kids are not concerned one bit about the “job market”…Neither will Obama’s daughters for that matter…
One almost needs to conclude that to dream big today without the advantage of great wealth or great connections is fool hearty…Just live your life with some purpose and enjoy it…I mean, we all only get one “tee time” don’t we ??…Leave the greatness to the ones that get to start out on third base…
It has more to do with the “Unless you are a college grad, you will be interchangeable with Juan or Xian6Pak” propaganda/conventional wisdom, IMO.
Out here in Flyover, we need to stop subsidizing college education. The cannon fodder’s tuition pays to keep the doors open, while the elite/best and brightest/landed gentry types more to the coasts……essentially, another subsidy by the 99%ers to the 1%ers.
Or get rid of the NCAA, and stop handing out athletic scholarships. Let the athletes play, but consider it “part time work”, with ALL of the college players drawing a paycheck. Why should the public pay for the NBA and NFL’s farm systems?
Hear, hear!
+ 1 Fixer…I like it…
Better yet, make the NFL pay the colleges to be their farm systems. Right now it’s a win-win for NFL owners. There are many ways the rich keep getting richer at the expense of the middle-class, this is one of them. Make the wealthy pay their share.
Add the NBA to that also…
“Right now it’s a win-win for NFL owners.”
Why limit the $cope of such an idea?
NCAA “Everything” that rewards the $uper$tars $tudents $20+ million$ Pro contract$
Di$ney-E$PN … et. al.,
The poor, poor, Mega$portProInc. team owners, such $uffering $o’s, they daily endure .. Cinder’$ & Ashe$ … Pain’s & Agonie$
Major League baseball is a little microcosm of the US of A, circa 1980-present.
The 1%ers (Yankees, Boston, Phillies) get richer. And think it’s their God-given right to be in the World Series every year, with buying free agent players developed by Flyover teams.
The wretched refuse get to watch crappy, bottom feeder baseball 90% of the time, knowing that if a miracle happens, and we actually get a decent player/team, it will soon be ripped apart, and sold to the highest bidding 1%ers.
IOW, another “Privatize the profits, socialize the expense” scheme.
What does the average Yankee box seat cost? A hundred bucks? Try that kind of pricing out in BFE, and you will have about 300 people show up for a game. Hence, the “Socialization”. Can’t get the wretched refuse to pay for 40K seat baseball Taj Mahals, if nobody can afford to go.
Whether he realizes it or not, the average US-American has more in common with Xian6Pak wading in a rice paddy, than he does with the average Wall Street/Bankster/DC/MNC executive.
Xfiler:
How do you explain small market team WS wins by the Marlins twice, Reds, Blue Jays twice, Royals, Tigers, D-Backs, Cardinals twice, As, Twins, Orioles during the 1980-present 1% dominance period of which you speak?
“…until we hear what Donald Trump has to say about it.”
Bloviating, wig-haired @$$hole…
Woe to the makers of yoghurts. A proud ancient nation, humbled by a housing bubble, is going for the cheap stuff.
And blessed are the cheesemakers….. The Greek shall inherit the Earth.
/obscure?
Greek (style) yogurt is trending more popular lately. Any from Greece?
Nice, wphr. But it should be “The Greeks shall inherit the dearth.”
The Greek tragedy rolls on
Greece’s €130bn bailout must be renegotiated, says senior official
Greece and its international lenders will renegotiate the programme on which its second financial bailout is based because circumstances have changed, a senior eurozone official has said.
Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/business-news/greeces-ampeuro130bn-bailout-must-be-renegotiated-says-senior-official-16174709.html#ixzz1yKbFC6b4
“Greece’s €130bn bailout must be renegotiated…”
This revolving door must be nice for the mistresses and wifes working on the Grecian suntans.
“Japan reported its first trade deficit with the European Union since the Finance Ministry began tracking data in 1979 as the debt crisis roiling Spain and Greece limits a rebound in Japanese exports.”
Still the good news was
“Shipments to the EU fell 0.9 percent even as they surged 38 percent to the U.S.”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-19/japan-trade-deficit-exceeds-forecasts-as-energy-costs-swell
The US is the consumer of last resort. We are expected to import the world’s surpluses no matter what.
And offshoring their industries to China hasn’t worked all that well for Japan either, as they (like us) are running chronic trade deficits (though still much smaller than our own black hole).
It’s taken two generations to screw things up. Could take two generations to get things unscrewed. This, of course, assumes that the current beneficiaries of globalization decide that throwing millions of their citizens under the bus is not a problem.
First they came for the meat-packers……then the UAW guys……then the construction jobs…….the skilled aerospace machinists……
Eventually there will be no one to speak for the 5%er, when the 1%ers come for them……..
X-GSfixr said: “It’s taken two generations to screw things up. Could take two generations to get things unscrewed.”
Nope. The era of cheap petroleum is over, forever. Therefore the era of cheap and plentiful energy is over, forever. Nothing replaces abundant petroleum supplies for what they did for us, all at once: Cheap energy, high energy density, and practical energy exploitation everywhere. Coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind: None of these can do the job that cheap petroleum did. None of those can drive our economy like oil did. They can’t even do that TOGETHER.
So we will never recover. Americans will deny this for generations, sadly, but eventually they will wake up, decades from now, having permanent 50% unemployment and high taxes and still a huge government, and start forcing the government to cut spending, FINALLY. Actual CUTS will be made… but it’s going to take decades to happen. The end of our empire hasn’t even begun. We haven’t even started the beginning of the end, if historical models of imperial collapses are any indication of our current condition.
Theoretically, the USA can handle the era of “expensive petroleum” better than anyone else.
But it would require enlightened, intelligent leadership, and policies designed to promote it as a national goal. See Brazil for one example.
Intelligent US leadership? Never mind…….
What I want to know is, what happens when the price of transporting people to work is higher than what they can actually earn? Maybe our current unemployment situation is a test case…….keeping 50 million people off the roads for an extended period of time.
Maybe our current unemployment situation is a test case…….keeping 50 million people off the roads for an extended period of time.
Miles driven have been on the decline for the past several years.
I see Fannie is on a new round of price reductions for their REO. Anywhere from 10-20%. The new asking prices are still grossly inflated and their inventory still massive but it’s a good indication that housing prices are headed lower. Much lower.
I see the rental property listings doubled over the last few weeks in my area (NoVa). I wonder whether they are part of Fannie/Freddie/FHA ’s foreclosure rental program advocated by the GOV. These rental’s asking prices is higher enough to cover all the monthly cost to own the property, if it can find a tenant.
Is there something going on today that I didn’t get the memo about?
We are all waiting to see what Issa is going to do. The rumor is he is going to put Holder in Gitmo.
What happened to Cheney for outing Valarie Plame?
[Not being a duck hunter, do you yell "DUCK!" then pull the trigger or do you shoot 1st, ... then yell "DUCK!"?]
Channeling the Decemberists…
“Valerie Plame, if that really is
Your real name…”
Holder has got to be the most worthless excuse for an Attorney general we ever had in America…If Ohboozoo had any guts, he would get Spitzer in and really scare wall street..
With the difficulty Obama has had getting any appointments approved by Congress, I am not surprised he is sitting tight with Holder.
I’m sure you know it’s Obama’s task to support Wall Street, not to control or even scare it. Wall Street has conned the politicians and the American people into believing that it’s a fundamental part of the economy, and must be supported at all costs, even if those costs are trillions of dollars taken from the taxpayers, which is exactly what happened.
Psychologically, wall street is a fundamental part of the economy. The economy depends on people spending money. How may people have 401k’s? or how few people have defined pension plans? People will spend when their future appears secure. A bull market is a politicians BFF.
Politically $peaking “Do Nothing!” = “Private Bidne$$” can regulate them$elve$ with No $upervi$ion WHAT$OEVER!
[Just look @ their looooong hi$torical track record, it's $tunning in it's peon-citizen-taxpayer BENEVOLENCE!]
“Critics say the dual payments are driving up cost$ for employer$ and taxpayer$.”
Calif. hospital$ collect duplicate payment$ for spinal surgerie$:
June 19, 2012 | Bernice Yeung / CaliforniaWatch
California hospitals got paid twice, to the tune of $67.5 million in 2010, for spinal surgeries performed on workers’ compensation patients.
Typically, hospital$ are paid 120 percent for medical service$ given to injured workers, compared with what they receive for Medicare patients.
But $pinal $urgeries in workers’ comp cases trigger additional payments. Often referred to as “pa$$-through” payments, hospitals are reimbursed again for the hardware or device$ implanted during spinal surgery.
Yet the cost of these instrument$ is actually already factored into the initial reimbursement, the study said.
Related
According to data from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, there were 5,193 injured workers who had surgeries that qualified for a pass-through payment in 2010. Pacific Hospital of Long Beach and Tri-City Regional Medical Center in Hawaiian Gardens performed the highest number of these surgeries that year, or nearly 1,000 of these procedures in total. Both hospitals were the subject of a Wall Street Journal article about alleged exploitation of the pass-through reimbursement.
The report estimates that the duplicate payments for spinal instruments add $20,000 to the cost of each procedure. The analysis was based on 3,350 surgeries.
[You don't reckon the MedicalIndu$trialComplexInc.$ actually send employees to proFEE$sional conference$ & training $eminars to learn how to do this sort of BILLING in an "innovative & efficient" manner do you?] :-/
Julian Assange is holed up in the Ecuadoran embassy in London seeking asylum in Ecuador. Expect him to be taken out in a drone strike if he actually makes it to Ecuador…
Julian Assange = controlling information for profit$ can get tricky.
(hasn’t seem to hurt Google though, is it methodology, personality, what???)
Executive Privilege- why would Holder ask The One to exercise it?
Eye keep tellin’ ya, those repubican’s keep Eda-cating-them democrapts.
Google:
Cheney & Energy CEO’$ Benevolent Plan$ & Idea$ @ White House conference meeting$ to ease the $uffering of peon-citizens in America!
“None Dare Call It a Con$piracy!”
I have the suspicion he is working for the US…he coulda been gotten rid of at anytime while he was living in that English manor house
Totally agree, Steve J. Look at the Arab Spring timeline following the “leaks”. Damned convenient if you ask me.
NYT and Guardian had all the info for for six months before it was released. Please don’t tell me that State Dept. didn’t have access.
Can’t wait to read Bradley Manning’s book….
Not today, but tonight, turkey lurkey. I’m going to be co-hosting a bilingual Chicano Connection radio show on KXCI-FM 91.3 here in Tucson.
Tune in for our Tex-Mex and Norteno fiesta grande at 10 p.m. MST, which is the same time zone as the Left Coast. That’s 1 a.m. for you insomniac East Coasters.
You can stream us live right here.
Cool sauce Slim! If I’m up I’ll listen.
NatGas a big bargain - supply from Chesapeake huge!
NAR and Realtor speaking for and representing the housing industry is akin to vampires running a maternity ward.
NYCdj wrote this yesterday (explaining why he thinks that getting rid of the corporate tax entirely is a way to address corporate welfare):
What good is the corporate income tax anyway? It just raises the prices for everyone. But the worst part is the tax loss carry forwards and government gives them back cash money if they lose a ton.
Plus executives would have a harder time explaining golden parachutes and outrageous salaries if it all went to the bottom line.
What I am saying is since you wont pay any tax then there would be no need for corporate welfare. And you can deduct all you want…its between you and the shareholders
I think it would eliminate deals done for tax purposes zombie shell companies capturing the tax losses or carbon credits etc…..it seems a fairer system
*****
I’ll leave the complexity of explaining that the pricing issue he mentioned is only true in a situation of perfectly inelastic demand and supply and maybe monopoly pricing, too. I’m not the best person to address that part.
But I will address a few other bits. Executive salaries already have limited deductibility over $1 million. Has to be incentive based or it isn’t deductible. Doesn’t stop them. And the salaries are so high now that it is clear that taking it out of the bottom line has no influence on Boards of Directors.
And the real biggest issue is that corporate welfare is not even remotely limited to tax advantages. Just like there are some support programs for the poor that are tax based (earned income tax credit) and some that are direct support (food stamps) and some that are assistance with contracts (section 8), corporate welfare comes in all sorts of flavors and colors. Some are special tax breaks (accelerated depreciation). Some are in the form of no bid contracts. Some are in the form of cost+profits contracts. Some are in the form of guaranteed student loans that the private company gets to extract. Some are below action rate mineral extraction or grazing deals. Some are agriculture subsidies. Some are government departments that help companies hawk their goods (I think that the government helps the dairy industry promote cheese in fast food). Forbidding Medicare from trying to get better prices on drugs is corporate welfare. Corporate taxes aren’t even scratching the surface.
Oh, and carbon isn’t taxed in the US. Hasn’t happened yet. Might never happen.
Thanks Polly you are always a voice of reason….But i was just limiting it to corporate taxes, and not EITC or FS
This wouldn’t matter if there were no taxes..
Some are special tax breaks (accelerated depreciation Some are below action rate mineral extraction or grazing deals, Some are agriculture subsidies
You say I am the voice of reason and eyt you seem to ignore everything I say. You can have your own opinions. You can’t have your own facts. You have to deal with the ones that are out there.
It is interesting how we use words, and twist them just so to give an emotional cutting edge. “Welfare” in this case isn’t meant to give the impression of promoting the well being of, rather it is a magnanamous gift, underserved, detracting from the well being of all of us who suck at the government teat. All their stuff is ours and if we do not take it away from them, it is an undeserved gift, kind of emotion stirring.
I agree with dj, taxing business is a parasitic drain. In a closed system it makes little sense, for international disbursements it makes sense. What it does do is make our individual tax rates less transparent. If half of the price of a thing is for taxes at producer level, and we pay for that with earnings that have been taxed at 50%, the real tax burden is 75%. Wouldn’t it bother you to write a check to the government for 75% of your pay?
“taxing busine$$ is a parasitic drain.”
American peon-citizens should be happy-campers that they HAVE to pay “personal taxe$” that build infrastructure$ [airports-FedEx, highways-Roadway, harbors-ChinaInc, railroads-BNSFBerk$hire, communication-AT&T, etc., etc., etc.,] that “Bidne$$” can UTILIZE for their enormou$ profit$. “Bidness” is $uffering $o! in America, $uffering Pain$ & Agonie$, why don’t they just quit u$?
{Rio, swingin’ this $word is ta$king me, help!}
Except I seriously doubt that prices would fall if corporate taxes went away. We will always be charged what the market will bear. Prices will remain unchanged, but individual income taxes will have to rise to make up for lost corporate taxation.
Eliminating corporate taxes will accomplish but one thing: to further the transfer of the national wealth to the 1%er’s.
Except I seriously doubt that prices would fall if corporate taxes went away. We will always be charged what the market will bear. Prices will remain unchanged, but individual income taxes will have to rise to make up for lost corporate taxation.
That argument falls apart when you factor in competition. Without corp taxes and with my foolish competitors from Colorado keeping pricing artificially high I can gain market share while I reduce prices. See?
“That argument falls apart when you factor in competition.”
Yeah, right. That what it says in the text books. But it doesn’t happen in the real world, at least not with consumer goods or services. Offshoring did not lower prices, it just fed the insatiable corporate maw.
“I can gain market share while I reduce prices. See?”
That’s what WalMart tells its second tier suppliers, who make next to no profit as they continuously lower the prices they charge the monster from Bentonville.
BINGO
Most industries are consolidating down to just a few players. They can’t gain market share or take out the other guy because that would lead to charges of monopoly. So they just coordinate moves and lobbying. They act like an oligopoly. See cell phone industry for details.
That’s what WalMart tells its second tier suppliers, who make next to no profit as they continuously lower the prices they charge the monster from Bentonville.
Recall the story of Snapper mowers, which finally told the Bentonville monster to pound sand where the sun don’t shine. Snapper’s non-Walmart retailer network sent up a loud cheer.
“Offshoring did not lower prices, it just fed the insatiable corporate maw.”
“That’s what WalMart tells its second tier suppliers, who make next to no profit as they continuously lower the prices they charge the monster from Bentonville.”
Prices haven’t fallen, but Walmart is asking for prices that are too low.
Got it
Do business with Wal-Mart, and you eventually lose control of your business. Trade thousands of small customers for one giant customer, and soon you will begin to wonder who owns who. And if you are worried about “quality” and “image”; run, don’t walk away from Wal Mart.
What corp taxes?
1/2 of all corps doing business in the US pay NO federal income taxes in any given year. Corp taxes are also at a 40 year low.
Corp taxes? What taxes.
Yes, CT is right on time with the competition argument.
” …to further the tran$fer of the national wealth to the 1%er’$.”
Not only is “they” $mart, “they’s” magical my$tery tour magician’$ too:
$haZam! … “Linda-The-Lunch-Lady-Live$-Lavishly!”
“Except I seriously doubt that prices would fall if corporate taxes went away. We will always be charged what the market will bear. Prices will remain unchanged, but individual income taxes will have to rise to make up for lost corporate taxation.”
Today the cost of a widgets is $100. The widget maker’s cost is $75, taxes are $20, profit is $5. There are 5 widget makers in town.
Tomorrow the corporate income tax is gone. One of the 5 will lower their price to $80 and keep a $5 profit. The other 4 either lower the price to $80 or go out of business.
Low Price$ & $ales what’s the connection?
The ChinaInc. .99 cent 8″ metric crescent wrench is va$tly out $elling the $46.00 $napon wrench.
What should bee the le$$on we teach our children?
And when the others go out of business, the price goes up to $120.
And it stays there, because it is easier and more profitable to let the banksters leverage your money, than it is to get into the widget business.
“And when the others go out of business, the price goes up to $120.
No. When the others go out of business, a new entrant sees the opportunity to make an economic profit and enters the market. And besides even with the income tax at its current rate the same thing happen. Economic profit is the same. The only difference with the tax is the product costs more to the end consumer. This is Econ 101 stuff.
In economic theory.
In reality, the entrant will look at the ROI, and find that there are more profitable things to invest in than making widgets.
Especially when you consider the startup costs and risks of building widgets, vs parking your money in Gollum Sucks, and letting them leverage your way to a brighter future.
The existing widget makers aren’t stupid. They will charge what they can get away with, and with their superior knowledge of the cost of building widgets, will make sure that their price remains just below the threshold of generating serious competition.
The real solution is to promote the conditions to make it more profitable to get into the widget business, and make it less profitable to park money in Gollum Suchs, but that would require Socialist government intervention into the Free Market.
Yes, it is Econ 101 stuff. But then there are more classes after 101, right? The ones where they say “OK, now that you’ve learned the classic theory, throw all that away because here’s how it really works in our current system”. Or maybe that class doesn’t start until your third year at Goldman Sachs…
“Today the cost of a widgets is $100. The widget maker’s cost is $75, taxes are $20, profit is $5.”
Absurd. The maximum corporate tax rate is 35%. You are showing a $25 profit per widget. The tax is $8.75. And that is only if the costs you report are actually all of the deductible costs of the company. Lots of companies report costs to Wall Street that are a heck of a lot lower (increasing profits) than they do to the tax man. And every time the company “finds” another $1 of deductible expenses, the tax bill goes down $0.35.
When you are using nice round numbers, have the courtesy not to fantasize about 80% corporate tax rates.
Econ 101 also says that in an efficient market system, profits should be zero.
Most of ECON 101 is bullcrap. It tends to leave out lobbyists, predatory pricing, captured markets and a host of other things that aren’t very nice.
Most of ECON 101 is bullcrap. It tends to leave out lobbyists, predatory pricing, captured markets and a host of other things that aren’t very nice.
Speaking as someone who’s looking at that college degree over on my studio shelf (it’s in economics), I heartily agree. What we really are about on this blog is political economy, which offers a much more realistic view of things.
I tend to agree, but let’s please define our terms for sake of the argument. I just want it to be clean and transparent.
Surprising to me, there is some support on this blog for the elimination of corporate taxes. Rationale?
Sounds enticing. Most businesses would want to ramp it up, I would think.
I would expect, in return, the dropping of all government subsidies, tax incentives, and any and all itemized deductions.
Add punitive fees for moving jobs offshore.
Still can’t wrap my head around the total implications.
No corporate tax leads to more $ for reinvestment as the 1% owners as well as the 99% workers benefit with higher pay while paying higher personal taxes.
With no taxes, the elimination of deductions is obviously not necessary, while incentives and supports or subsidies still are.
“and twist them just so to give an emotional cutting edge.”
CorpoorateInc. “Bidne$$” has twi$ted the Global economie$ such that they can gleefully stand with their full pork-bellie$ in the $hadows of millions of impoverished wrinkled weathered carcasses of peon-citizen-debt-$laves, camouflaged & indemnified! Quite the deception no?
The simple fact is that all taxation comes from surplus private production. You can take the taxes in a very simple way or a very complex way, there is only so much. I like simplicity and transparency. IMO, the complex system blows smoke in our eyes, and benefits the schemers and the parasites.
“Most industries are consolidating down to just a few players. They can’t gain market share or take out the other guy because that would lead to charges of monopoly. So they just coordinate moves and lobbying. They act like an oligopoly. See cell phone industry for details.”
Your conspiracy theory would have validity, except for one minor inconvenient truth: the price of communication worldwide is falling fast, even as the industry consolidates into a few players.
From The Economist:
“DEVELOPING countries still pay far more for communications than developed countries as a proportion of overall income. But over the past two years these services have become more affordable worldwide, according to the ITU (International Telecommunication Union). The ITU’s ICT price basket combines the average cost of fixed-line telephones, mobile phones and fixed-line broadband internet services, calculated as a proportion of gross national income per person. Africa made the biggest gains. Of the countries covered, seven countries had overall price-basket declines greater than 50%.”
Apples…….oranges.
Dunno about you, but I could give a ratz azz about the price of “communications” in Botswana.
I have zero need/demand for communication products in developing nations, even if they were being given away.
And how much government influence is involved? Subsidies? How many telecom companies?
And there’s that Economies of Scale thingie. When the infrastructure is in place, and your costs are covered, the next incremental customer is cheaper. Until the market is saturated. Then, you work on find ways to weasel extra bucks out of your existing customer base. If you are lucky, some of your competition has gone out of business.
“Then, you work on find ways to weasel extra bucks out of your existing customer base.”
This is the current state of the cell phone market in the US.
It’s the current state of about EVERY market in the US.
Cell phone cost per minute adjusted for inflation is about 80% of what it was 20 years ago. It’s laughable to claim that cell phone market consolidation has led to higher prices. And it’s even cheaper than that since the quality and up time of networks today is exponentially better than 20 years ago.
Think of your own cell phone bill. Is it any more today than it was 5 or 10 years ago? Probably not. Yet you most likely get more minutes for the same price and the number of dropped calls is a fraction of what it was 10 years ago.
Everyone loves to hate cell phone companies them and complain about them. It’s misplaced. What was considered luxury not that long ago, owning a cell phone, is now part of the daily life of even the lower middle class. But the eeeeeevil phone companies are screwing everyone over. Give me a break.
Fixer, you’re on a roll today and I’m luvin’ every bit of it.
Corporate taxation is double taxation. If we eliminate corporate tax we can clarify our taxation while creating countless jobs.
Nonsense.
Jobs aren’t created. Demand results in new hiring. All the phony taxcut scams in world won’t result in demand.
But transferring even more of the tax burden from the wealthy and business to individuals will leave “consumers” with less money to spend and hence less demand for consumer goods.
You forget globalization, and “tax/wage/regulatory arbitrage”.
The product would be just be exported to countries with low taxes on J6P, and high wages.
“The product would be just be exported to countries with low taxes on J6P, and high wages.”
Europe? China? India? Africa? Where is this hypothetical country? Brazil? How much product can it soak up?
It was supposed to be China and India, remember?
The whole “high tide lifts all boats” thing?
In economist-speak, raising 400 million Chinese and Indians from abject poverty into “working poor” and lowering 200 million Joe6Packs from “middle class” to “working poor”, (while the top 5% tier on both sides of the pond quadruple their income) means the “system works”.
If prices would come down, I would agree with you, but they won’t come down. Business will charge what the market will bear, they always has and always will. The only thing that will change is their bottom line, which will grow, just like it did when they offshored everything.
As for creating countless jobs … individual income taxes would have to increase to make up for the loss of corporate income tax. The would mean that individuals would consume even less than now, which would destroy jobs and not create them.
As Rio has pointed out more than once, lowering taxes on the wealthy and corporations (many of which already pay no income tax at all even though they have huge profits) has not created jobs, all it has accomplished is to create even more wealth disparity.
Exactly…..all would pay No corporate taxes so it would be fairer to the small business
(many of which already pay no income tax at all even though they have huge profits
So all of the freelancers pay no income tax and run their personal expenses through their business. It is so much easier to have the business pay your rent if IRS has no way to track the home office expense. And every meal becomes a business expense.
Full time employees become an endangered species as everyone tries to take advantage of the new laws. We really will become Greece.
So all of the freelancers pay no income tax and run their personal expenses through their business.
Here’s a freelancer who just paid a buttload of federal estimated tax last Friday. And it’s not like 2012 has been a banner sales year.
But I still have to pay that tax.
“So all of the freelancers pay no income tax and run their personal expenses through their business. It is so much easier to have the business pay your rent if IRS has no way to track the home office expense. And every meal becomes a business expense.
Full time employees become an endangered species as everyone tries to take advantage of the new laws. We really will become Greece.”
I don’t know where to begin with this false logic you’re using.
First off, Freelancers still have to pay personal income tax once the money is distributed from the corporation. Just like a shareholder still has to pay dividend tax when the money from a corporation is distributed.
Second, if the freelancer has his company pay his rent for him there’s no gain whatsoever with a 0% corporate tax rate. Since there is no tax, there is no deduction. A tax deduction is only valuable when there is a tax to deduct it against. You can deduct every meal for the rest of your life and it won’t mean a thing if there is no tax to deduct it against.
“Second, if the freelancer has his company pay his rent for him there’s no gain whatsoever with a 0% corporate tax rate. Since there is no tax, there is no deduction. A tax deduction is only valuable when there is a tax to deduct it against. You can deduct every meal for the rest of your life and it won’t mean a thing if there is no tax to deduct it against.”
If the freelancer’s business pays his personal expenses, then the business does not have to pay that money out as personal income to be taxed at the freelancer’s personal income tax rate. You really missed the point this time.
“Here’s a freelancer who just paid a buttload of federal estimated tax last Friday. And it’s not like 2012 has been a banner sales year.
But I still have to pay that tax.”
You are an ethical freelancer. And the current system can catch tax cheats. Eliminating the corporate income tax would encourage more freelancers to incorporate and run their personal expenses through the business instead of paying personal taxes on income. With no corporate income tax, there is no need for corporate tax reporting detailing income and expenses. This would make it harder for the IRS to detect tax fraud in small businesses.
Sorry, Happy. Freelancers don’t pay corporate taxes. They put their business income on a schedule C and just pay personal taxes on it.
And as far as I know, the only person on this blog who gets his personal expenses like rent and food paid for as a business expense is Bill in LA who pretends to live in Phoenix so he can be “on travel status” all the time. In order to pretend that this works within the tax rules, he has to rent an apartment in a city he doesn’t live in and visit his furniture there every few weeks.
Freelancers don’t pay corporate taxes. They put their business income on a schedule C and just pay personal taxes on it.
Testify!
“Freelancers don’t pay corporate taxes. They put their business income on a schedule C and just pay personal taxes on it.”
There is nothing that says they can’t incorporate. It adds another layer of complexity, so most don’t do it. If the tax code were changed to eliminate corporate taxes, then it might be worth the extra complexity to hide income from taxes.
“And as far as I know, the only person on this blog who gets his personal expenses like rent and food paid for as a business expense is Bill in LA who pretends to live in Phoenix so he can be “on travel status” all the time.”
If BILA were really doing it simpy to avoid taxes, he might be better off to domicile in Florida or Texas where there is no state income tax instead of Arizona. I suspect there are other factors at play. He may be able to get the highest rate by having the flexibility to chase the hottest markets. I would also expect that a lot of the tax savings are offset by having to maintain 2 residences.
If the tax code were changed to eliminate corporate taxes, then it might be worth the extra complexity to hide income from taxes.
Most of us freelancers don’t have enough income to make hiding it from taxes worthwhile.
“Most of us freelancers don’t have enough income to make hiding it from taxes worthwhile.”
I think there would be a lot more people incorporating themselves if corporate income taxes were eliminated. I am thinking of business consultants of all kinds that work for accounting firms, IT consulting groups, etc. Also small business people that now employ others might find it easier to subcontract to self-employed, incorporated folks.
All of this is predicated on the elimination of corporate income taxes. Things that don’t make sense today, might make sense if people could keep an additional 20% of their gross.
School Marm is an ASS because she merely ASSumes that I am operating as a consultant illegally.
She is a typical statist, assuming no individual can ever do what is legal, therefore we need to issue force, particularly to anyone who is in favor of the free market.
“individual income taxes would have to increase to make up for the loss of corporate income tax.”
So wages would increase, right? Because we can all sell our labor to the highest bidder.
I would recommend a baby step…allow corporations a deduction for dividends but tax dividends to the recipient just like interest income…ordinary rates….but…the top .01% already got their reduced rate on dividends…now they want to lower their taxes on the front end as well.
now they want to lower their taxes on the front end as well
While making false promises to create jobs and lower prices
It is not the goal of a business to “employ” people.
“It is not the goal of a business to “employ” people.”
Exactly. So why are they touted as the job creators. Their objective is to create as few jobs as possible while creating as much profit as possible. Their incentive is to cut expenses and raise prices.
“and raise prices”
till someone comes along and makes the same widget for half that price.
Widgets aren’t made in a vacuum.
The only reason widgets get made is if there is a market, and the ROI is greater than anything else you can invest your money in.
NO competition will appear, if the ROI on start-up widget manufacturers is, at best, 3%, and Gollum Suchs and Hedge Funds are promising 10%.
The only way getting into the widget business makes sense is if you:
-Buy an existing widget builder.
-Borrow money against the collateral of the widget builder. Insert money in pocket.
- Force pay cuts on existing employees, to “return to profitability”. Or start moving work to labor paradises like Shanghai or Harbin. Put money saved in pocket.
When I was in my first corporate tax class, the prof briefly addressed the policy issue of corporate taxes. When I say briefly, he basically assumed we all understood the double tax argument and then spent a minute or two countering it.
The argument goes approximately like this:
Corporations are large concentrations of wealth. This is a good thing, because some things that need to be done require large amounts of capital to do them and without some ability to create the large concentration of wealth with centralized management, those things could never get done. However, because of this concentration, you can’t simply let the corporation not be taxed. If they weren’t, then the owners could simply let the money build up and up and up (only taking some out when they need it) and you essentially have the owners of all these large concentrations of wealth getting control of more and more and more wealth and never paying taxes until they want to spend something. Their savings won’t be taxed until they are spent. Unlike regular workers who are taxed on all they receive and then have to save what they can from after tax wealth. Without coporate taxes, the wealthy are already on a VAT (admittedly a fairly high one) and no income tax (because they don’t have to take any income unless they want to spend it).
So, what are the alternatives to a corporate tax that don’t leave the owners so highly advantaged over the workers? All corporations could be taxed as partnerships, but that means that anyone who owns even a single share of stock has to include a proportional share of income (various types) and deductions (various types) and put that in their individual returns. Administrative nightmare of the most horrible kind. take a look at schedule K if you don’t believe me.
Other thing you could do is make all owners of shares “mark to market” the value of their shares every year so they have to pay tax on the amount the value of the share increased during that year (or have a loss if the shares lost value). That is even worse, because the change in the value of the shares is not necessarily directly related to the profits of the company in that year. It could be because the income to share price ration in that company went way up or down. Share prices are supposed to be predictions of future revenue. Terrible thing to impose tax on. So this is administratively possible, but not a good way to measure income really. And do you really want the churn in the market that would result from everyone having to sell shares to get the cash to pay their taxes?
So, if you can’t tax the owners directly (parnership treatment) and you can’t do it based on share price (unfair and subject to whims of market) and you can’t get rid of the tax entirely (even more concentration of wealth by way of favoring owners of capital even more than they are favored now) you are left with what we have - taxing the corporations.
The other issue the prof did not address is that now the Supreme Court has declared corporations to be people, and we generally tax income when it passes from one person to another in a business transaction (there are some exceptions for gifts) why wouldn’t corporations be taxed? They are people and they are getting income in excess of the money they spent to create that income.
“now the Supreme Court has declared corporations to be people….”
Not so, despite the media message.
Tanks Polly, you & and me Big Bro would have some chuckles, eye’m not anywhere in the $ame league, but really, eye don’t mind listening at all, not a bit whatsoever. Find it all just $imply fascinatin’ …
How about reversing that…NO taxes on the first say $10,000 of dividends then regular rate on any of the above…or pick a figure..
So small people wont get taxed on small amounts
Fine, just make sure the stockholder, via their mutual funds, pay personal income taxes on all profits reported by the firms at the same rate as wage income, including the payroll tax.
Perhaps that would incentivize shareholders to demand that more of those profits go to dividends instead of executive stock options.
CharlieTango said: “Corporate taxation is double taxation.”
Nonsense. Total balderdash. Corporations insist they are legal persons. Therefore they owe taxes on inputs and outputs, just like you do.
Claiming corporations are “double taxed” is about as intellectually honest as claiming my employer pays my bills, not me. You can’t assert LEGAL PERSONHOOD and then try to exempt that person from taxation.
Corporations that lament they are “double taxed” always have recourse to revocation of their corporate status, so that there’s no legal-person middle man that gets oh-so-unfairly taxed. {Cue the screams of their outrage.} Cry me a river, corps.
Polly said, or Polly quoted NYCdj: “What good is the corporate income tax anyway? It just raises the prices for everyone.”
Because corporations insist they are legal persons, and legal persons own income tax.
End of discussion. I don’t know why people keep insisting that corporations should get the advantages of personhood but none of the disadvantages. It’s intellectually dishonest.
Radio Program [New York City Area] – WOR-AM [ 710-AM] Saturday mornings, 10-Noon. Eye on Real Estate, from a Realtors point of view. ….. Car Doctor on at 2 pm for those with the used car blues as well. Acutally weekday mornings, John Gambling 6-10 is quite good [Do NOT tell my Mother, I made fun of her 40 years ago when she listened to his Dad and I wanted to hear the Beatles on WABC]
Roy-
NAR, Your state association, and your local boards, are sponsoring those R E radio informercials all over the country(I’m in So Ca).I periodically listen in for a few moments to hear their propaganda.
Formula: bring up concern… sprinkle in distorted truths and lies…create fear and confusion… and resolve with don’t be left behind. Sometimes invite a guest with benign information.Package as objective… gotta love it when the sheeples buy into it. Lawrence Yun (NAR’s hack) is a frequent guest on our station.
They’re masters at creating a sense of urgency out of nothing.
Yes it is TILTED to the NAR, but is a call in format [although screened] and some good insight on escrows, surveys etc. I do not have a TV, and after Car Talk on NPR have the rest of the day free till Prairie Home Companion [that is show my Mother would NEVER believe I listen to now - God Bless her [deceased 1995], she get smarter as I get older.]
Ah, I miss my ol’ Real Estate Insiders show that used to come outta Detroit Sunday afternoons here. I remember them pushing the Secure Advantage loans, and wondering aloud what would happen when the ARMs started to reset in the coming year…then poof, they were gone.
I can remember coming home from my Saturday bike shop job in the late 1990s. Would take a ride before and after work, and by the time I rolled into my casa, I really needed to hit the shower.
My post-shower radio buddy was a show called “Sound Money” and it was on NPR. All sorts of people making much more money than Slim would call in and ask about what they should do with money above and beyond what they were already maxing out their 401k’s with.
Oh, to have such a problem.
Any-hoo, the advice was invariably of the “put it in the stock market” nature. And I don’t think I heard much of this show after the NASDAQ blew up in Q1 2000.
I saw a broad get out of a car with a remax sign on it. She looked like Alice The Goon.
http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g86/paulinereage2476/GOON.jpg
Okay, HBB girls, let’s share photos of ugly real estate boyz.
…..let me help.
Here’s Lereah in drag.
http://www.eventuresincyberland.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Pinocchio.jpg
Spotted this tool in traffic on East Colfax in downtown Denver about an hour ago: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Inked-Realtor/244238535626613
This, if anything, warrants the double-o insult LOOSER!
As my 91 yo father would say….. he’s a real beaut.
FHA Watch, June 2012
Edward J. Pinto | American Enterprise Institute
June 19, 2012
FHA Is Responsible for 1.5 Million New Underwater Loans: The Federal Reserve estimates that about one-third of the 11.1 million underwater home loans in the United States are FHA-insured. These 3.6 million underwater FHA loans account for nearly half of the FHA’s 7.4 million outstanding loans. Since about 72 percent of all outstanding FHA loans date from 2009 or later, a reasonable estimate would be that about 1.5 million of recent FHA borrowers are underwater.
This comes as no surprise since the FHA continues to combine minimal down payments (average of 4 percent) with slowly amortizing thirty-year loan terms. As a result, earned homeowner equity (the combination of down payment and scheduled loan amortization) amounts to less than 10 percent after four years, or about enough to sell a home at the break-even point if home prices stay steady. However, prices have declined nationally about 7 percent since mid-2009, with lower-priced homes declining even more. When combined with borrowers’ low FICO scores and high debt-to-income (DTI) ratios, the result is a continuation of the FHA’s destructive lending—lending that has resulted in 20–25 percent of recent borrowers facing a 10 percent or greater likelihood of foreclosure.
http://www.aei.org/article/fha-watch-june-2012/
Got my first “I’m a graphic designer. Are you hiring?” phone call in years. Is this a sign of the times? Or is it some newly minted art school grad who thinks he’s going to go out and get a JOB in this field?
I let the call go to voice mail because I couldn’t figure out a polite way to say the following:
Dude, this field is like the other ones I ply my trade in, photography and writing. You’d better learn to be a freelancer. Because the jobs are going bye-bye. Or they’re in places with office politics from hell. (I used to work in one of those places.)
Awww, Slim, give him a call back and spend the three minutes it will take to explain that small shops like your may outsource programming to other contractors, but don’t hire employees. It would be a kindness. And it will give him some much needed practice in professional contacts. I bet he needs it. And don’t worry so much about the polite thing. If what he needs to hear is a hard truth, then that is the kind thing to give him.
That being said, I met a woman a few months ago who was actually a full time employee graphic designer. I think it was for National Geogrpahic or some place like that. Older person. I got the idea that she had been there a long time.
True story from the Widget Free Market.
(Abbreviated)
Once there was a company who had been making widgets for 80 years, and had a 50% plus share of the total widget market…….and an even bigger share of the “small widget” market.
A former Microsoft/Tech industry billionaire decided that the “dinosaur” charged too much for widgets. So he talked with his venture cap buddies, and eventually sank two billion dollars plus into a “new paradigm” widget maker (This doesn’t include the incentive programs made available by state taxpayers to locate the widget company in their locale). Widget sub assembly vendors line up to get in on ground floor of new paradigm widget The plan was to sell widgets at 1/4th the cost, that had direct operating costs cut in half.
The dinosaur widget maker looked at the proposed widget’s weight and performance numbers, and smiled………while saying supportive stuff like “we wish them the best” and “rising tides lift all boats”.
Prototype widget is built. Prototype widget sucks. Prototype widget is partially redesigned, because starting from scratch might make the Venture Cap people think twice about investing more money, and customers think twice about putting deposits down on widgets.
Partially redesigned prototype widget develops bad case of “ten pounds of crap packed into a five pound bag” -itis. People start wondering if designers/builders of paradigm-shifting widget have a clue as to what they are doing. New-paradigm widget maker doesn’t do themselves any favors by telling existing widget order holders that their deposits need to be credited toward buying the new (and more expensive) widget.
In the meantime, having seen the size of the backorder log, the old dinosaur widget (ODW) builder announces new widget to directly compete with new paradigm widget (NPW). Having an 80 year track record of building widgets that met/exceeded announced specifications, announced performance and cost numbers are widely believed.
ODW builder also (informally) lets all of their vendors know that they expect to see the same “good buddy” pricing on components that NPW is getting, if they wish to continue doing business with ODW Co.
NPW hits the market overweight, misses performance numbers badly, has multitude of engineering/design and manufacturing problems, and costs 90% of what the ODW’s roomier/ more reliable/faster widget costs.
OD’s widget goes on to be big success. NPD Widget Co. implodes, everybody looses their (financial) azz, making venture cap genies and widget depositors wonder why they didn’t invest their money with Gollum Suchs.
Gee, that could be anything. But I’m going to call it DeLorean.
Well, given who fixer is (and the problem with weight), I’m going to guess it is an airplane manufacturer, but I don’t know enough about the business to guess which one is the old one and which is the new one.
Darn those four forces acting on an airplane. Especially weight.
“widget depositor$ wonder why they didn’t inFe$t their money with Gollum Such$.”
$orry $uckers, we win, you lo$e. It’s an old tail.
Next!
So the corrupt monsters at the Federal Reserve BANK spent $2.7 TRILLION to buy down interest rates, crowding the trade for all my brothers and sisters and now these fukking monsters are planning more.
Notice they didn’t do a thing for lowering credit card rates..
Hey now, eyes just x3 $tamps from winning Albertson’s $1,000,000.00 prize!!!!!!!!!
Oh my!
Except they only printed one or two copies each of the last three that you need, so good luck finding them.
But But Buttttttttt I have a dream…….