Paul M Foster wrote:
> I'll disagree here. The key to any economy is productivity. The Fed can
> act as a brake or a stimulus, but producitivity is what drives any
> economy. The problem in this society is that too much of the wealth
> vests in the hands of too few _who produce too little_.
Who do you _think_ has the money?
The Fed is a _private_ corporation.
It's interesting to research it.
Otherwise, your statement is typical of a socialist agenda.
Eat the rich. Blame the rich.
They don't deserve it, because they don't work for it.
Non-sense.
The reality is that raising income taxes only hurts the people who work.
Flat taxes, with a minimum barrier (e.g., ~$40K) is what is needed.
The progressive tax has to go, because it only hurts people who are more
successful the next year than before.
Because their increases in discretionary income is returned as private
investments.
So what do we do then? Raise capital gains? Ha! We already have
double taxation there.
In a nutshell, you can_not_ put a "price" on someone's worth and how
much you will tax them. That will _always_ be subjective, _not_
objective. The only thing you can do is have the same rules for all.
Give you an example. If I make $50K/year working 40 hours a week, but
someone else makes $50K/year working 80 hours a week, why does the
latter pay the same taxes as me? Where do you start taking that into
consideration? Not to mention the agency that makes that determination?
Simply the tax code. Reduce the useless agencies and private sector
organizations that only exist to fulfill it.
Reduce the governments expenses. People bitch and moan about defense
spending but it is _nothing_ compared to social services. At least in
the military, you pay most employees _less_ than minimum wage for 80+
hour/weeks. But when it comes to public servants, they have the
_ultimate_ in benefits for the _least_ risk.
And it's not about Democrat "socialist" versus Republican
"privitization," because the latter is _not_ "privitization" -- it's a
"facist" model. The government should _not_ take the money in the first
place for social services, even if it contracts a private entity to do
it. It should let the private industry handle things itself, on its own
-- it will, it always has.
The problem isn't that the government holds you at gunpoint and says,
"you will pay me $1 which goes to this social service." It's that it
says, "I need $1.25 to pay for this program -- $0.25 in overhead."
After a few more years, it becomes $2, and so forth, and the agency
grows and _never_ cuts. At some point, there is _so_little_ actually
going towards the effort, it is self-defeating. And that's why
socialism fails.
Yeah, so what, I am guaranteed a job. What good does that do for the
nation _if_ the job is useless? In fact, I use that _same_ argument
against people who say, "oh, at least with Microsoft, I have job
security." That goes against _every_ethical_bone_ in my engineering
body.
> I sort of agree with you, but don't be too quick to dismiss the
> effects of monetary policy set by the Fed. The Fed has lots of ways
> of creating money, and does so in astronomical amounts. Why do you
> think you can buy a house full of furniture with no interest and no
> payments for a year. Keep on shopping! That's the only thing that is
> keeping the economy going, so that "pundits" can claim the economy is
> doing well. (Apparently the definition of "economy" == number of
> people shopping)
The problem is that its artificially controlled. The money multiplier
_can_ exist _without_ the Fed. Right now it exists for the benefit of a
few.
> As a shorthand, we say that they are printing money like crazy, but
> they have various mechanisms, like changing marginal rates, etc.
It's, again, artificial. It's not "balanced" like everyone thinks it
is.
> In classical economics we learn that flooding the monetary system with
> dollars causes inflation. So why is there no inflation. First, there
> IS inflation--the government manipulates figures to lie to you.
I have a general distaste for macroeconomics. In my opinion, everything
can and should be reduced to microeconomics. When simplifications are
requires, there should be a non-linear equation to dictate how the
system works.
The problem is that economics is a field where there are _far_too_
people who understand non-linear, let alone even just linear. So it's
more about guessing, history and statistics "after-the-fact." And
that's blended with a lot of hope.
The Keyesian idea of pure demand-side economics is just as ludicrious to
me as the notion of pure supply side economics. The reality is that the
government can't do anything about investors and consumers -- and the
.COM boom and bust is a perfect example.
In a nutshell, people will be as hopeful and naive as they want to be.
> But more important, is the fact that vast quantities of these dollars flow
> to China, where banks are hoarding billions, and also buying T-bills,
> stocks, bonds, etc. Nice of them to lend money back to us. Of
> course, since you don't think it matters....
You'd be surprised who owns some of those entities. ;-ppp
> Lemme give you a prediction. Some day, I would say within five years,
> China will take over Taiwan, by force, which the US, once upon a time,
> swore they would never let happen. The Chinese leaders will make one
> phone call, saying that if the US interferes, they will destroy the US
> currency, virtually overnight. And the US will stand back and let
> Taiwan go.
They won't because the British and US owns many of the companies in
operation. It becomes a national security interest. If China invaded
Taiwan, we would go to war -- no doubt.
Yes, a national security interest is protecting the corporate
investments of the US. That's just the reality of being a capitalist
society. Or did you think otherwise?
Which is why the UN is useless for us. It's a place for non-G8 nations
to bicker and complain, but should _never_ be used as a "superior" to G8
nations.
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Communities don't have rights. Only individuals in the community have rights. ... That idea of community rights is firmly rooted in the 'Communist Manifesto.'" -- Michael Badnarik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:56:36 EDT