"The monetary base increases more than 100 percent between 1933 and 1939," the authors write, making the case that such a "monetary shock" should have returned the economy to normalcy. They invoke the authority of well-known macroeconomists Robert Lucas and Leonard Rapping, who once proclaimed that "positive monetary shocks should have produced a strong recovery, with employment returning to its normal levels by 1936."

 

But as Murray Rothbard showed in America’s Great Depression, it was the easy money policies of the early and mid-1920s that created all the malinvestment that was the trigger for the Great Depression. The only wise thing to have done was to allow the liquidation of hundreds of overcapitalized businesses to occur. Instead, the Fed increased the monetary base by 100 percent in five years, causing more of the same overcapitalization problems that were the source of the problem in the first place.

 

"New Deal cartelization policies are a key factor behind the weak recovery, accounting for about 60 percent of the difference between actual output and trend output," the authors write.

 

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=515

 

Newly-enacted Social Security payroll and unemployment insurance taxes made employment even more expensive. What all of this means is that during a period of weak or declining derived demand for labor, government policy pushed up the price of labor very significantly, causing employers to purchase less and less of it.

Ugh let me correct a few assumptions I'm seeing here (not just by Chuck, but Nick as well - damn you for not being an anarchist! I had our matching tattoo/mohawk appointments set up for this Wednesday!)

 

1. Rich people aren't a clan. In fact, rich people hate other rich people, because they jack up the prices on high-end real estate with bidding wars and make them wait longer to get that yacht or Bugatti.

 

Rich people use the government gun to attack other rich folks' businesses. They use the court system to sue their enemies into oblivion. They befriend politicians to make sure certain laws are passed which hinder their rivals. They even vote Democrat en mass. Rich people are their own worst enemies.

 

2. Okay, so we've got to get rid of "tax havens" to prevent these assholes from not paying their fair share. The problem is, the tax havens can also be called something else - "sovereign states". So there's that pesky issue where you've got to invade them first, militarily, to make them jack up their taxes to be on-par with your own.

 

3. Upton Sinclair, a brilliant journalist. The Jungle would have been on the Oprah Book Club's reading list, if she were around back then. But let's face it, the whole process of packaging meat wasn't uniformly disgusting. That's like me writing a book about how terrible the bathroom is at the local 7-11, and Chuck Schumer setting up a task force to use taxpayer money to ensure clean bathrooms in all public places.

 

Some meat packaging plants were perfectly fine. Others were disgusting. But what Upton Sinclair did was what he was supposed to do as an investigative journalist: write about it! Millions of people read his book, without having to be prodded by the government to do it. Anyone worth his salt would take a tour of a meat processing plant (or bother to know their local butcher personally) before actually buying meat from them.

 

The shirt factory fire was a tragedy, true. But again, buildings were re-fitted to have doors that swing open from the inside, and fire emergency policies were taught to employees.

 

In both these cases, government already existed. But did it save us from diseased meat and girls dying in infernos? No! It was only after the fact that government woke up and came around to writing new regulations.

 

Same is true for 9/11/2001. Bush should have been impeached the next day. Instead he became a hero: "Oh save us from those evil terrorists, ye who are an instant-expert on the Middle East and extremism! Yesterday you might not have known a damn thing about Osama bin Laden, but today you are his worst nightmare!"

 

Statists are always the ones who point to the problems of the past (Slavery!) and claim they have the solution - which generally includes this utopian idea that writing a new law will "prevent this terror from ever happening again!" But anyone with half a brain can see that "this terror" existed in tandem with the existence of the government. It just took a particularly emotional event to bring it to the fore.

"The most regulated banks and companies are the ones in the biggest trouble" - got some examples to go with that statement?

In my mind, it's when the regulations were taken off - allowing, for example, the packaging of bad debts as good investments to be placed on the great roulette wheel of Wall Street. And the biggest commercial banks and companies control the regulations through campaign contributions, so I'm sure they loosened the reg's. to try the gambles they did - the bigger the entity, the more persuation with the politicians in Washington and elsehwhere. Look at the top campaign donors - Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sacks, Citi-Group, etc. - it's plain as day they payed in to set up the unstable propositions, thinking the gambling could go on forever.

I'm not an expert on the New Deal, but while price regulations were no answer, it makes sense that stimulating the economy when people are afraid to spend or borrow helps build confidence, and get's people back to work, enabling them to make the goods and purchase them. So government spending could have been more carefully directed, but the stimulation did help the economy - we could have used more!

Socialism isn't great, but in times of crisis, something has to come to the rescue, for temporary relief during a market failure and total erosion of consumer confidence.

1929 was pre-depression, and as I was saying, the stimulation wasn't enough actually to fully pull us out of a depression; even so, 1939's GDP was close to the GDP in 1929, and depending on how the value of the dollar is placed, that was better than the early 30's, when despiration was the norm. Consumer confidence had risen, and that was essential to getting us out as well.

If the Great Depression was minor when it started, then why were so many executive types leaping from windows in major US cities??:P

got some examples to go with that statement?

 

Let me get the info and I'll get back to you with more detail on this.

 

In my mind, it's when the regulations were taken off - allowing, for example, the packaging of bad debts as good investments to be placed on the great roulette wheel of Wall Street.

 

But the government and "regulators" encouraged this behavior by bailing everyone out in the S&L crisis and bailing out Long Term Capital management for this exact problem. A free market punishes stupid behavior and people learn from it, IE Long Term Capital Management would have failed and people would have been more careful and not leveraged out as much. But by government covering anyone who makes unwise decisions in encourages unwise decisions. No amount of regulations will fix that, because it has nothing to do with regulations, but encouraging and protecting bad business practices. The private sector messed up, but it was encouraged and protected by government, thus no one of this would have been possible without the government.

 

Look at the top campaign donors - Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sacks, Citi-Group, etc. -

 

Look who the donated to the most..Obama! Is he going to bite the hand that feeds him? But I agree there is a major problem with all the groups giving out money and getting officials elected. But regulations would only further this by getting them closer...they would have more incentive to buy off politicians, but if the market was free they'd have to play by the rules or fail and no one would save them.

 

1929 was pre-depression, and as I was saying, the stimulation wasn't enough actually to fully pull us out of a depression; even so, 1939's GDP was close to the GDP in 1929, and depending on how the value of the dollar is placed, that was better than the early 30's, when despiration was the norm. Consumer confidence had risen, and that was essential to getting us out as well.

 

So by thing getting worse they became better? Government encouraged higher prices when people need lower prices and overtaxed business's so they could not higher new people. Please read this;

 

Also ignored is the fact that New Deal spending was mainly paid for by the middle class and the poor, because the biggest revenue generator for the federal government was the excise tax on beer, cigarettes, chewing gum, and other cheap pleasures disproportionately enjoyed by the middle class and the poor.

 

If the Great Depression was minor when it started, then why were so many executive types leaping from windows in major US cities??

 

Because they were ruined, but a few people and ruined companies that lost everything do not mean the whole economy was in major trouble.

1. Rich people are a clan. I've seen them, wearing their Tartan plaids, drinking martini's from the fountains in Bohemian Grove.:P It's a conspiracy, I can smell the brimstone! Sure, they may fight over the occasional Bugatti, Alco, and Rolls, not to mention the dinner rolls, but they're all in a room, a boiler room, planning the next assault on us commoners!:laugh3: And yes, Bill Gates has his own battleship, with the microsoft flag right beside the ol' skull and cross-bones, but they do gang up on us! Look at the debt relief robbers, who made off with millions, and bankrupted some despirately poor nations. They probably took the dinner rolls too! Then there's the assault on Social Security - always trying to rope us into risky market gambling, when the nest egg should be secure. We'll have to weld it down!

2. Tax heavens - is that where they go when their meters expire?:laugh3: I say put them all in Guantanamo Bay, and let Castro have at them - then they'll apreciate us more!:P If they think taxes are bad here, let them move to Sweden!:sneaky: I just think we need to get their money out of politics, as best as we can, or they'll just swallow up the whole world, and make us all serfs! They're the reason real income has stagnated - because their vaccum cleaners are sucking up all the extra hard-earned cash on hand (plus a few Buggati Royals).. I think we need more international cooperation to root out the tax-haven states (like Lichtenstein, Switzerland, the Bahamas, and where-ever else they hide their loot). Onward, to Sherwood Forest - the King's carriage is soon to pass by!:elf:

3. Well, that was then, that's for sure!! It's nowhere near as bad now, but the rate of work on the slave galley down below is sped up, and accidents and fatigue take their tolls. I've worked in places that would make you wonder if we've progressed much at all... the Tyler Pipe piece from Frontline - 'it's cheaper to pay $17,000 for a dead worker than slow the line down, or install safer equipment.' And some places aren't much better than this, yet they grow in the marketplace..

4. Id' watch out if you eat hot dogs, Jay.:laugh3: Workers sometimes just don't seem to show up for work.. But I've worked at dangerous places, and believe me, they're out there! (I think they blindfold the OSHA inspectors, and bribe them when necessary - or their bosses in office - somehow it passes inspection, and I know it can't).

Yes, government was already in existance, which is tragic that it takes death to stop bad practices. But would anything have changed if there hadn't been an outcry for regulation and enforcement? I'm glad something made the factory owners comply, or else more deaths would have happened elsewhere. And believe me, defunding agencies, or paying off politicians to soften the regs. makes a lot of workplaces unsafe.. sawmills with too few fire estinguishers, sawing operations where there's no metal mesh gloves and fingers come off, places where the fumes are knocking out the workers like flies - been there, seen that.

In crisis, those who use fear to control often get their way - so it was with Bush. I agree - he should have been impeached on numerous occasions. Still should be investigated and tried. He's wiggled his way out of everything, and that's the crime of the century..

I think the biggest problem is the arrogance of power. Missing the point in their high-saddle positions, the agency heads often go unchecked for their mistakes, preferring to blame all on the perpetrators, and avoid all culpability for their poor performance as agency heads. Plus misunderstanding human nature - poverty has a lot to do with why crazy people find sanctuary and recruits in the world. To find a better way forward requires that there be checks on the heads of agencies, so they cooperate better with one-another, and don't become insular in their thinking, or promoters of "group-think"

Anyhow, I'm all debated out.. enjoy Easter!:cool:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nick, it's a cycle - the government is run by the corporations they're supposed to regulate. So they pretend to fix things, but then do the opposite. And it's all because of the corrupting money flowing from these same big corporations and investment firms into politics, which sets up the rules for failure.

Nick, it's a cycle - the government is run by the corporations they're supposed to regulate. So they pretend to fix things, but then do the opposite. And it's all because of the corrupting money flowing from these same big corporations and investment firms into politics, which sets up the rules for failure.

 

Corporations are created by governments....wonder why?

 

I'm still waiting for examples from the new deal that helped....

 

Did you know about the Great Depression of 1920? Well we had a bad 18 months or so that was actually worse then 1929, but guess what? The government cut taxes, cut spending and didn't take any action and we had a swift recovery...the same scenario happened in 1929 and this time around we had a new president, Hoover who thought governments were supposed to fix economic problems and well instead of going the way the depression of 1920 it grew into a longer depression. Then FDR expanded on Hoovers policies and it got worse and lasted longer

 

Chuck history speaks for itself, we've tried it two ways in the past, letting it correct itself and cut spending like Hardening did in 1920 when their was a starting depression and it worked, and then you have the Hoover/FDR way and look how that turned out, instead of 18 month's and then a boom, we had many years of trouble.

 

THe facts and history speak for themselves.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI]YouTube - Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920[/ame]

Corporations were supposed to be limited chartered entities (after the English saddled us with their tea company); they're the product of collusion, and were later supposed to be limited, both in scope and in time.. but then the unscrupulous characters within our nation in the 1800's bent the whole thing into a form to their liking, with the help of some bribed judges, from what I've read.

Governments can and often do become unwieldy entities ruled by a connected group - but the influences often go to the benefit of the controllers of commerce, and visa-versa. It's a revolving door, and the money flows from the spigots of those who want certain things to happen - usually to the detriment of the citizens as a whole, and to fill the barrels of those who poured into the pot.

Oh sure there were a number of market crashes over time - quite a few. But worse than the Great Depression? The global crash of 29', Germany went under in a major way, banks failed, Hoover the engineer thought it was horrible and catastrophic but he hadn't a positive outlook on ending it. Perhaps the 20' crash was from the war ending - slowing global demand suddenly might do that.. I recall the stories of people committing suicide after the market crash of 29', and the psychological hopelessness that ensued. But the markets were unregulated, and so there was no stopping the plummeting market in a mass panic situation. And a great deal of the failure was from bad investments, which were not corrected quickly enough, as the speculative market grew into a huge bubble.

I'll take a look at what you've got there Nick - since market corrections have significant effects.;)

But the markets were unregulated, and so there was no stopping the plummeting market in a mass panic situation. And a great deal of the failure was from bad investments, which were not corrected quickly enough, as the speculative market grew into a huge bubble.

 

The markets were unregulated in 1920, yet things were fine because of the lack of action Washington took. If that was the problem the depression of 1920 would have grown into something much bigger, it didn't because that and the recession that lead to the great depression weren't that bad after all...it was government action that turned a minor situation into a catastrophe.

 

 

 

In the end its simple, very similar situations with different actions taken, with very different results. Its easy to see the policies of the 1920 depression worked....how then did doing the opposite work in the great depression? It was what caused the Great Depression, it wasn't what happened but governments response to what happened that made it a Great Depression, history has shown this. But no one knows about the 1920's depression, isn't that a little "fishy'?

 

We abandoned a proven method for dealing with economic trouble and all hell breaks lose for a long period of time.

 

One method worked(the way they dealt with the economic problems in 1920) while the other method failed miserably. We shouldn't have had a Great Depression, but the government failed to due what worked before leading to over a decade of depression.

Wealth is immaterial in anarchy because wealth isn't POWER.

 

Power is having a military behind you. That's the government.

 

Nick, the video you provided is great because of his comparison of government to a business - the government steals your money, so it can't determine if what it is doing is actually something that's in demand. Everything the government spends money on is a losing-investment... because if it were a profit-making investment, the private sector would have already done it.

 

Government IS a business. It is a violently-backed monopoly on certain services: education, road-construction, defense, security.

Government IS a business.

 

One that cannot produce any wealth.

 

I have a question for you Jay. So if we didn't have a government, we'd all have a lot more wealth, better health care more technology, but what if a nation with a government and large military decided they wanted our wealth or simply did not like the idea of a nation doing well without a government? How would we protect ourselves from a outside threat such as another nation's military?

 

If Canada did away with its government, I'm sure America would find some reason to invade, how would they then protect themselves? I understand government gets in the way of progress and just kills and steals, but one thing I do find helpful is that they provide security from foreign nations.(sometimes)

Ok, good question Nick.

 

Because there aren't any first-world anarchist territories today, I can only speculate how one would operate. But I'm fairly confident that it would have a banking system and a currency that operate within very rigid confines of the gold standard, or something similar. It's only logical that without a Federal Reserve, banks would be forced to compete based upon the good-faith their customers have in them (just like today), as well as whether they are considered sound (unlike today, where the Fed serves as the lender of last resort).

 

So banks would advertise on TV that they carry a higher gold-to-loans ratio in their vaults than their competitors, or that they offer some sort of pooling of risk with other banks (similar to FDIC insurance in case one of the member banks fails due to a string of bad investments).

 

The reason I mention this in relation to defense is this: If Canada expunges its government and suddenly becomes very prosperous, the US government would find this embarrassing and dangerous. So the first step to "embracing" Canada would be to try to tariff them out of existence (until Canadians themselves begin to plead for entry as a State). A president then might try to send in the military as a "security force" in much the same way we are occupying Iraq now. This would initially be funded by US taxpayers, but eventually US citizens would demand Canadian gold (like some US citizens are demanding Iraqi oil). Remember this would be the most prudent way to collect value from the Canadian people, because there isn't a census or a method for taxation in place already.

 

I suspect this string of events would be well-considered by Canadian banks before it happens. In the run-up of political rhetoric coming from America, banks might employ various security measures to protect their gold-standard. It wouldn't surprise me if a bank announced it has employed the services of a group of nuclear weapons experts to either irradiate the gold so it is unusable, or build an ICBM for deterrence purposes.

 

Existing security services would likely patrol the borders with America anyway, given the fact this land would now be privately owned and it is under threat from a statist society.

 

Admittedly anarchist territories aren't good at the whole "violence" thing like governments are. But I'm sure the free market would come up with some fun deterrent measures besides nukes. Sort of like how the DEA has to be careful they're not about to walk into a minefield (literally) when they go to destroy a marijuana crop. ;)

 

It's a really fun mental exercise.

Well, compared to Wilson's skills, Harding simply wasn't as skilled an orator;).. I think wages need not go down, since wages are a share of the economic pie, and the purchases made by workers increases demand, which increases profits, which allows factory owners to buy better machinery and increase efficiency. But if the investment class get overly interested in keeping more of the largess, then the workers must work more hours or take second jobs to maintain the same standards of living, reducing their health from excess stress, and reducing their enjoyment of life. (this from actual experience in the mills where we make all those fun toys, like boats, pallets, water skis, cheese, etc.)

While the well-off might re-invest in equipment, there has to be enough income for the majority to purchase the goods and services; the wealthy alone do not by and large purchase as much, because they only need so much, and reinvestment alone cannot create demand. So, I would rather see better wages for the average working citizen to rise, and for efficiency of production to increase as a means of improved profitability.

Government spending is not of great benefit in some areas, as many things are mis-used (see, for example, the military and equipment sent to Iraq to make a mess of things), or put into questionable research that benefits a few at the expense of the many. But government spending in the areas of rebuilding dilapidated bridges seems like a good investment to me! How we stimulate the economy when people become afraid to spend money, or when their ability to borrow is diminished excessively is a matter to consider carefully. Once re-invigorated, with enough improvement in wages and investment, the need for government spending diminshes, and hence so does the need for taxation. Since roughly 40 - 50% of the Federal budget goes for Defense (depending on how you slice it), in time, I think it's wise to dimish Defense spending, and cut taxes so we the citizens can spend our money, and more of the economic pie is available for goods and services we could all enjoy and use more of! The Defense contractors could instead manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, home high-efficiency power systems, and the like. Some could shift to silicon production, or cell production. There's a zillion better businesses they could be in, that involve ultimately more productive things which build our capacity as a nation to thrive, and the threat of misuse of the military dimishes when war is not so easy an option to turn to as a matter of foreign policy.

The psychological factor needs to be considered. Maybe not a big deal was made of the 1920 recession, and then psychologically people did not clam up as much; and in the case of a stock panic as well, regulation can slow the freefall, and give time for investors to regain some stability of mind before proceeding.. The 29' crash had begun in Germany, where everything from unpayable war reperations to printing fiat money to unsound investments (from mostly US investors) caused other markets to cascade down as well - it was quite a fall on the markets, even if production figures show otherwise, and it had a tremedous psychological effect.

So, I think the concentration of wealth has some negative effects, in that it creates the tendency for more monopolization to occur (since the ultra-loaded can continue to amass more and dominate economic sectors), and then those same individuals pay heavily into campaigns to prevent anti-trust regulations from breaking up their monopolies.

Also, since the upper 1% spends little, and reaps the benefits of a more educated populace who get their education from the taxes we all pay, they need to return more to society, which in turn will make them wealthier in other ways (by increasing profits from the manufacturing of goods and providing of services to every-day Amercians, and by creating a more stable society in which to live, since poverty and crime are connected).

A breadwinner who has a wage cut and has to choose between food, keeping the lights on, or providing health coverage for his or her family faces difficulties those with millions to spare can only imagine...

I say, tax the wealthy for a change, and cut the defense budget. Stimulate the economy when people are afraid to spend, and the banks less willing to lend, for the time being with productive investments in infrastructure. Improve our capacity to compete globally through greater health security for all citizens, especially in the field of preventive medicine.

But most importantly, reducing stress, increasing wages, increasing efficiency, and increasing the stability of working class Americans would generate a healthy and vibrant economy by maintaining the health and vibrancy of citizens who have good jobs and can buy the goods we make.

Double post.

Chuck, has it ever occurred to you that shifting money around arbitrarily (at the point of a gun) makes that money... less accurate as a measure of value?

 

That's like a scientist forcing air bubbles into a thermometer to make the mercury rise.

 

And why are you so concerned about panic in the stock markets? Remember that when stock prices fall, the extravagantly wealthy become far less rich. In fact many ex-billionaires are now millionaires thanks to the recent halving of the value of our stock market. Liberty, equality, fraternity! Well not really the first bit, but we'll work with the other two.

 

EDIT: Basically what I'm saying is, a great way to "equalize" wealth today would be to ensure higher interest rates. That way poor people wouldn't have to put their money at risk in the stock market to get a decent return, while the truly greedy would be taking on more risk because stock prices wouldn't have that artificial demand baked in. The reason stock prices get so high in the first place is because of all the workers who are told to contribute to a 401K... and remember that when it comes time for you to decide where to put your money, you'll consider the risk/reward ratio for both a savings account and a stock account. Make the reward greater for the savings account.

Back to the original post:

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04132009/news/regionalnews/phone_taxes_are_cell_hell_164180.htm

 

You can't hang up on the taxman.

 

Eleven federal, state and city levies add as much as 33 percent to the cost of New Yorkers' cellphones, a Post analysis found.

 

A typical cell plan costing $49.99 a month comes with a total tax bill of $10.59 -- a 21.18 percent tax rate that helps give New York the fourth-highest cellphone taxes of any state.

 

And cheaper plans favored by the frugal and poor are taxed at higher rates.

 

Someone with a $29.99 T-Mobile Basic plan with 300 minutes pays $6.95 in taxes monthly, a rate of 23.18 percent, 2 percentage points above the typical city bill.

 

People trying to save money with multiline family plans are hit harder.

 

Federal, state and local taxes on a two-line Sprint plan costing $69.99 a month add up to $15.73, a rate of 24.25 percent, 3 points above the typical bill.

 

Sprint offers additional lines for $9.99 each. Add $2.89 in state and city taxes and 42 cents in federal taxes, and each extra $9.99 line carries a tax bill of $3.32 -- a 33.20 percent rate, 12 percentage points above the typical bill.

 

"The taxes are insane!" cried Jessica Porter, 36, a gallery worker from the East Village with a similar three-line family plan.

 

Cellphone customers gripe that there's no justification for some of the fees, such as the state's $1.20-per-line, per-month 911 charge. Responding to complaints that only a tiny amount of the tax went to 911 service, the Legislature voted this month to call it a "public-service fee" instead.

 

"If there was a $5 monkey fee, even if they couldn't explain it, you would still have to pay," sniped Danny Schluck, 28, of Bushwick.

 

New Yorkers' cellphone levies include a 4 percent state sales tax, a 4.125 percent city sales tax, and three MTA taxes that add up to 0.98 percent.

 

Most people never read the phone-bill fine print -- they just pay up.

 

That's exactly how elected officials like it, said Scott Mackey, an economist who tracks taxes for several cellphone companies and aided The Post's analysis.

 

"There's a tendency to feel no one is going to notice this little tax," Mackey said. "They can do this without a lot of pushback from their constituents."

 

Another example of a tax that hits poor people harder than the rich.

So for every phone you have you have to pay $1.20 a month to fund the 911 service?

 

What a rip-off

Chuck, has it ever occurred to you that shifting money around arbitrarily (at the point of a gun) makes that money... less accurate as a measure of value?

Sometimes you have to make things happen that otherwise would not happen, because the king and the feudal system cares only enough for the serfs so as to offer them back the bare necessities for survival. Actually, I am advocating taking away some of the big guns, so there's less temptations for the overlords to start wars, and use us (the 99%) as the pawns in their geo-political games. Cut taxes to the average American citizens so they can have more control over their lives, and buy the necessities of life. The wealthy have been enjoying the largess of the productivity, and while skilled at the game of finance, they largely use the educated base in the population to gain even greater control - dangerously too much control, even for their own sake (as individual profits that reduce the common well being flies back at them in other ways..). Money buys influence, and when a small minority control the majority of capital, they work to increase their level of control even more - until there's no democracy left. Since the wealthy have been given huge tax breaks under the fallen Bush regime, (the 'haves, and the have mores', as I recall), it's time for them to contribute their fair share to the nation. It's always taken uprisings of the working classes - labor movements, minimum wage laws, and pension protections - to help ensure greater equity in society, and business found ways to improve productivity for profitability's sake, which helped further everyones' wealth.

That's like a scientist forcing air bubbles into a thermometer to make the mercury rise.

Not really. When people earn more and have greater stability, they tend to spend more, and profits rise. Then there's incentives for improved efficiency, since volume business makes this so, and more profits to be gained by all involved, including the ownership. What we have now is a weakend structure, where the base is crumbling from the enormous weights placed upon it. I'm advocating for a stronger, more stable base, able in the end to support a stronger economy. Less energy lost as 'heat' - i.e., wasted on nefarious projects of dubious worth (like military buildups & invasions of countries that for obvious reasons prove unsuccessful). And for example, incentivising through tax cuts and cash back for home improvements not only beautifies neighborhoods, but it also upgrades the efficiency of the houses, requiring less energy to heat, and freeing up more of the economy from resource-intensive activities (like oil extraction and refinement), towards efficient and tecnologically advanced measures to insulate, ventilate, structurally upgrade, etc. our housing stock, as economists so aptly put it. Where do we put the marbles, basically - less on oil and war machines, more into homes and lives of workers.

 

And why are you so concerned about panic in the stock markets? Remember that when stock prices fall, the extravagantly wealthy become far less rich. In fact many ex-billionaires are now millionaires thanks to the recent halving of the value of our stock market. Liberty, equality, fraternity! Well not really the first bit, but we'll work with the other two.

Well, it's a psychological thing. The Great Depression was as much a psychological response to the shocks, as it was real in the economic sense. And as for the extravagantly wealthy, I'd rather see safeguards placed on market activities even for their sake - they're human after all, and their own shell games often become their own doom - hence, Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling of ENRON needed only a correction much earlier, as they were skilled at agressive business activity, but needed some rules and a referee to keep them in the lines, even for their own sake. Plus the more honest players in the market must either conform, or be swalllowed up by business such as this. Better to promote honest & ethical businesses, and establish a level playing field.

After all, it wasn't the average citizens jumping out of those windows in NYC and elsewhere when the crash of 29' hit, it was the tycoons.:toff:

On Lady Liberty's Shoulder's Rests the Scales of Justice.;)

EDIT: Basically what I'm saying is, a great way to "equalize" wealth today would be to ensure higher interest rates. That way poor people wouldn't have to put their money at risk in the stock market to get a decent return, while the truly greedy would be taking on more risk because stock prices wouldn't have that artificial demand baked in. The reason stock prices get so high in the first place is because of all the workers who are told to contribute to a 401K... and remember that when it comes time for you to decide where to put your money, you'll consider the risk/reward ratio for both a savings account and a stock account. Make the reward greater for the savings account.

What?? Higher interest rates will equalize wealth??:confused: If Bob and Jan want to fix up their home, and their income isn't rising much, how are they to afford this? And if they fix up their home, then their home value goes up, and their comfort level too. I'm not sure poor people put anything in the stock market on purpose (that's been done to them by the various gambling sharks..) - most live paycheck to paycheck, and save for Social Security and maybe pensions, that's all they have. It's the middle that can afford some stock, and then it's usually not the preferred shares the CEO's get. Probably it would be good to save the poor people from having their homes put on the gambling markets - that I'll gladly agree to! (gosh, ever see Cleveland's working-class neighborhoods!:stunned:)

Hmm.. there's that route, or ensure there's a high level of transparency with the investments, so those responsible for investing the 401K's can truly have an honest ratings value to go by, and then those who like to gamble a fraction can do so without risking the big nest egg - just the 10%, if some riskier investements look like they might pay off.

I think oversight, if done correctly, can be a blessing for all. It's predicated on honest and open government, which is predicated on campaign finance reform.

And the shocks have made the demand for honesty grow, so I'm hopeful.

 

thanks for the conversation, Jay.;)

 

What?? Higher interest rates will equalize wealth?? If Bob and Jan want to fix up their home, and their income isn't rising much, how are they to afford this?

 

How can they afford it with interest? Thats part of the problem, think of how much we waste on interest alone in our life time! How much wealth is lost that way?!

 

Second of all income rising makes things worse. You see they artificially raise income and prices of goods go up, but wages don't go up as much nor as fast so their is a lag and the people are punished with less wealth. In a free market, goods become cheaper and thus the same pay goes further. If living cost 30,000 a year for you and then prices go down but you get paid the same its like income going up but effectively. However since the 70's real income has gone down due to inflation and the government thinking forcing "income" up will solve the problem, not so.

 

most live paycheck to paycheck, and save for Social Security and maybe pensions, that's all they have.

 

SS isn't enough to live on or make much of a difference and guess what? its almost gone, its a ponzi scheme, pensions are the next bubble to burst, their estimating at least a trillion in lost pension funds...probably a lot higher then that. So pensions and SS haven't done a bit of good. Also SS is stolen by the politicians to pay for other things, adding to the fact its too big to work.

Social Security is about all most folks have who are among the working poor. Sad, it's often barely enough to survive on, but pensions only last so long, and are greatly reduced when one spouse passes on. Social Security isn't a ponzi scheme (well, at least it wasn't until the Congress started dipping into it).. it's really something that can be made solvent, if Congress so choose they could fix it.

Pensions were supposed to be invested carefully, often in part in the parent company where they worked.. I wonder what diabolical plots have been hatched to get to people's pensions..:thinking:

Yes, usery fees are significant, and while legitimate often become excessive. Banks have all sorts of ways of squeezing more out of people - like when you want to borrow more for a project, there's extra fees, and the interest winds up being close to the amount borrowed.

While income raised excessively can have the effect of causing inflation, however I think we're nowhere near that level. Goods become cheaper when someone improves the efficiency of the process of manufacture, distribution, or sales, and/or the raw materials become more widely available at a lower cost. But what about when a manufacturer here has to compete with someone making the same type of product in the free trade zone of the Marianas? We offer wages, benefits, abide by rules and regs., and some other manufacturer can simply use virtual slaves to make the same types of products. That's where I believe in international standards, or Fair Trade practices, so that nobody on the low end of the ladder gets rooked.

One might argue that wages caused inflation in the 70's, but I think other factors were in play, such as huge spikes in fuel costs, transportation costs, and insufficient gains in efficiency of manufacture. Debt issues can have a great effect as well - we spent tremendously on the Vietnam war, and ran up huge national debts, the interest of which causes inflation as well.

t's really something that can be made solvent, if Congress so choose they could fix it.

 

Do you know how much SS would cost? We can't even afford the things were doing now....!

 

 

While income raised excessively can have the effect of causing inflation, however I think we're nowhere near that level.

 

Thats one of the main reasons were in this mess right now..inflation, which lead to real wages declining since the 70's, which is destroying the middle class. In the 70's women went to work, 80-90's savings were depleted and in 2000's we went into deep debt....Inflation hit 12% in 2006, inflation will come back again but worse since the crisis the money supply has not shrunk but massively increased...so if we had 12% a few years ago and the money supply grew image whats next.

This is a fantastic editorial about April 15, tax day. I love the language he uses, because it's absolutely accurate in describing reality as it is:

 

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=46

 

Every year the average American worker confronts the federal government in a more disturbingly intimate manner than during any other so regularly and widely experienced encounter. On April 15, Americans must pay tribute to the central state on the basis of their income.

 

To be more precise, the coerced payment occurs continuously as every dollar is earned. Ever since World War II, Americans have had their income tax withheld by their employers, so they don't realize all at once how much they're being milked and revolt. Government funding runs more smoothly, especially in larger amounts, when the taxpayer is soaked gradually.

 

Although the grand larceny is unremitting, April 15 still has its unique significance, for it is this date by which most Americans have to submit their tax forms, often exhausted from an excruciating effort to accurately account for their financial affairs from the past year, dreading that an arithmetic error or misreading of the illegible tax code might land them in federal prison. It is an onerous imposition for millions. It is a reminder that our government is essentially an extortion racket. If it happened closer to election time, campaign rhetoric would perhaps be more interesting.

 

It is notable how little concern there is for the oppressed taxpayer coming from the progressives, the liberals, and the left. Although they might complain about poor priorities and busted budgets, few of them attack the institution of income taxation for what it is: violent exploitation of the worker by the most monopolistic, immense and predatory corporation to be found, the national government.

 

This of course goes for all the payroll taxes, not just the income tax. It should be obvious by now that Social Security is not an investment, and no more voluntary than the income tax.

 

The hardship of taxation is most clear to the worker on tax day, when the proletariat must consummate their economic enslavement over the previous year with an intimidating and self-deprecating ritual of paperwork. It is akin to adding homework to injury. Having paid rent on their lives to the corporate state, a large fraction of which payment has financed slaughter, persecution and further oppression of workers, the tax serfs must prove to the state to its satisfaction that the right amount has been extracted from them. If they fail, they go to jail.

 

The percentage of the workers' production that goes to the federal government, incidentally, is considerably larger than the cut that any capitalist pockets from what a worker produces. The comparison, however, is unfair, since the worker has some choice of employers. Opportunities are certainly scarcer than they should be, especially due to the regulatory trappings set by the bureaucracy to keep the populace in a place most easy to track and control. But the employee can ultimately leave and seek other work. The state, in contrast to the most parsimonious taskmaster in the private sector, is vastly more unrelenting, unforgiving and inescapable. It has its grip on the whole country. Even Americans who expatriate have to keep paying their annual ransom to Uncle Sam.

 

It's funny how any hint of greed in the market will set the left off, meanwhile the state loots the average American on every transaction to bankroll various ventures in state capitalism and state socialism -- ventures on which the taxpayer covers the risk and the mega-bureaucracy, the military industrial complex, and their cronies reap the profits. One might expect a real partisan of the rights of the worker to be alarmed by the state's encroachment on the worker's right to the fruits of his labor and production.

 

Think of how much more money people would have to freely save and give and spend and invest, to build their communities, pursue their dreams and support their families, if it weren't for income and payroll taxes. For all the federal government supposedly does for the downtrodden, does the left not see how much more it takes away? Giving Labor Day to the worker in exchange for Tax Day for the state appears an exceedingly unfair trade.

 

Why does the egalitarian left speak so little of the fundamental inequity involved between the multi-trillion-dollar exploiter and the hundreds of millions of workers who labor constantly to keep the scam afloat? I suppose that some liberals have been tricked into believing in the necessity of taxation. Others are actually not so concerned with the well-being of the worker as they are with preserving government power.

 

The organized conservatives, for their part, complain about taxes and yet favor the most extravagant and vulgar spending projects. They should be smart enough about economics to understand the contradiction. In practice and certainly in power, they are not really anti-tax. It was the Republicans who gave the United States the Income Tax, under Abraham Lincoln and then more permanently through William Howard Taft, who proposed the 16th Amendment in his first year as president and championed it til the day it was ratified as he was leaving office. The GOP has always been for the big tariff, too. When push comes to shove, the right has always found ways to make others pay for its wars and police brutality. Despite the pervasive misconceptions, Republicans characteristically jump at the chance to raise taxes and inaugurate new ones, and when they do cut them, the cuts are nearly always an illusion. Spending goes up, which means taxes, direct or indirect, most go up, what way or another.

 

Regarding the extent of exploitation, over the years, under the care of both parties, the federal budget has blossomed into the largest government budget ever. Its growth continues to be tremendous. And the enormous income tax doesn't even come close to covering the total. As Ron Paul pointed out a few years ago, the personal income tax could be wiped out and the U.S. government would still have a larger budget than it did in 2000.

 

That was the last year of Clinton. Now we are at the point where Bush and the Republicans, followed by Obama and the Democrats, have spent so much on their wars and graft, their welfare and police statism, their corporate bailouts and bureaucracy building, that the income tax and payroll tax cover but a small portion of the total amount.

 

In practice, income tax is the price we pay so the government can continue to wreck civilization. Here and abroad.

 

There was a time many years ago when liberals recognized the problem with taxation, the impossibility of making it just, the danger of unleashing the taxing power of the state that corresponds so well to its destructive power. Then around the turn of the last century, the left turned to the state as a friend, rather than the unambiguous foe, of the working man. Conservatives have long complained about paying up, even as their own totalitarian bureaucracy has been financed by burgeoning direct and indirect taxation. Nowadays, the establishment left and right both care nothing of the suffering taxpayer and the tyranny of taxation. Anyone with a vested interest in big government will just stare off into space if you point out that it's theft, conducted at the barrel of a gun. In the long run, it is this point we should emphasize -- that taxation is simply legalized plunder, and any organization that executes it must be watched closely.

One more positive effect of Campaign Finance Reform is eliminating the kick-back system, which funnels money into the wrong channels, and bloats the Federal Budget.;) Limited Government starts with limiting the campaign donations, and leveling the playing field.

Do you know how much SS would cost? We can't even afford the things were doing now....!

Well, everyone paid in, so where did the money go??;) Money is fungible, so Social Security can be made solvent, and it's only reasonable to allow retirees the benefits they're owed. Besides, I'll bet it's only a fraction of the war & bailout efforts.

 

 

 

 

Thats one of the main reasons were in this mess right now..inflation, which lead to real wages declining since the 70's, which is destroying the middle class. In the 70's women went to work, 80-90's savings were depleted and in 2000's we went into deep debt....Inflation hit 12% in 2006, inflation will come back again but worse since the crisis the money supply has not shrunk but massively increased...so if we had 12% a few years ago and the money supply grew image whats next.

>> Inflation is the result of an overheated economy, and it can be due to multiple factors, not all of equal value. Where's the money going? Hmm.. well, for starters, home prices have jumped dramatically, and that's got more to due with excess profits in the housing markets. Also, a great deal more is being spent on health insurance, which has risen dramatically.

If the economy were strong to begin with, then the influx of money printed would cause inflation, but with spending slow, if not too much cash is printed and spent, it might simply keep the economy stimulated but not overheated.

Inflation has many causes, and in 2006 I recall there being high fuel prices, if I'm not mistaken.;) That seems a more likely causative agent than wage increases.

But I'm all for cutting the wages of CEO's, since they have been earning wayy too much money:P. I think the Japanese have it right.

>> Inflation is the result of an overheated economy, and it can be due to multiple factors, not all of equal value. Where's the money going? Hmm.. well, for starters, home prices have jumped dramatically, and that's got more to due with excess profits in the housing markets. Also, a great deal more is being spent on health insurance, which has risen dramatically.

If the economy were strong to begin with, then the influx of money printed would cause inflation, but with spending slow, if not too much cash is printed and spent, it might simply keep the economy stimulated but not overheated.

Inflation has many causes, and in 2006 I recall there being high fuel prices, if I'm not mistaken.;) That seems a more likely causative agent than wage increases.

But I'm all for cutting the wages of CEO's, since they have been earning wayy too much money:P. I think the Japanese have it right.

 

Chuck just because money velocity is slow does not mean it won't pick up sometime with inflation. Inflation is simply a increase in the money supply, right now we have asset deflations because of low money velocity and a few other factors but once things get going all that money will start to circulate again and fast, and the already high inflation we had will get even higher.

 

If we had real deflation as in money being destroyed, then you might be able to argue of printing more, however true deflation helps the middle class. But the money is all still there, just velocity is slow so while we think the money has "gone" away and we need more its just sitting on the sideline waiting to jump back in with the new trillions added to the system.

 

So all the money we had a few years ago is still around, plus new money is being added, it just hasn't been circulated yet, that takes time.