Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 25, 2016, 06:55:58 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
96058 Posts in 2315 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: Concerned Citizen
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Political Economics
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] Print
Author Topic: Political Economics  (Read 319066 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13769


« Reply #1600 on: December 26, 2015, 05:58:57 PM »

It is not accidental.

It may be his intent - to trap millions in dependency - and there may be a Stockholm Syndrome effect of hostages supporting their captors, but for the most part being trapped in poverty is not the intent of the victims.  We need to at least try to reach them.

This government has decided to dissolve the American people and create a population more to their liking.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1601 on: December 27, 2015, 12:18:58 PM »

Cronyism Causes the Worst Kind of Inequality

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-24/cronyism-causes-the-worst-kind-of-inequality

Higher inequality has been associated with lower growth.

Economists Sutirtha Bagchi of the University of Michigan and Jan Svejnar of Columbia recently set out to test the cronyism hypothesis.

only one kind of inequality was associated with low growth -- the kind that came from cronyism

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-24/cronyism-causes-the-worst-kind-of-inequality
http://ftp.iza.org/dp7733.pdf
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1602 on: January 05, 2016, 09:04:13 AM »

First a quick reaction from the left:  Who cares, the issue still gets us votes!

Once again, evidence that a free, private market for labor would out-perform socialism and big government tampering.  

Who knew?

43% of the sustaining problem in the group we are trying to help most comes from this wrong-headed, counter-productive policy.

No worries, we can just support them for the rest of their lives if they don't successfully join the workforce when they are young.

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21830.pdf

... baseline estimate is that this period’s full set of minimum wage increases reduced employment among individuals ages 16 to 30 with less than a high school education by 5.6 percentage points. This estimate accounts for 43 percent of the sustained, 13 percentage point decline in this skill group’s employment rate and a 0.49 percentage point decline in employment across the full population ages 16 to 64.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1603 on: January 18, 2016, 09:42:40 AM »

Anything factual and economic posted here could also go under Cognitive Dissonance of the Left.  Did Bernie ever mention this, that the income of the top 1% goes down every year if you hold the members in that group constant and study them.  Try this study for an example:

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

The income of the top 1% in 1996 fell 25% within 10 years.  50% of the lower quintile earners moved up out of that category in 10 years and 75% of the top 1% moved down from that designation in just one decade.  Who knew?  Not one person attending a Dem debate.

For political expedience the Left likes to ignore income mobility>  They point to a different group each tax year and calling them the top 1 %, inferring it is the same group as a year ago or a decade ago but it isn't.

In a global economy, the new rich can make more money than the successful people who preceded them because they are able to sell their inventions and innovations into a larger global market.  The way to stop that is to ban commerce or to lead the global market into stagnation and decline, both leading ideas of the current administration and the left.

What this country needs is more people getting rich, not fewer.  Not for what we see as the outward signs of prosperity, jetting around or spending wildly, but for the economically essential core activities that consistently produce wealth under the conducive conditions, investment, innovation, wise risk taking, profit seeking, addressing market needs with vision, hard work, persistence, adaptability, etc.

In political micro-economics, each voter needs to compare their income this regime and these policies with their own past and their own potential income under better policies, not look to what someone else is making with different talents, different backgrounds and different energy levels.  Stopping or limiting the success of others limits your own income, even if you can't or won't see the connection.

Where is the JFK in today's Democratic primary and debate touting that a rising tide lifts all boats.  They have recently shifted focus to stopping anyone (except from core left constituencies) from rising, especially the tide that affects all boats.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13769


« Reply #1604 on: January 18, 2016, 11:56:28 AM »

Today, JFK's economic ideas would have home condemned as TEAquaeda by huffpo.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37256


« Reply #1605 on: January 28, 2016, 03:43:39 PM »


Jan. 26, 2016 7:40 p.m. ET
352 COMMENTS

Here we go again. A major U.S. company merges with a foreign firm in part to avoid America’s punishing corporate tax code, and the politicians who refuse to reform the code denounce the company for trying to stay competitive. The gullible in the media then dutifully play along. Sigh.

Let’s try to explain one more time why it makes perfect business—and moral—sense for Johnson Controls to merge with Tyco, as it announced Monday it would do. Tyco has a U.S. headquarters in New Jersey but is legally domiciled in Cork, Ireland. Johnson Controls will own roughly 56% of the combined company and its legal headquarters will move to Cork from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where it has been based for more than a century.

To simplify for Democratic presidential candidates: The U.S. federal corporate income tax rate is 35%. The Irish rate is 12.5%. Johnson Controls says the tax savings from its move to Cork will be roughly $150 million a year.

A CEO obliged to act in the best interests of shareholders cannot ignore this competitive reality. The merger means that Johnson Controls will have more money to invest back in the U.S. because the income it earns overseas would not be subject to the U.S. tax rate. Only if Johnson kept its headquarters in the U.S. would its foreign earnings be double-taxed upon repatriation. If Johnson Controls refuses to do such a deal now, a foreign competitor might end up buying Johnson Controls anyway to achieve the same savings.

As with other such tax “inversions,” there are also non-tax strategic reasons for the merger. The new company will have under one roof much of the equipment and services desired by the owners of large commercial buildings, from air conditioning to fire suppression.

But none of this business logic impresses Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, who helped to write the U.S. tax code as Senators but are now competing as presidential candidates to see who can demagogue more ferociously against American employers. Mrs. Clinton called the merger “outrageous” and Mr. Sanders is calling the executives “corporate deserters.”

Neither one wants to reform the tax code to make U.S. tax rates more competitive with the rest of the world. Instead they want to raise the costs of doing business even further. Mrs. Clinton’s solution is to raise taxes on investors with higher capital-gains taxes, block inversion deals, and apply an “exit tax” to businesses that manage to escape.

Mr. Sanders would go further and perform an immediate $620 billion cashectomy on U.S. companies. The Vermonter would tax the money U.S. firms have earned overseas, even though that income has already been taxed in foreign jurisdictions and even if the companies aren’t bringing it into the U.S.

Mr. Sanders’s campaign website says that after the big revenue grab in year one, his change would increase federal revenue by perhaps $90 billion a year thereafter. And he would limit future corporate inversions by taxing many inverting companies as if they never left. His revenue goal is a fantasy, because the practical effect would be to encourage many more companies to flee American shores.

Never mind the lost tax revenue, this kind of punishing tax policy is immoral. Multinational corporations with global customers can always relocate to wherever it makes the most business sense. Their American employees aren’t so lucky because their livelihoods depend on thriving and competitive U.S. companies. If the employees can’t move, or their companies can’t compete, they’re the ones who lose their jobs or don’t get raises. Has the Democratic Party moved so far left that it doesn’t understand even this most basic of business realities?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1606 on: February 03, 2016, 09:15:31 AM »

Obama's policies are now fully in place and anemic economic growth has slowed to 0.7%.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/29/u-s-to-release-figures-expecting-to-show-fourth-quarter-growth/  Even Wesbury is bummed.  It has been TEN YEARS since the United States of America has seen 3% growth for a year.  Coincidentally, it has been 10 years since Nov 2006 when leftists took over Washington.   Most odd in all this is that in the pursuit of equality over growth, income inequality have gotten much 'worse'.

Economic growth in 1984 during the Reagan recovery was 6.8%.  
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/#7d5435c23a1d  
"Breakeven growth" is considered to be between about 3.1 and 3.2%.  

George Will correctly points out that the difference between 2% growth and 3% growth is not 1%; it is a 50% improvement.  This ship is getting harder and harder to turn around because the changes for the worse have been structural, not incidental.  Leaving the workforce is not like driving to the store or being between jobs; it is a mostly permanent change / end of productive activity, and 100 million adults are no longer in the workforce, out of 242 million adults.  The needing of government assistance is no longer defined as the poverty line; you need healthcare assistance up to incomes 4 times the poverty line.

From our discussion about tax rates, one tweak to Rubio's tax plan I would propose is to make the child tax benefit a deduction, not a credit.  In the eyes of some he is engaging in his own social engineering by rewarding one activity, having children, rather than put all the money toward marginal rate reductions.  In another sense, median income of 50k is simply less income for a family of 4 than it is for a single or a couple.

I would favor a constitutional amendment capping federal tax rates at about 25%.  No one should pay more than a quarter of their income to the Feds.  If we had a balanced budget requirement and didn't have the rich to keep raising on, a voter would have to pay more themselves in order to demand more services or goodies from the government.  Imagine imposing common sense on public sector choices!  The middle class shouldn't pay more than a quarter in Fed, state, local combined, but part of that is out of the Fed's hands and it would only works if/when we define the role of government downward.  In the meantime we have greatly defined the role of government upward and that will take some hard work and smart planning to even begin to reverse.

The highest marginal tax rates in fact are faced by people on the edge of losing their program benefits.  I made roughly one more dollar of income one year and lost thousands in FAFSA (federal college money).  Working welfare folks face that on everything, especially free and subsidized health care that no one on a lower income can afford anymore.

In the 90's when we "ended welfare as we know it" (so much Clintonspeak in that), we saw the double benefit of people moving from programs to work.  People not only start to pay in (pull the wagon) and are phased out of receiving some benefits (riding on the wagon).  Social security seems to be the most vivid example for people to understand, but all programs work this way, how may workers can support how many beneficiaries?  If you have made near the median income, you aren't in need of monetary help, maybe just budget counseling.  What part of how expensive our lives have become is the fault of excess government, healthcare being the most recent and prominent example?

Oddly, HRC the felon is running to continue the Obama economy, not to return us to the Clinton-Gingrich years.

Missing in this rambling so far is the number one cause or symptom of our current economic problems, real business startups are happening at the lowest rate ever.  That problem is tied more to excess regulations than to excess taxation, as taxation is tied to profits which is the least of your problems if you are contemplating a startup in Obama's America today.

All of these problems are solvable, not easily, not quickly and are barely being discussed in the current debate.  Sanders for example wants to come down harder on Wall Street banks, but Wall Street banks are rich because of the government squeezing the business out of all banks that can't afford to have teams of Wall Street lawyers on staff.  On the other side of it, Rubio correctly points out how a business started in a spare bedroom can't comply with all these over-regulations while the biggest of businesses can.  If you really wanted to squeeze big businesses, make it legal for new businesses and small businesses to compete with them.  Instead the main result of these policies has been for the top 30 companies (Dow), the top 500 companies (S&P) and the top 3100 companies (NASDAQ) to prosper while the rest of us suffer.

One more central leftist tenet is for government to raise the private sector wage.  While we debate a federal minimum wage increase, many cities and states have been raising theirs.  Government wants Walmart in particular to pay its people more.  In the meantime, Walmart closed 154 stores and laid off 10,000 employees.  Question:  Who is helped by that?  Certainly not Walmart employees or shoppers considered the heart of the lower middle class that we care the most about.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 09:37:48 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5725


« Reply #1607 on: February 03, 2016, 11:51:09 AM »

"One more central leftist tenet is for government to raise the private sector wage.  While we debate a federal minimum wage increase, many cities and states have been raising theirs.  Government wants Walmart in particular to pay its people more.  In the meantime, Walmart closed 154 stores and laid off 10,000 employees.  Question:  Who is helped by that?  Certainly not Walmart employees or shoppers considered the heart of the lower middle class that we care the most about."

Well wages are like everything else supply and demand.  We keep flooding the market form immigrants endlessly wages will never go up because they don't have to.

Great for Zuckerberg.  Bad for workers.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1608 on: February 03, 2016, 02:30:24 PM »

Minimum wage is the opposite of letting supply and demand work.  Too many low wage immigrants is another problem.  I believe all R candidates are now committed to ending new illegal immigration so the next step is to WIN THIS ELECTION!   )
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37256


« Reply #1609 on: February 04, 2016, 10:17:46 AM »

http://www.disclose.tv/news/iceland_forgives_entire_population_its_debt_total_us_media_blackout/127307
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5725


« Reply #1610 on: February 04, 2016, 10:43:29 AM »

"The US Rothschild Controlled Media (RCM) has completely BLACKED OUT/CENSORED any news about Iceland’s DEBT FORGIVENESS."

ie: the Jews

"We are allowed to see a tortured, bleeding, dying Gaddafi anywhere, but we are not allowed to know about Debt Forgiveness."

ie: written by Jew hating and likely American hating Muslims most likely Arab Muslims.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1611 on: March 08, 2016, 11:29:11 AM »

Here is a trick question: What percentage of American households have incomes in the top 10 percent? Answer: 51 percent of American households are in the top 10 percent in income at some point in the course of a lifetime — usually in their older years. Those who want us to envy and resent the top 10 percent are urging half of us to envy and resent ourselves.

https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/03/16/random-thoughts-b2798
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13769


« Reply #1612 on: March 18, 2016, 10:12:46 AM »

http://kfor.com/2016/03/17/carls-jr-ceo-wants-to-try-automated-restaurant-where-customers-never-see-a-person/

Fight for 15=Fail.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1613 on: March 21, 2016, 01:37:00 PM »

Important work, I think, studying inequality over lifetime instead annually and looking more to spending rather than income wealth.  Realistic conclusions, policies must take disincentives to work at both ends of the spectrum into account.

https://newrepublic.com/article/131517/weve-measuring-inequality-wrong

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1614 on: March 28, 2016, 10:28:32 AM »

Important work, I think, studying inequality over lifetime instead annually and looking more to spending rather than income wealth.  Realistic conclusions, policies must take disincentives to work at both ends of the spectrum into account.

https://newrepublic.com/article/131517/weve-measuring-inequality-wrong

Another look at that:
http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/income-inequality-doesnt-matter-study-finds-heres-what-does/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1615 on: March 28, 2016, 10:59:28 AM »

Over on the US Economy thread we keep hearing about how great a limited number of large, global companies are doing, as if that is a measure of how the economy is doing.  The economy is underperforming - to make a 'Captain F'ing Obvious' Understatement!

Under Obama's Accomplishments, did I already mention the worst startup rate of real businesses in US history?  (Filing an LLC to limit liability exposure on an existing building or asset that will employ no one ever is not a business startup.)  Others are starting to pay attention to warning signs that are already blindingly obvious to anyone on the forum.

Dearth of Startups:  http://www.inc.com/magazine/201505/leigh-buchanan/the-vanishing-startups-in-decline.html
Among other things, "Onerous Regulations"

http://www.stltoday.com/business/columns/david-nicklaus/bullard-concerned-about-dearth-of-startups/article_b9a30d80-6980-581b-a52b-6bc53e861e33.html
Bullard concerned about dearth of startupsBullard concerned about dearth of startups
A long-term decline in U.S. startup activity should be of concern to national policymakers, St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank President James Bullard

Now this:  (The Economist actually gets something right!)

Big firms never had it so good, competition persistently lacking.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21695392-big-firms-united-states-have-never-had-it-so-good-time-more-competition-problem?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits

The Economist, What's wrong with the highest sustained profits by the biggest companies in US history?  Lack of competition.  Why the lack of competition?  New regulations... keep rivals out.

"Getting bigger is not the only way to squish competitors. As the mesh of regulation has got denser since the 2007-08 financial crisis, the task of navigating bureaucratic waters has become more central to firms’ success. Lobbying spending has risen by a third in the past decade, to $3 billion. A mastery of patent rules has become essential in health care and technology, America’s two most profitable industries. And new regulations do not just fence big banks in: they keep rivals out."

"2/3rds of Americans think the economy is rigged [against them]." 

 (  - How come we're on the side of making that true, instead of making that false? )

The two choices that remain coming out of these primaries are to choose between a crony government felon and a private takings advocating, crony government beneficiary.  That's great (with sarcasm), and when do we start to address what's gone wrong in this country?
-------------------------------------------------------
From The Economist:   ...
Most of the remedies dangled by politicians to solve America’s economic woes would make things worse. Higher taxes would deter investment. Jumps in minimum wages would discourage hiring. Protectionism would give yet more shelter to dominant firms. Better to unleash a wave of competition.

The first step is to take aim at cosseted incumbents. Modernising the antitrust apparatus would help. Mergers that lead to high market share and too much pricing power still need to be policed. But firms can extract rents in many ways. Copyright and patent laws should be loosened to prevent incumbents milking old discoveries. Big tech platforms such as Google and Facebook need to be watched closely: they might not be rent-extracting monopolies yet, but investors value them as if they will be one day. The role of giant fund managers with crossholdings in rival firms needs careful examination, too.

Set them free
The second step is to make life easier for startups and small firms. [Is this rocket science?]  Concerns about the expansion of red tape and of the regulatory state must be recognised as a problem, not dismissed as the mad rambling of anti-government Tea Partiers. The burden placed on small firms by laws like Obamacare has been material. The rules shackling banks have led them to cut back on serving less profitable smaller customers. The pernicious spread of occupational licensing has stifled startups. Some 29% of professions, including hairstylists and most medical workers, require permits, up from 5% in the 1950s.

A blast of competition would mean more disruption for some: firms in the S&P 500 employ about one in ten Americans. But it would create new jobs, encourage more investment and help lower prices. Above all, it would bring about a fairer kind of capitalism. That would lift Americans’ spirits as well as their economy.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21695392-big-firms-united-states-have-never-had-it-so-good-time-more-competition-problem?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37256


« Reply #1616 on: March 28, 2016, 01:30:04 PM »

 cool
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5725


« Reply #1617 on: March 30, 2016, 09:35:24 AM »

Speaking of state taxes Jindal is getting creamed in the news for leaving a budget deficit 3 x bigger then when he came into office.  His 60%+ approval rating plummets to under 30%.

He was leading as a supply sider.  The real question is supply side economics a bust.  Or "voodoo economics".   Are our problems we cannot grow our way out of this?

George Will on the subject:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will032716.php3   shocked
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37256


« Reply #1618 on: March 31, 2016, 01:20:12 AM »

http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2016/03/chinas-gift-to-us-cheap-goods.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FtMBeq+%28Calafia+Beach+Pundit%29
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1619 on: March 31, 2016, 10:03:02 AM »


Grannis is right on this.  Except for criminal activity, stealing patents, etc., each transaction of trade is good.  It doesn't need to be "balanced" like a fiscal budget (we don't balance anymore either).  Imports are good, exports are good, and having both is doubly good.  Unlike a leftist world with compulsory purchases and regulated prices, every transaction of free trade is consensual and mutually beneficial.  The American consumer is reaping a huge benefit from global sourcing and American companies and producers likewise receive a huge benefit from having a global market in which to sell.

I listened to Trump on the Wisc. talk show.  He admits he doesn't want to raise tariffs, he won't raise tariffs, that would cripple our consumers (his voters), he admits.  He just wants to threaten to do that.  How do you threaten to do what everyone knows you are not willing to do?  He had no answer for that - another major issue he hasn't fully thought through.  Imagine next year's headline, prices for durable goods up 45% due to President Trump's trade policy.  He is too into his own popularity to ever do that even if it was good for us and it isn't.  It would be instant global recession with an easily traceable cause.

The WSJ used to say that global trade is beneficial and inevitable.  If you don't buy into the former, see the latter.  You can't have economic freedom in a global economy while being banned or punished economically for making your best purchases (and sales) around the world.  [The exception is when national security interests are at stake.]  And when people do have economic freedom, everyone benefits.

As the Chinese economy and consumer prospers, they will grow their demand for what we produce (if we produce what they demand) in a dynamic economy.

Trade protectionism is based on static, rear view mirror thinking.  We used to make  x , (steel, garments, or whatever), therefore we need to get back to where we made  x .  But comparative advantage moved on.  Now we need to produce  y and  z  to meet new market demand and stay ahead of our competition.  And what that our national product mix needs to be is not determined in the White House or a Congressional committee.

Freedom to trade requires the confidence that, given a  somewhat level playing field, we can compete with anyone.  The government's role in it is to remove the government imposed barriers that keep up from being competitive, not to micro-manage production, consumption or trade.

[We have a trade thread.]
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1620 on: April 01, 2016, 10:52:36 PM »

A few interesting facts in this piece, link below:

90% of new jobs / job growth are part time.

Growth rate since the recession is a dismal 2%.

Hillary promises to punish inversions with a new tax instead of reform the highest business taxes in the world.

US businesses are holding $2 trillion in foreign earnings outside the US, double Obama's stimulus package.

Hillary proposes to raise minimum wage 66% from 7.25 to $12.

1% of US workers make minimum wage.

0.4% of workers 25 or older make federal minimum wage.

More taxes and more regulations hurt economic growth.

Economic growth would help low income people more than more taxes and regulations.

Hillary and the left choose greater government power over increasing economic growth.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/what-hillary-gets-wrong-on-wages-commentary.html

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37256


« Reply #1621 on: April 06, 2016, 07:08:27 PM »

Democrats are routinely accused of taking black support for granted. They push policies without much concern for the potential negative impact on their black constituents, whom liberals reason will either vote Democratic or stay home.

To understand the basis of this criticism, look no further than the current debate over minimum-wage increases. For decades, the political left has argued that higher minimum wages would reduce poverty and income inequality. In reality, wage floors are nothing more than sops to organized labor. Most of the U.S. labor force isn’t organized, so labor unions use minimum-wage laws to limit the job competition from nonunionized workers. And Democrats support Big Labor’s agenda to keep the party’s campaign coffers filled.

This week California and New York, two states run by Democratic governors, announced plans to gradually increase the base wage to $15 per hour. California Gov. Jerry Brown acknowledged that there was no economic rationale for the increase, and the state finance department issued a report last year that said increasing the minimum wage would lead “to slower employment growth.” In the end, however, the progressive Democrat decided, much as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo must have, that other factors were more important. “Economically, minimum wages may not make sense,” Mr. Brown said recently. “But morally and socially and politically they make every sense.” The governor appears to have struggled with his conscience—and won.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. jobless rate in the fourth quarter of last year was 5%, but it was 9.1% for blacks and 10.9% for black residents of California—or more than double the 4.4% for whites in the Golden State. Black job seekers in New York fared better with a 7.7% unemployment rate at the end of last year, but it was still twice as high as the 3.8% rate for white New Yorkers and well above the state’s 4.8% average. A minimum-wage increase does nothing for people out of work other than make it more difficult for them to find a job.

Some workers may be better off under a higher minimum, but not everyone. Younger and less-experienced workers, who are disproportionately black, are especially vulnerable to mandatory wage increases, since their employers are more willing and able to reduce hours, cut benefits or mechanize a task in an effort to save money. The government can mandate that an unskilled worker be paid more money, but that won’t make the worker more productive or ensure that he keeps his job.

These so-called disemployment effects are played down by liberals, but they get to the crux of the problem with the policy. Most minimum-wage workers are neither poor nor the sole breadwinner of the family. Statistically, they are much more likely to be seniors staying busy in retirement, teenagers gaining work experience, or someone with young children working part-time until school lets out. What characterizes most poor households in the U.S. is a lack of workers—any workers—not people already in the labor force who earn too little. Any policy that reduces job prospects for the less-skilled is not reducing poverty and may well be exacerbating it.

Mr. Brown says higher minimum wages are about “economic justice” for the disadvantaged, and politicians going back many decades have similarly claimed to be looking out for the little guy. “The minimum wage laws were passed to help especially the unskilled, the teenagers, and the blacks,” wrote economic journalist Henry Hazlitt in 1979, four decades after the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act established the first federal minimum wage. “Is this helping the poor? Is it helping the unskilled worker? The results show that it is doing exactly the opposite.” Unfortunately, it still is.

An academic paper on the 2007 federal minimum-wage hike by William Even of Miami University in Ohio and David Macpherson of Trinity University in Texas detailed the effects on young blacks, who were by far hit hardest. The “employment losses for 16-to-24-year-old black males between 2007 and 2010 could have been nearly 50% lower had the federal and state minimum wages remained at the January 2007 level,” wrote the economists, adding that the “consequence of the minimum wage for this subgroup were more harmful than the consequences of the recession.”

None of this history would stop President Obama from praising the actions of New York and California this week and calling for Congress to legislate an even higher federal wage floor. Hillary Clinton, for her part, joined Mr. Cuomo at a rally in Manhattan on Monday to celebrate the new law. The sad irony is that black voters have been Mrs. Clinton’s firewall against an unexpectedly resilient Bernie Sanders. Blacks are looking out for Hillary, while she’s looking out for Big Labor. Mrs. Clinton and her fellow Democrats aren’t just taking black supporters for granted. They’re also taking them for a ride.

Mr. Riley, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor, is the author of “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed” (Encounter Books, 2014).
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1622 on: April 08, 2016, 12:55:14 PM »

Here is the graphic Chris Wallace needs to put up as he asks question number one to the President:



Reagan recovery above.  Obama recovery below.

Besides George Bush's fault (refuted in question number two), how do you explain your PATHETIC economic record, post recession?

Graph source:  Stanford Economics Professor John Taylor's blog, http://economicsone.com/

Prof. Taylor uses the terms: "7 years of so-called expansion", "Slow Crawl", "anemic productivity growth, anemic employment growth, anemic income growth",  not 'plowhorse' economy.  He has been "blaming government economic policy all the way".   "People’s exasperation and anger about the economy and Washington policy revealed in this presidential election proves the point better than any abstract statistic ever could. "
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5725


« Reply #1623 on: April 08, 2016, 05:25:40 PM »

What???  I thought Clinton was always taking credit for reducing welfare rolls (after Republicans started it and the polls were strongly in favor of it) and now they say he should be blamed for it !!

So now it is bad the welfare rolls are down 70%   And some, not all of course, who accept welfare are lazy.  Like it or not that is FACT.  We see it all the time. 

But in any case this IS news to me:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-clinton-welfare-reform_us_5707cbf4e4b0c4e26a227a34
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13769


« Reply #1624 on: April 08, 2016, 10:09:02 PM »

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/08/first-quarter-economy-looks-bleaker-by-the-day.html

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5725


« Reply #1625 on: April 16, 2016, 11:21:53 AM »

I cannot speak to the veracity of this site:

Debt clock:

http://zfacts.com/p/461.html

Republicans starting with Reagan partially to blame:

http://zfacts.com/p/gross-national-debt.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1626 on: April 17, 2016, 10:23:51 AM »

Debt clock:
http://zfacts.com/p/461.html

Republicans starting with Reagan partially to blame:

http://zfacts.com/p/gross-national-debt.html

Reagan presided over big deficits but not for the reasons normally cited.

1. Did tax rates cuts cause debt?  Cutting the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%, fully in place in 1/1/83, ended a painful, otherwise endless period of stagnation.  It caused enormous economic growth.  Revenues to the Treasury doubled in the decade of the 1980.  Reagan tax rate cuts did not cause one dollar of deficit or debt.

2. Defense spending?  Reagan's defense rebuild was expensive.  Not addressing that threat would have been more costly.  The result of the real commitment he made to peace through strength directly resulted in the fall of the Soviet Union.  The cost of defeating that threat needs to be spread over the 4 decades that threat grew, not over Reagan's 8 years.  Call it an unfunded liability.  On June 12, 1987, Reagan called out the head of the Soviet Union to tear down this wall after showing 7 years of unflinching resolve.  On November 9, 1989, the wall came down.  That didn't happen because of detente, parity, or unilateral disarmament.  No one honestly believes it could have been done faster or for less.

3.  Domestic spending?  Reagan allowed domestic spending to increase as his compromise with Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill in order to accomplish the two points above.  Democrats controlled the House during Reagan's entire term.  Accomplishing the above required making this compromise.  By their own admission, it was the cost of having a Democrat controlled House, not the cost of having Reagan in the White House.

Does anyone believe the Soviet union would have collapsed without a U.S. defense buildup or that America would have ever snapped out of stagflation under the previous policies of economic asphyxiation? I don't.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5725


« Reply #1627 on: April 17, 2016, 11:58:23 AM »

Doug I agree with you about Reagan.  I am not sure about the motives of the authors of the above post I made.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1628 on: April 17, 2016, 12:36:47 PM »

Doug I agree with you about Reagan.  I am not sure about the motives of the authors of the above post I made.

They like to score economic results by whether the President at the time has an R or a D by their name, if it makes the Dems look same or better.  I like to score economic results by the policies that caused those results.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37256


« Reply #1629 on: April 17, 2016, 12:44:37 PM »

Also, and this I think to be very important, is the matter of baseline budgeting.

BB uses nominal dollars i.e. includes projected inflation.  For simplistic illustration $100 in year one with 10% inflation is $110 in year two and this is calculated as neutral in constant dollars.

Thus the nominal dollar increases of the 5 and 10 year plans (remember when we used to laugh at the Soviet Empire for its central planning with 5 and 10 year plans?) in place when Reagan took office became REAL increases as Volcker's policies aided and abetted by the increase in supply due to the tax rate cuts decreased inflation far more rapidly than anyone except the supply-siders and the monetarists  predicted.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1630 on: April 17, 2016, 05:16:40 PM »

Also, and this I think to be very important, is the matter of baseline budgeting.

BB uses nominal dollars i.e. includes projected inflation.  For simplistic illustration $100 in year one with 10% inflation is $110 in year two and this is calculated as neutral in constant dollars.

Thus the nominal dollar increases of the 5 and 10 year plans (remember when we used to laugh at the Soviet Empire for its central planning with 5 and 10 year plans?) in place when Reagan took office became REAL increases as Volcker's policies aided and abetted by the increase in supply due to the tax rate cuts decreased inflation far more rapidly than anyone except the supply-siders and the monetarists  predicted.

That's right.  They must factor inflation into the budget for every domestic dollar spent on their side but don't account for any inflation when taxing every dollar invested by the people, resulting in real capital gains tax rates of 100%, 1000% and higher.  Ironically this over-taxation in the marginal rates leads to asset paralysis where properties and assets cannot be sold because for tax reasons and thus no revenues come in, adding further to the deficit, debt and stagnation.  This is even worse at the state level where an inflationary-only gain is taxed at the highest rate of ordinary income, again preventing sales and causing lost revenue.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37256


« Reply #1631 on: April 18, 2016, 09:07:23 AM »

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/04/17/minimum-wage-california-american-apparel/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1632 on: April 18, 2016, 11:48:05 AM »

(March 28, Dallas Morning News, this story went by without fanfare)

Dumb and Dumber.  In the land of the free and the home of the brave, and in the face of all this talk about trade deficits and also global warming, it has been illegal until now to sell abroad the largest growth product of our time, the product that played the biggest role in curbing our CO2 emissions nationwide in the United States of Ameria, natural gas.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20160325-daniel-gross-the-u.s.-can-finally-sell-natural-gas-abroad-and-that-could-change-everything.ece

The U.S. can finally sell natural gas abroad, and that could change everything.  28 March 2016

(Makes you wonder, where else are we still shooting ourselves in the foot, maybe by having the highest business tax rates in the world?)
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37256


« Reply #1633 on: April 19, 2016, 09:41:53 PM »

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1621575756/?tag=denprager-20
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1634 on: April 20, 2016, 11:03:48 AM »


It will be interesting to learn the details his assessment.  I assume it is the Federal Reserve and expansionary money.

"The Scandal of Money: Why Wall Street Recovers but the Economy Never Does"

We are so far removed from addressing the things that are wrong I don't see how anyone can feel optimistic.

I see Scott Grannis has another post on what is going right in a no growth economy.  What a dismal science.  It's like having a fascination with baseball batting statistics when the hitters are striking out half the time, no extra base hits and no one is hitting over .200.

No growth over 2% in the entire Obama era, going back to when Dems took congress in 2006.  Compare that with quarterly GDP growth rates during the early part of the Reagan recovery after tax rate cuts were fully enacted:  1983 Q2 3.35%, Q3 5.75%, Q4 7.83%, 1984 Q1 8.55% Q2 7.99%, Q3 6.96%, Q4 5.63%. Imagine today's economy with that kind of growth!

A commenter on Grannis' post:  "Ted Cruz, was on CNBC live this morning. He ranted that the Fed has been "printing money" and "artificially propping up the stock market for rich people". Ted said its all a bubble that's getting ready for an enormous crash. Nobody running for President has a clue how the Fed works."

That sounds closer to the truth in layman's terms than the twisted explanation of how QE didn't create money.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37256


« Reply #1635 on: April 20, 2016, 03:01:49 PM »

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1621575756/?tag=denprager-20
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5725


« Reply #1636 on: April 20, 2016, 03:24:07 PM »

I think Grannis' comparison of National debt to personal or family debt is rather dubious.  He says the because our national debt is less then family debt we are in ok shape???
What???   What was the number of households living from paycheck to paycheck?  What is he nuts?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37256


« Reply #1637 on: April 20, 2016, 09:20:45 PM »

If you answer him in my thread for him instead of here maybe I can get him to respond.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1638 on: April 22, 2016, 08:51:49 AM »

Even the San Francisco Fed knows this policy costs jobs!

It wasn't very long ago, 2007, that the federal minimum wage was raised to $7.25.  Funny, isn't that the year we elected Pelosi-Reid-Obama-Clinton, ended economic growth and we headed into collapse.  Not all because of minimum wage but because of the bankrupt thinking that took control of Washington.  Now we are talking about doubling that (while we deny any inflation exists when we tax capital gains, the long term investments that support those jobs.

Elastic Demand.  Every economist will tell you that when you raise the price of something, you will get less of it, even labor, all other factors held constant.

But minimum wage is different.  It sounds good and polls well for Democrats, so they keep bringing it up, and because not all other factors are ever held perfectly constant and most min wage increases are small, they can keep producing flawed studies to show no real damage is done even when it is.

When the government mandated minimum wage is below the prevailing wage, no one notices the effect.  When you raise it a quarter once in a while, no one notices a reduced employment effect.  But when you raise it boldly, bold effects will result.  Ask proponents this question, if $15 is good for us, why isn't $20 or $25 better?  We all know why.  Jobs disappear.  But which jobs affecting which people?  Always hurt most are the least skilled and most vulnerable among us.  The leftist answer:  we have programsfor that, pay without work and job training for no jobs available.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The Effects of Minimum Wages on Employment
State minimum wage hikes may have killed 200,000 jobs

(More delicately put,) "the evidence suggests that it is appropriate to weigh the cost of potential job losses from a higher minimum wage against the benefits of wage increases for other workers."

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fed-state-minimum-wage-hikes-may-have-killed-200000-jobs/article/2578868
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bump up the pay for those on the second rung of the economic ladder while completely removing the lowest rung so that MANY will NEVER be able to climb up the ladder at all.  No worries.  Those left behind will still vote Democrat for life while those who had to automate and eliminate low end jobs to keep their businesses make more and pay more taxes to cover it.

What a strange political-economic world we live in.  We know better but keep doing worse.

Aside from the job losses and economic costs of this bad policy, there is a moral cost.  Is it right or wrong for consenting adults to be BANNED from being able to freely make contracts with each other in any area as basic as labor and making a living, or even PART of a living?  What has government done well or done right, healthcare?, that makes us think they are more competent than the people to make our most important decisions for us?

One Size Fits All?  Why would the right wage in NYC be right for Topeka or Peoria?  Why would the right wage for Palo Alto be right for Selma or Fresno?  Why would the wage for manufacturing be right for retail?  Why would the base wage for a tipped employee be right for one who gets no tips?  It doesn't, it isn't, it isn't, it isn't and it isn't.

One of my earlier proposals applies here.  Lawmakers should have to submit and approve an 'Unintended Consequences" statement with new laws and programs like these in the same way that developers are required to have environmental impact studies approved to build new projects.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37256


« Reply #1639 on: April 28, 2016, 03:54:53 PM »

Its Robert Reich, so there is plenty of drivel in here, but I do like the idea of allowing more savings.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/28/robert_reich_wealth_inequality_is_even_more_devastating_than_income_inequality_partner/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37256


« Reply #1640 on: May 10, 2016, 10:26:30 AM »



Editor's Note: The Global Affairs column is curated by Stratfor's editorial board, a diverse group of thinkers whose expertise inspires rigorous and innovative thought in our analyses. Though their opinions are their own, they inform and sometimes even challenge our beliefs. We welcome that challenge, and we hope our readers do too.

By David Sikora

The race for the U.S. presidency is on, and with the federal deficit expected to climb to $616 billion in the 2016 fiscal year, it is no surprise that the budget has taken center stage in the debates. Nor is it a surprise that each of the front-runners has his or her own ideas about what needs to be done — often making references to the last time the deficit was actually reduced, during the 1990s term of former President Bill Clinton.

Bernie Sanders, for instance, has called for more broad-based taxes that impact all taxpayers, while Hillary Clinton prefers targeted tax increases on the wealthy. Meanwhile, Donald Trump wants to reduce corporate income taxes and the number of tax brackets, while others aim to eliminate brackets completely by implementing a flat tax. In short, four very different plans for reaching the same goal: balancing the budget.

Broadly speaking, the Democrats' plans are projected to increase revenues at the expense of economic growth, while the Republicans' plans are expected to do just the opposite. As the candidates go head-to-head in the coming months, we, the people, will undoubtedly hear any number of arguments as to why one plan for the economy is better than the next. And as is so often the case when officials seek support for unpopular tax hikes, some of those arguments will almost certainly justify raising taxes by pointing to the budget surplus of the Clinton administration, which is the first to have occurred since 1969 and is often credited to the president's sizable tax increase.

What is Global Affairs?

While domestic politics do not generally fall within Stratfor's purview, the math in this debate is worth some scrutiny. It is certainly true that the United States enjoyed unprecedented wealth creation during Clinton's tenure and, as a result, a government surplus. But was it really Clinton's policies and bipartisan planning that drove the surplus and balanced the budget, or something else entirely?
Reshaping the World of Investment

In reality, the surplus of the Clinton era had less to do with the president's policies and more to do with the profound structural changes taking place in stock, bond and securities trading throughout the 1990s. These changes were driven by the development of the World Wide Web, which democratized U.S. capital markets, causing a one-time reallocation of household assets and a veritable tsunami of funds flowing into government coffers.

To provide some historical context, the first Internet browser — Mosaic — emerged out of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications in 1993. Its genius lay in the simple navigational model that allowed users to intuitively consume vast amounts of formatted and connected data, and in May 1995, Mosaic's exclusive licensor, Spyglass, Inc., went public on the Nasdaq Stock Market. Three months later, so did its direct competitor, Netscape.

Both companies' initial public offerings were based on the core strategy of providing a browser that could transform the way the world exchanges and consumes information. They, and other technology companies of that era, built their success upon the communications technologies that preceded them. Chief among those technologies was the Internet, which got its start in the late 1960s as part of a Defense Department project known as the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network, or ARPANET. The World Wide Web was simply the first software application leveraging the vast communications network to be mass marketed, marking the beginning of a technological revolution the likes of which we may never witness again, at least in our lifetimes.

But how did the creation of World Wide Web translate into a balanced federal budget?

Put simply, it blew capital markets wide open by making instantaneous access to tradable financial information widely available. Anyone with a cheap computer and a decent Internet connection could now explore an array of investment opportunities on their own. Almost overnight, capital markets became a magnet for new money since tens of millions of people around the world could research companies and decide where to put their money, all from the comfort of their own homes. (Previously, anyone interested in reviewing a company's annual report would have had to place a phone call — likely on a landline — to the company's investor relations department and ask for its public filing to be sent via mail, or perhaps subscribe to complicated services like CompuServe or Value Line, which were largely designed for professional investors.)

The new model of information consumption and real-time transactions enabled households to change the composition of their assets. In 1988, savings accounts and certificates of deposit accounted for roughly 46 percent of total household financial assets by value, while equities and mutual funds made up just 32.6 percent. But by 2000, their positions had reversed: Savings accounts and certificates of deposit had fallen to a mere 20 percent, while equities and mutual funds nearly doubled to 62.5 percent.
Stock Markets Surge

At the same time, thousands of young companies were advancing new Internet-based products that would change the world even more. Demand for ownership of these companies, driven in part by fear of missing the boat and in part by unmitigated greed, was insatiable, regardless of whether the companies were actually profitable. In the new information-based economy, companies' value was based on different metrics: private investor pedigree, eyeballs, page views, management experience and yes, "the audacity of hope" that the business could one day become the next General Electric. Firms with as little as $100 million in annual sales surged into $20 billion market capitalizations, and Americans across the country became addicted to CNBC.

The availability of financial information and "new economy" companies created intense upward pressure on stocks from all sectors as the world ushered in a new millennium. Between 1994 and 2000, the Dow Jones industrial average exploded from 3,834 to 10,786, while the Nasdaq jumped from 751 to over 4,000. Over the same period, the value of shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange increased nearly fivefold, from $2.45 trillion to $11.06 trillion, though even it paled in comparison to the value of shares traded on the Nasdaq, which grew ninefold from $1.45 trillion to $20.40 trillion.

The flurry of stock trading that took place over this period created sizable short- and long-term capital gains, delivering the windfall that led to the federal government's budget surplus. These were unusual circumstances that political leaders just happened to be in the right place at the right time to oversee — not the result of a coordinated set of policies implemented by the Clinton administration, or by elected officials from either party for that matter.

As the presidential campaign season heats up, we will undoubtedly hear candidates advocate higher taxes on American citizens, arguing that greater taxation on productivity will not drive behavioral change but will inexorably bring the country back to the golden age of budget surpluses we enjoyed when Clinton was in the White House. But without an innovation as profound as the Internet, higher taxes on Americans — who themselves are often job creators — could be more of a dangerous drag than surefire solution for the U.S. economy.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13769


« Reply #1641 on: May 15, 2016, 03:43:19 AM »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3577192/The-future-fast-food-KFC-opens-restaurant-run-AI-ROBOTS-Shanghai.html

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37256


« Reply #1642 on: May 20, 2016, 12:10:06 PM »

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3976647-levee-gonna-break-debt-demographics-productivity-financialization?auth_param=evk9c:1bju97b:f15fdcb971747202ae04c6339000ce5b&uprof=46

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1643 on: May 26, 2016, 04:31:33 PM »

Re-posting this with greater detail.  I think this is important!  Two countries went different directions economically and we have results to compare.  Not all other things are equal, Chile has a population 17 million, Venezuela 30 million, but they have conducted a pretty good experiment.  Chile started much poorer and socialist, and are now freer, richer and healthier.  If the socialist country was outperforming the freer country, you can bet we'd be hearing about it!

5 Ways Capitalist Chile is Much Better Than Socialist Venezuela
http://reason.com/archives/2016/05/24/5-ways-capitalist-chile-is-much-better-t

May 24, 2016
The story of Chile’s success starts in the mid-1970s, when Chile’s military government abandoned socialism and started to implement economic reforms.
In 2013, Chile was the world’s 10th freest economy.
Venezuela declined from being the world’s 10th freest economy in 1975 to being the world’s least free economy in 2013 (other than North Korea).


1. As economic freedom increased, so did income per capita (adjusted for inflation and purchasing power parity), which rose from being 31 percent of that in Venezuela to being 138 percent of that in Venezuela. Between 1975 and 2015, the Chilean economy grew by 287 percent. Venezuela’s shrunk by 12 percent.


2. As its economy expanded, so did Chile’s ability to provide good health care for its people. In 1975, Chile’s infant mortality rate was 33 percent higher than Venezuela’s. In 2015, almost twice as many infants died in Venezuela as those who died in Chile.


3. With declining infant mortality and improving standard of living came a steady increase in life expectancy. In 1975, Venezuelans lived longer than Chileans. In 2014, a typical Chilean lived over 7 years longer than the average citizen of the Bolivarian Republic.
https://d1jn4vzj53eli5.cloudfront.net/mc/ekrayewski/2016_05/cv4.jpg?h=386&w=624

4. Moreover, more Chileans of both sexes survive to old age than they do in Venezuela. As they enter their retirement, the people of Chile enjoy a private social security system that was put into place by Cato’s distinguished senior fellow Jose Pinera. The system generates an average return of 10 percent per year (rather than the paltry 2 percent generated by the state-run social security system in the United States).



5. Last, but not least, as the people of Chile grew richer, they started demanding more say in the running of their country. Starting in the late 1980s, the military gradually and peacefully handed power over to democratically-elected representatives. In Venezuela, the opposite has happened. As failure of socialism became more apparent, the government had to resort to ever more repressive measures in order to keep itself in power—just as Friedrich Hayek predicted.
https://d1jn4vzj53eli5.cloudfront.net/mc/ekrayewski/2016_05/cv6.jpg?h=386&w=624

Marian L. Tupy is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity and editor of www.humanprogress.org
« Last Edit: May 26, 2016, 04:34:20 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37256


« Reply #1644 on: June 02, 2016, 11:45:25 AM »

http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/06/01/best-run-states-are-heavily-republican-study-finds/

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5725


« Reply #1645 on: June 02, 2016, 02:16:57 PM »

Isn't Florida a red state?  It shows it as blue.

I notice Kentucky whose Mitch McConnel who was on Bernard McGuirk this AM radio hawking his book is the only red state in bottom ten.
Funny how he has suddenly decided to jump on the Trump bandwagon of late.

Suddenly he sounds like a strong conservative.  Where was he the last 8 yrs?

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8086


« Reply #1646 on: June 04, 2016, 03:16:35 PM »

Democrats took over Washington 10 years ago with the election of Pelosi-Reid-Obama-Hillary-Biden majorities in the House and Senate.  They put the nation on notice with their electoral succes in Nov 2006 that: 1) the Bush tax rate cuts were sure to be repealed, and 2) the policies of income redistribution were coming hard and soon toward you if you hadn't felt them already.  So we had two years of Dems running over George Bush's lame duck ending and we had the 8 eight years following that of the leftist dream team running the White House.  By now the rich should be gone and the working class elevated.  Are they?

Copying over some of my math from Cog Diss of the Left, somewhere in this is a lesson or two...

94.1 million now "out of the workforce". 
 7.4  million of "the workforce" unemployed.
101.5 million working age and above people don't work in a country of 245 million adults.

The number working age and above people in this country not working exceeds the entire population of our 35 lowest population states.

Some of these should be working.  Some should not.  How many too many that is - is a matter of opinion.  But it is WAY too many.  My point in the plowhorse analogy is that at some point the load is too great for the rest to pull or carry.

Left wing fact check from 14 months ago:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/10/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-92-million-americans-arent-working/
Cruz understated his number, still they called his statement mostly false.

The poor got poorer under Chavez Obama.  The rich got richer.  They locked in their market share in all the crony industries while the government acted powerfully to prevent new companies to enter those industries, rise up and compete.  High taxes don't hurt the rich; just add it to the price that you charge the poor if everyone has to pay it.

We traded economic opportunity away for a snipe called income equality - and got neither.

The increase alone of Food Stamp recipients alone under Obama, 16 million more people on food stamps under Obama, is equal to the population of 13 states:  Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming.

That's a good thing, right?  More and more people can't have dinner without government help!  20% of households need help now.  What was that percentage in the 1960s?  How far have we come by "helping"?

32 million on food stamps when Obama took office.  Peaked at 47 million, roughly a 50% increase - in ONE Presidency!

7.4 million on disability assistance when Obama took office. 
11 million today, roughly a 50% increase.

More people in poverty.  More people unable to work because of a disability, millions more.  More people need assistance to buy health insurance.  And more people on food stamps, tens of millions more.  This is what we call a "recovery".  How would it look differently if the economy sucked?


Did I mention DEBT?  What part of This-Is-Leftist-Failure do they not understand?  The more he grows the stagnant economy, the more people don't work in it.  They can't even eat without help.

Leftists are taking us on the same path as Venezuela; we are just at a different point on the time line.

The total number of people on food stamps, 46 million, is the same number of people that live in 25 states.  All the people in half the states!  So, what is the poverty rate after we pay all this money?  Same as it was before.  The Census Bureau does not count in-kind payments as income.  So how much more assistance is needed?  By their math, the amount needed is infinite.

"Maybe they went too far."
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13769


« Reply #1647 on: June 04, 2016, 05:28:34 PM »

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/05/31/president-obamas-wealth-destroying-goal-taking-the-curley-effect-nationwide/

President Obama's Wealth Destroying Goal: Taking The 'Curley Effect' Nationwide




Mark Hendrickson ,   CONTRIBUTOR
I write about economics, politics, and human-interest stories.  

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Detroit
It’s hard to think of anything more perverse in American politics than the Curley effect. The Curley effect historically has been an urban phenomenon, but President Obama seems bent on taking the entire country down this wretched path.

As defined by Harvard scholars Edward L. Glaeser and Andrei Shleifer in a famous 2002 article, the Curley effect (named after its prototype, James Michael Curley, a four-time mayor of Boston in the first half of the 20th century) is a political strategy of “increasing the relative size of one’s political base through distortionary, wealth-reducing policies.” Translation: A politician or a political party can achieve long-term dominance by tipping the balance of votes in their direction through the implementation of policies that strangle and stifle economic growth. Counterintuitively, making a city poorer leads to political success for the engineers of that impoverishment.

Here’s an example of how the Curley effect works: Let’s say a mayor advocates and adopts policies that redistribute wealth from the prosperous to the not-so-prosperous by bestowing generous tax-financed favors on unions, the public sector in general, and select corporations. These beneficiaries become economically dependent on their political patrons, so they give them their undivided electoral support—e.g., votes, campaign contributions, and get-out-the-vote drives.


Meanwhile, the anti-rich rhetoric of these clever demagogues, combined with higher taxes to fund the political favors, triggers a flight of tax refugees from the cities to the suburbs. This reduces the number of political opponents on the city’s voter registration rolls, thereby consolidating an electoral majority for the anti-wealth party. It also shrinks the tax base of the city, even as the city’s budget swells. The inevitable bankruptcy that results from expanding expenditures while diminishing revenues can be postponed for decades with the help of state and federal subsidies (“stimulus” in the Obama vernacular) and creative financing, but eventually you end up with cities like Detroit—called by Glaeser and Shleifer “the first major Third World city in the United States.”

The Curley effect is extensive. Perhaps you have seen the chain e-mail listing the ten poorest U.S. cities with a population of at least 250,000: Detroit, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Miami, St. Louis, El Paso, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Newark. Besides all having poverty rates between 24 percent and 32 percent, these cities share a common political factor: Only two have had a Republican mayor since 1961, and those two (Cincinnati and Cleveland) haven’t had one since the 1980s. Democratic mayors have had a lock on City Hall despite these once-great and prosperous cities stagnating on their watch. This is the Curley effect in action.

Let me comment on the city on that list that I know the best—Detroit. (I grew up a few miles from its city limits.) In the 1920s, Detroit was arguably the richest city in the world. Today it is broke—a shadow of its former self after 51 years of Democratic hegemony and a Curley-like agenda.

I’m going to say something provocative that leftists will surely quote out of context, but it needs to be said: Detroit was a lot better off in the 1950s, when the city funded one of the best zoos in the country but had not yet built today’s gravy train for favored segments of the human population. Detroit’s decline has paralleled a shift toward funding far fewer zoo animals and far more human beings.

Critics may take this to mean that I value animals more than people. On the contrary, it is because I value humans more than animals that I find the policy shift to be morally offensive in addition to being so obviously destructive economically. It is bad enough to see a trapped lion carrying 80 pounds of flab that a lion in the wild would never have, but why would you reduce human beings to a similarly pathetic dependency? The bars that ensnare humans behind the economic and psychological cages of the government dole may not be physical, but it is pathetic to see people reduced to lives of unproductive idleness and despair, all in the name of “compassion” and, of course, for the sake of cementing Democratic mayors in office.

What is most troublesome about the Curley effect is that it is spreading beyond its historical setting of cities. Entire states—most notably our most populous, California—are manifesting all the symptoms of the Curley effect: Democrats enjoying electoral hegemony; businesses and middle-class individuals, more Republican than Democratic, emigrating to states with less oppressive tax regimes; reduced job opportunities; a budget careening toward bankruptcy

The ultimate political prize for the Democrats, of course, would be to control the national government. (Note: Yes, I know that technically we have a “federal” government, but if Big Government Democrats find a way to forge a permanent majority, you can kiss the last vestiges of federalism goodbye.)

Everything Obama has done has been designed to strengthen Democratic constituencies (e.g., stimulus spending steered predominantly toward unions and strategically allied state and municipal entities; waivers from Obamacare for unions; a hefty 23 percent increase in the Index of Dependence on Government during Obama’s first two years) and to weaken Republican constituencies (e.g., making small business formation more difficult by impeding venture capitalists; refusing to amend Sarbanes-Oxley; using Dodd-Frank regulations to discourage loans; fewer waivers from Obamacare; proposing lower tax rates for large corporations, but not on the “S” corporations that are the preferred choice of small business owners; constant efforts to raise taxes on the “rich”—which means, as we’ve seen in Detroit, California, and other Curley effect victims, higher taxes on the middle class).

Obama’s smash-mouth, Curley-like politics is all about choosing winners and losers. Reread his State of the Union address from January, and you see a parade of proposals to take from A to give to B, to encourage businesses to do C and discourage them from doing D. Indeed, Obama seems incapable of suggesting a single economic policy that does not redistribute wealth from his political opponents to his political allies. The message is clear: He wants Americans to be dependent on the government; consequently, he is hostile to the private sector, because a vibrant private sector enhances economic independence and self-reliance.

If Obama and his fellow progressives succeed in applying the Curley strategy on the national level, Americans will no longer be able to move to a new city or state to escape the withering economic impact of Curley-effect policies; their only option would be to leave the country. However, it appears that Obama has anticipated that response. To close the escape hatch from an Obama-Curley America, the president signed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act that mandates closer monitoring of Americans’ offshore accounts. apparently approves of policies to impose financial penalties on anyone desiring to give up U.S. citizenship, and periodically calls for “global minimum taxes.”

The Curley effect already has inflicted great economic damage on important American cities and states. It now presents an existential threat to our entire country. That one of our major political parties has based its own success on such a ruthlessly cynical strategy is disgusting, if not diabolical. How we get off this suicidal path is one of the most urgent challenges facing us today.



 Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37256


« Reply #1648 on: June 04, 2016, 08:38:36 PM »

That pithily makes a powerful point, one I will be using.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5725


« Reply #1649 on: June 05, 2016, 06:08:53 AM »

I would add the once greatest New Jersey city of Newark to the "Curley" affect.  ( akin to 3 stooges?).

It used to be a great city but over my lifetime has degenerated  like others, into decay albeit with some attempts at urban "renewal" which is more Republican then Crat in nature.

I mention this town because that is Cory Booker's claim to fame.  He is auditioning hard to be Hillary's VP.  You remember.  They guy who just happens to be driving along and by chance comes by a house on fire and he runs in to save a woman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/nyregion/mayor-cory-booker-says-he-felt-terror-in-fire-rescue.html?_r=0

One Newark police officer described him as a "show boat".  Even Bill Clinton didn't even think of this one.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!