Dog Brothers Public Forum

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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 11, 2016, 01:21:15 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
92670 Posts in 2301 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* 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 299871 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13271


« 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: 7501


« 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: 7501


« 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: 7501


« 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: 13271


« 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: 35890


« 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: 7501


« 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: 4991


« 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: 7501


« 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: 35890


« 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: 4991


« 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
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!