dagblog - Comments for "The Failure of a Thirty-Year Experiment in Reaganomics"

Second that.

EmmaZahn — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 20:25:02 +0000

In reply to In a word: no.

Second that.

In a word: no.

DF — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 19:38:59 +0000

In reply to Does this answer your

In a word: no.

I am just taking another look

Richard Day — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:18:15 +0000

In reply to The Failure of a Thirty-Year Experiment in Reaganomics

I am just taking another look at this.

Water drains downhill. I mean Upper Egypt is Southern Egypt and I always mix the two up; probably because the Mississippi begins in my neck of the woods and ends up in the Gulf.

These world markets present a problem as well as a boon. China has developed a middle class because of this new world market; and the number of people in that class represents the number in our entire country.

Now Chinese do not all have microwaves and three car garages and such...but they are twittering and cabling and...

The problem is that the treaties between great countries of trade do not smack the corporate pigs down. At least they do not smack the pigs down as much as I would like and the Wall Streeters make so frickin much money because water flows down hill.

the end

Does this answer your

Resistance — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 05:33:24 +0000

In reply to This is a really good

Does this answer your question?

Zeitgeist - The Movie: Federal Reserve (Part 1 of 5)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ&feature=related

4,283,182 VISITORS

FIAT EMPIRE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTCKHwsKWRU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i-j2skUVbg

This is a really good

DF — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 03:42:20 +0000

In reply to I have lots of thoughts. Not

This is a really good question and one that I've given a lot of thought to over the past couple of years. As near as I can determine a straight answer, I think it goes something like we license private institutions to create US dollars and loan those dollars to us for a profit - the idea being that the decentralized intelligence of the market delivers a better result than would a centralized system. Or, to put it another way, we rent the computational force of the market to manage the money supply, which also does things like determining who is a good risk and who is not along the way.

Perhaps there's a better answer to your question, but this is what I've come up with. If this is indeed the reason for how we do things, it seems like recent events ought to cause us to question the premise more sharply.

An excellent question, and

miguelitoh2o — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:49:24 +0000

In reply to I have lots of thoughts. Not

An excellent question, and one which I think falls firmly outside the circle of constrained ideas bandied about inside the beltway. I suspect the answer would devolve into a debate akin to the healthcare "dabate" we had last year on healthcare/single payer/public option. It'd be like taking the public piggy bank away from some spoiled rotten people who've figured out how to pick the public's pocket a long time ago with lo-no risk. I would also like to have some one explain what the advantages are of the information assymmetries are that exist between the packagers of various financial derivative products sans real regulation/oversight are?

I have lots of thoughts. Not

EmmaZahn — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:31:57 +0000

In reply to Yes to checking our most

I have lots of thoughts. Not all of them are yet coherent enough to communicate. :)

There is one that keeps nagging at me. What value added do the big banks bring to basic retail and commercial banking that could not also be provided by a GSE bank?

Well, the actual corporate

miguelitoh2o — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:23:36 +0000

In reply to e US has options in policy,

Well, the actual corporate tax rate in the US is more like 15%, so I don't think our corporate tax policy is driving the loss of jobs. That, and the fact that these taxes are not imposed until the profit is realized, ie. at the time of sale of product/commodity. So whether the goods were produced in the US at a higher cost or imported with lower cost + transportation/importation costs, I doubt the actual difference is that great. I know little about importation and real corporate costs vs declared value of imported goods, but I wouldn't doubt that there's some fudging of the corporate books in that area to show lower profits/lower taxes at quarter's end.

e US has options in policy,

anonymous — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:53:35 +0000

In reply to Yes to checking our most

e US has options in policy, taxation, and regulation which if implemented might help at least staunch the flow of jobs and money out of its borders

Yes. Despite a lot of arguments to the contrary in the blogosphere, The Obama administration is correct to suggest our current corporate tax policy is being undermined by other countries and it is at the very least encouraging if not causing outsourcing.

Check out

Testimony of Martin A. Sullivan, Ph.D.
Economist and Contributing Editor,
Tax Analysts
www.taxanalysts.com and
www.tax.com
Before the Committee on Ways and Means,
U.S. House of Representatives
January 20, 2011
Hearing on the Current Federal Income Tax
and the Need for Reform

He's got a lot of data there. An example:

International Tax Rules Favor Foreign Over Domestic Job Creation

Under current law, if an American corporation opens a factory in Indiana, the profits of that factory are subject to the 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate. If the same corporation instead opens a similar factory in Ireland, the profits from that factory are subject to a 12.5 percent tax rate. If that factory generates a profit of $100, the choice is between an after-tax profit of $65 in the United States and $87.50 in Ireland. Obviously, U.S. tax law provides a large tax advantage for building and moving factories to low-tax countries.

Yes to checking our most

miguelitoh2o — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:42:41 +0000

In reply to I must have inadvertently

Yes to checking our most basic premises. I would love to hear more from you on your thoughts here. The bottom line for America right now, seems to be that there are no incentives for business to behave any other way than they are. That, and it's hard to beat a foe, (and I do believe that business/finance in the macro sense is our foe), who can move not only personnel and infrastructure across international borders but $$ as well. So in that sense it's a global game of 3 card monty, but in the meantime the US has options in policy, taxation, and regulation which if implemented might help at least staunch the flow of jobs and money out of its borders. In the end not just the US, but the whole world will need to take a stand on who the system in its entirety should serve, (corporations or people?). Or are we just those financial multipliers necessary to create wealth for rent seekers? Somehow, I think those PTB are thinking further out on the horizon than anyone in DC has yet contemplated. Certainly China and the rest of the world have a constrained interest in the US, its labor force and policy to the extent that only when it affects their own assets/markets will it matter. And as you say with a growing middle class in these countries, the US will not be in any position to continue to dicate or influence world monetary policy for long. Not that I see any hope of anyone in a position of power in DC with the intellect or will to challenge even the most superficial premises, let alone any basic ones. But let's keep talking and see if any of this trickles up to the vacuum formed by the golden shower that's been trickling down.