First: I moved my capital and business out of US and Canada to Asia, though I live between countries, I spent time in Switzerland, Germany, Singapore, Hong Kong, St. Peterburg and London. The company is registered partially in Cyprus, partially in Asia, partially somewhere I don't want to mention. All of this is done to minimize any amounts of income taxes by any authorities, there is a strategy to move money around as well as my person in order to avoid pretty much any authority, and again, that's the way I like it.
The effect of this on economy? It costs the economy, because instead of concentrating more on business at hand, I spend plenty of time making sure taxes are minimized and also this hurts the economy because I make sure to minimize numbers of employees, and the hiring is done strategically as well, to avoid regulations.
There is a huge difference between free market capitalism and socialism/Marxism, it's this: in free market capitalism the productive capacity has a feedback from the market, the mis-allocated resources will be restructured, failing companies will fail, investments will be reallocated and invested somewhere else, where the market will not punish the investor but will reward him. In socialist economy the government regulations ensure a completely inefficient (read expensive, lacking choices, resource mis-allocating) market, where choices are limited, companies become and stay monopolies, innovation is stifled, people don't want to and don't have an incentive to try something new, something different, something that may disrupt the economy, and it's generally looked down upon - disrupting the economy, but this means the economy is stuck being less efficient and less productive that it can be. This has the effect of not satisfying the consumer demand and thus people are generally less wealthy, because they have less access to innovation, to new ideas and technology.
In this environment any innovation and inventions that could be made are delayed by an uncertain amount of time. What does that mean for individuals? Well, consider that there are products that could change the way people live and do business, the quality and yes, the length of life, all sorts of innovations that could happen that may never materialize or may happen at much slower pace.
I don't want a steady nice existence for all, I am not interested. I want crazy break throughs, I want technological leaps beyond what is allowed by the government regulations. I want insane speed of development, none of which is possible in controlled socialist economies, which never produce these break throughs. I know, born in USSR, we didn't have major breakthroughs in almost anything, it was always the West or far East that produced such innovations and better life through them.
So AFAIC the nice life you are describing is not worth it if it means I will never see things/products/innovation/wealth that I could otherwise see in this life time.
During this time, the government took essentially no action just as you advocate
aha.
lets see what a 'non-action' by government looks like, shall we?
Let me skip the 1925-1929 years, when Federal reserve was printing USD to monetize UK debt right to the crash.
In 1929 just after the crash the Fed doubled the holdings of government securities, added over $150 million in reserves and discounted $200 million for member banks. They bailed out the wall street just like they did in 2008. They stopped the market from restructuring.
They also expanded money supply by 10% a week, so do not be gullible to think the government stayed out of the 'cure' (to the illness it created itself.)
In November of 1929 Hoover started public works programs. Hoover started with various subsidies 'stimulus packages' to ship building companies.
Agricultural Marketing Act was passed with $500 million in loans by the Treasury to farms, etc.
FFB lent $150 million to wheat coops and establishes the FarmersÃ(TM) National Grain Corporation with $10 million capital.
in 1930 Hoover added 100 million to FFB and he creates the 'Grain Stabilization Corporation'
All of this was to KEEP PRICES UP.
The same way they are trying to keep the house prices up today and Fed is buying US treasuries. Any similarities?
What about the overstock? GSC accumulated 65 million bushels of wheat by June 1930. Any similarities to the banks, not liquidating the houses and Freddie/Fannie and FHA today, and Treasury with all the holdings on the books?
In November 1930 GSC actually bought another 200 million bushels of wheat.
The Treasury lost $300 million by 1931 in wheat and cotton alone.
There were other programs like that - for life stock and grape and who knows what else.
In 1930 they started with the $915 million dollar public works program.
The discount rate was taken down by the Fed from 4.5 to 2%
In 1930 they passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff law, raising import tariffs to highest ever. Well, at least in those times the USA actually HAD a production base.
NYSE was hit with exchange controls - no more shorts were allowed - this was by Hoover himself:) So markets were NOT allowed to correct.
In 1930 employment fell by 16%, manufacturing fell by 20%.
Government pushed expenses up from 14.3% GPP to 18.2% in 1930.
1931: the crisis also hit Europe: bank of England.
Government pushed expenses up from 18.2% to 24.3% in 1931.
Bacon-Davis act was passed, maximum daily working hours were set at 8, minimum wage was enforced for public works projects, unemployment went higher.
1931: National Credit Corporation is established and banks are bailed out with another $153 million.
1932: sales taxes on gas, bank checks, bond transfers, phone, telegraph, radio messages and other stuff were introduced.
Income taxes were raised from 1.5%-5% to 4%-8%, corporate tax was raised from 12 to 14%, gift tax of 33.3% was instated.
Government spending went up from 24.3% of GPP in 1931 to 28.9% in 1932
1932: Congress establishes Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), with $500 million reserve and debt allowances up to $1.5 billion.
In the first 5 months, RFC loans out $1 billion of loans, 60% of the money went to the banks and 20% to rail roads.
In 1932, RFC is allowed to loan another 1.8 billion.
FDR comes into the office.
So now starts the first unemployment relief authority, etc. Glass-Steagal act is passed to offset the damage of FDIC.
1932, the Fed increases reserves by $660 million to $2.51 billion.
The people renting out real estate don't have a natural right to it either
- your point is? Either you have a Constitutional republic or you do not, so if you are saying you do not, then fine, you are correct. Private property doesn't mean anything, but that's what I've been saying for YEARS, including on this site, that eventually USA will become what USSR was - collectivization will happen, what USSR had due to ideology, USA will have due to stupidity.
Let me see something, I want to check. Aha, here it is:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
and also
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So there is at least SOMETHING in the Constitution that is specific to people's right to property. Something is there.
Work alone produces nothing when you don't have resources to work with
- that's what we have markets for. To provide us with resources we need for our work.
as wealth equality increases getting access to resources to make your work count gets harder and harder, rent seekers take a larger and larger share of the fruits of your labour by charging for access to "their" resources.
- it's not "their" resources. It is their resources. Unless you want to change that part of the Constitution, which by the way, wouldn't be unheard of.
The entire idea of income taxes is against Constitution basically, since income tax is a tax on work, which forces one to give up property and at the same time forces one to testify against himself by giving access to private property/papers/information to the IRS.
Government should be there to grant access to the resources necessary for gainful work to those who seek them, even where that means taking back some gained by people in the past.
- AHA. That's what I am talking about - collectivization. No, thank you, but no thank you. My great-grandparents went through this process and were murdered with some of their children, I am not interested, that's what I immediately saw was going to happen a few years ago before moving out. It's going to happen, there is no stopping it. There will be a bloodshed, I am sure because of this as well.
The aim is not to punish the successful, but to make it impossible to turn past success into a perpetuity of easy living for a dynasty of descendants.
- Which is what the Free Market prevents in the first place, and which is what government intervention into the Free Market creates.
China didn't destroy it's economy, of course they had decent education and low costs as well
- Chinese growth story would have been much stronger if it weren't for government intervention.
.. but they used regulation where appropriate. China like every other successful economy is centrally guided.
- their political process is centrally guided, it's a communist regime in name. But their economy is much freer than US's economy is.
GDP is as meaningless as it is weak, since it was revised down this way:
GDP estimates for the first quarter of 2011 were revised downward to 0.4 percent growth, a sharp drop from the previous estimate of 1.9 percent. GDP for 2007 through 2010, previously thought to have grown by an average of less than 0.1 percent each year during that period, was also revised downward, to show an average decrease of 0.3 percent per year.
Besides, GDP in US is fake, the way it's measured is fake, it's based on a fake economy and one more thing about it: they didn't use the appropriate deflator, because they believe that the inflation is about 2%, but in reality inflation is at about 10% level, and closer to 13% the way I calculate it:
sugar Dec 2003: 20.40 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 36.97 cents/pound, price up by over 81% Beef Dec 2003: 105.40 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 193.00 cents/pound, price up by over 83% Barley Dec 2003: 100.77 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 208.70 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 107% Rice Dec 2003: 197.00 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 500.57 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 154% Cocoa Beans Dec 2003: 1,646.58 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 3,113.52 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 89% Tea Dec 2003: 205.22 cents/KG, Apr 2011: 325.33 cents/KG, price up by over 58% Rubber Dec 2003: 57.31cents/pound, Apr 2011: 265.49cents/pound, price up by over 363% Corn Dec 2003: 111.98 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 318.45 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 184% Bananas Dec 2003: 371.43 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 1,013.47 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 172% Propane Dec 2003: 0.63 USD/Gallon, Apr 2011: 1.45 USD/Gallon, price up by over 130% Wheat Dec 2003: 165.57 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 336.30 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 103% Oranges Dec 2003: 583.00 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 881.00 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 51% Salmon Dec 2003: 3.12 USD/Kg, Apr 2011: 7.86 USD/Kg, price up by over 151% Chicken Dec 2003: 68.98 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 86.42 cents/pound, price up by over 25% Pork Dec 2003: 48.68 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 92.06 cents/pound, price up by over 89% Silver Dec 2003: 565.33 cents/Troy ounce, Apr 2011: 4,279.79 cents/Troy ounce, price up by over 657% Alluminum Dec 2003: 1,557.78 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 2,667.44 USD/Metric Ton, price up by
Sherman antitrust act is a bunch of political nonsense. It didn't have anything to do with fighting actual monopolies, there were no monopolies to fight. It was there to provide some people, who had access to government with ability to enter business on terms, that would undermine the market, because they could not actually compete with effective economies of scale.
As to GDP, I wrote on this. GDP is nonsense, it's overestimated, it consists of nonsense, not of anything productive and because US government underestimates inflation by 10-12%, the last 5 years should have been showing a 10%/year decline in GDP numbers.
I am right now sitting in Baden Baden, that would be Germany. I can see and compare, since I spent 16 years in America and moved out 2 years ago, moved my business to Asia.
Now, Germany is in much better position than the US, because Germany is a net producer, Germany allows cheap labor to enter the country from Eastern Europe and some Middle Eastern countries. Germany has a trade surplus with China. But Germany also prints Euro and is actively bailing out various banks, that loaned money to failing European states.
Eventually Europe will have problems that USA is in right now, but at this very moment, European problems are much smaller. The entire Greek problem is tiny, compared to the US problem. Germany could in principle bail out half of the European Union, but of-course if it does, then that would mean imminent destruction of Euro and European economy, just like bail outs in USA mean imminent destruction of US economy.
As to US being lowest taxed - this is nonsense. In particular when I had corporation in Canada, it was paying much below what corporation in USA would be paying. Same with Switzerland, and more so with Asian economies.
I'll summarize it thus: A deflationary death spiral occurs when a major economic contraction causes deflation, and the combination induces mass withdrawl from the normal investment cycle. If it weren't for actions to ward deflation off, we'd be in that spiral now.
- except that there is no death spiral in deflation, deflation causes mis-allocated resources to be reallocated to more appropriate use as dictated by the market.
The government wants you to believe that deflation is somehow a 'death spiral', so the Fed is 'saving' you from having more purchasing power that deflation provides you with, as it tries to keep asset valuations artificially high, while they are still falling in real terms and the inflation that is created by the government to combat deflation only causes nominal terms of assets that must fall due to the bust to stay where they are but the real prices drop, as all other prices catch up, rise higher because after all is said and done, the market still wins.
Market always wins, it's like a natural law of physics. Sure thing, you can try and hold the rocks in the air above the ground by burning lots of fuel (dumping counterfeit fiat into the system), but you can't prevent the collapse of the asset prices that are in the bubble in real terms, and the holes in the fuel lines forces you to use more and more fuel as you are trying to continue with your tricks, the engine is actually burning, the fuel is splashing out of the engine all over the place and your wings are on fire as well.
Eventually the plane will crash and the rocks will meat their natural floor - the ground. It may even be that the plane picks up more speed than terminal velocity, as the wings burn off and the propeller keeps accelerating the helpless fuselage towards the ground, the plane will make a crater and the rocks will even sink lower than the ground.
The point is that any of this fighting against the deflation is futile, temporary and only causes the nominal prices to stay up, while the real prices come down one way or another, and the way governments do it is by destroying everybody's purchasing power through massive inflation.
What is funny how people support this insane government ideology, which is completely against their own self interest of having more purchasing power and less expensive products.
As you yourself talked about the 19 century as a deflationary period, it is true, the USD gained value over that time period, while US economy grew and USA became the largest creditor nation after being a very big debtor nation, that's because US didn't have all the government regulations and income taxes and social payments and wars, that kept the country from producing, all that borrowing was done to finance production, not consumption, and as USA became productive, it paid back all of the debts and became a creditor. All of this while people became wealthier and wealthier, with more and more competition for the market by all the companies, that produced ever more, the innovation and inventions that drove the economy, automation and efficiencies, and none of it would have been possible of government was at the time, what it is today.
Today government destroys capital investment by inflation, any money you save is the money that is burning a hole in Ben Bernanke's pocket, who can't wait to spend your cash via inflation. The government regulations prevent any competition to the established monopolies, that government subsidizes and supports and income taxes make sure you can't become an independent person and instead are bound to the government's charity, which requires sacrificial lambs - actual producers of the economy to finance it, be it the Chinese or actual US tax payers.
Deflation only causes one death spiral, and that's a GOOD one: government death spiral, as government on one hand collects less taxes, because deflation would drive prices but also wages down, but the increase in purchasing power would more than offset it, which is
Again, what does this have to do with land? Most businesses, where people are making money are not about land, most businesses rent property, they don't own it.
As to wealth, that is derived from natural resources - all people live based on natural resources, but some produce something with those resources, it's called work. It doesn't happen just because majority will it to live, it happens because somebody sacrifices their time and instead of living off some hand outs they run a business. Nobody is entitled to anything they produce, but they make their profit by working, and if they succeed, the government is standing there with a gun and a hand sticking out, asking for its cut. If they fail nobody comes to their rescue. When government DID come to the rescue was a huge mistake, this must never be done, it makes economy worse, not better.
As to moving capital being an allowed option - please, this has been tried time and again, the only thing that's achieved is complete discouragement of work, as the former USSR has positively proven. It doesn't improve anyone's wealth but it surely prevents wealth from being generated, and wealth is what society benefits from, as wealth is the productive output - products and services.
All of those things: tariffs, price, currency, capital controls, they will not achieve any useful goal but one: destruction of economy.
I am listening. How do you propose to create more production? Do you believe that it is possible to have a welfare state that takes care of people cradle to grave and do you want to live in such environment? I refused to live in such environment, you can yell 'bullshit' all you like.
What does your point about "Rothbard" have to do with the people, who are paying most of the taxes in US? Most of the taxes that are going to be raised will have nothing to do with 'uberrich', those guys are smarter than that, they move their money away from the government tax train and they are highly mobile, as is their money.
The people who will be hit hardest will be in the mid-business bracket. Will all of them close down shop? No, of-course not. What many will do is fire some people, hire less, work harder to avoid taxes rather than to build up more production, and it's understandable and the right thing to do under such circumstances.
As to the alternative - you move production. I moved my business to Asia out of American continent (USA and Canada), I personally know a few other guys (and 2 women) who did the same thing. You move your investment capital out, where the production is. You don't stay in US and European economies to subsidize consumption of the welfare state.
But hey, if I am a small shop-keeper why should I pay for medi-care or social security for other people. I AM NOT UN-EMPLOYED, I got my own business, I don't need a handout... why isn't there anyone in my store? People to afraid to spend because if they loose their job they need every penny they got? Oops, now my store has gone bust... I need social security to stay alive!
- so you think that economy can exist simply by bailing out the 'small shop-keepers' via the government forcing money transfer from those, who have the money to the shop-keepers via the hand-outs to the consumers?
Seriously, so WHO is the producer in your economic vision?
Who is PRODUCING the stuff that the small shop-keeper is selling?
Let's see how this works:
1. USD is taken from those, who have larger income. 2. USD is transfered to those, with smaller income. 3. USD is transfered to those, who sell products to the subsidized consumers. 4. USD is transfered to those who produce it... who is it? The Chinese manufacturers. 5. USD is taken by Chinese manufacturers and put into Chinese banks. 6. Chinese monetary authority prints Renminbi to buy all those USD. 7. Chinese government takes the US dollars and stockpiles them, possibly buying more of US T-Bills. 8. More Renminbi enters Chinese producer economy, more Renminbi are chasing the same amount of raw materials/energy/food and prices go up in China, because Chinese manufacturers have to pay for the materials. 9. Chinese producers see inflation numbers go up, their prices immediately rise as the response, Chinese producers have to pay more Renminbi for the same food, energy and products that they produce. 10. US government borrows USD from Chinese government by selling T-bills and sends out SS checks, subsidizing more US consumers, who go to the "small shop-keeper".
Questions:
1. What is the incentive for US based 'rich' people to keep their money in US, if it is clear that US consumers are not producing anything that US based 'rich' people would be able to buy themselves? Why not move capital away from US and move themselves out of US as well?
2. What is the US consumer producing, that can be returned to Chinese producers? Dollars are not something that's useful to Chinese producers, the only thing they see from more dollars is more inflation, and prices going up for Chinese producers?
3. What is the consequence of more investment capital leaving USA, as more taxes are implemented and more USD are printed, creating more inflation upon the US employment?
4. What is the incentive for anybody in US government to stop spending at all if they never have to pay the bills back?
5. How much longer will Chinese producers keep subsidizing US consumers, US government with money and products?
--
Conclusion: China needs to stop importing US created inflation, only then will Chinese be able to afford more of their own products, as they will no longer have rising prices, but instead prices will go down for them, which will improve their purchasing power without any rise in salaries. Having more purchasing power is more important than having a bigger salary.
Government can dictate minimum wage while destroying value of currency and then government can create more economically dependent people who are on welfare and government can rob those, who are producers to finance some of it, but government cannot create productive class with any of these actions.
Economy that lives this way lives on borrowed time, just ask USSR.
well, that's unfortunate for you that you can't read.
My EXACT statement:
So when you are talking about tax to GDP ratio and saying that in US the taxes are lowest ever compared to GDP, this misses all the important points: GDP is shrinking and in absolute terms taxes are highest ever.
Which means that I am telling anybody, who says that US taxes are lowest compared to GDP, that they are wrong. GDP is much lower than the government admits and GDP is shrinking at the rate of 10% a year due to inflation, which is more than 10% higher than the government admits.
1. Transfer of income amounts to illegal seizure of private property without a due process. Anybody has a problem with it? I do. USA wasn't built as a welfare state, people came to it not for welfare but for freedoms, and that generally means for freedoms from having excessive government.
2. Any amount of money allocated to government will be spent. It doesn't matter how much, any amount will be spent. The government will grow and more funds will be needed. Notice that any so called reductions are never reductions from last year to the next one. They are reductions in the scheduled in spending.
3. Taxing work in USA, which is lacking exactly that - work, is part of the problem of not having enough work. When you tax something, you discourage it. Income taxes as well as payroll and SS and all other taxes are taken out of income, not out of spending, out of income, that discourages work and re-allocates it, as it should somewhere else. Of-course only decreasing taxes without cutting spending will not make economy any better, as any resources that are not taxed but are spent, are just taxes that must be paid in the future, because that money is either borrowed (and then must be paid and interest as well), or it is printed, and that's a tax on all of your holdings denominated in the currency that is inflated.
4. Higher taxes destroy jobs by allowing the government to transfer that income towards others, who are not working. This perverts the society, so that majority of people get this subsidy from the working minority, and in a 'democracy' this really means mobocracy, where those with businesses and earnings are sacrificed, their work output is stolen from them, so that the 'democratic' majority can eat. This leads to work being moved elsewhere and causes more unemployment, which is what a 'democratic' government prefers, as it wants people to depend on the government, so that the mob continues voting for more draconian measures against those, with money. Obviously those with money fight back, and this causes huge problems in both: economy and politics and destroys the society in the process by killing off production.
Eventually and gradually USA is becoming what USSR used to be, except USSR was what it was based on some form of ideology, while in the case of USA, this is not about ideology, this is about stupidity and subversion of government from being a republic to being a mobocracy, because politicians see it as highly profitable.
Lowering sovereign debt rating means that all businesses and individual ratings in US are also now lower than before. That's because sovereign debt rating is always considered to be the highest rating and all other ratings are below it. Of-course that's because the government can unfortunately print money and companies/people cannot legally do that.
Of-course being able to print money is the reason that the credit rating is lowered for USA, and AFAIC the rating of any entity that can print money should always be the lowest out of all businesses that actually produce something. If you can print money means that you can monetize your debts, and that's default. US government has been defaulting for decades now, always printing more money, always issuing more debt, never paying debts out.
This credit lowering is of-course political, everybody knows US bonds are junk and US debts will not be paid with anything of any value.
Now think about how much harder it will be for businesses to get credit in US that government credit rating is lowered. This is what I am talking about when I say that government credit crowds out private credit and prevents any business activity because government gets all the credit first and whatever measly leftovers go to some businesses for investment (if any is going there in a country that decided that destroying its currency and thus investment capital is the way to go, while also destroying business via most regulations in the world and some of the world's highest taxes on work and with most debt in history of the world.)
The fix for the economic problems requires cutting the spending of government by some enormous amount, as during the 1921 depression, which ended in 1923, the government spending was cut by 70%. Of-course at that time personal savings were high, country had an enormous manufacturing sector and was largest creditor in the world. Today none of that is true.
The real GDP is much lower than the government admits at the very minimum because the real inflation is about 13%, not 2%, and they must deflate the GDP by inflation number, and since this year the GDP is seeing under 1% growth, last year it was 2.9% and years before that it was shrinking, the real GDP has actually being shrinking by maybe 10% a year for years now.
So when you are talking about tax to GDP ratio and saying that in US the taxes are lowest ever compared to GDP, this misses all the important points: GDP is shrinking and in absolute terms taxes are highest ever. The raising of taxes on only the 'rich' will never do the trick. The most economic activity and money is in the middle of the country, so if you want to raise taxes to raise government revenue, that's where the taxes will go up, while the 'rich' will simply move their money quicker than they are doing now and you will see even less of revenue from them.
The only solution is enormous cuts, and that's the politically impossible solution because the people are bought by the promise of cradle to grave welfare state, and it's an impossible promise.
well that was a waste of time, a terrible incoherent, lazily written article with very little anybody could actually use if they wanted to learn something if they cared to find out what it was they 'lost'. There are so many things that people have to deal with in projects today, that having to deal with limitations that are artificially imposed by ideology, which insists doing things the old way... it's just nonsense.
Why not then say everything should be done with a hard limit of 5MB hard drives or better yet, with throughput of punch cards?
If the author wanted to say something useful, he failed.
more taxes - because that's how you grow an economy, you take money out of private sector and give it to government for more stimulus spending. I mean His Majesty God Krugman says it, so it must be so. Be damn the market, whatever it wants. It needs to be planned centrally, because government is full of market geniuses, if only they didn't want to sacrifice for the public good so much, they would have been in private sector, these Titans of Business, making Big Bucks with their vision of economic growth, because it's obvious they are great at it - they are deciding what business deserves the money and what does not.
Now, when even Russia has moved towards democracy and continues to have one of the most liberal economies in the world
- wow, what a load of crap! What does it mean 'liberal' in this context? What Russia has today is an insanely controlling top heavy government, which is involved in shaking down all of the businesses that are not the largest raw material and energy exporters. You can't do business in Russia if you actually follow the rules, you will never make a single ruble of profit by following the rules, which are almost on purpose designed to discourage any business activity. You can only do business in Russia if you do things in various shady to semi-shady ways, only then you can actually have some profit, and I believe this is done on purpose, so that nobody can be 'crystal clear' and everybody always has something that he can be incriminated with, because that's the way the government likes it - making sure they can always throw you behind bars and confiscate your business, which they often do. Of-course they can do it even without finding anything actually shady, they can come up with insane 'evidence' and people who will support it and put you behind bars regardless of any evidence, and the courts are told what to do.
If THAT is what you consider liberal, then it's liberal.
I don't see anybody trying to bring democracy to that country, might it be that there is nothing to take there? No oil and the only gas is coming out of that gas bag of a 'president'? Lukashenko is even more pathetic than the Dear Leader of North Korea, he can't even threaten anybody with anything except his own citizens.
Finally, a show that is the opposite of cops. They need a tune.
Bad cops, bad cops. Whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do, when they come for you? Bad cops bad cops. Whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do, when they come for you?
In today's world there is only one meaning of the world 'anticompetitive', and it means: didn't pay the politicians enough to be left alone to do business as one sees fit.
So what if somebody is giving away free product? How about a free OS altogether? If they can do this and not go out of business, they should and consumers are the winners, not losers in this game. If the competition can't do anything about it, then it sucks for the competition. If the competition goes out of business because of it, it sucks for them. If eventually the company has to push prices above 0, this will just signal the market that there is a possibility to compete on non-zero price again.
Yeah, more like: person who understands how money is extracted from tax payers by government and distributed through various programs on, what amounts to basically welfare for these 'findings' is asking the question: why are governments doing anything when they need to cease all of their operations immediately, including this?
I can easily accept that there maybe other so called 'universes' out there. What I accept with much less enthusiasm is government spending on it or anything, actually.
The Darpa funded TCP/IP is a trivial consequence of the computers and networks that proceeded it, as the ideas for packet protocol were lifted from pots.
As to your idiotic belief, that US economy was built past WWII as opposed to past the Civil war and before the Fed and IRS were created, well that's the problem with government education in US, I can't blame you for that much.
I like Somalia, it's good for investment, everybody is bearish, they are obviously wrong. But it's quite telling that some idiots today in US believe it makes sense to tell people who actually believe in first principles of individual freedoms, on which the country was founded, that those people must leave it. I think it's not a bad advice, by the way.
Those selfish sociopaths built the country and the economy you are wasting now on social modification programs as well as wars and all the other nonsense that you want your government to do for you. You wasted all of that wealth on that nonsense, so spare me the 'who is stupid' comment.
Slashdot Mirror
First: I moved my capital and business out of US and Canada to Asia, though I live between countries, I spent time in Switzerland, Germany, Singapore, Hong Kong, St. Peterburg and London. The company is registered partially in Cyprus, partially in Asia, partially somewhere I don't want to mention. All of this is done to minimize any amounts of income taxes by any authorities, there is a strategy to move money around as well as my person in order to avoid pretty much any authority, and again, that's the way I like it.
The effect of this on economy? It costs the economy, because instead of concentrating more on business at hand, I spend plenty of time making sure taxes are minimized and also this hurts the economy because I make sure to minimize numbers of employees, and the hiring is done strategically as well, to avoid regulations.
There is a huge difference between free market capitalism and socialism/Marxism, it's this: in free market capitalism the productive capacity has a feedback from the market, the mis-allocated resources will be restructured, failing companies will fail, investments will be reallocated and invested somewhere else, where the market will not punish the investor but will reward him. In socialist economy the government regulations ensure a completely inefficient (read expensive, lacking choices, resource mis-allocating) market, where choices are limited, companies become and stay monopolies, innovation is stifled, people don't want to and don't have an incentive to try something new, something different, something that may disrupt the economy, and it's generally looked down upon - disrupting the economy, but this means the economy is stuck being less efficient and less productive that it can be. This has the effect of not satisfying the consumer demand and thus people are generally less wealthy, because they have less access to innovation, to new ideas and technology.
In this environment any innovation and inventions that could be made are delayed by an uncertain amount of time. What does that mean for individuals? Well, consider that there are products that could change the way people live and do business, the quality and yes, the length of life, all sorts of innovations that could happen that may never materialize or may happen at much slower pace.
I don't want a steady nice existence for all, I am not interested. I want crazy break throughs, I want technological leaps beyond what is allowed by the government regulations. I want insane speed of development, none of which is possible in controlled socialist economies, which never produce these break throughs. I know, born in USSR, we didn't have major breakthroughs in almost anything, it was always the West or far East that produced such innovations and better life through them.
So AFAIC the nice life you are describing is not worth it if it means I will never see things/products/innovation/wealth that I could otherwise see in this life time.
During this time, the government took essentially no action just as you advocate
aha.
lets see what a 'non-action' by government looks like, shall we?
Let me skip the 1925-1929 years, when Federal reserve was printing USD to monetize UK debt right to the crash.
In 1929 just after the crash the Fed doubled the holdings of government securities, added over $150 million in reserves and discounted $200 million for member banks. They bailed out the wall street just like they did in 2008. They stopped the market from restructuring.
They also expanded money supply by 10% a week, so do not be gullible to think the government stayed out of the 'cure' (to the illness it created itself.)
In November of 1929 Hoover started public works programs.
Hoover started with various subsidies 'stimulus packages' to ship building companies.
Agricultural Marketing Act was passed with $500 million in loans by the Treasury to farms, etc.
FFB lent $150 million to wheat coops and establishes the FarmersÃ(TM) National Grain Corporation with $10 million capital.
in 1930 Hoover added 100 million to FFB and he creates the 'Grain Stabilization Corporation'
All of this was to KEEP PRICES UP.
The same way they are trying to keep the house prices up today and Fed is buying US treasuries. Any similarities?
What about the overstock? GSC accumulated 65 million bushels of wheat by June 1930. Any similarities to the banks, not liquidating the houses and Freddie/Fannie and FHA today, and Treasury with all the holdings on the books?
In November 1930 GSC actually bought another 200 million bushels of wheat.
The Treasury lost $300 million by 1931 in wheat and cotton alone.
There were other programs like that - for life stock and grape and who knows what else.
In 1930 they started with the $915 million dollar public works program.
The discount rate was taken down by the Fed from 4.5 to 2%
In 1930 they passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff law, raising import tariffs to highest ever. Well, at least in those times the USA actually HAD a production base.
NYSE was hit with exchange controls - no more shorts were allowed - this was by Hoover himself :) So markets were NOT allowed to correct.
In 1930 employment fell by 16%, manufacturing fell by 20%.
Government pushed expenses up from 14.3% GPP to 18.2% in 1930.
1931: the crisis also hit Europe: bank of England.
Government pushed expenses up from 18.2% to 24.3% in 1931.
Bacon-Davis act was passed, maximum daily working hours were set at 8, minimum wage was enforced for public works projects, unemployment went higher.
1931: National Credit Corporation is established and banks are bailed out with another $153 million.
1932: sales taxes on gas, bank checks, bond transfers, phone, telegraph, radio messages and other stuff were introduced.
Income taxes were raised from 1.5%-5% to 4%-8%, corporate tax was raised from 12 to 14%, gift tax of 33.3% was instated.
Government spending went up from 24.3% of GPP in 1931 to 28.9% in 1932
1932: Congress establishes Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), with $500 million reserve and debt allowances up to $1.5 billion.
In the first 5 months, RFC loans out $1 billion of loans, 60% of the money went to the banks and 20% to rail roads.
In 1932, RFC is allowed to loan another 1.8 billion.
FDR comes into the office.
So now starts the first unemployment relief authority, etc.
Glass-Steagal act is passed to offset the damage of FDIC.
1932, the Fed increases reserves by $660 million to $2.51 billion.
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
The people renting out real estate don't have a natural right to it either
- your point is? Either you have a Constitutional republic or you do not, so if you are saying you do not, then fine, you are correct. Private property doesn't mean anything, but that's what I've been saying for YEARS, including on this site, that eventually USA will become what USSR was - collectivization will happen, what USSR had due to ideology, USA will have due to stupidity.
Let me see something, I want to check. Aha, here it is:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
and also
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So there is at least SOMETHING in the Constitution that is specific to people's right to property. Something is there.
Work alone produces nothing when you don't have resources to work with
- that's what we have markets for. To provide us with resources we need for our work.
as wealth equality increases getting access to resources to make your work count gets harder and harder, rent seekers take a larger and larger share of the fruits of your labour by charging for access to "their" resources.
- it's not "their" resources. It is their resources. Unless you want to change that part of the Constitution, which by the way, wouldn't be unheard of.
The entire idea of income taxes is against Constitution basically, since income tax is a tax on work, which forces one to give up property and at the same time forces one to testify against himself by giving access to private property/papers/information to the IRS.
Government should be there to grant access to the resources necessary for gainful work to those who seek them, even where that means taking back some gained by people in the past.
- AHA. That's what I am talking about - collectivization. No, thank you, but no thank you. My great-grandparents went through this process and were murdered with some of their children, I am not interested, that's what I immediately saw was going to happen a few years ago before moving out. It's going to happen, there is no stopping it. There will be a bloodshed, I am sure because of this as well.
The aim is not to punish the successful, but to make it impossible to turn past success into a perpetuity of easy living for a dynasty of descendants.
- Which is what the Free Market prevents in the first place, and which is what government intervention into the Free Market creates.
China didn't destroy it's economy, of course they had decent education and low costs as well
- Chinese growth story would have been much stronger if it weren't for government intervention.
.. but they used regulation where appropriate. China like every other successful economy is centrally guided.
- their political process is centrally guided, it's a communist regime in name. But their economy is much freer than US's economy is.
A better, more precise link to the comment I made on GDP.
GDP is as meaningless as it is weak, since it was revised down this way:
GDP estimates for the first quarter of 2011 were revised downward to 0.4 percent growth, a sharp drop from the previous estimate of 1.9 percent. GDP for 2007 through 2010, previously thought to have grown by an average of less than 0.1 percent each year during that period, was also revised downward, to show an average decrease of 0.3 percent per year.
Besides, GDP in US is fake, the way it's measured is fake, it's based on a fake economy and one more thing about it: they didn't use the appropriate deflator, because they believe that the inflation is about 2%, but in reality inflation is at about 10% level, and closer to 13% the way I calculate it:
sugar Dec 2003: 20.40 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 36.97 cents/pound, price up by over 81%
Beef Dec 2003: 105.40 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 193.00 cents/pound, price up by over 83%
Barley Dec 2003: 100.77 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 208.70 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 107%
Rice Dec 2003: 197.00 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 500.57 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 154%
Cocoa Beans Dec 2003: 1,646.58 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 3,113.52 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 89%
Tea Dec 2003: 205.22 cents/KG, Apr 2011: 325.33 cents/KG, price up by over 58%
Rubber Dec 2003: 57.31cents/pound, Apr 2011: 265.49cents/pound, price up by over 363%
Corn Dec 2003: 111.98 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 318.45 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 184%
Bananas Dec 2003: 371.43 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 1,013.47 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 172%
Propane Dec 2003: 0.63 USD/Gallon, Apr 2011: 1.45 USD/Gallon, price up by over 130%
Wheat Dec 2003: 165.57 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 336.30 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 103%
Oranges Dec 2003: 583.00 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 881.00 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 51%
Salmon Dec 2003: 3.12 USD/Kg, Apr 2011: 7.86 USD/Kg, price up by over 151%
Chicken Dec 2003: 68.98 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 86.42 cents/pound, price up by over 25%
Pork Dec 2003: 48.68 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 92.06 cents/pound, price up by over 89%
Silver Dec 2003: 565.33 cents/Troy ounce, Apr 2011: 4,279.79 cents/Troy ounce, price up by over 657%
Alluminum Dec 2003: 1,557.78 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 2,667.44 USD/Metric Ton, price up by
Sherman antitrust act is a bunch of political nonsense. It didn't have anything to do with fighting actual monopolies, there were no monopolies to fight. It was there to provide some people, who had access to government with ability to enter business on terms, that would undermine the market, because they could not actually compete with effective economies of scale.
As to GDP, I wrote on this. GDP is nonsense, it's overestimated, it consists of nonsense, not of anything productive and because US government underestimates inflation by 10-12%, the last 5 years should have been showing a 10%/year decline in GDP numbers.
I am right now sitting in Baden Baden, that would be Germany. I can see and compare, since I spent 16 years in America and moved out 2 years ago, moved my business to Asia.
Now, Germany is in much better position than the US, because Germany is a net producer, Germany allows cheap labor to enter the country from Eastern Europe and some Middle Eastern countries. Germany has a trade surplus with China. But Germany also prints Euro and is actively bailing out various banks, that loaned money to failing European states.
Eventually Europe will have problems that USA is in right now, but at this very moment, European problems are much smaller. The entire Greek problem is tiny, compared to the US problem. Germany could in principle bail out half of the European Union, but of-course if it does, then that would mean imminent destruction of Euro and European economy, just like bail outs in USA mean imminent destruction of US economy.
Yeah, you can't legislate competition, when all your actions are directed against it.
Government is the only reason for formation of monopolies, there is no reason more pervasive than government regulations (laws), taxes, subsidies.
As to US being lowest taxed - this is nonsense. In particular when I had corporation in Canada, it was paying much below what corporation in USA would be paying. Same with Switzerland, and more so with Asian economies.
I'll summarize it thus: A deflationary death spiral occurs when a major economic contraction causes deflation, and the combination induces mass withdrawl from the normal investment cycle. If it weren't for actions to ward deflation off, we'd be in that spiral now.
- except that there is no death spiral in deflation, deflation causes mis-allocated resources to be reallocated to more appropriate use as dictated by the market.
The government wants you to believe that deflation is somehow a 'death spiral', so the Fed is 'saving' you from having more purchasing power that deflation provides you with, as it tries to keep asset valuations artificially high, while they are still falling in real terms and the inflation that is created by the government to combat deflation only causes nominal terms of assets that must fall due to the bust to stay where they are but the real prices drop, as all other prices catch up, rise higher because after all is said and done, the market still wins.
Market always wins, it's like a natural law of physics. Sure thing, you can try and hold the rocks in the air above the ground by burning lots of fuel (dumping counterfeit fiat into the system), but you can't prevent the collapse of the asset prices that are in the bubble in real terms, and the holes in the fuel lines forces you to use more and more fuel as you are trying to continue with your tricks, the engine is actually burning, the fuel is splashing out of the engine all over the place and your wings are on fire as well.
Eventually the plane will crash and the rocks will meat their natural floor - the ground. It may even be that the plane picks up more speed than terminal velocity, as the wings burn off and the propeller keeps accelerating the helpless fuselage towards the ground, the plane will make a crater and the rocks will even sink lower than the ground.
The point is that any of this fighting against the deflation is futile, temporary and only causes the nominal prices to stay up, while the real prices come down one way or another, and the way governments do it is by destroying everybody's purchasing power through massive inflation.
What is funny how people support this insane government ideology, which is completely against their own self interest of having more purchasing power and less expensive products.
As you yourself talked about the 19 century as a deflationary period, it is true, the USD gained value over that time period, while US economy grew and USA became the largest creditor nation after being a very big debtor nation, that's because US didn't have all the government regulations and income taxes and social payments and wars, that kept the country from producing, all that borrowing was done to finance production, not consumption, and as USA became productive, it paid back all of the debts and became a creditor. All of this while people became wealthier and wealthier, with more and more competition for the market by all the companies, that produced ever more, the innovation and inventions that drove the economy, automation and efficiencies, and none of it would have been possible of government was at the time, what it is today.
Today government destroys capital investment by inflation, any money you save is the money that is burning a hole in Ben Bernanke's pocket, who can't wait to spend your cash via inflation. The government regulations prevent any competition to the established monopolies, that government subsidizes and supports and income taxes make sure you can't become an independent person and instead are bound to the government's charity, which requires sacrificial lambs - actual producers of the economy to finance it, be it the Chinese or actual US tax payers.
Deflation only causes one death spiral, and that's a GOOD one: government death spiral, as government on one hand collects less taxes, because deflation would drive prices but also wages down, but the increase in purchasing power would more than offset it, which is
Again, what does this have to do with land? Most businesses, where people are making money are not about land, most businesses rent property, they don't own it.
As to wealth, that is derived from natural resources - all people live based on natural resources, but some produce something with those resources, it's called work. It doesn't happen just because majority will it to live, it happens because somebody sacrifices their time and instead of living off some hand outs they run a business. Nobody is entitled to anything they produce, but they make their profit by working, and if they succeed, the government is standing there with a gun and a hand sticking out, asking for its cut. If they fail nobody comes to their rescue. When government DID come to the rescue was a huge mistake, this must never be done, it makes economy worse, not better.
As to moving capital being an allowed option - please, this has been tried time and again, the only thing that's achieved is complete discouragement of work, as the former USSR has positively proven. It doesn't improve anyone's wealth but it surely prevents wealth from being generated, and wealth is what society benefits from, as wealth is the productive output - products and services.
All of those things: tariffs, price, currency, capital controls, they will not achieve any useful goal but one: destruction of economy.
I am listening. How do you propose to create more production? Do you believe that it is possible to have a welfare state that takes care of people cradle to grave and do you want to live in such environment? I refused to live in such environment, you can yell 'bullshit' all you like.
What does your point about "Rothbard" have to do with the people, who are paying most of the taxes in US? Most of the taxes that are going to be raised will have nothing to do with 'uberrich', those guys are smarter than that, they move their money away from the government tax train and they are highly mobile, as is their money.
The people who will be hit hardest will be in the mid-business bracket. Will all of them close down shop? No, of-course not. What many will do is fire some people, hire less, work harder to avoid taxes rather than to build up more production, and it's understandable and the right thing to do under such circumstances.
As to the alternative - you move production. I moved my business to Asia out of American continent (USA and Canada), I personally know a few other guys (and 2 women) who did the same thing. You move your investment capital out, where the production is. You don't stay in US and European economies to subsidize consumption of the welfare state.
But hey, if I am a small shop-keeper why should I pay for medi-care or social security for other people. I AM NOT UN-EMPLOYED, I got my own business, I don't need a handout... why isn't there anyone in my store? People to afraid to spend because if they loose their job they need every penny they got? Oops, now my store has gone bust... I need social security to stay alive!
- so you think that economy can exist simply by bailing out the 'small shop-keepers' via the government forcing money transfer from those, who have the money to the shop-keepers via the hand-outs to the consumers?
Seriously, so WHO is the producer in your economic vision?
Who is PRODUCING the stuff that the small shop-keeper is selling?
Let's see how this works:
1. USD is taken from those, who have larger income.
2. USD is transfered to those, with smaller income.
3. USD is transfered to those, who sell products to the subsidized consumers.
4. USD is transfered to those who produce it... who is it? The Chinese manufacturers.
5. USD is taken by Chinese manufacturers and put into Chinese banks.
6. Chinese monetary authority prints Renminbi to buy all those USD.
7. Chinese government takes the US dollars and stockpiles them, possibly buying more of US T-Bills.
8. More Renminbi enters Chinese producer economy, more Renminbi are chasing the same amount of raw materials/energy/food and prices go up in China, because Chinese manufacturers have to pay for the materials.
9. Chinese producers see inflation numbers go up, their prices immediately rise as the response, Chinese producers have to pay more Renminbi for the same food, energy and products that they produce.
10. US government borrows USD from Chinese government by selling T-bills and sends out SS checks, subsidizing more US consumers, who go to the "small shop-keeper".
Questions:
1. What is the incentive for US based 'rich' people to keep their money in US, if it is clear that US consumers are not producing anything that US based 'rich' people would be able to buy themselves? Why not move capital away from US and move themselves out of US as well?
2. What is the US consumer producing, that can be returned to Chinese producers? Dollars are not something that's useful to Chinese producers, the only thing they see from more dollars is more inflation, and prices going up for Chinese producers?
3. What is the consequence of more investment capital leaving USA, as more taxes are implemented and more USD are printed, creating more inflation upon the US employment?
4. What is the incentive for anybody in US government to stop spending at all if they never have to pay the bills back?
5. How much longer will Chinese producers keep subsidizing US consumers, US government with money and products?
--
Conclusion: China needs to stop importing US created inflation, only then will Chinese be able to afford more of their own products, as they will no longer have rising prices, but instead prices will go down for them, which will improve their purchasing power without any rise in salaries. Having more purchasing power is more important than having a bigger salary.
Government can dictate minimum wage while destroying value of currency and then government can create more economically dependent people who are on welfare and government can rob those, who are producers to finance some of it, but government cannot create productive class with any of these actions.
Economy that lives this way lives on borrowed time, just ask USSR.
well, that's unfortunate for you that you can't read.
My EXACT statement:
So when you are talking about tax to GDP ratio and saying that in US the taxes are lowest ever compared to GDP, this misses all the important points: GDP is shrinking and in absolute terms taxes are highest ever.
Which means that I am telling anybody, who says that US taxes are lowest compared to GDP, that they are wrong. GDP is much lower than the government admits and GDP is shrinking at the rate of 10% a year due to inflation, which is more than 10% higher than the government admits.
An advice for you: learn to read.
1. Transfer of income amounts to illegal seizure of private property without a due process. Anybody has a problem with it? I do. USA wasn't built as a welfare state, people came to it not for welfare but for freedoms, and that generally means for freedoms from having excessive government.
2. Any amount of money allocated to government will be spent. It doesn't matter how much, any amount will be spent. The government will grow and more funds will be needed. Notice that any so called reductions are never reductions from last year to the next one. They are reductions in the scheduled in spending.
3. Taxing work in USA, which is lacking exactly that - work, is part of the problem of not having enough work. When you tax something, you discourage it. Income taxes as well as payroll and SS and all other taxes are taken out of income, not out of spending, out of income, that discourages work and re-allocates it, as it should somewhere else. Of-course only decreasing taxes without cutting spending will not make economy any better, as any resources that are not taxed but are spent, are just taxes that must be paid in the future, because that money is either borrowed (and then must be paid and interest as well), or it is printed, and that's a tax on all of your holdings denominated in the currency that is inflated.
4. Higher taxes destroy jobs by allowing the government to transfer that income towards others, who are not working. This perverts the society, so that majority of people get this subsidy from the working minority, and in a 'democracy' this really means mobocracy, where those with businesses and earnings are sacrificed, their work output is stolen from them, so that the 'democratic' majority can eat. This leads to work being moved elsewhere and causes more unemployment, which is what a 'democratic' government prefers, as it wants people to depend on the government, so that the mob continues voting for more draconian measures against those, with money. Obviously those with money fight back, and this causes huge problems in both: economy and politics and destroys the society in the process by killing off production.
Eventually and gradually USA is becoming what USSR used to be, except USSR was what it was based on some form of ideology, while in the case of USA, this is not about ideology, this is about stupidity and subversion of government from being a republic to being a mobocracy, because politicians see it as highly profitable.
Lowering sovereign debt rating means that all businesses and individual ratings in US are also now lower than before. That's because sovereign debt rating is always considered to be the highest rating and all other ratings are below it. Of-course that's because the government can unfortunately print money and companies/people cannot legally do that.
Of-course being able to print money is the reason that the credit rating is lowered for USA, and AFAIC the rating of any entity that can print money should always be the lowest out of all businesses that actually produce something. If you can print money means that you can monetize your debts, and that's default. US government has been defaulting for decades now, always printing more money, always issuing more debt, never paying debts out.
This credit lowering is of-course political, everybody knows US bonds are junk and US debts will not be paid with anything of any value.
Now think about how much harder it will be for businesses to get credit in US that government credit rating is lowered. This is what I am talking about when I say that government credit crowds out private credit and prevents any business activity because government gets all the credit first and whatever measly leftovers go to some businesses for investment (if any is going there in a country that decided that destroying its currency and thus investment capital is the way to go, while also destroying business via most regulations in the world and some of the world's highest taxes on work and with most debt in history of the world.)
The fix for the economic problems requires cutting the spending of government by some enormous amount, as during the 1921 depression, which ended in 1923, the government spending was cut by 70%. Of-course at that time personal savings were high, country had an enormous manufacturing sector and was largest creditor in the world. Today none of that is true.
The real GDP is much lower than the government admits at the very minimum because the real inflation is about 13%, not 2%, and they must deflate the GDP by inflation number, and since this year the GDP is seeing under 1% growth, last year it was 2.9% and years before that it was shrinking, the real GDP has actually being shrinking by maybe 10% a year for years now.
So when you are talking about tax to GDP ratio and saying that in US the taxes are lowest ever compared to GDP, this misses all the important points: GDP is shrinking and in absolute terms taxes are highest ever. The raising of taxes on only the 'rich' will never do the trick. The most economic activity and money is in the middle of the country, so if you want to raise taxes to raise government revenue, that's where the taxes will go up, while the 'rich' will simply move their money quicker than they are doing now and you will see even less of revenue from them.
The only solution is enormous cuts, and that's the politically impossible solution because the people are bought by the promise of cradle to grave welfare state, and it's an impossible promise.
well that was a waste of time, a terrible incoherent, lazily written article with very little anybody could actually use if they wanted to learn something if they cared to find out what it was they 'lost'. There are so many things that people have to deal with in projects today, that having to deal with limitations that are artificially imposed by ideology, which insists doing things the old way... it's just nonsense.
Why not then say everything should be done with a hard limit of 5MB hard drives or better yet, with throughput of punch cards?
If the author wanted to say something useful, he failed.
more taxes - because that's how you grow an economy, you take money out of private sector and give it to government for more stimulus spending. I mean His Majesty God Krugman says it, so it must be so. Be damn the market, whatever it wants. It needs to be planned centrally, because government is full of market geniuses, if only they didn't want to sacrifice for the public good so much, they would have been in private sector, these Titans of Business, making Big Bucks with their vision of economic growth, because it's obvious they are great at it - they are deciding what business deserves the money and what does not.
Now, when even Russia has moved towards democracy and continues to have one of the most liberal economies in the world
- wow, what a load of crap! What does it mean 'liberal' in this context? What Russia has today is an insanely controlling top heavy government, which is involved in shaking down all of the businesses that are not the largest raw material and energy exporters. You can't do business in Russia if you actually follow the rules, you will never make a single ruble of profit by following the rules, which are almost on purpose designed to discourage any business activity. You can only do business in Russia if you do things in various shady to semi-shady ways, only then you can actually have some profit, and I believe this is done on purpose, so that nobody can be 'crystal clear' and everybody always has something that he can be incriminated with, because that's the way the government likes it - making sure they can always throw you behind bars and confiscate your business, which they often do. Of-course they can do it even without finding anything actually shady, they can come up with insane 'evidence' and people who will support it and put you behind bars regardless of any evidence, and the courts are told what to do.
If THAT is what you consider liberal, then it's liberal.
I don't see anybody trying to bring democracy to that country, might it be that there is nothing to take there? No oil and the only gas is coming out of that gas bag of a 'president'? Lukashenko is even more pathetic than the Dear Leader of North Korea, he can't even threaten anybody with anything except his own citizens.
Finally, a show that is the opposite of cops. They need a tune.
Bad cops, bad cops. Whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do, when they come for you? Bad cops bad cops. Whatcha gonna do,
whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do, when they come for you?
In today's world there is only one meaning of the world 'anticompetitive', and it means: didn't pay the politicians enough to be left alone to do business as one sees fit.
So what if somebody is giving away free product? How about a free OS altogether? If they can do this and not go out of business, they should and consumers are the winners, not losers in this game. If the competition can't do anything about it, then it sucks for the competition. If the competition goes out of business because of it, it sucks for them. If eventually the company has to push prices above 0, this will just signal the market that there is a possibility to compete on non-zero price again.
Yeah, more like: person who understands how money is extracted from tax payers by government and distributed through various programs on, what amounts to basically welfare for these 'findings' is asking the question: why are governments doing anything when they need to cease all of their operations immediately, including this?
I can easily accept that there maybe other so called 'universes' out there. What I accept with much less enthusiasm is government spending on it or anything, actually.
The Darpa funded TCP/IP is a trivial consequence of the computers and networks that proceeded it, as the ideas for packet protocol were lifted from pots.
As to your idiotic belief, that US economy was built past WWII as opposed to past the Civil war and before the Fed and IRS were created, well that's the problem with government education in US, I can't blame you for that much.
I like Somalia, it's good for investment, everybody is bearish, they are obviously wrong. But it's quite telling that some idiots today in US believe it makes sense to tell people who actually believe in first principles of individual freedoms, on which the country was founded, that those people must leave it. I think it's not a bad advice, by the way.
Those selfish sociopaths built the country and the economy you are wasting now on social modification programs as well as wars and all the other nonsense that you want your government to do for you. You wasted all of that wealth on that nonsense, so spare me the 'who is stupid' comment.