PeakTrader.com

[administrator]

Jon said...

With surging and record profits why should we accept the claim from right wingers that we just need more tax cuts for the wealthy? The effect of that is to put more money in the pockets of the rich. Their pockets are bursting now and they aren't hiring.

There is zero evidence that taxes are part of the problem. The period of highest growth since WWII is the period that corresponds with extremely progressive taxation. Top marginal rates were like 90%. Effective rates for the wealthiest were near 70%. Reagan's tax cuts have corresponded with a total collapse in economic growth. Expanding inequality. Longer working hours with an astonishing drop in hourly pay since 1970. Exploding deficits, stagnant wages for the middle class, declining wages for the poor. An unmitigated failure.

The brief turn around was after Clinton raised taxes. But Bush brought that to an end and Obama has extended the Bush policies. The result? Record corporate profits. Wages for the bottom 80% of the population are falling. Compounding the failures. The right's prescription? More of the same.

And when all the evidence is against you, turn to the unmeasurable and unfalsifiable excuses. It's all due to "uncertainty" regarding regulation and taxes. How do we know that? We know what worked. Progressive taxation and regulation, especially of the financial markets. Why wasn't uncertainty a problem then? Right wingers must make excuses for their dismal record.

---------

PeakTrader said...

Jon, ignoring factors with more explanatory power or ignoring 95% of the economy will most likely lead to wrong, if not ridiculous, conclusions.

No one wants to work twice as hard for the same standard of living (e.g. in California).

In a high-wage country, e.g. the U.S., government raising the cost of living (for everyone) has lowered living standards (particularly for the masses) more than (some) market wages.

Government does produce some good.

However, if it was sold at a store, you wouldn't buy it.

So, government has to buy it for you.

Raising taxes on the upper class may result in fewer corporate jets, yachts, lamborghinis, etc.

So, states may collect less sales and luxury taxes, while some workers who produce, sell, maintain, and service those goods lose their jobs.

It's uncertain if government will collect more taxes than it loses (when lost jobs are included).

Or perhaps, businesses will raise prices to make up for higher taxes.

Of course, government can shift that money from the rich to the poor.

However, I suspect, for each $1 the government collects, only $0.80 will reach the poor after the bureaucratic process is completed.

And then much of that $0.80 will be squandered by the poor.

The government could instead spend the $1 to produce something worth $0.50.

--------

PeakTrader said...

So, to be a successful capitalist, you need to buy a truck, a lawnmower, and an illegal alien for $5 an hour to mow at least 20 yards or 20 acres in eight hours for at least $10 an hour.

Or invent a lawnmower that doesn't require people.

---------

PeakTrader said...

The Fed doesn't and shouldn't micromanage the economy.

It's not important how many booms and busts take place in asset markets, whether the Fed Funds Rate is 20% or zero, or if the money supply is high or low.

What's important is sustainable growth (of goods & services).

--------

PeakTrader said...

An example why Democrats are great politicians is when they make way too many choices for you, force you to do too many things you don't want to do, spend the next two generations futures away, and you complain about it, you're labeled a racist.

--------

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8ZVFegSxYO0/TlbHfEeKKFI/AAAAAAAAPok/YIxSjzKFob4/s1600/highincome.png

PeakTrader said...
High-income earners are the smallest but fastest growing group.

Over that 1999-2009 period, it's likely, more growth of high-income earners came from oil, mining, ranching, and farming.

In the 1990s, it's likely, more growth came from the tech boom (e.g. Microsoft creating 10,000 millionaires by 2000).

Also, I may add, tech firms in the 1990s had strong revenue growth, but little or no profits, while stocks soared, and in the 2000s, those stocks were much lower, while profits soared.

Moreover, using the 1999-2009 period may skew the data, because it begins near a peak and ends at a trough. To cover an expansion, it should begin at a trough and end at a peak, e.g. 1991-2000 or 2001-2007.