United States Heading towards a Depression?

You said consumption, didn't you?

What is capital goods in your opinion? You said that you have read Marx but I don't think you really understood Marx if you can't define capitalism.

 

My bad, I meant production. I don't even know what the means of consumption would be, but I cannot imagine how a Ferrari is a capital good, or a means of consumption/production.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:Capital+goods

Can we stop playing definition games now, and you can explain how 30% of the population will produce enough to keep 100% in good health, educated, housed, clothed, fed and enjoying life? How this would be rational behavior by the 30% to overproduce that which they cannot keep?

Of course, we know it is not. The producers have to produce $100 to keep $50 or the state will put them in jail. That's one of the problems with socialism. In a free society, you can't force everyone to work (that would be slavery, or communism) and yet if everyone stopped working, there would be no way to provide universal health care or public education. The system is held together not by people who voluntarily give up their wealth, but who do it under threat of violence.

Make paying taxes optional, and see how many people pay them. Now threaten federal tax collection agency gestapo tactics, and watch 90% of the population decide to play along rather than get sent to a federal rape room for several years.

The nature of man, is to only work for his survival and profit. To deny this, is to dream like Marx, that some superman will emerge from the working class, and slave with hammer and sickle in the fields to provide for the masses, expecting not even so much as a thank you.

On another note, the actual calculation argument is that under central economic planning (whether for production, distribution and/or central banking) it is impossible for the state to accurately predict the needs and resources in real time of millions of independent state actors. It is inevitable that the lost economic opportunities, failures, corruption and inefficiency undermine the system until it breaks down. It is not human nature to put wealth into something, and accept an 80% or 60% or 20% return indefinitely.



As a friend, I really recommend you read this. Too often the discussion about socialism revolves around utilitarianism, pragmatism, and not sustainability. In my opinion, much of what happened in heavily socialist countries was a case of what was seen, but never a case of what was not seen. No one considered consequences of certain actions in a pro/con sense.

And thus, people who are pro-socialism today, I find, only look to what is seen (free stuff for people who can't pay for it for whatever reason), instead of looking at what is unseen, namely the cost to the people paying for that free service, the burden on the system from free riders and abusers, the cost of government (mis)management, inefficiency, price fixing etc.

Now the argument will always be, "we can manage it better". To which I reply, show me a government that fears it's citizens, and I might be tempted to believe you. The only western one I might consider, is the canton system in Switzerland.

 

Norway is an obviously strong economy, but how good does it look minus 25% of GDP? Unless we find a @#^%$-ton of oil we can export, I'm afraid its really not a useful comparison.

They have done some things right like actually capitalizing their pension systems, but they also stand out in stark contrast to other nations that have tried such economic systems without the random benefit of massive resource exports.

From 1889 'til the late 1910s the king had final say in organizing the executive functions of government. It was only after that they could be considered a true socialist democracy - so they're close in time-frame to Russia's financial collapse.

That's kind of my point...government fine-tuning, public debt, tax consumption, and credit expansion can fuel strong growth for four or five decades.

Then, it inevitably declines under the burden of its debt - because every one of these Keynesian economic policies involves some form of "expanding" and "contracting" the economy on purpose. Without foreign capital - either through debt or the export of raw materials - this system doesn't function. Period.

America exported all of its gold from the 1930-1970 period, so we moved to the debt phase. "Fiscal policy" and "Monetary policy" are euphemisms for the "socialist boogeyman" that we then go vote for anyway.

Tax rate is one thing - a big thing - but it isn't the only thing in economic freedom. But really, let's compare to America:

The typical New Yorker or Californian is already paying 50-60% of their gross wages into total taxes, then these are the same groups that call for more spending, etc...

Of course then we have to look at corpoate taxes, too and we'll see that if you start up a business in Denmark you've got a narrow ~5% tax advantage over America. You also have the equivalent of what we only have in Red, or "Right to Work states" - that is, you can hire & fire anyone you want at any time.

Now, the upside is that Denmark has virtually eliminated poverty, and they're doing it without debt, imperialism, or exportation of resources. But why does their labor force take up a higher percentage of the total population? Danes are more likely than Americans to work - and they're less likely to ever break out of the 'average' income. To be frank, this isn't the society I'd want to live in as a worker, and as a business owner it ranks only marginally better than other socialist economies like the U.S.

But we're also talking about a small population densely located in a small physical area. "All politics is local" and my conclusion again and again is that 'socialism' or 'communism' is successful inversely proportionate to the size of the 'society' or 'community' being managed.

At a size of 100 people who mostly agree, you can probably run a successful commune with almost no concepts of private property. If conflicts of interest come up, people can choose to leave. At the size of China, you end up with a "common good" that involves hundreds of millions in poverty and crushing subservience.

They're mixed economies, but Denmark is the only one I see holding a stable economic/political system for the 100 years you claim.

Uhhh I've been to France, no thanks. I kept getting stuck at the neighborhood bar drinking with striking transit workers. Their debt & tax load is as bad as America's, but they do deliver a marginally higher public benefit in medical spending, largely for reasons like tort reform that we could never adopt in America because of how much weight our lawyers pull in our government. If we could get those court-driven transfers of wealth out of our medical system - like France did - we'd be better off.

As a general rule of thumb, all types of socialism decline in effectiveness as the nation being governed grows. The further the individual is from the center of power, the less significant their interests are...

My point is not that America is so great because it is so economically free- but rather that our own tax & debt burden is similar to states typically considered socialist democracies. It is also a fact that our return on tax & debt is lower than the return in other nations that operate with smaller populations, resource export, and/or fewer barriers of entry for businesses.

As debt reaches a tipping point, the projection moving forward is lower corporate taxes & higher labor taxes to maintain only current levels of public spending.

 

I was just watching Kramer and he's saying thet "LEH is just like Bear'

 

NPT:

I agree. Much of US political discussion and certainly here, with the radical notion of uber capitalism as the only mechanism in which wealth is created, is in my mind a simplistic babble of arguments from the far right that don't in any way describe reality. As you pointed out many Western nations in Europe have high average incomes, significant output per person and societies wherein there is both much government interaction and involvement in the nation's economy. These nations are blessed with a talented educted population relative to the rest of the world, that is able to produce higher value products at a greater rate thereby creating wealth throughout the society. The nations hold mixtures of successful business enterprises, with a skilled workforce that for the most part overcomes a lack of natural resources. Will they continue to succeed into the future? Who knows. To date though they represent a large population and a diversity of cultures that absolutely puts shame to the widespread lie here that only "capitalism creates wealth" and any government interference ultimately destroys wealth.


Wealth is created in so many different ways, all independant of this concept of radical economics that is all theory and ignores reality. For instance:

China: Leaping of a large impoverished nation to one that is creating enormous wealth, in part because of its low basis starting point, in part because of its massive size. The Chinese government intrudes within many aspects of the private and social lives of its citizens, takes control or partial control of certain industries, absolutely thoroughly controls its finance and banking entities. Regardless, China, based on its drive, size, and low wages has become a world producer of products. Its growth is phenomenal; in fact potentially overcharged.

India is similar. Again it is increasing wealth from a very low value at an extraordinary rate. It also is dramatically competitive offering world values at extraordinarily low rates compared to developed nations because of the disparity in incomes. Its growth rate is significant and its size emphasizes that growth. Meanwhile India subsidizes energy costs to the population-> a very dramatic example of government interjection into the economics of the nation.

The economic growth of these giant nations is helping to fuel the wealth creation of the following nations that are creating wealth based on vital raw resources that have exploded in price:

Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia; etc. All of the oil producing nations have seen explosive wealth creation as a result of the increases in the price of oil. Take all of the reasons for the huge increases in prices....and you can have any type of government you want; wealth is being created.

The crazy thing is Iraq; reportedly sitting on $79 billion in oil created wealth...and not spending it on the nation while the US continues to pour money, etc. into this land. How sad for the US.

Russia, with an incredibly controlling government has moved from virtual financial ruin and bankruptcy at the start of this decade to strength, wealth, etc. as a result of the increases in prices on energy prices.

Frankly, over this decade I believe the US government has been dramatically less intrusive, dramatically less controlling and regulatory than at any period in the last 40 years. The only significant impact by the government that has framed economics on a national scale has been a determined effort by the Fed to keep interest rates low. Yet with less regulatory interference than at any time in decades US is now in the midst of an economic crisis/recession/hard times (however you want to call it)....and it is being exported to certain European economies.

In reality there is no proof that any government interjection into economies destroys wealth as exemplified by the nations described above. It is a combination of crazy politics voiced into simplistic combinations of half truths about economics that in no way reflect reality.

The real truth about economics is that the theory of demand and supply starts with a "THEORY" of perfect markets..in which increases in demand with no increases in supply create higher prices; decreases in demand with no changes in supply create lower prices, etc.

The reality is that NO markets of any item, service, product, etc. are PERFECT. None. That means that all markets of all items are subject to controls and impacts by players trying to gain control of these markets. In fact recognition of this leads endless players within these markets to look for larger "assistance or aid" to help them when working these markets....hence the involvement of governments at various times to intercede within the workings of imperfect markets that are dramatically different than the theory of perfect markets.

I see no problems with the European example. The issue is being able to continuously compete within an ever changing world situation.

 

I believe this position is a fallacy. You haven't qualified how there is less regulation. What measure are you using? That the regulators have collaborated with big business to hide and socialize losses?

Let's talk regulation. There is Sarbanes-Oxley, there are literally dozens of new regs and acts, including a complete revision of the CPI, GDP and labor statistics in the last 25 or so years. And that is without even thinking about it for more than 30 seconds.

I agree this position is full of half truths and does not reflect reality. How can anyone say that government interjection (if that is a word) doesn't destroy wealth? Does anyone really believe that there is a 1:1 ratio of taxes to government reinvestment? Does anyone really believe that government is better at picking goods and services than entrepreneurs and consumers? That statement is mind boggling Earl. It presumes we are all comatose. It's classic what is seen, and what is not seen. You assume the government can inject wealth into the economy, but it can only redistribute wealth and capital by stripping it from the citizens or leveraging the future through debt. The government doesn't make bricks, or wash windows. It has to take with one hand, to distribute with the other. Wealth is not created by printing money, it is created through the production of goods and the provision of services by market actors seeking to make a profit and accumulate capital.

It's a very Keynesian position, and even the New Keynesians would not be so bold to adopt it. Keynes himself of course was discredited in the 70s, when high inflation didn't end high unemployment, which brought his entire theory of government stimulus through deficit spending and increased taxation into the light where it promptly turned to dust. Obviously, government spending cannot cure unemployment, we have proof of that. Obviously government spending cannot create real and lasting economic prosperity, we also have proof of that. Prosperity is created in the market through competition, innovation and efficiency. You can't just order "Give him 10 more apples" because you are President, and suddenly apples appear on a golden platter.

Of course not. But that doesn't justify an anti-competitive measure like regulation or wealth destruction through confiscation and price controls.

The only thing government does as it relates to this section of your post, is artificially set the interest rate too low, which creates a credit boom, and the malinvestment of capital into capital goods and ventures with long production horizons. Goods that may not get to market at all, or may arrive when they are already redundant or no longer in demand. It's the embodiment of a central planning attitude.

Government can barely keep bridges from collapsing or getting caught in airport bathrooms soliciting gay sex. Do we really believe they can Abra-Cadabra material wealth into existence or predict the future?

 

The whole system is a mess. If the US were to tax at the rate that it spends, the tax rate would be higher than the Scandanavian countries. The waste and pork are out of control.

One of the greatest problems facing the US is healthcare. Small businesses are simply unable to afford health plans. Many US industries are uncompetitive due to the high cost of healthcare. We the hundreds of billions that the US spends on education, I don't understand why the US doesn't build a hundreds of medical schools and start training more doctors.

 

Sarbanes-Oxley was inacted in 2002. It was a reaction to enormous and widespread fraud generated by publicly owned companies with regard to their financial statements. It is an enormous protection to investors.

Lets look. Amongst the companies that were defrauding the public were Enron and WorldCom. At their respective market peaks the two companies market worth was approximately $190 billion. They both went bankrupt. Executives at Enron were touting the stock to employees and investors even as the company was faltering. It was massive fraud at its highest level. Who is going to protect investors, shareholders, employees with investments in the stock? Lew Rockwell, Mises, Guerilla?

How much does Sarbanes-Oxley cost?

Lets see; .036% of revenues and .043% of revenues.....hm. That is a teeny tiny impact of costs. I wonder how much the senior executives of failing companies earn? FAR FAR more than those annual costs. Lets see, I worked in commercial real estate for about 2 decades. If I couldn't cut corporate real estate costs by those amounts they could fry me for incompetence. The costs of Sarbanes-Oxley are not prohibitive or problematic at all.

Meanwhile following the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley many companies that were practising weak and/or improper financial rules restated their finances. That may well have prevented further Enrons and Worldcoms.

Put those impacts into a more understandable framework with a smaller company. Say you have $1 million in revenues. .036% of revenues is $3600 or $300/month. If you can't figure out how to operate effectively with an add on cost of $300/month than you shouldn't be operating a business.

Meanwhile, don't forget....only 2 of the companies that collapsed while lying about their finances and aggressively selling their stock, even as they were collapsing saw a total market meltdown of $190 billion in shareholder equity.

Which alternative would you choose?

Over this decade the feds have essentially had no oversight over the financial industry. Not only haven't they regulated they removed many financial institutions from state regulation.

Hm....We have an incredible explosion of Subprime mortgages including an explosion of mortgages provided to borrowers without any check on their financial net worth or credit worthiness. Then these mortgages are packaged and resold to investors with credit values attached to them that in no way reflected reality.

Who is going to watch over this process; Guerilla, Lew Rockwell, Mises? Seriously.

Blanket comments about government interference show absolutely no understanding of reality, no understanding of how business works, no protections for investors, and are open invitations to allow the grimiest business practices to prevail.

Meanwhile, Guerilla, I stated that government regulation during this decade is dramatically less than at other times. You started referencing changes and impacts over 25 years. I don't know. Maybe your studying of Lew Rockwell doesn't include understanding the difference between a decade and 25 years.

 

In reality, if the US actually taxed at a even, fair, and equal rate for EVERYONE, we'd stand to generate more revenue. You cannot make 2% of the population pay for 90% of the people. You also cannot spend 90% of the money on 2% of the population.

 

It does not protect investors. What it has done is caused capital to move to London, it has hurt smaller firms, and has created a false sense of security for investors.

Shouldn't investors only invest in companies whose books have been audited by the most trustworthy and bonded accounting firms? If there is criminal negligence in the reporting, shouldn't the auditor be guilty as well?

You're suggesting the notion that stupid people must be protected at the cost of everyone else, and a healthy marketplace. Stupid people shouldn't invest. Careless investors, should not be sinking their life savings into companies that they probably cannot and have not read the prospectus of. These people are speculators, not investors, and speculation comes at a risk.

This is disingenuous. On the SOX wikipedia page, the various costs and regulatory affects on small business are documented. You cherry picked one report, on one portion (section 404) of SOX, and used that to make the argument that all of SOX does not have a measurable impact.

Meanwhile, the costs are tremendous, and like all regulation, encourage monopoly and oligopoly by putting a heavier compliance burden on small firms. Regulation is almost always, anti-competitive. That is why the banks and big firms write the legislation for Congress. Because it is always in their best interest. Coincidentally, the larger firms pay a larger percentage in compliance. Gee, didn't see that one coming!

Correlation does not equal causation. That's a logical fallacy.

I don't follow.

You just argued for SOX as being a necessary and effective measure, and now you argue that there has been no oversight. Non-sequitur?

You can't have a credit bubble without an increase in credit. Who created the increase in credit? The FED? Thank you. Now who legislated that FRE and FME would be guaranteed by the public? The government? Thank you. Now who has leveraged nearly all of the country's capital reserves to bailout fraudulent (by your definition) financial firms on Wall Street? The FED? Thank you.

Now the government also forces banks to lend a predetermined percentage of loans to minorities and other groups that supposedly face discrimination. Regardless of credit worthiness, the banks must comply with this legislation.

If the credit bubble had not been created, there would be no securities crisis. If the government had not adopted a policy of universal national home ownership, there would not be a housing bubble.

How about investors only invest when they are aware of the risks? It's a crazy idea like people should only buy homes and cars they can afford. I know, I'm talking crazy again, I'm expecting citizens to behave responsibly, and to make cautious, conservative decisions with their debt and savings.

I assume you would rather more regulation is implemented post-facto, further reduce competition, drive up rices, and when the next round of fraud hits, subsidize the corporate and public losses by socializing the cost either through debasement of the currency (inflation) or debt passed on to the next generation?

I mean, if government is so good at investing and regulating, why do is there any need for private enterprise?

This is opinion, and typical of defending a bad position, isn't based on any evidence, just an emotional appeal.

Before you lecture me on how I don't live in reality, perhaps you can explain to everyone how the future entitlement obligations totaling trillions can be paid off, without putting people into the streets or going to a 66% income tax.

Because when you can figure a way out of the mess that past and present interference has caused, then maybe we can talk about who lives in reality.

Earl, this is what you wrote, verbatim.

​

Decades is plural.

Hey, you're entitled to believe whatever you want to believe. You can choose to believe that aggregate pricing can rise without an increase in the money supply. It's illogical, but you can believe it.

You can believe that SS is not a ponzi scheme, even when all evidence is to the contrary, from the very first check issued.

You can believe that socialism Euro style is the answer, when the country is already insolvent on it's existing obligations, let alone any additional ones.

Some people believe in ghosts and aliens. You too can believe whatever you want to believe. That doesn't make it true. Even if you are going to cherry pick the facts.

 

Actually, considering that your tax dollars have to subsidy bureaucracy, it's impossible for you to receive a 100% ROI. The way you can generate the most wealth (and apply it directly to your standard of living) is with 0% taxation. The government does not possess some magic wealth multiplier machine. No matter how much you give, you will receive less back, unless you are at the very bottom of the pyramid, in which case, you receive redistribution from others (the tax "losers") but also get hit hardest by inflation because at the bottom little or none of your income is discretionary.

 

Moody's has downgraded Freddie/Fannie to junk status. Warren Buffet during a live appearance on CNBC Friday said that he had been approached by Freddie and Fannie and passed on getting involved.

Buffet believes that Freddie/Fannie are playing with monkey shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEGvGPhh_sI

 

Guerilla:

You continue to show a COMPLETE lack of understanding of business, economics, and what drives an economy, relying entirely on political sayings and disregarding reality.

Lets see: Did Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) protect investors? Prior to SOX the two companies I referenced misreported their finances, were busy raising money and touting their stocks as their companies were failing as a result of long term misrepresentation, saw the collective value of their companies collapse from respective market highs of $190 billion to near zero at bankruptcy. Other companies did the same, resulting in additional losses in investor billions.

BTW, in April 2002 24,000 Enron employees sued the company for misrepresenting the health of the company and damaging their retirement savings. I suppose you are going to label them stupid and ignorant for investing in the company for whom they worked.

Post SOX a number of companies who were playing fast and loose with their accounting corrected statements and had to correct operations. Those companies that corrected statements did not go into financial tailspins.

I'd say SOX dramatically protected investors. You rely on simplistic political slogans that endlessly state and restate "get the government off my back".

I repeat, two of the companies that created the reasons behind SOX cost investors a gross melt down of $190 billion in total market share from peak to bust. Here is how you responded....

Instead of your generalities lets return to facts. The audit firms that audited Enron and Worldcom were sued. Court cases on the facts found that there was complicity between corporate executives and the audit firms. Both were found negligent.

You claim that investors are stupid. I suppose in the Guerilla world everyone but Guerilla, Lew Rockwell, and Mises are stupid.

Have you ever even read a corporate financial statement, a 10-K, read through the footnotes or tried to ascertain cash flow and then compared it to other businesses in that sector? Probably not. You are too busy cutting and pasting from Lew Rockwell.

An entire investment community and industry has sprouted because of the complicated nature of financial statements. People rely on expertise to explain the merits of investments.

I noted that in 2002 it was reported that 49.5% of American households had investments in stocks in mutual funds.



Your commentary on that is that these people are stupid. You have a very low regard for humanity but like to preach to everyone. I frankly feel sorry for those that believe in your commentary as you feel free to degrade humanity and show know appreciation for elements of society that demand special expertise and study.


I'd explain some of the simple elements of investment analysis to you, but I doubt you could follow it.

You claimed I cherry picked data here.....

Actually I picked the data that showed costs. Read it again. If you are going to complain about costs then look at the data. Don't rely on political generalizations or studies that don't reflect costs.

Meanwhile, the costs are tremendous, and like all regulation, encourage monopoly and oligopoly by putting a heavier compliance burden on small firms. Regulation is almost always, anti-competitive. That is why the banks and big firms write the legislation for Congress. Because it is always in their best interest. Coincidentally, the larger firms pay a larger percentage in compliance. Gee, didn't see that one coming! [/QUOTE]

You whine that the costs are tremendous. I used a real life example showing how it would cost a company earning $1 million/year all of $300/month to deal with the issue. Not significant.

Okay...$1 million is hard for you to digest. I'll put it in simpler terms. Take $1.00.

How much is 0.36%? Less than a penny. Lets look at the more expensive year of costs. How much is 0.43%? Less than a penny.

Again you whine that the costs are tremendous.

More political based whining. Less facts.


As to what I said, Guerilla, I quote....

Note the words.....this decade.

Of course what I said doesn't matter to you. You ignore facts and engage in political whining.


Now do I think the US government system is perfect? No. Do I think it is better than many other systems? Yes. Can it learn from others? Yes.

What I believe more fundamentally is that change occurs all the time. Change requires adjustment all the time. The US FED needs to stay insulated from political and financial influences and operate independantly in its two fold effort of combatting inflation and spurring economic activity through adjusting interest rates. In retrospect it appears that it erred on the basis of maintaining low interest rates for too long. On the other hand it did so in a vaccuum of controls on the financial sector, in particular the mortgage industry.

What I don't believe in is a political bias in the extreme, representing radical libertarian thinking that ignores real facts, as shown above, purposefully misstates hard data, and promotes an aspect of economics that is less than introductory Economics 101. It completely disregards the impact of imperfect markets being in existance in all aspects of real life, thereby always leading to serious inequalities and oportunities for massive levels of control by the players in that market.

Instead, libertarianism, as you preach it, always blames the government, never accepts responsabilities for problems, and when push comes to shove, calls people stupid.

Meanwhile lets review one thing one more time.

Costs of SOX. -> 0.36%. Less than one penny on the dollar. You call it tremendous.

I call your comments utter politically inspired rubbish.

 

My point was, you cannot make money be redistributing it. You make it by allowing those that earn it to keep more of it.

You do not make it by only overtaxing those who create the wealth. No one should have to pay more than their fair share. NO ONE.

 

Most people are looking for a free ride and have a tax the other guy mentality.

In all truth we need a flat tax to tax everyone the same.

 

Agreed, and the only way to truly accomplish that is to have one flat consumption tax and an abolition of income tax, estate tax, death tax, etc.

You buy something, you pay a tax. You buy more stuff, you pay more tax. You make more, you buy more, you pay more. You make less, you buy less, you pay less.

Ultimately, everyone pays the same rate.

 

Ok, my bad. We are thinking along the same lines then. Right on.

 

So what about people with post tax savings? What about those who invested into Roth IRAs and 401ks and have already paid a tax on retirement savings?

Ultimately everyone pays the same rate, any many pay it twice.

 

That the problem with the system. Everyone is looking for a break and that's why it doesn't work.

 

A break? How am I looking for a break when I'm trying to avoid getting taxed twice. Getting hit once hurts enough, why should I allow the government to do it again? Thats hardly looking for a break.