quote:
Originally posted by miamizsun:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by miamizsun:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by miamizsun:
Ed, the president usually has very little to do with the stock market. Data is and can be manipulated at the government or corporate level to suit a particular slant.
There are some sharp money managers/economists who have been around long enough and formed "circles of knowledge" with other trusted experts in the industry who give us a clearer insight to the true situation.
Here's a great example:
Financial Sense with Jim Puplava
Miamizsun, I did not say the Bonehead in Chief did. I don't think the article I posted did. I did not say this either, the article posted said it.
As the American Economy slows to a near stagnant growth rate, the money held by the beneficiaries of the Bush Tax Cuts is LEAVING the country at an alarming rate, It is leaving so fast that despite a slowdown in the American Economy the New York Stock Exchange Companies are doing just fine thank you. Not only is US Government borrowing financing Chinese economic growth, American corporate investment is adding to that growth, while the US is stagnating.
THE NEXT TIME YOU THINK TAX CUTS ARE GOOD FOR BUSINESS, THINK ABOUT THE ADDRESS OF THE WORKERS WHO ARE GETTING THE BENEFITS.
Ed, first, why did you take this personally? All I did was point out where people could get some good info. Second, the article specifically mentions Bush tax cuts as the culprit. Tax cuts are great for you, me and business. The problem is that the GOP & Democrats are spending way too much money. Tax cuts (cutting cash flow) in the face of increased spending are the kiss of death.
Listen to the link I posted.
The first hour and the Peter Schiff commentary directly addresses this issue. Good Luck.
i took it personal, because I take being LIED TO PERSONAL.
you say, "Tax cuts are great for you, me and business."
BULL Excretions. Fair, equitable taxation is great for EVERYBODY, INCLUDING RICH FOLKS WHO GET TAXED HEAVILY ON MONEY THEY DON'T INVEST INSIDE THE USA. The get an incentive to invest inside the USA and the return on those investments, and WE ALL BENEFIT from the investments. Take away the tax stick and the investment does go where it gathers the most moss. These days that is in the growing economies of the China and Indonesia, it doesn't even go into Mexico, where increased US investment would reduce pressure on the Mexican Population to MOVE HERE and take the jobs that are not being created because American RICH FOLK are putting their money in CHINA.
Now perhaps you can be forgiven for LYING to me, because you have swallowed the LIES of the Fat Cats who own, the Republican Party, The news media and are TRYING to buy the Democratic party.
BUT THAT'S WHY I DO TAKE IT PERSONAL WHEN SOMEONE TRIES TO CONVINCE ME THAT A TAX CUT THAT GAVE ME LESS THAN HALF A WEEKS PAY IN REDUCTIONS AND PUT THE STORE DISPLAY COMPANY DOWN THE STREET OUT OF BUSINESS is good for me.
Ed, let's stay on track here and please leave the personal attacks and assumed personal political beliefs at the door. If you've been paying attention you'll know I'm wise to the Democratic and Republican rhetoric. I don't trust either party.
Do you know the difference between corporatism (aka fascism) and capitalism? And historically have the Democrats ever proposed tax cuts? And why?
I have nothing against you personally, I'd just like to see you understand economics and capitalism a little better.
Regards, miamizsun
LINK
OK, lets stay on track. You quote a very famous Political and economic philosopher. At least you directed me to read his essay. Ludwig von Mises is one of the thinkers who, as almost all of economists, warns against the "Totalitarian Collective." It is a position that I agree with wholeheartedly. It is why I object so strenuously to being called a Communist. Communism, even as proposed by Marx, is totalitarian. Socialism is the same breed of beast.
The difficulty is that competing collectives are by definition not totalitarian. Collectivism can also be called unity. On the other side of the economic equation is the Fascist philosophy that "what is good for the corporation is good for the society." "Totalitarian Capitalism" is as bad for the individual as any form of totalitarian culture.
Von Mises says, "The utilitarian economist does not say: Fiat justitia, pereat mundus. (Fiat justice is sweet and pure) He says: Fiat justitia, ne pereat mundus.(Fiat Justice is not sweet or pure) He does not ask a man to renounce his well-being for the benefit of society. He advises him to recognize what his rightly understood interests are. In his eyes God's magnificence does not manifest itself in busy interference with sundry affairs of princes and politicians, but in endowing his creatures with reason and the urge toward the pursuit of happiness."
The thrust of what you and I are both driving at is that No Domination is Good Domination.
I don't think you and I part ways. Until you start on the tax and spend argument.
Money is power. Bush doctrine is requires power, and concentration of power. His tax policy, called a tax cut, is a means to the end of concentrating wealth, not disbursing it. The conservative position is that government has not right to interfere with the amassing of wealth. It is a reasonable position when joined with the idea that power dispersal IS the function of government. The motto, "Power to the People" has meaning. Its antithesis is "Power to the Corporation."
I make the distinction between people and corporation, not between people and Government advisedly. Government is the dispenser of justice. The great strength of our republican form of government is that it decides in a measured democratic way what justice is.
Taxation is a tool of justice. Justice demands an equitable tax code.
There is an old nursery rhyme on the subject,
quote:
Hark Hark,
the dogs do bark,
the beggars are coming to town,
Some in rags,
some in tags,
some in velvet gowns.
I know you have heard it, you may even have memorized it, but do you know what it means?
I am going to tell you anyway.
In old England the Monarch, as do all Monarchs needed to collect taxes. But he also needed to curry favor from the Church and the Aristocracy. What was left, with any money to pay taxes was tradespeople. We call them the "Middle Class" today. When you tax a tradesman beyond his ability to pay, you make a beggar of him.
That's what happened in England. The tradesmen were impoverished, still traveling from town to town they were dressed in rags, selling their wares (and dodging the tax man) well that tax collector, dressed in his velvet gown was never far behind the tradesman.
The problem I am having with you, specifically, and with some others, generally, is what I see as a failure to recognize that government provides services and infrastructure and a lot of benefit, and it has to be paid for. Taxes are necessary, just as roads and dams and armies are necessary.
My issue is not with taxes. It is with the justice of the tax system. The aristocracy benefits from the power granted to it by the government. They should be paying the cost of that government. Bush is an aristocrat. Born to power, or as once was said of him, "born with a silver foot in his mouth." He is supported by the Aristocracy. His policy is to benefit the aristocracy. The only people left to pay for the Monarchy (government) are you and me, unless you're an aristocrat.
You're correct tax cuts are the kiss of death for the democracy, not the aristocracy, in the face of expanded spending. The democracy dies from the impoverishment of the tradesmen. And it is happening as we speak.
One final thought. I am neither giving nor accepting personal financial advice. Please do not direct me to websites that "teach me how to become rich, or prosperous."
I am satisfied. I am secure. I am worried about us, the people of this country, not me, or you, or interventor or Southern Patriot. Like all liberals I think we should take care of our own needs, but we should not ignore the needs and contributions of others.