Hi Bill
I wont enter the discussion about or bad but I do wonder if most people
have
the slightest grasp of the derivatives market that over the last 10 years
have boomed to $50 trillion from basically nothing. They are the
equivalent
of a Las Vegas baccarat table except that they are using our money not
their
own and we wind up wearing the cheap home loans debacle. Try "Traders
Guns
and Money" by Satyajit Das.
As for Business Tax rates the US is at the top end of OECD countries
however
it also is at the top end of doling out subsidies and protectionist
policies
to the great disadvantage of many trading partners.
Peter McMurray
"Bill H" <someone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:47SdnQxBhM8p9XXanZ2dnUVZ_h6hnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Did you know that business tax rates in the U.S. are significantly
higher
> than in other countries around the world in often defined as "market
> oriented" countries? This has a "huge" impact on businesses (especially
> small businesses). I don't think it's much hyperbole to describe the
> voracious appetite of U.S. federal and state tax authorities as
> "confiscatory".
>
> Secondly, do you know how many "markets" there are? Every day we
> encounter the oil, food, trans****tation, finance, automotive, home
> building, construction, government, and many other economic sectors that
> contain thousands of individual markets. These markets have tens and
> hundreds of millions of players in them each and every day! These
players
> operate in an environment that buy and sell everything from pencils to
> jumbo jets, from a $10.00 deposit for my son to multi-billion dollar
loans
> and credit, from a gallon of gas to enough electricity to power cities.
> There are many regulatory constraints on these markets; not all are the
> same though. Top-down totalitarian rule is not good for these markets,
> human freedom, financial progress, or the ability to allocate scarce
> resources in a global environment.
>
> To give you a quick glimpse about heterogeneous markets, Milton Friedman
> had a great discussion about a pencil.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6vjrzUplWU
>
> When you discuss "decent" regulation be careful what you wish for. For
> instance:
> - it was the federal government that caused the S&L crisis in the
1980's.
> (Remember the Keating 5?)
> - it was the federal government that caused the current mortgage crises
> (for a humerous view see
> http://www.suburbanhousehunters.com/about/mortgage-crisis/
> - it would be better to discuss income distributions using some kind of
> rational framework. Your comment about income "inequality" is very
> misleading and sounds more like a politician than an economist. A quick
> look at some economists writings shows this well.
>
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/income_confusion.html
> http://aei.org/publications/pubID.26511,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
>
> There are some great economic articles out that are quite illuminating.
> Very few of them would agree with you. Although these links aren't the
> "end-all" of economic analysis, we have to remember that when Mary earns
> $100,000 in 2006 while Tom earns $25,000, a 10% increase in 2007's
income
> means Mary earns $110,000 and Tom earns $27,500. Only a politician
would
> claim the "income gap" is increasing, even though the difference between
> their incomes has increased.
>
> Descartes Corrollary is not a valid analytical framework to study
> economics, but it is wonderful for political demagoguery and socialists.
> :-)
>
> Bill
>
> "Chandru Murthi" <cmurth_xyz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:pxxFj.1853$L92.505@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Saying taxes are "confiscatory" (in this country, no less!) tends to
>> bring out my hyperbolic side.
>>
>> Implying also that markets in this free-wheeling society are
>> "unreasonably" regulated is equally a red flag. How? Where? Compared to
>> 18th century pre-industrial society?
>>
>> If indeed, we had any decent "regulation" in place, we would
>> - not have had the Savings-Loan and current Mortgage crises.
>> - not have confiscatory levels of health costs.
>> - not have the growing inequity between haves/(or, in Bush's term
>> have-mores) and the poor.
>>
>> etc etc. But I preach to the unconverted, so before someone points out
>> that this is VERY OT, I shall stop.
>>
>> Chandru Murthi
>>
>> PS Agree with late BB, probably a first for me, but for doubtless
>> completely different reasons. Otoh, a close look at our esteemed
>> legislators (particularly the ones lately in the news in NY) might
>> indicate that maybe that's how they were chosen.
>>
>> "Bill H" <someone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:fo6dnfMozcwVf3janZ2dnUVZ_ualnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Ahh, the proverbial straw man agument. Noone suggests government
should
>>> disappear; however this proposition appears to be necessary in order
to
>>> put forward a good socialist theory against reasonably regulated
>>> markets. Perhaps a review of a few books on basic economics would be
in
>>> order.
>>>
>>> Bill Buckley once opined he would rather be ruled by the first 500
>>> people from the Boston telephone book than the entire faculty of
Harvard
>>> University. Markets have a tendency to eliminate the arrogance of the
>>> ruling class. :-)
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> "Chandru Murthi" <cmurth_xyz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:NAcFj.90$EJ2.57@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>> "Bill H" <someone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:e5adnckYV_Od-nnanZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> Isn't it astoni****ng what the law of supply and demand provides?
>>>>
>>>> Which is?
>>>>> Hopefully, gov't over-interference (via capricious and confiscatory
>>>>> taxes) will be minimized to allow the proper allocation of scarce
>>>>> resources. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, it would be wonderful if government disappeared entirely,
leaving
>>>> us up to the mercy of the market, and the rapacious few who take
>>>> advantage of it. That way those of us who are truly fit will survive
>>>> and the rest will die off. A most equitable result.
>>>>
>>>> Chandru
>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>>> "frosty" <frostyj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>> news:LIOdnYU5OIJMk37anZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> Peter McMurray wrote:
>>>>>>> ..Current UK price is 114.25p per litre, like us they have an
>>>>>>> increasing gap between unleaded and diesel with diesel getting
more
>>>>>>> and more expensive so those chooks had quite a ride. By the way
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>> your 4$ include taxes I have assumed that it does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, taxes are included. And price increases for diesel, here,
>>>>>> are also outpacing price increases for gasoline. Diesel was
>>>>>> $1.52/gal, about $.25 less than low grade gas, when I first
>>>>>> started buying it. Lately, it will be $.25 (or more) above
>>>>>> premium gas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> frosty
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
