US is rich due to: 1. Very high resources (oil, mineral, farm land...) per capita, 2. Welcoming immigrants (actually all are immigrants once except the few natives), and 3. Geographic location isolated itself from WW2.
US is declining, but it is still #1 in many areas by many measures.
China in last 250 years is poor due to: 1. Less resources per capita, 2. Semi colonization from the West/USA/Japan about 250 years ago, and 3. Poor governance in Mao's era. To be fair, Mao had contributed a lot to China.
Even if it may be #1 in GNP in our generation, GNP per capita which is more important to me is just the average.
Basically US is resource rich per capita. China has about 4 times the population of US, but US's arable land doubles that of China. GNP per capita has similar disparity.
It could be that a civilized nation like China, India, Greece, Egypt, and Italy has extracted too much national resources through out her long history. US has been 'discovered' and populated only in last hundreds of years. Even with limited history, US influences today's world in technology, music, movie, military... more than any of the described civilizations.
China is improving. when you compare the HSR, airports, infrastructure, you can easily see China is catching up and in many cases passes US. It is a matter of time that US will wake up and concentrate in the economy and end to be the world policeman.
China is a long way from the Tang period when Chinese had the highest living standard/culture/science compared to the rest of the world. At one time, China wore fancy clothes made in silk and lived in well-built houses while the westerners wore animal skins and lived in caves. When we do not improve, others will catch up and pass us.
China has been dominant in last 16 (some argues 17) of the last 20 centuries. For the last 3 centuries, they're down until the last 30 years, but they are waking up and will roar and shake the earth as Napoleon predicted.
Judging from the progress and the education, I do not believe it will take more than one generation for them to catch up. They also learn the tough lessons on defending themselves from foreign invadors (Brits, French, Russia... and Japan), understanding the world (missed the last industrial revolution started in Britain), governance... They also have a determination to succeed to a more prosperous country.
Along the way, they will have problems and I do not bet against them as many past problems have been fixed.
The joke of the century: the richest country (US ) borrows money from the poorest country (China at one time).
The world is getting smaller and we should achieve a better world without trying to be #1.
(c) TonyP4 2010. Written in 2/05/11. Updated in 7/10/11.
#####
Disclaimer: All my posts are for informational purposes only. I'm not a professional investment counselor. Seek one before you make any investment decision.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Rare Earth
China has the right to reduce rare earth export to its advantage, just like OPEC controlling oil. China has been giving a free ride to the world at the expense of its environment.
China uses it as a weapon against the dispute with Japan and/or other countries. Despite the mutually beneficial trade, Japan has been brutal to China in the last 250 years. The role in Opium Wars and the criminal acts in WW2 are just some examples. The two A-bombs should be dropped on the imperial palace, not for the innocent folks.
With the restriction of importing weapons from US, should China do the same in restricting the rare earth that helps US weapons?
Rare earth elements are available in many parts of the world. They are not mined due to the cost and the environment damages. It is about time China cares about its own environment and charges its minerals as much as the market can bear – it is a free market after all.
All the companies in mining these minerals will enjoy appreciation in the short term. However, it is the riskiest investment by now as we do not know what is the next move by China.
Chinese want to use this strategy to improve foreign investment and advantage in its industries that use these rare earth like hybrid cars and turbines. WTO cannot accuse China in limiting export of these rare earths as there is no such precedent.
China should and should charge these rare earths at 10% below the closest competitors. If they are more than 10% less, the local governments will step in to protect their industries and/or take actions.
China has at least 3 years before these foreign mines are ready - as of this writing some mines on rare earth are ready now. By then, China will decide the prices again based on whether they want to capture the rare earth market and/or their products that use these rare earth elements.
(c) TonyP4 3/8/11
#####
Disclaimer: All my posts are for informational purposes only. I'm not a professional investment counselor. Seek one before you make any investment decision.
China uses it as a weapon against the dispute with Japan and/or other countries. Despite the mutually beneficial trade, Japan has been brutal to China in the last 250 years. The role in Opium Wars and the criminal acts in WW2 are just some examples. The two A-bombs should be dropped on the imperial palace, not for the innocent folks.
With the restriction of importing weapons from US, should China do the same in restricting the rare earth that helps US weapons?
Rare earth elements are available in many parts of the world. They are not mined due to the cost and the environment damages. It is about time China cares about its own environment and charges its minerals as much as the market can bear – it is a free market after all.
All the companies in mining these minerals will enjoy appreciation in the short term. However, it is the riskiest investment by now as we do not know what is the next move by China.
Chinese want to use this strategy to improve foreign investment and advantage in its industries that use these rare earth like hybrid cars and turbines. WTO cannot accuse China in limiting export of these rare earths as there is no such precedent.
China should and should charge these rare earths at 10% below the closest competitors. If they are more than 10% less, the local governments will step in to protect their industries and/or take actions.
China has at least 3 years before these foreign mines are ready - as of this writing some mines on rare earth are ready now. By then, China will decide the prices again based on whether they want to capture the rare earth market and/or their products that use these rare earth elements.
(c) TonyP4 3/8/11
#####
Disclaimer: All my posts are for informational purposes only. I'm not a professional investment counselor. Seek one before you make any investment decision.
Defending China on Intelligent Property
You may be surprised US was the intelligent property violator. US copied/stole ideas from the west without paying any royalty in the colonial days. Even at the end of WW2 US did not pay royalties to Germany in using the atomic bomb technology.
There are phases of a country moving from undeveloped to developing, and then developed country. Their major characteristics are listed. One's theory.
Phase 1. Low labor cost. Copy/steal. Low-quality consumer products.
Phase 2. Moving up the value chain. Good infrastructure. Higher quality.
Phase 3. High-end products. High quality. Innovative. Protect intelligent property rights.
China is moving from Phase 2 to Phase 3 now. Around 16th century, about half of the inventions and their derivatives were from China and no one paid royalties to China. This is the time when China was in Phase 3 relative to the rest of the world. After the semi colonization about 250 years ago, China was bankrupt and moved back to Phase 1.
China has intelligent citizens to be innovative and could churn up intelligent products like Facebook, Google... However, as long as there is no law in protecting IPs, they will not be materialized. It may take about 10 years (hopefully less) for China to protect IP.
------------
Should IP be protected in developing countries?
Most citizens in developing countries cannot afford to buy DVDs, software..., so there are no real heavy losses to Hollywood, software providers...
New drugs are copied by China and India illegally and also distributed to poor countries. Haitians and most Africans cannot afford to buy the drugs at the asking prices. Should we let them die? No, we can treat them as charities to developing countries.
(c) TonyP4 2/1/11
#####
Disclaimer: All my posts are for informational purposes only. I'm not a professional investment counselor. Seek one before you make any investment decision.
There are phases of a country moving from undeveloped to developing, and then developed country. Their major characteristics are listed. One's theory.
Phase 1. Low labor cost. Copy/steal. Low-quality consumer products.
Phase 2. Moving up the value chain. Good infrastructure. Higher quality.
Phase 3. High-end products. High quality. Innovative. Protect intelligent property rights.
China is moving from Phase 2 to Phase 3 now. Around 16th century, about half of the inventions and their derivatives were from China and no one paid royalties to China. This is the time when China was in Phase 3 relative to the rest of the world. After the semi colonization about 250 years ago, China was bankrupt and moved back to Phase 1.
China has intelligent citizens to be innovative and could churn up intelligent products like Facebook, Google... However, as long as there is no law in protecting IPs, they will not be materialized. It may take about 10 years (hopefully less) for China to protect IP.
------------
Should IP be protected in developing countries?
Most citizens in developing countries cannot afford to buy DVDs, software..., so there are no real heavy losses to Hollywood, software providers...
New drugs are copied by China and India illegally and also distributed to poor countries. Haitians and most Africans cannot afford to buy the drugs at the asking prices. Should we let them die? No, we can treat them as charities to developing countries.
(c) TonyP4 2/1/11
#####
Disclaimer: All my posts are for informational purposes only. I'm not a professional investment counselor. Seek one before you make any investment decision.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Appreciating the Yuan
First, no country including US has the right to tell other countries to appreciate their currency. The era of ‘you’re either my puppet or my enemy’ is long past and Obama is still living in the past glory. He blames China for all our ills, as he cannot fix our problems.
Keeping the Yuan low actually helps US's consumers and US in buying wind turbines or HSRs from China at lower prices. Not to mention the huge loans from China. US wants to depreciate its currency to lessen their loan burden to foreigners. It would not be effective if the foreigner's currency depreciates at the same time. When we print money at this rate, it is our way to manipulate currency.
China does not want to withdraw the bad loans as they do not want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. It is US trick to lessen the burden of their foreign loans by depreciating its own currency.
The major products of China and US are not the same, so there are no direct competitions. If we do not buy the products from China, most likely we'll buy same products from Mexico, India, or any countries with low labor-cost. China rose because of the terminating the trade embargo when US played China card against Russia. They may play India card against China. However, China and US are not enemy on day one.
Until China builds up its local market for its growing middle class, I do not see Yuan will appreciate by more than 5% a year. The current problem of high inflation in China is due to the pegging its currency with USD. The peg is loose now and it should accelerate to do so when the local market is more important has been fully developed.
A strong China is good for the world including US! China is just one part of the global economy. The other players are research companies from the west and the US, oil from Middle East and Africa, and commodities from Australia, Brazil… Everyone benefits including the consumers in every country.
Lord Obama and his 'advisers' including Uncle Ben and Tiny Tim can do a lot of good if they looked longer-term (more than 4 years for re-election). To give generous welfare to buy votes and creating jobs for the lazy government servants are definitely not good for the country. Have we learned from California? The QE1, QE2, and the coming QE3 are depreciating the USD. Are we hypocrites to blame China on same?
It was an error US and other country asked China to change the value of the Yuan during SE Asia crisis. China is not that dumb to fall in the same trap that made Japan's economy suffered in the last two decades.
(c) TonyP4 1/22/11. Updated 7/12/11.
#####
Disclaimer: All my posts are for informational purposes only. I'm not a professional investment counselor. Seek one before you make any investment decision.
Keeping the Yuan low actually helps US's consumers and US in buying wind turbines or HSRs from China at lower prices. Not to mention the huge loans from China. US wants to depreciate its currency to lessen their loan burden to foreigners. It would not be effective if the foreigner's currency depreciates at the same time. When we print money at this rate, it is our way to manipulate currency.
China does not want to withdraw the bad loans as they do not want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. It is US trick to lessen the burden of their foreign loans by depreciating its own currency.
The major products of China and US are not the same, so there are no direct competitions. If we do not buy the products from China, most likely we'll buy same products from Mexico, India, or any countries with low labor-cost. China rose because of the terminating the trade embargo when US played China card against Russia. They may play India card against China. However, China and US are not enemy on day one.
Until China builds up its local market for its growing middle class, I do not see Yuan will appreciate by more than 5% a year. The current problem of high inflation in China is due to the pegging its currency with USD. The peg is loose now and it should accelerate to do so when the local market is more important has been fully developed.
A strong China is good for the world including US! China is just one part of the global economy. The other players are research companies from the west and the US, oil from Middle East and Africa, and commodities from Australia, Brazil… Everyone benefits including the consumers in every country.
Lord Obama and his 'advisers' including Uncle Ben and Tiny Tim can do a lot of good if they looked longer-term (more than 4 years for re-election). To give generous welfare to buy votes and creating jobs for the lazy government servants are definitely not good for the country. Have we learned from California? The QE1, QE2, and the coming QE3 are depreciating the USD. Are we hypocrites to blame China on same?
It was an error US and other country asked China to change the value of the Yuan during SE Asia crisis. China is not that dumb to fall in the same trap that made Japan's economy suffered in the last two decades.
(c) TonyP4 1/22/11. Updated 7/12/11.
#####
Disclaimer: All my posts are for informational purposes only. I'm not a professional investment counselor. Seek one before you make any investment decision.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Pitying the poor by Tom R.
It is often astounding what people find worth defending.
Not that facts ever move anyone away from their beliefs of choice, I've nevertheless looked into the wealth distribution percentages;
- Ron Paul has this: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/111232
- Wikipedia has this and a host of source references to check out if you're leery of what you get on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
An interesting line was this one: In 2003, the 1% with the highest salaries paid more than 34% of the nation's federal income tax; the 10% with the highest salaries paid nearly 66% of the total income tax; the top 25% paid 84% of the income taxes; and the upper 50% accounted for nearly 97% of US income tax revenue, primarily because, as stated above, the bottom 40% had comparatively no wealth (less than 1%) to be taxed in the first place.[19] The
- The Wealth Divide http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
- CEO-to-worker pay imbalance grows
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/
- Executive Compensation vs. Workers http://financialservices.house.gov/ExecCompvsWorkers.html
- Open Left has an interesting little movie to illustrate the wealth divide. http://tinyurl.com/yaqh6gm
One could argue, I suppose, for economic natural selection – where those who make it do so because they are more fit and those who don't are low lifes deserving of their fate (i.e., the 40% who pathetically share 1% of the wealth). And it's not too painful to think that way if we simply close our eyes.
They aren't making much noise. They are, in fact, pretty close to invisible for those of us who have comparative wealth and comfort. But, if you want to see them, just pay attention.
Here's a way. Go to a grocery store – not to shop but to observe. Notice the person behind the Salvation Army bell doing his or her part for that group. Put a dollar in the bucket and they'll thank you and bless you for it – as though that dollar is anything to you. Now, go inside. Look at the faces of many of the customers. Notice them picking up an object and returning it to the shelf. Notice the tension or resignation in many of the faces. Look in the carts. Now, go stand behind the registers and casually watch as people check out. Listen too. You might get little clues such as, "Just swipe it as though it's a credit card." Good going, detective. You've just identified someone new to his food stamp card.
But, you'll see what you want to see, won't you? Like the fellow who saw a food kitchen with people standing outside it near a sign that advertised a job. What, he wondered, were they doing standing around with jobs available? He made up a story in his mind that reinforced his desire to see them as worthless individuals – and maybe he was right. Or, maybe they already had jobs but still needed a handout. Or maybe they had applied for several jobs and got nowhere because of their crummy interview skills or appearance. Or maybe they weren't recipients but volunteers taking a break. Or maybe they WERE bums. I don't know. I'll let the hard ass judge them however he needs to if he's to maintain the world view he finds comforting.. Me? I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and simply hope that they got fed if that's what they were there for. All I know is that I have no need to be in that line, so I have a helluva hard time playing hard ass with those who – for WHATEVER reason – do. Nobody chooses to fail. Many who fail do habitually make lousy choices. But, others have lousy karma. Either way, they don't wish it on themselves.
It's hopeless to write about this stuff. The audience falls into two camps – those who already agree and those who never will unless they personally fall hard. So it is that Dick Cheney, professional hard ass, is not so hard on gays as on so many others. Because his daughter is gay – and for no other reason – gay isn't something to bash for him. One wishes that he also had a son in the military. That might have changed recent history.
Most of us here are relatively wealthy. Not necessarily rich. But, I suspect that few if any of us are on food stamps or uninsured or under foreclosure. A few of us are probably quite wealthy (though, of course, not as wealthy as many others we know of). And most of us are pretty comfortable even if we aren't absolutely secure for the future.
Some of us, alas, respect wealth as though it is a measure. I've heard many praise Bill Gates even though his charitable endeavors don't come even close to affecting his ability to buy what he wants when he wants it for the rest of his life. No, he doesn't have to do it. Yes, it's great that he does (as opposed to, say, Donald Trump). But, I more admire the mother who called in to offer up $5 of her food stamps when she was listening to the stories of people in need during a money-for-food drive. That $5, had it been accepted. would have been not just a donation but a sacrifice. She didn't offer it because she had extra. She offered it because she was on the cusp of not getting by and, thereby, felt empathy for those who were NOT getting by. (This is no made up story. I was on the phone recording donations when she called in and happened to get my line. I refused the offer because she might well be risking the loss of the food stamps should it have come to light that she didn't use them as intended.) It depressed me to the point that I never volunteered again to work the phones.
I can neither understand nor readily stomach this defense of the rich -- as though taxing them is onerous to them. When I argued against torture during the Bush Administration, I argued alone. That wasn't worth joining in on for some of the same characters who now find it a moral imperative to protect the rights of the richest among us. (I argued against torture not because I give a damn about the twisted bastards that comprise the hate-filled extremists but because I don't trust any government to distinguish between true terrorists and mere suspects. And, in fact, we did torture and outsource yet more torture of some who proved innocent.) When I argue for the poor, I argue alone. But, the rich are finding defenders who haven't posted on anything else on this board. They get more sympathy in the topsy-turvy value system of some than the true victims of society.
With all due respect, there is little respect due to such misplaced concern. That concern, it seems obvious to me, needs to go to the 40% at the bottom of society who scrape by on no wealth at all.
It's just ugly.
Best,
Tom
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Tom's reply on Wealth Distribution
Tony,
Your sympathy for the rich folks forced from the U.S. for the lowest taxes they've paid in decades is misplaced. They're doing just fine. Also, your equation of them with golden geese is pretty astounding. The fact is that they've been, as a group, more like pigs feeding at the trough than golden geese selflessly providing the little people with glowing gift eggs of gold.. Were their taxes raised to the levels they were paying when Reagan was president, the argument that they are being put upon unduly would remain a ridiculous one. Those who most benefited from Bush's tax cuts (even as he lead us blindly to war) would not even notice they taxes except as lower tallies in the bank balances by which some measure their competitive success.
Sorry. I don't give a damn about those keeping score by looking at their balances. It's those who are trying to raise, provide for, and shelter their families that I concentrate on. Scare tactics about what the richest will do if they aren't treated like royalty should be sources of anger -- not fear.
I suggest that more appropriate objects of sympathy might be: a) the largely forgotten poor and b) those falling out the bottom of the middle class as their jobs have disappeared; those struggling to hang on by lowering their living standards as they find new jobs paying a fraction of their old jobs, c) those being devastated by health care bills they cannot pay -- many because they have no insurance and plenty more because their insurance proved woefully inadequate.
As for "reckless spending," I assume you're talking primarily about the unnecessary Iraq War that Bush refused to put on budget and for which he refused to levy taxes. That spending, it's legacy, and the pottery barn rule of Colin Powell (that is, "If you break it, you bought it.") were the back breakers when coupled with an irresponsible tax cut benefiting the top so that it could trickle down (via your golden eggs I guess). The SECOND wave of bailout spending that came under the Obama presidency came (the first was under Bush) was delivered with a gun at the temple -- "Do it or see a depression" was the threat echoed by virtually every economist across the political spectrum. Virtually the unanimous opinion at the time was: a) it had to be done and b) it had to be done quickly.
Now, we have the Republican revisionists and many of those who are frustrated and shocked by the debt that we've run up looking for scapegoats.
In hindsight, the stimulus certainly wasn't done well. Accountability was weak. Concessions weren't demanded. Some who should not have benefited (or benefited so fully) gained. The emphases were often wrong. And so on and on. I agree with many of these items wholeheartedly.
BUT. But, when a fireman grabs and carries someone from a burning building, it's always possible that he won't have first checked to see whether the person could be moved without causing harm. Possibly, in hindsight, there was time to secure the person in a stretcher and evidence that the stairway rather than the ladder would have been possible -- thereby avoiding the paralysis that ensued.
Maybe. But in emergency situations triage is necessary. Action has to be taken quickly and will, inevitably, involve a far lower standard of care than normal times would excuse. The perceived (and I think real) urgency of the moment changes the game but certainly leaves the door open for Monday morning quarterbacking.
I agree. We'll all be paying (and are paying in many instances) a price for years of bi-partisan bad decisions by those in charge . . . and by the politicians that they own as well. But, I have a helluva lot more sympathy for the firefighters than I do for those that set the blaze and a helluva lot more tolerance for those forced to do triage than I would during normal times.
For Republicans, taxes are the greatest evil of government. They aren't. The greatest evil is to sabotage government -- which sometimes includes the evil of starving it by NOT taxing. The recklessness of a guns and butter mentality has a clear-cut motive -- political expediency that appeals to the ignorant knee-jerk antipathy for paying as you go. The difference between today's two parties is that, when in power, the Democrats tax and spend; the Republicans, when in power, reduce taxes and spend just as freely.
Going forward, I hope that the Congress somehow shows the courage to demand a new tax to pay for our new level of commitment in Afghanistan. THAT will finally make the necessary DIRECT connection between our war policies and their consequences not just to families on military bases but to arm-chair generals in their comfortable living rooms -- safely removed from the bullets and explosions -- who have no stake in the war beyond wanting to see their ideologies prevail.
Sorry, Tony. The fact remains. The system strongly favors the wealthy to the point where even the more thoughtful and fair-minded of their ranks feel that they SHOULD bear more of the burden. My guess is that they, not the Rush Limbaughs, comprise most of those who contribute to the golden eggs with which you credit them. Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, and many of those alleged Hollywood elite, among others, are patriotic and fair-minded enough to acknowledge that they are paying LESS than their fair share.
Best,
Tom
-------
Hi Tony,
Were I writing on the other side of the issue, I'd "lose" the debate too. There just aren't sufficient language skills to make the case that a society's victims are its rich -- a very curious argument indeed!
Of course they should pay "their fair share" of taxes. Where the debate comes in is over what a fair share is. It's NOT an equal share. There is a difference between cutting out someone's bone and liposuction. A flat tax for all people, for example, has nothing "fair" to it. When 2% controls 90% of the country's wealth, that is one extreme. When the communists argue from each according to his ability to each according to his need is another extreme.
Guess what? We are now firmly lashed to the first extreme. It is as though 100 of us are sharing a lifeboat with 2 extremely muscular guys who are claiming 90% of the food and water and leaving the 10% for us to compete for -- arguing that they worked very hard on their bodies and that if we had done the same we, too, could be writing the rules. Some find their argument compelling!!!!
And seated next to me is Tony -- expressing his fears that we might unfairly take too much of their "fair share" from them. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAArrrrrrrrrrgggggggh.
Good grief, Tony. Stop worrying about the muscled duo or the dream you have of becoming one of them. It ain't going to happen. Again, they're doing fine. Stop worrying about them and start worrying about the 98%. Or even yourself since you're arguing against your own best interest (in the hope of getting one of those mythical golden eggs!)
Strawman: "You're arguing for wealth redistribution."
Me: "To a degree, yes. They already redistributed it -- from the middle class to themselves. Pushing the pendulum our way isn't killing capitalism. It's putting the breaks on government of, by, and for the privileged few.
There is a HUGE expanse between a communist kind of wealth redistribution and today's plutocracy. The two extremes are not on a line but on a bracelet that has a small gap between the two extreme ends. We need to move considerably left just to reach the center -- away from corporatism and its increasingly brutal financial Darwinism (capitalism run amuck).
Best,
Tom
Your sympathy for the rich folks forced from the U.S. for the lowest taxes they've paid in decades is misplaced. They're doing just fine. Also, your equation of them with golden geese is pretty astounding. The fact is that they've been, as a group, more like pigs feeding at the trough than golden geese selflessly providing the little people with glowing gift eggs of gold.. Were their taxes raised to the levels they were paying when Reagan was president, the argument that they are being put upon unduly would remain a ridiculous one. Those who most benefited from Bush's tax cuts (even as he lead us blindly to war) would not even notice they taxes except as lower tallies in the bank balances by which some measure their competitive success.
Sorry. I don't give a damn about those keeping score by looking at their balances. It's those who are trying to raise, provide for, and shelter their families that I concentrate on. Scare tactics about what the richest will do if they aren't treated like royalty should be sources of anger -- not fear.
I suggest that more appropriate objects of sympathy might be: a) the largely forgotten poor and b) those falling out the bottom of the middle class as their jobs have disappeared; those struggling to hang on by lowering their living standards as they find new jobs paying a fraction of their old jobs, c) those being devastated by health care bills they cannot pay -- many because they have no insurance and plenty more because their insurance proved woefully inadequate.
As for "reckless spending," I assume you're talking primarily about the unnecessary Iraq War that Bush refused to put on budget and for which he refused to levy taxes. That spending, it's legacy, and the pottery barn rule of Colin Powell (that is, "If you break it, you bought it.") were the back breakers when coupled with an irresponsible tax cut benefiting the top so that it could trickle down (via your golden eggs I guess). The SECOND wave of bailout spending that came under the Obama presidency came (the first was under Bush) was delivered with a gun at the temple -- "Do it or see a depression" was the threat echoed by virtually every economist across the political spectrum. Virtually the unanimous opinion at the time was: a) it had to be done and b) it had to be done quickly.
Now, we have the Republican revisionists and many of those who are frustrated and shocked by the debt that we've run up looking for scapegoats.
In hindsight, the stimulus certainly wasn't done well. Accountability was weak. Concessions weren't demanded. Some who should not have benefited (or benefited so fully) gained. The emphases were often wrong. And so on and on. I agree with many of these items wholeheartedly.
BUT. But, when a fireman grabs and carries someone from a burning building, it's always possible that he won't have first checked to see whether the person could be moved without causing harm. Possibly, in hindsight, there was time to secure the person in a stretcher and evidence that the stairway rather than the ladder would have been possible -- thereby avoiding the paralysis that ensued.
Maybe. But in emergency situations triage is necessary. Action has to be taken quickly and will, inevitably, involve a far lower standard of care than normal times would excuse. The perceived (and I think real) urgency of the moment changes the game but certainly leaves the door open for Monday morning quarterbacking.
I agree. We'll all be paying (and are paying in many instances) a price for years of bi-partisan bad decisions by those in charge . . . and by the politicians that they own as well. But, I have a helluva lot more sympathy for the firefighters than I do for those that set the blaze and a helluva lot more tolerance for those forced to do triage than I would during normal times.
For Republicans, taxes are the greatest evil of government. They aren't. The greatest evil is to sabotage government -- which sometimes includes the evil of starving it by NOT taxing. The recklessness of a guns and butter mentality has a clear-cut motive -- political expediency that appeals to the ignorant knee-jerk antipathy for paying as you go. The difference between today's two parties is that, when in power, the Democrats tax and spend; the Republicans, when in power, reduce taxes and spend just as freely.
Going forward, I hope that the Congress somehow shows the courage to demand a new tax to pay for our new level of commitment in Afghanistan. THAT will finally make the necessary DIRECT connection between our war policies and their consequences not just to families on military bases but to arm-chair generals in their comfortable living rooms -- safely removed from the bullets and explosions -- who have no stake in the war beyond wanting to see their ideologies prevail.
Sorry, Tony. The fact remains. The system strongly favors the wealthy to the point where even the more thoughtful and fair-minded of their ranks feel that they SHOULD bear more of the burden. My guess is that they, not the Rush Limbaughs, comprise most of those who contribute to the golden eggs with which you credit them. Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, and many of those alleged Hollywood elite, among others, are patriotic and fair-minded enough to acknowledge that they are paying LESS than their fair share.
Best,
Tom
-------
Hi Tony,
Were I writing on the other side of the issue, I'd "lose" the debate too. There just aren't sufficient language skills to make the case that a society's victims are its rich -- a very curious argument indeed!
Of course they should pay "their fair share" of taxes. Where the debate comes in is over what a fair share is. It's NOT an equal share. There is a difference between cutting out someone's bone and liposuction. A flat tax for all people, for example, has nothing "fair" to it. When 2% controls 90% of the country's wealth, that is one extreme. When the communists argue from each according to his ability to each according to his need is another extreme.
Guess what? We are now firmly lashed to the first extreme. It is as though 100 of us are sharing a lifeboat with 2 extremely muscular guys who are claiming 90% of the food and water and leaving the 10% for us to compete for -- arguing that they worked very hard on their bodies and that if we had done the same we, too, could be writing the rules. Some find their argument compelling!!!!
And seated next to me is Tony -- expressing his fears that we might unfairly take too much of their "fair share" from them. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAArrrrrrrrrrgggggggh.
Good grief, Tony. Stop worrying about the muscled duo or the dream you have of becoming one of them. It ain't going to happen. Again, they're doing fine. Stop worrying about them and start worrying about the 98%. Or even yourself since you're arguing against your own best interest (in the hope of getting one of those mythical golden eggs!)
Strawman: "You're arguing for wealth redistribution."
Me: "To a degree, yes. They already redistributed it -- from the middle class to themselves. Pushing the pendulum our way isn't killing capitalism. It's putting the breaks on government of, by, and for the privileged few.
There is a HUGE expanse between a communist kind of wealth redistribution and today's plutocracy. The two extremes are not on a line but on a bracelet that has a small gap between the two extreme ends. We need to move considerably left just to reach the center -- away from corporatism and its increasingly brutal financial Darwinism (capitalism run amuck).
Best,
Tom
How the wealth should be distributed
With the reckless spending and bailouts, we'll see more taxes and many
generations have to pay for them.
1. Will be higher.
2. Inflation, a kind of invisible taxes.
2010 could be the last year for low tax rates for long term capital taxes for a
while.
Some rich folks may be forced to have their residence outside US to avoid taxes.
Some have done so already. We could be killing the geese that lay the golden
eggs.
Beside inheritance, most rich folks get their wealth by working hard and taking
chances. They should pay their fair share of taxes, nothing more and nothing
less. Most donate part of the wealth to charities like Gates and Buffett
(helping the poor in Africa). I prefer we do so voluntarily instead of letting
the government mis-allocating our wealth like going to wars.
generations have to pay for them.
1. Will be higher.
2. Inflation, a kind of invisible taxes.
2010 could be the last year for low tax rates for long term capital taxes for a
while.
Some rich folks may be forced to have their residence outside US to avoid taxes.
Some have done so already. We could be killing the geese that lay the golden
eggs.
Beside inheritance, most rich folks get their wealth by working hard and taking
chances. They should pay their fair share of taxes, nothing more and nothing
less. Most donate part of the wealth to charities like Gates and Buffett
(helping the poor in Africa). I prefer we do so voluntarily instead of letting
the government mis-allocating our wealth like going to wars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)