France discourages Job Creation with a Short Workweek, Confiscatory Tax Rates and Banning Emails after 6 PM

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 12th, 2014

Week in Review

For socialism to work you need businesses to provide jobs.  Because without people working the government can’t have confiscatory tax rates to fund a massive socialist state.  You’ve got to have jobs.  Which confiscatory tax rates tend to discourage.  For business and rich investors don’t want to pay confiscatory tax rates.  François Hollande ran on a socialist platform in France.  Promising to raise taxes to bring down the deficit.  Which he did.  Raise taxes.  But it didn’t lower an unemployment rate stubbornly staying above 10%.

High taxes and a poor economy caused the socialists to lose elections.  So Hollande is putting together a tax-cutting package.  To reverse their electoral losses.  You’d think the socialists would have learned their lessons that the people want jobs.  And to have jobs you need a business-friendly environment.  Which something like this is not going to help (see France bans work e-mail after 6 p.m. by John Johnson, Newser, posted 4/11/2014 on USA Today).

France already has a 35-hour work week, and a new rule is designed to make sure that it doesn’t start shading toward 40 hours because of work-related e-mail.

The Guardian reports that the rule forbids workers from checking their phones or computers for work stuff after 6 p.m., and it forbids employers from pressuring them to do so.

The move apparently doesn’t affect all workers in France, but it does cover about 1 million workers in the tech industry — including French employees of Google and Facebook…

At Fox Business, a U.S. labor expert finds it hard to believe the IT industry can manage such a draconian shut-off time.

“There’s always something going wrong off the clock — when a computer goes down, it doesn’t go down between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.”

It’s yet another thing to discourage business.  Things happen after hours.  Can you imagine a business wanting to open themselves to that kind of liability?  Having someone in the company send out an email without checking the clock first?  Or someone working late into the evening to catch up on a project.  Sending out a bunch of emails so people could read them first thing in the morning.  If someone else is working late do they read this email?  Perhaps this person was waiting for this email and would like to address it that evening to reduce his or her workload the following day.  Would this worker have been pressured into reading the email knowing his or her boss would have appreciated the extra effort?

There’s a reason why General Motors (GM) went bankrupt.  Well, there are a few of them.  But one of them was costly workplace rules.  Such as only allowing an electrician to change a light bulb at a work station.  Even if the person at that workstation could have changed that bulb in a couple of minutes.  Instead of waiting an hour or so for skilled trades to come around to unscrew the burnt out lamp and screw in a new lamp.

These little workplace rules add up.  And though seemingly harmless when you look at them one at a time in the aggregate they increase the cost of business.  A lot.  Just ask GM.  Something businesses look at when they are considering the location of a new factory.  Whether to expand production at an existing factory.  Or whether to shut down a factory and move production out of the country to a more business-friendly environment.  Thus killing job creation.  Jobs the socialists need for people to have so they can pay confiscatory taxes on their earnings.

A business unfriendly environment will never lower the unemployment rate.  As the socialists in France have proven.  And left-leaning governments everywhere have proven.  Confiscatory tax rates do not attract businesses.  Or rich investors.  They discourage them.  And encourage them to take their money and invest it elsewhere.  And create jobs elsewhere.  In another country that is a little kinder to business.  And job creation.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

For Proof that President Obama’s Economic Policies are bad just look at Singapore

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 30th, 2013

Week in Review

Singapore is one of the Four Asian Tigers.  The economy boomed in Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore because of their business-friendly environments.  Free markets.  And free trade.  Which is why the Four Asian Tigers had some of the strongest economies in the world.  Because the government did not interfere with market forces.  Like they are doing more and more in the United States.  And if we compare the two economies we can see which system is better (see More than half of employees in Singapore planning to leave jobs: Survey by Cheng Jingjie posted 3/28/2013 on Breaking News Singapore).

More than one in two employees in Singapore are planning to leave their jobs within the next two years because of unsatisfactory compensation.

This isn’t a problem they’re having in the United States.  Americans may be unhappy in their jobs and dissatisfied with their compensation.  But all they do is complain.  They’re not leaving their jobs.  Because unlike in Singapore there are no other jobs to go to.  Because President Obama, unlike in Singapore, is trying to fix the economy with government spending.  And new regulations.  Making the current recovery the worst recovery since that following the Great Depression.  While Singapore’s economy hums along the United States have seen people disappear from the labor force since 2008.  Which is why no one is threatening to leave their jobs.  No.  In the United States their biggest concern is getting laid off.  No matter how unhappy or how poorly paid they are.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

2012 Endorsements: JFK and Ronald Reagan

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 31st, 2012

2012 Election

JFK did all the Democrat things to Stimulate the Economy out of Recession but none of it Worked

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) was a Cold War warrior.  Not to mention a World War II combat veteran.  He warned Nikita Khrushchev that any Soviet interference with U.S. access to West Berlin (located behind the Iron Curtain in East Germany) would be an act of war.  Which meant a nuclear war with the USSR.  The Soviets responded by building the Berlin Wall between East and West Berlin.  Blocking free passage between East and West.  JFK authorized the Bay of Pigs Invasion to topple the Soviet-backed Castro government in Cuba.  The invasion failed for the lack of air support.  Castro feared another US invasion.  Shortly thereafter the Soviets installed intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Cuba.  To counter US missiles placed in Turkey.  Once discovered JFK ordered a quarantine of Cuba.  A US naval blockade.  Leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis.  And the closest the US and the USSR ever came to all out nuclear war.  Khrushchev and JFK finally resolved the crisis.  Khrushchev agreed to remove their missiles with a public US guarantee that they would never invade Cuba.  And a private promise to remove those US missiles from Turkey.

JFK sent the Special Forces to South Vietnam to stem the spread of communism in Southeast Asia.  He also initiated the coup that toppled the government of Ngo Dinh Diem (though he did not call for his assassination).  Leading to America’s long involvement in the Vietnam War.  And Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense helped make all of this military action possible.  Robert McNamara.  One of the ‘Whiz Kids’ who helped to rebuild the Ford Motor Company.  And he ran the Department of Defense like he ran Ford.  By the numbers.  He made it more efficient.  Saving a lot of money from the existing budget.  While JFK added an additional $8 billion (about $58 billion in 2011 dollars) of defense spending.  Paying for a lot of the weapons a Cold War warrior needed.  However, he was still concerned about the size of the deficit.  So JFK also included some domestic spending cuts to help offset the increases in defense spending.  But it wasn’t enough.  He had a deficit.  Worse, he had a recession.

JFK did all the Democrat things to stimulate the economy out of recession.  Typical Keynesian economics stuff.  Government spending.  And keeping interest rates artificially low.  But it wasn’t working.  One of the problems was that Keynesian stimulus just doesn’t work.  But another problem was the baby boom following the war.  Who grew up and were looking for jobs in the Sixties.  That just weren’t there.  He needed some really solid economic growth to create those jobs.  And for that he turned to supply-side economics.  What we would later call Reaganomics.  He created a more business-friendly environment.  He offered businesses tax credits for investments in new machinery and equipment.  He accelerated depreciation schedules, allowing businesses to expense their assets more quickly.  Which encouraged investment into new assets.  And he proposed tax cuts on both business AND personal income.  It worked.  Unleashing an economic boom that lasted until 1966.

When Reagan entered Office he did what JFK did and created a Business-Friendly Environment

Ronald Reagan was a Cold War warrior.  While President Carter pursued a policy of detente with the Soviet Union Reagan’s policy was more in keeping with JFK’s policy.  He called the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and pursued a goal of destroying it.  And like Kennedy he built up a strong military.  Reagan invaded Grenada when hard-line communists overthrew a moderate socialist government.  While there were Cuban construction workers and military personnel building a 10,000 foot reinforced runway.  Which would be handy for the Soviets to use in their Central American activities.  Which Reagan also opposed in Nicaragua.  As he helped the Mujahideen resist the Soviets in Afghanistan.  Reagan revived the Carter-canceled B-1 Lancer bomber program.  He introduced the MX intercontinental ballistic missile program.  And when the Soviets deployed SS-20 intermediate-range ballistic missiles Reagan deployed Pershing medium-range ballistic missiles in West Germany.  Then he took it up a notch and introduced a strategic ballistic missiles defense system.  The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).  When Reagan gave a speech at the Berlin Wall’s Brandenburg Gate with Mikhail Gorbachev in attendance he said, “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

The Soviets couldn’t keep up with the spending as their command economy was a mess.  It was a different story in America.  In fact, it was Morning in America.  Not only did the Americans spend the Soviets to the brink of collapse they did that in what those on the Left call the Decade of Greed.  Because economic times were so good there was excessive materialistic consumption.  So while the Soviets stood in line for soap and toilet paper the Americans enjoyed Sony Walkmans, CD players, VCRs, new cars, big houses and all the delicious food you could eat.  Americans had a weight problem.  While the Soviets had a malnutrition problem.  The Soviet Union would collapse about 3 years after Reagan left office.  George H. W. Bush, Reagan’s vice president, having the honor to be in office at the end of the Soviet Union.

Like JFK Reagan also had a recession.  As he entered office following the disaster of the Carter presidency.  Carter did all of the Keynesian stuff like JFK.  Using inflation to try to end unemployment.  Which only gave the nation high inflation and high unemployment.  Stagflation.  And malaise.  But unlike JFK Carter refused to try something different when it didn’t work.  When Reagan entered office, though, he did what JFK did.  He created a business-friendly environment.  That included tax cuts.  Tax cuts that stimulated economic activity.  So much economic activity that federal tax receipts went up even though tax rates went down.  So Reagan’s deficits weren’t a revenue problem.  They were a spending problem.  Much like they are today.  Much like they always are.

If JFK and Ronald Reagan were Alive Today they would likely Endorse the Republican Candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan

The attacks on 9/11 didn’t just happen.  It was the last in a chain of events.  There was the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing.  The New York City Landmark Bomb Plot (1993).  The Khobar Towers Bombing (1996).  The United States Embassy Bombings (1998).  The Millennium Attack Plots (2000).  The USS Cole Bombing (2000).  Then 9/11.  Until 9/11 we treated all of these events as criminal offences.  Not acts of war.  While Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda acted from the start as if they were fighting a war.  Not breaking the law.  President Obama is also reluctant to call these radical Islamist attacks war.  When a radical Muslim in the US Army killed fellow soldiers on an Army base because of America’s ‘crimes against Islam’ the president called that workplace violence.  And when an American ambassador asked for additional security in Benghazi someone in the Obama administration denied the request because President Obama had killed Osama bin Laden.  And defeated al Qaeda.  Having to beef up security to defend against a growing al Qaeda presence, though, would have gone against that narrative of defeating al Qaeda.

The current so-called economic recovery is about the weakest on record.  Despite doing the normal Keynesian things to revive the economy.  Including an almost trillion dollar stimulus package.  Leading to record deficits.  Money the government had to borrow.  Borrowing which required an increase in the official debt ceiling.  This excessive debt and government spending cause the first downgrade of US sovereign debt.  All of this to fix the economy.  Only the economy is not fixed.  And the people who can’t find a full time job holds steady at 14.7% (U-6 unemployment rate).

So if JFK and Ronald Reagan were alive today who would they support in the 2012 election?  Who would a couple of Cold War warriors who risked nuclear war to protect the United States support?  These practitioners of supply-side economics who brought their economies out of recession to record economic growth?  Probably not the candidates foolishly hanging on to failed Keynesian policies despite a real unemployment rate of 14.7%.  Or the ones refusing to accept that we are still being targeted and killed by al Qaeda and other radical Islamist elements in the ongoing War on Terror.  No.  If JFK and Ronald Reagan were alive today they would likely endorse the Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #62: “The government’s great dilemma is that the middle class has both the money and the votes.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 19th, 2011

Figures don’t Lie but Liars Figure

Mark Twain said figures don’t lie but liars figure.  And there’s been a lot of that going around.  Lying.  Especially about taxes.  Where the rich just can’t catch a break.  They pay far more tax dollars than the poor/middle class.  Yet you wouldn’t know that based on the political rhetoric coming from the Left.  And the incessant drive to raise the top marginal tax rates.  To make the rich pay their ‘fair’ share.  Or punish them.  For being rich.  So we can lower the tax burden on the little guy.  The working class people struggling to put food on the table for their families.

Of course, anyone taking the time to crunch the numbers, or read a history book, will see something completely different.  And that the Left can only advance their agenda by lying.  Because people with a job want to keep their job.  And they see the Left’s agenda as anti-business.  And job killing.  Anytime you hear government talk about being ‘fair’ look out.  Chances are you are about to be screwed.  For their idea of fairness and equality is truly Orwellian.  The Left’s idea of equality is when they are more equal than everyone else.

So they champion the poor/middle class.  Say they are looking out for their interests.  But they’re not.  They just want their money.  And their votes.  So they’ll say whatever they think they want to hear.  Anything to maintain their positions in government.  The ruling elite.  And one of their most effective tools is class warfare.  At the heart of which is tax policy.

Taxing the Rich Transfers Tax Burden to the Middle Class

There is a fundamental misunderstanding about tax policy in America.  Everywhere, really.  You see, they’ve beaten it into our heads that the way to get the rich to pay their fair share is to increase their tax rates.  You do that and you transfer the tax burden from the poor/middle class to the rich.  The funny thing is, though, when you raise the tax rates on the rich the exact opposite happens.  You transfer the tax burden from the rich to the poor/middle class.  How can this be, you ask?  Well, let me explain.

Consider two income examples.  Someone who makes $50,000 per year.  And someone who makes $1,000,000 per year.  Based on the 2008 tax tables (with a top marginal rate of 35%), the federal income tax each pays is approximately $16,980 and $454,000, respectfully.  Now, what do you notice about these numbers?  That’s right.  The $454,000 is a lot bigger than the $16,980.  It’s over 26 times the amount of taxes the person earning $50,000 pays.  Now think about that.  If only one more person becomes a millionaire (let’s say an entrepreneur quits his day job and creates the next great invention), the government will collect the same amount in taxes it would take from 26 new $50,000/year jobs added to the economy.  Let’s say 2 venture capitalists strike it rich and both become millionaires.  They would add the same tax revenue it would take 52 new $50,000/jobs to generate.  Three new millionaires = 78 new $50,000 jobs worth of taxes.  See a pattern?  The more millionaires there are paying taxes the less the poor/middle class have to pay in taxes.  Or, conversely, the fewer millionaires are paying taxes the more the poor/middle class have to pay.  So the more millionaires there are paying taxes, the more the tax burden transfers from the poor/middle class to the rich.

Well, based on that, the best thing we can do for the poor and middle class is to make as many millionaires as possible.  And how do you do that?  It’s pretty easy.  Sort of like a dog having puppies.  They already know how to do it.  They don’t need any special help.  All they need is for us to get out of their way.  And give them a business-friendly environment.  Where a small business owner will risk his or her life savings on that business to get rich.  Or a venture capitalist will risk his or her money on an untried entrepreneur with a really good idea to get rich.  And how do you get people to take risks and invest large sums of money?  By giving them a chance to get rich in the process.  And you don’t do that with high tax rates.  Because high tax rates increase the ‘cost’ of these investments.  And when the cost gets too high, they look for other things to do with their money.  If the return on investment is taxed to the point that they can make the same return without any risk, they won’t take any risk.  And just leave their money in the bank.

The more Millionaires we have the Less Taxes the Middle Class Pays

Of course this all makes good sense.  But bad politics.  Especially on the Left.  For they are all about fairness and redistribution of wealth on the Left.  And you can’t be fair and redistribute wealth unless you demonize the rich.  Because you have to take wealth from someone before you can redistribute it.  And who has wealth?  Why, the wealthy, of course.  Who are greedy.  Who don’t pay their fair share of taxes.  And profit by exploiting the poor/middle class.  Or so goes the liberal mantra.  So to show how much they care for the poor/middle class, they try to raise taxes on the rich.  By constantly trying to raise the top marginal rates.  Of course, as noted above, doing this actually hurts the poor/middle class.  By making them pay a much larger share of the total tax burden than the rich pays.  Let’s look at some numbers.

We keep hearing about this evil 1% who has the majority of the wealth in this country.  So let’s look at this by the numbers.  One percent is one in one hundred.  So let’s assume we have 100 taxpayers.  One millionaire who earns $1,000,000 per year.  Twenty ‘poor’ people earning $15,000 per year.  And 79 ‘middle class’ people earning $50,000 per year.  Based on the 2008 tax tables, the annual income tax each owes (going from poor to rich) is approximately $4,500, $17,000 and $454,000.  Their total tax contributions (in the same order) are approximately $91,000, $1,342,000 and $454,000.  Or, as a percent of the total, 4.8%, 71% and 24%.  Please note that it’s the middle class that pays the bulk of the tax burden (71%).  Even though they each pay only a fraction of what the millionaire pays.  Because one millionaire can pay only so much.  But the ‘fraction’ 79 middle class people pay adds up.  The sum total of their taxes equals approximately three times what that millionaire pays.  Which proves the point that the fewer millionaires there are the more the poor/middle class has to pay in taxes.

Now let’s say nine people prospered very well and moved from the middle class to the rich.  There are still 20 ‘poor’ people.  But with the 10 people that now earn $1,000,000 per year, there are now only 70 middle class people earning $50,000 per year.  This changes the total tax contributions (going from poor to rich) to approximately $91,000, $1,187,000 and $4,538,000.  Or, as a percent of the total, 1.6%, 20.4% and 78%.  Now the rich are paying the vast majority of all taxes (78%).  Which proves the point that the more millionaires there are the less the poor/middle class have to pay in taxes.

Figures don’t Lie but Liberals will Figure

Well, sure, you can use all your facts and figures to show things that make sense.  But making sense doesn’t necessarily apply in politics.  Because tax policy is a lot more than just funding the government.  It’s about winning elections.  And the one great dilemma in all of politics is this.  The people with the most money to tax are in the middle class.  Because of their numbers.  They may pay less per person than the rich but their numbers add up.  And they are the largest voting bloc.  Because of their numbers.  Which presents quite the problem.  Politicians want their money.  But if they take too much of it they may lose their votes.  So what to do?  You take their money.  While making it look like you’re punishing the rich.

The more government spends the greater this problem gets.  Deficits grow larger.  Which adds to the national debt.  Interest payments on that debt take up an ever larger part of the federal budget.  Add that to out of control growth of entitlement spending and what do you get?  A big problem.  And greater deficits.  Which are getting harder and harder to finance.  Soon you’re borrowing money to pay your borrowing costs.  You need cash.  Or you need to cut spending.  And you know you’re not going to do that.  Because cutting spending doesn’t help win elections.  So you look for more cash.  And you can’t go the easy route and just create more millionaires.  Not after demonizing them so much.  Doing that would be tantamount to saying you were wrong and/or lying all these years.  Besides, the anti-business environment currently in place doesn’t encourage any risk taking by the rich.  So they’re sitting on their money.  Which leaves the middle class.  So we start hearing code words.  Fair share sacrifice.  Tax the rich.  It’s not fair to give millionaires and billionaires tax breaks paid by the poor and middle class.  This means the poor/middle class is about to get screwed.  Either by higher taxes (or reduced tax breaks and credits).  Or they’re going to raise the top marginal tax rates which will transfer more of the tax burden from the rich to the poor/middle class.

Of course, screwing the poor/middle class is what it’s all about.  The Left uses them.  All of the time.  Through lies and deceit.  For our lives would be better if we had a lot more millionaires.  And less progressive tax rates.  That encouraged more economic activity.  And created more jobs.  But the liberal left could care less about that.  Based on the evidence.  And history.  When they run for office they run as moderates.  Because they know they can’t win elections running as liberals.  Barack Obama was the most liberal senator in the Senate.  Yet when he ran some were comparing him to Ronald Reagan.  And you only lie like that for one reason.  To hide who you really are.  Tax and spend liberals.  Who have made the middle class the bank for their tax and spend policies.

So while figures don’t lie, liberals will figure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

President Obama Speaks to the Chamber of Commerce

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 7th, 2011

Businesses Keep Lots of Cash on their Balance Sheets during Bad Economic Times

Trying to remake his anti-business image, President Obama talks to the Chamber of Commerce (see Obama reaches out to business leaders by Lara Rowland posted 2/7/2011 on The Washington Times).

“Now is the time to invest in America,” Mr. Obama said, adding that U.S. companies have nearly $2 trillion sitting on their balance sheets. “Demand has risen more slowly than any of us would like. We’re in this together. But many of your own economists and salespeople are now forecasting a healthy increase in demand, so I just want to encourage you to get in the game.”

This illustrates Obama’s lack of understanding of business.  Let’s explain what’s wrong with his thinking by using an analogy.  During bad economic times, when there are ‘lay-off’ rumors at your workplace, do you spend money?  Or do you save money because you are unsure of the future?  Most people will save their money.  So if they do lose their job, they’ll have some cash to get by on until they can find another job.  The so called ‘saving for a rainy day’.  That rainy day is you without a job.

Businesses aren’t that different from people.  In fact, people run businesses.  So they think like people.  And during bad economic times, when sales are down and you may have to lay people off because you’re not selling anything to pay the bills, do you spend money to hire people?  No, you don’t.  You save your money.  To make sure you have cash to pay your bills when you don’t have the revenue coming in like you once did.

You see, it’s not as easy as President Obama thinks it is.  Businesses can’t create good economic times.  They can only wait for them.  Which is what they’re doing now.  And have been for about 2 years now.

Lower Taxes Stimulate Economic Activity and Create Jobs

Part of the reason why there aren’t good economic times is because of high taxes.  High taxes increase the cost of doing business.  And leaves people with less disposable cash to stimulate economic activity.

“If we’re fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports to help you compete, the benefits can’t just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top,” he said. “We cannot go back to the kind of economy — and culture — we saw in the years leading up to the recession, where growth and gains in productivity just didn’t translate into rising incomes and opportunity for the middle class.”

Interesting.  Whose money is it?  Who made those profits?  Guess it’s a moot point.  Because the president believes it’s his money.  And if he chooses to allow businesses to keep more of it, well, they’ll have to make it worth his while.

But you don’t run business by dictate.  If that worked the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War.  But they didn’t.  Because business doesn’t work that way. When businesses see rising demand and rising revenues, then they hire people.  To meet the rising demand.  So they can make more money.  That’s how you create jobs.  Not because they are told to hire more people than are needed to meet demand.  It just doesn’t work that way.  Again, I refer you to the former Soviet Union.

Excessive Regulation Inhibits Economic Activity

Another reason is for poor economic times are excessive regulations hindering economic activity.

Separately on Monday, the Republican chairman of a House oversight panel released a raft of letters from businesses weighing in on the nation’s biggest regulatory impediments to job growth. Environmental Protection Agency rules were the most often-repeated complaint, according to documents posted by Rep. Darrell Issa of California.

Like higher taxes, excessive regulations increase the cost of doing business.  When you can’t expand your business because the land you want to expand onto has a small depression that holds water after a heavy rain and is classified as a ‘wetland‘ during the permitting process, that hinders economic activity.  They don’t allow the business to expand.  And the mosquitoes get a nice breeding ground during rainy days.  And it’s important to protect their habitat.  So we can spray it later to control the spread of the West Nile Virus.

The most Successful Regulation Shuts Down the Industry it Regulates

The Environmental Protection Agency is pro-environment.  And the best environmental position is no manmade impact on the environment.  That is, no business.  Therefore, the Environmental Protection Agency is anti-business.

This is typical of regulation.  The safest car is one that doesn’t drive.  The cleanest power plant is one that doesn’t produce power.  The safest oil rig is one that doesn’t drill.  You get the idea.  Regulation, in general, is anti-business.  The greatest success these regulations can have is the elimination of the industry they’re regulating.  So it is a tug-of-war.  Business on one side.  And the regulators on the other. 

“There’s no doubt that when you had the financial crisis on Wall Street, the bonus controversies, the battle around health care, the battle around financial reform, and then you had BP — you just had a successive set of issues in which I think business took the message that, well, gosh, it seems like we may be always painted as the bad guy,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “And so I’ve got to take responsibility in terms of making sure that I make clear to the business community, as well as to the country, that the most important thing we can do is to boost and encourage our business sector and make sure that they’re hiring.”

There’s a reason why businesses feel like they’re painted as the bad guy.  Because the Obama administration paints them as the bad guy.  One accident on a BP rig in the Gulf of Mexico and the Obama administration shuts down all offshore drilling.  Now all the rigs are not drilling.  And the regulators have regulated best.  In their opinion.

We are a Nation that has a Government

There’s a reason why the Obama administration and business don’t have a good relationship.  Business understands business.  Obama doesn’t.  Businesses want a business-friendly environment so they can grow and become prosperous and create jobs.  Obama wants the same thing only without the being prosperous part.  Because any ‘excess profits’ belong to the government to fund their government spending.  For President Obama believes that we are a government that has a nation.  Unlike Ronald Reagan who thought we were a nation that had a government.  Business liked Reagan.  While Barack Obama goes to the Chamber of Congress to persuade business that his anti-business policies aren’t anti-business.

Sorry.  But when you have to persuade people that you’re not anti-business, you’re probably anti-business.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Fed to Buy $600 Billion in Government Bonds

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 5th, 2010

The Fed’s $600 billion government bond Purchase may Worsen the Recession

The Fed is preparing to buy some $600 billion in government bonds.  They call it quantitative easing (QE).  The goal is to stimulate the economy by making more money available.  The problem is, though, we don’t have a lack of money problem.  We have a lack of jobs problem.  Unemployed people can’t go to the store and buy stuff.  So businesses aren’t looking to make more stuff.  They don’t need more money to borrow.  They need people to go back to work.  And until they do, they’re not going to borrow money to expand production.  No matter how cheap that money is to borrow.

This isn’t hard to understand.  We all get it.  If we lose our job we don’t go out and buy stuff.  Instead, we sit on our money.  For as long as we can.  Spend it very carefully and only on the bare necessities.  To make that money last as long as possible to carry us through this period of unemployment.  And the last thing we’re going to do is borrow money to make a big purchase.  Even if the interest rates are zero.  Because without a job, any new debt will require payments that we can’t afford.  That money we saved for this rainy ‘day’ will disappear quicker the more debt we try to service.  Which is the opposite of what we want during a period of unemployment.

Incidentally, do you know how the Fed will buy those bonds?  Where they’re going to get the $600 billion?  They going to print it.  Make it out of nothing.  They will inflate the money supply.  Which will depreciate our currency.  Prices will go up.  And our money will be worth less.  Put the two together and the people who have jobs won’t be able to buy as much as they did before.  This will only worsen the recession.  So why do they do it?

Quantitative Easing May Ease the Global Economy into a Trade War

A couple of reasons.  First of all, this administration clings to outdated Keynesian economics that says when times are bad the government should spend money.  Print it.  As much as possible.  For the economic stimulus will offset the ‘negligible’ inflation the dollar printing creates.  The only problem with this is that it doesn’t work.  It didn’t work the last time the Obama administration tried quantitative easing.  As it didn’t work for Jimmy Carter.  Of course, when it comes to Big Government policies, when they fail the answer is always to try again.  Their reason?  They say that the government’s actions that failed simply weren’t bold enough.

Another reason is trade.  A cheaper dollar makes our exports cheaper.  When the exchange rates give you bushels full of U.S. dollars for foreign currency, those foreign nations can buy container ships worth of exported goods.  It’s not playing fair, though.  Because every nation wants to sell their exports.  When we devalue the dollar, it hurts the domestic economies of our trading partners.  Which they want to protect as much as we want to protect ours.  So what do they do?  They fight back.  They will use capital controls to increase the cost of those cheap dollars.  This will increase the cost of those imports and dissuade their people from buying them.  They may impose import tariffs.  This is basically a tax added to the price of imported goods.  When a nation turns to these trade barriers, other nations fight back.  They do the same.  As this goes back and forth between nations, international trade declines.  This degenerates into a full-blown trade war.  Sort of like in the late 1920s.  Which was a major factor that caused the worldwide Great Depression.

Will there be a trade war?  Well, the Germans are warning this action may result in a currency war (see Germany Concerned About US Stimulus Moves by Reuters).  The Chinese warn about the ‘unbridle printing’ of money as the biggest risk to the global economy (see U.S. dollar printing is huge risk -China c.bank adviser by Reuters’ Langi Chiang and Simon Rabinovitch).  Even Brazil is looking at defensive measures to protect their economy from this easing (see Backlash against Fed’s $600bn easing by the Financial Times).  The international community is circling the wagons.  This easing may only result in trade wars and inflation.  With nothing to show for it.  Except a worse recession.

Businesses Create Jobs in a Business Friendly Environment

We need jobs.  We need real stimulus.  We need to do what JFK did.  What Reagan did.  Make the U.S. business friendly.  Cut taxes.  Cut regulation.  Cut government.  And get the hell out of the way. 

Rich people are sitting on excess cash.  Make the business environment so enticing to them that they can’t sit on their cash any longer.  If the opportunity is there to make a favorable return on their investment, guess what?  They’ll invest.  They’ll take a risk.  Create jobs.  Even if the return on their investment won’t be in the short term.  If the business environment will reward those willing to take a long-term risk, they will.  And the more investors do this the more jobs will be created.  And the more people are working the more stuff they can buy.  They may even borrow some of that cheap money for a big purchase.  If they feel their job will be there for awhile.  And they will if a lot of investors are risking their money.  Creating jobs.  For transient, make-work government jobs just don’t breed a whole lot of confidence in long term employment.  Which is what Keynesian government-stimulus jobs typically are.

We may argue about which came first, the chicken or the egg.  But here is one thing that is indisputable.  Jobs come before spending.  Always have.  Always will.  And quantitative easing can’t change that.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,