Say’s Law

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 2nd, 2013

Economics 101

(originally published August 6, 2012)

Keynesians believe if you Build Demand Economic Activity will Follow

People hate catching a common cold.  And have long wanted a cure for the common cold.  For a long time.  For hundreds of years.  But no one had ever filled this incredible demand.  All this time doctors and scientists still haven’t been able to figure that one out.  Despite knowing with that incredible demand, and our patent rights, whoever does figure that one out will become richer than Bill Gates.  Which is quite the incentive for figuring out the ingredients to make one little pill.  So why hasn’t anyone found the cure for the common cold?

There are many reasons.  But let’s just ignore them.  Like a Keynesian economist ignores a lot of things in their economic formulas.  In fact, let’s try and enter the head of some Keynesian economists.  And have them answer the question why there isn’t a cure for the common cold.  Based on their economic analysis you might hear them say that we have a cure for the common cold.  Because a high demand makes anything happen.  Or you might hear them say we don’t have a cure because enough people haven’t caught a cold yet.  And that we need to get more people to catch colds so we increase the demand for a cure.

Keynesians believe if you build demand economic activity will follow.  Like in that movie where they build a baseball diamond in a cornfield and those dead baseball players come back to play on it.  So Keynesians believe in government spending.  And love stimulus spending.  As well as taxing people to give their money to other people to spend.  Because having money to spend stimulates demand.  Consumers will consume things.  And increase consumption.  So suppliers will bring more things to market.  And create more jobs to meet that consumption demand.  Unless people save that money.  Which is something Keynesians hate.  Because saving reduces consumption.   Which is about the worst thing you could do in the universe of Keynesian economics.  Save money.  For in that universe spending trumps saving.  In fact, spending trumps everything.  No matter how you create that spending.  Keynesians actually believe taxing people so they can pay other people to dig a ditch and then fill that ditch back in stimulates economic activity.  Because these ditch diggers/fillers will take their paycheck and spend it.

Today People wait Anxiously for the next Apple Release to Learn what the Next Thing is that they Must Have

Of course there is a problem with this economic theory.  When you take money away from others they haven’t created new economic activity.  They just transferred that spending to someone else.  The people who earned that money spend less while the people who didn’t earn it spend more.  It’s a wash.  Some spending goes down.  While some spending goes up.  Actually there is a net loss in economic activity.  Because that money has to pass through government hands.  Where some of it sticks.  Because bureaucrats have to eat, too.  So the people receiving this money don’t receive as much as what was taxed away.  So Keynesian stimulus doesn’t really stimulate.  It actually reduces economic activity from what it might have been.  Because of the government’s cut.

And it gets worse.  Because this consumption demand doesn’t really create jobs.  We get nothing new out of it.  What do people demand?  Things they see.  Things they know about.  For it is hard to demand something that doesn’t exist.  You see a commercial for another incredible Apple product and you want it.  Thanks to some great advertising that explained why you must have it.  In other words, when you give money to people all they will do is buy things they’ve always wanted.  Things that already exist.  Old stuff.  It’s sort of the chicken and the egg thing.  Which came first?  Wanting something?  Or the thing that people want?

Raising taxes on Apple to create a more egalitarian society by redistributing their wealth will let people buy more of the old stuff.  But it won’t help Apple create more new things to bring to market.  Things we don’t even know about yet.  If we tax them so much that it leaves little left for them to invest in research and development how are they going to develop new things?  Things we don’t even know about yet?  Things that we will learn that we must have?  Once upon a time no one was asking for portable cassette players.  Then Sony came out with the Walkman.  And everyone had to have one.  Once upon a time there were no MP3 players.  No smartphones.  No tablet computers.  Now people must have these things.  After their manufacturers told us why we must have them.  Today people wait anxiously for the next Apple release to learn what the next thing is that they must have.

Say’s Law states that Supply Creates Demand

Supply leads demand.  We can’t ask for the unknown.  We can only ask for what the market has shown us.  Which is why Keynesian economics doesn’t work.  Because focusing on demand doesn’t work.  Giving people money to spend doesn’t stimulate creativity in the market place.  Because that money was taxed out of the market place.   Reducing profits.  Leaving less for businesses to invest into research and development.  And reducing their incentive to take big risks to bring the next big thing to market.  Like a phone you can talk to and ask questions.  Again something no one was demanding.  But now it’s something everyone wants.

Jean-Baptiste Say (1767–1832) was a French economist.  Another brilliant French mind that contributed to the Enlightenment.  And helped advance Western Civilization.  He observed how supply led demand.  Understood production was key in the economy.  He knew to create economic activity you had to focus on the producers.  Not the consumers.  Because if we encourage brilliant minds to bring brilliant things to market the demand will follow.  As history has shown.  And continues to show.  Every time a high-tech company brings something new to market that they have to explain to us before we realize we must have it.  Or said in another way, supply creates demand.  A little law of economics that we call Say’s law.

If Keynesian economics worked no one would have to have a job.  The government could print money for everyone.  And the people could take their government dollars and consume whatever was in the market place.  Which, of course, would be pretty sparse if no one worked.  If there were no Steve Jobs out there thinking of brilliant things to bring to market.  Because supply creates demand.  Demand doesn’t create supply.  For fists full of money won’t stimulate any economic activity if there is nothing to buy.  So using Keynesian stimulus as a cure for a recession is about as effective as someone’s homemade cure for the common cold.  You take the homemade concoction and in a week or two it cures you.  Of course, the cold just ran its course.  Which is how recessions end.  After they run their course.  Which can be a short course if there isn’t too much Keynesian intervention.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Microeconomics and Macroeconomics

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 10th, 2012

Economics 101

Keynesians cannot connect their Macroeconomic Policies to the Microeconomic World

Economics can be confusing.  As there are actually two genres of economics.  There’s microeconomics.  The kind of stuff most people are familiar with.  And is more common sense.  This is more of the family budget variety.  And small business budget.  Where if costs go up (gasoline, commodities, food, insurance, etc.) families and businesses make cuts elsewhere in their budget.  When revenue falls (a decline in sales revenue or a husband/wife loses their job) people cut back on expenses.  They cancel the family vacation.  Or cancel Christmas bonuses.  Straight forward stuff of living within your means.

Then there’s macroeconomics.  The big economic picture.  This is the stuff about the national economy.  GDP, inflation, recession, taxes, etc.  Things that are more abstract.  Unfamiliar.  And often defy common sense.  Where living beyond your means is not only accepted.  But it’s national policy.  And when some policies fail repeatedly those in government keep trying those same policies expecting a different outcome eventually.  Such as using Keynesian economic policies (stimulus packages, deficit spending, printing money, etc.) to get an economy out of recession that never quite works.  And then the supporters of those policies always say the same thing.  Their policies only failed because they didn’t spend enough money to make them work.

Keynesian economics focuses on macroeconomics.  And cannot connect their macro policies to the micro world.  There is a large gap between the two.  Which is why Keynesians fail.  Because they look at the macro picture to try and effect change in the micro world.  To get businesses to create jobs.  To hire people.  And to reduce unemployment.  But the politicians executing Keynesian policy don’t understand things in the micro world.  Or anything about running a business.  All they understand, or all they care to try to understand, are the Keynesian basics.  That focus on the demand side of economics.  While ignoring everything on the supply side.

When the Economy goes into Recession the Fed Expands the Money Supply to Lower Interest Rates

Keynesians have a few fundamental beliefs.  And one of the big ones is the relationship between interest rates and GDP.  In fact, it’s the center of their world.  High interest rates discourage people from borrowing money.  When people don’t borrow money they don’t build things (like factories).  And if they don’t build things they won’t create jobs and hire people.  So the higher the interest rates the lower the economic output of the nation (GDP).

Low interest rates, on the other hand, encourage people to borrow money.  So they can build things and create jobs.  The lower the interest rates the more people will borrow.  And the greater the economic output of the nation will be.  This was the driving factor that caused the Great Recession.  The central bank (the Fed) kept interest rates so low for so long that people bought a lot of houses.  A lot of expensive houses.  The demand for housing was so great that buyers bid up prices.  Because at low interest rates there was no limit to how much house you could buy.  All this building and buying of houses, though, oversupplied the market with houses.  As home builders rushed in to fill that demand.  They built so many houses that there were just so many houses available to buy that buyers had a lot of choice.  Making it a buyers’ market.  So much so that people had to slash their asking price to sell their house.  Which popped the great housing bubble.

The Fed lowers interest rates by increasing the money supply.  They create new money and inject it into the economy.  By giving it to bankers.  Banks have more money to lend.  So more people can borrow money.  This is what lowers interest rates.  Things that are less scarce cost less.  More money to borrow means it’s less scarce.  And the price to borrow it (i.e., the interest rate) falls.  If the Fed wants to increase interest rates they pull money out of the economy.  Which makes it a little harder to borrow money.  Because more people are trying to borrow the limited amount of funds available to borrow.  And this is the basics of monetary policy.  Whenever the country enters a recession and unemployment rises the Fed expands the money supply to encourage businesses to borrow money to expand their businesses and create jobs that will lower unemployment.

Keynesian Economic Policies hurt the Higher Stages of Production where we Create Real Economic Activity

If low interest rates create greater economic activity why in the world would the Fed ever want to raise interest rates?  Because of the dark side of printing money.  Inflation.  Increasing the money supply gives people more money.  And when they have more money they try to buy what everyone else is buying.  As the money supply grows greater than the amount of economic output there is more money trying to buy fewer goods and services.  Which raises prices.  Just like those low interest rates did in the housing market.  The fear is that if this goes on too long there will be an economic crash.  Just like after the housing bubble burst.  From boom to bust.  Higher prices reduce consumer spending.  Because people can’t buy as much when prices are high.  As consumers stop spending businesses stop selling.  Faced with overcapacity in a period of falling demand they start cutting costs.  Laying off people.  People without jobs can buy even less at high prices.  And so on as the economy settles into recession.  This is why central bankers raise interest rates.  Because those good times are temporary.  And the longer they let it go on the more painful the economic correction will be.

This is why Keynesian stimulus spending fails to pull economies out of recession.  Because Keynesians focus only on the demand curve.  Consumption.  Consumer spending.  Not supply.  They ignore all that economic activity in the higher stages of productions.  That activity that precedes retail consumer sales.  The wholesale stage (the stage above retail).  The manufacturing stage (above the wholesale stage).  And the furthest out in time, the raw commodities stage (above the manufacturing stage).  As economic activity slows inventories build up.  Creating a bulge in the middle of the stages of production.  So manufacturing cuts back.  And because they do raw commodities cut back.  These are the first to suffer in an economic downturn.  And they are the last to recover.  Because of all that inventory in the pipeline.  When Keynesians get more money into consumers’ pockets they will increase their consumer spending.  For awhile.  Until that extra money is gone.  Which provided an economic boost at the retail level.  And a little at the wholesale level as they drew down those inventories.  But it did little at the higher stages of production.  Above inventories.  Manufacturing and raw material extraction.  Who don’t expand their production or hire new workers.  Because they know this economic activity is temporary.  And because they know all that new money will eventually create inflation.  Which will increase prices.  Throughout the stages of production.

The Keynesian approach focuses on the macro.  By playing with monetary policy.  Policies that ultimately hurt the higher stages of production.  At the micro level.  Where we create real economic activity.  If they’re not hiring then no amount of stimulus spending at the retail level will get them to hire.  Because giving the same amount of workers (i.e., consumers) more money to chase the same amount of goods and services only causes higher prices in the long run.  And it’s the long run that raw commodities and manufacturing look at.  They are not going to invest to expand their businesses unless they expect improving economic conditions in the long run.  All the way up the stages of production to where they are.  When new economic activity reaches them then they will expand and hire people.  And when they do they will add a lot of new consumers with real wages to go out and spend at the retail level.

One of the most efficient ways to achieve this is with tax cuts.  Because cuts in tax rates shape economic activity in the long run.  Across the board.  Unlike stimulus spending.  Which is short term.  And very selective.  Some benefit.  Typically political cronies.  But most see no benefit.  Just higher prices.  And continued unemployment.  Which is why Keynesian policies fail to pull economies out of recessions.  Because politicians use them for political purposes.  Not economic purposes.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Another Very Expensive and Government Subsidized All-Electric Car Burst into Flames

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 25th, 2012

Week in Review

Here’s a word of advice.  If you see one of those fascinating new all-electric cars in the parking lot when you’re out shopping don’t park anywhere near it.  Just in case (see Fisker Issues Second Recall of Electric Car by RANDY KREIDER posted 8/20/2012 on ABC News).

After the second of two mysterious fires in a Karma sedan, the government-backed electric car-maker Fisker has initiated a voluntary recall of its luxury vehicles…

As first reported by Jalopnik.com, the owner found the vehicle burning in the parking lot when he returned from shopping. At the time, the Woodside Fire Department said the immediate cause of the blaze appeared to be “heat from powered equipment,” and firefighters cut the car’s battery cable after putting out the fire. Woodside Fire Chief Dan Ghiorso told ABC News that the origin of the fire appeared to be inside the engine compartment, though Fisker said in a statement that it was determined to be outside the compartment in an area “forward of the driver’s side front tire.”

Ghiorso said Monday that he did not dispute Fisker’s new findings about the origin of the blaze. The fire did not cause any injuries but did cause damage to an adjacent vehicle, according to the Woodside Fire Department.

The fire is the second mysterious blaze in a Fisker Karma in 2012. Earlier this year, a Fisker Karma parked in the garage of a Sugar Land, Texas home caught fire, destroying a portion of the residence. Fire officials blamed the electric vehicle for the fire, according to media reports, but Fisker contended that neither the car nor its battery had anything to do with the fire, since the car was unplugged at the time of the fire and the battery pack was intact and still working after the blaze.

In March, another Karma broke down in the middle of a Consumer Reports road test, a failure that Fisker later said was due to a faulty battery.

More than 250 Fisker Karmas, out of the more than 1,000 that the company says are on the road, have been subject to a recall over the last year due to problems with the cars’ lithium ion batteries that could have led to fires in the $102,000 cars.

Gee, I’d hate to be the person who invested in these expensive cars that seem to be having so much trouble.

In 2010, the Department of Energy awarded Fisker a $529 million green-energy loan, in part to help purchase a shuttered General Motors plant in Delaware, where it predicted it would one day employ 2,000 auto workers to assemble a clean-burning gas-electric family car, known as the Atlantic.

Fisker collected nearly $200 million until February this year, when the government froze the loan because the company was failing to meet the government’s milestones. Most of those federal funds went into bringing the Karma, which Fisker assembles in Finland, to the U.S. market.

Oh.  I am the person investing in these expensive cars that seem to be having so much trouble.  Makes sense.  Obviously the technology is so questionable that they couldn’t build these cars with private money.  Like auto makers can build those cars that run on gasoline with private money.  Because that technology works.  Unlike these all-electric cars.  Based on these electric cars bursting into flames or breaking down or being recalled.

I’m not sure how this creates U.S. jobs.  Except at the port that unloads these cars from ships.  Unless the Obama administration is counting on hiring new firefighters to put out these car fires.  Firefighters do belong to a public sector union.  And the president does support public sector unions.  After all, he did say the private sector was doing well.  It was the public sector that he wanted to see some hiring in.  So maybe this was the grand plan all along.  Burning cars to support the call to hire more firefighters.

Company executives began hinting in February that Fisker would reconsider its plan and look for a cheaper place to build the Atlantic, despite the federal funding it received to build in the U.S.

“If Fisker no longer gets government monies, then obviously we are in a place where other options are open to us and have to be considered from a business perspective,” Roger Ormisher told ABC News in May…

Ormisher also said that negotiations with the DOE were ongoing. “We’re hoping for a conclusion fairly soon,” he said.

They don’t want to build in the U.S. with UAW auto workers.  Unless they get a government subsidy.  To offset the high cost of UAW labor.  Because they don’t want to go bankrupt like GM did from the high cost of UAW labor.  They’re still trying to negotiate further subsidies from Loans-R-Us.  I mean, the Department of Energy (DOE).  And they really like those loans.  Because they come with a wink.  They know they don’t have to pay them back.  Especially if they pull a Solyndra and go bankrupt.

There has to be a cheaper way to create jobs in Finland.  Then again, why should we even be trying to create jobs in Finland in the first place?  Perhaps it’s time we take junior’s credit card away.  For the DOE just doesn’t appear to be responsible enough with our money.  And another thing, why do we even have a DOE?  What?  Are they the ‘parsley’ of government spending?  Something that looks nice on your plate but has no real value?  It would appear so.  Perhaps it’s time we stop spending money on parsley.  The government should impress us with substance.  Not appearances.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Production vs. Consumption

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 20th, 2012

Economics 101

To Prevent another Great Depression Keynes said the Key was Government Spending

John Maynard Keynes was a noted economist who analyzed the Great Depression.  And came to the opinion the problem was that there wasn’t enough consumption.  Consumers weren’t buying enough stuff.  That is, they weren’t spending enough money.  Which is key to consumption.  And a healthy economy.  According to Keynes.  And the people who embraced his economic theories.  What we now call Keynesian economics.

It was a whole new way to look at economics.  Consumption.  Or demand-side economics.  Which said demand created supply.  Contrary to Say’s law.  Which basically stated supply creates demand.  Tomáto.  Tomàto.  To most people.  All they understood was that it was better to have a job than to be unemployed.  Because if you had a job you could buy food for your family.  Pay for heat in the winter.  And pay a doctor if your child was sick.

To prevent another Great Depression Keynes said the key was government spending.  To make up for any decline in consumption.  The government could tax, borrow or print money as necessary to get money to spend.  Putting people to work on government projects.  Building things.  Like roads and bridges.  Or digging ditches.  So when businesses lay off people the government can put them back to work.  And pay them with the money they taxed, borrowed or printed.  These people would then take that money and spend it.  A priming of the economic pump as it were.  That, in theory, will provide consumption until the private sector begins hiring again.  Therefore eliminating recessions once and for all.

Economists attribute about 90% of GDP to Consumer Spending and Government Expenditures

There have been about 12 recessions since Keynes figured out how to end them once and for all.  The recent one being the worst since the Great Depression.  Even surpassing the misery of the Jimmy Carter economy.  A time when the impossible happened.  In the world of Keynesian economics, at least.  Government spending designed to decrease unemployment actually increased unemployment.  It turns out there was a downside to printing money.  Massive inflation.  And rational expectations that printing money will lead to massive inflation.  So while the Keynesian way worked in theory it failed in practice.  And not just once.  But a lot.  Yet it is still the model of most governments.  And it’s what colleges teach their students.  Why?  After it’s been so thoroughly debunked?  The answer to that question brings us back to consumption.  And Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

GDP is a measure of a country’s goods and services during a period of time.  That is, it is a measure of economic activity.  The bigger it is the better the economy.  And the more people that have jobs.  The formula for GDP is the sum of consumption, investments, government expenditures and net exports (exports – imports).  It’s this formula that keeps Keynesian economics alive.  Because of consumption.  And government expenditures.  This formula sanctions government spending because, according to the formula, it increases economic activity.  It is the driver of all stimulus spending.  And the welfare state.  Because government spending puts money ultimately into the pockets of consumers who spend it.  That is, government spending creates private consumption.  And consumption creates jobs (demand creates supply).  In the Keynesian world, that it.  There is only one problem.  The formula leaves out a lot of economic activity.

Using this formula economists report that consumption makes up about 70% of GDP.  And government spending about 20%.  These numbers are huge.  That’s about 90% of GDP attributed to consumer spending and government expenditures.  Which is why Keynesians love this formula.   Because it empowers them to tax, borrow and print so they can spend.  All in the name of creating jobs.  And GDP.  But what about the things people make or do that consumers don’t buy?  Like engineering and design services.  Printing presses and ink.  The extraction of raw materials?  Coal mining.  Blast furnaces making steel for use in manufacturing?  Heavy construction equipment?  Machine tools and production equipment?  Assembly lines?  Robots on the assembly line?  Locomotive engines and rolling stock?  Airplanes?  All the people and equipment in the transportation industry?  Etc.  There is a lot of economic activity that makes things or does things that consumers don’t buy.  So where is it in the GDP formula?  Don’t look for it.  Because it’s just not there.

Intermediate Business Spending accounts for about Half of all Economic Activity

Before Keynes the focus was on production.  Not consumption.  Before Keynes we looked at the stages of production.  All of that economic activity that happens before you can buy anything in a store.  Everything between the extraction of raw materials to the final finished good.  Where millions of workers are engaged in economic activity that a consumer knows nothing about when they buy a consumer good.  If you factor in this economic activity into the GDP equation it changes things.  And it changes it in a way that Keynesians and government officials don’t like.

Consumption is the last stage in the stages of production.  The final step in a flurry of economic activity that preceded it.  If you count up this intermediate business spending it comes to about half of all economic activity.  It’s about twice consumer spending.  And about four times government expenditures.  Greatly reducing the roles of consumption and government expenditures in the GDP equation.  And in the economy.  As well as providing the answer to why Keynes didn’t end recessions once and for all with his new economic theory.  Because his new economic theory was wrong.  You don’t create jobs by giving money to people to spend.  You create jobs by making it easy for businesses to hire people.

So demand does NOT create supply like Keynes said.  Supply creates demand.  Like Say said.  And what’s the conclusion we can draw?  Big activist governments do not help a country’s economy.  They just pull money out of the stages of productions.  Where it can create jobs.  And puts it into government.  Where it creates unemployment and inflation.  As demonstrated by all the big Keynesian governments of Europe.  Those social democracies struggling under the weight of their government spending.  Who borrowed money to sustain that spending.  Bringing on the European sovereign debt crisis.  Because of that GDP equation that said they could tax, borrow and print to spend to their heart’s content.  Thanks to a man named Keynes.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT130: “Tax dollars pay the bills. Not tax rates.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 10th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Even though we have a Progressive Tax System we don’t have a Progressive Movie Ticket Price System

The average price for a movie ticket is about $8.  A flat price.  In dollars.  Whatever you earn.  If you earn $50 in gross daily earnings you pay $8.  If you earn $100 in gross daily earnings you pay $8.  If you earn $200 in gross daily earnings you pay $8.  Is that fair?  Based on the amount people could pay, no.  Because $8 is a different percentage of each earner’s daily gross pay.  It’s only 4% for those who earn $200 daily.  It’s 8% for those who earn $100 daily.  And a whopping 16% for those who only earn $50 daily.  Is that fair?  Well, if we measure fairness by the way we pay income taxes, no.  This is not fair.

Look, we live in a fair country.  We have a progressive tax system.  So we should have a progressive movie ticket price system.  And someone who only earns $50 a day shouldn’t be paying 16% of their earnings for a movie ticket.  Not when someone who can more easily afford to pay more only pays 4% for a ticket.  These numbers are upside down.  The lower income people should only pay 4%.  The middle income people should pay 8% because they can more easily afford it.  And the high income earner should pay 16% because if they don’t they’re not paying their fair share.  So let’s say the government makes it so.

Once we make going to the movies fair this is what we can expect at the box office.  Those with daily earnings of $50 pay only $2 for a ticket.  Those with daily gross earnings of $100 pay $8.  And those with gross daily earnings of $200 pay $32 for their movie ticket.  The low-income earners will be very happy with this new fairness.  Those middle-income earners will have mixed feelings but won’t complain because they don’t have to pay any more.  The high-income earners, though, will not be happy with the new ticket pricing policy.  Because sitting in a theater is not worth $32 a ticket.  Especially if they’re taking their spouse and 3 kids.  Making a night at the movies cost $160.  Or 80% of their daily gross earnings.  And that doesn’t include any concession snacks.

The Problem with Fairness is that you can have the Best Intentions and end up with the Worst Results

You know who would love this?  Theater owners.  (As well as movie studios and the actors who share in box office sales.)  They would all be for fairness.  Because they would see greater earnings.  The typical theater seats about 225.  At $8 a ticket that comes to $1,800 in revenue per show.  When they implement the fairness policy, though, they could do better.  Say 40% of theater goers are low-income, 40% are middle-income and 20% are high-income.  Based on the fair ticket price policy the theater owner will increase earnings to $2,340.  That’s a revenue increase of $540.  Or an increase of 30%.  So, sure, the theater owners would all be for fairness when it comes to ticket prices.  (As well as the movie studies and actors.)

Until, that is, when the high-income people stop going to the theater.  If their seats remain empty the theater will not collect their $1, 440 in revenue per show.  Their seats will remain empty.  And half the people watching the movie will be paying only $2 for their ticket.  This will reduce revenue by $900.  Or a decrease of 50%.  Which will change the way theater owners think about fairness.  As they struggle to stay in business.  And if they can’t change the government fair pricing system their costs will exceed their revenue.  They will have to make cuts everywhere they can to get their costs under their revenue.  Lowering the quality of the movie going experience.  To the point people just stay home and watch something they download online while eating microwave popcorn.  Eventually shuttering the theater.  And putting more people out of a job.  (Not to mention making it impossible for a movie studio to make a profit on all but the biggest blockbusters and the cheapest to films to make.  And the big movie stars would all see a hug pay cut.  Which would ripple through the movie industry putting an even greater number of people out of a job.)

This is the problem with fairness.  You can have the best intentions.  And end up with the worst results.  That’s because the ‘fairness people’ think everything in the economy is static.  That a change ‘here’ won’t effect change ‘there’.  But the economy isn’t static.  It’s dynamic.  And a change ‘here’ does effect change ‘there’.  Because people are thinking, rational beings.  While state planners think they know what’s fair the people living their policies often think otherwise.  And change their behavior.  To minimize their costs under their fairness policies.  Because that is human nature.  Just like it is for people every day who shop around to find the lowest price and best value before spending their hard-earned money.

The Rich are more Generous in their Tax Dollar Contributions than the Poor and the Middle Class

The Left wants to raise the tax rates on the high-income earners.  To make them pay their ‘fair’ share.  Foolishly thinking that doing this will bring in more tax revenue.  It won’t.  Because people are thinking, rational beings.  These ‘rich’ people can either invest their money into businesses and create jobs.  Or they can put their money into treasury bonds and create no jobs.  One is high risk (creating jobs).  One is low risk (not creating jobs).  And when you increase the taxes on the high-risk investment you reduce the return on that investment.  And reduce the incentive to create jobs.  So instead of investing in jobs they park their money safely in bonds.  Reducing the income (business owner and employees) the government can tax.  As well as reducing a host of other taxes (sales tax, property tax, Social Security tax, Medicare tax, etc.).  All in the name of fairness.

So why do they do it?  Why are they always imposing fairness on us?  Because when it comes to class warfare tax rates are much more useful in defining fairness.  For they misdirect the people into thinking rich people don’t pay enough in taxes.  Let’s look at a married couple filing jointly who earn a combined income of $125,000.  Based on the 2012 federal income tax rates they will pay approximately $19,470 in federal taxes with a top marginal tax rate of 25%.  Now compare that to a rich person not paying their ‘fair share’ in taxes.  Someone who earns a million dollars in capital gains on investments.  One of those the ‘fairness people’ really dislike.  At a capital gains tax rate of 15% he or she pays $150,000 in taxes.  Now 15% is less than 25%.  And those on the Left will scream, “Unfair!”  Even though that capital gains tax rate will generate $130,530 more in tax dollars.  Or 670% more than the married couple paying a top marginal tax rate of 25%.

So is the ‘rich’ investor paying his or her fair share in taxes?  Well, he or she is sure paying a whole lot more in taxes than that married couple filing jointly.  Even if it’s at a lower tax rate.  Is that fair?  Is that enough?  It depends on how you measure fair.  If you measure by tax rates the rich are tax cheapskates.  If you measure by tax dollars then the rich are very generous in their tax contributions.  More generous than the poor and the middle class.  And that’s what really counts.  Tax dollars.  Because tax dollars pay the bills.  Not tax rates.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Say’s Law

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 6th, 2012

Economics 101

Keynesians believe if you Build Demand Economic Activity will Follow

People hate catching a common cold.  And have long wanted a cure for the common cold.  For a long time.  For hundreds of years.  But no one had ever filled this incredible demand.  All this time doctors and scientists still haven’t been able to figure that one out.  Despite knowing with that incredible demand, and our patent rights, whoever does figure that one out will become richer than Bill Gates.  Which is quite the incentive for figuring out the ingredients to make one little pill.  So why hasn’t anyone found the cure for the common cold?

There are many reasons.  But let’s just ignore them.  Like a Keynesian economist ignores a lot of things in their economic formulas.  In fact, let’s try and enter the head of some Keynesian economists.  And have them answer the question why there isn’t a cure for the common cold.  Based on their economic analysis you might hear them say that we have a cure for the common cold.  Because a high demand makes anything happen.  Or you might hear them say we don’t have a cure because enough people haven’t caught a cold yet.  And that we need to get more people to catch colds so we increase the demand for a cure.

Keynesians believe if you build demand economic activity will follow.  Like in that movie where they build a baseball diamond in a cornfield and those dead baseball players come back to play on it.  So Keynesians believe in government spending.  And love stimulus spending.  As well as taxing people to give their money to other people to spend.  Because having money to spend stimulates demand.  Consumers will consume things.  And increase consumption.  So suppliers will bring more things to market.  And create more jobs to meet that consumption demand.  Unless people save that money.  Which is something Keynesians hate.  Because saving reduces consumption.   Which is about the worst thing you could do in the universe of Keynesian economics.  Save money.  For in that universe spending trumps saving.  In fact, spending trumps everything.  No matter how you create that spending.  Keynesians actually believe taxing people so they can pay other people to dig a ditch and then fill that ditch back in stimulates economic activity.  Because these ditch diggers/fillers will take their paycheck and spend it.

Today People wait Anxiously for the next Apple Release to Learn what the Next Thing is that they Must Have

Of course there is a problem with this economic theory.  When you take money away from others they haven’t created new economic activity.  They just transferred that spending to someone else.  The people who earned that money spend less while the people who didn’t earn it spend more.  It’s a wash.  Some spending goes down.  While some spending goes up.  Actually there is a net loss in economic activity.  Because that money has to pass through government hands.  Where some of it sticks.  Because bureaucrats have to eat, too.  So the people receiving this money don’t receive as much as what was taxed away.  So Keynesian stimulus doesn’t really stimulate.  It actually reduces economic activity from what it might have been.  Because of the government’s cut.

And it gets worse.  Because this consumption demand doesn’t really create jobs.  We get nothing new out of it.  What do people demand?  Things they see.  Things they know about.  For it is hard to demand something that doesn’t exist.  You see a commercial for another incredible Apple product and you want it.  Thanks to some great advertising that explained why you must have it.  In other words, when you give money to people all they will do is buy things they’ve always wanted.  Things that already exist.  Old stuff.  It’s sort of the chicken and the egg thing.  Which came first?  Wanting something?  Or the thing that people want?

Raising taxes on Apple to create a more egalitarian society by redistributing their wealth will let people buy more of the old stuff.  But it won’t help Apple create more new things to bring to market.  Things we don’t even know about yet.  If we tax them so much that it leaves little left for them to invest in research and development how are they going to develop new things?  Things we don’t even know about yet?  Things that we will learn that we must have?  Once upon a time no one was asking for portable cassette players.  Then Sony came out with the Walkman.  And everyone had to have one.  Once upon a time there were no MP3 players.  No smartphones.  No tablet computers.  Now people must have these things.  After their manufacturers told us why we must have them.  Today people wait anxiously for the next Apple release to learn what the next thing is that they must have.

Say’s Law states that Supply Creates Demand

Supply leads demand.  We can’t ask for the unknown.  We can only ask for what the market has shown us.  Which is why Keynesian economics doesn’t work.  Because focusing on demand doesn’t work.  Giving people money to spend doesn’t stimulate creativity in the market place.  Because that money was taxed out of the market place.   Reducing profits.  Leaving less for businesses to invest into research and development.  And reducing their incentive to take big risks to bring the next big thing to market.  Like a phone you can talk to and ask questions.  Again something no one was demanding.  But now it’s something everyone wants.

Jean-Baptiste Say (1767–1832) was a French economist.  Another brilliant French mind that contributed to the Enlightenment.  And helped advance Western Civilization.  He observed how supply led demand.  Understood production was key in the economy.  He knew to create economic activity you had to focus on the producers.  Not the consumers.  Because if we encourage brilliant minds to bring brilliant things to market the demand will follow.  As history has shown.  And continues to show.  Every time a high-tech company brings something new to market that they have to explain to us before we realize we must have it.  Or said in another way, supply creates demand.  A little law of economics that we call Say’s law.

If Keynesian economics worked no one would have to have a job.  The government could print money for everyone.  And the people could take their government dollars and consume whatever was in the market place.  Which, of course, would be pretty sparse if no one worked.  If there were no Steve Jobs out there thinking of brilliant things to bring to market.  Because supply creates demand.  Demand doesn’t create supply.  For fists full of money won’t stimulate any economic activity if there is nothing to buy.  So using Keynesian stimulus as a cure for a recession is about as effective as someone’s homemade cure for the common cold.  You take the homemade concoction and in a week or two it cures you.  Of course, the cold just ran its course.  Which is how recessions end.  After they run their course.  Which can be a short course if there isn’t too much Keynesian intervention.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The French Socialists to Advance Policies that will drive the Wealth Creators out of France

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 1st, 2012

Week in Review

No one likes austerity.  Even the nations who agreed to it to join the Eurozone.  Back when they were joining they all said they would keep their deficits and debt within Eurozone requirements.  But after a prolonged recession few are willing to cut back on government spending.  In fact, in France, they’re going to increase government spending by beating up on the rich (see Adieu, la France posted 6/23/2012 on The Economist).

AFTER the French Socialists last came to power in 1981, under François Mitterrand, the new government went on a spree of nationalisations, taking over 36 banks and several industrial groups, before quietly abandoning the policy and even reprivatising a few firms. Small wonder that French bosses greeted François Hollande’s election as president with more than a frisson of foreboding. What would the Socialists do this time…?

Even before the parliamentary elections on June 17th, at which the Socialists won a majority of seats, rhetoric against factory closures had been mounting…

Michel Sapin, the labour minister, has promised to make it so expensive for companies to lay off workers that it will no longer be worth their while. Firms that fire people while still paying dividends may be penalised. Another planned ruse is to force companies to sell factories, presumably along with the brands manufactured there, to competitors rather than close them down…

[The Socialist] party’s most popular campaign promises was to tax incomes of more than €1m at a marginal rate of 75%. The likely consequences will be much less admired. Some big companies will leave France or move management abroad in order to shield their executives from the tax. That will lead them to invest and hire more overseas rather than at home. Already, top foreign executives no longer want to join French firms. A new extra tax on dividends has further angered the business world…

But the most important consequence of stratospheric taxes will be less visible, at least at first. Marc Simoncini is one of France’s best-known entrepreneurs—and one of the few business leaders to denounce the new measures publicly. Why, he recently asked, would anyone want to start a business, invest and succeed in the most taxed country in the world?

Tax is not the only threat to executive pay. Last week Pierre Moscovici, the finance minister, announced that pay for bosses of companies in which the French state holds the majority of shares will be capped at a flat rate of €450,000, or roughly 20 times the wage of the lowest-paid worker… In some cases it will lead to a 70% pay cut… Measures to limit pay at fully private firms are expected before long.

Most French business leaders don’t think that the government is deliberately targeting them. They reckon that its motives are purely political—and that the Socialists are simply not aware of the damage their plans will do (most ministers have hardly any experience of business).

Behold class warfare on a grand scale.  This is socialism.  This is what being ‘fair’ is.  This is egalitarianism.  Everyone is equal.  Except the rich and successful.  Who the state enslaves.  To serve the people.  By forcing these executives to continue to do what so few people can do.  Run these big corporations profitably.  But they won’t reward them for their unique talents.  No.  Instead, they’ll enslave them.  Force them to keep producing wealth.  To keep creating jobs.  But to do so for a paycheck that’s less than most sports stars, movie stars, singers, writers, reality stars, etc., get.  Because these executives don’t earn their pay like these people who contribute so much to the world’s economies.

The Socialists believe these rich executives don’t do anything worthy for their pay.  That these corporations run themselves and only create wealth because of the workers in the trenches.  These are the important people.  Of course if they don’t need these rich executives why not just fire them?  Let these corporations spontaneously produce wealth and create jobs?  Because even the Socialists know that these rich executives are the only ones who can run these corporations and produce the wealth they so want to confiscate.  And if they fired these rich executives and tried to run these corporations themselves there would be no wealth to confiscate.  Because they have no business experience.  And they would only run these companies into the ground.  Just like the Soviet state planners did in the Soviet Union.

How did they get here?  Their social democracies.  Cradle to grave state welfare.  The people like it.  They love the free stuff.  The problem is it’s free only to them.  Someone has to pay for it.  Primarily those who work for the rich executives.  And the rich executives themselves.  Via confiscatory tax rates on the wealth they create.  But as they drive out these wealth creators from the country what will they tax?  As populations age there are more people consuming government benefits than there are paying for them.  Which means they need to raise tax rates ever higher.  Going so far as to nationalizing businesses.  Eventually there comes a point where even class warfare won’t work anymore.  Because there just won’t be enough wealth left in the country to tax.

These policies are not likely to make things better in France.  It may feel good for a little while to punish the rich.  But punishing the rich won’t reduce your taxes.  Or improve the economy so you can advance into a better and higher paying job.  But it makes good politics.  Which is why these politicians can win elections.  In Europe.  And in the United States. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Unable to Create Jobs the Obama Administration offers Citizenships to Rich Foreigners who Can

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 17th, 2012

Week in Review

Unable to understand how the economy works the Obama administration maintains policies that restrict economic activity.  And removes incentives to create jobs.  Their Keynesian economic policies have been such an abject failure that after three and a half years of trying they’re asking rich foreigners to create the jobs they cannot.  By selling citizenship (see Citizenship for sale: Foreign investors flock to U.S. by James O’Toole, CNNMoney, posted 6/11/2012 on Yahoo! Finance).

The State Department expects to issue over 6,000 “investor visas” in the current fiscal year, which would be an all-time record. Other countries, meanwhile, are following the U.S.’s lead, keen to spur growth in lean economic times.

“Our goal is certainly job creation, and that’s what this program is all about,” said Bill Wright, a spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. “At the same time, it’s allowing somebody from a foreign country to come and invest in our nation.”

Under the government’s EB-5 Immigrant Investor program, foreign investors can get conditional visas that allow them and their families to live, work and attend school in the U.S. To qualify for the visa, they must invest at least $1 million in a new or recently created business, or $500,000 for businesses in rural or high-unemployment areas.

The investment must be demonstrated to have created or preserved at least 10 full-time jobs for U.S. workers within two years. Assuming this condition is met, investors and their families graduate to permanent resident status, and can apply for full citizenship three years later…

Of the roughly 12,000 immigrants who’ve arrived on the EB-5 investor visa, just 39% have earned permanent residency, according to USCIS data…

So I guess this means the Obama administration is throwing up their hands and crying “uncle.”  They don’t know how to create jobs.  So they’re offering citizenship to those who do.

Small business owners (the number one job creator in the country) start out their business for far less than $1 million.  These people know how to create jobs.  And they would.  If it weren’t for the anti-business policies of the Obama administration.  The regulatory compliance costs are so great that it discourages these engines of job creations from going into business.  Or expanding their businesses.  And the big thing hanging over them like the Sword of Damocles is Obamacare.  They are so unsure of what will happen when that sword falls that they are not hiring anyone unless they absolutely have to.

Creating jobs is easy.  It’s like a dog having puppies.  You don’t have to do anything.  But you can’t fight against it.  If you reduce the regulatory compliance burden for these job creators that’s all you have to do.  And they will create jobs.  Lots of them.  And they’ll create far more than the 46,800 (12,00 X 0.39 X 10) jobs these rich immigrants have made.  

In the U.S., the immigrant investor program has been responsible for at least 46,810 jobs and more than $2.3 billion in investments since its inception in 1990, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

That’s a small fraction of overall foreign investment in the U.S., but it comes at no cost to the government. Were the EB-5 program to meet its 10,000-visa quota, it would contribute more than $4.4 billion to GDP and create or preserve nearly 75,000 jobs annually, according to a 2010 report prepared for the government by consulting firm ICF International.

That’s funny.  Nearly 75,000 jobs annually?  If I divide the proudly stated number of jobs created (46,810) by the number of years the program has been in effect (about 21 years) that comes to a whopping 2,230 jobs they created per year by selling citizenship to rich people.  Which is a lot less than 75,000.  And it’s not going to help much when Solyndra alone lost almost half that amount when it went bankrupt.  When you add in all the other lost jobs from the failed green job initiatives these new jobs won’t even replace those lost in green energy alone.  Let alone those unemployed suffering in an employment climate with a double digit unemployment rate (the U-6 unemployment that counts those underemployed and those who gave up looking for work is currently about 14.8%).

Ah, yes, what about those preserved jobs?  It’s just a number they pull out of the air.  There is no measurement for it.  Unless the vast majority of these jobs for citizenship (97%) where from these rich foreigners practicing ‘vulture capitalism’ (i.e., private equity).  Because that is something you can measure.  Such as when Bain Capital saved Toys R Us.  However many people were working at Toys R Us at the time who had a job had their job saved by Bain Capital.  Still, this didn’t happen in the first 21 years of the program.  For the number of created and preserved jobs is still only 2,230 jobs per year.

These rich people the Obama administration is turning to for help may create jobs.  In fact, immigrants coming to the land of opportunity created many jobs.  In America.  Where people were free.  And government was limited.  Where you could work hard and enjoy the proceeds from your labors.  Which is why they came.  But it’s not quite like that anymore.  Entrepreneurs are not as free as they were when they built this great nation.  Perhaps that explains why this program has only a 39% success ratio so far.  Even foreign millionaires have trouble creating jobs in America these days.  Why?  Because the current tax and regulatory climate is just not conducive to creating jobs.  No matter how much money you start with.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT118: ” It’s better to have rich investors risk their wealth than having the government risk our taxes.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 18th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

It wasn’t the Private Investors who lost Half a Billion Dollars on Solyndra

It takes money to create jobs.  Some conveniently forget this fact when the politicians want to take money away from rich people who got rich by creating jobs.  But the politicians always remember this fact when they want to ‘invest’ our tax money into projects to create jobs.  When they want to spend our taxes they then fully understand the concept that it takes money to create jobs.  Funny how that works.

Also funny is that the projects the politicians want to invest in are not projects the rich investors want to invest in.  Because it’s their wealth they’re risking they are a little choosier in deciding where to invest it.  So they don’t invest in these losers the politicians champion.  For even though these politicians are Ivy League graduates who are smarter than everyone else they only like to risk other people’s money.  Unless they have inside information.  Such as pending legislation that will affect the market.  Then they’ll invest their own money.  But that’s the only time.  For as smart as these Ivy League graduates are they have little understanding of free market capitalism.  Or what it takes to be an entrepreneur.  And have no idea how to evaluate an investment opportunity without having inside information.

Still, politicians are so arrogant to believe that they are smarter than the market.  And that if they ‘wisely’ invest our tax money that they can do a better job than those who risk their own money.  People the politicians believe aren’t smart enough to make the best and wisest investments.  Despite their having gotten rich doing just that.  Making wise investments.  For example, it wasn’t the private investors who lost half a billion dollars on Solyndra.  For they saw the only thing keeping the solar industry afloat were government subsidies.  And any industry that requires government subsidies is not likely ever to earn a profit.  So they said ‘no’ to Solyndra and put their money in what they deemed wiser investments.  While the government invested in Solyndra.  Because they saw that as the ‘wiser’ investment.  Only to lose a half a billion of our tax dollars in the process.  Yup.  When it comes to making smart investments the politicians are regular ‘geniuses’.  And by that I mean they are actually the opposite of geniuses.  I was using sarcasm.

Politicians lose Hundreds of Billions of our Tax Dollars in Investment after Investment because they Care 

So the politicians are worse than the worst rank amateur investor.  We know it.  They know it.  At least they should know it what with their perfect record of failure.  So why do they do it?  Why do they continually take money away from the people who know how to better invest that money so they can make some of the worst investments of all time?  That’s a good question.  And we really need to think about it. 

To figure this out think about this one word.  Elections.  That’s the key.  You see, a majority of people wouldn’t vote for these politicians.  Because they want to spend our money.  They want to raise our taxes.  So they can spend it on more Solyndras.  How does that help them?  Here’s how.  People at these companies who receive this federal money are very grateful.  And to show their gratitude they make campaign contributions.  Often with some of the very money they received from the government.  Part of that ‘wise’ investment to create the ‘smart jobs’ of the future.  And why not?  There’ll be a little left over after paying some generous executive salaries and bonuses.  Why not give a little back to the people that made all of that possible?  Make a nice campaign contribution to help the politicians convince the people that they are smart and wise and deserve to win the next election.  So they can spend more of the people’s taxes.  Into other wise investments.  Like Solyndra. 

You just need one thing to make this all possible.  A bad investment.  An investment so bad that no rich people will risk their own money.  Because they know what a loser the investment is.  It has to be that bad.  So someone in the government can say rich people are evil and selfish.  That they only care about turning a profit.  That they are not interested in the jobs of the future.  Or high paying jobs with good benefits for the working man.  Like the politicians do.  They care about the people.  Instead of turning a profit.  And are willing to invest taxpayer money in the poorest of investments.  And lose hundreds of billions of our tax dollars in investment after investment.  Because they care.  More for their own self-interests but they care.  Unlike those evil rich people.  Who refuse to waste valuable investment capital.  And won’t let the people they’ve loaned it to waste it either.  Because they only care about the money.  Unlike our government.  Who has no problem throwing away trillions of our tax dollars.

Investors Invest Responsibly and know how to Pick a Winner that will Create Jobs 

Rich investors take risks when they invest their own money.  So they are very careful in how they invest it.  And when they invest it they are very interested in how that money is used.  They don’t need any oversight committees or legislation.  Because they are no one’s fool.  They are not rank amateurs.  And they appreciate the value of hard-earned money.  They have a vested interest to make sure that money is used in the most efficient manner possible.  Because it’s their money.  And they care.

Politicians invest taxpayer money.  They have no vested interest.  So they don’t care.  When they run out of money from all of their bad investments they don’t suffer any consequences.  All they do is malign rich people again to foster a little class warfare to make raising taxes on the ‘evil rich’ easier.  Then they keep on making bad investments.  Mostly to their political cronies.  Who will return some of that public money back to them in the form of a campaign contribution.

That’s why it’s better to have rich investors risk their wealth than having the government risk our taxes.  Investors will invest responsibly.  The politicians will not.  And the investors know how to pick a winner that will create jobs.  The politicians do not.  The only way they know how to make money is with inside information.  Or skimming a little off the top of the public purse.  Which is the only way to explain investments like Solyndra.  It’s either that or our politicians are just really stupid. 

What a choice.  Corrupt or stupid.  Or is it even worse?  Are they corrupt AND stupid?  If so it sure would help explain a lot.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Hollande’s Win in France sends a Message to the Wealthy and Job Creators – You are Not Welcomed Here

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 13th, 2012

Week in Review

The French elections are over.  Hollande is in.  Sarkozy is out.  As are the job creators.  The wealthy.  Who are looking to leave France with their talent and skills.  Because they got the message.  Hollande doesn’t like them.  And he’s coming after their wealth (see France Entrepreneurs Flee From Hollande Wealth Rejection by Anne-Sylvaine Chassany and Jacqueline Simmons posted 5/10/2012 on Bloomberg).

France, the fifth-richest country and home to some of the world’s wealthiest people, including LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA Chief Executive Officer Bernard Arnault, doesn’t celebrate its affluent. Hollande, a Socialist who once said “I don’t like the rich,” and who plans to slap a 75 percent tax on income of more than 1 million euros ($1.29 million), reinforces the sentiment that in France to be rich is not glorious…

Hollande’s rhetoric against wealth and finance is prompting some in France to consider leaving, and European rivals are welcoming them. “Bienvenue a Londres,” or welcome to London, Mayor Boris Johnson quipped in January. Switzerland and Belgium have been just as warm…

“Seen from abroad, France is the last country where an entrepreneur wants to go,” Marc Simoncini, the founder of French dating site Meetic.com, said in an interview on BFM TV yesterday. “I don’t know of any British person who’s come to set up a business in France. But I know plenty of young French people who’ve gone to London to do that…”

The attitude toward business and wealth creators is driving people away, said Diane Segalen, founder of Segalen & Associes, an executive search firm specializing in top management and board members.

Talent and skills will go where they are welcome, she said…

On the other side of the Channel, Conservative London Mayor Johnson laid out the welcome carpet.

“This is the global capital of finance,” he said. “It’s on your doorstep and if your own president does not want the jobs, the opportunities and the economic growth that you generate, we do.”

Here’s another reason for those who aren’t rich to hate those who are.  Because they won’t just sit there and take it.  These selfish bastards won’t stay in France and continue to use their talent and skill to make great wealth so the state can take it away from them.  You just can’t depend on the rich, can you?  Only those who aren’t rich are caring and decent.  With other people’s money, of course.  For if they won a fortune in a lottery they’d want to pack up their wealth and leave just like everyone else that has wealth.  Because it’s an entirely different picture when it’s YOUR wealth.  Taking wealth from others, why, that’s okay.  But it just isn’t fair to take YOUR wealth.

People need jobs.  And government needs people to have jobs.  So they can pay the taxes that fund their welfare state.  And to create jobs you need people with talent and skills.  To create wealth by investing wealth.  Because that’s the only way you can create jobs.  And tax revenue.  For only someone with a job can pay an income tax.  So it all starts with jobs.  You gotta have them.  And they just don’t spontaneously appear.  If they did France wouldn’t be in the economic mess they’re in requiring a 75% tax rate on millionaires.

This is the future of the welfare state.  High taxation that encourages all those with talent and skill to leave your country.  Leaving only those consuming the benefits of the welfare state.  Without anyone left to pay for it.  Which leads to more government borrowing.  Greater deficits.  Higher debt.  And, well, you can look to Greece to see where it goes from there.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries