patrick.net

Why is lower volume a bad thing?

With lower volume, liquidity drys up, and the market fails to perform its function to reflect value.

Why is greed a bad thing?

Peter P says

Why is lower volume a bad thing?
With lower volume, liquidity drys up, and the market fails to perform its function to reflect value.

I hardly think that we are in danger of liquidity drying up. There are already transaction costs associated with each trade, so I find it hard to believe that a small tax would cause such a drastic change in volume. And even if volume dropped by 25%, the market will still perform its function without an issue.

Peter P says

Why is greed a bad thing?

It's bad when it causes people to make poor decisions. Greed usually encourages short term gains over long term value. And often leads to cutting corners...

Small taxes always balloon to big taxes. New tax (unless it is poll tax) will not solve any problem. Instead, there are always unintended and undesirable consequences.

Even 0.01% on a $10B derivative contract is $1M! Not small at all!

Stop demonizing derivatives. Blame the stupid people who are on the losing side. Any transaction tax will suffocate the market.

It’s bad when it causes people to make poor decisions. Greed usually encourages short term gains over long term value. And often leads to cutting corners…

So what? If people are making poor decisions, Free Market allows us to make them our gains. What long term value? Life is short. We will have new equilibrium points in the future. Our next generation will adapt and deal with the new environment. I don't care if they drive hover cars or hunt with sticks and rocks.

Peter P says

Small taxes always balloon to big taxes.

No they don't.

Peter P says

New tax (unless it is poll tax) will not solve any problem

If the problem is lack of government revenue, then I think it would help solve that problem.

Peter P says

Blame the stupid people who are on the losing side

Fine. Let's all blame them. They work on Wall St. in New York. The problem is that it's tax dollars that are used to bail them out.

Peter P says

So what? If people are making poor decisions, Free Market allows us to make them our gains.

Seems like we all lose to me. My tax dollars are being used to keep the economy from collapsing because of their greed. Who exactly are the winners?

No they don’t.

Yes they do. Income tax rate used to be just a few percents during the Civil War.

If the problem is lack of government revenue, then I think it would help solve that problem.

But the problem is too much government spending. You are trying to solve the wrong problem.

Fine. Let’s all blame them. They work on Wall St. in New York. The problem is that it’s tax dollars that are used to bail them out.

Ha. They got bailed out because the people were scared. The bankers could not care less. They won before it started.

My tax dollars are being used to keep the economy from collapsing because of their greed. Who exactly are the winners?

Yup. You were out the money. Who exactly are the losers?.

BTW, if being a winner means being the person who save the day, I am willing to be a loser because I want to be helped and I want to pay nothing.

Can I trouble you to voluntarily pay a 100% income tax? It will help the economy from collapsing and I will personally give you a "winner" plaque. :-)

Good one Peter. Looks like you pointed out an inconvenient fact. Or perhaps you could call it "the ugly truth".

Peter P says

But the problem is too much government spending. You are trying to solve the wrong problem.

You say tomato, I say tomato. Taxes have gone down in the last 20 years--so they don't always get bigger.

Peter P says

Ha. They got bailed out because the people were scared. The bankers could not care less. They won before it started.

No shit people were scared. And for good reason--the economy almost imploded. Buffet has a trade receipt where someone gave him something like $100.52 to buy a $100 future 3 months from now. It was a negative return. That's how bad it was. What do you mean the bankers couldn't care less--lots of them are out of a job. You think the people at Lehman cared? That makes no sense.

Peter P says

Yup. You were out the money. Who exactly are the losers?.

If you live in the US and pay taxes, you were a loser my friend.

Taxes have gone down in the last 20 years–so they don’t always get bigger.

Yeah, only because of one heroic president that also tore down the Berlin Wall.

What do you mean the bankers couldn’t care less–lots of them are out of a job.

You are confusing bankers with banker peons.

If you live in the US and pay taxes, you were a loser my friend.

No doubt.

elvis says

TAXES are MUCH HIGHER because the purchasing power of the dollar is MUCH LOWER…daaahhh

How do you figure? Please show me some data on that. Otherwise, I'll assume it's just one of your made up facts....

And please give it up about the Government causing the faulty lending practices... More regulation of the banking industry is what we need. I don't know if the current bill is a good one, but we definitely do need more regulation...

Tapupu - Seriously, if you don't understand that the dollar has continually lost purchasing power you need some REALLY basic education. Facts? They're all over the web if YOU would take the time to look them up yourself. Look up: Inflation, "The Grandfather Report", National Inflation Association. Log on: 321 Gold, Dollar Collapse, etc. Do some reading...please.

More regulation? "If you wish too destroy a nation, you must corrupt its currency." That's exactly what the FED is doing. SOUND MONEY is society's first defense. MORE REGULATION ISN'T. More government is not the solution to America's problems.

No government ever seizes power with the intention or relinquishing it. The FED created new paper currency and wealth incessantly, while the real personal wealth of society was steadily being diminished through increased prices.

Read and learn my friend, read.

Abe--

Thanks. That's what I figured you'd say. Obviously you have no data to back up your claims. Your specific claim was that "taxes are much higher because the purchasing power of the dollar is lower". Please show some data supporting that statement.

No platitudes, no sweeping statements. I'm looking for actual facts, or charts--data...

I'd give you the same advice. Read and learn.

The power to issue and control currency IS the ultimate power.

Peter P says

The power to issue and control currency IS the ultimate power.

I think I'd rather have X-Ray vision. Or be able to time travel.

I've been wondering exactly how that works. The Fed does create currency from nothing, and lends it to favored banks, or buys crap mortgage backed bonds with it, but most of the loans have to be repaid, so you could argue that the newly created currency is mostly temporary. The Fed does "destroy" the currency when it gets repaid. It doesn't really seem like much of a conspiracy there, except of course that the net amount outstanding has been increasing since 1913, destroying purchasing power, causing inflation. Even there, they argue that that's good overall for the economy, because it makes people invest rather than sit on money while it loses value.

But let's say the Fed tips off certain favored people about the direction of interest rates. Now that could be an impressive conspiracy. A small group could trade bonds under various names, always winning every bet. And do you really think the SEC is going to investigate the Fed?

I think I’d rather have X-Ray vision. Or be able to time travel.

To each his own...

I rather be able to control money. Eventually, they will slap an x-ray vision tax or a time travel tax on you.

Remember, superman is defined as someone who wears his underwear outside his pants.

Patrick, may I suggest this book?

http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986212

Tatupu, great...what books do you recommend?

I'm no goldbug and think managing (ie inflating) the money supply shouldn't be that big a deal. The main problem came in the 80s when we went along with the idea that we could just borrow money to pay for military expenditures instead of raising taxes to pay for them.

The key to successful borrowing is to create or acquire capital with that borrowing sufficient to repay the loan. The payoff on our ten-trillion dollar military investment has been rather minimal since 1990.

Volatility is a symptom of something going wrong on a lower level. The money supply really took off starting in 1995:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MZM

This is when China first starting coming online and the great wealth transfer from the US to China began. Back in the old days, Imperial China only settled accounts in silver, draining Europe of its silver and causing the Opium Wars. Now, they've taken good ol' USD, enough to buy 51% of every company on the S&P Energy, Materials, and Industrials, Health Care, and Financials indices.

I’ve been wondering exactly how that works. The Fed does create currency from nothing, and lends it to favored banks, or buys crap mortgage backed bonds with it, but most of the loans have to be repaid, so you could argue that the newly created currency is mostly temporary. The Fed does “destroy” the currency when it gets repaid. It doesn’t really seem like much of a conspiracy there, except of course that the net amount outstanding has been increasing since 1913, destroying purchasing power, causing inflation. Even there, they argue that that’s good overall for the economy, because it makes people invest rather than sit on money while it loses value.

That's right. Let's remember that there are only two choices: inflation or deflation. Very high inflation is bad, no doubt. But you need to have some inflation, say 2-3%/year. Otherwise the economy doesn't expand, jobs aren't created, etc. Also keep in mind that the net amount oustanding has to increase because our population is increasing.
I just don't understand some posters obsession with inflation and sound money. We haven't had an issue with high inflation in the US for at least 20 years, really not since the late seventies. And that was caused by oil--not loose monetary policy.
I agree our government spends too much, but let's fix that problem by electing better people to office. Not by going back to a gold standard that has been proven ineffective. And unworkable.

Peter P says

Patrick, may I suggest this book?

http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986212

Thanks Peter. I actually have it on order from the library, but someone else is reading it so I have to wait.

Honest Abe says

while the real personal wealth of society was steadily being diminished through increased prices

There is never increased wages? Assets, short of bubbles like housing, steadily increase in value. You would correct in the fact that inflation steadily moves people up in the tax brackets, but the tax brackets have been steadily lowered also. What inflation hurts is anyone on a fixed income that is not indexed for inflation, or people whose investments are such they cannot keep up with the rate of inflation. However people paying back debt are helped by inflation. Wages increase and the debt is paid back in in steadily decreasing dollars. There are winners and losers in every situation.

Fighting inflation is a laudable worthwhile goal (which the your government is lying about every day, they want inflation, inflation effectively decreases the nation debt) , but short of out of control hyperinflation, moderate inflation is not armageddon. Not really desirable, but not disaster.

Honest Abe says

Tatupu, great…what books do you recommend?

Why don't you start with "The conscience of a liberal" by Paul Krugman.

I think I'm going to vomit. Another selection, by a different author...PLEASE, I'm begging you.

Conscience of a liberal? I rather be Going Rogue.

Now this is the real deal:

http://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Conservative-Barry-Goldwater/dp/0895265400

Barry Goldwater vs Paul Krugman. Hmm... One of them is my hero. Guess who?

I am sure liberals want to make the world better. Perhaps they should do more charity work. The economy is best managed by people who love, and understand, money.

The freer the market the freer the people.

That's what I figured. Conservatives don't want to learn anything new. They just want to listen (AM radio) and read stuff that confirms their worldview.... That's kind of how my 2 year old operates...

I listen to Rush on Internet Radio. Isn't that something new?

taputu70 at least your 2 year old can't vote for servants of the Corporatocracy or screw the masses unlike the conservative adults in this country.

Corporatocracy is infinitely better than the welfare state.

When everyone wants to start his own corporation, we have a culture of entrepreneurship. When everybody wants to collect welfare, we become a society of scum.

Really? Is that why we have Corporate Welfare? Is that why we taxpayers saved Goldman Sachs and AIG with our "gubmint" money? So what would you call your Corporate masters who regularly collect "gubmint" money in the form of Corporate Welfare while evading taxes? (Would that be scum, as you say?)

Please educate me on how Corporations have made this country a better place to live and how they do better than the "gubmit" in actually making sure that social justice and peace reign inside our borders. I'm all ears. Oh, and please don't send me to books and other articles. Please grant me the gift of your intelligence and explain it in detail. And don't give me smarmy "because I said so" arguments, back them up. I'm not some twenty-something software developer. I'm much older and wiser than that and I've worked the corporate life for ten years in my time. That was more than enough to learn what actually drives the Corporatocracy.

So please, now my ears are yours. Educate me.

I am against corporate welfare. It is a direct result of over-regulation. However, if you envy corporate welfare, no one stops you from starting your own company and collect the money. You may actually do pretty well.

Please educate me on how "social justice" is more important than prosperity. Europe is more keen on social democracy yet they have much fewer private jets than the US.

Again, European governments have bigger roles yet they have more violent protest. Americans are more peaceful. Think TEA parties.

If you think corporations are evil, why don't you start your own corporation?

I'm waiting... Are you still evading the question by asking more questions? Sad. Until you do me the courtesy of answering me and educating me, because I asked first, I'm not going to waste my time picking apart what you just wrote. Quid pro quo.

You will never accept anything I say, because you will only "read stuff that confirms" your worldview.

If you do not want to waste time picking apart what I wrote than stop reading. I am under no obligation to educate you, I write only for the entertainment of myself and those who agree with me.

Peter P, at least you admit that you can't back up anything you say and that this is merely "entertainment." I'll make sure I give your comments the attention they deserve from now on in light of your honesty. Thanks, it'll save me lot's of time.

Thanks. Merry Christmas.

Peter--

I might accept what you say, but you have to present your views with logic and data that backs up your ideas. Just saying the same thing over and over doesn't mean it's correct. You have to explain to me why and what your ideas are to fix it.

If you can't do that then you're just wasting all of our time....

Some data:

In 2008 there were 16,605 corporate jets in the world.

Of this number, 11,824 were based in the US, 2,507 were based in Europe, 853 were based in Asia and the Middle East and 150 were based in Oceana. The balance of 1,271 were from elsewhere.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jameshall/100001847/the-us-tops-the-corporate-jet-league-but-for-how-long/

Jet ownership is a very good measure of business success.

You too! Merry Christmasâ„¢!*

*Brought to you by the Corporatocracy that has successfully transformed Christmas from a religious celebration into a meaningless display of rampant materialism and greed.

Yacht ownership, on the other hand, is more about opulence.

Most large yachts (longer than 300 feet) are NOT owned by Americans. They usually have Middle-Eastern or European owners.