Dow Transportation Index hits all time high.

Nonsense. Distribution between workers and owners is a function of labor policy and supply and demand, not monetary policy.

It is not designed to do that. It is designed to reduce the deficit.

If you want to publicize money that has gone to private banking institutions, raise taxes on their executives and shareholders.

 

No one said it would.
What needs to happen is more and better regulation on the banking industry, which was attempted with much whining and moaning and crying from the conservatives that caused the " billions upon billions of public dollars that elite banking institutions have privatized" in the first place.

 

I'm sure they have some hypothetical model to support their quackery...

 

Yeah we know it, we know that he is thinking of us and working hard to fix the wrongs done by the right wing.
We alos know that if the GOP would get on board and HELP instead of hinder things would get much better much faster.

- - - Updated - - -

Can we see the hypothetical model that supports your lunacy?

 

Then why do you support subsidies and handouts for special interest groups like big banking corporations?

I see you dodged my question. If the government can "create wealth", then why don't we just spend 10 trillion dollars on "stimulus"?

 

Help with what?

 

I expect that there will be a little surge in spite of BH Obama's policies but in the end the burden of over regulation will drag the economy into hell before BHO is finished.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

I'd be careful in stocks right now. The last two times the workers to dow jones points ratio went below 12.0 (2000,2007), we had a 20%-30% market correction within 2 years.

Right now its at 11.6.

Maybe its different this time.

 

I am talking about the inflationary monetary policy you support. Inflation redistributes wealth from workers to elite banking corporations. Your support of these monetary policies, therefore, is at odds with your professed desire to "reverse" the "trickle down" economic policies that have "redistributed so much more of our nation's income and wealth to the 1%".

I know it's not. President Obama is fine with mega-banks privatizing billions of public dollars. The Wall-Street cartel has done incredibly well under Obama and his progressive apologists.

More faith-based economics. You have no way to know if raising tax rates will cause tax revenues to increase.

I want to stop subsidizing them altogether. Government favoritism is exploitative and economically deleterious.

 

Newest bubble?

 

Then stop talking about Obama's populist credentials. He's not going to hold anyone accountable, nor is he going to stop the exploitation of the working classes by the elitist banking institutions. He's an empty suit.

What's wrong with the massive amount of regulations we had during the 90's or the 00's? Be specific.

 

Nonsense. Distribution between workers and owners is a function of labor policy and supply and demand, not monetary policy.

It wasn't Obama who was fighting to keep taxes lower for the richest or proposing to cut them further.

It always has in the past. Increasing tax rates increases the amount of revenues for any given level of gross income.

I'm good with that. Of course, it is not just the banks that get that but all kinds of businesses, indeed, including folks who live off investments. So let's cut out all subsidies and tax privileges that benefit big corporations and the rich. And then breakup megabanks so that the entire economy is not susceptible to the failure of a few banks.

 

That is just propaganda. Reality is much different. Obama has time and energy to give to mega-corporations like Goldman Sachs and GE, but the small-to-medium-sized firms that form the base of our economy are totally on their own.

You don't "know" that. You are just regurgitating party propaganda and faith-based economics.

I don't rely on a hypothetical model. I rely on empirical models of supply and demand.



The concept of "equilibrium" is not limited to just economics:




If you understand the empirical basis for "equilibrium" then you can understand the empirical basis for supply and demand in the marketplace.

 

Expanding the size, cost and intrusiveness of government at the expense of the taxpayer and the economy. It's this economic illiteracy writ large that has enabled the Alinskyite in Chief to engineer the worst recovery ever...

 

Inflation devalues the wages and savings of the working classes in order to increase the amount of liquidity available to elite banking corporations. Your support of these policies, therefore, are at odds with your professed desire to "reverse" the "trickle down" economic policies that have "redistributed so much more of our nation's income and wealth to the 1%".

Nor is he fighting to end the ongoing subsidies and favors that Wall Street tycoons receive. What a phony.

How do you know this?

So what?

Then why do you support inflationary monetary policies that redistribute wealth from workers to elite banking corporations?

Obama has no intention of breaking up any banks. Dodd-Frank institutionalized "too-big-too-fail". Your words do not match reality.

And why do you keep dodging my question? If the government can "create wealth", then why don't we just spend $10 trillion on "stimulus"? Keep dodging and I'll keep asking.

 

Your statement is false. Inflation devalues wages and savings if and only if they do not increase equal to or better than inflation.

Sure he is. He is fighting to raise their taxes. Write your GOP friends for the lack of progress on that.

Look at the examples. 1993 is a prime one, the last time we had a major tax increase. You've seen the data.

So it produces greater tax revenues for any given level of income. If you want to increase revenues, then it makes sense to raise taxes, within reason.

You've already made this false assertion and I have already responded to it.

Not feasible with the Republicans controlling the House and having filibuster power in the Senate.

Where would they get the money?

 

Inflation devalues money by definition.

But he's not fighting to stop the ongoing subsidies they receive from the US Treasury and Federal Reserve.

How do you know the tax increase caused the increase in tax revenues?

How do you know it produces greater tax revenues for any level of income?

It's not a false assertion. You support the inflationary monetary policy of the Federal Reserve under Chairman Ben Bernanke. Inflationary monetary policy devalues the wages and savings of the working class and transfers that value to elite banking corporations. Nothing false about anything I just said.

Democrats managed to pass Obamacare over the objections of Republicans, and they (Democrats) fought to pass Dodd-Frank, a piece of law that institutionalizes "too-big'to-fail". Your rhetoric does not match reality.

You answer a question with a question. A textbook DODGE. If the government can "create wealth", then why don't they spend $10 trillion on stimulus? Please answer the question.

 

Leftist economics is one 'just so' story followed by another unfalsifiable hypothesis. The Soviets ran this same scam for 65 years.

 

All while professing to love science...

 

Sure. But whether a worker's wage is devalued depends upon whether he sees an increase in his wage above the rate of inflation.

I'm not aware of any ongoing subsidies from the Treasury. The Fed is an independent entity.

Because you can see it when you account of increases due to the economy.

Mathematical formula.

Your statement that monetary policy devalues wages and savings of the working class and transfers that value to elite banking corporations is false.

Where does Dodd-Frank institutionalize too big to fail?

I asked the question because you give an incomplete hypothetical. If the money is raised through debt it increases the debt. If the money is raised through taxes it would require and effective tax rate of about 75%, far higher than is warranted.

A government can create wealth, but it does not allocate goods and services as efficiently as the private market. Government spending should be no greater than necessary to provide needed services, and in the event of stimulus, it should not be greater than the surplus in the private sector. A $10 trillion Govt expenditure would unnecessarily crowd out the private sector.

 

Does increasing the rate of tax on capital gains result in an increase in revenues from the sale, exchange or other disposition of capital assets and Section 1231 assets?

 

Really. The concept that tax revenues = effective tax rate + gross income is obviously such a leftist concept.

 

It's just a math formula. Math formulas are not evidence of anything.

 

It’s been a horribly bear market overall the last couple of years and while this Admin is in office it won’t change much, the original poster Iriemon is utterly ignorant to the market, but if you have money to invest you can make a killing right now, many stocks like Apple are nearing their bottom be ready to buy buy buy. Don't touch Apple till it hits about 375 that will be half of what it was worth a mere 4 months ago,that should be the bottom. Do keep in mind America has a new commodity and that has not happened in my lifetime may my fellow conservatives invest smart! The libs well they don’t have money or knowhow to invest so just keep doing what you do best, taking from those that do.

 

I'm not familiar with section 1231 assets. However, increasing the tax rate on cap gains increases the revenues for any given level of cap gains realization.

For example, capital gains realizations in 1996 and 2009 were approximately the same amount. But the tax revenues in 2009 were about half the amount in 1996, reflecting the fact that the cap gains rate tax was about half.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

- - - Updated - - -

It described how revenues are determined. Revenues = effective tax rate * gross income. By definition.

The should teach basic macroeconomics in high schools.