Bankruptcy is a consequence of bad behavior. After which liquidation of overvalued assets clears that bad behavior.. that's if you actually believe in free markets.. but obviously the Government doesn't operate like a free market entity, as you have said the fed printing supports Government debt spending by their policy of low interest rates.. your attack on Trump to me is more a clear illumation of what the fed does to enable debt creation without the people's say.. you can say their are checks and balances but they have never stopped Government overuns . I am not a fan of trump and his style of intervetionism but "taxing the rich" is very naive... It's a fight over who should pay for the bad behavior of the Government .... Instead of getting a hold of the bad behavior.. is there any end to the need in Federal programs? Are you aware of how many their are.. do you know if they are effective or efficent? How does one know if a Federal program is being efficient with the money given to them? There is no price discovery with Federal programs...many just seem underfunded when their not working to most people....
Your post made very little sense to me. Couldn't follow your reasoning; thus the "?". Here is a handful of comments which may help to explain why I could not follow your reasoning. In Order: 1) Bankruptcy of a State or City is quite different from bankruptcy in the private sector, which your comment refers to. Firms in the private sector do not have the power of taxation. 2) The text book term "free market" would not in general apply to governments, but might apply to some aspect of government operations. In general, and in the private sector, there are very few markets of size that meet the monetarist's description of "free markets" -- I suppose the U.S. equities and Bond markets are markets that come somewhat close. It is closer to the truth to say that in modern economies, "free markets do not exist," than it is to say they do exist. A few markets may approximate a "Free Market", but damn few. And there is a serious problem with the expression "Free Market." It means one thing to the public and another entirely to the private business man. It is the same problem with the expression "Free Enterprise". So two people can be carrying on a conversation about "Free Markets" with neither having a clue what's in the mind of the other. If you are going to use this expression, you must always start by defining what you mean by it.* 3) When the lay public speaks of the Fed enabling debt creation, or "money printing", they often mean to suggest that these are things the Fed should not do. This reveals an unfortunate ignorance of how Central Banks function to stabilize the money supply and interest rates, control inflation, and protect the public from bank failures, and why these functions are necessary. Fed operations are always in coordination with the Treasury; it is the same in every modern country. Central Banking is a complex specialty that most citizens have no interest in studying in sufficient detail to understand it. Consequently many people are prone to misunderstandings and are easy targets for conspiracy theorists. 4) "Taxing the Rich" as opposed to what? Taxing the Middle Class, or taxing no one? In all modern countries the citizens are taxed to provide the means for their governments to function. I know of no country where only the rich are taxed, do you? 5)"How does one know if a Federal program is being efficient with the money given to them?" This is a good question. It seems the answer is clear however. Most of us can't know if a Federal program is being efficient unless we are closely involved with that particular Federal Program. We are dependent on the managers of these programs to make wise decisions, and on our Agency Heads and Congress to exercise their oversight function. Have you got a better idea? _____________________ *You won't find the entry "Free Market" in the index of some economics texts. This is a tacit acknowledgement of the clouded definition of this term. During the Friedman era, when Volcker was Fed Chair, the monetarists got hold of Fed policy for a period. (They failed to control the money supply with their direct tactics, and the Fed eventually returned to indirect control via interest rates.) The monetarists' definition of "Free Market" is synonymous with laissez faire. To quote Samuelson: "Monetarists have generally favored markets free of government intervention... Governments are often viewed as inefficient, venal, and destructive of personal liberty." (Samuelson, 12th Ed. Pg.329) The vernacular meaning of "Free Market" is, however, more closely associated with opportunity. Thus a free market becomes one which has a low barrier to entry and in which one in free to compete. This latter kind of free market could be one that is regulated to prevent monopolies and cartels from forming and offers protection from regulatory capture.
I don't doubt i make little sense to you... Are you inferring i'm a conspiracy theorist and or a person misunderstood about the workings of the federal reserve? Just because you believe central banks are complex doesn't mean they are.. How exactly does a central bank control inflation? when their only tool is printing money? printing less money? and allowing interest rates to float more towards a market driven value is controlling inflation? I firmly believe in the credit cycle as described by Ludwig Von Mises. He described what central banks do clearly, and my beliefs are derived from his teachings. I do not agree that we should allow a central monopoly on money to bail out large corporations for their poor risk taking, socializing their losses..
i know you won't pay much attention to this .. but for people who want to learn a little more about the fed .. https://mises.org/library/money-banking-and-federal-reserve-complete-transcript
I can't recommend the link you gave. It is a contrived, cobbled together piece which includes some comments supposedly from from Pace University economist Joe Solerno*, I suppose in an attempt to give it some legitimacy . Unfortunately it contains many statements, that while they may have been true, or at least partially true, at some point in the history of the Fed, are certainly not true today. It is best described as a piece of dog shit. It calls into question the legitimacy of that thing called the " Mises Institute." This 'Institute' has the ear marks of something originating in Russian Hack shops or an Alabam swamp. I'd check it out thoroughly if I were you. Especially the source of the funding (which mark my words, no donors names will be forth coming)for this "magnolia Ave." Alabama outfit. The great micro economist Ludwig von Mises would turn over in his grave if he knew his name was associated with this pile of steaming horse dung!!! The Wapschot book is readable by the non-economist if you have an interest in moving forward in time into the mid twentieth Century and well beyond the Austrian School, which became mired in microeconomics. It's "Keynes Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics." That could be a good jumping off place to start late twentieth century and early twenty-first century critiques, such as Quiggin's "Zombie Economics." Quiggin's book remains a seminal critique of Supply Side Economics and crops up often on Graduate level Economics Reading Lists. _________________ *Joseph Solerno is a legitimate, Rutgers trained, Austrian School, radical, anarcho-capitalist Economist. He might be able to offer a clue, in fact he could be one of those responsible for, the misappropriation of the tern 'libertarian' in the U.S. Rutgers of 50 years ago was well known, highly regarded, hot bed of radical economics. Left and Right. It is not unusual to find some extremely bright and capable Rutgers trained economists relegated to back waters like Pace University. Their thinking is too far from mainstream to find wide acceptance.
%% Thanks for charts. MODERN TRADER MAGAZINE had a 2017 article, many could count it UP-trending bull market =only couple years young. Of all the reasons for the 1987 crash ;tax reform seems the least likely, with the one year time lag LOL. On the other hand ,i never 100% believed the simple prediction ''never short a Republican-M Schwartz''
%% NO; USa like$ paying user fees, which is not a tax.Feds,+ TN taxes ammo, for example; if you dont like to shoot ammo you pay no user fees .See the big difference??LOL