Today: May 12, 2003 at 23:21:45 PDT Nero Did Not Fiddle DEB RIECHMANN ASSOCIATED PRESS New York (AP) - Recent work by a noted scholar at Columbia Unversity has revealed a rather surprising correction in the life of Emperor Nero of Rome. Nero Claudius Caesar, A.D. 37 - 68. Roman Emperor, A.D. 54-68. He was the last of the Julio-Claudian emperors. Long taken as fact, it is now being reported as simply a fable that Nero did play a fiddle while Rome was being burned. Recent translations of ancient records indicate the Nero was in reality much more involved in other activities at the time of the beginning of the collapse of the Roman Empire. The translations do in actuality show that Nero was not playing a fiddle, but in fact he was buying tech stocks on the NASDAQ in expectation of a better second half recovery for the sputtering Roman Empire in 64 A.D.
Some of what is posted contradicts the Trader Vic book. I may have to double check, but I thought I rememered that tax cuts in the Reagan era actually did increate tax revenue by over 200%. The problem was, Reagan then increased spending by something like 300% and blew it all and then some. DOH. If I remember correctly, the Trader Vic books stated that historically, tax cuts have been very good for economies and over taxations kills everything off quite effectively. I'll personally slap anyone who ever votes for a tax increase I'd like to see more tax cuts and more spending cuts. peace axeman
The economy is fine. You must find your own truths about it and go by them. Some of mine are: 1. There is no deflation. Most of what is really important to you, services, is rising in cost. Who cares that a car or pair of pants costs less. Bypass surgery costs way more. So do carpenters. 2. US corporations, save for a few, didn't make much money during the boom 90's because the employees got it all. Now they are getting rid of these overpriced maggots in favor of foreigners. Do not feel sorry for people who lose their jobs. They should go to BK and work. 3. Americans are soft whining bags of _____ up to a point. If you are not an American, or a foreign government, don't ever say this or bet the farm that you can judge that point. Fact is, all of us have never been better off. Just look around. 4. The stock market isn't going to go up much because there is too much stock out there from the boom. Too many IPOs and splits. 5. Investors aren't coming back in droves ever. The money went to real estate. 6. The key to all this with tax cuts is payroll taxes and they aren't being addressed so everything else doesn't mean much to most people. If you are not an employer you will never understand this. 7. Gold is irrelevant BS and so are all the jackasses that talk about it all the time. Gold is sold in malls to vain women and girls. If you are a competent trader and pay attention, gold and gold stocks are a great short over and over again. 8. The dollar isn't backed by gold so get over it. It is backed by 10 or 11 carrier battle groups and that's what counts. 9. The Bush Administration welcomes the falling dollar but will never ever admit it. 10. The biggest problem facing the economy right now is paying for all of the non-military people that work, or worked at one time, for federal, state, and local government. These are the parasites that we can no longer afford in such #s and that are driving our taxes through the roof. Geo.
There's a danger that if you repeat someone's wishes for long enough they start sounding like facts. The truth of the matter is you do not need "low" (whatever that is) taxes to get economic growth, not by a long shot. Look at historical tax rates in the US and Europe, when they were up around 70-80%, and you still had economic growth. It's nice to see Optional is willing to acknowledge the supply-side myth (while, apparently, embracing the folks that bought it to an economy near you: the GOP). If we can just get dotslash to take off his Republican blinkers and call a spade a spade there might be hope for America yet. I watched a debate on BBC (I think) that featured the architect of the current Bush tax cut program acknowledging that such a tax cut has budget deficit implications, but which he takes to mean cuts need to be made in programs like social security and medicare. Can you believe this crap! If that is not a perfect illustration of "take from the poor, give to the rich" then I don't know what is! I watching a news segment as a kid called "The Fleecing of America" (dealing with government wastefulness); maybe they need a new one -- The Fleecing of the American People (dealing with the Republican Party). To jbtrader (I think), who foresees doom and gloom down the road: post-Bubble won't last forever and sky high debt levels need not be a permament fixture. Trade defecits, while alarmingly high, aren't really a problem as long as foreigners are willing to sink money back into the US, the question is how long much longer will they be willing to do that? If that can be dealt with, then, factoring in the projected increases in America's population, the US economy probably stands do keep doing very well for a good number of years yet. (20+, ++?)
Rare wisdom. The incredible growth of the government sector at all levels is the chief threat to our prosperity, not some tiny tax cut. When times are tough, private sector employers have no choice but to cut back. Government just raises taxes or, in the case of state and local governements, begs Washington to give them a handout. That way taxpayers from responsible states can be forced to subsidize those like California and New York who are profligate.
Funny isn't it? Watching the "Conservatives" promote a brand of socialism via increasing the size of the Federal Government...except the difference is that those who will actually profit most are Bush's wealthy constituents in the private sector. Why do Republicans favor increasing deficits? Because they are bankers and land barons at heart. Not to sound too much like harrytrader, but the people in this country have been programmed to accept massive levels of debt as a necessary way of life.
the only thing that saves us from socialism is the entrepreneur, and the libertarian at heart, not the Republicrats. Socialism starts out as government charity for the poor, and "fairness". Then it becomes central planning to deal with "inequalities" and "inconsistencies" which are really just part of nature. Then we get massive booms and busts because of mismanagement, deficit spending, and Fiat currency. Then we get more socialism as charity for the poor during the down times, and when times are tough nobody says no to the government check, they can't afford too. They have you on the hook at that point. This is where the current millions of educated unemployed find themselves today. WHO WINS ? THE POLITICIANS. NOBODY ELSE.
I think the criticism of supply side theory posted above is very unfair. Viewed objectively, supply side theory is the biggest advance in economic thinking since Keynes. Not coincidentally, much of the resistance to it stems from its implicit rejection of the keynesian religion most academic economists were indoctrinated with. When you think about it, it's a mystery why a concept that is accepted as self-evident in every other aspect of our lives suddenly becomes controversial when applied to governement. The basis of supply side theory is that incentives matter. People make economic decisions at the margin, which is Econ 101, and their decisions reflect the marginal utility of varying courses of action. Raise the price of something, and demand will drop. Similarly, tax an activity heavily and you decrease its attractiveness. This may strike most as common sense but it was heretical to an economics establishment that was raised to believe that economic activity had to be controlled by careful adjustments to fiscal and monetary policy. No doubt one reason it was resisted was that it took vast numbers of economists to calculate precisely how hard to hit the gas pedal or when to tap the brakes. History records few examples of the established priesthood yielding gracefully to a new regime. Not surprising, there was a huge political element to this fight as well. Supply side theory was used chiefly to advance tax cutting. It was identified with Ronald Reagan. Since these two, tax cuts and Reagan, are to this day the biggest bogeymen in the Democrat playbook, it became incumbent to discredit both. Their answer became the socalled Reagan deficits. As noted by another poster, the fact is the Reagan tax cuts were a huge success, revitalizing an economy that had been punished by inept policy for 20 years and producing a gusher of tax revenues. If you think supplyside theory is economic voodoo, as a one term president famously remarked, then ask yourself is it reasonable to calculate the buget effects of a tax cut without considering how the cut will affect behavior. The attacks on supplyside analysis rely heavily on just this sort of static analysis in which we are asked to assume that everything stays the same, except the tax rate. Of course this is absurd in practice. We adjust our actions in response to changed circumstances. Cut cap gains rates and people start taking profits. They are willing to pay the lower cap gains rate. Raise the same rates and people sit tight. Of course, if you accept this, you are regarded by the economics profession as a crank.
Did you even read the articles posted? What did Stockton say after the fact? There is no evidence that trickle down works, none. Show me tax cuts and declining governement spending I might listen. Bush is just pushing a carbon copy of Reagan's plan, which left the country in such bad shape economically that Bush Sr. could not recover when he took over...even after a successful war campaign.