Re: Is gold in a bubble? >>OR<< Is the FED creating a Credit bubble
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:52:50 -0500, Demon Buddha <Nob...@no.where>
> wrote:
>
>> So, what do you all think about gold's price? Is this yet another
>> bubble, meaning stay the hell away from gold as a commodity investment,
>> or is it up there to stay?
> I am in it 'cause I think all currencies will be devalued. Might make
> a run to 1400? I'll get out at 50% profit tho.
It's not an "investment" if you are all in you are risking as much as
being all in cash or all in GM, I already shared my next interest with
a few people, so here it is for all....
Tax exempt funds. YOUR taxes will go up when the Bush tax cuts are
dropped in 2010, also Obama has to raise taxes on you(the health care
raises taxes 5%). If taxes go up on you 10% - 15% then tax exempt funds
are worth 10% - 15% more and that means those will also be popular which
will raise them more than the 10%.... It's a hole in the wall.
But, like gold and cash it's a high risk. Better to dip a toe in rather
than diving in head first.
As people seek lower taxed profits, the government will see little
benefit to raising taxes. People will be scrambling to avoid paying
more in taxes.
erschro...@gmail.com
dog.com> wrote:
> kim wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:52:50 -0500, Demon Buddha <Nob...@no.where>
> > wrote:
>
> >> So, what do you all think about gold's price? Is this yet another
> >> bubble, meaning stay the hell away from gold as a commodity investment,
> >> or is it up there to stay?
> > I am in it 'cause I think all currencies will be devalued. Might make
> > a run to 1400? I'll get out at 50% profit tho.
>
> It's not an "investment" if you are all in you are risking as much as
> being all in cash or all in GM, I already shared my next interest with
> a few people, so here it is for all....
>
> Tax exempt funds. YOUR taxes will go up when the Bush tax cuts are
> dropped in 2010,
Not mine. That's just for the rich.
>also Obama has to raise taxes on you(the health care
> raises taxes 5%).
Nope. It will be on the rich.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:03:55 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>> Tax exempt funds. YOUR taxes will go up when the Bush tax cuts are
>> dropped in 2010,
>
> class?
I'm claiming 5% of you are, and even more if you don't believe the
Liberal lies.
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Nov 18, 10:03 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> dog.com> wrote:
>> kim wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:52:50 -0500, Demon Buddha <Nob...@no.where>
>>> wrote:
>>>> So, what do you all think about gold's price? Is this yet another
>>>> bubble, meaning stay the hell away from gold as a commodity investment,
>>>> or is it up there to stay?
>>> I am in it 'cause I think all currencies will be devalued. Might make
>>> a run to 1400? I'll get out at 50% profit tho.
>> It's not an "investment" if you are all in you are risking as much as
>> being all in cash or all in GM, I already shared my next interest with
>> a few people, so here it is for all....
>>
>> Tax exempt funds. YOUR taxes will go up when the Bush tax cuts are
>> dropped in 2010,
>
> Not mine. That's just for the rich.
>
>
>> also Obama has to raise taxes on you(the health care
>> raises taxes 5%).
>
> Nope. It will be on the rich.
Do you have money to invest?
If not, then you are reading the wrong post.
Welfare recipients need not reply.
If you are on Unemployment, just be forewarned that your job won't be
created by higher taxes.
Get used to waiting in lines in government offices for your weekly
government check to keep you in cheese and butter milk. You have at
least 3 more years of being out of work.
Barack Husein Obama.... MMM mmm MMM
>> If taxes go up on you 10% - 15% then tax exempt funds
>> are worth 10% - 15% more and that means those will also be popular which
>> will raise them more than the 10%.... It's a hole in the wall.
>>
>> But, like gold and cash it's a high risk. Better to dip a toe in rather
>> than diving in head first.
>>
>> As people seek lower taxed profits, the government will see little
>> benefit to raising taxes. People will be scrambling to avoid paying
>> more in taxes.
>
--
John Galt
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:03:55 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>> dropped in 2010,
>
> class?
>
One shouldn't snicker when one is factually incorrect.
When the Bush rates expire, the following will happen (rates are for
joint filers):
Upper Quintile (@375K+) Current: 35% Future: 39.6%
4th Quintile (@210K+) Current: 33% Future: 36%
3rd Quintile (@ 137K+) Current: 28% Future: 31%
2nd Quintile (@68K+) Current: 25% Future: 28%
Lower Quintile (@16K+) Current: 15% Future: 15%
So, unless you're prepared to provide evidence that only 5% of American
families earn more than 68% per year, put your dunce cap back on, and
don't take it off again without permission.
JG
John Galt
> erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 10:03 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
>> dog.com> wrote:
>>> kim wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:52:50 -0500, Demon Buddha <Nob...@no.where>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> So, what do you all think about gold's price? Is this yet another
>>>>> bubble, meaning stay the hell away from gold as a commodity investment,
>>>>> or is it up there to stay?
>>>> I am in it 'cause I think all currencies will be devalued. Might make
>>>> a run to 1400? I'll get out at 50% profit tho.
>>> It's not an "investment" if you are all in you are risking as much as
>>> being all in cash or all in GM, I already shared my next interest with
>>> a few people, so here it is for all....
>>>
>>> Tax exempt funds. YOUR taxes will go up when the Bush tax cuts are
>>> dropped in 2010,
>> Not mine. That's just for the rich.
If your family makes more than 68K, or you as a single person make more
than 35K, your taxes are going up unless Congress passes legislation to
the contrary.
JG
James
> On Nov 18, 10:03 am, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n- dog.com> wrote:
>> kim wrote:
>> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:52:50 -0500, Demon Buddha <Nob...@no.where>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> So, what do you all think about gold's price? Is this yet another
>> >> bubble, meaning stay the hell away from gold as a commodity
>> >> investment, or is it up there to stay?
>> > I am in it 'cause I think all currencies will be devalued. Might
>> > make a run to 1400? I'll get out at 50% profit tho.
>>
>> It's not an "investment" if you are all in you are risking as much as
>> being all in cash or all in GM, I already shared my next interest
>> with a few people, so here it is for all....
>>
>> Tax exempt funds. YOUR taxes will go up when the Bush tax cuts are
>> dropped in 2010,
>
> Not mine. That's just for the rich.
You are unemployed?
>
>
>>also Obama has to raise taxes on you(the health care
>> raises taxes 5%).
>
> Nope. It will be on the rich.
These days you are rich if you have a job.
James
The price of gold depends on the value of the dollar and that value continues to drop. So much so that even the Chinese are lecturing us on capitalism. They want our interest rates to go up for a better return on all that borrowing and the fed may have to oblige before long. If they do that, then inflation will be right behind and where will the dollar value be then. Gold is a good hedge but holding it must be timed correctly. Precious metals per se would appear to be upward bound on average right now.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Nov 18, 10:03 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> dog.com> wrote:
>> kim wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:52:50 -0500, Demon Buddha <Nob...@no.where>
>>> wrote:
>>>> So, what do you all think about gold's price? Is this yet another
>>>> bubble, meaning stay the hell away from gold as a commodity investment,
>>>> or is it up there to stay?
>>> I am in it 'cause I think all currencies will be devalued. Might make
>>> a run to 1400? I'll get out at 50% profit tho.
>> It's not an "investment" if you are all in you are risking as much as
>> being all in cash or all in GM, I already shared my next interest with
>> a few people, so here it is for all....
>>
>> Tax exempt funds. YOUR taxes will go up when the Bush tax cuts are
>> dropped in 2010,
>
> Not mine. That's just for the rich.
>
>
>> also Obama has to raise taxes on you(the health care
>> raises taxes 5%).
>
> Nope. It will be on the rich.
Do you have money to invest?
If not, then you are reading the wrong post.
Welfare recipients need not reply.
If you are on Unemployment, just be forewarned that your job won't be
created by higher taxes.
Get used to waiting in lines in government offices for your weekly
government check to keep you in cheese and butter milk. You have at
least 3 more years of being out of work.
Barack Husein Obama.... MMM mmm MMM
>> If taxes go up on you 10% - 15% then tax exempt funds
>> are worth 10% - 15% more and that means those will also be popular which
>> will raise them more than the 10%.... It's a hole in the wall.
>>
>> But, like gold and cash it's a high risk. Better to dip a toe in rather
>> than diving in head first.
>>
>> As people seek lower taxed profits, the government will see little
>> benefit to raising taxes. People will be scrambling to avoid paying
>> more in taxes.
>
--
I M @ good guy
<Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
Why didn't you tell him gold is a dumb investment
at any time, especially when it is at record high, unless
he expects the major currencies to fail completely.
A rise of $100 an ounce would only produce
a 7 percent gain, with a huge risk of the price
possibly falling several hundred.
If US treasury auctions start bringing better
interest rates, watch gold stumble.
John Galt
Deduction levels are roughly constant across quintiles. Have been since
1981. So, that's not relevant.
>
> And how does it reflect the percentage of disposable
> income in taxation?
It doesn't. You made an erroneous statement about taxation; this is the
refutation.
>
> Or---the benefits of those taxes in any given area?
>
> If not one millionaire EVER went broke because of
> taxation---why would I feel bad about the marginal
> rates of pre-idiot bush---or what they might be?
>
> Tell us what the rates were in 1980---and list any/all
> millionaires who were left destitute.
The marginal rates were much higher, but not the effective rates. The
richest people in the US were paying more in taxes at the end of the
Reagan presidency than under Carter. Another post you made indicated the
idea that the Reagan tax package benefited the rich. That's also false.
The Reagan package was tax-neutral.
If you want to know why they got so rich if not taxation, just ask. It's
easy to explain, in that it was an unintended consequence of the Reagan
package.
JG
Michael Coburn
LIE!
John Galt is arithmetically challenged here. But he will retort that all
the "loopholes" were plugged and so the rich were unable to escape the
taxation as they were when the rates were higher. But searching for
these closed loopholes has not produced any real finds.
http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/reagan/essays/
biography/4 ------------------------------------------------
Because the highest tax cuts were in the top bracket, some critics of the
law saw it as weakening the concept of progressive taxation in which the
wealthiest bear the heaviest burden. While the Tax Reform Act did
introduce more equity by closing some loopholes in the tax code, savvy
lawyers and tax experts soon found others. The impacts of the law did not
fall equally on all industries: real estate investment, for instance, was
subject to heavier taxation, which in turn contributed to the problems of
the savings-and-loan industry. Nor did the tax bill produce sufficient
new revenue to make much of a dent in the federal budget deficit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The truth of it is that in spite of the S&L mess, the real estate
loopholes were an outright crime and needed to be closed. However,
other, so called, "loopholes" were purposeful government attempts to
increase investment on longer term projects that, due to the longer ROI
horizon, would not normally attract sufficient private sector investment.
> The
> richest people in the US were paying more in taxes at the end of the
> Reagan presidency than under Carter.
LIE!
Both as a percentage of GDP and in inflation adjusted terms all income
groups paid less federal income taxes in the 80's than they did in the
70's, and the higher income people paid far less by the end of the 80's.
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/OnBudget.html
Just extend the line showing tax revenue from 1977 through 1981 and
notice that revenue as a percentage of population and normal economic
growth dramatically deteriorated after 1981. Also note that government
spending was not the cause of this as it continued on the same slope as
it had prior to Ron The Con's wealth transfer to the rich.
> Another post you made indicated the
> idea that the Reagan tax package benefited the rich. That's also false.
> The Reagan package was tax-neutral.
LIE!
There was a shift of taxation from the rich to middle as the total tax
paid at all levels shifted away from the income taxes that were heavily
supplied by the rich to other taxes paid mostly by the middle class:
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/glossary/The_Great_Ray_Gun_Rip_Off.php
> If you want to know why they got so rich if not taxation, just ask. It's
> easy to explain, in that it was an unintended consequence of the Reagan
> package.
REALLY _BIG_ LIE.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Nickname unavailable
the chinese lecture us about the value of the dollar, when they peg
the yuan artificially low to the dollar. that is one large problem
that they are making. its like a bank robber blaming the bank for
letting the bank robber rob them.
Nickname unavailable
this is correct. gold is really, a really poor investment, that still
has not reached its adjusted for inflation highs of the early 1980's.
hucksters are having a ball again driving the sheep in for the
shearing.
we are in a deflationary environment, at least for the moment, and
like the great depression, one suckers rally after another, till .89
cents out of every dollar invested in america was lost.
today the japanese are the biggest buyers of treasuries, because they
view the rate of return as a good deal. a minor bump in rates, could
pull the bottom right out of commodities.
I M @ good guy
The problem won't become really impossible until
governments begin borrowing more, a lot more, than
they have been paying in interest.
Then, if all accounts world wide do not have
restrictions on withdrawals, m1 and m2 can fall to
a fraction of what is needed to run an economy.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Add the Budget deficit and the interest payments together, can we afford
to piss that much down a rat hole?
--
Michael Coburn
We don't pay interest on monetized spending, idiot.
John Galt
>
> And the explanation of why the deficits soared---had
> nothing to do with the amount of taxes cut?
Since taxes weren't cut, obviously not. Marginal rates dropped, but the
upper brackets lost all their legal tax shelters. Thus, they paid the
same (or, in some cases, a bit more) in taxes after Reagan's reform than
before. (I lived this.)
Here's what happened: the legal tax shelters were things like cattle
ranches, side businesses that broke even, low-producing oil wells, etc.
Basically, they were investments that didn't return anything of
substance, but would decrease your taxes by the amount invested.
Reagan's package ended that practice. So, tons of money that was
previously invested in low (or zero) returning investments was suddenly
looking for higher returns. It flowed to the stock market and into a
previously little known area -- venture capital. The stock market
boomed, and big investors took part of their portfolios and sunk it into
venture firms in search of big returns.
The stock market explosion is a matter of history. The interesting part
is the venture money that moved into early tech companies like Pyramid
Technologies, Sun Microsystems, Silicon Graphics, etc.
Hypothetically but possible: without the Reagan package, you and I might
well be having this conversation sitting at a dumb ASCII greenscreen
terminal attached to a networked VAX computer someplace. There's no
question that without private venture capital, the tech booms of both
the late 80's and the late 90's would not have occurred.
So, the upper middle class up through the rich moved their money from
investments returning a couple of percent a year to investments making
10-20% a year in the stock market, and if they were in the right venture
deals, were turning ten or twenty thousand apiece into a million or two
over ac couple of years. That's why their percentage of the national
wealth jumped up.
JG
I M @ good guy
The interest payments are part of the deficit,
and affording it involves more than just handling
the computer data shuffling, because the "money"
has to come from existing accounts of some kind.
In a way, the amounts involved are impossible,
but because it is all computer data shuffling, there
is some hope of finding a workable solution, even
if it means every developed country cooperating in
a solution.
My concern is about the Fed buying treasuries
at auction, there is no reason the taxpayer should
have to be paying the FRB interest on the national
debt, the treasury can shuffle computer data just
as easy as the FRB.
I M @ good guy
>I see
>
>And the explanation of why the deficits soared---had
>nothing to do with the amount of taxes cut?
The deficits soared because in January 1981,
the day Reagan took office, interest rates were
20 percent, the work force was growing at a rate
that job creation could not keep up with, and
the only way to seed the growth of the economy
was with planned deficit spending, and it did
work then because the interest on the national
debt was not as big a problem as now.
Things appeared to get bad again under
GHWB mostly because the work force was still
growing, but that changed in 1993 when the
babies born in 1973 entered the work force,
and there was a lot less of them.
This situation can easily be understood
simply by thinking how many new jobs would
have had to be created if it were not for the
pill and abortions.
Other things besides money and taxes
make a difference in the economy, the fact
that women that would not have entered the
work force previously, were entering the work
force, until now, when there is not the great
difference in the number of males and females
as there was in 1950, and that made the
job problem worse.
Money is the issue now though, way too
much entitlements and needs funding along
with the interest on the debt.
New ideas are needed.
Nickname unavailable
they are shrinking now, not expanding. so the spending is going into
a deflationary inferno, a black hole.
Michael Coburn
> fe...@Vester.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:06:45 -0600, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The marginal rates were much higher, but not the effective rates. The
>>> richest people in the US were paying more in taxes at the end of the
>>> Reagan presidency than under Carter. Another post you made indicated
>>> the idea that the Reagan tax package benefited the rich. That's also
>>> false. The Reagan package was tax-neutral.
>>
>> I see
>>
>> And the explanation of why the deficits soared---had nothing to do with
>> the amount of taxes cut?
>
> Since taxes weren't cut, obviously not. Marginal rates dropped, but the
> upper brackets lost all their legal tax shelters. Thus, they paid the
> same (or, in some cases, a bit more) in taxes after Reagan's reform than
> before. (I lived this.)
So did I and you are full of shit.
> Here's what happened: the legal tax shelters were things like cattle
> ranches, side businesses that broke even, low-producing oil wells, etc.
> Basically, they were investments that didn't return anything of
> substance, but would decrease your taxes by the amount invested.
EVERYONE paid less in inflation adjusted dollars but the rich got the
biggest breaks. And the tax revenue was not sufficient to support the
spending, without which, the revenues would have been much less.
> Reagan's package ended that practice. So, tons of money that was
> previously invested in low (or zero) returning investments was suddenly
> looking for higher returns. It flowed to the stock market and into a
> previously little known area -- venture capital. The stock market
> boomed, and big investors took part of their portfolios and sunk it into
> venture firms in search of big returns.
The DOW had bumped 10,000 several times from 1962 through 1983. In 1983
it broke 1000, went as high as 1200 and fell back to 1100 by mid 85.
From there it did climb steadily until 1987 when there was a bubble up to
2600 and a burst back to 1600 (400 point gain in 2 years 600 points in
4). A steady rise then ensued until 1996.
http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia1900.html
All of this would be wonderfully supportive of Galt's "Reagan Miracle Tax
Cutting" had all else been equal. But of course that isn't the case.
The FED cut interest rates in a ragged but steady manner from a high of
14% in 1981 to a low of 1% in 1993.
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/Newyeilds._html_2aaf0d1c.jpg
Meanwhile, the oil price (you do remember the effects of the recent $145
a barrel oil on the world economy, don't you?) went from $70 ($165 in
2008 dollars) bbl in 1981 to $18 ($26 in 2008 dollars) bbl in 1993. The
American economy runs on oil.
> The stock market explosion is a matter of history. The interesting part
> is the venture money that moved into early tech companies like Pyramid
> Technologies, Sun Microsystems, Silicon Graphics, etc.
Unfortunately, the cause of this marvelous investment in technology was
_NOT_ the tax cuts on ordinary income or the closing of loopholes. The
capital gains tax rates were not altered to any great extend until AFTER
these initial start ups. With interest rates on long term bonds at 16% -
18% who the hell needs to be gambling in venture capital. The amount of
venture capital available was not a factor OTHER THAN THE CLOSING OFF THE
REAL ESTATE CRAP. More pointedly, the tax code Reagan wanted did not
occur until 1986 so the effects of it were not realized before 1987 and
88 except for the anticipation of very low tax rates on interest income
from bonds. The major increase in tax revenues (what there was of it)
occurred from 1885 to 1986 as a result of the "Deficit reduction act of
1984" that increased taxes other than income taxes.
> Hypothetically but possible: without the Reagan package, you and I might
> well be having this conversation sitting at a dumb ASCII greenscreen
> terminal attached to a networked VAX computer someplace. There's no
> question that without private venture capital, the tech booms of both
> the late 80's and the late 90's would not have occurred.
(sigh)
> So, the upper middle class up through the rich moved their money from
> investments returning a couple of percent a year to investments making
> 10-20% a year in the stock market, and if they were in the right venture
> deals, were turning ten or twenty thousand apiece into a million or two
> over ac couple of years. That's why their percentage of the national
> wealth jumped up.
The only problem with this fish story is that the tech boom that occurred
post 1993 when taxes were _INCREASED_ (the largest tax increase in
history according to Republicans at the time) was more significant than
the increase that occurred during the vaunted "Reagan Miracle". And this
occurred with oil prices and interest rates steady or rising.
Any pig that claims the economic gains in the 80's were _caused_ by
Reagan's tax cuts is a fool or a liar.
I M @ good guy
All that is needed to expand them is a computer
at the treasury. Something needs to be done to fund
unemployment benefits without the taxpayer footing
the bill, with the way "money" moves from government
to banks and banks to government _now_, it suddenly
becomes obscene for government to be concerned
about spending money without either taxing somebody
or borrowing it.
I feel sure that any church that has Holy Water
would allow the congregation to drink if they have
no other water, is money some kind of spiritual
treasure? It is not currency I am talking about,
just the issuance of a new credit card creates
m1 if it is used, and no currency need exist.
I don't see the need for the government EBT
cards to funded with taxpayer money, if socialism
is imposed, some of the conventional capitalist
rules may need to be relaxed or changed in times
of high unemployment.
I know spending has become as careful as
touching a hot stove, unless something is done,
the contraction continues.
Strabo
Borrow? No one is lending.
You guys don't don't get it. I hate to be the bearer of bad news
but the world is broke. The US is a debtor nation which has mortgaged
your houses to the Chinese, literally,
erschro...@gmail.com
> fe...@Vester.net wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:06:45 -0600, John Galt
> > <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The marginal rates were much higher, but not the effective rates. The
> >> richest people in the US were paying more in taxes at the end of the
> >> Reagan presidency than under Carter. Another post you made indicated the
> >> idea that the Reagan tax package benefited the rich. That's also false.
> >> The Reagan package was tax-neutral.
>
> > I see
>
> > And the explanation of why the deficits soared---had
> > nothing to do with the amount of taxes cut?
>
> Since taxes weren't cut, obviously not. Marginal rates dropped, but the
> upper brackets lost all their legal tax shelters. Thus, they paid the
> same (or, in some cases, a bit more) in taxes after Reagan's reform than
> before. (I lived this.)
No they didn't. They found other shelters. Look at how the % taxes
paid shifted from the top income earners down.
>
> Here's what happened: the legal tax shelters were things like cattle
> ranches, side businesses that broke even, low-producing oil wells, etc.
> Basically, they were investments that didn't return anything of
> substance, but would decrease your taxes by the amount invested.
>
> Reagan's package ended that practice. So, tons of money that was
> previously invested in low (or zero) returning investments was suddenly
> looking for higher returns. It flowed to the stock market and into a
> previously little known area -- venture capital. The stock market
> boomed, and big investors took part of their portfolios and sunk it into
> venture firms in search of big returns.
And into things like hedge funds, offshore accounts, etc.
>
> The stock market explosion is a matter of history. The interesting part
> is the venture money that moved into early tech companies like Pyramid
> Technologies, Sun Microsystems, Silicon Graphics, etc.
>
> Hypothetically but possible: without the Reagan package, you and I might
> well be having this conversation sitting at a dumb ASCII greenscreen
> terminal attached to a networked VAX computer someplace.
Yeah, nobody in the world would have advanced technology without
Reagan. Might make an interesting "alternative reality" SF novel.
>There's no
> question that without private venture capital, the tech booms of both
> the late 80's and the late 90's would not have occurred.
And the tech crash too?
John Galt
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:51:14 -0600, John Galt
> <kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> And the explanation of why the deficits soared---had
>>> nothing to do with the amount of taxes cut?
>> Since taxes weren't cut,
>
>
> Now I know you need a new tea-bag on your tin-hat.
God, I hate to embarrass you moonbats. But you leave me no choice.
The Reagan packages were not designed to include substantial decreases
on anyone but the lowest income brackets. It didn't work out that way,
but most certainly they were NOT biased to the rich:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
1980 EFFECTIVE INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES: 16.5/10.7/8/4.5/.2
1988 EFFECTIVE INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES: 14.9/8.3/5.9/3.1/-1.1
So, let's analyze:
TOP BRACKET: 9% tax decrease
4TH BRACKET: 23% tax decrease
3RD BRACKET: 26% tax decrease
4TH BRACKET: 31% tax decrease
POOREST BRACKET: 650% tax decrease
So, since the richest americans saw the lowest decrease, and the
decreases were progressively greater as we moved down the income chain,
we can easily conclude that that Reagan tax package was *not* the cause
of the national wealth skewing towards the rich during his tenure.
In fact, if a progressive wanted to craft a tax decrease for all
brackets (an oxymoron, I know, but let's just pretend for a moment) I
would expect it would look very similar to Reagan's package, skewed as
it was towards the lower wage earners. It would be difficult, even using
"progressive" terminology, to see it any other way than increasing tax
"fairness."
JG
John Galt
> On Nov 18, 9:51 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> fe...@Vester.net wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:06:45 -0600, John Galt
>>> <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The marginal rates were much higher, but not the effective rates. The
>>>> richest people in the US were paying more in taxes at the end of the
>>>> Reagan presidency than under Carter. Another post you made indicated the
>>>> idea that the Reagan tax package benefited the rich. That's also false.
>>>> The Reagan package was tax-neutral.
>>> I see
>>> And the explanation of why the deficits soared---had
>>> nothing to do with the amount of taxes cut?
>> Since taxes weren't cut, obviously not. Marginal rates dropped, but the
>> upper brackets lost all their legal tax shelters. Thus, they paid the
>> same (or, in some cases, a bit more) in taxes after Reagan's reform than
>> before. (I lived this.)
>
> No they didn't. They found other shelters. Look at how the % taxes
> paid shifted from the top income earners down.
There were no "other shelters" available. The Reagan package ended them.
(Keep in mind here that we're talking about the LEGAL shelters under the
tax code).
>
>> Here's what happened: the legal tax shelters were things like cattle
>> ranches, side businesses that broke even, low-producing oil wells, etc.
>> Basically, they were investments that didn't return anything of
>> substance, but would decrease your taxes by the amount invested.
>>
>> Reagan's package ended that practice. So, tons of money that was
>> previously invested in low (or zero) returning investments was suddenly
>> looking for higher returns. It flowed to the stock market and into a
>> previously little known area -- venture capital. The stock market
>> boomed, and big investors took part of their portfolios and sunk it into
>> venture firms in search of big returns.
>
> And into things like hedge funds, offshore accounts, etc.
Those are two entirely different things. Hedge funds are legal, provide
market liquidity and in some cases, funding to startup business
ventures. Those are good things.
Offshore accounts are irrelevant as long as you pay your taxes. If you
don't, that's illegal, and of course any increase in taxes increases
noncompliance --- that occurs from the top of the income bracket (hiding
money offshore or buying offshore real estate) to the midlevels
(contractors giving you a discount for updating your kitchen if you pay
in cash).
>
>> The stock market explosion is a matter of history. The interesting part
>> is the venture money that moved into early tech companies like Pyramid
>> Technologies, Sun Microsystems, Silicon Graphics, etc.
>>
>> Hypothetically but possible: without the Reagan package, you and I might
>> well be having this conversation sitting at a dumb ASCII greenscreen
>> terminal attached to a networked VAX computer someplace.
>
> Yeah, nobody in the world would have advanced technology without
> Reagan. Might make an interesting "alternative reality" SF novel.
Reread: HYPOTHETICALLY BUT POSSIBLE. The point is that the tech
companies were able to grow as fast as they were because plenty of
investment cash was available to them to hire and for R&D. It is
irrational (and ignorant) to argue that if that cash were *not*
available to them in the same volumes, their growth would have been
unaffected.
Whether or not that would have impacted the situation in the fashion of
my hypothetical is impossible to know. But SOMETHING would have been
impacted. It is impossible to know what specifically that would have
been, but it is equally impossible to argue that there would have been
no impact.
>
>
>> There's no
>> question that without private venture capital, the tech booms of both
>> the late 80's and the late 90's would not have occurred.
>
> And the tech crash too?
Well, you can't have a crash without a boom. If there had been less
money chasing internet deals, the money that was in play would have been
invested in the best business models rather than the admittedly stupid
ones.
Of course, more stable Fed interest rate policies, if implemented, would
also have soaked up the excess cash, so let's not make the mistake of
thinking these boom/bust cycles are simplistic and have only one causal
factor.
JG
Beam Me Up Scotty
we did pay interest to borrow money we printed
--
Nickname unavailable
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:14:18 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
lots to agree with. but keynes advised the money be injected where
its needed the most, not on wall street, not on lavish tax cuts for
wealthy parasites, not on the banks, but where its needed the most, at
the bottom, or what enhances the bottom. he was also against free
trade, which is a debt based system, and deflationary in nature.
the problem we have today, is that bush, and now obama have drank
milton firedmans kool aid deeply. milton advised to flood the system
with money(wall street and the banks)to counter a deflationary
depression, of course he was dead wrong. and we not only saw the
results by 1932, we also see it today.
with foreclosures soaring, not only on homes, but business's, and
commercial property, deflation of the money supply is in full tilt
mode, no matter how much money is lavished on the wealthy parasites.
I M @ good guy
Right, I don't know who Keynes is, but rather than even
having auctions and letting the FRB buy treasuries, the treasury
should just fund all existing direct to the entitled and needy,
and fund extension of the unemployment benefits for a couple
of years, with created money.
If they don't know how to do that, they could ask.
It is a gross obscenity for any government of a
developed country with huge reserves of raw materials
and almost unlimited manufacturing and labor resources
to allow an economy to slip into such a sad state as
already exists, all for the sake of nothing more than
a vain effort to protect the value of investor holdings.
The best way to accomplish a renewal is to find
new ideas, it really isn't that difficult.
The talk of printed money misconstrues what is
going on, if it is borrowing, call it borrowing, and
take steps to stop borrowing, there are other ways.
Jerry Okamura
<fe...@Vester.net> wrote in message
news:vpb9g513k1iugc14k...@4ax.com...
>
> And the explanation of why the deficits soared---had
> nothing to do with the amount of taxes cut?
>
No it doesn't. It is a two variable equation, not a one variable equation.
The two parts to the equation are income and expense. You can achieve the
same result with either an increase in revenue or a decrease in spending, or
a combination of both. Of course having said that, the issue of what affect
a tax cut has on total reveunue is mixed, since there is no one that can say
that it actually reduced revenue, each and every time that there was a tax
cut.
Nickname unavailable
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:51:14 -0600, John Galt wrote:
> > fe...@Vester.net wrote:
they are both.
Nickname unavailable
very well said. lincoln spent the greenbacks into circulation. the
fed is really not the fed, its the private sector. and we should do
all that we can, to keep the private sector out of government,
otherwise, government policies will be skewed towards the private
sector, as you have so well said.
I M @ good guy
The FRB excess revenue is paid to the treasury, in
that sense, it is part of the government, but it is immune
to the whims of congress.
It does a good job managing the currency, and
except for laxity in loan oversight, does a good job
managing the banking system.
>and we should do
>all that we can, to keep the private sector out of government,
>otherwise, government policies will be skewed towards the private
>sector, as you have so well said.
The big issue is the increasing debt and the interest
on the debt. If the debt at the end of WWII would have
been simply paid off by deposits in accounts owned by
those who held the paper (gradually during slow growth
years), almost every budget since would have been
balanced, it is the interest on the debt that has caused
all the deficits, the monster feeds on itself.
It is clear that something needs to be done,
and as soon as possible, if not sooner.
There is no reason not to go to multiple
source funding, leave the fed manage the banking
system and clearing houses and the currency, but
fund part of the huge burden of social give aways
without taxing or borrowing or printing money.
M3 is huge, it does not exist as all tangible
assets, it can be manipulated and controlled from
one keyboard.
My impression is that the fed does not have
"money" to buy treasuries with, it would be with
"vapor" money, and the treasury can create vapor
money as easy as the fed, either by decree, or
by legislative permission.
Encumbering taxpayers with interest on
vapor money would be a travesty.
Nickname unavailable
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:21:37 -0800 (PST), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
the fed has done a poor job at just about everything. it should be
done away with, or incorporated into government. greenspan allowed the
banks to run wild.
lincoln had it right, spend the greenbacks into existents, then skip
the interest payments to parasites.
r wiley
No, the dollar is in freefall.
rw
Michael Coburn
> fe...@Vester.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:51:14 -0600, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> And the explanation of why the deficits soared---had nothing to do
>>>> with the amount of taxes cut?
>>> Since taxes weren't cut,
>>
>> Reagan didn't cut taxes?
>>
>> Now I know you need a new tea-bag on your tin-hat.
>
> God, I hate to embarrass you moonbats. But you leave me no choice.
>
> The Reagan packages were not designed to include substantial decreases
> on anyone but the lowest income brackets. It didn't work out that way,
> but most certainly they were NOT biased to the rich:
>
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
> http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
>
> 1980 EFFECTIVE INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES: 16.5/10.7/8/4.5/.2
Actual numbers as opposed to Galt-shit
1980 EFFECTIVE HOUSEHOLD TAX RATES: 31/20.7/16.2/13.4/6.7
> 1988 EFFECTIVE INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES: 14.9/8.3/5.9/3.1/-1.1
Actual numbers as opposed to Galt-shit (but without EITC)
1988 EFFECTIVE HOUSEHOLD TX RATES: 25.5/19.2/15.5/15/15
So the top quintile got a 17.7% decrease
The 4th got 7.2% decrease
The middle got a 4.3% decrease
the 2ond got a 12% INcrease
and the bottom got a 125% INcrease
AFTER TAX INCOMES: from
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=458
after tax income for the top quintile increased by 31.7%
after tax income for the 4th quintile increased by 10.1%
after tax income for the mid quintile increased by 4.8%
after tax income for the 2nd quintile DEcreased by 1%
and the folks on the bottom saw a DEcrease of 4.8%
SO FAR GALT AIN"T LOOKING VERY GOOD IN THE TRUTH CATAGORY
It would appear that the "across the board fair and balanced tax cut" was
heavily slanted toward the upper income people using the "quintiles" data.
But this misses the point anyhow. Because when I speak of "the rich",
the bottom income that I am talking about in today's dollars is one
million bucks. I consider the incomes between $200K and $800K to be
entrepreneurial incomes going to small business types -- folks who
actually, to some degree, PARTICIPATE in the business they run. But
income in excess of a million a year I see as "rich" income. And incomes
in excess of $5M I see as very rich incomes and incomes in excess of $10M
I see as extremely rich incomes. When I say the "Reagan tax cuts for the
rich", these are the incomes to which I address that comment. So lets
see what happened to the taxation of today's $5 million deflated back to
1980 and 1988:
In 1980 today's $5M would have been 1,905,845 tax= 1,219,591 rate 64%
In 1988 today's $5M would have been 2,736,184 tax= 749,868 rate 28%
THE VERY RICH GOT A 56% TAX CUT.
I get my tax numbers from
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
I get my income data from
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=458
The same thing happens with the current tax codes in that there is no tax
bracket for extreme incomes as there was in the 1940's and 50's and even
until 1980. Even in 1980 those with incomes in excess of $215k ($564k in
today's bucks) were in a 70% bracket (tax rate perhaps too high). But
those with incomes of $50M were in that same tax bracket (tax rate too
low). And when the top rate was decreased it reduced the already too low
rates on all obscene incomes as well as reducing the rates on what some
would call the "entrepreneurial" incomes earned by small business
people. Not only are we missing a half million dollar to 3 million
dollar bracket that could greatly reduce the tax burden on those actually
operating small businesses and _earning_ $250k, we also have no bracket
for the truly obscene incomes over 10 million flowing to the rentiers as
they sun themselves on the Riviera and trade fine works of art as a
hobby, making no contribution to the society whatsoever.
The OBJECTIVE of high rates of tax on such truly unearned incomes is not
to punish them for sunning themselves. Such rates on ordinary incomes
are used to redirect those incomes to true investment and real capital
development. That is why capital gains tax rates should be lower than
70% and WERE lower than 70% (at 28%) before the Republican rip of of the
economy on behalf of the very rich.
> So, let's analyze:
>
> TOP BRACKET: 9% tax decrease
> 4TH BRACKET: 23% tax decrease
> 3RD BRACKET: 26% tax decrease
> 4TH BRACKET: 31% tax decrease
> POOREST BRACKET: 650% tax decrease
>
> So, since the richest americans saw the lowest decrease, and the
> decreases were progressively greater as we moved down the income chain,
> we can easily conclude that that Reagan tax package was *not* the cause
> of the national wealth skewing towards the rich during his tenure.
"And all we have to do is lie about the numbers", said Galt.
> In fact, if a progressive wanted to craft a tax decrease for all
> brackets (an oxymoron, I know, but let's just pretend for a moment) I
> would expect it would look very similar to Reagan's package, skewed as
> it was towards the lower wage earners. It would be difficult, even using
> "progressive" terminology, to see it any other way than increasing tax
> "fairness."
>
> JG
I cannot help but wonder where this maniac gets his data. I _KNOW_ that
the earned income tax credit does some strange stuff in the lowest
quintile. But the 2ond quintile is not affected by the EITC, and the
after tax income numbers showing a decline in after tax income for the
lowest 2 quintiles should illustrate the lying nature of his numbers.
Michael Coburn
stupidity
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 18, 9:51 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> fe...@Vester.net wrote:
>> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:06:45 -0600, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> The marginal rates were much higher, but not the effective rates.
>> >> The richest people in the US were paying more in taxes at the end of
>> >> the Reagan presidency than under Carter. Another post you made
>> >> indicated the idea that the Reagan tax package benefited the rich.
>> >> That's also false. The Reagan package was tax-neutral.
>>
>> > I see
>>
>> > And the explanation of why the deficits soared---had nothing to do
>> > with the amount of taxes cut?
>>
>> Since taxes weren't cut, obviously not. Marginal rates dropped, but the
>> upper brackets lost all their legal tax shelters. Thus, they paid the
>> same (or, in some cases, a bit more) in taxes after Reagan's reform
>> than before. (I lived this.)
>
> No they didn't. They found other shelters. Look at how the % taxes
> paid shifted from the top income earners down.
The very rich got a tax cut of over 50% and the people in the next to the
bottom quintile got a tax increase. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
MAY have worked to _SAVE_ the bottom quintile, but without that they saw
a tax increase of 125%.
>> Here's what happened: the legal tax shelters were things like cattle
>> ranches, side businesses that broke even, low-producing oil wells, etc.
>> Basically, they were investments that didn't return anything of
>> substance, but would decrease your taxes by the amount invested.
>>
>> Reagan's package ended that practice. So, tons of money that was
>> previously invested in low (or zero) returning investments was suddenly
>> looking for higher returns. It flowed to the stock market and into a
>> previously little known area -- venture capital. The stock market
>> boomed, and big investors took part of their portfolios and sunk it
>> into venture firms in search of big returns.
>
> And into things like hedge funds, offshore accounts, etc.
No need to do it actually. With a tax rate of 28% the rich got richer on
income from T-Bills.
>> The stock market explosion is a matter of history. The interesting part
>> is the venture money that moved into early tech companies like Pyramid
>> Technologies, Sun Microsystems, Silicon Graphics, etc.
>>
>> Hypothetically but possible: without the Reagan package, you and I
>> might well be having this conversation sitting at a dumb ASCII
>> greenscreen terminal attached to a networked VAX computer someplace.
>
> Yeah, nobody in the world would have advanced technology without Reagan.
> Might make an interesting "alternative reality" SF novel.
>
>
>>There's no
>> question that without private venture capital, the tech booms of both
>> the late 80's and the late 90's would not have occurred.
>
> And the tech crash too?
Interesting that the tech boom according to all the real sources occurred
after 1995 and after the 1993 tax increase on the higher income people.
>> So, the upper middle class up through the rich moved their money from
>> investments returning a couple of percent a year to investments making
>> 10-20% a year in the stock market, and if they were in the right
>> venture deals, were turning ten or twenty thousand apiece into a
>> million or two over ac couple of years. That's why their percentage of
>> the national wealth jumped up.
>>
>> JG
(sigh)
They just continue to lie, and lie, and lie.
Beam Me Up Scotty
>
> No, the dollar is in freefall.
>
> rw
That is the Obama plan.... they need to steal your wealth and what
better way than to make dollars worth a lot less and then send the
dollars they printed to the rest of the world.
Obama is stealing the wealth of America and America is too dumb to even
know they are becoming equals to the third world.
Welcome to Obama's Socialism.
--
Nickname unavailable
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:23:16 -0800 (PST), Nickname
> government.
i tend to agree, but, ronnie ray-guns 8th term is in affect right now.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Yes but that's the Harvard idiots we have running it, they are stupid.
--
Strabo
Gold/silver should not be viewed as an investment but rather as
insurance, an offset to inflation.
Even still, I bought gold when it was $200 an ounce and silver when
it was below $3. With the dollar in decline and a questionable
future as the reserve currency, dirt, gold and silver are advised.
>
> A rise of $100 an ounce would only produce
> a 7 percent gain, with a huge risk of the price
> possibly falling several hundred.
>
The feds have been shorting stocks and selling metals
into the market to keep the price down. The recent move
from 900 to 1100 is holding because the feds have run out of
ways to manipulate the markets. I think we're poised for
some dramatic increases.
>
> If US treasury auctions start bringing better
> interest rates, watch gold stumble.
>
If the Fed had raised rates to 15% a year ago and allowed
errant banks to fail, we'd be on the road to recovery. They
couldn't take the pain so now the worst case looms.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:15:05 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>> That is the Obama plan.... they need to steal your wealth and what
>> better way than to make dollars worth a lot less and then send the
>> dollars they printed to the rest of the world.
>
>
> Tin hat---tin hat, stand back--the lightning is
> frightening.
Poor "Alice" you see mad-hatters oops tin-hatters every where you look,
do you by any chance, live in a house of mirrors?
--
Michael Coburn
If the Republican Congress had not removed the capital gains taxes on the
sale of family homes and otherwise granted tax relief to the gamblers and
speculators in 1997 and if the Republican government would have raised
taxes ON THE RICH (the gamblers) in 2003 instead of lowering them even
more, then we would not be in such a pickle now. And like a true
conservative, you now want the FED to increase interest rates and REWARD
the very people who cheated to get their ill-found money. Because
increasing interest rates rewards the idle rich at the expense of the
productive poor.
Michael Coburn
You are not in a position to call _ANY_ONE_ or _ANY_THING_ stupid.
Nickname unavailable
and also some are from milton friedmans chicago school of economics.
so we have idiots galore in both parties.
Strabo
I didn't say that I advised raising interest rates. I said "if" they
had been raised a year ago and weak banks allowed to fail, it could have
made a difference. The effected banks needed to fail to offset their
toxic assets.
This is not a party issue. Instead, certain individuals acted
criminally.
Republicans AND Democrats championed the destruction of the
Glass-Steagall Act which removed regulation. Selling bundled
derivatives and the Fannie Mae manipulation led to the
housing bubble bust.
�I want [Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae] to help with affordable housing, to
help low-income families get loans and to help clean up this subprime
mess. Otherwise, why should they exist?�
- Rep. Barney Frank
The Subprime Panic of �08 and its multi-trillion price tag was
Barney Frank's doing.
Strabo
An intellectualist culture with common values and goals.
Most all involved in the bailout/derivative/devaluation scheme have
degrees from Harvard, Yale or Princeton.
Michael Coburn
But that is _still_ incorrect. It may be that if interest rates had been
increased slowly starting in 2002 then the bubble might have been less.
More importantly however, if homes had not been converted to speculative
vehicles by the 1997 tax code then the Housing bubble would not have
occurred.
http://www.investingintelligently.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/
a_history_of_home_values.png
http://mortgage-x.com/general/historical_rates.asp
> This is not a party issue. Instead, certain individuals acted
> criminally.
Yes. They did. And some of them were Allen Greenspan, Larry Summers,
and Phil Gramm.
> Republicans AND Democrats championed the destruction of the
> Glass-Steagall Act which removed regulation. Selling bundled derivatives
> and the Fannie Mae manipulation led to the housing bubble bust.
NO. That was "championed by Greenspan, Summers, Gramm, and the Newt
Gingrich Republican Congress. Same for the 1997 home = poker chips tax
cuts. Homes are _NOT_ capital as they are NOT used in production. Homes
are durables and should not receive ANY special treatment for "capital
gains". It is like a break for automobile resales.
> “I want [Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae] to help with affordable housing, to
> help low-income families get loans and to help clean up this subprime
> mess. Otherwise, why should they exist?” - Rep. Barney Frank
Barney Frank was a member of the Democratic MINORITY and had as much
clout as a wet noodle.
> The Subprime Panic of ’08 and its multi-trillion price tag was Barney
> Frank's doing.
And frogs cause warts.
From the head freeper herself, Anna Schwartz:
http://web.gc.cuny.edu/Eusc/Schwartz08.pdf ------------------
Securitization substituted the “originate to distribute securities” model
of mortgage lending in lieu of the traditional “originate to hold
mortgages” model. Additional banking innovations, notably the practices
of the derivatives industry made mortgage lending problems worse;
shifting risk that is the basic property of derivatives in directions
that became so complex, neither the designer nor the buyer of these
instruments apparently understood the risks they imposed and implicated
derivative owners in risky contingencies they did not realize they were
assuming. Derivatives as well as mortgage backed securities were
difficult to price, an art that markets haven’t mastered. The
securitization of mortgage loans spread from the mortgage industry to
commercial paper issuance, student loans, credit card receivables, and
other loan categories. The design of mortgage-backed securities
collateralized by a pool of mortgages assumed that the pool would give
the securities value. The pool, however, was an assortment of mortgages
of varying quality. The designers gave no guidance on how to price the
pool. They claimed that rating agencies would determine the price of the
security. But the rating agencies had no formula for this task. They
assigned ratings to complex securities as if they were ordinary corporate
bonds and without examining the individual mortgages in the pool. Ratings
tended to overstate the value of the securities and were fundamentally
arbitrary. Absent securitization, all the various peripheral players in
the credit market debacle including the bond insurers, who unwisely
insured securities linked to subprime mortgages, would not have been
drawn into the subsidiary roles they exploited.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The hucksters would have made loans to blowup dolls if they could have.
Poetic Justice
>
>> “I want [Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae] to help with *affordable housing* , to
>> help low-income families get loans and to help clean up this subprime
>> mess. Otherwise, why should they exist?” - Rep. Barney Frank
NOW Barnie Frank wants *affordable health care* I've seen this before
and it didn't end well.
--
Strabo
>
>> I didn't say that I advised raising interest rates. I said "if" they
>> had been raised a year ago and weak banks allowed to fail, it could have
>> made a difference. The effected banks needed to fail to offset their
>> toxic assets.
>
>
Buyer beware!
The problems could not have grown to such proportions without
the 'oversight' agencies which didn't work, and the aid of the
Federal Reserve.
There is no perfect system.
Go to free and open markets. Manipulation and collusion would
be minimized in frequency and scope. Any adjustments would occur
quickly and relatively painlessly.
Nickname unavailable
talk about crap, its the exact opposite. free markets are unreliable,
prone to manipulation, then collapse.
unregulated free markets are prone to manipulation, then collapse:I
don’t see why the aluminum price has gotten so high, There’s plenty of
supply around and demand is still quiet. There’s a disconnect between
the price and reality
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aWV.KDO7Zzqs
Aluminum Bubble Concerns Mount as Surplus May Add 29% (Update3)
By Millie Munshi and Anna Stablum
Nov. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Warehouses holding enough aluminum to build
69,000 Boeing 747 jumbo jets are why Peter Sorrentino says the most
abundant metallic element in the earth’s crust is too expensive.
“I don’t see why the aluminum price has gotten so high,” said
Sorrentino, who helps manage $13.8 billion at Huntington Asset
Advisors in Cincinnati. “There’s plenty of supply around and demand is
still quiet. There’s a disconnect between the price and reality.”
Barclays Capital forecasts that the global surplus in aluminum will
increase 29 percent to 1.63 million metric tons next year as the
biggest annual price increase since 1994 spurs producers to increase
output. Emirates Aluminium Co. will start the world’s biggest smelter
in April, and a plant part-owned by Norsk Hydro ASA in Qatar fires up
next month.
This year’s 32 percent rally in aluminum and the 46 percent jump in
the S&P GSCI index of commodities is prompting concerns of a bubble in
the making. China, the biggest aluminum producer, is at risk from an
absence of consumer demand from trading partners, said Bill Gross, who
runs the world’s biggest bond fund at Pacific Investment Management
Co. Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson said on
Nov. 13 that oil prices aren’t supported by market fundamentals.
Investors are “chasing commodities” and there is a risk of bubbles
emerging, Nouriel Roubini, the New York University professor who
predicted the global financial crisis, said on Nov. 20 in a speech in
Lisbon.
China Starts Plants
Aluminum, which settled at $2,037 in London trading today, will
average $1,885 next year on the London Metal Exchange, according to
the median in a Bloomberg New survey of 24 analysts. Stockpiles
monitored by the LME almost doubled to 4.6 million tons this year,
more than Western Europe’s production.
A typical 747 uses about 66 tons of aluminum alloy, according to
Boeing. The company has delivered at least 1,416 of the jets in its
history.
China will make 18 percent more metal next year, leading an 8.9
percent global expansion and contributing to a surplus equal to more
than three months of North American demand, Barclays Capital
estimates. Global output increased more than 12 percent since April,
International Aluminium Institute data show.
New smelters are coming on line. The Emirates Aluminium project,
covering more than two square miles in Abu Dhabi, is scheduled to pour
its first metal in April and will eventually make 1.4 million tons a
year. The Qatalum project between Hydro and Qatar Petroleum will have
an initial capacity of 585,000 tons, churning out metal from two
buildings each longer than 10 football fields.
Price Slump
Five consecutive gains in average annual prices through 2007, the
longest-ever winning streak on the LME, encouraged companies to expand
supply. Last year’s 38.8 million tons was 67 percent more than in
1999, the aluminum institute’s data show.
As production outstripped demand, prices slumped 62 percent in seven
months from a record $3,380.15 in July 2008. That drop and the worst
global recession since World War II led to a shutdown of capacity.
“Production cuts have only been temporary,” Michael Widmer, head of
metals research at Bank of America Merrill Lynch in London, said in a
report earlier this month. “Looking at recent announcements of
production restarts and the current project pipeline, we are concerned
that the aluminum market may remain structurally weak.”
Gross, Tillerson, Bernanke
In March, 7.3 million tons of capacity was offline, or 19 percent of
2008 production, Barclays estimated. Now, China is reversing 3.5
million tons of cuts and starting another million tons of new
capacity, according to the bank.
China is “gearing up for export that doesn’t find an end consumer,”
Pimco’s Gross said. The “systemic risk” of new asset bubbles in global
economies and markets is rising, he wrote in his December investment
outlook posted on the firm’s Web site Nov. 19. Exxon’s Tillerson said
he couldn’t explain current oil prices because they no longer
reflected supply and demand.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Nov. 16 that it’s “not
obvious” U.S. asset prices are out of line and indicated the central
bank’s extended period of near-zero interest rates may persist amid
economic “headwinds.”
Some excess aluminum will be absorbed by China, said Jorge Vazquez,
vice president at the aluminum unit of Harbor Intelligence in Laredo,
Texas. Harbor forecasts demand will outstrip supply by 380,000 tons
next year and prices will average $2,700, the second-highest estimate
in the Bloomberg survey of 2010 prices. Harbor said in April that
aluminum would reach $1,984 by the end of the year.
‘Money Flow Game’
China’s economy will expand 9.5 percent next year, according to the
median of 21 economists surveyed by Bloomberg. That’s faster than this
year’s estimated 8.3 percent and more than three times the anticipated
2.6 percent pace in the U.S.
“I’m leaning on the bullish side,” said William O’Neill, a partner at
Logic Advisors in Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. “There’s also just a
desire for hard assets right now and all of the industrial metals are
going to benefit from that. It’s very much a money-flow game right
now, and not necessarily one based on fundamentals.”
Commodities will likely attract a record $60 billion this year as
investors seek to diversify their assets, Barclays said Nov. 19.
That’s helped stoke prices for everything from copper to zinc. Lead
added 141 percent this year as stockpiles tripled and copper rose 126
percent as inventory expanded 25 percent.
Copper Surplus
Copper production will outpace demand by 344,000 tons this year and
210,000 tons next year, Barclays estimates. Refined copper imports by
China, the world’s largest consumer, slumped 40 percent last month,
according to customs office data today.
Aluminum demand will grow 8.2 percent next year, Barclays estimates.
Premiums for metal, a gauge of demand, are already increasing in
Europe, the U.S. and Japan, according to London- based researcher
Brook Hunt & Associates Ltd. The 2010 average aluminum price of $1,885
forecast in the Bloomberg survey would still be 14 percent higher than
this year’s average of $1,650.
That recovery is a relief to United Co. Rusal, Alcoa Inc. and Rio
Tinto Group. Alcoa, based in New York, will earn 63 cents a share next
year, compared with a 2009 loss of 75.5 cents, according to the median
of eight analyst forecasts compiled by Bloomberg. The company last
week said it would idle two smelters in Italy, increasing the amount
of curtailed capacity to 24 percent of its total.
Improving Profits
Improving profits and rising output may coincide with a release of
stockpiles onto the market. As much as 75 percent of the warehoused
metal monitored by the LME is tied to transactions that may unwind,
according to London-based research group CRU. The proportion may drop
closer to 50 percent of the total next year, CRU estimates.
“This is a financial-market driven move at the moment rather than a
fabricator and manufacturers’ move, so it is very dangerous to call a
top,” said Sean Corrigan, the chief investment officer of Diapason
Commodities Management SA in Lausanne, Switzerland. “Once this
momentum has exhausted itself, the background picture is not that
positive.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Anna Stablum in London at
asta...@bloomberg.net; Millie Munshi in New York at
mmu...@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 23, 2009 16:55 EST
Me, again!
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2:54 pm, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>> s...@above.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:53:52 -0500, Strabo
>>> <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> I didn't say that I advised raising interest rates. I said "if" they
>>>> had been raised a year ago and weak banks allowed to fail, it could have
>>>> made a difference. The effected banks needed to fail to offset their
>>>> toxic assets.
>>
>>> That'd teach all those innocent investors.
>>
>> Buyer beware!
>>
>> The problems could not have grown to such proportions without
>> the 'oversight' agencies which didn't work, and the aid of the
>> Federal Reserve.
>>
>> There is no perfect system.
>>
>> Go to free and open markets. Manipulation and collusion would
>> be minimized in frequency and scope.
All the would-be robber barrons would be out there grabbing everything
they could, form new monopolies, more cartels, and we'd have more
billionaires and many more poor people than ever before.
Any adjustments would occur
>> quickly and relatively painlessly.
Ahhhhhahahahahaha..... "painlessly" like the present world wide
depression! 10% unemployment in USA, another 10-20% on cutback wages
and/or cutback hours.... you have to be kidding me.
> talk about crap, its the exact opposite. free markets are unreliable,
> prone to manipulation, then collapse.
Hi Video, Where's your asshole buddy, "alexy," these days?
Is he out there manipulating stocks, bonds, gold, exchange rates, and
pumping up CEOs?
> unregulated free markets are prone to manipulation, then collapse:I
> don’t see why the aluminum price has gotten so high, There’s plenty of
> supply around and demand is still quiet. There’s a disconnect between
> the price and reality
Its the old story: the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The rich buy
influence, do lobbying, get favors out of the government so it looks like
"free markets" but its really a big "setup" to further the goals of the
rich to get richer. Its in the history books.
If you are in gold, better get out before its too late.
///////////////////////////
Nickname unavailable
the guy you just answered is a dumb fucker, good for you to laugh at
him.
> > talk about crap, its the exact opposite. free markets are unreliable,
> > prone to manipulation, then collapse.
>
> Hi Video, Where's your asshole buddy, "alexy," these days?
>
i knew this was you when you started posting again. i was going to
private mail you to say welcome back:) he has tried a few times, you
know, trying to trap if the wording is not quite correct. but i will
have none of it. he also has tried to act nice, i reminded a poster
that he laughed at us, and made fun of us when we warned that free
market capitalism was about to implode in the fall-2006-spring-2007.
he got mad at me:)
> Is he out there manipulating stocks, bonds, gold, exchange rates, and
> pumping up CEOs?
>
can a tape worm become productive:)
> > unregulated free markets are prone to manipulation, then collapse:I
> > don’t see why the aluminum price has gotten so high, There’s plenty of
> > supply around and demand is still quiet. There’s a disconnect between
> > the price and reality
>
> Its the old story: the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The rich buy
> influence, do lobbying, get favors out of the government so it looks like
> "free markets" but its really a big "setup" to further the goals of the
> rich to get richer. Its in the history books.
>
its free all right. once government gets out of the way, the rich are
free to manipulate.
> If you are in gold, better get out before its too late.
>
> ///////////////////////////
>
its looking like another free market feverish bubble, along with just
about all commodities. when these suckers pop, its another huge leg
down, the deflationary inferno will roar, and cash will be so scarce,
that it will not only be king, it will be a god.
> > astab...@bloomberg.net; Millie Munshi in New York at
> > mmun...@bloomberg.net.
Strabo
>
>
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
>> On Nov 23, 2:54 pm, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>>> s...@above.com wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:53:52 -0500, Strabo
>>>> <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I didn't say that I advised raising interest rates. I said "if" they
>>>>> had been raised a year ago and weak banks allowed to fail, it could
>>>>> have
>>>>> made a difference. The effected banks needed to fail to offset their
>>>>> toxic assets.
>>>
>>>> That'd teach all those innocent investors.
>>>
>>> Buyer beware!
>>>
>>> The problems could not have grown to such proportions without
>>> the 'oversight' agencies which didn't work, and the aid of the
>>> Federal Reserve.
>>>
>>> There is no perfect system.
>>>
>>> Go to free and open markets. Manipulation and collusion would
>>> be minimized in frequency and scope.
>
> All the would-be robber barrons would be out there grabbing everything
> they could, form new monopolies, more cartels, and we'd have more
> billionaires and many more poor people than ever before.
>
A typical response.
Always the warning of victims and the collective of poor people. A
standard cry of victim breeders disguised as bleeding hearts.
No. There's no need to tolerate monopolies.
In America the concept of inherent rights is inculcated with the
dominant culture. This gives Americans the moral and ethical
means of reciprocity and reprisal.
This is classic libertarianism.
There are natural situations that promote monopolies like rivers,
wells, aqueducts and utility poles, and there are artificial monopolies
of advantage created by people such as you describe. The former can be
regulated by minimal government structures and the latter are prevented
through cooperative and coercive application of natural rights.
So, the rule of law with legitimate common law courts and regulation
will take care of most problems.
Real Americans won't tolerate bullying. For artificial contrivances,
if you attempt to monopolize you will be killed and your properties
divided.
Need I say more?
>
> Any adjustments would occur
>>> quickly and relatively painlessly.
>
> Ahhhhhahahahahaha..... "painlessly" like the present world wide
> depression! 10% unemployment in USA, another 10-20% on cutback wages
> and/or cutback hours.... you have to be kidding me.
>
>> talk about crap, its the exact opposite. free markets are unreliable,
>> prone to manipulation, then collapse.
>
> Hi Video, Where's your asshole buddy, "alexy," these days?
>
> Is he out there manipulating stocks, bonds, gold, exchange rates, and
> pumping up CEOs?
>
>> unregulated free markets are prone to manipulation, then collapse:I
>> don�t see why the aluminum price has gotten so high, There�s plenty of
>> supply around and demand is still quiet. There�s a disconnect between
>> the price and reality
>
> Its the old story: the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The rich
> buy influence, do lobbying, get favors out of the government so it looks
> like "free markets" but its really a big "setup" to further the goals of
> the rich to get richer. Its in the history books.
>
> If you are in gold, better get out before its too late.
>
If you have any to sell let us know.
Nickname unavailable
> >> supply around and demand is still quiet. There’s a disconnect between
> >> the price and reality
>
> > Its the old story: the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The rich
> > buy influence, do lobbying, get favors out of the government so it looks
> > like "free markets" but its really a big "setup" to further the goals of
> > the rich to get richer. Its in the history books.
>
> > If you are in gold, better get out before its too late.
>
> If you have any to sell let us know.
rants of the insane. somalia is a free market paradise.
Me, again!
Hi Video, see below....
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>> be minimized in frequency and scope.
>>
>>> All the would-be robber barrons would be out there grabbing everything
>>> they could, form new monopolies, more cartels, and we'd have more
>>> billionaires and many more poor people than ever before.
>>
>>
>>> Any adjustments would occur
>>>>> quickly and relatively painlessly.
>>
>>> Ahhhhhahahahahaha..... "painlessly" like the present world wide
>>> depression! 10% unemployment in USA, another 10-20% on cutback wages
>>> and/or cutback hours.... you have to be kidding me.
>>
>>>> talk about crap, its the exact opposite. free markets are unreliable,
>>>> prone to manipulation, then collapse.
>>
>>> Hi Video, Where's your asshole buddy, "alexy," these days?
>>
>>> Is he out there manipulating stocks, bonds, gold, exchange rates, and
>>> pumping up CEOs?
>>
>>>> unregulated free markets are prone to manipulation, then collapse:I
>>>> don’t see why the aluminum price has gotten so high, There’s plenty of
>>>> supply around and demand is still quiet. There’s a disconnect between
>>>> the price and reality
>>
>>> Its the old story: the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The rich
>>> buy influence, do lobbying, get favors out of the government so it looks
>>> like "free markets" but its really a big "setup" to further the goals of
>>> the rich to get richer. Its in the history books.
>>
>>> If you are in gold, better get out before its too late.
>>
>> If you have any to sell let us know.
As a matter of fact, I do.
> rants of the insane. somalia is a free market paradise.
You didn't lie. Somalia a free market paradise? Maybe for the druglords
and the other guys with the guns (did you see the movie "Blackhawk Down"?
I did. Like a miniature Viet Nam.). Somalia: More like chaos.
Who is the market free for? The guys with the money, the guys with the
power, and the guys with both. And, that is a very small fraction of
everyone. Maybe one percent. Its called a plutocracy.
For the guys who are broke, they are up "shit's creek." Economic slaves.
Who is winning? China! Look how they treated Obama. Like saying "We
Chinese are going to be parasites on your contry, and eat up the rest of
your industrial base before we're done."
And, the plutocrats (and all their lobbyists) are telling Obama: don't
mess with our profits because we like them. Don't make rules to regulate
finance, we like to keep playing with fire and get big bonuses.
Nickname unavailable
yep, that is what free really means, free to do as you choose.
> For the guys who are broke, they are up "shit's creek." Economic slaves.
>
> Who is winning? China! Look how they treated Obama. Like saying "We
> Chinese are going to be parasites on your contry, and eat up the rest of
> your industrial base before we're done."
>
> And, the plutocrats (and all their lobbyists) are telling Obama: don't
> mess with our profits because we like them. Don't make rules to regulate
> finance, we like to keep playing with fire and get big bonuses.
you just described a hopeless situation, and i tend to agree.
Me, again!
Yeah. I don't care if not everone agrees 100% with me, but this country
has been on the skids for several decades now and the only guys who can do
anything about it are under the thumbs of the lobbyists/rich/powerful/PR
for the special interests.
I'm reading yet another book on economic history (read three others in the
last three months). Cheap currency and cheap labor is a killer for first
world economies.
Nickname unavailable
well said. its called free market economics. where the wealthy are
free to do as they please, and they do.
Strabo
>>
>> I'm reading yet another book on economic history (read three others in the
>> last three months). Cheap currency and cheap labor is a killer for first
>> world economies.
>
> well said. its called free market economics. where the wealthy are
> free to do as they please, and they do.
>
This appears to be your mindset.
To you, "free" denotes a system within which there are two players,
the wealthy and the non-wealthy. The wealthy and the non-wealthy play a
game called economics which the non-wealthy will alway lose, unless
you intervene.
Your solution to this perceived inequity is to rig the game in favor of
the non-wealthy. While this assuages your guilt complex such measures
sometimes cause additional problems and are short-lived as the wealthy
find new ways to operate.
During the past seventy-five years there has not been a free economy.
"Cheap currency and cheap labor is a killer for first world economies."
is shown to be true. To gain advantage over competition and maximize
profit is a common human trait. The First World is then forced to
compete in a lop-sided market. But the global exploitation of 'cheap'
ends once the First World standard drops to that of the rest of the
planet.
But there is not a simple 'wealthy' versus 'non-wealthy' paradigm.
As long as Congress recognized the obligation to ensure the integrity
of national borders, levied tariffs and refused to allow corporations to
screwup the economy through outsourcing and international corporatism,
all was well. Instead, Socialist and Marxist fervor compromised
American principles and encouraged unbridled illegal immigration,
outsourcing, 501b visas, foreign corporate tax advantages, fraudulent
banking and investment practices and government/private 'partnerships'.
A sure-fire formula for destruction.
It was not "free market economics" but relentless legal and political
intervention that has brought us to this point.
Once International Socialism has ruined the world's economies, truly
free markets will again be possible though I'm sure you'll be first
in line demanding new control mechanisms.
I recommend gold and silver and bartering in private markets.
Nickname unavailable
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 9:13 am, "Me, again!" <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
> <snipped>
>
> >> I'm reading yet another book on economic history (read three others in the
> >> last three months). Cheap currency and cheap labor is a killer for first
> >> world economies.
>
> > well said. its called free market economics. where the wealthy are
> > free to do as they please, and they do.
>
> >
>
> This appears to be your mindset.
>
> To you, "free" denotes a system within which there are two players,
> the wealthy and the non-wealthy. The wealthy and the non-wealthy play a
> game called economics which the non-wealthy will alway lose, unless
> you intervene.
>
its how it worked for the robber barons. look, all information is not
perfect, stiglitz proved it, and wiped away milton friedmans entire
lifes work, trying to make a crank philosophy look sane.
one side many times has way more information than the other side, on
top of that, we know that in amny cases, not only is information
withheld for the benifit of one side, but not all players are
rational.
> Your solution to this perceived inequity is to rig the game in favor of
> the non-wealthy. While this assuages your guilt complex such measures
> sometimes cause additional problems and are short-lived as the wealthy
> find new ways to operate.
>
of course we have to build better mouse traps, because mice are
parasites, and will find a new clever way to get around them, the
wealthy are clever also, many times stupid, as securitization proves,
but clever none the less.
> During the past seventy-five years there has not been a free economy.
>
see the robber baron era. its why we took the free out of markets.
every time we partially or fully deregulate a market, chaos and
collapse follows.
free markets are unstable, they are prone to manipulation, then
collapse. free markets cannot self regulate, self police, be self
responsible, self reliant, and almost always end in disaster.
> "Cheap currency and cheap labor is a killer for first world economies."
> is shown to be true. To gain advantage over competition and maximize
> profit is a common human trait. The First World is then forced to
> compete in a lop-sided market. But the global exploitation of 'cheap'
> ends once the First World standard drops to that of the rest of the
> planet.
>
if they are MAOIST sympathizers and free trade, then yes, its a
killer.
> But there is not a simple 'wealthy' versus 'non-wealthy' paradigm.
>
correct, the wealthy will also turn on their own, besides enslaving
everyone else.
> As long as Congress recognized the obligation to ensure the integrity
> of national borders, levied tariffs and refused to allow corporations to
> screwup the economy through outsourcing and international corporatism,
> all was well.
that is a interventionist, protectionist government.
Instead, Socialist and Marxist fervor compromised
> American principles and encouraged unbridled illegal immigration,
> outsourcing, 501b visas, foreign corporate tax advantages, fraudulent
> banking and investment practices and government/private 'partnerships'.
> A sure-fire formula for destruction.
>
no, that is what the free market wants.
> It was not "free market economics" but relentless legal and political
> intervention that has brought us to this point.
>
the free market wanted, and got that brought us to this point.
> Once International Socialism has ruined the world's economies, truly
> free markets will again be possible though I'm sure you'll be first
> in line demanding new control mechanisms.
>
and you are insane.
> I recommend gold and silver and bartering in private markets.
please, oh please buy every once of gold and silver you can, go for
the gusto, load up now.