Posts
The Biggest Bubble-Makers | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary: "On April 17, 2002, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan downplayed the idea of a housing bubble.
* On March 4, 2003, Greenspan stated that 'any analogy to stock-market pricing behavior and bubbles is a rather large stretch.'
* In spring 2004, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation declared: 'There is no U.S. housing bubble ... it is unlikely that home prices are poised to plunge nationwide.'
* On Oct. 19, 2004, Greenspan expressed the sunny view that the run-up of housing prices and housing debt wasn't 'overly worrisome.'
* In December 2004, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported: 'The most widely cited evidence of a bubble is not persuasive ... a bubble does not exist.'
* On Jan. 28, 2007, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke testified before the Senate Budget Committee about financial trends. He didn't say a word about a possible bubble. He expected that 'the budget deficit may stabilize or moderate further over the next few years.'
* In April 2007, the International Monetary Fund issued a report that said 'the overall U.S. economy is holding up well.' The IMF suggested 'the continuation of strong global growth as the most likely scenario.'"
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
The Poor - Kel Kelly - Mises Daily
The Poor - Kel Kelly - Mises Daily: "A study by Michael Cox and Richard Alm of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas showed that of the bottom fifth of income earners in 1975, only 5 percent were still poor 16 years later. Less than 1 percent remained in the bottom fifth for the entire 16 years. Thirty percent rose from the bottom fifth to the top fifth. In sum, few people remain at subsistence level. There are ways out of poverty for most."
"the ratio of 'incomes' — the primary measurement used by government — of the top fifth to the bottom fifth of income earners is 15 to 1, but the ratio of their consumption is 4 to 1. This is because the poor usually have access to money that does not fall under taxable income, including government handouts. Their assets and wealth are not considered at all. The census bureau previously stated that people it deems 'poor' typically spend $2.24 for every $1.00 in (government) reported income."
"Even ACORN, the organization that claims to help the poor by, among other means, promoting a 'living wage,' learned this first hand. ACORN sued the state of California in 1995 for exemption from state labor laws, in order to avoid having to pay the minimum wage to its own employees. The organization argued before the court that 'the more that ACORN must pay each individual outreach worker — either because of minimum wage or overtime requirements — the fewer outreach workers it will be able to hire.' (As a comparable example, esteemed minimum-wage advocate Nancy Pelosi also refused to pay minimum wage to her own workers.)"
"of all workers earning the minimum wage immediately prior to President Clinton's 1996 increase of that wage, 37.6 percent were teenagers living with their parents, 17.1 percent were single adults living by themselves, and 21.5 percent were adults married to a spouse who was also employed. Only 5.5 percent of workers earning minimum wage were single parents, and only 7.8 percent were married but still the sole family wage earner."
"But besides the fact that so-called poverty will never be eliminated simply because at least one person will always be poorer than all others, politicians have a vested interest in preventing the alleviation of poverty. If Americans are fully employed and earning continually increasing wages, who needs the thousands of welfare bureaucrats in Washington? Though socialists believe that these bureaucrats (at least the Democrats) are truly benevolent individuals concerned about the well-being of others, in reality they are there to gain power, live off of taxpayer money, and advance their careers. Why else, for example, would Congress vote to repeatedly give itself wage increases — along with lifetime pensions in the millions — that far outpace the consumer price index and the wages of workers?"
"Every country that has ever made a serious attempt to equalize its citizens has gone to ruin, because forced equality reduces the incentive the rich have to invest capital and instead encourages the consumption of it, since it is likely to be taken from them."
"The first and easiest step to increase the incomes of the poor would be to eliminate all laws that fix the price of labor above the market price. This alone would create full employment. The average poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work each year. This is equivalent to 16 hours of work per week. If the average poor family was able to increase the hours worked to 2,000 hours each year (i.e., one adult family member working a full 40 hour week), nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of poverty. This could be achieved by eliminating labor laws that require potential employers to pay workers wages higher than the market price they would otherwise pay."
"the ratio of 'incomes' — the primary measurement used by government — of the top fifth to the bottom fifth of income earners is 15 to 1, but the ratio of their consumption is 4 to 1. This is because the poor usually have access to money that does not fall under taxable income, including government handouts. Their assets and wealth are not considered at all. The census bureau previously stated that people it deems 'poor' typically spend $2.24 for every $1.00 in (government) reported income."
"Even ACORN, the organization that claims to help the poor by, among other means, promoting a 'living wage,' learned this first hand. ACORN sued the state of California in 1995 for exemption from state labor laws, in order to avoid having to pay the minimum wage to its own employees. The organization argued before the court that 'the more that ACORN must pay each individual outreach worker — either because of minimum wage or overtime requirements — the fewer outreach workers it will be able to hire.' (As a comparable example, esteemed minimum-wage advocate Nancy Pelosi also refused to pay minimum wage to her own workers.)"
"of all workers earning the minimum wage immediately prior to President Clinton's 1996 increase of that wage, 37.6 percent were teenagers living with their parents, 17.1 percent were single adults living by themselves, and 21.5 percent were adults married to a spouse who was also employed. Only 5.5 percent of workers earning minimum wage were single parents, and only 7.8 percent were married but still the sole family wage earner."
"But besides the fact that so-called poverty will never be eliminated simply because at least one person will always be poorer than all others, politicians have a vested interest in preventing the alleviation of poverty. If Americans are fully employed and earning continually increasing wages, who needs the thousands of welfare bureaucrats in Washington? Though socialists believe that these bureaucrats (at least the Democrats) are truly benevolent individuals concerned about the well-being of others, in reality they are there to gain power, live off of taxpayer money, and advance their careers. Why else, for example, would Congress vote to repeatedly give itself wage increases — along with lifetime pensions in the millions — that far outpace the consumer price index and the wages of workers?"
"Every country that has ever made a serious attempt to equalize its citizens has gone to ruin, because forced equality reduces the incentive the rich have to invest capital and instead encourages the consumption of it, since it is likely to be taken from them."
"The first and easiest step to increase the incomes of the poor would be to eliminate all laws that fix the price of labor above the market price. This alone would create full employment. The average poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work each year. This is equivalent to 16 hours of work per week. If the average poor family was able to increase the hours worked to 2,000 hours each year (i.e., one adult family member working a full 40 hour week), nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of poverty. This could be achieved by eliminating labor laws that require potential employers to pay workers wages higher than the market price they would otherwise pay."
Housing Crisis? Look to Canada for Answers | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary
Housing Crisis? Look to Canada for Answers | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary: "More Canadians (68 percent) than Americans (66 percent) own their homes, yet the Canadian government has interfered very little in the private housing market.
* Canada doesn't have an income tax deduction for mortgage interest. Nor is there a tax advantage to converting home equity into debt.
* In Canada, mortgages aren't issued without verification of employment and income.
* Unlike Americans, Canadians cannot walk away from their homes without serious consequences — Canadian mortgages are generally full recourse, which means a bank can attach an individual's other assets and wages/salaries if necessary to pay the deficiency in the event of a mortgage default.
* Canada has nothing like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, subsidizing subprime mortgages on a gigantic scale.
* Nor has Canada had anything comparable to the U.S. Community Reinvestment Act that promotes political influence over mortgage lending decisions.
The principal Canadian intervention in the housing market is to require that people buy mortgage insurance if their down payment is less than 25 percent of the purchase price.
As a result of these policies, in Canada people generally buy a home when they can afford it. Canadians tend to have significantly more equity in their homes than Americans do.
The Canadian housing market has been remarkable for its long-term stability"
* Canada doesn't have an income tax deduction for mortgage interest. Nor is there a tax advantage to converting home equity into debt.
* In Canada, mortgages aren't issued without verification of employment and income.
* Unlike Americans, Canadians cannot walk away from their homes without serious consequences — Canadian mortgages are generally full recourse, which means a bank can attach an individual's other assets and wages/salaries if necessary to pay the deficiency in the event of a mortgage default.
* Canada has nothing like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, subsidizing subprime mortgages on a gigantic scale.
* Nor has Canada had anything comparable to the U.S. Community Reinvestment Act that promotes political influence over mortgage lending decisions.
The principal Canadian intervention in the housing market is to require that people buy mortgage insurance if their down payment is less than 25 percent of the purchase price.
As a result of these policies, in Canada people generally buy a home when they can afford it. Canadians tend to have significantly more equity in their homes than Americans do.
The Canadian housing market has been remarkable for its long-term stability"
Wrong about Human Rights | Roger Pilon | Cato Institute: Commentary
Wrong about Human Rights | Roger Pilon | Cato Institute: Commentary: "'Asian-American men suffer from stomach cancer 114 percent more often than non-Hispanic white men.' That's a human-rights problem?"
Vulture or Watchdog? | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary
Vulture or Watchdog? | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Congress has passed a number of whistle-blower statutes, including the 'financial-reform bill,' to protect government and private-sector employees from retaliation when reporting the misdeeds of their superiors. Yet, the staff of members of Congress — precisely the people who are most likely to know about political corruption — enjoy no such protection.
Congress, under the guise of 'campaign-finance reform,' has repeatedly tried to find constitutional ways of limiting the free speech of real and potential opponents. What is even more remarkable, some members of Congress are not content with just trying to protect themselves, but have gone so far as to try to protect corrupt foreign leaders from those who may wish to expose their wrongdoing."
Congress, under the guise of 'campaign-finance reform,' has repeatedly tried to find constitutional ways of limiting the free speech of real and potential opponents. What is even more remarkable, some members of Congress are not content with just trying to protect themselves, but have gone so far as to try to protect corrupt foreign leaders from those who may wish to expose their wrongdoing."
FOXNews.com - Newspaper Under Fire After Teacher's Suicide
FOXNews.com - Newspaper Under Fire After Teacher's Suicide: "The Los Angeles Times should remove teacher performance ratings from its website after the apparent suicide of a teacher despondent over his score, which was published in August, the union representing Los Angeles school teachers said."
We should then stop doing anything that tells people they might be under-performing just so they don't react badly.
We should then stop doing anything that tells people they might be under-performing just so they don't react badly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)