Posts
Friday, October 08, 2010
Gun Training Report #60 40,000 Lives Lost Per Year Must Be Worth It...
Gun Training Report #60 40,000 Lives Lost Per Year Must Be Worth It...: "If we are going allow 40,000 people every year to die in automobile accidents, just so that we can drive to the supermarket, manage our two hour commute to and from work, or enjoy a nice Sunday drive down the coast, shouldn't we be willing to accept SIGNIFICANTLY FEWER deaths related to gunfire in exchange for the ability to protect ourselves, our loved ones, our community, and our country?"
IMF warns countries against currency wars - FoxNews.com
IMF warns countries against currency wars - FoxNews.com: "He says it would be a major mistake for countries to unfairly depress the value of their currencies to boost their exports"
Depressing a currency hurts the citizens of that country because it causes imports to be more expensive and therefore increases the cost of living. IMF acts as if depressing a currency only helps a country. :-/
Depressing a currency hurts the citizens of that country because it causes imports to be more expensive and therefore increases the cost of living. IMF acts as if depressing a currency only helps a country. :-/
IMF warns countries against currency wars - FoxNews.com
IMF warns countries against currency wars - FoxNews.com: "He says it would be a major mistake for countries to unfairly depress the value of their currencies to boost their exports"
Depressing a currency hurts the citizens of that country because it causes imports to be more expensive and therefore increases the cost of living. IMF acts as if depressing a currency only helps a country. :-/
Depressing a currency hurts the citizens of that country because it causes imports to be more expensive and therefore increases the cost of living. IMF acts as if depressing a currency only helps a country. :-/
California Board Reportedly Overestimated Pollution by 340 Percent to Pass Landmark Air Standards - FoxNews.com
California Board Reportedly Overestimated Pollution by 340 Percent to Pass Landmark Air Standards - FoxNews.com: "California regulators reportedly are planning to significantly weaken the state’s landmark clean air standards after discovering they miscalculated pollution levels by 340 percent."
How can you trust their recommendations when they are off that much?!?
How can you trust their recommendations when they are off that much?!?
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Fiscal Euphemisms - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Daily
Fiscal Euphemisms - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Daily: "Now we have 'budget cuts' which are not cuts, but rather substantial increases over the previous year's expenditures.
'Cut' became subtly but crucially redefined as reducing something else. What the something else might be didn't seem to matter, so long as the focus was taken off actual dollar expenditures. Sometimes it was a cut 'in the rate of increase,' other times it was a cut in 'real' spending, at still others it was a percentage of GNP, and at yet other times it was a cut in the sense of being below past projections for that year."
"government economists have been doing their part as well to try to sugar-coat the pill of tax increases. They never refer to these changes as 'increases.' They have not been increases at all; they were 'revenue enhancement' and 'closing loopholes.' The best comment on the concept of 'loopholes' was that of Ludwig von Mises. Mises remarked that the very concept of 'loopholes' implies that the government rightly owns all of the money you earn, and that it becomes necessary to correct the slipup of the government's not having gotten its hands on that money long since."
"Feldstein is claiming that, in the categories of how the federal government spends money, the big ones are the military, Social Security, and Medicare. But after those whoppers, the bulk of 'government spending' — according to Feldstein and endorsed by Mankiw — are things like tax deductions on mortgage interest, or tax credits based on how many children a person has.
In other words, Feldstein is completely obliterating the distinction between (a) the government handing Paul $1,000 that it has previously taken from Peter, and (b) the government refraining from taking $1,000 from Paul that he earned. Either way, from Feldstein's viewpoint, that is a government expenditure."
"It is an abuse of language to say that a tax hike is 'equivalent' to a spending cut. With equal justification, Timothy Geithner could defend the hated TARP bank bailout as an $800 billion 'tax cut.' Or, proponents of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could refer to them as trillion-dollar-plus tax cuts. After all, Goldman Sachs, Halliburton, and other major corporations ended up with more money than they otherwise would have had, so these programs were basically tax cuts, right?"
'Cut' became subtly but crucially redefined as reducing something else. What the something else might be didn't seem to matter, so long as the focus was taken off actual dollar expenditures. Sometimes it was a cut 'in the rate of increase,' other times it was a cut in 'real' spending, at still others it was a percentage of GNP, and at yet other times it was a cut in the sense of being below past projections for that year."
"government economists have been doing their part as well to try to sugar-coat the pill of tax increases. They never refer to these changes as 'increases.' They have not been increases at all; they were 'revenue enhancement' and 'closing loopholes.' The best comment on the concept of 'loopholes' was that of Ludwig von Mises. Mises remarked that the very concept of 'loopholes' implies that the government rightly owns all of the money you earn, and that it becomes necessary to correct the slipup of the government's not having gotten its hands on that money long since."
"Feldstein is claiming that, in the categories of how the federal government spends money, the big ones are the military, Social Security, and Medicare. But after those whoppers, the bulk of 'government spending' — according to Feldstein and endorsed by Mankiw — are things like tax deductions on mortgage interest, or tax credits based on how many children a person has.
In other words, Feldstein is completely obliterating the distinction between (a) the government handing Paul $1,000 that it has previously taken from Peter, and (b) the government refraining from taking $1,000 from Paul that he earned. Either way, from Feldstein's viewpoint, that is a government expenditure."
"It is an abuse of language to say that a tax hike is 'equivalent' to a spending cut. With equal justification, Timothy Geithner could defend the hated TARP bank bailout as an $800 billion 'tax cut.' Or, proponents of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could refer to them as trillion-dollar-plus tax cuts. After all, Goldman Sachs, Halliburton, and other major corporations ended up with more money than they otherwise would have had, so these programs were basically tax cuts, right?"
Monday, October 04, 2010
Why the Bush Tax Cuts Worked | Jeffrey A. Miron | Cato Institute: Commentary
Why the Bush Tax Cuts Worked | Jeffrey A. Miron | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Capital is mobile: when it is taxed heavily here, it flees somewhere else, meaning lower investment and employment in the United States. And because capital income taxes discourage investment or drive it overseas, they generate little if any tax revenue."
"their real objection is that the Bush tax cuts (allegedly) favor the wealthy. This claim is true in part; lower tax rates on the high income earners are obviously beneficial for those earners. Yet this is only part of the story. To stimulate work, saving, and investment, tax cuts have no choice but to favor the taxpayers who respond most to taxes, as well as those likely to save and invest. That means high income earners. So policy must accept some inequality in exchange for more efficiency."
"their real objection is that the Bush tax cuts (allegedly) favor the wealthy. This claim is true in part; lower tax rates on the high income earners are obviously beneficial for those earners. Yet this is only part of the story. To stimulate work, saving, and investment, tax cuts have no choice but to favor the taxpayers who respond most to taxes, as well as those likely to save and invest. That means high income earners. So policy must accept some inequality in exchange for more efficiency."
Are Rising Imports a Boon or Bane to the Economy? | Daniel Griswold | Cato Institute: Commentary
Are Rising Imports a Boon or Bane to the Economy? | Daniel Griswold | Cato Institute: Commentary: "More than half of what we import consists of goods consumed by producers — capital machinery, raw materials, parts and other intermediate inputs. Those imports help us produce more, not less. This is one reason why, over the past year, imports of manufactured goods have been rising along with domestic manufacturing output.
In the long run, imports spur growth by forcing domestic producers to be more efficient and productive. Like competition generally, imports weed out the less-productive domestic producers, leaving the market to more-competitive U.S. companies."
"Obsession with the trade deficit also ignores the fact that the dollars we spend on imports quickly return to the United States. If they are not used to buy our goods and services, they are spent on assets, such as real estate, stocks and Treasury bonds. This inflow of capital also helps to fuel growth by keeping interest rates down and providing capital to build factories and expand output."
"Compared with a perfectly proportional correlation of 100 percent, the correlation between imports and GDP is a strongly positive 62 percent.
Politicians myopically focus on exports, but the correlation between rising exports and rising GDP is actually weaker, at 45 percent, than the connection between imports and GDP"
In the long run, imports spur growth by forcing domestic producers to be more efficient and productive. Like competition generally, imports weed out the less-productive domestic producers, leaving the market to more-competitive U.S. companies."
"Obsession with the trade deficit also ignores the fact that the dollars we spend on imports quickly return to the United States. If they are not used to buy our goods and services, they are spent on assets, such as real estate, stocks and Treasury bonds. This inflow of capital also helps to fuel growth by keeping interest rates down and providing capital to build factories and expand output."
"Compared with a perfectly proportional correlation of 100 percent, the correlation between imports and GDP is a strongly positive 62 percent.
Politicians myopically focus on exports, but the correlation between rising exports and rising GDP is actually weaker, at 45 percent, than the connection between imports and GDP"
Economic Malpractice | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary
Economic Malpractice | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: "there was no case where a big increase in government spending — correctly measured as a percentage of gross domestic product — led to both higher private consumption and significant job growth"
"a prudent person responds to tax and regulatory uncertainty by taking fewer risks, such as expanding the business rapidly or hiring new people."
"Government can create government-sector jobs at the expense of private-sector jobs, but not at a higher real wage — which is one reason why a growing welfare state and/or a socialist economy always fail."
"a prudent person responds to tax and regulatory uncertainty by taking fewer risks, such as expanding the business rapidly or hiring new people."
"Government can create government-sector jobs at the expense of private-sector jobs, but not at a higher real wage — which is one reason why a growing welfare state and/or a socialist economy always fail."
Campaign For Liberty — Taxing and Spending
Campaign For Liberty — Taxing and Spending: "the President, for the umpteenth time, described leaving the existing tax rates alone as 'spending'. He said we had 'better things to spend our money on' than not raising taxes.
Did he really say 'our money'? Oh yes, he did. That's what they call your paycheck these days over at the White House; and you keeping what you earned is now considered foolish spending."
Did he really say 'our money'? Oh yes, he did. That's what they call your paycheck these days over at the White House; and you keeping what you earned is now considered foolish spending."
Campaign For Liberty — Tax The Rich
Campaign For Liberty — Tax The Rich: "We will not earn more when [the rich] keep less. Taxing them is a lose/lose proposition, which unfortunately has become this administration's signature move.
Wealth is neither moral nor immoral; it is simply the difference between what is produced and what is consumed over a lifetime. People who spend more than they earn become poorer, people who earn more than they spend become richer. With the obvious exceptions of crooks and shnooks, rich people only get that way by providing us with the things we want. Only a fool - or a jealous socialist - would want to punish someone for that."
Wealth is neither moral nor immoral; it is simply the difference between what is produced and what is consumed over a lifetime. People who spend more than they earn become poorer, people who earn more than they spend become richer. With the obvious exceptions of crooks and shnooks, rich people only get that way by providing us with the things we want. Only a fool - or a jealous socialist - would want to punish someone for that."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)