Read every word and I’d say it’s just about 100% right that is exactly what happened and why we see no difference for the R’s and D’s maybe they should be called what they are which is just a slimy snake offering us the forbidden fruit.
Tag Archives: MRYA
TRUMP: ALL ILLEGALS DEPORTED IN TWO YEARS… Dallas Rally Sold Out…
Trump has it right the EU has it wrong; its suicide to bring any invaders in any countries and if they don’t come in legally there are invaders.
Hungary threatens mass arrests…
The only sane countries are Hungary, Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic which have all rejected a European Commission plan to bring in the invaders to the EU. This social suicide as the counties that do this will become Islamic states in a few decades.
Latest Iowa Poll Devastating For Scott Walker – Cancels California GOP Trip…
The R’s and D’s are the same and they both hate Trump and they will work together to defeat him — if they can, which is not certain!
An Analysis of the Market last Week and What the Next Month may Bring
It was a mixed session for Asia yesterday after what has been a very volatile week. The talk remains as to what China’s next move would/should be and “if” the FED were to move next week. Not just in Asia has this been the most awaited FED decision in years but it has been the hot topic just about everywhere. It was a clearer picture for core European Stock Indices with all closing lower on the day with 1% declines. The US did open lower but has rallied back up.
Next week’s long-awaited Federal Reserve meeting may not spur a wild market reaction, even if the central bank hikes rates for the first time in almost a decade. Economists are about equally split on whether the long-awaited move will come, though futures market trades are pointing to at least one more month of the Fed delaying its 0.25 percentage point.
The key that is really important is the trend. There is no question our model has been pointing to 2015.75 as the change in trend for interest rates. The Fed has been backed into a corner for unless interest rates rise (“normalization”), retire funds are doomed. The Larry Summer approach is of course one that benefits banks, not the population. He envision punishing people for saving money with charging them a tax (negative interest rates) to keep hoarding cash.
Therefore, we are not looking a just a 0.25% hike in rates, we are looking at reality hitting the Fed in the face. Do they take the irresponsible approach of Larry Summers? Or perhaps they realize you cannot punish people for existing and trying to save for a rainy day. The Fed will raise interest rates for they have no choice. If not next week, they can do it at any meeting monthly and they can call an emergency meeting any time as well,
A Serious Proposal for a different method of funding government operations suitable for a technology based economy
The Federal government never has enough money and over the past decade they have created enough money, Dollars, that there is a title wave of them about to hit us; we need a different system that the politicians can’t subvert. This short post is a way to achieve that.
The following figures are taken directly from the following government reports: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) monthly report of the GDP of the United States; Monthly Treasury Statement; the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) monthly employment situation; The Monthly Statement of the Public Debt of the United States and the Department of Defense (DOD) Active Duty Military Strength Report. The Monthly Treasury Statement data is reformatted to calendar year format the government fiscal year format which runs from October to September so we can compare apples to apples.
First the Facts for 2014:
#1 The federal government currently spends almost $4.0 trillion a year ($3.885 trillion) of which some is derived from taxes & fees ($3.096 Trillion) and some is borrowed ($789.5 Billion). More on this subject later since the official GDP figures are different; so we use $3.2 Trillion here instead of the actual $3.9 Trillion, to be consistent with BEA numbers (explained later).
#2 There are some 151,012,000 people working for a living including ALL categories (the BLS does not count farm, self-employed and the military). This figure is the average for the calendar year 2014.
#3 If we assume there are 2,000 hours worked per year per person that equates to 302 billion hours worked per year. This is the only assumption used here and since many workers are part time this maybe an overstated number. Whether it is or not doesn’t matter to the discussion of the concept. It would only matter if implemented.
# 4 Therefore, if we divide the $3.2 Trillion spent by the Federal government by the 302 billion hours worked by all the citizens, that gives a ratio of $10.56 of federal spending per hour worked.
Now here is the concept:
The idea is based on an economic principle that my advanced econ professor taught me my senior year at Ohio University which is, basically just a form of a thought experiment. The principle is that if we make a change and the result of the change shows a result that is the same as before the change, then there was no real change in the output only a change in how we got there. The assumption then is that it makes no difference which method is used.
What follows is for federal spending only, state and local could also be added to this but that is too complex for this brief overview. This does include ALL revenue going to the federal government no matter the reason or program including social security.
#1 We eliminate ALL personal federal taxes and fees and ALL business taxes and fees as well which then reduces the governments’ income to zero (all borrowing is also eliminated).
#2 Simultaneously we reduce individual pay rates by the exact amount of the taxes they pay. For example if you were making $25.00 per hour but only taking home $20.00 per hour the change we make would be that you would now be making $20.00 per hour but paying no taxes so your take home would be the same as before $20.00 per hour (no change).
#3 Businesses would be required to reduce prices such that their income would be unchanged in a similar manner. So the net economic effect on the economy from this change (initially) would be zero since private and corporate spending would be exactly the same (no change).
#4 To compensate for this loss of revenue the federal government would be allowed to create fiat money (no real change from what they do now) at the rate of $10.56 per hour worked by the citizens. And since there would still be 302 billion hours worked by the citizens (no change) they could spend $3.2 trillion dollars (no change).
$5 The result is that there is still the exact same amount of money in the economy in both the current system and the new system. All we did is change the method of how it got from the worker to the government.
You can see we have made major changes but nothing has really changed, we just changed the method of how we got from there to here. So therefore we are in accordance with the economic principle we started this section with being true.
I think you can see the benefits to this kind of system and, of course the devil is always in the details; however I believe I have considered most of them and they are not major obstacles. I do agree that this would take a lot of re-education to the public but I think it could be sold especially after 2017.
The major benefits are:
#1 The federal government can only spend more money when there are more people working more hours. That is an incentive to promote growth not dependency.
#2 No one has to worry about paying federal taxes so all purchasing and investment decisions are based on economics not tax avoidance. This makes for a much more efficient economy.
#3 The federal budget is always in balance. No need to borrow money and this also forces international trade to be in balance since the government doesn’t need to borrow from foreigners.
#4 Lower prices for products produced here would make the US more competitive and since the take home income is the same internal growth would be immediate.
#5 We end up with a labor based currency which is a improvement over what we have which is debt based. It also takes gold out of the equation except possibly for international trade since the current system we have of pegged rates does not work. However, that is a different subject for other papers.
#6 There are no downsides other than some federal agencies would no longer be required, such as the IRS and the FED. So actually the federal government would need less money.
The Equations:
The equations shown after this discussion are used in national income accounting to calculate Gross National Product (GDP). To show how this works we present an example using the real numbers for 2014. Again this is a simple macro model and the details are much more complicated then what is shown here. However, that doesn’t matter since the principle is valid and all the details can be worked out.
Note the BEA does not count borrowed money and transfer payments are not shown as growth. The BEA’s G also includes state and local spending much of which is transfer payments from the federal government. This means that the BEA figures for “government” used to calculate the GDP are not the same as shown by the United States Treasury for federal spending and borrowing. We will use the BEA figure of $3.2 Trillion instead of the actual $3.9 trillion pulled from the economy by the federal government for 2014 in this exercise.
GDP = Y = C + I + G + (X – M)
GDP = Y = $17.7 = $12.1 + $2.9 +$3.2 + ($2.4 – $2.9)
Where C (consumption net of taxes CN) can be defined as gross income (Cg) less federal taxes (TF) or CN= CG – TF
Where I (investment net of Federal borrowing or IN) can be defined as gross investment (IG) less federal borrowing (BF) or IN = IG – BF
Where G (government) can then be defined as government taxes (TF) + government borrowing (BF)
X is exports
M is Imports
Y = CN + IN+ G + (X – M) or
Y = CN + IN + TF+ BF + (X – M)
After the proposed change
CG = CN
IG = IN
G = Hours worked (HW) * $10.56
GDP = Y = CN + IN + G + (X – M)
GDP = Y = CN + IN + 10.56 * Hw + (X – M)
GDP = Y = CN + IN + (10.56 * .302) + (X – M)
GDP = $17.7 = $12.1 + $2.9 +$3.2 + ($2.4 – $2.9)
Obviously nothing has changed since in either the old method or the new method The GDP = $17.7 trillion. Properly packaged, presented and sold by someone would solve many of our problems and doesn’t hurt either conservative or liberal principles.
Notes and Comments:
Federal Spending is very different from what is generally shown or known, for example: The Monthly Treasury Report for 2014 (adjusted to a calendar year) Shows the Federal Government spent $3.585 Trillion dollars derived from $3.096 Trillion from taxes and fees and $667 billion from borrowing. However the National Debt during the same period went up by $789 Billion so there was additional cash needed for changes in payables and obligations and capital projects of $122 Billion. Therefore the federal government actually spent/used $3.885 Trillion in 2014 or 21.95% of the GDP.
Also as previously mentioned transfer payments to the states and cities i.e. block grants do not show as being Federal spending in GDP analysis. That is unfortunate since the federal government has strings attached which give them control of the money and that will get much worse after 2016 when the full force of the Affordable Health Care Act goes into effect.
The purpose of the quick review of my idea is to show that economically and monetarily this system works. It works because economics is about people and what motivates them. In one sense Karl Marx was right labor is the ultimate source of value, he was wrong in how to use that principle and that wrongness has lead to much suffering in the world as we tried to absorb his idealist thoughts (socialism) into the real world.
This proposed system is a method of merging both Adam Smith and Karl Marx while rejecting John Maynard Keynes completely.
Taxation & Its Role in the Destruction of Our Economy
QUESTION: Thank you for your fascinating blog. I thoroughly enjoy reading your analysis on social, political, financial and historical topics. i would like to make a couple points with questions and get your analysis or feedback on these.
First point: You describe that post 2015.75 (Big Bang), you expect a peak in bonds (safe haven) that will coincide with a low in stocks due to global fear. The eventual collapse in bonds will drive everyone into “private assets” causing a major rise in stocks and commodities due to lack of confidence in government. At the same time, you say that government won’t give up the fight on taxation and asset seizure. So, my question is, what good is it to invest in stocks in this private phase if the government will most likely tax all profits to the point of making the investment pointless? Why would people continue to buy stocks then? Typically when fair rule of law degrades, people hoard and don’t invest, correct?
…
Thanks for your analysis!
ANSWER: Historically, this has been the difference between movable and immovable assets, such as real estate. Collectibles, stocks, and precious metals are in the moveable category. Of course this is what governments are now attempting to seize.
The best hedge would be to have assets in terms of stocks in the USA, and certainly not in Europe. It may be harder to engage in a taxation of shares as an asset, whereas in Europe they are much closer to communism and see nothing wrong with taxing assets, not just income.
If we look at the fall of Rome, the first asset class to decline was real estate, as you cannot take it with you when you leave town. Thus, the population of Rome collapsed from 1 million to 15,000 by the Middle Ages. People had no choice and just walked away, unable to pay the taxes demanded.
Taxes are the great destroyer. You are an economic slave if you simply cannot retire without having to pay taxes. Taxes reduce economic growth and lower productivity for they are no different, economically speaking, from some gangster demanding “protection” money to operate a business.
National Poll – Broad Support Pushes Donald Trump Even Higher – Trump Continues To Pull Away…
The cut off should be 3% or greater now, none of those in the under 3% have any chance and they should be asked to drop out. By the end of this month make the cut 4% or greater and we’ll get down to a group that is more manageable.
Iowa Feeling The Bern – Bernie Sanders Now Defeating Hillary Clinton In Iowa – (Full Poll Results pdf)….
GO BERNIE
The Brzezinski/Obama Axis
Post By Prof. Paul Eidelberg
[September 23, 2009] Updated September 9, 2015 with a shocking epilogue]
Back in 1985, I wrote an article on Brzezinski for The Intercollegiate Review. Before citing some of the more relevant passages of that article, it should be borne in mind that Brzezinski, a political scientist, served as President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser. One does not have to read Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to know that Carter is an anti-Semite. Brzezinski has earned the same reputation.
Not only has Brzezinski publicly defended the anti-Semitic canard that the relationship between America and Israel is the result of Jewish pressure, but he also signed a letter demanding dialogue with Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction. It behooves us to understand the mentality of Obama’s [former] Middle East adviser.
Long before he became Mr. Carter’s national security adviser, Brzezinski rejected what he and most political scientists term the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet political systems. “This image,” he says, “is held by traditional anti-Communists.” Brzezinski thus affirmed he is not quite an anti-Communist. In fact, he deplores anti-Communism as “a relic of the Cold War, of the age of ideology.”
Not only did Brzezinski reject the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet forms of government, he rejects the very notion of good and bad regimes! Brzezinski is simply a moral or cultural (or historical) relativist, and relativism has certainly modulated Barack Obama’s mentality.
The influence of political scientists like Brzezinski is wide and deep. His relativism prompts him to negotiate with and appease terrorist regimes. With Brzezinski as his adviser, Obama will be more disposed to appease Iran and betray America’s allies, above all Israel.
Since Brzezinski is a relativist, he denies the existence of objective or trans-historical standards for determining whether the way of life of one nation, group, or individual is morally superior to that of another. (The members of the UN General Assembly must be pleased to hear this, despite the UN’s notorious record of condemning Israel without having ever condemned an Islamic state.)
Brzezinski’s relativism also makes him a “weather-vane” political scientist. He turns with the winds of power. Working in a pluralistic and egalitarian country like America – a secular society – he conveniently adopts tolerance as his operational principle on the one hand, and equality as his primary value on the other. He is quite at home with the moral equivalency that has shaped US foreign policy toward Israel and Islamic dictatorships.
Brzezinski views history through the lens of Marxism, which, despite its atheism, has much in common with Islam. Both Communism and Islam are universalistic ideologies that reject the idea of the nation-state. Both do not regard adherence to treaties between nations as obligatory. Both Communism and Islam are militaristic and expansionist creeds that do not recognize international borders. Brzezinski’s globalism is evident in Jimmy Carter. Under Brzezinski’s influence, Carter lowered the defense budget and pursued a soft line toward the Soviet Union. Obama is pursuing a very soft line toward Islam.
As a crypto-Marxist, Brzezinski deplores the nation-state. His book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, declares that “With the splitting and eclipse of Christianity man began to worship a new deity: the nation. The nation became a mystical object claiming man’s love and loyalty. The nation-state along with the doctrine of national sovereignty fragmented humanity. It could not provide a rational framework within which the relations between nations could develop.” Brzezinski sees the nation-state as having only partly increased man’s social consciousness and only partially alleviated the human condition.
“That is why Marxism,” he contends, “represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man’s universal vision.” Marxism, he says, “was the most powerful doctrine for generating a universal and secular human consciousness.” Embodied in the Soviet Union, however, Communism became the dogma of a party and, under Stalin, “was wedded to Russian nationalism.”
Although Brzezinski poses as a humanist, he makes a most inhumane statement by saying that: “although Stalinism may have been a needless tragedy, for both the Russian people and Communism as an ideal, there is the intellectually tantalizing possibility that for the world at large it was … a blessing in disguise.”!!! Brzezinski could as readily say: “Yes, Muslims slaughtered more than 200 million people, but Islam brought hundreds of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist communities under a single universal vision, that of the Quran”!!!
Brzezinski, a self-professed secularist, is an internationalist whose moral relativism contradicts the moral law or natural rights doctrine of America’s Declaration of Independence. His relativism and internationalism contradict the teachings of the America’s Founding Fathers, who endowed the United States with a national identity and character, as that which animated Abraham Lincoln. To put it more bluntly: Brzezinski’s political mentality, like that of countless other American academics, is anti-American. An Obama-Brzezinski axis has revolutionary significance. It may accelerate the de-Americanization and decline of the United States [as I warned six years ago.]
Epilogue September 10, 2015:
Obama’s nuke deal with Iran is the offspring of Brzezinski’s mentality.
Centinel2012 