Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
I hope you don't use this same cause-effect analysis in your trading.
1) Clinton was the Barry Switzer of Presidents. All these Democrats decrying the fallacy of the Laffer curve use Clinton and the dot.com era as solid evidence. The dot.com revolution was arguably the most profound increase in technological and economic expansion in modern history. You could have raised taxes all you wanted and not derailed that freight train. It had little/nothing to do with Clinton's policies, he simply enjoyed the credit of being the guy lucky enough to be in office when it ocurred. It was more Greenspan and endless mountains of cheap money that fueled the dot.com surge and it was that same policy that led to the dot.com bubble burst as Bush took over.
2) The counter claim to the Clinton era was the Carter administration. Under carter, the highest bracket was 79%. Reagan reduced the top rate to 28% and contrary to liberal logic, the government took in 5x as much tax revenue as income soared. That's the Laffer curve on steroids.
3) The economy was already growing (real GDP) when Clinton took office and the economy was already shrinking when he left office. Clinton enjoyed the foundation that Reagan and Bush Sr. put into place and then Alan Greenspan ensured that the whole thing grew out of control and then spiraled back to reality.
Furthermore, it was Greenspan (in conjunction with Barnie Frank and the 1977 community reinvestment act) that fueld the housing bubble burst. If you take away either (the subprime market or the free money) the housing market wouldn't have grown wildly out of control and then crashed. The Fed's boom/bust policies have been steering the economy like a battleship, by the time they realize it's time to turn, it's too late and it continues to overcompensate.
4) If you need a lesson in taxes....you can use either a microanalysis or extranalaysis to see the trend.
When a city or state wants to attract new business and capital investment....do they raise taxes or lower taxes? They lower them and give business/capital an incentive. Increasing taxes not only disincentivizes capital investment, business and new job growth locally, but it also encourages existing firms to seek shelter elsewhere. One only need look at the talent exodus out of California to places like Austin and Houston to see this at work as we speak. Rahm and crew and the Illinois socialists are already driving jobs out of Illinois toward the waiting arms of Indiana. Caterpillar, long a proud Illinois company has already stated it will probably begin relocating.
Extranalysis reveals the same concept. When viewing the problems of the EU, you find that 17/20 of the top indebbted nations on earth are European Socialist states. They're going bankrupt and even though Greece and Ireland are getting the press, Spain and Portugal and others aren't far behind. Socialism is like a giant game of musical chairs....when the music stops...someone has a frownie face.....and that's exactly what's happening now.
We cannot sustain all things. We cannot grow jobs and grow the economy and throw new taxes on top and continue spending at totally irresponsible levels. We have to choose.
The REAL irony is that when anyone suggests cutting budgets, Democrats cry fould and declare it "draconian" even though the cuts don't even amount to spending levels below 2 or 3 years ago. God only knows what how we ever survived before the spending levels seen these days. THAT is the danger and the ratcheting nature of social entitlements....no one complains when you increase them....but boy they sure whine like a mule if you ever try to go back to a previous state, even when the economy and the private sector is getting killed......
Can you help answer these questions from other members on NexusFi?
We probably agree on a lot. Bush was a moron...and masqueraded as a fiscal conservative....but prior to Obama, Bush spent more money than any other administration in history...combined. He saw the largest increase in the Federal Government EVER...(up to that point). He created the Department of Homeland Defense.......gave us things like the Patriot Act.....and stuck with idiots like Rumsfeld.
Bush didn't take us to war....the US Congress took us to war. To imply otherwise is foolish. The Democrats were RIGHT there with him....they all voted for it....they all looked at the SAME faulty intelligence. But of course Nancy Pelosi never remembers being briefed on waterboarding
Every politician has the same primary goal when they reach office....re-election. They're all crooks and scoundrels. But at least the Republicans are a little more clever about it....they take me out to dinner and woo me through corporate greed and dominance before they stick it to me. The Democrats just skip all that and try to take it through taxes. At least with the Republicans....I get kissed and foreplay before they take my money.
I'm not a objectivist, but I do agree with the foundation and the concepts Ayn Rand laid out.
People should have the choice to do what's in their own best interest. I support the concept that it's your money, and you should be able to use it however you see fit.
The problem with liberals (and conservatives) is that they flip flop. They're an idealist when it suits them. Then they're a consequentialist when it suits them.
Consequentialism dictates that the "end justifies the means" and liberals are consequentialist when they support robbing one citizen more than another, simply because they have more money.
It's a slippery slope. How much money is too much money? Who decides?
You can't be a fan of liberty and support discrimination of any minority, even the rich. Because what isn't considered to be too much money now, might be later. Eventually, you'll find yourself on the end of that logic fallacy.
The same can be said for something like torture. How much torture is acceptible? Even if it saves lives? It's a slippery slope. One person might think sleep deprivation is okay....after all, if it's just a LITTLE torture, but saves lives...then it MUST be okay right? Wrong.
Robbing someone more, even a little, or even when we think they have more wealth than they should...is wrong. Period.
Consequentialists love to declare something just and fair, as long as, in their estimation, the tradeoff is large. I.e. it's okay to rob the ultra rich, because they won't notice it and the society somehow "needs" it desperately. Similarly, it's okay to torture people just a little, as long as it's going to be necessary to save the lives of many or protect the lives of many.
"Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at its testing point.” C.S. Lewis.
That's Lewis' way of saying....a virtue (like freedom or liberty) any virtue, isn't a virtue if it fails when tested.
Liberty and freedom and capitalism aren't always convenient or clean....
I think someone with $1BN seeking $10BN has more money than they need....but that's their RIGHT.
In order to protect MY RIGHT, to increase MY WEALTH (even though it's much less) I have to respect everyone's right to do so, even when it doesn't make sense in my own estimation.
The whole "rich should pay more" assumes that the government's seizure and disbursement of someone else's money (even from someone who a majority think can spare it) is altruistic and just.
The government is frought with fraud, waste and abuse and even if I supported taking more money from the rich in order to put it to the use of the society at large, I wouldn't choose the crooks in government to do that.
Thirdly, Goldman Sachs wouldn't be in business right now if it weren't for the crooks in government helping them.
I support capitalism and free trade. Bailing out crooks who were partially responsible for the largest economic recession in recent history isn't capitalism or free trade.
Again, the housing bubble was caused by a confluence of factors, the two that are critical, were the Fed's monetary policy and the government's creation of the subprime market (forcing banks to loan to mortgage consumers who they would normally not).
Goldman Sachs is doing what they do because of the crooks in government and our ****ed up monetary system/policy.
If we would either end the Federal Reserve or place it under Congressional control/oversight, at least the people would have the information they needed to be informed and have influence.
Goldman Sachs is doing what is best for their shareholders and stakeholders....that's fine....but again, if we'd have let them crash and burn....the system would take care of itself. They'd all be on the street at some other firm....licking their wounds and vowing not to do it again.
The 'crooks' in government are nothing but ex-Goldman employees.....
I concur with your thinking on everyone has a right to seek 'more' as all Americans really are rich (financially and availability to become so) compared to just about any other country.
However, our government is US. It is an extension of our culture and a mirror of our mindset in forming $...
I used to think Atlas Shrugged made sense, but boy, if you truly lived in that world it would be pretty harsh. I think the book supposes that people will at least has some form of common decency and restraint, but I have been around long enough to know that for some, the only thing that matters is power and money regardless of who they harm.
Flat tax is the way to go in my opinion. I guess that would still impact the middle class disproportionately, but o' well...
I believe everyone has a right to make as much money as they can..Legally
But ya gotta enforce rules.... otherwise the big kids will steal your lunch money ...
Insurance companies have a right to earn profits... but they don't have a right to cancel a woman's health insurance in the middle of her battle with cancer ... just because they are hedging their bets that they can "out last" her in a drawn out court battle...
Wall Street has a right to earn as much as they can legally... but they don't have a right to intentionally package financial toxic waste in a wrapper with Moody's and S&P's stamp of approval and push it to unsuspecting Pension Fund Managers... while shorting the same instruments ...
Government contractors have a right to earn profits.. but they don't have a right to sell faulty flak jackets to the Pentagon .. no matter how many Congressmen they have on their payroll...
Gotta go... they just called and said my suit of shining armor was ready...
I'm just a simple man trading a simple plan.
My daddy always said, "Every day above ground is a good day!"
That pretty much nailed it on the head. I feel the same way. I chuckle when people talk about politics. When people start talking about the differences about democrats and republicans.... all i hear is" thats not a donkey, thats an ASS!!!!"
They don't realize that they're all the same, rich lawyers trying to get richer.
P.S. Nothing against lawyers.. both my brothers are lawyers.
