It's destroying jobs in lots of fields, not just mine. And mine is not so much medical anymore for that very same reason. The investment climate has literally gone poof.
It's mostly the tax'em spend-it crowd that's the culprit. Of course you will refuse to see it.
Oh they can. By moving out. Simple.
See? There you said it yourself.
You are a LinkedIn member so you should know full well that one can't do that there. Messages roll off into lalaland, from a technical point of view it's a horrible forum but that's where many of the real movers and shakers are. I said it in the Medical Devices Group run by Joe Hage, AFAIR in April 2012. Then I signed a petition urging Washington to repeal this very damaging tax.
Anyhow, it's water under the bridge and numerous people are either shaking in their boots about their job or have already lost it. Which is just great before Christmas.
I did. 14 million more food stamp recipient since the president took office. That's hard work to reduce it in your eyes? Get real.
On the expense side there certainly is a whole lot in it that should not have been signed.
It IS great fun to sit on the sidelines and watch intellectual equals argue with each other >:-} ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
The sub-prime mortgage crisis did that. And it's a stretch to blame that on the current administration.
... but it's stuck with a
It's kind of difficult to see a cause and effect chain when one doesn't exist. James Arthur doesn't have that problem, but he can manage much more selective vision than most of us, and believe six impossible things before breakfast to fill in the gaps.
tax
.
ed
You've just congratulated me for explaining why a "skim-off-the-top tax" can be necessary, despite it's nasty side effects (which it essentially shares with any tax that works).
On the other hand, they'd had jobs after 2008, which was when the jobs really evaporated. We live interesting times, and nobody has a job for life.
to
re
r.
,
Unemployment is a lagging indicator, and people don't front up for food stamps until they've run through their savings
formatting link
Unemployment started to rise in 2007, went up like a rocket in 2008, and only started levelling off as Obama was being sworn in. 14 million extra added since then to make the current total of 46 million looks more like the carry-over from Dubbya's incompetence than anything you can blame on the current administration.
James Arthur is convinced that it's not working at all, and that none of it should have been signed. Which bits are you most sceptical about? And why?
I wonder how Jim judges "intellectual equality" in this forum. He's never shown any sign of having any interest in this area, and even less signs of actual knowledge.
Nope. What's the next excuse? The Spanish-American war did it?
The investment climate has gone to pots for two reasons:
a. Uncertainty about capital gains taxation. If such taxes have a chance to ratchet up significantly (and they can, big time) then people are less willing to take business risks. Business leaders have personally told me so. You may not understand the Laffer curve but it's alive and kicking. Not enough reward -> no risk taken. It's that simple.
b. Obamacare. Because of myriad taxes and fees and laws in there.
James and I live here, we know, we experience it live. You don't.
No, you just explained why companies are leaving a country. Read your own text again. Calls to change stuff in tax havens are illusive, for the simple fact that one does not have jurisdiction there.
A skim-off tax will drive companies to move to places that have less onerous tax laws or to places where they can offset the effect by cheaper labor.
The jobs I mentioned are evaporating right now. What's really sad is that nobody in politics seems to care anymore.
There you go again, making assumptions about a country you know nothing about. It is widely known that most American families have no real savings, often never had any. Zip, zilch. What they do generally have is credit card debt. So that debunks your argument right there.
formatting link
Wrong. Those were added during this administration and it is clearly evidenced.
Billions in food stamp increases, billions in welfare increases, tons of money for porkbarrel infrastructure projects (I have seen some of those projects), energy dole-outs, and on and on and on. Why? Because they lead to complacency and they result in waste of taxpayer money.
It IS such great fun to sit on the sidelines and watch _intellectual_ _equals_ argue with each other >:-}
ROTFLMAO >:-} ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Wrong. The sub-prime mortgage crisis is exactly what did it, and continues to do it. It took a lot of money out of the economy - invested in buying over-priced houses and in building houses that were expected to sell into an active market for quite a bit more than they could command now. People need to accumulate more money before they can invest, and they are more cautious about investing.
That didn't seem to damage the economy at the time. If you want to construct a story about Porto Rican immigrants, be my guest.
This rather ignores the actual reason - as given above. Uncertainty about capital gains taxation never stopped anybody from investing, and while Obamacare does increase the cost of medical cover, it doesn't increase it significantly. Medical care is half again more expensive in the US than anywhere else, and if that were a significant motivation, you have moved back to the Netherlands or Germany, where it's cheaper.
to
n
u
James' capacity for selective vision is legendary. You both live there, but you see what you expect to see - and in James' case, want to see.
I've been around a bit more, and I'm not convinced that either Republicans or Democrats have a sensible program, which is closer to an open mind than either of you can claim.
I explained why they might be leaving the country, but the US is busy off-shoring almost everything anyway - cheap labour is even more seductive than low taxes
Perfectly true. Big countries have noticed, and presumably they are going to do something about it. Switzerland has already compromised on it's banking secrecy laws, and corruptible Swiss bankers have been selling CD's loaded with interesting data to the Dutch and German tax authorities for some years now.
Of course, the labour isn't as skilled and production isn't as flexible. There are advantages and disadvantages to off-shoring. Tax avoidance is just part of the picture - and not a large part.
Lots of jobs have evaporated and are evaporating. New jobs are being created - unemployment is dropping, if not all that fast.
ly to
More
y.
ger.
go,
er
Which they max out before they accept the humiliation of asking for food stamps.
Obviously not, "Resources" would have been a better word than "savings" but if unemployment is a lagging indicator, food stamps take- up is going to lag even more.
..
u
The curve for food stamp take-up went up smoothly and progressively more slowly until about 2010 when I can start planning the Republican majority for the decline in the incomes of the lower quintiles of the income distribution, while the incomes of the top 5% went up by 5%.
..
ot
There's not a lot of complacency about. Keynesian deficit-financed pump-priming is about injecting money into the economy, preferably getting it into the hands of people who can be relied on to spend all of it, immediately to maximise the Keynesian multiplier Welfare and food stamps are pretty much ideal targets . The pork-barrel infrastructure projects aren't good from this point of view, but the US political structure is organised (and always has been) to allow fat cats to demand pork-barrel bribes in exchange for not blocking necessary legislation.
It can be seen as a "waste" of tax-payers money, but Great Depression style economic contraction at a about 6% per year destroys large chunks of previously productive investment - businesses close down and their assets get sold off for ten cents on the dollar - and wastes a whole lot more tax-payers money. It's an expensive medication, but the disease it prevents is a lot more expensive.
The US needs a new constitution - and one which allows much stricter control of electoral expenditure - but that's not a good reason for complaining about the performance of the current US administration. James Arthur seems to think that the US constitution is the acme of perfection, but he seems to communicate by computer rather than by posted snail-mail letter, and should be in a position to appreciate that the founding tax-evaders might have made other choices if they'd had access to faster communications.
Unemployment IS NOT THE SAME as people who have jobs. To confuse that is to profoundly misunderstand.
If you factor that, it's far worse.
e
Bill, I've cited their ACTUAL promises.
I've shown six ways from Sunday why it's not true in principle (the many ways it takes inherently more from the economy than it contributes), how you're not even true to Keynes, why he was wrong, and several objective measures that demonstrate its falsehood--from this current, biggest test in history--beyond any doubt.
All you ever do is repeat "pump-priming", wave your hands and spend
3/4 of your time insulting people.
Meanwhile, you can't comprehend the basic distinction between the number of people with jobs and the number of people who've looked for work in the last four weeks (U-3). Instead you Google up the U-3, and cite it.
The jobs data I've just cited excludes your stimulus hypothesis in painstaking detail. It violates conservation of matter, it violates conservation of energy. It hasn't, and doesn't work.
It's been explained so painfully clearly, so often, I have to assume you're trolling.
There's nothing particularly profound to understand. You don't like the figure most frequently quoted and delve through the alternatives until you find one which you like better. If I thought that your delving had given you any kind of useful insight, I might pay attention to what you'd come up with, but you've only got one insight - republicans good, democrats bad -and that's not a message that bears much repeating.
:
If you factored that in, I'm sure that it would all look much worse. In practice, it just means that there's more going on than meets the party-political partisan point of view, and the figures aren't going to be all that useful.
a
ove
But not here, now. And when you cite something, I've learned to be very careful to look at the bits you didn't bother citing.
To your own satisfaction
To you. Meanwhile the rest of the world serenely sails over the boundaries that you see as the edges of the earth.
Ineffectively. You haven't yet got it into your head that you are a close relative of the people who wander up and down the street carrying signs saying "The end is nigh".
Interesting. I used to look for work when I was in work. How does that fit into the set of basic distinctions that you want to make - and have failed to spell out - and I've failed to comprehend?
How? There's no cause and effect detail in there.
Only if you believe that the market is perfect - which is handy assumption if you want to build tractable mathematical models, but totally unrealistic.The market - imperfect as it is - is whole lot better than an of it's alternatives, but because it is imperfect, it has to be regulated and adjusted. Kenysian deficit-funded pump-priming stimulus spending is one of those occasionally necessary adjustments, along with anti-trust legislation, consumer protection legislation and central bank fiddling with the money supply.
So the economy has been shrinking at 6% per year for that past four years, and your GDP is now only 75% of what it was in 2008. The end is really close ...
You've explained what you think very clearly, if without any supporting detail, and it's equally clearly utter nonsense.
The banks are being forced, by regulation, to swallow up the federal debt. They're not being forced to invest their reserves in government instruments because they don't have nearly enough, but I don't see much practical distinction--they're being used to finance and disguise federal borrowing.
T rates are not "at" historic lows, they're being held artificially low out of desperation, that's the point. There are two reasons for low rates, both pathological:
People think they'll lose less in treasuries than other instruments, so some still buy our bonds 2. the Fed's buying the rest, 70%.
A healthy reason would be that people were super-prosperous, generating money to loan that no one needed/wanted. That's not the case.
Those are certainly two elephants in the livingroom. Add in the EPA, Dodd-Frank, and the constant threats against ordinary industries / employers.
[...]
go,
er
..
Have you never even looked at the U-3 unemployment figure you're forever pushing? It was (eyeballing) ~7pct when Obama got in, soared to 10pct, leveled for two years, and didn't start sloping downward below 9.5pct until well /after/ the 2010 elections.
formatting link
That simply objectively demolishes your whole narrative. You won't care, of course.
u
..
ot
Bill asks for cites, but has already admitted he doesn't read them. That's why he makes absurd statements--he refuses to consider evidence.
Too bad. He still doesn't understand the difference between a. [the number of people who've looked for work in the last four weeks] (the U-3) and b. [the number of people with jobs] (the BLS graph I linked to). Nor does he seem alarmed at how few people actually have jobs, because he doesn't know, and he doesn't care.
So, he makes up stuff that sounds nice to him (the Tea Party stole the money, or diverted it to their dastardly operatives, foiling Dear Leader's infallible plan), but don't contain any actual occurrences, quantities, or facts.
If you look at the BLS graph, you'll plainly see the impulse response of employment to stimulus: zip. NOTHING HAPPENED, Obama saved nothing, and the modest retrenchment didn't start until mid-2011. We're still about 12 million below where we should be.
The whole premise of "stimulus" was that it would generate 'demand' from dim-witted consumers, cause dim-witted companies to hire based on this artifice, and put people to work immediately. They didn't.
The fatal flaw Bill is simply unable to tally--from no lack of not trying--is that all such attempts, when financed by deficits, require the feds to remove more money from the economy than what they can ever put in.
He's arguing an L-C tank's ringing will increase ad infinitum if you ping it just magically right, and waving his hands to make it so. If it didn't work, you didn't ping it properly.
If the shallow end of a pool were too shallow, he'd be filling with buckets from the deep end.
So kill-file Slowman and spare the rest of us the annoyance of opening your posts and finding you just feeding the troll. ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Disguise? It's all published and out in the open ...
They are being held low - artifice is what central banks use to control the money supply, how else would they do it? The reason they are being held low is to encourage investment and economic growth, which strikes most sane commentators as perfectly rational.
You think we should be relying on the mystical powers of the market, rather showing our heretical lack of faith by trying to pre-empt it's mysterious - but perfect - workings.
Sadly, we don't share your faith.
The top 5% of the income distribution did very well in 2010-2011 - their incomes went up 5%. Maybe they've been lending it back to the government. They don't seem to be spending or investing much of it, so about all they can be doing with it is lending it to the government
The top 5% of the income distribution is collecting quite a lot every year. and 5% of their incomes would be serious money.
> > >>>>> In reality, his administration has worked hard to minimise the nu
mber
s
y...
What a load of nonsense. Unemployment is a lagging indicator. The GDP was shrinking at 1.6% per quarter at the end of 2008, but the stimulus package turned that around fairly quickly. Because unemployment is a lagging indicator it kept on rising through 2009, and only stopped rising in 2010. Same process, evidenced at different times in different statistics.
you
But this doesn't mean that the current administration caused them. The avalanche takes a while to get to the bottom of the hill.
o...
not
f
On the contrary I read them very carefully - in the context they came from rather they the selected highlights that you like to post.
My irony meter just pegged.
James Arthur tells us that there's a difference, but not how big it is or why it matters. He wants to reject the U-3 which I dug out - and seems to be the number tha
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.