Clearly you haven't examined the couple of post above yours very deeply. There is wisdom there you might need some day. $1663 per month will buy you a $250k home at 7% intrest $1686 per month will buy you a $400k home at 3% intrest Did the value of the home increase $150k or did the fed lower the intrest rate? What happens to home prices when intrest rates go back to more normal levels? Yes, it is good that the stock market is improving.
The Fed unwinds its portfolio over several years, sending hundreds of billions in profits to the Treasury?
Some Economists™ are Idiots According to The New York Times, “some economists say” oil companies aren’t taxed highly enough, despite being subject to the highest effective tax rates among all industry categories. “Some (economists/scientists/experts) say” is one of the oldest tricks in the Old Grey Lady’s handbag. With precisely the same amount of research and data collection that went into the Times’ assertion, I can say without fear of contradiction that “some economists” are idiots. Journalists too. The “some economists” comment was gratuitously tacked onto an otherwise interesting graphic study (reproduced in part below) on the effective income tax rates paid by American corporations, reported by company size and by industry. Link to original NYT graphic. Note that the three largest oil and gas companies paid $289 billion in income tax from 2007-2012. That’s separate from any royalties, lease bonuses or other fees paid, and separate from income taxes paid by employees, royalty owners, etc. The amount they paid means the oil industry took Win, Place & Show in the taxpaying horserace among all U.S. firms. Here are the effective tax rates paid by industry: Utilities, 12% Information technology, 21% Industrials, 24% Telecom, 24% Pharma, 26% Healthcare, 28% Consumer products, 28% Materials, 31% Financials, 33% Retailers, 34% Energy, 37% Insurance, 51% (skewed by AIG’s statistically meaningless high tax rate) The Times’ noted on the Energy industry detail: Really? Tax rates 50+% higher than, say, Industrials don’t cover “pollution costs”, whatever those are? Lachlan Markay of the Washington Free Beacon took note on Twitter: Followed by: To which I replied: Severance taxes are payable on production under state jurisdiction. Native American tribes can also levy a severance tax in addition to state taxes for production on tribal lands. The average rate is probably 7% of gross revenue (not profit), and is a category of tax that is not considered in the Times’ analysis of income taxes. In the larger oil and gas producing states, severance taxes are an important component of state revenue. Regardless of what “some economists say”, oil and gas carries an enormous tax burden already. I wonder who “some economists” think would absorb any additional taxes? And at what point would a punitive tax structure chase these companies away? The Times, bless their hearts, had to say something. The whole study flies in the face of conventional (Times) wisdom and the “progressive” canard that the oil companies are huge beneficiaries of Washington’s largesse in the form of tax credits and subsidies. After all, it must be true because “some economists” say so. Cross=posted at stevemaley.com.
^The idea of Pigouvian taxation of pollution (e.g. a carbon tax) is based on very sound economic theory, and is supported by a lot of economists, including Republicans. That's not to say anything about what the levels of other taxes on oil companies should be, though.
Steve Maley of redstate.com seems to have taken offense to one sentence in the graphic and not understood (or deliberately confused) the whole argument of the op-ed made by DC bureau chief David Leonhardt. The point was to demonstrate that different corporations pay a completely different tax rate and that it's too punitive for some industries (like energy) and easy to avoid (like IT). He never calls out the energy industry or claims they don't pay enough taxes. He makes the case that the corporate tax system is unfair because companies in certain industries can cheat the current codes by sending much of their operations abroad because the statutory tax rate is too high compared to other industrialized nations. Certain kinds of industries have an advantage over others and tax revenues to the federal government are way down as a result. He argues for lowering the corporate tax rate to be more competitive with places like Ireland and Singapore (where Pepsi and Coke, respectively, have moved their syrup operation to), to tighten the loopholes to make the code harder to circumvent, and to authorize Congress with more power to collect taxes from profits made abroad. Maley responded with an attack on the sentence: "Large oil companies typically pay high rates, but some economists argue that the high rates do not cover the pollution costs imposed on society." The sentence is a caption in the infographic, two clicks deep from the article. It also warrants adding, that even the link in his piece on redstate.com is directly to the infographic, not to the op-ed itself! How does he present it? He leads with: It's a misquote, a minor one, but sloppy nonetheless, and he manages to make that into an entire piece, willfully ignoring the intent of the op-ed he is taking a hatchet to, for the benefit of his redstate.com readers that won't ever bother to read the original in the New York Times and smell blood at the very mention of its name. Then he says: So who is cited and quoted in the original op-ed? S&P Capital IQ, who provided the data to the NYT Michelle Hanlon, "an accounting professor at M.I.T." as well as a paper she wrote with Scott D. Dryend (Duke University) and Edward L. Mayhew (UNC) entitled The Effects of Executives on Corporate Tax Avoidance Edward D. Kleinbard, "a tax expert and former Democratic Congressional aide" and "a law professor at the University of Southern California", who advocates lowering the tax from 35 percent to betwen 25 and 28 percent. He also quotes ex-Bush official Donald Marron: The only thing I can think of that can possibly make Maley squeamish about the op-ed is when Leonhardt explains that companies that enjoy the current system, like Coca Cola, started a lobbying group called LIFT America Coalition to "protect their advantages." He also calls out General Electric who have recently made huge contributions to Rep Dave Camp, chairman of the Way and Means Committee, and Sen. Max Bachus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, presumably to keep the tax breaks rolling in. My conclusion is that Maley was either desperately fishing for a topic on a slow news day (certainly possible - I was just as lazy of a journalist), or he's trying to draw attention away for the real issue: that certain companies are benefiting from the current outdated tax code and are going to great lengths to keep it from being reformed. In the ADD addled Internet age, these kinds of pieces are easy to get the right audience to digest without having to endure any critical examination. I should know -- I've been paid to do a bit of spin doctoring myself and like me, Mr. Maley probably needs the money too. For his sake, I hope he's being paid better than I was.
96% of CO2 is naturally created, man accounts for the other 4% give or take a bit. CO2 accounts for aprox. 3.6% of all greenhouse gases. So man accounts for 4% of 3.6% or about .144%. Woot. There are a few other man made greenhouse gases that actually bring that up to around .28% but they haven't figured out a scare tactic that works well enough to tax those yet. Sound ecconomic theory supported by politicians? More taxes == more power, of course they support it. Companies don't pay taxes, consumers do, the companies just pass the cost on. Income taxes are tiered for income levels but the price of gas affects everyone, even those that live off the goverment. Yippee, tax the poor... more.
96% of climate variation is cool, it's the 4% of extreme weather ranges that aren't. Humans don't have to create enough CO2 to change the entire world, just enough to make it VERY uncomfortable for humans. As we have seen in recent history, this is very much a possibility we are all rushing towards.
A thorough beatdown, but wasted on obvious troll is obvious bobmarley/whatever he's calling himself now.
Well since you like the coolaid, are you paying any extra taxes for the CO2 you produce? You know you don't have to wait till they make a law, you can jump right in and do your part now.
THE NEW MATH: "That which makes no sense is nonsense" The indefatigable Tyler Durden relays a must-watch presentation by Grant Williams, best known for his Things That Make You Go Hmmm newsletter. Some of the highlights? Williams' Problem 1: If the global economy is stalling, Europe is in recession, China is slowing and growth is seemingly impossible to generate, what are equity markets doing at all-time highs? Williams' Problem 2: If Chinese manufacturing has stalled, demand for raw materials is slumping, imports and exports are declining, and Chinese power consumption is falling, how is China's GDP growing at 7.7% Williams Problem 3: France!? Williams' Problem 4: If honesty is the best policy, then is dishonest the second best policy? Williams' Problem 5: If there were no sponges living in the oceans, would the oceans be deeper? Williams' Problem 6: Paul Krugman? Really? Williams' Problem 7: The Gold Price and The Price of Gold are mutually exclusive As Alan Roth observes regarding the equity markets, "investors rediscovering borrowing on margin and hitting an all-time high is clearly a red flag warning that there may be a rip-tide".
I always LOLed at people justifying overpriced or underpriced equity. The whole system is based on irrationality. Anyways, looking at it from a pure P/E ratio point of view (someone has to)---
I understand you have to start from somewhere. My views might seem like a glass half empty type a response, but I'm glad there's still water inside the glass. Mostly, my reply comes from previous threads similar to this but claiming the opposite, where Obama was blamed for a "disastrous recovery" backed by a "wasteful stimulus". I mean come on, how soon do people forget that when pressed to defend their team, they'd argue similar points to how their team is or is not responsible for the current state of the economy. Simple partisan jockeying creates equally simple binary modes of thinking. Moving beyond that is necessary to move beyond the ugly politics people claim they hate. The last disaster proved that regulatory agencies have neither the power nor the wherewithal to stop or slow anything when the economy is superheated. Politics suggests that government officials tend not to step in front of a speeding train. Bubble economies are insidious in the way that neither private nor the public interests realize that while short term gains are great, long term catastrophe has happened before and their circumstances this time is not unique and the bubble will pop. And about the banks role in the economy, Bernanke's tools for stimulating it has consistently reached the bottom of the barrel since the great recession. He's repeatedly wrote editorials that his hands are very limited at the moment and that political gridlock in Congress needs to be resolved. I agree that central banks can provide unilateral nimbleness to address short term shocks or seizures in the market, but the Greenspan/Bernanke era hasn't been the most smoothest ride in their attempts at implementing mid-long term economic policy. It sucks that the sequester hasn't been widely felt since the bill not only trimmed the fat at some tax payers would love but also indiscriminately trimmed the muscle (with some exceptions...). It doesn't take one much to acknowledge that there's waste in the government, but the job and responsibility to trim it down the most efficiently are the politicians we put in place. And the accountability should come from us. Likewise, when your Fed Chairman is writing public editorials for the past 3 years prodding Congress to enact policy for stabilizing the economy on the longer term, people should pay attention. It's small short term snapshots like the OP dressed as news that washes aside the past and current struggles. It desensitizes the people of the role they can still play.
I agree with most of your points. I've highlighted the only one where I have a slight disagreement; given the right context, this may not be true. I am speaking more from a policy wonk viewpoint---but in practice, in countries like Canada, proper oversight and regulation have prevented these kind of disasters without need for the central bank to abruptly create its' own macroeconomic shocks.
Canada doesn't benefit from and regulate international exchanges over several different asset classes and its derivatives.
I'm not a climate scientist, but I understand there's a pretty strong consensus that humans are driving climate change. I didn't write "supported by politicians," I wrote "supported by economists." This comes up in every discussion of the carbon tax. Consumers and companies pay taxes. Some of the cost gets passed on and some doesn't (how much does is determined by the relative price elasticities of supply and demand). Personally, I support using carbon tax revenue to fund a reduction in the payroll tax. Disincentivize pollution, incentivize hiring, increase the incomes of the working poor. Check-check-check.
While Canadian markets may not be as sophisticated as NASDAQ or the NYSE, the TSX (Toronto Stock Exchange) does have significant volume, and its' parent company deals with several asset classes. The TSX has many multinational and non-Canadian participants. In fact, the TSX is the 7th largest stock exchange in the world by market cap, and the 3rd largest in North America behind the two aforementioned exchanges (though the latter is a basically saying Mexico doesn't trade stocks very much). The TSX is larger, one should note, than the Frankfurt Stock Exchange (upon which the DAX index is based). Of course most of the Europeans are stuck in Euronext, but I'd wager the TSX equals or surpasses many of the other stock markets in Europe as well, if one were to look at them on an individual basis.
I'm still not convinced Canada would be a proper analog in terms of size, scale, complexity, traffic, innovation and growth.
You don't have to be a climate scientist to understand that 96% of greenhouse gases are water vapor and we have nothing to do with that. Man literally affects .28% of the greenhouse gases. There are people that will argue that it is enough but I'm not buying it. Actually I am buying it because our government is using it as a hammer to create miles of regulation red tape and taxes and we pay for it all. The climate has always changed, ask the dinosaurs. I am against taxing a myth but I like your idea that those funds would reduce payroll taxes. It's not going to happen, but I like the idea.
It's not a perfect fit, I agree, but with an economy like America, you're never gonna get a perfect fit. Canada has a lot of similarities with America that are not seen in other countries. You can reject Canada as well, but theoretically what Canada is doing is economically more "right" in the sense of recent textbook and academic theory (which is not cutting off bubbles with interest rate raises, but rather through proper bank regulations). I mean, this is Economist editorial type thinking rather than a proper case study, but I would like America to give it a try.
