Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Taxes...but what of Spending, too?
Political brinksmanship. Game theory made real...or is it real?
The link brings you to a story about a political stand-off in Louisiana's state government fiscal problem. They are spending more money than they take in. One side wants to increase taxes (an increase of record proportions apparently) and one side does not want the increase.
So the one side uses a crowd favorite, the Louisiana State University's football team (the Tigers) as a HOSTAGE! Is it a real threat, or just demagoguery? The article lists other areas that would be hit...but the main point is this; aren't there always TWO means to balance a budget? Increase revenues or cut spending right?
The dirty little secret here is that spending is ASSUMED (the Federal Government calls it 'base line budgeting') to always increase at a specified rate. So, any increase in spending that is less than that assumed increase would be considered a CUT??? Like illustrated below, the BLUE line, is it a cut? Or is it growth?
According to base-line budgeting, it is a CUT!
Like in Flint, where they have decided to spend over $2,000,000.00 on park renovations instead of using that money to address their existential water issue? Wow...
If a family has less money coming in than it spends, priorities must be determined. Which is more important? Cutting grass in a park, or getting clean drinking water? Welfare payments to marginal individuals or a state-wide loved football team? (Please understand that it is NOT an all-or-nothing proposition regarding the marginal welfare recipients. We're talking here about the person that is able-bodied, just discouraged from finding work after years of looking.) Given that we are talking about spending public funds, shouldn't the calculus of MB greater or equal to MC be considered?
LASTLY...it is as true as daytime being lighter than nighttime. Taxes reduce economic activity. Everytime. Never not.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/13/louisiana-dem-gov-edwards-warns-agree-to-proposed-tax-hikes-or-lsu-football-could-be-sacked.html
The link brings you to a story about a political stand-off in Louisiana's state government fiscal problem. They are spending more money than they take in. One side wants to increase taxes (an increase of record proportions apparently) and one side does not want the increase.
So the one side uses a crowd favorite, the Louisiana State University's football team (the Tigers) as a HOSTAGE! Is it a real threat, or just demagoguery? The article lists other areas that would be hit...but the main point is this; aren't there always TWO means to balance a budget? Increase revenues or cut spending right?
The dirty little secret here is that spending is ASSUMED (the Federal Government calls it 'base line budgeting') to always increase at a specified rate. So, any increase in spending that is less than that assumed increase would be considered a CUT??? Like illustrated below, the BLUE line, is it a cut? Or is it growth?
According to base-line budgeting, it is a CUT!
Like in Flint, where they have decided to spend over $2,000,000.00 on park renovations instead of using that money to address their existential water issue? Wow...
If a family has less money coming in than it spends, priorities must be determined. Which is more important? Cutting grass in a park, or getting clean drinking water? Welfare payments to marginal individuals or a state-wide loved football team? (Please understand that it is NOT an all-or-nothing proposition regarding the marginal welfare recipients. We're talking here about the person that is able-bodied, just discouraged from finding work after years of looking.) Given that we are talking about spending public funds, shouldn't the calculus of MB greater or equal to MC be considered?
LASTLY...it is as true as daytime being lighter than nighttime. Taxes reduce economic activity. Everytime. Never not.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/13/louisiana-dem-gov-edwards-warns-agree-to-proposed-tax-hikes-or-lsu-football-could-be-sacked.html
Friday, February 5, 2016
Market leadership, or monopolization?
So, ChemChina bought out an agricultural conglomerate, Syngenta. Both are not based in the U.S. Specifically, ChemChina is an agribusiness behemoth, and only getting larger. What will this do to competition in the agribiz industry? What will this do to the quality of food, and type of seed available? Will this globalization and concentration result in an episode of humanity putting all of its eggs in one basket? Thinking disease and such (Irish potato famine anyone?) as well as GMOs producing unforeseen consequences.
AND...ChemChina is a 'business' in Communist Red China. The government there owns all of the businesses in China (or at least a majority share). Who competes with the government?
Pull quote extraordinaire..."...this is of particular concern since state-owned businesses frequently do not act in economically rational or predictable ways.”
Monday, January 25, 2016
Reducing Tariffs and restrictions on free-trade, a good thing?
Australia was somewhat harmed in the free-trade deal the Republic of Korea (ROK, or 'South Korea') made with the United States, and another deal with the European Union...but how?
If another country yours trades with, makes a deal that reduces tariffs and trade restrictions with some other county, your still restricted goods/services are more expensive vis-à-vis the newly freed items from that some-other country.
Get it? Does it MOOOOOve you?
Is this an example of competition making things better for all?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/17/free-trade-deal-with-south-korea-will-help-australian-beef-producers
If another country yours trades with, makes a deal that reduces tariffs and trade restrictions with some other county, your still restricted goods/services are more expensive vis-à-vis the newly freed items from that some-other country.
Get it? Does it MOOOOOve you?
Is this an example of competition making things better for all?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/17/free-trade-deal-with-south-korea-will-help-australian-beef-producers
Monday, January 18, 2016
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Sharia.
What is it? How does it affect a free-market? Hmmm...methinks that it would destroy it in as much as Sharia appears to be a totalitarian imposition of power, totally abrogating the concept of a 'free' market. I guess some would say that it is a free market, as long as you only sell the items permitted, like young girls (particularly blonde girls) as sex slaves. Yes, I used the most outrageous example I could think of (hard to do in 21st century America) to point out the alieness of it.
All wars are economic at their foundation. They are fought over scarce resources for whatever stated purpose, be it nationalistic or religious. The most important resource in the world is people.
Check it out: http://www.theoakinitiative.org/oak-leaf-98#.VpUXXRUrKUk
What is it? How does it affect a free-market? Hmmm...methinks that it would destroy it in as much as Sharia appears to be a totalitarian imposition of power, totally abrogating the concept of a 'free' market. I guess some would say that it is a free market, as long as you only sell the items permitted, like young girls (particularly blonde girls) as sex slaves. Yes, I used the most outrageous example I could think of (hard to do in 21st century America) to point out the alieness of it.
All wars are economic at their foundation. They are fought over scarce resources for whatever stated purpose, be it nationalistic or religious. The most important resource in the world is people.
Check it out: http://www.theoakinitiative.org/oak-leaf-98#.VpUXXRUrKUk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)