114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 07:12 pm
Quote:
Q: Have tax cuts always resulted in higher tax revenues and more economic growth as many tax cut proponents claim?

A: No. In fact, economists say tax cuts do not spark enough growth to pay for themselves.

This economic theory is what George H.W. Bush called "voodoo economics." We called it "supply-side spin" when we wrote about Republican presidential contender John McCain's claim that President George W. Bush's tax cuts had increased federal revenues. We found that a slew of administration economists - from the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the White House's Council of Economic Advisers - all disagreed with that theory, saying that tax cuts may spur economic growth but they lead to revenues that are lower than they would have been if the cuts hadn't been enacted.

The supply-side theory that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost, they don't say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.

Corporate income taxes, however, may be an exception. There is some evidence that cutting the corporate tax rate can produce more revenue than was projected under the higher rate in the special case of multinational corporations, which can move their money and operations around to take advantage of lower taxes in certain countries. Economists with the pro-business American Enterprise Institute came to that conclusion in a study released in July 2007. They found that lower corporate rates attract enough growth in corporate income to produce higher government revenues. However, one of the authors, Kevin A. Hassett, told FactCheck.org that small countries, such as Ireland, had the most success and that "it may or may not be correct" to apply the study's results to the United States.

-Lori Robertson

Sources
United States Congressional Budget Office. "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal years 2008 to 2017" Jan. 2007.

United States Council of Economic Advisers. "Economic Report of the President." U.S. Government Printing Office. Feb. 2003.

United States Joint Committee on Taxation. "Estimated Budget Effects of the Conference Agreement for H.R. 1836" JCX-51-01. 26 May 2001.

United States Joint Committee on Taxation. "Estimated Budget Effects of the Conference Agreement for H.R. 2 The ?'Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.' " JCX-55-03. 22 May 2003.

United States Department of the Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis. "A Dynamic Analysis of Permanent Extension of the President's Tax Relief." 25 July 2006.

Mankiw, N. Gregory and Matthew Weinzierl, "Dynamic Scoring: A Back-of-the-Envelope Guide," 12 Dec. 2005.

Brill, Alex and Kevin A. Hassett, "Revenue-Maximizing Corporate Income Taxes: The Laffer Curve in OECD Countries," American Enterprise Institute, AEI Working Paper #137, 31 July 2007.


http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/have_tax_cuts_always_resulted_in_higher.html
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 07:13 pm
farmerman :

i'm sure you know the saying : "THE FOX HAS BEEN PUT IN CHARGE OF THE HENHOUSE !" - except it's no longer just A FOX put a SKULK OF FOXES that have been put in charge !
you got the shotgun ready ?
hbg
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 08:41 pm
So Bernacke is suggesting we need a stimulus package. If taxcuts don't help, what in the world could he possibly be talking about then?

And the Democrats idea of a stimulus package is increasing unemployment benefits and food stamps? Seems to me we need to do something to get people working, not pay them not to work. How does not working stimulate the economy? Oh and also by the way a tax rebate check? For what to buy a worthless muffler for your car, how does that help? Remember thats what Tom Daschle said about a tax rebate before.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 09:10 pm
hamburger wrote:
from cyclo's post :

Quote:
A more worrying consideration is that when a bond insurer is downgraded, all the securities it has guaranteed are, in theory, downgraded as well.


it's like hearing that the company you insured your house with has stopped paying claims - makes you wonder why should bother buying insurance .

Not really.

If your insurance company has stopped paying claims it is because it is in receivership and your claim and the claims of your fellow policyholders will be paid by the State Guarantee Fund which is funded by assessments against solvent insurance companies.

Arguably, when one insurance company folds, it is other insurers, not the policyholders who suffer. Of course you may not get a generous settlement from a Guarantee Fund and it may take a lot longer than you might otherwise have expected from your original insurer, but while Insurers bankroll Guarantee Funds, they do not handle the claims. These are handled either by the state run Guarantee Fund itself or a company the state has hired to do so.

The financial industry ( including insurance and banks) are very heavily regulated with the original ostensible reason being to protect consumers from insolvencies. As with any industry subject to heavy governmental regulations quite a lot of money is spent on compliance. These costs are passed on to the consumer. One need only spend some time with regulators of any industry to know that very many regulations, while professing to serve consumer interests, don't, in practice, do much more than require a bureaucratic process be put in place to prove the company is in compliance. The upside is that these processes provide mind-numbingly tedious jobs for a lot of people. The downside is that the cost of these processes are passed to us, the consumers.

How good can these regulators be when almost all insolvencies come as a surprise to them?

Governmental regulations of virtually all industries are seen by a lot of people as an essentially positive thing. With certain industries: insurance, banking, pharmaceuticals, nursing homes etc they are seen as absolutely essential.

Of course those who get warm and fuzzy inside when they read or hear about regulations have made this enormous, and most often erroneous, assumption that the government is good at regulating industry and that the risks they are supposed to be controlling no longer exist or have been greatly mitigated. If only.

Heavy US regulations make our industries less competitive than their counterparts in other nations, and it is one of the reasons why many multi-nationals no longer call America their home.

There are, without a doubt, a fair number of bad apples within the community of corporate leaders, but it would be utterly ridiculous to suggest that everyone working within every corporate entity is an amoral pirate. These folks, after all, are people just like you and me. The number of corporate executives (including CEOs) being compensated in any way that might realistically be considered obscene is rather small.

Too many people have an irrational fear and/or hatred for corporations.

First of all they don't exist as sentient individuals. All one can say about the identity of any corporation is that it reflects the character and beliefs of the current large group of individuals working at it.

Secondly, as indicated before the vast majority of these people are not very different from those who do not work in corporations, and are subject to the same statistical bell curves regarding performance and ethics. I do some business with farming associations, and one think you can always count on is that folks will tell you that farmers are the salt of the earth, practitioners of clean living and holders of the highest morals in the nation. Nonsense. They are no better or worse than any other group of workers in the US (except maybe Crack Dealers and Lawyers)

Thirdly, corporations come in all shapes and sizes and it is foolish to generalize about any such large and varied group.

Finally, as Calvin Coolidge said "The business of America is business." Unless one has hopes of the US marching centuries backward to become a pastoral agrarian society, corporations are here to stay, and thank goodness for that.

BTW - It would be rather foolish to stop buying insurance because you learned your current company was bo longer paying claims. First, as I've explained, the insolvency of your insurer will not render your policy worthless. Secondly, there is a much better chance that your home will be damaged by any number of physical perils, that your personal property will be stolen and that you will hurt someone in an accident than there is that your insurance company will go insolvent. Third and finally, insurance is not intended to enrich you. If you don't ever have to make a claim, count yourself lucky, not ripped off. When someone walks away from a loss (property or injury) feeling that the accident was "worth it," that they wouldn't mind going through it again because they felt a sense of profit --- something is very wrong and that person has probably committed fraud to one degree or another. Insurance is suppose to make you whole, as if the accident never happened, not make you money.


as many market watchers are saying : INVESTORS ARE GETTING NERVOUS and are feeling insecure - and that's a VERY BAD sign ,
hbg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 09:25 pm
This problem with the subprime mortgage loans is much different from past cash problems. This problem involves tens of billions of dollars, and no insurance guarantee corp is gonna have that kind of money.

And we still don't know the full extent of bad loans, because of the way those loans were packaged and repackaged and sold and resold with so many different mix and match products.

It's my estimation that the full extent of these problem loans won't be known until early next year.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 09:33 pm
Give us a Prediction C.I.

A conservative one and a worse case senario.

(did you see gold went up?)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 09:58 pm
I did: It's my estimation that the full extent of these problem loans won't be known until early next year.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 10:00 pm
ok
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 10:04 pm
Amigo, Most, if not all, commodities have a tendency to look good when the prices go up after we've considered it, and most forget it when the prices come down; unless you short it.

As the chart on Wiki has shown, gold vs stocks isn't even a good match as an investment, because stocks out-performs by multiples. I'll stock with the stock market - even now.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 10:15 pm
There should be some good buys right now in the stock market.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 09:47 am
This crisis may seem brand new. It isn’t. And please dump that word “recession” because it doesn’t do justice to what we are talking about here. The highest inflation rate in 17 years and the biggest housing crisis in a quarter of a century didn’t just happen. Major banks writing down billions of dollars practically every week is not normal. Wall Street going from boom to gloom almost overnight was not caused by somebody making a mistake.

The political causes of this are deep and long standing. Writer Robert Kuttner calls this “the most serious downturn since the Great Depression.” He blames the rise of right-wing ideology, and “the domination of our politics by a financial elite, and the lack of a true opposition party.”

You can’t fix that with pathetic stimulus packages and minor tinkering.

This is a structural crisis that’s been spawned by decades of shifting our economy from making things to buying things, from production to consumption. It has spawned “financialization’ a well heeled credit and loan complex powered by legal and illegal shenanigans in an unregulated market-driven environment. Both parties have benefited from it and are complicit in its consequences. All of our biggest banks were part of the subprime/subcrime-led credit collapse which enriched so many before bringing so many down. This crisis is still unfolding, rippling, and infecting more sectors of the economy. It is a “contagion” that has yet to be contained.

Writes the Mclatchey Newspapers: “The unwinding of debt is all-encompassing. It’s from the little homeowner out there to the big corporation,” said Larry Moss, senior vice president for the Raymond James investment firm in Birmingham, Mich.

The credit crunch overlaps with other negative trends, most noticeably the poor housing market and weakening consumer spending. The fear is that tighter credit and weaker spending will reinforce and amplify each other, creating a downward spiral leading to a recession.

“Once you get in that cycle, then it becomes really, really scary,” said Amiyatosh Purnanandam, a professor of finance at the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan who has studied tight-credit periods.”

For starters we need some stimulus from a study of history to understand how greed and corruption of any and all ethical principles stimulates this type of frightening business cycle. We need to stimulate a deeper debate.

Writes Satyajit Das, author of Traders, Guns & Money, explains: “Recent history has been a period of ‘too much’ and ‘too little’ - too much liquidity, too much leverage, too much complex financial engineering, too little return for risk, too little understanding of the risk.”

He told one of India’s leading newspapers, The Hindu, “This will reduce economic growth (the US looks likely to slow down sharply) and asset prices (houses and shares) around the world. It is perhaps the most serious crisis that we have faced in a very long time.”

Let’s break this down: Lets say we give every household $1000 bucks ($800 is the number under discussion). What happens? What do will recipients do first? What will they/we stimulate?
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/18/6449/
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 09:47 am
Cut and paste..what a waste.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 09:49 am
As per you high opinion. yes it is a waste
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 10:42 am
Why don't we nationalize the central bank?

What about this on the centrel bank?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 10:43 am
Don't worry we are saved the politicians have found the magic bullet called the stimulus package. What is your opinion will it be meaningful or an attempt to stop an oncoming speeding train by standing in front of it and holding out your hand?
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 10:51 am
Amigo wrote:
Why don't we nationalize the central bank?

What about this on the centrel bank?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ


Why don't we nationalize it? Probably because this is a free-market system!
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 10:59 am
Ragman wrote:
Amigo wrote:
Why don't we nationalize the central bank?

What about this on the centrel bank?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ


Why don't we nationalize it? Probably because this is a free-market system!
Why don't we loan money to our citizens without interest? and who collects the interest?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 11:01 am
au, The stimulus package is a waste of our governments time and money. It will do nothing to create jobs - the primary source of any economy.

What our government really needs to do is start work projects like maintaining our roads and other infrastructures like schools and bridges.

A one time shot in the arm isn't going to cure what's ailing us; low retail sales, drop in manufacturing, and the layoff of thousands of workers from the real estate industry, stores, factories, and office jobs.

Our government is hopeless; their performance rating should be a minus 200.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 11:01 am
The simple answer is because democracy doesn't work that way. It interferes with Free-market system.

The one-time $500 or $800 bonus refund is a short-sighted measure and will do nothing to fix what ails the economy as CI so correctly points out. The USA needs to find a way to be competitive with its products in the current world market, for starters.

The government has to learn (if by magic) to curb its spending, NOT get us involved in senseless wars with no exit strategy, and make the programs that are in place work more efficiently. This means running the government more like a business.

Perhaps Repubs should put up billionaire biz-man Bloomberg, Mayor on NYC as Prez. Might be interesting to see what he could do with running a tighter ship.

CI, the problem with WPA-like work projects is what happens after the road or bridge or school is built? Where do these workers go? What will gets those workers back to work for the long term? what insures efficiency of the supervision of those projects. Infamously the history shows how much graft becomes ensconced within the oversight of this sort of contracting (e.g. witness the Katrina rebuild and re-housing projects and the massive multi-billion dollar urban renovation 'Big Dig' in Boston).

Work projects of this scale invite massive ADDED corruption...and such is the nature of bigger government. I'm for less gov't and less possible sources of corruption.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 11:16 am
Op-Ed Columnist
Good Jobs Are Where the Money Is

By BOB HERBERT
Published: January 19, 2008
I think of the people running this country as the mad-dashers, a largely confused and inconsistent group lurching ineffectively from one enormous problem to another.

They've made a hash of a war that never should have been launched. They can't find bin Laden. They've been shocked by the subprime debacle. They're lost in a maze on health care.

Now, like children who have eaten too much sugar, they are frantically trying to figure out how to put a few dollars into the hands of working people to stimulate an enfeebled economy.

They should stop, take a deep breath and acknowledge the obvious: the way to put money into the hands of working people is to make sure they have access to good jobs at good wages. That has long been known, but it hasn't been the policy in this country for many years.

Big business and the federal government have worked hand in hand to squeeze the daylights out of working people, stripping them (in an era of downsizing and globalization) of much of their bargaining power while ferociously pursuing fiscal policies that radically favored the privileged few.

My colleague at The Times, David Cay Johnston, took a look at income patterns in the U.S. over the past few decades in his new book, "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You With the Bill)."

From 1980 to 2005 the national economy, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled. (Because of population growth, the actual increase per capita was about 66 percent.) But the average income for the vast majority of Americans actually declined during that period. The standard of living for the average family has improved not because incomes have grown, but because women have gone into the workplace in droves.

The peak income year for the bottom 90 percent of Americans was way back in 1973 ?- when the average income per taxpayer (adjusted for inflation) was $33,001. That is nearly $4,000 higher than the average in 2005.

It's incredible but true: 90 percent of the population missed out on the income gains during that long period.

Mr. Johnston does not mince words: "The pattern here is clear. The rich are getting fabulously richer, the vast majority are somewhat worse off, and the bottom half ?- for all practical purposes, the poor ?- are being savaged by our current economic policies."

His words are echoed in a proposed stimulus plan currently offered by the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. (The plan is available on its Web site, epi.org.) Stressing that any stimulus package should be "fair," the authors of the institute's proposal wrote:

"The distribution of wages, income and wealth in the United States has become vastly more unequal over the last 30 years. In fact, this country has a more unequal distribution of income than any other advanced country."

Economic alarm bells have been ringing in the U.S. for some time. There was no sense of urgency as long as those in the lower ranks were sinking in the mortgage muck and the middle class was raiding the piggy bank otherwise known as home equity.

But now that the privileged few are threatened (Merrill Lynch took a $9.8 billion fourth-quarter hit, and the stock market has spent the first part of the year behaving like an Olympic diving champion), it's suddenly time to take action.

There is no question that some kind of stimulus package geared to the needs of ordinary Americans is in order. But that won't begin to solve the fundamental problem.

Good jobs at good wages ?- lots of them, growing like spring flowers in an endlessly fertile field ?- is the absolutely essential basis for a thriving American economy and a broad-based rise in standards of living.

Forget all the CNBC chatter about Fed policy and bargain stocks. For ordinary Americans, jobs are the be-all and end-all. And an America awash in new jobs will require a political environment that respects and rewards work and aggressively pursues creative policies designed to radically expand employment.

I'd start with a broad program to rebuild the American infrastructure. This would have the dual benefit of putting large numbers of people to work and answering a crying need. The infrastructure is in sorry shape. New Orleans comes to mind, and the tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis.

The country that gave us the Marshall Plan to rebuild postwar Europe ought to be able, 60 years later, to reconstitute its own sagging infrastructure.

There are also untold numbers of jobs and myriad societal benefits to be reaped from a sustained, good-faith effort to achieve energy self-sufficiency. Think Manhattan Project.

The possibilities are limitless. We could create an entire generation of new jobs and build a bigger and fairer economy for the 21st century. If only we were serious.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 03/09/2026 at 07:57:27