Re: how to compare living standards

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:48:45 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


"William F Hummel" <wfhummel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:foe312hqf3o6hg66p2llbvtad61r296a2a@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:39:12 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Jim Blair" <jeb@xxxxxxxx> wrote
....

I say that when people invest in stocks and bonds rather than spend on
immediate consumption, economic expansion is enhanced which generates
revenue for both state and the federal governments. And even when the
money
is invested rather than being collected by the US government, the economy
is
enhanced. But you two probably don't agree.

WFH::

"Investing" in the sense of buying stocks in the secondary market is
merely trading, not investing. Only the purchase of new issues can be
thought of as investing, although those funds often go to paying down
debt, buying other companies, or issuing bonuses to employees rather
than adding to the productive capacity -- which is what investing
really means.

Hi,

But people buy stock in the first place because there is a market where
they are bought and sold.

Yes, there generally has to be a market. Your point is?

And the debt a company is paying down was caused typically by expansion of
capacity or improvements.

In some cases, yes, but not exclusively.

Employee bonuses are a form of compensation, to retain or reward.

Especially in the executive office where reward usually bears little
relation to performance.

Do you say that the "capital market" does NOT supply capital?

No, where did you get that idea?

There must be a balance between consumption and capital spending if
the economy is to grow.

I agree.

.....Firms will not expand productive capacity
unless there is sufficient demand. The problem is that one person's
consumption is another's income, and demand ultimately depends on the
national income. A net reduction in consumption can actually depress
economic growth.

But do you think "under-consumption" is a problem for the US economy today?

No, just the notion that abstinence is good for the economy.

Are Americans currently spending too little of their income and saving too
much?

I really don't know.


But note that since Reagan lower tax rates are producing much higher tax
revenue.

And a much higher national debt.

Because of increased spending.

Reagan's deficits were largely to win the Cold War and build up the military
that was used to win the First Gulf War.

But Reagan didn't win the Cold War. He wasted billions on things like
Star Wars and a 600 ship navy. The Soviets didn't capitulate because
they were out-gunned. The Cold War ended when corruption and utter
economic failure could no longer be hidden from the Russians
themselves. Credit Gorbachev with the major credit in bringing down
the empire.

Rather like FDR's much larger deficits (relative to GNP) were to win WW II.

Not at all. World War II was entirely different from the Cold War.

The federal deficits between 1990 and 9/11/2001 have no such excuse.

Yes ,like read my lips "No new taxes" until the Democrats finally
forced a little budgetary sanity on the Republicans.

....Shifting some of our saving out
of the "Social Security Trust Fund" and into "IRA"s does nothing to
ameliorate that problem.

That is not obvious to me. Do private companies make better use of money
than the US government does?

It's not at all clear. Enron, WorldCom and the like would suggest
that private companies often make much worse use of the money. And
many businesses fail due to bureaucratic sclerosis causing costs to
run out of control.


I agree that private companies can also waste money and make poor
investments. But they don't do that on the same scale as the federal
government.

Private companies have provided many horrible examples.

What private company pays employees to not work for generations, like the Ag
Dept pays farmers to not grow crops? Or to grow things that no one wants to
buy?

That's not an example of government bureaucratic waste. It's
Congressional legislation. Remember, the Republicans have controlled
the Congress for over 10 years

Or as appears to be on the horizon, spends billions of dollars to build
houses below sea level in a hurricane zone even as the land is sinking, sea
level is rising, and hurricanes are expected to become larger and more
frequent?

You should tell that to Bush and company.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: how to compare living standards
    ... merely trading, not investing. ... If everyone were to spend those dollars on consumption instead, ... But do you think "under-consumption" is a problem for the US economy ... But Reagan didn't win the Cold War. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: how to compare living standards
    ... immediate consumption, economic expansion is enhanced which generates ... merely trading, not investing. ... But do you think "under-consumption" is a problem for the US economy today? ... that private companies often make much worse use of the money. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • U.S. Looks at Recession; China Looks for Luxury
    ... The key, of course, is what happens with our economy. ... reason to believe in double-digit corporate profit growth. ... The World Bank just raised its 2007 growth forecast for China from ... My #1 rule of successful investing for the next decade is "Get long ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)
  • Re: CAPITALISM - The Almost Perfect Economic System
    ... damage in the real economy. ... business creation and business expansion. ... would help set a floor for consumer demand. ... does it make sense for anyone to keep investing ...
    (talk.politics.misc)
  • USA FALSE PROSPERITY
    ... Present Economy Driven By Consuming Our Accumulated Wealth Not Income ... the consumption of foreign oil and other largely perishable goods. ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)
Loading