Re: how to compare living standards


"William F Hummel" <wfhummel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5r9r225n3dbmrt3eme0p9g4unv7e9hv5u3@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:30:50 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

"William F Hummel" <wfhummel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u11r221splsdkkmbocqpal8ov8sntd9503@xxxxxxxxxx

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 12:13:03 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Do you think poor and low income people save and invest more than rich
and
high income people?

Irrelevant. The issue is whether reducing taxes primarily on the
wealthy will increase capital formation for real investment. Don't
confuse financial investment with real investment. If you increase
after-tax income for the wealthy, most of it will end up spent on
financial assets and drive up asset prices.

Or do asset prices increase because the assets become more valuable?

Strange question. Obviously when the market bids up asset prices,
their _monetary_ value increases.

Hi,

But when a company improves/expands/modernizes/markets new products/etc. the
value of the company increases. And thus the value of a share of the company
(it stock) also increases in value, doesn't it? And the market price of a
share of stock is supposed to reflect the value of the stock and thus of the
company.

If the money chasing a given number of shares increases, share prices
will increase -- until that liquidity dries up -- and then you have
just witnessed a bubble. ....

Which I read to mean that sometimes those buying stocks overestimate the
"real value" of a company. But not every increase in stock price is an
overestimate of the company's value.

....All of which has nothing whatsoever to do
with the real value of the assets behind those shares.

But it is a measure of what those buying and selling THINK the value of the
assets is. Sure they are sometimes wrong, but they are the "experts": they
study the market, the companies, and they have a financial incentive to make
accurate judgements. (and by "they" here I mean the mostly mutual fund and
pension fund managers--the general investing public mostly bases their
purchases on the history and reputation of the particular fund, not the
individual companies in the fund)


The large middle class savings in pension funds, mutual funds, life
insurance companies, etc. is far more important in supporting real
investment.

jeb:

Your statement above must stem from the idea that money in the stock
market, mutual funds, bonds, T-bills and bank CD's
does not correspond to money "invested", because you surely don't
think
that
people with low incomes have more
money in these than people with high incomes.

There is no shortage of funds available for investment. But there is
a chronic shortage of funds available among the broad middle and lower
middle class. That shows up on the demand side and is what explains
the business cycle and the occasional shrinkage in the economy,
otherwise known as a recession or depression.

The notion that reducing taxes on the wealthy leads to greater output
is simply false.

jeb:

Interesting theory. But how does it explain the fact that recessions in
the
US have become less frequent and less severe since Reagan
pushed through his supply side tax cuts?

Recessions have been moderate since 1982 for two reasons: (1) the Fed
learned from past mistakes regarding monetary policy, (2) the enormous
Reagan/Bush budget deficits primed the pump quite effectively.
Borrowing at a record pace for SDI, a 600 ship navy, and all the other
goodies did a lot for aggregate demand.

So it took from the creation of the Federal Reserve until Reagan for them to
learn how to properly manage fiscal policy?

And the US had a large deficit (relative to GDP) from 1945 to the 1960's but
we also had more and deeper recessions

....Reagan is the most Keynesian
of all our presidents, although he apparently never understood why.

I agree, except perhaps with the "never understood" part. I think Reagan
(pre-Altzheimer) was smarter than he wanted his enemies to think. The
better to out fox them ;-)

http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econrev/PDF/4q98haim.pdf

What data supports your claim?

Another bad link.

Twice you used the term "bad link". Explain.

As I see it, you and other "demand siders" claim that a more even
distribution of incomes would mean a better economy because of "more demand"
from the bottom of the income distribution. Supply siders say it is the rich
who invest and provide the capital for a better economy, so cuts in tax
RATES can supply more capital, expand the GDP and thus in the long run
increase tax REVENUE for both the feds and the states.

Since the tax rate reductions of Reagan, the US economy has been more stable
than before, and has grown faster than either Europe or Japan. Isn't that
fact contrary to the "demand side" preditions?



,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@xxxxxxxx) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834


.

Relevant Pages

  • Chinas Investment Tsunami
    ... largest oil majors in assets and in power. ... India have reportedly been considering setting up funds along similar ... governments who have budget surpluses to invest. ... China's investment in Blackstone shows how government investors are ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • Chinas Investment Tsunami
    ... largest oil majors in assets and in power. ... India have reportedly been considering setting up funds along similar ... governments who have budget surpluses to invest. ... China's investment in Blackstone shows how government investors are ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • The New Elephant In The Block.
    ... largest oil majors in assets and in power. ... India have reportedly been considering setting up funds along similar ... governments who have budget surpluses to invest. ... China's investment in Blackstone shows how government investors are ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: LVT dustup over at AngryBear
    ... or have they been exacerbated by a shortage of investment? ... > income on the broad middle income sector. ... >>> does not automatically imply the lack of investable funds. ... >>quintile has done just fine in the past few decades. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: LVT dustup over at AngryBear
    ... > income on the broad middle income sector. ... >>> does not automatically imply the lack of investable funds. ... >>So recessions can be traced to dropping capital investment, ... >>quintile has done just fine in the past few decades. ...
    (sci.econ)