Re: how to compare living standards

"Jim Blair" <jeb@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e1632l$ngk$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"William F Hummel" <wfhummel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8dk232lfsqp1b5bejtg7k4i9uilu9o7n7i@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 10:58:07 -0500, "Jim Blair" <jeb@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


"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.

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.

On balance, the share price increases with increasing real value of a
company. However the monetary value of the shares may or may not
increase, depending on the competition and investor psychology. But
don't ignore the fact that the market has a life of its own. During
recessions, share prices typically fall ....

Hi,

There is a queation of causality here. Do stock prices fall because there
is a recession/depression? Is the fall in stock prices because profit
projections are down because there is a recession/depression and business is
not expected to be good? Or is the recession/depression caused by the drop
in stock prices?

A recession can be caused by the realization that speculation has
grossly inflated the prices of equity assets (non fixed interest assets
and non real-estate/commodity assets). It can also be caused by
an influx of underpaid H1B's and illegal immigrants that destroy
wages.

The asset holders move to exchange the equity assets
for government backed debt instruments, land and oil and gold and
such. And this move to non capital assets chokes off real capital
development (plant and machinery). Such a move destroys the
real economy.

Welcome to Republican heaven.

For example was the great depression if the 1930's caused by the 1929 stock
market crash? Or did investors sell because they saw the depression on the
horizon?

They sold because they realized that it was a bubble. The Fed screwed
up in addressing the problem and so too the elected government. Of course
the bubble was caused by the Fed and the elected government in the
first place. Too much easy money and ineffective controls on speculation.

...and during bubbles share
prices rise independent of the real value.

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.

Goes without saying.

So when stock prices increase, is it a "bubble" or does that mean companies
are increasing in value? I say it can be either, and only the future will
reveal the truth.

The "dot.com" increase during the late 1990's was a bubble, but the stock
market surge starting in the early 1980's just reflected an increase in real
corporate value.

Its a mixed bag. But the, so called, "dot.com" bubble was the result of
H1B visas and starry eyed nincompoops that thought cheap labor for
R&D meant the next Microsoft and the gold pot at the end of the rainbow.
Ya get what ya pay for. Indians may be the best engineers in the
world (I doubt it but it could be true), but they have the imagination
and creativity of a toad. Why is there not a company in India that
competes with Microsoft? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?


....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?

Who is "them"? Fiscal policy under Reagan was to shrink government
spending in order to shrink the size of the government. He did just
the opposite, borrowed and spent like a drunken sailor. Fiscal policy
today is non-existent, so don't talk about properly managing fiscal
policy. Bush calls for huge spending on his Iraq war while also
cutting taxes. He refuses to pass the pain on to the home front, and
his Republican-led Congress obliges.

If "them" refers to the Fed, credit Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan
with cleaning up the mess left by the monetary policy mistakes of the
1970s, especially those of Arthur Burns.


Of course Volcker and especially Greenspan get credit for doing a great job,
but are they the only reasons the US economy has done so well since 1982?
You don't think Reagans tax cuts played any role?

No. Reagan ripped off the middle class just like ALL Republicans
rip off the middle class. The economy was reduced to rubble by
Volcker. Any person that could not preside over a growing economy
after such destruction would need to be named George Bush. The
Clinton, Greenspan, Bush waltz was very much a replay of the
Carter, Volker, Reagan thing. But Pinocchio couldn't even manage
that deal.


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

(And here I should have said a large "debt", not "deficit" ;-(

The deficits from 1945 to the 1960s were small, and there were no deep
recessions in that period. There were a couple of mild recessions
under Eisenhower, but they were nothing compared to the 1974-1975
recession under Ford and the 1981-1982 recession under Reagan.

....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 ;-)

Reagan was not a reader of economics, or much of anything else. I
doubt that he even heard of the Keynesian multiplier effect due to
fiscal deficits. Reagan had a strong visual memory and his aides
often used videos to get their messages to him.

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.

I get an error message "the page cannot be found" when I try to access
the link.

Must be something wrong with your system, as I get them both. And both are
interesting.

Try again. (do you have Acrobat for the pdf link?)


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

And to find out about Supply Side from the source

http://www.wanniski.com/ssu.asp


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.

Supply siders don't understand that financial capital comes from a
wide variety of sources. The notion that it is only the wealthy who
finance investment is simply wrong. As I've tried to explain, cuts in
tax rates for the high income group do little beyond increasing the
price of financial assets in the secondary market. The wealthy like
to accumulate them.

Financial capital has seldom been in short supply. Can you point to
an example where the lack of such capital has caused a recession?

The causes of recession (and of the Great Depression) are still being
debated.

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/temin.txt


These things will be debated forever because Republicans think that
they can create their own reality by just closing their eyes and
clicking their heels together.

Recessions ultimately result from a shortage of purchasing power
within the broad middle class sector, not among the wealthy.

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?

In a word, "no".

??? Sound like your claim of "demand failure" should mean that less income
at the bottom relative to the top should result in less growth and more
recessions.
While the supply side claim that growth comes from investments by the rich
should mean the reverse.

Do you agree that since 1982 the US has had a less equal income distribution
than before--and than Europe or Japan?

And do you agree that we have also had fewer reecessions per decade than
before 1982? And also higher growth than either Europe or Japan?

In 1982 the economy of the USA had been blasted to absolute
rubble by the Volcker "War on Inflation". And real growth
occurred during the Clinton years BECAUSE OF A TAX INCREASE
ON UNEARNED INCOME OTHER THAN CAPITAL GAINS.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: how to compare living standards
    ... Do you think poor and low income people save and invest more than ... wealthy will increase capital formation for real investment. ... Or do asset prices increase because the assets become more valuable? ... But how does it explain the fact that recessions ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: how to compare living standards
    ... wealthy will increase capital formation for real investment. ... Or do asset prices increase because the assets become more valuable? ... recessions, share prices typically fall and during bubbles share ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: LVT dustup over at AngryBear
    ... Recessions are best explained by business cycle theory. ... income on the broad middle income sector. ... >>>investment that caused the economic slowdown, ... >> does not automatically imply the lack of investable funds. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: OT: Tip of the Ice Berg
    ... prices, equities, and the unfolding financial crisis. ... debt over the next few years. ... service will consume more than 80% of the US economy. ... consider exploring off-shore investment opportunities and markets. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT: Tip of the Ice Berg
    ... As an "investment banker" with significant international interests, I have perhaps a somewhat better than average perspective on the macro-scale financial gears that keep the world moving and believe that I have earned the luxury of holding a meaningful opinion in this one narrow area of expertise. ... I was further chastised when I predicted retail gasoline prices would bottom around $1.00/gallon, and then remain relatively stable between $2.00 and $2.50. ... The damage that Mr. Bush did to the economy was bad enough, but what Mr. Obama is doing now will have far-reaching negative implications for decades to come. ... The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Mr. Obama's "borrow and spend" policies will add an additional $10T or so to our national debt over the next few years. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)