Category: Economy

By on

Why do our poor needs so little help and the rich are constantly needing help? If we don’t give the rich more, they just can’t produce the needed wave to lift all boats. The poor, on the other hand, must suffer or else they won’t come to their senses and invest their money in the Stock Market, vacation homes and crypto currencies. Right?

There are two ways to get government assistance. Government can give you assistance through programs and services or government can reduce your tax bill through tax breaks. People who have less money tend to get their assistance in government services while people who have more money receive their assistance through tax breaks. Both, however, are handouts.

But only one carries the weight of does this person deserve to be helped. The idea that if you receive government benefits you also need to prove you are deserving of these benefits. So, for example, a person who receives SNAP benefits are unable to buy alcohol and cigarettes with the money they receive while a person who receives a tax break can buy as much alcohol as they want. Nobody would dream of questioning their purchases.

Why? They are getting money from the government. Why isn’t it monitored with the same vigor that SNAP benefits are watched.

They even get a different spin on their handout — the rich are job creators who need that extra money to power the economy while the person who receives benefits is a welfare recipient — a non-productive member of society, a taker. This glaringly different view of these two handouts also has an effect on how government benefits and tax breaks are perceived so that if belts need to be tightened, it is the poorer people who are squeezed.

Tax breaks, on the other hand, are sacrosanct. Why?

Taxes are an obligation. Now, you may not like paying taxes nor the programs that taxes are used for but this doesn’t take away from the fact that taxes are an agreed upon method for us to pay the government bills. If you don’t like they way taxes are collected or the programs the government uses them for, you can take your position to the public during an election. It is an imperfect system, especially if your position always loses, but it is the one we have and, unless someone has a better idea, the fairest way for government to work.

I am not against tax breaks. I do, however, think that there should be a real verifiable return for the government for any break given. The tax breaks need to prove they are indeed more beneficial than the financial loss to the government tills. So my question is how are tax breaks measured as being successful — good for society or a good return in additional taxes. And, if they aren’t producing the desired effect, why not cut them instead of programs that help our most vulnerable citizens.

The tax breaks will, or so we are told, pay for themselves because the rich will invest in the economy which will eventually raise all boats. But, if this was the case, shouldn’t the government be rolling in dough. This isn’t the case. In fact, the biggest single expenditure in the Federal Government is tax breaks. Since the Reagan years, government has given tax breaks and cut taxes numerous times and yet we are further in debt. The income from tax breaks and tax cuts have failed to raise the promised revenue.

To get rid of these tax breaks, even some of them, would bring in enough additional money to offset some of these expenses. But, eliminating tax breaks is nearly impossible because you are hurting the job creator. They need help. But, then, so does the mother using SNAP. Who needs more help?

Herein is my question then, why do our richest citizens always seem to need so much help? Why can’t they stand on their own two feet, pull themselves up by their boot straps and just pay their taxes without any breaks? It is really sad that the rich have sunk into such dependency on government handouts. It isn’t really helping them they continue their proliferate ways — drinking alcohol, taking vacations — on the government dime. They just need to learn how to live within their means.

All I know is I am getting tired of their constant whining about how difficult it is for them as I have seen very little evidence that they are having a difficult time.

By on

Hucksters learn faster than any other people how to manipulate new technology to finagle people out of their money. The volume of junk mail, email, and texts I receive as opposed to actual communication from people I know and welcome is amazing. Almost every email I receive is junk — very rarely do I get a legitimate piece of email. Phone and texts are a bit better. I would say about half of what I receive there is legitimate. This is still a lot of junk.

What irritates me about this junk is that I thought laws were passed several years back to help the average citizen stop unwanted communication in what ever form — be it phone, text, letterbox or email. Report the offenders and these nuisances would stop.

But it has not stopped and the junk communications just keep coming. I realize it is complicated. A lot of the problems is the huckster operate outside the national borders so American laws are ineffective. Basically there is nothing we can do. The laws are pointless so the junk will continue to flow. So what if they are trying to sell viagra to lesbians. All they have to do is ignore the message, nobody is hurt.

I disagree. The best case scenario here is that I have to wade through hundreds of unnecessary emails and texts in order to find the ones that I actually need. This takes time. Every day precious minutes are stolen from me as I try to find what really matters to me amongst all this junk. This may be a small problem, but it is a problem. I don’t like it one bit and apparently there is nothing I can do about it because we couldn’t possibly stop hucksters from pursuing their businesses.

Never mind that these businesses are quite often engaged in ways to steal money from naive people. See the huckster has rights. It is the individual’s responsibility to stop the huckster.

It is so ingrained in our belief system of right and wrong that when we hear stories about someone getting bilked out of money, the gut reaction is why were the victims so stupid to fall for the huckster. The victim needs to smarten up because there is nothing wrong with parting a fool from his money. Unfortunately, the fool is in a dog eat dog world and apparently that is the way we like it.

By on

It always irritates me when I read articles like Barton Swaim in the Wall Street Journal (paywall though you can get a free article if you get a log in). Swaim thinks that the adherence to the Protestant Work Ethic is in decline and he pins this decline on Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty and every other helpful thing ever done for poor people since then because the poor have no reason to work hard when they can get so much free shit from the government. The USA has just made it too easy for poor people to goof off instead of work.

Those retched poor people are just too God damn powerful and greedy as opposed to those put upon rich people who everybody keeps picking on. Swaim’s thinking is that we need to make the poor more miserable than they already are. They will never understand the value of hard work because they are given too much. His search for a villain in this story stops directly where his prejudices end — the poor.

Where to begin? First, we have to take him at his word that people would rather not work. It is mostly word of mouth drivel about adult men living with their parents, COVID subsidies and Somali refugees. Some of these may be problems but Swaim doesn’t really give much insight on how these unrelated problems have undermined the Protestant Work Ethic or how they are related to Johnson’s War on Poverty. He is flinging them out like a mad ape throwing shit at patrons at a zoo. He is hoping one of them will hit the target. They don’t. Adult men living off their parents, I am afraid to say, are living off their parents and not the government. COVID subsidies are long gone and no longer an issue. Which leaves the Somali refugee scandal which may or may not be a problem (it is still under investigation) but hardly a reason to eliminate a whole system. You wouldn’t call for the end of Corporate Capitalism based on the bad behavior of Bernie Madoff or Enron now would you? Why apply a different standard to government assistance.

Swaim also mythologizes life in pre-War on Poverty America. It was not sweetness and light. It was grinding poverty for most Americans — with estimated poverty rates between 40 to 60 % of the American people. And I am not talking the Great Depression either because even before the Great Depression an awful lot of Americans lived in poverty. It was only after Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal that this rate came down to about 20% in 1960. After Johnson’s War on Poverty, the poverty rate now hovers around 11%. So government services lifted many poor Americans out of poverty.

Next lets look at those patriotic Capitalists who, in order to avoid paying higher American wages, brought to you, thank you very much by unions, fled the country in order to pay lower wages to workers outside the country. These “good” Americans pulled the rug out from under high wage workers in order to make more money with absolutely no concern for how this affected their now out-of-work employees. Nobody, by the way, stopped them. They were free to undermine union workers wages and unions themselves with nary a complaint from anyone.

This left getting a good education which has turned out to be bit of a trap for some. Many took out loans for educations that turned out to have very little benefit in the job market. People came out of college owing a bundle of money with little chance of recouping on their investment. So much for a home and a family.

Now AI is whittling away at the functions in the better jobs so that workers even in medicine, law and engineering are being threatened. What type of jobs does Swaim have to offer these young people with the advent of AI? Even a $15 minimum wage is insufficient to pay the rent in most states. The lowest possible wage can’t provide a meaningful income for survival. Some companies like Walmart and McDonald’s encourage their workers to use government benefits to supplement the low wages they pay their employees.. People actually are working full time jobs while receiving government assistance. Then these same assholes are trying to take away these benefits from full time workers because it discourages them from hard work.

Fuck them. Talking about how government benefits discourages people from fully engaging in the Protestant Work Ethic is just bull shit. People can see their reality. Hard work without a pay off is a meaningless exercise. I am surprised that so many low wage workers are still punching a time clock.

If only the poor worked harder, the world would be a better place. Maybe for the rich but there is little evidence that it would help the poor. The corollary to this rule is that rich people need even more money or else they will stop working so hard. Do you see the problem here? Rich people need more money are they won’t work while poor people need less money are they won’t work. Genius.

By on

One of the most remarkable accomplishments of modern marketing is the one the Rich have pulled on the American Middle Class. They have managed to make Americans more afraid of taxing wealthy people in the unlikely event that these members of the Middle Class become billionaires than the much more likely event that they will need, at some point in their life, available social services that will help them weather a financial storm.

It is peculiarly American trait which turns its full power against the Poor for being poor and fuels fear in the Middle Class that if they tax too much the whole money machine we have come to depend upon will come crashing down around them and, then, everybody will be poor. Is that what you want? Everyone being poor. How this message continues to attract believers is beyond me but lets face it, it somehow continues to hold a large segment of the American population in it’s thrall.

By on

I am amazed when I see posts like the one above. People who want to do away with taxes and regulations have this idea that once they are free from taxes and regulation that they will have all this extra money to spend and lead a glorious government free life. Unfortunately the tax free, regulation free past was miserable. It is only with the expansion of government which regulated the market economy and the taxes paid by the public for these changes did this general misery end.

Once you remove taxation and regulation, people will be presented with an array of new bills which have to be paid. Things like nuclear weapons, the army, the navy, the air force, the justice system, police protection, fire protection, road repair, street lights — all these things and so much more will need to be paid for. Then people will have to figure out if their restaurants meet health standards, buildings are being built so that they will stay up during earthquakes, stopping people from dumping toxins into rivers, checking to see if every household is disposing of human waste properly, to name just a few. Who will do it? How will they be paid?

Is Government perfect? Absolutely not. Could it be done better? Of course. Is this a reason to do away with it completely. No. No more than a Market Economy can’t do everything to meet all of our needs, at least, not without the help of government.

Here is the bottom line — the vast majority of people in this country want a market economy. This isn’t going to change in the near future. In order to make this market economy work, we also need a strong government presence to ensure that the rich, people who have power and money, don’t abuse this power and money to take advantage of people who do not have power and money. This also isn’t going to change in the near future.

This means that we have to figure out a way to make these two, sometimes, antagonistic systems work together. Is this perfect? No but then no system is perfect. Ever. This is our common challenge — how to make an imperfect world work for as many people as humanly possible. It will always be imperfect and we will always be working to make it better. But, given the present interlocking structures that is our system, eliminating Government is absurd and unworkable.

By on

I try not to read too much news as I find it depressing and unhelpful. I am sorry but there is only so much time I am willing to give to Donald Trump’s shenanigans. There has to be more life than complaining about him so I was struck by a friend’s post in Facebook about Trump. I missed it and it was indeed shocking. Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, prostrated himself before Donald Trump in order to ensure that his company is exempt from Trump’s tariffs.

This isn’t the way government is supposed to work. Trump’s whole theory behind the tariffs is that he wants to bring back jobs to American workers. Yet, Cook, a large company with a large contingent of Chinese labor, bends the knee, buys a present for Trump and is now free from the high tariffs on Chinese manufacturing. Cook supposedly agreed to house more manufacturing in USA but the details don’t sound very promising. It sounds like a lot of paperwork on how Trump’s Team defines foreign made for Apple while allowing Apple to continuing making its phones in China.

So what did American Labor get out of this deal? Vague promises. All Cook had to do was throw a little gold Trump’s way and then, in public, kiss Trump’s abundant ass which I am pretty sure was the most unpleasant part of the whole deal for Cook. I am sure he would have preferred a much quieter deal without the cameras and the transfer of the gold present.

But that isn’t the way Trump operates. He doesn’t think tit for tat is wrong, he doesn’t think accepting gifts from anyone may be suspect, and he likes people to bow before him. I am not naive enough to think this doesn’t happen. It probably does. What is troubling is that Trump fails to see the problem with his behavior and that Cook consented to such a naked display of corruption.

By on

One of the enduring mysteries of American Tax laws is why do the Rich need so much help.

Let me start with tax laws because this is where the Rich do their best to milk the rest of us. A tax bill is money owed the government for services provided. Now you may not like to pay taxes (who does?) but the political institutions that guide our communal living has determined this is the money a person owes. Citizens have an opportunity to change these laws by electing people of a similar mind in the frequent elections held in this country.

It is the price for living here in the USA — the greatest country on the face of the earth, right? But the Rich are constantly complaining that they need more money in order to juice the economy and if you give them more money it will actually help everyone else because the Rich will be spending money on their businesses. So since the election of Reagan in 1980, taxes have been routinely cut and tax breaks have been instituted to such a degree that many rich people and companies presently pay absolutely no income taxes.

How is this working for everyone else? Have the rich fulfilled their promise to make the rest of us rich with their selfless spending. Surely the Americans must have the richest poor people on the face of the earth. They must be swimming in luxury — great health care, cheap housing, good public education.

But this isn’t the story. Why hasn’t all this largess to the Rich had any effect? Hmm. Let me think about this. Perhaps they haven’t been juicing the American economy. How could this be? They claim to love this country so much, why hasn’t all this love and money translated into a more stable economic situation for everyone else. What could be wrong?

The Rich do have an answer. They just need even more tax cuts. They just haven’t been given enough money to juice the economy. This means everyone else will have to suck it up when cutting government funded programs for the poor and the middle class. The American taxpayer simply can’t afford to help everyone and it is vital that the Rich get even more money then, and only then, will the rich have enough money to spend the rest of us into prosperity.

Let’s try a little thought experiment. What if, instead of giving money to the rich, we gave it to poor and the middle class. They will buy groceries, cars, air conditioners, and a whole array of products that, you got it, will juice the economy. In fact, because there are more just plain folk than there are rich people, it might just juice the economy better and faster than giving money to the rich. I don’t know but I would like to give it a try. Giving to the rich hasn’t exactly worked as promised.

But the budget. We haven’t collected enough in taxes to pay for all this help. Right. Because we are giving the Rich so much back in tax reduction, we are going into debt and unable to afford actions that might help everyone else. Get out your handkerchiefs. Why is it that the only time the Republicans care about the budget deficit is when it involves expanding programs that help the poor. They don’t give a damn about the budget deficits when they are cutting taxes for the Rich which has exactly the same effect — budget deficits.

The whole premise of helping the rich in order to help the poor is so demented. It is a topsy turvy Alice through the looking glass view of living. Our most economically secure citizens — the people with the most money, the best healthcare, luxury vacations, personal airplanes and such — always need our help while we can’t help our least economically secure citizens who don’t have money, or healthcare, or even a safe place to lay their head at night. Helping the poor is always seen as bad while helping the rich is necessary. How does this make sense?

That this story keeps being told, with a straight face no less, is depressing. Years of low taxation and cuts in social services have shown, it to be patently false. But hey ho, I’ve got mine.

Until I don’t.

By on

Because government programs like SNAP and Medicaid are paid for by the government, the government qualifies and monitors the people. who receive these benefits in order to ensure they aren’t buying liquor and cigarettes. There are legitimate arguments on whether this type of costly monitoring is necessary, however, I am willing to go along with them because if some people, in order to maintain programs that help the poor, need this kind of information in order to have them, I am all in. Qualify and monitor. These are the type of compromises that make governing in a politically diverse country possible.

What is annoying is the same oversight is not given to people who receive tax breaks. They just get the money and can do whatever they want with it including buying liquor and cigarettes. Now the notion here is that these good people are going to spend the money they received in tax breaks in investing money in their businesses thus creating more jobs however they are under no obligation to prove this. They could be spending the money on call centers located overseas and spa vacations for all we know. But no one asks them to show how they are spending these breaks on creating jobs here in America.

Here in lies the problem I have with tax breaks. They are unmonitored and given without nary a thought on how these windfalls are actually spent. So what, you might ask. Even if the jobs are created for call centers located in India and European vacations — this money eventually gets put back into the economy for the good of all. Right?

Well, yes but then very same thing can be said for giving money to the poor. Buying liquor and cigarettes at the local convenience store juices the American economy too. In fact, giving money to the poor is more likely to juice the American economy because the poor stay locally while the rich might wander off to Tahiti or Bali to spend their money.

Some people would argue that tax breaks are allowing the rich to keep their money and they should do anything they want with it. I would argue that it isn’t their money. The American people have a tax rate, whether you like that tax rate or not — it is the law. The tax obligation is the amount owed before tax breaks are calculated. The tax breaks then become government benefits — like Medicaid or SNAP.

If government benefits for the poor need to rigorously monitored then the same idea applies to tax breaks for the rich. I would like to see more tangible evidence that the rich are using their money wisely.

By on

So farmers and hotel companies are having trouble finding replacement for immigrants who, fearing for their safety, are leaving these jobs because they are vulnerable targets for ICE raids. Trump, being a hotelier and dependent on this same immigrant labor force, is now being forced to choose between cheap labor or cracking down on illegal immigration.

The whole point of Trump and the Republican’s campaign against illegal of immigrants, as Matt Walsh points out, is Americans now will take these jobs at a higher and more livable wage. Labor will become more dear and thus business will have to pay higher wages in order to fill those jobs.

And it was not some unintended consequence of their actions. Trump and his cronies said as much in their campaign. Immigrants are taking jobs from Americans. Get rid of the illegal immigrant and the Americans would take the jobs. The problem these economic wizards didn’t count on is that Americans would refuse to do these jobs at the immigrant low wage.

You can have low pay jobs with immigrant labor (more workers) or higher paying jobs with American labor (less workers) but you can’t have low wages with just American labor. It is all down to supply and demand.

Trump, being a Wharton School of Economics graduate, should know this. That he continues to have problems with understanding basic Capitalist theory is trouble particularly since he sees Capitalism as the solution to USA’s economic woes. He was wrong about tariffs and he is wrong about immigrant labor. He also gives an inordinate value to bullying people as a method of negotiating.

Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand would be appalled.

By on

When describing a good salesman people often refer to the adage that this guy is so good that he could sell refrigerators/air conditioning to the Eskimos. Which is generally considered a complement to the salesman’s ability. But why? Is it really a talent to brag about — convincing people to buy something that they didn’t want, don’t need and can’t use. Why would you brag about being a conman? But people do. They in fact admire it.

What is forgotten is that there is another person involved in this story — the Eskimo. He, however, is a chump. The mark, the person who it is all right to take advantage of because they should be smarter and more careful when talking to a fast talking salesman. Someone who deserves to get taken. The salesman, on the other hand, is the hero of the story. He is clever, a smooth talker, someone who gets what he wants, someone who doesn’t let a little thing as selling something unnecessary to a gullible customer get in his way. The salesman has the abilities people want. Who wants to be the chump.

It is sad that the whole salesman relationship is based on the notion that all he wants from you is your money and doesn’t care about whether you need or want what he is selling. The salesman is perfectly within his rights to sell whatever useless item he has to any gullible buyer willing to buy. It’s not the con man’s fault if the Eskimo is so gullible and bought the refrigerator. Buyer beware and all that crap but it isn’t an honest transaction.

Aren’t we suppose to value honesty above good salesman ship. Would it be so wrong for the salesman to tell the Eskimo that he doesn’t really need refrigeration? I am afraid there are an awful lot of people who would say yes. Why pass up an opportunity to separate a fool from his money. Someone is going to do it, right. And it is all perfectly legal which this tells you everything you need to know — we prefer the conman to the chump.