ECONOMICS: Elizabeth Warren cheers AOC’s Green New Deal as she launches 2020 run | Daily Mail Online

Sunday, February 10, 2019

The 69-year-old Democrat officially launched her campaign at a rally on Saturday in Lawrence, Massachusetts, one of New England’s poorest and most heavily Latino communities.

Source: Elizabeth Warren cheers AOC’s Green New Deal as she launches 2020 run | Daily Mail Online

# – # – # – # – #

These SOCIALISTS are going to ruin the USA.

First, IMMORALITY “the rich” pay most of the taxes already.  How much more do they think they can pay?  If we think that tithing to God at 10% is holy, then what percentage doe the “god” of Gooferment demand.  IMHO, any tax is an immoral taking.

Second, INVESTMENT “the rich”, unlike Scrooge McDuck, don’t have a basement full of gold goins that they swim in.  They invest their wealth in productive higher order goods that improve productivity.  if the Gooferment takes that wealth, then where is the investment going to come from.

Third, WASTE the Gooferment already wastes so much.  It’s estimated, that for every dollar taken by Gooferment, more than half is wasted.  Over and above that, since the Gooferment produces little if anything of value for real people, why would anyone want to give them more wealth.

The SOCIALISTS want us to ignore the real world examples of East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Venezuela, the Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Hitler’s Germany, and on and on through out history.  Countries that have been seduced by Socialism’s sirens song of “free stuff” have paid the price of death, poverty, starvation, and disease.  Capitalism may not be the “best system”, but it’s better than all the others that have been tried.

Argh!

# – # – # – # – #


ECONOMICS: “Tax the rich” prevents “capital formation” and makes us all poorer

Thursday, January 17, 2019

https://mailchi.mp/tomwoods/high-taxes?e=39307912ab

Tom Woods · PO Box 701447 · Saint Cloud, FL 34770 · USA 

FROM HIS EMAIL BLAST OF 2019-Jan-16 10:26PM

*** begin quote ***

Here’s my unfashionable opinion: I believe in tax cuts for the rich. (I believe in tax cuts for everyone.) I believe the rich are human beings with rights, and not cash cows to be milked by people who had nothing to do with the creation of their wealth.

Now what follows is just for you, and not for your social-democratic friends, who will listen to what I say and respond with, “That’s trickle down, which doesn’t work!”

Those people are anti-intellectual and can’t be reached. What I’m telling you here is for the sake of your own understanding, not theirs.

Here is how wealth is created, and why confiscating the incomes of high earners is so destructive.

When firms increase and improve the equipment and machinery at the disposal of workers, those workers’ labor becomes more productive. Imagine someone using a forklift (as my father did), as opposed to stacking pallets with his bare hands, or producing books with modern equipment as opposed to a 16th-century printing press. The amount of production the economy is capable of is thereby increased, often dramatically, and this increase in production puts corresponding downward pressure on consumer prices (relative to wage rates).

There is nothing natural or inevitable about the availability of this productivity-enhancing capital equipment. It does not fall out of the sky. It comes from the wicked capitalists’ saving, and the allocation of the unconsumed resources in capital investment.

This process is the only way the general standard of living can rise. Only in this way can the average laborer produce the tiniest fraction of what today he is accustomed to producing. It follows that only under these conditions can he expect to be able to consume the tiniest fraction of what today he is accustomed to consuming.

The increases in the productivity of labor that additional capital brings about push prices down relative to wage rates. By increasing the overall amount of output, such increases raise the ratio of consumers’ goods to the supply of labor. Put more simply, improvements in the production process that lead to an increased supply of consumer goods make those consumer goods cheaper and easier for people to acquire.

 

That’s why, in order to earn the money necessary to acquire a wide range of necessities, far fewer labor hours are necessary today than in the past. Thanks to capital investment, which is what businesses engage in when their profits aren’t seized from them and when savings are available to them to invest, our economy is far more physically productive than it used to be, and therefore consumer goods exist in far greater abundance and are correspondingly less dear than before.

*** end quote ***

And, he has a list of how productive has cut the “cost” of certain items in terms of the work hours needed to acquire them.  Very impressive.

“Tax the rich” is code for make everyone poorer by preventing “capital formation”.  Zero interest rates have wiped out savings by what’s left of the middle class.  If there is no “capital investment” because the “rich” are tax and unable to invest, then where does “capital investment” come from?  

I know “the money tree” that grows in everyone’s backyard!

Argh!

Today’s politicians and bureaucrats need to go to the figurative guillotine before the USA has its own version of the French Revolution.  Can these people possible be this stupid about economics?

I wonder.

TANSTAAFL (“There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch” From Robert Heinlein’s classic) 

Or are they just blinded by their “power”?

Argh!

# – # – # – # – #


ECONOMICS: Never thought of a cargo ship that way

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2018/04/whos-we.html

SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 2018
Who’s the “We”?
Donald J. Boudreaux

*** begin quote ***

You’ll say that the “we” is Americans – to which I say that our capacity as Americans to make all these marvels has emphatically not been dismantled.  We do make them, sometimes directly and other times in a roundabout way.  But always we make them.  As the economist David Friedman points out, we Americans have an ingenious machine for transforming the corn that we grow in Iowa into automobiles that we drive.  That machine is called a “cargo ship.”  Into the ship we put corn and, a few days later, out of the ship comes automobiles.  We make cars by making corn.  This production process is akin to every other production process: mix various inputs together to produce something different and greater than the sum of its parts.

*** end quote ***

Now that’s an insight.

And the Gooferment should get out of the way of “we” filling up the outbound ships with “stuff”!

# – # – # – # – #


ECONOMICS: Aren’t “tariffs” just taxes on “We, The Sheeple”?

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/07/john-stossel-mr-trump-if-raise-tariffs-on-steel-and-aluminum-punish-consumers.html

John Stossel: Mr. Trump, if you raise tariffs on steel and aluminum, you punish consumers
By John Stossel | Fox News

*** begin quote ***

No, President Trump, it’s not true that if you tax imported steel, we “will have protection for the first time in a long while.”

The opposite is true. If you raise tariffs on steel and aluminum, you punish consumers.

*** end quote ***

Isn’t this just a tax increase in disguise?

Maybe “We, The Sheeple” should subsidize the biggie whip makers?

Sorry, but tariffs are just stupid ekkynomics!

# – # – # – # – #


ECONOMICS: Where does the minimum wage funds come from?

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

https://www.aei.org/publication/exposing-the-minimum-wage-fallacy-its-an-ironclad-law-of-economics-that-to-stimulate-one-group-you-have-to-un-stimulate-another-group/

Mark J. Perry@Mark_J_Perry
December 28, 2017 1:38 pm

*** begin quote ***

Exposing the minimum wage fallacy — it’s an ironclad law of economics that to stimulate one group (workers) you have to un-stimulate another group (businesses)

*** and ***

But here’s a question that never gets asked (or answered) by EPI and minimum wage supporters: Where will the $5 billion in additional wages come from? While thinking about this overlooked question that reveals an important economic fallacy, I was reminded of a similar economic fallacy illustrated by Henry Hazlitt’s famous essay on the broken window, which exposed the economic fallacy of the “blessings of destruction.” Using Henry Hazlitt’s essay as a template (which is actually based on Bastiat’s original essay on the broken window fallacy from 1850), I’ve written a new essay below to expose what might be called the “blessings of the minimum wage fallacy” on the eve of the 18 minimum wage increases schedule to take place next week.

*** and ***

Groups like EPI that support increasing the minimum wage do a great job of addressing the benefits of higher wages to low-skilled workers, but then completely ignore the costs of those artificial wage increases. That is, they never answer the most important question of all, posed above: Where will the $5 billion in additional annual wages from the 18 minimum wage hikes next year come from?

*** end quote ***

So why is raising the minimum wage different from the “broken glass fallacy”?

“We, The Sheeple” can’t think their way out of a paper bag!

Argh!

Watch the poverty increase!

For everbody.

# – # – # – # – #


ECONOMICS: CVS eats AETNA?

Friday, October 27, 2017

Healthy Convergence 
CVS is in talks to buy Aetna for more than $66 billion, as the drugstore giant works to fortify itself against looming competition from Amazon while the health-care industry undergoes a reordering. In a sign of the seriousness of the talks, the companies’ chief executives have met multiple times over a period of roughly six months. CVS has made a proposal to buy the health insurer for more than $200 a share. With Aetna, CVS could lock in a huge number of members for its pharmacy-benefit management arm, as well as customers for its drugstores. That could bolster its leverage in negotiations with drugmakers, while its oversight of health insurance could improve its ability to strike new deals that tie drug prices to patient outcomes. If a deal were to be struck, it would be the year’s largest.

# – # – # – # – # 

Wow, pretty stunning!

# – # – # – # – # 


ECONOMICS: Seems like cost-savings will sweep the land of truck drivers?

Sunday, October 15, 2017

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/10/american-trucker-automation-jobs

End of the road

*** begin quote ***

“Labor accounts for 75% of the cost of transporting shipments by truck, so adopters can begin to realize those savings. Beyond that, while truckers are prohibited from driving more than 11 hours per day without taking an eight-hour break, a driverless truck can drive for the entire day. This effectively doubles the output of the trucking network at a quarter of the cost. That’s an eight-times increase in productivity, without taking into account other benefits gained by automation,” he says.

*** end quote ***

Clearly, that efficiency will lower the prices of goods and services.

The human cost to individuals will be catastrophic.

As Jason Stapleton keeps saying: “You must invest in your own human capital.” 

The job you have today may not exist in a decade; adapt or die.

And, politicians and bureaucrats or “unions” can’t stop the “eight times increase in productivity”.

Sigh!

# – # – # – # – # 


%d bloggers like this: