Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The House passes a punitive tax


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The House passes a punitive tax Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/22/2009 3:55:30 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Yes, those evil Democrats were at it again.

But tell me, were Paulson and Bernanke secret undercover Democrat spies that used their clever ways to trick our beloved former President?



no. Bush is as interventionist in the economy as he is in foreign nations.

and he has no right to be intervening in either of those places.

we moved a ways towards socialism and a centralized government under eight years of Bush.



You know sometimes I agree with you V30.

Unfortunately, that kind of scares me.

(in reply to variation30)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/22/2009 3:59:10 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

for their brilliant performances in the sub-prime mortgage and derivatives crisis which brought the whole economy to its knees along with their own company.



do you really think this was caused by AIG?

really?



In part, not wholly.

(in reply to variation30)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/22/2009 5:03:07 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline
"the boom in the 20's was artificial. the contraction was inevitable (and good, as it fixed the problems the fed created). unfortunately fdr tried to spend his way out of a depression and ended up extending it unti around '48."

Interesting theory- with absolutely no basis whatsover in fact.

1)  The depression didn't last until '48.
2)  FDRs spending certainly mitigated the affects of the economic contraction- which were further exacerbated by nature.  The idea of cutting spending was tried in '36-37 with disastrous results.  This type of revisionist history is on par with Adolf Hitler claiming that the Jews were the cause of Germany's defeat in WWI- or that the Versailles treaty had anything to do with Germany's economic malaise- which by the way looks eerily similar to what's happening now (too much money in the hands of too few.)  If Harry Truman were alive today- he'd make the connection between the Republicans and Hitler's rise to power explicit- as he did to win the '48 election.
3) There's been some very interesting statistics showing up on employment during the Depression- beginning with the notion that people on WPA projects weren't really employed, since it was government money paying them.  Why this distinction between WPA projects and other government service jobs such as mail carrier?  Seems pretty silly to me- a guy building a bridge is employed if his check comes from Uncle Sam or a private contractor.  This artifically raises the unemployment figures of the '30s dramatically compared to what's happening today- although I suspect that the levels of unemployment now and in the '30s are actually pretty comparable. 
4)  The massive spending on armaments beginning in the end of the '30s put the kibosh on the Depression.
5)  The postwar economic contraction was made increasingly painful because women didn't leave the workforce so easily- thus there had been an enormous expansion in the postwar labor pool with the return of men from overseas- and a rapid contraction in jobs.
6)  If the boom in the '20s was artificial- I'd love to see a boom that wasn't.

My theory is that most economic expansions are driven by initial gov't spending leading to successful commercialization of new technology. Wars, mail contracts, and exploration have driven economic expansion.  Stupid weapons such as SDI have not. There are competing factors with money concentration ending a boom and leading to a bust, until the money is redistributed and there is sufficient risk capital for expansion again.  If the money is not redistributed or spent on worthless projects (witness Japan in the 90s)- then longterm economic malaise sets in.

Sam

(in reply to variation30)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/22/2009 5:36:47 PM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

for their brilliant performances in the sub-prime mortgage and derivatives crisis which brought the whole economy to its knees along with their own company.



do you really think this was caused by AIG?

really?



In part, not wholly.



I don't claim to be the most politically astute person in the world and I don't have all the statistics and research to back up a lot of finger pointing.

There is one thing I am certain of though.

Politicans love it when people waste time arguing with one another rather than holding them to the grindstone. So much energy, angst, and debate... and they keep on doing what they do, all while banking on the fact that no matter what it is, roughly half the country will support them.

It is mind-boggling.

Edited to add, what money we get back will most likely be given back. Anyone who wants to challenge the tax on Constitutional grounds has excellent standing.

< Message edited by StrangerThan -- 3/22/2009 5:39:17 PM >


_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/22/2009 5:50:50 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

Anyone who wants to challenge the tax on Constitutional grounds has excellent standing.


As I said before, my bet is against it.

While we have a lot of people adopting the belief these people "earned" their bonuses, the fact is we have a company bailed out by the taxpayers and the government, which effectively owns this company and has every right to set its rules.



(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/22/2009 6:02:32 PM   
Raiikun


Posts: 2650
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct
My theory is that most economic expansions are driven by initial gov't spending leading to successful commercialization of new technology. Wars, mail contracts, and exploration have driven economic expansion.  Stupid weapons such as SDI have not. There are competing factors with money concentration ending a boom and leading to a bust, until the money is redistributed and there is sufficient risk capital for expansion again.  If the money is not redistributed or spent on worthless projects (witness Japan in the 90s)- then longterm economic malaise sets in.


On the other hand, once again we have things like the 20's, which was a boom in technology advancement, economic growth, hitting below 2% employment, under a period of reduced government spending with tax cuts.

It was a variety of outside factors such as an infux of immigrants, restrictions on trade, unrest in Europe, people buying stocks on credit then being unable to afford to replay those loans (deja vu anyone?) that led to the financial collapse of the 30's. 

You sound like you've been reading Galbraith heh...which is why this whole discussion is starting to seem like a sickeningly deja-vu'ish one in which I refuted it all back in February.  (Might just have to link to those forums to save the time of doing it all again).

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/22/2009 6:56:38 PM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

Anyone who wants to challenge the tax on Constitutional grounds has excellent standing.


As I said before, my bet is against it.

While we have a lot of people adopting the belief these people "earned" their bonuses, the fact is we have a company bailed out by the taxpayers and the government, which effectively owns this company and has every right to set its rules.



I have no idea whether they earned them or not. I know the audacity of begging for dollars and then throwing a chunk of it out in bonuses pisses me off. But at this point, it is about the legality of it all. Congress passed a bill allowing those bonuses. This tax is clearly retro-active, which seems to fly directly in the face of the Constitution. One my biggest gripes with Bush was that he trampled all over it, ignored law, basically did what he wanted to do when he wanted to do it, Constitution and freedom be damned.

While this is a whole other ballpark, the outcome is about the same. I don't care how pissed people are, if I'm a judge and the lawyer for the defense makes the case, I'd be ruling it unconstitutional and telling the pissed off electorate that the time they should have been pissed off was when their congress folk and their president dropped the ball. If they want restitution, there's a little over 500 people sitting on or around Capitol Hill they can demand it from because this one is protected.

I'm not sure anyone receiving the bonuses will take it that far though and risk being villified and crucified by the country. But they can and any judge who would rule against the Constitution doesn't need to be a sitting judge. That slope is way too steep and way too slippery to ever start down.

Remember, the responsibility for this debacle isn't with the people who want the money, but those who let them have it.

< Message edited by StrangerThan -- 3/22/2009 6:57:42 PM >


_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/22/2009 8:19:49 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan


I have no idea whether they earned them or not. I know the audacity of begging for dollars and then throwing a chunk of it out in bonuses pisses me off.


This is the point where I would have hoped you stopped so I could agree with you completely.


quote:

But at this point, it is about the legality of it all. Congress passed a bill allowing those bonuses. This tax is clearly retro-active, which seems to fly directly in the face of the Constitution. One my biggest gripes with Bush was that he trampled all over it, ignored law, basically did what he wanted to do when he wanted to do it, Constitution and freedom be damned.


No, I don't agree it is retroactive.  In fact, I don't even agree this should be a debate.

The government, our representatives, as owners of this corporation are entitled to conduct business as they see fit.

And while I keep seeing this comment about Congress supposedly passing a bill allowing these bonuses, I have yet to see anything documenting this.

quote:


While this is a whole other ballpark, the outcome is about the same. I don't care how pissed people are, if I'm a judge and the lawyer for the defense makes the case, I'd be ruling it unconstitutional and telling the pissed off electorate that the time they should have been pissed off was when their congress folk and their president dropped the ball. If they want restitution, there's a little over 500 people sitting on or around Capitol Hill they can demand it from because this one is protected.


You know, I hate to keep bringing this up, but it does seem completely analogous.

Why is it unconstitutional for the failing AIG to rework their employment contracts while it is not unconstitutional for failing automakers and airlines to do the same?

quote:


I'm not sure anyone receiving the bonuses will take it that far though and risk being villified and crucified by the country. But they can and any judge who would rule against the Constitution doesn't need to be a sitting judge. That slope is way too steep and way too slippery to ever start down.

Remember, the responsibility for this debacle isn't with the people who want the money, but those who let them have it.


Well, that's a lovely rationalization.

I'm sure the 77 AIG employees who received bonuses in excess of $1 million thank you with all their hearts.

But, of course they really don't care if AIG goes under because they have their cash.

It's the AIG employees struggling by on meager salaries who are going to be hurt by the greed of these people.

< Message edited by rulemylife -- 3/22/2009 8:22:35 PM >

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/22/2009 8:50:54 PM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan


I have no idea whether they earned them or not. I know the audacity of begging for dollars and then throwing a chunk of it out in bonuses pisses me off.


This is the point where I would have hoped you stopped so I could agree with you completely.


quote:

But at this point, it is about the legality of it all. Congress passed a bill allowing those bonuses. This tax is clearly retro-active, which seems to fly directly in the face of the Constitution. One my biggest gripes with Bush was that he trampled all over it, ignored law, basically did what he wanted to do when he wanted to do it, Constitution and freedom be damned.


No, I don't agree it is retroactive.  In fact, I don't even agree this should be a debate.

The government, our representatives, as owners of this corporation are entitled to conduct business as they see fit.

And while I keep seeing this comment about Congress supposedly passing a bill allowing these bonuses, I have yet to see anything documenting this.

quote:


While this is a whole other ballpark, the outcome is about the same. I don't care how pissed people are, if I'm a judge and the lawyer for the defense makes the case, I'd be ruling it unconstitutional and telling the pissed off electorate that the time they should have been pissed off was when their congress folk and their president dropped the ball. If they want restitution, there's a little over 500 people sitting on or around Capitol Hill they can demand it from because this one is protected.


You know, I hate to keep bringing this up, but it does seem completely analogous.

Why is it unconstitutional for the failing AIG to rework their employment contracts while it is not unconstitutional for failing automakers and airlines to do the same?

quote:


I'm not sure anyone receiving the bonuses will take it that far though and risk being villified and crucified by the country. But they can and any judge who would rule against the Constitution doesn't need to be a sitting judge. That slope is way too steep and way too slippery to ever start down.

Remember, the responsibility for this debacle isn't with the people who want the money, but those who let them have it.


Well, that's a lovely rationalization.

I'm sure the 77 AIG employees who received bonuses in excess of $1 million thank you with all their hearts.

But, of course they really don't care if AIG goes under because they have their cash.

It's the AIG employees struggling by on meager salaries who are going to be hurt by the greed of these people.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/aig_bonus_congress

What's different is not hard to understand. These bonuses are in the past and the loophole created for them. At this point in time, this tax is retroactive. I would think that obvious even to someone who refuses to even try to understand it. Do you think Congress went to do this because it was the easiest option?

No. They did it because it was the only option and the constitutionality of it is borderline. That means it doesn't matter how pissed anyone is about it, unless you want to pass an amendment - which again, will not affect these people.

Now you want to start end-arounding the very document that allows you to be righteously indignant in public? Absolutely not.

Like I said, this debacle rests squarely on the shoulders of those who allowed it. That and the fact that the American way of life is that if it isn't written into law, it is ok regardless of whether it's right or wrong. The shitty thing about that is we will forever be defining ourselves by law with right and wrong the causalities of that effort.

You really have nothing to debate rule. We own the toxic assets of AIG. Rah, rah.

And they're going to want more money. Derivatives are only fun when you're playing with money. Kinda sucks when the bill comes due.

_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/22/2009 8:54:54 PM   
variation30


Posts: 1190
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Interesting theory- with absolutely no basis whatsover in fact.


let's see!

quote:

1)  The depression didn't last until '48.


hm...

http://mises.org/story/1623

I love this...mainly because it quotes a macro article on equilibrium.

//
This realization on the part of macroeconomists comes in the form of an article in the August 2004 Journal of Political Economy entitled "New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression:  A General Equilibrium Analysis," by UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian. This is a big deal, since the JPE is arguably the top academic economics journal in the world. "Real gross domestic product per adult, which was 39 percent below trend at the trough of the Depression in 1933, remained 27 percent below trend in 1939," the authors write. And "Similarly, private hours worked were 27 percent below trend in 1933 and remained 21 percent below trend in 1939."  This should be no surprise to anyone who has studied the reality of the Great Depression, for U.S. Census Bureau statistics show that the official unemployment rate was still 17.2 percent in 1939 despite seven years of "economic salvation" at the hands of the Roosevelt administration (the normal, pre-Depression unemployment rate was about 3 percent). Per capita GDP was lower in 1939 than in 1929 ($847 vs. $857), as were personal consumption expenditures ($67.6 billion vs. $78.9 billion), according to Census Bureau data. Net private investment was minus $3.1 billion from 1930–40.//
hm...
//This last conclusion—that the abandonment of FDR's policies "coincided" with the recovery of the 1940s is very well documented by another author who is also ignored by Cole and Ohanian, Robert Higgs. In "Regime Uncertainty:  Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumed after the War" (Independent Review, Spring 1997), Higgs showed that it was the relative neutering of New Deal policies, along with a reduction (in absolute dollars) of the federal budget from $98.4 billion in 1945 to $33 billion in 1948, that brought forth the economic recovery. Private-sector production increased by almost one-third in 1946 alone, as private capital investment increased for the first time in eighteen years.//
hm...
quote:

2)  FDRs spending certainly mitigated the affects of the economic contraction- which were further exacerbated by nature.  The idea of cutting spending was tried in '36-37 with disastrous results.  This type of revisionist history is on par with Adolf Hitler claiming that the Jews were the cause of Germany's defeat in WWI- or that the Versailles treaty had anything to do with Germany's economic malaise- which by the way looks eerily similar to what's happening now (too much money in the hands of too few.)  If Harry Truman were alive today- he'd make the connection between the Republicans and Hitler's rise to power explicit- as he did to win the '48 election.


really?

//
Cole and Ohanian apparently emerged from the rarified world of macroeconomic model building for a long enough period of time to discover that the so-called First New Deal (1933–34) was one giant cartel scheme, whereby the government attempted to enforce cartel pricing and output reductions in hundreds of industries and in agriculture.  This of course was well documented in John T. Flynn's book, The Roosevelt Myth, first published in 1948. Henry Hazlitt had also written about it some fifteen years earlier. "New Deal cartelization policies are a key factor behind the weak recovery, accounting for about 60 percent of the difference between actual output and trend output," the authors write. The fact that it has taken "mainstream" neoclassical economists so long to recognize this fact is truly astounding. For generations their own neoclassical textbooks have taught that cartels "restrict output" to raise prices. It has also been no secret that the heart and soul of the First New Deal was to use the coercive powers of government to prop up wages and prices by cartelizing the entire economy. FDR and his advisors mistakenly believed that the Depression was caused by low prices, therefore, high prices—enforced by threats of violence, coercion and intimidation by the state—would be the "solution."  Moreover, it is hardly a secret that if less production takes place, fewer workers will be needed by employers and unemployment will subsequently be higher. Thus, the First New Deal could not possibly have been anything but a gigantic unemployment-producing scheme according to standard neoclassical economic theory. FDR's tripling of taxes, his regulation of business, and his relentless anti-business propaganda also contributed to a worsening of the Great Depression, but his labor policies were probably the most harmful to the employment prospects of American workers. In this regard the most disappointing thing about the Cole-Ohanian article is that they do not even cite the pioneering work of Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway—Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth Century Americafirst published in 1993.    Indeed, it is somewhat scandalous that they do not cite this well-known work while making essentially the same arguments that Vedder and Gallaway do. They recite many of the same facts about labor policy:  The NIRA codes established minimum wages for less-skilled and higher-skilled workers alike; employers were told that they must bargain collectively with unions, which were given myriad legislated advantages in the bargaining process, all enforced by the newly-created National Labor Relations Board. All of these policies made labor more expensive. Consequently, as the economic law of demand informs us, the inevitable result had to be less employment. Strike activity doubled from 14 million strike days in 1936 to 28 million a year later, and wages rose by about 15 percent in 1937 alone. The union/nonunion wage differential increased from 5 percent in 1933 to 23 percent by 1940. Newly-enacted Social Security payroll and unemployment insurance taxes made employment even more expensive. What all of this means is that during a period of weak or declining derived demand for labor, government policy pushed up the price of labor very significantly, causing employers to purchase less and less of it. Vedder and Gallaway conducted an econometric evaluation of these labor cost-increasing policies and concluded that most of the abnormal unemployment of the 1930s would have been avoided were it not for these policies. They estimated that by 1940 the unemployment rate was eight percentage points higher than it would have been without the legislation-induced growth of unionism and government-mandated employment costs. They conclude that "The Great Depression was very significantly prolonged in both its duration and its magnitude by the impact of New Deal programs" (p. 141).//
hm.

quote:

3) There's been some very interesting statistics showing up on employment during the Depression- beginning with the notion that people on WPA projects weren't really employed, since it was government money paying them.  Why this distinction between WPA projects and other government service jobs such as mail carrier?  Seems pretty silly to me- a guy building a bridge is employed if his check comes from Uncle Sam or a private contractor.  This artifically raises the unemployment figures of the '30s dramatically compared to what's happening today- although I suspect that the levels of unemployment now and in the '30s are actually pretty comparable.


I wouldn't suggest that people who worked for the wpa weren't 'really' employed. I would suggest that shuffling around wealth to 'create' jobs for which there is no market is disastrous. I mean, yes, you are employing a man by having him dig a hole and fill it up again (not making that up), but is this really an economic boon? the resources it is taking to hire this man are coming from somewhere? from whence do they come? well, the resources are either created out of thin air - the consequence being that all wealth is reduced by that inflation - or it is taken through taxes - which redistribute wealth from sectors that are actually productive and profitable. I shouldn't have to illustrate the dangers of inflation. but do you not see how taking money from an industry or an individual who is actually being productive and redistributing it to a place that is hemoraging money is detrimental to the market?

quote:

4)  The massive spending on armaments beginning in the end of the '30s put the kibosh on the Depression.


are you familiar with the broken window fallacy?

and no, it did not put an end to the depression. even with a draft and a wartime economy there was still economic strife. do I really need to point to examples of how a wartime economy actually furthered economic hardship? ration books are not the hallmark of an economy that put the kibosh on a depression.

quote:

5)  The postwar economic contraction was made increasingly painful because women didn't leave the workforce so easily- thus there had been an enormous expansion in the postwar labor pool with the return of men from overseas- and a rapid contraction in jobs.


yes, a world war did redirect jobs to industries and in quantities that would not otherwise have been profitable and when trying to adjust back to a freer market was painful. but this is not what I'm talking about when I'm talking about the prolonging of the great depression.

quote:

6)  If the boom in the '20s was artificial- I'd love to see a boom that wasn't.


any one that wasn't generated by artificially low interest rates which create credit that wouldn't exist if intrest rates were determined by a market.

quote:

My theory is that most economic expansions are driven by initial gov't spending leading to successful commercialization of new technology. Wars, mail contracts, and exploration have driven economic expansion.  Stupid weapons such as SDI have not. There are competing factors with money concentration ending a boom and leading to a bust, until the money is redistributed and there is sufficient risk capital for expansion again.  If the money is not redistributed or spent on worthless projects (witness Japan in the 90s)- then longterm economic malaise sets in.


http://mises.org/rothbard/agd/contents.asp

I woul highly suggest reading that.


_____________________________

all the good ones are collared or lesbians.

or old.

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/22/2009 9:21:05 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/aig_bonus_congress

What's different is not hard to understand. These bonuses are in the past and the loophole created for them. At this point in time, this tax is retroactive. I would think that obvious even to someone who refuses to even try to understand it. Do you think Congress went to do this because it was the easiest option?

No. They did it because it was the only option and the constitutionality of it is borderline. That means it doesn't matter how pissed anyone is about it, unless you want to pass an amendment - which again, will not affect these people.

Now you want to start end-arounding the very document that allows you to be righteously indignant in public? Absolutely not.

Like I said, this debacle rests squarely on the shoulders of those who allowed it.


No, we have an unusual situation with the government buying a corporation.

So what we would normally see as  government's unconstitutional interference in private business is a moot point because the government owns the business.  

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/23/2009 4:33:10 AM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

No, we have an unusual situation with the government buying a corporation.

So what we would normally see as  government's unconstitutional interference in private business is a moot point because the government owns the business.  



...and the contract (re Dodd's dilution of the amendment to the stimulus package) the government signed says the the bonuses are fine. Now the government says they aren't, because we the people say they aren't and so the government is attempting to void a section of said contract by breaking another contract, the second one being the Constitution.

And you want the world to blame AIG? Well, we do for the most part. However, most of those involved in this received healthy campaign contributions from AIG - Dodd and Obama included. And you think it's not a clusterfuck? It is, at best, incompetance, and at worst, a fraudulent attempt to separate you from your tax dollars to pay off campaign contributors.

So who's to blame? The greedy who helped rape the economy and want a bonus for doing so? Or the greedy and now scared who wrote legislation that let them rape it, then gave them the bonus?

Both are. I only have two choices to consider. Incompetance or fraud. But these dollars have a good chance of being protected by the Constitution. That leaves me one place to get something back and one place to take out my anger.

My government.

I was never fine with Bush trampling on the Constitution. I will never be fine with anyone else doing it.

< Message edited by StrangerThan -- 3/23/2009 4:37:07 AM >


_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/23/2009 6:37:16 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline
To V30

Ah yes, the Austrian model......accepted by a few people who don't like Keynes.

I find this timeline illuminating and troubling, since it shows so many parallels with our current situation.  Note however, that the employment statistics are flawed since workers on WPA rolls were not counted and drop the unemployment rate by 8-12% IIRC.  Also note that while I agree that digging a hole and filling it in again- i.e. makework, is useless, large construction projects such as the Hoover Dam and highway construction are not.  In short- the recipe of using unemployed people and putting them to work on our infrastructure would still work well today.  People want to work- they don't want unemployment- and building a bridge is a lot more satisfying than asking if you want "fries with that burger"- plus these jobs can't be outsourced to China.  (Well, not easily yet.)


TIMELINES OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION:

This page features two timelines: the first for general events of the Roaring 20s and the Great Depression, the second for leading economic indicators.

The importance of these timelines cannot be emphasized enough. Seeing the order in which events actually occurred dispels many myths about the Great Depression. One of the greatest of these myths is that government intervention was responsible for its onset. Truly massive intervention began only under the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, who was sworn in after the worst had already hit. Although his New Deal did not cure it, all the leading economic indicators improved on his watch.

But don't take my word for it -- here is the raw data:

TIMELINE OF GENERAL EVENTS

1920s (Decade)
  • During World War I, federal spending grows three times larger than tax collections. When the government cuts back spending to balance the budget in 1920, a severe recession results. However, the war economy invested heavily in the manufacturing sector, and the next decade will see an explosion of productivity... although only for certain sectors of the economy.

  • An average of 600 banks fail each year.

  • Agricultural, energy and coal mining sectors are continually depressed. Textiles, shoes, shipbuilding and railroads continually decline.

  • The value of farmland falls 30 to 40 percent between 1920 and 1929.

  • Organized labor declines throughout the decade. The United Mine Workers Union will see its membership fall from 500,000 in 1920 to 75,000 in 1928. The American Federation of Labor would fall from 5.1 million in 1920 to 3.4 million in 1929.

  • "Technological unemployment" enters the nation's vocabulary; as many as 200,000 workers a year are replaced by automatic or semi-automatic machinery.

  • Over the decade, about 1,200 mergers will swallow up more than 6,000 previously independent companies; by 1929, only 200 corporations will control over half of all American industry.

  • By the end of the decade, the bottom 80 percent of all income-earners will be removed from the tax rolls completely. Taxes on the rich will fall throughout the decade.

  • By 1929, the richest 1 percent will own 40 percent of the nation's wealth. The bottom 93 percent will have experienced a 4 percent drop in real disposable per-capita income between 1923 and 1929.

  • The middle class comprises only 15 to 20 percent of all Americans.

  • Individual worker productivity rises an astonishing 43 percent from 1919 to 1929. But the rewards are being funneled to the top: the number of people reporting half-million dollar incomes grows from 156 to 1,489 between 1920 and 1929, a phenomenal rise compared to other decades. But that is still less than 1 percent of all income-earners.

1922
  • The conservative Supreme Court strikes down federal child labor legislation.

1923
  • President Warren Harding dies in office; his administration was easily one of the most corrupt in American history. Calvin Coolidge, who is squeaky clean by comparison, becomes president. Coolidge is no less committed to laissez-faire and a non-interventionist government. He announces to the American people: "The business of America is business."

  • Supreme Court nullifies minimum wage for women in District of Columbia.

1924
  • The Ku Klux Klan reaches the height of its influence in America: by the end of the year it will claim 9 million members. It will decline drastically in 1925, however, after financial and moral scandals rock its leadership.

  • The stock market begins its spectacular rise. Bears little relation to the rest of the economy.

1925
  • The top tax rate is lowered to 25 percent - the lowest top rate in the eight decades since World War I.

  • Supreme Court rules that trade organizations do not violate anti-trust laws as long as some competition survives.

1928
  • The construction boom is over.

  • Farmers' share of the national income has dropped from 15 to 9 percent since 1920.

  • Between May 1928 and September 1929, the average prices of stocks will rise 40 percent. Trading will mushroom from 2-3 million shares per day to over 5 million. The boom is largely artificial.

1929
  • Herbert Hoover becomes President. Hoover is a staunch individualist but not as committed to laissez-faire ideology as Coolidge.

  • More than half of all Americans are living below a minimum subsistence level.

  • Annual per-capita income is $750; for farm people, it is only $273.

  • Backlog of business inventories grows three times larger than the year before. Public consumption markedly down.

  • Freight carloads and manufacturing fall.

  • Automobile sales decline by a third in the nine months before the crash.

  • Construction down $2 billion since 1926.

  • Recession begins in August, two months before the stock market crash. During this two month period, production will decline at an annual rate of 20 percent, wholesale prices at 7.5 percent, and personal income at 5 percent.

  • Stock market crash begins October 24. Investors call October 29 "Black Tuesday." Losses for the month will total $16 billion, an astronomical sum in those days.

  • Congress passes Agricultural Marketing Act to support farmers until they can get back on their feet.

1930
  • By February, the Federal Reserve has cut the prime interest rate from 6 to 4 percent. Expands the money supply with a major purchase of U.S. securities. However, for the next year and a half, the Fed will add very little money to the shrinking economy. (At no time will it actually pull money out of the system.) Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon announces that the Fed will stand by as the market works itself out: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate real estate… values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wreck from less-competent people." (More)

  • The Smoot-Hawley Tariff passes on June 17. With imports forming only 6 percent of the GNP, the 40 percent tariffs work out to an effective tax of only 2.4 percent per citizen. Even this is compensated for by the fact that American businesses are no longer investing in Europe, but keeping their money stateside. The consensus of modern economists is that the tariff made only a minor contribution to the Great Depression in the U.S., but a major one in Europe. (More)

  • The first bank panic occurs later this year; a public run on banks results in a wave of bankruptcies. Bank failures and deposit losses are responsible for the contracting money supply.

  • Supreme Court rules that the monopoly U.S. Steel does not violate anti-trust laws as long as competition exists, no matter how negligible.

  • Democrats gain in Congressional elections, but still do not have a majority.

  • The GNP falls 9.4 percent from the year before. The unemployment rate climbs from 3.2 to 8.7 percent.

1931
  • No major legislation is passed addressing the Depression.

  • A second banking panic occurs in the spring.

  • The GNP falls another 8.5 percent; unemployment rises to 15.9 percent.

1932
  • This and the next year are the worst years of the Great Depression. For 1932, GNP falls a record 13.4 percent; unemployment rises to 23.6 percent.

  • Industrial stocks have lost 80 percent of their value since 1930.

  • 10,000 banks have failed since 1929, or 40 percent of the 1929 total.

  • About $2 billion in deposits have been lost since 1929.

  • Money supply has contracted 31 percent since 1929.

  • GNP has also fallen 31 percent since 1929.

  • Over 13 million Americans have lost their jobs since 1929.

  • Capital growth investments have dropped from $16.2 billion to 1/3 of one billion since 1929.

  • Farm prices have fallen 53 percent since 1929.

  • International trade has fallen by two-thirds since 1929.

  • The Fed makes its first major expansion of the money supply since February 1930.

  • Congress creates the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. (More)

  • Congress passes the Federal Home Loan Bank Act and the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932. (More)

  • Top tax rate is raised from 25 to 63 percent.

  • Popular opinion considers Hoover's measures too little too late. Franklin Roosevelt easily defeats Hoover in the fall election. Democrats win control of Congress.

  • At his Democratic presidential nomination, Roosevelt says: "I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people."

1933
  • Roosevelt inaugurated; begins "First 100 Days" of intensive legislative activity. (More)

  • A third banking panic occurs in March. Roosevelt declares a Bank Holiday; closes financial institutions to stop a run on banks.

  • Alarmed by Roosevelt's plan to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, a group of millionaire businessmen, led by the Du Pont and J.P. Morgan empires, plans to overthrow Roosevelt with a military coup and install a fascist government. The businessmen try to recruit General Smedley Butler, promising him an army of 500,000, unlimited financial backing and generous media spin control. The plot is foiled when Butler reports it to Congress. (More)

  • Congress authorizes creation of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Farm Credit Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the National Recovery Administration, the Public Works Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority. (More)

  • Congress passes the Emergency Banking Bill, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, the Farm Credit Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Truth-in-Securities Act. (More)

  • U.S. goes off the gold standard.

  • Roosevelt does much to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, but is obsessed with a balanced budget. He later rejects Keynes' advice to begin heavy deficit spending.

  • The free fall of the GNP is significantly slowed; it dips only 2.1 percent this year. Unemployment rises slightly, to 24.9 percent.

1934
  • Congress authorizes creation of the Federal Communications Commission, the National Mediation Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission. (More)

  • Congress passes the Securities and Exchange Act and the Trade Agreement Act. (More)

  • The economy turns around: GNP rises 7.7 percent, and unemployment falls to 21.7 percent. A long road to recovery begins.

  • Sweden becomes the first nation to recover fully from the Great Depression. It has followed a policy of Keynesian deficit spending. (More)

1935
  • The Supreme Court declares the National Recovery Administration to be unconstitutional.

  • Congress authorizes creation of the Works Progress Administration, the National Labor Relations Board and the Rural Electrification Administration. (More)

  • Congress passes the Banking Act of 1935, the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Social Security Act. (More)

  • Economic recovery continues: the GNP grows another 8.1 percent, and unemployment falls to 20.1 percent.

1936
  • The Supreme Court declares part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act to be unconstitutional.

  • In response, Congress passes the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act. (More)

  • Top tax rate raised to 79 percent.

  • Economic recovery continues: GNP grows a record 14.1 percent; unemployment falls to 16.9 percent.

  • Germany becomes the second nation to recover fully from the Great Depression, through heavy deficit spending in preparation for war.

1937
  • The Supreme Court declares the National Labor Relations Board to be unconstitutional.

  • Roosevelt seeks to enlarge and therefore liberalize the Supreme Court. This attempt not only fails, but outrages the public.

  • Economists attribute economic growth so far to heavy government spending that is somewhat deficit. Roosevelt, however, fears an unbalanced budget and cuts spending for 1937. That summer, the nation plunges into another recession. Despite this, the yearly GNP rises 5.0 percent, and unemployment falls to 14.3 percent.

1938
  • Congress passes the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and the Fair Labor Standards Act. (More)

  • No major New Deal legislation is passed after this date, due to Roosevelt's weakened political power.

  • The year-long recession makes itself felt: the GNP falls 4.5 percent, and unemployment rises to 19.0 percent.

  • Britain becomes the third nation to recover as it begins deficit spending in preparation for war.

1939
  • GNP rises 7.9 percent; unemployment falls to 17.2 percent.

  • The United States will begin emerging from the Depression as it borrows and spends $1 billion to build its armed forces. From 1939 to 1941, when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, U.S. manufacturing will have shot up a phenomenal 50 percent!

  • The Depression is ending worldwide as nations prepare for the coming hostilities.

  • World War II starts with Hitler's invasion of Poland.

1945
  • Although the war is the largest tragedy in human history, the United States emerges as the world's only economic superpower. Deficit spending has resulted in a national debt 123 percent the size of the GDP. By contrast, in 1994, the $4.7 trillion national debt will be only 70 percent of the GDP!

  • The top tax rate is 91 percent. It will stay at least 88 percent until 1963, when it is lowered to 70 percent. During this time, America will experience the greatest economic boom it has ever known.

ECONOMIC TIMELINE

The following timeline shows the order of economic events during the Great Depression. Notice the effect that deficit spending had on economic growth:

Receipts: Tax receipts as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product

Spending: Federal spending as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product

GNP: Percent change in the Gross National Product

Unemp.: Unemployment rate
Tax Federal GNP Unemp.
Year Receipts Spending Growth Rate

-------------------------------------------------
1929 -- -- -- 3.2% < Hoover era, Great Depression begins
1930 4.2% 3.4% - 9.4% 8.7
1931 3.7 4.3 - 8.5 15.9
1932 2.9 7.0 -13.4 23.6
1933 3.5 8.1 - 2.1 24.9 < FDR, New Deal begins; contraction ends March
1934 4.9 10.8 + 7.7 21.7
1935 5.3 9.3 + 8.1 20.1
1936 5.1 10.6 +14.1 16.9
1937 6.2 8.7 + 5.0 14.3 < recession begins, May
1938 7.7 7.8 - 4.5 19.0 < recession ends, June
1939 7.2 10.4 + 7.9 17.2
1940 6.9 9.9
1941 7.7 12.1
1942 10.3 24.8
1943 13.7 44.8
1944 21.7 45.3
1945 21.3 43.7
As you can see, Roosevelt began relatively modest deficit spending that arrested the slide of the economy and resulted in some astonishing growth numbers. (Roosevelt's average growth of 5.2 percent during the Great Depression is even higher than Reagan's 3.7 percent growth during his so-called "Seven Fat Years!") When 1936 saw a phenomenal record of 14 percent growth, Roosevelt eased back on the deficit spending, overly worried about balancing the budget. But this only caused the economy to slip back into a recession, as the above chart shows.

I have been unable to find reliable economic growth figures from World War II, but as a generalization it is safe to say the economy exploded, experiencing it’s greatest growth in U.S. history. Between 1940 and 1945, the GDP nearly doubled in size, from $832 billion to $1,559 billion in constant 87 dollars. And this occurred as deficit spending soared, to levels Keynes had earlier and unsuccessfully recommended to Roosevelt.

Next Section: Summary
Return to The Great Depression Homepage


Sources:

T.H. Watkins, The Great Depression: America in the 1930s (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1993)

Kevin Phillips, Boiling Point (New York: HarperCollins, 1993)

Kevin Phillips, The Politics of Rich and Poor (New York: Random House, 1990)

The 1995 Grolier Encyclopedia (Entries: New Deal, Depression of the 30s, Roosevelt, Coolidge.)

The Encyclopedia Brittanica Online (Entries: New Deal, Great Depression.)

Donald Barlett and James Steele, America: What Went Wrong? (Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel, 1992)

Donald Barlett and James Steele, America: Who Really Pays the Taxes? (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994)

James MacGregor Fox, Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox (New York: Konecky and Konecky, 1956)

Elaine Schwartz, Econ 101½ (New York: Avon Books, 1995)

Peter Pugh and Chris Garratt, Introducing Keynes (Cambridge, England: Icon Books, Ltd., 1993)

Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1994)

Online sources:

History lecture notes: http://www.marshall.edu/history/mccarthy/hst331/lecture/greatdep.1

Gary H. Stern (President, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis), "Achieving Economic Stability: Lessons From the Crash of 1929," 1987 Annual Report Essay, http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/pubs/ar/ar1987.html

Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1997, Historical Tables 1.2 and 10.1, http://www.doc.gov/BudgetFY97/histtoc.html

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/23/2009 10:43:39 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan


I was never fine with Bush trampling on the Constitution. I will never be fine with anyone else doing it.


Except there is a huge difference between trampling habeus corpus and trying to recover taxpayer's money that was given to greedy employees of a government-owned firm.

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/23/2009 11:19:52 AM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan


I was never fine with Bush trampling on the Constitution. I will never be fine with anyone else doing it.


Except there is a huge difference between trampling habeus corpus and trying to recover taxpayer's money that was given to greedy employees of a government-owned firm.



Bullshit. Habeous corpus is defined in the same article. You just want to cherry pick what you trample over.

_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/23/2009 11:54:21 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline
This debate may be mooted- it seems as if Obama isn't real happy with this tax either.  Who knows- he may be right.  It is more important to get the economy going than to clawback money from these greedy souls.  But finding out who they are is appropriate- after all it's taxpayer dollars.  Public scorn and ridicule have been known to have a strong effect...


Sam

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/23/2009 12:52:32 PM   
Raiikun


Posts: 2650
Status: offline
FR -

After seeing some details about the people who recieved these bonuses, they deserved every freaking penny of it.

* All of these payments, as to AIG's troubled financial products division, are retention bonuses, not performance bonuses.
* The money is not going to anyone responsible for the implosion of AIG--those people, who were in the credit default swap area, are gone.
* These retention bonuses were promised to AIG employees who are responsible for winding down the company's financial products division. At the beginning, this division had a potential exposure of $2.7 trillion. Winding down AIG's book of business in this area was a dead-end job, and there was a great likelihood that the people responsible for the work, who knew the most about the products involved, would take jobs elsewhere.
* In late 2007 or early 2008, AIG made a deal with these employees: if they would stay at AIG until specified conditions were met, i.e., either certain business was wound down or a given period of time had elapsed, they would receive a specified retention bonus.
* As to all of the employees involved, they satisfied the terms of the bonus by wrapping up a portfolio for which they were responsible and/or staying on the job until now. As a result of the efforts of this group, AIG's financial products exposure is down from $2.7 trillion to $1.6 trillion.

(source: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/ ... _liddy.pdf)


(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/23/2009 1:21:11 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline
Forgive me for not cheering here.  As I've pointed out earlier- there has been a massive fraud perpetrated.  How on earth is one companies financial exposure at $2.7 trillion dollars to begin with- isn't that about a quarter of the US economy?  Wow- they've knocked a whopping $1.1 trillion off- gee, well now we get to pay off $1.6 trillion instead?  You'll pardon me if I'm not exactly jumping for joy.  And given that these clowns are the same ones who should have been preventing this mess, somehow I don't see that million dollar paydays are exactly deserved. 

How should they have prevented this mess?  Why weren't people at AIG  screaming that the London division doing credit default swaps could sink the whole company?  It's not only sunk the company- it's sunk the global economy as well.

I'm sorry- but this is the same crap as Enron- an enormous swindle built on a fictitious "giant market" that nobody else can evaluate.  At least Enron went bellyup.

I'm getting so disgusted by this whole thing that I wonder if Merc isn't right- quit trying to bail out these financial giants and just start over. 

Have you calculated out what $2.6 trillion is?  Its over $8500 per head of this country!  Doesn't that seem a little surreal to anybody else?


Sam

< Message edited by samboct -- 3/23/2009 1:28:11 PM >

(in reply to Raiikun)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/23/2009 2:44:11 PM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Have you calculated out what $2.6 trillion is?  Its over $8500 per head of this country!  Doesn't that seem a little surreal to anybody else?

Sam


If you want it to be a little more surreal, figure it by actual taxpayers.

_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: The House passes a punitive tax - 3/23/2009 2:48:56 PM   
Raiikun


Posts: 2650
Status: offline
Do people just not want to read and pay attention?  The people who got AIG into the mess weren't the people getting the bonuses.

The people actually doing their jobs and making the mess better were the ones getting the bonuses.  As said before multiple times in the thread...those are the people you DON'T wanna drive away by denying them their agreed upon compensation...those are the people who would help the taxpayers make good on the investment into AIG.

Again, the NBC/Leno analogy a page or two back is a very fitting one.

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The House passes a punitive tax Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109