Take the media and many writers with a grain of salt. Many of them are sour grapes about the new economy, including the more modernized financial markets. Long-established broadcast and print media are dependent on their old ways and they have been forestalling and fighting new media and new banking too. Should we be taking economic and business lessons from the New York Times? Donât they kill trees to delivery their news on carbon-emitting trucks? The Times built a real-estate tower in NYC to match their ego, but they couldnât afford it. Like others who canât pay back their bankers for overindulged real estate spending, the Times is contributing to an effort to tar and feather the bankers instead. Thatâs classic populist anger and undermines their credibility in mounting progressive arguments and editorials.
The same goes for the Washington Post with Steven Pearlsteinâs article yesterday. Washington Post, "Whose side is Obama on?" Nov. 25, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/24/AR2009112404014.html. Green's Comment is at the bottom. I think bankers have cut off these newspapers and they are being forced to downsize and close bureaus (WP did this week). Their writers are angry at bankers in my view and that is creeping into their opinions.
Krugman like others in the media are big tax and spend economists, supporting big tax and spend politicians. Krugman has been dogging President Obama for not passing a larger stimulus plan and Stimulus II, and not increasing government spending. Krugmanâs attacks hurt supply side economics because he attacks suppliers and their financiers, plus the investors and speculators too. Krugman thinks that government jobs will turn around the economy, but I disagree. Then the only way to pay Krugmanâs bill on society is with new taxes and raising taxes on the rich, Wall Street, bankers and traders in general. Economists should be like journalists used to be, neutral in politics. Of course, the other side of the debate is equally steeped in their ways too.
Back to the âuseless to societyâ argument. Letâs follow Ayn Randâs advice and call for a strike of bankers, traders and others in the financial system. Plus, ask the New York Times to go on strike too. We will soon see who the public cries out for returning to business, the financers or the print media. Is the print media ready to lend or invest in anyone other than their opinions?
As in America, progressive left-leaning politicians and media (Guardian) are leading the charge against bankersâ in the UK (itâs even worse) and they are flaming populist anger and votes with talk of a transaction tax. UK PM Gordon Brown faces a call for early election and defeat to Tory PM-candidate David Cameron, who is very much against this tax and an attack on Londonâs the City (bankers). Like most other level-headed economists, media and government officials, including Secretary Geithner, President Obama, leaders in Congress, IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, David Cameron is advocating a bank levy charged to banks instead. See more on my blog articles below.
Populist anger if left unchecked can cause devastation to our economy and emotions, which is unwise as we try to recover from a recession. Attacking small business traders, big business, bankers, speculators and other useful contributors to our economy, will make those players go into their shell and not lend, not invest, not speculate and turn our fragile recovery into a W-shaped recession.
Can we then count on the media and socialists to lend us money? Their only prescription for lending money is to sell government bonds, even though we canât afford to pay those bonds back any time soon. By the way, if you really want a financial-transaction tax, how about starting with the biggest short term financier of them all, federal, state and city governments? Slap a sufficiently-high enough tax on those transactions so investors and speculators wonât buy government bonds and the federal government will focus on balancing itâs check book too, like the rest of America. Of course, those bonds will probably be exempt from the politiciansâ plans for this tax.
Another thing that annoys me. Only progressive-Democratic Congressmen from non-trading areas are pushing for the transaction tax. For example, our Protest letter
http://www.greencompany.com/Association/AssociationFinancialTransTax.shtml is being signed by thousands of traders quickly and itâs odd that not even one letter was sent to Congressman DeFazioâs (OR), who is the main proponent of this tax in the US. That indicates to me that Congressman DeFazio has very few traders in his district. Tax initiatives are similar to environmental initiatives. NIMBY (not in my backyard) is a major problem with environmental initiatives and apparently with taxes too. Congressman and voters demand alternative energy, but when environmental projects are suggested in their home towns, they often block them because of NIMBY. They say the windmills are too loud and ugly. No one wants nuclear or waste-to-energy either. Better to ship the garbage to someone elseâs landfill. Itâs the same with taxes, raise them on someone else. If DeFazio can lead the charge to pass a financial-transaction tax, he should find some way to raise taxes in his home town too, but he is not.
Traders want to know where we stand here. If rational minds rule, there wonât be a financial-transaction tax and there will be a bank levy instead. But like the financial markets themselves, itâs irrational minds that control things. Populist anger is for real and I truly feel horrible for people that have lost their jobs and businesses that have closed. Few in the world can muster the courage to defend Wall Street and their ongoing ways to make money and pay high compensation. I for one have that courage and wonât throw Wall Street into the Hudson River. You may as well sell Manhattan down the river too and the dominos will fall soon thereafter.
The Times should fire Krugman before President Obama fires Geithner and letâs try to figure our problems out together with less partisanship. Krugman will teach trickle down economics. Burn business and you will be burned too.
Green's Comment on the Washington Post article:
âRetributionâ (the main argument in this piece), redistribution, and punishment are negative and unproductive ways to deal with a constituency. When a democratically-elected government is too heavy-handed in that manner, it invites another type of populist revolt (Tea Party movement) to trump the anti-Wall Street/banker populist backlash.
Far too many writers in the established media are inappropriately-disenchanted with Wall Street and bankers, and most unfairly lump small-business traders into that narrow group.
Highly-esteemed writer Pearlstein argues in this piece for a financial-transaction tax for no other good reason than to show that President Obama has populistâs stripes. Pearlstein concedes this tax will cause job destruction not creation. Is this a good enough reason to unleash hurtful collateral damage on our economy?
For sure, small-business traders will be put out of business over night with a financial-transaction tax. Is that fair? To get a better understanding of how dangerous this op-ed piece is (and other writing like it), please see our small-business traderâs appeal to Congress at
http://www.rallycongress.com/greentradertax-traders-association1/ -
âSave traders' jobs: Do not enact a financial-transaction tax.â
Traders, please join us by speaking out to defend your job and business from the governmentâs tax axe. For more background and articles, please see my blog at
http://www.greencompany.com/blog/index.php .
Established broadcast and print media (like WP) are reeling from creative destruction brought on by the Internet, with blogs sharing their space at much lower cost. In my view, some are sour grapes and they are juiced up to attack (Wall Street, bankers, the rich and others that are succeeding). Sorry to see WP closed bureaus yesterday and I hope the bankers did not contribute to that outcome.
just repeat this analysis replacing arithmetic mean with median - it might change the outcome a bit. After all, volume is a heavily skewed distribution... and avoid nesting averages and combining them with sums or products - results can be path dependent 