Capital Migration and Politics

[Gabfly1]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

<img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=3013717

CaptainObvious as the voice of reason. My, how the world has changed.

 

[Hello]

Quote from Ricter:

Well, I will grant that this worked in the past. The government put millions of people to work in the 30's, rebuilding infrastructure. Hmm, that works for me. Infrastructure is good.

Do you think the government can create jobs as efficiently as the private sector in terms of cost?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Hello:

Do you think the government can create jobs as efficiently as the private sector in terms of cost?

No, but, as there are few sales business will not get to practice its efficiency anyway, so there's no point giving them more money which, as I have said, they do not need. Remember, with the stimulus we are actually borrowing to create "phony" economic activity, aka buying, with the hope that we can "fill the trough" until world trade begins generating real economic activity. Long-term, of course, this cannot work, but I believe that is due to more underlying or fundamental causes than many care to think about. I'm a big pessimist because, for at least two reasons, I feel certain there will be an unprecedented surge of the "economically irrelevant". Someone said to me, get used to 20% unemployment, and learn to speak Mandarin. I hope the number is so low as 20%! I don't believe the Chinese have any easier time of this than we do.

Edit: I mentioned infrastructure. Here's a good example of where we could put some money:

http://www.theonion.com/video/obama-replaces-costly-highspeed-rail-plan-with-hig,18473/

 

[Hello]

I also believe that we are facing the beginning of the end as it pertains to western civilization, due largely inpart to the internet, but also due to out of control government. We are in for a rude awakening in the next 10-20 years.

I would have found your video more funny if it wasnt so true, the government should change its motto to "tried tested and true." Meaning, "We are going to try it, it isnt tested, and what we are telling you definately isn't true."

Quote from Ricter:

No, but, as there are few sales business will not get to practice its efficiency anyway, so there's no point giving them more money which, as I have said, they do not need. Remember, with the stimulus we are actually borrowing to create "phony" economic activity, aka buying, with the hope that we can "fill the trough" until world trade begins generating real economic activity. Long-term, of course, this cannot work, but I believe that is due to more underlying or fundamental causes than many care to think about. I'm a big pessimist because, for at least two reasons, I feel certain there will be an unprecedented surge of the "economically irrelevant". Someone said to me, get used to 20% unemployment, and learn to speak Mandarin. I hope the number is so low as 20%! I don't believe the Chinese have any easier time of this than we do.

Edit: I mentioned infrastructure. Here's a good example of where we could put some money:

http://www.theonion.com/video/obama-replaces-costly-highspeed-rail-plan-with-hig,18473/

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from Maverick74:

Not individual taxes. We are talking about corp tax rates and regulations. The rich business owners pay little to no taxes so cutting their tax rates is not the issue.

We can agree that the mega wealthy business owners pay little or no taxes. Perhaps this is the wrong thread for my rant. It's just when I hear that tax breaks are somehow going to create jobs...I go off the rails. Demand for products and/or services create jobs, not tax regulations. Do taxes weigh heavy on the individual and push them towards change of location? You bet!

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Hello:

I also believe that we are facing the beginning of the end as it pertains to western civilization, due largely inpart to the internet...

Fascinating! I've considered very briefly the role of the internet, but I'd like very much to hear what you are thinking on that... please expound!

 

[Hello]

Quote from Ricter:

Fascinating! I've considered very briefly the role of the internet, but I'd like very much to hear what you are thinking on that... please expound!

Are you being facetious

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Hello:

Are you being facetious

Short answer, I'm on my phone, no. Please share your thoughts on the role the internet plays.

 

[John_Wensink]

It will be interesting to see how those high tax union states like CA, NY, IL and MA pay off their massive pensions with capital flight.

Quote from Maverick74:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...high-tax-states-will-lose-them-108681159.html

Imagine that, Milton Friedman was right. Capital does really flow to where it's most free and less regulated.

Low-tax states will gain seats, high-tax states will lose them
By: Barbara Hollingsworth
Local Opinion Editor
11/17/10 10:00 AM EST

Migration from high-tax states to states with lower taxes and less government spending will dramatically alter the composition of future Congresses, according to a study by Americans for Tax Reform

Eight states are projected to gain at least one congressional seat under reapportionment following the 2010 Census: Texas (four seats), Florida (two seats), Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington (one seat each). Their average top state personal income tax rate: 2.8 percent.

By contrast, New York and Ohio are likely to lose two seats each, while Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will be down one apiece. The average top state personal income tax rate in these loser states: 6.05 percent.

The state and local tax burden is nearly a third lower in states with growing populations, ATR found. As a result, per capita government spending is also lower: $4,008 for states gaining congressional seats, $5,117 for states losing them.

And, as ATR notes, “in eight of ten losers, workers can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. In 7 of the 8 gainers, workers are given a choice whether to join or contribute financially to a union.”

Imagine that: Americans are fleeing high tax, union-dominated states and settling in states with lower taxes, right-to-work laws and lower government spending. Nothing sends a message like voting with your feet.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...s-will-lose-them-108681159.html#ixzz15YXvqAiZ

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from John_Wensink:

It will be interesting to see how those high tax union states like CA, NY, IL and MA pay off their massive pensions with capital flight.

It's called a federal bailout. I think we will see the Fed come in and buy some more debt. And round and round we go.