|
'Goldilocks needs tax reform ... not root-canal economic populism' by Decius at 12:55 pm EST, Jan 6, 2008 |
Here's Larry Kudlow: The key thing to remember is that businesses drive the economy. Businesses create jobs and incomes for consumers to spend.
Larry Kudlow has managed, unfortunately, to transform himself from an inciteful observer of market events into a fairly one dimensional shill for wall street's political interests. This essay (appearing in NRO, not a business journal) is a perfect example. He cites "facts" that have no relationship to reality (holiday sales suprised on the upside?!?), talks about lazzie-faire economics while pining for government assistance in the form of yet another rate cut, and also, in the passage quoted above, manages to treat his readers like children. The fact is that we are teterring on the edge of an economic precipice built upon phoney growth and no one is quite sure how deep it is. The current housing crisis, which threatens bank failure, was completely predictable and driven by the extremely irresponsible actions of the creditors whose interests Kudlow here represents. Of course they don't want the government to regulate them, they're rich, but the minute hard times beset them they start screaming for government assistance in the form of rate cuts, literally screaming as Kudlow's former cohost famously did on national television in the late summer, and they get them! The reason Wallstreet has to generate phoney growth in the form of housing inflation is that we're not getting enough real growth in terms of actual middle class purchasing power, and the fundamental reasons for that aren't addressed by a simple tax cut. Despite Kudlows insistance to the contrary, real wage growth has been anemic through-out this recovery, held back by offshoring and H1-B visas. The reason those programs are required to keep American workers "competitive" is our abysmally stupid healthcare system, wherein employers have to pay truck loads for services that no one can refuse to buy. Healthcare is not like other market commodities because people who need services cannot refuse to purchase them or choose between acceptible and luxury classes of service. You buy it or you die. So in an unregulated environment there is no force that counteracts price increases. And the vested interests that are making a killing offering those services have hired the exact same libertarian idealogs to defend those interests that Kudlow has now joined. End the upward spiral of healthcare costs and require job mobility and permanent residency for foreign workers imported into the US and you'll see real, sustainable increases in middle class purchasing power, which will drive real economic growth. Ultimately, if the rewards of business growth, systemically, aren't seen by employees, consumers don't have money to spend on new products, and so businesses can't grow. Instead you see the money all going to shareholders, and so there is all this excess investment capital out there that isn't going to be spent buying things, but instead wants to fund mortages and the like. This sort of concentration of wealth, which is caused by government intervention on behalf of some people and lazzie-faire for others, can strangle the economy by pulling the liquidity out. Thats exactly what caused the great depression. |
|
RE: 'Goldilocks needs tax reform ... not root-canal economic populism' by k at 5:55 pm EST, Jan 6, 2008 |
Some interesting points you make... of course I agree Kudlow's shilling here in a fairly transparent way. And for sure I concur that health care is a major part of the US's problems with economic growth... it's an absurd system we have. I need to do some fairly deep research into the candidates actual plans for health care. A bit of pedantry : Decius wrote: inciteful
Perhaps you meant this, in the sense of "Kudlow previously was known to incite arguments," but I expect you intended "insightful". later, idealogs
That's "ideologues" Idealog might be a good one to coin though. Like, the list of projects I want to do that I never get done. finally, lazzie-faire
The others might have been typos, but this was done twice... do you hate France? It's "laissez-faire". |
|
Larry Kudlow on Goldilocks and Tax Reform on National Review Online by w1ld at 10:10 pm EST, Jan 5, 2008 |
The key thing to remember is that businesses drive the economy. Businesses create jobs and incomes for consumers to spend. Today’s John Edwards/Mike Huckabee anti-business populism sounds more like William Jennings Bryan than Adam Smith. It’s absolutely crazy. They attack Wall Street and investors, which is another way of attacking capital. Without capital investment, there will be no new business, no new jobs, and no middle class. ... Right now the single best thing President Bush and Congress can do is slash the corporate tax rate for large and small businesses. Bush must reach out to Charlie Rangel and move the corporate tax to 25 percent from 35 percent. Then, instead of taxing successful capitalists as an offset, Congress can entirely abolish corporate-tax subsidy loopholes, special provisions, and other corruption-inducing K-Street earmarks. A middle-class tax cut to help families and small businesses would also work wonders. This can be done by collapsing the three middle-income tax brackets of 15 percent ($15,650), 25 percent ($63,700), and 28 percent ($128,500) into one 15 percent bracket. These brackets apply to small-business owners who may be suffering the high costs of energy and raw materials. The biggest weakness in the jobs report is the household survey which is comprised of these owner-operated small businesses. Household job increases have slumped to only 262,000 over the last year.
|
'Goldilocks needs tax reform ... not root-canal economic populism' by noteworthy at 11:19 pm EST, Jan 5, 2008 |
Here's Larry Kudlow: The key thing to remember is that businesses drive the economy. Businesses create jobs and incomes for consumers to spend. Today’s John Edwards/Mike Huckabee anti-business populism sounds more like William Jennings Bryan than Adam Smith. It’s absolutely crazy. They attack Wall Street and investors, which is another way of attacking capital. Without capital investment, there will be no new business, no new jobs, and no middle class. ... America is an optimistic country, and for the life of me I don’t know why the Republican presidential candidates can’t understand this.
I am no fan of the populists' spiel. But I recall this essay, from last year: The belief that corporate power is the unique source of our problems is not the only idol we are subject to. There is an idol even in the language we use to account for our problems. Our primary dependence on the scientific language of “environment,” “ecology,” “diversity,” “habitat,” and “ecosystem” is a way of acknowledging the superiority of the very kind of rationality that serves not only the Sierra Club but corporate capitalism as well. ... Perhaps the most powerful way in which we conspire against ourselves is the simple fact that we have jobs. We are willingly part of a world designed for the convenience of what Shakespeare called "the visible God": money. When I say we have jobs, I mean that we find in them our home, our sense of being grounded in the world, grounded in a vast social and economic order. It is a spectacularly complex, even breathtaking, order, and it has two enormous and related problems. First, it seems to be largely responsible for the destruction of the natural world. Second, it has the strong tendency to reduce the human beings inhabiting it to two functions, working and consuming. It tends to hollow us out.
Amid all the fervor for Going Green this election year, what ever happened to Reduce? Really, the best thing that we can do for the planet is to use less of it.
So, whose platform is that? The chatter about "energy independence" is code for farm subsidies. It's about domestic growth, perhaps to the detriment of foreign profit, but it's not as though OPEC would pump significantly less oil -- they just wouldn't earn quite so much for it. The developing world will pick up all the slack. Recall, from earlier this week: China’s catching up alone would roughly double world consumption rates.
|
|
|