What an interesting video on economics! Economic policy differences share a long history. Watch this rap video and maybe you'll walk away knowing more about the boom and bust of economics.
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Monday, July 6, 2009
Biden Admits Stimulus Not Working and Americans are being Scammed
So the biggest rush in history to spend the most money in history to create jobs is not working. Joe Biden admitted On ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos over the weekend that people are being scammed with the stimulus.
Does this mean he thinks Democrats are scamming Americans?
Where are the jobs? Shouldn't everyone be asking that question to Congress and to the president? Shouldn't the stimulus package be scrapped now? Shouldn't Congress and the president be willing to listen to alternate points of view since theirs are falling miserably short?
Does this mean he thinks Democrats are scamming Americans?
Where are the jobs? Shouldn't everyone be asking that question to Congress and to the president? Shouldn't the stimulus package be scrapped now? Shouldn't Congress and the president be willing to listen to alternate points of view since theirs are falling miserably short?
Monday, February 9, 2009
Japan Didn't Spend Enough?
Is the Treasury's Plan to 'Go Japanese' Doomed to Fail?
/PRNewswire/ -- In the latest issue of The Casey Report, the flagship publication of Casey Research, Managing Director David Galland and Chief Economist Bud Conrad have examined the decline of the Japanese economy since 1990 and note the many similarities, and a few key dissimilarities, to the United States' current crisis.
"Statements made by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner suggest that he views the Japanese crisis as a useful comparison to the current situation in the U.S., except that Japan did not apply enough monetary stimulus early enough," says David Galland. "Our analysis suggests critical differences which could cause efforts to stimulate the economy back to life to fail."
Similar to the U.S., in the years leading up to its "Lost Decade" per-capita debt in Japan soared, by seven-fold. Also similarly, the debt bubble in Japan collapsed, dealing a crushing blow to equities and real estate markets. The Japanese government responded to its financial crunch by going on a fiscal stimulus spree. The Japanese government debt grew to 160% of the GDP. The United States' debt is currently 75% of the GDP but expected to climb significantly as further stimulus is applied.
Japan also cut its lending rate to zero percent, just as the United States has done. The Bank of Japan, similar to our Federal Reserve, acquired Japanese government bonds and providing more liquidity to weak banks. That this approach did not provide the desired results and did not revive the Japanese stock market, Treasury Secretary Geithner attributes to Japan's hesitant approach, indicating a willingness to act more forcefully, and to continue applying stimulus, in order to restart the economy.
"The Treasury secretary's words and the plans so far revealed seem to us to misunderstand some key differences between the U.S. economy now, and Japan's then," says David Galland:
-- Japan had a current account surplus throughout its crisis which
provided support to the yen, whereas going into its crisis the U.S.
has a record current account deficit and is the world's largest debtor
nation.
-- The Japanese are savers by nature. Americans are big spenders and are
entering the crisis with little or no savings.
-- The work ethic and the quality of primary education in the United
States have declined more than in Asia.
-- There are record amounts of U.S. dollars in the hands of foreigners
who are paying close attention to actions by our Treasury department.
Excessive stimulus could trigger a devastating exit from the dollar,
creating a vicious circle of a weakening dollar and soaring interest
rates.
Casey Research is a team of highly experienced investors and trained economists who spend countless hours researching powerful economic trends and the very best ways to profit from same. Their clientele is made up of individual and institutional investors who share the costs -- through subscription fees -- in exchange for unbiased research and information they can use in managing their portfolios to produce above-average returns.
/PRNewswire/ -- In the latest issue of The Casey Report, the flagship publication of Casey Research, Managing Director David Galland and Chief Economist Bud Conrad have examined the decline of the Japanese economy since 1990 and note the many similarities, and a few key dissimilarities, to the United States' current crisis.
"Statements made by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner suggest that he views the Japanese crisis as a useful comparison to the current situation in the U.S., except that Japan did not apply enough monetary stimulus early enough," says David Galland. "Our analysis suggests critical differences which could cause efforts to stimulate the economy back to life to fail."
Similar to the U.S., in the years leading up to its "Lost Decade" per-capita debt in Japan soared, by seven-fold. Also similarly, the debt bubble in Japan collapsed, dealing a crushing blow to equities and real estate markets. The Japanese government responded to its financial crunch by going on a fiscal stimulus spree. The Japanese government debt grew to 160% of the GDP. The United States' debt is currently 75% of the GDP but expected to climb significantly as further stimulus is applied.
Japan also cut its lending rate to zero percent, just as the United States has done. The Bank of Japan, similar to our Federal Reserve, acquired Japanese government bonds and providing more liquidity to weak banks. That this approach did not provide the desired results and did not revive the Japanese stock market, Treasury Secretary Geithner attributes to Japan's hesitant approach, indicating a willingness to act more forcefully, and to continue applying stimulus, in order to restart the economy.
"The Treasury secretary's words and the plans so far revealed seem to us to misunderstand some key differences between the U.S. economy now, and Japan's then," says David Galland:
-- Japan had a current account surplus throughout its crisis which
provided support to the yen, whereas going into its crisis the U.S.
has a record current account deficit and is the world's largest debtor
nation.
-- The Japanese are savers by nature. Americans are big spenders and are
entering the crisis with little or no savings.
-- The work ethic and the quality of primary education in the United
States have declined more than in Asia.
-- There are record amounts of U.S. dollars in the hands of foreigners
who are paying close attention to actions by our Treasury department.
Excessive stimulus could trigger a devastating exit from the dollar,
creating a vicious circle of a weakening dollar and soaring interest
rates.
Casey Research is a team of highly experienced investors and trained economists who spend countless hours researching powerful economic trends and the very best ways to profit from same. Their clientele is made up of individual and institutional investors who share the costs -- through subscription fees -- in exchange for unbiased research and information they can use in managing their portfolios to produce above-average returns.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Freedom, That Beautiful Economic Index
What can I do but belt out "Freedom, oh freedom"?
North America is the world leader in economic freedom, boasting two of the 10 freest countries in the 2009 "Index of Economic Freedom," published annually by The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation......http://thebusinessbriefcase.blogspot.com/2009/01/north-america-leads-world-in-economic.html
North America is the world leader in economic freedom, boasting two of the 10 freest countries in the 2009 "Index of Economic Freedom," published annually by The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation......http://thebusinessbriefcase.blogspot.com/2009/01/north-america-leads-world-in-economic.html
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis
VWV Note: Thought this style of media mismanagement would be of interest:
"Most people can accept that a news story recounting recent events will be reliant on '20-20 hindsight'. Today's (December 21) front-page New York Times story relies on hindsight with blinders on and one eye closed. The Times' 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view. To prove the point, when they filed their story, NYT reporters were completely unfamiliar with the President's prime time address to the Nation where he laid out in detail all of the causes of the housing and financial crises."
- White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, 12/21/08
The New York Times wrongly accuses President Bush and his Administration of disregarding signs of danger from Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) and ignores the President's prime time address to the Nation where he laid out in detail all of the causes of the housing and financial crises, arguing that "as early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming." (Jo Becker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Stephen Labaton, "White House Philosophy Stoked On Mortgage Bonfire," New York Times, 12/21/08)
The New York Times completely ignores the fact that while the Administration was pushing for more transparent lending rules and reining in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Congress had for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying: "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
The New York Times notes the political contributions of some banks to Republicans, saying "in the 2004 election cycle, mortgage bankers and brokers poured nearly $847,000 into Mr. Bush's re-election campaign, more than triple their contributions in 2000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics."
The article neglects to acknowledge that political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overwhelmingly supported Democratic officials - in particular members of Democratic leadership:
Since 1989, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has received $165,400 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
Since 1989, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has received $77,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
Since 1989, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has received $56,250 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
The New York Times wrongly accuses the President of encouraging reckless lending in order to expand the Republican base: "For Mr. Bush, it was part of his vision of an "ownership society," in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters."
The facts show that, throughout his eight years, the President was actually encouraging careful and wise lending and emphasized the obligations and responsibilities that come with homeownership. "We've got to be wise about how we deal with the closing documents and all the regulations, but also wise about how we help people understand what it means to own their home and the obligations and the opportunities." (President George W. Bush, Remarks On Homeownership, Atlanta, GA, 6/17/02)
"Most people can accept that a news story recounting recent events will be reliant on '20-20 hindsight'. Today's (December 21) front-page New York Times story relies on hindsight with blinders on and one eye closed. The Times' 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view. To prove the point, when they filed their story, NYT reporters were completely unfamiliar with the President's prime time address to the Nation where he laid out in detail all of the causes of the housing and financial crises."
- White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, 12/21/08
The New York Times wrongly accuses President Bush and his Administration of disregarding signs of danger from Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) and ignores the President's prime time address to the Nation where he laid out in detail all of the causes of the housing and financial crises, arguing that "as early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming." (Jo Becker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Stephen Labaton, "White House Philosophy Stoked On Mortgage Bonfire," New York Times, 12/21/08)
The New York Times completely ignores the fact that while the Administration was pushing for more transparent lending rules and reining in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Congress had for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying: "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
The New York Times notes the political contributions of some banks to Republicans, saying "in the 2004 election cycle, mortgage bankers and brokers poured nearly $847,000 into Mr. Bush's re-election campaign, more than triple their contributions in 2000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics."
The article neglects to acknowledge that political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overwhelmingly supported Democratic officials - in particular members of Democratic leadership:
Since 1989, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has received $165,400 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
Since 1989, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has received $77,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
Since 1989, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has received $56,250 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
The New York Times wrongly accuses the President of encouraging reckless lending in order to expand the Republican base: "For Mr. Bush, it was part of his vision of an "ownership society," in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters."
The facts show that, throughout his eight years, the President was actually encouraging careful and wise lending and emphasized the obligations and responsibilities that come with homeownership. "We've got to be wise about how we deal with the closing documents and all the regulations, but also wise about how we help people understand what it means to own their home and the obligations and the opportunities." (President George W. Bush, Remarks On Homeownership, Atlanta, GA, 6/17/02)
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
ABA Statement: NY Governor's Sweeping Tax Hikes on New Yorkers Add Strain to Checkbooks and Put Paychecks at Risk All During a Time of Recession
Is this what we are all heading toward in the recession? Higher taxes during a struggling economy?
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- As families are struggling to make ends meet during a recession, it is disappointing that Governor Paterson's budget proposal contains such sweeping tax hikes on hard-working families. In an economy like this, the last thing government should be doing is raising taxes on people.
The governor's proposed budget hikes taxes on an array of consumer goods and services. It imposes an astounding 18 percent sales tax on regular soft drinks and juice drinks -- a regressive tax that will hurt most those least able to pay. And the budget proposal expands the 5-cents-per-container bottle bill tax to include bottled water and juices, again adding to the family grocery bill.
The budget also calls for new taxes or tax hikes on clothing, shoes, gasoline, auto insurance, health insurance, health care, beer, wine, cable and satellite TV, bus and taxi rides, movies, the theater, health clubs, and DMV fees, among other everyday goods and services. It also proposes hikes in college tuition -- and more.
These tax hikes are insensitive to families who are facing tough and painful economic times. Many New York families are already struggling to keep their homes, pay their bills and still buy some holiday gifts, all while hoping that the recession doesn't take their jobs. It's mind-boggling that government would propose to pile onto their struggles with new taxes on so many aspects of their everyday life.
Furthermore, the proposed sales tax on regular soft drinks is simply a facade for raising taxes. Singling out one particular product for taxation won't even make a dent in a problem as complex as obesity. This point is supported by science as well as common sense. If we want to be serious about battling obesity, we need to comprehensively address the consumption of all foods and beverages in moderation and get more active as a society. It's discouraging that some are perpetuating the myth that taxing one product will make a difference in obesity, or even contribute to fighting the problem. It won't.
The severe tax hikes on beverages would put at risk good-paying jobs with good health benefits for many hard-working New Yorkers -- hitting them in both their checkbook and their paycheck. The beverage industry supports 160,000 jobs in New York communities large and small, providing a direct economic benefit to the state economy of nearly $7 billion and an indirect benefit of $25 billion.
We appreciate the budget challenges facing the state. And we look forward to working with the Governor and lawmakers on solutions that don't add to the burden of the people of New York during tough economic times.
During the recent campaign season, the people of New York and America were promised middle-class tax relief. Instead, in New York, they're at risk of getting a giant tax bill added to their already stretched checkbooks. This isn't what taxpayers were promised. And more taxes are not what families need in these tough times.
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- As families are struggling to make ends meet during a recession, it is disappointing that Governor Paterson's budget proposal contains such sweeping tax hikes on hard-working families. In an economy like this, the last thing government should be doing is raising taxes on people.
The governor's proposed budget hikes taxes on an array of consumer goods and services. It imposes an astounding 18 percent sales tax on regular soft drinks and juice drinks -- a regressive tax that will hurt most those least able to pay. And the budget proposal expands the 5-cents-per-container bottle bill tax to include bottled water and juices, again adding to the family grocery bill.
The budget also calls for new taxes or tax hikes on clothing, shoes, gasoline, auto insurance, health insurance, health care, beer, wine, cable and satellite TV, bus and taxi rides, movies, the theater, health clubs, and DMV fees, among other everyday goods and services. It also proposes hikes in college tuition -- and more.
These tax hikes are insensitive to families who are facing tough and painful economic times. Many New York families are already struggling to keep their homes, pay their bills and still buy some holiday gifts, all while hoping that the recession doesn't take their jobs. It's mind-boggling that government would propose to pile onto their struggles with new taxes on so many aspects of their everyday life.
Furthermore, the proposed sales tax on regular soft drinks is simply a facade for raising taxes. Singling out one particular product for taxation won't even make a dent in a problem as complex as obesity. This point is supported by science as well as common sense. If we want to be serious about battling obesity, we need to comprehensively address the consumption of all foods and beverages in moderation and get more active as a society. It's discouraging that some are perpetuating the myth that taxing one product will make a difference in obesity, or even contribute to fighting the problem. It won't.
The severe tax hikes on beverages would put at risk good-paying jobs with good health benefits for many hard-working New Yorkers -- hitting them in both their checkbook and their paycheck. The beverage industry supports 160,000 jobs in New York communities large and small, providing a direct economic benefit to the state economy of nearly $7 billion and an indirect benefit of $25 billion.
We appreciate the budget challenges facing the state. And we look forward to working with the Governor and lawmakers on solutions that don't add to the burden of the people of New York during tough economic times.
During the recent campaign season, the people of New York and America were promised middle-class tax relief. Instead, in New York, they're at risk of getting a giant tax bill added to their already stretched checkbooks. This isn't what taxpayers were promised. And more taxes are not what families need in these tough times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
