France Hits 100% Taxation.

Comments:
Follow Us HERE

Arc De'Tax.

It is true, as reported by the French newspaper Les Echos who specializes in the French economy. According to data gathered from the Finance Ministry, closed to 10,000 French households reached the historic level of 100% taxation in 2011 due to the introduction of the new tax that imposes a special levy for those households with assets above 1.3 million Euros.

 
The newspaper also estimated that more than 12,000 French households paid over 75% taxation. In the meantime the ministry of finance has reported a 0.5% shrinking of France's GDP, and they are asking their economist why that is. Not only the French, but they take the cake.

Comments:

The Ways of the Madding Crowds.

By John Galt for America's Chronicle
Comments:
Follow Us HERE


Conformist following  false&wrong
The transformation of America has much to do with the transformation of society. By 'society' I mean it in the context of a global concept. We are facing changes of what is acceptable, what is righteous versus what is evil, and what should be protected versus what should be left to the individual. In most cases what should be left to the individual is losing and the forces that shape this battle win superior power to impose what is acceptable and what is righteous. This is the great power struggle that we are facing today.

In conceptualizing the components of forces that make this power possible we ran across a unique and well thought out explanation of them; one that we can put our fingers on and get a realistic start to answer the question of how this can be guided or changed for a better outcome.

Bryan Caplan, who wrote one of my favorite books, "The Myth of the Rational Power", and who writes in the blog, EconLog, makes a good start towards that goal. In a piece called, "You will Know Them by Their Unpopular Views" he poses the definitions of the problem first:


Consider a world where 80% of people are Conformists, 10% of people are Righteous, and 10% are Reprobates. . . . . the Conformists are True Neutral, the Righteous are Lawful Good, and the Reprobates are Chaotic Evil. . . . . There are clearly two equilibria: one good, one bad.  If the true&right is popular, then the Conformists and the Righteous have 90% of the vote, so the true&right prevails.  If the true&right is unpopular, then the Conformists and Reprobates have 90% of the vote, so the false&wicked prevails.
 
Now suppose that in this world, you are trying to assess an individual's virtue.  In the good equilibrium, identifying the virtuous is hard.  Only 1 out of 9 supporters of the status quo is genuinely virtuous.  The vast majority support the true&right out of sheer convenience.  Identifying the vicious, however, is easy.  In the good equilibrium, all supporters of the false&wicked are vicious.

The mirror image holds in the bad equilibrium. . . .
 
Conformists have good effects when the true&right is popular, and bad effects when the false&wicked is popular.  But the difference in underlying virtue between good and bad societies is small.  No individual chooses what's popular in his society.  So if you're a conformist who simply supports whatever is popular in your society, they key fact about your character is that you're a conformist, not what you conform to.

On the plausible assumption that most real-world people are basically conformists, you can't accurately assess virtue by studying people's views in isolation.  You have to look at their
unpopular views.  Believing true&right things despite their unpopularity is a sign of genuine virtue.  Believing false&wrong things despite their unpopularity is a sign of genuine vice.


In spite of its semantic simplicity this logic will lead us to believe that the fact that today more people adhere carefully to a politically correct strict and remodeled use of ethnic, genre, and social terminology, does not mean that they are more virtuous than their 1950's or 1930's predecessors. What Mr. Caplan is trying to tell us is that those practices would have been 'truly virtuous' if adopted on the 50's or 30's, without the general consensus being prevalent. In comparison, those posturing new beliefs that have changed radically with time can only be placed as members of the "Conformist" society, at best, until and when, an analyzis of their opposite "reprobate" positions is made, so we can assert if they are really vicious instead.
If we allow ourselves a truly big jump from this analysis to the composition of the American electorate of today we might conclude that it is the reason why elections are decided by 2-4% of the voters and that 92-96%% of the body mass of American voters are just true "conformists" - whose sub-strata is only divided by 47-49% winning-conformists and losing-conformists, which trade places from one election to another.

The complication from the Caplan model arrives by the fact that becoming a conformist is not a self-conscious act. These individuals are shaped and imprisoned by their environment, culture and social stratum (with a lot of subcategories like education, and income, etc..), and are happily convinced that their beliefs are correct by the overwhelming influence of all of what they come in contact with under their restricted stations. In countries where all sub-strata is added to reach two final categories for political purposes we end with only two large and opposing conformists categories, and a small cadre of really vicious and really righteous sectors that are probably composed of no more than 4-8% (2-4% plus 2-4% of misallocated conformists) of the voting population.

In our modern democracy it is the "true righteous" and the "true evil" who control elections. The problem with Democracy is that believing "true&right" despite its unpopularity makes the "truly righteous" losers in the democratic process, assuming that by being "true&right" they will stick by their beliefs in the political contest even if unpopular; while believing in "false&wrong" makes the "truly evil" winners, assuming that by being "false&wrong" they will not stick with their beliefs publicly in the political arena.

That is the story of Democracy and how maddeningly easy is the shaping of the madding crowds wallowing in conformism by a small cadre of "false&wrong's".

Follow Us HERE

Bernanke Warns Against Bernanke.

By John Galt for America's Chronicle
Comments:
Follow Us HERE
 
The chairman cannot solve the economic trap developing and is preparing an "I told you so".


What do I see coming?
It's me, in a Bubble!
The chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States who has spent the best part of his term trying to pump up the economy with trillions of dollars through QE1, QE2, and now is in the midst of a QE-Infinity, or until the unemployment rate deeps to 6.5%, which could be the same thing, has suddenly started to worry about his own actions and his legacy after his coming departure.

In a speech on Friday, May 10, in Chicago, he delivered what we interpret as a warning to himself, even though he was by all appearances talking to an audience of incredulous investors and economists. The Chairman said that “in light of the current low interest rate environment, we are watching particularly closely for instances of ‘reaching for yield’ and other forms of excessive risk-taking, which may affect asset prices and their relationships with fundamentals”.

Mr. Bernanke was of course referring to the "low interest rate environment" that he himself has created with trillions of dollars of magic money. We don't want to say "printed money" unless the phenomenon is underestimated. It is more like magic money for it is created not by a slow clunky printing press but by the magical instantaneous pressing of a button on a computer, eh voila, more than $3.4 trillion dollars, and counting, of treasury's and mortgage backed securities bought mostly at the top of the market have been stuffed into Bernanke's attic. Plus another $3 trillion bought by American and foreign investors. Mr. Bernanke is now suddenly worried, after hearing similar warnings from economist not associated with the MSM for the last 4 years, that eventually other investors less tied to political masters with an economic policy from the 1930's will decide that it isn't a good wealth-creation idea to have to pay to hold assets instead of getting a return for those assets. Presently 10-year Treasury's are costing (as in, paying instead of getting paid) investors around 0.5% to hold them (receiving a yield of 1.5% and paying 2.0% in devaluation by inflation).
 
The consequences may start the
minute the market gets wind
of Mr. Bernanke's insecurity.


  
 
Mr. Bernanke's warning against "reaching for yield" is particularly amazing as it assumes or implies a condemnation of investors should they become unsatisfied with paying the government for the privilege of giving them their money, advising instead that at no time they should be as crass and ambitious as to engage in "excessive risk-taking" by demanding a return on their investment, however small that may be; and believe us, it is pretty small indeed. Mr. Bernanke calls the desire to get 3-5% out of their investments, presently provided by junk-bonds, "excessive risk-taking" with disapproval. It is also a warning to all those seniors and savers that depend on a yield to survive their day-to-day existence to not expect even the most modest of yields by such "risk-taking" to assuage their bare necessities.

Well, the chairman is right to be worried and this unusual warning is being made in front of a mirror and it may be an indication that the Federal Reserve may be preparing to interrupt the creation of magic money. The Fed may be signaling that the size of its balance sheet may be reaching a level where a quick, or even a slow, reversal could bring dire consequences. But the consequences may start the minute the market gets wind of Mr. Bernanke's insecurity which will be followed by a panic in the bond market. The run for the exits can be dramatic. Those that are waiting for the stampede to begin will be trampled.
 
Mr. Bernanke seems to be caught
in an economic catch-22.

That is the "Bernanke bubble" that all of a sudden Bernanke is worried about. It will make the "Greenspan Bubble" of 2008 look like child's play because the "Bernanke Bubble" involves foreign sovereignties who hold large amounts of treasury's and it will burn like fire through dry grass due to instant electronic markets. The "Greenspan Bubble" of 2007-2009 was slow in comparison because it involved fixed assets that where not liquid or marked to market daily by holding institutions. They were slow to ascertain their true value. The "Bernanke bubble" is by far more dangerous.
 
Mr. Bernanke seems to be caught in a catch-22, one that will burst the bubble if he succeeds or will burst the bubble if he fails. His massive creation of money in circulation has the purpose of reviving the economy. We won't go here into the reasons of why it hasn't don't so quickly, but the fact that it hasn't has created one side of the catch by obligating the Fed to prolong the time and scope of the money creation policy, inflating the balance sheet of the Fed to massive proportions and those of other investors. In the process it has thus increased the probabilities of a failure by either of the only two exit roads possible for the economy. One, if the economy finally starts growing and consequently starts pushing prices up creating inflation and a rise in interest rates, or, two, that the economy fails to a degree where it is impossible to keep selling debt without a rise in risk premium demanded by overwhelmed buyers. Catch-22, indeed, in either of those two only possible ways for the economy to go, the burst of the bond market bubble would be inevitable with prices of Treasury's and all bonds dropping dramatically.
 

The strange thing is, nevertheless, that the Fed is delivering the warning in front of a mirror hoping against hope that it won't arrive until after his term ends at the end of the year and the next guy will have to carry the burden, under the cynical "I told you so" from Bernanke - he is setting a personal escape. 
 
We are more worried that the impact to the economy will carry the burden to main street - that is, you the reader.

Comments:
Follow Us HERE
 

Heritage Foundation On Immigration: A Democrat's Dream.

By John Galt for America's Chronicle
Comments:
Follow Us HERE

The Heritage Foundation Is Making the Republican Party Unelectable in the Name of Purity.


"Give me your tired, your poor
your huddled masses
yearning" . . . to vote for me.

I believe that The Heritage Foundation has made a bad decision in appointing DeMint to head the organization. It has politicized a think tank that should be all about a-political socio-economic research and thinking, in its purest form.

I like DeMint and I have agreed with him in countless issues before. Immigration is, however, the snake pit of all issues. Both, DeMint and Rubio have many good points and arguments, but DeMint's and Heritage's argument is based on a more than 30-year very doubtful set of premises applied to a cost-benefit analysis which are a little beyond believe and whose solid realities are more than arguable. I have often agreed with their past criticism that the 10-year budgetary projections that the government is always throwing into their economic policy propositions are more a triumph of hope over reality. The idea that they will now use the same venal approach, but multiplied by 3 or 4, with an analysis extended to 30 or 40 years does nothing but renew my skepticism in the honesty of their approach.

How many times before have they - DeMint and Heritage - denounced the unsuitability and doubtful value of 10-year economic projections made by the government that never come true and become irrelevant in very short time due to the inevitability of evolving circumstances and unsuspected consequences. In spite of which they now come out with a projection of costs and benefits not to 10-years but to 35 years or so. 

I must add that the use of Milton Freeman's name by DeMint in order to promote their immigration opposition is rather dishonest. He stated that, "The economist Milton Friedman warned that the United States cannot have open borders and an extensive welfare state", conveniently leaving out the fact that Milton Freeman never advocated for either, much less both in tandem, open borders and a full welfare state, and that the conservative position for reform as presented by Marco Rubio is not advocating any of those two choices either. In fact, the lynchpin of Rubio's position is the necessity to secure the border in conjunction with the legalizing process.

But more important is that Rubio's initial premise is base in a present (not future) unalienable fact: that the Republican Party will be hard pressed to win future elections as long as it is perceived as the enemy of the Hispanic community (true or false does not matter). Even if DeMint and Heritage are right, they would be doing no favors to conservatives, and the country as a whole, by excluding them from power, and therefore, from all the policy making of future immigration legislation (and everything else for that matter), for a very long time, or maybe permanently. Hispanics, with the approval or disapproval of the Heritage Foundation, will be 25% of our demographic content by 2040 (twice the estimated black-American population). You bring them into the conservative fold or you are finish.

It is necessary for The Heritage Foundation to change its approach and begin by accepting Senator Rubio's premise based on the necessity to make the Republican Party an electable party and work a solution that will preserve the future integrity and the avoidance of the immigration circumstances which we face today. Some of these compromises will be less than fair and will not adhere to the vision of justice that is pure and unaltered, as many conservatives naively want, but one that will allow the conservative movement to have a say in the future inevitability of re-defining and legislating the process in the future. Conservative values cannot be defended or expanded with out conservatives in the halls of power. These halls of power will be barred to the Republican Party if the Heritage Foundation manages to lock all conservatives into an unelectable box.

Comments:
Follow Us HERE
 

Deja-vu: Senate Passes Bill Without Reading It.

By John Galt for America's Chronicle
Comments:
Follow Us HERE

Twenty Six "Anti-Tax" Republicans join the Democrats to increase taxes on everybody without considering the likely negative unintended consequences for the economy in general.

Your shopping cart just
got more expensive.
The Senate of the United States is well known for doing the bidding of Nancy Pelosi, the minority leaders of the House of Representatives, who infamously said before passing the Healthcare Affordable Act, "we must pass it so we can find out what is in it". Infamous indeed, we are just finding out just how unaffordable the affordable act is.

Now the Senate of the United States have passed the Marketplace Fairness Act which is simply a monstrous tax increase on . . . the persecuted "rich"? . . . no, on everybody. Just as when the word 'affordable' pops-up on some legislative bill, beware! Same as when the word "fairness" pops-up, beware and run with your wallet.

That is the case of this massive tax increase which happens to be supported by 26 Republicans, most of which have pledged to "never increase taxes" in their election campaigns to their clueless constituents.

The problem with the "Fairness" Act is the same as with the "Affordable" Act, nobody knows what is in it - except for the tax increase. Even the authors of the bill cannot provide answers as to how it will be implemented and what would be the jurisdiction of the tax authorities in charge of making the small business man life miserable. How many tax authorities will have jurisdiction? How about 9,600. No, it is not a typo, actually more than nine thousand six hundred tax zealots will go after anybody that transacts a commercial operation in the internet. Sounds crazy? It is.

This new tax bill falls also into the same economic pit-hole that Obamacare did - setting ceilings to growth. The "Affordable" healthcare Act created an incentive for businesses not to have more than 49 employees - a disincentive to job creation - and an incentive to maintain whatever employees you have to less than 30 hours of work a week - a disincentive to full employment. Exactly the opposite of what we should be aiming for our economy to do.

The internet "Fairness" Act is creating another economic disincentive by setting a ceiling of a pitiful 1 million gross sales to those businesses who are required to start charging internet taxes. That is an incentive to not grow your business beyond 1 million in sales. Exactly the opposite of what any sane economic policy should require.

Notwithstanding the fact that the approach is backwards. Taxing infrastructure for the internet should be applicable from where one sells and not from where one buys. Those states that have low taxation and high growth are being rob of their advantage by the democratic conception of consumer taxation which impedes business growth. The new law is an invitation to an expansion of consumer taxation and the first step towards an imposition of a European VAT tax in the United States which has proven to be an obstacle to the growth of the European economies.

It would be good if our legislators would read first, and then ponder and consult, of the ramifications of what they are so willingly wish to impose on those that work and invest in small businesses in America.
_____________________________________

Addendum - This comes courtesy of 26 Republicans that have pledged "never to increase taxes" (Senator McCain couldn't be missing from these infamous roster):

Alexander (R-TN)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Crapo (R-ID)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Graham (R-SC)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kirk (R-IL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Moran (R-KS)
 Risch (R-ID)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Wicker (R-MS)
Portman (R-OH)

________________________________________

Comments:
Follow Us HERE

New Immigration Game In Town With Responsible-Hispanic Republicans.

By John Galt for America's Chronicle
Comments:
Follow Us HERE

The future electability of the Republican Party.

Bill Richardson - along with the Democratic Party - gets nervous and unconsciously endorses Senator Cruz as the electability of the Republican Party comes to town on the shoulders of new Responsible-Hispanics, Senators Cruz and Rubio.

Apparently the new Hispanic stars of the Republican Party, Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Marco Rubio, are not Hispanic enough for Democrats. Their sin: they refuse to buy the Hispanic vote on the back of America's interest and tax payers. Sin, indeed. If this defines the new breed of responsible Hispanics, it is welcome news and the Democrats are doing all Americans a favor in pointing this out.

"I am not a fan", the former governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson who failed to gain the Democratic nomination in 2008 said of the Republican Senator from Texas Ted Cruz, adding, "no, I don't think he should be defined as a Hispanic".

Wow, apparently the out of favor ex-governor is attempting to impose a new definition of who can be called Hispanic, it is not by blood but by how much you pander to the Hispanic community. And here is the new definition according to Bill Richardson impersonating Robin Williams in The World According To Garp: an Hispanic is one that like "almost every Hispanic in the country wants to see immigration reform", code name for unencumbered entry in the USA and rights galore for free goodies. This is, of course, notwithstanding the uncomfortable fact that Senator Cruz does want to see immigration reform, it just happens that it varies slightly in the pesky details from the one the ex-governor wants - it tries not to give away other people's money and rights.

Yes, Senator Cruz doesn't want to give the store away without control of the border to which most Democrats are oblivious in search of votes among Hispanics - 'no questions asked' is their motto.

There is much more to the discomfort of Mr. Richardson about Senator Cruz that meets the eye. The surge to prominence of two Hispanics like Senator Rubio and Senator Cruz of the three most active and important freshmen senators today (Senator Paul being the third) is of intense worry to Democrats like Richardson who depend on the Hispanic vote for legislative control and elective power.

Old guard democrats that are still dependent on the courting of Hispanic voters with government and tax payers give-away's are deeply worried that the future of immigration in this country is now being shaped responsibly by two prominent and intellectually superior Hispanics; and beware, Hispanics may even notice it. Democrats like Mr. Richardson would do well to demonstrate their concern for an immigration policy that favors all Americans, as Senators Rubio and Cruz are doing, and retreat from the transparent vote-buying open-ended favoritism to Hispanics that they have practiced until now. Trying the silly ploy of redefining the Hispanic ID would just help these Republicans among Hispanics and among all Americans.

Senators Cruz and Rubio represent the best hope of the Republican Party to win back the fastest growing demographic vote in the country - the Hispanic vote - and to that avail the Republican Party under their leadership must be seen to be the party that accomplishes immigration reform. We are certain to say that in these two men ride the future electability of the Republican party in their ability to win a  comfortable share of the 18 million Hispanic votes in play for 2016.

We often warned in this pages in 2011 and 2012 that the hardline taken on immigration during the primaries would eventually defeat the Republican Party in the general election. The defeat of 2012 was in great part the result of the Hispanic vote that went 68% against. As the Hispanic population grows faster than any other sector of the population no Republican candidate would be able to win election without reversing this trend to the middle 50's percentiles.

Ex-governor Richardson doesn't realize that his redefinition attempt of who constitutes a Hispanic is actually a reverse endorsement of Senator Cruz and all Responsible-Hispanics. Lest hope that the Republican Party does as much for their own men and for their own chances of winning elections.

Comments:
Follow Us HERE

Syria Declares War On Israel

By John Galt for America's Chronicle
Comments:
Follow Us HERE


Lest we forget: a nuclear Iran means a nuclear Syria.

To the none-action crowd:
Please, take a look at the map.
"The Israel action constitutes a declaration of war", said the Syrian government today. The only problem with "official" declarations from Arab governments is that they are always bluster and are never taken seriously - a-la-Sadam-Hussein, . . . .  until they belatedly have to.

The statement was prompted by a second attack of the Israeli air force on Saturday, March 4th, into Syrian territory focusing in the military installations of Jamraya, outside of Damascus. It is believed that it is a general center for military intelligence of the Assad regime which at the moment was in the process of sending advanced anti-aircraft missiles obtained from Iran to Hezbollah, the terrorist organization in Lebanon.

The foreign minister of the Syrian government declared that the Israeli action "constituted a declaration of war". At the same time the minister of information - sort of the Jay Carney of the White House - threatened, in a good parody of Jay Carney, that now "all options were open" to their government, and that they would respond "when and how it was most convenient". It doesn't cease to amaze us the resemblance that the declarations have to those of the United States. They are both going to re-think their options.

In the case of Israel they know exactly what their options are and they are not pretending to let them fail. In the case of the United States foreign policy they also know what their options are in regards to Iran, but they prefer to pretend and procrastinate. The only bug in the process is that Iran is not pretending and is going full throttle ahead in their only option, to become a nuclear power. That scares the bloomers out of the American government to a point that it has paralyzed their only "option".

This serves to emphasize the present existing partnership and cooperation between Syria and Iran and remind us that if one is to stop Iran's nuclear achievements one has to stop Syrian aggression first. At the end, failing in Syria will lead to failing in Iran; and a nuclear Iran will mean a nuclear Syria. It puts into focus the paramount significance of our recent abandonment of the hard won war in Iraq. Bush won the war that we threw away in a fit of fatigue and blind Middle-East strategy.

There is nothing more dangerous for the people of a country than when their government is paralyzed by fear - and playing too nice to the point of blandness emphasizes that fear.

Comments:
Follow Us HERE