Yet another tax option.
#1
From the op-ed section of the NYT, Monday, 12/19.

A couple of academic types have suggested yet another way we might tax ourselves. It's a curious formula, but seems to have built in it a way to seek fairness in our responsibilities to fund government. It also looks like it might make the IRS and even more busier place.

Posted below:

Don’t Tax the Rich. Tax Inequality Itself.
By IAN AYRES and AARON S. EDLIN
THE progressive reformer and eminent jurist Louis D. Brandeis once said, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” Brandeis lived at a time when enormous disparities between the rich and the poor led to violent labor unrest and ultimately to a reform movement.

Over the last three decades, income inequality has again soared to the sort of levels that alarmed Brandeis. In 1980, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans made 9.1 percent of our nation’s pre-tax income; by 2006 that share had risen to 18.8 percent — slightly higher than when Brandeis joined the Supreme Court in 1916.

Congress might have countered this increased concentration but, instead, tax changes have exacerbated the trend: in after-tax dollars, our wealthiest 1 percent over this same period went from receiving 7.7 percent to 16.3 percent of our nation’s income.

What we call the Brandeis Ratio — the ratio of the average income of the nation’s richest 1 percent to the median household income — has skyrocketed since Ronald Reagan took office. In 1980 the average 1-percenter made 12.5 times the median income, but in 2006 (the latest year for which data is available) the average income of our richest 1 percent was a whopping 36 times greater than that of the median household.

Brandeis understood that at some point the concentration of economic power could undermine the democratic requisite of dispersed political power. This concern looms large in today’s America, where billionaires are allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money on their own campaigns or expressly advocating the election of others.

We believe that we have reached the Brandeis tipping point. It would be bad for our democracy if 1-percenters started making 40 or 50 times as much as the median American.

Enough is enough. Congress should reform our tax law to put the brakes on further inequality. Specifically, we propose an automatic extra tax on the income of the top 1 percent of earners — a tax that would limit the after-tax incomes of this club to 36 times the median household income.

Importantly, our Brandeis tax does not target excessive income per se; it only caps inequality. Billionaires could double their current income without the tax kicking in — as long as the median income also doubles. The sky is the limit for the rich as long as the “rising tide lifts all boats.” Indeed, the tax gives job creators an extra reason to make sure that corporate wealth does in fact trickle down.

Here’s how the tax would work. Once a year, the Internal Revenue Service would calculate the Brandeis ratio of the previous year. If the average 1-percenter made more than 36 times the income of the median American household, then the I.R.S. would create a new tax bracket for the highest 1 percent of income and calculate a marginal income tax rate for that bracket sufficient to reduce the after-tax Brandeis ratio to 36.

This new tax, if triggered, would apply only to income in excess of the poorest 1-percenter — currently about $330,000 per year. Our Brandeis tax is conservative in that it doesn’t attempt to reverse the gains of the wealthy in the last 30 years. It is not a “claw back” tax. It merely assures that things don’t get worse.

A key aspect of our proposal is the tax’s automatic nature. Congress need only act once to protect our future. Just as our tax brackets automatically adjust with the inflation rate, Congress could specify nondiscretionary conditions under which the Brandeis tax would automatically go into effect.

Part of our goal is to change the way politicians speak about income equality. Framing the income of the wealthy in relation to the median income will help us all keep in mind the relative success of the middle class. Our grandparents would be shocked to learn that the average income of the 1-percent club has skyrocketed to more than 30 times the median income — just as we will be shocked if 20 years from now 1-percenters make 80 times the median, which is where we will be if inequality continues to grow at the current rate unabated.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is right to decry the increasing power of the 1 percent as a threat to democracy. President Obama is right to characterize the present as a “make-or-break moment” for the middle class. As 1-percenters ourselves, we call on Congress, for the sake of democracy, to end the continued erosion of economic equality in our nation.

Ian Ayres, a professor of law at Yale, is the author of “Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done.” Aaron S. Edlin, a professor of law and of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, is co-editor of “The Economists’ Voice: Top Economists Take On Today’s Problems.”

End of op-ed piece.

So, anyone think this might gain traction?
Reply
#2
Go for it..
Reply
#3
I don't think it will gain traction without a few tweaks. Instead of the wide paintbrush on the 1%, there are some things that need to be taken into consideration so the companies growing the economy are not punished because there will be some in that 1% who are paying their employees a good wage and have good employee benefits. The tax should be applied to those that have no employees and the companies that pay low wages and hire a majority of part time help that keeps them from providing benefits or paying overtime.
My own feeling is that it would just add to the screwed up tax system we have and grow the IRS when we should be looking at ways to simplify the tax system and lower overall costs. Yep, flat earther here.

EDIT: The tax should also apply to companies that are providing job overseas to save money.
Reply
#4
(12-19-2011, 01:49 PM)Simon Peter Wrote: I don't think it will gain traction without a few tweaks. Instead of the wide paintbrush on the 1%, there are some things that need to be taken into consideration so the companies growing the economy are not punished because there will be some in that 1% who are paying their employees a good wage and have good employee benefits. The tax should be applied to those that have no employees and the companies that pay low wages and hire a majority of part time help that keeps them from providing benefits or paying overtime.
My own feeling is that it would just add to the screwed up tax system we have and grow the IRS when we should be looking at ways to simplify the tax system and lower overall costs. Yep, flat earther here.

EDIT: The tax should also apply to companies that are providing job overseas to save money.

Yea Simon, I agree that this just throws more gasoline on IRS problem. I'd really like to see a less complex system of some kind.
I like your idea about taxing those who avoid paying bennies to folks too. All that does is tease more folks into social services of some kind, and of course it's tax money that pays that bill.
I do have one argument with you. You said above:

"Instead of the wide paintbrush on the 1%, there are some things that need to be taken into consideration so the companies growing the economy are not punished because there will be some in that 1% who are paying their employees a good wage and have good employee benefits."

Is see THAT as a wide paintbrush. Never before in the history of the county have we had an investment class with so much wealth. In "reasonable" times they would invest it growing the economy. Now, they don't see any demand out there and fear investing and not seeing any gain on capital. I honestly don't think asking them to pay a few more percentage points in taxes would cause them harm. And, they are not going to "create jobs" with the capital now anyway until they see demand for goods or services.

I understand, even as I present this, that it's a bit simplistic. These damn things are hard enough in verbal dialog, and really difficult here.

What I liked about this op-ed, was that a couple of pretty bright guys at least gave it a shot, trying to find a solution. Maybe some others will tweak it, as you suggested, and from this find a better way of funding the needed services of our government. And I DO understand that another way to solve this is to shrink the size of government. I'm all for that if the cuts go both ways and don't just hurt the folks at the bottom who are already suffering.

Anyway, grist for the mill.





Reply
#5
(12-19-2011, 01:49 PM)Simon Peter Wrote: I don't think it will gain traction without a few tweaks. Instead of the wide paintbrush on the 1%, there are some things that need to be taken into consideration so the companies growing the economy are not punished because there will be some in that 1% who are paying their employees a good wage and have good employee benefits. The tax should be applied to those that have no employees and the companies that pay low wages and hire a majority of part time help that keeps them from providing benefits or paying overtime.
My own feeling is that it would just add to the screwed up tax system we have and grow the IRS when we should be looking at ways to simplify the tax system and lower overall costs. Yep, flat earther here.

EDIT: The tax should also apply to companies that are providing job overseas to save money.
Taxation, over-regulation and unionization are common reasons for the jobs going overseas.

And above, are we going to allow the taxing authority to decide who is paying a good wage, overtime and the proper benefits? Adds to the complexity of the IRS.

Reply
#6
Here's a link to an article in today's HuffPo about temporary blue collar workers:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20...ly%20Brief

How easy it is to say that US jobs have gone overseas because of the 'greed' of workers and their unions. Without unions, imperfect as they are, employers will exploit workers just the way they did before regulation was put in place.
US companies should not be allowed to export jobs to avoid paying a decent wage. If health care is such a big stumbling block, we should have national health care for all and remove that burden from employers. What we've done is remove the burden with no proper substitute.
These are our FELLOW AMERICANS. Even a lowly worker deserves payment in return for his/her services. As an American he/she deserves a decent home, health care and food on the table if he/she is willing to work. Instead we vilify citizens for their 'greed' and 'jealousy' by using terms like 'class war'.
If we concentrate our wealth among the lucky few, the displaced masses will assemble and there will be unrest. OWS was a prelude to what could turn out to be a violent expression of that dissatisfaction.
I for one would rather see the problems dealt with NOW rather than wait for disaster.

Reply
#7
(12-19-2011, 09:26 PM)hillclimber Wrote:
(12-19-2011, 01:49 PM)Simon Peter Wrote: I don't think it will gain traction without a few tweaks. Instead of the wide paintbrush on the 1%, there are some things that need to be taken into consideration so the companies growing the economy are not punished because there will be some in that 1% who are paying their employees a good wage and have good employee benefits. The tax should be applied to those that have no employees and the companies that pay low wages and hire a majority of part time help that keeps them from providing benefits or paying overtime.
My own feeling is that it would just add to the screwed up tax system we have and grow the IRS when we should be looking at ways to simplify the tax system and lower overall costs. Yep, flat earther here.

EDIT: The tax should also apply to companies that are providing job overseas to save money.
Taxation, over-regulation and unionization are common reasons for the jobs going overseas.

And above, are we going to allow the taxing authority to decide who is paying a good wage, overtime and the proper benefits? Adds to the complexity of the IRS.

I don't know the answers. And neither do you Hill Climber.
But, as the piece Tennis Mom posted suggests it's not "unions", high wages, taxation, or over regulation that is driving jobs overseas. It's simply that the "world is NOT flat" and labor is cheap in developing nations. Big money will go to cheap labor, and once started ALL money must go to cheap labor to compete.

And so we have (for lack of a better phrase) "Unbridled" capitalism. I'm "liberal" I guess, but I'm sure that capitalism is (at this time) the best way for a society to manage wealth. Look around, and we can see that capitalism without regulation leads to greed on one hand, and hunger on the other. It wasn't over regulation that caused our markets to crash.

H/Climber, we may be miles apart about our social and political views, but I'd bet we can agree that what we see in our country right now is painful. Is there anyway we could find some kind of middle ground to compromise these views? Because if you and I might be able to do it, perhaps it's possible for our institutions to stop and take a second look.

The system has treated me well H/C. I'd guess it's done okay by you. But it has changed, and it's continuing to change. I used to only "see" the poor. Now I KNOW them. People willing to work, desperate to work for any wage even without benefits. I hear of people who need meds and can't afford them. Children who go to bed hungry. H/C, that just shouldn't happen in our country.

You may blame it on liberal policies, give away programs, the nanny state, or the dozens of other buzz phrases tossed around so carelessly these days.

My guess is that it will be governments, large institutions, and civic leaders of vision who stand up and make the changes we need. I think it's folly to suggest that "the market" will solve our problems if only we "get out of the way".

Tax me a bit more. Take a bit of my Social Security retirement. Tax my purchase of motorcycles. (Well maybe that's going too far Laughing)
And let's ask the VERY wealthy to pay just a bit more in the name of solidarity. Think of it as fair in PROPORTION rather than percentage.

Together, remembering that we are citizens first, we can make changes that will take the sting of the struggling we see all around us.

The Market, with a human face insured by oversight, can work. That human face is us. We show our face only with the help of elected government.

Let's heal this thing. Sooner, than later.



Reply
#8
Quote:
But, as the piece Tennis Mom posted suggests it's not "unions", high wages, taxation, or over regulation that is driving jobs overseas. It's simply that the "world is NOT flat" and labor is cheap in developing nations.

Ditto Wonky. And I love how people blab about over regulation when DE regulation IMO has been the cause of the biggest rip offs in American history.

Who deregulated the loan industry so people who can't afford a house were suddenly buying them like crazy?

Savings and loan? keating 5? Enron and deregulated power industry?
Reply
#9
(12-20-2011, 04:28 PM)Wonky Wrote: I don't know the answers. And neither do you Hill Climber.
But, as the piece Tennis Mom posted suggests it's not "unions", high wages, taxation, or over regulation that is driving jobs overseas. It's simply that the "world is NOT flat" and labor is cheap in developing nations. Big money will go to cheap labor, and once started ALL money must go to cheap labor to compete.

TM's post states that it's not those things, then turns around a says that they are the culprits. Cheap labor as opposed to expensive labor.

Quote:And so we have (for lack of a better phrase) "Unbridled" capitalism. I'm "liberal" I guess, but I'm sure that capitalism is (at this time) the best way for a society to manage wealth. Look around, and we can see that capitalism without regulation leads to greed on one hand, and hunger on the other. It wasn't over regulation that caused our markets to crash.


Well I'm an unashamed conservative and I believe over regulation is a big factor.. Many American companies are located in foreign countries today, because of environmental laws severely harming domestic production. Mexico has enormous manufacturing capabilities do to their lax enviro laws, lack of punitive regulation and relatively cheap labor.

Quote:H/Climber, we may be miles apart about our social and political views, but I'd bet we can agree that what we see in our country right now is painful. Is there anyway we could find some kind of middle ground to compromise these views? Because if you and I might be able to do it, perhaps it's possible for our institutions to stop and take a second look.

Based on our posts here, I don't see much in the way of middle ground.. As long as union labor is so prominent, I see no viable solution.. Having allowed the Govt. to unionize was a mistake without a remedy that I can see without a domestic war.

Quote:The system has treated me well H/C. I'd guess it's done okay by you. But it has changed, and it's continuing to change. I used to only "see" the poor. Now I KNOW them. People willing to work, desperate to work for any wage even without benefits. I hear of people who need meds and can't afford them. Children who go to bed hungry. H/C, that just shouldn't happen in our country.


I agree, it's sad.. But a nation cannot adopt socialism and expect to survive very long.. It's a cliché but ever so true: "We've finally run out of other peoples money and credit to spend". We are now spending borrowed money from our children and grand-children, and with next to nothing to show for it..

Quote:You may blame it on liberal policies, give away programs, the nanny state, or the dozens of other buzz phrases tossed around so carelessly these days.


Of course I do. Is it somehow my fault that these recognized folly's are bandied about so much? Just because you recognize these "buzzings" doesn't make them false..

Quote:My guess is that it will be governments, large institutions, and civic leaders of vision who stand up and make the changes we need. I think it's folly to suggest that "the market" will solve our problems if only we "get out of the way".

Well, so far govt's, large institutions, and civic leaders haven't made a bit of headway, and they won't, because they are part of the problem. They have made the rules by which our industrial complex, and the free market have played by and been trodden down..

Quote:Tax me a bit more. Take a bit of my Social Security retirement. Tax my purchase of motorcycles. (Well maybe that's going too far Laughing)
And let's ask the VERY wealthy to pay just a bit more in the name of solidarity. Think of it as fair in PROPORTION rather than percentage.


I'm actually not against this the way you paint it. But taxing your cycle or taxing production of all kinds is counter productive. I don't see how it is constitutionally possible to tax your SS.. They may do it, but... Confiscate all the wealth of the very wealthy if you must, but the govt. will have it spent in a short week. That is the ones that don't see the tax man coming and beat cleats off shore.

Quote:Together, remembering that we are citizens first, we can make changes that will take the sting of the struggling we see all around us.


Don't know what this means but it sounds like a nice thought.

Quote:The Market, with a human face insured by oversight, can work. That human face is us. We show our face only with the help of elected government. Let's heal this thing. Sooner, than later.

This sounds nice too. And I do agree with some oversight.. But this elected government is completely broken, totally corrupt, and cannot be retrieved without enormous reforms. The first one is term limits, enforced tomorrow morning, axing most of the legislature.

Think we can come to some agreement?
Reply
#10
(12-20-2011, 07:20 PM)hillclimber Wrote:
(12-20-2011, 04:28 PM)Wonky Wrote: I don't know the answers. And neither do you Hill Climber.
But, as the piece Tennis Mom posted suggests it's not "unions", high wages, taxation, or over regulation that is driving jobs overseas. It's simply that the "world is NOT flat" and labor is cheap in developing nations. Big money will go to cheap labor, and once started ALL money must go to cheap labor to compete.

TM's post states that it's not those things, then turns around a says that they are the culprits. Cheap labor as opposed to expensive labor.

Quote:And so we have (for lack of a better phrase) "Unbridled" capitalism. I'm "liberal" I guess, but I'm sure that capitalism is (at this time) the best way for a society to manage wealth. Look around, and we can see that capitalism without regulation leads to greed on one hand, and hunger on the other. It wasn't over regulation that caused our markets to crash.


Well I'm an unashamed conservative and I believe over regulation is a big factor.. Many American companies are located in foreign countries today, because of environmental laws severely harming domestic production. Mexico has enormous manufacturing capabilities do to their lax enviro laws, lack of punitive regulation and relatively cheap labor.

Quote:H/Climber, we may be miles apart about our social and political views, but I'd bet we can agree that what we see in our country right now is painful. Is there anyway we could find some kind of middle ground to compromise these views? Because if you and I might be able to do it, perhaps it's possible for our institutions to stop and take a second look.

Based on our posts here, I don't see much in the way of middle ground.. As long as union labor is so prominent, I see no viable solution.. Having allowed the Govt. to unionize was a mistake without a remedy that I can see without a domestic war.

Quote:The system has treated me well H/C. I'd guess it's done okay by you. But it has changed, and it's continuing to change. I used to only "see" the poor. Now I KNOW them. People willing to work, desperate to work for any wage even without benefits. I hear of people who need meds and can't afford them. Children who go to bed hungry. H/C, that just shouldn't happen in our country.


I agree, it's sad.. But a nation cannot adopt socialism and expect to survive very long.. It's a cliché but ever so true: "We've finally run out of other peoples money and credit to spend". We are now spending borrowed money from our children and grand-children, and with next to nothing to show for it..

Quote:You may blame it on liberal policies, give away programs, the nanny state, or the dozens of other buzz phrases tossed around so carelessly these days.


Of course I do. Is it somehow my fault that these recognized folly's are bandied about so much? Just because you recognize these "buzzings" doesn't make them false..

Quote:My guess is that it will be governments, large institutions, and civic leaders of vision who stand up and make the changes we need. I think it's folly to suggest that "the market" will solve our problems if only we "get out of the way".

Well, so far govt's, large institutions, and civic leaders haven't made a bit of headway, and they won't, because they are part of the problem. They have made the rules by which our industrial complex, and the free market have played by and been trodden down..

Quote:Tax me a bit more. Take a bit of my Social Security retirement. Tax my purchase of motorcycles. (Well maybe that's going too far Laughing)
And let's ask the VERY wealthy to pay just a bit more in the name of solidarity. Think of it as fair in PROPORTION rather than percentage.


I'm actually not against this the way you paint it. But taxing your cycle or taxing production of all kinds is counter productive. I don't see how it is constitutionally possible to tax your SS.. They may do it, but... Confiscate all the wealth of the very wealthy if you must, but the govt. will have it spent in a short week. That is the ones that don't see the tax man coming and beat cleats off shore.

Quote:Together, remembering that we are citizens first, we can make changes that will take the sting of the struggling we see all around us.


Don't know what this means but it sounds like a nice thought.

Quote:The Market, with a human face insured by oversight, can work. That human face is us. We show our face only with the help of elected government. Let's heal this thing. Sooner, than later.

This sounds nice too. And I do agree with some oversight.. But this elected government is completely broken, totally corrupt, and cannot be retrieved without enormous reforms. The first one is term limits, enforced tomorrow morning, axing most of the legislature.

Think we can come to some agreement?

I doubt it. Damn shame too: Here we are in the same "virtual neighborhood" where we have the freedom to engage in real dialog, and we are both somehow stuck in our own positions. "Never the twain shall meet" I reckon.

I'm sure you feel confident in your attitudes and convictions. But, when I look at your remarks above I wonder if you might be "remembering the future and inventing the past" as Senator McGovern said about Mr. Nixon.

I won't bother to go point by point. I'm sure we would only start an argument that would last until one of us dies. (That would be me first...I'm the lucky one some would say, and I'd be prone to agree).

However you have reached your convictions, they seem to be firmly entrenched. I wish you well and sincerely hope you never suffer real need that involves that beyond what your family and close friends can provide.

Since "man" first came down from the trees we have understood the need for a "social contract". It was not until democracies evolved that the need was fulfilled. When we provide social programs for the larger society we are not "socialists".

Should we live long enough, we will see an economic model suggesting that "a rising tide will float all boats". Only then will capital return from it's casino like setting to it's function of providing the source for investment and growth.

There will come a day when there is no cheap labor left. The rich will still be rich, but laboring people will be employed and enjoying safe working conditions and a fair return on that labor. Capitalism as it was meant to be. Social by nature, kinder by design, and rewarding honest investment and labor.

Merry Christmas H/C, to you and yours. Of this I'm sure: We both love our country.



Reply
#11
Greed over social responsibility, it's quite simple. Unfortunately we embrace it as morally correct.
Explain Germany.
Unfettered capitalism will result in a hangover that won't go away, not the utopia that is suggested. It goes against the whole idea.
Perhaps it time to revisit Rod Serling's movie, Patterns 1956.
Reply
#12
(12-21-2011, 12:09 AM)Willie Krash Wrote: Greed over social responsibility, it's quite simple. Unfortunately we embrace it as morally correct.
Explain Germany.
Unfettered capitalism will result in a hangover that won't go away, not the utopia that is suggested. It goes against the whole idea.
Perhaps it time to revisit Rod Serling's movie, Patterns 1956.

I don't remember seeing Serling's "Patterns".

I don't remember ever seeing a movie that accomplished a balanced view of solutions of social and political stuff. That would be a welcome treat.

Unfortunately, this stuff is far too complex to fit into sound bites. For far too long we have been subjected to this kind of thing. Blame TV maybe, or our own depleted attention span.

I wonder if maybe our own forum is not a good petri dish showing this dilemma. I like our Topics of things like movies, books, gardening, etc., but when we engage in more serious subjects it seems we immediately go ranting and raving about entrenched positions.

I think it's time we find and new paradigm to better exchange these views, finding a way to stop posturing and instead, present information rather than buzz words defending our positions.

It's stupid to suggest Mr. Obama is a socialist bent on somehow killing our capital markets with over regulation.
It's stupid to suggest that all corporations and banks are greedy and out to steal the little we have left.
There will always be very wealthy people, and there will always be working people of modest means. That, in it's self, is neither good nor bad. It's what happens in a completive system.

Let's examine our attitudes we have held for so long, and consider the possibilities of changes that seem to be necessary to confront these new and scary times. Without rational dialog, we are just wasting time and effort.

I offer this kind of stuff not as a "speech", but simply as feelings and view that come from looking at my world close to home.

Serious times, I'm sure you agree. I hope you have better ideas that what I have presented here to somehow improve our dialog, and ways to sincerely exchange ideas and ideals.

(Hint: However inconsiderate, we really must learn to ignore those who ramble into the ether without providing anything but goofy noise. We can defend the rights of that kind of chatter. We just don't have to respond and in doing so, encourage it)

Your fault Willie: You prompted all this. Smiling


Reply
#13
Sometimes Wonk an economy (pun intended) of words work.
Sound bytes are very effective as you know. Take Lenard of whom you may becoming a protege, uses words copiously but does he reach as many as he wishes or better yet as many as his words merit?
I submit the key is to understanding the animal, in this case it's a forum. My economic views ought to be known by you and if not perhaps I'm the victim of my argument.Rolling Eyes

Reply
#14
Now to your question about ideas to change the paradigm is a hopeless how?
It's a generation thing Wonk. When you grow up with polluted rivers and dirty air and those odious (pun intended) regulations reverse the trend. You have to live it to understand how undesirable it is..and the cycle starts.

Unfettered capitalism is the same. It is not about spreading wealth for the benefit of society or even a better society. It's about greed. Its about wealth extraction.

The answer is society figuring out what it needs and wants. Corporations control the media and the message. We now have a society that has income disparity of ancient Rome. The people will make the difference when they become hungry enough.

I suggest you may (be should be) as confused as I of an America we knew turn upside down. We have been taught that we the working people are to blame. Unions, poor people buying houses, welfare. The capitalists are not investors, they are gamblers, wrapped up in the free market.
Reply
#15
(12-19-2011, 09:26 PM)hillclimber Wrote: Taxation, over-regulation and unionization are common reasons for the jobs going overseas.

And above, are we going to allow the taxing authority to decide who is paying a good wage, overtime and the proper benefits? Adds to the complexity of the IRS.

HC, you may wish read up on bear raids,
http://necsi.edu/research/economics/bearraid.html
http://necsi.edu/research/economics/bearraid.pdf

From, New England Complex Systems Institute

Abstract

We provide direct evidence of market manipulation at the beginning of the financial crisis in November 2007. The type of market manipulation, a "bear raid," would have been prevented by a regulation that was repealed by the Securities and Exchange Commission in July 2007. The regulation, the uptick rule, was designed to prevent market manipulation and promote stability and was in force from 1938 as a key part of the government response to the 1929 market crash and its aftermath


Look into uptick rule...

Their new study shows that banks themselves were under attack by other players on Wall Street. The study authors at the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI) retraced events to show that at a critical point in the financial crisis, the stock of Citigroup was attacked by traders by selling borrowed stock (short-selling) which may have caused others to sell in panic. The subsequent price drop enabled the attackers to buy the stock back at a much lower price.

This kind of illegal market manipulation is called a bear raid and the new study supports earlier suspicions that the raids played a role in the market crash.
Reply
#16
(12-21-2011, 05:59 PM)Willie Krash Wrote:
(12-19-2011, 09:26 PM)hillclimber Wrote: Taxation, over-regulation and unionization are common reasons for the jobs going overseas.

And above, are we going to allow the taxing authority to decide who is paying a good wage, overtime and the proper benefits? Adds to the complexity of the IRS.

HC, you may wish read up on bear raids,
http://necsi.edu/research/economics/bearraid.html
http://necsi.edu/research/economics/bearraid.pdf

From, New England Complex Systems Institute

Abstract

We provide direct evidence of market manipulation at the beginning of the financial crisis in November 2007. The type of market manipulation, a "bear raid," would have been prevented by a regulation that was repealed by the Securities and Exchange Commission in July 2007. The regulation, the uptick rule, was designed to prevent market manipulation and promote stability and was in force from 1938 as a key part of the government response to the 1929 market crash and its aftermath


Look into uptick rule...

Their new study shows that banks themselves were under attack by other players on Wall Street. The study authors at the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI) retraced events to show that at a critical point in the financial crisis, the stock of Citigroup was attacked by traders by selling borrowed stock (short-selling) which may have caused others to sell in panic. The subsequent price drop enabled the attackers to buy the stock back at a much lower price.

This kind of illegal market manipulation is called a bear raid and the new study supports earlier suspicions that the raids played a role in the market crash.

Thanks Wille, you are a researcher of note!
(I spent all day on MAD Comics.com and didn't see that. Go figure)
Reply
#17
(12-20-2011, 09:47 PM)Wonky Wrote: I doubt it. Damn shame too: Here we are in the same "virtual neighborhood" where we have the freedom to engage in real dialog, and we are both somehow stuck in our own positions. "Never the twain shall meet" I reckon.
Like never before, we are at odds.. we people, I mean

Quote:I'm sure you feel confident in your attitudes and convictions. But, when I look at your remarks above I wonder if you might be "remembering the future and inventing the past" as Senator McGovern said about Mr. Nixon.

Yes, my position must be attacked. It's all that's left.

Quote:However you have reached your convictions, they seem to be firmly entrenched. I wish you well and sincerely hope you never suffer real need that involves that beyond what your family and close friends can provide.


I most certainly will not have needs beyond the reach of my God.

Quote:Since "man" first came down from the trees we have understood the need for a "social contract". It was not until democracies evolved that the need was fulfilled. When we provide social programs for the larger society we are not "socialists".


And that, Mr. Wonky, is the heart of the problem. And it IS socialism.. You may deny it till your last breath, but that is at the center of our difficulties.. You have run out of other peoples money, and are nearing the end of credit.

Quote:Should we live long enough, we will see an economic model suggesting that "a rising tide will float all boats". Only then will capital return from it's casino like setting to it's function of providing the source for investment and growth.


Not going to happen on any real scale.. We are too far gone, and not nearly enough time left, nor the will to overthrow congress..

Quote:There will come a day when there is no cheap labor left. The rich will still be rich, but laboring people will be employed and enjoying safe working conditions and a fair return on that labor. Capitalism as it was meant to be. Social by nature, kinder by design, and rewarding honest investment and labor.


That's a really really nice thought, based in a failed workers paradise utopian ideology.

Quote:Merry Christmas H/C, to you and yours. Of this I'm sure: We both love our country.

And to you Mr. Wonky






Reply
#18
Alfred E Newman and the usual gang of idiots? Always proud to be one.....



Member of the gang that is,,,,Laughing
Reply
#19
(12-20-2011, 07:20 PM)hillclimber Wrote: TM's post states that it's not those things, then turns around a says that they are the culprits. Cheap labor as opposed to expensive labor.

[/i]You are putting words in my mouth and making an incorrect assumption. 'Cheap labor' in countries like China and India amounts to exploitation of those workers. They are willing and/or forced to live under harsh conditions, work much longer hours and don't have any expectation of benefits. Our fellow citizens, OTOH, deserve what I already said: Decent income for a decent home, medical coverage for themselves and their families, and good prospects for their children. Yes, it costs money but the stability of our country is at stake. If large companies dump 'expensive' employees who later need to go on Welfare, YOU, Hilclimber, are the one holding the bag by virtue of your taxes. [i]

Well I'm an unashamed conservative and I believe [i]over
regulation is a big factor.. Many American companies are located in foreign countries today, because of environmental laws severely harming domestic production. Mexico has enormous manufacturing capabilities do to their lax enviro laws, lack of punitive regulation and relatively cheap labor.

[/i]Mexico? Do you want to live in a country where pollution is rampant? Seriously? Life is cheap down there and treated as such. I prefer dependable clean air and water, thank you very little.

Based on our posts here, I don't see much in the way of middle ground.. As long as union labor is so prominent, I see no viable solution.. Having allowed the Govt. to unionize was a mistake without a remedy that I can see without a domestic war.

'Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it'. Methinks you need to do some homework on unions in this country and how they came about. There is a long history of worker abuse and regulation was the one and only way to ensure the safety of workers, let alone fair wages and compensation for injuries. If you think those days can't return, think again. For many, they already have.[i]

I agree, it's sad.. But a nation cannot adopt socialism and expect to survive very long.. It's a cliché but ever so true: "We've finally run out of other peoples money and credit to spend". We are now spending borrowed money from our children and grand-children, and with next to nothing to show for it..

[/i]You sound like Marie Antoinette. What, no cake? Revolutions have happened when there was too much disparity between the haves and the have-nots. I'd argue that those nations which are socialist will outlast us, have healthier and happier citizens and perhaps even surpass on globally on many levels. No government has been found to be perfect but I'd rather have medical coverage and pay more in taxes than die for lack of treatment.


Of course I do. Is it somehow my fault that these recognized folly's are bandied about so much? Just because you recognize these "buzzings" doesn't make them false..

We are in trouble when working people view the feeding of hungry fellow citizens and children as 'follies'. Everyone thinks they are safe until they find themselves out on their ear, with no job, benefits or home. It happens to workers every day. It is smug to think that helping 'other people, not me or mine' is 'folly'.

Well, so far govt's, large institutions, and civic leaders haven't made a bit of headway, and they won't, because they are part of the problem. They have made the rules by which our industrial complex, and the free market have played by and been trodden down..

[i]Empty rhetoric shoveled out to the masses by Fox Noise.[/i]

I'm actually not against this the way you paint it. But taxing your cycle or taxing production of all kinds is counter productive. I don't see how it is constitutionally possible to tax your SS.. They may do it, but... Confiscate all the wealth of the very wealthy if you must, but the govt. will have it spent in a short week. That is the ones that don't see the tax man coming and beat cleats off shore.


It is 'constitutionally' possible to tax SS because our tax system is a progressive one based on income levels. If my income is a million dollars a year with SS coming in as an extra bennie every month, why should it be exempt from tax? 'The government will have it spent in a short week'. Again, empty rhetoric.

Don't know what this means but it sounds like a nice thought.

This sounds nice too. And I do agree with some oversight.. But this elected government is completely broken, totally corrupt, and cannot be retrieved without enormous reforms. The first one is term limits, enforced tomorrow morning, axing most of the legislature.

Our system of government is one of the longest-running on earth. We all bitch about our taxes but we all pay them, voluntarily. It will never be a perfect system but with enough checks and balances, we can expect it to work within reason. There will always be the corrupt politician skulking about whatever form of government there is.

Think we can come to some agreement?

Not as long as people like you continue to vote against your own interests[i]
.

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)