Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rich4eagle who wrote (131667)	3/13/2001 9:08:30 PM
From: Little Joe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Rich: "perception is reality" Only in politics and certainly not in economics. Anyone following the economy knew this was coming by early 2001, if not before. The plain fact is Bush can talk forever, and this will not change the economy. The reality is that the economy is millions of people making millions of decisions everyday. When I make a decision in my business, I don't worry about what the President thinks. I need to assess e.g Should I expand and what are the consequences if I am wrong. This requires a very special knowledge of my own business. If sales are up and things are going well I most likely will, If sales are down I won't. The reason people are perceiving that the economy is weakening is that it is. They are perceiving reality. Little joe

To: rich4eagle who wrote (131667)	3/14/2001 2:12:44 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

So that I do not misunderstand, what do you think the role of political leadership should be, in respect of policy, to ensure prosperity? Let me tell you what I think, to give you an idea of what I am asking. It seems to me that the political leadership mainly has to ensure a degree of stability and predictability in economic activity, and guard against excessive distortion of price signals, and that we otherwise rely on investors and businesses to move the economy forward. We want rules and institutions that enhance stability and predictability. For example, the FDIC makes sense, because it is a major way of enhancing confidence in banks. Some workplace rules make sense from an economic standpoint, by spelling out requirements and minimizing liability as long as they are met. We also want as little distortion of the price system as possible, because we want the efficient allocation of resources. That means that we will keep the level of regulation and taxation low, for example, in order to avoid excessive cost hikes for various items, thus depressing their sale artificially. Now, you object to the emphasis on defense, and the tax cut. I say that in a system of international trade, where everyone depends on exports for a significant proportion of GDP, it is important to maintain global stability through an alliance system that depends on us for its balance wheel, as it were. In the future, the Europeans might take over more security responsibilities. For right now, we have several problems to take care of: the problem of morale and low rates of re-enlistment; and readiness issues, among others. As for the tax cut, my argument is that a dollar returned to the private sector is a dollar better spent. The government has legitimate expenses, but it is in constant danger of creating shortages or surpluses through the distortion of prices. I am exhausted.More tomorrow.....

To: rich4eagle who wrote (131667)	3/14/2001 8:33:18 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Government distorts prices, increasing them or decreasing them as the case may be, and thus reduces economic efficiency, creating gluts and scarcity. Take a simple thing like the capital gains tax. It discourages the reallocation of assets, and therefore decreases efficiency in investing. The death tax, by making it likely that one's assets will be double or triple taxed, and will not go intact to those one chooses, discourages savings and favors consumption. Various educational subsidies have increased enrollment in colleges but hardly affected graduation rates, suggesting a glut of ill-prepared students. AFDC, when it was introduced, arguably had the perverse effect of increasing illegitimacy rates and rates of family dissolution. Thus, it is incumbent upon government not to interfere with the economy too much, and to use the least distorting means of achieving a goal. That is why I do not want ambitious programs, but a rebate.......