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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (3607)	6/26/2001 7:15:21 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Your opinion appears to parallel that expressed by an opinion poll done on members of Congress. The people don't care and they're too stupid to understand these complex issues. Though it may be difficult to find a piece from any of the Framers that would agree with that thought. Doesn't it become a self-fullfilling prophecy? We don't debate the issues on the merits, because the people don't care enough and aren't smart enough, so we manipulate the people through rhetoric and do what's best for them. It seems that most people seem to be quite aware of how they might be manipulated. I don't necessarily imply that every single piece of legislation be submitted to the opinion polls or a national referendum, but I do believe that we have departed from what the Framers intended. This is supposed to be a representative government that is guided by the people and not a government that dictates to the people what's in their best interest. My recollection was that the Framer's thought the people were a better judge in the long run than the politicians. I find some irony in the rhetoric from, primarily, conservatives that the people or local governments are better suited to make informed decisions, while the actions are more inclined to ignore the opinion of the people [or manipulate it] and refer to that as "leadership". On taxes. Quasi flat is a better phrase. There are no flat tax proposals. It's how many steps are there and what is the degree of increase between steps. IMO, the use of the phrase flat-tax was created solely to be manipulative; just as the phrases marriage penalty and death taxes were created to be manipulative. Personnally, I don't like attempts at manipulation of the public; members of Congress and the Administration seem to prefer manipulation since the public is too stupid. I can recall for at least 20 years, complaints that the tax system is too complicated [both from the politicians and the public]. Has there ever been an instance during those twenty years when the tax code got shorter? Reagan's proposed a Tax Simplification Act and sold that to the people. By the time it was all over, it was hailed to be a success and renamed the Tax Reform Act, in part, because it added several feet to the Tax Code. I don't recall anything substantive that was a simplification. Taxes in themselves [looking over history] are not inflationary or deflationary, the actual rates fluctuate from time to time to time, but it's the cost of goods and services and the relative value of the dollar that's the point of inflation. We generally agree that it's fairer to be flatter at least in principle. It would be non-operable to be truly flat. So there is a curve and neither of us knows what the magic curve is. For all we know the current system is "just right". At least I don't see any economic evidence to suggest that it needs to be flatter than it currently is or that it would be of benefit to make it flatter. Fourth, the higher incomes of the top group largely go into productive investment, not consumption. New money for investment has to come from somewhere. The top group has some increased consumption [insignificant], some idle wealth building [non-productive] and some investment that is productive. Consumption builds corporate profit and demand and allows investment to be productive. The current climate illustrates the point; there is a reduction in consumption and in spite of the reduction in interest rates companies are unwilling to invest without the demand [as they should]. (Also, the savings rate is a misleading indicator, since so much money has gone into equities and bonds, which are in competition with bank deposits and CDs, and pay a higher premium). Common misconception, the savings rate is somewhat of a misnomer. It is a calculated number based on income minus expenditures; the residual is the savings rate. Where that goes no one keeps track of per se. It's been criticized because it doesn't include all forms of income [e.g., company contributions to 401Ks] or all forms of expenditures, but it's a metric. productivity gains have been unprecedented during the last decade, due to the digital revolution, My last reading material on that was the digital revolution actually had little to do with the productivity gains over the last ten years. It was an appealing notion, but unfortunately not true. Productivity gains were largely driven by the increased use of "self-service". In some cases technology was an enabler, e.g., purchasing over the web. But self-service gas stations was a biggee. We have something they like, let me put it that way, and we are the one's making the cultural in- roads, predominantly. Definitely a true statement. I'm not sure that's a proof of goodness though. Americans have a lot more credit card debt and the trend here in the UK is in that direction. Stores are generally closed by 6:00 PM., closed here on Sundays and on National holidays. Driven mostly by the thought that you "should" be eating dinner with the family, enjoying your holidays, going for walks and events with the family. That's changing slowly towards the US model. Shop till you drop, run up the credit cards, three cheers for Washington's birthday sales. Hell with the family; there's sales to be had. I guess that's "better" for the consumer. I would guess that the opinions one gets on the question vary a lot with social strata. True. But attitudes/standards sometimes cross strata. Holidays are very important to the Brits. My neighbors are up the strata, a few days on the continent once a month, a cruise once or twice a year. A couple of trips to the States a year [daughter in LA or some friends] and a couple of two week vacations a year. But my wife tells me that the janitor where she works, is definitely doing two weeks in the Canary Islands this year [something similar every year] and does long weekend driving holidays throughout the year. Which reminds me....I did a local "survey" of the neighbors on where they stay when they holiday in the UK, British hotels or American style hotels. The answer .... [drum roll] Neither, why would you stay in a hotel? They stay at B&Bs. I would have asked about TV sizes, but I've already heard the answer earlier. "Why on earth would you go on holiday and watch TV?". Check the average hours that Europeans watch TV vs. Americans. I feel like I missed one of your posts but can't find it now. I do recall that I was going to make the point that there is a lot to be gained from moving certain business practices into government. But, government is not a business. It's not supposed to be a profit oriented concern that needs to sustain a certain growth rate to be viable. What happens to companies that don't grow? Some practices are transferrable but the models are different. It does raise though an interesting thought. You mentioned earlier the idea of leadership, public opinion, etc. A business is supposed to respond to consumer demands. If the business shows leadership and builds a product that is "better" but consumers didn't want that product, the business fails. jttmab