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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (75847)	9/4/2001 8:54:29 AM
From: Don Rohner	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116906

Layman's View of the Rebate: First off I'm a G.Bush backer so what I'm about to say is not intended as a political attack. This is the first time I've posted on this board but have read it faithfully for over 5 years and appreciate the give and take. I do not believe the tax cut will do much to get our economy going but it will go into the sink hole know as the world economy. Twenty years ago when such a tax reduction occurred we could count on a multiplier effect of many multiples the amount of the cut and therefore the tax cut would come back to the government as the taxed portion of this multiplier. However today things are different; we purchase a greater percent from overseas. As an example if on average the tax rebate is $600 and everyone and does there patriotic duty and spends it. Then the following multipliers will occur (assuming no tax with each purchase, this means the following is even worse): 25% goes overseas with each purchase multiplier will be 3X 50% goes overseas with each purchase multiplier will be 1X Unfortunately we are in a world where first off people are attempting to get out of debt therefore the first assumption will force the amount going into the system to be lower. Second considering that the world economy is in trouble, and that they are stingy in buying foreign goods, very little of the money used to purchase from overseas will ever come back to the US economy to help the multiplier. So unfortunately in my opinion this tax cut will do little to effect the US economy. Just a humble opinion and comments?

To: long-gone who wrote (75847)	9/4/2001 10:16:25 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116906

In fact, on the competitive theft market, the marginal thief gets a risk-adjusted remuneration only marginally higher than he would obtain in alternative (non criminal) employment. The above conclusion was also arrived at by another type of economist, Meyer Lansky, who often said that "straight" type "crime" or legal business was more profitable and less hassle, or less cost, than the way he implied himself and his arch associate 'Lucky" Luciano had chosen. When the government makes legal business of people more hassle than its worth, as in excess taxation, harassments of red tape or other impediments to satisfaction, then of course the marginal cost of substantial effort towards normal business, makes crime or other forms of anti-social rebellion more and more attractive. It must be some kind of law that government makes legal business as unattractive as possible to justify the largest possible framework of government required to enforce the laws and structure necessary to deal with the crime they have defined. In other words the balance arrived at by governments is to achieve a maximum, not minimum conviction and incarceration rate. This is evinced by the refusal for western governments who have turned crime fighting into a big business with lawyers (themselves) and the civil service getting enormous profits from doing so. Without much crime this would be a meagre business. When it was pointed out that recidivism and jail time would be reduced by over 50% by the simple matter of education prisoners in Jail, the Ontario gov't refused saying it was mollycoddling criminals. The enormous savings to society of this crime reduction in all sectors of public, loss and tax payout was ignored. Why? BEcause it was not efficient government, if you view act of governance as the main objective. It would appear that lawyer/politicians view this necessary evil as more than a necessity. EC<:-}