Give The Money To The People!

The details of the corona virus rescue package are not yet known. What we do know, no matter what the final version looks like, a whole bunch of money is going to be given and/or lent to businesses.

This sounds reasonable, right? Give companies money, they stay in business, continue to employ people, people get paychecks, and life goes on.

The problem is that it doesn’t work that way. The goal of businesses is to make a profit. Profits are maximized by increasing revenue (sales) and decreasing expenses. Employees are expenses. Companies are not in business to hire employees, from a corporate perspective, they are a necessary evil. Don’t take my word for it. Why are you checking out your own groceries at the supermarket? Why are you checking yourself in for a flight at the airport? Why do you have to talk to a never ending series of machines before you can speak to a human when you call customer service? Why is the customer service representative located on the other side of the world? All of this is to reduce the number and cost of employees.

There are two views of how the economy works. On is top down, the other is bottom up. One is right, one is wrong. One works, one doesn’t. One encourages competition and innovation, the other fosters stagnation.

Care to guess which is which?

The top down view is that if you put money in the hands of businesses (euphemistically called “job creators”), they will invest in growing their businesses, resulting in additional jobs. Another way to express this concept is to say that increasing the supply increases the demand. Reduce taxes on Apple, Samsung and the others, and they will make more phones.

The bottom up view says that increased demand leads to increased supply. If consumers want more phones, Apple, Samsung etc. will make more phones.

It’s not hard to figure this out. Corporations spend millions of dollars to figure out how many phones the market is going to demand, and they plan accordingly. No matter how much money you put in the hands of the phone manufacturers, they aren’t going to make more phones than they can sell. And the only way they can sell more phones is if consumers want them and have the money to buy them.

You know who had a top down economy? The Soviet Union. We know how that worked out.

It is always useful to remember, somebody else’s spending is your income, and your spending is someone else’s income.

By the time you read this, it’s likely that the stimulus bill will have been agreed upon. I don’t know what’s going to be in it. I know that the Senate (i.e., the Republicans) want to give billions of dollars to businesses with no commitments to keep people employed. There’s only one word for something like this. Absurd. The Democrats were right not to agree to it.

I know what the bill won’t do – it won’t give all the money to the people. Workers. It won’t even be seriously considered.

They say the price tag is going to be north of $2 trillion. That comes out to about $20,000 per household. Give every household $20,000, and there won’t be a recession. People will have enough money to keep spending, buying phones and going to restaurants. That’s what we need. In a bottom up economy, the only thing that works is giving money to the people who will spend it.

Posted in News, Society, The Economy | Comments Off on Give The Money To The People!

Post 1st Democratic Debate Wrap Up.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly after the first debate.

First, a look at how I think the candidates did:

Elizabeth Warren Best performance of either night.  She’s in a groove.
Cory Booker I think Cory did a good job.  He’s not going to get the nomination, but he should stay in the race for a while.
Julián Castro Did better than I expected, but definitely not a tier one candidate.  
Andrew Yang I don’t want to say the Herman Cain candidate, but he is definitely the business person with a goofy economic plan candidate.  Never interrupted, never talked over anybody else and didn’t try to take more time than allotted.
Marianne Williamson I have a high tolerance for weird.
Eric Swalwell Goodbye Eric.  I did like the diapers joke, however.
John Hickenlooper Generally disappointing, no longer my number two, or three, or four, or . . . .
Michael Bennet Did well at times, but B+ performances aren’t good enough.
Kirsten Gillibrand Both nights had a bragger.  She was night two’s. Goodbye.
Joe Biden Sad.  
Bernie Sanders I’m trying to figure out why I don’t like Bernie more.  Help me out.
Kamala Harris Best performance night two.  Call me fickle, but she’s my new number two.  A force to be reckoned with.
Tulsi Gabbard Unmemorable.
Bill de Blasio The biggest surprise of either night for me.  Maybe he will never going to be President, but he gets to wear the FDR hat for the time being.
Tim Ryan He’ll be better in eight years.
Jay Inslee Huge disappointment.  Too much bragging, the John Kasich candidate.  Get better fast, or leave before you embarrass yourself to oblivion.
Pete Buttigieg Nearly flawless performance.  I don’t think it’s his time, but I think it will come.  Next step: governor.
Beto O’Rourke At least one prediction was fulfilled: a mistake to run.  Now he needs to overcome the empty suit rap. He should have accomplished something first.
Amy Klobuchar Another B+ performer.  Sometimes gritty works.

Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana has qualified for the next debate, which means that there are 21 qualified candidates, but only 20 will be allowed to participate.  There are tie-breaker rules.

There’s a lot of commentary to the effect that there are too many candidates.  I disagree. I think as many candidates as possible should be given exposure at the beginning of the process.  Interest is high. It’s absurd that in a country of nearly 350 million that our choices should be limited to a half dozen candidates.  We are more than 16 months away from the election, over a year from the convention. The pack will narrow itself, no need to accelerate the process.

Continuing with predictions that are destined to be wrong:

First ten to drop out: Williamson, Swalwell, Inslee, Gillibrand, Gabbard, de Blasio, Ryan, Castro, Yang and Booker.

Last five standing: Warren, Sanders, Biden, Harris and Buttigieg.

Dark horse candidates.  Having now seen all 20 candidates in the flesh (well, at least video flesh), the likelihood of someone sneaking up on the others becomes more remote in my estimation.  Having predicted 10 to drop out, five to remain standing, there are only five names (plus Bullock and the others who did not make the first round) that are likely dark horse candidates.  I’ll go with Klobuchar, Booker and Bennett. Bullock could always make a strong showing in the next debate.

Random observations:

Age.  Age is clearly an issue.  At one point or another, Biden, Sanders and Hickenlooper seemed out of sorts.  But it’s not just physical age, it’s old ideas as well. Biden in particular looked and sounded out of date.  He is going to sink faster than Jeb Bush if he doesn’t rebound next time around.  

The name game.  Hickenlooper voiced dire warnings about being seen as socialists.  This is already hard wired into GOP strategy. Whichever candidate is selected, he or she will be accused of being a socialist, as will the entire Democratic party.  Can’t play defense here. Stop referring to Republicans as conservatives. Brand yourselves as the true conservatives — conserving American values, liberty, fairness and equality.  Come up with a new description for the GOP. Right wing hardliners, throwbacks to the middle ages, dangerous authoritarians, oligarchs and so on. The Republicans warn the public that the Dems will turn the country into Venezuela, hit them back and name some right wing dictatorships that the GOP is emulating.

Immigration and undocumented immigrants.  Gotta be careful here. Two questions that no candidate handled really well: (1) would you provide health care for undocumented immigrants and (2) would you deport undocumented immigrants that committed no crime other than being in the country illegally?

The correct answer for the first question is that emergency care should be and already is provided to all and that once all Americans have health care then you can ask me about health care for undocumented immigrants.  The answer to the second question is that the job of the President is to enforce the law, and we have immigration laws and they should be enforced. As a practical matter it’s not possible to deport every undocumented immigrant and therefore we have to establish some priorities.  Our immigration policy should be determined by what is best for our country, not by who has been successful in evading the border security.

Immigration is the one issue that could really blow up in the face of the Dems.  My read on the issue is that most Americans want children and refugees treated humanely, but also see the asylum process as widely and easily gamed.  Candidates should remove the focus from the border and talk about addressing the conditions in Central America that are fueling the waves of refugees.  I would pledge to help rid Central America of the gangs and problems that are making life intolerable for so many people, while making it clear that our asylum laws are not intended to relieve the world’s headaches.  

Posted in 2020 Election, News, Politics | Comments Off on Post 1st Democratic Debate Wrap Up.

A Guide To The Democratic Candidates In Advance of The First Debate


Elizabeth Warren
My first choice.  She’s ultra smart, and she is full of great plans.  I think Warren, more than any other candidate, knows what the country needs to fix our economic system.  Her so called negatives (her personality is not exactly electrifying) diminish in the face of her relentless competency.
Cory Booker I’ve just never warmed up much to Booker.  Solid liberal, I’m open to him, not sure he has the “chops.”
Julián Castro A legitimate “why is he running?” (WIHR) candidate.  
Andrew Yang It’s easy to dismiss somebody who’s done well in business and believes he can save the world (think Howard Schultz), but Yang seems to be a genuine idea person, plus he’s not ultra rich (arguably not rich at all).  I want to see more of him.
Marianne Williamson My first reaction was “WTF?” but that might be unfair.  Let’s see.
Eric Swalwell Who?  Seems like a decent guy, too young, come back next time.
John Hickenlooper Underrated.  My third choice.  I suspect he will rise in the polls as the debates move along, could be one of the last candidates standing.
Michael Bennet My second choice.  Little name recognition, expect to see him again in four or eight years.
Kirsten Gillibrand She may really be running for Vice President.  Has been on the wrong side of too many issues for too long, trying to shoehorn herself into a progressive candidate.  She’s not.  
Joe Biden Good ol’ Joe.  If he is the candidate, I’ll vote for him.  The front runner for now because of name recognition, expect him to fall in the polls as things move along.  Age is a question mark. 
Bernie Sanders Pioneer.  (Pioneers get slaughtered.)  He showed that some very liberal ideas are viable.  Age is an issue.
Kamala Harris What’s not to like?  A close fourth to Bennet and Hickenlooper.  She should be in it for the long haul.
Tulsi Gabbard She’s running for 2024 or 2028.  
Bill de Blasio Not sure why he’s running.  An early drop out.
Tim Ryan Running for Vice President?  Name recognition? Expect to see him in four or eight years.
Jay Inslee The climate change candidate.  Lacks name recognition, but should do well in the debates.  A dark horse.
Pete Buttigieg Everybody’s favorite whiz kid.  Running for 2024 or 2028. Too young.  
Beto O’Rourke Earned a lot of name recognition in his Senate campaign.  Maybe a mistake to run for President now.  
Amy Klobuchar A solid candidate, unlikely to distinguish herself enough to get close to the nomination.  Possible Vice President.

Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana, Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts and Mayor Wayne Messam of Miramar, Fla., did not qualify for the debates.  The kiss of death.

There’s no denying it, a primary with lots of candidates is a lot of fun, but it can’t last forever.  Sooner or later, they’re going to start dropping like flies. Some predictions:

First ten to drop out, in no particular order:  Williamson, Swalwell, Bennet, Gillibrand, Gabbard, de Blasio, Ryan, Castro, Yang and Booker.

Last five standing: Warren, Sanders, Biden, Harris and Buttigieg.

Dark horse candidates.  My last five standing prediction is really based on name recognition.  Two or three candidates might get some momentum in the debates or early primaries and push their way into the first tier.  Who will they be? My early guesses: Hickenlooper, Inslee, Klobuchar.

I will revisit the list after the first debates.

 

Posted in 2020 Election, News, Politics | Comments Off on A Guide To The Democratic Candidates In Advance of The First Debate

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Posted in Economics, Society | Comments Off on What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Tax Returns of Presidential Candidates? No Thank You.

Yesterday’s news was a real tragedy. No, I’m not talking about the fire at Notre Dame, although that was certainly awful. I’m talking about the level of political discourse that is offered to the average American. Yesterday was tax day (a tragedy of a different kind) and various and sundry politicians released their tax returns. Let’s look at a couple examples of the news coverage.

Bernie Sanders appeared at a Fox News “Town Hall” and was asked the mega stupid question why he wasn’t voluntarily paying the higher tax rate he proposes, or refusing to take deductions to reduce his taxes. Sadly, Sanders’ response was the equally stupid “why don’t you?”

Let’s analyze this. The question put to Sanders is a cheap rhetorical device and he should have called it out. The idea behind paying higher taxes is that the government is going to do something for us in return. That could be providing health benefits, rebuilding infrastructure or funding scientific research. It’s not to punish somebody for making money. Nobody is advocating unilaterally giving money to the federal government.1)It’s pointless to give money to the Federal government, as it simply takes the money out of circulation, which does nobody any good. Sanders missed an opportunity to make a point, and instead just gave his opponents grist for their mill.

The coverage by the NY Times wasn’t much better. It focused on the fact that Sanders is now part of the “1 percent,” which was “awkward” for him, and that most of the Democratic candidates made more money than the “vast majority” of American households.

I must say that this whole business of tax returns and income is just silly. The President who did the most for working people, by far, was Franklin Roosevelt, a blue blooded and wealthy New York aristocrat. JFK was a billionaire, if measured in 2019 dollars. George Washington had a net worth equal to more than 500 million 2019 dollars. Thomas Jefferson nearly a quarter of a billion.

Warren Harding, who is at the bottom of almost everybody’s list of good presidents, is also near the bottom of presidential net worth. Donald Trump, who I think will go down as the worst (to date) is the self reported richest. It’s almost certain that he greatly exaggerates his wealth, but it’s not his wealth that makes him a lousy President.

Some people are calling for a law to require presidential candidates to release their tax returns. I have a proposal: let’s pass a law forbidding them from doing so. At best, it’s a platform for sanctimonious virtue signaling, at worst, it’s fuel for gossip and sniping. There isn’t much difference here between the “at best” and the “at worst.” Nothing good comes of it. The real harm is that it distracts from serious political discourse. You may agree or disagree with Sanders’ proposals, but their merit has nothing to do with Sanders’ income.

I suppose the concern is that anybody who aspires to be president should have a record of faithful payment of taxes. Then how about this: require the IRS to audit the taxes of any presidential candidate and report any irregularities and prosecute for the violation of tax laws. Factoid: the constitution sets forth the requirements to be President, and it’s likely that any law that attempts to impose additional requirements would be unconstitutional.

Tax returns don’t provide all that much information and can even be misleading. Many candidates file joint returns, and joint returns do not break out the earnings by spouse. Many politicians, like Obama and Sanders, have made most of their money writing books. That provided a big bump in Sanders’ income and pushed him into the “1 percent” for a few years, but that’s almost certainly temporary.

Actually, it’s misleading to say that Sanders is in the 1 percent, unless we define that term. To be in the 1 percent, measured by income, a household would need an income of between 400 and 500 thousand dollars. But the “real” 1 percent is measured by net worth, and to be in that 1 percent, your household would have to be worth over 10 million dollars. That is a much better indication of wealth, and by that measure, Sanders is nowhere near the 1 percent.

For what it’s worth, the great majority of Presidents have been in the 1 percent. I’m not saying it’s good or bad. It’s irrelevant.

   [ + ]

1. It’s pointless to give money to the Federal government, as it simply takes the money out of circulation, which does nobody any good.
Posted in 2020 Election, Politics, Taxes | Comments Off on Tax Returns of Presidential Candidates? No Thank You.