Just The Facts: Tax Cuts For The Rich Don’t Help The Stock Market
Just The Facts: Tax Cuts For The Rich Don’t Help The Stock Market
[Guest blogger and American Progress senior fellow Gene Sperling was President Clinton’s National Economic Adviser.]
In the drive to make cutting taxes on dividend income a top national priority, the White House and their allies in Congress hope to obscure how regressive the cut is (in 2005 nearly 80% of the capital gains and dividend tax cuts went to those making over $200,000) with the self-assured assertions that it has: 1. lifted the stock market, 2. driven job and wage growth, and 3. helped the small investor.
All of these claims are off the mark — but I’m going to debunk each assertion one at a time over the next few posts.
Claim 1: The dividend tax cut has led to a stronger stock market. (A brief aside: the fact that a policy might increase the price of certain stocks, or even the stock market as a whole, does not end the discussion of whether or not it is a sound idea. One could provide a $1000 rebate and a toaster to every investor who purchased stock and probably drive up the market, but it would hardly increase our overall national economic well-being. The wisest economic policies focus on strengthening the underlying foundations for economic growth and productivity – not immediate market impacts).
A new study by economists at the Federal Reserve Board found no evidence that the dividend tax cut raised stock market prices as a whole. They didn’t even find much evidence that it raised the prices of dividend-paying stocks.
The authors of the Federal Reserve study, Gene Amromin, Paul Harrison, Nellie Liang and Steve Sharpe “fail[ed] to find much, if any, imprint of the dividend tax cut news on the value of the aggregate stock market.†For details on how the study worked, read my explanation here.
While Bush’s defenders still want to focus on what happened to the stock market after it was driven to recent lows in the lead up to war, the picture is a lot different when you look at stock performance since March, 2002. From March 2002 – when the ramifications of the horrors of September 11 were already built into the market and the recession had been over for several months – till today, the stock market has gone from 10,600 to 10,900, less than 1% growth per year.
From that vantage point, the Bush tax policies hardly seem like a rocking success for the stock market.
Here is a thought experiment: imagine if the stock market had only gone up from 10,600 in March 2002 to 10,900 in December 2005 under a Democratic President: do you think we would be hearing the same causal assertions?
Look for the next post debunking their claims about jobs and wages.
– Gene Sperling
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
67 Responses to “Just The Facts: Tax Cuts For The Rich Don’t Help The Stock Market”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
So how long before Bush admits that his economy policy was waged on faulty intelligence also?
December 15th, 2005 at 10:35 amIf there aren’t any experts in cabinet posts and just college buddies what kind of intelligence can he expect
December 15th, 2005 at 10:51 amThat’s because the uber-rich buy tax free municipal bonds.
sure, they have less profit than some stocks or investments, but after taxes, they come out ahead.
December 15th, 2005 at 10:51 amoops, I posted this on the wrong story, sorry
here’s the actual story of the boston tea party, it wasn’t a revolt against tax increase, it was a revolt against tax decrease (true)
and it’s why America exists today.
good lesson to be sure
In 1773, Britain’s East India Company was sitting on large stocks of tea that it could not sell in England. It was on the verge of bankruptcy. In an effort to save it, the government passed the Tea Act of 1773, which gave the company the right to export its merchandise directly to the colonies without paying any of the regular taxes that were imposed on the colonial merchants, who had traditionally served as the middlemen in such transactions. With these privileges, the company could undersell American merchants and monopolize the colonial tea trade. The act proved inflammatory for several reasons. First, it angered influential colonial merchants, who feared being replaced and bankrupted by a powerful monopoly. The East India Company’s decision to grant franchises to certain American merchants for the sale of their tea created further resentments among those excluded from this lucrative trade. More important, however, the Tea Act revived American passions about the issue of taxation without representation. The law provided no new tax on tea. Lord North assumed that most colonists would welcome the new law because it would reduce the price of tea to consumers by removing the middlemen. But the colonists responded by boycotting tea. Unlike earlier protests, this boycott mobilized large segments of the population. It also helped link the colonies together in a common experience of mass popular protest. Particularly important to the movement were the activities of colonial women, who were one of the principal consumers of tea and now became the leaders of the effort to the boycott.
Various colonies made plans to prevent the East India Company from landing its cargoes in colonial ports. In ports other than Boston, agents of the company were “persuaded” to resign, and new shipments of tea were either returned to England or warehoused. In Boston, the agents refused to resign and, with the support of the royal governor, preparations were made to land incoming cargoes regardless of opposition. After failing to turn back the three ships in the harbor, local patriots led by Samuel Adams staged a spectacular drama. On the evening of December 16, 1773, three companies of fifty men each, masquerading as Mohawk Indians, passed through a tremendous crowd of spectators, went aboard the three ships, broke open the tea chests, and heaved them into the harbor.As the electrifying news of the Boston “tea party” spread, other seaports followed the example and staged similar acts of resistance of their own.’
When the Bostonians refused to pay for the property they had destroyed, George III and Lord North decided on a policy of coercion, to be applied only against Massachusetts, the socalled Coercive Acts. In these four acts of 1774, Parliament closed the port of Boston, drastically reduced the powers of selfgovernment in the colony, permitted royal officers to be tried in other colonies or in England when accused of crimes, and provided for the quartering of troops in the colonists’ barns and empty houses. The acts sparked new resistance up and down the coast.
in other words, the king lowered taxes for his pals that owned a big corporation, the locals didn’t particularly care for that cronyism becuase it was stealing money from them and for some reason they didn’t think stealing from them was a good idea (unlike people today who think stealing from their families and giving the money to rich people has some kind of merit), …go figure.
the colonies didn’t like the king lowering taxes to his pals and a new nation was thus born.
America
god bless her, god bless her founding fathers, their vision and their principles that brought forth this new nation
hmmm…the head of state lowering taxes for his corporate pals
quite a bit of that going on today, isn’t there.
the differance now is that corporate media has been able to promote their corporate agenda while making believe they are liberal….people actually fall for this childs trick
corporate media has actually been able to convince people that tax giveaways of their money to the presidents corporate pals is somehow beneficial to them and this country.
ah me
December 15th, 2005 at 10:54 am#1…don’t worry, though…he’ll ‘take responsibility’ for it.
December 15th, 2005 at 10:55 amThe Republican party has a great PR strategy: lowering taxes is good, because it’s your money in the first place!
They neglect to say things like: most tax cuts benefit the top 1% over everyone else; tax cuts for corporations mean more jobs (but have no numbers or statistics to prove it); tax cuts mean no more money for student-aid or food stamps or energy-assistance for poor people.
It’s all about how they sell their ideas, and trying to make the Democratic ideas seem like they hurt the average Joe-schmoe. If the average Joe-schmoe makes over $100,000 a year, then tax cuts do help them out.
Another canard is “Rich people use all the loop-holes, so raising taxes on them doesn’t work”. In other words “We are too incompetent to close the loop-holes in the first place”.
December 15th, 2005 at 11:01 am#5, Yeah, he’ll take responsibility. Then he’ll say “But, even if I knew it was wrong, I’d still have done it anyway. . . ”
So much for the “Pary of personal responsibility”.
December 15th, 2005 at 11:02 am#5
Well, that makes me feel better :)
December 15th, 2005 at 11:06 amHowever, Tax Increases against the rich do improve the stock market, just as we saw under Clinton. When you increase taxes on the wealthiest, you create an incentive to invest (I know it works on me :), however when you make it easy to retain income with ’safe’ investments, that’s the options the wealthiest take. It’s about risk management, and controlling your investments to achieve the desired returns.
This is common knowledge among most economists, anyone but those trickle down inept morons who run this administration.
December 15th, 2005 at 11:24 am“Another canard is “Rich people use all the loop-holes, so raising taxes on them doesn’t workâ€. In other words “We are too incompetent to close the loop-holes in the first placeâ€.
Comment by Democrat Soldier ”
Actually most loop holes are unavailable for individual tax payers. The loop holes are there to encourage investment and risk taking. Raising taxes DOES work, because it produces incentives to actually use both loop holes and higher risk investments that make the economy churn.
December 15th, 2005 at 11:25 amHmmm … the head of state lowering taxes for his corporate pals … quite a bit of that going on today, isn’t there
I’m sure you can see the difference bewteen lowering taxes on an individual company (thereby creating a cost basis monopoly) … and the lowering of taxes and tax breaks across certain industries. While there are numerous tax breaks for corporations … they are not given on an individual basis, as was the case in the Boston Tea Party.
December 15th, 2005 at 11:27 amtax giveaways to corporatition at expense of the middle class is at best flawed economic strategy
tax giveaways to the top 1 percent of the country at the expense of the middle class is criminal
December 15th, 2005 at 11:31 amI guess we’ll be getting more info. from Mr. Sperling but the title Tax Cuts For The Rich Don’t Help The Stock Market
and then a report on the effects of tax cuts on dividends is a lot like saying Welfare Doesn’t Help Poor People followed by a report on food stamps not improving overall nutrition.
It seems to me that if one is going to headline with a macro-focused statement, that the report to follow should be about more than one aspect of investing. It’s well known that dividends, in general, are not what drives most growth investors to choose a particular stock … it the stands to reason, that while being a nice break, a roll back of taxes on dividends shouldn’t stimulate further stock purchases … however, this is but one aspect of the whole “tax breaks stimulate growth” idea so I’m anxious to see subsequent reports by Mr. Sperling.
December 15th, 2005 at 11:37 am#12
Would you say as criminal as invading a country on the basis of a threat to our national security by stockpiling weapons of mass destruction that never existed?
How are Impeachment proceedings not even being discussed among our supposedly Democratic leaders? We need to fire them all and start over. Seriously.
December 15th, 2005 at 11:40 amHowever, Tax Increases against the rich do improve the stock market, just as we saw under Clinton. When you increase taxes on the wealthiest, you create an incentive to invest (I know it works on me :), however when you make it easy to retain income with ’safe’ investments, that’s the options the wealthiest take. It’s about risk management, and controlling your investments to achieve the desired returns.
This is common knowledge among most economists, anyone but those trickle down inept morons who run this administration.
this is not known among most economists, though it is rhetoric of right wingnuts
at times the strategy might work, those times are few, rare and far between
when a strategy works in a particular instance it does not mean you should apply that strategy to all instances
December 15th, 2005 at 11:40 am“I’m sure you can see the difference bewteen lowering taxes on an individual company (thereby creating a cost basis monopoly) … and the lowering of taxes and tax breaks across certain industries.” GeoMetro
Lowering taxes against an industry without providing incentives for what should result from that break is just pissing money away (something I bet you have a personal habit of doing). It’s bad ‘business’ for the government, as it’s nothing more than a giveway to cronies.
December 15th, 2005 at 11:40 amTax giveaways to corporatition at expense of the middle class is at best flawed economic strategy
I’d love to respond to this statement, but I don’t want to assume your level of intelligence or ignorance on the subject (or else I’d be repeating something you already know).
Can you give me some specifics that you feel substantiate this statement? Please, I’m not attacking you … there are others that, of course, share this opinion … sometimes, I’ve found them to be uninformed about the overall tax structure (I don’t wish to have those experiences tarnish what you may have concluded through personal research).
December 15th, 2005 at 11:41 amme to me,
Huh? Did you read what I wrote? Tax increases against the wealthy are not a rightwing strategy for economic improvement, it works so you know they’ll never implement it…
December 15th, 2005 at 11:42 amFor folks who get down to business on winger blogs, you might know that a winger talking point doing the rounds currently is that the proposed benefit cuts are not cuts at all, as all they are doing is reducing the rate of growth of future benefit increases.
By this logic, the deficit reduction plans of the GOP are not proper debt reductions at all because all they are doing is reducing the rate at which national debt grows, not actually cutting the national debt. That’s the easy point to make…
By an extension of the GOP logic, you can also counter standard GOP econo-baloney that revoking planned tax cuts is the equivalent of a tax increase. According to GOPpers, under the benefit reduction plan, for recipients it’s not really a cut in benefits at all because it’s just a question of recipients adjusting their expectations of what future benefits they will be owed.
So therefore, revoking a planned tax cut is not actually a tax increase because the beneficiaries of the tax cut should simply be adjusting their expectations of their future income.
Okay, I’m sorry, this is a little off-topic, but if mostly economics geeks like me are likely to post under this piece, I hope you appreciate this.
I thought Mr Sperling would make one last point to debunk the tax cuts help the stock-market nonsense… for the GOP theory to hold, you would have to assume that as a reult of the dividend tax reductions, the wealthy would invest more money on the stock market, and that most other market participants believed they would do this.
That’s faith-based economics, a not-too-distant relative of the more famous voodoo-economics.
Ps. If there are any investors out there who invest purely on the basis of the level of dividend tax they pay.. be warned, you are exactly the kind of sucker who will be chewed by the professionals.
December 15th, 2005 at 11:43 amGeoMetro,
I can supply you the tax giveway studies, but we both know you aren’t sophisticated or intelligent enough to process the information. I’ve already referred you to several reports and studies that prove your whacko economic theories wrong - and you never listen. You’re an idiot.
December 15th, 2005 at 11:43 amCreating a war, removing all the safety net systems that were in place for the poor and middle class and selling off the countries wilderness and parks to big oil and big business is compleating the distruction of our country……Blessings
December 15th, 2005 at 11:44 amWhen you increase taxes on the wealthiest, you create an incentive to invest (I know it works on me :), however when you make it easy to retain income with ’safe’ investments, that’s the options the wealthiest take. It’s about risk management, and controlling your investments to achieve the desired returns.
Ryan, can you be more specific with this statement (like give actual investment examples that, you feel, would be used during high tax times vs. low tax times) … I’m not sure what you’re driving at.
December 15th, 2005 at 11:44 amLowering taxes against an industry without providing incentives for what should result from that break is just pissing money away
I can agree with you on this statement (in its basic form) … can you give me an example where you’ve seen this occur?
December 15th, 2005 at 11:46 amGeoMetro,
It’s rational and plain and simple, that’s why you don’t understand it. Investors are risk averse. If you have low taxes and yet the income of the wealthy is relatively high, they will choose low risk investments that don’t grow the economy significantly (bonds, T-Bills, etc.). Whereas if you increase taxes, you increase the incentives of the wealthy to use the capital to invest in a more risky fashion to increase return. It’s portfolio management. What MBA school did you go to? I want to know, so I make sure I never hire anyone who attended it!
December 15th, 2005 at 11:47 amWe had 92% tax rates on the wealthy in 1951 during one of the greatest economic booms in american history. The ‘high tax’ myth is disproven by both american and european economic history. You’re such an ignorant idiot.
December 15th, 2005 at 11:48 amThe Republicans do believe cut-and-run: Cut taxes for the wealthy and Run laughing to the bank/next $2,000-a-plate fundraiser.
December 15th, 2005 at 11:51 am“I can agree with you on this statement (in its basic form) … can you give me an example where you’ve seen this occur?
Comment by Giacomo”
The recent tax breaks to the oil industry are a great example. If the same set of MULTI-BILLIONS in breaks were given to any company that came up with alternative energy projects that yielded results, we would get results. Or even if the tax breaks required them to build new refineries, or whatever we needed or wanted to stabalize prices.
The power of federal government is a knive that can be used to shape industry and the future of the whole world, and bush wields it like a dull butter knife. He’s inept, as all of you idiots of the rightwing are. You’re uneducated and unqualified for the jobs you inevitably assume - it’s really pathetic.
December 15th, 2005 at 11:51 amThis only further proves that trickle down economics is the mythology of greedy, right-wing idiots. I simply don’t understand how anyone can think it will help if you allow wealthiest people, who can already buy as much as they want of ANYTHING they want, to keep even MORE of their wealth. giving them MORE tax breaks isn’t going to encourage them to spend more money when they already have unlimited money at their disposal to spend.
It’s like giving the hungry an infinite amount of food…and then saying it will further eliminate hunger if you give them infinity +1 amount of food. Instead, your really just wasting it by giving more to people who won’t appreciate and have no need for it.
December 15th, 2005 at 11:55 amme to me,
Huh? Did tyou read what I wrote? Tax increases against the wealthy are not a rightwing strategy for economic improvement, it works so you know they’ll never implement it…
I am not sure I understand your post
if you are saying tax increases for the wealthy in preferance to the poor, of course I agree
if you are saying tax increases for the wealthy are not good strategy, I dissagree
most wealthy in America became wealthy becuase of the economic strategy that prevailed when they earned their wealth
less burden of the commons on those that can handle it the least, more burdon of the commons on people that can handle it the easiest
simple
we are suppsed to make it easier for lower class to become middle, middle to become upper
when person reaches the upper class, they all of a sudden don’t want to pay the rent that got them their
December 15th, 2005 at 11:59 amIt’s rational and plain and simple, that’s why you don’t understand it. Investors are risk averse. If you have low taxes and yet the income of the wealthy is relatively high, they will choose low risk investments that don’t grow the economy significantly (bonds, T-Bills, etc.).
1) Yes, investors are risk averse … but to wildly varying degrees. 2) Investor risk aversion is largely unchanged during different tax environments. 3) Wealthy investors tend to invest more when they have more (ie. high income and low taxes). 4) Low risk investing has much more to do with the age of the investor and the desired outcome than the tax structure 5) The one investment that changes dramatically with tax changes is munis (because they’re tax free in most states (and always federally tax free)).
Whereas if you increase taxes, you increase the incentives of the wealthy to use the capital to invest in a more risky fashion to increase return. It’s portfolio management.
1) How in the world you draw this correlation is beyond me … an increase taxes often causes rich people to invest in arenas where the will LOSE money purposefully to offset such taxes (those investments that allow the passthrough of loss) but there are no “incentives” to be more risky 2) Risky investments increase the CHANCES for an increased return (and the chances for a loss) but not the actual return (unless it’s a long term (5+ years) investment). 3) I don’t think you want to delve any deeper into “portfolio management” as, and I’m sure I told you this before, I work in the financials industry.
What MBA school did you go to?
I may regret this … UNC.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:01 pmreally, giving middle class money to people that have more of it then the people it comes from does not make them invest or spend more.
and it does cause the people it came from to spend less, obviously
the very notion flies in the face of reason, it’s a marketing ploy to get middle America to go along with the give away
December 15th, 2005 at 12:05 pmThe recent tax breaks to the oil industry are a great example. If the same set of MULTI-BILLIONS in breaks were given to any company that came up with alternative energy projects that yielded results, we would get results.
I agree that alternative fuels should get a tax break … guess who are some of the largest investors in research for alternative fuels … oil companys. Surprised? It’s smart business … the internal combustion engine is a relic … we will be moving onto other technologies (and soon). Oil companies want to be able to have their hands in that “fuel” as well.
Also, the tax cuts that are given to oil companies are for the amounts that said oil companies have spent on exploration. Due to the amount use, we have moved from discovered reserves to having to explore for reserves … this is much(like 50x) more expensive. To keep the oil companies from passing this expense to the consumers, the gov’t gives those companies tax breaks to encourage them to explore more (the breaks are on expenses incurred from exploration). This makes sense to a certain degree.
I agree with you that alternative fuel needs to be brought to the forefront … I said weeks ago that one of my professors predicted (about 5 years ago) that gasoline prices would be slowly raised … if they weren’t, Americans would be reticent to adopt alternatives … in addition, this trickle adoption of fuel cells and the like keeps the oil economy from collapsing on itself and hurting the economy as a whole.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:10 pma windfall profits tax is a form of tax giveaway to the wealthy that works.
if the tax is designed so that companies will be able to avoid tax by reinvesting their profit back into the economy
excellant
another tax giveaway to the wealthy that wors is the reverse of a windfall profit tax…it is a tax incentive relief for certain projects, such as renewable fuel, and that works also.
whenever there is a tax incentive, platues need to be met to be eligable
December 15th, 2005 at 12:19 pmgiving middle class money to people that have more of it then the people it comes from does not make them invest or spend more.
Was this comment for me? Are you saying that the tax structure takes from the middle class and reimburses those funds to the rich? If so, you are greatly misinformed. Tax cuts and breaks are given in the proportion that they’ve been paid people … the line that the “richest 1%” gets most of the money sounds bad … until you see that they also PAY the most in taxes (Note - the rich SHOULD shoulder more of the tax burden because they can).
I don’t understand why this is hard to understand. If I pay $100 in taxes and you pay $20 … and at tax cut time, I get back $25 and you get back $5 … who benefitted more. What you’re saying is I do (because I got more $ back). Inflate this small example to more realistic proportions with the richest 1% paying $1,000,000 in taxes and regular folks paying $20 (this example considers individuals, not whole groups) … then I get back $250,000 and you get back only $5 … this IS what’s happened.
The middle class pays the majority of the taxes as a group because as a group they are the largest in number by far. The richest 15% of Americans pay about 65% of the taxes (the richest 2% was about 30% if memory serves) even though they represent about 2-4% of the population. Look at the numbers for what they are and not what you want them to be.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:19 pmtax incentives aren’t gifts, they are there as incentives for economic growth
the wealthy and corporations pay a lower portion of tax then they have in history
December 15th, 2005 at 12:23 pmGeoMetro,
I already corrected you on this nonsense you posted.
1) The percent of income is close to the percent of taxes paid by the wealthiest 15%.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:28 pm2) The percent of ‘discretionary’ income paid in taxes for the wealthiest 15% relative to their tax burden is actually lower.
3) The percent of taxes paid by corporations has declined steadily, while individual taxes have increased.
you can cast dispursion by adding “why is this hard to understand” if you like, I suppose those pro’s work in a debate
however, it’s not relevant, you are not understanding what’s happening with tax relief
they are not gift, they are incentives
in this particular case, 90 percent of the tax return money went to 1 percent of the wealthies people in the country
you can buy the corporate marketing that say this economic strategy has some kind of merit, it does not.
tax relief is not a gift, it’s an incentive
December 15th, 2005 at 12:30 pm90 percent of the tax return money went to 1 percent of the wealthies people in the country
I need to see a link on that stat …
December 15th, 2005 at 12:34 pm1) The percent of income is close to the percent of taxes paid by the wealthiest 15%.
2) The percent of ‘discretionary’ income paid in taxes for the wealthiest 15% relative to their tax burden is actually lower.
3) The percent of taxes paid by corporations has declined steadily, while individual taxes have increased.
1) Are you saying that along most levels (poorest to riches) the taxes paid are about the same (in proportion to income). Maybe in the top 50%, certainly not in the bottom 50%. Again, I have no problem with the rich paying more … they can afford to. I can’t stand when people say the tax cuts only benefitted the rich … this statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the tax code.
2) This statement is confusing … are you saying the left over discretionary income after taxes paid is a greater percent for the richest 15% than other groups below them? How could this be given your statement number 1?
3) This is true (and should be changed).
December 15th, 2005 at 12:40 pmYou can cast dispursion by adding “why is this hard to understand†if you like, I suppose those pro’s work in a debate
Fair enough … that part of the statement was belittling … my bad.
They are not gifts, they are incentives
What do you mean by this?
December 15th, 2005 at 12:42 pmA windfall profits tax is a form of tax giveaway to the wealthy that works
These taxes are still hypothetical and are being considered for industries … not individuals.
If the tax is designed so that companies will be able to avoid tax by reinvesting their profit back into the economy
But this is what the oil conglomerates ARE doing (and they are the ones that people are arguing deserve a windfall tax) … what’s more, oil companies (and fossil fuels) are unique in their accounting practices … they must use LIFO accounting methods to organize their books (because the price of oil changes constantly) … this causes profitability to rise astronomically (as compared to other industries) in an environment of much demand and little supply.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:47 pmActually, Clinton was one of this nation’s biggest tax cutters in his 2nd term. He exempted real estate capital gains from taxation (up to 500K for married folk). He created Roth IRAs, that allow folks to save and NEVER BE TAXED on the gains. He eliminated the source tax, so if you work in a high-tax state and retire in a state with no state income tax, you don’t have to pay taxes to your previous state of residence. All of this did wonders for the economy in the late 90’s.
Regarding raising taxes on corporations, you can do this if you want. I’d call this the “send more jobs to China” plan. Companies compete to bring goods and services to market at the lowest prices. By raising their taxes they have to increase their prices of goods and services, which makes them less competitive. And we’re seeing this sort of thing with the US car companies, as they struggle to provide pension and health benefits to employees, and compete with foreign auto manufacturers.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:59 pmWell, the problem of the republican concept economy, as I see it, is that they trust in the bona fide of enterprises to reinvest with largeness their money in the same country they are getting it, and in the same bona fide, they think the money will end in the hands of every John or Jane Doe proportionally to his work and needings.
But this is a false pretense, as demonstrates the number of poor people on the USA. All are lazy bums? I don’t think so. There are many disablees, many single (widow) moms, many illiterate people, many people with an inadequate training for work (not rare, in those days of rapid evolution), many people who has to do 2 works to pay for his room in a dirty motel to live in and afford the gas to commute. Not everybody who works hard can attain a level of wellness or even afford to pay all their bills.
The specific concept I don’t understand is, why, in Enterprise USA, there exist so many failed projects (poor people)? Why not invest the gains of the more beneffiting projects in the lesser ones, so the lesser ones can takeoff and produce benefits in turn, raising the gross benefit? There is fear of not obtain collaboration of the managers of the better projects? This is addressed enforcing company overseeing and fair and agile redistribution of wealth. But giving big raises to the managers of the better projects doesn’t benefit in anything to the lesser projects.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:47 pmLook, no offense Spaniard, but those in glass economic houses shouldn’t throw stones. What’s Spain’s unemployment now … last I heard it hovered above 11%.
Why not invest the gains of the more beneffiting projects in the lesser ones, so the lesser ones can takeoff and produce benefits in turn, raising the gross benefit?
Because that forces a company with good ideas and people to limit their own growth to assist a company that can’t grow. Capitalism isn’t perfect, I know. In general, it’s a very Darwinian concept … survival of the fittest. The capital markets would not be sustained by your idea also … it sounds more communistic than anything else. Maybe communism, if it were done by fair and agreeable people, could work … but Capitalism “works” for the US and the world (who invest here) the “best” at this point.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:57 pm#7 and #5, You’re both right on.
December 15th, 2005 at 1:58 pmBush’s comments should be a startling display to everyone of his totally egotistical arrogance.
Don’t bother Bush with facts, he will do what he wants anyway and boldly admit it.
I always thought trickle down, was peeing on me.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:01 pm#37 It’s cast aspersions — I’m sorry; I don’t like to be nit-picking, but an argument always appears more authoritative with proper spelling and phrasing.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:08 pmIn other words, poor grammar casts aspersions on the total body of work.
#44, Capitalism isn’t perfect, but it’s the best thing going. I think the best thing about it is opportunity. It’s up to individuals to take responsibility for themselves.
If I were struggling to make ends meet, as I was a few decades ago, I’d do something about it. I wouldn’t wait around for the government to pass legislation to send along more benefits. I’ve never felt as if I were entitled to anything. I realized from an early age, that if I want to be a “success,” it’s all up to me. We all make choices.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:20 pmIf I were struggling to make ends meet, as I was a few decades ago,
You are more than a few decades ago. You are a few centuries ago.
December 15th, 2005 at 3:40 pmDONT FORGET ABOUT THE FOUNDATIONS
December 16th, 2005 at 2:16 amI think both George Bush and Gene Sperling need to reflect on the points James Kroeger makes about tax cuts in this article.
Tax cuts are inherently contractionary, not expansionary.
December 16th, 2005 at 5:57 pmThanks for the discussion- with the exception of Ryan Neat- it was educational and relatively free of personal attacks and cheap shots.
December 19th, 2005 at 2:50 amCatherine
I just wanted to write to say that you have a great site and a wonderful resource for all to share.
March 15th, 2008 at 10:53 pmcorporate gift idea
Interestingly, this was on CNN last week.
March 16th, 2008 at 11:19 pmJessie
Great post. I have added you to my digg bookmark
March 17th, 2008 at 5:58 pmusa today financials
March 18th, 2008 at 12:58 amAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:03 pmNutritional Supplements Weight Loss Weight Loss
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 12:50 amEvaline
Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.
March 30th, 2008 at 6:22 pmbusiness capital increase sale marketing
One notable blogging tool that does not support trackback yet is Blogger.) Some individuals or companies have abused the TrackBack
April 1st, 2008 at 10:19 amBusiness Studies Lesson Plans
I enjoyed reading your blog. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:30 pmSherri
Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the
April 7th, 2008 at 4:25 amRetire And Rich
This article sounds well, but how everything is related together?
April 8th, 2008 at 4:36 amfamous rebate
April 10th, 2008 at 9:00 pmRyan
Have you considered the fact that the aarp might be trying to do something that will have long range benefits, beyond the scope of our lives, affecting our children? They are a large organization now, over 30 million I think, a powerful lobby.
April 13th, 2008 at 5:25 amCharolette
Great things are not done by impulse, but by a series of small things brought together.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:22 amWorld Stock Market
Sex is only dirty if it’s done right. ~ Woody Allen
April 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am