|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Since I did not answer your question in the affirmative, but you think
I did, there is a failure to communicate here, so perhaps we should
bring the thread to an end.
In terms of specific policies, I don't see any coming from the
administration, except for passing whatever tax cuts they think they
can get through Congress. If there is a cogent policy, I would be happy
to hear what it is.
I would have been much happier if the reduction in taxes on dividend
had been paired with an end to the regressivity of payroll taxes.
Regards
DanG
Bobh wrote:
Actually you repeated yourself on
both counts along with answering my question in the affirmative. <font
face="Verdana" size="2">It's so easy to criticize but please tell us
what your solutions would be.
Would you prefer higher taxes? We
know from the luxury tax on yachts to the more recent tax on cars that
NJ tried (and countless other examples) that when you tax something
you get less of it. We also know that Hoover tried this in the post
bubble era in the 1930's with less than spectacular results.
Would you prefer higher interest
rates, or tight monetary policy? How about more regulation? Or better
yet, instead of torte reform why don't we give the trial attorneys
even more freedom to ravage the economy?
How about more social welfare
programs which would expand the already, er um, Massive size of the
federal government? Call me silly but it seems to me that government
should be doing the same thing that corporations have been doing the
past three years. Unfortunately that's a pipe dream as the votes
don't exist in the Senate to cut spending and/or eliminate waste/pork.
It's certainly a challenge to
"create" jobs or "grow" an economy in a post bubble era where
businesses are all recovering from the over-investing/over-hiring
binge they embarked on in the late 90's. Toss in 9/11 and you have an
even more challenging environment. From history we know that time is
the only real cure for any of this and it's only been three short
years since the bubble popped. In any event it looks to me like Bush
has it largely right in the areas they can influence - despite your
empty criticisms to the contrary.
Bob
<blockquote
>
<div
>-----
Original Message -----
<div
>From: <a
title="TheGonch@xxxxxxxxxxx" href="">Dan
Goncharoff
<div
>To: <a
title="realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<div
>Sent:
Monday, May 26, 2003 5:23 AM
<div
>Subject:
Re: [RT] spx daily
In evaluating economic policy, admittedly a complex subject, I would
consider:
* the capabilities of the people developing the policy
* the cogency of the policy itself.
On the first point (recognizing I am repeating myself), all the
people who have been working on his economy policy at a top level
have either been fired or have left of their own accord. Although
many of the individuals (including some of those who have gone)
are/were talented, they show no sense of working as a team to promote a
single policy.
On the second point, the administration has failed to outline an
overall economic policy approach, which I attribute to the absence
of an economy policy manager similar to the role Rice plays on foreign
policy. Given Bush's management style, I think this is a major
problem in the formulation and implementation of economic policy --
there is no one responsible for 'economic policy' as a single thing.
Bush is failing on both counts.
Regards
DanG
Bobh wrote:
<blockquote cite=""
type="cite">
So, your judgment on the
policy is based on your opinion of the individual/team that
created it rather than on the merits of the policy(s) itself?
<blockquote
>
<div
>-----
Original Message -----
<div
>From: <a
title="TheGonch@xxxxxxxxxxx" href="">Dan
Goncharoff
<div
>To: <a
title="realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<div
>Sent:
Monday, May 26, 2003 3:47 AM
<div
>Subject:
Re: [RT] spx daily
Bush may (or may not) be smart politically, but there is clearly
a difference between his foreign policy team, which incorporates a
diversity of views, and his economic team, where very member of the
original team has quit or been pushed out. Bush seems to be lacking the
economic policy equivalent of Rice, someone who defines a longer-term
consistent message. Until he gets one, I will not trust Bush's policy
to be well thought-out.
That to me is the biggest reason to be worried about the future
of the US economy -- a president (or administration) that
doesn't understand what it is doing can cause a lot of damage.
Regards
DanG
Kent Rollins wrote:
<blockquote cite=""
type="cite">
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">>The current economic condition is
SYSTEMIC....and thus resistant to "Quick fixes".
Three years of a down
economy is not "quick". And "resistant" is not impermeable.
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">>Bush fired Laurel and Hardy (O'Neill and
Lindsay) because they told him you can't cut taxes, wage
expensive war, and continue sponsoring a huge, costly
bureaucracy in Washington....it's economic suicide in the long
run.
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">>That's why he fired them....but THEY were right.
If O'Neill and Lindsay
were in your opinion right, then why do you refer to them as
Laurel and Hardy. This is part of your problem, MASSIVE
Mark. You are overly critical of everything. We're either
going to have MASSIVE inflation or MASSIVE deflation. You
don't care which as long as it is MASSIVE and destructive.
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">>These deficit projections are just the
tip-of-the-iceberg.......and incredibly, there is still no
talk of government cut-backs in spending programs and transfer
payments.....just incredible !
Bush is smart
politically. There was a study done in the late 80's that
said for every new dollar of tax money brought to the
government by economic growth, Washington spent $1.30 (or some
figure like that). That was the 80's. I doubt things have
changed. Bush is choking of Washington's money supply.
That's the only way to get them to reduce spending. It's the
only way PERIOD. You seem to think that these bigger deficits
are a problem. Recently, there was a book published that
studied the effects of large national debts on countries. England
in the 1800's had a national debt that was 300% of GDP. THAT'S
MASSIVE, MARK. A number even you would appreciate. They
built up that debt thru wars and empire building. But it wasn't a
problem for England. They paid it off and now they are just
fine.
The only way to make
Tiny Daschle say "Well, I guess we don't have money for new
social-dependency (aka vote-buying) programs." is to put him
in a deficit position. What are the Dumocrats really
complaining about today? Listen carefully. They are
complaining that they can't enact a drug benenfits program
(aka social dependency program, aka vote-buying program).
They are complaining that they can't make healthcare free for
everyone. They don't want to pay down the debt. They want to
take our money from us and use it to make us dependent on a
social welfare State. Despite the fact that we know socialism and
welfare failed...MASSIVELY.
The only way...THE ONLY
WAY...to cut Washington's spending habit is to take away their
money. And THAT is exactly what Nucular George is doing.
Do you see anything in
the world today that is going right, MASSIVE Mark? Anything
positive?
Kent Rollins
<div
>-----
Original Message -----
<div
>From: <a
title="mar.ko@xxxxxxxxxxx" href="">Mark
Simms
To: <a title="realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 12:55 AM
Subject: RE: Re[3]: [RT] spx daily
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">I'm not thinking MASSIVE here, only LONG-TERM.
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">Part of my bearishness comes from the current high
PE Ratios for one....there just seems to be so much
ANTICIPATION for a big recovery here...
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">I don't see it, quite frankly.
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">Bush fired Laurel and Hardy (O'Neill and Lindsay)
because they told him you can't cut taxes, wage expensive war,
and continue sponsoring a huge, costly bureaucracy in
Washington....it's economic suicide in the long run.
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">Bush did not want to hear this....moreover, h<span
class="930204604-25052003">e's
"dumb"...economically.
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">That's why he fired them....but THEY were right.
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">These deficit projections are just the
tip-of-the-iceberg.......and incredibly, there is still no
talk of government cut-backs in spending programs and transfer
payments.....just incredible !
<font color="#0000ff"
size="2">Unfortunately, Bush may be out of office before this is
proven correct.....
<blockquote
>
<font
face="Tahoma" size="2">-----Original Message-----
From: Kent Rollins [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="">mailto:kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 8:16 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [RT] spx daily
How can YOU ignore
everything besides the tech sector? If everything but the
tech sector has turned the corner on the economy, that
sounds like a good thing to me.
With respect to the
"derivatives bubble", prove to me that there is one. This
is the first I've heard about it. Lately, Warren
Buffet has been saying a lot of stuff with which I don't
agree.
FYI, consumers have been
repairing their balance sheets as well. Sorry I can't
remember the numbers on that one either. It's not as
dramatic as the improvements on the corporate side, but it
was an improvement.
So you're joining Simms on
predicting MASSIVE Great Depression II.
Kent Rollins
<div
>-----
Original Message -----
<div
>From: <a
title="bradcline@xxxxxxxxx" href="">Brad
Cline
To: <a title="realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 2:08 AM
Subject: RE: Re[3]: [RT] spx daily
<font face="Arial"
color="#0000ff" size="2">How can you ignore the tech sector? That's
like pro forma accounting. If I didn't have to make my
house payment everything is rosy. The markets have seen
their lows only if the derivitivies bubble doesn't burst, or
consumer debt doesn't come home to roost. Warren Buffet has
said that derivities are a "time bomb" waiting to happen.
Maybe the fed will be able to balance everything out over time
but I wouldn't bet on it.
<blockquote
>
<font
face="Times New Roman" size="2">-----Original Message-----
From: Kent Rollins [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="">mailto:kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 8:12 PM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="">realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [RT] spx daily
Corporations have been
doing balance sheet repair for 2 years now. AT&T
alone has eliminate over $50 BILLION in debt. I saw on
the tube last week someone who had a stunning statistic on
what the S&P profits are if you ignore the tech
sector. Wish I could remember what that statistic was.
And the tech sector will fall in line soon enough.
You are stuck in a rut. The markets have seen their
lows. Shake it off.
Kent Rollins
To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="">realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="">Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="">realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="">Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="">realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="">Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="">realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="">realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|