301–310 of 361 posts
This could have wide implications for the startup community. A lot of people think that the current really high late-stage startup valuations, and the money pouring into the seed stage is an effect of the low interest rates. With no way to get any decent yields with these rates; it incentivizes institutional money to chase returns in alternative investment classes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Look up the term dead weight losses to get an idea of how bad government spending is for the economy versus private spending. Look up the term Fiscal Multiplier to get an idea how good government spending is for the economy vs private spending.
We have indeed seen it in action since 2008, to horrific results. $9+ trillion in new public debt added in eight years, to go with ~$11 trillion in additional government spending, boosting federal spending by nearly 1/2, to achieve the slowest average growth in non-recessionary times in US history, and the slowest employment recovery in US history. More typically you get examples like the governments of Japan and Chi…
China is a once heavily communist country that has been transitioning its economy for awhile now, and it has been quite successful at it. The idea that it is a fake prosperity ignores the changes in quality of life that have happened.
The problems it faces now are not insurmountable. It is easy to list off everything China should do and point out the corruption, but it doesn't really prove anything about fiscal stimulus in the USA.
Dismissing the government stimulus/intervention without considering what would have alternatively happened, a long and deep depression, is disingenuous. That would have been a horrific result, and we would all be worse off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to stimulate aggregate demand at the consumer level, you need more people to have good jobs, so they can make money, so they can spend money. This would represent a reversal of the trend since 1970 towards greater income inequality. It is not clear to me that anyone is doing anything about that (except, of course, in the negative sense.)
> It is not clear to me that anyone is doing anything about that (except, of course, in the negative sense.) Precisely - monetary policy in the English-speaking world has, since the 80s, been focused on avoiding inflationary pressures via avoiding "too much" growth. Anything that would lead to upward income pressure outside the executive suite is "too much".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is super naive. For much of the past decade, congress could have removed the entire discretionary budget (yes, including the military) and still had a deficit. The deficit is driven by social security, medicare, and medicaid. If you want to balance the budget, you have to reform those.
Why bother? social security, medicare, and medicaid generate quality of life improvements. Money redistributed isn't hurting anything, and a future govt can inflate away that debt
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because taxing those people won't solve the real issue? I pay more in taxes every year on my income than many millionaires do because my income is primarily salary instead of stocks, etc. 120k may seem like a lot, but it isn't in several parts of the US now (e.g SF Bay Area, New York).
> 120k may seem like a lot, but it isn't in several parts of the US now (e.g SF Bay Area, New York). And national tax policy shouldn't be dictated by ~2 major urban metros. I agree that tax policy needs to encompass more than just the salary of the working class, but let's not joke ourselves. Medicare already taxes your entire wage base, there's no reason Social Security shouldn't. We keep kicking the can down the ro…
I'm afraid it's quite impossible to 'own up' to those liabilities. Look at the debt clock: http://www.usdebtclock.org/
The GAAP liabilities of USG amount to $100 trillion, yet the net assets of the entire US are only $116 trillion. Nearly all of the assets in the entire country would need to be sold to pay for the liability to be incurred.
I'm afraid the only solution is to reduce benefits, primarily reducing social security payments (particularly when most of the boomers are drawing on them) and cutting medical spending - probably by instituting controls on what the government will pay for in terms of end-of-life care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason many economists are unsure or against the minimum wage is not because they're some agents of bourgeoisie capitalists, but because arguments in favor of it tend to be moral, not economic. For instance, here's a case for the minimum wage presented by an (otherwise very knowledgeable, I'll grant) Post-Keynesian economist: http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-e... It's pretty weak. The fi…
I'm not at all concerned about economists who are "for" or "against" the minimum wage. They can hold whatever opinions they want if they don't lie. It's the economists who poorly design studies with the intent of demonstrating that it either causes prices to rise uncontrollably (which it doesn't), causes unemployment to rise (which it also doesn't) and who pointedly never, ever, ever look at the effect it has on prof…
You claim raising the minimum wage would never raise prices nor cause unemployment to rise. Ok, let's set it to $1000 a hr. Do you really think that would have no effect on either of those? Maybe there's some range on increase where the effects are offset by other effects but it's not lying to believe those effects will become real at some point.
This will have an impact on the flow of money to VC's, which will have an impact on the flow of burnable cash to unprofitable startups. No more $1.5 million rounds for apps like Yo [1] (the investor community should be embarrassed and horrified that this kind of thing was getting financed anyway). Winter is indeed coming for those that don't have a business model, and that's a good thing. [1] http://www.businessinsid…
No, the institutions who allocate money to VC typically do so as part of a long (> 30 year) horizon plan based upon portfolio theory. There are no institutional investors for whom a 25 bp change in a short term interest rate will materially alter their allocation to VC (typically a tiny sub-portion of a minor portion allocated to "private equity," the lion's share of which goes to later-stage buyout). Private equity…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because taxing those people won't solve the real issue? I pay more in taxes every year on my income than many millionaires do because my income is primarily salary instead of stocks, etc. Taxing capital income like other income is another possible solution.
So tax capital income twice? Once at the business and once for shareholders? That's the reason why we have low capital gains tax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We need the Federal government to stimulate aggregate demand at the consumer level. How? Investing tax dollars in a smarter manner Everyone - and I do mean everyone - would be better off if the fed government (and state and local) invested those tax dollars smarter by leaving the majority of them in the hands of those that earnt them . "There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money o…
That seems like something that reasonable people could disagree about.
This could have wide implications for the startup community. A lot of people think that the current really high late-stage startup valuations, and the money pouring into the seed stage is an effect of the low interest rates. With no way to get any decent yields with these rates; it incentivizes institutional money to chase returns in alternative investment classes.