Theme: Subsidy

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. END DEFICIT REPRODUCTION —“Deficit reproduc

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    END DEFICIT REPRODUCTION
    —“Deficit reproduction shall never be subsidized, unless we can expect it to successfully be amortized over the long-term (generations) as high yield dividends from high performing genetics. No more shifting of resources from the most productive to the least, pretending to do good, while actually causing harm.”— Steve Pender


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-03 19:00:40 UTC

  • END DEFICIT REPRODUCTION —“Deficit reproduction shall never be subsidized, unl

    END DEFICIT REPRODUCTION

    —“Deficit reproduction shall never be subsidized, unless we can expect it to successfully be amortized over the long-term (generations) as high yield dividends from high performing genetics. No more shifting of resources from the most productive to the least, pretending to do good, while actually causing harm.”— Steve Pender


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-03 15:00:00 UTC

  • UM. ELIMINATING TAX HAVENS IS BAD POLICY. Is eliminating corporate tax havens su

    UM. ELIMINATING TAX HAVENS IS BAD POLICY.

    Is eliminating corporate tax havens such a good idea?

    Juan Carlos Suárez Serrato says maybe not:

    —“We show that eliminating firms’ access to tax havens has unintended consequences for economic growth. We analyze a policy change that limited profit shifting for US multinationals, and show that the reform raised the effective cost of investing in the US. Exposed firms respond by reducing global investment and shifting investment abroad — which lowered their domestic investment by 38% — and by reducing domestic employment by 1.0 million jobs. We then show that the costs of eliminating tax havens are persistent and geographically concentrated, as more exposed local labor markets experience declines in employment and income growth for over 15 years. We discuss implications of these results for other efforts to limit profit shifting, including new taxes on intangible income in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.”—

    via Tyler Cowen


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-25 08:45:00 UTC

  • What role does excess eduction(non-stem), taxation (income demand), housing pric

    What role does excess eduction(non-stem), taxation (income demand), housing prices (income demand), total interest on housing(long term income demand), play in generating demand for (full time) workforce participation. And what role all in asymmetric world prices?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 15:13:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1019963335012421634

    Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1019949159778938880


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1019949159778938880

  • Ease of Fixing White Genocide

    (White Birth Suppression and Replacement) Most of the problem of white birth suppression (genocide) is caused by taxation to redistribute to the lower class, taxation to redistribute to older folks still capable of working even if only marginally, and most importantly, the cost of housing that allows them to economically segregate from undesirables, and the cost of interest on homes that should be effectively zero, since it is just capital creation. All of those problems are fixable. Easily. By separation.

  • Ease of Fixing White Genocide

    (White Birth Suppression and Replacement) Most of the problem of white birth suppression (genocide) is caused by taxation to redistribute to the lower class, taxation to redistribute to older folks still capable of working even if only marginally, and most importantly, the cost of housing that allows them to economically segregate from undesirables, and the cost of interest on homes that should be effectively zero, since it is just capital creation. All of those problems are fixable. Easily. By separation.

  • Interest

    I don’t have antipathy toward interest. I have an antipathy toward rents. And if we are borrowing from the treasury and paying interest that’s just rents. Banks, in the era of fiat money function only as insurers of borrowing from the treasury, with interest as fee for insuring one another’s borrowings from the treasury. But since in practice there is nearly zero risk and liability, that interest is not earned. Ergo if we are converting capital from future to present there is no CHOICE of investment wherein the private holder of an asset is paying an opportunity cost.

  • Interest

    I don’t have antipathy toward interest. I have an antipathy toward rents. And if we are borrowing from the treasury and paying interest that’s just rents. Banks, in the era of fiat money function only as insurers of borrowing from the treasury, with interest as fee for insuring one another’s borrowings from the treasury. But since in practice there is nearly zero risk and liability, that interest is not earned. Ergo if we are converting capital from future to present there is no CHOICE of investment wherein the private holder of an asset is paying an opportunity cost.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. I don’t have antipathy toward interest. I hav

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    I don’t have antipathy toward interest. I have an antipathy toward rents. And if we are borrowing from the treasury and paying interest that’s just rents.

    Banks, in the era of fiat money function only as insurers of borrowing from the treasury, with interest as fee for insuring one another’s borrowings from the treasury.

    But since in practice there is nearly zero risk and liability, that interest is not earned. Ergo if we are converting capital from future to present there is no CHOICE of investment wherein the private holder of an asset is paying an opportunity cost.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-10 13:33:43 UTC

  • I don’t have antipathy toward interest. I have an antipathy toward rents. And if

    I don’t have antipathy toward interest. I have an antipathy toward rents. And if we are borrowing from the treasury and paying interest that’s just rents.

    Banks, in the era of fiat money function only as insurers of borrowing from the treasury, with interest as fee for insuring one another’s borrowings from the treasury.

    But since in practice there is nearly zero risk and liability, that interest is not earned. Ergo if we are converting capital from future to present there is no CHOICE of investment wherein the private holder of an asset is paying an opportunity cost.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-10 09:33:00 UTC