|
Post by rjfliberal07 on Apr 17, 2007 22:01:52 GMT -6
www.rgemonitor.com/blog/setser/189130This is another fine article from rgemonitor.com. This is freaking scary how the Chinese keep buying ever more of our treasury bills/notes at an exponentially greater rate each year. I doubt this can continue. The Fed will be forced to raise rates sooner or later. This kind of reminds me of a time in the 80s when Japan was buying up all those US companies and assets until it stopped and Japan's economic bubble burst hard.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Apr 18, 2007 15:07:09 GMT -6
If China is accumulating US dollars at a $400 billion annualized rate, as the article suggests (and assuming I'm following the article), it's going to keep the yuan essentially semi-pegged to the dollar. And it will continue to be very profitable for American Multinationals to move their factories to China, employ low-wage Chinese slave labor, and sell the goods back to the United States. Meanwhile, American consumer ability to purchase production will stagnate due to the downward pressure on wages and employment from the job loss and from declining borrowing ability.
Just one more reason we need to put tariffs on everything coming out of China.
We need a 0 trade balance with China, not a -$200 billion balance.
|
|
|
Post by IG on May 30, 2007 7:47:37 GMT -6
China hikes Tax on Stock Trades. Is this a good way to prevent bubbles? I think it is. It directly impacts return and discourages overinvestment. If we had done this in the US market we may have averted the late 90's bubble. Its just one of those taxes that hopefful will change behavior. So i suppose the next question is "What is the criteria for determining a Bubble?" biz.yahoo.com/ap/070530/china_markets.html?.v=10&vm=r
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on May 30, 2007 22:13:52 GMT -6
Maybe somebody can explain the fairness of the capital gains tax being capped at 15%, while taxes on wages and production are up to what, 28%? Why should you pay less tax for making money with investments, instead of making money by working? That was one of Henry Ford's peeves, too.
|
|
|
Post by ig on May 31, 2007 12:16:35 GMT -6
according to supply-side theory which champions the role of capital over labor, It is best for those that are most productive with capital to be taxed at the lowest possible rate. The formation of capital via investment creates jobs and blah blah blah blah!
real reason
Those with more income contribute to campaigns and the whore that gets the money acts on their behalf.
There is a fixed number of congress people and an increasing money supply. It follows that dollars chasing services creates inflation.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 1, 2007 20:47:24 GMT -6
according to supply-side theory which champions the role of capital over labor, It is best for those that are most productive with capital to be taxed at the lowest possible rate. The formation of capital via investment creates jobs and blah blah blah blah! real reason Those with more income contribute to campaigns and the whore that gets the money acts on their behalf. There is a fixed number of congress people and an increasing money supply. It follows that dollars chasing services creates inflation. LOL. That's excellent. Those with the most "capital" contribute the most to political campaigns. And thus our government is influenced progressively more by those with the most capital, and less by the people who vote. Again, this further makes the case for complete public financing of elections. In addition, there should be strict limitations on the total amount of money spent campaigning, regardless of where it comes from. Less would clearly be more. The public would be better informed if there was less worthless campaign rhetoric, sound-bites, and propaganda to sift through.
|
|