Comments on: Scapegoating Regulation http://www.thomaspalley.com/?p=112 Economics for Democratic and Open Societies Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:19:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Where Do We Go From Here? « The Everyday Economist http://www.thomaspalley.com/?p=112#comment-126255 Where Do We Go From Here? « The Everyday Economist Tue, 09 Sep 2008 05:10:37 +0000 http://www.thomaspalley.com/?p=112#comment-126255 [...] friend Thomas Palley posted an op-ed on his page about a month ago anticipating the “scapegoating” of regulation: [...] [...] friend Thomas Palley posted an op-ed on his page about a month ago anticipating the “scapegoating” of regulation: [...]

]]> By: pligg.com http://www.thomaspalley.com/?p=112#comment-124527 pligg.com Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:53:01 +0000 http://www.thomaspalley.com/?p=112#comment-124527 <strong>Scapegoating Regulation...</strong> Economic conservatives will not roll-over and surrender just because of a financial crisis. Instead, if history is a guide, they will blame regulation for the crisis. That was Milton Friedman's modus operandi when he launched the modern era of deregul... Scapegoating Regulation…

Economic conservatives will not roll-over and surrender just because of a financial crisis. Instead, if history is a guide, they will blame regulation for the crisis. That was Milton Friedman’s modus operandi when he launched the modern era of deregul…

]]> By: Mark Novitsky http://www.thomaspalley.com/?p=112#comment-124501 Mark Novitsky Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:32:32 +0000 http://www.thomaspalley.com/?p=112#comment-124501 It would seem that the problem is not regulatory- It's the enforcement of the rules already in place! (A selective "Temporary Ban" on short selling that is already illegal?) But can the SEC be trusted? I was liigally sued by my former employer...a substantial international Tech/TelComm Svs Holdings company...with a pattern of Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free Cards. The SEC seemed to protect this corporate criminal and was unwilling to detail how I received 2 very different responses to the very same FOIA request on the same day. After asking them how this happened a month later I received a completely different response w/o any explanation. Last week the company execs walked away unscathed from a back-dated options investigation that concluded 3,021 out of 4,886 had incorrect dates. The shareholders paid about $20M for the investigation and took over a $60M charge. Despite Sarbanes-Oxley.... SOX is a joke keeping only honest people honest offering only the illusion of regulatory oversight. Is that what we'll get? SOX II? More Foxes guarding the henhouse??? - WHISTLEBLOWERS SAVE YOUR BREATH...nobody will help you. It would seem that the problem is not regulatory- It’s the enforcement of the rules already in place! (A selective “Temporary Ban” on short selling that is already illegal?) But can the SEC be trusted? I was liigally sued by my former employer…a substantial international Tech/TelComm Svs Holdings company…with a pattern of Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free Cards. The SEC seemed to protect this corporate criminal and was unwilling to detail how I received 2 very different responses to the very same FOIA request on the same day. After asking them how this happened a month later I received a completely different response w/o any explanation. Last week the company execs walked away unscathed from a back-dated options investigation that concluded 3,021 out of 4,886 had incorrect dates. The shareholders paid about $20M for the investigation and took over a $60M charge. Despite Sarbanes-Oxley…. SOX is a joke keeping only honest people honest offering only the illusion of regulatory oversight. Is that what we’ll get? SOX II? More Foxes guarding the henhouse??? - WHISTLEBLOWERS SAVE YOUR BREATH…nobody will help you.

]]> By: Cathy http://www.thomaspalley.com/?p=112#comment-124483 Cathy Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:43:45 +0000 http://www.thomaspalley.com/?p=112#comment-124483 The Milton Friedman style is disaster captalism. Make a lot of money, destroy then rebuild. To deregulate an industry that does nothing to regulate itself is sheer folly. Why not put the housing and the mortgage industry under strict government control. The government owns all housing which it sells to qualified buyers at low prices. Mortgage rates are low enough to keep people from defaulting and they pay off within a twenty-five year maximum. And the rates don't change from city to city or state to state. Then people would not fear transfers or just the idea of moving for a better job. Oh yea, government isn't supposed to control anything, forgot for a moment. The Milton Friedman style is disaster captalism. Make a lot of money,
destroy then rebuild. To deregulate an industry that does nothing to
regulate itself is sheer folly.
Why not put the housing and the mortgage industry under strict
government control. The government owns all housing which it sells
to qualified buyers at low prices. Mortgage rates are low enough to
keep people from defaulting and they pay off within a twenty-five
year maximum. And the rates don’t change from city to city or state
to state. Then people would not fear transfers or just the idea of
moving for a better job. Oh yea, government isn’t supposed to control
anything, forgot for a moment.

]]> By: Howard Richman http://www.thomaspalley.com/?p=112#comment-124400 Howard Richman Mon, 11 Aug 2008 04:42:20 +0000 http://www.thomaspalley.com/?p=112#comment-124400 Thomas, When you wrote that the housing bubble was caused by the Federal Reserve and loose regulation, you left out President Clinton's elimination 1997 tax changes for homeowners. In fact we cite you pointing out that the housing bubble started at about the same time in our commentary today in today's Enter Stage Right: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0808/0808ecgrowth.htm And check out our graph which shows that corporate stock buybacks started increasing the same year that Bush lowered the capital gains tax rate from 20% to 15%. These capital gains tax cuts are killing our economy! I hope you agree that we have an original analysis of where the Flat Tax advocates are wrong on Capital Gains taxes. We wrote: "Flat Tax advocates are a curious combination of economic insight and economic blindness. They are insightful when they claim that the capital gains tax normally double-taxes income, but are blind to the fact that only taxation of reinvested capital does so. They correctly understand that accrued capital gains represent increased future income, but they are blind to the fact that the future income is being consumed if the capital and its gain are consumed. Instead of recommending, as we do, that capital gains be taxed at the same rate as other income when capital is consumed but go untaxed when the capital is reinvested, they recommend that capital gains be untaxed in every situation, a recommendation that encourages the consumption of capital." And you also might like our point that President Truman got it right in 1951 when we wrote: "But it is also possible to incrementally improve the current income tax system. In 1951, President Truman improved the income tax for homeowners by giving them a tax deferment when they bought one home with the proceeds from selling another. Truman's idea could easily be applied to income producing assets (e.g., stocks, bonds, and rental properties)." Howard http://tradeandtaxes.blogspot.com Thomas,

When you wrote that the housing bubble was caused by the Federal Reserve and loose regulation, you left out President Clinton’s elimination 1997 tax changes for homeowners. In fact we cite you pointing out that the housing bubble started at about the same time in our commentary today in today’s Enter Stage Right: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0808/0808ecgrowth.htm

And check out our graph which shows that corporate stock buybacks started increasing the same year that Bush lowered the capital gains tax rate from 20% to 15%. These capital gains tax cuts are killing our economy!

I hope you agree that we have an original analysis of where the Flat Tax advocates are wrong on Capital Gains taxes. We wrote:

“Flat Tax advocates are a curious combination of economic insight and economic blindness. They are insightful when they claim that the capital gains tax normally double-taxes income, but are blind to the fact that only taxation of reinvested capital does so. They correctly understand that accrued capital gains represent increased future income, but they are blind to the fact that the future income is being consumed if the capital and its gain are consumed. Instead of recommending, as we do, that capital gains be taxed at the same rate as other income when capital is consumed but go untaxed when the capital is reinvested, they recommend that capital gains be untaxed in every situation, a recommendation that encourages the consumption of capital.”

And you also might like our point that President Truman got it right in 1951 when we wrote:

“But it is also possible to incrementally improve the current income tax system. In 1951, President Truman improved the income tax for homeowners by giving them a tax deferment when they bought one home with the proceeds from selling another. Truman’s idea could easily be applied to income producing assets (e.g., stocks, bonds, and rental properties).”

Howard
http://tradeandtaxes.blogspot.com

]]> By: Tom Lindmark http://www.thomaspalley.com/?p=112#comment-123941 Tom Lindmark Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:20:56 +0000 http://www.thomaspalley.com/?p=112#comment-123941 Good article. I would quibble with the assertion that Fannie and Freddie lowered the cost of a mortgage by any appreciable amount. The evidence seems to indicate that the shareholders and management captured the benefit. Good article. I would quibble with the assertion that Fannie and Freddie lowered the cost of a mortgage by any appreciable amount. The evidence seems to indicate that the shareholders and management captured the benefit.

]]>