President Obama inherited the practical effects (the benefits derived from detriments) of supply-side, economic philosophy.
Although we knew the aggregate effect of supply-side philosophy is recession, we did it anyway because, philosophically, letting the American people keep all the income they earn is, like Adam Smith said, the right thing to do--it maximizes the practical utility of self-interest to build the wealth of the nation. Being sure, then, that the most able to pay taxes pay the least causes maximum employment at the lowest possible prices. It maximizes tax revenues while reducing the need for government spending by adding supply.
Supply-side philosophy, which is currently being offered to cure our economic woes after having caused it, formulates this hypothesis: If we do not adhere to supply-side, economic philosophy we will have low employment and a rising cost of living. Since the Obama administration does not adhere to conservative philosophy, we therefore have both unemployment and rising costs.
Apparently, Moody's doesn't believe in supply-side philosophy either.
Adding supply is a philosophy of risk that is not peculiar to the Reagan administration which, by the way, was plagued with high inflation, unemployment, and record budget deficits. The recessionary trend of the 80's did not abate until his successor, President Bush, raised taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit and record-high interest rates.
Adding supply is a philosophy that defines the legitimate distribution of reward going back to the founding of our nation. It is a philosophy that justifies the expected detriment (the austerity needed to create the wealth of the nation) being borne by "the little people" to produce the benefit--making rich people rich (causing a surplus, or adding supply). This is a very simple philosophy: you cannot be the beneficiary of the detriment if you have to share the detriment--that would be lower class.
You cannot be king (the tax collector) if you have to pay the tax; and you cannot profit from the interest on the debt if you have to pay it.
Remember, your income (your class) is wages, salaries, capital gains, dividends and interest divided by prices, and that includes taxes (the cost of government). If you are benefiting from rising prices (inflation) and interest on the debt (unemployment) at the lowest effective tax rate, you are decidedly, by every measure, upper class with every incentive to increase the cost of government (debt and the taxes to pay the interest on the debt) while reducing the benefit (entitlements).
The realpolitique of power (who bears the cost and who gains the benefit--the risk to reward) depends on a credible, philosophical foundation.
Power cannot be maintained if it is not believed to be legitimate.
Showing posts with label supply-side economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supply-side economics. Show all posts
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Healthcare: Disinflation or Deflation?
First of all, on the political side, Democrats argue that people don't know what is in the healthcare bill, and when they find out, it will have their consent (an apt description of tyranny in the republican form of governance).
On the economic side, the beauty of the healthcare bill assumes people will forget what is wrong with buying insurance in the free marketplace. Maybe we will forget buying requires adequate income, and if costs are going up (inflation) and your income is going down (deflation), your income, by definition, is verifiably inadequate. The problem, then, rather than not having adequate income, is not having insurance, and the solution is to provide it without adequate income (without self-determination).
There are nothing but speculative promises from Democrats and Republicans (the party) to increase income and reduces costs. The Bush tax cuts, for example, will not be voted until after the mid-terms, which will significantly determine the income side and the ability to pay for healthcare costs, for example.
Like Warren Buffet was recently quoted as saying, "if you need to pay for something, you have to go where the money is." So Republicans "pledge" to extend all the tax cuts of the Bush era (of the Great Recession) to provide the income (the demand) the economy has been deprived.
The vast majority of Americans have to wonder how the more-immediate conservative element of "the party" can successfully sell an obviously failed economic policy. The detriment is so extensive, and still growing, Republicans cannot reasonably expect the "Pledge" to be a credible expression of a populist political program. There must be some other expected benefit, or there is really nothing to lose by clinging to a failed policy platform if the popular vote is fully expected to cycle back to it, and choose the detriment.
It is absurd, of course, but voters are binomially determined to the detriment. All voters immediately have is a negative vote that applies a false consent to a risk (the Great Recession) that is all-too-well known. Just being aware of the probable detriment does not infer consent if the means are fixed to prevent it. Detecting the detriments of tyranny does not make it any less tyrannical.
To reduce the political dissonance (the extreme absurdity), Republicans will use the new healthcare legislation as a distraction. A controversial healthcare reform bill made to be so large and complicated that it will require a master's degree to administer makes more sense in a binomial, electoral context.
The impending fight over healthcare reform will be the distraction needed to continue applying the deflationary risk, which supports the double-dip hypothesis.
Healthcare reform itself provides plenty of deflationary support despite its being touted as a disinflationary, price-reduction program. (Remember that disinflation is price reduction that increases income and demand, while deflation reduces income and demand.) Combined with the binomial tendency to support the macro-deflationary risk, demand will be too reduced to support the equity valuations now being anticipated to rally with or without QE-2.
While support will be provided for healthcare-sector incomes to supply the demand, without reducing the barriers to entry, the supply will not be added. The disinflationary effect is dependant on the ability to enter the marketplace, but according to popular wisdom there is more efficiency in consolidation, which will reduce the price.
Since barriers to entry and rising prices are attributes of consolidation (along with unemployment and demand reduction), the detriment, instead of being reduced, is reorganized and re-extended. Deconsolidation is required to produce a disinflationary effect, reducing prices without reducing demand. The price support, then, provided healthcare-sector incomes to add supply will, instead, have a deflationary effect, reducing discretionary income, supporting the recessionary trend.
There is not much disinflationary benefit to passing tax incentives for creating small businesses, for example, that will be crushed under the weight of consolidated entities.
Without a highly deliberate deconsolidation of the healthcare market, the distribution is decidedly trickle down. It is a verifiable means of supporting the general detriment of inflation-deflation risk modeling that has most recently resulted in the Great Recession.
Since repealing the healthcare bill will be a generally disruptive action, it will be important not to throw out the good with the bad. Key to a commonwealth representation, however, are measures added to deconsolidate the marketplace, yielding a reform that provides a disinflationary benefit by denying a deflationary accumulation of income that will not add supply.
When demand exceeds supply--inflation; when the inflated income is accumulated and not reinvested in adding supply--deflation; but when supply is added with a distribution from the accumulation rather than borrowed in a crisis-recovery mode--disinflation occurs. Supply is added from the accumulated capital in a sustainable, non-crisis proportion; not by reducing demand, like we are doing now, in a deflationary, crisis-of-overproduction (gamma risk) proportion, condemning the commonwealth to an unnecessary and foolish process of deliberate deprivation.
On the economic side, the beauty of the healthcare bill assumes people will forget what is wrong with buying insurance in the free marketplace. Maybe we will forget buying requires adequate income, and if costs are going up (inflation) and your income is going down (deflation), your income, by definition, is verifiably inadequate. The problem, then, rather than not having adequate income, is not having insurance, and the solution is to provide it without adequate income (without self-determination).
There are nothing but speculative promises from Democrats and Republicans (the party) to increase income and reduces costs. The Bush tax cuts, for example, will not be voted until after the mid-terms, which will significantly determine the income side and the ability to pay for healthcare costs, for example.
Like Warren Buffet was recently quoted as saying, "if you need to pay for something, you have to go where the money is." So Republicans "pledge" to extend all the tax cuts of the Bush era (of the Great Recession) to provide the income (the demand) the economy has been deprived.
The vast majority of Americans have to wonder how the more-immediate conservative element of "the party" can successfully sell an obviously failed economic policy. The detriment is so extensive, and still growing, Republicans cannot reasonably expect the "Pledge" to be a credible expression of a populist political program. There must be some other expected benefit, or there is really nothing to lose by clinging to a failed policy platform if the popular vote is fully expected to cycle back to it, and choose the detriment.
It is absurd, of course, but voters are binomially determined to the detriment. All voters immediately have is a negative vote that applies a false consent to a risk (the Great Recession) that is all-too-well known. Just being aware of the probable detriment does not infer consent if the means are fixed to prevent it. Detecting the detriments of tyranny does not make it any less tyrannical.
To reduce the political dissonance (the extreme absurdity), Republicans will use the new healthcare legislation as a distraction. A controversial healthcare reform bill made to be so large and complicated that it will require a master's degree to administer makes more sense in a binomial, electoral context.
The impending fight over healthcare reform will be the distraction needed to continue applying the deflationary risk, which supports the double-dip hypothesis.
Healthcare reform itself provides plenty of deflationary support despite its being touted as a disinflationary, price-reduction program. (Remember that disinflation is price reduction that increases income and demand, while deflation reduces income and demand.) Combined with the binomial tendency to support the macro-deflationary risk, demand will be too reduced to support the equity valuations now being anticipated to rally with or without QE-2.
While support will be provided for healthcare-sector incomes to supply the demand, without reducing the barriers to entry, the supply will not be added. The disinflationary effect is dependant on the ability to enter the marketplace, but according to popular wisdom there is more efficiency in consolidation, which will reduce the price.
Since barriers to entry and rising prices are attributes of consolidation (along with unemployment and demand reduction), the detriment, instead of being reduced, is reorganized and re-extended. Deconsolidation is required to produce a disinflationary effect, reducing prices without reducing demand. The price support, then, provided healthcare-sector incomes to add supply will, instead, have a deflationary effect, reducing discretionary income, supporting the recessionary trend.
There is not much disinflationary benefit to passing tax incentives for creating small businesses, for example, that will be crushed under the weight of consolidated entities.
Without a highly deliberate deconsolidation of the healthcare market, the distribution is decidedly trickle down. It is a verifiable means of supporting the general detriment of inflation-deflation risk modeling that has most recently resulted in the Great Recession.
Since repealing the healthcare bill will be a generally disruptive action, it will be important not to throw out the good with the bad. Key to a commonwealth representation, however, are measures added to deconsolidate the marketplace, yielding a reform that provides a disinflationary benefit by denying a deflationary accumulation of income that will not add supply.
When demand exceeds supply--inflation; when the inflated income is accumulated and not reinvested in adding supply--deflation; but when supply is added with a distribution from the accumulation rather than borrowed in a crisis-recovery mode--disinflation occurs. Supply is added from the accumulated capital in a sustainable, non-crisis proportion; not by reducing demand, like we are doing now, in a deflationary, crisis-of-overproduction (gamma risk) proportion, condemning the commonwealth to an unnecessary and foolish process of deliberate deprivation.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Where's the Supply?
December 27. 2008
If you recall, the promise of the trickle-down economics that has brought our economy to its knees was to add supply (so called, supply-side economics).
Instead of adding supply, the capital amassed was arbitraged to finance a leverage that exceeded 100/1 in some cases, and a false fundamental shortage was organized and executed to both inflate prices and deflate the economy, effectively, deliberately, short selling the entire economy.
The aggregate effect is to deliberately engineer payment of the leverage (the macro economic rent) at the highest possible rate through a complex routine of seemingly inchoate political-economic events. While it all looks disconnected, it all acts to pay maximum leverage at the lowest possible cost until the tax liability increases the cost.
Back when Bush was selected chief executive he declared, along with a Republican congress, that a regressive tax code would yield a supply-side benefit. It instead yielded a demand-side management, command, of the economy--a maldistribution of income that gives the power to command markets into a supply-side deficiency, causing stagflation, deflation and unemployment, as I said it would at the time.
Inflation has been controlled--commanded--by deflationary means (by reducing demand), not disinflationary means (by increasing supply).
A disinflationary (supply-side) means not only adds supply of goods and services but the number of firms available to produce it so that there can be full employment with low inflation due to the adequate supply. It also relieves dependance on just a few firms organized to be "too big to fail" which, as we have seen very well, does not produce an economics that resembles a free-market economy, but a result that can only be described as command economy--an elitist, not a pluralist, model of power and political economy.
Instead of The People deciding who is best to survive through pluralistic means of a free market, the worst survive the crisis they create, by virtue of their bigness, and consolidate even more. The worst survive and accumulate even more power by elite decisional process, deciding with techno-bureaucratic expertise who should survive to prevent the crisis they cause, and it will philosophically suffice to call this the inevitable "will to power" of our natural elite.
Pure and simple, the supply-side argument of the neo-conservative coalition was a lie. It has been very clearly disconfirmed by the evidence in the very biggest way once again!
Command control of the economy is the fully organized intent of the neo-conservative coalition now operating with political-economic complexity in the hope that We The People will not condemn their ideology to the dustbin of failed economic policies and programs empirically tested to a fare-thee-well.
The rhetoric now being proferred by neo-conservatives is the fear We The People should have of the alternative "ism" with its alternative set of beliefs and organized means of validation over verification--a self-similarity of organized means to ends that re-iterates the elitist model of power and political economy. Where a pluralistic process of verifiable accountability and legitimacy is needed, an elitist process will be iterated as a progressive, historical extension, and validation, of itself.
The method of neo-conservatives to determine "truth" is mostly an ideology of beliefs that are based on lies. They proclaim that they organize a free-market economy, for example, that they have done well to entirely discredit. The People should now fear the alternative ideology, effectively defining a re-iteration of the model as the alternative.
The non-iterative alternative is not ideological.
The People voted for freedom and democracy that comes with organizing for a real and verifiable free-market economy that not only provides plenty, supply, but that supply affords real and immediate, direct accountability that is not a function of ideology but of a pragmatic empiricism in which the truth has no ideological dependance and provides us with what we can all legitimately believe in despite all our differences.
If the captains of industry cannot, will not, subordinate to the rigors of a free and unconsolidated marketplace, out of greed, out of avarice, squandering what they have and coveting what they have not, organizing to deprive under the guise to provide, then We are not dependant on them as long as We ensure an organized free-market economics in priority. Someone else is always waiting to replace them and subordinate their greed, or the will to power, to the complete satisfaction of the consumer--the free marketplace that is The Will of the People and the legitimate profit that is its measure.
When the profit is not sufficiently reinvested to add supply but to deprive it on the demand side (the engrossment of capital, or the illiquidity we have now), the profit is then less a measure of preference than the power to determine the choice. The profit then becomes a measure of power and not of preference.
To correct for the distorted measure of the profit--the source and meaning of power it is supposed to empirically measure, instead of The People being subordinated to conservative ideology and the elite model with a bail out, the captains of organized micro means are subordinated to the clear and decisive macro means of a verifiable legitimacy that a free and unconsolidated marketplace provides and the "will to power" cannot avoid.
The "will to power" organizes to avoid being denied access to the marketplace rather than denying it. The only declarative knowledge is verification of a pluralistic process when the economy is freely participated independent of any "ism" declared to be absolute truth or knowledge. Adding supply is not dependant on belief, but maximum participation that leads to maximum innovation and productive efficiency dictated by the profitable demands of a free and unconsolidated marketplace.
If you recall, the promise of the trickle-down economics that has brought our economy to its knees was to add supply (so called, supply-side economics).
Instead of adding supply, the capital amassed was arbitraged to finance a leverage that exceeded 100/1 in some cases, and a false fundamental shortage was organized and executed to both inflate prices and deflate the economy, effectively, deliberately, short selling the entire economy.
The aggregate effect is to deliberately engineer payment of the leverage (the macro economic rent) at the highest possible rate through a complex routine of seemingly inchoate political-economic events. While it all looks disconnected, it all acts to pay maximum leverage at the lowest possible cost until the tax liability increases the cost.
Back when Bush was selected chief executive he declared, along with a Republican congress, that a regressive tax code would yield a supply-side benefit. It instead yielded a demand-side management, command, of the economy--a maldistribution of income that gives the power to command markets into a supply-side deficiency, causing stagflation, deflation and unemployment, as I said it would at the time.
Inflation has been controlled--commanded--by deflationary means (by reducing demand), not disinflationary means (by increasing supply).
A disinflationary (supply-side) means not only adds supply of goods and services but the number of firms available to produce it so that there can be full employment with low inflation due to the adequate supply. It also relieves dependance on just a few firms organized to be "too big to fail" which, as we have seen very well, does not produce an economics that resembles a free-market economy, but a result that can only be described as command economy--an elitist, not a pluralist, model of power and political economy.
Instead of The People deciding who is best to survive through pluralistic means of a free market, the worst survive the crisis they create, by virtue of their bigness, and consolidate even more. The worst survive and accumulate even more power by elite decisional process, deciding with techno-bureaucratic expertise who should survive to prevent the crisis they cause, and it will philosophically suffice to call this the inevitable "will to power" of our natural elite.
Pure and simple, the supply-side argument of the neo-conservative coalition was a lie. It has been very clearly disconfirmed by the evidence in the very biggest way once again!
Command control of the economy is the fully organized intent of the neo-conservative coalition now operating with political-economic complexity in the hope that We The People will not condemn their ideology to the dustbin of failed economic policies and programs empirically tested to a fare-thee-well.
The rhetoric now being proferred by neo-conservatives is the fear We The People should have of the alternative "ism" with its alternative set of beliefs and organized means of validation over verification--a self-similarity of organized means to ends that re-iterates the elitist model of power and political economy. Where a pluralistic process of verifiable accountability and legitimacy is needed, an elitist process will be iterated as a progressive, historical extension, and validation, of itself.
The method of neo-conservatives to determine "truth" is mostly an ideology of beliefs that are based on lies. They proclaim that they organize a free-market economy, for example, that they have done well to entirely discredit. The People should now fear the alternative ideology, effectively defining a re-iteration of the model as the alternative.
The non-iterative alternative is not ideological.
The People voted for freedom and democracy that comes with organizing for a real and verifiable free-market economy that not only provides plenty, supply, but that supply affords real and immediate, direct accountability that is not a function of ideology but of a pragmatic empiricism in which the truth has no ideological dependance and provides us with what we can all legitimately believe in despite all our differences.
If the captains of industry cannot, will not, subordinate to the rigors of a free and unconsolidated marketplace, out of greed, out of avarice, squandering what they have and coveting what they have not, organizing to deprive under the guise to provide, then We are not dependant on them as long as We ensure an organized free-market economics in priority. Someone else is always waiting to replace them and subordinate their greed, or the will to power, to the complete satisfaction of the consumer--the free marketplace that is The Will of the People and the legitimate profit that is its measure.
When the profit is not sufficiently reinvested to add supply but to deprive it on the demand side (the engrossment of capital, or the illiquidity we have now), the profit is then less a measure of preference than the power to determine the choice. The profit then becomes a measure of power and not of preference.
To correct for the distorted measure of the profit--the source and meaning of power it is supposed to empirically measure, instead of The People being subordinated to conservative ideology and the elite model with a bail out, the captains of organized micro means are subordinated to the clear and decisive macro means of a verifiable legitimacy that a free and unconsolidated marketplace provides and the "will to power" cannot avoid.
The "will to power" organizes to avoid being denied access to the marketplace rather than denying it. The only declarative knowledge is verification of a pluralistic process when the economy is freely participated independent of any "ism" declared to be absolute truth or knowledge. Adding supply is not dependant on belief, but maximum participation that leads to maximum innovation and productive efficiency dictated by the profitable demands of a free and unconsolidated marketplace.
Friday, October 3, 2008
The Free Flow of Capital
Now that big financial corporates have used the capital to leverage maximum profit with minimum growth, consolidating the benefit for Wall Street amd devolving the detriment (the bad debt on a consolidation of capital) to small street with this bailout bill, described as a rescue plan, the argument to be made now by predatory capitalists is to ensure the free flow of capital in a global economy.
Remember that predatroty capitalists operate with consolidated power (capital) and mass money flows (volume), described in a previous article.
The next step in consolidating power, and keeping it, after plundering The People is to continue to operate with the force and legitimacy of public authority that will not act to redistribute the consolidated gains and recapitalize the marketplace to add supply or competition (supporting prices and profits).
The primary argument to be made will be that allowing government to function as an investment bank through a progressive tax code, instead of just a dumping ground for toxic-waste assets, will be an obstruction to free markets, free enterprise, and the free flow of capital.
This is a fraud!
Now is the time for a progressive tax code and a recapitalization of our economy from the bottom up, rewarding small, financial business entities that have proven to be maximally efficient and not a threat to the economy, but an asset, providing liquidity where the big corporates were locked up with bad, overleveraged debt.
Invest the MBA's now unemployed by the inefficiencies of big financial corporates to start-up the more efficient small businesses in their place with the capital consolidated, progressively taxed and recapitalized toward efficiency of free markets that add supply by financing growth--eneterprise--not consolidation of wealth and power.
The efficiency will also be manifest in minimal need for regulatory authority because a plurality of free enterprising entities maximizes supply without any one entity so big to be abusive. Being abusive is inimical to your survival because the economy is not dependant on your business in a free and unconsolidated marketplace that will not tolerate abuse.
If you genuinely want the free flow of capital and remove the ability of corporates to abusively hold our economy hostage to greed and corruption, this is how you do it.
Very best wishes.
Remember that predatroty capitalists operate with consolidated power (capital) and mass money flows (volume), described in a previous article.
The next step in consolidating power, and keeping it, after plundering The People is to continue to operate with the force and legitimacy of public authority that will not act to redistribute the consolidated gains and recapitalize the marketplace to add supply or competition (supporting prices and profits).
The primary argument to be made will be that allowing government to function as an investment bank through a progressive tax code, instead of just a dumping ground for toxic-waste assets, will be an obstruction to free markets, free enterprise, and the free flow of capital.
This is a fraud!
Now is the time for a progressive tax code and a recapitalization of our economy from the bottom up, rewarding small, financial business entities that have proven to be maximally efficient and not a threat to the economy, but an asset, providing liquidity where the big corporates were locked up with bad, overleveraged debt.
Invest the MBA's now unemployed by the inefficiencies of big financial corporates to start-up the more efficient small businesses in their place with the capital consolidated, progressively taxed and recapitalized toward efficiency of free markets that add supply by financing growth--eneterprise--not consolidation of wealth and power.
The efficiency will also be manifest in minimal need for regulatory authority because a plurality of free enterprising entities maximizes supply without any one entity so big to be abusive. Being abusive is inimical to your survival because the economy is not dependant on your business in a free and unconsolidated marketplace that will not tolerate abuse.
If you genuinely want the free flow of capital and remove the ability of corporates to abusively hold our economy hostage to greed and corruption, this is how you do it.
Very best wishes.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Classic Problem (Perennialism)
There is a philosophical concept called perennialism.
Most philosophers describe a perennialism, grappling with current problems and perception of those problems. Many describe it as inevitable historic recurrence.
A determinism soft or hard, the command mode our economy is in now, the tendency to deflation, is the recurrent bugaboo of capitalism and classical economics--the crisis of overproduction.
All the classic and neo-classic indices are present to suggest a classic economic depression, or a perennial problem. It is a problem even for the beneficiaries of the business cycle (consolidation of wealth) because with each oscillation, within a recent memory especially, the legitimacy of the political-economic process is called into question.
Clearly, the global economy is determined to deflate. It is being commanded by a consolidated wealth. Even though there are differences in the form of the crisis, and the remedial measures available to stabilize it, like monetarism, are more efficient, the result will be the same--overproduction due to a reduction of demand, or deflation. It is a demand-side economics that benefits the consolidation of capital, which is the source of the problem. It is a "classical" economic problem that ALL the classical economists have described, explained, and all predict to be perennially persistent.
The antithesis to demand-side economics is obviously, rationally, in order. Supply-side economics is the solution nature is demanding, awaiting our command.
The solution is simple, it is direct: invest in the supply side, not the demand side like the speculative demand driving the global economy into depression now.
The solution is simple and easily applied. We just have to decide to do it.
Join the coalition for Obama and build the peacefully prosperous world of a self-determined pluralism we all "know" we can have.
Very best wishes.
Most philosophers describe a perennialism, grappling with current problems and perception of those problems. Many describe it as inevitable historic recurrence.
A determinism soft or hard, the command mode our economy is in now, the tendency to deflation, is the recurrent bugaboo of capitalism and classical economics--the crisis of overproduction.
All the classic and neo-classic indices are present to suggest a classic economic depression, or a perennial problem. It is a problem even for the beneficiaries of the business cycle (consolidation of wealth) because with each oscillation, within a recent memory especially, the legitimacy of the political-economic process is called into question.
Clearly, the global economy is determined to deflate. It is being commanded by a consolidated wealth. Even though there are differences in the form of the crisis, and the remedial measures available to stabilize it, like monetarism, are more efficient, the result will be the same--overproduction due to a reduction of demand, or deflation. It is a demand-side economics that benefits the consolidation of capital, which is the source of the problem. It is a "classical" economic problem that ALL the classical economists have described, explained, and all predict to be perennially persistent.
The antithesis to demand-side economics is obviously, rationally, in order. Supply-side economics is the solution nature is demanding, awaiting our command.
The solution is simple, it is direct: invest in the supply side, not the demand side like the speculative demand driving the global economy into depression now.
The solution is simple and easily applied. We just have to decide to do it.
Join the coalition for Obama and build the peacefully prosperous world of a self-determined pluralism we all "know" we can have.
Very best wishes.
Blaming Oil Speculation is a Distraction
According to Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the voice of business in government, blaming the price of oil on speculation "is a distraction" to focusing on demand reduction and adding supply.
It just happens to be that the overwhelming volume of a consolidated capital holding over 70% of oil futures contracts for non-delivery (for speculative purposes) is not being invested in adding supply.
The speculative investment is, however, reducing demand by deflating the economy. The official Republican administration policy, including John McCain, is that the trickle-down economics driving the demand reduction is supply-side economics.
That would be false by the most obvious measure of the evidence used to support their hypothesis: that the price of oil is due to a fundamental lack of supply.
You would think neo-conservatives are intelligent enough to come up with something that at least resembles a convincing argument.
Remove the consolidated capital from the speculative demand, reinvest it in adding supply (economic growth), and this "fundamental" problem of not properly organizing to add supply, but to restrict it, goes away.
If you want economic growth, if you want to grow your business, join the coalition for Obama!
Very best wishes.
It just happens to be that the overwhelming volume of a consolidated capital holding over 70% of oil futures contracts for non-delivery (for speculative purposes) is not being invested in adding supply.
The speculative investment is, however, reducing demand by deflating the economy. The official Republican administration policy, including John McCain, is that the trickle-down economics driving the demand reduction is supply-side economics.
That would be false by the most obvious measure of the evidence used to support their hypothesis: that the price of oil is due to a fundamental lack of supply.
You would think neo-conservatives are intelligent enough to come up with something that at least resembles a convincing argument.
Remove the consolidated capital from the speculative demand, reinvest it in adding supply (economic growth), and this "fundamental" problem of not properly organizing to add supply, but to restrict it, goes away.
If you want economic growth, if you want to grow your business, join the coalition for Obama!
Very best wishes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)