The New York Post had an article the other day regarding the continuous stream of New Yorkers leaving the state. An analysis found that “in 2014, 126,000 tax filers moved out of New York,” more than any other state in the nation. Also significantly, “The Empire State also lost the most “high earners,” who reported making more than $200,000 a year.”
This particular phenomenon has been going on for years, as I have written about in previous articles. But it seems like some people are groups want to downplay the exodus. The executive director of the Fiscal Policy Institute, Ron Deutsch, was sure to point out “that those who earn at least $1 million per year are more likely to stay put.”
It was a curious observation from the The Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI), which purports to be “an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit research and education organization committed to improving public policies and private practices to better the economic and social conditions of all New Yorkers.”
Now, let’s stop for a minute. Of course those who earn more than one million a year would be more likely to stay put. They are the ones who can afford to be abused by the government and put up with it because they don’t want to give up their luxuries — the theater, the restaurants, all that New York has to offer. They can afford to stay. That $200,000 threshold? It’s really New York’s middle class, the backbone of the city. Because of the extremely high cost of living, they can’t afford to stay and put up with abuse.
If Texas ever did to their oilmen what New York does to its taxpayers, they’d be run out on a rail.
A couple of days ago, I wrote about my theory that as long as the interest rates stay low, the stock market will remain high — because no one has any other place for investment. The rates have stay historically low for nearly a decade now, so investors have seen little-to-no return in many usual places.
Just today, we hear the the Fed has rejected yet another rate hike, and furthermore, has “downgraded its forecast for economic growth in 2016 for the third time this year. It now projects growth this year to be 1.8%. In June it forecast growth of 2%.
As the Fed has hesitated to raise rates, there is a growing debate about its credibility. Many economists and investors say the Fed’s hesitancy to raise rates — and conflicting messages from its top leaders — has eroded public confidence in the central bank.”
It is unlikely that a rate hike will happen on November 1-2, so close to the election. If a rate hike is to happen, it would be more likely to be in mid-December. It will be interesting to see how both the markets, and the Fed, react to the outcome of the November elections.
Did you even notice that whenever the economy issues bad results (a weak jobs report, etc.), the stock market goes UP? Logic would seemingly have it be the opposite. If the economy was weak, one would assume the stock market would respond negatively. But that’s not really the case.
For years, I couldn’t understand it — how stupid could the market be? Why would the market do well? And why is it so important for interest rates to stay low? I think I have figured it out. Low rates are not good for the economy, but they ARE good for the stock market. See, the stock market and economy are not necessarily affected the same way. When rates stay low, investors have to put their money in the stock market because there is no alternative.
Think about it — with non-existent interest rates, you don’t get an return on investment (ROI) anywhere. People have no alternative avenues for investing their money except to put it in the stock market. So even though this economy is performing very sluggishly, the Feds can point to the strong market as evidence that their policies are succeeding, because most people consider the economy and stock market to be fairly synonymous with each other — but they are not.
The economy is still underperforming because of so many terrible policies: over-regulation, increased business fines, higher taxes, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank — these are all major reasons why businesses are struggling, but that doesn’t necessarily affect the stock market; that’s why the stock market doesn’t react the same way when business data is terrible.
Keeping interest rates low is not helping the economy at all — but it does help the stock market, which mask the inherent policy problems. Virtually every part of Hillary’s economic plans are terrible, for the economy, jobs, etc. The economy will never really recover until the systemic problems are fixed.
We’ve all seen the video which raises new questions about the health status of Hillary Clinton. I’ve largely left these questions alone because I try to avoid reckless speculation. However, the video does raise some new questions:
The Hillary press team was largely silent for 90 minutes after the video. Later, it emerged that Hillary was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday. “But just after 5 p.m., a campaign official said Mrs. Clinton’s physician, Dr. Lisa R. Bardack, had examined the candidate at her home in Chappaqua, and Dr. Bardack said in a statement that Mrs. Clinton was “rehydrated and recovering nicely.”
“Secretary Clinton has been experiencing a cough related to allergies,” Dr. Bardack’s statement said, adding that on Friday morning, after a prolonged cough, Mrs. Clinton was given a diagnosis of pneumonia. “She was put on antibiotics, and advised to rest and modify her schedule,” Dr. Bardack added. “At this morning’s event, she became overheated and dehydrated.”
Now, if she was indeed diagnosed with pnuemonia, why was she subsequently at a fundraiser with Barbra Streisand later that same evening? This is the same incident that Hillary used the now famous term “basket of deplorables” in reference to Trump supporters.
According to reports on the event, “tickets for the gala start at $1,200, with limited availability, and go as high as $250,000. Donors who raise six figures get a meet-and-greet reception with Clinton.”
Does this mean that Clinton engaged in a private meet-and-greet while sick with pneumonia, and didn’t disclose her illness? Was she contagious then? How does one get told to “rest and modify her schedule” and then proceed to a high dollar fundraiser.
“Hillary Clinton will meet with a bipartisan group of former national security officials on Friday, a group that includes ousted former CIA Director David Petraeus and former George W. Bush Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff.”
According to a tweet by MSNBC captured by The Gateway Pundit that Friday, at 5:13pm in New York, MSNBC urged its followers to “Watch Live: Tune in to @MSNBC to watch Hillary Clinton speak after attending a major national security meeting.”
Watch Live: Tune in to @MSNBC to watch Hillary Clinton speak after attending a major national security meeting. pic.twitter.com/RzX9YRiWs4
This briefing was post-meeting, and pre-fundraiser. Did she notify any of the distinguished guests at the meeting that she was sick with pneumonia? The press at the briefing? Anyone she may have come in contact with? If not, why not?
She’s either lying about actually having pneumonia or she’s did not disclose a serious, and potentially contagious illness with the hundreds of people with whom she came in contact on Friday: national security folks, press, donors, supporters. Which one is more deplorable?
Data compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that government employees in the United States outnumber manufacturing employees by 9,932,000, according to data released today. CNS news has the highlights:
Federal, state and local government employed 22,213,000 people in August, while the manufacturing sector employed 12,281,000.
The BLS has published seasonally-adjusted month-by-month employment data for both government and manufacturing going back to 1939. For half a century—from January 1939 through July 1989—manufacturing employment always exceeded government employment in the United States, according to these numbers.
Then, in August 1989, the seasonally-adjusted employment numbers for government exceeded the employment numbers for manufacturing for the first time. That month, manufacturing employed 17,964,000 and government employed 17,989,000.
Manufacturing employment in the United States had peaked a decade before that in June 1979 at 19,553,000
From August 2015 to August 2016 seasonally-adjusted manufacturing employment declined by 37,000–dropping from 12,318,000 last August to 12,281,000 this August.
The 22,213,000 government employees in August, according to the BLS, included 2,790,000 federal employees, 5,120,000 state government employees, and 14,303,000 local government employees.
What happens when the government uses its power to give money from one group of people to another group of people? It’s happening. It’s not supposed to happen. See, in our Constitution, the government has the right do things — limited things — in order to safeguard the rights of the people. Our Constitution relates to individual rights; it’s not a document on democracy. Unfortunately, these lines are becoming more blurred all the time.
Maybe democracy as a system of government by itself cannot work; in other words, if a democracy allows two foxes and a chicken to vote on what to have for dinner, it reveals a fatal flaw — because it allows an unfortunate outcome. Of course the two foxes are going to vote on having the chicken for dinner!
At the same time, democracy is the only best form of government if the majority protects the rights of the minority, whether it’s racial, economic, or whatever — those rights must be protected. But this applies to all. In the same way, a democracy voting to allow the lower 51% to usurp the property of the upper 49% is just as intolerable as usurping rights based on gender, religion, or race.
You can elect a Chavez or a Castro in a duly elected election, but you can’t allow him to just use the fact that he got a majority of the people’s as an excuse to abuse a minority of the people. People just can’t vote to take all the money for themselves.
You could have a referendum on whether the richest people (making over $200,000/year) should give their money to those making under $200,000. You could vote that… but not really because people also have the right to their own property. What then? How do you resolve this kind of conflict?
There is no mandatory, compulsory requirement to vote. If our Founding Fathers want to put voting in the Constitution they could have, but they didn’t. On the other hand, our Constitution specifically does not allow our government to take money from somebody and give it to someone else. Our Constitution merely gives the Federal government enumerated powers, and it in no way allows us to take money from some people and give it to someone else that the government has deemed more worthy.
When Barack Obama stated for the first time that he would take money from one group and give it to another — when he announced he was going after millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share — it was the first time he verbally stated something unconstitutional.
In contrast, the states are allowed to make laws to do that — they don’t have Constitutions with enumerated powers as in the case of the federal Constitution.. States can legally, actually vote that more wealthy people must give money to less wealthy people. If and when that happens, people have the right to move within the United States to a different state with different laws — but yet still remain a US citizen. You can see the effect of this mentality even now, as high tax states have seen a population exodus to states that are less punitive.
So, what do when it is happening at the federal level? Vote for a new president? Perhaps that will change it. But how do we curb the effects of people receiving more and more wealth transfers and benefits? The unintended consequence of such policy is that the recipients will learn to always vote for the person that will create or continue policy that will benefit the voter in a tangible, direct, and economic way. As a result, the elections become less fair and based on being an informed citizen, and more on “How can I benefit? What’s in it for me?”
In this way, it logically follows that the argument could be made that you shouldn’t be able to vote if you have a conflict of interest. The suggestion of curtailing voting rights from those who are recipients of such egregious and unconstitutional policy is indeed drastic. But perhaps it should be a consideration for those who are too short-sided to see the long-term problems for this country — because the idea that our federal government can economically abuse a segment of the population for monetary gain is also radical.
Earlier in the month, Steven Russolillo correctly reported on weak business investment as a key reason for poor economic growth. However, it was incredibly frustrating that as an economic writer, Russolillo, could actually suggest this was a surprising phenomenon. It’s not surprising. In fact, it’s downright predictable. The Obama Administration has been steadily undermining businesses for years and this is the fallout of their policies.
Even though Russolillo should have known this, he could have also easily interviewed any number of business owners for his article; if he did, he would have found a multitude of reasons for weak business investment, including 1) anti-business attitudes; 2) threats of higher taxes; 3) actual higher taxes; and 4) increased government regulations. Instead, Russolillo made the rookie mistake of only talking to fellow economists, the ones who look at data and trends instead of actually being in the trenches of everyday business activity.
Russolillo acts as if low rates are the only key to business spending; they’re not. Businesses won’t spend if they continue to feel the threat of the government’s heavy-hand. Better to keep the company stabilized than attempt to stretch and expand and invest; you have no idea what new regulation or new tax will continue to wreak havoc on your long-term business plans and cash flow — they way this administration has done for the last seven years.
Businesses are tired of being treated as an both a source of extra government revenue and a playground for intrusive, burdensome policies that hurt, rather than help, our economy. It’s a no-brainer to anyone who is anyone in the business world why businesses are hesitant to invest; it’s a shame that more economists don’t know how to engage in critical thinking and basic journalism.
