Obama The Supply Sider. Obama, No Socialist.

[Procrustes Stretched]

David Stockman, the Supply Side OMB Guru under Reagan, has commented on Obama's turn to Suppl y Side Economics for a solutuon to the paraistic banks and the current fiscal problems.

WANT LESS? TAX MORE:

Make no mistake. The banking system has become an agent of destruction for the gross domestic product and of impoverishment for the middle class. To be sure, it was lured into these unsavory missions by a truly insane monetary policy under which, most recently, the Federal Reserve purchased $1.5 trillion of longer-dated Treasury bonds and housing agency securities in less than a year. It was an unprecedented exercise in market-rigging with printing-press money, and it gave a sharp boost to the price of bonds and other securities held by banks, permitting them to book huge revenues from trading and bookkeeping gains.

 

[California Girl]

Link?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Pardon...I am texting mobile.

Dante On The Move!!! -gawd, I love myself.
Taxing Wall Street Down to Size​

By DAVID STOCKMAN

Published: January 20, 2010

WHILE supply-side catechism insists that lower taxes are a growth tonic, the theory also argues that if you want less of something, tax it more.

The economy desperately needs less of our bloated, unproductive and increasingly parasitic banking system. In this respect, the White House appears to have gone over to the supply side with its proposed tax on big banks, as it scores populist points against the banksters, too.

Not surprisingly, the bankers are already whining, even though the tax would amount to a financial pinprick - a levy of only 0.15 percent on the debts (other than deposits) of the big financial conglomerates.

Their objections are evidence that the administration is on the right track.[/quote]

David Stockman, the Supply Side OMB Guru under Reagan, has commented on Obama's turn to Supply Side Economics for a solutuon to the paraistic banks and the current fiscal problems.

WANT LESS? TAX MORE:

Make no mistake. The banking system has become an agent of destruction for the gross domestic product and of impoverishment for the middle class. To be sure, it was lured into these unsavory missions by a truly insane monetary policy under which, most recently, the Federal Reserve purchased $1.5 trillion of longer-dated Treasury bonds and housing agency securities in less than a year. It was an unprecedented exercise in market-rigging with printing-press money, and it gave a sharp boost to the price of bonds and other securities held by banks, permitting them to book huge revenues from trading and bookkeeping gains.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Link?

New York Times. sorry, I'm on a moble devise. Links are different.

One thing the ConNitwiit Illterati here at USMB and elsewhere fall prey to, I'd stuck on stupid.

The mantra of ''no taxes'' gets repeated so often, what gets lost in the nauseating chatter of the mob, is the fact that supply side economics can be used as more than a mere slogan against taxes.

Supply side economics is an economic theory that claims there is a .... how and when and why to use taxes to achieve a desired result.

Meanwhile, by fixing short-term interest rates at near zero, the Fed planted its heavy boot squarely in the face of depositors, as it shrank the banks' cost of production - their interest expense on depositor funds - to the vanishing point.
The resulting ultrasteep yield curve for banks is heralded, by a certain breed of Wall Street tout, as a financial miracle cure. Soon, it is claimed, a prodigious upwelling of profitability will repair bank balance sheets and bury toxic waste from the last bubble's collapse. But will it?

Page 1 of 4
1.NEXT PAGE

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Link?

NYT: Is Stockman right about the next financial bubble? What about the redistribution of wealth...in reverse of socialist policies? How does this square with Right Wing Hooeyism that Obama is supposed to be a socialist?

n supplying the banks with free deposit money (effectively, zero-interest loans), the savers of America are taking a $250 billion annual haircut in lost interest income. And the banks, after reaping this ill-deserved windfall, are pleased to pronounce themselves solvent, ignoring the bad loans still on their books. This kind of Robin Hood redistribution in reverse is not sustainable. It requires permanently flooding world markets with cheap dollars - a recipe for the next bubble and financial crisis.

Moreover, rescuing the banks yet again, this time with a steeply sloped yield curve (that is, cheap short-term money and more expensive long-term rates), is not even a proper monetary policy action. t is a vast and capricious reallocation of national income, which would be hooted down in the halls of Congress, were it properly brought to a vote.