This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Bill Gross Takes On Paul Ryan
By now the broad media (where suddenly everyone has become a political expert... math - not so much) has said everything there is to say about Paul Ryan and about 4-5x more than necessary. Now it is time for the pundits. First in line, PIMCO's Bill Gross who just tweeted the following...
GROSS: Do bond markets take heart from Ryan selection? Not me. He talks lower deficits but really believes in lower taxes – exact opposite.
— PIMCO (@PIMCO) August 13, 2012
The flip side to that question is, of course, very simple: why pay any taxes at all?
With US tax revenues at roughly half of total spending, and declining every day, meaning the balance has to be funded by debt issuance, aren't we just splitting hairs here? Just go the whole hog and collect zero taxes. After all based on recent bizarro logic, the resulting global crisis would guarantee demand for "safe haven" US bonds for centuries to come, even as America effectively collects no tax revenue in perpetuity.
Also, what a better way to test trickle down economics and MMT at the same time.
That way everyone will be happy, including Bill, whose bonds in inventory will be monetized by the Fed day after day, as quite soon there will be no-one else left to buy.
»
- 13847 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
"Romney/Paul are our only hope of turning this beast around."
More like just taking a slower train in the same direction
"we can't just keep kicking the can down the road."
Like voting for TARP, Medicare expansion that will make it go bust sooner but now campaigning to reform it, Patriot Act, and just about all government expansion and spending. Yep Ryan did that just as most RINOs do. Ryan is no conservative. That is what the MSM wants you to think so you think there is a choice.
Here is a lesson for you liberals.....cutting tax RATES does not mean tax REVENUES will go down..in fact they might go up...Rates down..Revenues up
I think we should have two tax rates..one for Liberals who think they should pay more...and one for Consertatives who think they should pay less....if you are a registerd Democrat you pay 75% or what ever you seem "FAIR"....and we consertatives will pay our 20% which we think it should be...and everyone pays this rate..more people paying a lower rate means more Tax Revenue...and more people have skin in the game..and more people will care how THEIR money is spent..not wasted...I think in a few year the Republican tax rate will be the winner....
I always thought that Liberals were more interested in what was fair that than in what brought in revenue. I a reverse sort of way, I always wondered why supply siders - including Reagan - boasted that lowering rates would increase revenues. To truly starve the beast, tax rates should be set at 100%.
As for Democrats actually paying more, apparently there's a limit. Will Smith - I'm just guessing he's an Obama fan being a Hollywood celebrity, I don't know for certain - was interviewed recently on French TV. Near the end Smith is told about the proposed tax rates in France. Smith's response, starting around the 1:20 mark, is fascinating. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJFLh7aVd7c&feature=player_embedded
"To truly starve the beast, tax rates should be set at 100%."
To starve the beast has nothing to do with tax rates. That is a problem of government discipline (spending). For example. Let's say I make $100 today. You are the government and you decide to tax me at whatever rate, maybe 50% or maybe 100%.
Whether or not the beast (government) is starved has nothing to do with me at this point. Now it is up to you on what you, the beast, decide to do with the tax money you took from me, regardless of amount. It is libertarians that realize that government has no discipline and can't be trusted, therefore, taxes should be lower so as to not give the government the money to act undisciplined.
But as we stand now, it is too late, since government ignores budgets and deficits and we have a FRB that prints. It is all theft of the citizens.
Interesting
Perhaps Gross is confusing PIMCO with the bond markets in general.
From what I can see the bond markets are not worried about deficits in the least. They are floating gently over Lollipop Land where you can borrow and borrow as much as you want and never need to worry about repaying anything.
I am not looking forward to the nickle and dime election year shit fights that will permeate ZH in the months to come.......
Me neither. Will all the communists please find another site.
Market coming back nicely, gold (especially miners) getting slammed. Normal day, move along....
I suffer from no illusions that a Romney/Ryan team in the WH will actually reduce the deficit or cut spending in any meaningful, sustainable way. However, I have been wondering if the perception of austerity and monetary prudence will bring down the price of gold (and for how long).
As far as the big picture is concerned, this week they are making it look like Romney has a chance to win. They talk about how he's getting the most Wall Street money. And traditionally, 94% of the time, he with the most money wins. But this seems an awful lot like during the Republican primaries when each candidate was taking their turning pretending to be the frontrunner of the week. Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, a laughably embarrassing cadre of dumb, dumber and disgrace.
Now they are flippin' da script for the main election, pretending like there is going to be a choice of winner, just like they did during the Republican primaries. Pretending a braindead zombie like Mitt can win, when he's a moron. His daddy has never been in the CIA or been President of the United States like Bush Jr, plus he's a freaky Mormon. Everyone is weirded out by that whether they admit it or not.
Paul Ryan, another braindead automaton who has been whoring himself for money since the age of 5, will stick his foot in his ass, then his mouth, then back in his ass again, then in Mitt's mouth. The two of them are retarded corrupt dirtbags who can't even pretend not to be bigoted or thieving long enough to fool an 80-year-old Fox viewer dazed by electroshock therapy and alzheimers meds. In short, I'm still predicting an Obama win as I have been for the past year and a half. Otherwise it's torches & pitchforks.... I don't think they're quite ready for yet. Four more years of food stamps and can kicking to deflect the impending riots & martial law.
Mormons >>> Marxists
And Mormons are sustainable because they ride bikes.
Nice ad hominem attack on Ryan. You may even be right. Can you provide factual references?
Paul Ryan n'est pas Ron Paul
Do you really think their talks and slogans are important at all? They're all puppets that are centrally controlled. The best thing to do is to say No, Thanks.
Who cares, they are all the same. From a practical point of view, Romney should've picked a god lover. It was the only thing that got GWB elected in 2000. There will be no excitement among the evangels and now obama is sure to win.
If you are implying the tea party is all evangelicals then you are sadly mistaken. It is a movement founded on the idea of limited government and economic responsibility. Ryan is their guy.
My point is that the Republicans need the religious grass roots operation to win an election, and Romney's mormonism is a big downside. Picking Ryan did nothing to shore that demographic up and he will pay for it. True believers gave everything they owned to get GWB elected and went door to door in droves in what they thought was the coming of their state/religious leader. I'm not talking about votes, I'm talking about turnout and the enthusiasm of a grass roots effort.
So you don't think the religious grass roots will not bother voting against the first gay president? Most of my life I've been voting for the lesser of two evils. Do I like it? No. My choices in the primary elections seldom make it any further. Still, given the cloice between an authoritarian and a totalitarian, I'll choose the former every time.
"It is a movement founded on the idea of limited government and economic responsibility."
Yeah? Well our corrupt system ensures that never happens. Here's your "principled" tea party "representatives." BTW, the author of this piece is a libertarian like most tea partiers and, with some reservations, like me:
The Tea Party F*ed You. Fire Them
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2949016
Excerpt:
11 of the 15 co-sponsored this piece of trash (were Tea Party); is there any doubt they were bought and paid for?
Got it? The fact that the collateral, which was the predicate for the loan in the first place, no longer supports the loan as originally agreed, cannot be used as the reason to place the loan in "non-accrual" (that is, at risk of not performing) status.
But the predicate for the loan being made in the first place was the provision of the collateral; but for that collateral's actual value the loan would have never been made in the first place!
This is what the so-called "Tea Party" that claimed to be against bank bailouts has supported -- literally changing the qualifications on a loan after it is made so that in effect there is no collateral required at all!
This is an attempt to literally approve by legislation the effective counterfeiting of the nation's currency and you are the victims as your purchasing power will be further destroyed by this bill should it become law.
11 of 15 "Tea Partiers" are co-sponsors.
Fire them all; they're traitors and mendacious bags of pus.
Well, of course, my first reaction is. What the hell? Why is this even being regulated at the Federal level? Though it sound to me more like an attempt to make banks look sound when they are not than an attempt to alter the loan itself. Thanks for the info.
LOL. Most tea partiers libertarian? Most tea partiers 'think' they are for market liberty, are for only select civil liberties, ignorant on monetary liberty and detest being handcuffed by a foreign policy based on liberty. Most tea partiers did not support Ron Paul.
However,
pretty much right on the mark...
Sell bonds_equities / Buy llamas.
End off.
Why not have 100% taxes. After all based on recent bizarro logic, investors such as Bill Gross would be happy to invest in US bonds, even as American's realize the futility of working for no pay, quit their jobs, with the inevitable result of result being no tax revenue in perpetuity.
Also, what a better way to test Kenesian economics and stimulous spending once and for all.
OK, so I'm just pointing out the idiocy of the 0% tax argument...
It simply cannot be argued that 0% taxes will result in virtually no tax revenue and 100% taxes will result in virtually no tax revenue (unless you turn everyone into slaves and force them to work for no money.) By simple logic, there must be a point inbetween where tax revenue is optimal. By implication there is also must be a maximum level for tax revenues, where increasing the tax causes people to effectively opt out of the economy. No tax policy, or Fed money printing scheme will save a country that consistently spends beyong that level. Politicians and pundits can debate tax policy until they are blue in the face, but debate doesn't change reality.
I'll take the local dog catcher over the status quo... Romney/Ryan may not be perfect, but between what exists and the mere chance for the otherside to do what is needed, I'll take the slight chance. There is a snowball chance's in hell for federal reserve reform, budget reform, and everything else. The current president has embraced all those things and made it known he won't act. Romney and Ryan may not be what I want, but at least i have 1 in a million chance of them reforming the system.
Write In Ron Paul.
Since the retards downstate (i.e. NYC) always make my state "blue" for national elections, I love writing in for President since the non-democrat can not take NY.
Most years it's Mickey Mouse, but this year it'll be Ron Paul.
It is a blue state . You can vote as many times as you like. Everyone else does.
Paul was my guy in the primaries. I live in NC (near SC). I helped out in SC. He didn't make it. It is conceivable that a third party vote here would be a vote for Obama. I'd rather not help Obama's cause here and do another third party protest-esque ballot.
Exactly what the one party system wants the sheeple to think: that there is a scintilla of difference between the republicrats and the demopublicans, Obamney and Rombama. They are all big government, bailout supporting fascists. Just turn off Faux News for a minute and look at their identical records on nearly every issue. Lending credence to this "democracy" (tyranny of the majority) with a vote for either equals suicide for Amerika.
Oh, and Bill Gross - what a Kalifornicating joke. Next up: the A-hole of Omaha Warren Buffet tweets about how great rail monopoly is without any pipeline competition.
Didn't Ryan vote for both TARP and the Auto bailouts? I think your one in a million odds are a little low.
"Didn't Ryan vote for both TARP and the Auto bailouts? I think your one in a million odds are a little low."
Exactly. To destroy any "true conservative," Tea Party(ish) claims about Ryan, go here and search for "Ryan.":
http://market-ticker.org/
He's a poser just like all the rest of them in either of the "major parties." Here are a few bits on Ryan from that search:
Paul Ryan's Dissembling On Medicare
Lyin' Ryan Prepares Another Whopper
Say Hello To "Four More Years" ([thanks to] Mittens-Ryan)
The Paul Ryan Budget of last year makes more sense now when you take into account his future VP nomination. I was always wondering why they were pushing a no name guy with that Budget.
Interesting. So you think they Republican party has had this in mind for the last few years? I suppose it's possible, but I wouldn't think they'd care who it was as long as they owned them.
Ryan is chairman of the House Budget Comittee.
I can assure Mr Gross his bonds will be paid in full. Next thing he'll want them to be paid in good money....bitch, bitch, bitch....
If obama helps out other sectors of the economy like he did the auto industry, won't bondholders get screwed in other sectors as well?
do i get a memo telling me im suppose to care??? doesnt matter.
Why the 1% are the most capable of saving humanity! Hot off the presses:
http://www.doomsteaddiner.org/blog/2012/08/13/sexual-dimorphism-powerstructures-and-environmental-consequences-of-human-behaviors/
Did Bill Gross just grow a set of tits, or is he talking his book out of his ass? His ongoing schizophrenia with the current regime makes one wonder. I scratch my head.
Increasing tax rates and increasing revenues are still 2 different things. Reducing deficits by creating jobs and cutting wasteful spending has always been a good start. Just freezing spending will cut the deficit by $9 Trillion over 10 years. No business is going to create jobs in a confiscatory environment. They are already shutting down or leaving.
Ron Paul had a great idea to get things rolling. Make the FED write off the $2 Trillion in US Debt they are holding against US taxpayers -- you know, since the FED insists they are really a just another Federal government agency who just want to help taxpayers, and all that...
Fuck Bill Gross and Pimco and their mothership Allianz -- the Goldman Sachs of Germany.
Even if you think increased taxes will result in increased tax revenue (and I'm not convinced it will), the problem is, deals to reduce spending always go into effect in the future, and increased taxes are immediate. When the time rolls around for the spending cuts they never happen. As a result taxes go up and up and spending never goes down. If you're serious about deficits then you have to insist the Federal Government demonstrate a track record of being abile to control spending before you let anyone raise your taxes or you are effectively just enabling more spending.
And, as far as I can tell the more spending we've had for a couple decades now hasn't really done anything to close the income equality gap or prevent recessions.
Exactamundo.
Federal spending already has a 10% automatic yearly spending increase built in by law. Obama has increased the baseline spending by 25%, so the automatic spending increases are now on steroids since he took over.
Unless it's stopped, it's only going to hurt the poor and middle class the most. Well played, Statists. Well played.
Lewis Black explains Federal Govt Keynesian Economics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgXCw2eYUaU&feature=youtu.be
"Why are you teaching this shit (economics) at this ungodly hour (8am)?!? Are you trying to keep this shit a fucking secret or something?!?!?"
The deficits may continue under Romney/Ryan, but if that is the result of tax cuts, so be it. The alternative is to have equal or higher deficits and higher taxes.
Eventually the markets will begin to weigh in on the deficit issue. But Europe first.
"why pay any taxes at all?"
How else to fund military, infrastructure and other necessary components of any modern industrialized nation?
A lot (reads: not all) of government spending is jsutified, w/o doubt.
You missed the point of the comment.
What a buffoon. Ah well, he's just following the playbook: NEVER MENTION SPENDING. EVER. EVER. EVER.
The way I see it whoever approves of the endless wars and empire building and the endless printing of fiat money should be the ones to pay ALL of the taxes.
So Gross continues to "talk his book". Who cares? Oh, a second volley from El Erian elsewhere. Gross wants predictability for his trades. He's got that with the O.
Gross couldn't be more wrong. Reagan proved lower taxes can lead to lower deficits....IF CONGRESS WOULD HAVE STOPPED SPENDING MONEY THEY DIDN'T HAVE along with the greater revenues, the deficit would clearly have shrinked. Fast forward to today. Congress is still spending more OPM than available. So, they MUST raise taxes, as is their proclivity...but they still need to stop spending money whichever way the finally decide....if they can decide.
Bill Gross and Pimco - They've been pimped out a long time ago.
this decision was a cramdown on Romney - by the ultra right wing - they are conceding this round and introducing ryan for 2016 - romney is not a decision maker
the ryan program is pure fascism and a randite utopia
Gross by name, and nett loss on the way unless the State bails him out of his bond problem.
Here's a radical idea: lower spending by the centralised government in all its forms = a healthy economy, more productive jobs instead of the bureaucrats leeching off everyone else and buying votes regardless of the parasite killing the host.
Gross knows that the State spends multiples more for every tax dollar raised, yet he still wants the status quo.
Wah, wah, wah baby Gross. Get a proper job next time, one that doesn't involve taking more than you give. Tell your frightened State the same.
The national playboys of both main parties deserve no vote from intelligent people who want a Republic, not a corporatist state or faux monarchy, all the lil overpaid princesses and princes of Congress who do so love the roll of the limousine wheel...while their constituents back home struggle and pay while the political and financial class play.
One of the largest investment funds slash crony front runners is run by a Keynestarded moron? Shocking.
He looked better with the 'stache; but I stopped paying attention to those PIMCO guys after they went cap in hand to the fed for a bailout too.
The problem Gross (or any other guy who makes his living in the bond market for that matter) has with Ryan is that Ryan correctly identifies the problem with the US budget deficet, namely "too much spending". And if you reduce the level of spending, you by default reduce the amount of bonds issued. And by default on top of default, you cut into Gross's business.
And if at the same time you spur economic growth, you get increased tax receipts into the Treasury. And that is NOT good for Gross and PIMCO.
Or in other words, US Treasury NOT issuing bonds is bad for Gross's business.
It's just that simple. :)
Fuck Bill Gross.
Our problem is NOT revenue, but spending. Wake the hell up, America.
Am I the only one who finds Bill Gross' comments to be utterly useless?
I read that if we raised taxes to 100% for those earning $250.000K and above, it would amount to $1.5 Trillion. Not nearly enough to cover our deficit. Is this not a spending issue as opposed to a taxing issue?