| Blogs > nikonIII > Its All Academic |
|
Democrats Win = Unemployment Up The election victory by the Democratic Party had swept Nancy Pelosi and Charles Rangel into the center of power in the United States. And they have made no secret on their intention to raise the income taxes. They claim they will raise taxes only on the 'richest', but unless one is making less than $30K per year in America, everyone else is considered kinda rich and will see a lower pay cheque because of the incremental tax increases that will be coming. Lower pay cheque means most Americans will dine out less,... which means the waiter will earn less tips,... which means the waiter's will buy fewer cloths,... which means the clothing sales lady will earn less commission,...which means she will just buy a smaller cup of coffee,..which means the coffee shop has less business, ...which means somebody has to be laid-off and looses his/her job. Higher Taxes = Higher Unemployment Its the first lesson from Economics 101. (Pix.: The Dow Jones Industrial Average-2006) 
|
|||
|
Linkage disequilibrium? Consumer emotional index has more impact on the market than some increment of tax. And where will the expansion of the tax foundation goes? to the society? to the poorer? Will they spend?
| ||
11/8/2006 7:12 pm |
Global marketing will be stepped up.. I bought a shirt today, at an Acadamy Sports store, for $2.88, the same shirt sells for $28.00 at some department stores.. how they can do this is beyond me.. but I grabbed it up.. it's great with Jeans.. I'm saying that simply to state, there will be ways that the marketing of products will be more wide spread of international made products.. that dropes the price as thw quota's are increased.. As a country of marketing entities, and not as much manafacturuing as before, the saturation of such may increase, but with lower wages and lower incomes for people, but more cost relative goods. The world is still chasing some unilaterial income/ purchasing power method of currency value... its been a slow and very very very slow process but they are chasing it.. and by some acts and facts that are beyond us, but at the level of top economist, they have a picture in mind.. we may never see a zeroed out balance.. but the % of varianace on difference will be adjusted over time..they've been after it and now there are lot's of people working toward poverty eradication.. which may lead us to some electronic currency..in the future... the world is definately in for a change... it may not evolve in our lifetime but the pursuit probably won't stop.
| ||
11/8/2006 11:22 pm |
Swallowtsui: Consumer Emotional Index is a measurement of how confident one feels about his/her own financial status. When the consumers start to bring home a lower pay cheque, because of the increased tax, their financial self-confidence is bound to decrease, just like the decrease we saw in that Index during the summer when the price of gas went up, leaving most consumer with less savings in their bank account each week. When their confidence decrease, they will spent less, leaving many stores to earn less, and someone has to loose their job. When the government raises tax on the people, those increased monies that the government has are often wasted on unnecessary projects or expense, such as repaving the same stretch of highway for the fifth time in two years, or paying welfare subsidies to indigence whom just don't want to work. Because unlike a private individual or corporation, whom takes thinks about the supply and demand of their investment or the margin of return, the government just gives out monies to people whom produces nothing in return, because the government is not afraid of ever being bankrupted. Anacronism You are so correct. Every cent of tax increase on the so call 'rich' eventually trickles down to somebody in the bottom who is paying for it in more ways than one. Only the naive believes that taxing the 'rich' will not affect the 'poor'. Touch The reason why you can buy one shirt for $2.88, but pay $28.00 for a similar shirt elsewhere is because of the label. The label allows you to have confidence that the product you bought is made of good quality. Without the label, you pay less and you buy at your own risk. Its the reason why you pay more to buy a TV from Sony while you can get the same type of TV for much less from a no name brand. The world is not chasing some currency. Currency merely represent the wealth of products and service produced. When the Democrats raises tax, and more people became unemployed, there will be less people to produce products or services, and thus the nation produces less wealth, as measured by a lowered GDP Index (Gross Domestic Product).
| ||
11/8/2006 11:32 pm |
Swallowtsui: Consumer Emotional Index is a measurement of how confident one feels about his/her own financial status. When the consumers start to bring home a lower pay cheque, because of the increased tax, their financial self-confidence is bound to decrease, just like the decrease we saw in that Index during the summer when the price of gas went up, leaving most consumer with less savings in their bank account each week. When their confidence decrease, they will spent less, leaving many stores to earn less, and someone has to loose their job. When the government raises tax on the people, those increased monies that the government has are often wasted on unnecessary projects or expense, such as repaving the same stretch of highway for the fifth time in two years, or paying welfare subsidies to indigence whom just don't want to work. Because unlike a private individual or corporation, whom thinks about the supply and demand of their investment or the margin of return before spending the monies, the government just gives out monies to people whom produces nothing in return, because the government is not afraid of ever being bankrupted. Anacronism You are so correct. Every cent of tax increase on the so call 'rich' eventually trickles down to somebody in the bottom who is paying for it in more ways than one. Only the naive believes that taxing the 'rich' will not affect the 'poor'. Touch The reason why you can buy one shirt for $2.88, but pay $28.00 for a similar shirt elsewhere is because of the label. The label allows you to have confidence that the product you bought is made of good quality. Without the label, you pay less and you buy at your own risk. Its the reason why you pay more to buy a TV from Sony while you can get the same type of TV for much less from a no name brand. The world is not chasing some currency. Currency merely represent the wealth of products and service produced. When the Democrats raises tax, and more people became unemployed, there will be less people to produce products or services, and thus the nation produces less wealth, as measured by a lowered GDP Index (Gross Domestic Product).
| ||
11/9/2006 6:04 am |
Nik, the shirt is the same brand name in both stores...   that's why I grabbed it right away 
| ||
11/9/2006 10:14 am |
Mink : In principle, if the increased tax revenue recieved by the government is spend on projects that has a return that is equvalent or exceed the amount that was spend, then there will not be a resultant increase of unemployment. But in reality, that sceniero never happens. Government officials spend monies like water because its not their personal monies. That is just human nature. Please given me another example of when increasing taxes will not lead to increased unemployment at the end, if possible. Touch ; Either you are a very lucky man to hit such a grand bargain or that the shirt that sold for only $2.88 is a 'sample sale', has mild defect, fake, or stolen goods. Nik
| ||
11/10/2006 11:00 am |
 Touch ;Either you are a very lucky man to hit such a grand bargain or that the shirt that sold for only $2.88 is a 'sample sale', has mild defect, fake, or stolen goods. don't know.. but it sure did look good with my jeans and comfortable too. but for 2.88, I would not spend too much time examining it even if I wash it and it falls apart.. for 2.88 can't beat that ..
| ||
11/10/2006 11:04 am |
it's really funny because I probably got 20 or more shirts that I've never worn.. sometimes I just buy them cause I like them.. everyday tee shirts work fine for me.. My mom, keeps telling me to give some of the clothes away.. I did about 2 weeks ago and the closets are still over-full and all the drawers.. so I think I'll go on a stop buying binge..  the really trip thing is half of what I gave qway had only been worn once or so. so... i really don't need any more clothes.. for a log long time.
| ||
11/10/2006 3:54 pm |
"goan that is great".. might I add.. too.. the disposition of the observer as well. 
| ||
11/10/2006 11:04 pm |
Mint; In your first scheme of increasing tax on profits of monopolies, and hope that the company will hire more employee to produce more products/services to increase their gross profits, despite the decrease of their marginal profit due to the tax, that scheme only works if the firm had not already saturated the market share with their products already. In monopoly firms, ususally they have already captured all of the market share already. Any further increase in the production of product by hiring more employees would then lower the price of their product, producing a negative marginal return, and forcing the firm to laid off their employee. An increase tax on their profit, usually a thin profit already, to force them to hire more to produce more without a corresponding increase in demand, could lead to a spiraling of lower price, then even lower marginal profit, until someone has to get laid off to balance the book. Additionally, the investors of the firm will be hurt from a lowered dividend and/or equity of the firm, and that can trickle down to hurt any average Joe's small business, whom relied on the wealthy investor's patronage. On the other scheme to increase tax on the upper bracket while lowering taxes on the lowered bracket, this is what the Democrats had always advocated. Those schemes almost always leads to a recession, because there are not enough rich people to be taxed only to sustain the government. They then re-define of an upper bracket tax paper as $50K. Of course, the top bracket is $250K, but the incremental increase will start for those whom earn $50K/year, which is hardly considered 'rich'. This scheme's fundamental error is to presume that the rich are very very rich, and that they are either retired or simply isolated from the rest of society, and their incomes are all passive such as dividends or interest. Thus taking away some of their monies from passive incomes would not affect others. This presumption is actually wrong. In fact retired rich people whom survived on passive incomes rarely earns as much as when they were active in the work force, and thus taxing their passive income is hardly enough to sustain the government. And rich people, retired or not, especially those retired, are not seclusive from the rest of society. The phenomena that produced a lower unemployment despite an increase in taxation occassionally can occure and it is due to the invention of a new product that commanded a high demand. In the 80's, it was the dawn of the computer age. But to depend on a new product to rescue the economy is like depending on luck. No one knows when or if it ever will happen. Ironically, development of any new product requires, in addition to personal visions and insight, financial capitals. Higher taxes drains away capitals. Nik
| ||
11/10/2006 11:27 pm |
Goannaoil ; Normally there is an inverse relationship between rate of employment and rate of inflation. That is the balancing act that the Central Bank is always trying to tackle. But under certain unique circumstances, where there is suddenly an emergence of a new product that created lots of demand, and is not too expensive, then the both the unemployment rate can decrease simultaneously. In the eighties, the invention of the computer was the factor. In it, the demand for computers created lots of jobs. But the demand for the computers did not drive up cost and inflation, because the prices of computer is constantly dropping. I agreed with you about the erroneous believe by many people or nations, as well as the exploitation of this fear by the politicians whom caters to the indigent and uneducated constituents, that wealth is not a 'zero sum game'. One man's wealth is not accomplished at the expense of another man's poverty. In fact, it us wrong to rob peter to give to paul. This is mechantilism school of economics, the idea of belief that was prevalent in the 1600-1700's. Unfortunately, many in the 21st century still believes in it today. Touch : When you give the shirts away, assuming you are giving it to charity, make sure you get a receipt for a tax deduction. But then again, the government tries to screw us up by saying that we cannot get a tax deduction, unless all of our deductions combined exceed the standard deductions, which as of 2005, is around 5.5K for singles. Nik
| ||
|
"those increased monies that the government has are often wasted on unnecessary projects or expense, such as repaving the same stretch of highway for the fifth time in two years, or paying welfare subsidies to indigence whom just don't want to work" Funny findings. but true to some governments, not all.
| ||
11/12/2006 12:24 pm |
Swallowtsui: I am glad that you have confidence in some government, but unfortunately I don't. I haven't seen any part of the US government that do not waste tax payer's monies. Mint : In the USA, all taxes are levied upon net profits, never on productions or sales before cost. The US taxes the net profits after all expenses are accounted for. The US does not have a 'Value Added Tax' system as they do in Europe. Maybe that is one source of our discrepancy in our discussion. the other may be the emphasis on monopoly firms versus competitive enterprises. When I mentioned computer, I do meant all the resultant effect that computers have on the economy, including efficiies and lowered cost as you mentioned. The wonders of computers is that its impact is so prominent that it had acturally lowered the 'natural rate' of unemplyoment, from the previous rate of near 6%, to the current rate of 4%. Therefore, the recent discoveries by the Central Banks, that there appears to be a simultaneous decrease in unemployment along with inflation is not a contradiction in the fundamentals of economics, or an ingenuity of any fisical policies by any politicians, but a resetting of the 'natural rate' of unemployment due to emergence of a new commodity. Historically, this occured when the steam engine was invented, when the automoble was invented, and probably when we invent a new source of plentiful enery in the future. Increasing the minimum wages have an inverted 'U' curve on a company's profit, because some of the patrons whom purchase from the company also works for the company, or patronizes another firms that patronizes the company. Also, increasing the minimum wages also allows the company to hire more selectively the type of potential empolyee, because of their prior work histories, who could maximize their labor effort on behalf of the company. How to measure those qualities is a challenge for the economist. So increasing minimum wages don't always increases unemployment, but may even increases the profit for the company, but of course increasing too much, will. But just as an historical point,and other factors such as price of oil, Central Bank policies,etc. could also play a role, but overall, when the US increases tax under President Johnson in 60's, the US, and the world, entered recession throughtout the 70's; When Ronald Reagan lowered tax in 1983, the US went into expansion from 84-88; When Bush Senior raised tax in 1990, US entered recession in 1992; When Clinton raised tax again in 1993, US entered recession 1994; when the Republican lowered the Capital Gains tax in 1994, the US entered into expansion from 1995-1999; when Bush GW lowered tax in 2001, US went to expansion again from 2003-now. Nik
| ||
11/12/2006 9:07 pm |
davinci: Do you really think that the concepts mentioned above is an 'oversimplification' ? Do you think the profit curves of monopolies, the relationships between rate of unemployment and rate of inflation curves, the concept of 'natural rate' of unemployments, the law of diminishing returns, the law of redistribution of wealth and capitals, the concept of hidden cost in business, the conceptual distinction between passive incomes versus active incomes, the effect of commodities on the perturbation of the supply and demand curve, and various concepts mentioned above are an oversimplification ? Written in a manner that hopefully most people can comprehend and relate to, there are various concepts of economics above to support various views. Its is by no means an oversimplification, irregardless of whether the end result is pro or against increase taxation. Nik
| ||
11/14/2006 8:39 am |
Davinci: Correct me if I am wrong, but I sense that you are kinda anti-establishment in some way. Laws of economics, or laws of anything, is not an 'American' way of looking at things, it is an academic way of looking at things. There are laws of economics, laws of physics, and law of sociologies, etc. It is the way academic intelligentsia try to make sense out of various phenomena in this world that has the appearance of being aimless and chaotic. Even Einstein believes in the simplicities of the laws that govern the universe, shown by his ingenuity when he discovered one of the most famous laws that solve the relationship between matter and energy ,a simple equation E= mc(2). Thats what people go to Universities to education ourself on, the laws of humanities and the universe. Thats why its call a "University". And society values a university education and the laws learned, by willing to pay more to hire a college graduate. You argue that what applies in one country does not apply in another. But contrary to the views of the intelligentsia, laws are applicable everywhere. The laws of physics applies whether one is on earth, the bottom of the ocean, or in another galaxy. The laws of Newtonian physics that governs how a basketball moves across the field to land in the net, is the same law that governs how an intercontinental missile flies across the globe to hit its target. Likewise, the laws of economics is also universal, and it applies in US, China, Europe, Africa, and everywhere. These laws are developed by academicians, not politicians. For the stock market trader to depend on insider information is illegal. People go to jail for that. It is not part of economics. I lost you on what you mean by America's way of putting the lowly employees in a "winner-or-loser theory with christianity ideology and guilt, and you've got it". I have to admit I don't know what you are referring to. In America, everyone who works, irregardless of how much they get paid, is included in the Dept of Labor's calculation of unemployment rate. There are inaccuracies in getting those information sometimes, because there are illegal immigrants whom don't register, and there are some who stop looking for work and we're not sure if they are considered unemployed. But the unemployment statistic is just an objective awareness of how many people work, irregardless of how much they get paid, and it passes no judgment as the whether they are working as 'slave labor' or not. The US Education system is the finest in the world. I don't know why you think otherwise. The USA has more Nobel Prize each year than any other country in the world. More people oversea rather come to study in the US than other countries. I don't know why you think many poor cannot attend college in US, if anything, the concern is that the middle class cannot afford college. The poor families gets financial aids from tuitions to a computer to a monthly spending stipend for cloths and travel. In the US campus, the joke has been that its better to be "poor than middle". I don't know if the Bushes have any special preferences. Everything is hearsay, and if no one has the full story. If you want to talk about lack of fairness, then we can always say that many athletes entered into America's top colleges without any intelligence, but just knowing how to throw a ball. So I would refrain from casting judgments about how anyone got into college other than that she must be extremely smart to have gotten into Yale. Likewise, I would not state that President Clinton's daughter is dumb, because after four years at Stanford U, she did not get accepted into Medical School, despite her expressed intention to do so several years ago. When one first try to look at the world, to the unsophisticated eyes, everything is very complicated, with so many factors involves, all changing, and all in chaos. But after having studied it, and learn what some other scholars have observed, there seem to be some orderly patterns that the seemingly chaos exhibit. With diligent studies, laws of societies and the universe are discovered that governs the pattern of everything. Men attend Universities to study those laws. Those who don't know them mocks them. But the rest of society pays these University graduates higher compensation because of their knowledge. Nik
| ||
11/14/2006 8:57 am |
Mint: If you do not have faith in the current theories of economics, that is normal, for we are always learning new things over time. If there is a new discoveries that seems to have overridden the classical theory of the "inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation", then by all means, I wish you the best in contributing to the development of a new theory, and many publications to follow. But an intellectuals way of trying to understand and even solve the issue of poverty in society is not pointing fingers and demonizing an enemy, whom is usually the 'rich', and claim to be fighting for the 'poor', as many politicians do. But it should be done by an understanding of the laws of economic and maximize the allowance of perturbation within the laws, so as to benefit all people in an objective manner. Its so much easier to just promise to tax paul to give to peter, but all laws of economics, and history, seems to show that increaser in taxation hurts everyone, especially the 'poor' in the long run. Maybe some exception exist, but then again, maybe there is life on mars afterall. Nik
| ||
11/14/2006 4:53 pm |
Gentlemen: I guess you do not believe economics to be a hard science, if you even believe its a science at all. I guess you believe its all about how you 'feel', go with the 'intuition', almost like follow your 'passion'. Wish you lots of luck. Its always good to have a '6th sense' about anythings, even thought no one can put a finger on that '6th sense'. But one thing to bear in mind is that no one wins a Nobel Prize in Economic for a vague sense of judgment or an intuition. But if thats the culture of belief at the economic department in your school, Mint, then I am sure it will attract a certain type of professors and students toward that subculture. I am not sure that type of beliefs is prevalent in the economics departments of the other schools as well. Nik
| ||
11/15/2006 11:15 am |
Mint: I kinda understand what you meant. Your statign that your a 'realist'. At times when things do not appear or behaves as the theories would have predicted, you would be more that willing to look for an alternative explaination. In many way that is good, for that is how new discoveries are often made. But it also implies that you never really have a very strong confidence in the theories that were taught. Maybe somewhere in the middle is best. Nik
| ||
11/15/2006 12:11 pm |
Davinci : Maybe this is just a matter of semantics, or a choice of words, but in academia, if something is not certain, but academician have a mere 'intuition' of what is happening, then it is call a 'hypothesis'. When things are quite certain and most likely to be true for all times, then the hypothesis became elevated into a 'law' or 'theory'. Laws, such as the law of diminishing return, etc, have so far not proven wrong yet under any legitimate circumstances. These laws of economics, thought we talk about it casually, are actually expressed mathematically. In the top colleges of America, and I am not talking about the many average colleges, the prerequisite to study Economic 101 is a year of study in Calculus. The laws of economics are described through equations of differential and integral calculus and statistics. When a discipline is discussed in terms of mathematics, that is as hard of a science as it can get. Because like they say, 'numbers don't lie'. Einstein can philosophy as he please. But his main contribution to our world is his work in physics, not philosophy. Einstein himself was expelled from high school ( gymnasium I believe it is called ), and a victim of Nazi persecution, and was never offered a respectable job at a University upon his graduation but merely worked in a lowly position in the patent office, so I don't know if he harbored any issues about this world personally. But for all his talk of his disdain toward education, he pursued studies to a level of a Ph.D. And in American, he taught at a premier Ivy League school, Princeton University. So its hard to figure the contradiction in his terms. Further, as if it may be a matter of resolution of self guilt, the concept of a nuclear bomb originated from his equation, E=mc(2). American elementary students may not know as much geography or the multiplication table, and many educators mock America for it, but it is the intented purpose for the American educational system not to emphasize bruit rigorous memorization of facts. The system believe in allowing children, whose at this most flexible stage of development, to nurture a vivid imagination, so that the mind will create new ideas, ingenuity, and discoveries when they grow up. Some educators do not agree, and feel more comfortable if the children can memorizes many standard facts of this world, but we just have to look back and see that most inventions and patents, and Noble Prizes, in this world are earned by Americans. So its kinda by design that resulted in American kids scoring low in many standard test of geography or multiplications. Bush cutted off some fundings for the college for the poor, because he believes, rightfully so, that its not fair to subsidies the 'poor' so they can have monies to travel and spend on extravagance. Many disguise those expense under the pretense of educational travels or oversea studies. Do we really know who or why President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963? Some say it was the Russian, or Cuban, or Mafia, or Labor Union, or Civil Rights Extremest, or KKK, or just a lunatic. And which financial and business establishment, under which corporation or chamber or commerce, ordered his assassination according to your research ? Nik
| ||
11/16/2006 3:31 pm |
Yin; Actually, thank you for coming and adding your input on this vital aspect of economics. I don't know all the details of what Chancellor Brown is doing in England, so I really cannot say anything intellectual. But overall, increase in Taxes hurts the economy in general, and what you raised is another example. Seems like the Taxes is hurting HSBC, and soon it will spread to everyone else. I guess I'll defer to Mint to make his comments. Thanks for your participations. Nik
| ||
11/17/2006 7:10 am |
Gentlemen: Thank you very much in all your inputs to this issues. We probably can debate this for decades, but I guess the botteom line; I believe Taxations hurt the economy ( and by extension, the Democrats in US, who already expressed their such intend, will hurt everyone in the USA), and you gentlemen don't . I try to use the theories of economics to support my logics, and I guess Mint does not have too much confidence in the theories of economics, and Davinci have even lesser confidences in economics and the teachings of higher educations by academia in general. Please feel free clarify further if what I worte above is not correct. Mint, when you get a chance , please give us your analysis on Yin's post concerning the threat to the survivability of HBSC Bank's in England under the pressure of England's high taxes. Nik
| ||
11/17/2006 7:14 am |
Gentlemen: Thank you very much in all your inputs to this issues. We probably can debate this for decades, but I guess the botteom line; I believe Taxations hurt the economy ( and by extension, the Democrats in US, who already expressed their such intend, will hurt everyone in the USA), and you gentlemen don't . I try to use the theories of economics to support my logics, and I guess Mint does not have too much confidence in the theories of economics, and Davinci have even lesser confidences in economics and the teachings of higher educations by Universities in general. Please feel free clarify further if what I worte above is not correct. Mint, when you get a chance , please give us your analysis on Yin's post concerning the threat to the survivability of HSBC Bank's in England under the pressure of England's high taxes. Nik
| ||
11/17/2006 2:42 pm |
Yin; Tax receipts being put into effective use by the government is something that realistically will never happen. Government always waste the revenue, because they have no long term vision and they know the government will never enter into bankruptcy. On HSBC, just the mere fact that they earn less profit because of the taxes, is the beginning of potential downward spiral into un profitability due to the nature of competition in a capitalistic society. Additionally, the investors will be hurt, and they may decided one day to sell their shares sending the company into loosing more equity values. When investors looses profits, then it will trickle down to many other people too. Nik
| ||
11/17/2006 9:31 pm |
Yin : The government can Lower Taxes to solve the deficit. Lowering taxes stimulates the economy, so that businesses will have more profit, and will pay more taxes revenue to the government. Lowering taxes, in stimulating the economy, will produced more job for the people, and therefore reduce the burden of the government to provide welfares to the unemployed. Lowering taxes, in reducing unemployment, will reduce crime, and therefore reduce the government's need to spend more monies on policing the society. The government's budget deficit is just an accounting number. Governments have been in deficit for centuries. The government will realistically never go into bankruptcy no matter what the deficit figure is. The only benefit of having a lower deficit is so that the government issued bonds will have a higher rating, and therefore pay less dividends. More importantly is that the gross earnings of the economy, as measured by the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) rises at a faster rate than the deficit. Raising taxes will lead to an increase in tax revenues for the first year only, then the following years, because business will be slowed, companies making less profit leading to more employee laid-offs, the tax revenue will decline, often declining at a faster rate than before. The economy will be at a risk of entering into a recession. In the USA, when President Johnson raised taxes in taxes in 1966, the US enter into a recession throughout the 70's. When President lowered taxes in 1983, the economy expanded from 1984-1988. When President Bush Senior raised tax in 1990, a recession occurred in 1992. When President Clinton raised Tax in 1993, the economy entered recession again in 1994. When the Capital Gains Tax was reduced in 1995, the economy expanded from 1995-1999. When Bush GW lowered taxes in 2002, the economy expanded out of recession from 2003-present. Actually, these patterns of economic was predicted by the late Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winner in Economic whom just passed 3 days ago. Nik
| ||
11/24/2006 10:09 pm |
Mint; Higher deficits means higher rate of dividend that the government need to pay. Those monies can come from either imposing a higher tax rate, which more often than not will slow down the economy, or it can come from stimulation of the economy, which leads to a larger rate of taxes collected, by lowering the tax rate. Some politicians choose the former, while some chooses the latter. As long as the rate of economic expansion is greater than the rate of deficit, then there will be prosperity, and the deficit will diminish in time, irregardless of what the absolute values of the deficit is. Raising taxes to pay off the deficit is a no brainer. Anyone with basic arithmetic skill can figure that. It takes a more ingenious politician to figure the logistic on how to stimulate the economy. The reluctance of NHS to pay for Herceptin is appalling. This medicine had been available in the USA since 2001. To think that they place a price on a citizen's lives is immoral. It is also short sighted , because a patient whose cancer is putted back into remission by herceptin is a person whom can return to the work force to contribute to society. A person whom is stable under herceptin is a person whom won't drain the cost of health care through intensive nursing cares, rehospitalizations for infections, cost of pain management medications, etc, etc. Those bureaucrats at NHS are all incompetent and uncompassionate, and should be fired, if you ask me. Welcome back Mink. Nik
|
