tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post2413557573630844597..comments2024-03-20T02:13:07.412-04:00Comments on Fictional Reserve Barking: The right way to balance the budget: target the corporate surplus, not the government deficitcircuithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08565443970730261572noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-59288748537364643452022-01-08T00:56:12.895-05:002022-01-08T00:56:12.895-05:00I have already read out this content. That's v...I have already read out this content. That's very interesting. Thanks for sharing this informative information. I am waiting for your next information.<br /><a href="http://www.aaaaccounting.co.uk/accounting-services/" rel="nofollow"> Accounting service in London,</a>Aaaaccountinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15977216622043685865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-69119976299879934362021-03-10T02:54:44.734-05:002021-03-10T02:54:44.734-05:00That's an amazing post. It will be very helpfu...That's an amazing post. It will be very helpful to others. Thanks for sharing this type of valuable article.<br /><a href="http://www.aaaaccounting.co.uk/corporation-tax/" rel="nofollow">Tax Return Services in Barking</a>Aaaaccountinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15977216622043685865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-72971671599318652662020-12-14T11:19:45.730-05:002020-12-14T11:19:45.730-05:00I was looking at some of your posts on this websit...I was looking at some of your posts on this website and I conceive this web site is really instructive! Keep putting up.. <br /><a href="https://www.udemy.com/course/how-to-invest-1000/learn/lecture/23659778#questions" rel="nofollow">investing in stocks for beginners</a><br />Tam Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05228313764979482499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-29793688002273597212020-02-26T02:37:35.555-05:002020-02-26T02:37:35.555-05:00This is my first time i visit here and I found so ...This is my first time i visit here and I found so many interesting stuff in your blog especially it's discussion, thank you. <a href="http://www.associateresourcesetm.com/" rel="nofollow">www.associateresourcesetm.com</a>hijaz shaikhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01222720829597262833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-42779318407719658752020-01-14T05:30:14.531-05:002020-01-14T05:30:14.531-05:00Good knowledge about the blog. Thanks for sharing ...Good knowledge about the blog. Thanks for sharing this .Keep it.<br /><a href="http://www.aaaaccounting.co.uk/" rel="nofollow"> accounts in barking</a>Aaaaccountinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15977216622043685865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-74874298924078697832017-11-16T15:09:44.298-05:002017-11-16T15:09:44.298-05:00Hi Circuit,
I am desperately trying to recreate t...Hi Circuit,<br /><br />I am desperately trying to recreate these graphs. Could you point me to the CANSIM tables you used?<br /><br />ThanksAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16777376237938197355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-39074255018847077502016-07-03T22:37:43.848-04:002016-07-03T22:37:43.848-04:00Some typos but whatever. Ie "work with",...Some typos but whatever. Ie "work with", not "work work". And second, "in post Keynesianism" not "on post Keynesianism" Checks and Balanceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16018996934494126154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-80364506731197947512016-07-03T22:35:06.123-04:002016-07-03T22:35:06.123-04:00Quoting Reagan is supposed to be like quoting the ...Quoting Reagan is supposed to be like quoting the Bible or something? Conservative supply side economics is not sacrosanct. It has points but it's full of its own fallacies and unexplained Paradoxes that come with the simplified assumptions that government is always bad and business is always good and that the two don't work work one another, ie it takes two to tango. This Reagan stuff, with the flawed laffer curve and all that is basically the starting point of neoliberal austerity driven economics, never mind the fact that Reagan enormously increased the government deficit. <br /><br />That all said, it's funny when MMTers side step neoliberal doctrine to appear to maintain impartiality. I think MMT is great but it's just amusing how MMTers sometimes try to present their models as being equally applicable to the right and the Left,even though it is comes from a left wing school of economics on post Keynesianism. Checks and Balanceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16018996934494126154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-1944314344278936992015-04-18T07:42:12.447-04:002015-04-18T07:42:12.447-04:00Thanks for your comment. Since writing this post, ...Thanks for your comment. Since writing this post, I'd put it a bit differently (but I still think it stands). Basically, there's been a big shift in the financing of business investment. Especially since the slow growth performance in recent years, the corporate profit rate has soared to levels not seen since the 1960s. Businesses are holding onto that income as retained earnings instead of using it to finance additional investment. In a sense this means the average return to corporate capital is high, but the expected return on marginal additions to capital investment is regarded as low. The outcome of this is that since the recovery began, businesses are now net suppliers of funds to other sectors thus creating a shift in the balance of net lending. In previous decades, the business sector was a net borrower of funds from households in order to finance its investments. In many ways, this change is a consequence of the weak recovery of investment but the real issue to highlight is the huge jump in corporate profits during a downturn (followed by a period of slow growth) and low utilization of existing capacity. circuithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08565443970730261572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-15039465456382238812015-04-16T03:20:27.157-04:002015-04-16T03:20:27.157-04:00Hi, sorry for reviving an old post. But I'm cu...Hi, sorry for reviving an old post. But I'm curious about your definition of 'savings' here: <br /><br />"The reason for this large accumulation in corporate savings is that during the last decade the corporate sector significantly reduced its share of productive investment in the economy in favour of short-term investments and speculative activity (Baragar and Seccareccia, 2008)."<br /><br />Wouldn't there still be a large accumulation of corporate saving even if corporations chose "productive" investments, i.e. in tangible assets like production machinery? So, the relationship between corporate financial assets and tangible assets would be different, but total savings would still remain the same (less depreciation). <br /><br />S = change in tangible assets + change in net financial assets | = investment + delta NFA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-54834474914369330802011-05-24T22:12:42.835-04:002011-05-24T22:12:42.835-04:00Jorge I understand that it's not a win-win for...Jorge I understand that it's not a win-win for government but the problem to paraphrase Reagan is that the government is not the solution. We are in the era where sovereignty is an impediment with respect to efficient and effective government regulation of corporate citizenship, the deduction will create incentive for the sovereign corporate citizen to enter into arrangements and partnerships with the government to invest their cash into more productive use. The way I see it the government is no longer in the position to dictate the rhythm of the waltz. While you are correct that the deduction may actually raise the deficit, the fact of the matter is that this more productive use of capital will create jobs and indirectly bring money back into the government's purse.<br />Anon 4Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-10466469514339665342011-05-24T21:19:13.493-04:002011-05-24T21:19:13.493-04:00Anon 1-Rondinelli is a Business Strategy Review ar...Anon 1-Rondinelli is a Business Strategy Review article 2003, issue? Footloose is literal nomenclature in the trade...Circuit...Alan Rugman -90's should be checked with reference to service industry impact...Anon refer to Reinert, rajan, glass 2009...a practical lexicon in the trade. <br />Circuit-no qualm about the contingency on primary industry, Canada is a good showcase for the breadth of your proposal. I like your use of policy paralysis. I associate it with bureaucratic risk aversion or neutralizing risk parameters..<br />Anon 4...tax deduction is interesting...great for the corporates, but it's not a win-win for the government, it actually increases the deficit. The issue if I follow circuit is to create jobs and not anchor productive assets.Jorgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02289940373257994962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-58085146476651487272011-05-24T20:57:24.167-04:002011-05-24T20:57:24.167-04:00Circuit...interesting read. You have good intentio...Circuit...interesting read. You have good intentions. The point of govt is not to force market behavior, but rather to create incentive. Instead of imposing a tax, even though small yet noticeable, more appropriate strategy would be to permit a tax deduction for these types of productive investments. This way, corporations are in win-win situation with respect to how they employ their money. <br />Anon 4.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-66122715414814135702011-05-24T20:56:53.264-04:002011-05-24T20:56:53.264-04:00I'm back...for now. I was a bit pressed in my ...I'm back...for now. I was a bit pressed in my last reply because of the problems I'm having.<br /><br />Jorge, thanks for the references. I'll have a look at them. As for my comment about the economy being mainly service-based, I'm not trying to say it precludes corporate exit, as I realize there are many services that can be done elsewhere (call centers, engineering firms, etc). I'm just saying the argument is a very convenient one from the standpoint of the corporates, as it seems to create policy paralysis to their benefit.circuithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08565443970730261572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-72084486956872076222011-05-24T20:12:06.471-04:002011-05-24T20:12:06.471-04:00Circuit here (I'm having problems with my brow...Circuit here (I'm having problems with my browser)<br /><br />Anon @17:36, the use of taxation to achieve social or economic purposes is not new. Think customs duties, sumptuary and sin taxes, etc.<br /><br />Jorge, I see where you and first Anon are going but I'm not really convinced that all businesses can just get up and go, especially given that Canada has mainly a service-based economy now (but don't interpret this as me saying I'm glad about this state of affairs - IMO, it's shameful how Canada's policymakers stood by while the country's manufacturing base shrunk). Also, I'd venture that resource extraction is another area where operations can't be accomplished elsewhere. Perhaps other readers know more about this topic. Obviously, it's likely to be an important factor in the effectiveness of the proposal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-8879102327416220792011-05-24T19:47:20.591-04:002011-05-24T19:47:20.591-04:00Jorge Thanks for your nod. You mention Rondinelli....Jorge Thanks for your nod. You mention Rondinelli. Can you be more specific as to the reference. Secondly, I assume your expression 'Footloose' corporates is literal. <br />Anon 1, thanks for your nod also. Unfortunately, you can't leave them alone...they'll take everything they can. And I don't think corporates want to be left alone, they remind me of Koalas feeding off the money tree... <br /><br />Oh i'm anon 1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-52865986028074632422011-05-24T19:24:14.100-04:002011-05-24T19:24:14.100-04:00Anon 2 is a poor alarmist, but a great ironist. Au...Anon 2 is a poor alarmist, but a great ironist. Austerity is not the way to go. Krugman's column and Ed Hugh a couple of days ago confirm the dangers. Europe is on the verge of an abyss...so let's stick with a proposal such as yours which is actually centrist. Jorge is right-it will involve political concessions, and since I don't know much about canadian politics, I will pass comments. Anon 1 has a good point, leave the MNE's alone-they are strange partners...when you think you've sealed it, they slip out. These days, as Jorge says, they,re evolving/devolving towards new identities. They can taste "sovereign" power- but they're not yet Leviathans. <br />I,ve been following your blog and your calls got balls. You do very well for a solo.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-84815288148094800562011-05-24T17:36:40.296-04:002011-05-24T17:36:40.296-04:00your proposal is reactionary. You've just term...your proposal is reactionary. You've just terminated a cycle of deregulation/regulation and now you want the IRS to step up as a watchdog. Is the next step corporate boards benched by government officialsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-18245171405695097142011-05-24T15:27:49.460-04:002011-05-24T15:27:49.460-04:00Circuit. Your commentator's point is not inapp...Circuit. Your commentator's point is not inappropriate. If you exclude the probability that corporate sovereigns will not pullout their assets-something inconceivable 30 years ago, but recently being acknowledged tacitly (corporate sovereigns vs national sovereigns) by many (see work by Rondinelli, embryonic discussions in the 60's by Chuck KJindleberger and George Ball, best is the work by International Law theorists (Trimble is a reference).<br /><br />If you exclude the above action by fickle Footloose Corporate Sovereigns who disengage themselves of social responsibility, with the exception of corporate units that pull-out under threats of expropriation or nationalizations or unfair practices, then your analysis is not only illuminating but revelatory of a solution that right-of-centre governments can assess. Some MMters may not like the direction you suggest. Republicans would not deliberate the option. <br />Certainly, the figures you have configured for Canada suggest that your proposal is legitimate and warrants further reflection. However, your commentator raises the spectre that is damning for an entire generation of economists and politicians-corporate units that posit corporate interest above national interest. I imagine Hans Morgenthau is rolling in his grave.Jorgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02289940373257994962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-53972802452524873012011-05-23T18:53:40.501-04:002011-05-23T18:53:40.501-04:00Anon, thanks for your comments. The underlying poi...Anon, thanks for your comments. The underlying point I'm trying to make is that deficit reduction is not a particularily good policy objective. I'll I'm doing here is to suggest, as Milton Friedman liked to say, the "least bad" means to achieve that end.<br /><br />Recall also that I'm not talking about raising the corporate income tax. The proposal would simply impose a small tax on accumulated undistributed earnings. Therefore, shareholders would continue to receive the dividends they're entitled to, and firms that decide to re-invest into business operations wouldn't have to bear costs of the incentive tax. <br /><br />As for your question on why corporates are keeping the cash, I suppose you're saying that businesses are essentially calling the shots. Perhaps. But I doubt they would go to the trouble of moving their operations because of low-rated tax (as is proposed). Such a scenario can easily be mitigated by setting the proposed tax rate at a level that isn't too onerous yet high enough to act as a disincentive to save.circuithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08565443970730261572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902253799556549537.post-82746659404454699872011-05-22T17:53:47.354-04:002011-05-22T17:53:47.354-04:00Hi circuit
Great article, but corporates wont buy ...Hi circuit<br />Great article, but corporates wont buy this. The mission of the corporation is not to substitute for Govt. Let Govt keep the programs that have public and economic effects and trim down on the civil service size. Obviously dont get rid of tghe good people, but get rid of the consultants and hand-outs etc. <br />Dont get me wrong. I like your idea and admire your courage...the NDP and the Liberals in canada should hire you. But the model you're professing is somewhat outdated. You are begging the question when you point out the data indicates the solution. Why ARE CORPORATES KEEPING THE CASH....that is the new corporate reality...take my cash away and I am gone.<br />So, as long as you dont increase taxes, keep the incentives that attracted us here and allow me to do what I want with my cash including paying dividends,increasing dividends, bonuses for management and increased board honorariums....I'm all for beneficial govt intervention. That's what corporates think.<br /><br />I dont think like them, but i am getting cynical about corporate social responsibility...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com