The dollar and a double dip?

So I have always been a casual observer of the markets (stocks and bonds), but never much cared for speculation. I do not believe it breads good intentions. It requires companies to focus there progress to the short-term and make decisions where they otherwise would not if they were looking longer-term to achieve break-even.

The recent correction (down then back up) is proof positive that the market is unsteady. Bloomberg recapped how the treasury responded to the Federal Reserve meeting where they all but signed us up for more devaluation of our currency and unrealistic interest rates.  I don't know if the fiscal and monetary policy genius's in our beloved government missed the basis premise that whenever the money supply is increased without a rise in interest rates (to modulate the risk) - there will be an adjustment in the borrowing market at some point, i.e. hyperinflation - the scales have to balance.  I don't understand how there is no basis understanding that if more money is printed and the economy hasn't turned the corner that the simple answer to again print more money with the hopes that at different result occurs...I do believe there is a definition for this behavior and it is call insanity.

I will now try and bridge the gap from economic theory to political theory.  It seems that the textbook theories that have been tried over the past 2.5+ years will die hard even though they have failed every single bullet-point in the stimulus's propose... shovel-ready was quite shovel-ready???  Or we haven't borrowed enough to influence the market ... ??? What the hell ... does anyone else think that sounds illogical???  I do believe there is a point where you print so much money your currency becomes ... hmmm .... worthless... look at Zimbabwea's dollar.

Could it possibly be that the market and the economy's (private) does not feel the government understands growth is the answer not servicing a over-extended lifestyle on borrowed money.  After all, the private sector is the only sector that produces wealth ... the public sector needs to siphon a fraction of that wealth to sustain its existence - or borrow which we have done so well at. So logically, the public sector would need to contract as the public sector contracts... right?  That would require a reduction in real spending, not a trimming of projected increases of course...which was the 'compromise' in the most recent debt scam.

I have a hard time understand the difficulty in trying to cut spending from the government.  Unless there is an over-arching feeling that the society that has been created is dependent upon the government for support?  At some point if you take away the money from the rich you are left with no producing sources of revenue and likewise no growth in the economy ... unless your goal is to kill the economy no sane person would ever push such highly-leveraged budgets ... but we certainly have accelerated that haven't we?

Pull back your individual perspective on these issues and try to wrap your head around the big picture ... central planning has never worked outside of a academic model for one TRUE reason...it doesn't capture natural human law.  It encourages negative incentives sugar-coated as compassionate policies.  Over time these policies retard social morality and created a culture of incivility, as seen in England recently.

I will close briefly with my personal definition of morality.  I do not believe that morality originates in religion.  I believe that morality is innate in every human and a part of cognitive reasoning.  As we age - we see things and experience events that shape our perception.  This skews the originating truth that I define as morality and behavior that is virtuous.

With that in mind ... your thoughts?

Introduction to the blogosphere

Let us start with a bag - lets talk about taxes.  I believe that there is a disparity between the truth about rich and the truth about wealth.  It is too often portrayed as the incredibly 'rich' who are the source for all that plagues economic progress.  There is a direct tie to the rich and the 'fair' share they should pay.  It might surprise you the top payroll recipients do not collectively hold much water inside the nation's budget pool.  In fact the media likes to call those who own corporate jets those who also make more that $250,000/yr; while this is true - it is intended to create a connection to the top tax bracket individuals with those who have wealth.  Does this get to the heart of the purpose and intent of taxes?  The article from the UK Daily Mail tries to provide some insight into the quantities that taxation collects.

When I speak of wealth, I am talking about money in the bank and scattered across investments.  This money is strictly speaking not subject to taxation, unless the money is moved and a financial transaction is made.

It is my opinion the true intent of the progressive tax structure is to move money away from those people who are successful and give it to those who are less fortunate.  Does this achieve the right moral objective?  Is it a hand-out or a hand-up?  How do you not create a safety net or a life-line by providing assistance that if removed requires huge changes in lifestyle?

I'd like your thoughts...