Markets

Why are Robots Changing the Future? | Armstrong Economics

Posted on by johnbarleycorn12

QUESTION: Do you think that robots will eliminate a lot of jobs in the future? EH ANSWER: Yes. But you have to understand WHY are we even turning to robots. The answer to that question is TAXES & SOCIALISM! The bottom line is rather blunt. Any routine job that can be replaced by allowing the consumer to choose their own order to be it at a fast-food store or the internet will be at risk along with jobs that are easily be defined by a mathematical or logic equation will be at risk in the future. Many companies are now limiting workers to 33 hours per week or less to simply avoid having to provide benefits and pensions. Health reform is ABSOLUTELY vital for the future. To be able to provide REASONABLE health care at a reasonable cost DEMANDS tort reform. This is what is driving the cost of medicine really high because the doctors have to pay huge insurance fees because of the lawyers. Turn on the radio and you hear ads for lawyers all the time. They are the NUMBER ONE occupation among those in Congress so you can bet they will NEVER provide tort reform against their own industry. This idea of universal health care is a real joke. They will make comparisons to Europe, but fail to explain that doctors work for the government in most cases. Obamacare really escalated the entire problem. What Obama pulled off was the idea that forcing the youth to buy insurance would reduce the cost for those who really needed it. There were ZERO reforms and just more bureaucracy. You cannot get the benefits without reforming the system. Then throw in the pension crisis. This is leading to growing part-time employment and makes robots VERY attractive to replace jobs because they do not require benefits and salaries. As for universal income, here we go again. This is another ploy where we keep trying to come up with schemes that support a system that is failing. Deal with the heart of the issue and just maybe we might get somewhere. Let’s eliminate the income tax and adopt a new system which will not make labor outrageously expensive.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/economics/why-are-robots-changing-the-future/

Trump & the Trade War | Armstrong Economics

Posted on by johnbarleycorn12

People really think we have free trade and somehow Trump is reversing that fact. This, of course, is how the press has portrayed the issue, but that is just far from the truth. Trump is now looking at putting a 20%-25% tariff on cars coming from Europe. Personally, I only have German cars so I would not like to see that outcome. But personal wishes are not something I can explore for analysis. What I can say is that far too much is being fudged. Countries are using DUTIES as the alternative to tariffs. It has gotten so impossible, we can no longer create the mugs we always give away at every conference in the USA when the conference is in Europe or Asia. Our last two conferences in Asia required us to manufacture the mugs in the country of the conference because we cannot get them into the country even when we hand them out for free. To government’s nothing is FREE and then you have to negotiate the “duty” to pay based upon what you would have paid for a cup manufactured in their country. On that score, I have to agree with Trump. He has offered a free trade deal to the EU dropping all tariffs if they do the same. France rejected. There should be no tariffs and NO duties. Just for once let there be free trade. It has NEVER existed. Before the income tax, the US-funded itself with excise taxes. Excise taxes are taxes paid when purchases are made on a specific good, for example, gasoline. Excise taxes are often included in the price of the product. There are also excise taxes on activities, such as on wagering or on highway usage by trucks. One of the major components of the excise program is motor fuel today. Now we have consumption taxes in this manner AND income taxes. Government is now funded by just shaking us upside down and inventing countless taxes so they do not have to report the total cost of taxes.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/trump-the-trade-war/

There are no truly free markets anymore

Real Estate & Understanding The Role of Debt | Armstrong Economics

Posted on by johnbarleycorn12

QUESTION: Dear Sir/Madam Thank you so much for what you all do. I was just reading today’s Blog 17-08-2018 – ‘ Real Estate – Leverage – Transition to the Reset ‘. The bit I did not understand was where it was written ‘ Keep in mind that as the currency declines, then the repayment cost of a mortgage declines. One the one hand, mortgages will be unavailable but those who hold the mortgage lose the most ‘ My question is when the Reset happens in which way will the mortgage holders lose the most even if the repayment cost of a mortgage declines ? I live in the UK thank you so much ANSWER: Since I posted that chart from Socrates that illustrates real estate, many people have written in to ask where can they find that on Socrates. This is part of the pro-version that will be release WE HOPE for the WEC this year. Here are the real estate markets covered by Socrates at this time. What I mean when I say that those who hold mortgages lose in such a situation of a decline in the purchasing power of a currency is basic. The city of Detroit suspended its payments on bonds in 1937. They resumed in 1963. Now they say they never defaulted. However, they paid back with cheaper dollars. The holder of a mortgage or a bond charges interest which is supposed to be more than the inflation rate. When inflation exceeds the interest rate, then you are paying back with cheaper dollars. Take a life-insurance policy. If you bought one in the 1940s and it was for the huge amount of $5,000, after funeral costs of say $1,500, you left your heirs a sizable chunk of money. Today, that is nothing and will cover at best 20% of the cost of a funeral. Life-insurance is always paying back with a cheaper dollar. This is the problem in Europe. Greece, Italy, and Spain were accustomed to paying their past debts with a cheaper currency. When they converted their debts to the Euro and the Euro doubled in value, suddenly they went into deflation and cannot pay their debts and survive. The borrower always benefits over the long-run because they are traditionally paying back with cheaper currency. If you took out a mortgage in 2007 when the pound hit 2.11 and you paid it off in 2016 when the pound was 1.18, you saved 44% in real terms of currency. This is what was behind the real estate boom that government and the vast majority of people do not understand. One of the reasons I have been blamed for creating the take over boom back in the 1980s, was that I had shown some of the takeover playing how to use currency. In the case of Alan Bond who bought all the Courage Pubs back then, we were borrowing in a currency that was declining against the pound. I showed him and others how to take debt and convert it into a performing asset. They were the fun times.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/real_estate/real-estate-understanding-the-role-of-debt/

I had never considered this