The Weiner Component V.2 #19 – The Trump Budget

Not too long ago President Trump came out with his proposed budget for the year 2018.  It was heavy with a ten percent increase for the military, had draconian cuts for Social Services cutting some programs and illuminating a large number of others.  It also cut out programs for the arts and for scientific research.  It contained what Trump calls Tax Reform.  This is actually a massive cut for the top Two percent of earners and large corporation decreases in taxes.

 

Looking at his Cabinet the indication is that Trump wants a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.  The groups really harmed by his proposal would be the poor who are totally dependent upon the Federal Government for numerous services and the elderly living upon a fixed income like Social Security or a set retirement that decreases year by year as prices slowly rise due to inflation or otherwise.  Their medical insurance would rise significantly but their coverage or protection by the state would decrease significantly.

 

One can suppose a rapid rise in their death rate of the elderly would benefit the government as their producing days are over and they are only consuming.

******************************

In a recent article on the internet a staunch conservative congratulated President Trump for his stance on the budget but then stated that he did not go far enough.  He apparently felt that Trump’s proposed massive cuts to the United States social programs would still be costing too much money.

 

Trump’s Treasury Secretary, Steven T. Mnuchin, was originally a Wall Street financier.  According to his and several other people who are involved in finance and working for Trump have stated and may well believe that following Trump’s budget will raise the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to 3%.  It was .075 in 2015.

 

These people come from the world of finance.  They are not economists.  To many economists this is wishful thinking nonsense; it’s not about to happen.  In fact with all the Trump cuts, increases in spending, and lowering of taxes for the wealthy the deficit will increase considerably in 2017 and 2018.  Thus significantly upping the National Debt which is currently 19 trillion plus dollars.

 

The National Debt is currently approaching 20 trillion dollars but what it actually is is misunderstood by most people in the country.  Most people consider that this is money owed to countries like China and Japan for the uneven trade that goes on with them.  But this is only partly true.

 

The National Debt consists of two parts: one public and one private.  The public part is the money that the government owns.  It is money that it has lent itself.  The question here is can an entity owe itself money?  In terms of the Federal Government obviously it can.  Several times a year the Federal Reserve transfers billions of dollar in interest to the Treasury.

 

Entities within the government transfer their surplus funds to the general fund.  The government then gives them credit for the transferred funds.  The largest entity to do this is Social Security.  In the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was President, Social Security was in trouble.  It could conceivably run out of money in the near future.  Congress raised the amounts paid into Social Security by both the individuals and their employers.  And in 1989 Medicare was separated from Social Security.  Additional separate amounts were paid into it by both employers and employees from then on.  Also at this time people who did not pay into Social Security could make payments into Medicare and have it when they retired.

 

From that time on Social Security has had a relatively large surplus.  It is today the largest debt holder of part of the National Debt.  Interestingly Al Gore, when he ran against George W. Bush, has as part of his platform, a lockbox, which would have been banking surplus Social Security funds rather than putting them into the General Fund and spending them.  However with George W. Bush as President the surplus went into the General Fund and was spent.

 

China, Japan and other nations have many individuals and companies within their countries that hold U.S. Government loan papers.  That and loan bonds held by individuals within the United States and other countries would make up the privately held National Debt.

 

The Federal Reserve admits to owning about 50% of the National Debt.  I would estimate it to be more like 60% to 70% of the actual National Debt.

********************************

The FED sells these bonds continually, increasing or decreasing the amount of currency in circulation.  Money is not only cash; it is also credit and debit cards and checks.  The FED regulates the amount of currency in order to control value and limit inflation.  Too much money in circulation decreases the value of the money and too little money being available creates deflation.  The FED has to maintain a balance between the amount of money in circulation and the population of the country.

*****************************

In the minds of most people money is an object of value.  It allows people to have what they need and want.  In fact for most of its history money itself was an object of value acceptable all over the world.  Eventually the amount of gold and silver, which was money in the form of coins, was insufficient in terms of all the business that went on in a country.  There wasn’t enough gold and silver available to conduct the necessary business for the country to function properly.  As a result of this the government of each individual nation withdrew the precious metal and began printing its own currency which functioned within its borders..

 

This began at about the first third of the 20th Century and has continued since then.  Money today in the U.S. is a Federal Reserve Note.  It has no real intrinsic value.  It is merely a means of exchange for goods or services.

 

Adam Smith in 1776 published “An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations.” In this work, which was strongly influenced by French economists called the physiocrats, Smith developed the basis of the modern capitalistic economics.  The true wealth of a nation is what it produces; its goods and services.  These are it Gross Domestic Product.  They are defined as all the goods and services the nation produces in terms of dollars and cents within a given period of time, a fiscal year.

 

This brings us to the basic concept.  What is the actual wealth of a nation?  Today the United States is the wealthiest nation that has ever existed.  Yet according to our current President we cannot afford to take care of our overall population.  I sometimes think that all modern day Republicans would be much happier if they had lived hundreds of years ago when every individual was responsible for himself and for his family and government merely existed to protect him from foreign invasion.  Looking back historically I wonder if such a time ever really existed.

******************************

By following Trump’s budget the government will massively reduce its spending.  The military will have much more to spend.  Trump has indicated that he will massively increase U.S. presence and involvement in the Middle East.  Much of the military funding will be spent overseas and a large percentage of the tax decrease will go to the upper two percent of the population.  They have not noticeably increased their expenditures when their incomes have increased in the past and the probability is that they will not do so in the present.

 

What will happen with his tax cut, if it comes into existence, is that there will be far less money available in the economy for the purchase of goods and services.  The probability is that because of a lack of funds less money will be spent and less goods and services demanded.  The GDP will actually decrease and it could achieve 0 growth or possibly .01% actual growth or even hit a minus figure,

 

There is also the fact that there is a velocity to money spent in the National Cash Flow.  Money when spent is usually spent three to twelve times.  For example a person shops in a supermarket.  He or she spends twenty dollars.  That money may be used to pay the salary of an employee.  The employee spends that money on dinner in a restaurant.  It can again pay an employee’s salary.  The money keeps getting spent until it becomes part of the Natural Cash Flow that can be three to twelve times.  The $20 can generate $60 to $240 worth of increased productivity.  Conversely if the money is not spent that amount of productivity is cut from the GDP.  All of Trump’s cuts will subtract trillions of dollars from the economy.

 

In addition to bringing a tremendous amount of misery Trump could also bring about a tremendous recession of depression.  We are still working our way out of the Great Recession of 2008.  Trump also wants to get rid of the laws that were passed to avoid that situation from ever occurring again.  Concievably the country could be brought back to the point we had reached in 2008 that almost brought the nation to a worse situation than occurred in 1929, with the Great Depression, which was also brought about by a Republican run government,.  This can be done by following what today could be called Trumponomics.

The Weiner Component #140C – Congress & the National Debt

National-Debt-GDP

National-Debt-GDP (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The National or Public Debt is money that the United States has borrowed above what it collects in taxes and which, with taxes, it uses to operate the country.

 

The high current level of the National Debt was brought about by the three last Republican Presidents: Ronald Reagan and the two Bush presidents, father and son.  The majority of the balance came about by policies and wars by these three men.  Prior to Reagan assuming office the National Debt, which had existed since the inception of this nation, was under one trillion dollars.

 

Republican led economizing actions toward the Public or National Debt have been penny wise and dollar stupid; particularly since the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 2011.  Since this period their economizing policies have actually exacerbated both the unemployment situation and lowered the overall economic health of the United States, actually keeping the GDP (Gross National Product) considerably lower than it could or should have been.    Their tactics of forcing their agenda through by refusing to enact necessary legislation unless their economizing bills were also passed have cost the government millions, if not billions.  This is particularly true with bills funding the Federal Government or raising the nation’s debt limit that they mostly caused to be as high as it is.  In fact we are just passed a point in time when the government once again needed to have the debt limit raised above the 18.1 trillion limit or cause financial crises by not allowing the Treasury to have enough funds to pay the continuing costs of running the Federal Government.

 

Fortunately this was one of the final acts of the retiring Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner.  He, with the majority leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, and with President Obama worked out a compromise bill through a telephone conference.  They raised the National Debt so that it will not have to be adjusted for two years and also funded the military properly for the oncoming year.  This was done in both Houses of Congress with Democratic help.

 

The conservative Congress presumably wants to or was attempting to use this as a bargaining/blackmailing tool to force the President to cut discretionary spending, which already has been and will again be automatically cut by the sequester at the beginning of the New Year.

************************

The National Debt, all 18.1 trillion of it, consists of two categories, Public and Private Debt.  The Federal Government owns through its assorted agencies probably, at least, 50% of its own debt.  It could be a lot higher than that.

 

Question: Can an entity owe itself money?  Can any individual or entity owe itself money and legally charge itself interest on these funds?  Apparently only the Federal Government can and does do this.

 

But is it real?  Since money has no intrinsic value the Federal Government could print any amount it wishes.  There is absolutely nothing behind the dollar but the word of the National Government.  There are, of course, reasons why it doesn’t but the Federal Reserve can and does occasionally increase the amount of money in circulation in the National Cash Flow.

 

Of course if any agency like Social Security, which has been showing a profit since 1983 when it was last adjusted and is currently owed about three trillion dollars, were to need any of its additional funds or some of the monies owed to it, that would create problems since the monies has been and are continuing to be spent, both the principle and the interest, and Social Security is given book credit for all these amounts.

 

This process is also true for a large number of government funds that run a surplus; the excess money is freely added to the general fund.  The major exception to this practice would be the Federal Reserve which will and has used debt funds to make adjustments in the National Cash Flow, adding money when there is a shortage during periods of deflation or recession and taking funds out of the National Cash Flow during periods of increasing inflation when there is too much money available in the flow.

 

The rest of the Public or National Debt is private, borrowed on a short or long term basis, from individuals, countries, and other entities.  The major foreign holder of American debt is China, (whether its individuals, companies, or the government itself is another question), holding about 3 trillion dollars’ worth of this loan paper.  Japan is next holding a little less.  The third, I believe, is India.  Companies and individuals hold this mortgage paper.  The FED has sales of it going on all the time, selling short to long term bonds.

 

In addition people buy EE bonds as gifts and as a form of savings.  These bonds function over a 5 year period and their cost is less than the face value of the bond which is the value after 5 years.  They make nice gift for youngsters in that they cost less than their face value and if they are held over 5 years pay additional interest.  I bonds tend to cost more and generally pay a higher rate of interest.  Here the interest is added on to the bond.  There are no state or local taxes on these bonds.

 

How real is the Public or National Debt if the Federal Government owns a large percentage of its own debt?  An interesting question and different economists have different conclusions or interpretations of this fact.

************************

Alan Greenspan, a conservative economist, was appointed Federal Reserve Chairman by President Ronald Reagan in August 1987 and served until January of 2006.  He held that the Free Market was essential in making economic decisions.  Reagan and his advisors followed the same principle.  They deregulated the banking industry and allowed them to move freely forward.

 

Greenspan served for almost 20 years as Chairman, the second longest tenure of any chairman in the FED and was looked upon by many members of Congress almost as a seer who could foretell the economic future.  Unfortunately Greenspan, even with all the information provided by the Federal Reserve’s constant monitoring of the economy missed the major change that occurred during his term as Chairman.  That was the need for rapid monetary expansion by a rapidly growing economy.  Instead of the FED increasing the money supply in a sane fashion it was left to the unregulated banks to expand the amount of currency in circulation.  This was done slowly at first and then gathered speed like a free moving vehicle rushing downhill.  By 2007 the signs of eminent economic collapse were present.  But they were faced with denial by a generation of bankers who had known only rising real estate values.  The Real Estate Crash came in late 2008 when the entire real estate market disintegrated overnight.  So much for economic awareness by the experts!

*****************************

First, what is the real National Debt?  Is it just the Private Debt or is it both, the Public and the Private Debt?  The American dollar today is still considered one of the most prized currencies in the world.  The FED has never had any trouble selling its bonds both domestically and to foreign investors.   Most other nations rank their currencies to the value of the dollar.  Some economic theories or beliefs seem to occasionally be in a process of change.  Finally the United States does not seem to be even near the point of going bankrupt.

 

We are moving into economic areas where it would seem new laws of economics seem to be about to be discovered.  Money, in terms of Macroeconomics, is related to the system of taxation but not dependent upon it.  Money, to the state, is a tool utilized to enhance productivity and the levels of national consumption and standards of living for the entire population.

 

The determining factor of how much money should be in circulation is or should be determined by the level of inflation or deflation that exists in the nation.  A high rate of inflation determines that not enough goods and services are being produced. People are bidding up the price of everything.  A rapid drop in prices indicates that too much goods and services are available and there is not enough cash in the general society to purchase them.  One of the main jobs of the Federal Reserve is to maintain a balance between these two forces. For this process the 12 Federal Reserve Banks are supposed to constantly monitor their areas of responsibility.

 

This was not done properly by the FED from the 1970s through 2008 and the Real Estate Collapse was brought about by the deregulated irresponsible banking industry that created excess trillions of dollars that were added to the National Cash Flow.  If the increased cash needed for the economic growth for this period had gradually been added to the national economy by the Federal Reserve there would never have been the 2008 Real Estate Disaster.  The FED, under Alan Greenspan, allowed the Free Market or unregulated Capitalism to bring about economic disaster.

****************************

Many economists believe that as long as the Public Debt does not exceed the Gross National Product (GDP), which is all the goods and services produced in the nation in one fiscal year, the country is safe.  The GDP is estimated to be 17,419 trillion dollars for 2015, the Debt Limit has to be raised beyond 18.1 trillion dollars.  The estimated growth in the GDP between 2014 and 2015 is estimated to be 651 billion dollars.

 

There have been times in the past, usually during major wars or economic emergencies like the Great Depression, when government spending has exceeded the value of the GDP.   These have lasted for short periods of time.  Once it regularly exceeds that level there is, according to some economists, a serious problem.

 

Also as we move toward the middle of the current century the retired population and those needing more continual medical treatment will increase significantly raising the costs of Social Security and Medicare.  Both of these programs will take a larger and larger percentage of discretionary spending continually bringing up the Federal Government’s costs.  Presumably the costs will increase far above the GDP.  At this point, according to some economists, the ever growing National Debt could cause continual economic harm to the country.

***************************

If we accept this premise as accurate there are certain known variables that have not been factored into this premise.  There may also be other unknown variables that could come up.

 

The first major factor to consider is time.  Most of these future projections are based upon the present; that is, given a future of a decade or two or more, if everything remains exactly the same except for what is being discussed, then the projection will happen.  Generally no one can accurately project all the changes that will come about ten or more years from now.  On that basis any prediction is flawed.

 

Think of your own lives.  What was your world like ten or more years ago?  Could you even imagine being where you are now?  Could you imagine the world as it is now?  I recently found myself standing in a supermarket checkout line looking at a display of chocolate bars.  They were on sale, 4 for five dollars.  For no reason I said aloud, “What happened to the 5 cent bars of chocolate?”  The person in front of me, who was being checked out, start to muse aloud about how, as a child, how much candy he could buy then for a quarter.  He was in his mid-fifties.  Values or prices have changed considerably since then.  Money has decreased in value.  That is one variable that no one really projected.

 

Social Security was last fixed or its premiums were raised in 1983 during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.  It has had since then and currently still has a surplus.  Presumably sometime well past the middle of this century it will begin using this surplus and toward the end of this century will have used it out and have to be readjusted, if this is not done earlier.  Medicare was separated from social security in the late 1980s.  From that time on it was funded by an additional payroll tax paid by, like social security, both by employees and employers.  Both or either of these funds can be again increased or fixed.

 

What many economists are projecting into the future is what will happen if the present becomes the future.  Essentially with no other changes in the future except the increase in the elderly population they are predicting what will happen.  They are not taking any other variabilities into consideration.  The probability of the projection coming true as stated is very low, probably well under 25%.

 

In the last few years the amount of money, as a percentage of taxes collected, has been significantly decreasing but so has the cost of running the Federal Government.  We could possibly in Barak Obama’s last year as president actually have a slight surplus decreasing the National or Public Debt.  This did occur during Clinton’s last year as President.

*******************************

Will the Federal Government raise the National Debt further toward the end of this century?  We still haven’t defined what is the real National Debt or, for that matter, the reality of the National Debt as a factor in the operation of this nation in terms of Macroeconomics.  We are moving forward in time with assorted future projections by assorted economists, some of these forecasts contradicting other forecasts.

 

Has Congress even begun to study this problem?  Most of what I have heard from Republican Congressmen has been doom and gloom, the country is headed for bankruptcy unless we cut down Federal spending.  Yet the Republican headed Congress can spend well over 4 and 1/2 million dollars holding numerous standing committee hearings trying to tear down or blame Hillary Rodham Clinton for what happened in Benghazi, Libya while Clinton was Secretary of State.  And this same Republican Congress earlier wasted over a billion dollars shutting down the Federal Government by refusing to fund it.  Some of the potential Republican candidates for the 2016 Presidential Elections seem to want to massively expand the war against ISIS.  They seem to have a problem dealing with the real world!

English: The holders of the United States nati...

English: The holders of the United States national debt as of December 2008. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Weiner Component #86 – Retirement & Budgeting Through Life

Many people put themselves in an uncomfortable position when they retire, if they retire. They can no longer afford their former cost of living. Their retirement, be it social security or a private fund or a combination of the two that they have contributed to throughout their working lives makes up their retirement; they have no other source of money. By maintaining what they consider their proper standard of living these individuals have not been able to save; they have essentially spent all they have ever earned. They have never applied any basic lessons of economics to themselves; seeing money throughout their lives only as a basic means of satisfying their needs and wants.

Money, income, can be divided into two categories: something to be used for living, pleasure and fulfillment of needs and desires or it can be used as a commodity, a means of earning more money.

To the upper 20% of the population, who have a surplus income, more money than they can reasonably spend, it is used in both ways. To most of the remaining 80% it tends to be utilized for the process of living. In fact, most of them will spend 110% of their incomes to maintain what they consider their proper standard of living. As a result they will always be carrying a certain amount of debt throughout their lives and never be able to find themselves getting financially ahead. Of course to the bottom rungs of society, the unskilled and homeless, they earn so little that what there is, is needed to just survive.

The United States is basically divided into classes; many of which can be divided into subclasses. There is the very rich, the upper 1%, who earn far more that they can possibly spend with incomes in the multimillions of dollars. Then there is the remaining 19% of the upper class with incomes in the low millions to the high hundreds of thousands. These people have no problem using money as both a commodity and for daily living.

Economically below is the middle class which consists of three categories. The upper middle class, the comfortable middle class; these are usually the college graduates; generally they consist of company management with salaries in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars. These are also the professionals: doctors, engineers, college professors and the like with specific occupations. The middle, middle class would be made up of college and non-college graduates, “the white collar” employees who have lower management positions and earn from over one hundred thousand dollars down. This group also includes successful “blue-collar” workers. Then comes the lower middle class which would be made up of a group similar to the above class but with lower salaries.

Next comes the lower class. This group is split into two parts: those earning an adequate income to more or less comfortably survive and the group living in the area of the minimum wage. The latter group generally needs government aid in the form of food stamps and rent controlled housing in order to properly survive. Finally there is the underclass, the people living in the streets, the homeless. A small percentage of these live in their cars; they do not earn enough, if they are employed, to pay for housing.

From the bottom up, through most of the middle class, these people spend everything they earn. In fact, most of them spend more than they earn; the society allows life to be lived on credit which can be paid off monthly or extended infinitely with interest. Consequently a lot of these people are in a position that will never allow them to retire. They will work until they are no longer able to do so. Also a goodly percentage of the bottom groups are either unmarried or divorced women with young children.

The major problem that most of these people face is budgeting. They have no idea how to do this and, as has been indicated, the overall society is oriented toward getting people to spend, to consume the goods and services produced and readily available.

Money is the means through which everything functions. It has no real value other than what is assigned to it by the society and this value is flexible, ever gradually changing. Its distribution to the population is determined by the various occupations its people have or through inheritance and ownership of the means of living and of production. People use it both to live and earn more money.

The society is geared to have people spend their money, even to a point of spending more than they have or are earning. Many big ticket items like automobiles or houses require installment purchasing. This includes not only necessary items but also adult toys like boats, and traveling mobile homes. Buy now and pay later is even carried to food and clothing purchases with credit cards. By and large a whole segment of the society’s lives are based upon credit purchasing. This has been carried in many cases to the point where the level of credit has been maxed out and the people are paying 18 to 21% interest virtually forever on five or ten or twenty thousand dollars’ worth of credit that they never seem able to reduce.

However a goodly part of the middle class by a conscious effort can put away a small percentage of their income which, over their working lifetime, can give them a fair to excellent increase in their retirement. It is just as easy to spend $900 a week as it is to spend $1,000, $600 as $550. A hundred dollars saved a week equals $5,200 a year. Fifty dollars saved a week is $2,600 a year. While these amounts may not seem like significant amounts that changes when thirty working years is added to each of them. Add either interest or growth from a safe investment and the individual has put away in excess of $156,000 or $78,000. At 3% interest add another $54,200 to the first sum and $26,100 to the second amount. This is probably the most conservative investment anyone can make on a long term savings account.

If the individual feels that he or she cannot afford this much in savings then skipping two fast food luncheons a week would provide ten dollars; that’s $40 a month or $2,080 for a 52 week year. This equals $62,400 for 30 working years with no interest. At 3% interest it would approximate $63,092. All of this is straight savings bank or credit union savings.

Probably most people, who want a decent retirement, have no self-control and use insurance. This is a popular means used by those who have no self-control; they do not have the ability to save or invest. Money to these people is only used to supply needs and pleasures. Whatever they have they spend.

The insurance industry is based upon gambling and for the people who own and control it, it is safer and more profitable than Los Vegas casinos are for their owners.

There are several types of insurance policies. One kind is term insurance. The individual is betting a small amount each month that he or she will die and the insurance company is betting that he or she will not die. The insurance company will pay out to the individual’s family $100,000 if he or she passes on. It keeps the small payment if they continue to live. The amount is usually set by a person’s age and the insurance company has actuaries that figure out how many people in that age group will die. For every $100,000 the insurance company pays out it keeps millions of dollars. This is term insurance.

Then there is life insurance. Here the individual pays in so much a month for the rest of their lives or until they are 65; and upon their death their family gets 15, 30, 50, 100, or whatever, thousand dollars. The premium of these policies also include term insurance which would cover the policy if the individual dies early.

There is also the life insurance annuity policy where there is life insurance and upon reaching the age of 65 the individual receives a monthly payment of several hundred dollars a month for the rest of his life. It doesn’t really matter how long he lives because the insurance company has made far more than they’ve paid out or will pay out from his payments. There are innumerable insurance plans or variations of plans but these are the major ones,

However a goodly number of the middle class, those with self-control, by a conscious effort can put away a small percentage of their incomes which, over their working lifetimes, can give them a fair to excellent increase in their retirement. It is just as easy to spend $900 a week as it is to spend $1,000 or $550 as it is to spend $600.

All of the methods of building a resource base shown so far are relatively safe. One can see their basic wealth slowly increase over one’s lifetime and have it eventually supplement their retirement income, whether it be social security, a government retirement plan, or a private retirement plan. This allows for comfortable unemployed years with a possible estate upon the demise of the individual.

There is another way to go. The more risk one takes the higher the possible rewards; but also the higher the risk of losing all or part of the money.

One method is the gradual purchase of properties. Usually property accrues in value over the years. If it is the purchase of a house for rental and there are continued tenants then they actually pay for increases in the owners’ equity. The problem is that in order for the property to be profitable the owner has to be a landlord with all the responsibilities of a landlord. Also if the house is not continually rented out the owner is still responsible for the monthly payment. Another advantage would be yearly tax benefits. And, of course, the house can always be sold.

How does this come about? One has to save his money until he have enough for a down payment on a property plus an emergency amount for unexpected occurrences.

One can build ownership in a large number of houses over a period of time in this fashion.

Another method to save for retirement would be the stock market. Here the risk increases considerably but with conservative long term purchases can be fairly safe.

A stock is one share of ownership in a company that has probably issued millions of shares of its stock in order to raise money. If the company makes a profit they may pay a dividend, usually quarterly. Many companies allow the recipients of their dividends to automatically reinvest their dividends into additional shares and will also allow them to invest small amounts in additional shares.

Perhaps one of the safest areas in which to invest is in utilities, gas and electric. These items are necessary for comfortable living; the companies have been around for a long time and will continue to be needed infinitely into the future. If anything they will be gradually expanding as populations expand. Also these stocks pay a reasonable dividend. The stock for these companies generally runs from $25 a share up to around $60. Just about all of them allow the owner to reinvest their dividends and buy additional shares with no fees. There is very little chance of one of them going out of business. One can buy 25 to 100 shares and build their portfolio from there.

The Bank of America pays a dividend per quarter of one cent per share; yearly, that is four cents. The stock cost about $14 to $15 a share. Apple, which currently is over $90 a share, paid no dividend through most of its history, then in the last few years ago it has paid a fairly large dividend. Microsoft also paid no dividend originally, then at some point it was embarrassed by having a war chest of 55 billion dollars, and began paying a dividend. They were still embarrassed and issued a one-time special dividend of $3.00 per share. Microsoft currently goes for about $40 a share. The stock for Marvel Enterprises at one point sold for $1.50 a share. They at first licensed some of their characters for films like the Spiderman series then began producing their own films. The value of the stock rose significantly, then split into two for one share and finally the company was taken over by Disney, who paid $30 a share plus ¾ of a share of Disney stock, making the value of one share of that stock today about $90.

An example of a growing stock would be Tesla Motors which produces all electric luxury cars that sell from $70,000 to $100,000. According to Consumer’s Union they are the safest automobile on the road. When the company went public in 2010 the stock could be bought for around $30 a share. Today in mid-2014 it costs over $200 a share.

With a single battery charge the Tesla today can go a little over 300 miles. They are currently in the process of building the largest battery factory in the world. In 2015 they will begin producing and selling an all-electric SUV. About two years further in the future they will be making a smaller less expensive electric sedan that will sell at a much lower price. They are also planning to eventually open factories in China and Europe. The probability is that the stock will go up to $300 to $500 a share in the next three to five years. Unfortunately 100 shares of the stock today is over $20,000.

Another growth stock, which is much more affordable, is the Empire State Realty Trust that came onto the market in October of 2014 at $13 per share. There are four separate designations for this stock. They are all equal and pay the same dividend. The stock is presently between $15 and $16 per share and has paid 8 1/2 cents a share in the last quarter and will gradually rise. Within two or three years the stock value should double or triple as the real estate upon which it is based increases in value. Currently the cost is about $1,500 to buy 100 shares of this stock, $750 for 50 shares.

These are random examples. One can make or lose money quite easily in the stock market. The latter is easier if one does not know what they are doing.

Stock has to be purchased through a broker. Most banks and credit unions have a division that deals with this. They charge a fee for the service that is determined by the extent to which they advise you. There are also stock brokers many of whom go by formulas by which they advise their customers. These may or may not work. The broker will generally charge you more than the bank or credit union. These people make a living by buying and selling stock. Their primary interest is earning money, you come second.

Hopefully this blog has some value and will give some people ideas on how to have estates of at least five or six figures when they retire.

 

The Weiner Component #17 – Medicare, Social Security, & the National Debt

Benefit Security Card .. HALF of the U.S live ...

Initially, when Medicare first came into existence in 1965, during the Administration of President Lyndon Baines Johnson, it was part of Social Security.  During the early part of his first Administration President Ronald Reagan fixed Social Security by raising the rates paid by both the employees and employers.  Social Security did not have a problem funding the people it covered at the time but it was felt that this change would allow the system to operate well into the future.  The new funding completely covered both Social Security and Medicare.

In 1988, the last year of the Second Reagan Administration, Medicare was separated from Social Security; and thereafter funded separately.  Social Security continued to be funded at its current rate: 4.2% of incomes up to $110,100 paid by the workers with 6.2% contributed by the employer.  The self-employed pay 10.4% of their incomes.  No adjustment was made to lower the funding now that Medicare was a separately funded entity.  Medicare was funded independently by a 2.9% payroll tax, both workers and employers each paying 1.45%.  Taken together each employee pays, directly or indirectly, 13.3% of their incomes.

Question: When the Republican Congressmen talk about fixing Social Security are they talking about reducing its rates to bring it in line with the amount it pays out or are they talking about taking the excess funds such as the 2 ½ plus trillion dollars that the government has borrowed from social Security and put into the National Debt; or are they considering reducing the payments to the recipients of Social Security and keeping the excess still being paid into it?

In point of fact, Social Security has nothing to do with the National Debt except that part which is owed to it.  One reasonable way to fix Medicare today would be to reduce Social Security by one or more percent and increase the payment to Medicare by that same amount.  Any other argument at this time is based in ignorance of the actual situation.  Are the members of Congress who are proposing these changes being devious and dishonest or are they just ignorant of the actual situation?  If the answer is ignorance then they and their staffs, which cost the taxpayer well over a million dollars a year, are ill equipped to serve as Representatives of the American people, if they are being devious and dishonest then they do not belong in Congress but rather should be incarcerated.

The National Debt is another interesting subject.  Is it real?  If not what is it?  The Federal Government admits to holding 40% of the National debt.  By my reckoning the figure is more like 70%. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve recently announced that the Fed is buying 400 billion dollars worth of real estate paper a month and 450 billion dollars worth of bonds each similar period..

Can an entity owe itself money?  The answer legally is No.  It can be argued that agencies within the government and the Federal Reserve hold most of the debt and that it will someday have to be paid back.  But isn’t all that that sophistry?

Obviously there is a National Debt, but it is far less than what it is officially stated as being.  If we deduct the percentage of the National Debt that the Federal Government holds through it agencies and otherwise the actual Debt is less than 5 trillion dollars.  That is far more manageable than $16 trillion.  Of course that is by my calculation and includes all the Monetary Policy applied during the Obama Administration.  If we just take the 40% the Federal Government acknowledges it owns then the figure is slightly under $10 billion.

In either case what we have to keep in mind is that the Federal Government controls the flow of currency in the economy and that there is nothing behind the dollar except the National Debt.  Money as used by the Federal Government in Macroeconomics is a tool that is supposed to engender growth and health within the economy.

Up to this point the Federal Reserve has been utilizing Monetary Policy in both regular and imaginative ways to try to bring about recovery from the 2008 Real Estate Debacle.  It has been successful in helping to turn the economy around and bring about partial recovery.  In order to bring about total economic recovery all that has to be done is to apply Fiscal Policy by both Houses of Congress and the President.  This would increase the so-called National Debt but it would generate a large volume of new productivity and new wealth, and, in all probability, lower the Debt in a short period of time.

Enhanced by Zemanta