Pour yourself a cup-o-joe, and settle in for our early Sunday morn reads:

• You Are the Problem (Fool)
• The Cyber-Terror Bank Bailout: They’re Already Talking About It, and You May Be on the Hook (Bloomberg)
• How Diversification Works (A Wealth of Common Sense)
• My eBay MBA: a dozen business lessons from online auctions (FT)
• The history of Germany’s hyperinflation-phobia
• Nation of Privilege Versus Rule of Law (Bloomberg View)
• U.S. Utilities Push the Electric Car (WSJ)
• The Eternal Problems Silicon Valley Can’t Solve (Fast Company)
• Why Randians should never be allowed around money (Happy Nice Time People) see also Feast of the Wingnuts (New Republic)
• Astronomers Find What May Be the Closest Exoplanet to Earth (Slate)

What’s for brunch ?

 

 

Earnings Could Suffer Following Bonus-Depreciation Rule Expiration

Source: WSJ

 

Category: Financial Press

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

10 Responses to “10 Sunday Reads”

  1. willid3 says:

    When the banks get hit by a major cyber attack I am guessing we will revisit the great depression all thanks to one GOP rep

    • rd says:

      Investing in increased IS security would get in the way of record profits, so the optimum is to defer the expense and then slough off the negative impacts onto the government and the taxpayer. I believe that fits into the standard GOP model of economic theory quite well.

      These are the institutions that have refused to use microchips in credit and debit cards that provide a much higher degree of security and are used in much of the rest of the world because the United States “can’t afford it”.

  2. johnl says:

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-reasons-to-flee-the-us-for-canada-2014-08-29?link=sfmw_sm

    Make sure you look before you leap, there are risks not mentioned here.

  3. mpetrosian says:

    Wow. Sure you don’t want paper statements anymore?

  4. Jojo says:

    Too funny!
    ———-
    A monkey bullies two tigers
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRyGzlf6SpQ

  5. Jojo says:

    Robert W. Wood Contributor
    8/28/2014
    U.S. Hikes Fee To Renounce Citizenship By 422%

    Over the last two years, the U.S. has had a spike in expatriations. It isn’t exactly Ellis Island in reverse, but it’s more than a dribble. With global tax reporting and FATCA, the list of the individuals who renounced is up. For 2013, there was a 221% increase, with record numbers of Americans renouncing. The Treasury Department is required to publish a quarterly list, but these numbers are under-stated, some say considerably.

    The presence or absence of tax motivation is no longer relevant, but that could change. After Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin departed for Singapore, Senators Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey introduced a bill to double the exit tax to 30% for anyone leaving the U.S. for tax reasons. That hasn’t happened, but taxes are still a big issue for many.

    To leave America, you generally must prove 5 years of U.S. tax compliance. If you have a net worth greater than $2 million or average annual net income tax for the 5 previous years of $157,000 or more for 2014 (that’s tax, not income), you pay an exit tax. It is a capital gain tax as if you sold your property when you left. At least there’s an exemption of $680,000 for 2014. Long-term residents giving up a Green Card can be required to pay the tax too.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/08/28/u-s-hikes-fee-to-renounce-citizenship-by-422/

  6. Jojo says:

    THURSDAY, AUG 28, 2014
    Microsoft’s $29.6 billion scam: Tech giant leads the way in tax-avoiding innovation
    More and more companies who enjoy huge benefits operating in the U.S. are trying to weasel their way out of taxes

    DAVID SIROTA

    Reading companies’ annual reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission is a reliable cure for insomnia. Every so often, though, there is a significant revelation in the paperwork. This year, one of the most important revelations came from Microsoft’s filings, which spotlighted how the tax code allows corporations to enjoy the benefits of American citizenship yet avoid paying U.S. taxes.

    According to the SEC documents, the company is sitting on almost $29.6 billion it would owe in U.S. taxes if it repatriated the $92.9 billion of earnings it is keeping offshore. That amount of money represents a significant spike from prior years.
    To put this in perspective, the levies the company would owe amount to almost the entire two-year operating budget of the company’s home state of Washington.

    The disclosure in Microsoft’s SEC filing lands amid an intensifying debate over the fairness of U.S.-based multinational corporations using offshore subsidiaries to avoid paying American taxes. Such maneuvers — although often legal — threaten to significantly reduce U.S. corporate tax receipts during an era marked by government budget deficits.

    http://www.salon.com/2014/08/28/microsofts_29_6_billion_scam_tech_giant_leads_the_way_in_tax_avoiding_innovation/

  7. Singmaster says:

    The Economist this week.
    http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21614138-companies-must-be-punished-when-they-do-wrong-legal-system-has-become-extortion
    Reading it I was taken aback because it seemed off key. So I read the comments.
    Read the highest recommended comments as there have been a lot of comments.
    Yow. TE put their foot in it on this one.

  8. RW says:

    The article on Germany’s hyperinflation-phobia makes it reasonably clear (at least as clear as the Economist seems to get these days) that inflation was not a major issue later in the 1920′s and it was deflation that preceded the overthrow of the republic in the 1930′s.

    So why one wonders do people continue to invoke Weimar as the shibboleth of inflation rather than deflation? Why for that matter do Germans claim to fear inflation more than anything else when it was deflation and depression that led to the rise of dictatorship under National Socialism and ultimately world war?

    Maybe images of folks with wheelbarrows full of cash are somehow more evocative than the death of 20 million people or maybe inflation just gets more press because the 1% like it that way but invoking Weimar as a cautionary tale of inflation is, shall we say (to be polite), rather grossly inappropriate at best; Wiemar is a cautionary tale of depression if anything.

    NB: Weimar Chancellor Heinrich Brüning initiated the kind of contractionary fiscal policies in 1930 that US President Hoover proposed but Germany never got an FDR so fiscal austerity continued while Brüning set the stage for Hitler’s dictatorship by invoking emergency powers allowing him to override and ultimately ignore parliament (Reichstag). How all this disappeared down the rabbit hole of collective memory while the shibboleth of inflation rose to the top would probably be worth some serious research or even a dissertation somewhere but I’d bet you won’t get anything like that at The Economist.

  9. econ1 says:

    The New Republic piece (somewhat on the Laffer Curve) is full of typical “myth”, “cult”, “wingnut” charges that would normally tag the article as one attacking the folks rather than the message. However it tries to debunk the idea that taxing something reduces it with some erroneous and some clever comparisons.
    While tax rates were 70-90%….no one paid those amounts because a whole industry of R&D partnerships, depletion allowances etc. sprang up and distorted capital investing. I was there, perhaps the author is too young. We can witness much the same thing with high US corporate rates that only the little folks pay. Lowering the rates and eliminating the distorting deductions and credits didn’t reduce the federal tax take but did, at least for a while, make things a bit fairer (except for the folks putting together all the partnerships etc.).
    True, at 100% tax rates the government can still extract funds from the populace, but you could draw another curve of the increase in harsh methods to accomplish it…not sure we want to go there.
    So, as we tax cigarettes, liquor etc. to reduce consumption….it is good to remember that it works for other things as well. Things like savings and investment. Laffer just pointed out that a government can get too greedy as well as its citizens….and at very high rates is pretty scary.