Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Inflation without Wage Increase

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Inflation without Wage Increase

    Henry Liu is a person I respect, though he is a bit leftist like Hudson. In this Article he says US Fed supports Moderate Inflation without Wage Increase so as to tie Money to Wealth. Without that Money is not a store of wealth and Rich people will avoid Fiat currency if Wage increase happens. ie Inflation without Wage Increase make Money store of wealth like Gold, Oil, Farms etc.

    Liquidity drowns meaning of 'inflation'
    By Henry C K Liu

    The conventional terms of inflation and deflation are no longer adequate for describing the overall monetary effect of excess liquidity recently released by the US Federal Reserve, the nation's central bank, to deal with the year-long credit crunch.

    This is because the approach adopted by the Treasury and the Fed to deal with a financial crisis of unsustainable debt created by excess liquidity is to inject more liquidity in the form of both new public debt and newly created money into the economy and to channel it to debt-laden institutions to reflate a burst debt-driven asset price bubble.

    The Treasury does not have any power to create new money. It has to borrow from the credit market, thus shifting private debt

    into public debt. The Fed has the authority to create new money. Unfortunately, the Fed's new money has not been going to consumers in the form of full employment with rising wages to restore fallen demand, but instead is going only to debt-infested distressed institutions to allow them to deleverage from toxic debt. Thus deflation in the equity market (falling ) has been cushioned by newly issued money, while aggregate wage income continues to fall to further reduce aggregate demand.

    Falling demand deflates commodity prices, but not enough to restore demand because aggregate wages are falling faster. When financial institutions deleverage with from the central bank, the creditors receive the money while the Fed assumes the toxic liability by expanding its balance sheet. Deleverage reduces financial costs while increasing to allow zombie financial institutions to return to nominal profitability with unearned income and while laying off workers to cut operational cost. Thus we have financial profit inflation with price deflation in a shrinking economy.
    What we will have going forward is not Weimar Republic-type price hyperinflation, but a financial profit inflation in which zombie financial institutions turn nominally profitable in a collapsing economy. The danger is that this unearned nominal financial profit is mistaken as a sign of economic recovery, inducing the public to what remaining wealth they still hold, only to lose more of it at the next market meltdown, which will come when the profit bubble bursts.

    Hyperinflation is fatal because hedging against it causes market failures to destroy wealth. Normally, when markets are functioning, unhedged inflation favors by reducing the value of liabilities they owe to creditors. Instead of destroying wealth, unhedged inflation merely transfers wealth from creditors to debtors. But with government intervention in the financial market, both debtors and creditors are the taxpayers. In such circumstances, even moderate inflation destroys wealth because there are no winning parties.

    Debt denominated in fiat is borrowed wealth to be repaid later with wealth stored in money protected by monetary policy. Bank deleveraging with Fed new money cancels private debt at full face value with money that has not been earned by anyone, that is with no stored wealth. That kind of money is toxic in that the more valuable it is (with increased purchasing power to buy more as prices deflate), the more it degrades wealth because no wealth has been put into the money to be stored, thus negating the fundamental prerequisite of money as a storer of value.

    This is not demand destruction because decline in demand is temporarily slowed by the new money. Rather, it is money destruction as a restorer of value while it produces a misleading and confusing effect on aggregate demand.

    Thinking about the value of any real asset (gold, oil, and so forth) in money (dollar) terms is misleading. The correct way is to think about the value of the money (dollars) in asset (gold, oil) terms, because assets (gold, oil, and so on) are wealth. The Fed can create money, but it cannot create wealth.

    Central bankers are savvy enough to know that while they can create money, they cannot create wealth. To bind money to wealth, central bankers must fight inflation as if it were a financial plague. But the first law of growth economics states that to create wealth through growth, some inflation needs to be tolerated.

    The solution then is to make the working poor pay for the pain of inflation by giving the rich a bigger share of the monetized wealth created via inflation, so that the loss of purchasing power from inflation is mostly borne by the low-wage working poor and not by the owners of capital, the monetary value of which is protected from inflation through low wages. Thus the working poor loses in both boom times and bust times.

    Inflation is deemed benign by monetarism as long as wages rise at a slower pace than asset prices. The monetarist iron law of wages worked in the industrial age, with the resultant excess capacity absorbed by conspicuous consumption of the moneyed class, although it eventually heralded in the age of revolutions. But the iron law of wages no longer works in the post-industrial age in which growth can only come from mass demand management because overcapacity has grown beyond the ability of conspicuous consumption of a few to absorb in an economic democracy.

    That has been the basic problem of the global economy for the past three decades. Low wages even in boom times have landed the world in its current sorry state of overcapacity masked by unsustainable demand created by a debt bubble that finally imploded in July 2007. The whole world is now producing goods and services made by low-wage workers who cannot afford to buy what they make except by taking on debt on which they eventually will default because their cannot service it.

    All the stimulus spending by all governments perpetuates this dysfunctionality. There will be no recovery from this dysfunctional financial system. Only reform toward full employment with rising wages will save this severely impaired economy.

    How can that be done? Simple. Make the cost of wage increasesfrom corporate income tax and make the savings from layoffs taxable as corporate income.

    Henry C K Liu is chairman of a New York-based private investment group. His website is at http://www.henryckliu.com

  • #2
    Re: Inflation without Wage Increase

    http://216.240.133.177/archives32/Ch...909_100000.mp3


    I heard him even mention getting rid of the Fed

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Inflation without Wage Increase

      Originally posted by sishya View Post
      Henry Liu is a person I respect, though he is a bit leftist like Hudson. In this Article he says US Fed supports Moderate Inflation without Wage Increase so as to tie Money to Wealth. Without that Money is not a store of wealth and Rich people will avoid Fiat currency if Wage increase happens. ie Inflation without Wage Increase make Money store of wealth like Gold, Oil, Farms etc.

      Liquidity drowns meaning of 'inflation'
      By Henry C K Liu

      The conventional terms of inflation and deflation are no longer adequate for describing the overall monetary effect of excess liquidity recently released by the US Federal Reserve, the nation's central bank, to deal with the year-long credit crunch.

      This is because the approach adopted by the Treasury and the Fed to deal with a financial crisis of unsustainable debt created by excess liquidity is to inject more liquidity in the form of both new public debt and newly created money into the economy and to channel it to debt-laden institutions to reflate a burst debt-driven asset price bubble.

      The Treasury does not have any power to create new money. It has to borrow from the credit market, thus shifting private debt

      into public debt. The Fed has the authority to create new money. Unfortunately, the Fed's new money has not been going to consumers in the form of full employment with rising wages to restore fallen demand, but instead is going only to debt-infested distressed institutions to allow them to deleverage from toxic debt. Thus deflation in the equity market (falling ) has been cushioned by newly issued money, while aggregate wage income continues to fall to further reduce aggregate demand.

      Falling demand deflates commodity prices, but not enough to restore demand because aggregate wages are falling faster. When financial institutions deleverage with from the central bank, the creditors receive the money while the Fed assumes the toxic liability by expanding its balance sheet. Deleverage reduces financial costs while increasing to allow zombie financial institutions to return to nominal profitability with unearned income and while laying off workers to cut operational cost. Thus we have financial profit inflation with price deflation in a shrinking economy.
      What we will have going forward is not Weimar Republic-type price hyperinflation, but a financial profit inflation in which zombie financial institutions turn nominally profitable in a collapsing economy. The danger is that this unearned nominal financial profit is mistaken as a sign of economic recovery, inducing the public to what remaining wealth they still hold, only to lose more of it at the next market meltdown, which will come when the profit bubble bursts.

      Hyperinflation is fatal because hedging against it causes market failures to destroy wealth. Normally, when markets are functioning, unhedged inflation favors by reducing the value of liabilities they owe to creditors. Instead of destroying wealth, unhedged inflation merely transfers wealth from creditors to debtors. But with government intervention in the financial market, both debtors and creditors are the taxpayers. In such circumstances, even moderate inflation destroys wealth because there are no winning parties.

      Debt denominated in fiat is borrowed wealth to be repaid later with wealth stored in money protected by monetary policy. Bank deleveraging with Fed new money cancels private debt at full face value with money that has not been earned by anyone, that is with no stored wealth. That kind of money is toxic in that the more valuable it is (with increased purchasing power to buy more as prices deflate), the more it degrades wealth because no wealth has been put into the money to be stored, thus negating the fundamental prerequisite of money as a storer of value.

      This is not demand destruction because decline in demand is temporarily slowed by the new money. Rather, it is money destruction as a restorer of value while it produces a misleading and confusing effect on aggregate demand.

      Thinking about the value of any real asset (gold, oil, and so forth) in money (dollar) terms is misleading. The correct way is to think about the value of the money (dollars) in asset (gold, oil) terms, because assets (gold, oil, and so on) are wealth. The Fed can create money, but it cannot create wealth.

      Central bankers are savvy enough to know that while they can create money, they cannot create wealth. To bind money to wealth, central bankers must fight inflation as if it were a financial plague. But the first law of growth economics states that to create wealth through growth, some inflation needs to be tolerated.

      The solution then is to make the working poor pay for the pain of inflation by giving the rich a bigger share of the monetized wealth created via inflation, so that the loss of purchasing power from inflation is mostly borne by the low-wage working poor and not by the owners of capital, the monetary value of which is protected from inflation through low wages. Thus the working poor loses in both boom times and bust times.

      Inflation is deemed benign by monetarism as long as wages rise at a slower pace than asset prices. The monetarist iron law of wages worked in the industrial age, with the resultant excess capacity absorbed by conspicuous consumption of the moneyed class, although it eventually heralded in the age of revolutions. But the iron law of wages no longer works in the post-industrial age in which growth can only come from mass demand management because overcapacity has grown beyond the ability of conspicuous consumption of a few to absorb in an economic democracy.

      That has been the basic problem of the global economy for the past three decades. Low wages even in boom times have landed the world in its current sorry state of overcapacity masked by unsustainable demand created by a debt bubble that finally imploded in July 2007. The whole world is now producing goods and services made by low-wage workers who cannot afford to buy what they make except by taking on debt on which they eventually will default because their cannot service it.

      All the stimulus spending by all governments perpetuates this dysfunctionality. There will be no recovery from this dysfunctional financial system. Only reform toward full employment with rising wages will save this severely impaired economy.

      How can that be done? Simple. Make the cost of wage increasesfrom corporate income tax and make the savings from layoffs taxable as corporate income.

      Henry C K Liu is chairman of a New York-based private investment group. His website is at http://www.henryckliu.com
      Gosh, he is a well written intelligent man.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Inflation without Wage Increase

        Originally posted by Jay View Post
        Gosh, he is a well written intelligent man.
        He does bring some interesting points, but his writing was distracting IMO. He should get an editor.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Inflation without Wage Increase

          It seems that about ten words (in order: share prices free money cash flow invest debtors currency low income deductible ) were dropped from the above posting of Liu's article. Here is the original post from Asia Times, hopefully with all the words.



          Liquidity drowns meaning of 'inflation'

          By Henry C K Liu

          The conventional terms of inflation and deflation are no longer adequate for
          describing the overall monetary effect of excess liquidity recently released by
          the US Federal Reserve, the nation's central bank, to deal with the year-long
          credit crunch.

          This is because the approach adopted by the Treasury and the Fed to deal with a
          financial crisis of unsustainable debt created by excess liquidity is to inject
          more liquidity in the form of both new public debt and newly created money into
          the economy and to channel it to debt-laden institutions to reflate a burst
          debt-driven asset price bubble.

          The Treasury does not have any power to create new money. It has to borrow from
          the credit market, thus shifting private debt into public debt. The Fed has
          the authority to create new money. Unfortunately, the Fed's new money has not
          been going to consumers in the form of full employment with rising wages to
          restore fallen demand, but instead is going only to debt-infested distressed
          institutions to allow them to deleverage from toxic debt. Thus deflation in the
          equity market (falling share prices) has been cushioned by newly issued money,
          while aggregate wage income continues to fall to further reduce aggregate demand.

          Falling demand deflates commodity prices, but not enough to restore demand
          because aggregate wages are falling faster. When financial institutions
          deleverage with free money from the central bank, the creditors receive the
          money while the Fed assumes the toxic liability by expanding its balance sheet.
          Deleverage reduces financial costs while increasing cash flow to allow zombie
          financial institutions to return to nominal profitability with unearned income
          and while laying off workers to cut operational cost. Thus we have financial
          profit inflation with price deflation in a shrinking economy.

          What we will have going forward is not Weimar Republic-type price
          hyperinflation, but a financial profit inflation in which zombie financial
          institutions turn nominally profitable in a collapsing economy. The danger is
          that this unearned nominal financial profit is mistaken as a sign of economic
          recovery, inducing the public to invest what remaining wealth they still hold,
          only to lose more of it at the next market meltdown, which will come when the
          profit bubble bursts.

          Hyperinflation is fatal because hedging against it causes market failures to
          destroy wealth. Normally, when markets are functioning, unhedged inflation
          favors debtors by reducing the value of liabilities they owe to creditors.
          Instead of destroying wealth, unhedged inflation merely transfers wealth from
          creditors to debtors. But with government intervention in the financial market,
          both debtors and creditors are the taxpayers. In such circumstances, even
          moderate inflation destroys wealth because there are no winning parties.

          Debt denominated in fiat currency is borrowed wealth to be repaid later with
          wealth stored in money protected by monetary policy. Bank deleveraging with Fed
          new money cancels private debt at full face value with money that has not been
          earned by anyone, that is with no stored wealth. That kind of money is toxic in
          that the more valuable it is (with increased purchasing power to buy more as
          prices deflate), the more it degrades wealth because no wealth has been put
          into the money to be stored, thus negating the fundamental prerequisite of
          money as a storer of value.

          This is not demand destruction because decline in demand is temporarily slowed
          by the new money. Rather, it is money destruction as a restorer of value while
          it produces a misleading and confusing effect on aggregate demand.

          Thinking about the value of any real asset (gold, oil, and so forth) in money
          (dollar) terms is misleading. The correct way is to think about the value of
          the money (dollars) in asset (gold, oil) terms, because assets (gold, oil, and
          so on) are wealth. The Fed can create money, but it cannot create wealth.

          Central bankers are savvy enough to know that while they can create money, they
          cannot create wealth. To bind money to wealth, central bankers must fight
          inflation as if it were a financial plague. But the first law of growth
          economics states that to create wealth through growth, some inflation needs to
          be tolerated.

          The solution then is to make the working poor pay for the pain of inflation by
          giving the rich a bigger share of the monetized wealth created via inflation,
          so that the loss of purchasing power from inflation is mostly borne by the
          low-wage working poor and not by the owners of capital, the monetary value of
          which is protected from inflation through low wages. Thus the working poor
          loses in both boom times and bust times.

          Inflation is deemed benign by monetarism as long as wages rise at a slower pace
          than asset prices. The monetarist iron law of wages worked in the industrial
          age, with the resultant excess capacity absorbed by conspicuous consumption of
          the moneyed class, although it eventually heralded in the age of revolutions.
          But the iron law of wages no longer works in the post-industrial age in which
          growth can only come from mass demand management because overcapacity has grown
          beyond the ability of conspicuous consumption of a few to absorb in an economic
          democracy.

          That has been the basic problem of the global economy for the past three
          decades. Low wages even in boom times have landed the world in its current
          sorry state of overcapacity masked by unsustainable demand created by a debt
          bubble that finally imploded in July 2007. The whole world is now producing
          goods and services made by low-wage workers who cannot afford to buy what they
          make except by taking on debt on which they eventually will default because
          their low income cannot service it.

          All the stimulus spending by all governments perpetuates this dysfunctionality.
          There will be no recovery from this dysfunctional financial system. Only reform
          toward full employment with rising wages will save this severely impaired
          economy.

          How can that be done? Simple. Make the cost of wage increases deductible from
          corporate income tax and make the savings from layoffs taxable as corporate
          income.

          Henry C K Liu is chairman of a New York-based private investment group.
          His website is at
          http://www.henryckliu.com.

          (Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
          contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
          Most folks are good; a few aren't.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Inflation without Wage Increase

            Originally posted by WildspitzE View Post
            He does bring some interesting points, but his writing was distracting IMO. He should get an editor.
            It's better than listening to him

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Inflation without Wage Increase

              Inflation without wage increases would just be more of the same from 2003 and on. That's how it have to be in a service sector economy.

              Anyhow, one thing I have noticed among a lot of writers is to attribute more intelligence to the fed than is justified. I don't think they had a clue about the housing bubble, and no idea that they inflated it, or that there even was a bubble in the making. Generally they really don't know what they do. Housing was just a reflection in my opinion of this inflation (without wage increases), that's why I espect house prices to go further up, if this trend of inflation goes on. Bubble is also a new fashion word. Like if the bubble era started with dotcom. There was bubbles in the seventies, in all the inflationary assets, lots of liquidity sloshing around, ,so much interest rates had to go to 21,5 %. It's nothing new, and it is a normal part of business, especially with the fractional reserve system. Bubbles in inflationary assets are generally just a side effect of having a weak dollar policy.
              Last edited by nero3; July 01, 2009, 06:02 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Inflation without Wage Increase

                Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View Post
                It seems that about ten words (in order: share prices free money cash flow invest debtors currency low income deductible ) were dropped from the above posting of Liu's article.
                Thanks dude.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Inflation without Wage Increase

                  Originally posted by nero3 View Post
                  Inflation without wage increases would just be more of the same from 2003 and on. That's how it have to be in a service sector economy.

                  Anyhow, one thing I have noticed among a lot of writers is to attribute more intelligence to the fed than is justified. I don't think they had a clue about the housing bubble, and no idea that they inflated it, or that there even was a bubble in the making. Generally they really don't know what they do.
                  those of us reading janszen's stuff knew it was a bubble in 2002.

                  in 2005 we knew the fed was selective about seeing some bubbles but not others... The Bubble Cycle is Replacing the Business Cycle - Janszen

                  we knew how long it might go on.
                  iTulip.com - Housing Bubble Correction

                  we knew how it would end...
                  iTulip.com - Housing Bubbles Are Not Like Stock Bubbles

                  we knew when it would end.
                  iTulip.com - Housing Bubble Correction Update: Geographic

                  we knew when it had ended...
                  Dancing, Booze, and Overpriced Houses - iTulip.com

                  you pick an odd site to lecture on the housing bubble. you don't seem to know anything.
                  Housing was just a reflection in my opinion of this inflation (without wage increases), that's why I espect house prices to go further up, if this trend of inflation goes on.
                  yeh... that's what the msm and the nat association of realtors says. but it you want a less primitive understanding , read up. that way you won't be surprised when housing prices do not rise as you keep predicting.

                  Bubble is also a new fashion word. Like if the bubble era started with dotcom. There was bubbles in the seventies, in all the inflationary assets, lots of liquidity sloshing around, ,so much interest rates had to go to 21,5 %. It's nothing new, and it is a normal part of business, especially with the fractional reserve system. Bubbles in inflationary assets are generally just a side effect of having a weak dollar policy.
                  'bubble' has lost meaning... used by econo-monkeys who apply it to any stock or metal that shoots up in price. too bad... used to have meaning. for example, 'Bubbles in inflationary assets are generally just a side effect of having a weak dollar policy.' no such thing as an 'inflationary asset'.

                  gov't makes bubbles on purpose to bail themselves out.

                  asset price inflation = good. wage inflation = bad.

                  that's the policy since 1980.

                  if you don't get that you don't get anything... and all of your predictions will be wrong.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Inflation without Wage Increase

                    Originally posted by sishya View Post
                    Henry Liu is a person I respect, though he is a bit leftist like Hudson. In this Article he says US Fed supports Moderate Inflation without Wage Increase so as to tie Money to Wealth. Without that Money is not a store of wealth and Rich people will avoid Fiat currency if Wage increase happens. ie Inflation without Wage Increase make Money store of wealth like Gold, Oil, Farms etc.

                    Liquidity drowns meaning of 'inflation'
                    By Henry C K Liu

                    The conventional terms of inflation and deflation are no longer adequate for describing the overall monetary effect of excess liquidity recently released by the US Federal Reserve, the nation's central bank, to deal with the year-long credit crunch.

                    This is because the approach adopted by the Treasury and the Fed to deal with a financial crisis of unsustainable debt created by excess liquidity is to inject more liquidity in the form of both new public debt and newly created money into the economy and to channel it to debt-laden institutions to reflate a burst debt-driven asset price bubble.

                    The Treasury does not have any power to create new money. It has to borrow from the credit market, thus shifting private debt

                    into public debt. The Fed has the authority to create new money. Unfortunately, the Fed's new money has not been going to consumers in the form of full employment with rising wages to restore fallen demand, but instead is going only to debt-infested distressed institutions to allow them to deleverage from toxic debt. Thus deflation in the equity market (falling ) has been cushioned by newly issued money, while aggregate wage income continues to fall to further reduce aggregate demand.

                    Falling demand deflates commodity prices, but not enough to restore demand because aggregate wages are falling faster. When financial institutions deleverage with from the central bank, the creditors receive the money while the Fed assumes the toxic liability by expanding its balance sheet. Deleverage reduces financial costs while increasing to allow zombie financial institutions to return to nominal profitability with unearned income and while laying off workers to cut operational cost. Thus we have financial profit inflation with price deflation in a shrinking economy.
                    What we will have going forward is not Weimar Republic-type price hyperinflation, but a financial profit inflation in which zombie financial institutions turn nominally profitable in a collapsing economy. The danger is that this unearned nominal financial profit is mistaken as a sign of economic recovery, inducing the public to what remaining wealth they still hold, only to lose more of it at the next market meltdown, which will come when the profit bubble bursts.

                    Hyperinflation is fatal because hedging against it causes market failures to destroy wealth. Normally, when markets are functioning, unhedged inflation favors by reducing the value of liabilities they owe to creditors. Instead of destroying wealth, unhedged inflation merely transfers wealth from creditors to debtors. But with government intervention in the financial market, both debtors and creditors are the taxpayers. In such circumstances, even moderate inflation destroys wealth because there are no winning parties.

                    Debt denominated in fiat is borrowed wealth to be repaid later with wealth stored in money protected by monetary policy. Bank deleveraging with Fed new money cancels private debt at full face value with money that has not been earned by anyone, that is with no stored wealth. That kind of money is toxic in that the more valuable it is (with increased purchasing power to buy more as prices deflate), the more it degrades wealth because no wealth has been put into the money to be stored, thus negating the fundamental prerequisite of money as a storer of value.

                    This is not demand destruction because decline in demand is temporarily slowed by the new money. Rather, it is money destruction as a restorer of value while it produces a misleading and confusing effect on aggregate demand.

                    Thinking about the value of any real asset (gold, oil, and so forth) in money (dollar) terms is misleading. The correct way is to think about the value of the money (dollars) in asset (gold, oil) terms, because assets (gold, oil, and so on) are wealth. The Fed can create money, but it cannot create wealth.

                    Central bankers are savvy enough to know that while they can create money, they cannot create wealth. To bind money to wealth, central bankers must fight inflation as if it were a financial plague. But the first law of growth economics states that to create wealth through growth, some inflation needs to be tolerated.

                    The solution then is to make the working poor pay for the pain of inflation by giving the rich a bigger share of the monetized wealth created via inflation, so that the loss of purchasing power from inflation is mostly borne by the low-wage working poor and not by the owners of capital, the monetary value of which is protected from inflation through low wages. Thus the working poor loses in both boom times and bust times.

                    Inflation is deemed benign by monetarism as long as wages rise at a slower pace than asset prices. The monetarist iron law of wages worked in the industrial age, with the resultant excess capacity absorbed by conspicuous consumption of the moneyed class, although it eventually heralded in the age of revolutions. But the iron law of wages no longer works in the post-industrial age in which growth can only come from mass demand management because overcapacity has grown beyond the ability of conspicuous consumption of a few to absorb in an economic democracy.

                    That has been the basic problem of the global economy for the past three decades. Low wages even in boom times have landed the world in its current sorry state of overcapacity masked by unsustainable demand created by a debt bubble that finally imploded in July 2007. The whole world is now producing goods and services made by low-wage workers who cannot afford to buy what they make except by taking on debt on which they eventually will default because their cannot service it.

                    All the stimulus spending by all governments perpetuates this dysfunctionality. There will be no recovery from this dysfunctional financial system. Only reform toward full employment with rising wages will save this severely impaired economy.

                    How can that be done? Simple. Make the cost of wage increasesfrom corporate income tax and make the savings from layoffs taxable as corporate income.

                    Henry C K Liu is chairman of a New York-based private investment group. His website is at http://www.henryckliu.com
                    The good old days are here again.

                    "Whereas late against the malice of servants, which were idle, and not willing to serve after the pestilence, without taking excessive wages, it was ordained by our lord the king, and by the assent of the prelates, nobles, and other of his council, that such manner of servants, as well men as women, should be bound to serve, receiving salary and wages, accustomed in places where they ought to serve in the twentieth year of the reign of the king that now is, or five or six years before; and that the same servants refusing to serve in such manner should be punished by imprisonment of their bodies, as in the said statute is more plainly contained: whereupon commissions were made to divers people in every county to inquire and punish all them which offend against the same: and now forasmuch as it is given the king to understand in this present parliament, by the petition of the commonalty, that the said servants having no regard to the said ordinance, but to their ease and singular covetise, do withdraw themselves to serve great men and other, unless they have livery and wages to the double or treble of that they were wont to take the said twentieth year, and before, to the great damage of the great men, and impoverishing of all the said commonalty, whereof the said commonalty prayeth remedy: wherefore in the said parliament, by the assent of the said prelates, earls, barons, and other great men, and of the same commonalty there assembled, to refrain the malice of the said servants, be ordained and established the things underwritten:"...

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X