Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Monkeyleg on March 15, 2010, 11:53:44 PM
-
For as long as I can remember, politicians have proposed one plan or another that they promise will create more jobs and prosperity in our cities, states and country. Invariably these plans require some of the money of some or all taxpayers.
If spending some taxpayer dollars will create some jobs and a bit more prosperity, doesn't it stand to reason that taking all of the money from citizens and giving it to the government will create maximum prosperity and jobs? If not, why not?
I know the question isn't original, but I'm wondering what responses anyone received if and when they've posed the question.
-
Just like the so-called minimum wage. If $7 per hour is good, why not raise it to $20, so every under-employed person can have a decent life?
Presto! No more poverty in the US of A.
jb
-
Presto! No more poverty in the US of A.
Until all the small businesses close and the price of a loaf of bread hits $25.00.
TC
-
Until all the small businesses close and the price of a loaf of bread hits $25.00.
TC
Hey, don't ruin a good fantasy.
-
For as long as I can remember, politicians have proposed one plan or another that they promise will create more jobs and prosperity in our cities, states and country. Invariably these plans require some of the money of some or all taxpayers.
If spending some taxpayer dollars will create some jobs and a bit more prosperity, doesn't it stand to reason that taking all of the money from citizens and giving it to the government will create maximum prosperity and jobs? If not, why not?
I know the question isn't original, but I'm wondering what responses anyone received if and when they've posed the question.
It is all about the redistribution of wealth. It is easy to play fast and loose with other peoples' money.
-
. . . If spending some taxpayer dollars will create some jobs and a bit more prosperity, doesn't it stand to reason that taking all of the money from citizens and giving it to the government will create maximum prosperity and jobs? If not, why not? . . .
If government takes all money from a citizen, what incentive does he have to work at all?
If government makes work mandatory - a condition for receiving benefits - then why do more work than the bare minimum required to receive those benefits?
If government pays different levels of benefits for different types of work, unless there's true opportunity for upward mobility, again, why do more than the bare minimum?
If government only pretends to pay people, they will only pretend to work. (Old Soviet saying.)
-
If spending some taxpayer dollars will create some jobs and a bit more prosperity, doesn't it stand to reason that taking all of the money from citizens and giving it to the government will create maximum prosperity and jobs?
Makes as much sense as bombing our own cities to stimulate the construction industry. =|
-
The way to create jobs, prosperity, and rebuild the middle class actually does begin with government. .gov needs to levy import tariffs on foreign produced goods. Follow that up with a moritorium on environmental and OSHA regs, massive refundable tax credits for manufacturing startups, and yes, direct loans to domestic (only) corporations for capital investments in stateside factories. Screw giving Wall Street more of our (and our children's) money.
-
The way to create jobs, prosperity, and rebuild the middle class actually does begin with government. .gov needs to levy import tariffs on foreign produced goods. Follow that up with a moritorium on environmental and OSHA regs, massive refundable tax credits for manufacturing startups, and yes, direct loans to domestic (only) corporations for capital investments in stateside factories. Screw giving Wall Street more of our (and our children's) money.
:facepalm:
Yep, the way to create prosperity is to artificially raise the prices of all goods. I'm SURE that will work.
-
The way to create jobs, prosperity, and rebuild the middle class actually does begin with government. .gov needs to levy import tariffs on foreign produced goods. Follow that up with a moritorium on environmental and OSHA regs, massive refundable tax credits for manufacturing startups, and yes, direct loans to domestic (only) corporations for capital investments in stateside factories. Screw giving Wall Street more of our (and our children's) money.
The first part there is what extended the Great depression by years. Imposing tariffs just creates retaliatory protectionist tariffs and policy in other nations which further depresses economic activity. And it slows or stops foreign investment and job creation completely if raw materials or partly finished goods they need will be more expensive.
The second part of this has some merit. Less regulation and taxes is always a good start. And a sane monetary policy would make the need for .gov loans unnecessary. The Federal Reserve needs to focus on protecting the value of a STABLE dollar, and nothing else. The fact that they now see themselves as the guardian of markets that are "too big to fail" is a big part of why we are in the current economic mess. Failure is a healthy thing for markets, because the pain/losses of that will keep the market from repeating whatever negative behavior it was that got them in the mess in the first place.
Privatize Social security/FICA match, eliminate the payroll tax, capital gains taxes, and reduce the corporate income tax rate to match that of China's, and the U.S. would have a labor shortage crisis within five years.
-
"Privatize Social security/FICA match, eliminate the payroll tax, capital gains taxes, and reduce the corporate income tax rate to match that of China's, and the U.S. would have a labor shortage crisis within five years."
Oh, bushwah. That'll never work. We wouldn't have any need for the politicians and bureaucrats who make our lives so prosperous and easy like we have now. Grow up! :facepalm: Don't forget to add a few hundred dollars in donations when you file your taxes to reduce the national debt like a good little boy.
-
:facepalm:
Yep, the way to create prosperity is to artificially raise the prices of all goods. I'm SURE that will work.
I think Paddy's intent was to keep the profits and the jobs in the US and not in some third rate backwater pig sty. Something tells me that most American made items would sell for about the same as the imported ones. Maybe there would be less profit for the seller but I think we could handle it, within reason.
In many cases the cost of labor to make an item is only a very small part of the total cost anyway. Corp overhead and profits eat up much of the cost to the retailer, that plus freight. I am thinking mainly of the small items we buy at Wally World.
-
Corp overhead and profits eat up much of the cost to the retailer, that plus freight.
Want to lower profit margins? INCREASE COMPETITION.
-
I think Paddy's intent was to keep the profits and the jobs in the US and not in some third rate backwater pig sty. Something tells me that most American made items would sell for about the same as the imported ones. Maybe there would be less profit for the seller but I think we could handle it, within reason.
In many cases the cost of labor to make an item is only a very small part of the total cost anyway. Corp overhead and profits eat up much of the cost to the retailer, that plus freight. I am thinking mainly of the small items we buy at Wally World.
Rather than artificially increasing the cost of foreign goods, a better solution would be to work to STOP artificially increasing the cost of domestic goods through unneeded taxes and overbearing regulations. Then you give yourself diplomatic points by not increasing tariffs and give your own companies a boost for competing in foreign markets. You also help keep your own companies from moving offshore and taking some of their profits with them.
-
".....Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
-Barry Goldwater 1964
Rather than artificially increasing the cost of foreign goods, a better solution would be to work to STOP artificially increasing the cost of domestic goods through unneeded taxes and overbearing regulations. Then you give yourself diplomatic points by not increasing tariffs and give your own companies a boost for competing in foreign markets. You also help keep your own companies from moving offshore and taking some of their profits with them.
That's quite a shortsided view in my opinion. Will you work for $2 for a 12 hour shift?
Import tariffs do not 'artificially increase the price of goods' unless you also believe that our standard of living is 'artificially sustained'.
If you need an explanation of that statement, I'll be glad to provide it.
-
Want to lower profit margins? INCREASE COMPETITION.
Yes, competition can (and should) be increased by trust busting.
"Privatize Social security/FICA match, eliminate the payroll tax, capital gains taxes, and reduce the corporate income tax rate to match that of China's, and the U.S. would have a labor shortage crisis within five years."
Sure, let's just turn it all over to the corporations. It worked for Mussolini, didn't it?
-
Sure, let's just turn it all over to the corporations. It worked for Mussolini, didn't it?
Historical fakery. The word "corporations" was not used by Mussolini to mean "companies".
Yes, competition can (and should) be increased by trust busting.
The same trust-busting laws introduced at the behest of the biggest train companies to crush competition?
-
The same trust-busting laws introduced at the behest of the biggest train companies to crush competition?
So you're saying privately owned corporations controlled government?
But let's not even go there. I think we can agree that this country was not founded upon, and did not prosper, on either corporatism or socialism, but rather individualism. Let's keep it that way. Let's use the power of government to represent the interests of WE, THE PEOPLE.
-
So you're saying privately owned corporations controlled government?
Amazing, isn't it?
-
Not amazing at all. Quite inevitable actually when so many are duped by (phony) ideology.
-
SO punishing people for wanting to buy goods not available in the US (or at a better price) is representing "the People" better? Let me ask you: are you a union man? Your arguments sound familiar.
As you point out, America can't compete on cheap crap that sells for $1 at Walmart. We have much better products than China etc, but due to labour costs, punitive taxes, idiotic regulations etc the costs are so much higher as to be uncompetitive. Eliminate all the punitive taxes and regulations, and America can produce a product that is x2 as good as China without being x20 as expensive.
-
Not amazing at all. Quite inevitable actually when so many are duped by (phony) ideology.
When people think it's the job of government to decide which company lives and which company dies, then of course companies will be bribing (legally and otherwise) the government. You have guys with billions of bucks, and they stand to make billions, dozens of billions of profits, based on their relationship with government, what the hell do you think they'll do?
Of course the least principled, most well-connected corporate fatcats will win.
-
When people think it's the job of government to decide which company lives and which company dies, then of course companies will be bribing (legally and otherwise) the government. You have guys with billions of bucks, and they stand to make billions, dozens of billions of profits, based on their relationship with government, what the hell do you think they'll do?
Of course the least principled, most well-connected corporate fatcats will win.
Which is what happened in the Health Care bill. Provisions for the drug patents to last longer means that the drug companies stand to earn billions upon billions in new revenues in the future. So, for a couple hundred million in investment they ran commercials and advertisements supporting the bill.
-
Something else to look at would be matching our import laws with that other other countries import laws regarding our products.
You know how many new Ford's are rolling around the street of Tokyo? Last time I checked/none very few. Reason was not because the citizens did not like them, reason was because new American vehicles are not allowed over there, it would create competition with their own companies. Military can bring over American vehicles taht where made before June 1971 I believe is the date, that is it.
It is the same with other American made products over there, our stuff cannot be sold over there off base. But we allow them free access to the world's largest market over here. imho, Time to even the playing field some.
-
You can't have capital without savings. You can save on your own--free society--or you can have the government save for you (think China). Don't think fascist societies can't work; you can have prosperity without liberty. We prefer both.
And it's hard to have savings when everything in a culture like ours increasingly militates against deferred gratification.
-
SO punishing people for wanting to buy goods not available in the US (or at a better price) is representing "the People" better? Let me ask you: are you a union man? Your arguments sound familiar.
As you point out, America can't compete on cheap crap that sells for $1 at Walmart. We have much better products than China etc, but due to labour costs, punitive taxes, idiotic regulations etc the costs are so much higher as to be uncompetitive. Eliminate all the punitive taxes and regulations, and America can produce a product that is x2 as good as China without being x20 as expensive.
People often conveniently ignore the massive difference between US labor cost versus some foreign labor. I read that you didn't, just stating that many people like to be intentionally obtuse because they dont want a pay cut. Over regulation has its fair share of the blame, I just find it annoying.
The US already tried raising tariffs to help American business. It doesn't work, because if a company is efficient, then it doesn't need a handout. If it isn't efficient, it doesn't deserve one.
BTW raising import tariffs is a handout if it costs the government more in lost productivity that is gained by the tariff.
Look at the imported steel slab tariff increase of the early '00s. It was to help American steel companies modernize, and in place temporarily. Instead of modernizing (presumably to increase competitiveness) the major American steel companies gave put pay increases. They assumed the tariff was going to be perpetually renewed, and it wasn't.
Bottom line: free markets work. Tariffs are only good to replace income taxes with a consumption tax.
Jimmy dean:
I don't think import differences would be necessarily a problem. If the Japanese/whatever manufacturers want to do business here they still have to compete. That means taking a loss here, and raising prices at home to make for the loss, or operating more efficiently than American companies. This forces others to be more efficient and will lower the price of all cars sold in America. Look at the changes Ford has made.
To the OP:
It is human nature to assume that cause and effect relationships are linear. Unfortunately, this is hardly ever true. I admit a certain lack of expertise in macro economics; however I understand math. If something is good in small amount, we can rarely draw conclusions to it effect in a greater amount.
For example, IIRC cobalt is absolutely necessary for human survival. With out small amounts of it we can't make enzymes necessary for life. However, it becomes very toxic in large amounts because of the equilibrium shift of a complex set of biochemical reaction mechanisms.
I often wonder if government spending is similar. Necessary for economic prosperity in small amounts, toxic in large amounts.
What do you define as small and large? I have no idea, but I am pretty sure spending 13/14 trillion is quite toxic in the long run.
-
What America has to sell right now is the world's largest consumer market. We need to maximize the benefit of access to our markets and even the global playing field. We had hgh tariffs in this country from The Civil War through 1913; that was also a period of by and large sustained high growth. Who changed the approach? Woodrow Wilson. Hmmm. And of course we then used income and other domestic taxes to compensate for the lost revenues from dropping our tariffs. Look at the big picture from 1913 on, economically and socially, and analyze the trend. Had it not been for WW II, which lifted us out of the Depression and gave us a huge edge in world trade, where would we be today? I think we need to ask ourselves who has really benefited most from the post-Wilson trade policies. We keep pushing "free trade" and where exactly have we wound up on the world economic stage?
-
There's more.
We've been giving away our domestic markets, inequitably, for decades.
We've permitted the rampant theft of intellectual property for decades.
We've been supplying a protective military umbrella, with little or no charge, for decades.
This isn't enlightened, it's stupid--or, rather, more likely, to the benefit of a comparatively small number of highly placed people with powerful government connections. When was the last time the State Dept. prioritized America rather than
"abroad?"
-
It is the same with other American made products over there, our stuff cannot be sold over there off base. But we allow them free access to the world's largest market over here. imho, Time to even the playing field some.
Bad idea.
We know from basic economics that tariffs and protectionism are harmful to the economy that uses them. Tariffs are only beneficial to the small special interest that is being protected, and everyone else in the economy pays the price (literally). Imposing tariffs on foreign goods amounts to shooting ourselves in the foot.
Now, if Japan or anyone else feels the need to shoot themselves in the foot with tariffs against our goods, should we get even with them by shooting ourselves in the foot too?
-
I agree with longeyes in principal, with one additional point. For most of the 20th century, U.S. industry did not really compete with anybody. We came out of WWI and we were the largest creditor nation in the world. We owned most of England for all the debt they owed us, not unlike how Japan and China own us now. On top of that, most of continental Europe's industrial capacity was destroyed in the war. The U.S. was the only country in the west that was producing anything in sufficient volume to be useful. At the time, we were also blessed with a huge number of innovations all hitting within a 20-30 years span: the assembly line, consumer electricity, the radio, the light bulb, etc.
Just about the time Europe was catching up with us (because Hoover and FDR piddled away our advantage by prolonging the depression with their stupid social programs), Europe decided to start WWII. Again we came out of WWII as the only industrialized country in the world with the ability to produce. Europe was completely destroyed, as was Japan. China was in the middle of a civil war. If you wanted stuff, the only place left to buy it was the United States.
Then, everything changed all at once. Japan built themselves into an industrial power. We normalized trade with China. India came out of the dark ages and the Cold War ended. All of a sudden, we were competing with EVERYBODY. But in the meantime, the U.S. industry had changed. The unions had forced employers into high dollar contracts, which previously did not matter. When we were the only producers, industry could just pass the added expense onto foreign customers.
We were boxed into a corner. Until, the corporations discovered "the power of pull". U.S. corporations realized they could make up the difference by extorting the government for their stupid decisions during the "fat" years. The IT and computer revolution of the last 30 years should have been enough to pull us into another 50 year boom. It has not because the government needs to tax money from the growth industries to pay for the excesses of “pull”.
The U.S. has the ability to be the greatest industrial power in the world again. But we need to allow creative destruction to happen again. It will be painful. But, if we do not allow the economy to adjust itself, we are going to be the world’s largest manufacturer of buggy whips while the rest of the world is building Fords.
In short, we need to lower corporate income and personal taxes, and eliminate capital gains taxes entirely. Beyond that, deregulate deregulate deregulate.
-
I like the cut of your jib Inor. Well said.
-
If one is an adherent of Kenyanomics, buggy whips are the whips of the people, of the future.
-
If one is an adherent of Kenyanomics, buggy whips are the whips of the people, of the future.
J. M. Keynes = P. T. Barnum
-
Import tariffs won't protect the American standard of living at this point for several reasons. 1) We've outsourced our manufacturing to third world countries (there are no jobs to protect). 2) We've gone from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation in the last 30 years. 3) And finally, China OWNS us. We've sold our debt to them so that we could a) consume; b) engage in foreign adventures-(which was just a cover to transfer more public wealth to the private sector.)
It doesn't matter what taxes are-spending and accumulated debt are the problem. I predict that the generation behind us will simply disavow (default on) all national debt, wipe the slate clean and start all over again.
-
Import tariffs won't protect the American standard of living at this point for several reasons. 1) We've outsourced our manufacturing to third world countries (there are no jobs to protect). 2) We've gone from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation in the last 30 years. 3) And finally, China OWNS us. We've sold our debt to them so that we could a) consume; b) engage in foreign adventures-(which was just a cover to transfer more public wealth to the private sector.)
It doesn't matter what taxes are-spending and accumulated debt are the problem. I predict that the generation behind us will simply disavow (default on) all national debt, wipe the slate clean and start all over again.
They'll probably have to, but the effect will be to ruin the currency. It will be a tough move.
-
The dollar is already worthless and people are beginning to notice. Between the artificial bouyancy of petro dollars and the increase of M1 by the printing press, we've reduced our currency to worthlessness. (and let's not forget the Chinese debt, either). The Federal Reserve is a completely anti American entity and needs to be dissolved. We are no longer a soveriegn nation, we're owned lock stock and barrel by international corporatists.
-
Import tariffs won't protect the American standard of living at this point for several reasons. 1) We've outsourced our manufacturing to third world countries (there are no jobs to protect). 2) We've gone from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation in the last 30 years. 3) And finally, China OWNS us. We've sold our debt to them so that we could a) consume; b) engage in foreign adventures-(which was just a cover to transfer more public wealth to the private sector.)
It doesn't matter what taxes are-spending and accumulated debt are the problem. I predict that the generation behind us will simply disavow (default on) all national debt, wipe the slate clean and start all over again.
It's not quite that hopeless, but to right the capsized ship will take draconian action, doing the unthinkable, and we are still far from that because we don't yet recognize or want to recognize that our survival's at stake. Ask yourself what lies behind our current overheated consumer (debt) culture, who benefits most--that is the basis of a more interesting dialogue.
I'm sure you realize that hitting the re-set button on our debts isn't quite as easy as re-setting the player scores on video games. You may be correct that the phantasts of following generations will try to take "the easy way" out, but that would only lead to a plenary collapse of the global financial system and, if history's any guide, not only catastrophic economic dislocations but the application of military force on an unpleasant scale. Those who have no problems with scruples will do what they see as necessary.
-
44% of U.S. government debt is held by foreign citizens or institutions (including governments).
Guess who holds the other 56%?
-
You? =D
-
You? =D
Me, you, our banks, our 401ks, our mutual funds....
-
Me, you, our banks, our 401ks, our mutual funds....
Let us not forget the Federal Reserve Bank. The last time I looked, they were sitting on about $3 Trillion (give or take).
-
People often conveniently ignore the massive difference between US labor cost versus some foreign labor. I read that you didn't, just stating that many people like to be intentionally obtuse because they dont want a pay cut. Over regulation has its fair share of the blame, I just find it annoying.
The US already tried raising tariffs to help American business. It doesn't work, because if a company is efficient, then it doesn't need a handout. If it isn't efficient, it doesn't deserve one.
BTW raising import tariffs is a handout if it costs the government more in lost productivity that is gained by the tariff.
Look at the imported steel slab tariff increase of the early '00s. It was to help American steel companies modernize, and in place temporarily. Instead of modernizing (presumably to increase competitiveness) the major American steel companies gave put pay increases. They assumed the tariff was going to be perpetually renewed, and it wasn't.
Bottom line: free markets work. Tariffs are only good to replace income taxes with a consumption tax.
No, we will never achieve the "efficiency" of nations that use slave or quasi-slave labor, have no health standards, and pollute at will. That's true, but why are we importing their stuff and killing our own markets? So that we can consume ourselves into massive unemployment and bankruptcy while simultaneously subverting labor and environmental standards elsewhere?
Tariffs don't work? Well, neither does "free trade" that turns out not to be very free. What we need isn't "free" trade, it's America-advantaged trade, using whatever leverage we have. Economics is war by other means, and some nations apparently understand this better than others. Fact is, it's not the consumers of the smart and able nations that win, it's the producers; the consumers win by surviving better and longer in a nation that is a strong producer. We won't have a big consumer economy too much longer if we don't do better on the production side.
-
No, we will never achieve the "efficiency" of nations that use slave or quasi-slave labor, have no health standards, and pollute at will. That's true, but why are we importing their stuff and killing our own markets? So that we can consume ourselves into massive unemployment and bankruptcy while simultaneously subverting labor and environmental standards elsewhere?
I would argue that the US manufacturing sector has already achieved efficiencies that much of the world is envious of. China and the like would love to have a manufacturing base as efficient and effective as ours. American workers may cost more, but they tend to be better educated and more skilled. Our manufacturers also have the benefits of better factories, with superior tooling and technology.
I think much of the problem lies in assuming that all modern manufacturing is difficult or skills-demanding. If an uneducated Chinese peasant can perform a given manufacturing task, then you can rest assured that it the task is not too demanding.
What some people seem to want is to be able to pay superior American workers superior American wages to perform generic unskilled work. That just won't work. It is natural, normal, and OK for generic, bulk unskilled labor jobs leave America and go to China. That frees the superior American worker up to do more advanced work, thereby extending and maintaining America's superior manufacturing efficienceis.
-
What some people seem to want is to be able to pay superior American workers superior American wages to perform generic unskilled work. That just won't work. It is natural, normal, and OK for generic, bulk unskilled labor jobs leave America and go to China. That frees the superior American worker up to do more advanced work, thereby extending and maintaining America's superior manufacturing efficienceis.
I agree with your statement in general, but question one premise. Is the American worker really "superior" anymore? Some are, certainly. But for the last few years we have had an illiteracy rate approaching 25% in many of our inner-city high schools. I wonder if the "drunk, lazy, and stupid" people have already consumed the economic benefits of our superior manufacturing efficiences?
-
China is prosperous?
-
What some people seem to want is to be able to pay superior American workers superior American wages to perform generic unskilled work. That just won't work. It is natural, normal, and OK for generic, bulk unskilled labor jobs leave America and go to China. That frees the superior American worker up to do more advanced work, thereby extending and maintaining America's superior manufacturing efficienceis.
Well, in a population that is now well over 300 million people, how many would you say are really able and tooled up enough to do "more advanced work?" This is a fraction of our actual population at this point. Yet we have spent half a century importing, legally and illegally, people who in the main offer no advantage and no likelihood of producing "more advanced work," while at the same time neglecting to modernize a large chunk of our manufacturing capability. We have some superior workers and technology, but I don't see how we have enough to form the basis any more of a cutting edge world economy. I guess we are counting on redistribution of wealth, huh?
-
Well, in a population that is now well over 300 million people, how many would you say are really able and tooled up enough to do "more advanced work?
Let me explain how superior the American worker is:
America has six million farmers.
China has 300 million farmers.
America produces 27% of the world's grain and rice. China produces 18%. (Meaning that the American grain/rice farmer is about 80 times more effective than the Chinese farmer).
America produces 3.6% of the world's root and tuber stock, and China 17% (Meaning the American farmer is only 8 times more effective, per capita, than the Chinese farmer).
Same six million Americans produce 20% of the world's meat (China produces 25% of the world's meat).
The "superior" Chinese worker, produces vastly less product per capita than an American worker in the farm industry.
America's farm industry, comprising only 2% of the US workforce, is only one example.
-
don't' forget to account for the illegal mexicans [popcorn] we're probably about even. =D
:angel:
-
I'd wager that illegal Mexicans working on American farms, with American tools and equipment, under the direction of experienced American supervisors, are still much more effective than foreigners.
[popcorn]
-
Hey, Micro, you're proving my point. Okay, let's take food production. Six million farmers get it done. Uh, what about the other 324 million? I never said America lacked technology or technological superiority, I said that technological superiority was not spread over anything like the entire current population.
-
Uh, what about the other 324 million?
They get freed up to do more interesting things, like writing software or doing heart transplants.
-
Or building and fixing guns... ;)
-
I'm going to go eat dinner, and relish the fact that I didn't have to grow the food myself.
;)
-
Hey, Micro, you're proving my point. Okay, let's take food production. Six million farmers get it done. Uh, what about the other 324 million? I never said America lacked technology or technological superiority, I said that technological superiority was not spread over anything like the entire current population.
There's no need to do that. There are many people producing goods which may not be tangible or valuable to you, but which are clearly valuable to other people, since they're buying them. And the economic superiority of America's farmers and other producers is what allows labor to be freed up for these things.
Heart transplants, software - and things that seem to be of no 'tangible' value, like banking services, films, plays, private space ventures, and so on and so forth. You may not value them this much, but they are part of how modern wealth gets created.
Oh, and about that food stuff? Since 2008, China has been a net food importer. Those Chinese workers?
They have 50 times as many Chinese working on a slightly greater amount of land - and yet they need to import food from America.
With all of those 300 million farmers, those oh-so-superior Chinese farmers need to import food from the United
-
I'm going to go eat dinner, and relish the fact that I didn't have to grow the food myself.
;)
Ah, but home raised free range chicken eggs are so much better than store bought :P
Great way to turn grasshoppers into palatable protein. ;)
-
or you could just fry em up and have a taco. [tinfoil]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFn3GKVLHnM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMLLuOvb7hQ
now then, im'ma go make a batch of tortillas and quarter them and fry up some tortilla chips [popcorn]
EDIT: Mmmmm tortilla chips [popcorn] =D
-
The US needs to ditch minimum wage. Period.
Our advantage over the rest of the world since industrialization is technological advancement. The USA always figures out how to do things faster, better, and cheaper using improved technology. The only problem we have currently is an inflated labor wage. This leads to companies moving jobs off-shore. The problem with this is that they frequently move the technology off-shore, too. Once the technological edge leaves the US, it is copied and adopted by foreign competition.
Kill the minimum wage. Let wages adjust to where they ought to be. Watch the US economy take off like a rocket.
-
The US needs to ditch minimum wage. Period.
Our advantage over the rest of the world since industrialization is technological advancement. The USA always figures out how to do things faster, better, and cheaper using improved technology. The only problem we have currently is an inflated labor wage. This leads to companies moving jobs off-shore. The problem with this is that they frequently move the technology off-shore, too. Once the technological edge leaves the US, it is copied and adopted by foreign competition.
Kill the minimum wage. Let wages adjust to where they ought to be. Watch the US economy take off like a rocket.
I thought one of the other reasons for moving business off shore was the U.S.'s corporate tax rate that can range up to 39%, one of the highest in the world, so it would only make good business sense to move to China (25%), Taiwan (25%), South Korea (13-25%), Chile (15%) or pretty much anywhere else for that matter. Perhaps a (and god help me for suggesting it) slash in the corporate tax should be tried first? Of course it wouldn't hurt if a select group of 500 people out of the 300,000,000 in our country tried to stop spending us into an even deeper hole than we are already in.
-
There's no need to do that. There are many people producing goods which may not be tangible or valuable to you, but which are clearly valuable to other people, since they're buying them. And the economic superiority of America's farmers and other producers is what allows labor to be freed up for these things.
Heart transplants, software - and things that seem to be of no 'tangible' value, like banking services, films, plays, private space ventures, and so on and so forth. You may not value them this much, but they are part of how modern wealth gets created.
Now why didn't I think of that...they'll be doing Other Things. Uh-huh, yeah, get that, and, yes, I do value all that, but the issue is at what price and at what average standard of living in today's Funny Dollars. Let me hazard a guess that most people won't be writing software or doing heart transplants but will be pushing paper in slo-mo and watching monitors of what will then be a vast criminalized America or standing in long, long lines at the welfare office.
-
Say what?
???
-
Say this: a society that is committed to "leveling" isn't going to be in the vanguard of anything very long. And that's where this once great nation is headed.
-
What you talkin' bout, Willis?
Leveling? Criminalized America and welfare lines?
I think you just flew off on a tangent and forgot to invite the rest of us along with you.
-
The reference was to our future economy, conditioned by The Great Leveling of our egalitarian President and his votaries, an economy that will feature an ever greater welfare state manned by cubicle hamsters, more hamsters monitoring video screens (think U.K.) for hamster crime, and hamsters queueing up for soylent hamster. =D
Now where were we, Willis?
-
linking the car.....err washing the car, yeah that's it washing the car. =D
-
When it gets down to it — talking trade balances here — once we've brain-drained all our technology into other countries, once things have evened out, they're making cars in Bolivia and microwave ovens in Tadzhikistan and selling them here — once our edge in natural resources has been made irrelevant by giant Hong Kong ships and dirigibles that can ship North Dakota all the way to New Zealand for a nickel — once the Invisible Hand has taken away all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani brickmaker would consider to be prosperity — y'know what? There's only four things we do better than anyone else:
music
movies
microcode (software)
high-speed pizza delivery
Sadly, given the state of Big Content and the H1B, I think Mr. Stevenson was being overly optimistic.
-
The reference was to our future economy, conditioned by The Great Leveling of our egalitarian President and his votaries, an economy that will feature an ever greater welfare state manned by cubicle hamsters, more hamsters monitoring video screens (think U.K.) for hamster crime, and hamsters queueing up for soylent hamster. =D
Now where were we, Willis?
We were talking about economics. About resource allocation, and comparative advantage, and mutually beneficial trade, and similar suchlike.
At least, that's what I thought we were talking about. But apparently we're noww talking about hamsters.
:laugh:
-
Yes, we were: hamsternomics.
An economy reflects the ability and adaptability of its people. Perhaps you are comfortable with what you see around you; I am not. What has set America apart, besides its core political values, is its science and technology. How long do you think our edge in those areas will remain with The Great Leveler in the White House obsessed with "disparate impact?"
-
Who said anything about being comfortable with Obama's actions regarding the economy?
-
Well, that's good news.
-
Does anyone else find it disturbing that the default position of socialists is that we must come up with reasons why they shouldn't steal our property in order to give it to somebody else ???
-
sorry man, but no. i'm used to it. :facepalm: kinda like being told i was cheating when i was the first one handing in tests. it's just the way of the world. [popcorn]