Trickle down economics is a lie, the proof !

[spacecowboy342]

Couldn't find which post to quote you on but I think you mentioned tariffs somewhere. We raise the price of foreign goods that way the products made at home are cheaper making business stay here? It sounds good but there are some consequences you may not be looking at,

For one when we raise tariffs on other countries then other countries tend to raise tariffs on us. "retaliation tariffs". If this "trade war" gets too bad then countries can get close to stopping trade with each other all together. Depending on how it turns out it would really start lowering international trade.

The loss from international trade above would actually damage our economy.

Our citizens love to complain about "exploiting" workers in other countries (even though like i mentioned in my other post our "sweat shops" greatly improve other countries standards of living) But if we put a tariff on exported goods in an attempt to convince business to stay here then all these products we are accustomed to being cheap will all of a sudden rise. Will our citizens still complain when our products are not so cheap anymore?

here are some sources that may be able to articulate it better if you choose to read them.

http://www.ehow.com/...ts-tariffs.html

http://smallbusiness...otas-20726.html

And before someone asked "well then how do you plan to keep business from going over seas" ,

Idk, But I do not have to know the right answer to be able to see when something is clearly the wrong answer.

I don't doubt that these so-called sweat shops do raise the standard of living in those countries as sad as that sounds, but I am more concerned with the fact that American standards of living are declining rapidly because American jobs are being shipped overseas. And in their greed these companies lose sight of the fact that a strong American consumer class is the greatest boon to their business. When the American workers have been dropped to third world standards of living who will buy their products then? We absolutely need tariffs. If other countries raise theirs and price American goods to high they hurt themselves as well

[Perceptivum]

They want a bit of fairness - that's all. Only idiots want the Government to solve all their problems.

And incase you didn't notice - your not living in the 1700's anymore.

Br Cornelius

Where the hell have you been the last 10 years Mr Monkey? 98% of Americans are idiots and it's getting worse!!

The world, by DEFAULT, is unfair. There are people in this world who try to influence the world to make it a bit more FAIR. Only idiots believe life is fair and people make it unfair.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Perceptivum

[questionmark]

Where the hell have you been the last 10 years Mr Monkey? 98% of Americans are idiots and it's getting worse!!

The world, by DEFAULT, is unfair. There are people in this world who try to influence the world to make it a bit more FAIR. Only idiots believe life is fair and people make it unfair.

Life has rules, unlike the so called "free markets", and the first rule of life, to be sustainable, is that you never take out more than you can put back.

[Perceptivum]

You forgot a decisive clause in your first sentence which should read: What people want is the United States government to solve all of life's problems, regardless of who is in the White House without costing anything.

Because there are solutions, just no willingness to pay for them.

I did not forget that and my first sentence should not read that way at all!

With that kind of logic, it would then read: What people want is the United States government to solve all of life's problems, regardless of who is in the White House, without costing anything and in fact providing a 100% increase in their tax refund; furthermore without infringing on the Bill of Rights, while banning Hilary Clinton from television, while giving each child a free college education at Harvard or Yale (their choosing, oh how nice), while providing U.S. citizens full UFO disclosure, while passing into law that every hot chick in 'merica must be naked at all times and sets forth that I will be the ultimate judge of who is a "hot chick" and who is not; moreover that each Tuesday will be now 'Donut Tuesday' and each 'merican is ENTITLED to one free doughnut of their choosing from any doughnut store of their liking.

I hate when people do that - can you tell? ******* idiot.

[Perceptivum]

Life has rules, unlike the so called "free markets", and the first rule of life, to be sustainable, is that you never take out more than you can put back.

That's interesting, where is this Life Rule Book? I've never seen or heard of a Rule Book for Life. I would think that the first rule of life would be to not kill, steal, or in any way harm your fellow man/woman; I guess not.

[Space Commander Travis]

To whom is the '******* idiot' addressed?

[questionmark]

That's interesting, where is this Life Rule Book? I've never seen or heard of a Rule Book for Life. I would think that the first rule of life would be to not kill, steal, or in any way harm your fellow man/woman; I guess not.

Stealing, as you can see in nature (if you'd open your eyes) is common among animals and plants, just frowned upon among humans.

Humans are the aberration of nature... but don';t let that bother you.

Edited May 2, 2014 by questionmark

[Space Commander Travis]

That's interesting, where is this Life Rule Book? I've never seen or heard of a Rule Book for Life. I would think that the first rule of life would be to not kill, steal, or in any way harm your fellow man/woman; I guess not.

Exodus chapter 20 contains a basic rundown. (You can take out the bits about no other God than me and honouring your neighbor's donkey* if you like.)

* 'ass' would almost certainly be asterisked

** oh, it isn't?

Edited May 2, 2014 by Admiral Rhubarb

[TSS]

The only rule of life is to survive no matter what...everything else is made up to suit a particular mind-set.

[questionmark]

The only rule of life is to survive no matter what...everything else is made up to suit a particular mind-set.

The survival of you and your descendants, quite, quite... the only ones who try to survive without their descendants seem to be humans...

Edited May 2, 2014 by questionmark

[TSS]

The survival of you and your descendants, quite, quite... the only ones who try to survive without their descendants seem to be humans...

Well that's wrong, but another topic anyway..

[Phaeton80]

Does anyone have an opinion on the Thomas Piketty material, and what it concludes?

http://onpoint.wbur....-gregory-mankiw

First, I think it is kicking in a bunch of proverbial doors, while being celebrated as some sort of brilliant revelation.

Second, I find it to hold several threats to the working people - to rob / undermine the last remaining sources of (lower/middle class) wealth - under the guise of actually trying to correct a disharmoneous situation.

It is obvious monetary assets are being centralized with exponential speed, at expense of the middle class.

It is obvious the filthy rich have a disproportional control of macro developments in society, for the simple fact 'money talks'.

It is obvious these superrich would use this disproportionate control to their own advantage, meaning to the disadvantage of the lower classes / 'not superrich'.

Main implied solutions are higher taxation of capital / 'wealth', capital like.. pension funds and house ownership (?)

My opinion would be that additional taxation is not the answer, and will in all plausibility create the direct opposite of what is argued to be the desired effect.

The solution would be better sought in dismanteling the influence these entities have on our resp. governments, which is - at the end of the day - the reason of the present situation.

A solution would imo be better sought in empowering the middle and lower classes through lowering income tax, lowering interest rates for natural persons (as opposed to artificial persons), and deconstructing all the laws that have been instated or revoked where a disadvantage of The People is obvious.

And theres another main issue, imho. Under the artificial person concept, corporations have seized (constitutional) rights and elevated themselves above the natural person in present day society.

In any case, increasing tax is not the answer, and can even be marked as (extremely) counterproductive - given the fact our resp. governments have proven to be completely incompetent in gov spending (which incidentally often means awarding big contracts to big business motivated by.. thats right; big business lobbies.

A good start might just be to end a system where a pesident can only get 'elected' when that individual can amass enough big business 'donations', after which said individual is obligated to 'return the favor' during his time in office.

I mean, come the f* on. Elephant in the room? Nah.. dont be silly.. you just need to cross your eyes like everybody, dont focus, nothing to see there. Lets just raise taxes, and everything will be allright.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Phaeton80

[spacecowboy342]

Funny how raising taxes never seems to be the answer

[Frank Merton]

Personally I think governments should get by on their own resources and not collect taxes at all. This would mean they need a piece of the action of a lot of economic activity so they have profits to take. This of course implies socialism, but somehow socialist governments always end up using taxes to support their enterprises rather than other-way-round.

All taxes are harmful to an economy. Tax consumption is probably the least harmful, as it discourages waste, but one must provide exceptions for the really poor. Taxing incomes is horrid; it penalizes work and saving, but of course some tax on a millionaire athlete seems to not be that serious a violation of the idea.

[F3SS]

Personally I think governments should get by on their own resources and not collect taxes at all. This would mean they need a piece of the action of a lot of economic activity so they have profits to take. This of course implies socialism, but somehow socialist governments always end up using taxes to support their enterprises rather than other-way-round.

All taxes are harmful to an economy. Tax consumption is probably the least harmful, as it discourages waste, but one must provide exceptions for the really poor. Taxing incomes is horrid; it penalizes work and saving, but of course some tax on a millionaire athlete seems to not be that serious a violation of the idea.

Wouldn't that essentially be one giant corporation running the country? They would have to control all major resources so as to make sure people have to buy whatever they're selling. I don't know Frank. There's a lot wrong with that scenario. The rest I agree with mostly. I think taxes are the most logical way to find government but we should have a far simpler tax system for starters. 90,000 pages and ever-growing our tax code is. Heck, 90k is a stat I read about years ago. It's probably more already. Simpler tax code and fiscal responsibility are the answer.

[Gromdor]

All of their legislation would have to be geared towards making a profit as well. Genocide in Ukraine? Israel getting invaded? Sorry, our number crunchers say that intervention would hurt our bottom line.

[Beany]

Wouldn't that essentially be one giant corporation running the country? They would have to control all major resources so as to make sure people have to buy whatever they're selling. I don't know Frank. There's a lot wrong with that scenario. The rest I agree with mostly. I think taxes are the most logical way to find government but we should have a far simpler tax system for starters. 90,000 pages and ever-growing our tax code is. Heck, 90k is a stat I read about years ago. It's probably more already. Simpler tax code and fiscal responsibility are the answer.

Taxes pay for some very important services: garbage collection, water distribution systems, law enforcement, education, social security, Medicare, etc. I'm pretty sure I don't want these services provided by corporations, they have enough of a grip on our economy as it is.

[spacecowboy342]

No doubt since thanks to our supreme court international corporations enjoy the civil rights intended for private citizens and spending money is equated with free speech.

[Yamato]

Yamota, there is no such thing as a free market without laws and governments to enforce the law of contract. Corporation's know this full well and would never want what they claim to want - a world free of Government regulations.

However Corporations want the benefits of a free market without ponying up the costs and that is what they cynically lobby for every day of the week. Hence they are trying to set up extra sovereign courts to bully sovereign countries around whilst relying on those sovereign governments to impose the decision of those courts.

There is a fundamental logical inconsistency in your stance on free markets and governments. You cannot have one without the other and believing that you can is just wishful thinking.

Br Cornelius

Cornholius,

I never said you could have one without the other. Stop putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head. When are you going to stop lying branding me an anarchist? How many times do I have to correct you before you can even be honest, much less not insulting?

Why do you always have to stretch "free markets" into this absolutist definition where they have to mean the absence of govt? Hong Kong has free markets. Singapore has free markets. What's your problem with Ebay? They're regulated free markets. Yes, they're not mutually exclusive.

Absolute free markets don't exist just as absolute socialism doesn't exist. This is nearly all you have to contribute to these discussions whenever they occur. Been there, done that to death. It's most unpleasant agreeing with you too when you're this trollish about it.

[Guest]

Cornholius,

I never said you could have one without the other. Stop putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head. When are you going to stop lying branding me an anarchist? How many times do I have to correct you before you can even be honest, much less not insulting?

Why do you always have to stretch "free markets" into this absolutist definition where they have to mean the absence of govt? Hong Kong has free markets. Singapore has free markets. What's your problem with Ebay? They're regulated free markets. Yes, they're not mutually exclusive.

Absolute free markets don't exist just as absolute socialism doesn't exist. This is nearly all you have to contribute to these discussions whenever they occur. Been there, done that to death. It's most unpleasant agreeing with you too when you're this trollish about it.

I engage in these discussions because you have a tendency to sloganizing and little stomach for thrashing out the details of those slogans. The world is a very complex mass of contradictions and we have to live in the details not the grand concepts. How big is Government to be ? You have advocated having Governments weaker than corporations and yet try to wriggle out of the implications of that absurd position. Corporations are only functional within a system of Governance which can punish them for misdemeanour. Since most corporations function on a transnational basis, and use the inconsistencies between jurisdictions to avoid paying their due (Apple springs to mind), the reality actually requires a strengthening and cooperation between sovereign Governments and the UN (which is the primary forum for transnational treaties).

Your dreams of retreat from big Government are just that - dreams. There are risks to strengthening the hand of government - but that doesn't make it any less necessary to do so. The desire to retreat to simpler patterns of existence, a nostalgia for the seeming certainties of the past, is more than dangerous in the face of increasing global complexity.

I despair of your idealism and general lack of analysis.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 8, 2014 by Guest

[Beany]

Cornholius,

I never said you could have one without the other. Stop putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head. When are you going to stop lying branding me an anarchist? How many times do I have to correct you before you can even be honest, much less not insulting?

Why do you always have to stretch "free markets" into this absolutist definition where they have to mean the absence of govt? Hong Kong has free markets. Singapore has free markets. What's your problem with Ebay? They're regulated free markets. Yes, they're not mutually exclusive.

Absolute free markets don't exist just as absolute socialism doesn't exist. This is nearly all you have to contribute to these discussions whenever they occur. Been there, done that to death. It's most unpleasant agreeing with you too when you're this trollish about it.

While i appreciate the beavis and butthead reference the cornholius is unnecessary. It is still my favorite b n b thing, though.

[Yamato]

I engage in these discussions because you have a tendency to sloganizing and little stomach for thrashing out the details of those slogans. The world is a very complex mass of contradictions and we have to live in the details not the grand concepts. How big is Government to be ? You have advocated having Governments weaker than corporations and yet try to wriggle out of the implications of that absurd position. Corporations are only functional within a system of Governance which can punish them for misdemeanour. Since most corporations function on a transnational basis, and use the inconsistencies between jurisdictions to avoid paying their due (Apple springs to mind), the reality actually requires a strengthening and cooperation between sovereign Governments and the UN (which is the primary forum for transnational treaties).

Your dreams of retreat from big Government are just that - dreams. There are risks to strengthening the hand of government - but that doesn't make it any less necessary to do so. The desire to retreat to simpler patterns of existence, a nostalgia for the seeming certainties of the past, is more than dangerous in the face of increasing global complexity.

I despair of your idealism and general lack of analysis.

Br Cornelius

What idealism? Why is it idealism when I'm forced to pay my bills? That's not idealism that's reality. The moment reality factors into it, I have a slogan? What slogan? Government spending per capita these days is off the charts. How much government spending per person do we need these days and what needs are so much greater for it today that didn't exist in the past? How many controllers handing out pillow cushions do you want? Where's the limit? You have a lot of explaining to do, for getting into these weeds over this. Your chronic obfuscation of my real position and not being able to handle a single standard for everyone is noted.

[Guest]

What idealism? Why is it idealism when I'm forced to pay my bills? That's not idealism that's reality. The moment reality factors into it, I have a slogan? What slogan? Government spending per capita these days is off the charts. How much government spending per person do we need these days and what needs are so much greater for it today that didn't exist in the past? How many controllers handing out pillow cushions do you want? Where's the limit? You have a lot of explaining to do, for getting into these weeds over this. Your chronic obfuscation of my real position and not being able to handle a single standard for everyone is noted.

Two things :

-Governments borrow money from banks and the Fed especially to do anything. i don't like it, you don't like it - but thats reality and thats how it works under the present economic rules.

-Whilst ever we live under this system inflation will mean that every single year things will get more expensive and borrowing will get bigger. Money lent into existence at interest means it can be no other way. Deal with it.

-When I need to do something which is a big ticket item I borrow money. I don't do a lot of it - but in most ways its cost effective for me to borrow rather than wait. So fundamentally my behaviour is no different to the countries behaviour.

Those are some basic facts of life which are not really addressed by your position that Governments shouldn't go into debt to do the things they do. We could argue about the basic economic rules which mean that's the way things have to be - but you have never really engaged beyond saying that Government borrowing is wrong - which is a basic denial of the reality we live in. We could argue about the degree to which borrowing is necessary and I might even agree that the US government has systematically abused the system and destabilized the world economy as a result. But overall it would be more than hypocritical of me to argue against the fundamentals without either suggesting a radical solution (money spent into existence rather than lent) or accepting that I am as guilty as the next man.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 12, 2014 by Guest

[Yamato]

I can't address "the facts of life" when I'm consistent and fair because the facts of life that you're appeasing are neither of those things. "Deal with it" is your enlightened economic solution? Why do you even bother then? If you don't even care enough to even know what to do, you're not the go to guy for any solutions here.

Again you put words in my mouth I've never once said. Where did I say govt shouldn't borrow? It should borrow when it must. When the world is in flames, we borrowed up to our necks, and built 60,000 aircraft to defend Europe from the likes of Hitler and Stalin respectively. We built 17 fleet carriers to hand it to Hirohito and save SE Asia and the Pacific. World War II was a legitimate reason to go into debt. Not lowering interest rates by 0.1%. Not raising the GDP by 0.2%. Not reducing unemployment by 0.3%. Not raising inflation by 0.4% or any of the other arbitrary bureaucratic lines you accept out of hand just because they're there.

So you go right ahead and appease the demagogues crying their war chants of "WWIII!", sit around and do nothing and "deal with it". And you dare complain about my lack of enlightenment? I think you're irritable for a reason. I've got real solutions and you've got surrender artistry.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Yamato

[Guest]

Yamato, tell me what solution would you have suggested - other than Kenysian intervention - which would have prevented a total world economic melt down in 2008 ?

Let the whole **** house hit the fan and hope for the best ?

Let the bad guys suck it up and take their medicine ?

Fundamentally that was your stated position - and I can only say that I am glad that you weren't in charge because if the **** had have really hit the fan then the chances of us not been in WW3 would be extremely remote.

Br Cornelius