Economic Ignorance: Shared by some Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians

[dotcoma]

I am obsessed with the international economy. The cyclical motion of it is fascinating. What is even more fascinating is the absolute ignorance of some groups concerning the US economy.

Some Democrats want protectionism. While this is a noble concept to save American jobs, it is a self-destructing one (as it costs way more to protect the job than the actual salary being paid out-so the national economy is hurt).

Some Republicans want to want to further expose our markets, and encourage over-consumption via tax breaks. The problem with this however seems to be the fact that the government is actually spending more than it earns, and foreign debt is huge-depreciating the dollar, and hurting our image for investors of capital. Also, it does not account for the tendancy for some consumers to save instead of spend (which is why sometimes creating government contracts like the Democrats can be a better idea ...but it's less efficient).

Some Libertarians/Republicans wish to get rid of all government subsidies, welfare, etc (for different reasons). The idea here for some Libertarians is that such taxes can only be described as theft. The problem with this also noble belief is that it does not consider the international market. The market cannot be controlled domestically anymore. Investors are the winners. They can have a foreign cheap labor force, and just continue to cut jobs in the US. They have proven that they will not re-invest in America, so it is a giant sucking sound for Americans. Some sort of pay back needs to be enforced (such as the current tax system that provides unemployment opportunities).

I am a supporter of free trade, but the short-term destruction of the American dream needs to be helped until enough Americans become the skilled workers they need to now become in order to survive the next transition.

Please only participate if you know a little about economics, and know to avoid baiting based on partisan bullshit.

[bishop]

in my view, democrats don't really want protectionism, especially since most of them have voted for nafta, wto, ftaa, etc.. not to mention the years of voting giving china permanent trade partner status. protectionist tendencies are not party-specific whatsoever, and they generally arise from a failure (either at the public or private levels) to adjust to a changing economy.

and once upon a time, republicans were the biggest deficit hawks around. what they've become in the past few years is an abomination, and in my view, their tax cutting and deficit spending ways are the biggest threat to our economy in the long run (even more than islamic terrorists). in reality, they aren't giving tax-cuts/breaks to anyone. what they are doing, is extending the lines of credit to taxpayers - because for a tax cut to be a tax cut, the money MUST come from a reduction in spending. otherwise, it is not a tax cut de facto.

right now, the government's outrageous spending is, like you said, killing the dollar's value. the dollar began to decline in 1999, before the recession, and has never recovered since our "leaders" slashed interest rates AND increased spending to levels comparable to lbj. low interest rates and heavy deficit spending is a recipe for hyperinflation and we would've experienced it if the rest of the world began to dump their dollars.

I am a supporter of free trade, but the short-term destruction of the American dream needs to be helped until enough Americans become the skilled workers they need to now become in order to survive the next transition.

china and india are two great examples of how a dedication to education can drastically improve a country's future. here in america, our "leaders" love to talk high and mighty about how the young are our next generation.. about how we have to make things better for them so that we don't have to deal with their unresolved problems, etc... in china and india, they have actively worked to train their citizens on math and technology. it's no surprise that there seems to be an overabundance of tech workers in india, for example. plus, american developers considered themselves to be better than other office workers, because they had a skill that was supposedly rare. now that millions of people across the world have the same skills that they took for granted, now they're commodities just like all other workers. what does the american government do to train the next generation's workforce?? not a god damn thing - they even make money off of college students by slipping in their bogus fees and interest charges. when it comes to being successful and competitive in the global economy there is no substitute for a good education.

[Osborn F Enready]

DotComa said:
I am obsessed with the international economy. The cyclical motion of it is fascinating. What is even more fascinating is the absolute ignorance of some groups concerning the US economy.

I say:
So, you are saying you fully understand all factors of implication that govern the international economy, and are inadvertantly, defacto, claiming to be a guru? So you fully understand the damage being done to the tax structure by the scope, and complexity of L.I.L.O. Leasing schemes unleashed by corporate tax lawyers, as well as other legal gauntlett tax shelters used to grow corporate welfare?

So, aside from your statement that leads me to interpret that you are a fan of gloabalization and wealth redistribution, are you making another point?

DotComa says:
Some Democrats want protectionism. While this is a noble concept to save American jobs, it is a self-destructing one (as it costs way more to protect the job than the actual salary being paid out-so the national economy is hurt).

I say:
The U.S. has not had a free market in the recollection of any person alive today. It may be they believe that is the modern interpretation of free market, but it is surely not a free market as we were designed to have.

We have long been operating in a establishment controlled protectionism.
Look at this clippet from:
http://www.freetrade.org/new/buch1.html

Turn-of-the-Century Tariffs

In the election of 1888, Republicans called for tariffs to protect American manufacturing. Benjamin Harrison’s defeat of Democrat free trader Grover Cleveland led to passage of the McKinley tariff in 1890. An interesting aspect of the 1890 debate over the tariff is that protectionists abandoned any pretense that high tariffs were needed to protect infant industries. Even mature industries, they argued, needed protection. They further argued that high tariffs were needed to reduce the Treasury’s surplus. They understood that sufficiently high rates would so discourage imports that tariff revenues would fall.

Protectionist tariffs remained the bedrock of economic policy of the Republican Party for the next 20 years. Indeed, Republicans were so intent on passing the Payne-Aldrich tariff in 1909 that President William Howard Taft supported the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution creating a federal income tax as the political price for Democratic support of the tariff. That has to have been one of the worst deals in history -- a lose-lose situation if ever there was one.

The Underwood tariff of 1913, passed early in the administration of President Woodrow Wilson, liberalized trade somewhat. But as soon as the Republicans reassumed power after World War I, they raised tariffs again. The Fordney-McCumber tariff of 1922 generally increased tariff rates across the board. However, it also gave the President power to raise or lower existing tariffs by 50 percent.

Deepening Depression

The infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 was the last outrage inflicted by the Republican protectionists. Rates on dutiable imports rose to their highest levels in over 100 years. Increases of 50 percent were common and some rates went up 100 percent. Table 1 indicates how much tariffs in creased during the 1920s as a result of both the Fordney-McCumber and Smoot-Hawley tariffs. A recent analysis estimates that the Smoot-Hawley tariff, on average, doubled the tariffs over those in the Underwood Act.

I am no Buchannan fan, but this summation is spot on in my understanding of free market concept, and the beginning of precedent for its demise from within. For the last 155 years we have been operating in a Bi-Partisan controlled protectionism. I find it humorous you use this to describe or define a particular parties line of policy, since they have parlayed different forms of protectionism between them since they have overtaken overwhelming majority of all elected seats.

DotComa said:
Some Republicans want to want to further expose our markets, and encourage over-consumption via tax breaks. The problem with this however seems to be the fact that the government is actually spending more than it earns, and foreign debt is huge-depreciating the dollar, and hurting our image for investors of capital. Also, it does not account for the tendancy for some consumers to save instead of spend (which is why sometimes creating government contracts like the Democrats can be a better idea ...but it's less efficient).

I say:
The numbers that "appear" good due to overconsumption are a false indicator, since in our modern trade structure, the majority of the money spent in overconsumption is being spent on goods from other countries. This is manipulated wealth re-distribution, aided in many ways by U.S. tax structure and business inducements to foreign companies, while shifting the majority of the tax burden to the consumers, through inflated local, state, and federal taxes on income, sales and land taxes. This is of course also knowing that multi-million dollar, practically unregulated corporations have teams of lawyers creating, finding and exploiting tax shelters, using multiple sets of records, and purposely overburdening our tax system in corporate issues, limiting their ability to be caught by an overfunded, under-regulated IRS. The average citizen is supposed to be the one protected by the Constitution, not the corporation. Since the laws have been chagend regarding rights of the corporations, and the ability to view a corporation as an individual, we have economic abuses by the corporation at an unprecedented level in history. You seem to neglect a lot of this in your "guru" synopsis of the simplicity of the system.

DotComa said:
Some Libertarians/Republicans wish to get rid of all government subsidies, welfare, etc (for different reasons). The idea here for some Libertarians is that such taxes can only be described as theft. The problem with this also noble belief is that it does not consider the international market.( :eek: ) The market cannot be controlled domestically anymore. Investors are the winners. They can have a foreign cheap labor force, and just continue to cut jobs in the US. They have proven that they will not re-invest in America, so it is a giant sucking sound for Americans. Some sort of pay back needs to be enforced (such as the current tax system that provides unemployment opportunities).

I say:
If that were the case, why are we not working to put BACK in place the restrictions that were on corporations to begin with? Check out that thread, here:
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

and this link:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=3054

DotComa said:
I am a supporter of free trade, but the short-term destruction of the American dream needs to be helped until enough Americans become the skilled workers they need to now become in order to survive the next transition.

I say:
First one must fully understand the problem, to talk about a solution. Also, you support true free trade, or the modern "NAFTA" style free trade, in sheeps clothing?

[dotcoma]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: So, you are saying you fully understand all factors of implication that govern the international economy, and are inadvertantly, defacto, claiming to be a guru? So you fully understand the damage being done to the tax structure by the scope, and complexity of L.I.L.O. Leasing schemes unleashed by corporate tax lawyers, as well as other legal gauntlett tax shelters used to grow corporate welfare?

Yes, I do..but what does this have to do with my argument? I never said the system was perfect-nor do I think things like corporate welfare are something to ignore. I also never claimed to be a "guru".

So, aside from your statement that leads me to interpret that you are a fan of gloabalization and wealth redistribution, are you making another point?

I am not a "fan" of globalization, but it is the inveitable, and it has the potential to make the pie bigger.

I say: The U.S. has not had a free market in the recollection of any person alive today. It may be they believe that is the modern interpretation of free market, but it is surely not a free market as we were designed to have.

Right....but that has nothing to do with the argument here. The market needs to be truly "free", and there needs to be legitimate ways to counter the negative effects for the losers (the american unskilled worker).

Deepening Depression

I am no Buchannan fan, but this summation is spot on in my understanding of free market concept, and the beginning of precedent for its demise from within. For the last 155 years we have been operating in a Bi-Partisan controlled protectionism. I find it humorous you use this to describe or define a particular parties line of policy, since they have parlayed different forms of protectionism between them since they have overtaken overwhelming majority of all elected seats.

You deny that democrats speak of protectionism more than republicans? The current parties do indeed have a party line in this regard.

I say: You seem to neglect a lot of this in your "guru" synopsis of the simplicity of the system.

I did not say it was simple. I keep my topics a little more open to debate than you do. In my experience you seem to flood the reader with information. This is fine, but understand that I will not do the same. I made my topic short and sweet so as to not scare anyone with an opinion on the subject away.

I say: If that were the case, why are we not working to put BACK in place the restrictions that were on corporations to begin with? Check out that thread, here: Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States and this link: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=3054

What would then stop them from all leaving our country in search of countries with rules that favor them?

I say: First one must fully understand the problem, to talk about a solution. Also, you support true free trade, or the modern "NAFTA" style free trade, in sheeps clothing?

I support a system that is based on who can provide the least expensive good at the most efficient rate.

[Mr.Vicchio]

The biggest problem facing the world is the comming collapse of the EU economy. It's straining under the weight of it's own creation. The more the combined governments provide welfare, social programs and the like, the higher they tax.

This in turn leads to more companies moving out of those countries and into lower tax countries. There is a point, that like the American Social Security program, that there will be more recipients then producers. This was pointed out by the EU finance minister in an article I read (sorry no link I am looking) but he is right. Businesses have been, and will continue to move out of the higher taxed regions in favor of lower tax rates.

This doesn't just hurt the EU region, it hurts the global economy. When one sections begins to sag, then it drags the rest with it. Small countries and economies this is a negligible effect. Take the EU economy into a depressed economic state and well...

[bishop]

some european jobs are moving to asia and elsewhere but a significant amount of jobs are moving to other european states. namely, those in the east, the new EU members - who boast the highest growth rates in the union. the one thing that economists tend to mention, that the media always ignores, is the effect of the euro on the gdp statistic.

EU investment is outpacing america's and for that reason, aside from fundamental macro data, the EU is projected to have higher growth rates in the future while ours are declining for our own self-produced reasons.

you are very right about the problems with europe's welfare programs. their primary problem is the pension system, which i should add is a huge problem here as well. in my opinion, it's meaningless to compare a future deficit of $3 trillion to one of $5 trillion (just using imaginary numbers here). both are incredibly high and would cripple the strongest of economies. i.e. neither is worse than the other.

[G. Adams]

The pensions crisis is a bit of a puzzler. I have no idea how to solve it. I think maybe we should release some unusual strains of flu.

Joking, of course. But still...

[Mr.Vicchio]

bishop, its the slow bleed of companies, not small jobs thats the issue.

And the minister.. I need to dig that story up, was spot on.

Europe cannot continue as it is headed.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: dotcoma Some Libertarians/Republicans wish to get rid of all government subsidies, welfare, etc (for different reasons). The idea here for some Libertarians is that such taxes can only be described as theft. The problem with this also noble belief is that it does not consider the international market. The market cannot be controlled domestically anymore. Investors are the winners. They can have a foreign cheap labor force, and just continue to cut jobs in the US. They have proven that they will not re-invest in America, so it is a giant sucking sound for Americans. Some sort of pay back needs to be enforced (such as the current tax system that provides unemployment opportunities).

People on your side of the argument seem to keep conveniently forgetting that just because government isn't doing it does not mean its not getting done. Its called the private sector, and they can be quite capable given the opportunity.


The Better Business Bureau is a perfect example of the private sector earning the consumers trust by being honest, and independent.


Americans just don't seem to learn from their mistakes any more.

[bishop]

bishop, its the slow bleed of companies, not small jobs thats the issue. And the minister.. I need to dig that story up, was spot on. Europe cannot continue as it is headed.

i never said which types of companies were moving. you're right.. it's the big ones.

you know, europe can't continue as it's going and neither can we.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: dotcoma The market needs to be truly "free", and there needs to be legitimate ways to counter the negative effects for the losers (the american unskilled worker).

Please excuse my naivete on this subject, in spite of your request for the uninformed to refrain from posting, I'd like to ask this question:

How can a market be truly "free" when the government is pumping hundreds of billions of dollars it doesn't have into the economy? How does it help the economy when Wall Street gains are reflected directly by an addition to the national debt? It seems to this uneducated observer that the single biggest influence on the "free" market is the neverending promise by the government to "gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today".

[Vee]

I'm trying to get an airmchair grasp on economies but not having much success but I can say the US deficit level is unsustainable.