I look forward to it. Like many other economic/tax issues, you don't understand the difference in the generalities politicians throw around and what the actual effects/implications of such policies are. Rarely do tariffs (code for tax "incentives"/"disincentives") come up outside of discussion on protectionism.Footwedge;1088936 wrote:I'll be back tonight. Apparently you do not understand the definition of protectionism.
Funny, I posted the definition which hits on several points I've already made. I encourage you to read it, then read it again, and then again....and ask questions so you might gain some understanding.Footwedge;1089237 wrote:LOL. So which is it? Do you really want me to post the definition of protectionism? I'll spare you some embarrassment by not doing so.
I don't hate Obama. He's a failure and economically ignorant like many on the internetz. I have serious doubts you can post a definition of protectionism since you clearly have no idea what it entails.Footwedge;1089237 wrote:Ibid. LOL. So which is it? You know what is really sad here? You are so twisted up and wrapped into the corner on your YoBamma hatred, that even when YoBamma presents a conservative approach (cut taxes to help business), you find a way to manipulate the proposal into something it is not. Again, do you want me to post the definition of protectionism here and embarass you?
Again, I encourage you to put your foot where you mouth is and read the definition of protectionism. In your example, states/communities are free to compete for business within the US. That is not protectionism which, by definition, deals with trade between countries. Now let's review the original point - Obama wants to offer incentives/disincentives to keep jobs in the US, i.e. restrict free and open trade. That is dealing with foreign countries/companies and IS protectionism.Footwedge;1089237 wrote:Let me put it another way. When Bigass Industry ABC decides to shop for a place to set up shop...with it's 2000 member future labor force, the communities will "bid" to attract them. By far and away, the biggest attraction is ABC attracting the biggest tax credit to operate there. So.....are the communities walking and talking like ducks and offering protectionism? LOLOL.
One would be a start. You don't appear to have read any, or at least not any that you understood.Footwedge;1089237 wrote:How many links/articles do you want? You must be the only "economist" out there that doesn't know this. As with ALL statistics, the links I provide will be on a per capita basis, mmmkay?
Like you, I'm not sure what your point is here. Why do you attach so much more value to a job putting bolts on a bicycle, vs. the manager dealing with factories around the world? Most people aspire to being more than the actual production/line worker.Footwedge;1089237 wrote:No, I'm talking about manufacturing jobs...where the people actually make "things" whereby you have the grunts, the managers, the accountants, the supervisors, the sales people, the division managers, the maintenance engineers, the project engineers, the division supervisors, the shippers, the human resource department, the marketers and the truckers et al. Yeah...a whole lotta **** jobs there, eh? SMFH.
So China is the bad guy? Globalization isn't just driven by China, and if you knew anything you would know China is already facing globalization pressures of their own from countries with people willing to work for less. The idiot ignores the trends and prevailing economic environment and fails to react as his business becomes uncompetitive. Yet this is the path you propose for the US. Dumb.Footwedge;1089237 wrote:And let me reiterate what I said in a previous post. Most Americans would rather pay an additional 5%..or even 10% more to help keep the federal government from the gross practice of unbridled expansion in order to bridge the gap and keep the masses employed. Not to mention the unbelievable expansion of the unemployment entitlements that future taxpayers are saddled with.. The fact is...I offer both American and Chinese made equipment to people I call on each and every day. I see people from all walks of life....and trust me, it is far more than just liberals that see what irreparable damage globalization has done. Most people buy American...not the cheap crap Chinese equipment.
Well saidgut;1089377 wrote:The idiot ignores the trends and prevailing economic environment and fails to react as his business becomes uncompetitive. Yet this is the path you propose for the US. Dumb.
Also, I fully disagree "most" Americans would pay an additional 5-10% more - there's an awful lot of cars, electronics and other goods being purchased over even competitively prices American goods. And if you're talking about taxes, good one - essentially an infinite increase in taxes for almost half of America. If people actually had to pay to suck the govt tit I guarantee they'd start shopping for a better deal.
For one I agree that to properly "do keynesiansim" you need to be conservative during good times. If unemployment goes to 4% I will be first in line saying its time to do some budget cuttinggut;1086750 wrote:A) Stimulus spending rarely "put unused labor to productive use". It's literally little different than dropping money from a helicopter, and probably less effective.
B) Have you ever really thought of the math involved with stimulus spending? A good year is 4%+ growth? A horrible year is -2%? So that's a difference of 6%, or on a $15T economy about $900B....Then let's assume the govt takes 20% (a good year) in revenue, so that works out to $180B in revenues from the stimulus. Thus an $800B stimulus would take about 5 years to break-even. But the economy almost always recovers naturally before then, so it's normally a net negative undertaking. And then you want to flush this money down the toilet year after year?
C) There's really been a bastardization of the concept of Keynesian economics. "Smoothing" implies borrowing or taking surpluses from good years to fund shortfalls in bad years, but over the past 30 years we've rarely banked that surplus. You're theory fails because ultimately the bills come due, as they are in Europe. Keynesian economics as it has come to be known is not a silver bullet, it does not create value from nothing. For this sort of thing to work the govt would have to demonstrate an ability to get positive ROI, but that's rarely the case. Almost never does the govt spend $1T and get even $800B back, so the policy is not a self-sustaining one without the offsets in good times. It's the definition of throwing more money a bad.
D) You can't fund stimulus and run deficits into perpetuity because govt spending is not self-sustaining. Even the "austerity" debate is under attack as there is little evidence of any reasonable impact/return from "stimulus" spending over the past decade. But let's make a distinction between bailouts (which the govt gets most or all of it's money back, and can be considered positive ROI when compared at the cost of the alternative) and flushing money down the toilet. The problem with these huge deficits and stimulus is you are getting to the point where the debt service is going to offset any benefit you are getting.
gut;1089377 wrote:So let me understand you here. You are saying that offering sweetheart deals by lowering taxes to keep a company in Ohio as opposed to them being off shored to let's say Louisiana, it is sound free market capitalist bidding...but offering the same deals to American internationa conglomerates is evil, evil protectionism. Is that it? Gotcha.Again, I encourage you to put your foot where you mouth is and read the definition of protectionism. In your example, states/communities are free to compete for business within the US.That is not protectionism which, by definition, deals with trade between countries.
Again....protectionism is okey dokey when competing for jobs to remain in Ohio....but not OK when we are talking about off shoring to economic lawless countries like China. Orwell would be proud of that doublespeak. But whatever.Now let's review the original point - Obama wants to offer incentives/disincentives to keep jobs in the US, i.e. restrict free and open trade. That is dealing with foreign countries/companies and IS protectionism.
Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. My point was spelled out as clearly as can be. First of all, Americans who are gainfully employed on the assembly line...are...gainfully employed...as opposed to collecting extended unemployment enttitlements that our country obviously cannot adfford to give. But secondly and just as importantly, with these "line" jobs comes foremen, division managers, production engineers, sales people, marketing people, local contracting, human resources, and even corporate lawyers. Imagine that!Like you, I'm not sure what your point is here. Why do you attach so much more value to a job putting bolts on a bicycle, vs. the manager dealing with factories around the world? Most people aspire to being more than the actual production/line worker.
And as an aside, if you think only manufacturing is what has been outsourced. Think again. Google white collar jobs outsourced and enjoy the million hits. But that subject is for a different thread.
As they say the ball don't lie. And neither do the statistics. Ronald Reagan sure didn't agree with your take, that's for sure. We all remember the stagflated economy he inherited from JC right? So what was the first order of business for Reagan? What did the "bastion of conservative ideology" employ? Well, he immediately signed into legislation protectionism for the auto industry..slapping huge tariffs on the Japanese. The result of this insidious, anti free trade dogma?...Japanese automakers moved into the US, employing tens of thousands of Americans. As an encore, the "bastion of free market conservatism" slapped more tariffs on semi conductors.....and specialty steel.....and motorcycle manufacturers....and other industries as well. And voila!! The sky high unemployment rates of the late 70's miraculously disappeared, and the unemployment rate in America during Reagan's reign hovered close to the recognized goal of full employment. (5%).Even at it's peak, manufacturing has never been even half the economy, not for at least 70+ years. In 1980 it was just over 20%. You seem to be chasing and valuing a world that has never existed. Surely a drop from 20% to 9-10% in manufacturing jobs is not the driving force behind conditions today. And it's not like all that 10% are out of jobs, some are actually better off.
Let's review some numbers. Throughout the course of the first decade of the new millenium, the United States has seen a net job gain of zero...as in goose egg. Over that timeframe, the US population has increased 9.7% The per capta job loss is astounding. 8 of those years was under Bush the 43rd...and 2 of those years was under YoBamma. But what is even more disturbing that those black and white horrid numbers, the insidious implementation of both welfare and military Keynesinism which have added over a million "non producing" jobs. Whether it be shovel ready government project employment, or expanding the military forces in order to blow up Middle Eastern countries, the true private sector loss in both employment and private industry, productive GDP growth is incredibly staggering. The largest common denominator? Outsourcing.This is why focusing on "fixing" such a small % of the population is both misguided and ineffective. You're not saving the economy or making everyone better off trying to prop-up some 5% of the workforce. But it's a nice political spiel playing on the ignorance and pride (Big 3 baby!) of the average American.
But the news gets even worse upon further review. The macro economic effects in dealing in unbridled "free trade" with economic rogue states has other negative effects. The invisible hand has performed quite nicely in forcing real wages for the American worker, both white and blue collar mind you, to plummet 4% over that decade. The purchasing power for those that still have a job has dwindled proportionally. Our GDP numbers are fudged in order to deflect the real numbers. We are well on our way to second world country staus...and maybe third...if given enough time.
I never said globalization is only a China problem. I singled them out for a couple of reasons. The problem is not only that "they will work for less" as you incorrectly assert. They work under the order of their government at wages below what the free market would dictate, in environments that are brutally unsafe, at ages that the WTO has determined are in violation of human rights, and they do so in an environment that has absolutely filthy air to breathe. Not to mention the government's dereliction of providing clean water to drink. All the while the government is siphoning off "their cut" from the people of China, and investing 1.3 trillion of it to finance the whole illicit operation in buying US debt. What a scam. I'm sorry, but if you think that the operation in China is akin to free trade practices as espoused by Austrian school people, then you and your cohorts are sadly mistaken.So China is the bad guy? Globalization isn't just driven by China, and if you knew anything you would know China is already facing globalization pressures of their own from countries with people willing to work for less. The idiot ignores the trends and prevailing economic environment and fails to react as his business becomes uncompetitive. Yet this is the path you propose for the US. Dumb.
Again...you need to compare and contrast the decade of 20 ought...versus the decade of the 1980's. Americans en masse would happily trade places with that period of time, when Reagan placed economic patriotism way above the principles of Wall Street...which is the only group that has benefitted from dealing with rogue economic states...like China.Also, I fully disagree "most" Americans would pay an additional 5-10% more - there's an awful lot of cars, electronics and other goods being purchased over even competitively prices American goods. And if you're talking about taxes, good one - essentially an infinite increase in taxes for almost half of America. If people actually had to pay to suck the govt tit I guarantee they'd start shopping for a better deal.
Pat Buchanan is just about as far right as an individual can be. He rightfully states that it is our responsibility to re implement the economic nationalism protocol of Ronald Reagan, and put a stop to economic armegeddon that supposed "free trade" has wrought.
No, instead they would be emptying the government treasuries getting paid top dollar to do work no one wants or needs them to do. There is no difference except the government can claim a lower unemployment rate. We are all poorer either way.BoatShoes;1089481 wrote:wed have anywhere between 1million-3million more employed people not emptying government treasuries on the safety net.
It's not MY personal definition of protetctionism, is IS the definition of protectionism which you clearly don't understand. Your Ohio/Louisiana example has no impact on free trade between countries. We generally don't interfere with what can be considered equal but competing interests between Americans in that scenario. With regard to America and say, China, it's a zero sum game. Not the case dealing with protectionist policies that attempt to tilt "free trade" in favor of one country over another. What you fail to grasp is the govt regulates interstate commerce, so Ohio has no ability to harm other people and companies in Lousiana by retaliating. In terms of the national interest, it's a zero-sum game. Simply not the case when you start talking about protectionist policies and inviting retaliation from trading partners - it becomes unclear who wins that war but what IS certain is that the consumer loses.Footwedge;1089503 wrote: So let me understand you here. You are saying that offering sweetheart deals by lowering taxes to keep a company in Ohio as opposed to them being off shored to let's say Louisiana, it is sound free market capitalist bidding...but offering the same deals to American internationa conglomerates is evil, evil protectionism. Is that it? Gotcha.
LOL. I presented 5 or 6 things for debate. When you get the time, how about responding. I've debunked a whole pile of your "beliefs" with factual data proving your assertions as being way off the mark.gut;1089612 wrote:It's not MY personal definition of protetctionism, is IS the definition of protectionism which you clearly don't understand. Your Ohio/Louisiana example has no impact on free trade between countries. We generally don't interfere with what can be considered equal but competing interests between Americans in that scenario. With regard to America and say, China, it's a zero sum game. Not the case dealing with protectionist policies that attempt to tilt "free trade" in favor of one country over another. What you fail to grasp is the govt regulates interstate commerce, so Ohio has no ability to harm other people and companies in Lousiana by retaliating. In terms of the national interest, it's a zero-sum game. Simply not the case when you start talking about protectionist policies and inviting retaliation from trading partners - it becomes unclear who wins that war but what IS certain is that the consumer loses.
On a side note, that is what was so absolutely disgusting with the Obama administration interference in Boeing's move to South Carolina(?). It was pro-union and essentially domestic "protectionism" (technically an oxymoron, because there's no national net-benefit), neither of which any free market person would support.
Apologies for failing to respond to the rest of your drivel. You don't understand the issue enough to be remotely engaging in this debate. Learn what protectionism is and why economists have supported free and open trade for decades instead and then perhaps you can bring some insight to the discussion.
The only thing you've debunked is any pretense of your understanding of what protectionism is.Footwedge;1089671 wrote:LOL. I presented 5 or 6 things for debate. When you get the time, how about responding. I've debunked a whole pile of your "beliefs" with factual data proving your assertions as being way off the mark.
Stop banging your head against the wall. I need you alive to fight the fight another day!gut;1090174 wrote:The only thing you've debunked is any pretense of your understanding of what protectionism is.
And what do you make of Reagan and his so called liberal protectionist policies in keeping the Americans working?believer;1088071 wrote:The funny thing about economic warfare is it almost always evolves into - um - "physical wars." Let's just say protectionism is also not the answer to our economic whoas. The last thing we need is more gubmint interference in the semi-free market.
The whole point of capitalism in the grand scheme of things is to enrich society by producing so many consumer goods and services that they are available to improve the standard of living of all people.Footwedge;1090350 wrote:Seriously. I do not understand the logic of conservatives railing about government spending and lack of private sector jobs...and with the same breath trump the merits of offshoring American private work. It makes no sense.
If one is pro free trade without limits, then by default, you are either pro huge Keynesianism and/or pro double digit American unemployment.
.
Today, there are in fact isolated protected industries with tariffs slapped on econonic rogue countries..and the good paying jobs are plentiful.
Pretty spot-on, but this in particular. The vast majority of govt jobs do nothing to add value. We are increasing taxes (or, more often, govt debt) to "create" govt jobs with no economic benefit. Keynesian economics does not support govt spending just to increase govt payrolls and administration - there's better ROI even for money mostly flushed down the toilet.Cleveland Buck;1090395 wrote:. Instead we have the government putting people to work doing nothing of value which prices start-up companies out of the labor market.
That is the utiopian view of capitalism and what was preached by people like David Ricardo and Adam Smith. Unfortunately, there are many, many forces that ruin the model for laisse-faireists.Cleveland Buck;1090395 wrote:The whole point of capitalism in the grand scheme of things is to enrich society by producing so many consumer goods and services that they are available to improve the standard of living of all people.
The fact that we have access to cheap products made overseas doesn't make us poorer. It in fact makes us wealthier. It does not cost jobs either. It could potentially force workers in one industry to work in another one, but the economy would handle that if the government would allow it to.
The numbers don't lie. Since the mid seventies when the US went virtually all in for free trade, the results have been utter disaster. The only exception to this rule was when Reagan enforced tarriffs on the auto, semiconductor, steel, and motorcycle industries.People don't become wealthier by having government intervention (be it tariffs, subsidies, inflation, or whatever) drive up their nominal wages. People become wealthier by having their real wages increase which means prices fall faster than wages do.
We have done other things...but nothing to supplant the loss of the base that made us who we were. Over the past 25 years or so, we have greatly expanded our financial institutions/investment service people and their paper shuffling madness. Tens of thousands of private sector positions. What do we tangibly have to show for this? Absolutely nothing, And where you, Ron Paul and others are missing the point, China is doing much more than "making things cheaper". As I've stated up above, you fail to acknowledge all the other violations including human rights of the workers. Do we want to do business with people that do those types of things? China, as a sovereign nation, can do what they want without the global community intervening. But the US can uphold our own sovereignty by telling them to stuff it up their a$$If we have Chinese that want to make stuff for us cheap, then we should use that opportunity to make other things.
No they don't. If start up companies needed labor, there were tens of thousands shovel ready. Instead, the goverment employs these people through welfare/warfare expansion because it reduces the unemployment numbers.Instead we have the government putting people to work doing nothing of value which prices start-up companies out of the labor market.
I would call it unnecessary bureaucratic nonsense that drives up the cost of doing business. But I would also say that the derugalatory actions of the financial institutions over the last 13 years has been the number one destructive force in America, and has caused our citizens per capita to lose 4% of their overall net worth.We have government regulations in nearly every industry which make it too expensive to do business unless you have access to government contracts and bailouts. And our monetary policy is so destructive to capital that you can't get access to credit unless you are borrowing directly from the Fed's discount window (which means you have to be one of the big players on Wall Street or the federal government).
No, there is one. The government.Footwedge;1090562 wrote:That is the utiopian view of capitalism and what was preached by people like David Ricardo and Adam Smith. Unfortunately, there are many, many forces that ruin the model for laisse-faireists.
Fallacy #1. What "across the board" free trade are you talking about? We don't have free trade now, nor have we ever. We have some "free trade" agreements where we agree which industries and cronies to favor while submitting our national sovereignty to a global authority. There are few if any industries where we have zero tariffs.Footwedge;1090562 wrote:Anyone can make a blanket statement like that, but since we accepted a pretty much across the board free trade policy in the early 70's, Americans have in fact become poorer. A lot poorer in fact. I blame the government for a lot of things. But to suggest that they have hindered the free marketers from inventing new things is baloney. Just look at IT for example.
Fallacy #2. Gramm, Leach, Billey repealed one part of Glass-Steagall, the part that separated commerical and investment banks. That had absolutely nothing to do with the housing bubble or financial crisis. The mortgage backed securities and other financial derivatives that caused these banks to fail were have been completely legal for all banks to own the entire time. And to think regulations will prevent the next crisis when the bankers have access to unlimited credit to gamble with at 0% interest from the Federal Reserve is just foolish. There are two ways to prevent these problems. Nationalize all financial services and just deal with the government owned incompetence, or cut off the printing press at the source.Footwedge;1090562 wrote:Whether you want to admit to it or not, the repeal of Gramm, Leach, Bliley was as pro Ron Paul as it gets. Yet any economist with half a brain knows that this was the kickstart needed for the unbridled capitalists needed to create the housing bubble and then destroy 16 trillion dollars of home equity wealth. Where did the wealth go to? That's just one example of what happens in a deregulated financial system.
No, but denying them bailouts and prosecuting them for fraud would stem the fraud and corruption. Both of which he supports.Footwedge;1090562 wrote:Then you have Ron on record stating that he would repeal Sarbanes-Oxely and greatly reduce the power of the SEC. Do you really think that that will help stem fraud and corruption at the corporate level?
Sure it is government regulation. Regulation of a government agency. People claim the Fed is a private institution, but it was created by Congress and granted monopoly powers by the government. It is like he is calling for an audit of the Department of Defense.Footwedge;1090562 wrote:And whereby I think the Fed needs audited in agreement with Ron, is not auditing the Fed in essence, government regulation/intervention?
The U.S. never went all in for free trade. And the results have nothing to do with free trade. They have everything to do with destructive monetary and regulatory policies, as I said earlier. You offered nothing here to refute that.Footwedge;1090562 wrote:The numbers don't lie. Since the mid seventies when the US went virtually all in for free trade, the results have been utter disaster. The only exception to this rule was when Reagan enforced tarriffs on the auto, semiconductor, steel, and motorcycle industries.
We have done some things while the economy has had both hands tied behind its back. We mananged to develop the internet, but I can only imagine what we would have if for the last 40 years we had sound money, freely adjusting wages and prices, and the government out of the way. Instead the Fed's printing press and low interest rates pushed everyone into financial "paper shuffling". What a waste. China had nothing to do with the "paper shuffling madness". And China's human rights violations are not our concern. Eventually their people will be fed up with it and change it.Footwedge;1090562 wrote:We have done other things...but nothing to supplant the loss of the base that made us who we were. Over the past 25 years or so, we have greatly expanded our financial institutions/investment service people and their paper shuffling madness. Tens of thousands of private sector positions. What do we tangibly have to show for this? Absolutely nothing, And where you, Ron Paul and others are missing the point, China is doing much more than "making things cheaper". As I've stated up above, you fail to acknowledge all the other violations including human rights of the workers. Do we want to do business with people that do those types of things? China, as a sovereign nation, can do what they want without the global community intervening. But the US can uphold our own sovereignty by telling them to stuff it up their a$$
It is your opinion those policies helped us to flourish. They may well have held us back. Of course, back then goods didn't flow as freely anyway, so tariffs didn't have a whole lot of economic impact.Footwedge;1090562 wrote:Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln and many 20th century presidents were for honoring the Constitution's wish of providing for the welfare of our citizens. They were all staunch protectionists and those policies helped enable our country to flourish.
There were tens of thousands shovel ready as long as you paid more then they were getting in umemployment benefits or welfare. Or pay more then then the government jobs they take. Again, if the government jobs weren't there and the costs of employment weren't so high, those people would have jobs.Footwedge;1090562 wrote:No they don't. If start up companies needed labor, there were tens of thousands shovel ready. Instead, the goverment employs these people through welfare/warfare expansion because it reduces the unemployment numbers.
The banking industry had never been more heavily regulated than it was while blowing up the housing bubble. Regulators will always fail to prevent crises that come from easy Fed credit. They have no way of plugging every crack. The banksters will find a way to gamble with it and blow up some bubble.Footwedge;1090562 wrote:I would call it unnecessary bureaucratic nonsense that drives up the cost of doing business. But I would also say that the derugalatory actions of the financial institutions over the last 13 years has been the number one destructive force in America, and has caused our citizens per capita to lose 4% of their overall net worth.
I don't know when you think we have ever seen unbridled capitalism. We should be so lucky to ever see it. There is no central planner that fixes the price of money in a free market. There are no crony subsidies and wage controls and governments competing for scarce resources in a free market. If you want to know who to blame for where we are as a people, look there.Footwedge;1090562 wrote:No, unbridled capitalism as well as across the board free trade has put us where we are...and where we are as a people today vs. 30 years ago, isn't pretty.
Cleveland Buck;1090637 wrote:No, there is one. The government.
Fallacy #1. What "across the board" free trade are you talking about? We don't have free trade now, nor have we ever. We have some "free trade" agreements where we agree which industries and cronies to favor while submitting our national sovereignty to a global authority. There are few if any industries where we have zero tariffs.
So you are OK with anti trust violations? Or monopolies and oligopolies and even corporations...all of which the readers were warned about by Adam Smith? Forget China, if you were alive back then, would you have been in favor of our American companies doing the exact same practices as China in the 1800's?
So you are saying that the repeal of Gramm/Leech/Bliley and the no oversight policies of the investment banking system that directly caused 16 trillion dollars of home equity to vanish....was good legislation? Really? Only op-ed writers from the WSJ share that view.Fallacy #2. Gramm, Leach, Billey repealed one part of Glass-Steagall, the part that separated commerical and investment banks. That had absolutely nothing to do with the housing bubble or financial crisis. The mortgage backed securities and other financial derivatives that caused these banks to fail were have been completely legal for all banks to own the entire time. And to think regulations will prevent the next crisis when the bankers have access to unlimited credit to gamble with at 0% interest from the Federal Reserve is just foolish. There are two ways to prevent these problems. Nationalize all financial services and just deal with the government owned incompetence, or cut off the printing press at the source.
How can you prosecute anyone from crimes such as fraud and corruption if you want to eliminate the governing police force that oversees such things? Now granted, the SEC, as with most governmental operations are laden with incompetance, but do you really expect the multi billionaires with all the power will police themselves?No, but denying them bailouts and prosecuting them for fraud would stem the fraud and corruption. Both of which he supports.
Sorry, I disagree. The Federal Reserve is not akin to the Department of National defense. But beyond that. Why is it OK in your view that the government partake in making sure things are legit as it relates to the Fed, (through a tax payer funded audit) but not a penny spent to catch the WorldComs, Enrons, Madoffs and hundreds more on the crooked Wall street?Sure it is government regulation. Regulation of a government agency. People claim the Fed is a private institution, but it was created by Congress and granted monopoly powers by the government. It is like he is calling for an audit of the Department of Defense.
Whereby I agree that we never went all in, (cited numerous examples of Reagan saving scores of thousands of jobs), the general flavor of pro globalization has been the mantra of our government since the mid 70's. Compare that with the "all-in" protectionist policies of our first 4 presidents...and Abe Lincoln, who had had enough of the South cheating by using free labor and gaining an absolute advantage.The U.S. never went all in for free trade. And the results have nothing to do with free trade. They have everything to do with destructive monetary and regulatory policies, as I said earlier. You offered nothing here to refute that.
I also agree that the monetary supply as had an effect on our decline as well. But one has to ask, why the monetary policy in the first place? The monetary policy that we've seen was implemented directly due to the ever decreasing work base...and the subsequent expansion of both the warfare and weklfare states. It's not like we printed money...and then spent it irrationally. You have it completely backwards.
One of the Keynesinists main selling point...that inflation would transpire with each influx of money. That the debt would be repaid with cheaper, deflated dollars. Well, we both agree that that thinking is nonsense...we never pay anything back...and never will.
Today, our financial system is so messed up, that using fiscal and monetary policy....together...hasn't kick started $hit. The culprit? High unemployment due to investment in other countries...but not here.
I agree with all that.We have done some things while the economy has had both hands tied behind its back. We mananged to develop the internet, but I can only imagine what we would have if for the last 40 years we had sound money, freely adjusting wages and prices, and the government out of the way. Instead the Fed's printing press and low interest rates pushed everyone into financial "paper shuffling".
It most definitely is our concern. Our GDP was shrunk to virtually nothing, and we've had huge unemployment, less tax revenues, and for almost all of Americans, our standard of living has plummeted like it never has before.. And China's human rights violations are not our concern. Eventually their people will be fed up with it and change it.
Doing what?There were tens of thousands shovel ready as long as you paid more then they were getting in umemployment benefits or welfare. Or pay more then then the government jobs they take. Again, if the government jobs weren't there and the costs of employment weren't so high, those people would have jobs
I didn't know we were talking about monopolies. Monopolies have never come about in an economy without the government empowering them. I'm not going to get into all of that right now, but no I'm not worried about monopolies coming out of a free market. I would like to see a free market first, then worry about it.Footwedge;1090686 wrote: So you are OK with anti trust violations? Or monopolies and oligopolies and even corporations...all of which the readers were warned about by Adam Smith? Forget China, if you were alive back then, would you have been in favor of our American companies doing the exact same practices as China in the 1800's?
I didn't say it was good. I haven't the read the whole bill. I said it was irrelevant to the current discussion, which it is.Footwedge;1090686 wrote:So you are saying that the repeal of Gramm/Leech/Bliley and the no oversight policies of the investment banking system that directly caused 16 trillion dollars of home equity to vanish....was good legislation? Really? Only op-ed writers from the WSJ share that view.
I never advocated lawlessness. If a bank can't redeem their customers deposits then they committed fraud and should be tried in a court, not dealt with by an incompetent government regulator. The government doesn't police the banks, they enable the banks. When the government writes regulations it legalizes the banks' behavior and leaves it up to the politicians that they own to keep an eye on them. The multibillionaires have the power because they get it from the government. If the government had no power to protect them then they would have no power.Footwedge;1090686 wrote:How can you prosecute anyone from crimes such as fraud and corruption if you want to eliminate the governing police force that oversees such things? Now granted, the SEC, as with most governmental operations are laden with incompetance, but do you really expect the multi billionaires with all the power will police themselves?
The Enrons and Madoffs and the crooks on Wall Street should be charged with fraud in a court of law (and some of them were). That is how the law works. Not have a government bureaucrat with his hand out look the other way when you are committing crimes and mail you the bailout check when you go broke. I think the Fed officials should be tried for fraud too. Treason too while they're at it. But an audit would the first step to waking up the American people, so I'm not opposed to it.Footwedge;1090686 wrote: Sorry, I disagree. The Federal Reserve is not akin to the Department of National defense. But beyond that. Why is it OK in your view that the government partake in making sure things are legit as it relates to the Fed, (through a tax payer funded audit) but not a penny spent to catch the WorldComs, Enrons, Madoffs and hundreds more on the crooked Wall street?
I don't know what this is supposed to prove. The first four presidents is a pretty small sample size, and Lincoln invaded the southern states to put an end to the idea that the states had any right to resist the will of the central government. He didn't care about freeing slaves. He could have done that without the war.Footwedge;1090686 wrote:Whereby I agree that we never went all in, (cited numerous examples of Reagan saving scores of thousands of jobs), the general flavor of pro globalization has been the mantra of our government since the mid 70's. Compare that with the "all-in" protectionist policies of our first 4 presidents...and Abe Lincoln, who had had enough of the South cheating by using free labor and gaining an absolute advantage.
The Great Society and Vietnam War were the start of the great inflation that has continued to this day (with a brief respite that Volcker brought on in 1980 and allowed some economic growth in the 80s). How many "free trade" deals did we have in the 60s? We weren't even talking to China yet. Nixon had to put an end to the Bretton Woods deal and remove all links of the dollar from gold because they printed so much, and it caused a decade of misery. The inflation came first. Then the government involved itself even more in the economy. Then the jobs left. Which is what I have said all along. Costs are too high for us to be the most efficient place to build some products. If we went back to sound money and prices and nominal wages could fall and we would get some of those jobs back.Footwedge;1090686 wrote: I also agree that the monetary supply as had an effect on our decline as well. But one has to ask, why the monetary policy in the first place? The monetary policy that we've seen was implemented directly due to the ever decreasing work base...and the subsequent expansion of both the warfare and weklfare states. It's not like we printed money...and then spent it irrationally. You have it completely backwards.
This is true.Footwedge;1090686 wrote:One of the Keynesinists main selling point...that inflation would transpire with each influx of money. That the debt would be repaid with cheaper, deflated dollars. Well, we both agree that that thinking is nonsense...we never pay anything back...and never will.
No, the culprit is that fiscal and monetary stimulus never kick start anything. They make the numbers look better, but they do nothing but harm to the real economy. The culprit is the fact that the dollar buys 2% of what it did when the Fed was created, so the prices of everything are out of control. No wonder we can compete against other countries. And the reason for investment in other countries is the direct result of our monetary policy. Who the fuck wants to invest in something denominated in dollars? The world is awash in dollars, they don't want any more. You would have to make an extra 5-10% on your investment to make it worth your while investing in this country to make up for the lost value in the midst of our printing party.Footwedge;1090686 wrote:Today, our financial system is so messed up, that using fiscal and monetary policy....together...hasn't kick started $hit. The culprit? High unemployment due to investment in other countries...but not here.
Again, that has nothing to do with China. It has everything to do with our own policies.Footwedge;1090686 wrote:It most definitely is our concern. Our GDP was shrunk to virtually nothing, and we've had huge unemployment, less tax revenues, and for almost all of Americans, our standard of living has plummeted like it never has before.
Who knows? Fixing toilets on the space tourism shuttles going to Mars? Manufacturing fusion powered cars? Who knows what we would be doing if the government wasn't trying to plan everything for everyone while enriching and empowering themselves.Footwedge;1090686 wrote:Doing what?
This comment was made by BHO's Energy Secratery Steven Chu in 2008 in an interview with the Wallstreet Journal."Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe," Mr. Chu, who directs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in September.
