RE: right all along?

RE: right all along? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

NeedToUseYou -> RE: right all along? (9/30/2008 9:28:54 AM)
I don't think protectionism needs to be put into place. The system and the way we think about it needs to change. First off, the best thing you could do for the manufacturing base, is to simply remove all corporate taxation for items produced domestically. Second thing, is you eliminate all income taxes, to zero. You apply any and all taxes on the consumption end at the final sell point. People simply don't understand that all taxes are paid by the consumer anyway. Now, what did you just create? You created the most attractive place in the world for manufacturing from a tax perspective. Now, you don't tax exports at all or imports. We will benefit from the labor wages drawn that will be taxed at the checkout. We want to export and make it as attractive as possible to produce here. That's how you do it. Jobs would spring up everywhere. And people will spend money when they have thus taxes. Now, you also must eliminate the Central Bank, or highly modify it. If you want to keep it then one pivotal change must be invoked, and it's a very simple change that will ensure they will no longer be in the inflation business. All newly created money, must be distributed equally amongst all US citizens. The encouraged booms and busts just disappeared. As their is no reason at that point to create more money, except when necessary. And necessary means situations where production has increased and we need more money to facilitate exchange, and head off price increases. Next thing you do, is radically change property taxes. Property taxes should be based on the raw value of the land it's proximity to society built enhancements that give it value. It should not and can not be based on buildings. Why? Because by taxing people more for improving their house, and therefore community, you are actually discouraging improvements with a financial penalty. Taxes related to property should be based on the value of societal enhancements, such as traffic counts on roads, those areas are more valuable because society has built access to traffic for that location. edited to add... Of course, we need to stop investing in destruction as well. I'd propose once we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, a slashing of all branches of the military in half. Eliminate all foreign Aid. Reduce the war on drugs to real drugs. Anyway, there are a lot of reduction in the government that could occur.

LadyEllen -> RE: right all along? (9/30/2008 9:49:09 AM)
Excellent stuff NTUY! E

rexrgisformidoni -> RE: right all along? (9/30/2008 11:39:41 AM)
I hope this post does not go away, I want to comment, but have to go. [:@]

rexrgisformidoni -> RE: right all along? (9/30/2008 11:46:53 AM)
Actually I will be late. This is brilliant. We need a revolution in the way we manufacture, and a revolution in the way we tax/spend government money, which is really our money. Infrastructure reinvestment, changing power grids, education. I don't buy that people will willingly spend less on inferior products, they have been rammed down our throats and buying them hurts if not me personally, then maybe my neighbor, or your neighbor, uncle, etc. Please click the link, this "plan" has been interesting to read and something non partisan that would be a decent solution. J http://www.newamerica.net/bigideas

kdsub -> RE: right all along? (9/30/2008 11:50:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou I don't think protectionism needs to be put into place. The system and the way we think about it needs to change. First off, the best thing you could do for the manufacturing base, is to simply remove all corporate taxation for items produced domestically. Second thing, is you eliminate all income taxes, to zero. You apply any and all taxes on the consumption end at the final sell point. People simply don't understand that all taxes are paid by the consumer anyway. Now, what did you just create? You created the most attractive place in the world for manufacturing from a tax perspective. Now, you don't tax exports at all or imports. We will benefit from the labor wages drawn that will be taxed at the checkout. We want to export and make it as attractive as possible to produce here. That's how you do it. Jobs would spring up everywhere. And people will spend money when they have thus taxes. Now, you also must eliminate the Central Bank, or highly modify it. If you want to keep it then one pivotal change must be invoked, and it's a very simple change that will ensure they will no longer be in the inflation business. All newly created money, must be distributed equally amongst all US citizens. The encouraged booms and busts just disappeared. As their is no reason at that point to create more money, except when necessary. And necessary means situations where production has increased and we need more money to facilitate exchange, and head off price increases. Next thing you do, is radically change property taxes. Property taxes should be based on the raw value of the land it's proximity to society built enhancements that give it value. It should not and can not be based on buildings. Why? Because by taxing people more for improving their house, and therefore community, you are actually discouraging improvements with a financial penalty. Taxes related to property should be based on the value of societal enhancements, such as traffic counts on roads, those areas are more valuable because society has built access to traffic for that location. edited to add... Of course, we need to stop investing in destruction as well. I'd propose once we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, a slashing of all branches of the military in half. Eliminate all foreign Aid. Reduce the war on drugs to real drugs. Anyway, there are a lot of reduction in the government that could occur. Sounds like Huckabee's FairTax...I think it is just what our country needs...hopefully he will continue with his efforts. Butch

NeedToUseYou -> RE: right all along? (9/30/2008 12:01:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Sounds like Huckabee's FairTax...I think it is just what our country needs...hopefully he will continue with his efforts. Butch FairTax ideas been around before huckabee, but other stuff has to change to, IMO. Also critical is reducing government bloat, as the lower that gets the less consumer tax there needs to be. Huckabee lost it with me, as he was the biggest spender of the repubs in the primaries, thus he may solve a problem but he'd have brought another. Anyway, every aspect of the government fiscal house needs changed. Not just one area. Taxation, Money Creation, Spending, are all messes.

Paulnz -> RE: right all along? (9/30/2008 5:24:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Is this not however the conventional wisdom that has got us into this mess? It is in the manipulation of economics through such wisdom that we have lost out - we the ordinary people, we the nation as it is represented by its people. What is this manipulation you talk about ? If you're talking about manipulation through subsidies and the like then yes, those things have got you into this mess. quote: Surely it is for individual countries' electorates to decide whether they wish to protect their own economy from outside interference? That is, it is not for bankers, financiers, industrialists and politicans who depend on them for election funding to decide. These bankers are members of the electorate too. Each country can decide what it wants to do. If you like living in Cuba, then recreate that, no-ones stopping you. quote: The US and the EU for that matter, are large enough markets and resource pools that exporting and importing could be made almost irrelevant, peripheral affairs - and perhaps they should be, along with the whole global market economy and its related wisdom. It's not quite that simple. At the end of the day all economies rely on some level of cross border trade. What about Canada and Mexico ? What about the EU relying on Russia for its natural gas supplies ? Look at it another way. Let's say you shut yourselves away, but the Far East and SE Asia carry on with their free trade zone. In time the innovations and economies of scale would see the East bound ahead of both Europe and the USA. That's why the USA looks to preserve its comparative advantage in areas such as software and defense, while importing manufactures from areas it can't compete with. Their standard of living is directly related to this. In short, Bill Gates supplies the world software at exorbitant prices, and they buy low value mass produced goods in return. This is a win-win, as they're left with a surplus to buy more goods with, while the rising standard of living in these other counrtries sees them attending more Hollywood movies. quote: At this moment its necessary I feel for each country to get back on its feet, restock the value larder and get back to basics - and that would be far easier without speculators in Hong Kong (for instance) undermining the effort and hurting our peoples and our nations. What has hurt the US economy is the high level of protection it affords certain sectors. For instance they guarantee bank deposits. This means a bank never has to worry about going bust. Their farmers get protection across the board, which means they can grow pretty much anything and get paid for it. By preventing the markets from doing their job, the USA has ended up in the mess it is in, and with the bailout plans, it will only get worse. At some point, people who make bad decisions have to pay for them, and those who make good decisions should reap the rewards.

Paulnz -> RE: right all along? (9/30/2008 5:41:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: Paulnz quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub It would really make no difference if the goods were made in the US with higher labor costs because the laborers would be able to pay more for the products. Problem with this is, US exports would fall behind as they wouldn't be cost competitive. The importers would be cheaper, and over time, would likely perform better as well. If you prevented these imports, the other countries would impose counter tariffs or restrictions which would further hurt the export sector. The result is the USA would go backwards. I don't believe this to be true...the US is unique because it has so many raw materials...we could easily survive without one drop of oil or most other basic raw materials from outside our borders. Not only that but the re-industrialization of America would build out power back in the world...not reduce it. Remember we import far more than we export...so tariffs on our goods would have minimal affect. Also keep in mind the US is the bread basket of the world...that will not change... it will be are biggest export in the future....Everyone needs to eat. Butch You have raw materials but at what cost to extract ? For instance you would have to convert coal to oil. You import raw materials that are cheaper elsewhere, such as oil. And what about innovation ? If someone somewhere comes up with something that is an advance, you are in no position to take advantage of it, as they'll make it, sell it, but not to you. You'll fall behind. Over time, the cost of your manufactured goods would be higher than other countries, meaning few if any exports, with imports that you couldn't afford as you were making no exports to pay for them with. Protectionism over the medium to long term leads to industrial complacency and lack of momentum. In agriculture the real money is going to be made not in the actual production, but the control of the technology. There is plenty of productive land out there, the USA is not unique in that regard. It is just that the systems being used in these other places are not optimal. American farmers will soon be surpassed, but the technology that has been developed has a future market value. The developed world supplies agricultural technology and buys back cheaper low cost goods. If the USA stops doing this, someone else will,so it has no choice but to to play this game.

kdsub -> RE: right all along? (9/30/2008 6:37:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Paulnz quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: Paulnz quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub It would really make no difference if the goods were made in the US with higher labor costs because the laborers would be able to pay more for the products. Problem with this is, US exports would fall behind as they wouldn't be cost competitive. The importers would be cheaper, and over time, would likely perform better as well. If you prevented these imports, the other countries would impose counter tariffs or restrictions which would further hurt the export sector. The result is the USA would go backwards. I don't believe this to be true...the US is unique because it has so many raw materials...we could easily survive without one drop of oil or most other basic raw materials from outside our borders. Not only that but the re-industrialization of America would build out power back in the world...not reduce it. Remember we import far more than we export...so tariffs on our goods would have minimal affect. Also keep in mind the US is the bread basket of the world...that will not change... it will be are biggest export in the future....Everyone needs to eat. Butch You have raw materials but at what cost to extract ? For instance you would have to convert coal to oil. You import raw materials that are cheaper elsewhere, such as oil. And what about innovation ? If someone somewhere comes up with something that is an advance, you are in no position to take advantage of it, as they'll make it, sell it, but not to you. You'll fall behind. Over time, the cost of your manufactured goods would be higher than other countries, meaning few if any exports, with imports that you couldn't afford as you were making no exports to pay for them with. Protectionism over the medium to long term leads to industrial complacency and lack of momentum. In agriculture the real money is going to be made not in the actual production, but the control of the technology. There is plenty of productive land out there, the USA is not unique in that regard. It is just that the systems being used in these other places are not optimal. American farmers will soon be surpassed, but the technology that has been developed has a future market value. The developed world supplies agricultural technology and buys back cheaper low cost goods. If the USA stops doing this, someone else will,so it has no choice but to to play this game. I believe you are missing my whole point...It makes no difference if we need to drill more wells...convert coal to oil....as long as we pay American workers to do it... the money will stay in America...not going to the middle east. We would put very high tariffs on imported goods so our factories could compete in price locally. We will not need to worry about exporting ...we can produce all the goods we need for our own markets. Otherwise no cars and steel from Japan… No toys and televisions from China…No brooms from Korea… No computers from Twain…No clothes from India….No widgets from any foreign nation. You are wrong about the ability to produce food...The US has by far the most fertile lands in the world and we could easily trade food for the rare raw material we can't find in country. This does not need to go on forever ...just until we rebuild our industrial might... That industrial capacity is what made us great in the past...not our armies. We are one of the few countries that are capable of the above…because of our abundant raw materials. All that is needed is WILL. Butch

rexrgisformidoni -> RE: right all along? (9/30/2008 6:55:26 PM)
I do believe Paulnz see's things from the point of view from a nation that has to import everything. The United States and The EU can out produce the world into the ground, and make a boatload of money doing it. oh and paul, tell an american farmer about "subsidies" while he goes bankrupt from mexican and canadian imports. happened to my father.

Paulnz -> RE: right all along? (9/30/2008 6:56:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I believe you are missing my whole point...It makes no difference if we need to drill more wells...convert coal to oil....as long as we pay American workers to do it... the money will stay in America...not going to the middle east. I saw your point. What you've outlined is inefficient if the Saudi oil is readily and cheaply available. This Saudi oil ensures the US economy remains competitive. quote: We would put very high tariffs on imported goods so our factories could compete in price locally. We will not need to worry about exporting ...we can produce all the goods we need for our own markets. Otherwise no cars and steel from Japan… No toys and televisions from China…No brooms from Korea… No computers from Twain…No clothes from India….No widgets from any foreign nation. And they won't buy your stuff, or your technology. You've outlined a scenario where you'd end up like an Amish community, quaint to look at but no-one would want to live in. quote: You are wrong about the ability to produce food...The US has by far the most fertile lands in the world and we could easily trade food for the rare raw material we can't find in country. Hang on, now you're trading, which is it ? Make your mind up. And you have fertile land, but so too do a lot of other places. Currently they don't have the technology to exploit it. But that situation is changing fast. China is very quickly adopting better methods, as is the rest of Asia and South America. Africa still has a way to go. To give you an idea of the pace of change, look at Uruquay and its transformation ongoing from an outmoded rural economy to one embracing modern methods. Then consider that is happening everywhere. quote: This does not need to go on forever ...just until we rebuild our industrial might... That industrial capacity is what made us great in the past...not our armies. The industrial capacity was built on freer markets not more protectionism. As vested interest groups have begun to hold sway with regulators so too the economy has stagnated. The USA needs less regulation and more competition, not more of it.

Paulnz -> RE: right all along? (9/30/2008 7:04:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rexrgisformidoni I do believe Paulnz see's things from the point of view from a nation that has to import everything. The United States and The EU can out produce the world into the ground, and make a boatload of money doing it. oh and paul, tell an american farmer about "subsidies" while he goes bankrupt from mexican and canadian imports. happened to my father. NZ is a good example of an economy that restructured from being one that was essentially socialist with a complete raft of protections, to a market economy with few protections. If you go back before 1984 and bought something made in NZ, it was like it had been made in the 1950's as the designs were really 1950's. The manufacturing base had stood still as it had no reason to develop - it was protected. The reform brought about change, and a general rise in the standard of living. Subsidies were removed for farmers. Today, farmers receive few handouts. Many went to the wall, and today if they don't run a good business, they go out of business. That's the way the World works. Now, we're a vibrant economy, a hotbed of technological innovation and enterprise. There are few that can match us. If the USA forgets the lessons it will end up without a pot to piss in.

rexrgisformidoni -> RE: right all along? (9/30/2008 7:19:22 PM)
My father ran an excellent business.You compare apples to oranges. There are states with bigger economies than NZ. For a huge economy, a degree of protections for home based goods and services is needed, else the nation becomes essentially a slave to its suppliers. As far as I am concerned go run your mouth about the US economy elsewhere.

kdsub -> RE: right all along? (9/30/2008 8:36:30 PM)
Paul you still don't get it...we would only have to compete with ourselves...let the Saudis see if they can eat oil.... pretty soon the will be begging us to take all the oil we need for food... remember we use alone over half the worlds oil without us who do the sell it too?...We have control...now and in the future. Just imagine the industrial boom in alternate fuel sources alone…jobs jobs jobs..and good ones… not minimum wage. It would be hard for a time...but in the end we would dominate the world market like never before. Butch

Musicmystery -> RE: right all along? (9/30/2008 8:41:44 PM)
quote: What has hurt the US economy is the high level of protection it affords certain sectors. For instance they guarantee bank deposits. This means a bank never has to worry about going bust. Their farmers get protection across the board, which means they can grow pretty much anything and get paid for it. While I'm sympathetic in part to your first sentence, your examples aren't true. FDIC insurance protects depositors, not the banks--the banks could still go bust, but their customers won't lose their money. Farming is subsidized in many instances (as it is in several other countries, incidentally), but it's quite crop specific, even preventing farmers from planting certain crops if they are outside the quota (peanuts, for example)--not across the board, and as a resident in a rural area, certainly they don't get paid period, I can assure you. Perhaps some return on crop damage from, for example, extensive hail damage, or a low interest loan subject to several conditions, but hardly any guarantees. We don't have a lot of farmers driving BMWs. However, the U.S. DOES have some large, connected industrial size farms abusing the system.

Paulnz -> RE: right all along? (10/1/2008 12:15:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rexrgisformidoni My father ran an excellent business.You compare apples to oranges. There are states with bigger economies than NZ. For a huge economy, a degree of protections for home based goods and services is needed, else the nation becomes essentially a slave to its suppliers. As far as I am concerned go run your mouth about the US economy elsewhere. Complete rubbish. Your economy is currently tanking due to such thinking. You have an environment where no-one accepts risk, all producers expect a hand-out from the taxpayer, and protection from competitors. Our economy was like that once. To a certain extent you are insulated from international trends as you don't rely on export trade to the extent we do. But the lesson is still there. The funny thing in all this is the USA has gone around the world lecturing everyone on how it is done, they've accepted the advice, and been successful at it. Then when it becomes apparent we are going to be better at it than the USA, they cry foul and run and hide. Marvellous.

tweedydaddy -> RE: right all along? (10/1/2008 12:17:41 AM)
A fellow Cassandra. I have been saying much the same thing for years, to sad, patient smiles from friends who think streets full of tanning salons and factories being turned into laser zones is the way to go. The trouble with a service economy is that with no one earning money in the manufacturing sector, sooner of later, you run out of people to service.

Paulnz -> RE: right all along? (10/1/2008 12:30:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Paul you still don't get it...we would only have to compete with ourselves...let the Saudis see if they can eat oil.... pretty soon the will be begging us to take all the oil we need for food... remember we use alone over half the worlds oil without us who do the sell it too?...We have control...now and in the future. Just imagine the industrial boom in alternate fuel sources alone…jobs jobs jobs..and good ones… not minimum wage. It would be hard for a time...but in the end we would dominate the world market like never before. Butch I do get it but you don't. The market is a global one. You don't have a monoply on innovation, invention or productivity. If you go down an isolationist path, you'll end up without a pot to piss in. Thankfully the boffins who run things in the USA realise this and don't listen to your kind of advice. Problem is though, the inefficiencies have become so entrenched, getting the US economy back on track is going to be a monumental undertaking. They'll likely fail trying. The oil you speak of would simply be diverted to China, Korea and Japan. The price would drop, and they'd produce goods even cheaper than they are now, and you'd be left with no oil, and an alternative energy sector that is unproven, at best unreliable, and at worst defunct. The USA's moment in the spotlight has come to an end. It ended on the back of excessive taxation and regulation, subsidies and protectionism, the distortionary effects of which ensured it couldn't compete globally. In a nutshell, the American worker is overpaid and under-productive, businesses do not have to face the effects of making bad choices, its innovative drive has been lost through complacency and it hasn't applied the lessons it gave everyone else. Those businesses that have moved offshore are the smart ones. They owe it to their shareholders to go to the markets that will bring about the best outcomes. This flight from the USA isn't corporate greed, it's a vote of no confidence in the US economy.

Paulnz -> RE: right all along? (10/1/2008 12:39:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery FDIC insurance protects depositors, not the banks--the banks could still go bust, but their customers won't lose their money. That's my point. Depositors should not be protected. They should learn that if they deposit their money in the wrong place, they'll lose it. On the other side of the coin, the banks know they're not accountable to their depositors as they're covered, so the banks make even more reckless decisions. The lesson is risk aversion. Both depositors and banks have to learn a healthy dose of it. The American banking environment is overly complicated. They need to be able to go through a phase of consolidation, leaving maybe no more than a dozen banks doing the business for 80% of clients. The current set-up is unstable and the current crisis if rescued in current form, will be revisited again in a few years time. It's like the guy at the race track deciding to double up when he lost on the last race.

Paulnz -> RE: right all along? (10/1/2008 12:54:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen ....considering that we have switched our economy to be service orientated (and reliant at that on the financial services sector), shipped manufacturing overseas and thus have no real means left to us to create actual wealth. Back to the OP, the argument doesn't address how Europe as a whole gained its wealth in the first place. Basically, Europe went around the World beating up anyone that was weaker than it and stole whatever it could get its hands on. They then dragged that wealth back to Europe, where they promptly enjoyed the largesse and lived high on the hog. Anyone who tried to ' protect ' themselves from free trade, was crushed for their insolence. Now that the rest of the World has caught up somewhat, Europe suddenly does a backflip and decides it will shut itself away and tries to protect the wealth it stole. To Europeans, wealth transfer is only acceptable so long as it goes one way, their way. This protection is given new names of course, environmentalism, labour standards, carbon neutrality, but it always comes back to how Europeans know everything and want everything done their way. Except, we, the rest of the World don't think that. It's about time some wealth transfer occurred the other way for a change. fair is fair, eh Guvna.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875