User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 107

  1. #81
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    And what happens when a country like China reduces their tax rates to compensate? Do we start subsidizing corporations? Do we get out our knee pads?
    For someone whose reply just above this one claimed that the other person's reply didn't refute their statement, and asked whether they thus had a point, this was a very odd thing to write.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I prefer tariffs, at least as long as we're the #1 consumer economy in the world.
    Apparently you didn't see my Policy Proposal #2.

  2. #82
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Wealth division is bad insofar as extremely wealthy people can lobby the government to get preferred laws approved. However, if governments were not that subsceptible and/or corrupted, a large divide in wealth would not be economically dangerous.

    What is very inefficient for most economies is an extremely large divide in income. In such a situation either economic activity slows down to the point of deflation, ultimately hurting the rich too; or the large poor section of the economy needs to be supplied with constant consumer credit: de facto, higher income people let their income flows finance low income people - it's a form of retaining power, but from a purely practical (leaving any psychological factor out of the question) standpoint, there is no difference between financing someone perpetually and giving him access to higher income levels.

    Many people confuse wealth disparity with income disparity. For example, the Gini coefficient is commonly computer for income rather than wealth levels.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  3. #83
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfboy View Post
    I would prefer deregulating the manufacturing industry so that the people could actually create jobs here without paying insanely high tariffs and seizing to be a consumer based economy to begin with, but of course this is not going to happen unless by some miracle Ron Paul wins the presidency.
    Insanely high tariffs? You should look at the history of tariffs in the US and tell me whether you think raising tariffs would make them "insanely high" or whether they are currently "insanely low". Hint: Tariff rates are currently the lowest they've been in US history.

    Could you go into specifics on what you mean by "deregulating the manufacturing industry"? I hear lots of people say this sort of thing, but I never hear them actually go into specifics.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  4. #84
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    For someone whose reply just above this one claimed that the other person's reply didn't refute their statement, and asked whether they thus had a point, this was a very odd thing to write.
    Let me quote you some more:

    As such, we should slam the corporate tax rate to zero, thereby incentivizing companies to keep production here
    I ask again, what do you we do when China reduces its tax rates to compensate? I mean, it sounds to me like the reason you want to reduce the tax rate to 0 is because you believe it will keep production here.


    Apparently you didn't see my Policy Proposal #2.
    I saw something about import certificates. I don't know what they are. Has any nation ever used these? If so, how did they work in practice?
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  5. #85
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I ask again, what do you we do when China reduces its tax rates to compensate?
    And I ask you again: did you not read my Policy Proposal #2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I mean, it sounds to me like the reason you want to reduce the tax rate to 0 is because you believe it will keep production here.
    Yes, it could appear that that's the only reason when you quote one sentence out of a ten sentence post.

    It seems the part about double taxation completely escaped you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I saw something about import certificates. I don't know what they are.
    The link to the article by Warren Buffett that I provided in the Policy Proposal #2 post explains them (LINK).

    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Buffett
    The time to halt this trading of assets for consumables is now, and I have a plan to suggest for getting it done. My remedy may sound gimmicky, and in truth it is a tariff called by another name. But this is a tariff that retains most free-market virtues, neither protecting specific industries nor punishing specific countries nor encouraging trade wars. This plan would increase our exports and might well lead to increased overall world trade. And it would balance our books without there being a significant decline in the value of the dollar, which I believe is otherwise almost certain to occur.

    We would achieve this balance by issuing what I will call Import Certificates (ICs) to all U.S. exporters in an amount equal to the dollar value of their exports. Each exporter would, in turn, sell the ICs to parties -- either exporters abroad or importers here -- wanting to get goods into the U.S. To import $1 million of goods, for example, an importer would need ICs that were the byproduct of $1 million of exports. The inevitable result: trade balance.

    Because our exports total about $80 billion a month, ICs would be issued in huge, equivalent quantities -- that is, 80 billion certificates a month -- and would surely trade in an exceptionally liquid market. Competition would then determine who among those parties wanting to sell to us would buy the certificates and how much they would pay. (I visualize that the certificates would be issued with a short life, possibly of six months, so that speculators would be discouraged from accumulating them.)

    For illustrative purposes, let's postulate that each IC would sell for 10 cents -- that is, 10 cents per dollar of exports behind them. Other things being equal, this amount would mean a U.S. producer could realize 10 percent more by selling his goods in the export market than by selling them domestically, with the extra 10 percent coming from his sales of ICs.

    In my opinion, many exporters would view this as a reduction in cost, one that would let them cut the prices of their products in international markets. Commodity-type products would particularly encourage this kind of behavior. If aluminum, for example, was selling for 66 cents per pound domestically and ICs were worth 10 percent, domestic aluminum producers could sell for about 60 cents per pound (plus transportation costs) in foreign markets and still earn normal margins. In this scenario, the output of the U.S. would become significantly more competitive and exports would expand. Along the way, the number of jobs would grow.

    Foreigners selling to us, of course, would face tougher economics. But that's a problem they're up against no matter what trade "solution" is adopted -- and make no mistake, a solution must come. (As Herb Stein said, "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.") In one way the IC approach would give countries selling to us great flexibility, since the plan does not penalize any specific industry or product. In the end, the free market would determine what would be sold in the U.S. and who would sell it. The ICs would determine only the aggregate dollar volume of what was sold.

    To see what would happen to imports, let's look at a car now entering the U.S. at a cost to the importer of $20,000. Under the new plan and the assumption that ICs sell for 10 percent, the importer's cost would rise to $22,000. If demand for the car was exceptionally strong, the importer might manage to pass all of this on to the American consumer. In the usual case, however, competitive forces would take hold, requiring the foreign manufacturer to absorb some, if not all, of the $2,000 IC cost.

    There is no free lunch in the IC plan: It would have certain serious negative consequences for U.S. citizens. Prices of most imported products would increase, and so would the prices of certain competitive products manufactured domestically. The cost of the ICs, either in whole or in part, would therefore typically act as a tax on consumers.

    That is a serious drawback. But there would be drawbacks also to the dollar continuing to lose value or to our increasing tariffs on specific products or instituting quotas on them -- courses of action that in my opinion offer a smaller chance of success. Above all, the pain of higher prices on goods imported today dims beside the pain we will eventually suffer if we drift along and trade away ever larger portions of our country's net worth.

    I believe that ICs would produce, rather promptly, a U.S. trade equilibrium well above present export levels but below present import levels. The certificates would moderately aid all our industries in world competition, even as the free market determined which of them ultimately met the test of "comparative advantage."

    This plan would not be copied by nations that are net exporters, because their ICs would be valueless. Would major exporting countries retaliate in other ways? Would this start another Smoot-Hawley tariff war? Hardly. At the time of Smoot-Hawley we ran an unreasonable trade surplus that we wished to maintain. We now run a damaging deficit that the whole world knows we must correct.

    For decades the world has struggled with a shifting maze of punitive tariffs, export subsidies, quotas, dollar-locked currencies, and the like. Many of these import-inhibiting and export-encouraging devices have long been employed by major exporting countries trying to amass ever larger surpluses -- yet significant trade wars have not erupted. Surely one will not be precipitated by a proposal that simply aims at balancing the books of the world's largest trade debtor. Major exporting countries have behaved quite rationally in the past and they will continue to do so -- though, as always, it may be in their interest to attempt to convince us that they will behave otherwise.

    The likely outcome of an IC plan is that the exporting nations -- after some initial posturing -- will turn their ingenuity to encouraging imports from us. Take the position of China, which today sells us about $140 billion of goods and services annually while purchasing only $25 billion. Were ICs to exist, one course for China would be simply to fill the gap by buying 115 billion certificates annually. But it could alternatively reduce its need for ICs by cutting its exports to the U.S. or by increasing its purchases from us. This last choice would probably be the most palatable for China, and we should wish it to be so.

    If our exports were to increase and the supply of ICs were therefore to be enlarged, their market price would be driven down. Indeed, if our exports expanded sufficiently, ICs would be rendered valueless and the entire plan made moot. Presented with the power to make this happen, important exporting countries might quickly eliminate the mechanisms they now use to inhibit exports from us.

    Were we to install an IC plan, we might opt for some transition years in which we deliberately ran a relatively small deficit, a step that would enable the world to adjust as we gradually got where we need to be. Carrying this plan out, our government could either auction "bonus" ICs every month or simply give them, say, to less-developed countries needing to increase their exports. The latter course would deliver a form of foreign aid likely to be particularly effective and appreciated.

    I will close by reminding you again that I cried wolf once before. In general, the batting average of doomsayers in the U.S. is terrible. Our country has consistently made fools of those who were skeptical about either our economic potential or our resiliency. Many pessimistic seers simply underestimated the dynamism that has allowed us to overcome problems that once seemed ominous. We still have a truly remarkable country and economy.

    But I believe that in the trade deficit we also have a problem that is going to test all of our abilities to find a solution. A gently declining dollar will not provide the answer. True, it would reduce our trade deficit to a degree, but not by enough to halt the outflow of our country's net worth and the resulting growth in our investment-income deficit.

    Perhaps there are other solutions that make more sense than mine. However, wishful thinking -- and its usual companion, thumb sucking -- is not among them. From what I now see, action to halt the rapid outflow of our national wealth is called for, and ICs seem the least painful and most certain way to get the job done. Just keep remembering that this is not a small problem: For example, at the rate at which the rest of the world is now making net investments in the U.S., it could annually buy and sock away nearly 4 percent of our publicly traded stocks.

    In evaluating business options at Berkshire, my partner, Charles Munger, suggests that we pay close attention to his jocular wish: "All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I'll never go there." Framers of our trade policy should heed this caution -- and steer clear of Squanderville.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Has any nation ever used these? If so, how did they work in practice?
    I don't believe so.

    That's more of a sign of their conceptual novelty, though, not their practical ineffectiveness.

    We talked about them in my International Monetary Economics class in 2005 as a realistic idea.

  6. #86
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Insanely high tariffs? You should look at the history of tariffs in the US and tell me whether you think raising tariffs would make them "insanely high" or whether they are currently "insanely low". Hint: Tariff rates are currently the lowest they've been in US history.

    Could you go into specifics on what you mean by "deregulating the manufacturing industry"? I hear lots of people say this sort of thing, but I never hear them actually go into specifics.
    all I know is I known a few people who were discouraged from building a factory in the US because the regulation fees numbered in the hundreds of millions of dollars, so they moved their productive activities over seas
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

  7. #87
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfboy View Post
    all I know is I known a few people who were discouraged from building a factory in the US because the regulation fees numbered in the hundreds of millions of dollars, so they moved their productive activities over seas
    People don't want Americans working in their factories

    Americans have to be paid a lot of money. Like a fuckload of money. Why would anyone want a big, fat, American moneyhole in their factory?

  8. #88
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    People don't want Americans working in their factories

    Americans have to be paid a lot of money. Like a fuckload of money. Why would anyone want a big, fat, American moneyhole in their factory?
    no one, that's why everyone manufactures over seas.
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

  9. #89
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfboy View Post
    no one, that's why everyone manufactures over seas.
    No, it's because of the regulation fees

    American wages are regulated

  10. #90
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    No, it's because of the regulation fees

    American wages are regulated
    you're right
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

Similar Threads

  1. Multiculturalism : Good or Bad ?
    By redScorpion in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 02-13-2011, 10:05 PM
  2. Quantitative Easing : Good or Bad idea?
    By William K in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-22-2010, 07:03 PM
  3. Talking "blind" - good or bad?
    By fidelia in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-09-2009, 11:09 AM
  4. Overall, are drugs good, or bad, for people?
    By Brendan in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 07-15-2009, 03:49 AM
  5. [ENFP] ENFP's: Good or Bad Listeners?
    By SillySapienne in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 12-04-2008, 04:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO