Printable View
Ahh...no. You're not going to see any posts by me in that thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
Besides...If I were to bitch about them moving overseas it would be because the government was forcing them to go to be competitive. Like tmleadr03 says...how does that not fit with anything I've said here? That's right...it doesn't.
How is protectionism a conservative idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by tonantius
Oohhh, oohhh...I know, I know. Pick me, pick me!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
Economics is a science. This means you can use logic and math to understand and work with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonantius
The two main branches of economics are Keynesian and Hayek.
What we see being enacted currently is what Sir John Maynard Keynes thought was a good idea. Government control of the economy. Either through influence or direct "stimulation" via the tax code and/or government loans. In this you have a few people deciding what is best for the whole economy.
Hayek was for less government control and regulations. This is not popular with the politicians due to the power being with the people they govern. Politicians do not like not having power. A true free market is the complete lack of government intervention. Until we have a free market in money that will never happen. By that I mean banks should issue their own money, not a federally mandated gold standard or fiat money like we have now. Either of those are a monopoly and give too much control to the government. Control the money, control the people.
These are simplistic but very well done.
Uh, yes, you in the back. Go ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
I don't think I have a problem with the gold standard. I do have a problem with our current system of printing money so we have more money.
The day a person realizes exactly how much that 20 dollar bill is truly worth is a scary day for that person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
Wait a minute... Are you saying my $20 paper bill isn't really worth $20? I'm shocked...shocked, I tell you.
What is 20 dollars?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
And when someone realizes that in our current system, there can be no money without debt, and that there is not enough money to pay all debt is also a pretty scary day.Quote:
Originally Posted by tmleadr03
- The basic monetary unit of the US, Canada, Australia, and certain countries in the Pacific, Caribbean, Southeast Asia, Africa, and South America:
$20 would be 20 of those things.
- the basic monetary unit of the United States, equal to 100 cents
20 units of someone else's debt that you hold in your hands in paper form.Quote:
Originally Posted by tmleadr03
Not sure I understand that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jhood001
Not many people do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
A lot of this documentary is mumbo-jumbo, but it lays it all out there fairly well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU
Then what if every single dollar was backed by gold?
How much gold per dollar? Who gets to decide that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
I guess the market does. Oh, no. Wait. I do.
If you are willing to give me a discount, I will back this measure!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
10% off. If you buy in bulk.
No the .gov would set it. They would say from here on out x amount of gold equals 1 dollar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
I haven't read through the next 7 pages yet (been out of town) but I agree with this 1000%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
uh oh... here we go again.
Hollahas, recant now before you are berated and told how stupid you are and that the current system of state sanction profiteering is the only way.
[ROFL1]
If someone stated that it was not me. And if it was posted I glossed over it. Can you quote it for me so I can respond?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
I also said no such thing, but feel that this was in part directed at me. Can you point out where I, or anyone else said that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
Not agreeing with you, Byte, is a far cry from saying you're stupid.
I Just said that to see who would jump up and say
"THATS NOT WHAT I SAID!"
and it worked
[ROFL1][ROFL1][ROFL1]
I Love you guys... I really do.
[LOL]
Nah, I won't recant. I'm going to stick with you on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
Do I think other countries should have to pay a tariff for the luxury of selling goods in our country... absolutely. Do I also think our country should have more incentives for companies to manufacture here (mainly lower taxes)...absol-freaking-lutely. Both are good for America. Why can't we do both??????????
Making it more expensive to import things is the same thing as saying make it cheaper to manufacture here. It's the same damn thing.
Charge a tariff on imports to make them more expensive than goods produced here OR reduce the cost of goods manufactured here to make them cheaper than imports.
The first part - Make it more expensive to import into the US.
I think NAFTA was a disaster and has helped us get to this sorry state we are in.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...0_2010.svg.png
Do you know what I see in this graph? The trade deficit growing exponentially immediately following the NAFTA agreement even though it was relativity steady before it...
Free Trade is BS. If you want jobs then make it more expensive to make things elsewhere. Oh, you want the freedom to move your company to China...have at it. You get that freedom when you're in the US. It's the freedom to leave. But we have no obligation to give you ANYTHING once you're gone. What's so wrong with giving our own American people a leg up?
Second part - Make it cheaper to manufacture here.
I think the 40% cooperate tax that was cited is insane. But I don't think it's the main reason companies move overseas. The main reason would be labor costs IMO. (the company I work for did this). And I believe it is unions, not minimum wage, that creates such a big difference in labor costs in manufacturing. An example: "Foreign" car manufactures continue to build more plants in the US and increase the percentage of US-sourced components in their vehicles while "domestic" manufactures are further reducing the amount American manufactured components every year. "Domestic" manufactures are looking to cut costs, why? Well the cost of their cars isn't going down...so, um...they have to cut costs on components because the cost of their labor is going up.
I do think that corporate taxes should be lowered as an incentive to keep manufacturing in the US. But if it was taxes alone you wouldn't be seeing all the new Subaru, Toyota, Honda and BMW plants in the USA. Therefore I also think something has to be done to keep labor costs down as well. Even if the tax rate is 0% it won't make a bit difference if it is a 95% savings in labor to just move it to Mexico. The free market isn't controlling labor costs, the unions are. And the unions have no interest in keeping labor costs in line with what the market will pay for the product they make.
Look, it's time we stop trying to find the one golden answer to our problems. We have a shit ton of problems that will take a shit tons of answers. Lower taxes, increase tariffs, kick the unions to the curb...we needs to start doing it all.
Two words. Smoot and Hawley.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
If you're not paying 40% in taxes labor doesn't seem to take as much of a bite.
On the other hand, certain workers have to realize at some point it's not worth $25 per hour plus a lucrative benefits/retirement package to tighten a couple of bolts on an assembly line. Many companies are getting to the point they just can't afford that sort of unsustainable pay package any longer. It's a painful lesson unions are going to have to face whether they like it or not.
It always bothered me in an economic sense that UAW workers made more to assemble the vehicles then people like I do to work on them. The UAW only know how to tighten the bolts on one section, I know how to tighten the bolts on all of the vehicle. Not to mention the physics, chemistry, computer programming and thermodynamics I need to understand to diagnosis a modern day vehicle. Hell, I even work with fiber optics on some of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
The global economy is a million times different now than it was in the 30's. It is simply a bad idea to base today's global economic strategies on an era that doesn't have the same issues as we have now...Quote:
Originally Posted by tmleadr03
I hear ya. I'm generally VERY anti-union nor am I sympathetic to their bullshit. The unions will be the first to throw newer workers under the bus when times get tough.
There is a golden answer. It's called the free market. It's called the federal government only doing what they're supposed to do. Every time they get involved in the market, there are "unintended consequences". In a free market, if you don't like a company's business practices, than don't do business with them. If enough people feel the same way, they will go out of business.
We have to be responsible consumers. Tariffs don't create responsible consumers, they try to control consumer habits. And just like with everything else, the more we rely on the government to do for us, the less we do for ourselves.
I for one believe in the free market. Sure, there will be some government involvement. There's no getting away from that. But the less government there is and the more responsible we are for ourselves, the better.
Granted it is a different world but what did we learn from Smoot-Hawley? That if we raise our tariff, everyone else will as well. Do you see that outcome being different? We raise our tariffs and now it is more expensive to buy goods produced outside this country. They raise tariffs and now it is too expensive for them to buy our goods. Who wins?Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
How would the outcome be different now?
I say drop corporate taxes (actually I really like a flat tax on everyone, corporations included of about 15% or a consumption tax i.e. The Fair Tax) and make it more profitable for manufactures to bring business here. The only tariffs we should have should match EXACTLY what the other country is doing to us. They tack on 10% we tack on 10%. That is it.
I don't have a problem with collective bargaining or unions if:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
1-One union per company
2-Totally voluntary
3-Secret Ballots
4-The owner doesn't have to give you what you want
5-You are prepared to get fired because you want too much
But one union (UAW) for 3 different, competing companies? How does that make any sense at all?
agreedQuote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
agreedQuote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
and that's all i got ta say about that.
You guys do realize that the minimum wage is tied by a percentage to the upper level union pay scale?
I can't remember all the figures, but the upper level union scale has to be "X" $ above the minimum wage.
So, the unions always have a vested interest in making sure that the MW is raised every so often.
That is the main reason it needs to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
[Eek3]
So you would pull the rug from under everyone... to "get back" at the unions?
Minimum wage is a bad thing anyways. Unions, while they have done good in the past, are a cancer on this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
The minimum wage is not sound economic policy. It'e the same kind of thinking that says, "gas is too expensive, let's cap it at $3.00 per gallon". Another very bad idea.
When you put a price floor or ceiling on a product or service, you upset the market equilibrium price, and you either get shortages or surpluses. Either way, the market isn't functioning as productive as it could be.
And if the MW is such a great idea, like another guy said, why stop at $7.50, or whatever it's at now? Why not make it $15.00? Then everyone would be making twice as much. Hell, make it $20.00 an hour, then everyone will be even better off!