Tax cuts for the wealthy have not brought economic growth

Bonam · December 30, 2011

For now China is willing to break even on trade with the US. They dump the money generated by the massive trade imbalance back into the US through the bond market. Picture a store giving its profits back to its customers so that they can keep buying stuff. What if China stops doing that? How many domestic assets are we comfortable with a foreign power obtaining through such a scheme? How much influence are we comfortable with them having?

Apparently, however much it takes so we can all have the latest big screen TVs~

dre · December 30, 2011

On the other hand... maybe we dont WANT these jobs to stay here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/7773011/A-look-inside-the-Foxconn-suicide-factory.html

Apparently putting together Iphones can make you suicidal, and 18 people have attempted to commit suicide by jumping off the root of the same factory in the last little while.

So next time you use your Iphone, remember theres a good chance the person who assembled it commited suicide because his job is so shitty I wonder if theres something in the App Store for that? And according to a recent study apple barely even saves money by outsourcing to china because labor is such a small component of their production. Theres only about $8 dollars worth of production labor in a $500 dollar apple Iphone, and they would be massively profitable whether they offshored development or not.

Theres other factors driving outsourcing besides just wages. These companies in many ways are like rats fleeing a sinking ship. They are placing a bet that China with be the next North America, and that we are on the road to being DONE. Besides just low wages, China has invested a mountain of money in research, education, etc, and has showed an interest in improving and maintaining its infrastructure.

Edited December 30, 2011 by dre

dre · December 30, 2011

Apparently, however much it takes so we can all have the latest big screen TVs~

Yup! And thousands of other great things. Theres no question that this trade imbalance has resulted in a temporary situation where we can own a limitless ammount of non durables. Im curious what things will look like once its run its course and how long it will take us to rebuild all that production once we can no longer afford their stuff, and whether it will have been worth it in the end.

waldo · December 30, 2011

So next time you use your Iphone, remember theres a good chance the person who assembled it commited suicide because his job is so shitty I wonder if theres something in the App Store for that?

problem solved as every high-rise building now has nets to collect the errant fly-by's... another Foxconn 'solution' was to cancel family related death benefits as, apparently, one poor sod made the mistake of leaving a note stating he jumped to ensure his family would be taken care of in his death.

eyeball · December 30, 2011

All that may be true Manny but it doesn't matter. I came from that world and I know how things work.

The sad fact is that if ONE company making computer boards or hard drives or whatever moves to China or some similar country, it becomes IMPOSSIBLE for any company here to compete with them! By a light year!

So if you run a company in the USA or Canada and a competitor has moved over there, you either follow or you die. Period and end of story.

So what else are you supposed to do?

Put up as many trade barriers as we possibly can to protect our economy which includes our hard won labour, human and environmental rights and tax the living shit out of any company and shareholder who tries to flee these to the bottom of the economic barrel. Screw them, just as hard as we can, before they screw us preferably.

Bonam · December 30, 2011

So next time you use your Iphone, remember theres a good chance the person who assembled it commited suicide because his job is so shitty I wonder if theres something in the App Store for that?

I can write one for you real quick if you want to download it for 99c.

Shady · December 30, 2011

Put up as many trade barriers as we possibly can to protect our economy which includes our hard won labour, human and environmental rights and tax the living shit out of any company and shareholder who tries to flee these to the bottom of the economic barrel. Screw them, just as hard as we can, before they screw us preferably.

That makes absolutely no economic sense. Not to mention that businesses are private property. They, and the jobs they provide, aren't yours or anyone elses.

eyeball · December 30, 2011

That makes absolutely no economic sense.

It's the social sense it makes that counts.

Not to mention that businesses are private property.

I didn't say take them away I said tax the living shit out of them.

and the jobs they provide, aren't yours or anyone elses.

The jobs they provided you mean.

TimG · December 30, 2011

Put up as many trade barriers as we possibly can to protect our economy...

This, of course, assumes that we don't want to export anywhere. A recipe for economic disaster.

BTW - the Great Depression was greatly exacerbated when the developed would slapped trade barriers to 'protect jobs'. We saw how well that worked:

Unemployment was at 7.8% in 1930 when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed, but it jumped to 16.3% in 1931, 24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act Edited December 30, 2011 by TimG

Rick · December 30, 2011

This, of course, assumes that we don't want to export anywhere. A recipe for economic disaster.

BTW - the Great Depression was greatly exacerbated when the developed would slapped trade barriers to 'protect jobs'. We saw how well that worked:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

You mean trade barriers like what the U.S. did to us with softwood lumber?

And how Harper capitulated to his masters wishes..

Or trade barriers as in..protecting our interests such as the oil which the world desperately wants, needs and will pay for.

cybercoma · December 30, 2011

Only because you are not struggling to make ends meet. People in that situation do not have that luxery.

People struggling to make ends meeet buy cheaper goods -> Companies export jobs to provide cheaper goods -> Jobs being exported creates more people struggling to make ends meet -> rinse, wash, repeat.

cybercoma · December 30, 2011

Put up as many trade barriers as we possibly can

I don't think that's the answer. We can trade with other WEIRDS. The problem is trading with the developing world without some sort of fee to level the playing-field.

PlayItLoud · December 31, 2011

To bring my point of view into this:

I don't really care about whether or not tax cuts bring economic growth. I believe in it because I believe in the principle that people ought to keep the fruits of their work. And if you're talking about growing the economy, it's deregulation that really works it.

By the way, GDP isn't a real measurement of economic growth, as it sees public spending as economic growth. When the private economy creates something, say a chair, it's value depends on how much people are willing to pay for it. So if IKEA makes a $5 chair, GDP grows by $5. But when the federal government decides to spend $10 a year for a bureaucrat's salary whose job it is to bring regulation that holds the economy back, GDP still grows by $10.

cybercoma · December 31, 2011

The fruits of their work are not created in a vacuum. You take the fruits of your work and buy a house, which is supplied with clean water, sewage treatment, and hydro. Your neighbourhood has street ligths, police, and fire for safety. Your roads are plowed and your garbage is picked up. You were given a "free" education through to the end of high school. The fruits of your labour are at least in part the result of the society that fertilizes them.

CPCFTW · December 31, 2011

The fruits of their work are not created in a vacuum. You take the fruits of your work and buy a house, which is supplied with clean water, sewage treatment, and hydro. Your neighbourhood has street ligths, police, and fire for safety. Your roads are plowed and your garbage is picked up. You were given a "free" education through to the end of high school. The fruits of your labour are at least in part the result of the society that fertilizes them.

Almost everything you described is paid for by municipal taxes (ie. home ownership... you buy a house, you pay for "clean water, sewage treatment, and hydro. Your neighbourhood has street ligths, police, and fire for safety. Your roads are plowed and your garbage is picked up").

The cost of education could probably be covered by provincial sales taxes and a 5% provincial income tax (plus corporate taxes and other revenue sources (eg. OLG, etc.).

All our other expenses are liberal/socialist feel good expenses which have ruined the western world.

People should be paying 5-10% taxes on income for the above described services, not 30-50% for welfare and free abortions.

Edited December 31, 2011 by CPCFTW

cybercoma · December 31, 2011

You haven't the slightest idea what would happen if you eliminate welfare, do you? You probalby don't even know that it was a conservative that started one of the earliest "welfare" programs in the West.

Edited December 31, 2011 by cybercoma

CPCFTW · December 31, 2011

You haven't the slightest idea what would happen if you eliminate welfare, do you?

Zombie apocalypse?

CPCFTW · December 31, 2011

You probalby don't even know that it was a conservative that started one of the earliest "welfare" programs in the West.

You probably don't even know what 2 + 2 is!1! And you're probably a stupid-head!!

:rolleyes:

Edited December 31, 2011 by CPCFTW

cybercoma · December 31, 2011

Just read up on Bismarck.

cybercoma · December 31, 2011

He pissed off real Socialists. You'll like that.

dre · December 31, 2011

All our other expenses are liberal/socialist feel good expenses which have ruined the western world.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Yeah like the military, border/customs, and csis.

You are utterly clueless.

CPCFTW · December 31, 2011

Oh a conservative from the 1800s was a proponent of welfare? I better change my mind then!! What was Bismarck's stance on globalization and the pending (in 100 years) european debt crisis?

Is this argument stemming from the left's propensity to simply parrot their leaders rather than forming their own opinions? Sorry, conservative's don't think that way.

CPCFTW · December 31, 2011

:lol: Yeah like the military, border/customs, and csis.

You are utterly clueless.

And how much of our spending does that comprise?

You are utterly clueless.

dre · December 31, 2011

And how much of our spending does that comprise?

You are utterly clueless.

I dunno. Judging by the moronic claim you made above it must not account for ANY spending :lol:

And the various social programs we have may be excessive in some cases but they are far from "feel good" programs. They are there to maintain political stability, and every single country that evolved beyond living in MUD HUTS has used them to various different degrees. If you abolished all of those programs you would be guaranteeing the emergence of real socialism and the erosion of your own private property rights. If you ever got what you wanted, you would be real sorry real fast.

Edited December 31, 2011 by dre

PlayItLoud · December 31, 2011

You haven't the slightest idea what would happen if you eliminate welfare, do you? You probalby don't even know that it was a conservative that started one of the earliest "welfare" programs in the West.

Well first, local services and welfare aren't the only things that tax money goes towards. Foreign aid, military spending, corporate bailouts, subsidies, etc., are also used for it. I'm not saying I disagree with those, though I do with most mentioned above, but I'm just saying there's more than just that done with tax dollars.

And to address the welfare state, I believe that we should have a society where charity is not enforced by the government but taken up by private citizens and private charities and churches.

I'm a not a conservative so I don't really care who started welfare.