Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A little more in taxes in the US is not going to change the income disparities that you complain about. The rich would still be rich and have incomes growing faster than the middle class. Changing those dynamics would require punitive taxation levels. Does that mean you are not really bothered by income disparities and it is just a rhetorical tool? That would certainly explain why you have no problem with a system where the developed countries (a.k.a. the wealthy in the world) control most of the wealth of the world and the rest are left with nothing because trade restrictions prevent capital from leaving the developed countries.

Hilarious! When promoting the erosion of wages and compensation, conservatives cite helping developing nations. Yet they cry that taxing pollution is a wealth transfer scheme. We don't have to gut the middle class to help improve the plight of workers in developing nations. Ending the practice of multi-national corporations and governments who actively seek to keep safety, environmental and wage standards low would be a good place to start. Free trade agreements are being put in place to improve the wealth of the third world and you know it.

In developed nations, a little more in taxes for the top brackets certainly does help with the wealth gap. So does an end to the assault on compensation and jobs in secondary industry. The WTO should work to create worldwide fair trade practices that set meaningful requirements for safety and environmental protections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yet they cry that taxing pollution is a wealth transfer scheme.

I am not opposed to simple carbon taxes. What I am opposed to are "social programs" disguised as "pollution taxes" (i.e. carbon credit trading or any other scheme that requires a self serving bureaucracy to manipulate the market).

We don't have to gut the middle class to help improve the plight of workers in developing nations.

We do. The logic is no different than your logic you use to rationalize taxes on the super rich. i.e. if the middle class is to get more the rich must have less. The same logic applies to the global middle class except the developed world middle class are super rich by global standards and cannot expect to enjoy the same increases as they did in the past now that the wealth is being shared more equitably. BTW - why should the developed world middle class expect to see faster rates of income growth than the developing world middle class?

Ending the practice of multi-national corporations and governments who actively seek to keep safety, environmental and wage standards low would be a good place to start.

And how would you accomplish that? Trade bans? Since when have they been effective? The only people hurt by trade bans are the people forced to pay higher prices because of trade restrictions. Also, the developing world is a growing market and too large to ignore. Attempts to restrict trade imports will result in reciprocal bans on Canadian exports. There is no rational scenario where the Canadian middle class would be better off if trade was used as a tool to impose social policy.

In developed nations, a little more in taxes for the top brackets certainly does help with the wealth gap.

A drop in the bucket. It won't change the trends. If you want to change the trends you need punitive taxation levels.

The WTO should work to create worldwide fair trade practices that set meaningful requirements for safety and environmental protections.

A much more likely outcome is the WTO would become yet another tool for obstructionist NIMBYs which would harm the economy and further erode the wealth of the middle class that you claim to care about. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not opposed to simple carbon taxes. What I am opposed to are "social programs" disguised as "pollution taxes" (i.e. carbon credit trading or any other scheme that requires a self serving bureaucracy to manipulate the market).

We agree on that, at least. A carbon tax would be the cheapest, easiest method with the lowest potential for misuse.

We do. The logic is no different than your logic you use to rationalize taxes on the super rich. i.e. if the middle class is to get more the rich must have less. The same logical applies to the global middle class except the developed world middle class are super rich by global standards and cannot expect to enjoy the same increases as they did in the past now that the wealth is being shared more equitably. BTW - why should the developed world middle class expect to see faster rates of income growth than the developing world middle class?

Not true. The world economy is still expanding so we are talking about a growing pie. As you mentioned, the developing world is a growing market. There is room to maintain standards of living in developed nations as developing nations improve. Instead, secondary industry compensations and positions are being eroded in the developed world through the subversion of health, safety and environmental standards via free trade agreements.

And how would you accomplish that? Trade bans? Since when have they been effective? The only people hurt by trade bans are the people forced to pay higher prices because of trade restrictions. Also, the developing world is a growing market and too large to ignore. Attempts to restrict trade imports will result in reciprocal bans on Canadian exports. There is no rational scenario where the Canadian middle class would be better off if trade was used as a tool to impose social policy.

How would I end the current parasitic practices being employed by many multi-national corps? Simple, trade standards administered by the WTO. Currently, the body enforces guidelines and handles disputes for member nations. Unfortunately, the rules are generally limited to the prevention of trade barriers. I would like to see the addition of global fair trade guidelines that create mandatory health, safety and environmental standards. Cheap product on the backs of dead and injured workers or contaminated atmosphere and water bodies is not efficiency, it's insanity. We don't allow it here, and trade practices create incentive for companies to produce in nations that do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world economy is still expanding so we are talking about a growing pie.

It is only growing because trade is relatively free. Any regime designed to impose social policy with trade policy would hurt growth so the pie would shrink and you seem to think that only the developed world middle class should have a bigger piece of a smaller pie.

I would like to see the addition of global fair trade guidelines that create mandatory health, safety and environmental standards.

And why are you convinced that who ever controls the WTO will actually choose standards that you approve of? Why are you so sure that ceding such expansive powers to an unelected and unaccountable body would accomplish the aims that you desire? How would countries take control back from the WTO if, in practice, it causes more problems than it solves? Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is only growing because trade is relatively free. Any regime designed to impose social policy with trade policy would hurt growth so the pie would shrink and you seem to think that only the developed world middle class should have a bigger piece of a smaller pie.

The world economy continues to grow because nations continue to develop and populations continue to rise. No particular class should be guaranteed a certain percentage of any pie. However, the standard of living of the developed middle class does not have to fall in order for the plight of developing nations to improve. In fact, fair trade standards would both improve the lives of workers in developing nations while simultaneously improving the wealth gap in the first world.

As it stands right now free trade rules are simply concentrating much of the wealth formerly held by the developed middle class into the hands of the ownership class. Trade agreements are not being put in place to improve standards for developing nations. Contracts to operate in third world nations often include clauses that specifically prevent the improvement of health, environmental and wage standards.

Worldwide agreements that enforce minimum environmental, health and safety standards in secondary industry do not shrink the pie or impede trade. All they do is protect the next generations from our short term greed and prevent a small portion of the wealth from being relocated to the ownership class. In this day and age protections for workers and the environment should not be limited to first world residents. It's, in part, the subversion of those standards under the guise of efficiency that has allowed wealth gap to widen so greatly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why are you convinced that who ever controls the WTO will actually choose standards that you approve of? Why are you so sure that ceding such expansive powers to an unelected and unaccountable body would accomplish the aims that you desire? How would countries take control back from the WTO if, in practice, it causes more problems than it solves?

The WTO already has 160 member countries and basically exists to negotiate, facilitate and enforce trade agreements. In most cases the agreements are designed to remove trade barriers but they also already enforce protections for consumers and to control the spread of disease. WTO agreements between nations basically make international trade more transparent and easily navigable.

Membership is voluntary and nations can choose not to participate, though it would increase trade risk for businesses dealing in said nation and thus lead to reduced trade.

Currently any nation that puts minimum protections in place for environmental/worker health and safety places itself at a disadvantage. However, if WTO member nations could agree on universal minimum health and safety standards the plight of billions of workers would improve without putting any nation at a disadvantage.

Edit: Added link to WTO About page - http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/whatis_e.htm

Edited by Mighty AC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently any nation that puts minimum protections in place for environmental/worker health and safety places itself at a disadvantage. However, if WTO member nations could agree on universal minimum health and safety standards the plight of billions of workers would improve without putting any nation at a disadvantage.

Except you are not asking the existing member countries to agree. You are saying that a subset of the countries should decide on rules which you approve of and the rest should be forced out if they don't conform to your standards.

This leads to my original question: why are you so sure that the WTO would adopt rules that you approve of? Seems to me the most likely scenario is nothing will change because it would be impossible to get consensus among the existing members. Would you just accept that outcome or claim that Canada needs to do something else?

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except you are not asking the existing member countries to agree. You are saying that a subset of the countries should decide on rules which you approve of and the rest should be forced out if they don't conform to your standards.

This leads to my original question: why are you so sure that the WTO would adopt rules that you approve of?

If enough member nations agree to proposed standards then standards are born. It happens all the time.

I'm not sure rules I approve of would be adopted. I am simply proposing an idea that would actually improve the plight of third world workers and close the wealth gap a little without placing any one nation at a disadvantage.

One day I hope more people will realize that improving the lives of the lower and middle classes is not only humane, but also good economics. The lower end of the wealth spectrum is not meeting all of their physical and perceived needs. Thus any wealth increase they receive is returned to the local economy in the form of purchased goods and services. People take better care of their families, lives improve and the local economy benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can still amass great wealth when paying a little more in taxes and with trade rules that prevent a health, wage and environmental race to the bottom. Gates and Buffet even did a few talks highlighting why their ilk need to be paying more.

They should be paying more, but their actions show otherwise. Meaning they don't want to pay more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how would you accomplish that? Trade bans? Since when have they been effective? The only people hurt by trade bans are the people forced to pay higher prices because of trade restrictions. Also, the developing world is a growing market and too large to ignore. Attempts to restrict trade imports will result in reciprocal bans on Canadian exports. There is no rational scenario where the Canadian middle class would be better off if trade was used as a tool to impose social policy.

Trade is used as a social and geo-political tool. Take the economic sanctions against Russia. The sanctions are not going to hurt the government, but they will have a huge effect on Russian citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ending the practice of multi-national corporations and governments who actively seek to keep safety, environmental and wage standards low would be a good place to start.

I already pointed out how activist groups are petitioning multi-nationals to improve safety practices and you dismissed it. I'm confused...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you should just say that you don't want to have trade with countries like Bangladesh...

We should not be trading with Bangladesh. Or if we do, we need to take their needs into consideration. Most make less in a month than what you will pay for that shirt here in Canada. The retail portion is seriously skewed and over priced and severely disconnected from the manufacturing portion of the supply chain. Slave labour.

The labourers make little money. Everyone else on the chain makes a good wage. Let me correct and say the companies make good money, The people working for the companies... get shafted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should not be trading with Bangladesh. Or if we do, we need to take their needs into consideration. Most make less in a month than what you will pay for that shirt here in Canada. The retail portion is seriously skewed and over priced and severely disconnected from the manufacturing portion of the supply chain. Slave labour.

We should not be trading on them based on them having lower wages than us ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should not be trading on them based on them having lower wages than us ?

We should not be buying from companies that take advantage of their low wages so the corps can maintain a bottom line. But that is a hard task to accomplish because the majority of clothing manufacturers operate in third world countries.

Check your clothes next time you go shopping, note where they are from. Then try to justify the cost of that item based on their wage/working conditions.

I think we got off topic here some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already pointed out how activist groups are petitioning multi-nationals to improve safety practices and you dismissed it. I'm confused...

Dismissed it? No. I believe I commented on the fact that improvements gained by third world workers are few and the process is extremely slow.

Maybe you should just say that you don't want to have trade with countries like Bangladesh...

Huh?

I am arguing for trade in a manner that improves the plight of workers around the world without creating a disadvantage for early adopters. Current free trade agreements simply allow corporations to avoid the costs associated with humane production. Global minimum standards for worker safety and environmental management would be a fair and effective way to achieve real progress. Let's take away the option to lower costs on the backs of sick, injured and dead workers and toxic lakes, streams and air. I proposed the WTO as the forum to administer my proposed trade standards, because that's what they already do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should be paying more, but their actions show otherwise. Meaning they don't want to pay more.

Gates and Buffet spend enormous sums of money directly funding humanitarian causes. They have slammed the BS economic arguments used by those who favour tax cuts for the wealthy. The real reason politicians push for top bracket cuts is because it is the wealthy who account for the bulk of political donations.

These tax cuts place a greater burden on lower classes, while trade policies simultaneously strip away middle class jobs and compensations. It's a race to the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm.... clicked on this thread expecting to see something about the hyperloop, only to find the same tired old arguments about the middle class, taxation, etc.

Actually related to the thread topic, thought I'd mention that Elon Musk is now gonna build a 5 mile test hyperloop track:

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1096368_elon-musk-proposes-hyperloop-test-track-in-texas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gates and Buffet spend enormous sums of money directly funding humanitarian causes. They have slammed the BS economic arguments used by those who favour tax cuts for the wealthy. The real reason politicians push for top bracket cuts is because it is the wealthy who account for the bulk of political donations.

These tax cuts place a greater burden on lower classes, while trade policies simultaneously strip away middle class jobs and compensations. It's a race to the bottom.

You should understand some of Gate's projects. He wants to reduce the world population through vaccines in order to satisfy his zero carbon dioxide emissions. Take his word for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gROhNaJoGzI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm.... clicked on this thread expecting to see something about the hyperloop, only to find the same tired old arguments about the middle class, taxation, etc.

Actually related to the thread topic, thought I'd mention that Elon Musk is now gonna build a 5 mile test hyperloop track:

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1096368_elon-musk-proposes-hyperloop-test-track-in-texas

Yeah, I posted that story a few days ago which unfortunately reopened an old economic debate. I find the number of technological fronts which Musk is helping to simultaneously advance to be astonishing. As mentioned previously, Larry Page was on to something when he said that, should he die, he would rather leave his billions to Elon Musk than a charitable organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should not be buying from companies that take advantage of their low wages so the corps can maintain a bottom line. But that is a hard task to accomplish because the majority of clothing manufacturers operate in third world countries.

Check your clothes next time you go shopping, note where they are from. Then try to justify the cost of that item based on their wage/working conditions.

I think we got off topic here some.

Yes, O/T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm.... clicked on this thread expecting to see something about the hyperloop, only to find the same tired old arguments about the middle class, taxation, etc.

Actually related to the thread topic, thought I'd mention that Elon Musk is now gonna build a 5 mile test hyperloop track:

I think it is a great idea, but building one will be a huge task if ever taken seriously by world governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should understand some of Gate's projects. He wants to reduce the world population through vaccines in order to satisfy his zero carbon dioxide emissions. Take his word for it.

I don't understand what that has to do with his opposition to tax cuts for the wealthy. We should be discussing both the economic ideas and Bill's projects in other threads, but I support work to control world population through better health, education, women's rights, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If enough member nations agree to proposed standards then standards are born. It happens all the time.

Standards work on consensus - not on majority rule. There is enough of a debate in developed countries over what constitutes reasonable environmental and labour standards to ensure the chance of consensus on anything substantial is zero. The only other option is to create mutually exclusive trading blocks but that will greatly harm growth and reduce the incomes of the middle class you claim to want to help. It would also trigger a lot of opposition and not that plausible either.

I'm not sure rules I approve of would be adopted. I am simply proposing an idea that would actually improve the plight of third world workers and close the wealth gap a little without placing any one nation at a disadvantage.

Why not wish for money falling from the skies? We can all agree that improving the life of the average person is a laudable goal. What we disagree on is what can be done. Attempts to use trade to impose social policy will not work because there is no global consensus on the what reasonable environmental and labour standards should be. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

A new hyperloop startup company has emerged, that includes some heavyweight investors and engineers. Hyperloop Technologies plans to first develop a cargo transport pod. http://mashable.com/2015/02/11/hyperloop-technologies/?utm_cid=mash-com-fb-main-link With multiple companies now in place, actual working loops are expected within the decade.

“We have the team, the tools and the technology,” Brogan BamBrogan, a former SpaceX engineer who's now the interim CEO of Hyperloop Technologies, told Forbes. “We can do this.”

Instead of focusing on moving humans at extreme speeds, the group first wants to perfect a "cargoloop" that would transport products. Some high-powered people have been briefed about the company, including President Obama.


The board is comprised of some impressive names, including Chairman Shervin Pishevar, a near-billionaire Uber investor, and David Sacks, who worked with Musk at PayPal and was the founding CEO of Yammer. And the staff is just as noteworthy, spotted with former SpaceX employees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...