[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Wasn't my question essentially a yes/no proposition?

Short answer: yes with an "if"
Long answer: no, with a "but"

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's easy to argue that it's less "evil," because it gives you a means to avoid it if you care to. It's one of the leading talking points of the "Fair" Tax. People might prefer to pay more in free market intrusion, if it buys more individual autonomy.

It's about as realistic as pointing out you can avoid the income tax by being poor. In either case it's a limit imposed by the government on, in smacintush's words, "economic freedom and the right to property," and in the case of tariffs just as exposed to the vindictive whims of our oppressors vis-à-vis our relationships with other countries.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Short answer: yes with an "if"
Long answer: no, with a "but"

So when is a tax not a tax?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It's about as realistic as pointing out you can avoid the income tax by being poor. In either case it's a limit imposed by the government on, in smacintush's words, "economic freedom and the right to property," and in the case of tariffs just as exposed to the vindictive whims of our oppressors vis-à-vis our relationships with other countries.

But this way foreigners share the burden. Plus it's a lot easier to avoid foreign goods than it is to avoid income, wealth, or sales.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So when is a tax not a tax?

When someone else pays it

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

When someone else pays it

I was being serious. Feel free to dumb it down for me.

[olePigeon]

I think tariffs are a good idea, especially for countries (i.e. China) that devalue their currency to keep their labor impossibly cheap. Tariff foreign products proportionately to keep American made products and labor competitive. That removes the incentive to use cheap, overseas and illegal labor. Companies will hire Americans with decent wages and benefits, and produce top notch products for local markets and export.

Henry Ford realized that if he paid his workers more money than anyone else, not only did he get the best workers, but his workers had more money to buy more of his cars.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But this way foreigners share the burden. Plus it's a lot easier to avoid foreign goods than it is to avoid income, wealth, or sales.

I would dispute your last point. It's not at all easy to avoid foreign goods today. And remember, the final costs of production and distribution are always passed on to the end consumer.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I was being serious. Feel free to dumb it down for me.

It's the kind of tax we don't have to pay. (1) foreigners pay it, and while the argument has been made that taxes are the oppression of citizens by their own government, you can't call this the oppression of foreigners by the US government, because foreigners are under no compulsion to trade with the US; it's totally voluntary. (2) we don't have to pay it, and while one can argue that hidden taxes are "priced in," all you have to do to avoid it in this case is Buy American; again it's voluntary.

Unlike the current "voluntary" income tax where our predecessors volunteered us in perpetuity, a tariff would be voluntary on an ongoing basis, you can opt in and out at will. That's the real difference. (With a sales tax, you can modulate your contribution, but with a tariff you could actually eliminate it).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I would dispute your last point. It's not at all easy to avoid foreign goods today. And remember, the final costs of production and distribution are always passed on to the end consumer.

As olePigeon said (and I actually started a thread about once), once tariffs are in place then domestic goods would become competitive (again). It would likely break the monopoly that foreign trinkets have on our marketplace.

Edit: and how is it easier to avoid income, wealth or sales, anyway? You can't even barter, because the IRS counts that as income (and would count as sales, if that were the method). Just because it's "not at all easy" doesn't mean it's harder than the alternative.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's the kind of tax we don't have to pay. (1) foreigners pay it, and while the argument has been made that taxes are the oppression of citizens by their own government, you can't call this the oppression of foreigners by the US government, because foreigners are under no compulsion to trade with the US; it's totally voluntary. (2) we don't have to pay it, and while one can argue that hidden taxes are "priced in," all you have to do to avoid it in this case is Buy American; again it's voluntary.

That's some interesting reasoning. Isn't it essentially hypocritical to consider taxes unfair for your own citizens but ok on foreigners?

But more importantly, within smac's view, by taxing those goods, aren't you infringing on his economic freedom?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

As olePigeon said (and I actually started a thread about once), once tariffs are in place then domestic goods would become competitive (again). It would likely break the monopoly that foreign trinkets have on our marketplace.

Unlikely at this point. The cost advantages for many goods of organizing production globally, due to technological diffusion, geopolitical change, and labor costs (especially health) are now basically locked in place. For example, shoe companies still send virtually all production overseas even though tariffs on the import of the manufactured product are, AFAIK, the highest the U.S. imposes.

Edit: and how is it easier to avoid income, wealth or sales, anyway? You can't even barter, because the IRS counts that as income (and would count as sales, if that were the method). Just because it's "not at all easy" doesn't mean it's harder than the alternative.

It's not easier. I consider both to be so difficult that whether one or the other is theoretically "easier" in some small detail is essentially irrelevant from a practical standpoint.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's some interesting reasoning. Isn't it essentially hypocritical to consider taxes unfair for your own citizens but ok on foreigners?

If you completely ignore the voluntary aspect of it, the fact that one at least has an option to live a buy-american life, then yes. But then, there would be no difference between murder and suicide, sex and rape, or donation and extortion.

But more importantly, within smac's view, by taxing those goods, aren't you infringing on his economic freedom?

The scope is severely reduced. For people who don't morally object to taxes, they can find a home in either scenario. For people who do, they can find a home only in the voluntary tax model.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you completely ignore the voluntary aspect of it, the fact that one at least has an option to live a buy-american life, then yes.

What was that fake choice wikipedia entry you gave me?

It's BS. The only reason I have to make a choice is because of government interference. Here the government is interfering in the open market with their taxes (tariffs). Therefore, they are limiting my economic freedom.

The only "defense" of this I'm seeing is because the person being taxed are foreign (so its ok to tax foreigners) and that its voluntary. However if by adding tariffs the government is changing the options of what's available in certain segments of the market, that is still interference, and therefore they are still affecting my economic freedom.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But then, there would be no difference between murder and suicide, sex and rape, or donation and extortion.

I don't know what you're saying, but I feel its a safe bet its an extreme exaggeration given the acts involved.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The scope is severely reduced..

Then it is an infringement, then.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What was that fake choice wikipedia entry you gave me?

No clue what you're referring to.

The only reason I have to make a choice is because of government interference. Here the government is interfering in the open market with their taxes (tariffs). Therefore, they are limiting my economic freedom.

Only if you're doing international commerce. The vast majority don't need to do that.
It's the difference between offering government jobs vs forcing everyone to have a government job.

The only "defense" of this I'm seeing is because the person being taxed are foreign (so its ok to tax foreigners) and that its voluntary. However if by adding tariffs the government is changing the options of what's available in certain segments of the market, that is still interference, and therefore they are still affecting my economic freedom.

"In certain segments." Smac's grievance is that he has no recourse if he doesn't wish to buy in to the Social Contract. No place to hide. People that don't mind the Social Contract will be more than happy to fill the niche of international traders.

Then it is an infringement, then.

It's more of a contract. If both sides enter willingly, then it is voluntary and generally agreed to be just. If one side is forced however, well, yadda yadda yadda. Smac's tax aversion will not be shared by everyone, so there will still be takers who will enter the contract willingly.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's the kind of tax we don't have to pay. (1) foreigners pay it, and while the argument has been made that taxes are the oppression of citizens by their own government, you can't call this the oppression of foreigners by the US government, because foreigners are under no compulsion to trade with the US; it's totally voluntary. (2) we don't have to pay it, and while one can argue that hidden taxes are "priced in," all you have to do to avoid it in this case is Buy American; again it's voluntary.

Unlike the current "voluntary" income tax where our predecessors volunteered us in perpetuity, a tariff would be voluntary on an ongoing basis, you can opt in and out at will. That's the real difference. (With a sales tax, you can modulate your contribution, but with a tariff you could actually eliminate it).

What can you possibly purchase these days that is 100% made in America? Maybe some food and textile goods?

And, again, how does this work for some essential services, such as police and military? Should only the people who fund the services get to enjoy the benefit of those services?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What can you possibly purchase these days that is 100% made in America? Maybe some food and textile goods?

Flag pins.

And, again, how does this work for some essential services, such as police and military? Should only the people who fund the services get to enjoy the benefit of those services?

That's easy, the same way it works today for the ~47% of Americans that don't owe income taxes.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's easy, the same way it works today for the ~47% of Americans that don't owe income taxes.

right, except this time the people who won't be paying will be those who can afford products made in America. I imagine the sense of entitlement we'll see from them would be extreme.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

right, except this time the people who won't be paying will be those who can afford products made in America. I imagine the sense of entitlement we'll see from them would be extreme.

So... what? I don't get it

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's some interesting reasoning. Isn't it essentially hypocritical to consider taxes unfair for your own citizens but ok on foreigners?

But more importantly, within smac's view, by taxing those goods, aren't you infringing on his economic freedom?

I think it is. The border of a country is the boundry which that government has the authority to protect people's rights, not where people's right begin and end. Coming at this from the perspective of taxes as a violation of rights, I would oppose tarrifs for the same reasons as I would any tax.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So... what? I don't get it

Oh, I'm just having fun thinking about all the wealthy people, who are no longer contributing to the government coffers, trying to justify how they're entitled to government services for free.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I think tariffs are a good idea, especially for countries (i.e. China) that devalue their currency to keep their labor impossibly cheap. Tariff foreign products proportionately to keep American made products and labor competitive. That removes the incentive to use cheap, overseas and illegal labor. Companies will hire Americans with decent wages and benefits, and produce top notch products for local markets and export.

Henry Ford realized that if he paid his workers more money than anyone else, not only did he get the best workers, but his workers had more money to buy more of his cars.

Don't forget the context of this discussion. In a country with no taxes and no limits on businesses we wouldn't need such games. America is far more productive than China or the like and with our productiveness and innovation combined a tax-free and regulation-free system we would be extremely competitive. I don't think they would have near the presence in America that they do under the current system. American wages and benefits would also remain to our standards for the same reasons.

Tariffs just aren't necessary.

[Wiskedjak]

And, now, I'm imagining a future where the American military is funded mostly by tariffs from Chinese imports. And, then, I'm imagining China's first strike in a war against the US to be a trade embargo rather than a bomb.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What can you possibly purchase these days that is 100% made in America? Maybe some food and textile goods?

ISP Decimator ProRack G. You can tell it's made in Amerikkka because it's got panel gaps you can drive a Hummer through (yes, on a piece of electrical equipment).

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I think tariffs are a good idea, especially for countries (i.e. China) that devalue their currency to keep their labor impossibly cheap. Tariff foreign products proportionately to keep American made products and labor competitive. That removes the incentive to use cheap, overseas and illegal labor. Companies will hire Americans with decent wages and benefits, and produce top notch products for local markets and export.

Oh, like the 1983 tariff on motorcycles greater than 700cc because Harleys were of such piss-poor quality that they lost 85% of the market to overseas manufacturers in 10 years?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Oh, like the 1983 tariff on motorcycles greater than 700cc because Harleys were of such piss-poor quality that they lost 85% of the market to overseas manufacturers in 10 years?

No, I'm for a dynamic tariff adjusted for currency and labor. It wouldn't affect the quality of the product or the price in terms of larger production or cost savings in other areas.

Basically, the tariff would be used to offset foreign labor costs so they're equal to that of American labor costs, removing the incentive for American companies to use foreign or illegal labor.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Only if you're doing international commerce. The vast majority don't need to do that.

Sounds like a judgement call that doesn't need to be made if the system were blind.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"In certain segments." Smac's grievance is that he has no recourse if he doesn't wish to buy in to the Social Contract. No place to hide. People that don't mind the Social Contract will be more than happy to fill the niche of international traders.

Of course the entire point of my line of questions is to see things from Smac's point of view.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Smac's tax aversion will not be shared by everyone, so there will still be takers who will enter the contract willingly.

Well, yeah.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I think it is. The border of a country is the boundry which that government has the authority to protect people's rights, not where people's right begin and end. Coming at this from the perspective of taxes as a violation of rights, I would oppose tarrifs for the same reasons as I would any tax.

*nod*

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Of course the entire point of my line of questions is to see things from Smac's point of view.

Looks like I guessed wrong. I have no idea how he thinks it can work.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Looks like I guessed wrong. I have no idea how he thinks it can work.

I didn't get the impression he has a solid plan for how it will work. I think he has a general outline and his view is let's get to this ideal and once we're there we can work out the details.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I didn't get the impression he has a solid plan for how it will work. I think he has a general outline and his view is let's get to this ideal and once we're there we can work out the details.

That's right. My interest isn't in the details of political law and monetary policy.

That being said, the first thing I think we have to understand is how much would a government like this need.

Dept. of Defense
Dept. of Justice
Executive Branch
Legislative Branch
Judicial Branch
Other Misc.

That's really about it. I didn't try to dig up specific dollar amounts but pared down to their proper levels these areas should amount to about 20% of the current budget or so, about $600b. As it is now even with the heavily tax reliant system we have the government gets non-tax revenue of about what…$150b? We're already a quarter of the way there.

Now the question isn't necessarily what can be done to raise money. The question is what can't. The answer to that is, beyond taxes or any other taking of money by force, pretty much anything voluntary we can dream up. National lotteries, donation drives, etc. I have read of a system of contract insurance whereby if you want government enforcement of breach of a voluntary contract, you pay an insurance premium. In such a system we should remember that credit services are voluntary contracts, lest you doubt the volume of money that this could bring. The government is free to provide any service they like in order to raise revenue as long as they are not using taxation to pay for it and such services are not bolstered by any legislation or regulation that prohibits or inhibits private entities from competing.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

That's right. My interest isn't in the details of political law and monetary policy.

That being said, the first thing I think we have to understand is how much would a government like this need.

Dept. of Defense
Dept. of Justice
Executive Branch
Legislative Branch
Judicial Branch
Other Misc.

That's really about it. I didn't try to dig up specific dollar amounts but pared down to their proper levels these areas should amount to about 20% of the current budget or so, about $600b. As it is now even with the heavily tax reliant system we have the government gets non-tax revenue of about what…$150b? We're already a quarter of the way there.

Now the question isn't necessarily what can be done to raise money. The question is what can't. The answer to that is, beyond taxes or any other taking of money by force, pretty much anything voluntary we can dream up. National lotteries, donation drives, etc. I have read of a system of contract insurance whereby if you want government enforcement of breach of a voluntary contract, you pay an insurance premium. In such a system we should remember that credit services are voluntary contracts, lest you doubt the volume of money that this could bring. The government is free to provide any service they like in order to raise revenue as long as they are not using taxation to pay for it and such services are not bolstered by any legislation or regulation that prohibits or inhibits private entities from competing.

Interesting. Regardless of whether or not it is feasible, my main problem with that kind of system is that it would lead to situations in which government enforcement is linked to ability to pay. Obviously there are cases where that is true even today, but reproducing that on a wider, more institutionalized scale seems to me to lead down a dangerous path that, philosophically, is no less injurious to individual rights than taxation.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

That's right. My interest isn't in the details of political law and monetary policy.

That being said, the first thing I think we have to understand is how much would a government like this need.

Dept. of Defense
Dept. of Justice
Executive Branch
Legislative Branch
Judicial Branch
Other Misc.

That's really about it. I didn't try to dig up specific dollar amounts but pared down to their proper levels these areas should amount to about 20% of the current budget or so, about $600b. As it is now even with the heavily tax reliant system we have the government gets non-tax revenue of about what…$150b? We're already a quarter of the way there.

Now the question isn't necessarily what can be done to raise money. The question is what can't. The answer to that is, beyond taxes or any other taking of money by force, pretty much anything voluntary we can dream up. National lotteries, donation drives, etc. I have read of a system of contract insurance whereby if you want government enforcement of breach of a voluntary contract, you pay an insurance premium. In such a system we should remember that credit services are voluntary contracts, lest you doubt the volume of money that this could bring. The government is free to provide any service they like in order to raise revenue as long as they are not using taxation to pay for it and such services are not bolstered by any legislation or regulation that prohibits or inhibits private entities from competing.

so, how are police and military services funded? and, do people who dont pay voluntarily get to receive the benefits of those services?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well of course not. And I'm sure you realize that I already know that.

It's just a picture OAW, I wasn't trying to be insulting.

Well therein lies the rub. The consumer demand ISN'T there at the needed levels. This is because A) many potential consumers are UNEMPLOYED, and B) those with a job lack the CONFIDENCE in the economy to elevate their spending very much let alone return it to pre-recession levels. These two factors result in a lower level of CONSUMER DEMAND. Much lower. And like it or not the US economy is fueled by consumer demand.

Of course consumer demand is the lion's share of the US economy. That's why I said it's always there. If however there is a ginormous, bloated government in need of ever-increasing revenue... consumer demand will NEVER be where it NEEDS to be because the target is always moving upward. I noticed something very interesting from all the data that you and hyteckit have been posting to bolster these Keynesian arguments of monetary infusion; Federal receipts have done nothing, but increase since the first tax was levied and yet... here we are discussing why it is they need more. How folks can acknowledge the roll of consumer demand in the US economy yet believe the government needs more revenue to improve it is beyond me. The government does not need more revenue as much as they need to be far better stewards of the money they're already getting. i.e. less overlapping Federal programs such as the 342 economic development programs, 90 early childhood development programs, 72 federal programs for assuring safe water, 40 separate employment and training programs, 27 teen pregnancy programs, etc... It is time we start auditing these programs for their overall necessity and effectiveness as promised instead of a massive push to create more bureaucracy. The adage "if you're not growing, you're dying" applies as much to a corporate/Federal entity as it does any business. There is one player I can influence with my wallet and another that controls what I have in it.

You have a point. Indeed the "overall water level doesn't increase (unless the government simply prints money). But there is a factor that you appear to be overlooking. The private sector consists of hundreds of millions of individual entities. The public sector does not. So even though the overall level of dollars to spend remains the same ... the number of decision points needed to actually spend the money is dramatically smaller. The bottom line here is that in 2008 the economy was falling off a cliff as a result of the financial crisis on Wall Street. The economy was shedding 750K jobs a month. Private sector demand had collapsed. That's the backdrop. So even though there was money still out there the private sector was sitting on anything beyond what was needed for the bare minimum necessities.

What you're overlooking is the notion of market correction. Again, no one is "sitting" on anything. That money is always being used to make money. It is not being saved, it is being spent and circulating through the economy. People save in banks, other financial vehicles, or pay down personal debt. The recipients of the pay-offs, be it banks or otherwise, are constantly using your money in the market. There will always be market corrections and because the government can "never let a crisis go to waste", they'll insist the sky is falling and come to you with their hat out for more. It takes a great deal of discipline to deny them at these critical times. Where I agree with you is that our collective electorate in this country has lacked this discipline when it comes to what of theirs they're willing to go without. Most welfare in this country is doled out to the middle class and these policies have definitely created a larger pool of dependents that needs to be reversed and quickly.

Consumers didn't want to spend any extra and thereby create more consumer demand until the unemployment situation improved considerably ... giving them the confidence to do so. But employers didn't want to do any hiring until consumer demand justified it. Classic Catch-22!

No, IMO this is a classic market correction. It takes a great deal of discipline to not overreact. Because Washington lacks discipline, they will too often overreact. Now we're governed by a hodge-podge of legislation founded from an overreaction to some of history's greatest challenges.

Consumer A isn't spending any money because Consumer B isn't. Employer X isn't hiring because Employer Y isn't. Overall consumer demand won't increase until the dollars start flowing again.

When Wall St. becomes bloated, it retracts. This is a market correction. Overreacting by pumping a whole bunch of synthetic revenue we borrowed from China into the market has not only bloated our debt, but perpetuates market uncertainty and the end-result is a damaged credit-rating. What happens to the value of the dollar when money is simply printed? This combined with legislation increasingly hostile to wealth, businesses will continue to use vehicles available exclusively to them for making money, but this doesn't mean that people stop wanting to make money. Money is always being used. If you're "sitting on it", someone else is using it. When the government infuses activity, it is replacing activity.

But the individual entities within the private sector are sitting on their hands waiting on someone else to move first. They want somebody else to get moving and cause the employment situation to improve before they make a move of their own.

"Waiting for someone to move first" = risk. Mark my words, someone more aggressive will take on the risk and reap the reward. When risk is replaced or eliminated for selected "winners" in the market, the "losers" can't compete and less risk is assumed overall; an entirely new type of dependency class that wears suits and ties. The market becomes distorted with government safety nets for a handful of players in fact creating the very monoliths too big to fail.

And that's the problem with relying on hundreds of millions of individual entities to collectively decide to start spending again during a financial emergency fraught with a profound lack of consumer confidence. The public sector can spend hundreds of billions of dollars that otherwise wouldn't have been spent if it were up to the private sector to collectively decide to spend it.

So... when people decide they're going to pull back expenditures for a time, the government will simply come in and take it from you to solve the problem you've created? I disagree and believe they are only stalling the inevitable while exacerbating its eventual impact.

But history also shows that the sharp cutback in federal spending in 1937 caused the unemployment rate to spike again. Why? Because it suppressed overall demand. Bush's tax rebates demonstrably show the folly of offering up a supply side solution to a demand problem. And the stimulus bill was designed to do many things. The most important of which was to keep the economy from completely collapsing. And that it did (along with TARP and the auto bailouts). The response of the economy to the Obama Administration's efforts in terms of the jobs picture is ....



So did the stimulus fail to meet one of its stated goals and preventing the unemployment rate from rising above 8%? Indeed it did. But that's a dramatic improvement anyway you slice it. Furthermore, the CBO itself has estimated the economic impact of the stimulus package as follows:

Again, these figures show that this notion that the "stimulus package failed" being bandied about the right is simply false. The unemployment rate would be nearly 2% higher in 2010 if it weren't for the stimulus. Again, that's not me talking ... that's the CBO figures. So would nearly 12% unemployment be preferable ... along with the increased deficit as a result of even further reduced tax revenues and safety net spending for the millions of additional people that would be out of work compared to today?

OAW

How do I know the "supply-side" notion of TARP isn't responsible for those numbers???

Also, does this include $3.2 billion helping congressional districts that do not exist? I mean, you realize the accounting here is severely questionable and admitted as such. Not to mention the fact that this equates to what... $500,000 per job? Second, recipients of the Federal grants are to report back whether or not this money is helping them? Seriously? This is how we measure the success of an infusion of over $787 billion, ask them if they like the money? We measure job numbers by the unemployment rate OAW, not the ever-elusive "jobs saved" metric. While this may not work well for Keynesian apologists, it is the way of things. No one said that an infusion of $787 billion dollars of new money into the economy would not have an appreciable impact, particularly on GDP as Uncle mentioned. I could borrow $10 trillion, print $12 trillion more and burn it in a barrel road-side and I'd more than double GDP. In other words I might be a billionaire if I borrow a billion dollars, but...

[OldManMac]

Here's the proper perspective on tax cuts for the rich, IMO.

Bill Maher: New Rule: Rich People Who Complain About Being Vilified Should Be Vilified

[OAW]

ebuddy,

One could argue that the Great Depression was a "market correction". One with catastrophic consequences. And the vast majority of economists agree that the swift and decisive action taken by the Obama Administration prevented what would have been the Great Depression 2.0. At the end of the day, as "distasteful" as it is ... I believe that is a good thing. A 9+% unemployment rate is terrible without question. But imagine the conversation we'd be having if it were double that? I daresay that no one, including yourself, would be lauding the Obama Administration for showing "discipline" and letting a "market correction" run its course. The criticism would be that the President sat on the sidelines and allowed the US (and possibly the global) economy to collapse.

As for this notion that "saved money is spent money" that you are espousing ... well normally that is the case. People put money in banks, banks lend money, and the loan recipients spend that money. Rinse and repeat. But the fundamental issue here is that the large national banks are NOT lending. They have certainly been stabilized and most are even profitable again thanks to TARP. But the credit market is still depressed ... especially for small businesses. This is because thanks to de-regulation and the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act the large banks don't have to make their money by being, you know .... a bank! These days they have made the decision to pull back on lending and make their money on their trading operations. The Obama Administration then tried to infuse money into small businesses with a classic supply-side approach ... namely $12 billion in tax cuts and a $30 billion dollar capital infusion into smaller, community banks that do the majority of lending to small businesses. The same small businesses that do the majority of the job creation. This was an approach that the GOP traditionally advocates. But of course, this being an election cycle and the fact that the GOP made a calculated decision to be the "Party of No" ... they opposed their own ideas all year long until weeks before the election. Go figure.

Anyway, I wonder what you think of this ....

http://www.saveoureconomy.com/theplan.html

I haven't had a chance to read the details and the particulars yet ... but it seemed like a bold idea for jumpstarting the economy. Basically a plan where the federal government would cover the interest on all mortgage debt for 1 year. All mortgage payers who chose to participate would get a 1 year "mortgage holiday" with the principal being tacked onto the end of residential, commercial, industrial and farm loans. Thereby allowing millions of American families and businesses to divert their monthly mortgage payment money directly into their own personal & business pockets to save, invest, spend or reduce other personal and business debt. It might just be robbing Peter to pay Paul ... but over the long haul it may have some merit. Sounds intriguing at least. I'd be interested in your 2 cents.

OAW

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

That's right. My interest isn't in the details of political law and monetary policy.

That being said, the first thing I think we have to understand is how much would a government like this need.

Dept. of Defense
Dept. of Justice
Executive Branch
Legislative Branch
Judicial Branch
Other Misc.

That's really about it. I didn't try to dig up specific dollar amounts but pared down to their proper levels these areas should amount to about 20% of the current budget or so, about $600b. As it is now even with the heavily tax reliant system we have the government gets non-tax revenue of about what…$150b? We're already a quarter of the way there.

Now the question isn't necessarily what can be done to raise money. The question is what can't. The answer to that is, beyond taxes or any other taking of money by force, pretty much anything voluntary we can dream up. National lotteries, donation drives, etc. I have read of a system of contract insurance whereby if you want government enforcement of breach of a voluntary contract, you pay an insurance premium. In such a system we should remember that credit services are voluntary contracts, lest you doubt the volume of money that this could bring. The government is free to provide any service they like in order to raise revenue as long as they are not using taxation to pay for it and such services are not bolstered by any legislation or regulation that prohibits or inhibits private entities from competing.

Would you farm out the rest to the States, and let them raise the taxes to fund it?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How folks can acknowledge the roll of consumer demand in the US economy yet believe the government needs more revenue to improve it is beyond me. The government does not need more revenue as much as they need to be far better stewards of the money they're already getting.

It's called: they're playing a game with you. We all know the above, even most moonbats, but the game is- it's not actually about common sense or anything to do with fiscal responsibility from the left. They reveal their real motives all the time- it's about vilifying the 'rich' or whoever it is one is jealous of, and advocating that their money be taken in ever increasing amounts to satisfy that envy.

It's one of the basest of human traits, and one of the easiest for politicians to exploit. Almost every shithole around the world where people live in hopeless squalor under a ridiculous regime, is held in place by the local tinhorn/ruling class/dictator by constantly reinforcing in the population's mind that their squalor (while the ruling class rolls around in beds of money) is all worth it because they're getting one over on 'the rich', and besides, peons living any other way is 'greedy'. (The ruling class living in opulence at the expense of the peons is the natural order, though.)

The ploy works well enough to keep people held in complete poverty, so why wouldn't it work well enough to keep dolts in a first world nation clamoring for the same sating of their envy? It works very well.

So expecting the ideology to ever match up with the common sense from these folks is a pipe dream. Realize- many of them would happily bow and scrape to some fool like Castro while living in tin shacks, so long as they believe the *payoff* is that some 'rich' guy (other than the worshiped ruling class, as always) has been forced into the same boat, therefore 'gotten even with' for daring to be rich.

You're expecting *sound* economic policy to come out of that most base of human mindsets. Might as well hold your breath...

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

do people who dont pay voluntarily get to receive the benefits of those services?

Why wouldn't they?

Are you asking if I'm advocating such a system or are you suggesting that such a system would necessarily end up this way?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Would you farm out the rest to the States, and let them raise the taxes to fund it?

States don't get to extort money either. It wouldn't be very consistant of me to refer to taxation as morally wrong, extortion and theft while at the same time suggesting that it is OK for states to do it.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Here's the proper perspective on tax cuts for the rich, IMO.

Bill Maher: New Rule: Rich People Who Complain About Being Vilified Should Be Vilified

Bill Maher has only ever been on the right side of anything by accident. He has never had an intelligent, rational thought in his life. At least not publicly.

Plus, he's not funny.

[screener]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Bill Maher has only ever been on the right side of anything by accident. He has never had an intelligent, rational thought in his life. At least not publicly.

Plus, he's not funny.

Must be tough not having a sense of humor.
Laughing at yourself is a good thing, keeps you sane.

That's why there are so many bat-sh#t crazy wingers.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Bill Maher has only ever been on the right side of anything by accident. He has never had an intelligent, rational thought in his life. At least not publicly.

Plus, he's not funny.

Of course you would say that; you're an apologist for the rich. You no doubt actually believe they earn their money.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Why wouldn't they?

Are you asking if I'm advocating such a system or are you suggesting that such a system would necessarily end up this way?

if the primary complaint of the current system is that the poor freeload off the input from the rich, I would think that any system which replaces the current, only those who pay into the system should be able to enjoy the benefits of that system.

therefore:
if government services are funded by tariffs on the import of foreign products, only those citizens who purchase foreign products should be able to enjoy those government services (including police and military). Anybody else would be freeloading.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

if the primary complaint of the current system is that the poor freeload off the input from the rich

It's not. The primary complaint (here) is that taxes are wrong (theft/forced), not that they are unevenly distributed.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's not. The primary complaint (here) is that taxes are wrong (theft/forced), not that they are unevenly distributed.

alright. but, that would be my complaint if government services were tariff based and people who "bought American" were enjoying those government services without paying in to them. that would be worse than socialism, IMO.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

ebuddy,
One could argue that the Great Depression was a "market correction". One with catastrophic consequences. And the vast majority of economists agree that the swift and decisive action taken by the Obama Administration prevented what would have been the Great Depression 2.0.

First of all, the vast majority of economists agree on nothing. Let me reiterate however, no one is saying the massive infusion of TARP and Stimulus provisions (supply-side and demand-side respectively) would not have an impact on money supply, of course it follows mathematically. It should be noted however that we're still at less than 60% of the stimulus funds spent, you're touting the positive impact it has had in saving jobs, and there is absolutely zero correlation between stimulus money spent and job growth. Zero. I mean, look at where the money has been spent.

Code:
BTW, thanks hyteckit. ;)


	
	

		
State          Unemployment Rate        Stimulus/capita

Nevada         14.3 percent             $561.55
Michigan       13.1 percent             $648.91
California     12.3 percent             $546.34
Rhode Island   11.9 percent             $164.83
Florida        11.5 percent             $475.67

Vermont        6.0 percent              $522.42
New Hampshire  5.8 percent              $852.53
Nebraska       4.7 percent              $591.17
South Dakota   4.4 percent              $1,084.73
North Dakota   3.6 percent              $1,059.95
	
	

The fact that the money hasn't been distributed proportionate to the states with the highest unemployment needs should make it apparent the stimulus was never purposed for job creation. The purpose was to essentially spend a bunch of money quickly and slow-release the remainder for political expedience. According to a new report by the Rockefeller Institute of Government; major state budget gaps remain when the stimulus runs dry; budget gaps that range from four to six percent of general expenditures – a nationwide total of $70 billion to more than $100 billion. That's still short-term.

The argument has been the cost, the long-term metrics of success, and the long-term implications. We're paying an unhealthy amount of money per job "saved" perpetuating a synthetic economy that ticks down to the day the spigot runs dry. This is not a solution, it is an extremely expensive retardation of current economic woes, only pushing them under the bed for two more years. For all intents and purposes Warren Harding inherited from Wilson a post-WWI depression that from peak to trough was almost every bit as severe as the economic contraction of 1929-33. Instead of policies geared toward exploding the deficit, the reaction was a policy of spending cuts and lowered taxes that would lay the foundation for the "roaring twenties". Why? The government does not generate wealth, people do. Not only have this Administrations' efforts been virtually ineffective, they are in fact prolonging our recessionary state and will lead to greater problems down the road; i.e. another Great Depression. I'd rather not have to say "I told you so", but without a drastic change in economic philosophy we'll not only still be talking about this in two years, we'll be talking about how to end a depression.

At the end of the day, as "distasteful" as it is ... I believe that is a good thing. A 9+% unemployment rate is terrible without question. But imagine the conversation we'd be having if it were double that? I daresay that no one, including yourself, would be lauding the Obama Administration for showing "discipline" and letting a "market correction" run its course. The criticism would be that the President sat on the sidelines and allowed the US (and possibly the global) economy to collapse.

Job growth from this Administrations' policies is an absolute myth. Whatever jobs have supposedly been "created" (notwithstanding the fuzzy math and dubious sources to bolster the claims) have been lost by a pessimistic private sector. Again, we don't measure employment by jobs "saved". This has become little more than a contrived metric put forth by apologists. Instead of claiming the unemployment rate would be double without a stimulus, imagine if we had gone down the path of aggressive pro-growth tax policy and drastic cuts in spending? We might be at 8.6% unemployment as opposed to 9.6%. Entirely different philosophies OAW. We've seen Japan and Greece go down the exact same path we're going down and these are not new ideals, they are the failed ideals of antiquity and their results never change.

As for this notion that "saved money is spent money" that you are espousing ... well normally that is the case. People put money in banks, banks lend money, and the loan recipients spend that money. Rinse and repeat. But the fundamental issue here is that the large national banks are NOT lending. They have certainly been stabilized and most are even profitable again thanks to TARP. But the credit market is still depressed ... especially for small businesses. This is because thanks to de-regulation and the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act the large banks don't have to make their money by being, you know .... a bank! These days they have made the decision to pull back on lending and make their money on their trading operations. The Obama Administration then tried to infuse money into small businesses with a classic supply-side approach ... namely $12 billion in tax cuts and a $30 billion dollar capital infusion into smaller, community banks that do the majority of lending to small businesses. The same small businesses that do the majority of the job creation. This was an approach that the GOP traditionally advocates. But of course, this being an election cycle and the fact that the GOP made a calculated decision to be the "Party of No" ... they opposed their own ideas all year long until weeks before the election. Go figure.

With all due respect OAW, this ignores the contentious aspects involved in the passage of a bill. The riders and obscure details, ramifications, etc... It might be tempting to conclude it was the left that enjoyed solidarity while those obstructionists bastards from the right were being sticks in the mud, but to pretend the actions of this Congress have not been contentious for a host of reasons is to have a blatant disregard for recent history.

Banks not lending is as meaningless a platitude as any. Yes, gone are the easy-credit schemes that got us into this mess and good riddance to them. It serves us all well when banks are more discriminant in their lending practices, particularly as our economy remains in a volatile state. Glass Steagall was repealed because it was patently ineffective legislation serving primarily to hamper the private sector which BTW, enjoyed the support of the "vast majority of economists" at the time.

Anyway, I wonder what you think of this ....

SAVE OUR ECONOMY!

I haven't had a chance to read the details and the particulars yet ... but it seemed like a bold idea for jumpstarting the economy. Basically a plan where the federal government would cover the interest on all mortgage debt for 1 year. All mortgage payers who chose to participate would get a 1 year "mortgage holiday" with the principal being tacked onto the end of residential, commercial, industrial and farm loans. Thereby allowing millions of American families and businesses to divert their monthly mortgage payment money directly into their own personal & business pockets to save, invest, spend or reduce other personal and business debt. It might just be robbing Peter to pay Paul ... but over the long haul it may have some merit. Sounds intriguing at least. I'd be interested in your 2 cents.

Thanks for the link OAW. You might have imagined I would have some fundamental problems with the plan, beginning with the ideal that it would be funded primarily by the TARP & stimulus "left-overs" when it seems to me those are already spoken for in numerous ways. Resources are limited and the choice historically has been either a focus on symptoms or a focus on the virus. I tend to lean toward policies that in my view do a more effective job of addressing the virus. The assumption of mortgage debt for one year is an ideal that focuses primarily on symptoms and does little to nothing long-term. To be clear, this is my first impression of the plan from a cursory glance and may be worth just about .02.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Of course you would say that; you're an apologist for the rich. You no doubt actually believe they earn their money.

As long as someone isn't taking money from someone against their will I don't really care how they got it. The fact is, as long as they are not taking money from people against their will, they ARE earning it. (what definition of "earn" are YOU using?) It is their damn money. You have not rational or moral claim to it.

As for being an apologist, in what way do they need apologizing for?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

As long as someone isn't taking money from someone against their will I don't really care how they got it. The fact is, as long as they are not taking money from people against their will, they ARE earning it. (what definition of "earn" are YOU using?) It is their damn money. You have not rational or moral claim to it.

When people who have worked their entire lives, and who have negotiated a pension and other benefits at retirement, have that taken away by their employer, while the main executives who took these benefits away get raises and bonuses for doing so, that is taking something away against someone's will. That is also morally wrong. The working class of this country is seeing the benefits decline rapidly, while a select few at the top are seeing their income and benefits rise meteorically. No one earns tens of millions of dollars annually, often for dismissing employees, simply to move numbers around to benefit a select few. If you don't care when that happens to you, there is something wrong with both you and your employer.

As for being an apologist, in what way do they need apologizing for?

They need apologizing for being ruthless, greedy, moral criminals, who prey on others, especially when they are often deemed as pillars of their community by various civic and religious institutions. The hypocrisy of these individuals and groups reeks to high heaven.

Those who keep trying to practice this so-called trickle down economics know that they're simply trying to find innumerable ways to fool the less educated and gullible into supporting policies that are against the welfare of the working class, but they never cease trying, because they are morally bankrupt, and aren't concerned with anyone's well being except their own. The rich don't need any more tax cuts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/bu...e&ref=business

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yeah, priests are all child molesters too.

[besson3c]

So, I want to know what the main dispute is here... Is it:

1) Disagreement with the so-called independent assessments that the Bush tax cuts cost an unfunded $x - i.e. disagree with the precise number, or the general premise that they cost us something?

2) Disagreement with the independent nature of these assessments?

3) Disagreement that these costs aren't made up by the direct or indirect benefits of these tax cuts, such as employment/jobs?

4) Philosophical disagreement?


It somehow feels that this amounts to a whole lot of talking past each other.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Those who keep trying to practice this so-called trickle down economics know that they're simply trying to find innumerable ways to fool the less educated and gullible into supporting policies that are against the welfare of the working class, but they never cease trying, because they are morally bankrupt, and aren't concerned with anyone's well being except their own.

I'm concerned with your welfare Karl. Thus, I demand that you sell your motorcycle and replace it with a safe, sensible car.
I'm not your mom. Neither is anyone else who practises trickle-down economics.