And increased our trade deficit with China...and didn’t finish the wall...and Mexico didn’t pay for it. Steve Bannon got paid though.Originally Posted by Guisslapp
|
|
|
|
|
And increased our trade deficit with China...and didn’t finish the wall...and Mexico didn’t pay for it. Steve Bannon got paid though.
The argument that anti-globalists make, and Trump taps into, is actually a Marxist once.
People are concerned about WAGES and how they are vulnerable to international competition.
But Capitalism has never been about protecting WAGES - that is the province of Marxism - Capitalism is about PROFITS.
That is why we see an ever growing divergence between the share of gains in productivity being increasingly taken by the shareholders while wages are mostly flat.
For those that aren’t set in their ways and remain flexible, the capitalist force of creative destruction unlocks new value (and usually higher paying jobs in new fields - see IT jobs these days), but the destruction is very real for those that have specific training in a job that can be done at lower cost elsewhere.
So which system is more Marxist -
(A) System A that restricts the flow of capital out of the country in effort to prop up wages in older industries, or
(B) System B that allows capital to flow more freely but imposes higher taxes on profits to pay for societal safety nets?
Also, which one maximizes growth and standards of living?
I have posted a bunch of times about the debt, stating it is a major concern. But, allowing...not just allowing, but expediting, more illegals to enter and start suckling on the tits of the country will only make it worse. And do not try to make the argument about what % that might add, blah, blah, blah...the point is we should not allow criminal activity period, and certainly not when it will only make a bad situation worse.
And, please tell me how the US once again providing the lion's share to fund NATO, WHO, and all those other global organizations is gonna help reduce the deficit/debt.
And, please tell me how all those Bernie Sanders' crazy programs, like free college, is gonna help reduce the deficit/debt.
And, please tell me how companies moving facilities out of the country, taking $billions in taxes with them, is gonna help reduce the deficit/debt.
I am always open to learning all I can, and am curious how the Harris-Biden-Bernie-AOC plan(s) will address the deficit/debt.
Went back to check...actually the national debt increased right at $10 trillion under obummer/Biden. And it is currently $6.1 trillion under Trump. You must have gotten that 6.7 number from a Newsweek article I just read. And of course, it is growing by the minute...by the second, actually. So, based on projections, by the time Trump leaves office in mid-January, the debt will have grown by about another $2 trillion. So, Trump will have presided over about an $8 trillion+ increase in debt. A record for a 4-year period.
But, we are splitting hairs about the actual numbers. obummer inherited a national debt of about $11 trillion, grew it to $21 trillion, and now it is rocking $27 trillion+.
GWB inherited a debt of about $6 trillion from Clinton, and he inherited a debt of about $3.8 trillion from Bush I in 1992.
The national debt is a huge problem and getting progressively worse...dare say, exponentially worse!
1. NATO was created to counter the Soviet threat. In theory, a strong NATO deters Russian aggression and saves Americans lives and money.
2. A strong WHO, in theory, helps fight emerging infections. When we successfully spot, contain and treat diseases where they arise, they are less likely to make it to our shores and created the carnage to lives and economy.
3. Companies will be incentivized to stay here (even if they move their production elsewhere) if we provide a stable, predictable rule of law, the dominant world currency, educated workforce for them to grow their profits.
Is your goal to protect jobs or protect profits? If it is the former, you are the Marxist.
Haha!
who is by far the biggest contributor to nato?
who is by far the biggest contributor to who?
why would companies be incentivized (is that even a word?) to stay here if they get it cheaper in sweat shops overseas????
I’ll let the adults talk now...Goosey, you are so full of crap, it’s funny
Not surprised that the discussion is over your head.
1. Yep. And, there is no reason for the NATO members not to chip in the amounts they agreed to. Or, is there no consequence in blood and treasure for Germany and other European countries?
2. "a strong WHO"? Hmmm...how about an honest and transparent one?
3. Something like 50 large companies relocated out of the country under obummer, taking with them their $billions in taxes. That trend reversed under Trump, many of those 50 returning and next to none, maybe NONE, leaving during Trump's tenure.
As for your last question, there has to be a balance between what is good for individual firms and is what is good for the country. OF COURSE!!! I support any private company doing what it thinks is best for itself. But I also favor a nation doing what is best for itself, and if those don't match up, then oh well, so sorry for the private companies who made their choices. For instance, let's say there is a widget company that wants to relocate all of its manufacturing to China to save on labor costs. That is their choice and their right. But if the US places HUGE tariffs on widgets to build up and protect domestic production and said China-based widget company cannot compete in the US market and it ends up hurting them...so sorry, so sad for them. Just as firms are free to make decisions that benefit them, so too are nations.
In some key industries...like steel and as we have seen recently, pharma, it behooves a country to have strong domestic industries. That is for national security reasons.
Just imagine how different history would be...how different the world would be today...if back in the 1930's - '40's the US did not have a strong steel industry. Wow! Just think if all of our steel industry had relocated to China, for the sake of their profits. OMG! The Japs would have over-run all of those sites and seized the steel for themselves. The US would NOT have been able to gear up, build, and support Britain...and the Soviet Union...in their fight against Hitler. He would have easily steamrolled both. And the US would not have been able to build our Pacific fleet like we did...going from 4 carriers in 1941 to 30 by 1945 and all those cruisers and destroyers, and battleships, and troop carriers, and support vessels we were able to build. Japan would have easily achieved all of their goals and no doubt would have expanded on them once they realized we were unable to respond.
Now... a nation can use a carrot or a stick to "encourage" domestic manufacturing. I prefer the carrot, incentives vs. the stick, tariffs. But, when, like Trump found himself in, there is a need for quick changes, a combination of both was needed. He did apply tax incentives and deregulation along with tariffs and other measures to help corporations see the benefit of building in the US.
As for "capitalism" you pretend to be so concerned about, I didn't see, don't see ANY infringement on that by Trump and his policies. ALL firms were, and still are, free to weigh the pros and cons and decide what is best for them and their shareholders. For instance, our widget company would weigh cost savings on labor against the added cost of paying the tariff. If they could still net more profit by remaining in China, that is what they would do. So? How is that any different than every other decision businesses have to make every day?
As did Trump's...all while giving tax breaks to the middle class and creating an environment here to make companies profitable and create more jobs.
Everyone benefitted under Trump's tax plan and the government collected record taxes.
Doesn't surprise me that all this is way over your head, because for you this is all about personalities. Bet you love the Kardashians.
Nominally, but not in real (inflation adjusted dollars). They didn’t pay for themselves, reducing the amount of revenues that the government would have received otherwise.
Everyone benefited because individually they didn’t absorb the debt of the cuts - the county and future taxpayers did.
Conservatives used to care about balanced budgets.
The tariff shrinks the size of the pie by introducing costs and economic inefficiency. It reduces return on capital.
Not for the XYZ Widget Company who invested domestically and is now reaping the benefits of the tariff "protection." Those shareholders are quite pleased with the matter. And not for savvy investors...like me...who often invest in both sides! I win no matter what, and either don't lose or cut my losses (reaping a much needed tax deduction) and just move on to other investments.
No, there is no reduction in capital. Only reallocations of it, and if someone makes bad choices and squanders some, then that is on them. Every door that closes, opens another one elsewhere.
Capital flows to where it returns are greatest. That is how capitalism works. If you create greater costs where it would more efficiently flow, you reduce the returns. This is basic stuff.
It’s okay if you have some Marxist views. You just should recognize it when it rears its head.
I hope the Repubs pick up the last two Senate seats. Divided government is a great thing.
Oh brother....
the sky is blue. Yeah, I know, you'll say it's some specific, little known shade of blue, just to argue for the sake of arguing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote