Chicago Board of Trade

Discussion in 'Politics' started by smirkinjesus, Aug 6, 2004.

  1. smirkinjesus
    Online

    smirkinjesus Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Floor traders today on the CBOT chanted against Bush this morning after the jobs report came out.

    Will someone please explain Bush's economic policy to me?

    I took Econ 101 in college. Why is it that Bush's tax cut's aren't spurring the economy? The Dow is under 10,000 today, the dollar is weak and the jobs numbers are dissappointing all in one day. And its not just one day, over the course of 4 years, let's face it, this economy is nothing like it was in the 90's during the dark days of Clinton when everybody was prosperous.

    So what's the pitch? Why should we give him a second term based on the performance of the economy these four years?
     
  2. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    are corporations making a profit? thats all that matters to pro-business politicians.
     
  3. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    First of all presidents have very little to do with the economy. With that said what Bush has done to effect it is not much.

    The three things that come to mind are the tax cut, increased spending and the steel tarriffs.

    The tax cut was approximately 1% spread out over 10 years. That is so small and spread out over such a large time period that it really does not effect things.

    Spending has increased drastically since he took office. Some of it is security related, but alot is non security related. And regardless of where it is being spent, government spending is a drain on the economy (despite what they taught you about FDR's new deal in history class). Government speding means either more taxes later or inflation later. Neither are good for investment and the economy and also negate any effect that a small tax cut will have.

    The steel tarrif was thankfully removed after enough lobbying and after Bush thought that he got all the votes out of it he could from W virginia, Ohio, and PA. But the tarriff like any protectionist measure helps one industry at the expense of the rest of the economy. I think in this particular case there was 1 steel industry worker that was helped for every 14 workers in industries that required steel that was being hurt, and then if you include the number of consumers that paid higher prices for appliances, and cars, and other products with steel in them, you really begin to see the scope of damage the tarriff caused.

    Bush is not a fiscal conservative. But do not let that fool you into think Kerry is the answer and will help the economy. He is not a fiscal conservative either.

    Badnarik would remove barriers to trade such as tarriffs, remove the IRS and replace it with nothing, and cut spending by elliminating unconstitutional departments like the department of education.

    Travis
     
  4. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    He'd rather have a global black market instead. Would he open up the conflict diamond trade as well?
     
  5. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    A black market is what you have when you are trading against the wishes of government. Badnarik would do everything he could to elliminate barriers to trade which would mean a smaller black market then we have now.

    As for the diamond trade you are speaking of, Badnarik is against slavery.

    Travis
     
  6. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    so what badnarik is really advocating is that our government endorse black market trade.
     
  7. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    If that is what you want to take from Badnariks free trade position.

    He supports the right for people to freely trade with one another. If another country wants to infringe on the rights of their citizens to trade freely things such as corn, that is out of the hands of the US government. Badnarik would not be advocating that US citizens trade with such a country, but he certainly would not get in the way of such trade.

    It is really quite simple... badnarik will not interfere with free trade. If you feel this is a bad thing, so be it. I personally like free trade.

    If you think trading with people living under and oppressed regime is a bad thing, so be it. I see it as a good thing to give oppressed people things they need, and quite frankly do not care what their dictators have to say about it. I would be much happier if my government did not stop me from trading with other people even if their government does not like it.

    You keep saying black market as if it is an inherantly bad thing. It is not. A black market is simple a free market under an oppressive regime. In the soviet union there was a black market for food, toilet paper, cars, etc... were the people wrong to buy food for their family on the black market? no, of course not.

    Travis

    Travis
     
  8. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    Ok, given your examples of what badnarik thinks free trade is, say I have a gold and diamond company. I want to import diamonds from sierra leone because I can get them cheap. Most of the free world won't deal with sierra leone diamonds because they are conflict diamonds but that shouldn't stop me from buying them because its 'free trade'.

    Say also, that my automatic firearms distribution corporation has a great deal set up with a couple of dozen people in chechnya. Should I sell to them even though their current government forbids automatic weapons ownership by civilians? Will my government protect me when the deal is found out?

    I also think it would be a wonderful opportunity for the people in afghanistan to be able to harvest their poppy's so I can buy them. They would make lovely floral decorations in many households in the US and I could make a bundle of money, my government getting a good tax payment from me of course.
     
  9. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    Good question, I am not sure. But my guess is that things would not change much from the status quo which is of course that those diamonds are still sold as legit in the US and europe.

    Are you asking whether Badnarik would allow people to sell guns? Yes, he would. Would he protect americans citizens that get in trouble for breaking the law in a foreign country, no probably not. If you wanted to sell guns in a country that forbid it, you would be doing so at your own risk, not the entire countries risk.

    Well since Badnarik would end the drug war and legalize drugs, yes you could buy poppies from afghan farmers if you want. You might find that not nearly would be growing it though since it would not be nearly as profitable anymore.

    But to bring the discussion back to the original topic, Badnarik would open the economy by freeing up trade reducing government spending, and reducing taxes drastically (imagine NO IRS!!!)

    Yet you are worried about drug deals with afghanistan (which happen now in a black market), diamond deals with sierra leone (which happen now in a black market) and weapon deals with Chechnya (which happen now in a black market). Badnarik would not stop any of these things from happening, but he would bring it into the public light. The people profiting from drugs and gun deals would be legitimate businessmen rather than currupt gangsters and terrorists. Who would you rather see getting all the profits from these trades? Businessmen or terrorists and gangsters? And considering these trades are going to happen regardless of what the government says about them, why would you want to make the problems worse by restricting our economy with things like tarriffs, trade bans, high government spending, and high taxes?

    Travis
     

Share This Page