Economics

[uscitizen]

Congress IS the ultimate union.

 

[masoric]

I'm a big Milton Friedman fan. He had a very interesting concept about how money is spent in general, and the best ways to spend it.

1) A person spends their own money on themselves: they are very careful about how much they spend, and they are very careful about the value they receive in return for their spending.

2) A person spends their own money on someone else: they are very careful about how much they spend, but they are much less concerned about the value received in return for the spending.

3) A person spends someone else's money on themselves: They are not so careful about how much they spend, but they make certain they get something great (Like buying lobster dinner on the company credit card)

4) A person spends someone else's money on someone else: They're not so careful about how much they spend, and they're also not very careful about what they get for that money.

Of course ALL government spending falls into the 4th category. It's the least efficient way to spend money. Right now ~25% of GDP falls into this category (despite taking in only ~19% of GDP in tax revenues).

It's so logical at such a fundamental level that it shouldn't be any surprise at all that so many governments are in debt trouble and so many economies are flat.

 

[Vidi]

Some facts about the economy:

• The U.S. actually leads the world in manufacturing. Yes, you read that correctly. We produce 21 percent of global manufactured products, while China comes after at 15 percent. According ot the National Association of Manufacturers, “manufacturing supports an estimated 17 million jobs in the U.S.—about one in six private sector jobs.”
  
  
• Big manufacturers are building new plants here. BMW is adding 300 new jobs to its South Carolina plant this year, and Airbus recently announced it will employ 1,000 at a new plant in Alabama. (Both South Carolina and Alabama are right-to-work states, meaning that workers aren’t forced to join unions.)
  
  
• Multinational corporations still employ more Americans. U.S.-based multinational corporations employ 22.9 million Americans—more than twice as many people as they employ in China, Mexico, and all other countries combined.
  
  
• There is no “giant sucking sound” of jobs and money fleeing the United States. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the total value of foreign investment in the United States exceeds the value of U.S. investments in other countries by more than $4 trillion. Foreign-owned multinational corporations employ 5.5 million people in the United States.
  
  
• “Insourced” businesses are a tremendous boon for the U.S. economy. “Insourced” jobs—jobs brought to America by foreign-based companies—account for nearly 5 percent of private-sector employment. These businesses buy more than $1.8 trillion in goods and services from local suppliers and small businesses in the areas where they locate.
  
  
• Hong Kong, ranked No. 1 in the Index, has an economy that has been growing at 7 percent. That’s astounding. In contrast, U.S. GDP growth in the first quarter of 2012 was a paltry 1.9 percent. There are several reasons why Hong Kong is No. 1 and America is No. 10. Hong Kong’s top corporate tax rate is only 16.5%, compared to the U.S. rate of 35%. Hong Kong’s trade regime is one of the world’s most competitive and efficient, with a zero tariff rate. And its regulatory environment is “highly supportive of business efficiency.”

The Truth About ‘Outsourcing’ and the Real Fix for Our Economy | myHeritage

Morning Bell: Let's Be Honest About Outsourcing

You do realize your source is the UBER Right Wing Heritage Foundation right?

http://www.heritage.org/about/board-of-trustees

http://www.heritage.org/about/staff?positions="Senior+Management"&srmgt=true

Ultra right wing multinational businessmen telling you theres no sucking sound, dont worry, go about your business, nothing to see here.

And we should take their word for it?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2011/04/19/jobs-at-big-u-s-firms-move-overseas/
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129553&page=1
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-17-Multinationals-send-jobs-overseas_n.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june04/jobs_3-11.html
http://mystateline.com/fulltext-news?nxd_id=342462
http://www.halfsigma.com/2010/09/tech-jobs-moving-overseas.html

the above links say no.

 

[P@triot]

Presumably, you're implying the US should lower its tax rate.

Why?

US firms are sitting on $2T of cash they won't invest. Why should we give them more?

Instead, we should impose a surplus capital tax. Make them spend the money or give it to the government so the government can spend it.

Do you not see the irony in what you just said? If I'm a business owner and I'm reading your posts that are demonizing me and looking to punish me, am I going to spend or am I going to sit on my money for fear that you are going to take as much of it in the future as possible? I just can't believe the left doesn't see the irony in their own philosophy. If you want business to do something for you, demonzing them and threatening them is a bad idea. Ever hear the phrase "you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar"?

Don't take this as a personal attack. It isn't. This is simply a matter of public policy.

An economy is spending. When the private sector doesn't spend, the public sector must. That spending has to be funded and that means taxes or borrowing. The debt already is a problem, so it'll have to be taxes. But whom shall we tax? The unemployed and the barely surviving (as the Romney-Ryan budget would do) or the high earners (including corporations?)

The answer should be obvious.

" When the private sector doesn't spend, the public sector must." - more Communism from Joe Steel. Seriously Joe, admitting you're a Communist is step #1.

The fact is, only a Communist believes they have the right to force somebody to spend. And only a Communist believes that the "public sector must spend". That's just pure Communist ignorance. The public sector's ONLY focus should be fiscally responsible, spending ONLY on the bare necessities. The only reason the private sector doesn't spend is because of the government communist meddling that you keep advocating. Seriously, Cuba is waiting for you Joe. Go enjoy your Communism first-hand...

 

[uscitizen]

The U.S. actually leads the world in manufacturing. Yes, you read that correctly. We produce 21 percent of global manufactured products, while China comes after at 15 percent. According ot the National Association of Manufacturers, “manufacturing supports an estimated 17 million jobs in the U.S.—about one in six private sector jobs.”

At the end of WW2 we led the world with over 50% of manufacturing.

 

[P@triot]

1. Consumers need to be more motived to buying made in USA products.

Consumer need to be FREE to do as they see fit. So tired of the liberal mantra of centralized planning and control (ie Communism)

2. Dollar devaluation spurs exports.

Dollar devaluation spurs misery and failure (God almighty where do you get your insane ideas about economics?!?!)

3. Lower labor costs lowers trade imbalance.

Get both government and unions the hell out of the equation. The free market will perfectly and flawlessly balance itself - especially with wages. A person will be paid exactly what they are worth when unions, regulations, etc. stop mucking everything up.

4. Special tax on all goods coming from US firms overseas exportation shipping to USA.

Of course - the only liberal solution is more taxes. Here's an idea - how about earth shattering tax breaks for businesses that keep jobs here in the US? The reason we outsource is because liberals have imposed the highest corporate tax rate in the WORLD and that is strangling our businesses. Offer businesses a 98% tax break for jobs kept here and I guarantee you that 100% of the jobs would stay here. Obviously, that's an extreme example but it's necessary to illustrate to the liberals who can't think beyond communism and control policies.

 

[uscitizen]

1. Consumers need to be more motived to buying made in USA products.

Consumer need to be FREE to do as they see fit. So tired of the liberal mantra of centralized planning and control (ie Communism)

2. Dollar devaluation spurs exports.

Dollar devaluation spurs misery and failure (God almighty where do you get your insane ideas about economics?!?!)

3. Lower labor costs lowers trade imbalance.

Get both government and unions the hell out of the equation. The free market will perfectly and flawlessly balance itself - especially with wages. A person will be paid exactly what they are worth when unions, regulations, etc. stop mucking everything up.

4. Special tax on all goods coming from US firms overseas exportation shipping to USA.

Of course - the only liberal solution is more taxes. Here's an idea - how about earth shattering tax breaks for businesses that keep jobs here in the US? The reason we outsource is because liberals have imposed the highest corporate tax rate in the WORLD and that is strangling our businesses. Offer businesses a 98% tax break for jobs kept here and I guarantee you that 100% of the jobs would stay here. Obviously, that's an extreme example but it's necessary to illustrate to the liberals who can't think beyond communism and control policies.

bullshit! the main reason we offshore jobs is because of cheaper labor costs.

 

[P@triot]

bullshit! the main reason we offshore jobs is because of cheaper labor costs.

Which is necessary because of the taxes and regulation costs that are strangling our businesses.

 

[uscitizen]

bullshit! the main reason we offshore jobs is because of cheaper labor costs.

Which is necessary because of the taxes and regulation costs that are strangling our businesses.

Look at a business is their labor costs or their regulation compliance and taxes higher?

Labor was about 70% of the costs in my business.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

bullshit! the main reason we offshore jobs is because of cheaper labor costs.

Which is necessary because of the taxes and regulation costs that are strangling our businesses.

Strangling our business? Which business? Mom and pop/Small business? They wouldn't be the ones outsourcing; they're not big enough to need to do it. The truth is that outsourcing is done for one reason: saving money on labor. I have real-world experience in management at a company that chose to outsource about 45 jobs of an entry level/data entry persuasion simply because it was GOBS cheaper than paying Americans minimum wage.

Businesses that outsource aren't being strangled. They're just looking to squeeze more out of their margins.

 

[Vidi]

Do you not see the irony in what you just said? If I'm a business owner and I'm reading your posts that are demonizing me and looking to punish me, am I going to spend or am I going to sit on my money for fear that you are going to take as much of it in the future as possible? I just can't believe the left doesn't see the irony in their own philosophy. If you want business to do something for you, demonzing them and threatening them is a bad idea. Ever hear the phrase "you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar"?

Don't take this as a personal attack. It isn't. This is simply a matter of public policy.

An economy is spending. When the private sector doesn't spend, the public sector must. That spending has to be funded and that means taxes or borrowing. The debt already is a problem, so it'll have to be taxes. But whom shall we tax? The unemployed and the barely surviving (as the Romney-Ryan budget would do) or the high earners (including corporations?)

The answer should be obvious.

" When the private sector doesn't spend, the public sector must." - more Communism from Joe Steel. Seriously Joe, admitting you're a Communist is step #1.

The fact is, only a Communist believes they have the right to force somebody to spend. And only a Communist believes that the "public sector must spend". That's just pure Communist ignorance. The public sector's ONLY focus should be fiscally responsible, spending ONLY on the bare necessities. The only reason the private sector doesn't spend is because of the government communist meddling that you keep advocating. Seriously, Cuba is waiting for you Joe. Go enjoy your Communism first-hand...

No, Rott, I'm sorry to say but your assessment of economics shows very little actual understanding of it. iTunes U has some very helpful economics lectures that would benefit you greatly. It's college level lectures that we can access for free. I strongly urge you to give a few a listen. They would vastly improve your understanding of economic principle.

Please take this post in the nature it was intended, not as an attack, but in the interests of advice and assistance.

 

[Vidi]

bullshit! the main reason we offshore jobs is because of cheaper labor costs.

Which is necessary because of the taxes and regulation costs that are strangling our businesses.

No. Taxes and regulation are not the issue. The issue is globalization. We could remove EVERY regulation and EVERY tax and in the end, they'll still outsource because it's cheaper to pay a guy in Thailand 10 cents an hour than a guy in Chicago $20 dollars an hour.

 

[Againsheila]

Hong Kong, ranked No. 1 in the Index, has an economy that has been growing at 7 percent. That’s astounding. In contrast, U.S. GDP growth in the first quarter of 2012 was a paltry 1.9 percent. There are several reasons why Hong Kong is No. 1 and America is No. 10. Hong Kong’s top corporate tax rate is only 16.5%, compared to the U.S. rate of 35%. Hong Kong’s trade regime is one of the world’s most competitive and efficient, with a zero tariff rate. And its regulatory environment is “highly supportive of business efficiency.”

Presumably, you're implying the US should lower its tax rate.

Why?

US firms are sitting on $2T of cash they won't invest. Why should we give them more?

Instead, we should impose a surplus capital tax. Make them spend the money or give it to the government.

Who are you or anyone to "make them spend money"? It's their money, they earned it, it's their's to do with as they see fit.

You're entire statement is pure, unadulterated Communism. If you love that so much, move to Russia or Cuba. America is never going to cave to Communism/Marxism/Socialism.

You want to see them spend money or invest? Then stop with policies that are killing them and create policies that encourage and reward growth/spending/investment.

Check out the Gallo wine bill in which taxpayers paid $millions to advertise wine overseas. I think I'd rather go with socialism than fascism, which is what we have now.

I simply don't believe your corporate tax rate. Many corporations are not paying any taxes and I really don't think your source took into account corporate welfare.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Presumably, you're implying the US should lower its tax rate.

Why?

US firms are sitting on $2T of cash they won't invest. Why should we give them more?

Instead, we should impose a surplus capital tax. Make them spend the money or give it to the government.

Who are you or anyone to "make them spend money"? It's their money, they earned it, it's their's to do with as they see fit.

You're entire statement is pure, unadulterated Communism. If you love that so much, move to Russia or Cuba. America is never going to cave to Communism/Marxism/Socialism.

You want to see them spend money or invest? Then stop with policies that are killing them and create policies that encourage and reward growth/spending/investment.

Check out the Gallo wine bill in which taxpayers paid $millions to advertise wine overseas. I think I'd rather go with socialism than fascism, which is what we have now.

I simply don't believe your corporate tax rate. Many corporations are not paying any taxes and I really don't think your source took into account corporate welfare.

Yes. And there are seriously dozens of reports on just how little corporations actually pay in taxes in this country. Exxon Mobil is one of the chief offenders. We also spend WAY more on Corporate Welfare then we do on Welfare for actual people.

Corporate Welfare vs. Social Welfare Statistics

 

[P@triot]

Don't take this as a personal attack. It isn't. This is simply a matter of public policy.

An economy is spending. When the private sector doesn't spend, the public sector must. That spending has to be funded and that means taxes or borrowing. The debt already is a problem, so it'll have to be taxes. But whom shall we tax? The unemployed and the barely surviving (as the Romney-Ryan budget would do) or the high earners (including corporations?)

The answer should be obvious.

" When the private sector doesn't spend, the public sector must." - more Communism from Joe Steel. Seriously Joe, admitting you're a Communist is step #1.

The fact is, only a Communist believes they have the right to force somebody to spend. And only a Communist believes that the "public sector must spend". That's just pure Communist ignorance. The public sector's ONLY focus should be fiscally responsible, spending ONLY on the bare necessities. The only reason the private sector doesn't spend is because of the government communist meddling that you keep advocating. Seriously, Cuba is waiting for you Joe. Go enjoy your Communism first-hand...

No, Rott, I'm sorry to say but your assessment of economics shows very little actual understanding of it. iTunes U has some very helpful economics lectures that would benefit you greatly. It's college level lectures that we can access for free. I strongly urge you to give a few a listen. They would vastly improve your understanding of economic principle.

Please take this post in the nature it was intended, not as an attack, but in the interests of advice and assistance.

Sorry, but listening to pro-communist radical left-wing libreal "professors" talk about economics when they've never created a job in their whole damn miserable marxist lives is not going to give me any insight into economics.

Bill Ayers was an admitted terrorist who set off bombs and is now a college "professor". Enough said...

 

[P@triot]

“During this time in [President] Reagan’s first term, our economy was growing at six percent … unemployment was dropping like a rock from double-digits under Carter. We were creating 600,000 jobs a month,” he said.

“And when Reagan was done, we had created over 20 million news job; economic growth for 25 years like the nation had not seen in a century. So, yeah,” Limbaugh continued, “that’s what Obama says we can’t go back to.”

‘Ideological Straitjacket’: Limbaugh Goes After Obama For Being a ‘Close-Minded Economic Bigot’ | TheBlaze.com

 

[Listening]

Don't take this as a personal attack. It isn't. This is simply a matter of public policy.

An economy is spending. When the private sector doesn't spend, the public sector must. That spending has to be funded and that means taxes or borrowing. The debt already is a problem, so it'll have to be taxes. But whom shall we tax? The unemployed and the barely surviving (as the Romney-Ryan budget would do) or the high earners (including corporations?)

The answer should be obvious.

" When the private sector doesn't spend, the public sector must." - more Communism from Joe Steel. Seriously Joe, admitting you're a Communist is step #1.

The fact is, only a Communist believes they have the right to force somebody to spend. And only a Communist believes that the "public sector must spend". That's just pure Communist ignorance. The public sector's ONLY focus should be fiscally responsible, spending ONLY on the bare necessities. The only reason the private sector doesn't spend is because of the government communist meddling that you keep advocating. Seriously, Cuba is waiting for you Joe. Go enjoy your Communism first-hand...

No, Rott, I'm sorry to say but your assessment of economics shows very little actual understanding of it. iTunes U has some very helpful economics lectures that would benefit you greatly. It's college level lectures that we can access for free. I strongly urge you to give a few a listen. They would vastly improve your understanding of economic principle.

Please take this post in the nature it was intended, not as an attack, but in the interests of advice and assistance.

Maybe you could, at least, try to point out what is wrong.

Just saying it so, does not make it so.