A simple economic lesson... raise capital gains to 43% will do what?

[hadit]

When jobs are being sent overseas because a manufacturer does not want to pay the prevailing wages here, all economic "theories" go out the window.

A declining manufacturer base with an increased population combined with massive pumping of the markets does not work.

Actually, sending jobs overseas IS pure economic theory, because the employer is seeing a way to reduce his costs. If he can save $5 on every widget he produces while his competitors don't to pay American workers, who's going to be able to undercut the competition's prices and corner the market? IOW, if you want jobs to stay in the country, you're going to have to make it illegal to outsource, and that is pure protectionism. Prices for everything would go sky high.

 

[Rigby5]

Really? Awesome. So the whole we have to Pass TARP and give the Treasury a Trillion Dollars to save the economy of the world was just a figment of my imagination? Awesome.

{...
President George W. Bush signed the bill into law within hours of its congressional enactment, creating the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to purchase failing bank assets. On Monday, October 6, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped more than 700 points and fell below 10,000 for the first time in four years.
...}

I am not sure, but it strikes me that TARP was to bail out companies like GM and Chrysler, and to help banks by buying their investment holdings, but not to directly bail out Wall St. Wall St. was aided by the bail out, but only indirectly, I think?

 

[pknopp]

Actually, sending jobs overseas IS pure economic theory, because the employer is seeing a way to reduce his costs. If he can save $5 on every widget he produces while his competitors don't to pay American workers, who's going to be able to undercut the competition's prices and corner the market? IOW, if you want jobs to stay in the country, you're going to have to make it illegal to outsource, and that is pure protectionism. Prices for everything would go sky high.

And people still have to pay their rent, eat, health care etc.

 

[Rigby5]

Actually, sending jobs overseas IS pure economic theory, because the employer is seeing a way to reduce his costs. If he can save $5 on every widget he produces while his competitors don't to pay American workers, who's going to be able to undercut the competition's prices and corner the market? IOW, if you want jobs to stay in the country, you're going to have to make it illegal to outsource, and that is pure protectionism. Prices for everything would go sky high.

Protectionism is essential.
Offshoring is just incredibly stupid.
Sure you can save 5% by using unprotected workers in unregulated countries, but they are not going to buy your products, and you are depriving those in the US who would buy your products, of the money needed to afford your products.
And in the long run, these unregulated countries will simply take what you have taught them, and run you out of business.
They are unregulated, so there are no copyright protection laws to prevent them from stealing all your technology.
And they will undercut your prices as well.

 

[hadit]

Protectionism is essential.
Offshoring is just incredibly stupid.
Sure you can save 5% by using unprotected workers in unregulated countries, but they are not going to buy your products, and you are depriving those in the US who would buy your products, of the money needed to afford your products.
And in the long run, these unregulated countries will simply take what you have taught them, and run you out of business.
They are unregulated, so there are no copyright protection laws to prevent them from stealing all your technology.
And they will undercut your prices as well.

Then you need to boycott all goods produced overseas and pay only American companies that don't have highly paid CEO's much higher prices to force them to bring all the jobs back here.

 

[jc456]

When jobs are being sent overseas because a manufacturer does not want to pay the prevailing wages here, all economic "theories" go out the window.

A declining manufacturer base with an increased population combined with massive pumping of the markets does not work.

dude, that's exactly why Trump was raising tariffs. It's how you stop that!!!!!! I really wish people would understand that.

 

[jc456]

Wages, like prices, rise and fall on demand, simply because wages are just another price, in this case the price of labor. When there are more workers wanting jobs than available jobs, the price, or wage, drops. Likewise, when demand for a skill drops, so does the wage. At one time, for just one example, a skilled blacksmith could make a good living. How many can do so today? Same with buggy whip makers. OTOH, when there are more available jobs than qualified job seekers, the price, or wage, goes up and the MW doesn't even enter the equation. We're seeing that now, and wages will have to rise higher than what people can get from the taxpayers for doing nothing in order to fill the jobs.

The bottom line is, producers charge prices high enough to cover their costs and provide a profit. When their costs rise, prices do too, and labor is one of those costs. If wages are not rising, look to the causes. Do the jobs require a particular skill set? If not, the wages will not be high. Is the job in an industry that's dying out? People who understand how VHS tapes work or are very good at renting them won't get paid much. I'm in IT, and if I still had only my original skill set, I would have maybe a handful of companies that might hire me, but not many. I've had to constantly re-invent myself to stay current. That's just the way it works. Why should someone expect to get paid the same when they walk in off the street as someone who's been on the job more than a decade?

pknopp what is it you disagree with?

 

[SavannahMann]

{...
President George W. Bush signed the bill into law within hours of its congressional enactment, creating the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to purchase failing bank assets. On Monday, October 6, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped more than 700 points and fell below 10,000 for the first time in four years.
...}

I am not sure, but it strikes me that TARP was to bail out companies like GM and Chrysler, and to help banks by buying their investment holdings, but not to directly bail out Wall St. Wall St. was aided by the bail out, but only indirectly, I think?

Only they didn’t buy any troubled assets. What they did was nationalize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Then they loaned the money to banks and made grants to others to buy troubled brokerages. See Bear Stearns. Or Bank if America which got grants to cover the expected losses from taking over Meryl Lynch.

It is a complicated event. I’ve read books on it. And watched documentaries about it. And to summarize it is impossible.

One thing they really wanted was in TARP. It allowed the Secretary of the Treasury to basically print money. But this is the digital age. And that meant tapping a few keys on the computer.

Here is how that worked. The Federal Reserve asks to borrow $500 billion dollars. The Treasury approves the loan and taps a few keys. Bam there is now $500 billion in the account. The Fed buys T-Bills. Now the Treasury has $500 billion in cash all nice and legal. It did not print the money but it created it just the same. When the loan was decided to come due, you just sold the T-Bills back to the Treasury, which gave you the money to pay off the loan to the Treasury.

In the meantime the Treasury was propping up Wall Street with cash from these miracle loans.

Want to see how wrong it was? Walk down to your local bank. Tell them you want a signature loan to buy stock in the bank. When they decide if they should arrest you for fraud or laugh you out of the bank let me know.

Bear Stearns came with a cash gift. When Lehman went under the potential buyers demanded a similar gift. Paulson said no. Lehman went under. AIG now threatened to go bankrupt. And when they did everyone else was going to. So AIG got cash to cover their losses in Lehman. The policies they had written to Credit Suisse and the rest were paid off when Lehman collapsed.

No Troubled or Toxic assets were ever bought. The Government didn’t want them either.

 

[pknopp]

dude, that's exactly why Trump was raising tariffs. It's how you stop that!!!!!! I really wish people would understand that.

Tariff's are a tax on consumers.

 

[pknopp]

pknopp what is it you disagree with?

You've not read my many replies in this thread?

 

[Rigby5]

Then you need to boycott all goods produced overseas and pay only American companies that don't have highly paid CEO's much higher prices to force them to bring all the jobs back here.

Correct.
It is unpatriotic to buy low priced imports in order to save a few pennies, when you know it is causing harm and won't last because it is badly made.

 

[Rigby5]

Only they didn’t buy any troubled assets. What they did was nationalize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Then they loaned the money to banks and made grants to others to buy troubled brokerages. See Bear Stearns. Or Bank if America which got grants to cover the expected losses from taking over Meryl Lynch.

It is a complicated event. I’ve read books on it. And watched documentaries about it. And to summarize it is impossible.

One thing they really wanted was in TARP. It allowed the Secretary of the Treasury to basically print money. But this is the digital age. And that meant tapping a few keys on the computer.

Here is how that worked. The Federal Reserve asks to borrow $500 billion dollars. The Treasury approves the loan and taps a few keys. Bam there is now $500 billion in the account. The Fed buys T-Bills. Now the Treasury has $500 billion in cash all nice and legal. It did not print the money but it created it just the same. When the loan was decided to come due, you just sold the T-Bills back to the Treasury, which gave you the money to pay off the loan to the Treasury.

In the meantime the Treasury was propping up Wall Street with cash from these miracle loans.

Want to see how wrong it was? Walk down to your local bank. Tell them you want a signature loan to buy stock in the bank. When they decide if they should arrest you for fraud or laugh you out of the bank let me know.

Bear Stearns came with a cash gift. When Lehman went under the potential buyers demanded a similar gift. Paulson said no. Lehman went under. AIG now threatened to go bankrupt. And when they did everyone else was going to. So AIG got cash to cover their losses in Lehman. The policies they had written to Credit Suisse and the rest were paid off when Lehman collapsed.

No Troubled or Toxic assets were ever bought. The Government didn’t want them either.

I have no additional insight, but I thought Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were originally and always public?

 

[JohnDB]

I have no additional insight, but I thought Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were originally and always public?

Created publicly but held privately. Some people lost a lot of money investing in them.

 

[jc456]

Tariff's are a tax on consumers.

nope. It's an import tax paid by the shipper. For fk sake, the price of the product didn't change. So tell me how consumers pay for it?

 

[jc456]

You've not read my many replies in this thread?

well you disagreed with that particular post. I want to know which part you disagreed with. Ain't too hard.

 

[jc456]

nope. It's an import tax paid by the shipper. For fk sake, the price of the product didn't change. So tell me how consumers pay for it?

BTW, if the price of the product eventually goes up because the shipper had to pay the import tax, isn't that the goal to bring jobs back at our salary structure? I still don't get your issue. I wanted jobs, that would achieve that end goal. you're totally confused about the point.

 

[JohnDB]

nope. It's an import tax paid by the shipper. For fk sake, the price of the product didn't change. So tell me how consumers pay for it?

People don't go into business to lose money...
And they don't just eat higher expenses either. They have target margins to hit or else they lose their jobs.

Tariffs are for protection of industry.

Canadian Lumber has a tariff...
But lumber yards are owned by American companies on both sides of the border.

If you can't beat them then buy them. All there is to it.

 

[JohnDB]

There is no tariff on PRC microchips... however the equipment needed to make them only has one source and they have an export prohibition currently.

 

[jc456]

People don't go into business to lose money...
And they don't just eat higher expenses either. They have target margins to hit or else they lose their jobs.

Tariffs are for protection of industry.

Canadian Lumber has a tariff...
But lumber yards are owned by American companies on both sides of the border.

If you can't beat them then buy them. All there is to it.

dude, that is the strategy to bring the jobs back to America. That's the strategy. end the jobs there just like the did here. Made in America. Ever hear of it?

You are in favor of sweatshop and child abuse are you?

 

[jc456]

There is no tariff on PRC microchips... however the equipment needed to make them only has one source and they have an export prohibition currently.

My company was going to congress to find out how they could get a business in the US to make our chips for our products so we are no longer single threaded. I believe the car companies went in with them. Oh my fking god the stupid of demofks continues and continues. They really hate their fellow countryfolk.