Are there any economic beneffits from global corporations ?

[CultureCitizen]

Well, that formula shows that if you make the assumption all else is held equal. The problem as I am pointing out is that all else is not held equal

GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)

You're right as far as you go. The role net exports play in this formula represent a direct drag on US GDP growth; an example of an indirect drag on US GDP can be observed by the effects outsourcing has had on Investment's role in growing US GDP. When major US corporations build factories outside the US, they are also reducing the "I" in the formula.

For twenty years the US and EU ran trade deficits with China of well over $200B per year. By 2012 both developed economies were too weak to sustain China's export dependent growth.

From my perspective, we are currently dealing with a long term structural issue of chronic, global trade imbalances that can not be addressed by continuing to enrich the investor class at the expense of the majority.

Because of course the "majority" are not consumers, right? Lower prices don't help the majority? American companies selling more doesn't create jobs? That is where your argument falls apart. Again the irony of your argument is you are actually protecting producers at the expense of consumers, then you conclude the issue are the people who own the producers you are protecting. Think about it...

Now , think about this, what good is that for the majority if basic goods ( housing, food, healthcare, education) are expensive , while the rest of the goods are becoming cheaper ( ipads, iphones, computers, office supplies ) ?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why would Mexicans emigrate if NAFTA had created good paying jobs ?

Asking questions is smart. Its what Perry Mason and Socrates did. When the truth matters our society uses the Socratic method.

Dear, when the auto was invented it displaced millions many of whom emigrated. When you switch to free trade millions are displaced in the name of progress and many emigrate. This is second grade econ and spam-like since that is all that is needed against a liberal. A liberal is someone not bright enough to be a conservative.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now , think about this, what good is that for the majority if basic goods ( housing, food, healthcare, education) are expensive , while the rest of the goods are becoming cheaper ( ipads, iphones, computers, office supplies ) ?

1) food is always getting cheaper that's how we got from 96% farmers to 1% farmers. Education/health could be 80% less with capitalism. Housing is far cheaper on a per square basis thanks to capitalist innovations and economies of scale..

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

From my perspective, we are currently dealing with a long term structural issue of chronic, global trade imbalances.

No trade imbalances are possible with capitalism. China gets US dollars from Walmart shoppers that must be respent in the US. A US dollar is worth, to anyone who holds it, only what it can buy in America.

 

[kaz]

Well, that formula shows that if you make the assumption all else is held equal. The problem as I am pointing out is that all else is not held equal

GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)

You're right as far as you go. The role net exports play in this formula represent a direct drag on US GDP growth; an example of an indirect drag on US GDP can be observed by the effects outsourcing has had on Investment's role in growing US GDP. When major US corporations build factories outside the US, they are also reducing the "I" in the formula.

For twenty years the US and EU ran trade deficits with China of well over $200B per year. By 2012 both developed economies were too weak to sustain China's export dependent growth.

From my perspective, we are currently dealing with a long term structural issue of chronic, global trade imbalances that can not be addressed by continuing to enrich the investor class at the expense of the majority.

Because of course the "majority" are not consumers, right? Lower prices don't help the majority? American companies selling more doesn't create jobs? That is where your argument falls apart. Again the irony of your argument is you are actually protecting producers at the expense of consumers, then you conclude the issue are the people who own the producers you are protecting. Think about it...

Now , think about this, what good is that for the majority if basic goods ( housing, food, healthcare, education) are expensive , while the rest of the goods are becoming cheaper ( ipads, iphones, computers, office supplies ) ?

Maybe you could think about my point rather than ignoring it and saying to think about yours?

Housing: Government inflates costs by providing endless cheap money and tax writeoffs which are less useful for the masses than those of us at the higher income levels

Food: Not sure where you get this cost is "expensive." Wow, we have cheap food in this country compared to the rest of the world and history. And that's again with government inflating costs with farm subsidies. Yes, they inflate costs for society because they encourage inefficient production

Healthcare: LOL, free markets have zero to do with healthcare, it's all about government regulations

Education: Again, government is creating a cost bubble by providing endless cheap money

Interesting you picked four of the most highly government controlled industries to criticize free markets and blew off the cheapest industries that are actually mostly free markets

 

[CultureCitizen]

From my perspective, we are currently dealing with a long term structural issue of chronic, global trade imbalances.

No trade imbalances are possible with capitalism. China gets US dollars from Walmart shoppers that must be respent in the US. A US dollar is worth, to anyone who holds it, only what it can buy in America.

Ed, that is true only IN-THE-LONG-RUN !!!
Why else do you think China has 4 Trillion USD in reserves and is US main lender.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Maybe you could think about my point rather than ignoring it and saying to think about yours?

Housing: Government inflates costs by providing endless cheap money and tax writeoffs which are less useful for the masses than those of us at the higher income levels

Food: Not sure where you get this cost is "expensive." Wow, we have cheap food in this country compared to the rest of the world and history. And that's again with government inflating costs with farm subsidies. Yes, they inflate costs for society because they encourage inefficient production

Healthcare: LOL, free markets have zero to do with healthcare, it's all about government regulations

Education: Again, government is creating a cost bubble by providing endless cheap money

Interesting you picked four of the most highly government controlled industries to criticize free markets and blew off the cheapest industries that are actually mostly free markets

Kaz,
I picked up the basic goods and services, not according to the degree of controll of the government.
I agree with you in housing and partially in education.
Fruits and vegetables are expensive in the US, if you have ever gone to SA you'll see a huge price difference.
Healthcare : the US is the worst case scenario , the worst combination of private greed with government intervention. Every other developed country has a cheaper healthcare ... unless you need a lung or heart transplant, in which case the US is the right place to be.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe tax revenue should always be one fiscal consideration. The other is more efficient use of resources.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ed, that is true only IN-THE-LONG-RUN !!!
.

100% stupid as alway. Who knows what the short run or long run is. America holds 80% of the latest medical patents and probably 50% of all patents and so has been sucking away jobs and currency from other countries forever. Were we supposed to ban the auto or impede the development thereof because in the short run the horse industry went bankrupt! See why we are 100% positive liberalism is pure ignorance.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why else do you think China has 4 Trillion USD in reserves and is US main lender.

1) liberal unions, taxes, deficits, schools, families, unemployment comp, disability entitlements.

For example, if we had no liberal deficits China would have to buy our stuff not our debt. See why we say 100% stupid. Is any other conclusion possible?

 

[georgephillip]

Because of course the "majority" are not consumers, right? Lower prices don't help the majority? American companies selling more doesn't create jobs?

Consumers are represented by the "C" in GDP = C + I + G + (X-M). 70% of US GDP comes from consumers, some of whom saw 50,000 US factories close and 5,000,000 US jobs disappear during the first decade of China's membership in the WTO; lower prices for goods American companies produced by creating jobs in China is a race to the bottom for the majority of Americans.

 

[georgephillip]

For example, if we had no liberal deficits China would have to buy our stuff not our debt

What's a "liberal deficit", and how could the Chinese afford to "buy our stuff" without YOUR credit cards.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Why else do you think China has 4 Trillion USD in reserves and is US main lender.

1) liberal unions, taxes, deficits, schools, families, unemployment comp, disability entitlements.

For example, if we had no liberal deficits China would have to buy our stuff not our debt. See why we say 100% stupid. Is any other conclusion possible?

Ed. Stop the spambot.

"No trade imbalances are possible with capitalism. China gets US dollars from Walmart shoppers that must be respent in the US. A US dollar is worth, to anyone who holds it, only what it can buy in America."

Those 4 trillion mean that a trade imbalance is posible in the short run.
It is only in the long run ( when the US dollar stops being the reserve currency) will the trade imbalance be restored, meanwhile the US can print dollars, export its inflation and mostly ignore its debt.

 

[kaz]

Because of course the "majority" are not consumers, right? Lower prices don't help the majority? American companies selling more doesn't create jobs?

Consumers are represented by the "C" in GDP = C + I + G + (X-M). 70% of US GDP comes from consumers, some of whom saw 50,000 US factories close and 5,000,000 US jobs disappear during the first decade of China's membership in the WTO; lower prices for goods American companies produced by creating jobs in China is a race to the bottom for the majority of Americans.

You didn't address my point.

In the end, 100% of the GDP is driven by consumers. Investment, Government, Imports and Exports have no other end purpose except consumers.

So again, you are ignoring that consumers directly benefit from lower prices. You are arguing that we should increase prices to ... help ... consumers. Say what? Thanks, I could do without your ... help. and you are saying consumers paying less for one thing and having more money to buy other things won't help them either and it won't create jobs. It's ridiculous

 

[danielpalos]

there are always macroeconomic benefits to microeconomic ventures of sufficient scale.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Those 4 trillion mean that a trade imbalance is posible in the short run.
.

yes dear, when Apple invents the Iphone or Ford the car it creates tremendous imbalances in the short run. Do you want to make progress illegal to avoid short term imbalances?? See why we say pure ignorance??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is only in the long run ( when the US dollar stops being the reserve currency) will the trade imbalance be restored,

dear, China can't buy our liberal deficit if we make deficits illegal as Republicans have always wanted, Further if we eliminate unions and corporate taxes the trade imbalances would disappear.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

meanwhile the US can print dollars, export its inflation and mostly ignore its debt.

of course thats 100% illiterate and liberal. Who wants to hold inflated currency when it is getting less valuable all the time. OUr currency only has value if the Fed does not inflate it.
Econ 101. I do realize I'm talking to a loon who wants to ban Toyota!!

 

[CultureCitizen]

Those 4 trillion mean that a trade imbalance is posible in the short run.
.

yes dear, when Apple invents the Iphone or Ford the car it creates tremendous imbalances in the short run. Do you want to make progress illegal to avoid short term imbalances?? See why we say pure ignorance??

No such thing, just clarifying the fact that in the short-run a country can have an imbalance.
And it is in the long-run that the zero balance applies.
This balance thing does not really apply to the US ( let's say the long-run is an very long-run) , because the USD is the reserve country. Other countries are more carefull with their trade balances , because they can run out of reserve currency, not so the US , because the FED can allways print more dollars or make them appear magically through QE.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, just clarifying the fact that in the short-run a country can have an imbalance.
.

too stupid did anyone in the entire world ever disagree?????????? SLow??????????????