Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Toddsterpatriot]

Their auditors beg to differ.

319 Representatives say it ain't so

‘Audit the Fed’ is back

This week, Representative Paul Broun of Georgia introduced an “Audit the Fed” bill that is identical to Ron Paul’s bill, H.R. 459, which passed the House last year 327-98. The original bill, which carried 319 cosponsors and enjoyed widespread public support according to polls, was killed in the Senate. There’s little reason to believe that it will avoid a similar fate this session."

.

Dumb Congressmen? That's a shock.

 

[Bombur]

They are buying USDs. That is their currency manipulation and it is not comparable to the US printing money.

I am not suggesting we engage in protectionism, I am suggesting that China should stop engaging in protectionism.

Imbalanced trade most definitely hurts our labor market. I don't think the Chinese practice of currency manipulation will end well for China either. The best solution to the problem IMO is rising wages in China.

Buying USD is not manipulation. Many many countries buy USD.
This surprising chart shows which countries own the most U.S. debt
Japan has over $1 Trillion in USD. Are they engaged in manipulation? The European Union, owns nearly a trillion in USD. Are they engaged in manipulation?

The majority of countries around the world, have some holdings of USD, and when you compare that relative to their respective GDPs, they are all taking a significant amount.

Would you suggest the entire planet is manipulating their currency? In which case, why focus on China?

Nor can you "stop china" from engaging in protectionism. Nor should we.

No, it does not hurt our labor markets. I'm sorry, you are just flat out wrong on this.

There is ZERO evidence that trade imbalance hurt our labor markets.

Look.... it's not there. During the early to late 90s, the economy was what you would call good. Unemployment dropped almost continuously until 2001, and all during that time, the trade imbalance was increasing.

Then in 2001, the trade imbalance decline, and unemployment increased.

From 2003 to 2008, the unemployment rate dropped, while during that same time, the trade imbalance increased.

Then in 2008, the trade imbalance declined again, and unemployment went up.

So let's review. When unemployment is low, the trade imbalance is high. When the unemployment his high, the trade imbalance, is low.

This is the exactly opposite of what you are claiming.

Your statement suggests that unemployment should go up, when the trade imbalance goes up, and should go down, when the imbalance goes down.

That is not happening, and has never happened, and there's no.... as in ZERO, support for that claim. None whatsoever.

Now if you have some evidence to support your claims, give it. You would be the first to even try in the last 10 years I've been asking for it. You'd be a record holder in my book.

But for me, I've looked for evidence to support your position, because I actually used to be a protectionist myself. I believed we had to protect ourselves from bad trade. But I did something amazing... I actually looked for real evidence to support my views, and found the opposite. I haven't found anything in 10 years, to suggest what you say is true.

OH.... and by the way.... Notice also that our trade imbalance with China specifically, is a very small part of the total trade imbalance. Again, focusing on China, proves to me that this is merely the Government attempting to shift blame. China was not, and is not, the majority of our trade imbalance. Focusing on China is just as safe excuse. The real source of our economic problems, is bad socialistic policies that is harming our economy. China has nothing to do with it.

China made up almost half of our trade imbalance in 2013. Not only do they represent the biggest trade imbalance by far the ratio of imports to exports is the worst of any major trading partner by far.

Yes Germany also uses capital flows to ensure a trade balance they want. So has Japan. It is not a huge surprise that Japan has the problems they have now considering how they grew their economy in the past. They can't manipulate the USD forever and neither can China.

As for the employment figures, I wouldn't expect a direct impact like that. Those numbers change the way they do because imports are based on demand and demand goes up and down with the economic cycle (ie unemployment). The problems with the trade imbalance can be seen with the stagnation of wages in the US.

The idea that it is our socialists policies is ridiculous. If anything US labor would be more competitive with UHC.

 

[Contumacious]

Their auditors beg to differ.

319 Representatives say it ain't so

‘Audit the Fed’ is back

This week, Representative Paul Broun of Georgia introduced an “Audit the Fed” bill that is identical to Ron Paul’s bill, H.R. 459, which passed the House last year 327-98. The original bill, which carried 319 cosponsors and enjoyed widespread public support according to polls, was killed in the Senate. There’s little reason to believe that it will avoid a similar fate this session."

.

Dumb Congressmen? That's a shock.

70 Percent of Americans Favor Auditing the Federal Reserve

Emily Ekins|Sep. 27, 2012 1:40 pm


Despite increasing interest in the Federal Reserve’s actions since the 2008 financial crisis, few polls have asked Americans about auditing the nation’s central bank. Consequently, the Reason-Rupe September Pollasked Americans if they would favor or oppose a law that would allow Congress to conduct an annual internal review of the Federal Reserve, 70 percent favor and 21 percent oppose.

In fact, auditing the Federal Reserve is one of the few things that all partisan can agree, although Republicans are more amplified than Democrats. Sixty-five percent of Democrats, 78 percent of Republicans, and 70 percent of Independents favor a Federal Reserve audit."

.

 

[Contumacious]

Federal Banking Agency Audit Act enacted in 1978 as Public Law 95-320 and Section 31 USC 714 of U.S. Code establish that the Federal Reserve may be audited by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).[59] The GAO has authority to audit check-processing, currency storage and shipments, and some regulatory and bank examination functions, however there are restrictions to what the GAO may in fact audit. Audits of the Reserve Board and Federal Reserve banks may not include:

transactions for or with a foreign central bank or government, or nonprivate international financing organization;
deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters;
transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or
a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items (1), (2), or (3).[60][61]”

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

319 Representatives say it ain't so

‘Audit the Fed’ is back

This week, Representative Paul Broun of Georgia introduced an “Audit the Fed” bill that is identical to Ron Paul’s bill, H.R. 459, which passed the House last year 327-98. The original bill, which carried 319 cosponsors and enjoyed widespread public support according to polls, was killed in the Senate. There’s little reason to believe that it will avoid a similar fate this session."

.

Dumb Congressmen? That's a shock.

70 Percent of Americans Favor Auditing the Federal Reserve

Emily Ekins|Sep. 27, 2012 1:40 pm


Despite increasing interest in the Federal Reserve’s actions since the 2008 financial crisis, few polls have asked Americans about auditing the nation’s central bank. Consequently, the Reason-Rupe September Pollasked Americans if they would favor or oppose a law that would allow Congress to conduct an annual internal review of the Federal Reserve, 70 percent favor and 21 percent oppose.

In fact, auditing the Federal Reserve is one of the few things that all partisan can agree, although Republicans are more amplified than Democrats. Sixty-five percent of Democrats, 78 percent of Republicans, and 70 percent of Independents favor a Federal Reserve audit."

.

Ignorant Americans pressuring their Congressmen to do something that's already being done. Shocker!

 

[Contumacious]

Dumb Congressmen? That's a shock.

70 Percent of Americans Favor Auditing the Federal Reserve

Emily Ekins|Sep. 27, 2012 1:40 pm


Despite increasing interest in the Federal Reserve’s actions since the 2008 financial crisis, few polls have asked Americans about auditing the nation’s central bank. Consequently, the Reason-Rupe September Pollasked Americans if they would favor or oppose a law that would allow Congress to conduct an annual internal review of the Federal Reserve, 70 percent favor and 21 percent oppose.

In fact, auditing the Federal Reserve is one of the few things that all partisan can agree, although Republicans are more amplified than Democrats. Sixty-five percent of Democrats, 78 percent of Republicans, and 70 percent of Independents favor a Federal Reserve audit."

.

Ignorant Americans pressuring their Congressmen to do something that's already being done. Shocker!

Do you work for the Federal Reserve Board?

Federal Banking Agency Audit Act enacted in 1978 as Public Law 95-320 and Section 31 USC 714 of U.S. Code establish that the Federal Reserve may be audited by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).[59] The GAO has authority to audit check-processing, currency storage and shipments, and some regulatory and bank examination functions, however there are restrictions to what the GAO may in fact audit. [Presently] Audits of the Reserve Board and Federal Reserve banks may not include:

transactions for or with a foreign central bank or government, or nonprivate international financing organization;
deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters;
transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or
a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items (1), (2), or (3).[60][61]”

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

70 Percent of Americans Favor Auditing the Federal Reserve

Emily Ekins|Sep. 27, 2012 1:40 pm


Despite increasing interest in the Federal Reserve’s actions since the 2008 financial crisis, few polls have asked Americans about auditing the nation’s central bank. Consequently, the Reason-Rupe September Pollasked Americans if they would favor or oppose a law that would allow Congress to conduct an annual internal review of the Federal Reserve, 70 percent favor and 21 percent oppose.

In fact, auditing the Federal Reserve is one of the few things that all partisan can agree, although Republicans are more amplified than Democrats. Sixty-five percent of Democrats, 78 percent of Republicans, and 70 percent of Independents favor a Federal Reserve audit."

.

Ignorant Americans pressuring their Congressmen to do something that's already being done. Shocker!

Do you work for the Federal Reserve Board?

Federal Banking Agency Audit Act enacted in 1978 as Public Law 95-320 and Section 31 USC 714 of U.S. Code establish that the Federal Reserve may be audited by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).[59] The GAO has authority to audit check-processing, currency storage and shipments, and some regulatory and bank examination functions, however there are restrictions to what the GAO may in fact audit. [Presently] Audits of the Reserve Board and Federal Reserve banks may not include:

transactions for or with a foreign central bank or government, or nonprivate international financing organization;
deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters;
transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or
a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items (1), (2), or (3).[60][61]”

.

THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED AS THAT TERM IS USED BY ACCOUNTANTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How are their audits different than an audit of a Fortune 500 company?

 

[georgephillip]

Then why does the top 20% get 50% of the overall tax breaks?

Well... is seems rather logical to me that when the bottom 47% don't even pay tax, that more tax breaks likely benefit those who actually pay tax, than those who don't.

Equally, the people who gain more differing types of income, would also likely be able to use tax breaks designed for those types of income.

For example, if there is a tax break for getting stock options.

While some people earning $80,000 a year or less, might get some stock options as compensation, I think it's safe to say very few do.

But those earning over $200K, often get stock options and other such compensation.

Thus logically, only those getting stock options, and alternative compensation, are likely to benefit from tax breaks for such alternative compensation.

Seriously, this is a very obvious answer. I more surprised you would ask such a question.

Where did you get the idea that...?

"Forty-seven percent of Americans don’t pay taxes.

"The most pernicious misconception about people who don’t pay federal income taxes is that they don’t pay any taxes. That oft-heard claim ignores all the other taxes Americans encounter in their daily lives.

"Almost two-thirds of the 47 percent work, for example, and their payroll taxes help finance Social Security and Medicare.

"Accounting for this, the share of households paying no net federal taxes falls to 28 percent."

Five myths about the 47 percent - The Washington Post

There's also federal taxes on gasoline, beer, and cigarettes along with state and local sales and property taxes which are often more regressive than federal income taxes.

 

[georgephillip]

OK cut military spending.

I think it is pretty obvious that UHC is far more efficient than the horrible Frankenstein monster that is our current system. So I agree with the general problem but there is a lot more evidence supporting UHC than there is in the idea the free market will solve our problems.

Making SS optional would just put more pressure on people to make good decisions and save for themselves.

If you want legit conservative ways to improve things look to the corporate tax code. The way it works in the US is relatively unique in that it hurts US production and favors foreign production. Other nation's tax codes do the opposite.

You can also look at Chinese manipulation of our currency. That is not really anything either side is for.

You can also look at regulations from a trade perspective. Having common regulations with Europe and Canada can help facilitate trade.

You mentioned in another post how you thought NAFTA has been beneficial to the US economy (if I remember correctly)

Are you equally impressed with the TPP,particularly its manifest secrecy?

"WikiLeaks has released the draft text of a chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, a multilateral free-trade treaty currently being negotiated in secret by 12 Pacific Rim nations.

"The full agreement covers a number of areas, but the chapter published by WikiLeaks focuses on intellectual property rights, an area of law which has effects in areas as diverse as pharmaceuticals and civil liberties.

"Negotiations for the TPP have included representatives from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, and Brunei, but have been conducted behind closed doors.

"Even members of the US Congress were only allowed to view selected portions of the documents under supervision."

WikiLeaks publishes secret draft chapter of Trans-Pacific Partnership | Media | theguardian.com

I think generally speaking NAFTA worked out ok. Trade deals generally result in very specific pressures on an economy that have to be recognized. I consider our trade relationship with China to have a much higher cost than NAFTA.

I have no problem with trade deals. I have problems with nations like China manipulating our currency. I think we can do a much better job when establishing trade deals but whatever really.

Congress would politicize everything and involving them would just slow things down as every corporation lines up to fill their pockets to fight for them.

Based on what little has been revealed so far about TPP, many of its provisions seem largely unrelated to freedom or trade:

"Evan Greer, campaign manager for Fight for the Future, said: 'The documents revealed by WikiLeaks make it clear why the US government has worked so hard to keep the TPP negotiatons secret.

"'While claiming to champion an open Internet, the Obama administration is quietly pushing for extreme, SOPA-like copyright policies that benefit Hollywood and giant pharmaceutical companies at the expense of our most basic rights to freedom of expression online.'"

WikiLeaks publishes secret draft chapter of Trans-Pacific Partnership | Media | theguardian.com

 

[RKMBrown]

Let me make it simple. $16.5M income, $495k taxes.

Let me make it simple for you. 16.5m gross income, 14.5m sheltered because the 14.5m of the 16.5m is not considered taxable income by the IRS, 2m taxed resulting in .5m taxes. Or you are a liar or criminal that does not report your revenue, such as a drug dealer.

Much like Bill Gates, I'm the principal of multiple trusts which are Nevada corporations, but thanks for playing.

IOW the money is not yours at all and everything you've said has been a lie.

 

[RKMBrown]

I agree that is the case for the majority of the "pension" plan part of SS. The problem is the transfer payment for the low end of the spectrum. I also consider disability and unemployment to be programs that should be funded with a progressive tax.

Yeah no kidding. All libtards want to command the rich to bend over and serve them.

Honestly there is either a case for the 3 programs I talked about or not. I don't really care either way but there is no way they should all rest on the shoulders of the middle class in an age of globalization.

What does globalization have to do with whether or not people take personal responsibility or function as useless parasites?

 

[Redfish]

What has this country become when some Americans actually favor socialism?

Have we forgotten our history?

Have we forgotten the history of the world?

Have we forgotten the constitution?

Has our education system become a socialist indoctrination system?

 

[Bombur]

Yeah no kidding. All libtards want to command the rich to bend over and serve them.

Honestly there is either a case for the 3 programs I talked about or not. I don't really care either way but there is no way they should all rest on the shoulders of the middle class in an age of globalization.

What does globalization have to do with whether or not people take personal responsibility or function as useless parasites?

You just jumped the shark.

 

[Bombur]

You mentioned in another post how you thought NAFTA has been beneficial to the US economy (if I remember correctly)

Are you equally impressed with the TPP,particularly its manifest secrecy?

"WikiLeaks has released the draft text of a chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, a multilateral free-trade treaty currently being negotiated in secret by 12 Pacific Rim nations.

"The full agreement covers a number of areas, but the chapter published by WikiLeaks focuses on intellectual property rights, an area of law which has effects in areas as diverse as pharmaceuticals and civil liberties.

"Negotiations for the TPP have included representatives from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, and Brunei, but have been conducted behind closed doors.

"Even members of the US Congress were only allowed to view selected portions of the documents under supervision."

WikiLeaks publishes secret draft chapter of Trans-Pacific Partnership | Media | theguardian.com

I think generally speaking NAFTA worked out ok. Trade deals generally result in very specific pressures on an economy that have to be recognized. I consider our trade relationship with China to have a much higher cost than NAFTA.

I have no problem with trade deals. I have problems with nations like China manipulating our currency. I think we can do a much better job when establishing trade deals but whatever really.

Congress would politicize everything and involving them would just slow things down as every corporation lines up to fill their pockets to fight for them.

Based on what little has been revealed so far about TPP, many of its provisions seem largely unrelated to freedom or trade:

"Evan Greer, campaign manager for Fight for the Future, said: 'The documents revealed by WikiLeaks make it clear why the US government has worked so hard to keep the TPP negotiatons secret.

"'While claiming to champion an open Internet, the Obama administration is quietly pushing for extreme, SOPA-like copyright policies that benefit Hollywood and giant pharmaceutical companies at the expense of our most basic rights to freedom of expression online.'"

WikiLeaks publishes secret draft chapter of Trans-Pacific Partnership | Media | theguardian.com

Of course the US is fighting for those things. We make them.

 

[Andylusion]

They are buying USDs. That is their currency manipulation and it is not comparable to the US printing money.

I am not suggesting we engage in protectionism, I am suggesting that China should stop engaging in protectionism.

Imbalanced trade most definitely hurts our labor market. I don't think the Chinese practice of currency manipulation will end well for China either. The best solution to the problem IMO is rising wages in China.

Buying USD is not manipulation. Many many countries buy USD.
This surprising chart shows which countries own the most U.S. debt
Japan has over $1 Trillion in USD. Are they engaged in manipulation? The European Union, owns nearly a trillion in USD. Are they engaged in manipulation?

The majority of countries around the world, have some holdings of USD, and when you compare that relative to their respective GDPs, they are all taking a significant amount.

Would you suggest the entire planet is manipulating their currency? In which case, why focus on China?

Nor can you "stop china" from engaging in protectionism. Nor should we.

No, it does not hurt our labor markets. I'm sorry, you are just flat out wrong on this.

There is ZERO evidence that trade imbalance hurt our labor markets.

Look.... it's not there. During the early to late 90s, the economy was what you would call good. Unemployment dropped almost continuously until 2001, and all during that time, the trade imbalance was increasing.

Then in 2001, the trade imbalance decline, and unemployment increased.

From 2003 to 2008, the unemployment rate dropped, while during that same time, the trade imbalance increased.

Then in 2008, the trade imbalance declined again, and unemployment went up.

So let's review. When unemployment is low, the trade imbalance is high. When the unemployment his high, the trade imbalance, is low.

This is the exactly opposite of what you are claiming.

Your statement suggests that unemployment should go up, when the trade imbalance goes up, and should go down, when the imbalance goes down.

That is not happening, and has never happened, and there's no.... as in ZERO, support for that claim. None whatsoever.

Now if you have some evidence to support your claims, give it. You would be the first to even try in the last 10 years I've been asking for it. You'd be a record holder in my book.

But for me, I've looked for evidence to support your position, because I actually used to be a protectionist myself. I believed we had to protect ourselves from bad trade. But I did something amazing... I actually looked for real evidence to support my views, and found the opposite. I haven't found anything in 10 years, to suggest what you say is true.

OH.... and by the way.... Notice also that our trade imbalance with China specifically, is a very small part of the total trade imbalance. Again, focusing on China, proves to me that this is merely the Government attempting to shift blame. China was not, and is not, the majority of our trade imbalance. Focusing on China is just as safe excuse. The real source of our economic problems, is bad socialistic policies that is harming our economy. China has nothing to do with it.

China made up almost half of our trade imbalance in 2013. Not only do they represent the biggest trade imbalance by far the ratio of imports to exports is the worst of any major trading partner by far.

Yes Germany also uses capital flows to ensure a trade balance they want. So has Japan. It is not a huge surprise that Japan has the problems they have now considering how they grew their economy in the past. They can't manipulate the USD forever and neither can China.

As for the employment figures, I wouldn't expect a direct impact like that. Those numbers change the way they do because imports are based on demand and demand goes up and down with the economic cycle (ie unemployment). The problems with the trade imbalance can be seen with the stagnation of wages in the US.

The idea that it is our socialists policies is ridiculous. If anything US labor would be more competitive with UHC.

Only because the rest of our trade balance disappeared. You can see clearly from the chart, that from 96 to 09, China made up far less than half.

Further, you implication is that this "manipulation" will destroy the country doing the manipulation. If that's the case, then we should do nothing about it, and allow them to destroy themselves. It certainly didn't hurt us.

I don't see wages being stagnate, unless you are looking at "household income" numbers, in which case, the numbers are skewed.

Household income has fallen, but not because of imports. It's fallen because the number one way to stay poor and impoverished, is to divorce, or not get married at all, both of which have become exceptionally common in our culture.

Think about it. You have two people earning an income, and married. Then they divorce. You take one household with a high income, and separate it into two homes both of which have a much lower income. Obviously that's going to massively drag the average down.

Additionally, we used to have a culture where kids lived at home, worked a job, and went to college. Now those kids are getting their own apartment, and working a job, while going to college. Again, taking one household with a large household income, and splitting it into two households, both of which, with a lower income.

There is no real drop in wages. At least none worth talking about.

And yes of course it's our socialistic policies that have caused this, and claiming that UHC would be a net benefit is ridiculous as well. Go tell that to Europe. Tell Greece they are more competitive because they have UHC. Tell that to Spain. Tell that to Cuba and Venezuela. Double the tax rate, to cover UHC, and then thing we're going to be competitive? Not to mention that their health care sucks compared to ours, and people come here from all over the world to get health care. Being "more competitive" while having more people die, is not an even trade.

 

[Andylusion]

Now go (wah wah wah I'm a baby who isn't mature enough, or intelligent enought to carry on an adult conversation, please mute me for life!) blaw blaw blaw

.

No problem! You are gone! History! You no longer exist in my world! You won't be missed, have a nice life in baby world.

 

[Bombur]

Buying USD is not manipulation. Many many countries buy USD.
This surprising chart shows which countries own the most U.S. debt
Japan has over $1 Trillion in USD. Are they engaged in manipulation? The European Union, owns nearly a trillion in USD. Are they engaged in manipulation?

The majority of countries around the world, have some holdings of USD, and when you compare that relative to their respective GDPs, they are all taking a significant amount.

Would you suggest the entire planet is manipulating their currency? In which case, why focus on China?

Nor can you "stop china" from engaging in protectionism. Nor should we.

No, it does not hurt our labor markets. I'm sorry, you are just flat out wrong on this.

There is ZERO evidence that trade imbalance hurt our labor markets.

Look.... it's not there. During the early to late 90s, the economy was what you would call good. Unemployment dropped almost continuously until 2001, and all during that time, the trade imbalance was increasing.

Then in 2001, the trade imbalance decline, and unemployment increased.

From 2003 to 2008, the unemployment rate dropped, while during that same time, the trade imbalance increased.

Then in 2008, the trade imbalance declined again, and unemployment went up.

So let's review. When unemployment is low, the trade imbalance is high. When the unemployment his high, the trade imbalance, is low.

This is the exactly opposite of what you are claiming.

Your statement suggests that unemployment should go up, when the trade imbalance goes up, and should go down, when the imbalance goes down.

That is not happening, and has never happened, and there's no.... as in ZERO, support for that claim. None whatsoever.

Now if you have some evidence to support your claims, give it. You would be the first to even try in the last 10 years I've been asking for it. You'd be a record holder in my book.

But for me, I've looked for evidence to support your position, because I actually used to be a protectionist myself. I believed we had to protect ourselves from bad trade. But I did something amazing... I actually looked for real evidence to support my views, and found the opposite. I haven't found anything in 10 years, to suggest what you say is true.

OH.... and by the way.... Notice also that our trade imbalance with China specifically, is a very small part of the total trade imbalance. Again, focusing on China, proves to me that this is merely the Government attempting to shift blame. China was not, and is not, the majority of our trade imbalance. Focusing on China is just as safe excuse. The real source of our economic problems, is bad socialistic policies that is harming our economy. China has nothing to do with it.

China made up almost half of our trade imbalance in 2013. Not only do they represent the biggest trade imbalance by far the ratio of imports to exports is the worst of any major trading partner by far.

Yes Germany also uses capital flows to ensure a trade balance they want. So has Japan. It is not a huge surprise that Japan has the problems they have now considering how they grew their economy in the past. They can't manipulate the USD forever and neither can China.

As for the employment figures, I wouldn't expect a direct impact like that. Those numbers change the way they do because imports are based on demand and demand goes up and down with the economic cycle (ie unemployment). The problems with the trade imbalance can be seen with the stagnation of wages in the US.

The idea that it is our socialists policies is ridiculous. If anything US labor would be more competitive with UHC.

Only because the rest of our trade balance disappeared. You can see clearly from the chart, that from 96 to 09, China made up far less than half.

Further, you implication is that this "manipulation" will destroy the country doing the manipulation. If that's the case, then we should do nothing about it, and allow them to destroy themselves. It certainly didn't hurt us.

I don't see wages being stagnate, unless you are looking at "household income" numbers, in which case, the numbers are skewed.

Household income has fallen, but not because of imports. It's fallen because the number one way to stay poor and impoverished, is to divorce, or not get married at all, both of which have become exceptionally common in our culture.

Think about it. You have two people earning an income, and married. Then they divorce. You take one household with a high income, and separate it into two homes both of which have a much lower income. Obviously that's going to massively drag the average down.

Additionally, we used to have a culture where kids lived at home, worked a job, and went to college. Now those kids are getting their own apartment, and working a job, while going to college. Again, taking one household with a large household income, and splitting it into two households, both of which, with a lower income.

There is no real drop in wages. At least none worth talking about.

And yes of course it's our socialistic policies that have caused this, and claiming that UHC would be a net benefit is ridiculous as well. Go tell that to Europe. Tell Greece they are more competitive because they have UHC. Tell that to Spain. Tell that to Cuba and Venezuela. Double the tax rate, to cover UHC, and then thing we're going to be competitive? Not to mention that their health care sucks compared to ours, and people come here from all over the world to get health care. Being "more competitive" while having more people die, is not an even trade.

Dude I don't care about your chart. In reality China made up almost half of the trade deficit. Almost $300 billion of the $600 billion or so deficit.

It will hurt both of us and is hurting both of us.

Your explanation of the drop in wages is hilarious.

The lesson of Spain and Greece is that capital flows between nations matter. Spain didn't have that much government debt as industrialized nations go but they did rely on foreign capital. Surprise surprise their production problems were masked by consumption that was artificially boosted by foreign capital. Eventually that debt gets paid back and the economy sees a large drop in demand.

UHC is more efficient. It is not the only trade issue though. Capital flows are far more important.

 

[Andylusion]

Yet we have taxes so we talk about how they can be better.

There is no such thing as a "better" tax. It's only a "less horrible" tax. The only good tax, is the non-existent tax. Zero tax.... that's "better" in that it doesn't exist.

 

[Bombur]

Yet we have taxes so we talk about how they can be better.

There is no such thing as a "better" tax. It's only a "less horrible" tax. The only good tax, is the non-existent tax. Zero tax.... that's "better" in that it doesn't exist.

Good luck with that.

 

[Contumacious]

Yet we have taxes so we talk about how they can be better.

There is no such thing as a "better" tax. It's only a "less horrible" tax. The only good tax, is the non-existent tax. Zero tax.... that's "better" in that it doesn't exist.

There you go.

We concur.

But remember the private entity known as the FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD inflates the **** out of the currency , that constitutes an indirect tax.

The Inflation Tax

by Ron Paul


All government spending represents a tax. The inflation tax, while largely ignored, hurts middle-class and low-income Americans the most. Simply put, printing money to pay for federal spending dilutes the value of the dollar, which causes higher prices for goods and services. Inflation may be an indirect tax, but it is very real — the individuals who suffer most from cost of living increases certainly pay a “tax.."

.