The American System

[Navy1960]

Why should the U.S. government promote one business over another? Let them fight it out in the marketplace.

Let me cite you an example, let's say a company produces its's product offshore and yet is an American company that imports to the US and then takes advantage of the American tax loopholes provided to that company. Again this is only my personal opinion, but if a company seeks to promote the economy of the United States by employing Americans and building and selling it's product here then they should get the advantages of a tax code for that. In regulating commerce is the Govt. not promoting the General Welfare of this nation? That's not picking winners and losers, thats providing an atmosphere for domestic business to thrive. It's rather like this, if one want's an environment that is simply there for business to fight it out and let the marketplace decide,why have a constitution at all, for that matter why even have borders for a nation, if the marketplace is to be above the affairs of the nation. While I do respect your opinion, I am all for promoting American business because I tend to feel that in so doing we as a nation thrive.

 

[California Girl]

I think it can be said that in Hamilton's day a mix Mercantilism and local trading was the order of the day. The point of this was to show that using such words like "socialism" and "capitalism" for that matter and somehow trying to make the case that if one system or the other is unAmerican is a bit off the mark. Further, Federal Govt. stimulation of the economy is not something that President Obama invented nor is the advent of Federal help in building infrastructure. As for "Free Markets" I would venture to say that although they have been around since the inception of this nation, that those who crafted our nation were more interested in giving the power to the poeple to decide what sort of system they would prefer. I would submit to you, that if a state for example were to institute a complete so called "socialist" agenda, then if that did not conflict with the constitution and the voters of that state approved it, that state would be well within it's rights to do so. In my humble opinion I believe this is more what they had in mind. However, the point here is simply to point out that using one word of the other to denegrate someone based on what they may or may not believe is just incorrect and it is my humble belief that both elements of these types of economic systems have been with us since the founding of this nation even though they had no idea what "Capitalist meant" or for that matter "Socialist"

Totally agree. From my perspective, the Total Operating Budget of Government is Socialist by definition, other than Royalties from Natural Resources and usage. Government gets it's cash flow from the consent of the governed, that and the Fines, Fee's, and Penalties which we all love. Yeah, there are Socialized Methods in Business too, and the expectations that go with them.

I think Small Enterprise has it's advantages and strengths too, and they should be better treated, as a whole. We get the short end way too often.

Intense, one of the reason's why I always try to point out that the founders were a bit smarter than they sometimes are given credit for. In that, our Federal Govt. is there to provide an atmosphere for business here to thrive. If one chooses to call that socialist or capitalist then so be it, as long as in the end, America and it's citizens prosper.

The whole point of the American 'experiment' was that we be a unique country, not one based on any model that existed then, or since. The whole damned point was to create a country where people could live with minimal interference or 'power' over the life of any individual.

We have been, for generations, the country that the world envied. Not because we were rich (although undoubtedly that was a consequence) but because here, in America, individuals were free to stand or fall. And vast numbers of us stand... and the next generation stood a little taller, and the next, and the next. Now, suddenly, we are supposed to feel guilty or bad for standing tall. That's why I dislike the 'progressives' who pretend they are Liberals. They are not Liberals... We are. We are the Classical Liberals.

 

[The T]

Totally agree. From my perspective, the Total Operating Budget of Government is Socialist by definition, other than Royalties from Natural Resources and usage. Government gets it's cash flow from the consent of the governed, that and the Fines, Fee's, and Penalties which we all love. Yeah, there are Socialized Methods in Business too, and the expectations that go with them.

I think Small Enterprise has it's advantages and strengths too, and they should be better treated, as a whole. We get the short end way too often.

Intense, one of the reason's why I always try to point out that the founders were a bit smarter than they sometimes are given credit for. In that, our Federal Govt. is there to provide an atmosphere for business here to thrive. If one chooses to call that socialist or capitalist then so be it, as long as in the end, America and it's citizens prosper.

The whole point of the American 'experiment' was that we be a unique country, not one based on any model that existed then, or since. The whole damned point was to create a country where people could live with minimal interference or 'power' over the life of any individual.

We have been, for generations, the country that the world envied. Not because we were rich (although undoubtedly that was a consequence) but because here, in America, individuals were free to stand or fall. And vast numbers of us stand... and the next generation stood a little taller, and the next, and the next. Now, suddenly, we are supposed to feel guilty or bad for standing tall. That's why I dislike the 'progressives' who pretend they are Liberals. They are not Liberals... We are. We are the Classical Liberals.

THIS ^^

However? I prefer the word Statist.

 

[The T]

Why should the U.S. government promote one business over another? Let them fight it out in the marketplace.

That's what liberty is all about. Succeed or fail on our own. Period.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why should the U.S. government promote one business over another? Let them fight it out in the marketplace.

Let me cite you an example, let's say a company produces its's product offshore and yet is an American company that imports to the US and then takes advantage of the American tax loopholes provided to that company. Again this is only my personal opinion, but if a company seeks to promote the economy of the United States by employing Americans and building and selling it's product here then they should get the advantages of a tax code for that. In regulating commerce is the Govt. not promoting the General Welfare of this nation? That's not picking winners and losers, thats providing an atmosphere for domestic business to thrive. It's rather like this, if one want's an environment that is simply there for business to fight it out and let the marketplace decide,why have a constitution at all, for that matter why even have borders for a nation, if the marketplace is to be above the affairs of the nation. While I do respect your opinion, I am all for promoting American business because I tend to feel that in so doing we as a nation thrive.

If the tax code is set up to favor one company over another for political reasons then that is picking winners and losers.
We thrive by having the msot competitive and best priced goods and services in the world. Artificially skewing things works against that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The more I read your libertarians the more I agree with Hamilton.

 

[Navy1960]

Why should the U.S. government promote one business over another? Let them fight it out in the marketplace.

Let me cite you an example, let's say a company produces its's product offshore and yet is an American company that imports to the US and then takes advantage of the American tax loopholes provided to that company. Again this is only my personal opinion, but if a company seeks to promote the economy of the United States by employing Americans and building and selling it's product here then they should get the advantages of a tax code for that. In regulating commerce is the Govt. not promoting the General Welfare of this nation? That's not picking winners and losers, thats providing an atmosphere for domestic business to thrive. It's rather like this, if one want's an environment that is simply there for business to fight it out and let the marketplace decide,why have a constitution at all, for that matter why even have borders for a nation, if the marketplace is to be above the affairs of the nation. While I do respect your opinion, I am all for promoting American business because I tend to feel that in so doing we as a nation thrive.

If the tax code is set up to favor one company over another for political reasons then that is picking winners and losers.
We thrive by having the msot competitive and best priced goods and services in the world. Artificially skewing things works against that.

Do you feel that a company that does not employ Americans, nor does it use American built products in it's construction , yet sells its goods here, should have all the advantages of the American tax code? I for one do not think thats political at all, nationalistic yes, and if you were to look at just about every other nation in the world, you would find almost all of them favor their domestic companies in terms of taxes as well as subsidies than they do imported goods. Airbus comes to mind, as does Buick for example, which is considered a luxury car in China because of the taxes and tariffs imposed on it by the Chinese. While some may see this as political, I see nothing at all with favoring domestic business over business that takes advantage and gives nothing back.

 

[The Rabbi]

Let me cite you an example, let's say a company produces its's product offshore and yet is an American company that imports to the US and then takes advantage of the American tax loopholes provided to that company. Again this is only my personal opinion, but if a company seeks to promote the economy of the United States by employing Americans and building and selling it's product here then they should get the advantages of a tax code for that. In regulating commerce is the Govt. not promoting the General Welfare of this nation? That's not picking winners and losers, thats providing an atmosphere for domestic business to thrive. It's rather like this, if one want's an environment that is simply there for business to fight it out and let the marketplace decide,why have a constitution at all, for that matter why even have borders for a nation, if the marketplace is to be above the affairs of the nation. While I do respect your opinion, I am all for promoting American business because I tend to feel that in so doing we as a nation thrive.

If the tax code is set up to favor one company over another for political reasons then that is picking winners and losers.
We thrive by having the msot competitive and best priced goods and services in the world. Artificially skewing things works against that.

Do you feel that a company that does not employ Americans, nor does it use American built products in it's construction , yet sells its goods here, should have all the advantages of the American tax code? I for one do not think thats political at all, nationalistic yes, and if you were to look at just about every other nation in the world, you would find almost all of them favor their domestic companies in terms of taxes as well as subsidies than they do imported goods. Airbus comes to mind, as does Buick for example, which is considered a luxury car in China because of the taxes and tariffs imposed on it by the Chinese. While some may see this as political, I see nothing at all with favoring domestic business over business that takes advantage and gives nothing back.

If a company does business here then it is bound by American laws, including the tax code. This is so regardless of where it is headquartered or whom they employ.
Your view is political, not economic. If a factory sets up in Brownsville TX and employs only Mexican workers from across the border because they will be more productive than American workers, so what? Their products either will succeed or fail in the marketplace. Penalizing them for their practices is stupid and counter productive.
I don't give two shits what China or France does. If you want to live under those systems Delta is ready when you are.

 

[Navy1960]

Totally agree. From my perspective, the Total Operating Budget of Government is Socialist by definition, other than Royalties from Natural Resources and usage. Government gets it's cash flow from the consent of the governed, that and the Fines, Fee's, and Penalties which we all love. Yeah, there are Socialized Methods in Business too, and the expectations that go with them.

I think Small Enterprise has it's advantages and strengths too, and they should be better treated, as a whole. We get the short end way too often.

Intense, one of the reason's why I always try to point out that the founders were a bit smarter than they sometimes are given credit for. In that, our Federal Govt. is there to provide an atmosphere for business here to thrive. If one chooses to call that socialist or capitalist then so be it, as long as in the end, America and it's citizens prosper.

The whole point of the American 'experiment' was that we be a unique country, not one based on any model that existed then, or since. The whole damned point was to create a country where people could live with minimal interference or 'power' over the life of any individual.

We have been, for generations, the country that the world envied. Not because we were rich (although undoubtedly that was a consequence) but because here, in America, individuals were free to stand or fall. And vast numbers of us stand... and the next generation stood a little taller, and the next, and the next. Now, suddenly, we are supposed to feel guilty or bad for standing tall. That's why I dislike the 'progressives' who pretend they are Liberals. They are not Liberals... We are. We are the Classical Liberals.

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.

You know, here's my thinking on such things, that society is not stagnant in that it should always be moving forward to advance itself for the betterment of the nation and its people. We as a nation have always been very liberal in our giving to other nations, in the arts and sciences, and in our staunch belief in our rights as a people and willingness to express them from time to time. Where I tend to think people sometimes get lost in things is they often apply their beliefs upon others and when that does not work then legislate them upon others. Our society though is not an 18th century society as correctly pointed out in this thread in that we are not for the most part living on farms or self sustaining, in fact we as a nation have very little that we build any longer. We have become a consumer based, service based society. In so doing, the ability to pull one's self up is becoming increasingly harder for young people. While it's true that that the invididual should enjoy all the freedoms set down by our founders , I like to think that the founders were smart enough to realize that the document they crafted would need to last and in so doing, made it such that it translates even today. That is why I believe that when our Govt. helps people properly who deserve help, that it is doing the right thing by our nation and it's people and in so doing fulfills its roll set down so many years ago, that they are there to serve the "people" of this nation. Again is my humble opinion of course there are many others and I always respect them.

 

[Navy1960]

If the tax code is set up to favor one company over another for political reasons then that is picking winners and losers.
We thrive by having the msot competitive and best priced goods and services in the world. Artificially skewing things works against that.

Do you feel that a company that does not employ Americans, nor does it use American built products in it's construction , yet sells its goods here, should have all the advantages of the American tax code? I for one do not think thats political at all, nationalistic yes, and if you were to look at just about every other nation in the world, you would find almost all of them favor their domestic companies in terms of taxes as well as subsidies than they do imported goods. Airbus comes to mind, as does Buick for example, which is considered a luxury car in China because of the taxes and tariffs imposed on it by the Chinese. While some may see this as political, I see nothing at all with favoring domestic business over business that takes advantage and gives nothing back.

If a company does business here then it is bound by American laws, including the tax code. This is so regardless of where it is headquartered or whom they employ.
Your view is political, not economic. If a factory sets up in Brownsville TX and employs only Mexican workers from across the border because they will be more productive than American workers, so what? Their products either will succeed or fail in the marketplace. Penalizing them for their practices is stupid and counter productive.
I don't give two shits what China or France does. If you want to live under those systems Delta is ready when you are.

That's the point they don't do business here, while they may call themselves American companies and be bound by the tax code here and take advantage if it, and sell goods in this nation they do not employ here, nor do they purchase goods and services for the production of their products here. That has little to do with politics, and to advocate for the adjustment of the tax code so that companies like these cannot use the same deductions, that a domestic company that employs here, and purchases it's goods here is very productive for this society.

As to China and France you should care about China and France for that matter because, everytime you walk into a Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and any other retailer that sells Chinese made goods your helping their economy and not this one. Same with France, everytime you fly that Delta flight that flys an A-320, A-330, etc. your helping their economy, So no thank you I would rather stay here and help this economy. It has nothing at all with living under those systems and I would submit to you that by advocating for totally open market places without any restrictions that protect domestic business your more or less acquiescing to those systems.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you feel that a company that does not employ Americans, nor does it use American built products in it's construction , yet sells its goods here, should have all the advantages of the American tax code? I for one do not think thats political at all, nationalistic yes, and if you were to look at just about every other nation in the world, you would find almost all of them favor their domestic companies in terms of taxes as well as subsidies than they do imported goods. Airbus comes to mind, as does Buick for example, which is considered a luxury car in China because of the taxes and tariffs imposed on it by the Chinese. While some may see this as political, I see nothing at all with favoring domestic business over business that takes advantage and gives nothing back.

If a company does business here then it is bound by American laws, including the tax code. This is so regardless of where it is headquartered or whom they employ.
Your view is political, not economic. If a factory sets up in Brownsville TX and employs only Mexican workers from across the border because they will be more productive than American workers, so what? Their products either will succeed or fail in the marketplace. Penalizing them for their practices is stupid and counter productive.
I don't give two shits what China or France does. If you want to live under those systems Delta is ready when you are.

That's the point they don't do business here, while they may call themselves American companies and be bound by the tax code here and take advantage if it, and sell goods in this nation they do not employ here, nor do they purchase goods and services for the production of their products here. That has little to do with politics, and to advocate for the adjustment of the tax code so that companies like these cannot use the same deductions, that a domestic company that employs here, and purchases it's goods here is very productive for this society.

As to China and France you should care about China and France for that matter because, everytime you walk into a Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and any other retailer that sells Chinese made goods your helping their economy and not this one. Same with France, everytime you fly that Delta flight that flys an A-320, A-330, etc. your helping their economy, So no thank you I would rather stay here and help this economy. It has nothing at all with living under those systems and I would submit to you that by advocating for totally open market places without any restrictions that protect domestic business your more or less acquiescing to those systems.

If they dont do business here then they don't pay US taxes, capiche?

So Wal Mart does not help the US economy by lowering the costs for households?
You really aren't very good at this economics thing, are you?

 

[Navy1960]

If a company does business here then it is bound by American laws, including the tax code. This is so regardless of where it is headquartered or whom they employ.
Your view is political, not economic. If a factory sets up in Brownsville TX and employs only Mexican workers from across the border because they will be more productive than American workers, so what? Their products either will succeed or fail in the marketplace. Penalizing them for their practices is stupid and counter productive.
I don't give two shits what China or France does. If you want to live under those systems Delta is ready when you are.

That's the point they don't do business here, while they may call themselves American companies and be bound by the tax code here and take advantage if it, and sell goods in this nation they do not employ here, nor do they purchase goods and services for the production of their products here. That has little to do with politics, and to advocate for the adjustment of the tax code so that companies like these cannot use the same deductions, that a domestic company that employs here, and purchases it's goods here is very productive for this society.

As to China and France you should care about China and France for that matter because, everytime you walk into a Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and any other retailer that sells Chinese made goods your helping their economy and not this one. Same with France, everytime you fly that Delta flight that flys an A-320, A-330, etc. your helping their economy, So no thank you I would rather stay here and help this economy. It has nothing at all with living under those systems and I would submit to you that by advocating for totally open market places without any restrictions that protect domestic business your more or less acquiescing to those systems.

If they dont do business here then they don't pay US taxes, capiche?

So Wal Mart does not help the US economy by lowering the costs for households?
You really aren't very good at this economics thing, are you?

Rabbi, doing business in the context of this conversation does not include, just selling foreign made goods and calling yourself an American company.

As to Wal Mart,

Wal-Mart store openings kill three local jobs for every two they create by
reducing retail employment by an average of 2.7 percent in every county they
enter.6
• Wal-Mart’s entry into a new market does not increase overall retail activity or
employment opportunities.7 Research from Chicago shows retail employment did
not increase in Wal-Mart’s zip code, and fell significantly in those adjacent.

http://advocate.nyc.gov/files/Walmart.pdf

While it's true Wal-Mart lowers costs by selling foreign made products, if they displace American jobs, and replace them with low paying, often time part time jobs, then economically speaking Wal-Mart is more of wash and not a benefit to US households.

As to your last statement, I tend to think that I know the difference between supporting this nation and advocating for so called " free markets" when the only people who advocate for those markets don't even realize that the people that they seek to do business with basically own them, by protecting their own markets and flooding theirs. That's the difference between someone who cares for their country and someone who doesn't.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are a leftist pretending otherwise. You believe in class struggle and warfare.

A company doing business here is subject to US laws, including tax laws. So what?
WalMart has lowered prices for families across the board, even if they never shop at WalMart. What you propose is a stealth tax that favors some companies and punishes others, and punishes consumers most of all. That is crony capitalism, and it has to stop.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Class warfare is the purview of the 1%, The Rabbi. The other 99% are freedom fighters. Goes both ways, son. Grow up.

 

[The Rabbi]

Class warfare is the purview of the 1%, The Rabbi. The other 99% are freedom fighters. Goes both ways, son. Grow up.

Why aren't you out shitting on police cars where you belong?

 

[Unkotare]

Class warfare is the purview of the 1%, The Rabbi. The other 99% are freedom fighters. Goes both ways, son. Grow up.

You are painfully stupid.

 

[editec]

The Floundering FAthers and those who followed them for nearly 150 years defended this nation's industrial growth from IMPORTS.

That is why we becames one of the world's wealthiest and most heavily indistrialized nations, folks.

FWIW Adam Smith didn't object to protectionism, EXCEPT in those cases where it make absolutely NO sense. Madera wine is his example of a protectionist policy that made no sense, incidently.

The things that most of this board right wing cranks think they know about economic history is pretty much ALL WRONG.

 

[Unkotare]

Abandon your coward's dream of isolationism. It ain't gonna happen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Class warfare is the purview of the 1%, The Rabbi. The other 99% are freedom fighters. Goes both ways, son. Grow up.

Why aren't you out shitting on police cars where you belong?

You are in the vast minority, The Rabbi, and there you belong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Class warfare is the purview of the 1%, The Rabbi. The other 99% are freedom fighters. Goes both ways, son. Grow up.

You are painfully stupid.

Grow up, unbalanced one.