zoony Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 1 minute ago, PeterMP said: No, not really because the idea has nothing to do with taxes. I can recognize that a trade balance isn't just all negative and have high taxes or other systems in place to force money to trickle down. Your argument is trickle down. I don't care if you are talking about taxes or not. Doesn't matter. When foreigners are able to leverage our trade deficits to buy more stocks and bonds and buy more capital equipment in the United States, the theory that this kind of investment would help the communities decimated by plant closures and jobs leaving for foreign soil is "trickle down" Don't worry - your union job just went to China. But they'll be buying CDO's from Goldman Sachs with the profits. Cheer up, you'll be on your feet in no time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 1 hour ago, zoony said: Your argument is trickle down. I don't care if you are talking about taxes or not. Doesn't matter. When foreigners are able to leverage our trade deficits to buy more stocks and bonds and buy more capital equipment in the United States, the theory that this kind of investment would help the communities decimated by plant closures and jobs leaving for foreign soil is "trickle down" Don't worry - your union job just went to China. But they'll be buying CDO's from Goldman Sachs with the profits. Cheer up, you'll be on your feet in no time. 1. I know some people have issues with nuance, but if you don't see the difference between: " The general point is the whole thing is complicated, and people that simply look and say trade deficit bad are treating the system in an overly simplistic manner. " And: "Don't worry - your union job just went to China. But they'll be buying CDO's from Goldman Sachs with the profits. Cheer up, you'll be on your feet in no time." Then this conversation is a waste of time. I didn't even say trade deficits were good, much less for individual people that are most directly hurt by the trade deficit. It is possible that in some cases trade deficits are bad, in some cases good, and in some cases neutral. Talking about individual people vs. the whole US population, it is possible for those things all to be true, but for it still be bad for given individuals in the US. My whole point is that's it is complicated and painting with a broad brush has issues, and then you come and try and paint my comment as being a broad brush. 2. Again, what happens to the profits depends on taxes etc and in this case what are the taxes on Goldman Sachs selling. 3. With respect to your example, things even get more complicated because you have to start to talk about the savings presumably seen from the job going over seas (unless, supply and demand has failed), and again, I would suggest that any one view is likely to be wrong. Under certain conditions, the net effect to the US population might be good, it might bad, or it might be neutral, and all of those things are possible if individuals are hurt or helped by the move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Just going to leave this here for future reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Pence just said that they are already responsible for the "tens of thousands of jobs that might have been going overseas" that will be in the United States. Gotta love how the right is now in favor of big government being involved in private business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 I wish one of them would just say, "what about your daughters company or your own clothing line? When does that come back to America?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 oy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Hersh said: I wish one of them would just say, "what about your daughters company or your own clothing line? When does that come back to America?" You misunderstand. It is okay to start a company by making products somewhere else. The only problem is when you start it here, and then it leaves. (Which of course is just going to encourage people starting new companies to look over seas earlier and to put existing companies at more of a disadvantage to over seas companies.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 21 minutes ago, PeterMP said: You misunderstand. It is okay to start a company by making products somewhere else. The only problem is when you start it here, and then it leaves. Eh. I'm not going to go after a person for using the system to the best of their benefit, while also complaining that the system is set up to encourage this behavior and that it hurts the country. I don't go after Warren Buffet for his gripes about US tax policy, while also making sure he pays a little taxes as possible. I find the GOP's response of "well, then pay higher taxes Warren!" to be... well... silly is the nicest thing I can say. Now, if your complaint is that he won't actually do anything about it then you get no argument out of me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, tshile said: I don't go after Warren Buffet for his gripes about US tax policy, while also making sure he pays a little taxes as possible. I want to point out that this likely isn't true based on his released tax forms. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/10/14/warren-buffett-tax-facts-donald-trump/91988496/ " The IRS allows individuals to deduct up to 50% of their AGI in charitable contributions each year. Since Buffett reported income of $11,563,931, this implies that Buffett could deduct up to $5,781,965 — far more than the $3,469,179 charitable deduction he actually took. Buffett contributed more than $2.8 billion to charity last year, so he certainly had more to deduct. " My problem is he's going after companies for doing the same thing that he did under the same conditions. They just are doing it later (after having employed a large number of US workers). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 36 minutes ago, PeterMP said: You misunderstand. It is okay to start a company by making products somewhere else. The only problem is when you start it here, and then it leaves. I don't really get the difference, if you're being serious. In any case the issue I have is that he is bashing other companies for making things elsewhere as he does (while telling everyone to buy American made products) and saying he will crack down on them, but makes no mention of cracking down on himself or his family or ending these practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, PeterMP said: My problem is he's going after companies for doing the same thing that he did under the same conditions. They just are doing it later (after having employed a large number of US workers). Oh, ok then. Yeah, that fine Even if he didn't do it himself I'd have a problem with how he's going after individual companies (and on twitter) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 This is so short sighted by Trump and everyone else that supports what he is doing with regard to the economy. Quick, let's force US companies to make everything in America AND let's close of markets for them to export goods to. Bang up job Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Bernie Sanders is just as short-sighted as Trump on this issue and Clinton should never have backtracked on her support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 What Trump and his dumbass supporters are pathetically clueless about is that most heavy and hi tech manufacturing is not based on 1920s mass production techniques, but rather developed supply chains in which components come from different manufacturers. Slap tariffs on steel or car parts made offshore, and you render assembled American goods like cars too expensive to compete. Not only will prices for consumers rise, but there will be a significant net loss of jobs. Cut off immigration, and Silicon Valley will lose its preeminence as the greatest high tech center in the world. #MakeAmerica1968again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 15 minutes ago, Hersh said: Bernie Sanders is just as short-sighted as Trump on this issue and Clinton should never have backtracked on her support. Clinton not waver in the face of public sentiment being against her? That's a good one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Protectionism Is Only Good If You Love Really Terrible Cars - Jalopnik Quote It’s hard not to get bad flashbacks to British Leyland’s worst days when you read Trump’s threats of high tariffs on imported cars. That’s exactly what the British did after World War II to prop up their homegrown auto industry, which didn’t work there, either. Knowing their cars would sell anyway, the nationalized conglomerate of British Leyland pumped out such gems of lazy design as the Morris Marina—a car that was based on a 1948 Morris Minor design at its debut in 1971, according to CarThrottle. That same ancient car was only slightly tweaked to make the Morris Ital that replaced it in 1980. Poor build quality of an already bad design made the Marina the most-scrapped car in the United Kingdom in the past 30 years, per Talk the Torque. Like any good capitalist, I firmly believe that automakers need competition to produce their best and most innovative work. This isn’t to say that America doesn’t make good cars—it’s just that there’s no financialincentive to produce anything beyond the bare minimum when you’re only effectively competing with a few other domestic companies instead of the best and brightest designs in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 1 hour ago, tshile said: Clinton not waver in the face of public sentiment being against her? That's a good one The point of me saying that has nothing to do with Clinton, it's simply saying that this is not exclusively a criticism of Trump and it's a criticism of both sides. This should make @TheGreatBuzz happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 So instead of a comprehensive trade deal, we are going to have a bunch of one on one trade deals. WTF?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 4 hours ago, Hersh said: So instead of a comprehensive trade deal, we are going to have a bunch of one on one trade deals. WTF?? More deals = more publicity for Trump. Seriously, that's it. (it's certainly not his negotiating prowess) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 24, 2017 Author Share Posted January 24, 2017 3 minutes ago, FanboyOf91 said: More deals = more publicity for Trump. Seriously, that's it. (it's certainly not his negotiating prowess) Well, and it allows him to wheel and deal, hundreds of times. And play games with the deals (like playing one against the other.) (And every individual deal will require several stays in Trump's new hotel. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.