Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #321
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy...External_trade
Exports only account for 22.5%.
Edited:
Sure manufacturing can be done cheaper in third world countries, but it means less jobs in the US and just more power for TNCs. Neo-liberal economics has slowed down growth rates vastly in developing nations. If you want proof just look at growth rates and government policies before the 70's and look at them now. US foreign policy has always been very aggressive, it has almost always hurt the native people and left them destitute while the US profits in some way.
-
-
I think we're seeing a lot of shit go down, those suffering economic pains I doubt are the most jubilant to say "nah, we're fine", I think we're in a slump and will recover but it might take a while.
-
But there are only two ways to keep manufacturing jobs in America: dramatically lower benefits and wages, or put protectionist policies into effect. Option 1 would hurt workers significantly, and I don't think anyone truly supports it. Option 2 would help workers in the short run, but hurt the economy in the long run.
Edited:
notice how China's GDP starts to grow rapidly after it starts trading with the outside world, and is still climbing.
India's GDP starts to pick up in the late 70's, as the government eases restrictions on businesses, but starts skyrocketing in the 90's when India started it's process of economic liberalization.
now let's look at Russia. They had some problems transitioning from communism to a free market, but now their economy is booming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Asian_Tigers#See_also
The Four Asian Tigers (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan) are also doing great, and a World Bank report contributes their success partially to neo-liberal policies.
EDIT: after reading more about it, claiming neo-liberalism was the cause of the Tigers success might be an exaggeration. Either way, you can't argue that trading with the outside world did not help.
-
Actually Russia's economic boom was short lived and is steadily losing momentum due to the recent global economic downturn.
-
Protectionist policies help the country in the long run. The US protected infant industries throughout the 1800's and had heavy tariffs to combat international competition. Its the reason the US economy grew so damn fast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...economic_plan)
Or we can use South Korea as an example. It had a GDP lower than most African countries after the Korean War, but it used protectionist policies successfully to develop the nation. They had heavy tariffs on imported goods to make sure that people bought domestic wares, they used whatever money they had to build up a steady manufacturing and R&D base in the country.
India's economy was skyrocketing before it liberalised its economy. Even now its still heavily controlled by the government as shown by India still using tariffs at 12% for non-agricultural items. http://suite101.com/article/india-in...tariffs-a12475Edited:
notice how China's GDP starts to grow rapidly after it starts trading with the outside world, and is still climbing.
India's GDP starts to pick up in the late 70's, as the government eases restrictions on businesses, but starts skyrocketing in the 90's when India started it's process of economic liberalization.
Yes outside trade has greatly helped China, however, they're building up Chinese infrastructure and Chinese businesses until they can compete with the outside world. If China had completely liberalised its economy then products from TNCs would be the only things on shelves there, which is bad because the TNCs don't give two shits about the country they're working in nor do they seek to actually develop said country. Think about it this way, if the US had not protected its industry in the 1800s then Britain probably would have owned all the steel mills and such in the country. It would mean that none of the money coming in from that industry would be going to further develop the US nor would the companies care to actually create jobs, they simply need to exploit whatever resources are present and then bail.
The Russian economy is going to collapse because it is entirely built on oligarchs and the state can't use the money that oligarchs get to actually improve the nation. World Bank reports are full of shit, they're just free trade babble. Hong Kong controls its real estate sector completely and has strong tariffs. Singapore has used the same policies as China and built up a strong manufacturing base in the country. South Korea used 5 year plans to build up chemical, car, and HiFi industry in the country, they also protected those industries from outside competitors so they could grow strong enough to compete internationally. Taiwan is the same thing.
now let's look at Russia. They had some problems transitioning from communism to a free market, but now their economy is booming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Asian_Tigers#See_also
The Four Asian Tigers (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan) are also doing great, and a World Bank report contributes their success partially to neo-liberal policies.
EDIT: after reading more about it, claiming neo-liberalism was the cause of the Tigers success might be an exaggeration. Either way, you can't argue that trading with the outside world did not help.
Claiming that neo-liberalism was the cause of the Tigers' success is more than an exaggeration. It is entirely false. Trading has helped of course, but protectionism and state interventionism has been used to develop almost every single developed nation in the world. Why else would China be doing better than India?
-
No, the Russian economy is built on oil and gas prices, diamond export, raw materials, natural resources, arms trade, and recently, microelectronic export. Russia is also a leading producer and exporter of minerals and gold. 90% of Russian exports to the United States are minerals or other raw materials.
Not to mention a shitload of other smaller, yet significant aspects that drive the Russian economy.
To say that it's entirely controlled by oligarchs is parroting the same exaggerated, blown out of proportion bullshit drivel that most Western news agencies regurgitate.
-
The American System is an example of import substitution industrialization. It grows the economy, but makes it very inefficient. On the other hand, export-oriented industrialization grows an economy even more, and makes for an efficient economy. The Four Asian Tigers used export-oriented industrialization, Latin America used import substitution industrialization. We can obviously see who is doing better. And TNCs do develop countries. Industrialization is a major part of development.
Silly me using data to show that economic liberalization has helped India. Your claim that "India's economy was skyrocketing before it liberalized it's economy" is irrefutable, and definitely does not contradict any facts. And everyone knows how oligarchs destroy economies, I can't believe I tried to use data to contradict that common sense. But your most awe-inspiring statement was definitely "World Bank reports are full of shit, they're just free trade babble". Your logical deduction of that fact was astounding. You truly are a role-model for debaters everywhere.
Now back to America. How will protectionism help us? we are already developed, so it would only make us less productive. This would hurt us economically. Even worse, by focusing on manufacturing, we ignore our comparative advantages. We should focus our economy on what we can do better than everyone else, not what everyone else can do better than us.
-
I'm not saying it's doomed, it's just its progression takes too long to make. I'm skeptical on seeing changes there because the system is designed to be rigid.
It's just weird to see that Old World Europa is more politically flexible than New World America.
With only 50-57% of Americans voted on the presidency election during the noughties, it's just sad to think about it.
Remove the two-party system too. The duopoly isn't helpful here in the UK, it isn't gonna help there too.
AV isn't enough to stop Gerrymandering, it has got to be more than that. STV sound okay basing on your criteria of focusing on the local representatives instead on party politics. Doesn't matter if the counting on STV elections takes longer than usual, American elections are so retardedly long anyway.
Also turn into a Parliamentary country where the leader of the nation is damn accountable to the legislative branch. It's just ironic that George Washington has more personal power and less accountability than the British King and Prime Minister he fought against.
-
Inefficient? I don't know, the US seemed pretty fucking good at heavy industry. Latin American countries did better with ISI than with ESI, their growth rates were on average double during the 50's to the 70's than they are now.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:39F4Ptug0G0J:www.eclac.cl/de/agenda/9/13799/Final31.PDF+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjbFh9ZA9hcSt _9Mu1m9bv95kg0o8FOX0VNdxXEuRSf1urYFxhDY1V6ssNxT3JG hSxfNbU_4zQWZ2S6B3lUZX0d5i74oRhw340V5UFq13YifZHi1T f1Dew2E8QHK3Sj5Y0PlvEm&sig=AHIEtbRhL-vV_E5xyT3EKYdFWvMPWFhvEg
Page 5, the table shows that the average growth rates for the countries before they liberalised their economies. You could of course just say that this is correlation not causation. However, prematurely opening Latin American markets to powerful TNCs meant that what little industry those countries had was destroyed thus jobs were lost and the money wasn't being used to further develop the country and to build up industry.
See what China does so well is that it produces domestic goods while controlling imports of consumer goods heavily. It means that people buy goods made in China so that the companies that produce said goods grow over time and are thus able to produce better goods (using foreign machinery and knowledge brought over without ceding control to foreign companies) which can then be sold internationally as well.
India's economy was beginning to skyrockets already before heavy liberalisation. India neglected trade completely early on, which was a bad idea of course. The oligarchs themselves don't destroy the economy, but the money could be used wiser if it were partially in the hands of the state. It's difficult to trust reports created by an organisation that so far has demonstrated an inability to acknowledge it's failures in promoting growth-friendly economic policies.
You're right protectionism wouldn't help the US that much. However, more interventionism by the state and a reduction in the power of corporations would certainly benefit the US people. Comparative advantage is pretty much false. In the 50's you would have said that South Korea shouldn't produce cars or HiFI products because it can't do them well and now it can do them extremely well. The US used to be extremely innovative when they pumped a lot of money into R&D, so should they simply stop focusing on developing new technologies?
Calling me out on debating methods is pretty lame considering you never answered my question about the Chinese economy.
-
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ - Here is your answer, America is doomed because you have to pay off $181,350 each.
-
I didn't say America was inefficient, I said it would become inefficient if we put protectionist policies in effect. Your argument about South America's growth rates is interesting, I'll need to look more into it. I still don't see why you think India's economy was skyrocketing before liberalization, the data clearly contradicts that. I also argue with the whole "oligarchs can't use money as wisely and the state" idea. Governments are infamous for being bad at managing money. I'll also need to look more into the World Bank.
And focusing on the US's comparative advantage doesn't mean giving up on new technologies. First off all, innovation pretty much is US's comparative advantage. We have invented so much stuff, it's crazy. Plus, it's not about focusing on what you are best at (established technologies) but what you are better at relative to other countries. Finally, comparative advantage is not some steadfast rule. But if you do produce something you aren't good at producing, you better improve quickly.
I ignored you statements about the Chinese economy so I could focus on America's economy, the original debate. And it's better to ignore a statement than use nonsense to "refute" it.
Can you please elaborate on how state intervention and reduction of corporate power would help the economy or the people? I see no need for state intervention.
Edited:
so? we are still at the top of the world in pretty much every measurable way. We have the strongest economy, strongest military, best athletes, and invented most modern conveniences. I think you're just jealous.
-
Hm..probably just a snag, but we do seriously need to get over the "It's my way or the highway" crap in congress. A lot of things like asking the more wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes would definitely help and is completely fair. I still don't know why it is up for debate.
-
what does fair share of taxes mean? they already pay a higher percentage. If you want people to pay a fair share, drop taxes on the wealthy and up taxes on the poor/middle class.
-
FairTax is the best system in my opinion. Since there would be no income tax, all tax and government profit would be from purchased goods (except for a few staples like water, food, etc.). This means that the rich can no longer evade taxes and the sizable percent of the population that have illegal jobs (and therefore pay no taxes currently) would now pay tax to the government. It's completely fair, rich people spend lots of money so they pay more tax money than a poor man who spends less.
-
Unless I'm missing something, this means that sales taxes would have to be increased so much (assuming that government expenditures remain the same), everyone but the rich would be unable to buy anything.
-
A larger sales tax would also discourage spending, which is good for the economy. If anything, saving money should be taxed.
-
To poor people, spending is a matter of life or death. They don't buy extraneous things. They need to buy food and basic necessities in order to survive and provide for their basic needs.
-
It's stupid to think that the US is anywhere near close to collapse. There is no civil unrest and political and economic stability remain despite not being at their best. The US is still on the same line as the rest of the developed world, albeit walking the rope a little wobbly but when compared to Greece, Spain, France, Italy it's still in better shape.
Also the arguement of resource based wars is fucking retarded. The only resource that would be worth it is oil but even than it's not worth it. Afghanistan and Iraq do not have enough oil to justify an Invasion and then a 9+ year occupation. When you factor in the amount of money spent in the wars (trillions without a doubt) and the amount of oil (for everything from fueling all those vehicles: tanks, IFVs, APCs, HMMWS, planes, jets, etc to transporting those vehicles and troops across the world, to powering AC in FOBs) it's just not worth it and it never will be.
-
it still discourages spending. If bread prices go up by 10%, a lot of poor people will be going hungry.
-
I'm don't think I'm properly understanding you. Do you think poor people going hungry is a good thing?
-
Not a huge amount, remember that the only people we are really income taxing are the middle class, as much of the lower class either get tax reduction or don't pay them at all because they have an illegal job and have no official income, while most of the rich don't pay many taxes because they have a bunch of bullshit tax loopholes they exploit. If we implemented a 12% income tax on all non-essential goods, It wouldn't be that bad, seriously, it's only an extra 12 bucks out of every 100, and the government would finally have enough money to get shit done. it's just fair.
Edited:
Key words: Except for necessities, like food and water. Those don't get taxed, only non-essential goods, like dragon dildoes or a flatscreen TV.
-
oh, I miss phrased my first post. I meant spending is good for the economy, so not spending (which a larger sales tax would encourage) would hurt the economy.
-
Alright, that makes more sense but the system still sounds ridiculous and give the wealthy an enormous advantage.
-
I don't understand why everyone who isn't rich seems to think almost no wealthy person ever pays taxes because of "numerous loopholes". It's something constantly regurgitated and as far as I know has no factual basis. If you're making an income, you get taxed on it. Even stock trading gets taxed. I would love to see a factual example of one of these loopholes.
-
When did I says anything about loopholes? When did I mention rich people not paying taxes?
-
he was referring to wealth + taste, who believes the rich don't pay taxes.
-
There are some super-rich people who can get through loopholes and pay severely reduced taxes.
Edited:
What the hell do you mean? If a poor man spends $50 on some porno magazines and that's the only non-essential items he buys in that period, the only taxes he'll have to pay are on those magazines. Whereas a rich man who spends $50,000 on an expensive sailboat will have to pay a lot more taxes than the poor man, simply because he's spending more. It's more fair because now everyone pays taxes because everyone buys goods.
-
but it's also bad because it discourages spending. How about a flat tax rate, with no exemptions. The best part about flat tax rates is that individuals wouldn't even really need to pay taxes, because their employer could pay it instead.
-
How does that discourage spending? I'm not saying it would be a massive 30 percent tax, maybe something like 8-12%. In GA you have to pay 7% so it's not really that over-the-top.
And taxing the employer is stupid. That discourages hiring people, which is what we really don't want. If we start taxing employers for having employees then why would they want to hire anyone? It would be too expensive for businesses to maintain.
-
An 8-12% tax added to the state tax would make a total sales tax of 15-19%. That's pretty big. And it discourages spending because it makes things more expensive.
And how would taxing the employer discourage hiring? you do realize all money that an employee makes, including the money they have to pay as taxes, comes from their employer. The employer always pays the tax in the end, the only difference is if they have to physically send the check to the IRS. If employers had to pay the tax, they would simply pay their employees less. But since the employees no longer have to file taxes, the employees still end up with the same amount of money at the end.
Edited:
Let me give you an example. Let's say your a sales clerk, and your boss pays you $20,000 a year. To make the math simple, there is a 10% income tax and a 0% payroll tax. So your boss pays a total of $20,000, the government makes $2,000, and you make $18,000. Now, let's remove the income tax, and replace it with a 10% payroll withholding tax (a withholding tax is taken out from the employee's salary, not added on top). The employer still pays $20,000, but he has to withhold $2000 of it and give it to the government. The employee still gets $18,000 in the end, but he doesn't have to deal with the hassle of filing tax returns.
-
Yeah, but what i'm getting to is that with no income tax, you'd have more money to spend in the first place. Let's say you get $10,000 bucks a month just for the analogy's sake. That means you make $120,000 bucks a year, which puts you in the 25% tax bracket. That leaves you with $90,000 to spend a year after Uncle Sam gets his share. However, with fairtax, if you make $120,000 a year, you get all that money to spend, with about a 16% sales tax with combined federal and state. And not all of your $120,000 is going to be spent on non-essential goods with the tax on it. A lot will be spent on food, water, and bills, and some of it will go to savings. In the end, the consumer saves a big chunk of money, while the government gets more taxes, seeing as everyone is now paying a sales tax, even tourists. Everybody wins.
-
Yes, people will save a lot of money. But the idea that the Fed will make more money is ridiculous. First, not all of the 16% goes to the federal government, they only get 9% (assuming the state gets 7%). now which will make the fed more money? a 7% tax, or a 25% tax? obviously, the 25% tax. And the whole "everyone is now paying sales tax" argument is wonk. Everyone pays taxes. The rich find loopholes, but they can't get a 100% write-off. Even then, most of a rich person's money is not spent on items, but invested. Since a sales tax does not affect investment, the sales tax would not cover a large portion of their income. So your fairtax system would drastically reduce revenue.
Edited:
And I looked into the actual fairtax proposal. It's a 23% withholding tax, which would be equivalent to a 30% traditional sales tax. Add a 7% state sales tax, and you have a total of 37% tax on items.
-
Well the state wouldn't tax 25% because that's incredibly high and people would be in public outrage about it. The highest I could see them going is 15%, and even then I'm not sure. I still think the sales tax would generate as much revenue at least and probably more. Think of all the people with no official job, illegal jobs, whatever. I'd hazard to guess that 5% of the population at least have illegal or undeclared jobs. Now they are paying taxes, the rich no longer have any loopholes and they pay a lot of taxes because they're big spenders. On top of that, all of the kids who don't have jobs now pay sales tax when they buy candy, video games, movies, etc. as well as all of the tourists and illegal immigrants. All of that combined gives the state a lot of money and it's a lot more fair for everyone involved.
Edited:
Yeah that might need a little tweaking. I'm just down with dropping income tax and having a lower sales tax, 23% seems a tad ridiculous.
-
people with no official jobs or illegal jobs rarely make much money anyways. And as I said, the rich, even with all their loopholes, pay more than 9%. and you do realize they proposed the 30% tax because any less wouldn't provide the needed revenue.
-
Tell that to the more profitable drug dealers, who have no official income but still buy a shitload of goods. And still there's the fact that EVERYONE who buys goods in the U.S now pays taxes, including illegals, criminals, kids, seniors, etc.
-
and what about illegal/unofficial businesses that don't charge a sales tax? I doubt the drug dealers are collecting a sales tax. And kids get their money from parents, who pay an income tax. But the point is, the whole "more people would pay taxes" argument is bunk, because there will always be tax evaders. What is true is that sales tax only taxes consumption, not the entire income. So even if the choice was between a 9% sales tax and a 9% income tax, the income tax would bring in significantly more money.
Edited:
An example: California has a sales tax of 7.25%, and a progressive sales tax with the highest bracket being 9.3%. California made 49.9 billion from income tax in 2005-06, but only made 27.6 billion from sales tax. Obviously, replacing the income tax with a lower sales tax would not increase revenue at all.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/2007/tax_prime....aspx#overview
-
Not doomed but America is like UK. They have been on the top for so long and now is the time to let someone else come along and be the "champion". (Even though America is everyone, it's probably going to end in their standards soon)
-
what do you mean it's time? I think America's going to stay for a while.
-
Sorry if my replies are slow, I'm in the army right now so I can only get on FP on the weekends.
What I meant was that India's economic growth rate was beginning to skyrocket before liberalisation as shown by your data.
Governments are not infamous for managing money unwisely, however, it seems you took a more extreme version like the Soviet Union, which of course did not function. I mean that state intervention has been used effectively numerous times. We'll take Nokia as an example, the Finnish government subsidised its electronics department for 17 years before it even made a profit, then it became the largest mobile phone manufacturer in the world. It probably would not have achieved that without state intervention because some company like AT&T or whatever would have bought it. That subsidisation brought economic growth and jobs to Finland. Or we can look at South Korea when the state introduced five year plans which boosted the industrial side of the economy greatly.
Innovation was the US' comparative advantage. The US used to fund R&D heavily and now the government has a very small role in it which has been detrimental to the US economy and US inventiveness. Of course you better improve quickly and that is what countries can do when the government helps. I used the Chinese economy to back up my claims.
Corporations are infamous for caring more about themselves than the people which is natural since they are profit driven. However, those corporations can actually do better in the long run if they help the people. Just look at shareholder value maximisation, it doesn't do shit for anyone in the long run and especially not for average people, but it gives a lot of money in the short run which is detrimental to economic growth. When is the last time a corporation actually did something amazing without government help?
-
I think a large part of the issues in the United States stems from our "minority" system.
Let's say this; The "minority" system works as follows:
The nation is built up of a bunch of minorities, which are not allowed to be discriminated against by the law and the Constitution. However, it is the largest minority who will choose the laws, based on their beliefs. Used to, the nation was comprised of less viral and large minorities, and the media wasn't such a profound thing. A very large majority would take over, and laws would be made then that would now be considered discriminatory and immoral/wrong. Yet, that was how things worked then, and it seemed to do fine.
Now, however, there are much more people in the US; And the more people, the more minorities. The more minorities, the less laws you can make. The less laws you can make, the more other minorities complain that the laws they want aren't being implemented. This is where the whole "you can't please everyone" part of it comes in. Except, it is now at a more "extreme" level, for lack of a better word. Basing upon our constitution/current laws, we are not allowing to selectively target minority groups and etc for our laws. In the cases that we can, the media will viscously attack the Gov't and their supporters, as well as the fact that the "minority", which happens to be rather large anyways, would also throw outcries and protests towards the opposing sides.
I feel that this really cripples the way our nation works, and is what is causing a lot of problems. Our Government is afraid of its own media. Instead of the Government being the ones watching our every move, I feel we may be trapped in our own cage of Social "correctness". (Or political correctness, which is just another factor to the whole "minority" system.)
I'm kind of rambling here, and this is my first post here, so please forgive me if I seem stupid.
