Subject:
|
Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:27:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2592 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
| |
Well, let’s be honest here. If your product is too expensive for the masses
in the USA, it probably doesn’t stand much of a chance in an even MORE
empoverished world market overseas, especially with foreign governments’
market-protection policies (tariffs, etc).
WE are THE market; we are THE CONSUMERS; WE fuel the world economy. This,
BTW, is a blessing AND a curse IMO.
|
Not quite true any more. The EU is providing a balanced offset against the US
nowadays (look at the strength of the Euro). From a world markets point of
view the US is playing less of a role.
|
What about all of this rubbish about the US being 5% of the world’s population
(300,000,000 strong now, thankyouverymuch) and yet consuming 75%-ish of the
world’s resources? Balance that!
| |
And I wouldn’t whinge about tariffs. Check how much of your tax goes into
supporting large agri-business run farms in various protected areas of
agriculture. Your sugar would be a hell of a lot cheaper if it came from
Brazil or Australia and wasn’t supported.
In the “Free” trade agreement between Australia and the US there are so many
loopholes for US agri-business it would make an ardent protectionist blush.
To his credit President Bush has pushed (weakly) against this blatant
protectionism but there’s a lot of Republicans and Democrats alike who have
vested interests in preserving the status quo.
| |
| |
But if you use that money to assist those on the lower rungs,
|
How specifically? Education? We do that.
|
Not the extent of other countries. Your undergraduate university system is
innately geared towards wealth rather than intelligence and your public high
school system is regarded as poor even within the US and is considered
completely subpar everywhere else in the world. The only level where you
excel is at postgraduate and that is to a large extent due to foreign input.
|
It’s a wonder we are even able to dress ourselves in the morning!
| |
| |
| |
they will
put it back into the US economy, indirectly giving it to that same rich guy
after all, but helping out a greater portion of the population along the
way.
|
The problem is that they don’t use that help to better their situation and
become productive, but to simply secure themselves to the public teet.
Governmental help too often foils the motivation for improvement, as
manifested in worker morale in a communist society.
|
You are jumping to extremes here. A free-market social democracy provides
plenty of incentive for work.
|
I don’t see it.
| |
I would argue that a laissez fare approach
discourages the poor to work and encourages them to turn to crime as there is
minimal incentive to work when you know that you are never going to improve
your childrens chances without more money than you can earn legally.
|
So, you are implying that the poor and turning to crime to improve their
children’s chances for upward mobility? Doubtful. I don’t like your equation
of poor=criminal. Crime is perped by moral degenerates, poor AND rich. There
are millions of people who don’t possess a lot of wealth, but are smart enough
to know that they are FAR richer (in areas that matter, such as character) than
some millionaire with a hopelessly broken moral compass.
| |
--SNIP--
| |
Well, I’m ALL for tax reform. Personally, I’d like to see the IRS abolished
and a VAT installed. That way the rich get soaked, and best of all, it is
by themselves-- what could be sweeter (and fairer) than that?
A VAT is the ONLY way to truly make the “rich” pay, because they have so
many loopholes available to them that aren’t for the unwashed.
|
Actually, there’s an awful lot of impetus and evidence that flat taxes are a
great way of getting the rich to pay the tax they ought. They can even work
with redistributive policies by returning cash to those who need it.
|
What about the rich who don’t work, but live off of investments? And you would
tax everyone? It starts to get complicated fairly quickly. Even a simple
idea like a VAT has problems that must be thought through.
BTW, what is this idea about “returning cash”? Sounds like you think it
belonged to the proposed recipients in the first place.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
| (...) I've never heard it said that the US consumes 75% of the worlds resources. I've heard it consumes 25%. Are you learning percentages from Dave Schuler? (...) To be honest it kind of is. Your rates of literacy and numeracy are incredibly poor by (...) (18 years ago, 17-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
| (...) Not quite true any more. The EU is providing a balanced offset against the US nowadays (look at the strength of the Euro). From a world markets point of view the US is playing less of a role. And I wouldn't whinge about tariffs. Check how much (...) (18 years ago, 17-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
