Are you saying we all would be better off - at this stage in the game - if the government were to have drastically cut spending in line with decreased revenues? Only a handful of bankers and/or money managers would agree; while they reap massive returns from government life support.
There is a difference between decreasing spending and INCREASING spending. Seems neither you nor Obama are willing to distinguish between
On your last talking point about the banks ( not sure what money managers received government assistance?) the big ones have largely paid back the loans with interest and profit on stock.
This section of the forum seems to have the weakest arguments. Maybe because so many do not really understand the business world, just theory.
Quite the unnecessary comment given that I have yet to display inaptness regarding fiscal policy. None the less, arguments based on faith rather than market sentiment will always fall on deaf ears.
Care to comment on net wealth creation from 2009- 2010? Financial institutions and pension/hedge funds have done quite well have they not?
:lol: ad ohms cannot save you. Care to address my comments and not speculate on my character....
Unemployment in most so called western civilized nations will remain obstinately high until such time as they realize that sending jobs offshore hurts their economies more than anything else.
Manufacture and sell in Country, that way Gov. gets taxes from Company's and workers, workers have Jobs, who loses? oh yes all those downtrodden workers in China/Vietnam/North Korea/Mexico!
Most of the wealth creation in 2009-2010 did in fact come from the rise in the stock market. What is just wrong is to say that the only one to benefit are bankers and money managers. I am sure you know that much of value of persion funds, school endowments, 401Ks etc is in stocks, so they benefited mightily.
I did not attack your character, sorry if you think I did. I do question your reasoning on this matter.
BTW I have always thought that the Reagan tax cuts would adversely impact us and they have. The difference I think we have is that I think if you want something you should pay for it, not send the bill to my son.
Puzzling, isn't it? You would think that health care reform + the prospect of higher taxes and more regulations - that businesses would be hiring in droves. :lol:the cons are characteristically clairvoyant
Four companies mulled dropping health insurance plans - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com
at&t accountants, for instance, reckon they can recoup 75% of their health care costs by DUMPING their employees
You were replying to my post, so what am I to think? :shrug
My point is; markets will price debt accordingly (as in greece). Cutting spending during this stage of the recovery will only exacerbate any remaining negative market sentiment.
I have a funny feeling that thousands of companies are going to do the exact same thing. When individuals that don't have insurance now find out how much insurance is going to cost them, whether they want it or not, the cost to the rest of us will skyrocket. The whole health care reform bill relies on high participation.
I agree with some of the above in regards to off shoring.
I would happily pay an extra 2-10% on most items if its of equal or better quality and garaunteed to be made with American materials by American workers in America even if its a foreign company.
Oh no, the amazingly cheap walmart $7 dollar T-Shirts may become slightly less amazingly cheap $10 T-Shirts.
Though the problem is we'd likely need to drop the minimum wage if this was to actually work in any way, which is likely never going to happen. But frankly I'd have to ask what is better? Starting at a place and working for $5 an hour or not having a job and making $0 an hour?
I would happily pay an extra 2-10% on most items if its of equal or better quality and garaunteed to be made with American materials by American workers in America even if its a foreign company.
Oh no, the amazingly cheap walmart $7 dollar T-Shirts may become slightly less amazingly cheap $10 T-Shirts.
Though the problem is we'd likely need to drop the minimum wage if this was to actually work in any way, which is likely never going to happen. But frankly I'd have to ask what is better? Starting at a place and working for $5 an hour or not having a job and making $0 an hour?
What stops you? You can buy from American made clothing suppliers. There is a reason such a trend does not dominate the clothing/fashion industry......
Why are you against walmart?
Because convenience is far more important to me than price even. While I'd happily pay a bit more for an American Shirt over one made in China, that's not going to be the case if I can't go down to the store, see it in the store, try it on in the store, and buy it at the store but instead have to buy something over the internet based on a picture that's going to take time to be shipped to me.
I'm not against walmart. I love the concept of Walmart. I think Walmart would still be providing lower prices than most other stores if we did start moving to economic, regulation, tax, and trade policy that made American made products far more common based on a number of other factors.
My issue is more with massively cheap labor in far poorer countries in sweatshop type experiences while we cripple our own manufacturing abilities through constant regulations and policies which is pushing businesses into going overseas because the difference is so vast that its not good business to even attempt to do it in America.
My issue isn't with walmart, my issue is with the government. Walmart is simply reacting to what the government has caused.
That said there's only so many businesses that can enter into an individual market before it becomes over saturated.
I fail to believe there'd be a complete void of people wanting to enter into manufacturing ventures other than chemicals, weapons, and alloy based machinery in the US if the laws ended up changing to make it more practical and to reduce the incentive to use poor country horrible conditions sweat shop workers abroad.
You are arguing for nothing more than tarrifs and quotas to support the labor movement here in the US. Given the US stance and reward based on comparative advantage, such sentiment can only be considered a sheer fantasy.
Unemployment in most so called western civilized nations will remain obstinately high until such time as they realize that sending jobs offshore hurts their economies more than anything else.
Manufacture and sell in Country, that way Gov. gets taxes from Company's and workers, workers have Jobs, who loses? oh yes all those downtrodden workers in China/Vietnam/North Korea/Mexico!
There is absolutely no mention of a tariff or anything resembling a tariff in his post.
Maybe we should send out jobs to offshore drilling.
Then do your best to explain to me in detail how labor intensive manufacturing is to return to the US?
I don't know what you are talking about since he said he would happily pay more for AMERICAN made materials if he could find them easily.
Zyphlin said:My issue is more with massively cheap labor in far poorer countries in sweatshop type experiences while we cripple our own manufacturing abilities through constant regulations and policies which is pushing businesses into going overseas because the difference is so vast that its not good business to even attempt to do it in America.
My issue isn't with walmart, my issue is with the government. Walmart is simply reacting to what the government has caused.
Obviously you did not read Zyph's comment,
A basic error regarding "gains from exchange". If left to "the markets", most labor intensive production would shift overseas regardless. The only real means to "correct" -so to say- this imbalance would be via taxes and quotas. There is a reason the US is chosen as the top nation to do business in.
He said he would gladly pay more for American made products, but foreign products are cheaper and more available. "Constant regulations and policies" does equate tariffs.
The regulations and policies resulting in higher prices is in this country... tariffs only affect foreign goods.
Obviously YOU did not read his comment.
Nope! The reason labor intensive products would be cheaper essentially plays into relative standard of living differences. The cost of living in the US far outweighs that of indonesia, of which the prevailing wage is a said function of. The (short term) cost of implementing capital intensive centers of manufacturing in nations with sub standard human capital development is far greater than say in the US. Which is why manufacturing fluctuates; based on total factor-productivity.
Therefore, labor intensive manufacturing will continue to mobilize to areas/nations who employ greater comparative advantages. The only way to reverse this trend is through the use of protectionist policy.
His comment did not take into consideration comparative advantage, thereby placing it in the "so what" category. Given tariffs increase the demand for domestic production, my comments are spot on.
You've gone off on a tangent that doesn't address or even resemble the original comment by Zyph, so have fun playing with yourself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?