We have got to have a tax increase.

[Vader]

I don't really see what's wrong with outsourcing, but I don't want to start a whole debate over it, since this is a thread about taxation. However, I am quite skeptical about your solution. By making firms less value productive you are indirectly hurting the consumers. How does this stimulate the economy?

---------------------------------

If by hurt, you mean that the cost of things may increase a little, yes, that will happen, however, if won't effect Americans all that much because many of those same consumers will be able to give-up working for Wal-Mart and assume much better, much higher paying positions with companies like Microsoft, IBM(this company needs to be out of business anyway), Honeywell, and various other large conglamorites. As a result, Americans will be able to pay a little more for some things without being economically damaged.

As such, Americans will be better off and will stay better off while the greedy corporate scum who stole from the American people are footing the bill(i.e. making reperations for their dispicable greed).

- Vader

 

[128shot]

---------------------------------

If by hurt, you mean that the cost of things may increase a little, yes, that will happen, however, if won't effect Americans all that much because many of those same consumers will be able to give-up working for Wal-Mart and assume much better, much higher paying positions with companies like Microsoft, IBM(this company needs to be out of business anyway), Honeywell, and various other large conglamorites. As a result, Americans will be able to pay a little more for some things without being economically damaged.

As such, Americans will be better off and will stay better off while the greedy corporate scum who stole from the American people are footing the bill(i.e. making reperations for their dispicable greed).

- Vader

this statement stinks with blind rage.



I for one, don't believe this isolationaist theory would work at all.

 

[128shot]

I will agree with you on nuclear. The reason why more coal plants are not built is that there is currently an excess supply of power generation. The reasons refineries are not built is that oil companies and independent refinery companies have chosen not to build them as it is in their financial interest to have a constrained refining capacity. How can the environmental lobby who spends maybe a few million every year lobbying congress compete with the oil and coal lobby who spends hundreds of millions every year lobbying congress.

Then why are oil companies being hit with all sides by this statement


"Build more refinerys"

?


It would take 7 years with current regulation to build a coal plant, or a factory, regardless of the currrent status.

 

[Vader]

this statement stinks with blind rage.



I for one, don't believe this isolationaist theory would work at all.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


There's nothing isolationist about it. Big business needs to give jobs to Americans. The economy is in a state, which makes employment on the home fronr a vital concern.

We need to be paying Americans provide technical support for American-made software products. Big business needs to be put in a position, which forces them to favor the American workforce.

Many countries do this very same thing (Australia, Germany, Great Brittan, France, and many others)

We need to provide for our own people before we provide for anybody else.

-Vader

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Then why are oil companies being hit with all sides by this statement


"Build more refinerys"

?


It would take 7 years with current regulation to build a coal plant, or a factory, regardless of the currrent status.

Do you want cheap gas, or do you want breathable air? Ever been down to Houston, taken a deep breath of that refinery air? There is a reason why we have a lot of environmental regulations.

Just the same, refineries are not being built because there is an economic incentive not to build them. The oil industry is currently the most profitable industry in the history of civilization.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


There's nothing isolationist about it. Big business needs to give jobs to Americans. The economy is in a state, which makes employment on the home fronr a vital concern.

We need to be paying Americans provide technical support for American-made software products. Big business needs to be put in a position, which forces them to favor the American workforce.

Many countries do this very same thing (Australia, Germany, Great Brittan, France, and many others)

We need to provide for our own people before we provide for anybody else.

-Vader

Those countries largely have unionized professional workforces. That is why they have less outsourcing. Strong unions keep jobs domestic. No doubt about it. You have to be careful when interfering with the market though. All of those countries have higher unemployment than we do too.

 

[128shot]

Cheap gas and breatheable air.


Its not a dream, its real..


Anyway.


I like what Norway does, they have minimum wage based around what a group of people from the business and a representive of the people (I imagine Union, but I hesitate to use that word), come to an agreement of what the minimum wage is in that particular industry.

Its no wonder that Norway has 3.7% unemployment

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Cheap gas and breatheable air.


Its not a dream, its real..


Anyway.


I like what Norway does, they have minimum wage based around what a group of people from the business and a representive of the people (I imagine Union, but I hesitate to use that word), come to an agreement of what the minimum wage is in that particular industry.

Its no wonder that Norway has 3.7% unemployment

Its a bit hard to compare Norway to the USA. Norway is a socialist nation.

Moreover, you have cheap gas (well not so much anymore) and breathable because of all the environmental regulations and oversight.

 

[128shot]

Prove it, theres a challenge!


Norway isn't socialist by any means. To my knowledge you can still own a private business in Norway...

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Prove it, theres a challenge!


Norway isn't socialist by any means. To my knowledge you can still own a private business in Norway...

I did not say that Norway was communist. You can have a socialist economy without being communist.

This is a quote from Wikipedia's article on Norway in the economic section:

"The Norwegian economy is a prosperous bastion of social capitalism, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway

As far as pollution goes. If it were not for government regulation you would still have lead in gas. You would not have catalytic converters. You would have no emission controls. I can go on.

What economic incentive do oil companies have in producing cleaner fuels?
Answer: Zero.

That is why we have regulations.

 

[128shot]

Social capitalism...


Sounds a hell of alot different from socialism.


There would be greater incentive because there is a greater demand for enviormentally friendly products? Isn't that WHY we have regulations anyway? Is because we as a people demanded them?

 

[Elektra]

We are already enslaved to oil. Do we really wish to extend this costly enslavement to an additional entity.... foreign moneylenders?

Too late.Look at the trade deficit.

 

[Elektra]

All of those countries have higher unemployment than we do too.

Austria 4.4 %
Switzerland 3.5 %
Norway 4.3 %

USA 5.5 %

Whatever it is, it's not the unions.

source:http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-B/lab_une_rat

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Social capitalism...


Sounds a hell of alot different from socialism.


There would be greater incentive because there is a greater demand for enviormentally friendly products? Isn't that WHY we have regulations anyway? Is because we as a people demanded them?

All social capitalism is socialism with private ownership. It is a mile to the left of the United States economic system.

Why is there not greater demand for environmentally friendly products now?

Moreover, stockholders want products made as cheaply as possible. Even though most companies would not choose to pollute, one would, and then every other company would have pollute just to compete. That is why we have regulations, so as to level the playing field.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Austria 4.4 %
Switzerland 3.5 %
Norway 4.3 %

USA 5.5 %

Whatever it is, it's not the unions.

source:http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-B/lab_une_rat

I stand corrected on the unemployment numbers. Anyone who works in the tech industry will tell you that tech employees in most European Nations are heavily unionized. That is why they don't have the outsourcing. The unions wont permit it. Our I.T. director, who is a staunch Republican, dealt with European Tech companies a lot over the years and even he would tell you that the reason those countries don't outsource their jobs as much as we do is the strong unions they have.

 

[128shot]

I stand corrected on the unemployment numbers. Anyone who works in the tech industry will tell you that tech employees in most European Nations are heavily unionized. That is why they don't have the outsourcing. The unions wont permit it. Our I.T. director, who is a staunch Republican, dealt with European Tech companies a lot over the years and even he would tell you that the reason those countries don't outsource their jobs as much as we do is the strong unions they have.

For better or for worse.

 

[Ether]

---------------------------------

If by hurt, you mean that the cost of things may increase a little, yes, that will happen, however, if won't effect Americans all that much because many of those same consumers will be able to give-up working for Wal-Mart and assume much better, much higher paying positions with companies like Microsoft, IBM(this company needs to be out of business anyway), Honeywell, and various other large conglamorites. As a result, Americans will be able to pay a little more for some things without being economically damaged.

As such, Americans will be better off and will stay better off while the greedy corporate scum who stole from the American people are footing the bill(i.e. making reperations for their dispicable greed).

- Vader

First of all, if these Wal-Mart employees were capable to work in IBM or Microsoft, why don't they apply for employment in those firms? Or are you saying they can't because all the jobs are being "outsourced" to India? I don't know how much you know about retail, but most of the employees are not qualified for IT employment. I can say this from experience. Second, Wal-Mart employs over a million people, which is a lot but only a drop in the bucket compared to total employment. MILLIONS of people shop at Wal-Mart and will be affected by any protectionist policies.

Here's the essential point. Both free trade and protectionism will result in the re-arrangement of jobs. Free trade will reshuffle jobs towards the areas where Americans have a comparative advantage. Protectionism tends to reshuffle away from where Americans have a comparative advantage. You choose.

There's nothing isolationist about it. Big business needs to give jobs to Americans. The economy is in a state, which makes employment on the home fronr a vital concern.

We need to be paying Americans provide technical support for American-made software products. Big business needs to be put in a position, which forces them to favor the American workforce.

Many countries do this very same thing (Australia, Germany, Great Brittan, France, and many others)

We need to provide for our own people before we provide for anybody else.

-Vader

I think our main problem is what motivates the arguments for protectinism. Because if it’s only pure nationalism that’s fueling this isolationist sentiments, there’s really nothing for me to say. I can only tell you that there’s absolutely no economic argument against free trade. None. Stating that big businesses “needs to give jobs to Americans” only reflects an economic nationalism which has its roots in emotional patriotism rather than economic theory.