-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
It is who you give the tax cuts to![W:260]
- Thread starter independentusa
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 46,122
- Reaction score
- 14,553
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
which is kind of the heart of the argument right? If particular unnecessary regulations make production unprofitable in the US it won;t produce.
If trade deals make American production less profitable versus foreign production then the US won;t produce.
which is kind of the heart of the argument right? If particular unnecessary regulations make production unprofitable in the US it won;t produce.
If trade deals make American production less profitable versus foreign production then the US won;t produce.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 46,122
- Reaction score
- 14,553
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,174
- Reaction score
- 14,270
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
No, my contention is that we have reached a preferable capacity utilization to one that is achieved through protectionism.
You're getting a bit ahead of yourself. Capacity utilization is a function of demand, such that firms will increase the level of labor and capital (not in equal amounts) in order to realize greater profitability. Profit is maximized when marginal revenue = marginal cost, not when marginal revenue is at its relative maxima. Hence, utilization will always be below 100%, not because we cannot produce more, but because firms would rather make the most amount of money per dollar invested than maximize revenue.
No, my contention is that we have reached a preferable capacity utilization to one that is achieved through protectionism.
You're getting a bit ahead of yourself. Capacity utilization is a function of demand, such that firms will increase the level of labor and capital (not in equal amounts) in order to realize greater profitability. Profit is maximized when marginal revenue = marginal cost, not when marginal revenue is at its relative maxima. Hence, utilization will always be below 100%, not because we cannot produce more, but because firms would rather make the most amount of money per dollar invested than maximize revenue.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,174
- Reaction score
- 14,270
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
The U.S. manufactures and exports more than in any other period of its history.
Without being able to operate on the basis of comparative advantage, we wouldn't achieve this current equilibrium.
The U.S. manufactures and exports more than in any other period of its history.
Without being able to operate on the basis of comparative advantage, we wouldn't achieve this current equilibrium.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,174
- Reaction score
- 14,270
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
There isn't data on real median disposable personal income.
We have more economic profit than ever, and more net wealth, which is a due to economic policy that favors capital investment over labor. Protectionism doesn't address this discrepancy, because automation will always be here to substitute low-value labor inputs. In fact, all it will do is create a negative-sum situation, where the poor, middle-class and wealthy are all worse off. If that is your economic goal, by all means continue to support such policy.
You made claims that manufacturing wages were at rock bottom, manufacturing is being hamstrung, and that earnings have been stagnate due to trade and automation... all which are simply not true. It is true that capital is rewarded more than in previous years. But again, that isn't because of globalization. It's because our economic policy, e.g. tax, financial, subsidies, etc... all favor capital investment (which includes human capital). We as a nation have simply not prepared our workforce for shifts in the global economy.
Do you honestly believe increasing taxes on foreign goods (reducing trade) makes the U.S. more competitive?
There isn't data on real median disposable personal income.
We have more economic profit than ever, and more net wealth, which is a due to economic policy that favors capital investment over labor. Protectionism doesn't address this discrepancy, because automation will always be here to substitute low-value labor inputs. In fact, all it will do is create a negative-sum situation, where the poor, middle-class and wealthy are all worse off. If that is your economic goal, by all means continue to support such policy.
You made claims that manufacturing wages were at rock bottom, manufacturing is being hamstrung, and that earnings have been stagnate due to trade and automation... all which are simply not true. It is true that capital is rewarded more than in previous years. But again, that isn't because of globalization. It's because our economic policy, e.g. tax, financial, subsidies, etc... all favor capital investment (which includes human capital). We as a nation have simply not prepared our workforce for shifts in the global economy.
Do you honestly believe increasing taxes on foreign goods (reducing trade) makes the U.S. more competitive?
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 39,178
- Reaction score
- 9,688
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
I do believe I have said multiple times that we will target those trade partners that both have tariffs on us and that do not compete under the same labor and environmental conditions. We have not prepared them because we opened the gates of market full on while not investing in training them nor was the nature of global labor competition fully explained to the public because if it were it would never have been agreed to.
As for median disposable income or broken by brackets, Kush, be honest with me, you know it will show the middle class is being squeezed the lower class is nearly squashed and the upper class is just fine.
As for manufacturing there are a lot of parts of the supply chain that are not automated. I already spoke to those.
You talk a lot about productivity and costs and competition but somehow you never talk about employment. You should consider it more, its not just theory, its peoples' lives.
I do believe I have said multiple times that we will target those trade partners that both have tariffs on us and that do not compete under the same labor and environmental conditions. We have not prepared them because we opened the gates of market full on while not investing in training them nor was the nature of global labor competition fully explained to the public because if it were it would never have been agreed to.
As for median disposable income or broken by brackets, Kush, be honest with me, you know it will show the middle class is being squeezed the lower class is nearly squashed and the upper class is just fine.
As for manufacturing there are a lot of parts of the supply chain that are not automated. I already spoke to those.
You talk a lot about productivity and costs and competition but somehow you never talk about employment. You should consider it more, its not just theory, its peoples' lives.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,174
- Reaction score
- 14,270
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
There are trade partners that have far more strict labor and environmental regulations... are we similarly expected to abandon our sovereignty to appease our trade partners? Suppose every other developed nation says they will no longer trade with us unless we implement universal health care? It's a bull**** argument, and lacks economic logic.
You simultaneously ignore automation. As i have stated multiple times, the jobs are not coming back... any production that is driven back to the U.S. due to tax policy will be accompanied by automation, and will come with (your name) an opportunity cost!
Nope!
The most you can claim is that wages have not kept up with productivity.
Sure. Every day they are becoming more and more automated. Not just low-skill jobs... but even instances where a highly skilled person is being replaced, e.g. web design, financial planning, accounting, etc.... It's not going away, and tariffs do not address this reality.
I talk about employment a great deal. Automation is reducing the need for labor, and nothing you have stated negates this fact. There has become a saturation point with respect to the marginal utility of labor, such that, even as technology frees humans to do other tasks, there are less and less avenues for displaced labor to flow. Compound the fact that the marginal utility of leisure operates inversely with gains to technology.
Face it... we are a capitalist dominated economy. Short term profitability is the be-all/end-all driver of this system. Eventually, automation will reach a similar saturation point where further implementation leads to diminishing marginal return of profit, as automation cannibilizes the consumers ability to purchase. This can be remedied: Redistribution of profits will ensure capitalism's survival, A.K.A. the basic income guarantee.
There are trade partners that have far more strict labor and environmental regulations... are we similarly expected to abandon our sovereignty to appease our trade partners? Suppose every other developed nation says they will no longer trade with us unless we implement universal health care? It's a bull**** argument, and lacks economic logic.
You simultaneously ignore automation. As i have stated multiple times, the jobs are not coming back... any production that is driven back to the U.S. due to tax policy will be accompanied by automation, and will come with (your name) an opportunity cost!
Nope!
The most you can claim is that wages have not kept up with productivity.
Sure. Every day they are becoming more and more automated. Not just low-skill jobs... but even instances where a highly skilled person is being replaced, e.g. web design, financial planning, accounting, etc.... It's not going away, and tariffs do not address this reality.
I talk about employment a great deal. Automation is reducing the need for labor, and nothing you have stated negates this fact. There has become a saturation point with respect to the marginal utility of labor, such that, even as technology frees humans to do other tasks, there are less and less avenues for displaced labor to flow. Compound the fact that the marginal utility of leisure operates inversely with gains to technology.
Face it... we are a capitalist dominated economy. Short term profitability is the be-all/end-all driver of this system. Eventually, automation will reach a similar saturation point where further implementation leads to diminishing marginal return of profit, as automation cannibilizes the consumers ability to purchase. This can be remedied: Redistribution of profits will ensure capitalism's survival, A.K.A. the basic income guarantee.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 39,178
- Reaction score
- 9,688
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
In regards to the last part, I think we are arguing more over the how to do that.
I can agree that wages haven't kept up with productivity, but also that job security has been compromised along the way as well. Do you not see that our immigration and trade policies have exacerbated that issue? Our policies have become our own worst enemy for keeping wages low and stagnant.
You keep saying the jobs aren't coming back. You say automation will replace the jobs. That is true to an extent, but not in the whole.
As for trade policy, you seem to be unable to address what I keep referring to: trade partners that already level tariffs at us and engage destructive labor and environmental policy. You keep circling back to generalities but I am referring to specifics, can you try to address the specifics please? With all due respect, all nations engage in their own self interest when it comes to trade policy. We should have a trade policy that looks after our labor pool as strongly as it looks after cheap goods.
In regards to the last part, I think we are arguing more over the how to do that.
I can agree that wages haven't kept up with productivity, but also that job security has been compromised along the way as well. Do you not see that our immigration and trade policies have exacerbated that issue? Our policies have become our own worst enemy for keeping wages low and stagnant.
You keep saying the jobs aren't coming back. You say automation will replace the jobs. That is true to an extent, but not in the whole.
As for trade policy, you seem to be unable to address what I keep referring to: trade partners that already level tariffs at us and engage destructive labor and environmental policy. You keep circling back to generalities but I am referring to specifics, can you try to address the specifics please? With all due respect, all nations engage in their own self interest when it comes to trade policy. We should have a trade policy that looks after our labor pool as strongly as it looks after cheap goods.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,174
- Reaction score
- 14,270
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
Probably.
The problem is too much of a reliance on the market so solve all ills. It is firms that have not bridged the wage gap... not our trade policies. Is it your contention that slowing immigration and enacted tariffs will drive wages higher?
For manufacturing, this is necessarily a fact as we speak. Soon, automation will be displacing service jobs at similar rates (accounting, web design, financial analysis, etc...).
You keep mentioning this, and do not provide specifics. There are arguments for protectionism, such as the infant industry argument, which is why the overwhelming majority of protectionism is implemented when it comes to international trade. But make no mistake about it, our population is better off by being able to purchase low-cost goods, while industry can harness their comparative advantage in providing services, high-tech manufacturing, financial services, pharmaceuticals, software (which ironically is a major pillar to the TPP). We are worse off trying to compete with the emerging world on low-cost manufacturing, and worse off forcing consumers to pay either taxes or higher prices on goods.
You don't get it! We are acting on our self interest by engaging in free trade. It allows us to produce higher value/order goods and services, while simultaneously allowing us to consume outside of our productive capacity. You haven't provided a single instance of specifics, other than make vague references to foreign environmental and labor policy. As stated for the nth time, your position is based on towing the party line, and not on concrete evidence or economic logic.
Probably.
The problem is too much of a reliance on the market so solve all ills. It is firms that have not bridged the wage gap... not our trade policies. Is it your contention that slowing immigration and enacted tariffs will drive wages higher?
For manufacturing, this is necessarily a fact as we speak. Soon, automation will be displacing service jobs at similar rates (accounting, web design, financial analysis, etc...).
You keep mentioning this, and do not provide specifics. There are arguments for protectionism, such as the infant industry argument, which is why the overwhelming majority of protectionism is implemented when it comes to international trade. But make no mistake about it, our population is better off by being able to purchase low-cost goods, while industry can harness their comparative advantage in providing services, high-tech manufacturing, financial services, pharmaceuticals, software (which ironically is a major pillar to the TPP). We are worse off trying to compete with the emerging world on low-cost manufacturing, and worse off forcing consumers to pay either taxes or higher prices on goods.
You don't get it! We are acting on our self interest by engaging in free trade. It allows us to produce higher value/order goods and services, while simultaneously allowing us to consume outside of our productive capacity. You haven't provided a single instance of specifics, other than make vague references to foreign environmental and labor policy. As stated for the nth time, your position is based on towing the party line, and not on concrete evidence or economic logic.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2013
- Messages
- 14,520
- Reaction score
- 3,785
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
Hard to say since we have nothing to which to compare it. Not cutting taxes could have been worse. Neither one of us has the answer to that. But my point was that wealthy peoples' money is not stashed in cash in a vault. It is invested somewhere and, hence, is available for use in the economy. The belief that the money of the wealthy is not available for use in the economy is pure politically driven nonsense.
Hard to say since we have nothing to which to compare it. Not cutting taxes could have been worse. Neither one of us has the answer to that. But my point was that wealthy peoples' money is not stashed in cash in a vault. It is invested somewhere and, hence, is available for use in the economy. The belief that the money of the wealthy is not available for use in the economy is pure politically driven nonsense.
jonny5
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2012
- Messages
- 27,581
- Reaction score
- 4,664
- Location
- Republic of Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
Source?
3 million were created in his first 4 years. 10 million prior to the recession which had nothing to do with tax cuts. And if you include the recession, a net gain of 5 million when Obama took office.
February 2001 - 137 million employed
February 2005 - 140 million employed
April 2008 - 146 million employed
February 2009 - 142 million employed
Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Source?
3 million were created in his first 4 years. 10 million prior to the recession which had nothing to do with tax cuts. And if you include the recession, a net gain of 5 million when Obama took office.
February 2001 - 137 million employed
February 2005 - 140 million employed
April 2008 - 146 million employed
February 2009 - 142 million employed
Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Incisor
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,453
- Reaction score
- 533
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Incisor
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,453
- Reaction score
- 533
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You are lumping in those government jobs that you say aren't actually jobs.
You need to look at All employees, thousands, *total private*, seasonally adjusted
When you do that, you see that employment in January 2001 was 111,870,000. By January 2005, that number dipped down to 111,059,000. By January 2009, that number was 111,474,000.
Nice try with the cheating, though. Almost thought you had me, didn't you?
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You are lumping in those government jobs that you say aren't actually jobs.
You need to look at All employees, thousands, *total private*, seasonally adjusted
When you do that, you see that employment in January 2001 was 111,870,000. By January 2005, that number dipped down to 111,059,000. By January 2009, that number was 111,474,000.
Nice try with the cheating, though. Almost thought you had me, didn't you?
Incisor
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,453
- Reaction score
- 533
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
Sure we do! We can compare it to any other time in our history. If there was "investment" by way of tax cuts, it certainly wasn't investment in the US to create jobs. Bush lost 811,000 jobs in his first four years, and lost 460,000 net after 8. So job loss = investment in what world?
Sure we do! We can compare it to any other time in our history. If there was "investment" by way of tax cuts, it certainly wasn't investment in the US to create jobs. Bush lost 811,000 jobs in his first four years, and lost 460,000 net after 8. So job loss = investment in what world?
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 4,810
- Reaction score
- 2,250
- Location
- is everything
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
Yer using data from the household survey, which is best used as a measure of unemployment. If you look at private-sector employment from the establishment survey, the numbers present a different picture.
February 2001 - 112 million employed
February 2005 - 111 million employed
November 2007 (when the recession began) - 116
April 2008 - 116 million employed
February 2009 - 111 million employed
Here's an outline of the differences between these data sets.
I'd say the relatively strong growth in employment 2004-06 had a lot to do with the housing bubble.
Yer using data from the household survey, which is best used as a measure of unemployment. If you look at private-sector employment from the establishment survey, the numbers present a different picture.
February 2001 - 112 million employed
February 2005 - 111 million employed
November 2007 (when the recession began) - 116
April 2008 - 116 million employed
February 2009 - 111 million employed
Here's an outline of the differences between these data sets.
I'd say the relatively strong growth in employment 2004-06 had a lot to do with the housing bubble.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2013
- Messages
- 14,520
- Reaction score
- 3,785
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
I disagree. No point in repeating what I said earlier.
I disagree. No point in repeating what I said earlier.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 46,122
- Reaction score
- 14,553
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
that's nice but of course has nothing to do with the discussion...
We actually are below our historical average when it comes to productive capacity.
Which is in part why the US job market is not based on manufacturing jobs.
The U.S. manufactures and exports more than in any other period of its history.
Without being able to operate on the basis of comparative advantage, we wouldn't achieve this current equilibrium.
that's nice but of course has nothing to do with the discussion...
We actually are below our historical average when it comes to productive capacity.
Which is in part why the US job market is not based on manufacturing jobs.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 46,122
- Reaction score
- 14,553
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
And how do you arrive at that? poor and middle class wages in this country?.. the strength of the middle class? the equitable distribution of profit in this country? :roll:
That's nice.. but again.. is just a diversion.
Capacity utilization is definitely a function of demand.. either demand for US products.. because they are competitive.. or DEMAND for foreign made goods because they are more competitive.
So:
We are not at a stage where we have reached our productive capacity.
And how do you arrive at that? poor and middle class wages in this country?.. the strength of the middle class? the equitable distribution of profit in this country? :roll:
That's nice.. but again.. is just a diversion.
Capacity utilization is definitely a function of demand.. either demand for US products.. because they are competitive.. or DEMAND for foreign made goods because they are more competitive.
So:
Kushinator said:
We are not at a stage where we have reached our productive capacity.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,174
- Reaction score
- 14,270
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
Profit is maximized when marginal revenue = marginal cost.
Capacity utilization is a function of demand.
Profit is maximized when marginal revenue = marginal cost.
Capacity utilization is a function of demand.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2013
- Messages
- 46,122
- Reaction score
- 14,553
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
That's nice.. irrelevant to the discussion.. but nice.
That's nice.. irrelevant to the discussion.. but nice.
jonny5
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2012
- Messages
- 27,581
- Reaction score
- 4,664
- Location
- Republic of Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
You dont have to be a dick. Maybe I just have a bad argument. Its a debate forum. You can post a rebuttal without being an asshole.
You dont have to be a dick. Maybe I just have a bad argument. Its a debate forum. You can post a rebuttal without being an asshole.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,174
- Reaction score
- 14,270
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
Protectionism doesn't increase wages for the poor and middle class, strengthen the middle class, or provide more equitable distribution of profit in this country.
You're creating a jaeger definition to push an argument. Firms maximize profits by producing at a certain level relative to the cost of producing at that level, or MR = MC. Producing in excess, MR < MC, builds inventory. By importing cheaper goods, U.S. manufacturers and exporters can focus on the types of goods that are suited to their comparative advantage, such as capital goods, pharmaceuticals, etc....
So? You need to refer to opportunity cost, and how trade allows us to consume outside our production possibilities frontier. If we were to engage in autarky, U.S. production and standard of living would be less than it is at our current equilibrium, even if capacity utilization was higher.
Protectionism doesn't increase wages for the poor and middle class, strengthen the middle class, or provide more equitable distribution of profit in this country.
You're creating a jaeger definition to push an argument. Firms maximize profits by producing at a certain level relative to the cost of producing at that level, or MR = MC. Producing in excess, MR < MC, builds inventory. By importing cheaper goods, U.S. manufacturers and exporters can focus on the types of goods that are suited to their comparative advantage, such as capital goods, pharmaceuticals, etc....
So? You need to refer to opportunity cost, and how trade allows us to consume outside our production possibilities frontier. If we were to engage in autarky, U.S. production and standard of living would be less than it is at our current equilibrium, even if capacity utilization was higher.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,174
- Reaction score
- 14,270
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: It is who you give the tax cuts to!
Highly relevant, given your comment regarding capacity utilization.
Highly relevant, given your comment regarding capacity utilization.