• 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!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
Government is about consensus. Democrats and Republicans are the viable parties. You want to talk about abortion, me not having guns, gay marriage, health care, immigration, crime, humanities, environmental ...,
it all comes down to money or fluff.

You want healthcare? money
Illegal immigration ... money
War ... money
trade policy ... money
taxes ... money

How different are the 2 parties when it comes to money? Meaning where is there consensus?

War / Defense ... close to a trillion a year now. Consensus yes ... who benefits? defense contractors
Low taxes ... consensus ... yes. who benefits all, who benefits more ... fill in the blank.
Free trade ... consensus ... yes. Who benefits ... corporations and cheap goods. Lost GDP, jobs, revenue.
Obamacare ... consensus ... yes. Who benefits ... depends on your view ... definitely business.
Illegal immigration ... consensus ... yes. Who benefits ... not the people of the US.
Crime ... consensus ... yes. Who benefits ... prison profits.
Deregulation ... consensus ... yes. Who benefited? Ask the people suffering from the excesses of derivatives.
Tax breaks and loopholes amounting to 1 trillion ... consensus ... yes. Who benefits corporations.
Lack of VAT's .... consensus ... yes. Who benefits? Not Americans.

Of course I'm slanting views some as I'm progressive ie I don't see the value of wasting money on chasing drug users ... Darwin will take care of that.

However there is consensus on money makers War, low taxes, and trade ... money.

There is plenty of consensus on issues that harm Americans ... be a con ... be a lib, but the two parties we vote for legislate together. I see little difference ... when it comes to money.
 
Michael H said:
An unbiased report of governmental regulations for OECD countries rates us among the best.
Click to expand...

Amoing the best? Is that your goal?

The US used to be the very best and now regulations are making it far tougher for business while other countries are taking advantage of this.

For reasons rational to many, they made many changes to the rules and regulations of the United States just enough to throw it off kilter. Now businesses are leaving and people complain about it. What can you expect?

Do you think there is any other country in the world talking of their banking business like this?

Maxine Waters: Obama Needs To Take On 'Gangsta' Banks
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
AdamT said:
Medicare was introduced in the 1960's! How was this the result of a "scandalous poverty rate? It was a time of peace and love!

Now it has become a non sustainable program. People are expecting the money to be there, they haven't saved as a result, and the money won't be there. Ya say ya wanna revolution?
Click to expand...

I think Ayn Rand said pretty much the same ... until she went on the dole. Nice to have principles until you need help. Ayn Rand is looked up to by many ... I don't know if hypocrisy is something to be appreciated. Atlas Shrugged
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Now it has become a non sustainable program. People are expecting the money to be there, they haven't saved as a result, and the money won't be there. Ya say ya wanna revolution?
Click to expand...
Medicare came about partially because medical insurance companies didn't want to insure the old and infirm, no profit there. This is why Ryan's plan is so stupid.
 
AdamT said:
You're argument suggests that people would have saved for retirement and medical care before SS and Medicare, but the facts do not bear that out. Poverty among the elederly is now 1/3 what it was before SS and Medicare.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that Americans got along without it for almost two centuries and were the wealthiest people in the world. Now these same people have become dependent on government handouts, everyone wants more from the public trough, the people are divided, the government is heavy in debt, and will be unable to pay it, businesses and people are leaving, and the call is for more government programs and regulations. I don't see a future in this.
 
AdamT said:
Conservative said:
Maybe you should stop wondering and engaging in innuendo and produce something that supports your argument -- if you have one.
Click to expand...

Pretty simple, you continue to buy the rhetoric and remain loyal to an ideology that has created dependence for liberal social programs that have failed all over the country yet continue to support that failed ideology. Those major cities have been under Democrat control in some cases for decades, i.e. Detroit, yet the poverty continues, unemployment is extreme, and people remain dependent on liberalism. No wonder liberals never discuss actual results but continue to scare people like you do all the time.
Click to expand...
 
Michael H said:
I think Ayn Rand said pretty much the same ... until she went on the dole. Nice to have principles until you need help. Ayn Rand is looked up to by many ... I don't know if hypocrisy is something to be appreciated. Atlas Shrugged
Click to expand...

Your are correct, Ayn Rand did. She was also an atheist which is a position many on the Right who follow her abhor.
 
pbrauer said:
Medicare came about partially because medical insurance companies didn't want to insure the old and infirm, no profit there. This is why Ryan's plan is so stupid.
Click to expand...

The medical insurance companies were working with the government to keep the rates high through a limitation on competition, and as a result of less free enterprise prices continued to climb.
 
Grant said:
Amoing the best? Is that your goal?

The US used to be the very best and now regulations are making it far tougher for business while other countries are taking advantage of this.

For reasons rational to many, they made many changes to the rules and regulations of the United States just enough to throw it off kilter. Now businesses are leaving and people complain about it. What can you expect?

Do you think there is any other country in the world talking of their banking business like this?

Maxine Waters: Obama Needs To Take On 'Gangsta' Banks
Click to expand...
The fact is that the banks are offering dishonest sub prime loans again.
 
Grant said:
Amoing the best? Is that your goal?

The US used to be the very best and now regulations are making it far tougher for business while other countries are taking advantage of this.

For reasons rational to many, they made many changes to the rules and regulations of the United States just enough to throw it off kilter. Now businesses are leaving and people complain about it. What can you expect?

Do you think there is any other country in the world talking of their banking business like this?

Maxine Waters: Obama Needs To Take On 'Gangsta' Banks
Click to expand...
As I just showed the results of 3 combined studies showing a good regulatory environment ... actually noted as one of the best in the OECD, the argument doesn't stand.

Alternatives in backwards countries will be attractive, but not as attractive as $1.75 hr manufacturing wage in China, relative to $33 hr for compensation in the US.

Selecting regulation in a good environment as an excuse is like telling your spouse your leaving them because you don't feel right inside ... whilst your banging the neighbor.
Click to expand...
 
Michael H said:
I think Ayn Rand said pretty much the same ... until she went on the dole. Nice to have principles until you need help. Ayn Rand is looked up to by many ... I don't know if hypocrisy is something to be appreciated. Atlas Shrugged
Click to expand...

How did this switch to Ayn Rand??

The lack of focus here can be astonishing.
 
Michael H said:
Free trade ... consensus ... yes. Who benefits ... corporations and cheap goods. Lost GDP, jobs, revenue...
Click to expand...

Trade can be mutually beneficial for countries as long as they are (1) sufficiently competitive and (2) leverage areas of comparative advantage. When countries leverage what they do best, as opposed to trying to do everything, they can strengthen their advantages in those crucial areas. At the same time, by shifting investment away from areas in which they are not competitive and have little prospect of being competitive, they can increase returns on capital for existing economic activity and free up capital for investment in emergent areas that create tomorrow's competitive advantages. Finally, because consumers enjoy greater choice (range of products and also product prices), consumer welfare benefits from trade. In the long-run, that approach can lead to stronger growth and more jobs, not less. A recent case in point is Germany. With its world-leading manufacturing sector, Germany has been able to leverage global growth and, as a result, suffer less harm than many other developed countries during the recent recession/financial crisis and enjoy a faster jobs recovery/higher levels of employment than the U.S., despite the major structural problems still confronting Europe.

Clearly, there are also some downsides. Not every industry is world-class competitive in every country. Hence, dislocations can result from trade. Policy makers need to focus on transitions, improving a country's factor conditions (especially human capital in today's increasingly knowledge-intensive/information-oriented macroeconomic environment) and offer a viable transition strategy to mitigate the impact of temporary dislocations. In general, a country should not seek to prop up industries that have no prospect of becoming world-class competitive (a necessity when those firms must compete with such rivals). Doing so only raises costs to consumers (price and quality trade-offs) and undermines consumer welfare. An exception can be made for the tiny number of industries that are of strategic importance, namely essential for the national survival so to speak. A case can also be made for an exception for infant industries, but there is a risk that such temporary protection can evolve into a permanent regime leading to overall net losses in consumer welfare and high opportunity costs.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Amoing the best? Is that your goal?

The US used to be the very best and now regulations are making it far tougher for business while other countries are taking advantage of this.

For reasons rational to many, they made many changes to the rules and regulations of the United States just enough to throw it off kilter. Now businesses are leaving and people complain about it. What can you expect?

Do you think there is any other country in the world talking of their banking business like this?

Maxine Waters: Obama Needs To Take On 'Gangsta' Banks
Click to expand...

Sometimes you attack the wrong issue ... litigation is the issue ... not regulation.
Click to expand...
 
Michael H said:
As I just showed the results of 3 combined studies showing a good regulatory environment ... actually noted as one of the best in the OECD, the argument doesn't stand.
Click to expand...

So you haven't noticed any busnesses moving overseas or the economy becoming mired in debt?
Alternatives in backwards countries will be attractive, but not as attractive as $1.75 hr manufacturing wage in China, relative to $33 hr for compensation in the US.
Click to expand...

Sure. While you have that job. But how long will that sublime notion last?

Selecting regulation in a good environment as an excuse is like telling your spouse your leaving them because you don't feel right inside ... whilst your banging the neighbor
Click to expand...
Leftists should always avoid attempts at irony and analogies. Just try to stick to the facts and work from there.
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
AdamT said:
Pretty simple, you continue to buy the rhetoric and remain loyal to an ideology that has created dependence for liberal social programs that have failed all over the country yet continue to support that failed ideology. Those major cities have been under Democrat control in some cases for decades, i.e. Detroit, yet the poverty continues, unemployment is extreme, and people remain dependent on liberalism. No wonder liberals never discuss actual results but continue to scare people like you do all the time.
Click to expand...

You're still just flinging out baseless innuendo. I wonder why? Could it be that the states with the highest poverty rates are actually southern conservative states? Actually, it could be. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0708.pdf

I notice that Texas is right up there with West Virginia. Congratulations, Governor Perry.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
So you haven't noticed any busnesses moving overseas or the economy becoming mired in debt?
Click to expand...

You have a little correlation/causation problem there. To the extent that businesses are moving out of the U.S. it's primarily because of cheap labor and because developing economies are growing faster and thus provide more opportunity for expansion. It has little to do with regulation or litigation.
Click to expand...
 
Michael H said:
Sometimes you attack the wrong issue ... litigation is the issue ... not regulation.
Click to expand...

Actually they are two of many issues. Unsustainable debt would be another major issue as well as a large segment of the population which believes the government can be all things to all people.
 
AdamT said:
You have a little correlation/causation problem there. To the extent that businesses are moving out of the U.S. it's primarily because of cheap labor and because developing economies are growing faster and thus provide more opportunity for expansion. It has little to do with regulation or litigation.
Click to expand...

It certaily has because it has become too expensive to do business in the United States. Ask thoose who are leaving, the ones who are being forced to pay that $33 an hour you mentioned.

Now Boeing, as one of the latest examples, might even leave because the government is restricting their movement. And they'll be leaving those $33 an hour jobs behind.
 
Grant said:
It certaily has because it has become too expensive to do business in the United States. Ask thoose who are leaving, the ones who are being forced to pay that $33 an hour you mentioned.

Now Boeing, as one of the latest examples, might even leave because the government is restricting their movement. And they'll be leaving those $33 an hour jobs behind.
Click to expand...

Labor unions are weaker today than they've been in decades. You can't even make a correlation argument for the decline in prosperity and union activity. The correlation argument would reach the exact opposite conclusion.

chart.png
 
donsutherland1 said:
Trade can be mutually beneficial for countries as long as they are (1) sufficiently competitive and (2) leverage areas of comparative advantage. When countries leverage what they do best, as opposed to trying to do everything, they can strengthen their advantages in those crucial areas. At the same time, by shifting investment away from areas in which they are not competitive and have little prospect of being competitive, they can increase returns on capital for existing economic activity and free up capital for investment in emergent areas that create tomorrow's competitive advantages. Finally, because consumers enjoy greater choice (range of products and also product prices), consumer welfare benefits from trade. In the long-run, that approach can lead to stronger growth and more jobs, not less. A recent case in point is Germany. With its world-leading manufacturing sector, Germany has been able to leverage global growth and, as a result, suffer less harm than many other developed countries during the recent recession/financial crisis and enjoy a faster jobs recovery/higher levels of employment than the U.S., despite the major structural problems still confronting Europe.

Clearly, there are also some downsides. Not every industry is world-class competitive in every country. Hence, dislocations can result from trade. Policy makers need to focus on transitions, improving a country's factors (especially human capital in today's increasingly knowledge-intensive/information-oriented macroeconomic environment) and offer a viable transition strategy to mitigate the impact of temporary dislocations. A country should not seek to prop up industries that have no prospect of becoming world-class competitive (a necessity when those firms must compete with such rivals). Doing so only raises costs to consumers (price and quality trade-offs) and undermines consumer welfare.
Click to expand...

The loss of comparative advantage is addressed by global labor arbitrage. Cries for a new Bretton Woods are only a cry for solutions to the negatives of cheap labor trade. There has been no economic theory that addresses the negatives of cheap labor globalism. Friedman sold us on the belief that trade deficits would not be detrimental ... thanks Chicago. Well we passed Aug 2nd by taking on more loans ... because we had no choice. The PIIGS in Europe are all in a mess. Germany has had a current account surplus to help them along with a touch of ordoliberalism. Also they had better banking regs and had no run up of hard assets / housing during the housing mess. While not protectionist ... they use protectionist measures and work closely with a highly paid union force. They get it right.

Looking to history and American mercantilism, I can assure you there would be no industries to prop up without the protection of tariffs. Viewing government as a business ... I have to wonder why they prop up the China trade division at a cost of hundreds of billions a year. As if America some how has the economic might, to withstand the years of the drain on the economy while we wait for Chinas cost to rise, that we might benefit from comparative advantage. At some point America has to stop exporting GDP and job growth ... when that will be ... I don't know.
 
AdamT said:
Labor unions are weaker today than they've been in decades. You can't even make a correlation argument for the decline in prosperity and union activity. The correlation argument would reach the exact opposite conclusion.
Click to expand...

The Unions weren't powerful enough in Detroit, huh?
 
Grant said:
The Unions weren't powerful enough in Detroit, huh?
Click to expand...

I guess they weren't powerful enough to force management not to make crap cars that no one wanted to buy.
 
Grant said:
So you haven't noticed any busnesses moving overseas or the economy becoming mired in debt?


Sure. While you have that job. But how long will that sublime notion last?


Leftists should always avoid attempts at irony and analogies. Just try to stick to the facts and work from there.
Click to expand...

So why did jobs leave? Proven low wages overseas, or proven good governmental regulations?

How does an economy which exported GDP not have problems?

Go back and look at your response ... it addresses nothing to the regulation issue. for example.

If I had typed " It's really cold here this summer ... summers are usually a few degrees hotter."

Your reply: So you haven't noticed any busnesses moving overseas or the economy becoming mired in debt?

What is that? Businesses moved ... OK i say it was because of weather ... "So you haven't noticed any busnesses moving overseas or the economy becoming mired in debt?"

You said nothing about regulations and finished with the obligatory lefty comment

SHOW ME ONE PART OF YOUR RESPONSE THAT ADDRESSED MY POST.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom