• 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!

California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

Goldenboy219 said:
While it is proven that infant industry protection is critical in a global environment
Click to expand...

Proven where?

You are no libertarian. I'm tired of trying to find one glimmer of hope with you.
 
phattonez said:
Proven where?

You are no libertarian. I'm tired of trying to find one glimmer of hope with you.
Click to expand...

Even during an era many considered "free trade", protectionist measures kept a budding US economy growing.

20img5.gif


Libertarian does not automatically = laissez faire. That is a fringe segment.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Even during an era many considered "free trade", protectionist measures kept a budding US economy growing.
Click to expand...

I could just as easily say that the economy grew despite these protectionist measures. Correlation does not prove causation, try again. I can show via deduction that tariffs are a bad idea, what's your argument?
 
phattonez said:
I could just as easily say that the economy grew despite these protectionist measures. Correlation does not prove causation, try again. I can show via deduction that tariffs are a bad idea, what's your argument?
Click to expand...

Economic history. Look at Japan, Korea, Malaysia, China, etc.... During the early periods of industrialization in the US (1850-1910) tariffs were implemented.

I think you are missing the point. Capitalism, as you know it, requires government intervention to function.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Even during an era many considered "free trade", protectionist measures kept a budding US economy growing.

20img5.gif


Libertarian does not automatically = laissez faire. That is a fringe segment.
Click to expand...

The primary concern of the Libertarian party is government intervention in the economy. Most Libertarians support laissez fair policies. The Libertarians themselves are a fringe segment for your information.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Economic history. Look at Japan, Korea, Malaysia, China, etc.... During the early periods of industrialization in the US (1850-1910) tariffs were implemented.

I think you are missing the point. Capitalism, as you know it, requires government intervention to function.
Click to expand...

Again: correlation does not prove causation.
 
phattonez said:
Again: correlation does not prove causation.
Click to expand...

Ok, before the colonies separated from Britain there were no tariffs, which effectively prevented the growth of any American industries. As a result, when the countries split, America was left with a bunch of raw materials and not a lot of industry. In order for new industry to grow, tariffs had to be in place to protect home grown industry. Thus, tariffs are necessary to promote growth of domestic industry, at least in the beginning. Tariffs are a dangerous tool to use though, because if we raise them, everyone else will too.
 
But by raising tariffs, we hold people out from those cheaper, better goods from other countries. Let's not act as if tariffs have no negative repercussions unless other countries raise them.
 
phattonez said:
But by raising tariffs, we hold people out from those cheaper, better goods from other countries. Let's not act as if tariffs have no negative repercussions unless other countries raise them.
Click to expand...

Yes, but those cheaper goods have been made by laborers who haven't been paid enough to feed their family, in factories with no safety requirements not to mention air conditioning. Duh, they're cheaper. That is why companies are moving over there. If we had tariffs that made goods less expensive to produce and sell here, companies would not be moving overseas to produce those goods and the better cheaper goods would be produced here. Let's not pretend that there are no disadvantages to those cheaper goods.
 
wbreese91 said:
Yes, but those cheaper goods have been made by laborers who haven't been paid enough to feed their family, in factories with no safety requirements not to mention air conditioning. Duh, they're cheaper. That is why companies are moving over there. If we had tariffs that made goods less expensive to produce and sell here, companies would not be moving overseas to produce those goods and the better cheaper goods would be produced here. Let's not pretend that there are no disadvantages to those cheaper goods.
Click to expand...

And when you do that you exclude those other countries from the economic opportunity to accumulate capital and grow as we have. If they don't have the foreign investment, the process will be much longer and the people will languish in comparison to our standard of living.
 
phattonez said:
And when you do that you exclude those other countries from the economic opportunity to accumulate capital and grow as we have. If they don't have the foreign investment, the process will be much longer and the people will languish in comparison to our standard of living.
Click to expand...

Every anguishing laborer in the world is not the U.S.'s problem. We need to help our economy before we can afford to help others. I am not saying we shouldn't do anything for said laborer, but we cannot afford to wreck our economy just because Bob from PoorNation will have to wait longer for better working conditions. By buying products made in those conditions we are encouraging the practice. Advocating for workers rights is for the UN and State Department not our economy. That country needs to develop its own economy internally, just like we have to rebuild ours internally before we can be ready to be a positive influence on the world economy. AKA we need to work our interest rates back up to prevent inflation, raise tariffs and lower taxes to encourage industry, work to develop new industries and educate a well-trained workforce, and try to reduce the power of unions to prevent companies from doing what they need to do, within reason, to balance their budget.
 
phattonez said:
And when you do that you exclude those other countries from the economic opportunity to accumulate capital and grow as we have. If they don't have the foreign investment, the process will be much longer and the people will languish in comparison to our standard of living.
Click to expand...

In the agricultural economies of the southern colonies, tariffs were a nightmare. But in the northern front, the tariffs allowed an industrial powerhouse to emerge. Due to the fact that the south was slave dependent, the lack of efficiency (the to opportunity costs of a slave economy) deemed the various southern industries extremely price sensitive. The tariffs directly reduced British trade outflows into the US, there by reducing their ability to purchase southern raw materials.

You still have yet to show where capitalism existed and was not propped up by government.
 
wbreese91 said:
Every anguishing laborer in the world is not the U.S.'s problem. We need to help our economy before we can afford to help others. I am not saying we shouldn't do anything for said laborer, but we cannot afford to wreck our economy just because Bob from PoorNation will have to wait longer for better working conditions. By buying products made in those conditions we are encouraging the practice. Advocating for workers rights is for the UN and State Department not our economy. That country needs to develop its own economy internally, just like we have to rebuild ours internally before we can be ready to be a positive influence on the world economy. AKA we need to work our interest rates back up to prevent inflation, raise tariffs and lower taxes to encourage industry, work to develop new industries and educate a well-trained workforce, and try to reduce the power of unions to prevent companies from doing what they need to do, within reason, to balance their budget.
Click to expand...

How does using outside labor wreck our economy?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
In the agricultural economies of the southern colonies, tariffs were a nightmare. But in the northern front, the tariffs allowed an industrial powerhouse to emerge. Due to the fact that the south was slave dependent, the lack of efficiency (the to opportunity costs of a slave economy) deemed the various southern industries extremely price sensitive. The tariffs directly reduced British trade outflows into the US, there by reducing their ability to purchase southern raw materials.
Click to expand...

So what would have happened without those tariffs? We would have bought cheaper European products and we would have found industries where we are better than Europe.

You have to remember too that there is a natural tariff and that is the cost of transportation.

You still have yet to show where capitalism existed and was not propped up by government.
Click to expand...

No I don't. The lack of an example nor my unwillingness to find one does not prove that I am wrong.
 
phattonez said:
How does using outside labor wreck our economy?
Click to expand...

This is how. In diagram form.

Without Tariff
U.S. Company: Production Cost+Transportation+Wages+Healthcare+Taxes
Foriegn Company:production Cost+Transportation+Wages

Thus it is cheaper to produce in foreign countries. Then our exports are overtaken by imports. At this point, or unemployment rises, which makes people default on their loans, which makes the FED lower interest rates, which leads to inflation..........

With Tariff
U.S. Company: Production Cost+Transportation+Wages+Healthcare+Taxes
Foriegn Company:production Cost+Transportation+Wages+equalizing tariff

Thus it is cheaper to produce in the U.S. which means more jobs, which means people can pay their loans more easily, which means the FED can raise interest rates, which fights inflation and boost the value of the U.S. dollar.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Libertarian does not automatically = laissez faire. That is a fringe segment.
Click to expand...

No. Libertarian does automatically mean laissez-faire.

Libertarian means the acceptance of no outside coercion on the invidual and his choices.

Laissez-faire means no outside coercion on businesses.

They're congruent.

Being anti-laissez-faire means being supportive of outside interference in a businessman's choices, which means being supportive of coercion on the indvidual, which means being something that isn't libertarian.

So, if you support government interference in business, you're not a libertarian.
 
wbreese91 said:
Yes, but those cheaper goods have been made by laborers who haven't been paid enough to feed their family, in factories with no safety requirements not to mention air conditioning. Duh, they're cheaper. That is why companies are moving over there. If we had tariffs that made goods less expensive to produce and sell here, companies would not be moving overseas to produce those goods and the better cheaper goods would be produced here. Let's not pretend that there are no disadvantages to those cheaper goods.
Click to expand...

There aren't any disadvantages to the buyer of those goods, so what's the problem?

Why are there no tuna canneries in the states? Because goonions forced the wages so high it wasn't profitable to can fish in the US. Instead, Nancy Pelosi was paid to write an exception to the federal minimum wage laws so Starkist could continue to pay Guamanians local wages to can fish.

Why are clothes almost all imported? Because it's not profitable to pay a woman $15 an hour to sew zippers on in Atlanta, when it can be done for two bucks a day in Bangladesh.

The people buying the clothes and the tuna make out just fine in the US, they have more money in their pockets to spend on other goods, and overall the economy is improved.

Really sucks for someone who only knows how to sew zippers, though. But....since the flaming liberal marxist maxim is "greatest good for greatest number", even the flaming lib marxists like The Messiah can't credibly argue that tariffs help people.
 
obvious Child said:
I don't think that a variety of people here realize for most intensive purposes that welfare is nothing more than a fee we pay to poor people to stop them from robbing us and burglarizing our houses.
Click to expand...

I'll keep my money and take my chances.
 
wbreese91 said:
Without Tariff
U.S. Company: Production Cost+Transportation+Wages+Healthcare+Taxes
Foriegn Company:production Cost+Transportation+Wages

Thus it is cheaper to produce in foreign countries. Then our exports are overtaken by imports. At this point, or unemployment rises, which makes people default on their loans, which makes the FED lower interest rates, which leads to inflation..........
Click to expand...

I contest the claim that with increased foreign involvement that we will lose jobs. That's not how it works. That does not follow from Say's Law: production creates its own demand.

With Tariff
U.S. Company: Production Cost+Transportation+Wages+Healthcare+Taxes
Foriegn Company:production Cost+Transportation+Wages+equalizing tariff

Thus it is cheaper to produce in the U.S. which means more jobs, which means people can pay their loans more easily, which means the FED can raise interest rates, which fights inflation and boost the value of the U.S. dollar.
Click to expand...

But you ignore that the costs necessarily go up. Cheaper labor means we have to spend more. This also means that loans are harder to pay back and that we save less.
 
phattonez said:
I contest the claim that with increased foreign involvement that we will lose jobs. That's not how it works. That does not follow from Say's Law: production creates its own demand.
Click to expand...

Really, because that is what is happening right now.

But you ignore that the costs necessarily go up. Cheaper labor means we have to spend more. This also means that loans are harder to pay back and that we save less.
Click to expand...

No cheaper labor equals less cost for the producer, which means the consumer pays less. That was my entire point.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
There aren't any disadvantages to the buyer of those goods, so what's the problem?

Why are there no tuna canneries in the states? Because goonions forced the wages so high it wasn't profitable to can fish in the US. Instead, Nancy Pelosi was paid to write an exception to the federal minimum wage laws so Starkist could continue to pay Guamanians local wages to can fish.

Why are clothes almost all imported? Because it's not profitable to pay a woman $15 an hour to sew zippers on in Atlanta, when it can be done for two bucks a day in Bangladesh.

The people buying the clothes and the tuna make out just fine in the US, they have more money in their pockets to spend on other goods, and overall the economy is improved.

Really sucks for someone who only knows how to sew zippers, though. But....since the flaming liberal marxist maxim is "greatest good for greatest number", even the flaming lib marxists like The Messiah can't credibly argue that tariffs help people.
Click to expand...

I would debate this, but I know whatever I say you will disagree, even if I agree with you. So in the interest of saving my sanity I would appreciate if you stopped quoting me.
 
wbreese91 said:
I would debate this, but I know whatever I say you will disagree, even if I agree with you. So in the interest of saving my sanity I would appreciate if you stopped quoting me.
Click to expand...

The only way liberal CA is going to agree to a flat tax is if they found a way to make it cost the taxpayer more than what's being paid in now.
 
Jerry said:
The only way liberal CA is going to agree to a flat tax is if they found a way to make it cost the taxpayer more than what's being paid in now.
Click to expand...

Because God knows liberals hate extra money :doh
 
wbreese91 said:
Really, because that is what is happening right now.
Click to expand...

Yet for the longest time while we had it we didn't have the unemployment that you predicted. If you try to reference now, I'll just come back that the unemployment is due to the phonyness of this economy and how we don't produce anything and how it is that which caused this downturn.

This is why you can't really talk about economics through statistics or anecdotal evidence.

No cheaper labor equals less cost for the producer, which means the consumer pays less. That was my entire point.
Click to expand...

And we get cheaper labor from outside. The tariff should be opposed because it produces inefficiencies. Cheaper labor means we pay less. If the producer pays less then competition ensures that we as consumers will see that reduction in prices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom