• 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!

Can we build it? Yes we can!

Should we develop such a described program to build infrastructure in poor countries?

  • Yes, it would put many people to work

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • Yes, we should help countries in need

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, it will bring the world long-term prosperity

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, other/general

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sounds nice, but I don't know...

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • No, we don't have a moral imperative to help other countries

    Votes: 6 33.3%
  • No, that's socialist

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, for economic reasons

    Votes: 4 22.2%
  • No, for practical reasons

    Votes: 2 11.1%
  • No, other/general

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • Total voters
    18
Yeah, that's what I meant, Smarty Pants.

Here, how about this, I'll bet you I pay more in taxes of ANY KIND than you do. So, should I have a bigger say than you? Should my ideas be put before yours? Let's play the plutocracy game and see who wins shall we?
 
Here, how about this, I'll bet you I pay more in taxes of ANY KIND than you do. So, should I have a bigger say than you? Should my ideas be put before yours? Let's play the plutocracy game and see who wins shall we?

:rofl -- You first.
 
:rofl -- You first.

Just as I thought. No real response. Now why don't you run off and try to use "DO YOU EVEN PAY TAXES?" on somebody who makes minimum wage. Maybe they'll be intimidated by such nonsense.
 
Just as I thought. No real response. Now why don't you run off and try to use "DO YOU EVEN PAY TAXES?" on somebody who makes minimum wage. Maybe they'll be intimidated by such nonsense.

I'll do it. I thought I made that clear. Your idea. You first.
 
There is no option for Hell no.


And I don't pay income taxes. I'm exempt.
 
The costs of getting lower-quality materials and/or workers just because they happened to be located within a particular nation. If we want to help countries build up their infrastructure, why do we need protectionist restrictions on what workers can be hired and where the materials can come from? Just get the best stuff at the lowest price. That leaves more money left over for improving the infrastructure.
None of the costs, except indirect effects, are placed on the shoulders of the foreign nation.

First of all, as soon as we hire foreigners, it saps our own economy, which could be a selling point at home. That's not to say that hiring them would not be good, sure, it'd be great for them, short term. But also, this sort of gigantic effort being plopped down into a poor country runs the risk of dominating its economy and turning it into a state that can't afford to lose the program once it's done. And what do you pay the workers with, and how does it limit inflation? You can't expect the foreign government to pay its own workers for a project it can't afford, and if it prints its own money and then taxes its population, like us, to control inflation, it likely wouldn't be able to make up the taxes to control the amount of inflation that would occur; it would devalue their currency to the point of their entire economy being destabilized and everyone getting screwed.
 
None of the costs, except indirect effects, are placed on the shoulders of the foreign nation.

But even so, you could give them more infrastructure per dollar spent without the inefficiencies created by protectionism.

First of all, as soon as we hire foreigners, it saps our own economy, which could be a selling point at home.

I'm confused...I thought you were talking about hiring EXCLUSIVELY foreigners? :confused:

That's not to say that hiring them would not be good, sure, it'd be great for them, short term. But also, this sort of gigantic effort being plopped down into a poor country runs the risk of dominating its economy and turning it into a state that can't afford to lose the program once it's done.

Maintenance is much easier than construction.

And what do you pay the workers with, and how does it limit inflation? You can't expect the foreign government to pay its own workers for a project it can't afford, and if it prints its own money and then taxes its population, like us, to control inflation, it likely wouldn't be able to make up the taxes to control the amount of inflation that would occur; it would devalue their currency to the point of their entire economy being destabilized and everyone getting screwed.

I am very confused by your argument because I didn't say anything about expecting them to pay anyone. I'm saying even if we just go with your premise that the United States (or whoever) will pay for this project, what is the purpose of these protectionist measures?

If inflation is your concern, then it seems odd that you want to exclusively hire workers from the country in question (as opposed to American workers or workers from anywhere else), as the sudden inflow of cash would do more to cause inflation in the affected country than just about anything else...
 
I'll do it. I thought I made that clear. Your idea. You first.

$71,018 on income tax alone during 2011. What's that? Your pay for the year?
 
$71,018 on income tax alone during 2011. What's that? Your pay for the year?

Hardly. I paid more than that in state income tax at just under 6%.

Edit: I can't let that stand. :rofl

You win.
 
Last edited:
But even so, you could give them more infrastructure per dollar spent without the inefficiencies created by protectionism.
The only people we're protecting is our national business interest.

I'm confused...I thought you were talking about hiring EXCLUSIVELY foreigners? :confused:
No, it says in the OP it would be restricted to hiring citizens of the home country.

I am very confused by your argument because I didn't say anything about expecting them to pay anyone. I'm saying even if we just go with your premise that the United States (or whoever) will pay for this project, what is the purpose of these protectionist measures?
I think you're confused on what protectionist measures I propose.

But the entire purpose of this all is that 1) it puts unskilled people (of the home country) to work, 2) it provides economic stimulus (to the home country), and 3) It'd be very humanitarian to do, because poor governments can't afford these big projects that will raise their economic prosperity. There's also the argument that fiscal conservatives would like that it doesn't take jobs away in the home country, either. There's plenty of work to do--they argue private companies should do it. Ok then, let them. I don't agree with that position, I think this sort of program at home (like the WPA) would be great, but it does make it more palatable to that political paradigm.

This is most definitely stimulus spending to be done in a recession, though. In a healthier economy, we wouldn't need to put droves of unskilled labor to work. But, what this discussion rose from, incidentally, is the trend that we experience in a technologically advancing society the continual need for higher education, so what can our unskilled workers do to support themselves?
 
Hardly. I paid more than that in state income tax at just under 6%.

Hahaha, sure you did. Let me guess, you make over million a year and somehow manage to stay on DP all day? What nonsense - I guess it was too much to ask for you to be honest.
 
Hahaha, sure you did. Let me guess, you make over million a year and somehow manage to stay on DP all day? What nonsense - I guess it was too much to ask for you to be honest.

See my edited post, Hat.
 
The only people we're protecting is our national business interest.


No, it says in the OP it would be restricted to hiring citizens of the home country.

I think you're confused on what protectionist measures I propose.

But the entire purpose of this all is that 1) it puts unskilled people (of the home country) to work, 2) it provides economic stimulus (to the home country), and 3) It'd be very humanitarian to do, because poor governments can't afford these big projects that will raise their economic prosperity. There's also the argument that fiscal conservatives would like that it doesn't take jobs away in the home country, either. There's plenty of work to do--they argue private companies should do it. Ok then, let them. I don't agree with that position, I think this sort of program at home (like the WPA) would be great, but it does make it more palatable to that political paradigm.

This is most definitely stimulus spending to be done in a recession, though. In a healthier economy, we wouldn't need to put droves of unskilled labor to work. But, what this discussion rose from, incidentally, is the trend that we experience in a technologically advancing society the continual need for higher education, so what can our unskilled workers do to support themselves?

Oh, I thought "home country" referred to the country where the project was taking place.

In any case, I pretty much always oppose protectionism. If you want to promote infrastructure development abroad, then let's do it. If you want to provide economic stimulus at home, then let's do it. But let's not try to do them at the same time through a Rube Goldberg policy of protectionist foreign aid. Foreign aid should be based on how to provide the greatest economic benefit at the lowest cost.
 
Foreign aid should be based on how to provide the greatest economic benefit at the lowest cost.
Maybe, but that would probably result in sending more of our economy to China. It would defeat the purpose of the stimulus spending at home.
 
See my edited post, Hat.

Fine, at least you're honest. My point is simple, a person's tax liability is not really a great argument for anything. It's like saying 'Hey, you're a doctor but don't have a penis? Well you can't be making decisions about men's health then.'
 
Oh, I thought "home country" referred to the country where the project was taking place.

In any case, I pretty much always oppose protectionism. If you want to promote infrastructure development abroad, then let's do it. If you want to provide economic stimulus at home, then let's do it. But let's not try to do them at the same time through a Rube Goldberg policy of protectionist foreign aid. Foreign aid should be based on how to provide the greatest economic benefit at the lowest cost.

Besides, I don't see how it's protectionism other than of our own economy, really. The proposed restrictions aim to keep it within our economy AND not take jobs away from home, and I don't think there's anything wrong with going with slightly higher costs if it means that we will be buying from our own economy, which in a recession, would need it.
 
Fine, at least you're honest. My point is simple, a person's tax liability is not really a great argument for anything. It's like saying 'Hey, you're a doctor but don't have a penis? Well you can't be making decisions about men's health then.'

I don't agree with you because I think people who don't have a dog in the fight may not realize what a burden a program like this would place on taxpayers. Neither do I think they'd necessarily care. That's just human nature.
 
No. Such a program would almost instantly become bogged down in local corruption and graft.
 
I don't agree with you because I think people who don't have a dog in the fight may not realize what a burden a program like this would place on taxpayers. Neither do I think they'd necessarily care. That's just human nature.

How do you know he doesn't pay taxes though? And if he does then what? We'd pay the plutocracy game? Who pays more and then whomever pays more makes the rules? Plutocracy is the antithesis to democracy.
 
I don't agree with you because I think people who don't have a dog in the fight may not realize what a burden a program like this would place on taxpayers.
No, I agree, controlling inflation with such high stimulus would be significant, which is probably why if it were implemented, it would best remain as deficit spending only to be done in a recession.
 
Why build foreign nations up when we cannot fend for ourselves currently?
 
Because we want one (or more) of their resources.
Hmmm, so purposefully "develop" some areas so we can exploit their resources.... sounds pretty much what we have been doing in the last 400 years actually.
 
The only way new infrastructures will work is if they're built through the will of the afflicted people themselves. It's highly impractical, and the absolute summit of arrogance to think we know what's best for every people on the planet, poor or otherwise. Our aid has done nothing but create dependency, and fund warlords in the past, so why the **** would our efforts magically work in the future?
 
In another discussion the idea was brought up of building infrastructure in poor, undeveloped countries.

How much do we like this idea?

First of all, let's set the parameters of a hypothetical program.
  1. The materials for all construction projects, when possible, MUST be provided by private companies of the program's home country. This ensures that the money spent on resources for the program will be put back into the home country's economy, and it also ensures that the project won't consume all of the foreign nation's limited resources.
  2. Adequate food must be provided by the home country, preferably also by private companies--at the sites, of course, trading, buying, or selling food with locals would be fine.
  3. The program must only employ citizens of the home country, and for each a limited amount of time.
  4. The form and method of payment of workers is up for discussion--that's a complex issue.

Before you respond, please make sure you understand this. Arguing about government spending is completely inane because the government prints money (at least, the US government does, and most here are in the US)--now, this proposal is a much more economically complex idea because it potentially involves somehow controlling inflation in two different economies at once. That's what we need to be thinking about.

And also, of course, its effects on our economy, the foreign nation's economy, how many people it would employ, and whether or not it's simply a good thing to do. Costs and benefits.

LOL, build up your aging infractructure and create the jobs first.
 
Back
Top Bottom