Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-10-2010, 7:26 AM Reply   
Anybody know who specifically is proposing this gas tax? I also would like to know who is proposing to eliminate the mortgage deduction. It's a bipartisan committee, but it's absurd to target these areas. To me, this taxes directly attacks the poor and the middle class. Maybe we could do away with so much wasteful spending in government than raising gas taxes?
Old    Brett Yates (polarbill)      Join Date: Jun 2003       12-10-2010, 9:08 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
Anybody know who specifically is proposing this gas tax? I also would like to know who is proposing to eliminate the mortgage deduction. It's a bipartisan committee, but it's absurd to target these areas. To me, this taxes directly attacks the poor and the middle class. Maybe we could do away with so much wasteful spending in government than raising gas taxes?
I agree with your last sentence x1million. They need to figure out that the government already has plenty of money to support the needed programs. They need to get a clue and get rid of useless programs and learn how to run the critical ones somewhat efficiently. Anything the government does is immediatly the most innefecient way to do it.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-10-2010, 9:20 AM Reply   
Unfortunantely, oil consumption contributes significantly to the trade deficit, which IMO is the primary cause of our economic problems. Oil consumption also contributes significantly to our very expensive problems in the ME. Anyone who thinks that people should be responsible for their actions should also recognize that a tax on gas is paying a debt for the problems associated with your own needs. I don't have much sympathy for those who complain about a gas tax.

I suggest we increase the tax gas and do away with wasteful govt spending. But the reality is the top offender to a stable economy is the 1/2 trillion dollar annual trade deficit. I don't believe the job situation will significantly improve until we address this. And the more jobs that are lost, the higher the tax burden wil be for those still making money. If high taxes concern you, which they should, the last thing you want in a democratic society is for the majority of the voting public to be unemployed or economicaly destressed.
Old    SamIngram            12-10-2010, 9:50 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Unfortunantely, oil consumption contributes significantly to the trade deficit, which IMO is the primary cause of our economic problems. Oil consumption also contributes significantly to our very expensive problems in the ME. Anyone who thinks that people should be responsible for their actions should also recognize that a tax on gas is paying a debt for the problems associated with your own needs. I don't have much sympathy for those who complain about a gas tax.

I suggest we increase the tax gas and do away with wasteful govt spending. But the reality is the top offender to a stable economy is the 1/2 trillion dollar annual trade deficit. I don't believe the job situation will significantly improve until we address this. And the more jobs that are lost, the higher the tax burden wil be for those still making money. If high taxes concern you, which they should, the last thing you want in a democratic society is for the majority of the voting public to be unemployed or economicaly destressed.
What a load of BS!!!

We have enough oil, natural gas, and coal in this country to handle our consumption needs for thousands of years. Tree hugging retards won't less us drill for it. For starters I suggest you look up the Bakken Formation. Second, we have technology that would allows us to get at least a 100 miles per gallon pretty easily, start with Smokey Yunick. Third, the US government dictates how much a gallon of gas is.... They follow something called Keynesian economics and believe that we should have inflation because it will help the economy...


You are correct on the trade deficit though, anyone who believes NAFTA, CAFTA, etc... are good for America is crazy. This is just a spread the wealth scam...

Here is the REAL way to end the deficit and most of our problems here in the US.

The Plan
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       12-10-2010, 10:34 AM Reply   
Well, I guess a weak dollar has some advantages then.

Trade Deficit drops

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...year-high.html
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-10-2010, 10:44 AM Reply   
Which part of what I wrote is "a load of BS"? Your claim that we can create all the energy we need domestically is not even relevant to what I wrote. If what you said is true then what I wrote becomes even more "right". We should be imposing higher taxes on imported energy to help impose a need to produce domestic energy.

That "Plan" will not fix our economic problems. Our economic problems stem from an increasing reliance of foreign made products and our increasing inability to manufacture products to meet our own needs. Nothing in that plan addresses this. The trade deficit should be considered the leading economic indicator of the demise of our standard of living.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-10-2010, 10:47 AM Reply   
Yeah, we've knocked it down to an annual $464 billion deficit. That's only 4% of our total economy we are depleting each year.
Old    Manzo (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       12-10-2010, 10:49 AM Reply   
FYI, the head of the Deficit Committee is Erskin Bowles AFAIK (he was the one delivering the recos the other day). That guy is as liberal as they get...
Old    SamIngram            12-10-2010, 11:12 AM Reply   
This part is BS!

Quote:
Anyone who thinks that people should be responsible for their actions should also recognize that a tax on gas is paying a debt for the problems associated with your own needs. I don't have much sympathy for those who complain about a gas tax.
Problems associated with my own needs? WTF are you talking about? I didn't create problem, the federal government did, and the people who are to damn lazy and think that the federal government should provide for them did.

This is BS!

Quote:
Our economic problems stem from an increasing reliance of foreign made products and our increasing inability to manufacture products to meet our own needs.
We don't have an inability to manufacture anything! We can make whatever we want in whatever quantity that we want. Get the unions and the federal government and all their regulations out of the picture and the people of the US will make any thing we need.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-10-2010, 12:43 PM Reply   
Sam, you must be the only person I know that pumps their own oil, plus makes your own DVD player and Cell phone. LOL

Yes, it's possible for the US to make everything it's needs, but it isn't going to happen and just removing regulation isn't going to be enough to change that.
Old    SamIngram            12-10-2010, 1:03 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Sam, you must be the only person I know that pumps their own oil, plus makes your own DVD player and Cell phone. LOL

Yes, it's possible for the US to make everything it's needs, but it isn't going to happen and just removing regulation isn't going to be enough to change that.
No, but I do own a lot of domestic oil and natural gas stock, both public private. I also own a couple of my own natural gas wells through Atlas Energy, Inc.

I also pay out the whazoo for American made quality products whenever I can and when I can't I try to make sure it is not made in China.

Maybe I am mistaken, if so, I am sorry. The majority of your assertions I can agree with; however, this part "Anyone who thinks that people should be responsible for their actions should also recognize that a tax on gas is paying a debt for the problems associated with your own needs. I don't have much sympathy for those who complain about a gas tax." really bothers me. Please elaborate on this statement!
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-10-2010, 1:13 PM Reply   
"FYI, the head of the Deficit Committee is Erskin Bowles AFAIK (he was the one delivering the recos the other day). That guy is as liberal as they get" Thnaks, that what I was thinking. Please help me understand this liberal idealism of helping the middle class. Peloski wants to give the middle and lower class tax breaks, which is understandable, yet this committee wants to do away with the mortuage deduction and add another gas tax. Now who will that hurt? I've read that some liberals don't think 15 cents is enough. They want at least a 2 a gallon dollar tax. I guess they'll need to organize another agency and hire their buddies to oversee the tax collection. http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradv...-not-more.html
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-10-2010, 1:43 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Unfortunantely, oil consumption contributes significantly to the trade deficit, which IMO is the primary cause of our economic problems.
Why is a trade deficit a bad thing?
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-10-2010, 1:50 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
I've read that some liberals don't think 15 cents is enough. They want at least a 2 a gallon dollar tax.
That's because their philosophy is to institute societal change with tax policy. We, the dumb masses, are not smart enough to know that we are "destroying the environment" by using gas. And even if we did, we wouldn't be smart enough to stop using it and change our consumption patterns for the better. Therefore, those politicians are here to save us from ourselves by making gas so expensive that we'll be forced to change our behavior patterns and start using an alternative fuel that is less efficient and more expensive (but still cheaper than the new price of gas after the tax).
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-10-2010, 1:59 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeworld View Post
Why is a trade deficit a bad thing?
Because it's removing 4% of the value of our economy each year. How do you replace 1/2 trillion dollars that exits our economy each year? Maybe create more money and devalue the dollar?

Seriously, if you trade with someone and each year you have 4% less then you did the year before, how long do you think you can keep it up before you are broke? I find it shocking that people have such a hard time recognizing a 1/2 trillion dollar annual trade deficit is a serious issue.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-10-2010, 2:04 PM Reply   
You're close David. It isn't that we aren't smart enough to know the problems that are created by oil consumption. It's that no one is dumb enough to think they can fix the problem buy draining their own bank account when they are plenty of other people that won't contribute themselves to fixing the problem.

Why not change the defense of our country to a volunteer donation system? Why should the govt be involved in anything at all if we are all willing to individually do our part without a govt to require that of us?
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-10-2010, 2:09 PM Reply   
I'm having trouble understanding what you consider a trade deficit. If we sell a car to Japan for $400 and then they sell us a stereo for $500, that's a trade deficit of $100. Is that correct? If so, where did we lose money with those two transactions?
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-10-2010, 2:17 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
there are plenty of other people that won't contribute themselves to fixing the problem.
If we are smart enough to know that there is a problem, then who are these "other people?" If they really see this as a problem, then it would stand to reason that they would "contribute themselves to fixing the problem." I submit that those "other people" do not believe it's a problem and, if they do, do not believe it's a problem that deserves the attention that these politicians do. Therein lies the problem and it takes us back to my last post on the topic.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       12-10-2010, 2:19 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Yeah, we've knocked it down to an annual $464 billion deficit. That's only 4% of our total economy we are depleting each year.
They knocked it down to 38.7B. Down 13% from economic estimates.


woops. Missed that "annual".
Old    SamIngram            12-10-2010, 2:20 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeworld View Post
Why is a trade deficit a bad thing?
Is this a trick question?? In a truly free economy it might not be a bad thing, however we don't even have fair trade let alonr free trade. The current regulations that are in place NAFTA, CAFTA, etc... are so one sided it's just plain stupid.

On a common sense level, we are basically sending our wealth overseas (spreading the wealth around).... it's pretty simple; when one society has minimum wage of $7.25/hour and another has a free market system or even a state supported wage of $0.05/hour it stands to reason that they can manufacture goods a lot cheaper than we can. This doesn't even consider other costs associated with manufacturing like environmental regulations, etc...

Back to the trick question part (maybe you are very smart... do you follow Von Mises?)...

I found these articles:

Perpetual Trade Deficits Can Be Good

The Trade Deficit: An Austrian Perspective

Does the widening US trade deficit pose a threat to the economy?

The Global Perspective

Maybe I will learn something today... thanks!
Old    SamIngram            12-10-2010, 2:25 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
You're close David. It isn't that we aren't smart enough to know the problems that are created by oil consumption. It's that no one is dumb enough to think they can fix the problem buy draining their own bank account when they are plenty of other people that won't contribute themselves to fixing the problem.

Why not change the defense of our country to a volunteer donation system? Why should the govt be involved in anything at all if we are all willing to individually do our part without a govt to require that of us?
Wow, I would love to hear an explanation of that last sentance! "without a govt to require that of us? That's a crazy statement in my opinion! In response I have a serious question for you, seriously! Can you explain to me where our rights come from?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-10-2010, 3:04 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeworld View Post
I'm having trouble understanding what you consider a trade deficit. If we sell a car to Japan for $400 and then they sell us a stereo for $500, that's a trade deficit of $100. Is that correct? If so, where did we lose money with those two transactions?
You just removed $100 from the economy. If you have $1000 in your economy, then you can only sell 10 cars and buy 10 stereos before you are broke. Now you can no longer make cars or buy anything.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-10-2010, 3:15 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
Wow, I would love to hear an explanation of that last sentance! "without a govt to require that of us? That's a crazy statement in my opinion! In response I have a serious question for you, seriously! Can you explain to me where our rights come from?
Sam I can always trust you to obscure the point. You're saying our rights come from our military and that people would be willing to donate to the military to protect their rights.. correct? Because that's what I got from your post. Good luck with that one.

Who's rights require the most protecting? Poor or rich people? IIRC in the Cuban Revolution it's those with wealth that lost the most. Therefore those with wealth should be willing to pay the most. The wealthy should be willing to open those wallets when the middle class starts declining in numbers from lack of jobs. Personally I'm not predicting any big recovery in the job numbers. If anything I think in the long run it will get worse. And I don't think tax cuts or softening of regulations are going to mitigate the trend in economic decline.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-10-2010, 3:19 PM Reply   
Quote:
You just removed $100 from the economy.
Those are U.S. dollars. Won't they have to come back to our economy eventually? I don't think the Japanese are in the business of hoarding U.S. dollars.
Old    SamIngram            12-10-2010, 3:39 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Sam I can always trust you to obscure the point. You're saying our rights come from our military and that people would be willing to donate to the military to protect their rights.. correct? Because that's what I got from your post. Good luck with that one.

Who's rights require the most protecting? Poor or rich people? IIRC in the Cuban Revolution it's those with wealth that lost the most. Therefore those with wealth should be willing to pay the most. The wealthy should be willing to open those wallets when the middle class starts declining in numbers from lack of jobs. Personally I'm not predicting any big recovery in the job numbers. If anything I think in the long run it will get worse. And I don't think tax cuts or softening of regulations are going to mitigate the trend in economic decline.
Quote:
You're saying our rights come from our military and that people would be willing to donate to the military to protect their rights.. correct? Because that's what I got from your post. Good luck with that one.
Our rights come from the military? WTF are you talking about??

Quote:
Who's rights require the most protecting? Poor or rich people?
WTF? Neither, the INDIVIDUAL is the person who's rights require protection... What is the largest minority in the US??

Once again, I ask you, where do our rights come from? Who gave them to us? How did we get them?
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-10-2010, 4:05 PM Reply   
"Those are U.S. dollars. Won't they have to come back to our economy eventually? I don't think the Japanese are in the business of hoarding U.S. dollars."

No, the majority of that 100.00 will stay in Japan.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-10-2010, 4:09 PM Reply   
But they are U.S. dollars. How do they use them in Japan?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-11-2010, 8:28 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeworld View Post
Those are U.S. dollars. Won't they have to come back to our economy eventually? I don't think the Japanese are in the business of hoarding U.S. dollars.
I see what you are saying and it's a good point. My question has been... "what mitigates the damage done by the money leaving our economy". And your point is that it's the US dollar so somehow it has to come back to us.

Right now it's coming back as loans and increasing our debt. This allows us to recirculate the money in the economy then ship it back overseas. It could also come back to us in the form of foriegners buying US property and Corporations. We already are having a hard time getting Americans to buy homes when property values are extremely low. How are people going to feel when the only ones that can afford homes in this country are foriegners?

So my question is in what way will it come back to us that's beneficial to the long term health of the economy? That seems to be more difficult to figure out. Ultimately it seems that the dollar must devalue, which diminishes wealth for everyone who has saving and retirement plans. So deficit spending would end up being like a tax on wealth rather than a tax on earning.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-11-2010, 8:38 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
however, this part "Anyone who thinks that people should be responsible for their actions should also recognize that a tax on gas is paying a debt for the problems associated with your own needs. I don't have much sympathy for those who complain about a gas tax." really bothers me. Please elaborate on this statement!
We just spent up to 3-4 trillion (est long term cost) in two wars that were mostly the result of funding the ME and creating armed enemies through oil dollars. That's the part of the cost of oil. A significant part of the trade deficit is from oil dollars. That is damaging to the economy as well.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-11-2010, 11:02 AM Reply   
Quote:
So my question is in what way will it come back to us that's beneficial to the long term health of the economy?
I guess I'm still not sold on it being a bad thing and it having to "come back to us." A trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing.

Say I have widget worth $50 USD and I export it to Mexico. Once in Mexico, the widget gets sold for 746 pesos (about $60 USD) and that money is used to buy Jumping Beans. The Jumping Beans are then imported into the United States and are found to be worth $70 USD.

On the books, that's a $50 export and a $70 import with a $20 trade deficit. I made a profit of $20. Where is the damage to our country in this transaction?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-11-2010, 11:32 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeworld View Post
I guess I'm still not sold on it being a bad thing and it having to "come back to us." A trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing.

Say I have widget worth $50 USD and I export it to Mexico. Once in Mexico, the widget gets sold for 746 pesos (about $60 USD) and that money is used to buy Jumping Beans. The Jumping Beans are then imported into the United States and are found to be worth $70 USD.

On the books, that's a $50 export and a $70 import with a $20 trade deficit. I made a profit of $20. Where is the damage to our country in this transaction?
You made a $20 profit, just like Wal Mart, Home Depot, etc... I can't convince you that removing money from the economy is bad, any more than I can convince you being broke is bad. By the same token you should be suspect of anyone that says people aren't buying or employing because of cash flow problems in the economy. Unless you feel that people not buying or not being employed isn't necessarily a bad thing.

When the money isn't in our economy it can't be put to work employing people. And since it isn't circulating in our economy it isn't generating tax revenue. Eventually there won't be anyone in the US to buy your jumping beans. And those with income will be sharing a higher burden of running govt, which will be spending more money on people who don't have jobs.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-11-2010, 11:49 AM Reply   
A high gas tax is appropriate to deter consumption and pay for the deficit that has grown from from entitlements, bailouts and defense spending. Good social engineering.

Changing the mortgate write off is stupid beyond words. Horribly unfair to anyone who has bought a house recently. It will cause home prices to fall accordingly. It will put more people under water in their homes. It will cause more foreclosures. It will no longer encourage Americans to be home owners. Bad social engineering.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-11-2010, 12:59 PM Reply   
Where did our founding fathers write that the federal government is needed for "social engineering?"
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-11-2010, 1:51 PM Reply   
social engineering exists throughout our tax code...

sin taxes on cigarettes and alcohol.
no taxes on churches and donations to charities.
tax write offs for home owners.
tax benefits for farmers.
tax incentives for solar/wind power.
So, IMO, a tax disincentive for oil consumption makes perfect sense.

A tax on oil...
encourages conservation,
encourages efficiency improvements,
encourages exploration into alternatives and
reduces the $$$ we send to enemy states.

Last edited by diamonddad; 12-11-2010 at 1:53 PM. Reason: x
Old    SamIngram            12-11-2010, 2:30 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeworld View Post
Where did our founding fathers write that the federal government is needed for "social engineering?"

David is on the right path!

Our rights were granted us by GOD, not the Constitution, Bill of Rights or any other piece of paper or military.

Our Declaration of Independence says our Rights come from God. Our rights thus pre-date & pre-exist the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

The federal government – is to secure the Rights GOD gave us.

The federal government has (or is suppose to have) only a certain set of enumerated powers.

See Article I, Section 8 of the Unitied States Constitution

No where does it say that the Feds can do most of the crap they are doing today.

95% of the things going on today are illegal and against everything that our Founding Fathers believed in.

We all need to study the Constitution and learn what it actually means, not what 9 people tell us.

The federal deficit is out of control because our federal government is out of control!

If people are interested in learning more this is a really, really good blog on the Constitution

She teaches a class and a leads a discussion board here.

I know I'm an *******, but damn it, wake up people! Read, learn and discuss with other people what is going on, why it is wrong, and what our founding fathers said about this stuff. When you think if you have it figured out tell other people and try to get them interested in finding out themselves what is suppose to go on.

It's not about the rich vs. poor, the individual is the largest minority, and that is who the constitution was written for, the individual. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy!

Did everyone here know that "The Separation of Church and State" is no where to found in any of our founding documents? Not in the constitution or anywhere else? Where does it come from? Yet we hear everyday about the separation of church and state....
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-11-2010, 2:55 PM Reply   
^Sam, a lot of sheet has changed since 1776. I guess since the forefathers had slaves, maybe we should go back to that practice as well.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-11-2010, 3:02 PM Reply   
GOD is entirely in our heads. I am thrilled that this country affords us the right to have this dillusion. But, I think all forms should be kept private.

Last edited by diamonddad; 12-11-2010 at 3:07 PM.
Old    SamIngram            12-11-2010, 3:08 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^Sam, a lot of sheet has changed since 1776. I guess since the forefathers had slaves, maybe we should go back to that practice as well.
You have obviously never read any of the founding documents of this country. The founders were genius in that they studied history, knew it well, and wrote the founding documents in way that would allow for the changes of time.

BTW, while you are correct, many of them had slaves, many were against the practice and actually fought pretty damn hard to stop the practice.

I only wish that you were around to found our country back then, we could have really used your infinite wisdom and ability to get things done of grave importance without compromise.

You should read about John Jay.

Last edited by SamIngram; 12-11-2010 at 3:14 PM.
Old    SamIngram            12-11-2010, 3:11 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamonddad View Post
GOD is entirely in our heads. I am thrilled that this country affords us the right to have this dillusion. But, I think all forms should be kept private.
That's nice!
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-11-2010, 3:27 PM Reply   
Quote:
social engineering exists throughout our tax code...
And that's the number one reason to abolish the tax code and do some sort of flat tax. Social engineering via the tax code is something that an over-bloated federal government came up with. It is not something the founding fathers came up with and it's not something we voted for. If home ownership is a good investment, then people will invest in real estate. If it isn't a good investment, then people will not invest in real estate. That is the free market and it should not be manipulated by the government via the tax code. "Encouraging" home ownership is the #1 reason why we're in the financial crisis we're in now. The government needs to stop effing with the free market in order to do their social engineering.

I know a lot of people would freak to think about losing their mortgage interest deduction, but if we did something like that it would have to be accompanied with a lowering of the general tax rate so that there isn't much of a difference in what you pay in taxes. In fact, with a simplified tax system, we'd probably be able to afford a much lower tax rate overall because we'd be able to cut out 90% of the IRS. Not to mention the money we'd all personally save by not having to hire a team of accountants to do our taxes and financial planning.
Old    SamIngram            12-11-2010, 3:30 PM Reply   
What do you know David, others think the same thing...
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-11-2010, 3:36 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamonddad View Post
GOD is entirely in our heads. I am thrilled that this country affords us the right to have this dillusion. But, I think all forms should be kept private.
There are very few things in this world that I find more arrogant than someone telling somebody else that their beliefs are "dillusional," implying, of course, that their beliefs are 100% gospel (pun intended). If anything should be kept private, I would think it would be that sentiment.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-11-2010, 3:41 PM Reply   
The current "tax write off" for mortgages figures into today's property prices where the price is determined by what people will pay not what it cost to build it.

So, if you remove this tax benefit you will be taking that "added value" from everyone who currently owns a house. In effect, you will be ripping off most of the home owners in high demand areas. This seems wrong.

The "free market" does not hold all the answers. Freedom (deregulation) is what caused the current home morgage banking crisis. Freedom would have your cars killing you and your homes catching on fire. Smart regulations and smart incentives are a good thing.

Last edited by diamonddad; 12-11-2010 at 3:45 PM.
Old    SamIngram            12-11-2010, 3:47 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamonddad View Post
The current "tax write off" for mortgages figures into today's propery prices where the price is determined by what people will pay not what it cost to build it.

So, if you remove this tax benefit you will be taking that "added value" from everyone who currently owns a house. In effect, you will be ripping off most of the home owners in high demand areas. This seems wrong.

The "free market" does not hold all the answers. Freedom (deregulation) is what caused the current home morgage banking crisis. Freedom would have your cars killing you and your homes catching on fire. Smart regulations and smart incentives are a good thing.
What the heck are you talking about? First, cost never equals value in real estate. Second, your second paragraph makes no sense. Third, you don't even know what a free market is, let alone have the ability to discuss it.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-11-2010, 3:54 PM Reply   
I would prefer that we stay on subject and avoid personal attacks.
Old    SamIngram            12-11-2010, 3:58 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamonddad View Post
I would prefer that we stay on subject and avoid personal attacks.
Because you'll get your butt whooped with facts!
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-11-2010, 4:06 PM Reply   
IMO, freedom of religion requires the seperation of church and state.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-11-2010, 4:17 PM Reply   
Quote:
The current "tax write off" for mortgages figures into today's property prices where the price is determined by what people will pay not what it cost to build it.
Agreed. The tricky part would be going from what we currently have to a different system. I think this is the main reason why we haven't moved to a simplified tax system. No matter how careful you are, there will be some major shocks to the system. I like the idea of leaving the current system in place for 10 years or so and coming up with an alternative simplified system and letting the tax payer choose which one they'd like to use.

Quote:
The "free market" does not hold all the answers. Freedom (deregulation) is what caused the current home morgage banking crisis.
I'll agree it doesn't hold all the answers, but it holds a lot more answers than most give it credit for. I would argue that regulation (forcing lenders to expand home ownership until they were giving loans to people who could not pay them back) is what caused our current crisis.

Quote:
Freedom would have your cars killing you and your homes catching on fire. Smart regulations and smart incentives are a good thing.
This is your opinion and I would have to disagree. It kind of illustrates an extremely sad condition suffered by many people in America. People are so conditioned to relying on government to regulate everything that they can't even imagine that these functions could possibly be performed by private businesses. If we had no government safety regulations on cars, it would create a market for private companies to test vehicles and sell their results to car companies and the public. They would do it in a more efficient manner than a government agency, mostly because they would have a lot more to lose if they perform poorly.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-11-2010, 4:19 PM Reply   
David, thats my point exactly. Religion is a personal freedom. Its offensive/arrogant for me to promote my religion over yours. Its wrong for me to ask our government to embrace mine over yours.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-11-2010, 4:28 PM Reply   
Quote:
You made a $20 profit, just like Wal Mart, Home Depot, etc... I can't convince you that removing money from the economy is bad, any more than I can convince you being broke is bad.
So in my example, I imported goods that were worth more then what I exported and that is a bad thing?

Can I assume that you would then find the following example favorable to the health of our economy?

Say I have widget worth $50 USD and I export it to Mexico. Once in Mexico, the widget gets sold for 746 pesos (about $60 USD) and that money is used to buy Jumping Beans. The Jumping Beans are then imported into the United States and are found to be worth $40 USD.

On the books, that's a $50 export and a $40 import with a $10 trade surplus. I lost $10 on the deal.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-11-2010, 4:33 PM Reply   
The current banking crisis came mostly from deregulation -- allowing commercial banking to mix with investment banking -- allowing banks to become haphazard with their loaning practices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

The worst thing is that all of these bad moves were not errased and this can happen all over again with the next bubble.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-11-2010, 4:38 PM Reply   
Quote:
David, thats my point exactly. Religion is a personal freedom. Its offensive/arrogant for me to promote my religion over yours. Its wrong for me to ask our government to embrace mine over yours.
I fully understand your point. It was your use of the word "dillusion" which is an obvious poke in the eye to every Jew, Muslim, Catholic or anyone else that believes in something that you don't which set off my rant. You could have substituted that word with "opportunity" or many other words that would not have made that implication, but would have still made your point concerning separation of church and state.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-11-2010, 4:40 PM Reply   
Quote:
The current banking crisis came mostly from deregulation -- allowing commercial banking to mix with investment banking -- allowing banks to become haphazard with their loaning practices.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't want to go down that path and get this thread going off on a tangent.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-11-2010, 4:49 PM Reply   
I was being obtuse to make a point. So many people want GOD in our government which I find offensive. It would be equivalent to someone wanting "GOD IS FALSE" in our governent . Both are very wrong and contrary to "religous freedom".
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-12-2010, 6:49 AM Reply   
"If we had no government safety regulations on cars, it would create a market for private companies to test vehicles and sell their results to car companies and the public. They would do it in a more efficient manner than a government agency, mostly because they would have a lot more to lose if they perform poorly."

I don't agree with that at all. If a company came out and said, "We skipped on putting in air bags, but it will save you 5 grand on the cost of the car", many, if not most people would go with the cheaper price (and I am not necessarily implying that in all instances air bags make a car safer, it's just an example). Cheaper toys, cheaper Christmas lights, etc. are all essentials to many buyers in the US. I am also not implying that companies would be dead set on making less safe cars without regulation, but I strongly believe that companies would put price and amenities ahead of safety.

Sam, I admire your patriotism, but do you think the founding fathers (and I am not trying to take anything away from their achievements) would be happy with the current two-party crap? Electoral college? A joke. Just as the smartest man in the world today cannot envision what our world will be like in 235 years, the founding fathers could not envision our world today.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-12-2010, 9:15 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeworld View Post
So in my example, I imported goods that were worth more then what I exported and that is a bad thing?

Can I assume that you would then find the following example favorable to the health of our economy?

Say I have widget worth $50 USD and I export it to Mexico. Once in Mexico, the widget gets sold for 746 pesos (about $60 USD) and that money is used to buy Jumping Beans. The Jumping Beans are then imported into the United States and are found to be worth $40 USD.

On the books, that's a $50 export and a $40 import with a $10 trade surplus. I lost $10 on the deal.
Actually I made a mistake replying to your other post. In that post you imported Jelly Beans that cost you $60, but the $60 came from selling your product for $60. You made $10 in the domestic economy, but the trade deficit was zero.

In this example, it's the same... you exported a product and got another for the same price you sold your product. I.E. the trade deficit is zero, but you lost money. Neither example speaks to the trade deficit at all. Your gains and losses came entirely in the domestic economy.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-12-2010, 10:48 AM Reply   
That's incorrect. The first example is a very common trade scenario. I exported an item that has more value in another country than it does in the U.S. Then I imported something that has more value in the U.S. than it has in its home country.

The item I exported was sold for $50. That is a $50 U.S. export according to your measurement of the trade deficit. The Mexican I sold it to then sold it for $60 and made himself a $10 profit. He then used that $60 to buy jumping beans that he sold back to me. Since the jumping beans had a market value of $70 in the U.S., that is the value at which the import is recorded for the purposes of your trade deficit measurement.

That represents a U.S. trade deficit of $20, but also a profitable transaction for all involved. I'll take that trade deficit any day.

The second example is a less common money losing trade where I exported an item that has more value in another country than it does in the U.S., but I imported an item that has less value in the U.S. than in its home country. In essence, I made a poor business decision.

That transaction is recorded as a $50 U.S. export and a $40 U.S. import. It represents a trade surplus that is hardly something to be celebrated.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-12-2010, 10:56 AM Reply   
Quote:
I don't agree with that at all. If a company came out and said, "We skipped on putting in air bags, but it will save you 5 grand on the cost of the car", many, if not most people would go with the cheaper price
I don't necessarily agree with what you say will happen, but that's irrelevant. Even if most buyers wanted a car without air bags, that means those buyers don't value the additional safety at $5,000. Therefore, they should have the freedom to save that $5,000 and buy a cheaper car. Because you think air bags are a good thing, you can go out and spend an extra $5,000 to get a car with air bags. Unfortunately, you want to impose your values on everyone else in society and, for some reason, you think that's a good thing. You are telling me that I'm too dumb to make that decision for myself, so you will make it for me. I want to be able to buy a cheap car with no air bags if that's what I decide I need. That's freedom.

As Austin Powers would say, "Isn't freedom groovy baby?"
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       12-12-2010, 12:47 PM Reply   
The problem with having the right to go without seatbelts, airbags, and motorcycle helmets, is that when you get hurt and none of these are used, your injuries are going to be more substantial. Medical costs are more, and the insurance companies will pass the cost onto me, and eveyone else, who wears a helmet, or has seatbelts and airbags in their cars.

I'm for having as much freedom and liberty as I can, but when others freedoms and liberties affect me then it's a problem.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-12-2010, 1:02 PM Reply   
^^^ That makes sense in our current environment. However, if this situation came about, there would be accompanying changes made in the insurance industry to account for these freedoms. Those who buy insurance on an air bag equipped car would get a break on their insurance.

It's similar to the helmet laws. I'm all for getting rid of them as long as there is a method in place to ensure that the increase in medical costs does not bleed into my insurance rates or increase my taxes.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-12-2010, 4:01 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeworld View Post
That's incorrect. The first example is a very common trade scenario. I exported an item that has more value in another country than it does in the U.S. Then I imported something that has more value in the U.S. than it has in its home country.
It's only incorrect because the example is poorly worded and I have to guess what you mean. You sold something to Mexico for $50 and some other Mexican sold Jelly Beans to the US for $70. $20 trade deficit... period.

The problem with your example is that you exported $50 then *you* became a Mexican and sold it domestically for $60, then bought beans for $60, then exported them back to the US to yourself for $70. Not a typical trade scenario.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-12-2010, 5:04 PM Reply   
I didn't become a Mexican. I'm simply working with an importer/exporter in Mexico, which is an extremely common occurrence. In fact, the #1 reason why you would trade with another country is to take advantage of the fact that you can offer that country product for cheaper than that country can produce it domestically and vice versa. If you disagree with that, please tell me why all these people are importing and exporting?

I apologize if you had trouble understanding the hypothetical situation, but the question still remains. Do you agree that instance #1 (a trade deficit where everyone makes a profit) is good and instance #2 (a trade surplus where the U.S. importer/exporter loses money) is bad? If you can't see the error of automatically branding a "trade deficit" as bad from the examples I gave you, then I'm at a loss for further explanation. I can't lay it out any more clearly than that.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-12-2010, 7:53 PM Reply   
David, the damage to the economy caused by the trade deficit is not the same as whether you make a profit on a transaction. You make profit = good for you. Trade deficit = bad for economy. I fail to see why you think your example has anything to do with this.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-12-2010, 8:17 PM Reply   
The point is that when we export items worth X amount of dollars and, in exchange, we import items worth more than X dollars, that is a good thing. It's a good deal to exchange something of low value for something of higher value. My example has everything to do with it because that's what happens in real life. I just don't see how it is bad for the economy. And I especially don't see why you would celebrate the trade surplus generated by the money-losing second example.
Old    SamIngram            12-13-2010, 5:53 AM Reply   
First, just to be clear, I never said anything about my religious beliefs. I just stated what is in our Declaration of Independence, and that is that GOD gave us our rights, not anyone else. By giving the separation of church and state example I was trying to point out how screwed up the federal government is and how little people actually know.

Quote:
Sam, I admire your patriotism, but do you think the founding fathers (and I am not trying to take anything away from their achievements) would be happy with the current two-party crap? Electoral college? A joke. Just as the smartest man in the world today cannot envision what our world will be like in 235 years, the founding fathers could not envision our world today.
Well, I think you are wrong! What is happening today is no different than what has happened throughout history and the founding fathers knew this. You should read more history. The founding fathers would be upset with the two party system in the fact that they are so similar. At least two schools of thought have been around since this country was founded. We had the federalists vs democratic republicans... one who argued for a "fiscally strong and national government and the other for state's rights, not much has changed, except the lines have greatly been greyed between the two. As far as the electoral college goes, I think the founding fathers would be happy or at least ok with it since they created it based on the Virginia Compact.

As far as the deficit goes, I remember reading about a theory that for every dollar we spend in our economy it generates at least $8 more through economic activity. For example if I buy a piece of clothing in our economy for $1, then the person I bought it from can go buy $1 worth of milk from the grocer, who then buys $1 worth of services through the accountant, etc... I can't remember what that is called... I don't think the Austrian Economists that I follow believe in this though.

Finally, I saw this video last night on the economy and thought I would share.


I'm not a real fan of the Chicago school of economics, but this guy makes some sense and both Hayek and Friedman are associated with it so it can't be all that bad.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-13-2010, 8:38 AM Reply   
David, I'm not celebrating anyone taking a loss. This discussion has nothing to do with an individuals profit. You either believe money leaving our economy is bad or not. When money circulates in the economy it creates jobs and tax revenue. When it leaves the economy you lose jobs and tax revenue. So the only one's left to pay for running the govt and the subsequent economic costs for helping unemployed or underemployed people is those still making a profit. But those people think it's their God given right to not bear that burden.
Old    SamIngram            12-13-2010, 9:12 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
David, I'm not celebrating anyone taking a loss. This discussion has nothing to do with an individuals profit. You either believe money leaving our economy is bad or not. When money circulates in the economy it creates jobs and tax revenue. When it leaves the economy you lose jobs and tax revenue. So the only one's left to pay for running the govt and the subsequent economic costs for helping unemployed or underemployed people is those still making a profit. But those people think it's their God given right to not bear that burden.
Yes, because 13 more months of unemployment is really going to incentavise people to go out and get job. That burden that you speak sounds awfully like, "to each according to his need; from each according to his ability."
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-13-2010, 10:00 AM Reply   
Sam, I'm simply conveying what I think is the reality of the situation. Less people employed means a larger burden on those employed. And even larger for those making the most income. What it sounds like to you doesn't change reality. We vote for our leaders in this country and being employed has no bearing on your right to vote.

The point I'm making about the trade deficit relates to the issue of a healthy economy where people can find jobs, pay for their own responsibilites, and pay for the services of the govt. There's some irony in those who argue against the welfare of the economy, and then cry the blues over the increased burden of socialism in a bad economy.
Old    SamIngram            12-13-2010, 10:28 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Sam, I'm simply conveying what I think is the reality of the situation. Less people employed means a larger burden on those employed. And even larger for those making the most income. What it sounds like to you doesn't change reality. We vote for our leaders in this country and being employed has no bearing on your right to vote.

The point I'm making about the trade deficit relates to the issue of a healthy economy where people can find jobs, pay for their own responsibilites, and pay for the services of the govt. There's some irony in those who argue against the welfare of the economy, and then cry the blues over the increased burden of socialism in a bad economy.
No, but it directly affects your vote... people getting free stuff will often vote for more free stuff (i.e. more unemployment benefits and entitlements)

Our founding fathers saw this too,

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
Benjamin Franklin

This is a counter productive vote since those that are giving out the freebies are to ones who have tenants that produce the need for them.

While I agree with you the last paragraph, I think it's ironic that those who are left to pay for those services are the ones who are attacked not thanked for paying beyond their equal share (percentage).

Socialism in any kind, without the consent of the people is BAD, and is directly responsible for that economy.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-13-2010, 12:39 PM Reply   
Quote:
When it [money] leaves the economy you lose jobs and tax revenue.
But in this example (which you can extrapolate to a macroeconomic level since you seemed to be focused on it only applying to one individual), I make a profit, the country makes a profit, I pay more taxes and I can afford to hire more employees and grow my business. How is this causing unemployment and reduced tax revenue?
Old    SamIngram            12-13-2010, 12:56 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeworld View Post
But in this example (which you can extrapolate to a macroeconomic level since you seemed to be focused on it only applying to one individual), I make a profit, the country makes a profit, I pay more taxes and I can afford to hire more employees and grow my business. How is this causing unemployment and reduced tax revenue?
Dave,
What about this theory? By sending the money over seas the chain effect doesn't take place within the immediate community.

Local Income Multipliers

Multiplier Effect

I think this is what he is referring to, but I'm not sure.

Like you, the Austrian School of Economics says this theory is garbage, they call it the Keynesian Multiplier Theory, at least I think the two are one and the same... I'm not totally sure.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-13-2010, 1:00 PM Reply   
Sam, great video embed. It's long, but tons of great information! I love the part about how congressional "gridlock will save us!" I've been saying that for years!

Milton Friedman is such a stud. Here's a little something from Milton (1994) for John...

Quote:
Much of the popular discussion about America's ability to compete deals with trade. Our trade deficit is taken as evidence of our lack of competitiveness. The goal of economic policy, according to this view, is to eliminate the trade deficit and to have a trade surplus instead. By this standard, we are doing very badly with our $100-plus billion annual trade deficit while the Japanese are doing very well with their $100-plus billion annual trade surplus.

If Adam Smith himself were here, he would recognize this focus on the trade balance as the same mercantilist approach he had argued against more than 200 years ago. He would remind us that the proper goal of economic policy is not measured by the size of the trade balance but by the level of national income. The wealth of a nation, to use Adam Smith's own language, is not its trade surplus or the resulting international reserves but the value of the goods and services that are produced. That is the proper domain for international competition now as it was when Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations more than 200 years ago.

A positive trade balance does not give a nation a higher standard of living or a faster rate of economic growth. Although Brazil, for example, has a substantial trade surplus, real incomes are low, unemployment is extensive and economic growth is very slow. In the United States during the 1980s, real GDP grew at an above-trend rate and unemployment fell significantly even though we had an unprecedented series of massive trade deficits.

A trade deficit is not an indication that a nation has low productivity or low quality products. It is an indication that the domestic investment rate is high relative to the rate of saving. The fundamental relation that governs every nation's trade balance is the national income identity that the trade deficit equals the excess of investment over saving.

Unlike many things that we economists know, this relation is not based on an economic theory or an empirical regularity but is a basic accounting identity. We inevitably have a trade deficit if we as a nation spend more on investment than we save to finance that investment. The trade deficit brings with it the resources and the capital inflow that finance the excess of investment over saving.

A trade deficit can thus be either a reflection of a healthy vibrant economy with a high investment rate or an indication of an economy with a very low saving rate. Mexico's trade deficit of more than 6 percent of GDP is a sign of vigor and health. It reflects the strong rate of investment in the Mexican economy and the willingness of foreign investors to finance that investment because they know that it will give Mexico the ability to service its debt in the future.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-13-2010, 3:35 PM Reply   
Quote:
We inevitably have a trade deficit if we as a nation spend more on investment than we save to finance that investment. The trade deficit brings with it the resources and the capital inflow that finance the excess of investment over saving.
Do you guys really think that the deficit caused buying oil and cheap chinese goods is going into domestic investment? I doubt you even understand the quote you posted. It just sounded good as a refute that the deficit is harmful.

Quote:
A trade deficit can thus be either a reflection of a healthy vibrant economy with a high investment rate or an indication of an economy with a very low saving rate.
Or negative saving. That's OK, because the govt will print more money to keep this going.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-13-2010, 3:45 PM Reply   
Quote:
Do you guys really think that the deficit caused buying oil and cheap chinese goods is going into domestic investment? I doubt you even understand the quote you posted. It just sounded good as a refute that the deficit is harmful.
I never said that all deficits are good. I'm just trying to make the point that they are not all necessarily bad and should not be painted with such a broad brush. Rather, a better idea would be to look at the underlying cause of the deficits/surpluses and make your evaluation based on that. You're the one that doesn't seem to understand why you're clinging to an absolute position that declares all deficits harmful to the economy. Sorry, didn't mean to upset you. Just trying to get people to think about it.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-13-2010, 4:22 PM Reply   
I wish people would think about it. I imagine it depends on how you define good. We've had a trade deficit for a long time. We are a strong and influential economy, and still are. We've enjoyed cheap products made "economically" speaking more efficiently overseas. That's been good. But a 1/2 trillion dollar deficit is IMO significant. It doesn't matter what I think. The results will reveal themselves. I don't have high hopes for the employment numbers in the future.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-13-2010, 4:59 PM Reply   
I don't think the unemployment rate is going to improve any time soon either. However, I don't blame it on the trade deficit. I blame it on an administration that has been attacking business for two years and created an incredibly unpredictable business climate in which nobody wants to take risk and invest in growth. Banks and businesses are hanging onto their money because they don't know what the future holds. Wait and see is the current method of doing business. Economic growth right now is as simple as telling the business community what they can expect in the form of taxes and regulation for the foreseeable future. That's it! Sounds easy, but with an administration that is constantly threatening to levy regulation and taxes, nothing is going to change.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-13-2010, 5:26 PM Reply   
^Dave, you need to research how much of our workforce was employed in manufacturing jobs 20 + years ago as opposed to the present.

And I am just curious do you think as the US shifted from being one of the largest exporters to one of the largest importers along the same timeframe as it went from being the largest creditor to the largest debtor, was coincidental? I also don't see how you can try to tie today's economic difficulties solely on Obama. Essentially what you are saying is the economy was hunky dory until January 2008, and if you believe that you need to remove your head from the sand. I blame our current issues on both parties.
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       12-13-2010, 6:20 PM Reply   
The reason employment may never come back to what it was, is that businesses can get by with fewer workers. My wife who has been in banking for years has seen (especially in the last ten years) the reduction in her Banks workforce to almost skeleton crews. The employees are just working much harder and longer for the same pay. As long as Employers can squeeze everything they can out of their employees, there is no need to higher more people. As long as the stockholders are happy, is all that matters to most companies.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       12-13-2010, 8:28 PM Reply   
Quote:
I also don't see how you can try to tie today's economic difficulties solely on Obama.
I don't know where you read that because that's not what I said. I would tie today's economic difficulties to the housing bubble that was artificially created by a lot of idiot politicians trying to put everyone and their dog into a house. I did, however, say that the current situation will not improve until business has an environment in which they can make business decisions without the fear of the game being changed the next day. That is what I blame on the current administration.

Quote:
Dave, you need to research how much of our workforce was employed in manufacturing jobs 20 + years ago as opposed to the present.
I don't need to research it. I know the number is less. I'm glad our workforce is off-loading more unskilled labor to other countries that can do it for cheaper. There are certain jobs that we just can't be competitive at because we require a higher standard of living than most other countries. That's not fixable, even though trade barrier lovers will argue that. That enables us to train our workforce to do higher tech stuff that gives us a competitive advantage over other countries and gives us something more to export. Notice our service exports have shown a trade surplus over the years. That should make you happy.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-14-2010, 7:18 AM Reply   
The housing bubble just revealed how fake our monetary system really is. If we were a cash only or gold based economy the trade deficit would have removed all the money from our economy years ago. Or at least made us face the music long before now.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 1:50 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us