Romney/Ryan

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1345048088' post='1146555']
The sort of global organization and communication that creates viable global commerce was impossible before the Internet. It existed, but not to the widespread eztent it does today. Shipment is again a negligible cost.

China is the opposite of our model. Free market versus state controlled market. They own industry, control the value of their currency, and blatantly commit economic bribery to achieve their master economic plan. They are still communists, remember?
[/quote]

Actually China practices State Capitialism, not communism. And I am suggesting that their, along with Germany protective tarrifs are one of the biggest drivers of their economic success.

[Orange 'n Black]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1345048223' post='1146556']


India was not inaccessible or undesirable, unless you can show me a FTA that includes labor and work conditions on it, I'm inclined to believe what history tells me regarding the exploitation of labor.
[/quote]

Either way, why is it relevant? I haven't seen a good counterpoint to the truth that the US stands at a competitive disadvantage in global commerce due to its tax policy.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1345048248' post='1146557']
White collar was just one of the professions I pointed out. Manufacturing is a blue collar profession with the sort of jobs that can be created with intelligent fiscal policy.

This is the point I'm making here. Paul Ryan forces this debate to happen. I personally won't have a real opinion on a candidate until each side goes in on it.
[/quote]

They wont create blue collar jobs here without driving down labor costs, intelligent fiscal policy doesnt change that fact.

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1345048391' post='1146559']
Either way, why is it relevant? I haven't seen a good counterpoint to the truth that the US stands at a competitive disadvantage in global commerce due to its tax policy.
[/quote]

I havent seen a counterpoint to the truth that globalization doesnt work for the labor classes.

[Orange 'n Black]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1345048357' post='1146558']


Actually China practices State Capitialism, not communism. And I am suggesting that their, along with Germany protective tarrifs are one of the biggest drivers of their economic success.
[/quote]

So you are implying that in order to entice industries that left our shores for a cheaper operating environment, we should levy new tariffs?

[Jamie_B]

I would suggest you watch the following


[b] [url="http://www.booktv.org/Program/11773/2010+Eagle+Forum+Collegians+Summit+Ian+Fletcher+Free+Trade+Doesnt+Work+What+Should+Replace+it+and+Why.aspx"]Ian Fletcher, "Free Trade Doesn't Work: What Should Replace it and Why"[/url][/b]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1345048519' post='1146562']
So you are implying that in order to entice industries that left our shores for a cheaper operating environment, we should levy new tariffs?
[/quote]

I am suggesting that multinationals left the shore for lower oo, but still want to sell to our consumers and we levy that desire to keep jobs here.

Because they are being shortsighted when they wont have consumers to sell to because those consumers dont have jobs.

[Orange 'n Black]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1345048466' post='1146560']


They wont create blue collar jobs here without driving down labor costs, intelligent fiscal policy doesnt change that fact.



I havent seen a counterpoint to the truth that globalization doesnt work for the labor classes.
[/quote]

There are benefits to operating in the USA. This country still has first world infrastructure and provides legal benefits as well (such as protecting intellectual property). Labor is not the only driver here.

I'm not arguing the point about benefiting labor - it doesn't. But globalization is not solely about labor either. China is far from the sole country that offers economic incentives for industries to relocate. Free land and a favorable tax environment can easily outweigh increased labor cost. The US incentivizes the energy industry in the same way.

[Orange 'n Black]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1345048636' post='1146563']
I would suggest you watch the following


[b] [url="http://www.booktv.org/Program/11773/2010+Eagle+Forum+Collegians+Summit+Ian+Fletcher+Free+Trade+Doesnt+Work+What+Should+Replace+it+and+Why.aspx"]Ian Fletcher, "Free Trade Doesn't Work: What Should Replace it and Why"[/url][/b]
[/quote]

I was never under the impression that ideal free trade exists - China is the ultimate example of that.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1345049501' post='1146568']
There are benefits to operating in the USA. This country still has first world infrastructure and provides legal benefits as well (such as protecting intellectual property). Labor is not the only driver here.

I'm not arguing the point about benefiting labor - it doesn't. But globalization is not solely about labor either. China is far from the sole country that offers economic incentives for industries to relocate. Free land and a favorable tax environment can easily outweigh increased labor cost. The US incentivizes the energy industry in the same way.
[/quote]

Ah and here is where we need to reconginze the distinction. Headquarters operating in the US while Labor operates in lower costs countries allows for the protections you speak of regarding intellectural property while allowing for lower costs of labor.

Multinationals will want to locate their HQ's here sure, but not their labor. I would argue that the savings in taxes and land you site are not negligible when comparing the costs of labor.

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1345049617' post='1146569']
I was never under the impression that ideal free trade exists - China is the ultimate example of that.
[/quote]

It's 38 minutes, spend time with it, he is arguing much of what I am.

And he is a conservative.

[Jamie_B]

Since the corporate welfare argument was made a few pages ago...

[url="http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/"]http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/[/url]




[quote]
[b] Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs[/b]



[b] About [url="http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hud/public-housing-and-rental-subsidies"]$59[/url] billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. [url="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230"]$92[/url] billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.[/b]
[color=#333333]
[b][i]Before we look at the details, a heartfelt plea from the Save the CEO’s Charitable Trust:[/i][/b][/color][color=#333333]
[i]There’s so much suffering in the world. It can all get pretty overwhelming sometimes. Consider, for a moment the sorrow in the eyes of a CEO who’s just found out that his end-of-year bonus is only going to be a paltry $2.3 million.[/i][/color][color=#333333]
[i]“It felt like a slap in the face. Imagine what it would feel like just before Christmas to find out that you’re going to be forced to scrape by on your standard $8.4 million compensation package alone. Imagine what is was like to have to look into my daughter’s face and tell her that I couldn’t afford to both buy her a dollar sign shaped island and hire someone to chew her food from now on, too. To put her in that situation of having to choose… She’s only a child for God’s sake.”[/i][/color][color=#333333]
[i]It doesn’t have to be this way. Thanks to federal subsidies from taxpayers like you, CEO’s like G. Allen Andreas of Archer Daniels Midland was able to take home almost [url="http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/ceou/database.cfm?tkr=ADM&pg=1"]$14 million[/url] in executive compensation last year. But he’s one of the lucky ones. There are still corporations out there that actually have to provide goods and services to their consumers in order to survive. They need your help.[/i][/color][color=#333333]
[i]For just [url="http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0205-7.pdf"]$93 billion[/url] a year the federal government is able to provide a better life for these CEO’s and their families. That’s less than the cost of 240 million cups of coffee a day. Won’t you help a needy corporation today?[/i][/color]
[b] The Traditional Welfare Queen[/b]
[color=#333333]
When one thinks about government welfare, the first thing that comes to mind is the proverbial welfare queen sitting atop her majestic throne of government cheese issuing a royal decree to her clamoring throngs of illegitimate babies that they may shut the hell up while she tries to watch Judge Judy. However, many politically well-connected corporations are also parasitically draining their share of fiscal blood from your paycheck before you ever see it. It’s called corporate welfare. The intent here is to figure out which presents the greater burden to our federal budget, corporate or social welfare programs.[/color][color=#333333]
There are, of course, positive and negative aspects to this spending.The primary negative aspect is that you have to increase taxes to pay for it. Taxing individuals lowers their standard of living. It reduces people’s ability to afford necessities like medical care, education, and low mileage off-road vehicles.The common usage definition of social welfare includes welfare checks and food stamps. Welfare checks are supplied through a federal program called Temporary Aid for Needy Families. Combined federal and state TANF spending was about [url="http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hhs/welfare-spending"]$26 [/url]billion in 2006. In 2009, the federal government will spend about [url="http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hud/public-housing-and-rental-subsidies"]$25[/url]billion on rental aid for low-income households and about [url="http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hud/public-housing-and-rental-subsidies"]$8[/url] billion on public housing projects. For some perspective, that’s about [url="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/tables.html"]3 percent[/url] of the total federal budget.[/color]
[b] TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families)[/b]
[color=#333333]
Another negative aspect relates to the fact that social welfare programs reduce the incentive for recipients to become productive members of society. However, in 1996, Congress passed a bill enacting limited welfare reform, replacing the Aid to Families with Dependent Children ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFDC"]AFDC[/url]) program with the new Temporary Aid to Needy Families ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANF"]TANF[/url]) program. One key aspect of this reform required recipients to engage in job searches, on the job training, community service work, or other constructive behaviors as a condition for receiving aid. The bill was signed by a man named Bill Clinton, who is much better known for an act of fellatio which, of course, had far greater societal implications. Regardless, the success of this reform was pretty dramatic. [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14096483/site/newsweek/"]Caseloads were cut nearly in half[/url]. Once individuals were required to work or undertake constructive activities as a condition of receiving aid they left welfare rapidly. Another surprising result was a drop in the child poverty rate. Employment of single mothers increased substantially and the child poverty rate fell sharply from [url="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test030701b.cfm"]20.8 percent in 1995 to 16.3 percent in 2000[/url].[/color][color=#333333]
[url="http://cdn4.thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Child-pov-by-living-arrangements-75-09.jpg"][img]http://cdn4.thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Child-pov-by-living-arrangements-75-09.jpg[/img][/url][/color]
[b] The Corporate Welfare Queen[/b]
[color=#333333]
Now, let’s consider the other kind of welfare.[/color]
[b] Definition: corporate welfare[/b]
[color=#333333]
n. Financial aid, such as a subsidy, provided by a government to corporations or other businesses.[/color][color=#333333]
The Cato Institute estimated that, in 2002, [url="http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0205-7.pdf"]$93 billion[/url] were devoted to corporate welfare. This is about [url="http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy02/browse.html"]5 percent[/url] of the federal budget.To clarify what is and isn’t corporate welfare, a “no-bid” Iraq contract for the prestigious Halliburton, would not be considered corporate welfare because the government technically directly receives some good or service in exchange for this expenditure. Based on the Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) findings of [url="http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/reports/houston2006.pdf"]$1.4 billion[/url] of overcharging and fraud, I suppose the primary service they provide could be considered to be repeatedly violating the American taxpayer.On the other hand, the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005"]$15 billion[/url] in subsidies contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to the oil, gas, and coal industries, would be considered corporate welfare because no goods or services are directly returned to the government in exchange for these expenditures.[/color][color=#333333]
[url="http://cdn1.thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/energy-subsidies-chart.jpg"][img]http://cdn2.thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/energy-subsidies-chart-1024x607.jpg[/img][/url][/color][color=#333333]
Tax breaks targeted to benefit specific corporations could also be considered a form of welfare. Tax loopholes force other businesses and individual taxpayers without the same political clout to pick up the slack and sacrifice a greater share of their hard-earned money to decrease the financial burden on these corporations. However, to simplify matters, we’ve only included financial handouts to companies in our working definition of corporate welfare.[/color][color=#333333]
Whenever corporate welfare is presented to voters, it always sounds like a pretty reasonable, well-intended idea. Politicians say that they’re stimulating the economy or helping struggling industries or creating jobs or funding important research. But when you steal money from the paychecks of working people, you hurt the economy by reducing their ability to buy the things they want or need. This decrease in demand damages other industries and puts people out of work.[/color][color=#333333]
Most of the pigs at the government trough are among the biggest companies in America, including the Big 3 automakers, Boeing, Archer Daniels Midland, and now-bankrupt Enron.[/color]
[b] Farm Subsidies[/b]
[color=#333333]
However, the largest fraction of corporate welfare spending, about 40%, went through the Department of Agriculture, most of it in the form of farm subsidies. [url="http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa592.pdf"](Edwards, Corporate Welfare, 2003) [/url]Well, that sounds OK. Someone’s got to help struggling family farms stay afloat, right? But in reality, farm subsidies actually tilt the cotton field in favor of the largest industrial farming operations. When it comes to deciding how to dole out the money, the agricultural subsidy system utilizes a process that is essentially the opposite of that used in the social welfare system’s welfare system. In the corporate welfare system, the more money and assets you have, the more government assistance you get. Conversely, social welfare programs are set up so that the more money and assets you have, the less government assistance you get. The result is that the absolute largest 7% of corporate farming operations receive 45% of all subsidies. [url="http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa515.pdf"](Edwards, Downsizing the Federal Government, 2004) [/url]So instead of protecting family farms, these subsidies actually enhance the ability of large industrial operations to shut them out of the market.[/color][color=#333333]
[url="http://cdn4.thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Farm-Subsidies2.jpg"][img]http://cdn4.thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Farm-Subsidies2.jpg[/img][/url][/color]

[b] Wal-Mart. Always high subsidies. Always.[/b]
[color=#333333]
The same is true in all other industries, too. The government gives tons of favors to the largest corporations, increasing the significant advantage they already have over smaller competing businesses. If, in the court of public opinion, Wal-Mart has been tried and convicted for the murder of main street, mom-and-pop America, then the government could easily be found guilty as a willing accomplice. Wal-Mart receives hundreds of millions of dollars of subsidization by local governments throughout the country. These subsidies take the form of bribes by local politicians trying to convince Wal-Mart to come to their town with the dream of significant job creation. Of course, from that follows a larger tax base. For example, a distribution center in Macclenny, Florida received [url="http://www.newrules.org/retail/news_archive.php?browseby=slug&slugid=241"]$9 million[/url] in government subsidies in the form of free land, government-funded recruitment and training of employees, targeted tax breaks, and housing subsidies for employees allowing them to be paid significantly lower wages. A study by Good Jobs First found that 244 Wal-Marts around the country had received over $1 billion in government favors.[/color]
[b] The Big Picture[/b]
[color=#333333]
So now let’s look at the big picture. The final totals are [url="http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hhs"]$59[/url] billion, 3 percent of the total federal budget, for regular welfare and [url="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230"]$92 [/url]billion, 5 percent of the total federal budget, for corporations. So, the government spends roughly 50% more on corporate welfare than it does on these particular public assistance programs.[/color][color=#333333]
Should we spend less on corporate welfare and/or social welfare programs? Or should we spend even more? It’s up to you. A bunch of people died horrible deaths to make sure this country remained a democracy, so if you feel strongly about this issue you owe it to them to call or write your congressman and senators and give them a piece of your mind.[/color]
[b] Please share your thoughts in the comments section![/b]
[color=#333333]
2013 Budget: [url="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf"]http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf[/url][/color][color=#333333]
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government (Washington: Government Publishing Office), various years; and data from the American Association for the Advancement of Science R&D Budget and Policy Program, various years.[/color][color=#333333]
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, [url="http://www.ers.usda.gov/data"]http://www.ers.usda.gov/data[/url].[/color][color=#333333]
Source: Export-Import Bank, 2006 Annual Report (Washington: Export-Import Bank, 2007).[/color][color=#333333]
Source Data from Chris Edwards at Cato:[/color][color=#333333]
[url="http://cdn1.thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Corporate-Welfare-Programs-BY-Agency-21.jpg"]Corporate Welfare by Agency[/url][/color][color=#333333]
[url="http://cdn2.thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Corporate-Welfare-Programs-BY-Agency1.jpg"]Corporate Welfare by Agency 2[/url][/color][color=#333333]
[url="http://cdn4.thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Corporate-Welfare-to-Companies.jpg"]Corporate Welfare by Company[/url][/color]

[/quote]

[Orange 'n Black]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1345049926' post='1146571']


Ah and here is where we need to reconginze the distinction. Headquarters operating in the US while Labor operates in lower costs countries allows for the protections you speak of regarding intellectural property while allowing for lower costs of labor.

Multinationals will want to locate their HQ's here sure, but not their labor. I would argue that the savings in taxes and land you site are not negligible when comparing the costs of labor.



It's 38 minutes, spend time with it, he is arguing much of what I am.

And he is a conservative.
[/quote]

Way too general. You could argue this of rudimentary labor like making Nikes. America offers a skilled workforce suited to high tech manufacturing, R&D, skilled services, advanced mechanical parts, and the like. You can't find that sort of workforce in the majority of the world. Where the US takes its licks is where it fails to compete with the other countries who CAN offer these skills in their respective workforces.

It's also very difficult to entice a business to return to the US when the foreign income it's produced is going to be taxed on repatriation.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1345051060' post='1146580']
Way too general. You could argue this of rudimentary labor like making Nikes. America offers a skilled workforce suited to high tech manufacturing, R&D, skilled services, advanced mechanical parts, and the like. You can't find that sort of workforce in the majority of the world. [color=#ff0000]Where the US takes its licks is where it fails to compete with the other countries who CAN offer these skills in their respective workforces.[/color]

It's also very difficult to entice a business to return to the US when the foreign income it's produced is going to be taxed on repatriation.
[/quote]


You mean like China.

[Orange 'n Black]

I won't quote the article since its so long -

A subsidy is not the same as giving money to a company. A subsidy is enacted to create an economic benefit for the taxing body. The article itself states that the business procured by the subsidy broadened the tax base and increased tax revenues. Isn't that the whole point? China, Ireland, Singapore, Korea, many more subsidize target industries to realize their economic benefit. If that article were to make a point, it should analyze the economic impact of the subsidized business on the surrounding area.

I'm not going to argue the point of whether or not these subsidies were given through political coercion or not. That's all speculation. Some likely were and the others weren't.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1345051580' post='1146586']
I won't quote the article since its so long -

A subsidy is not the same as giving money to a company. A subsidy is enacted to create an economic benefit for the taxing body. The article itself states that the business procured by the subsidy broadened the tax base and increased tax revenues. Isn't that the whole point? China, Ireland, Singapore, Korea, many more subsidize target industries to realize their economic benefit. If that article were to make a point, it should analyze the economic impact of the subsidized business on the surrounding area.

I'm not going to argue the point of whether or not these subsidies were given through political coercion or not. That's all speculation. Some likely were and the others weren't.
[/quote]

Subsidies are used to encourage new growth in industry to create jobs yes, but should they exist in industries that are making record profits? I would argue no, that that money is much better spent elsewhere.

[Jamie_B]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AJT7Afayds

[Jamie_B]

Actually this series O&B is what I am arguing....

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTX5LfKef8M[/media]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECxlvCoey-w&feature=relmfu[/media]

[Orange 'n Black]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1345051725' post='1146587']


Subsidies are used to encourage new growth in industry to create jobs yes, but should they exist in industries that are making record profits? I would argue no, that that money is much better spent elsewhere.
[/quote]

If a subsidy creates jobs and spurs record profits for a corporation, I'm all for it. It puts people to work, expands the tax base, and provides more value to shareholders. In fact I'd say it's done exactly what it's supposed to do. I would rather money go to an effective subsidy than an ineffective one (Solyndra).

[sois]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1345046364' post='1146544']
Give me "Other", or the 3rd candidate, for $1000 Alex.

It won't do shit, but if enough people went that route maybe, eventually the two corrupt ass major parties MIGHT wake up and smell the smokey fire.

Pretty sad that four more years of Obama makes me shutter... and 4 years of Romney makes me shutter... pathetic really.
[/quote]

you are the best today

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1345055784' post='1146596']
If a subsidy creates jobs and spurs record profits for a corporation, I'm all for it. It puts people to work, expands the tax base, and provides more value to shareholders. In fact I'd say it's done exactly what it's supposed to do. I would rather money go to an effective subsidy than an ineffective one (Solyndra).
[/quote]

At what point are we talking about investments that fail (Bush's in Solyndra) vs investments in corporations that are already making record profits (oil industry) , would it not be better to take those investments from the companies making record profits and attempt to create jobs in other industries for the purpose of expanding that tax base? You arent always going to get the invesments right as Solyndra shows, but you do need to try to expand the labor market in more than one area, not everyone can work for Exxon Mobile, some folks have talent and education elsewhere.

[Jamie_B]

Also if you watch the videos I posted entitled "The Crisis of Neoliberalism" youll see your argument about wages being negligible just isnt true.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Numbers' timestamp='1345031177' post='1146477']
Doing it from a smart phone makes those type of things difficult. A little from here and a little from there. Easy enough to do research on Stockman. He's repeated himself over and over many times before.
[/quote]
Actually...bullshit. The point is not to take credit for material others have written. I'm pretty sure that if you managed to type "The same guy who said" on a cell phone, you could just as easily have typed, "Wikipedia says this about Stockman:"

And in my case, I knew Stockman for an asshat back in the early 80s, and later I read his book after he split with the Reagan admin. Same old supply-side nonsense then as now--the only difference is that 30 years of supply-side econ has helped to functionally ruin the Republican party. It's one reason old-time fiscal conservatives are in the process of being pushed out of the party.

And btw, this Ryan cat is a supply-sider and gives Jack Kemp a reach-around, too.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1345055784' post='1146596']
If a subsidy creates jobs and [b]spurs record profits[/b] for a corporation, I'm all for it. [b]It puts people to work[/b], expands the tax base, and provides more value to shareholders. In fact I'd say it's done exactly what it's supposed to do. I would rather money go to an effective subsidy than an ineffective one (Solyndra).
[/quote]

Its clear you are much more versed in economics than I am, but haven't we been seeing record profits posted by corporations that are reducing their workforce?

[Jamie_B]

I've posted this before but...


[b] [url="http://www.dylanratigan.com/2011/08/08/jobs-wanted-a-special-report-on-trade-taxes-and-banking/"]Jobs Wanted: A Special Report on Trade, Taxes and Banking[/url][/b]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1345058556' post='1146612']
Actually...bullshit. The point is not to take credit for material others have written. I'm pretty sure that if you managed to type "The same guy who said" on a cell phone, you could just as easily have typed, "Wikipedia says this about Stockman:"

And in my case, I knew Stockman for an asshat back in the early 80s, and later I read his book after he split with the Reagan admin. Same old supply-side nonsense then as now--the only difference is that 30 years of supply-side econ has helped to functionally ruin the Republican party. It's one reason old-time fiscal conservatives are in the process of being pushed out of the party.

And btw, this Ryan cat is a supply-sider and [color=#ff0000]gives Jack Kemp a reach-around, too.[/color]
[/quote]

I saw something about that connection the other day but havent had time to look into it, been too busy on this Ayn Rand tangent.

[Homer_Rice]

Interesting discussion.

Capital gains taxes (no matter what the rate) do not discriminate between investment in productive vs non-productive economic activity. Probably much more wise to offer incentives for profits gained via investment in actual production of goods and services. As I said here a couple of years before the economy blew out in 2007-8, while there would be heated debate over what is considered "productive" it would open the door to imposing some obstacles to "investment" which is clearly non-productive: e.g. most high frequency trading. Tax the shit out of that.

Those interested in recent history should read through this just released document:

[url="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2126778"]A Transactional Genealogy of Scandal: From Michael Milken to Enron to Goldman Sachs[/url]

Yes, it is class warfare of an important kind: from the top down. To pretend that it is not is to ignore recent history. The game is rigged and pretty much everyone knows it now. Sadly, even so, when Goldman-Sachs skated away from any legal culpability just within the past week or so regarding the mortgage scandal, hardly anyone raised a stink.

Shipping is always an major factor in an economic equation. It's one reason why governments often have and do subsidize the infrastructure for roads, canals, etc...

Tariffs/trade agreements are definitely factors, too. But one has to be careful not to simply reimpose the same conceptual apparatus of the 18th and 19th centuries to the 21st.