If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Deficits aren't dropping because we're doing something right, they're dropping because we're doing everything wrong   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 159
    More: Hero, deficits, Congressional Budget Office  
•       •       •

7147 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 May 2013 at 6:18 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-22 06:12:45 PM
We're gonna have this Keynes vs Friedman argument again, aren't we?
 
2013-05-22 06:18:23 PM
We're just not doing austerity hard enough!!!!1!!1!
 
2013-05-22 06:19:14 PM

themindiswatching: We're just not doing austerity hard enough!!!!1!!1!


I'M SO AUSTERE I SHIAT NOTHING
 
2013-05-22 06:21:06 PM
Who cares if millions of people are out of work and suffering? Our 80 year time horizon improved in a totally unreliable way!
 
2013-05-22 06:21:56 PM
So, kind of like shooting the moon in bridge?

/austerity hurr durr
 
2013-05-22 06:24:39 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: themindiswatching: We're just not doing austerity hard enough!!!!1!!1!

I'M SO AUSTERE I SHIAT NOTHING


I am so austere I am an un-shaiting black hole.
 
2013-05-22 06:27:45 PM
This is what I am getting from the comments after the article...

The so called president is bla, so everything is wrong. Nothing can possibly go right when we have bla in the WHITE House. Bring back America, put an old rich WHITE guy back in the WHITE House.
 
2013-05-22 06:30:15 PM
So it's better to reduce the deficit by kicking the can down the road then?
 
2013-05-22 06:30:33 PM
Goddamit, they still haven't fixed the Y-axis on this farking chart!   The deficit is not nearly 80% of GDP now!

www.washingtonpost.com
 
2013-05-22 06:32:53 PM
So we don't like reducing the deficit now?
 
2013-05-22 06:33:15 PM
The article says its talking about the deficit, yet the giant chart says its referring to the debt.  Two very different things.
 
2013-05-22 06:34:59 PM

PowerSlacker: So it's better to reduce the deficit by kicking the can down the road then?


One side believes the can we should be focusing on is employment. Fix employment and you'll fix the deficit and the debt.

The other side believes the can we should be focusing on is the deficit and debt. Fix the deficit and debt, you'll fix employment.

It's up to you to decide which of these makes sense, and which one defies math, history, and reality.
 
2013-05-22 06:37:21 PM
1percentblog.com
 
2013-05-22 06:37:55 PM

fusillade762: We're gonna have this Keynes vs Friedman argument again, aren't we?


Friedman : Economics :: Astrologers : Astronomy

/they both managed to discover a few things while they were bullshiatting their way through life
 
2013-05-22 06:40:57 PM

doyner: So we don't like reducing the deficit now?


Just imagine if we get a GOP president in 2016, they won't matter at all. Then we'll invade Iran and North Korea at the same time.
 
2013-05-22 06:41:29 PM
I was under the impression that the CBO report also mentioned that this was projected to be a short term decline & that we (the gov't) would need to take steps to make the necessary corrections to further the deficit reduction long term.

SO, the article is simply strongly wording the CBO report?
 
2013-05-22 06:44:11 PM
So, are rich people going to be okay?

I'm worried about them.
 
2013-05-22 06:45:46 PM
The economy is never going to "get better" than it is. The stock market is at a record high. Unemployment is high because there are too many people. Paying them all to dig ditches and fill them in with dirt isn't going to create wealth. If you're going to wait around for everyone to be hired simply because Megacorp thinks they should be altruistic and hire 10,000 people they don't need, don't hold your breath. If we wait for 5% unemployment to cut the deficit, it will just continue to grow forever.
 
2013-05-22 06:46:01 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Goddamit, they still haven't fixed the Y-axis on this farking chart!   The deficit is not nearly 80% of GDP now!

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x459]


US GDP 2012 - $15.1 trillion

US Federal Debt - $16.7 trillion

16.7 / 15.1 * 100 = 110%

I'm not sure how the chartmakers got their figures.
 
2013-05-22 06:46:24 PM

Skarekrough: So, are rich people going to be okay?

I'm worried about them.


Me too.  I lose sleep at night hoping that the Job CreatorsTM won't get levied with more burdensome taxes, forcing them to send their money overseas to live with its cousin in Ireland.
 
2013-05-22 06:46:49 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Goddamit, they still haven't fixed the Y-axis on this farking chart!   The deficit is not nearly 80% of GDP now!

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x459]


Oh, you know what? It says "held by the public." Ok.
 
2013-05-22 06:49:56 PM

Tommy Moo: Unemployment is high because there are too many people.


I'm not sure unemployment works that way...
 
2013-05-22 06:51:09 PM
So what he's saying is that we should cut taxes?
 
2013-05-22 06:55:41 PM
1. Cut the military spending. Significantly.
 
2013-05-22 06:55:46 PM

Tommy Moo: The economy is never going to "get better" than it is. The stock market is at a record high. Unemployment is high because there are too many people. Paying them all to dig ditches and fill them in with dirt isn't going to create wealth. If you're going to wait around for everyone to be hired simply because Megacorp thinks they should be altruistic and hire 10,000 people they don't need, don't hold your breath. If we wait for 5% unemployment to cut the deficit, it will just continue to grow forever.


But if we pay people to dig ditches AND fill the ditches with poor people then you're getting rid of all the unemployed, and employing more ditch diggers. Win/win.
 
2013-05-22 07:01:35 PM

Tommy Moo: Unemployment is high because there are too many people.


LOL
 
2013-05-22 07:02:18 PM

Tommy Moo: The economy is never going to "get better" than it is. The stock market is at a record high. Unemployment is high because there are too many people. Paying them all to dig ditches and fill them in with dirt isn't going to create wealth. If you're going to wait around for everyone to be hired simply because Megacorp thinks they should be altruistic and hire 10,000 people they don't need, don't hold your breath. If we wait for 5% unemployment to cut the deficit, it will just continue to grow forever.


We can pay people to repair our crumbling infrastructure and update the nation's electric and telecom grids.
Decrying it all as digging and filling in ditches ignores that there are quite a few valuable things people could be put to work doing.
 
2013-05-22 07:07:09 PM

doyner: So we don't like reducing the deficit now?


Now? How about ever?

There's a difference between what the GOP says, and what they do.
 
2013-05-22 07:08:15 PM
2012: "Why should I vote Republican?" We need to get rid of Obammer because deficit and big money and too much government!
2013: "Looks like the deficit is getting smaller."  OMG Obammer do everything wrong!

Good god, man.  If Obama cured cancer and brokered world peace, they'd claim it was some sort of diabolical plot.  You know... Obama should join the NRA.  The conservative nuts would enter a permanent derp feedback loop.  It would be an awesome spectacle.  They'd be forced to double down, and double again, and again, and so on until they had so much derp that they'd collapse into a point of infinite stupidity and leave the universe forever.
 
2013-05-22 07:10:28 PM

un4gvn666: Tommy Moo: Unemployment is high because there are too many people.

LOL


Actually, he's not technically wrong. Due to gains in production we are more than flush with supply at the current rate of employment, and as technology/automation increases the job market will require fewer and fewer people to meet demand. As it stands now, outside of construction, most industries could increase demand significantly without hiring any additional people.
 
2013-05-22 07:12:11 PM

jigger: BarkingUnicorn: Goddamit, they still haven't fixed the Y-axis on this farking chart!   The deficit is not nearly 80% of GDP now!

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x459]

Oh, you know what? It says "held by the public." Ok.



This.
 
2013-05-22 07:13:05 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Goddamit, they still haven't fixed the Y-axis on this farking chart!   The deficit is not nearly 80% of GDP now!

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x459]


It's indicates Debt, not Deficit.
 
2013-05-22 07:16:02 PM
In my experience, if it pisses of Republicans its probably the RIGHT thing to do.
 
2013-05-22 07:16:18 PM

jigger: BarkingUnicorn: Goddamit, they still haven't fixed the Y-axis on this farking chart!   The deficit is not nearly 80% of GDP now!

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x459]

US GDP 2012 - $15.1 trillion

US Federal Debt - $16.7 trillion

16.7 / 15.1 * 100 = 110%

I'm not sure how the chartmakers got their figures.


The chart is Federal Debt held by the public (as compared to intragovernmental debt).
 
2013-05-22 07:16:42 PM
Don't be cajoled by the deficit hawks into thinking it has to drop because if we don't OMGCATASTROPHE! Deficit spending is necessary to fix the actual economic problems the US faces. Federal debt is not one of those problems. When Cheney said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he wasn't just being his normal evil Dick self. It's true. So don't let the economic right wingers win the argument through their normal hysteria.
 
2013-05-22 07:19:09 PM
You mean short-term deficit reduction isn't the be-all end-all of good governance?  Well, knock me down with a feather.
 
2013-05-22 07:23:36 PM
...So vote Republican?
 
2013-05-22 07:24:13 PM
i86.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-22 07:25:19 PM
Let me guess. We need to cut taxes for the rich. Right?
 
2013-05-22 07:26:51 PM
Use the power of mental thinking! Make it dynamic!
 
2013-05-22 07:27:30 PM

HeartBurnKid: You mean short-term deficit reduction isn't the be-all end-all of good governance?  Well, knock me down with a feather.


BUTBUTBUT HYPERINFLATION AND FIAT CURRENCY AND DEBT SLAVERY AND BLACK PRESIDENT
 
2013-05-22 07:27:36 PM

MayoSlather: un4gvn666: Tommy Moo: Unemployment is high because there are too many people.

LOL

Actually, he's not technically wrong. Due to gains in production we are more than flush with supply at the current rate of employment, and as technology/automation increases the job market will require fewer and fewer people to meet demand. As it stands now, outside of construction, most industries could increase demand significantly without hiring any additional people.


While the economic forces leading to this situation are understandable, things better change sooner rather than later. A permanent, expanding underclass of people will only increase the chances of an existential threat to the system itself (i.e. revolution in one form or another).

Gee, maybe it would be a good idea for the government to address an issue like this. You know, an issue the market has no mechanism for dealing with.
 
2013-05-22 07:28:32 PM
There is a way to reduce the debt and add jobs.  Unfortunately it's the Democrats that hate what the real fix is.  All those manufacturing jobs we have lost in the last 3 decades.  Offer them a 10% tax rate, the CEO's of HP and Dell and Micro-semi have said they would return if you we did.  Ask yourself, would you rather have the 0% we are getting now or 10% of their profits.
 
2013-05-22 07:30:48 PM

pxsteel: Offer them a 10% tax rate, the CEO's of HP and Dell and Micro-semi have said they would return if you we did.


media.comicvine.com
 
2013-05-22 07:31:13 PM
That was not up to the usually high standards I have come to expect from Ezra Klein.
 
2013-05-22 07:32:18 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: Offer them a 10% tax rate, the CEO's of HP and Dell and Micro-semi have said they would return if you we did.

[media.comicvine.com image 479x356]


what do you not believe in my post
 
2013-05-22 07:37:02 PM

pxsteel: what do you not believe in my post


That all we need is just one more tax cut and we'll be drowning in jobs.
 
2013-05-22 07:39:36 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: what do you not believe in my post

That all we need is just one more tax cut and we'll be drowning in jobs.


How is it a tax cut.  We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.
 
2013-05-22 07:41:03 PM

pxsteel: How is it a tax cut. We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.


Why should we be doing them any favors? Why should we bend over backwards for them?
 
2013-05-22 07:41:38 PM
Like I tell my friends anytime we score a run, point, TD, et al in whatever sport you're playing:

"We scored a point? It was flawless technique."
 
2013-05-22 07:41:53 PM
img46.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-22 07:43:35 PM

Cpl.D: 2012: "Why should I vote Republican?" We need to get rid of Obammer because deficit and big money and too much government!
2013: "Looks like the deficit is getting smaller."  OMG Obammer do everything wrong!

Good god, man.  If Obama cured cancer and brokered world peace, they'd claim it was some sort of diabolical plot.  You know... Obama should join the NRA.  The conservative nuts would enter a permanent derp feedback loop.  It would be an awesome spectacle.  They'd be forced to double down, and double again, and again, and so on until they had so much derp that they'd collapse into a point of infinite stupidity and leave the universe forever.


I think I missed that episode of Doctor Who.

/or was is ST:TNG
 
2013-05-22 07:46:55 PM

WhyteRaven74: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut. We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.

Why should we be doing them any favors? Why should we bend over backwards for them?


Because:

We want the jobs
We want the revenue

lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place
 
2013-05-22 07:49:49 PM

pxsteel: How is it a tax cut.


pxsteel: Offer them a 10% tax rate


You do know what a tax cut is, right?

You also assume that such a rate would actually encourage corporations to repatriate offshore jobs and funds, even though it didn't work the last time we tried it.

So again...
pictures.mastermarf.com
 
2013-05-22 07:50:50 PM

pxsteel: Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: what do you not believe in my post

That all we need is just one more tax cut and we'll be drowning in jobs.

How is it a tax cut.  We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.


We've done this before. They'll take the 10% for all US operations and then use the money gained by the tax cuts to further offshore factories. You just stated exactly what the Bush tax cuts were supposed to do. Look what happened instead.

Trickle Down doesn't work. When you give the rich more money the rich just have more money.
 
2013-05-22 07:51:54 PM

pxsteel: WhyteRaven74: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut. We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.

Why should we be doing them any favors? Why should we bend over backwards for them?

Because:

We want the jobs
We want the revenue

lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place


And they would still have lower operating costs if we taxed them at 0%.  Unless we're willing to replicate third-world sweatshop conditions and environmental disasters in the US, we're never going to be able to beat the third world in a race to the bottom.  We're going to have to figure out another solution.
 
2013-05-22 07:52:23 PM

pxsteel: We want the jobs
We want the revenue


Then enforce the existing tax code. And if need be get a bit tough, threatening their status as public companies would likely work well. And if it doesn't, oh well, the SEC can tear up their paperwork plenty fast.
 
2013-05-22 07:55:46 PM
One of the biggest consumer markets in the world we should be controlling our imports in out best interest like other countries for starters.  Then go back to the previous tax rates before the Bush temporary cuts. And we should stop lighting fires where there is no need.  Get some self confidence back and act like Americans and not like a couple of ferrel cats. Mic off......
 
2013-05-22 07:57:01 PM

Atillathepun: BarkingUnicorn: Goddamit, they still haven't fixed the Y-axis on this farking chart!   The deficit is not nearly 80% of GDP now!

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x459]

It's indicates Debt, not Deficit.


So it does... in an article about deficits.  Got  me.
 
2013-05-22 07:59:25 PM

pxsteel: Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: what do you not believe in my post

That all we need is just one more tax cut and we'll be drowning in jobs.

How is it a tax cut.  We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.


I know you're getting some flak for your suggestion.
but at least you have proposed a solution to bring jobs back home.

as mentioned we cannot compete with 3rd world ease of exploitation.  I think some healthy tariffs are in order at the very least, after that, we wait until gas prices soar to new heights making transport such a burden in addition to tariffs that anyone living & selling goods & services in the U.S.A. either cut their CEO pay or start making in the U.S.A. again.
 
2013-05-22 08:00:44 PM
Washington D.C. is the problem.
 
2013-05-22 08:01:51 PM

Vectron: Washington D.C. is the problem.


as much as States are the problem too.
 
2013-05-22 08:04:15 PM

HeartBurnKid: pxsteel: WhyteRaven74: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut. We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.

Why should we be doing them any favors? Why should we bend over backwards for them?

Because:

We want the jobs
We want the revenue

lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

And they would still have lower operating costs if we taxed them at 0%.  Unless we're willing to replicate third-world sweatshop conditions and environmental disasters in the US, we're never going to be able to beat the third world in a race to the bottom.  We're going to have to figure out another solution.


Actually the CEO of HP laid it out very nicely.  The employee costs in China have been rising in the last 7 years and the cost of freight has skyrocketed to the point that it would actually be cheaper to produce in the US than China or Malaysia if the taxes were in the 10% range
 
2013-05-22 08:04:48 PM

Vectron: Washington D.C. is the problem.


The lack of income growth that is a huge factor in the size of the deficit in recent years, is purely the fault of the private sector.
 
2013-05-22 08:06:47 PM

pxsteel: 10% range


Here's the thing, if they start producing in the US they'll have more stuff to write off on their taxes. Also anyone who says "It would be cheaper to do it here, but I won't do it until you cut taxes", is not a business person but just a shyster. And should be treated as such.
 
2013-05-22 08:07:54 PM

MayoSlather: But if we pay people to dig ditches AND fill the ditches with poor people then you're getting rid of all the unemployed, and employing more ditch diggers. Win/win.



I'm not sure being digger rich is the answer.
 
2013-05-22 08:08:11 PM

Isitoveryet: pxsteel: Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: what do you not believe in my post

That all we need is just one more tax cut and we'll be drowning in jobs.

How is it a tax cut.  We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.

I know you're getting some flak for your suggestion.
but at least you have proposed a solution to bring jobs back home.

as mentioned we cannot compete with 3rd world ease of exploitation.  I think some healthy tariffs are in order at the very least, after that, we wait until gas prices soar to new heights making transport such a burden in addition to tariffs that anyone living & selling goods & services in the U.S.A. either cut their CEO pay or start making in the U.S.A. again.


I think if it were to be done, tariffs would be the way. The combination of paying workers $50 a week, plus the lack of environmental and safety regulations means there's huge incentive to produce offshore.
 
2013-05-22 08:08:39 PM

CaptainCliche: So, kind of like shooting the moon in bridge?

/austerity hurr durr


You mean "Hearts," not bridge.
 
2013-05-22 08:08:56 PM

pxsteel: Actually the CEO of HP laid it out very nicely. The employee costs in China have been rising in the last 7 years and the cost of freight has skyrocketed to the point that it would actually be cheaper to produce in the US than China or Malaysia if the taxes were in the 10% range


Oh.

The government does not march to the beat of HP's CEO's drum.

You know who else could use a 10% tax rate? Everyone who earns under 50k/year in salary. Where's our big, gigantic giveaway sloppy-kiss handout stimulative tax rate cut? Of the ~1/3 of the economy that is "consumer spending", we're responsible for 60-70% of it. So why not give those billions to millions, and tell the Fortune 500 to go buy off some other government?

// like China's
 
Ehh
2013-05-22 08:13:00 PM

Vectron: Washington D.C. is the problem.


And alcohol is the solution?
 
2013-05-22 08:13:36 PM

pxsteel: Actually the CEO of HP laid it out very nicely.  The employee costs in China have been rising in the last 7 years and the cost of freight has skyrocketed to the point that it would actually be cheaper to produce in the US than China or Malaysia if the taxes were in the 10% range


So why don't we just use protective tariffs? If you're going to outsource jobs, then you're going to pay the unemployment checks of the people you laid off when you moved those jobs overseas.

America is supposed to be for the people, not for the businesses. You're proposing what is good for businesses first, but promoting it as if the side effect of "creating jobs" were the main reason for your proposal.

Start focusing first on what is good for the people, and maybe look at what is good for business as the beneficial side effect.
 
2013-05-22 08:16:02 PM

ox45tallboy: America is supposed to be for the people, not for the businesses.


Amazing how so effortlessly the GOP forgets this.
 
2013-05-22 08:16:33 PM

ox45tallboy: So why don't we just use protective tariffs? If you're going to outsource jobs, then you're going to pay the unemployment checks of the people you laid off when you moved those jobs overseas.


That.

And the more the country exploits workers and wrecks the planet, the higher the tariff.
 
2013-05-22 08:16:36 PM

Ehh: Vectron: Washington D.C. is the problem.

And alcohol is the solution?


A tincture of politicians?
 
2013-05-22 08:17:16 PM

Granny_Panties: doyner: So we don't like reducing the deficit now?

Just imagine if we get a GOP president in 2016, they won't matter at all. Then we'll invade Iran and North Korea at the same time.


And fire everyone who isn't making $500,000 a year.
 
2013-05-22 08:19:30 PM

rustypouch: Isitoveryet: pxsteel: Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: what do you not believe in my post

That all we need is just one more tax cut and we'll be drowning in jobs.

How is it a tax cut.  We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.

I know you're getting some flak for your suggestion.
but at least you have proposed a solution to bring jobs back home.

as mentioned we cannot compete with 3rd world ease of exploitation.  I think some healthy tariffs are in order at the very least, after that, we wait until gas prices soar to new heights making transport such a burden in addition to tariffs that anyone living & selling goods & services in the U.S.A. either cut their CEO pay or start making in the U.S.A. again.

I think if it were to be done, tariffs would be the way. The combination of paying workers $50 a week, plus the lack of environmental and safety regulations means there's huge incentive to produce offshore.


tariffs would cause either higher prices or shortage of product on the shelves.  We need to compete in the world economy and we have been doing a pretty pi$$ poor job of it for a while now.

How about we stipulate that you only get the 10% on what you actually produce in the US?
 
2013-05-22 08:22:25 PM

pxsteel: tariffs would cause either higher prices or shortage of product on the shelves.  We need to compete in the world economy and we have been doing a pretty pi$$ poor job of it for a while now.


Whoa, now, wait a second.

I'm not talking about taxing stuff we ship to other countries, just the stuff we import through companies that shuttered US operations to move manufacturing overseas.

How exactly does that keep us from competing in the world economy, especially when it means we will definitely be manufacturing more stuff here? Seems like the opposite should happen.
 
2013-05-22 08:26:32 PM

Granny_Panties: This is what I am getting from the comments after the article...

The so called president is bla, so everything is wrong. Nothing can possibly go right when we have bla in the WHITE House. Bring back America, put an old rich WHITE guy back in the WHITE House.


Welcome to the Internet.
 
2013-05-22 08:27:26 PM

ox45tallboy: pxsteel: tariffs would cause either higher prices or shortage of product on the shelves.  We need to compete in the world economy and we have been doing a pretty pi$$ poor job of it for a while now.

Whoa, now, wait a second.

I'm not talking about taxing stuff we ship to other countries, just the stuff we import through companies that shuttered US operations to move manufacturing overseas.

How exactly does that keep us from competing in the world economy, especially when it means we will definitely be manufacturing more stuff here? Seems like the opposite should happen.


Do you think China will not try and protect itself.  If we put tariffs on stuff built there they will respond with their own tariffs.  This has been tried before and it has backfired almost every time.
 
2013-05-22 08:28:41 PM

ox45tallboy: America is supposed to be for the people, not for the businesses. You're proposing what is good for businesses first, but promoting it as if the side effect of "creating jobs" were the main reason for your proposal.


Businesses are people, remember?

/some could say they are "the people"
//"who matter"
 
2013-05-22 08:28:57 PM
Did you notice the tail-end of the link?:

stop-celebrating-our-falling-deficits/

If only more articles had such succinct summaries. This should have been the fark title IMO
 
2013-05-22 08:31:06 PM

pxsteel: rustypouch: Isitoveryet: pxsteel: Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: what do you not believe in my post

That all we need is just one more tax cut and we'll be drowning in jobs.

How is it a tax cut.  We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.

I know you're getting some flak for your suggestion.
but at least you have proposed a solution to bring jobs back home.

as mentioned we cannot compete with 3rd world ease of exploitation.  I think some healthy tariffs are in order at the very least, after that, we wait until gas prices soar to new heights making transport such a burden in addition to tariffs that anyone living & selling goods & services in the U.S.A. either cut their CEO pay or start making in the U.S.A. again.

I think if it were to be done, tariffs would be the way. The combination of paying workers $50 a week, plus the lack of environmental and safety regulations means there's huge incentive to produce offshore.

tariffs would cause either higher prices or shortage of product on the shelves.  We need to compete in the world economy and we have been doing a pretty pi$$ poor job of it for a while now.

How about we stipulate that you only get the 10% on what you actually produce in the US?


Yeah, the tariffs are probably a poor solution. But as long as overseas costs are so cheap, and regulations so lax, there's no incentive for companies to produce domestically.
 
2013-05-22 08:31:38 PM

pxsteel: ox45tallboy: pxsteel: tariffs would cause either higher prices or shortage of product on the shelves.  We need to compete in the world economy and we have been doing a pretty pi$$ poor job of it for a while now.

Whoa, now, wait a second.

I'm not talking about taxing stuff we ship to other countries, just the stuff we import through companies that shuttered US operations to move manufacturing overseas.

How exactly does that keep us from competing in the world economy, especially when it means we will definitely be manufacturing more stuff here? Seems like the opposite should happen.

Do you think China will not try and protect itself.  If we put tariffs on stuff built there they will respond with their own tariffs.  This has been tried before and it has backfired almost every time.


And our stores might have to pay $4 for a pair of $120 shoes (that they'll likely shred and toss out), instead of $3!

And thus the world economy ground to a halt.
 
2013-05-22 08:34:38 PM

sendtodave: ox45tallboy: America is supposed to be for the people, not for the businesses. You're proposing what is good for businesses first, but promoting it as if the side effect of "creating jobs" were the main reason for your proposal.

Businesses are people, remember?

/some could say they are "the people"
//"who matter"


corporations are people
 
2013-05-22 08:36:38 PM

pxsteel: Do you think China will not try and protect itself.  If we put tariffs on stuff built there they will respond with their own tariffs.  This has been tried before and it has backfired almost every time.


Yes, and do you really think they'll want to ruin our economy when they're holding so much of our debt?

We could print the $1 trillion and send it right over, and their manufacturing would all of a sudden be worthless when we devalue our currency that much. They wouldn't be able to compete with our internal manufacturing for the products we buy here.

The reason we don't do this right now is because it would collapse their economy, and we don't have the manufacturing capacity at the moment to fill our own needs.

Thing is, the threat of a protective tariff will keep the manufacturers from moving overseas to begin with, so countries like China won't ever have the bargaining chip.
 
2013-05-22 08:37:55 PM

sendtodave: Businesses are people, remember?

/some could say they are "the people"
//"who matter"


www.changingworld.com
 
2013-05-22 08:39:53 PM
Everybody farking the "cut SS, Medicare and taxes" chicken this week.

Seriously, I think the Koch brothers bought up all the media.
 
2013-05-22 08:52:07 PM

pxsteel: Do you think China will not try and protect itself.  If we put tariffs on stuff built there they will respond with their own tariffs.  This has been tried before and it has backfired almost every time.


the idea that any country would risk a trade war with the US right now is ridiculous.

The rest of the world is projected to enter, or stay in recession, for at least another year; central banks are falling over themselves, trying to stay competetive - japan, korea, australia, the ECB: all cutting rates, or printing money; meanwhile the chinese print BARELY (and questionably) positive GDP, and CPI in the face of reduced demand from every other country in the world except the US.

if there were any time to start redefining the terms of trade with the US, it would be now.
 
2013-05-22 08:56:28 PM

pxsteel: ox45tallboy: pxsteel: tariffs would cause either higher prices or shortage of product on the shelves.  We need to compete in the world economy and we have been doing a pretty pi$$ poor job of it for a while now.

Whoa, now, wait a second.

I'm not talking about taxing stuff we ship to other countries, just the stuff we import through companies that shuttered US operations to move manufacturing overseas.

How exactly does that keep us from competing in the world economy, especially when it means we will definitely be manufacturing more stuff here? Seems like the opposite should happen.

Do you think China will not try and protect itself.  If we put tariffs on stuff built there they will respond with their own tariffs.  This has been tried before and it has backfired almost every time.


And if they do? They export to us far more than they import from us; them putting a tariff on us wouldn't hurt us much.
 
2013-05-22 09:03:29 PM

MayoSlather: un4gvn666: Tommy Moo: Unemployment is high because there are too many people.

LOL

Actually, he's not technically wrong. Due to gains in production we are more than flush with supply at the current rate of employment, and as technology/automation increases the job market will require fewer and fewer people to meet demand. As it stands now, outside of construction, most industries could increase demand significantly without hiring any additional people.


Thank you. Jesus Christ am I sick of people mocking me. About 5% of the population gets this simple concept. As automation increases productivity per person, we can either increase unemployment, decrease the number of workers, or decrease the number of hours in a work week. There is no fourth choice. One of those will happen. Making up nonsense work for people to do is the same as increasing unemployment. Every person working a Keynesian job is on welfare, except that it's worse than welfare, because it disguises the unemployment and allows people to imagine that there is no underlying problem that needs to be addressed.
 
2013-05-22 09:04:10 PM
Looks like he got the talking points after yesterday's meeting at the White House.
Expect a string of articles from other "experts" on this.
 
2013-05-22 09:06:10 PM
We are governed by retarded people. Just accept that fact, for now. There is no amount of sh*t Congress can't screw up. Just be thankful the economy is resilient despite the best efforts of our dear leaders to screw it up eight ways from Sunday.

Don't watch cable news. Stay away from the opinion pages. There's nothing to see here but a gigantic sh*tshow. It's embarrassing and it will depress you.

Ignore it. Sounds economics and budgeting have been thrown right out the f*cking window and will never be heard from again until Congress grows the f*ck up and stops using that body as a live-version of FreeRepublic.com.
 
2013-05-22 09:14:21 PM
ox45tallboy:

[www.changingworld.com image 241x241]

"In 2001, the Texas Secretary of State revoked the charter of Lionheart Newspapers for nonpayment of franchise taxes."

You're welcome.
 
2013-05-22 09:22:01 PM

Tommy Moo: Thank you. Jesus Christ am I sick of people mocking me. About 5% of the population gets this simple concept. As automation increases productivity per person, we can either increase unemployment, decrease the number of workers, or decrease the number of hours in a work week.


what about increasing our demand for productivity per person?
obviously we've automated away entire industries, but at the same time we've created entirely new industries that we can't automate yet.

If we create increased productivity per-person in one area, and offset it by creating a demand for increased productivity per-person in another area, haven't we created a 4th option that keeps things in balance? seems to me this is what's been happening forever.
 
2013-05-22 09:26:20 PM

asdfbeau: If we create increased productivity per-person in one area, and offset it by creating a demand for increased productivity per-person in another area, haven't we created a 4th option that keeps things in balance? seems to me this is what's been happening forever.


Something like vastly increasing medical services so that everybody can have access to them?
 
2013-05-22 09:30:39 PM
Silly people. The government is not going to tell you what the "actual" inflation rate is!  You can not print money to pay debts! It becomes worthless. Look at Zimbabwe and if you don't like that look at Germany in the 20's and 30's.  Printing money to pay out of control debt makes money worthless.

I am Canadian and I am stuck in this mess with you so just understand that you are not immune from financial collapse and it is coming.  I am not a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy guy but there is no way in practical terms that you can ever even come close to paying down your debt to something manageable. It is over. Done. You are paying ZERO interest for the money you currently borrow. Up to .25% in certain circumstances. The day interest rates even hit 2.5% you are done. You can't pay that. Not now. You owe too much.

The entire economic system of the WORLD will have to change to make things OK. I am not sure what that will mean but it will not be the US dollar being the reserve currency of the Earth. It will be something different. Perhaps the SDR but I hope not.

If 100% of Americans paid 100% of their income for 3 years for taxes their government would still be in debt that is bad. Very bad.  What happens next? History will tell us eventually.... We get to live through it and see if what history tells us is right.
 
2013-05-22 09:30:45 PM

EngineerAU: Something like vastly increasing medical services so that everybody can have access to them?


The poors can't have what I have! You're a communist!
 
2013-05-22 10:01:17 PM

fusillade762: We're gonna have this Keynes vs Friedman argument again, aren't we?


Keynes:Friedman::Led Zeppelin:Cinderella
 
2013-05-22 10:06:09 PM

asdfbeau: Tommy Moo: Thank you. Jesus Christ am I sick of people mocking me. About 5% of the population gets this simple concept. As automation increases productivity per person, we can either increase unemployment, decrease the number of workers, or decrease the number of hours in a work week.

what about increasing our demand for productivity per person?
obviously we've automated away entire industries, but at the same time we've created entirely new industries that we can't automate yet.

If we create increased productivity per-person in one area, and offset it by creating a demand for increased productivity per-person in another area, haven't we created a 4th option that keeps things in balance? seems to me this is what's been happening forever.


Increasing demand for productivity? Wtf are you talking about?

Automating new industry employs a few engineers temporarily, and most always replaces an existing need within an economy, usually more efficiently.
 
2013-05-22 10:07:18 PM

red5ish: That was not up to the usually high standards I have come to expect from Ezra Klein.


Ezra Klein has standards?
 
2013-05-22 10:13:48 PM

pxsteel: lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place


Yes, if only the American worker would labor for a dollar a day we could usher in a golden age of full employment and prosperity.
 
2013-05-22 10:17:03 PM

pxsteel: Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: what do you not believe in my post

That all we need is just one more tax cut and we'll be drowning in jobs.

How is it a tax cut.  We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.


You're going to honestly suggest that companies will completely abandon globalization and the opportunity to hire workers for dollars a day with little to no safety oversight at the opportunity to pay 10% of their profits in taxes rather than pay sweetheart rates they hashed out overseas to countries begging for their business and just not repatriate the money? If they get the promise of a tax cut? When companies like HP you mentioned purposely funnel their funds through Singapore and Bermuda to avoid taxes altogether on goods sold overseas?

Show me where any corporate officer ever promised to create jobs if their demands were met and then actually went through with it rather than reap the benefits and say they can't uphold their end of the agreement because they have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to continue to minimize cost and that requires going overseas for new hiring. But hey, if the US government will just meet their next demand, they're sure that they will be able to bring those jobs back.

If
 
2013-05-22 10:17:04 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: PowerSlacker: So it's better to reduce the deficit by kicking the can down the road then?

One side believes the can we should be focusing on is employment. Fix employment and you'll fix the deficit and the debt.

The other side believes the can we should be focusing on is the deficit and debt. Fix the deficit and debt, you'll fix employment. tax cuts, except when proposed by a democrat or aimed at the middle or lower classes.  We totally need to just give trickle down enough time to work.  The sudden magical increases in GDP that result will more than pay for the cuts!

It's up to you to decide which of these makes sense, and which one defies math, history, and reality.


Fixed that fer ya.
 
2013-05-22 10:23:19 PM

RickyWilliams'sBong: fusillade762: We're gonna have this Keynes vs Friedman argument again, aren't we?

Keynes:Friedman::Led Zeppelin:Cinderella


Keynes:Friedman::Fidel Castro:Monster Trucks

What are we doing here?
 
2013-05-22 10:25:12 PM

pxsteel: HeartBurnKid: pxsteel: WhyteRaven74: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut. We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.

Why should we be doing them any favors? Why should we bend over backwards for them?

Because:

We want the jobs
We want the revenue

lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

And they would still have lower operating costs if we taxed them at 0%.  Unless we're willing to replicate third-world sweatshop conditions and environmental disasters in the US, we're never going to be able to beat the third world in a race to the bottom.  We're going to have to figure out another solution.

Actually the CEO of HP laid it out very nicely.  The employee costs in China have been rising in the last 7 years and the cost of freight has skyrocketed to the point that it would actually be cheaper to produce in the US than China or Malaysia if the taxes were in the 10% range


Of course Chinese wages are on the rise, that's a natural result of globalization that countries that export gain strength and eventually demand parity with richer countries. Eventually we'll be out of China and India and moving into Central Asian and African countries for dirt cheap labor. That doesn't actually make hiring US workers more feasible until all countries reach close to parity for wage costs.
 
2013-05-22 10:32:34 PM
By the time 2016 and beyond roll around we'll have another Bush in the White House and deficits won't matterTM again so this is pretty much a non-issue.
 
2013-05-22 11:07:00 PM

Grungehamster: Of course Chinese wages are on the rise, that's a natural result of globalization that countries that export gain strength and eventually demand parity with richer countries. Eventually we'll be out of China and India and moving into Central Asian and African countries for dirt cheap labor. That doesn't actually make hiring US workers more feasible until all countries reach close to parity for wage costs.


And even then they'll just send the manufacturing to the South because it's a much cheaper COL which means workers don't demand the highest wages
 
2013-05-22 11:09:51 PM
scm-l3.technorati.com

Tonight on Fox News... Lower Deficit: Is it a bad thing?
 
2013-05-22 11:22:52 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: pxsteel: lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

Yes, if only the American worker would labor for a dollar a day we could usher in a golden age of full employment and prosperity.


We did, once. Those halcyon days of the 1890's the robber barons, er, "job creators" long to return to so very badly.
 
2013-05-22 11:39:28 PM
Now this graph may look favorable to the President, but if I add a projection on the end that suddenly ends this trend and swoops back downwards, just look how bad it gets! I call it Satan's Rollercoaster.
 
2013-05-23 12:06:15 AM

Gyrfalcon: Monkeyhouse Zendo: pxsteel: lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

Yes, if only the American worker would labor for a dollar a day we could usher in a golden age of full employment and prosperity.

We did, once. Those halcyon days of the 1890's the robber barons, er, "job creators" long to return to so very badly.


Truthfully, I think you are thinking too recently. I here there was a glorious day back before that awful thing called the enlightenment where if you owned land you owned everything on it including people.

Those were truly the good ole days wel,l if you owned land.
 
2013-05-23 12:29:23 AM

Shaggy_C: By the time 2016 and beyond roll around we'll have another Bush in the White House and deficits won't matterTM again so this is pretty much a non-issue.


first I

then I

www.buzzle.com
 
2013-05-23 12:31:02 AM

winterbraid: first I

(embarassing lack of setup image)

oops
 
2013-05-23 12:34:03 AM

chumboobler: there is no way in practical terms that you can ever even come close to paying down your debt to something manageable. It is over. Done. You are paying ZERO interest for the money you currently borrow. Up to .25% in certain circumstances. The day interest rates even hit 2.5% you are done. You can't pay that. Not now. You owe too much.


Dude, we had more debt during WW2, and we got out of it in like a decade.  We simply taxed the crap out of the rich (90% top rate) and used that money to fund private sector jobs with long-term growth as the overall objective.  America is not dead, we just need to go back to progressive economics like what dominated the most prosperous decades in American history and we must tell every conservative in Congress to eat a dick.  Simple.
 
2013-05-23 12:36:17 AM

HeartBurnKid: pxsteel: WhyteRaven74: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut. We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.

Why should we be doing them any favors? Why should we bend over backwards for them?

Because:

We want the jobs
We want the revenue

lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

And they would still have lower operating costs if we taxed them at 0%.  Unless we're willing to replicate third-world sweatshop conditions and environmental disasters in the US, we're never going to be able to beat the third world in a race to the bottom.  We're going to have to figure out another solution.


This. As long as they can pay foreign workers a tiny fraction of what Americans make those jobs are not coming back. Though I fear their solution IS to turn the US into a third-world sweatshop.
 
2013-05-23 12:39:15 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut.

pxsteel: Offer them a 10% tax rate

You do know what a tax cut is, right?

You also assume that such a rate would actually encourage corporations to repatriate offshore jobs and funds, even though it didn't work the last time we tried it.

So again...
[pictures.mastermarf.com image 600x258]


If you want to return jobs to this country I'd suggest mining the shipping lanes.
 
2013-05-23 12:42:16 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Gyrfalcon: Monkeyhouse Zendo: pxsteel: lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

Yes, if only the American worker would labor for a dollar a day we could usher in a golden age of full employment and prosperity.

We did, once. Those halcyon days of the 1890's the robber barons, er, "job creators" long to return to so very badly.

Truthfully, I think you are thinking too recently. I here there was a glorious day back before that awful thing called the enlightenment where if you owned land you owned everything on it including people.

Those were truly the good ole days wel,l if you owned land.


True, but there weren't "laborers" then. And they didn't get even so much as a dollar a day--but they did get to keep some of what they grew, so there's that. But in the 1890's the robber barons didn't have to own the land to get the laborers to work their asses off for next to nothing. They could just get them to sign a contract that said they'd work 14 hours a day, six days a week for $2 a week, and then laugh when they meekly asked for more, sir.

Today's CEOs dream of such wonderous times.
 
2013-05-23 12:53:56 AM

Gyrfalcon: tinfoil-hat maggie: Gyrfalcon: Monkeyhouse Zendo: pxsteel: lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

Yes, if only the American worker would labor for a dollar a day we could usher in a golden age of full employment and prosperity.

We did, once. Those halcyon days of the 1890's the robber barons, er, "job creators" long to return to so very badly.

Truthfully, I think you are thinking too recently. I here there was a glorious day back before that awful thing called the enlightenment where if you owned land you owned everything on it including people.

Those were truly the good ole days wel,l if you owned land.

True, but there weren't "laborers" then. And they didn't get even so much as a dollar a day--but they did get to keep some of what they grew, so there's that. But in the 1890's the robber barons didn't have to own the land to get the laborers to work their asses off for next to nothing. They could just get them to sign a contract that said they'd work 14 hours a day, six days a week for $2 a week, and then laugh when they meekly asked for more, sir.

Today's CEOs dream of such wonderous times.


Well sure the cheapest slaves are the ones you don't have to buy or take care of. And we would've owned it all if it weren't for those pesky unions and that Rino Teddy Roosevelt ; )
 
2013-05-23 01:25:23 AM

MayoSlather: But if we pay people to dig ditches AND fill the ditches with poor people then you're getting rid of all the unemployed, and employing more ditch diggers. Win/win.


i.imgur.com

There is a disturbing lack of Judge Smails in this thread.
 
2013-05-23 01:35:29 AM

doyner: So we don't like reducing the deficit now?


Idiots who write articles they can barely read dont.
 
2013-05-23 01:41:28 AM

Tommy Moo: Unemployment is high because there are too many people. Paying them all to dig ditches and fill them in with dirt isn't going to create wealth.


It's worked before.
seattletimes.com
 
2013-05-23 01:49:28 AM
ITT: Blithering morons who think that you can maintain a first-world economy with third-world wages. Every time the "we have to cut wages and taxes to compete with African shiatholes!" nonsense the coffin-stuffers spewing it conveniently omit the part where these companies rely on a first-world consumer base.

Austerity economics are theft and the fascist farks rely on the fact that liberals will eventually fix what they broke without either taking back what was stolen or fixing the economic underpinnings that allow it. Then they can do it again. This whole cycle relies on complicity of the victims.
 
2013-05-23 02:03:18 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: ITT: Blithering morons who think that you can maintain a first-world economy with third-world wages. Every time the "we have to cut wages and taxes to compete with African shiatholes!" nonsense the coffin-stuffers spewing it conveniently omit the part where these companies rely on a first-world consumer base.

Austerity economics are theft and the fascist farks rely on the fact that liberals will eventually fix what they broke without either taking back what was stolen or fixing the economic underpinnings that allow it. Then they can do it again. This whole cycle relies on complicity of the victims.


That my friend is all too close to the truth. Yea, the truth is out there for those that wanna hear it but It will not be televised
 
2013-05-23 02:13:47 AM

Tommy Moo: As automation increases productivity per person, we can either increase unemployment, decrease the number of workers, or decrease the number of hours in a work week. There is no fourth choice.


Of course there's a fourth choice.  Plenty of countries in the socialist hell that is Europe have higher tax rates than the US that pay for a variety of additional jobs, like child care and state-sponsored art.

Others here have pointed out the crumbling US infrastructure and need for modernization and improvements.  We still have a few million people unemployed who used to work in construction during the real estate bubble of the last decade - they'd be happy to repair roads, update schools and government buildings, install fiber optic lines everywhere.  The Republicans will be boiled in oil before they let a D president improve the economy doing that, but that just emphasizes how well it would work to reduce unemployment.

There's a lot of craft industries that people enjoy doing, but aren't cost-competitive against large producers - brewing, organic farming and ranching, prepared foods, and so on.  France subsidizes its bakers to ensure a continued supply of baguettes, and Japan bans the import of foreign rice and allows their rice farmers to make a living instead of having to compete with Brazilian rice farmers.

Tax the wealthy and the corporations at the rates they paid in the 60's, cut back on spending money trying to kill every brown person on the planet, and use the funds to fix all the broken stuff and let people have jobs they enjoy, even if they aren't cost-competitive with Bangladeshi labor.

Most people actually want to work instead of getting an unemployment check.  Mrs. Pachuco works in the telecom industry for the pay and benefits, but she'd put in even more hours if she could grow and sell fruit and vegetables, make and sell homemade jam and still have healthcare.  But the powers that be decided that the US should be designed to help Mitt Romney add another $20 million to his overseas account, instead of helping new parents with childcare so they could stay in the workforce.
 
2013-05-23 02:23:56 AM

Ehh: Vectron: Washington D.C. is the problem.

And alcohol is the solution?


To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
 
2013-05-23 02:55:35 AM

El Pachuco: Tommy Moo: As automation increases productivity per person, we can either increase unemployment, decrease the number of workers, or decrease the number of hours in a work week. There is no fourth choice.

Of course there's a fourth choice.  Plenty of countries in the socialist hell that is Europe have higher tax rates than the US that pay for a variety of additional jobs, like child care and state-sponsored art.

Others here have pointed out the crumbling US infrastructure and need for modernization and improvements.  We still have a few million people unemployed who used to work in construction during the real estate bubble of the last decade - they'd be happy to repair roads, update schools and government buildings, install fiber optic lines everywhere.  The Republicans will be boiled in oil before they let a D president improve the economy doing that, but that just emphasizes how well it would work to reduce unemployment.

There's a lot of craft industries that people enjoy doing, but aren't cost-competitive against large producers - brewing, organic farming and ranching, prepared foods, and so on.  France subsidizes its bakers to ensure a continued supply of baguettes, and Japan bans the import of foreign rice and allows their rice farmers to make a living instead of having to compete with Brazilian rice farmers.

Tax the wealthy and the corporations at the rates they paid in the 60's, cut back on spending money trying to kill every brown person on the planet, and use the funds to fix all the broken stuff and let people have jobs they enjoy, even if they aren't cost-competitive with Bangladeshi labor.

Most people actually want to work instead of getting an unemployment check.  Mrs. Pachuco works in the telecom industry for the pay and benefits, but she'd put in even more hours if she could grow and sell fruit and vegetables, make and sell homemade jam and still have healthcare.  But the powers that be decided that the US should be designed to help Mitt Romney add another $20 million to his overseas account, instead of helping new parents with childcare so they could stay in the workforce.


Well said. Also, economizing on labor was the 20th century's economic paradigm. Economizing on RESOURCES will be the 21st century's. With 8 or 9 billion people on this planet, automation In the sense you describe is actually counterproductive. Labor used to be the most expensive part of production, but the marginal rateof return on labor efficiency is diminishing while the relative coat of materials is skyrocketing.

Use the available labor, make the increasingly costly materials and land go further... That will be the defining economic paradigm of our time...
 
2013-05-23 03:15:24 AM

Rwa2play: red5ish: That was not up to the usually high standards I have come to expect from Ezra Klein.

Ezra Klein has standards?


He's usually a good numbers cruncher so yeah.
 
2013-05-23 04:01:54 AM

Kurmudgeon: Tommy Moo: Unemployment is high because there are too many people. Paying them all to dig ditches and fill them in with dirt isn't going to create wealth.

It's worked before.
[seattletimes.com image 296x223]


If we substitute infrastructure for ditch digging it would help again.
 
2013-05-23 04:34:56 AM
How is it the people who benefited from the big stimulus project fail to remember it?
 
2013-05-23 04:57:28 AM
According to liberals, the best time to cut federal spending is always 5 years from now, and a penny given to the govt. automatically doubles in value because all of us are government contractors whether we realize it or not.
 
2013-05-23 05:10:06 AM

I sound fat: doyner: So we don't like reducing the deficit now?

Idiots who write articles they can barely read dont.


You wrote an article?
 
2013-05-23 05:25:49 AM

pxsteel: There is a way to reduce the debt and add jobs.  Unfortunately it's the Democrats that hate what the real fix is.  All those manufacturing jobs we have lost in the last 3 decades.  Offer them a 10% tax rate, the CEO's of HP and Dell and Micro-semi have said they would return if you we did.  Ask yourself, would you rather have the 0% we are getting now or 10% of their profits.


or reinstore an importation tax.
Or at least an importation tax only for country who don't have humane working conditions.
 
2013-05-23 05:41:01 AM

Tommy Moo: MayoSlather: un4gvn666: Tommy Moo: Unemployment is high because there are too many people.

LOL

Actually, he's not technically wrong. Due to gains in production we are more than flush with supply at the current rate of employment, and as technology/automation increases the job market will require fewer and fewer people to meet demand. As it stands now, outside of construction, most industries could increase demand significantly without hiring any additional people.

Thank you. Jesus Christ am I sick of people mocking me. About 5% of the population gets this simple concept. As automation increases productivity per person, we can either increase unemployment, decrease the number of workers, or decrease the number of hours in a work week. There is no fourth choice. One of those will happen. Making up nonsense work for people to do is the same as increasing unemployment. Every person working a Keynesian job is on welfare, except that it's worse than welfare, because it disguises the unemployment and allows people to imagine that there is no underlying problem that needs to be addressed.


THIS


also, unemployment isn't going anytime soon, because it keep the wages low.

Without unemployment, workers would get a much better pay - it's a market!
 
2013-05-23 05:43:37 AM

fusillade762: We're gonna have this Keynes vs Friedman argument again, aren't we?


done in 1
 
2013-05-23 06:07:14 AM
Did Klein get hungry for a snack in the middle of writing this?
 
2013-05-23 07:27:17 AM

El Pachuco: Tommy Moo: As automation increases productivity per person, we can either increase unemployment, decrease the number of workers, or decrease the number of hours in a work week. There is no fourth choice.

Of course there's a fourth choice.  Plenty of countries in the socialist hell that is Europe have higher tax rates than the US that pay for a variety of additional jobs, like child care and state-sponsored art.

Others here have pointed out the crumbling US infrastructure and need for modernization and improvements.  We still have a few million people unemployed who used to work in construction during the real estate bubble of the last decade - they'd be happy to repair roads, update schools and government buildings, install fiber optic lines everywhere.  The Republicans will be boiled in oil before they let a D president improve the economy doing that, but that just emphasizes how well it would work to reduce unemployment.

There's a lot of craft industries that people enjoy doing, but aren't cost-competitive against large producers - brewing, organic farming and ranching, prepared foods, and so on.  France subsidizes its bakers to ensure a continued supply of baguettes, and Japan bans the import of foreign rice and allows their rice farmers to make a living instead of having to compete with Brazilian rice farmers.

Tax the wealthy and the corporations at the rates they paid in the 60's, cut back on spending money trying to kill every brown person on the planet, and use the funds to fix all the broken stuff and let people have jobs they enjoy, even if they aren't cost-competitive with Bangladeshi labor.

Most people actually want to work instead of getting an unemployment check.  Mrs. Pachuco works in the telecom industry for the pay and benefits, but she'd put in even more hours if she could grow and sell fruit and vegetables, make and sell homemade jam and still have healthcare.  But the powers that be decided that the US should be designed to help Mitt Romney a ...


Well, yes, protectionism would create more jobs here, but it would also raise the cost of everything, which effectively makes it the same thing as taxing people who have jobs that would survive in a free market and using the tax money to give jobs to everyone else. This is a snake eating its own tail. We are now effectively back to Keynesianism. The most efficient way to live is to let the free market allow everything to be produced in the place where it can be done the most efficiently, and let the population atrophy everywhere that excess workers result. If we were to do this, we could create a world with 2 billion people where every family on earth has a nice house and reliable transportation and indoor plumbing and entertainment and health care. It would also have the side effect (or main effect, depending on your perspective) of making our environmental impact as a species more sustainable.
 
2013-05-23 08:25:41 AM
Failing upwards is the new American dream. You still have to be asleep believe it.
 
2013-05-23 08:38:55 AM

Granny_Panties: This is what I am getting from the comments after the article...

The so called president is bla, so everything is wrong. Nothing can possibly go right when we have bla in the WHITE House. Bring back America, put an old rich WHITE guy back in the WHITE House.


the race card has gotten so old it's ridiculous. you are desreving of ridicule for using it.
 
2013-05-23 08:40:14 AM

ShawnDoc: The article says its talking about the deficit, yet the giant chart says its referring to the debt.  Two very different things.


liberals don't know the difference.
 
2013-05-23 08:44:53 AM
So Dick cheney was right... deficits don't matter?
 
2013-05-23 08:48:49 AM
The only thing we need to fix the financial problems of today is by drinking the blood of our children's future.

Why is that so hard for anyone to understand?
 
2013-05-23 08:59:24 AM

cabbyman: The only thing we need to fix the financial problems of today is by drinking the blood of our children's future.

Why is that so hard for anyone to understand?


The 1% do, and they are drinking the blood of other peoples children.
 
2013-05-23 08:59:35 AM

stirfrybry: Granny_Panties: This is what I am getting from the comments after the article...

The so called president is bla, so everything is wrong. Nothing can possibly go right when we have bla in the WHITE House. Bring back America, put an old rich WHITE guy back in the WHITE House.

the race card has gotten so old it's ridiculous. you are desreving of ridicule for using it.


True. Conservatives also hate Obama because he's a democrat. Only mostly because he's black.
 
2013-05-23 09:03:17 AM

Tommy Moo: The economy is never going to "get better" than it is. The stock market is at a record high. Unemployment is high because there are too many people. Paying them all to dig ditches and fill them in with dirt isn't going to create wealth. If you're going to wait around for everyone to be hired simply because Megacorp thinks they should be altruistic and hire 10,000 people they don't need, don't hold your breath. If we wait for 5% unemployment to cut the deficit, it will just continue to grow forever.


So, how many people do we have to kill to get back to prosperity?  a million? a billion? Should they all be large-economic-footprint Americans, or can we kill three billion people who *don't* look like me instead ? If we could somehow instantly scrape Asia clean of the muck that inhabits it and gave it 200 years as a big-ass wildlife preserve,  would that make 'the economy' better?

Do we need to target certain locations and groups? Should we have a standardized test? Perhaps we should slay the low-performers over 35  ... you know, those past the age of exploitation?  Should we educate a billion in STEM and then hire the top half and kill the bottom half? Maybe we should kill just the ugly people? Or we could kill all the handsome people in order to make more on cosmetics and plastic surgery.  I know, Forced sterilization and laser  tattoos for all the people who aren't attractive and successful?

Of course, every person you kills also weakens demand for goods and service...
 
2013-05-23 09:07:53 AM
Can we restore science funding now? You know, the government spending that has one of the best returns for the economy... And creates jobs... And drives industry?

Oh wait no because literal interpretations of the bible and also because books are teh homo-gay or something.
 
2013-05-23 09:12:45 AM

pxsteel: HeartBurnKid: pxsteel: WhyteRaven74: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut. We are currently getting 0% instead of the 10% we could be getting.

Why should we be doing them any favors? Why should we bend over backwards for them?

Because:

We want the jobs
We want the revenue

lower cost to operate is why they left in the first place

And they would still have lower operating costs if we taxed them at 0%.  Unless we're willing to replicate third-world sweatshop conditions and environmental disasters in the US, we're never going to be able to beat the third world in a race to the bottom.  We're going to have to figure out another solution.

Actually the CEO of HP laid it out very nicely.  The employee costs in China have been rising in the last 7 years and the cost of freight has skyrocketed to the point that it would actually be cheaper to produce in the US than China or Malaysia if the taxes were in the 10% range


Employee costs may be rising in China, but that doesn't mean working conditions are something we would recognize as acceptable.  Check out the quality of the air in many Chinese cities.  Or the stories of virtual slave-factories where a tiny infraction of the rules gets you fired, and if you're fired, you're going to starve because you're blacklisted.

I'm not buying the "if you lower taxes on job creators, then trust us, jobs will flow back to the US, it's simple economics" line.  I buy the "if you lower taxes on big corporations, they'll hoard yet more cash, and make even bigger payouts to the executives who tell us that jobs are about to flow from China back to the US, if only we would create a billionaire-friendly zone, but then come up with other reasons why 0Bummer has destroyed the US middle class" line.
 
2013-05-23 09:37:44 AM

stirfrybry: ShawnDoc: The article says its talking about the deficit, yet the giant chart says its referring to the debt.  Two very different things.

liberals don't know the difference.


stirfrybry: So Dick cheney was right... deficits don't matter?


Your trolling is like the  erection during the pledge of allegiance: Obvious and embarrassing.

Kibbler: if only we would create a billionaire-friendly zone,


It's pronounced "congress".
 
2013-05-23 10:04:40 AM

Kibbler: I'm not buying the "if you lower taxes on job creators, then trust us, jobs will flow back to the US, it's simple economics" line.  I buy the "if you lower taxes on big corporations, they'll hoard yet more cash, and make even bigger payouts to the executives who tell us that jobs are about to flow from China back to the US, if only we would create a billionaire-friendly zone, but then come up with other reasons why 0Bummer has destroyed the US middle class" line.


This.

I'd like to see some kind of limit placed on executive corporate remuneration. Perhaps 1% of the five-year average profit level ? Also : No Stock options, no vesting, just w-2 cash.

Most of all, I'd like to see some kind of penalty for screwing things up. We don't allow a guy who drunkenly causes a 70-Car pileup to walk away on the idea that all parties were voluntary participants. Similarly, if a company goes bankrupt, I'd love to find a way to say "no, young man, you are not getting an extra cookie, and you are not going anywhere until this mess is cleaned up."
 
2013-05-23 10:06:42 AM

rubi_con_man: Tommy Moo: The economy is never going to "get better" than it is. The stock market is at a record high. Unemployment is high because there are too many people. Paying them all to dig ditches and fill them in with dirt isn't going to create wealth. If you're going to wait around for everyone to be hired simply because Megacorp thinks they should be altruistic and hire 10,000 people they don't need, don't hold your breath. If we wait for 5% unemployment to cut the deficit, it will just continue to grow forever.

So, how many people do we have to kill to get back to prosperity?  a million? a billion? Should they all be large-economic-footprint Americans, or can we kill three billion people who *don't* look like me instead ? If we could somehow instantly scrape Asia clean of the muck that inhabits it and gave it 200 years as a big-ass wildlife preserve,  would that make 'the economy' better?

Do we need to target certain locations and groups? Should we have a standardized test? Perhaps we should slay the low-performers over 35  ... you know, those past the age of exploitation?  Should we educate a billion in STEM and then hire the top half and kill the bottom half? Maybe we should kill just the ugly people? Or we could kill all the handsome people in order to make more on cosmetics and plastic surgery.  I know, Forced sterilization and laser  tattoos for all the people who aren't attractive and successful?

Of course, every person you kills also weakens demand for goods and service...


Aaaaaaaand it's time for this strawman to get trotted out again. I almost made it through an entire thread without someone equating reducing the population with genocide.

Atrophy simply requires that we reduce birth rates below death rates. There are many ways to accomplish this. Educating women is the biggest one. Getting rid of tax incentives and social welfare incentives to have more children would also have some effect (note that to get rid of welfare incentives doesn't mean to starve people who have multiple children; it could mean to increase the welfare benefit to all families to a static level, say, that is equal to the level that a family of five or six currently gets. The important thing is that the benefit doesn't increase with each child.) Reducing some of the vast subsidies for the cost of raising children would have a large effect as well. If people actually had to confront the true cost of raising kids, we would mostly choose to have fewer of them.

This should cut across all races and socioeconomic statuses. But, for the record, rich white people are currently not generally having more than two children, so this is one problem you can blame on them. Blame all the others, perhaps, but not this one. It is not racism or eugenics to ask people of all races to have sustainable family sizes.
 
2013-05-23 10:14:27 AM

Animatronik: According to liberals, the best time to cut federal spending is always 5 years from now, and a penny given to the govt. automatically doubles in value because all of us are government contractors whether we realize it or not.


The problem is, it's been made into a political problem.  The country's infrastructure is failing (no major upgrades to it have been made since roughly the 60's - 70's), and the states are basically being left to fend for themselves.  Unless you truly believe the country would be better if we were nothing more than 50 separate fiefdoms, all responsible for their own people, infrastructure, education, etc.  But then again, maybe you'd rather we go back to the Articles of Confederation, since I doubt you think the Constitution is worth the paper it's printed on.

No one is arguing that we shouldn't bring down the debt and deficit, but with the country in the shape it's in right now, this is definitely NOT the time to do it.
 
2013-05-23 10:20:37 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Atillathepun: BarkingUnicorn: Goddamit, they still haven't fixed the Y-axis on this farking chart!   The deficit is not nearly 80% of GDP now!

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x459]

It's indicates Debt, not Deficit.

So it does... in an article about deficits.  Got  me.


*whew*  I have been trying to figure out why a chart showing debt is in an article discussing deficit.  (Poorly, but that's beside the point)

Glad I'm not the only one.
 
2013-05-23 10:33:06 AM
The problem is that many lawmakers (at least those that decry Keynesian theory) forgot the 2nd half of the equation.  Obviously, some of them have no problem with the deficit spending (even when there was no reason to do so, just look at the Bush II years), but they forget that when times are good, you're supposed to pay back the deficit spending thru higher tax rates.  While Clinton had a good start on this, the following administration blew any chance of us paying back the debt/deficit by serious deficit spending and getting us into a war we had NO reason to be fighting (while putting the one we needed to be dealing with on the back burner).

But of course, when you realize that one party is trying to keep the country afloat now (with trying to put forward infrastructure repair/jobs bills), the other is trying it's damnedest to send the country to the bottom of the Marianas trench.
 
2013-05-23 11:09:40 AM

Tommy Moo: This should cut across all races and socioeconomic statuses. But, for the record, rich white people are currently not generally having more than two children, so this is one problem you can blame on them. Blame all the others, perhaps, but not this one. It is not racism or eugenics to ask people of all races to have sustainable family sizes.


Except ... it is ...

In many many areas (including the US) one or two children may become economically unviable. Since the children's earnings are the primary methods of late-life support for the parents, they hedge against this with having more children. In fact, in largely agricultural areas, children are income generators once they get out of diapers and can do some kind -any kind -of work.

Wealthier families have less children in part because they are plowing more resources into their existing children, with a substantially lower chance of economic failure for each. Even a lazy bum born in the middle class can limp along with a bank teller job, moving into management in 5-10 years and spending their lives quietly accumulating a home and a modest savings, as long as their tastes aren't that rich.

You further then go on to argue that we are , in fact, subsidizing the family, and by extension, procreation. You might say that or you might say that we are taxing singles more heavily. This point I will leave for later, but it shows that your mindset is definitely that the 'undeserving' are the ones having families that are screwing the planet up.

Add to that the fatuous notion that simply having 'fewer' children is what we need. Even having only one child is enough to 'grow' the planets population, due to longer lives and better health care. So, again, I will ask : What population do you feel would be 'enough' to be sustainable ? Perhaps we should license children? Maybe take a global 20-year break from farking? Think of all the schools we could close and the money we could save in teacher salaries, school administrator costs, bust driver, janitors, lunch ladies and school nurses we wouldn't have to pay for ?

Or perhaps we could license or auction off the right to have a kid? I bet we could raise a lot of money (and keep a lot of crack-babies away) if we had mandatory long-term BC for all women at age 10, with only a limited series of injections re-enabling fertility once they were licensed.

My Point is that all your reproduction-based prattle is just that ... prattle.
 
2013-05-23 11:17:26 AM

Granny_Panties: This is what I am getting from the comments after the article...

The so called president is bla, so everything is wrong. Nothing can possibly go right when we have bla in the WHITE House. Bring back America, put an old rich WHITE guy back in the WHITE House.


Liar. Admit it you did even read the comments.

Exactly none mention Obama's race.  In fact there were by my count 4 Obama positive comments and only 1 negative:

Wrecking the economy is a feature, not a bug.

Obama has been telling us all along that we don't deserve a healthy economy because it stops us from being able to "compete" with China to have the lowest-paid, most poorly-treated slave-laborors Which makes it harder for the nominally American superrich to compete with the nominally-Chinese and nominally-British and nominally-Whatever superrich who all, in fact, give their allegiance only to the nation of the SuperRich.

This is just what conservatives have always wanted. Unfortunately, they now control the Democratic Party.


You call that a racist rant.  Sorry reality does not fit your world view.
 
2013-05-23 11:34:43 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut.

pxsteel: Offer them a 10% tax rate

You do know what a tax cut is, right?

You also assume that such a rate would actually encourage corporations to repatriate offshore jobs and funds, even though it didn't work the last time we tried it.

So again...


I'm as left as they come and I agree with Grumbles 100%.  If you lower the corp tax rate from 35% to say, 15% with ZERO loop holes, and the goal is to maximize the money flowing into the treasury, how is this a bad thing?  We're getting zero now with all the loop holes, why not up it to 15 and get something?

Politically it's a win/win too.  The right can claim "look, we cut taxes" and the left can laugh as say, "yea but we're getting MORE money now."

As far as the money overseas....  Why can't we pass a bill that says you can bring your money into the US at 0% tax IF and ONLY IF you spend it on Americans, i.e. employment, R&D, products, etc with zero of it going to executive payment or shareholder dividends?  Wasn't the biggest mistake letting them bring their money back in 2004 and assuming they'd spend it in and on the US?  Why can't we tie the tax holiday to the spending?
 
2013-05-23 04:25:44 PM

maweimer9: Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut.

pxsteel: Offer them a 10% tax rate

You do know what a tax cut is, right?

You also assume that such a rate would actually encourage corporations to repatriate offshore jobs and funds, even though it didn't work the last time we tried it.

So again...

I'm as left as they come and I agree with Grumbles 100%.  If you lower the corp tax rate from 35% to say, 15% with ZERO loop holes, and the goal is to maximize the money flowing into the treasury, how is this a bad thing?  We're getting zero now with all the loop holes, why not up it to 15 and get something?

Politically it's a win/win too.  The right can claim "look, we cut taxes" and the left can laugh as say, "yea but we're getting MORE money now."

As far as the money overseas....  Why can't we pass a bill that says you can bring your money into the US at 0% tax IF and ONLY IF you spend it on Americans, i.e. employment, R&D, products, etc with zero of it going to executive payment or shareholder dividends?  Wasn't the biggest mistake letting them bring their money back in 2004 and assuming they'd spend it in and on the US?  Why can't we tie the tax holiday to the spending?


Because they'll just juggle the money around so the offshore money doesn't *technically* go to executives or shareholders.

Instead of stupidly assuming they'll do what we want them to do with the repatriated money after they get it, we should only allow that money to come back as a reward for having already accomplished things like increased R&D and adding American jobs.
 
2013-05-23 05:01:57 PM

Baryogenesis: maweimer9: Sergeant Grumbles: pxsteel: How is it a tax cut.

pxsteel: Offer them a 10% tax rate

You do know what a tax cut is, right?

You also assume that such a rate would actually encourage corporations to repatriate offshore jobs and funds, even though it didn't work the last time we tried it.

So again...

I'm as left as they come and I agree with Grumbles 100%.  If you lower the corp tax rate from 35% to say, 15% with ZERO loop holes, and the goal is to maximize the money flowing into the treasury, how is this a bad thing?  We're getting zero now with all the loop holes, why not up it to 15 and get something?

Politically it's a win/win too.  The right can claim "look, we cut taxes" and the left can laugh as say, "yea but we're getting MORE money now."

As far as the money overseas....  Why can't we pass a bill that says you can bring your money into the US at 0% tax IF and ONLY IF you spend it on Americans, i.e. employment, R&D, products, etc with zero of it going to executive payment or shareholder dividends?  Wasn't the biggest mistake letting them bring their money back in 2004 and assuming they'd spend it in and on the US?  Why can't we tie the tax holiday to the spending?

Because they'll just juggle the money around so the offshore money doesn't *technically* go to executives or shareholders.

Instead of stupidly assuming they'll do what we want them to do with the repatriated money after they get it, we should only allow that money to come back as a reward for having already accomplished things like increased R&D and adding American jobs.


No juggling.  No nothing.  Not that it's possible, but the law makers would craft a bill where corps couldn't juggle or finagle or whatever any of the off shore funds if they brought them home.  You bring it in, has to be spent on the US.  And every cent will be audited by the IRS!  I want receipts dammit.

As a result, the assumption would be that if they brought the money home, then it would be spent on US products per the law.  So, not really an assumption at all.

I like the reward idea, but I guess I don't know enough about taxes to know whether it would beneficial to spend taxable income to bring home non taxable income.

Not that this will ever happen anyways.   If anything like this came close to passing, we would just hear "the gov't is telling us how to spend our money!"
 
2013-05-23 09:32:56 PM
Baryogenesis:
Instead of stupidly assuming they'll do what we want them to do with the repatriated money after they get it, we should only allow that money to come back as a reward for having already accomplished things like increased R&D and adding American jobs.

Of course then we'd have to watch what they did afterward for some time. The jobs created must be real jobs, not temps, with pay and benefits commensurate with industry standards and skill levels. There must also be training for those who have been out of work for more than two years if needed, and those people who have been out of work the longest - three years or more (and who have are on file with their state unemployment board as proof) get first priority in employment. Veterans should be next in line, followed by workers over 40, then college students with no previous experience in their field. If you fall into more than one of these categories you move up to the category with the shortest wait time.

The R+D must have real value, and use both existing and experimental tech with a long-term outlook and investment, not a "invent me something to sell next quarter" attitude.

Then the corporations get to move their money.

I can picture a scenario where all these new jobs appear in maybe one or two divisions of the corporation where not many people want to go, then a couple of years later when they think no one is watching those divisions mysteriously close down and go away, leaving their employees stranded. "Business reasons" they'll call it, while the jobs go off to Bangalore and the CEO goes off to deposit his cash in an offshore account.

This is the sh*t we have to watch.
 
2013-05-24 02:04:36 AM

On-Off: pxsteel: There is a way to reduce the debt and add jobs.  Unfortunately it's the Democrats that hate what the real fix is.  All those manufacturing jobs we have lost in the last 3 decades.  Offer them a 10% tax rate, the CEO's of HP and Dell and Micro-semi have said they would return if you we did.  Ask yourself, would you rather have the 0% we are getting now or 10% of their profits.

or reinstore an importation tax.
Or at least an importation tax only for country who don't have humane working conditions.


Even simpler. It would go a long, long way to fixing our economy if the government outright BANNED the import of goods from any company who doesn't pay their workers a living wage. Sure, that wage would still be cheaper in Bangladesh than in Germany, but it would be enough of a difference to tip some scales back in our favor. As fuel gets more and more expensive, we'll start to realize that globalization is the solution to our production costs, but not in the way we thought. Companies will start to have factories on every continent, producing the goods that get consumed on that continent. As much as it will hurt in the short term, and it will hurt America, Russia, and other countries with huge tracts of land very badly for 15-25 years, a huge increase in the price of fuel is good for the world economy.
 
Displayed 159 of 159 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report