Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Barriers to Economic Growth

BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 1:57:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm curious as to what exactly people here think is holding back a stronger economic recovery.

I have my views on this matter, but I am more curious to here others. So, please, shoot.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:03:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Convoluted and complex regulations and tax code. On federal, state and local level.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:10:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 2:03:29 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Convoluted and complex regulations and tax code. On federal, state and local level.

Part of the problem no doubt.

However, it seems that these problems have been around for a while. They were around in the 1980s and 1990s when we had strong macroeconomic performance.

What is it specifically now that is holding back the economy (or is it being held back at all)?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:11:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Government spending on long term investment projects which have an expected return on investment that consists of more than a single, lump sum payment as opposed to spending which targets conspicuous consumption that is being done currently.

give a fish vs. teach a man to fish kind of stuff. real basic sh!t, actually.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:13:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 2:11:23 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Government spending on long term investment projects which have an expected return on investment that consists of more than a single, lump sum payment as opposed to spending which targets conspicuous consumption that is being done currently.

give a fish vs. teach a man to fish kind of stuff. real basic sh!t, actually.

Do you have any solid proof that public investment, at least at this point, is more productive than leaving more resources in the private sector?

I suppose I see real benefits of greater public investment in SOME areas (education, basic research, and infrastructure among others).

However, the real barrier to greater public investment seems to be rapidly expanding health and retirement entitlements more than anything else.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:26:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 2:13:58 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/21/2013 2:11:23 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Government spending on long term investment projects which have an expected return on investment that consists of more than a single, lump sum payment as opposed to spending which targets conspicuous consumption that is being done currently.

give a fish vs. teach a man to fish kind of stuff. real basic sh!t, actually.


Do you have any solid proof that public investment, at least at this point, is more productive than leaving more resources in the private sector?

I suppose I see real benefits of greater public investment in SOME areas (education, basic research, and infrastructure among others).

However, the real barrier to greater public investment seems to be rapidly expanding health and retirement entitlements more than anything else.

How does the private sector get their goods to market?

Also, investigate what reliable power has done to the manufacturing industries in Afghanistan ad how those industries are about to completely crumble the moment the US pulls the plug on this reliable power supply when we bug the f*ck out of there this year.

The private sector can only see two nickles in front of its nose and would be completely stagnant with government provided infrastructure which it didn't have to bare the cost of.

And I agree with your final statement, though unlike you, I am guessing, I believe a public takeover of the industry is the best way to combat the problem and remove it as a barrier to companies like toyota using existing plant space in america in favor f building new plants in canada due to not having to take on the cost of employee health care directly in th great white north.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:28:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 2:26:06 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 2:13:58 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/21/2013 2:11:23 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Government spending on long term investment projects which have an expected return on investment that consists of more than a single, lump sum payment as opposed to spending which targets conspicuous consumption that is being done currently.

give a fish vs. teach a man to fish kind of stuff. real basic sh!t, actually.


Do you have any solid proof that public investment, at least at this point, is more productive than leaving more resources in the private sector?

I suppose I see real benefits of greater public investment in SOME areas (education, basic research, and infrastructure among others).

However, the real barrier to greater public investment seems to be rapidly expanding health and retirement entitlements more than anything else.

How does the private sector get their goods to market?

Also, investigate what reliable power has done to the manufacturing industries in Afghanistan ad how those industries are about to completely crumble the moment the US pulls the plug on this reliable power supply when we bug the f*ck out of there this year.

The private sector can only see two nickles in front of its nose and would be completely stagnant with government provided infrastructure which it didn't have to bare the cost of.

And I agree with your final statement, though unlike you, I am guessing, I believe a public takeover of the industry is the best way to combat the problem and remove it as a barrier to companies like toyota using existing plant space in america in favor f building new plants in canada due to not having to take on the cost of employee health care directly in th great white north.

I certainly don't support a nationalization of industry. I also don't agree with your premise that a nationalization of health care will somehow make us more competitive.

I think the best way for us to improve competitiveness is to reduce and simplify business tax rates, lower health care costs (single payer is not a good way to do this), lower and simplify the regulatory burden, improve education, and increase and improve investment in traditional infrastructure.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:33:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 2:28:57 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/21/2013 2:26:06 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 2:13:58 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/21/2013 2:11:23 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Government spending on long term investment projects which have an expected return on investment that consists of more than a single, lump sum payment as opposed to spending which targets conspicuous consumption that is being done currently.

give a fish vs. teach a man to fish kind of stuff. real basic sh!t, actually.


Do you have any solid proof that public investment, at least at this point, is more productive than leaving more resources in the private sector?

I suppose I see real benefits of greater public investment in SOME areas (education, basic research, and infrastructure among others).

However, the real barrier to greater public investment seems to be rapidly expanding health and retirement entitlements more than anything else.

How does the private sector get their goods to market?

Also, investigate what reliable power has done to the manufacturing industries in Afghanistan ad how those industries are about to completely crumble the moment the US pulls the plug on this reliable power supply when we bug the f*ck out of there this year.

The private sector can only see two nickles in front of its nose and would be completely stagnant with government provided infrastructure which it didn't have to bare the cost of.

And I agree with your final statement, though unlike you, I am guessing, I believe a public takeover of the industry is the best way to combat the problem and remove it as a barrier to companies like toyota using existing plant space in america in favor f building new plants in canada due to not having to take on the cost of employee health care directly in th great white north.


I certainly don't support a nationalization of industry. I also don't agree with your premise that a nationalization of health care will somehow make us more competitive.

I think the best way for us to improve competitiveness is to reduce and simplify business tax rates, lower health care costs (single payer is not a good way to do this), lower and simplify the regulatory burden, improve education, and increase and improve investment in traditional infrastructure.

The effective business income tax rates in this country are 13.7%. Romney's 15% business flat tax proposal was going to amount to a tax increase for business.

Now, we're not the lowest in the world (Ireland and Bermuda at 0% are...and in case you ain't heard, Ireland is about to go bankrupt), but we're infinitely competitive in this arena.

What would lowering this tax more do but suck revenue from a federal government that support the infrastructure these businesses use to conduct their business and further erode that ability?

And, OK, you don't believe me. Would you believe Paul Krugman?

http://www.nytimes.com...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:47:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 2:33:56 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 2:28:57 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/21/2013 2:26:06 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 2:13:58 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/21/2013 2:11:23 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Government spending on long term investment projects which have an expected return on investment that consists of more than a single, lump sum payment as opposed to spending which targets conspicuous consumption that is being done currently.

give a fish vs. teach a man to fish kind of stuff. real basic sh!t, actually.


Do you have any solid proof that public investment, at least at this point, is more productive than leaving more resources in the private sector?

I suppose I see real benefits of greater public investment in SOME areas (education, basic research, and infrastructure among others).

However, the real barrier to greater public investment seems to be rapidly expanding health and retirement entitlements more than anything else.

How does the private sector get their goods to market?

Also, investigate what reliable power has done to the manufacturing industries in Afghanistan ad how those industries are about to completely crumble the moment the US pulls the plug on this reliable power supply when we bug the f*ck out of there this year.

The private sector can only see two nickles in front of its nose and would be completely stagnant with government provided infrastructure which it didn't have to bare the cost of.

And I agree with your final statement, though unlike you, I am guessing, I believe a public takeover of the industry is the best way to combat the problem and remove it as a barrier to companies like toyota using existing plant space in america in favor f building new plants in canada due to not having to take on the cost of employee health care directly in th great white north.


I certainly don't support a nationalization of industry. I also don't agree with your premise that a nationalization of health care will somehow make us more competitive.

I think the best way for us to improve competitiveness is to reduce and simplify business tax rates, lower health care costs (single payer is not a good way to do this), lower and simplify the regulatory burden, improve education, and increase and improve investment in traditional infrastructure.

The effective business income tax rates in this country are 13.7%. Romney's 15% business flat tax proposal was going to amount to a tax increase for business.

Now, we're not the lowest in the world (Ireland and Bermuda at 0% are...and in case you ain't heard, Ireland is about to go bankrupt), but we're infinitely competitive in this arena.

What would lowering this tax more do but suck revenue from a federal government that support the infrastructure these businesses use to conduct their business and further erode that ability?

And, OK, you don't believe me. Would you believe Paul Krugman?

http://www.nytimes.com...

I am more worried about high STATUTORY rates than high effective rates.

Also, Ireland's low rates have been quite successful as they contributed to the "Celtic Tiger" of the late 1990s and mid 2000s.

And, low rates also have virtually nothing to do with debt problems or declining public investment.

As far as Krugman goes, no I don't really trust him. He isn't exactly a model for intellectual honesty.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 3:30:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 2:47:10 PM, BigRat wrote:

I am more worried about high STATUTORY rates than high effective rates.

Then:

A. You're stupid
B. You will never get a job in corporate accounting, nor financial accounting with any of the Big X (it was seven when I cared and Arthur Anderson wasn't Accenture and dropped its accounting business) accounting firms
C. see A.

(If I tell you that to post it is a dollar tax, but that it is waived for anyone who reviews their post, and then force everyone to review their post, that equates to a statutory tax of $1 and an effective tax of $0. When relaying the posting tax in this forum, would you tell your friends it was $1 or $0 per post?)


Also, Ireland's low rates have been quite successful as they contributed to the "Celtic Tiger" of the late 1990s and mid 2000s.

When the government sanctioned counterfeiting the Euro? Yeah...they've been in real solid shape for some time, haven't they?


And, low rates also have virtually nothing to do with debt problems or declining public investment.

No, but they did help to facilitate tax fraud by the US operation wings of many corporations, and even with all that capital sitting in their country, Ireland also saw no benefit from it either, did they.

I wasn't blaming the 0% tax rate on Ireland's failure, but it didn't seem to help much, did it?


As far as Krugman goes, no I don't really trust him. He isn't exactly a model for intellectual honesty.

Allow me a moment to chuckle to myself as I hear you say this about him

OK...I'm done. I missed the part where you had anything substantive with which to counter the article by Krugman. I'm easily lead away from these things, though. Would you mind highlighting it when you quote your last post for me next time?

Thanks.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 5:08:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 3:30:11 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 2:47:10 PM, BigRat wrote:

I am more worried about high STATUTORY rates than high effective rates.

Then:

A. You're stupid
B. You will never get a job in corporate accounting, nor financial accounting with any of the Big X (it was seven when I cared and Arthur Anderson wasn't Accenture and dropped its accounting business) accounting firms
C. see A.

(If I tell you that to post it is a dollar tax, but that it is waived for anyone who reviews their post, and then force everyone to review their post, that equates to a statutory tax of $1 and an effective tax of $0. When relaying the posting tax in this forum, would you tell your friends it was $1 or $0 per post?)


Also, Ireland's low rates have been quite successful as they contributed to the "Celtic Tiger" of the late 1990s and mid 2000s.

When the government sanctioned counterfeiting the Euro? Yeah...they've been in real solid shape for some time, haven't they?


And, low rates also have virtually nothing to do with debt problems or declining public investment.

No, but they did help to facilitate tax fraud by the US operation wings of many corporations, and even with all that capital sitting in their country, Ireland also saw no benefit from it either, did they.

I wasn't blaming the 0% tax rate on Ireland's failure, but it didn't seem to help much, did it?


As far as Krugman goes, no I don't really trust him. He isn't exactly a model for intellectual honesty.

Allow me a moment to chuckle to myself as I hear you say this about him

OK...I'm done. I missed the part where you had anything substantive with which to counter the article by Krugman. I'm easily lead away from these things, though. Would you mind highlighting it when you quote your last post for me next time?

Thanks.

Well, using that logic, why don't we just say that universal HC in Ireland didnt help much either?

Also, I find it funny for making a claim that virtually any economist will say is at least credible.

As far as incentives go, effective rates are misleading and statutory rates are perhaps a better gauge.

I would be for lowering the statury rate while keeping the effective rates the same.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 5:28:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
High taxation, spending, and regulations. Basically big government.

All of this also undermines confidence.

The tax code is so complex, on both the personal and corporate levels, that it is just extremely expensive to navigate, it costs taxpayers $430 billion a year.

A true flat tax on both the personal and corporate levels, say 15% for each, would fit on a post card. It would save millions upon millions of man-hours which the current tax code wastes. It would save $430 billion a year, allowing this wealth for economic expansion. It would be truly equal. It would be a pro-growth tax plan that would result with more savings, investment, and job creation, bringing forward an economic recovery.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 5:31:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 5:28:25 PM, Contra wrote:
High taxation, spending, and regulations. Basically big government.

All of this also undermines confidence.

The tax code is so complex, on both the personal and corporate levels, that it is just extremely expensive to navigate, it costs taxpayers $430 billion a year.

A true flat tax on both the personal and corporate levels, say 15% for each, would fit on a post card. It would save millions upon millions of man-hours which the current tax code wastes. It would save $430 billion a year, allowing this wealth for economic expansion. It would be truly equal. It would be a pro-growth tax plan that would result with more savings, investment, and job creation, bringing forward an economic recovery.

There is no doubt that excessively high and complex taxes and regulations are real barriers to growth and have definitive negative effects on growth.

However, these things have been around for a while. They were around in the boom in the 1980s and 1990s. The economy then did well DESPITE these things. What is different now from then?
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 5:51:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anyone who suggests that lowering corporate tax rates would hurt the economy is full of crap.

Lowering corporate tax rates would allow more wealth for business expansion, investment, and job creation. It would help our economy thrive and strongly facilitate job creation, which helps families have economic security, helps the poor by having a sense of upward mobility, and helps the overall well being of America by facilitating the process of production.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 6:16:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 5:31:18 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/21/2013 5:28:25 PM, Contra wrote:
High taxation, spending, and regulations. Basically big government.

All of this also undermines confidence.

The tax code is so complex, on both the personal and corporate levels, that it is just extremely expensive to navigate, it costs taxpayers $430 billion a year.

A true flat tax on both the personal and corporate levels, say 15% for each, would fit on a post card. It would save millions upon millions of man-hours which the current tax code wastes. It would save $430 billion a year, allowing this wealth for economic expansion. It would be truly equal. It would be a pro-growth tax plan that would result with more savings, investment, and job creation, bringing forward an economic recovery.

There is no doubt that excessively high and complex taxes and regulations are real barriers to growth and have definitive negative effects on growth.

Good, we agree here.

However, these things have been around for a while. They were around in the boom in the 1980s and 1990s. The economy then did well DESPITE these things. What is different now from then?

We have more regulations now (http://www.debate.org...). Governmental agencies now administer more than 150,000 pages of regulations (http://www.heritage.org...). The excess of red tape stifles the flow of resources and inhibits wealth creation, a hidden $1.7 trillion tax.

Taxes, not mainly income, but payroll taxes and other taxes are higher. Also, the computer and internet revolution made American productivity surge, and we have adjusted to this.

Also the Federal Reserve's policy. It's very complicated.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 6:22:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 6:16:58 PM, Contra wrote:
At 1/21/2013 5:31:18 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/21/2013 5:28:25 PM, Contra wrote:
High taxation, spending, and regulations. Basically big government.

All of this also undermines confidence.

The tax code is so complex, on both the personal and corporate levels, that it is just extremely expensive to navigate, it costs taxpayers $430 billion a year.

A true flat tax on both the personal and corporate levels, say 15% for each, would fit on a post card. It would save millions upon millions of man-hours which the current tax code wastes. It would save $430 billion a year, allowing this wealth for economic expansion. It would be truly equal. It would be a pro-growth tax plan that would result with more savings, investment, and job creation, bringing forward an economic recovery.

There is no doubt that excessively high and complex taxes and regulations are real barriers to growth and have definitive negative effects on growth.

Good, we agree here.

However, these things have been around for a while. They were around in the boom in the 1980s and 1990s. The economy then did well DESPITE these things. What is different now from then?

We have more regulations now (http://www.debate.org...). Governmental agencies now administer more than 150,000 pages of regulations (http://www.heritage.org...). The excess of red tape stifles the flow of resources and inhibits wealth creation, a hidden $1.7 trillion tax.

Taxes, not mainly income, but payroll taxes and other taxes are higher. Also, the computer and internet revolution made American productivity surge, and we have adjusted to this.

Also the Federal Reserve's policy. It's very complicated.

I think we both agree that reducing regulations, reducing tax rates, and pursuing good, supply side policies would be a big plus for the economy.

Where we disagree is that this is the main cause of the slow recovery from the financial crisis. Although, I admiti that the expansion of the state under Obama has certainly done more harm than good (which is why I did not vote for him in 2012)
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 6:23:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 5:51:35 PM, Contra wrote:
Anyone who suggests that lowering corporate tax rates would hurt the economy is full of crap.

Lowering corporate tax rates would allow more wealth for business expansion, investment, and job creation. It would help our economy thrive and strongly facilitate job creation, which helps families have economic security, helps the poor by having a sense of upward mobility, and helps the overall well being of America by facilitating the process of production.

You are correct here. Lowering the corporate tax rate could do a good deal of good for the economy.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 6:35:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
> Eliminate all taxes for those making below average income.

> Set the rest of the income tax at a flat rate. Increase it.

> Eliminate all tariffs and obstacles to free trade.

> Nationalize the banks. Directly lower the interest rates.

> Create a full employment program, supplied by increased infrastructure and research projects.

> Increase minimum wage to a living wage.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 6:36:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 6:35:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
> Eliminate all taxes for those making below average income.

> Set the rest of the income tax at a flat rate. Increase it.

> Eliminate all tariffs and obstacles to free trade.

> Nationalize the banks. Directly lower the interest rates.

> Create a full employment program, supplied by increased infrastructure and research projects.

> Increase minimum wage to a living wage.

Lower corporate tax as well. Don't eliminate it. Set it just below the global average.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 6:38:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 6:22:19 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/21/2013 6:16:58 PM, Contra wrote:
At 1/21/2013 5:31:18 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/21/2013 5:28:25 PM, Contra wrote:
High taxation, spending, and regulations. Basically big government.

All of this also undermines confidence.

The tax code is so complex, on both the personal and corporate levels, that it is just extremely expensive to navigate, it costs taxpayers $430 billion a year.

A true flat tax on both the personal and corporate levels, say 15% for each, would fit on a post card. It would save millions upon millions of man-hours which the current tax code wastes. It would save $430 billion a year, allowing this wealth for economic expansion. It would be truly equal. It would be a pro-growth tax plan that would result with more savings, investment, and job creation, bringing forward an economic recovery.

There is no doubt that excessively high and complex taxes and regulations are real barriers to growth and have definitive negative effects on growth.

Good, we agree here.

However, these things have been around for a while. They were around in the boom in the 1980s and 1990s. The economy then did well DESPITE these things. What is different now from then?

We have more regulations now (http://www.debate.org...). Governmental agencies now administer more than 150,000 pages of regulations (http://www.heritage.org...). The excess of red tape stifles the flow of resources and inhibits wealth creation, a hidden $1.7 trillion tax.

Taxes, not mainly income, but payroll taxes and other taxes are higher. Also, the computer and internet revolution made American productivity surge, and we have adjusted to this.

Also the Federal Reserve's policy. It's very complicated.


I think we both agree that reducing regulations, reducing tax rates, and pursuing good, supply side policies would be a big plus for the economy.

Fully agree.

Where we disagree is that this is the main cause of the slow recovery from the financial crisis. Although, I admit that the expansion of the state under Obama has certainly done more harm than good (which is why I did not vote for him in 2012)

First, what do you think is the cause of our slow recovery? (or lack of one)

Second, I must say thank you for making the better choice.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 6:49:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Malinvestments from the massive push in housing in the 2000's which fed many other sectors, the contraction of which continues to rippled through much of the overall economy.

Uncertainty of what the final fallout of all this will be:

- what will the result of the massive Dodd-Frank be?
- what will Bernanke do and what will the result be on the dollar or interest rates?
- what will the final fall-out of Obamacare be?
- will the fiscal cliff/debt ceiling come to a head or continue to be kicked down the road?

Who wants to take a risk in such an environment?

When you live in a country who's government thinks a workable economy is based on "party (spend) like's it's 1999" then you better get used to long, hard hangovers.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 6:55:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 6:35:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
> Eliminate all taxes for those making below average income.

> Set the rest of the income tax at a flat rate. Increase it.

> Eliminate all tariffs and obstacles to free trade.

> Nationalize the banks. Directly lower the interest rates.

> Create a full employment program, supplied by increased infrastructure and research projects.

> Increase minimum wage to a living wage.

Your first proposal isn't terrible, although it isn't great either. Ditto for your second proposal.

Your third proposal is excellent.

Your last three proposals are very misguided.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 6:56:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 6:55:25 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/21/2013 6:35:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
> Eliminate all taxes for those making below average income.

> Set the rest of the income tax at a flat rate. Increase it.

> Eliminate all tariffs and obstacles to free trade.

> Nationalize the banks. Directly lower the interest rates.

> Create a full employment program, supplied by increased infrastructure and research projects.

> Increase minimum wage to a living wage.



Your first proposal isn't terrible, although it isn't great either. Ditto for your second proposal.

Your third proposal is excellent.

Your last three proposals are very misguided.

Based on what?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 8:09:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 6:56:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:

Based on what?

I don't know about the last 3, but flat taxes are somewhat regressive, though I believe the goal here is to make rich people not loophole their way out of paying taxes.

Nationalizing banks, at least The FED and its member banks is obviously long overdue, but immediately lowering interest rates, when it is just as possible that raising them would be the thing to do (which I know sounds counter-intuitive, but people are going to have to start saving money again sometime) needs to be examined a bit more (as I'm not stating that you're not probably right about that...quick influx to the money supply without increasing the money supply, so that's positive)

Also, full employment isn't a good goal. Back down to the natural level of unemployment (5.1% or thereabouts) would be a better employment goal for the infrastructure programs which would be vital to the future success of the nation.

These guys only have rhetoric with which to counter you, though, you realize that, right? (it's a big component as to why I use them as practice for my ever increasing list of insulting and demeaning entitlements.)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 12:34:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 6:56:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 1/21/2013 6:55:25 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/21/2013 6:35:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
> Eliminate all taxes for those making below average income.

> Set the rest of the income tax at a flat rate. Increase it.

> Eliminate all tariffs and obstacles to free trade.

> Nationalize the banks. Directly lower the interest rates.

> Create a full employment program, supplied by increased infrastructure and research projects.

> Increase minimum wage to a living wage.



Your first proposal isn't terrible, although it isn't great either. Ditto for your second proposal.

Your third proposal is excellent.

Your last three proposals are very misguided.

Based on what?

Living wage is just a form of price and wage control which are always bad.

Full employment through innefficient employment is a bad way to go.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 2:29:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 12:34:30 AM, BigRat wrote:
Living wage is just a form of price and wage control which are always bad.

Contrary to Libertarian thinking, wages don't act like regular prices. Workers aren't commodities to be bought after-all.

According to normal price logic, if you were to place a tax on an item, it will decrease demand for it.

However, increasing income tax does not decrease the amount that people work. For lower-income people, it actually increases the amount that they work.

So wages cannot be treated like prices.

It is also for this reason that Libertarian's misunderstand minimum wage laws as a restriction on the worker to make contracts just as much as the employer. In literal terms, it's true; in practical terms, it's irrelevant. Unlike prices, wages are more so based on precedent than on equilibrium. Employers could easily all drop their wages at once and the competition in the worker market would stay the same with work-seekers being forced by default into a low paying job. Employers have a considerably higher amount of leverage in wage negotiations. In many ways, wage is based on culture. We'll see a country like Japan having very low gaps between what bottom employees and top executives are paid, even without any proportional government intervention. Whereas the US has huge gaps.

A living wage is essentially just a wage you can reasonably live on. So it's really quite a crazy assertion that workers should demand anything less. Workers actually could demand a living wage and get leverage over employers by establishing a huge syndicate and have everyone refuse to work until they work on fair terms. I would love to see that happen. Unfortunately, I really don't think American culture has that going for it. Much sooner, we would just have the government do it.

Full employment through innefficient employment is a bad way to go.

And how is it that it's inefficient? The economic record of history does not support you. If there is anything government is good at, it's large infrastructure projects. In fact, the larger it is, the better it tends to be at it. Government is, however, not good at micro-managing.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 2:33:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 2:29:55 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 1/22/2013 12:34:30 AM, BigRat wrote:
Living wage is just a form of price and wage control which are always bad.

Contrary to Libertarian thinking, wages don't act like regular prices. Workers aren't commodities to be bought after-all.

According to normal price logic, if you were to place a tax on an item, it will decrease demand for it.

However, increasing income tax does not decrease the amount that people work. For lower-income people, it actually increases the amount that they work.

Like to see evidence for this. There's a typical labor-leisure problem, in which case you're right that reducing one's pay can lead to working more hours, but that's for higher income people, not lower income people. And contrary to popular belief, people who have lower income work less. I have the source if you want to find it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 2:55:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 8:09:41 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 6:56:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:

Based on what?

I don't know about the last 3, but flat taxes are somewhat regressive, though I believe the goal here is to make rich people not loophole their way out of paying taxes.

Nationalizing banks, at least The FED and its member banks is obviously long overdue, but immediately lowering interest rates, when it is just as possible that raising them would be the thing to do (which I know sounds counter-intuitive, but people are going to have to start saving money again sometime) needs to be examined a bit more (as I'm not stating that you're not probably right about that...quick influx to the money supply without increasing the money supply, so that's positive)

I would set interest rates low for now. Perhaps even negative interest rates rates for those below the poverty-line. But I would definitely increase them once the economy picked up pace. That's crucial for economic stability.

Nationalizing the banks and setting our own interest rates would be the greatest tool for shaping the economy that we could ever have. Everything else pales in comparison. It all comes down to lucidity. That's the big word. And interest rates are crucial for changing it. Currently, the fed has been setting it's interest rates to near zero. And good for it. But no normal person gets loans from the fed. It loans out to other banks. And it is those banks which set their own interest rates for the rest of us. If we dropped all interest rates right after a big crash, we could probably revert any recession within a month. And with hiked rates during good times, we would rarely see any crashes to begin with.

Also, full employment isn't a good goal. Back down to the natural level of unemployment (5.1% or thereabouts) would be a better employment goal for the infrastructure programs which would be vital to the future success of the nation.

Why is that? And by what standard do you conceive "natural unemployment"? I've heard a lot about it before and it doesn't seem logical to me. An unemployment rate, by regular standards, implies that people are looking for jobs and not finding them. It implies production that the country is missing out on. And it is only until fairly recently that our average unemployment rate has been above 5%. Until the industrial revolution, it almost never went above 3% because everyone was in agriculture. Now-a-days, our average is shaping up to be about 8%. And I expect the average to continue to rise as technology advances. Unfortunately, the very point of technology, which is to put people out of work, is at odds with the dynamics of our economy. Some people are very worried about this; entire books written about the impending doom of unemployment. I'm actually not too worried because I know that, as unemployment has gone up, the rate of business owners has also gone up. This is why I see increasing business ownership, along with technology, as the two most important points of an advancing economy. The future of Capitalism, in my perspective, will be one that retains the means of individual enterprise while accomplishing the ends of socialism by effectively abolishing classes, not through abolishing the bourgeoisie, but by expanding it to everyone. Everyone will own a business run by technology. The only human employment to remain will be entertainment and servers.

These guys only have rhetoric with which to counter you, though, you realize that, right? (it's a big component as to why I use them as practice for my ever increasing list of insulting and demeaning entitlements.)

Meh. I come here for fun. And I do think there are smart people here with Libertarian beliefs willing to listen. I was one of them when I first came here.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 3:00:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 2:33:46 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Like to see evidence for this. There's a typical labor-leisure problem, in which case you're right that reducing one's pay can lead to working more hours, but that's for higher income people, not lower income people. And contrary to popular belief, people who have lower income work less. I have the source if you want to find it.

My internet isn't working right now. It does this thing where some web pages work and others don't. For some reason, DDO works more often than most other things.

Go ahead and show me.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord