Worst President's First 100 Days in History

#101
#101
n_huffhines said:
The wall is stupid.

You said shrinking departments twice and failed to point out the money goes to Trump's preferred projects.

Bringing back manufacturing isn't inherently good and his tactics are questionable at best.

Consumer confidence in this moment means almost nothing in the scheme of things.

I'm with you on Gorsuch and cutting regulation tho.
Click to expand...

Huff, you can't just drop that comment and not explain what would be your particular concerns about bringing back manufacturing jobs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#102
#102
Rasputin_Vol said:
Huff, you can't just drop that comment and not explain what would be your particular concerns about bringing back manufacturing jobs.
Click to expand...

He read an economics book one time that suggested the USA will thrive as a service based economy. That's all he's got.... period.

You used to be a machinist so you know it's a theory based on nothing but BS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#103
#103
It depends. There is nothing wrong with manufacturing coming back if it is the result of deregulation, tax reduction, or some other advantage with the location. When a politician offers a favored business protection from competition ala tariffs or some other bribe, then the politician is taking money from the consumer and giving it to the politically connected business. This is wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#105
#105
Rasputin_Vol said:
Huff, you can't just drop that comment and not explain what would be your particular concerns about bringing back manufacturing jobs.
Click to expand...

Every market interference comes at a cost. The benefit of bringing manufacturing jobs to the US must be weighed against the cost of bringing those jobs back to the US.

Does the benefit outweigh the cost? This pivotal question is what determines whether or not more manufacturing jobs is "good" or not. Thus it's not inherently good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#106
#106
midnight orange said:
It depends. There is nothing wrong with manufacturing coming back if it is the result of deregulation, tax reduction, or some other advantage with the location. When a politician offers a favored business protection from competition ala tariffs or some other bribe, then the politician is taking money from the consumer and giving it to the politically connected business. This is wrong.
Click to expand...

Which is Trump's ultimate plan. The temporary tax breaks Trump had to utilize is small change to the amount of dollars that circulate the economy that would of left. It's all a chain reaction. Carrier is the perfect example.

The tax breaks offered to Carrier add up to about 700k a year. Donald/Pence is making Carrier expand the factory ( to the tune of 16 million dollars ), and they must hire more people to get the full 700k a year. Now if those jobs left, that 16 million would not circulate the economy. Not only the Carrier workers would lose their jobs, but the businesses in the area would all take a huge hit also. Pence, whom isn't given enough credit for Carrier, would rather give up the 700k per year than to lose millions in potential income tax and commerce a year.
 
#107
#107
n_huffhines said:
Every market interference comes at a cost. The benefit of bringing manufacturing jobs to the US must be weighed against the cost of bringing those jobs back to the US.

Does the benefit outweigh the cost? This pivotal question is what determines whether or not more manufacturing jobs is "good" or not. Thus it's not inherently good.
Click to expand...

Almost definitely. As my post above points out, the residual effects on local economies out weigh the cheap goods.

The whole problem with our unilateral agreements is it takes monies out of local economies that need it most and subsidizes third world countries.
 
#108
#108
Burger said:
Almost definitely. As my post above points out, the residual effects on local economies out weigh the cheap goods.
Click to expand...

Can you justify this statement? What is it based on? You're in disagreement with virtually every economist in the world, so where do you get this idea that the benefit outweighs the cost?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#109
#109
luthervol said:
Trump created the environment he now finds himself having to live in. Every person (at least that I know) knew all along that if Trump, by some seemingly incomprehensible cosmic joke, actually won the election, he would be met with exactly the response we have seen. Every chance Trump had to lay a foundation for a more amicable environment, he arrogantly tossed away. His supporters ate it up. What was required for him to win is also what guaranteed his ultimate failure. A Catch 22 that many saw, but evidently not all. All of the people that wanted to "blow it up" and "burn it all down" are seeing what that means.
Click to expand...

Yeah right, Trump isn't the first president to be called "literally hitler"

John Lewis said Bush was illegitimate too

It's just more Democrat bull****. They have no good argument so they resort to scare tactics that their base fall for. MUH RUSSIANS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#112
#112
n_huffhines said:
Can you justify this statement? What is it based on? You're in disagreement with virtually every economist in the world, so where do you get this idea that the benefit outweighs the cost?
Click to expand...

People like Wilbur Ross actually agree with me. People with real success.

I'll explain it again, with tax cuts and regulations, it's much more beneficial to keep jobs here opposes to shipping them out. If we have people making 40-60k a year( it's actually more ) making air conditioners in Indiana, it benefits the Indiana State economy more than 500 bucks off an air conditioner would. That money would flow into the communities within the state. The company would be paying for things like Materials, Supplies, and Labor from within a radius. That 40-60k helps keep businesses around the community open like stores, restaurants, and other smaller businesses. Those kind of small businesses just happen to employ around 70% of the country. So that one factory isn't just providing one set of workers with earnings, but it's providing businesses and entrepreneurs in the area with more money to hire more people, innovate, and more local tax dollars.

To be able to expand states rights, the states have to generate more money through income, sales, and property taxes. We would lose a lot of tax money with jobs being out sourced because that money from that factory wouldn't be distributing to workers and small business, it would be going to other countries to build factories with those materials, those laborers, and help out those businesses for 10% off in this country.
 
#113
#113
n_huffhines said:
People here have jobs. Most people i know have jobs.

Never pegged you for one to make labor union arguments.
Click to expand...

More Money = Innovation for Entrepreneurs. Meaning cooler widgets. We are a nation of innovaters, and that is what makes our economy and nation great.
 
#115
#115
Burger said:
People like Wilbur Ross actually agree with me. People with real success.
Click to expand...

Wilbur Ross is a billionaire investor, not an trade policy expert. Just because you know how to make a business profitable doesn't mean you know how to run an economy. They are completely different areas of expertise.

I'll explain it again, with tax cuts and regulations, it's much more beneficial to keep jobs here opposes to shipping them out. If we have people making 40-60k a year( it's actually more ) making air conditioners in Indiana, it benefits the Indiana State economy more than 500 bucks off an air conditioner would. That money would flow into the communities within the state. The company would be paying for things like Materials, Supplies, and Labor from within a radius. That 40-60k helps keep businesses around the community open like stores, restaurants, and other smaller businesses. Those kind of small businesses just happen to employ around 70% of the country. So that one factory isn't just providing one set of workers with earnings, but it's providing businesses and entrepreneurs in the area with more money to hire more people, innovate, and more local tax dollars.
Click to expand...

Do you actually have some backup for that number or are you just spitballing? I would guess there is no ****ing way it offsets the $500 cost per unit, if that is a real number.

You are making these theoretical arguments that you have reasoned through and there is nothing wrong with your reasoning, but there is no foundation for it. It's baseless. It's a nice idea. I repeat, virtually the entire field of economics, the people who actually study economies and how they respond to trade policy, say that we are better off with free trade. There is no powerful special interest group for free trade. There are many very powerful special interest groups against free trade. Yet, economists go with free trade. Think about that.

To be able to expand states rights, the states have to generate more money through income, sales, and property taxes. We would lose a lot of tax money with jobs being out sourced because that money from that factory wouldn't be distributing to workers and small business, it would be going to other countries to build factories with those materials, those laborers, and help out those businesses for 10% off in this country.
Click to expand...

States rights? We have to distort the market and increase government plunder of our income so that we can make states more powerful? Is that what you're saying? This is not libertarian at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#118
#118
n_huffhines said:
Wilbur Ross is a billionaire investor, not an trade policy expert. Just because you know how to make a business profitable doesn't mean you know how to run an economy. They are completely different areas of expertise.



Do you actually have some backup for that number or are you just spitballing? I would guess there is no ****ing way it offsets the $500 cost per unit, if that is a real number.

You are making these theoretical arguments that you have reasoned through and there is nothing wrong with your reasoning, but there is no foundation for it. It's baseless. It's a nice idea. I repeat, virtually the entire field of economics, the people who actually study economies and how they respond to trade policy, say that we are better off with free trade. There is no powerful special interest group for free trade. There are many very powerful special interest groups against free trade. Yet, economists go with free trade. Think about that.



States rights? We have to distort the market and increase government plunder of our income so that we can make states more powerful? Is that what you're saying? This is not libertarian at all.
Click to expand...

Wilbur Ross made his millions by being able to weave through different economic policies in many different industries.

I can't imagine that with tax and regulatory reform it would be more than 10%. Without those, you would be correct.

What we have now is not free trade at all. We pay for the privilege to trade in China, while they pay nothing to trade here. It's a unilateral free trade agreement. There is no true free trade.

Our current debt situation is because we follow the Keysian philosophy of economics of spending aimlessly to make money.

My idea is actually very basic in terms of economics and has been the foundation of growth in this country for almost 250 years. If money is taken out of our economy and put into others, we end up essentially subsidizing other countries like we are now.

We benefit more with people making more in our country instead of the decline or stagnitation of earnings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#119
#119
n_huffhines said:
The cost. I repeat, the cost is what prevents manufacturing jobs from being inherently good. My God, man.
Click to expand...

So the US should rely on cheap substandard manufacturing performed by sweatshop labor? Should we all shop at Walmart for everything too? We can't manufacture anything because it isn't cheap?... you sound like a b****
 
#122
#122
Burger said:
People like Wilbur Ross actually agree with me. People with real success.

I'll explain it again, with tax cuts and regulations, it's much more beneficial to keep jobs here opposes to shipping them out. If we have people making 40-60k a year( it's actually more ) making air conditioners in Indiana, it benefits the Indiana State economy more than 500 bucks off an air conditioner would. That money would flow into the communities within the state. The company would be paying for things like Materials, Supplies, and Labor from within a radius. That 40-60k helps keep businesses around the community open like stores, restaurants, and other smaller businesses. Those kind of small businesses just happen to employ around 70% of the country. So that one factory isn't just providing one set of workers with earnings, but it's providing businesses and entrepreneurs in the area with more money to hire more people, innovate, and more local tax dollars.

To be able to expand states rights, the states have to generate more money through income, sales, and property taxes. We would lose a lot of tax money with jobs being out sourced because that money from that factory wouldn't be distributing to workers and small business, it would be going to other countries to build factories with those materials, those laborers, and help out those businesses for 10% off in this country.
Click to expand...


I agree with you on the tax cuts and regulations but disagree with with charging $500 more per air conditioner to keep the job in the US ( unless the company decides this without government protectionism). You have a politically favored group making $500 per unit at the expense of he customer. The customer is now $500 poorer and has to cut out other opportunities to the tune of the $500. This is spread throughout the economy and is largely unseen and thus politically popular. Check out the broken windows fallacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#123
#123
midnight orange said:
I agree with you on the tax cuts and regulations but disagree with with charging $500 more per air conditioner to keep the job in the US ( unless the company decides this without government protectionism). You have a politically favored group making $500 per unit at the expense of he customer. The customer is now $500 poorer and has to cut out other opportunities to the tune of the $500. This is largely unseen and thus politically unpopular. Check out the broken windows fallacy.
Click to expand...

That would be assuming earnings don't go up. Which you would be correct. My point was if you made 5 dollars more an hour from 20 dollars an hour, would you mind a 10% increase in expenses?
 
#125
#125
The Broken Windows Fallacy


"Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation — "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade — that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs — I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier's trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker's trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.
And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.
Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.
In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs on shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window.
Now, as James B. forms a part of society, we must come to the conclusion, that, taking it altogether, and making an estimate of its enjoyments and its labours, it has lost the value of the broken window.
When we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;" and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end — To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly, "destruction is not profit."
What will you say, Monsieur Industriel -- what will you say, disciples of good M. F. Chamans, who has calculated with so much precision how much trade would gain by the burning of Paris, from the number of houses it would be necessary to rebuild?
I am sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations, as far as their spirit has been introduced into our legislation; but I beg him to begin them again, by taking into the account that which is not seen, and placing it alongside of that which is seen. The reader must take care to remember that there are not two persons only, but three concerned in the little scene which I have submitted to his attention. One of them, James B., represents the consumer, reduced, by an act of destruction, to one enjoyment instead of two. Another under the title of the glazier, shows us the producer, whose trade is encouraged by the accident. The third is the shoemaker (or some other tradesman), whose labour suffers proportionably by the same cause. It is this third person who is always kept in the shade, and who, personating that which is not seen, is a necessary element of the problem. It is he who shows us how absurd it is to think we see a profit in an act of destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is not less absurd to see a profit in a restriction, which is, after all, nothing else than a partial destruction. Therefore, if you will only go to the root of all the arguments which are adduced in its favour, all you will find will be the paraphrase of this vulgar saying — What would become of the glaziers, if nobody ever broke windows?"
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top