Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

You don't think that environmental regulations, health and safety regulations, tort liability, etc. don't add more than 15% to a company's costs, which affect its competitiveness both within the United States and in exports?

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

I haven't added them up. Why does this affect your answer to whether or not adding 15% to wage costs has an impact?

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

Go ask FDR why he created the system the way he did. I'm playing within the system the Democratic-Socialists created for us.

Would it make more sense to handle retirement income differently? Sure. One could easily provide a retirement supplement to everyone that's equal, funded either by an income tax or a sales tax. But we don't, and never have. Instead, we opted for a retirement system with payments that reflect earnings during your working career. And it therefore makes sense to have the taxes to fund that system paid for by earnings during your working career.

If you want to broaden FICA to non-wage income, would you also broaden the benefit calculation to incorporate non-wage income?

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

Because you're focusing on just one element of how government intervention raises the costs of producing goods, and how those increased costs affect US companies' ability to export.

I'm not saying it doesn't have an impact. Of course it does, but so do labor unions. Why not eliminate them? (And, in case you still aren't getting my point, why not eliminate anything that raises the costs of producing goods on teh ground that it hampers export competitiveness?)

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

Do you think the United States has benefitted from having an internal free market?

If it could, do you think California should restrict products from other states whose minimum wage is not as high as ours? Or what about states that don't have as strict safety regulations as we do or as strict environmental laws?

That is not "fair trade" so wouldn't we better off restricting the trade until (using Ty's favorite phrase) we level the playing field? Would that benefit the workers in the other states by forcing their states to increase their minimum wage and improving their working conditions?

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

I'm making a discrete point: that the way we have chosen to fund social security has an impact on the playing field for trade, since other countries have, as a general rule (not exclusively - see England, for example), funded it from general revenues. This particular element is under our control. My point was made as an aside.

Your answer is more or less the answer most policymakers have on this point - avoid touching social security in any way shape or form and live with what we have. It's fine if that's your point. Sorry to make your head hurt by considering alternatives.


On the rest, so what would you do? Burden imports with similar costs to what our regulations cost here, subsidize exports to even the playing field, or step aside and let the market do what it will? (I know, what you really want to do is eliminate all the regulations -- undoubtedly remnants of that socialistic FDR and his gang - but assume you can't get rid of them all).

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

I think a free market is a good thing, but am not ready to sacrifice all at that particular altar.

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

Thank you.

We make choices as to the costs we are willing to bear and those we aren't, and some items are within our control and some aren't. As I noted above, I see us as having three choices on any regulatory or other expense: (i) let it be, and let free markets do what they will; (ii) try to make that expense import neutral, by imposing charges on imports that equalize the playing field in our market; or (iii) try to make that expense export neutral, by limiting its application to goods for the domestic market.

Sometimes you don't have all three choices - for example, subsidizing exports to compete with slave labor is not a realistic option. On social security, it turns out we can make it export neutral if we choose.

I don't choose any one of the three in all circumstances. Do you?

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

No. First, I'd look for ways to reduce the burden of regulations. Sure, I might eliminate some, but I'll grant that's not realistic.

Second, I wouldn't worry about them beyond that. What export products do we produce that aren't also sold domestically? Anything that's sold domestically we should have a greatly reduced worry about, because there is an internal check in place. For example, if we think gasoline is too expensive because of regulation, well, that's a choice we've made--more regulation for environmental reasons (I realize we don't export much gas). If our export gas is more expensive, that's just a decision we've made. I just don't think undoing a system we've lived with because it hurts exports of a small portion of products is sensible.

On Social Security, I acknowledged your point. But you're putting the cart before the horse. If your issue is with SS, that's fine, but don't make it an export competitiveness issue, because that's not the primary issue.

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

The best way to help a country to reduce child labor and improve its working conditions are to help it grow. These problems are really more of a symptom of poverty than of government inaction. The more developed a country is the less it uses child labor and the better off the working conditions in general. And the more workers get paid. The best way we can help a country grow is to allow it to sell its products to the largest market in the world. The United States.

Free trade is the best way to help these countrys, not putting rules in the trade laws that will never be enforced.

Incomes Rising
 

I told you. Now that the elections are over, all of sudden the booming economy is a front page story

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

You expect SD to answer your questions yet you dodge mine. Answer the question.

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

If you can break the political log jam on social security by arguing it hampers american export competitiveness, go for it.

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

We need a Democratic President for that.

It's like Nixon in China.

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

Have I told you lately that I love you?

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

You're just trying to agitate Spanky now, aren't you?

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

What, your question as to whether the free market has benefited the US? Yes, it clearly has. Didn't prevent the Civil War or the Great Depression, and it hasn't cured the common cold, but it's generally a pretty good thing.

But it is not a panacea and I'm nervous about first world/third world open markets given the obvious economic discontinuities between the two.

Tell me, while you are opening our borders to goods made by little veiled Pakistani girls answering to the cruel yoke of Allah's henchmen, would you open them to people as well? Is there anything so different about people moving freely to their optimal location and goods being manufactured in their optimal location?

Sen. Obama is the shit.

Read this.

Then listen to this.

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

Why would you even try to equalize regulatory playing fields? That's destroying competition between countries/states to provide cheaper goods/services and gain a foothold in global trade. What other than cheap labor can the third world offer?

I believe in eliminating child labor by avoiding trade with countries aggressively using it. But Spanky's cure - helping those countries grow to the point that they no longer rely on it - is probably more effective than my very Democratic "pass a law to fix things" solution. His is just unpalatable because it rationally recognizes a reality we'd like to avoid supporting even for a brief period of time. Most rational policy leaves a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. Which probably explains why we elect vapid McCandidates in this country.

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

I imagine it sank to the bottom of the Potomac, along with my proposal to tax 10-15% of gross income for individuals and gross profits for corporations, with a refundable credit equivalent amount of $25,000 and an additional $5000 per child, up to $15,000.

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

No the question was should California, if it could, put trade restriction on states that don't have as high a minimum wage as California or who don't have a strong worker safety and protection laws?

I am assuming your answer is no.

So then the obvious question is: If you don't think it would benefit California, and the workers in other states with lower minimum wages and less generous labor laws, for California to use trade restrictions to improve the lot of the workers from Southern States and to protect Californians from unfair labor practices, why do you think it is OK for the United States to use trade restrictions to try and improve the lot of foreign workers and to protect American workers from a foreign unlevel playing field?

I have been on the record on this many times on this board, I don't know if I would open our borders to the whole world, but I would definitely open our border to Canada and to Mexico. The immigration problem is only going to be solved if Mexico's economy improves. That is the sole solution to the border issues. The smaller the world gets the more Mexico's problems become our problems. And the world just keeps getting smaller.

This may seem crazy but the disparity of income between the United States and Mexico is very similar to the disparity between Germany and Poland. It is even greater between Germany and a country like Romania. Yet they are opening their borders.

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

Wonk, other than people who do what you do losing their jobs, and the hyperrich losing tax breaks, what's the main argument against a flat tax? Why don't liberals want it (other than it would eliminate half their platform of perpetually seeking economic "parity")?

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

I agree, in theory, that $20/hour is a high wage for assembly work. I also agree that the flight of non-skilled labor is driven by the below-subsistence wages paid overseas, particularly in Asia.

Of course, that then begs the question of whether a tariff set sufficiently high that the cost of importing goods produced at slave wages exceeded the cost of producing those good here at, say, $11.50/hour would bring the jobs back home.

Your thoughts?

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

:eek2:

free trade
 

That's not so true any more. Now, the EU countries by and large have "guest worker" programs which allow the EU producers to hire Muslim and Asian immigrants to work for lower wages and almost no benefits, deny them citizenship, and complain about how they are leading to unemployment among the native population.

This then creates racism, religious hatred, social and class strife, and all kinds of other mean, nasty, ugly things.

And we all wonder why the Muslim terrorists find it so easy to export terror to non-Arab state Muslim population centers.

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

the people who are losing the jobs don't want to pay the higher prices that would require. Catch 22.

I drive an "American" car (made in Windsor). I think our computers are made here, aren't they? I drink California wine.

just as an aside, I don't think $10/hr manufacturing jobs are that rare here- I think you can find them.

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

I think if you google or whatever, you can see what rate the flat tax would have to be at to be revenue-neutral and exclude the first $25,000 to $40,000 of income. It's pretty high, and I think the overall average tax (as a % of total income) paid by people making $40,000 to like $100,000 or so would be higher than it is now. So it's not politically palatable. I think even the flat-tax people dropped it, for the most part, because of the rate it would need to be. Maybe some lunatic fringe people are still pushing it, but they either aren't exempting much from tax or they aren't going for something revenue-neutral.

Publicity. Stunt.

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

1) Rich people benefit more from the government than poor people do (how many poor people actually get to use the legal system etc.)

2) Taking ten dollars from a guy with a hundred dollars hurts a lot more than taking hundred dollars a way from a guy with a thousand dollars. Taxing poorer people means they will have less money for nutritional food and for books for their children. Taxing rich people means they will have less money for Gucci watches and second homes.

3) You want to make it easier for people to climb up the lower end of the ladder. The lower rungs are the hardest ones to climb so the government should do everything in its power to make those easier.

isn't he an asshole for saying it in the first place?

free trade
 

The hell it isn't. If you hire a French citizen in France, it is almost impossible to get rid of them. Hence the high unemployment rate among French citizens. Same as Germany etc.

I am sorry but that was pretty cool (publicity stunt or not).

Doesn't. Matter.

Only if you also think Bush was for making fun of a blind reporter's sunglasses.

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

Never underestimate the power of the two impediments you noted. It's not me or the people like me. It's people like Bill Frist and Dick Armey and Ken Kies who have built up careers on the ability to pass, defeat, or influence legisltation that can make or break businesses. And as for tax breaks for the rich folk, who do you think makes tha campaign contributions those guys run on?

The main objection liberals have is that all the current proposals for a flat tax would exempt capital gains and many would exempt dividend and interest income. If it doesn't tax all receipts, it isn't a flat tax.

Of course, if you go one step further, like I have with my proposal and make the flat tax a negative tax, then you would put almost 70% of Washington and the State governements out of work. How would we cope with all the unemployed bureaucrats who no longer have unemployment, welfare, AFDC, food stamps, social security, etc. to administer?

A true flat tax will never pass because it is too democratic. It can't be gamed. Nobody gets an advantage. Nobody gets to punish enemies. Nobody can trade tax breaks for votes.

That kind of shit is just un-American.

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

I live between Aurora and Joliet. Caterpillar has plants in both places. Joilet is hiring at about $12/hour. Aurora isn't. You can't transfer to Joilet if you've been laid off in Aurora.

There are jobs, but finding them, especially if you don't have a reliable car, is often harder than it should be, and there are all kinds of quirks. I'd like to think you're right about work being not too hard to find, but anecdotal and empirical evidence aren't running in your favor.

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

Do you really think it is good for the economy that someone who makes a million dollars a year pays $300,000 in taxes when some who makes twenty thousand a year pays $6,000?

Wouldn't it be better to have the seven figure guy pay $400,000 and the twenty thousand dollars guy pay $4,000? Isn't that more fair and better for the economy.

free trade
 

I see you've conveniently ignored the rest of my post, explaining why it's become less of a factor in EU economics.

I hope that works for you in real life better than it does here.

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

My Dad lives mostly on a military pension and social security - he doesn't pay much in taxes. If you go flat taxing him with a 20+% rate, he's going to want to come move in with me.

This is a very bad idea.

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

Actually, under my plan as I described it, the $1 Million guy would pay between $100,000 and $150,000 and the $20,000 guy would get a $5,000 payment from the gov't., with up to $15,000 more at $5,000 per child up to the max. I think that's more fair and far better for the economy.

Nothing like sliding down the ole' slippery slope!
 

He could move in with Spanky. Win-win!