Raise foreign prices faster, increase local production share

Post #317,761 by drook 11/24/09 11:12:20 AM Reply	Raise foreign prices faster, increase local production share Open (or re-open) factories here. Increase needed labor here. -- Drew
Post #317,763 by boxley 11/24/09 11:47:58 AM Reply	Re: Raise foreign prices faster, increase local production s so all of your clothing needs jumps 45% in price to match the cost of locally made, now are you going to buy the same, more or less of these items. Extrapolate as needed to other products then tell me how it benefits the working class
Post #317,765 by drook 11/24/09 1:10:56 PM Reply	I just did ... see Henry Ford for case study -- Drew
Post #317,769 by boxley 11/24/09 2:30:01 PM Reply	so curious how did draconian high tarrifs help ford?
Post #317,775 by drook 11/24/09 3:23:54 PM Reply	Not the mechanism, the effect You said raising labor costs will put people out of work. Ford raised labor costs intentionally in order to grow his market. -- Drew
Post #317,766 by Another Scott 11/24/09 1:23:51 PM Reply	If you don't like that, how about this. The argument that you're supporting seems to be a variation on: *We live in the best of all possible worlds. Any changes will only make things worse.* I don't buy that, myself. But if you don't like import tariffs, how about, say, this: 1) 5% (to pick an arbitrary number) tax on sale or purchase of financial instruments (stocks, bonds, commodities) held for less than 30 days. 2) 5% (tpaan) tax on financial transfers out of the country. IOW, you're free to import what you want as long as you follow the existing laws, but you'll have to pay a transfer tax when the money goes outside the US. You're free to invest all you want in tulip bulbs futures, CDOs, treasury bills, penny stocks, etc., following existing laws, but you have to pay a 5% tax for each covered sale or purchase. The proceeds could be used for things like: infrastructure investments; substantial increases in grants and financial aid for education; fully funding medical programs; investment in research for improved efficiency in lighting, heating, manufacturing, transportation, etc.; tax cuts for the bottom 50%; etc. The idea is to make it slightly more appealing to invest in things that grow the US economy rather than implicitly and explicitly rewarding speculation and chasing the cheapest production anywhere on the planet of stuff that's shipped to the US. And to make the financial markets less of a playground for gamblers and speculators. A rebalancing, if you will. Is there something wrong with that principle? If so, what do you think can be done that will keep money invested in the US and keep people employed here doing productive things? Do you think that there should be no constraints on corporations moving capital out of the US while allowing them unfettered access to our market? Do you think that nothing can be done to address the transfer of wealth in the economy to the top 1% at the expense of the majority of people? Just curious. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #317,767 by drook 11/24/09 1:45:47 PM Reply	And if Kunstler is at all close to right ... In the foreseeable future we might not have any choice about international trade. If the price of oil -- and thus the price of international shipping -- rises significantly, the whole system is going to rebalance anyway. If that should happen, if international trade is suddenly made much more expensive for everyone, would that disproportionately hurt the working class? I'm not an economist, but I suspect it's the people currently at the top of the system who would be hurt more. If I'm right about that, then it shouldn't matter whether the increased cost is from the price of oil of from tarrifs. It's not the working class who feel the most pain. (Unless the top 0.1% manage to increase their proportion of the total pie even more.) -- Drew
Post #317,768 by boxley 11/24/09 2:28:20 PM Reply	curious how about a taxfree repatriation of income held outside the states before implementing a finacial export tax? Get the billions back first then start over. 5% tax on 30 day notes =64% annual interest for a small business to borrow cash flow money, yeah, that will help the unemployment numbers, sharply upwards taxing money leaving the country is a good idea, we tried it in gorgia but the feds rapped our knuckles for it. How dare all these peons take our hard earned dollars and send them to places like el salvadore to their useless relatives. we already tax profits on investments, raising the tax on capital gains might be useful but 60% annual rates on investors is too high. Make all income no matter how small taxable, even at 5% on the minimum wage guys, then they would take a longer look at financial shenanigans at the federal level. 5% too much? make it 2%. Im visiting Minnesota and the news here is ful of the taxes that will be levied on medical device manufactureres, they are going to have to leave the US to afford those taxes and use cheaper foreign labor to get the money to pay those taxes. National sales tax of 3% on non food non medical items excluding housing? raise taxes on soda, chips, cookies. Better just tax the shit out of High Fructose Corn Syrup so manufacturers will be able to help the sugar industry, corn already gets enough subsidies. Declare amnesty on all federal non violent drug offenders, preassure the states to follow suit. Legalize and tax weed, if not all of entertainment drugs. Doing nothing is not an option, declaring war on people who have a little money will only get our small bank accounts raided and a huge depression. Look at the way Guitner gave away the farm to AIG when he could have forced everyone to take a partial loss. The people running the money policy dont care about people like us, they only want to pick the cupboard bare without getting hung from a lamp post.
Post #317,773 by Another Scott 11/24/09 3:08:38 PM Reply	Thanks. Some agreement. how about a taxfree repatriation of income held outside the states before implementing a finacial export tax? Get the billions back first then start over. Tax free? No. Possibly reduced taxes, reduced or eliminated penalties, reduced or eliminated sentences for fraud I can go along with. 5% tax on 30 day notes =64% annual interest for a small business to borrow cash flow money, yeah, that will help the unemployment numbers, sharply upwards Sorry - I guess I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about taxing loans that have a reasonable term. I'm talking about a GS trader buying $250M in some sort of financial instrument, selling it 23 seconds later, and making a tidy profit for himself in the process. I'm talking about very short term "investments" which are usually nothing more than speculators making money on very tiny price changes. It's not "investing", it's short-term gambling that does nothing to help the economy as a whole. The cost for such activities needs to go up to make it less attractive and to get investors to think about the longer-term. I have no doubts that there are some issues in the details. I trust that they can be worked out, though. taxing money leaving the country is a good idea, we tried it in gorgia but the feds rapped our knuckles for it. How dare all these peons take our hard earned dollars and send them to places like el salvadore to their useless relatives. Heh. :-/ I'm talking about reasonably large commercial flows of money. Not $100 to Grandma in a hut somewhere. There would be a threshold. $100k? $1M? $50M? I dunno. Make all income no matter how small taxable, even at 5% on the minimum wage guys, then they would take a longer look at financial shenanigans at the federal level. 5% too much? make it 2%. Strong disagreement. If we want people to have any chance to save for the future, to be able to buy reasonably healthy food, to be able to afford to go to work and send their kids to school, well there has to be some consideration for ability to pay taxes. I agree with Drew's long-ago point that it makes a lot of sense for people earning below the 50th percentile to be free of federal income tax. One can quibble about the number, but the idea is sound. Im visiting Minnesota and the news here is ful of the taxes that will be levied on medical device manufactureres, they are going to have to leave the US to afford those taxes and use cheaper foreign labor to get the money to pay those taxes. I thought taxes were always passed on to consumers? If every medical device manufacturer in the state or US is subject to the tax, where's the problem? Alaska, New Hampshire, and Montana (states with no sales tax) aren't know for being manufacturing powerhouses.... If medical device companies are driven out of the US by a reasonable tax, what's to keep them from leaving the US without the tax? It makes no sense to me as an argument. Under my proposal, ;-), it would be more expensive for a US company to manufacture goods overseas for export to the US so there would be a benefit in staying. National sales tax of 3% on non food non medical items excluding housing? Maybe, but probably not. Sales taxes are regressive. It makes more sense to me to increase the rates on those who have benefited the most over the last 30 years... I agree with some of the rest, but not the way it's expressed. ;-) My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #317,779 by boxley 11/24/09 5:32:55 PM Reply	how do you think the short term paper money works? I pay payroll weekly but bill monthly, my 2 busiest months are nov dec, my slowest march, april may. To make payroll on those months when I have used the profits to grow the business I can borrow from the short term market. 50k for 90 days. The finacier looks at the books and sez 5% plus a broker fee of $700 dollars. Now he isnt sitting on a wad of 50k bills waiting for people like me, he is actually a factor for the money I need, he goes into the marke, bundles my loan with a bunch of others and bets the market. Other people bet the market up or down, I get a loan to make payroll. Put a large tax on that activity money dries up. I have to lay off my people for 3 months. Taxes have consequences beyond the obvious.
Post #317,785 by Another Scott 11/24/09 8:47:35 PM Reply	Again, I'm not talking about loans. Yes, I understand that some money for loans is raised on the commercial paper market. Raising money for payroll loans has nothing to do with stock speculators, commodity speculators, and the similar things that I've been trying to address. E.g. from July: http://archives.chic...fri_cit_0717jul17 CIT lends more than $60 billion to retailers and smaller companies, feeding them the capital they need for operations, purchases and other uses. Despite getting caught up in the credit crunch, it is unlikely to get a government bailout. The White House appears to have decided CITÂs collapse would not represent a knock-out blow to the economy. Late Wednesday, the government said it would not provide additional funds Âover the near termÂ to CIT beyond the $2.3 billion it received in December. Yet there are concerns that if CITÂs funding spigot is turned off, it would crimp ordering, hiring and payroll at small businesses. ThatÂs a true worry because that sector has been responsible for the bulk of job growth over the past decade, according to Jim Shein, a professor of management and strategy at Northwestern UniversityÂs Kellogg School of Management. CIT's in bankruptcy now - http://www.bloomberg...eAnwYskSRyk&pos=4 I haven't yet heard about any additional disasters hitting small businesses as a result. CIT filed for bankruptcy Nov. 1, blaming losses on subprime mortgages and tightening credit markets. CIT listed $71 billion in assets and $64.9 billion in debt. The government probably wonÂt recover much, if any, of the $2.3 billion in taxpayer money that went to a bailout of CIT, and shareholders will be wiped out, according to CITÂs plan. Banks need to be more responsible in their lending and not gamble on things like inflated mortgages that are sliced and diced and sold to the 4 winds. If they can't spend their time making trades that last a few seconds all day, coming up with "innovations" that hide risk rather than reducing it while extracting large fees, etc., the system will be better off. Slightly increasing the costs for very short-term trades will help restore balance to the financial system. If you don't like 5%, we could make it 1%. If you don't like 30 days, we could make it 14 days. I'm not talking about a "large tax", and if the buyer and seller holds the instrument for 30 days (or 14 days) then they don't pay the tax. The details are negotiable, the principle is what I think is important. Cheers, Scott.
Post #317,786 by boxley 11/24/09 9:09:08 PM Reply	lets address a more egregeous ripoff instead feds lend to sachs at the discount wind at less than 1% sachs puts the money into treasuries at 3.1% and pay huge fucking bonuses to their themselves on the profit gained and the fed declares wallstreet for the most part recovered fix the stranglehold that the fed and the banks have on the public purse BEFORE going after people trying to make an honest living. Tell AIG creditors to go fuck themselves, oh wait WE are the only creditors left because we paid out to all of the people that we already bailed out pryor to us fixing AIG and AIG is telling US to go fuck ourselves. fix the people running this bullshit with a fast retirement or a jail sentence and start over with businessmen, not bankers
Post #317,790 by Another Scott 11/24/09 9:29:53 PM Reply	Fixing AIG won't increase us manufacturing. Different prob. The biggest issues we have is getting people back to work reasonably quickly. Fixing AIG's or CIT's or GM's or ...'s issues with the Treasury or the Fed isn't going to increase US employment in a meaningful way any time soon. Sure, the factors that causes the collapse and the bailouts (and the mistakes that Obama's team has made since January 20) need to be addressed. I agree. But that's a distraction from the broader issues of how to make it less appealing to send capital overseas for manufacturing of goods that are subsequently imported into the US. http://www.census.go...release/ft900.pdf page 11: In 2008, the US imported $1.65T in non-petroleum goods. $20B here, $20B there for various bailouts is a lot, but not in the greater scheme of things. It's little more than a rounding error for the economy as a whole. Don't lose sight of the big picture. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #317,791 by static 11/24/09 9:36:54 PM Reply	Aye. I raised it as a way of figuring out how to combat cash and funds moving offshore faster than they're coming in. Would probably work in Au, too. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #317,798 by boxley 11/24/09 10:59:12 PM Reply	those that ignore history etc http://yidwithlid.bl...pression-buy.html Back in 1930 The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was signed into law. It raised US tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels. The Smoot-Hawley Act almost completly halted U.S.-European trade the start of the Great Depression. Although the tariff act was passed after the stock-market crash of 1929, historians consider the political rhetoric leading up to the passing of the act a factor in causing the crash and the recession that began in late 1929, and its passage a factor in deepening the Great Depression. Unemployment was at 7.8% in 1930 when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed, but it jumped to 16.3% in 1931, 24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933 tried that, didnt work then and wont work now
Post #317,803 by static 11/25/09 12:12:40 AM Reply	Interesting. Although I note from other sources that how much the Smoot-Hawley tariffs exacerbated the Great Depression is unclear and contentious. I will point out that they worked at first: I think that's enough to make them interesting for a number of industries for a short time. But, yes, they have to be part of a larger solution that needs to be resistant from lobbying by those who want to tilt the landscape unfairly in their direction (e.g. corn farmers). A difficult ask. So what else can be done to slow commercial capital flowing out of the country faster than it comes in? You're dismissin tariffs out of hand, but not suggesting anything different. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #317,812 by folkert 11/25/09 10:45:35 AM Reply	But then... Why did the rest of the sanctions and regulations that got pput into place to curb the Great Depression from happeneing again... get repealed by the Repubs? Look what happened.
Post #317,816 by boxley 11/25/09 11:46:37 AM Reply	what was the name of the president that signed them into law
Post #317,817 by beepster 11/25/09 11:48:12 AM Reply	Shhh. He's on a roll;-) I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #317,821 by drook 11/25/09 12:14:47 PM Reply	Clarifying It raised US tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods *to record levels. The Smoot-Hawley Act almost completly halted* U.S.-European trade the start of the Great Depression. So, since record-setting tariffs are sufficient to completely halt trade, that clearly proves that any level of tariff whatsoever will clearly plunge the world into depression. Is that about it? -- Drew
Post #317,827 by boxley 11/25/09 1:15:15 PM Reply	canada, wood can you afford to buy lumber? http://www.allbusine...on/5875558-1.html so raising the price of wood 25 to 35% helps jobless in the US how?
Post #317,834 by drook 11/25/09 2:35:22 PM Reply	How about 1%? Would that bankrupt the world? Simple question: Is there any level of tariff that you would not assert would cost local jobs? -- Drew
Post #317,836 by boxley 11/25/09 2:59:38 PM Reply	why do you think I dslike tariffs? a tariff has to make sense, if a country is trying to dump product like steel at below cost to hurt our industry tarrif. I agree with the tariff on steel. Tariffs on raw materials I dont like. A tariff on shirts and socks from bangladesh to save minimum wage jobs in the south doesnt make sense. Let the shirts in and train southern workers to make something else, like BMW's Mercedes Toyotas and KIAs which pay better that textiles. Tariffs as well as trade embargo with cuba should be lifted so we can buy sugar elsewhere and restore the everglades, we need the water it holds. Blanket tariffs to stop all imports thinking that jobs will be created at home to replace these imports will turn our country into a 3rd world nation faster than the current admin is taking us. Make a case for a specific tariff, figure out how it might or might not stop consumers from buying aproximate amounts of product. I may or may not support it. As mentioned transportation costs have brought some furniture manufacturing back to the carolinas, thats a good thing called free trade. Dont get in the way unless there is a dire need.
Post #317,837 by folkert 11/25/09 3:25:18 PM Reply	Lets make a tariff for off shored jobs. Yeah. Force the companies that moved jobs from the US to cheaper places to pay that savings in Tariffs to makeup our shortfall in taxes. OK... you know the drill
Post #317,878 by boxley 11/27/09 10:25:25 PM Reply	no worries, you wont be able to afford the goods so no us worker will be needed and the sales staff let go. Problem fixed, now the guatamalans are out of work both at home and here
Post #317,889 by folkert 11/28/09 8:36:32 AM Reply	Re: no worries, you wont be able to afford the goods I think you missed the point... IOW any job outside the US is to be "tariff-ed"... resulting in LOTS of money for the US govt.
Post #317,890 by boxley 11/28/09 9:05:01 AM Reply	LOTS you sure? If no one buys stuff because it cost too much little anecdote for ya. Back in the day in Alaska the only big box store was fred meyers, we had sears and pennys for discount stores and botiques. A pair of pants for a 2yo was north of $30. Walmart wanted to come in. There was much crying whining and gnashing of teeth. When they opened you could buy a pair of pants for a kid for less than 10$ Suddenly no one was patching hand me downs anymore Now think about that for a moment. You want to take the entire country back to $30 pants for 2yo and expect people to buy the same quantity as before while we are all broke and highly unemployed?
Post #317,896 by folkert 11/28/09 4:34:04 PM Reply	You??? King of sarcasm and mis-reading? Wow. You still aren't getting it. Read me in my posts and then come back here and tell me again.
Post #317,919 by drook 11/29/09 11:54:03 AM Reply	No hand-me-down Walmart clothes because they don't last -- Drew
Post #317,921 by boxley 11/29/09 12:34:56 PM Reply	Re: No hand-me-down Walmart clothes because they don't last right, the fine guatamalan 10yo sewing the lands end and abercrombie fitch garments are so much more careful than chinese prisoners
Post #317,838 by drook 11/25/09 3:27:52 PM Reply	Strawman Blanket tariffs to stop all imports thinking that jobs will be created ... You've been consistently arguing against that point, but I haven't seen anyone else proposing it. When someone says something that you agree with, you have to agree back at them or they start thinking you're being unreasonable. -- Drew
Post #317,843 by static 11/25/09 6:18:08 PM Reply	I never proposed tariffs on everything. I admit I wasn't clear, and yes I was suggesting the possibility of tariffs on a wide variety of things but on a case-by-case basis. For example, would you like to buy portable radios manufactured in the US instead of China? Okay: find a few companies in the US trying or willing to do so. Now set a tariff on the imported product. Not a punitive one; just enough to offset the difference in making one locally versus importing one. This will be tricky to do. And it will need reviewing in a few years time if the local manufacturing doesn't take off. Now repeat that for a wide variety of products. I know this is a simplistic solution. Yes, each will need to be looked at in concert with source materials, trade embargoes and local subsidies. Sugar and corn is a really good example of a complex one. And I know that not everything can be brought back onshore; for some things you may want to just favour production in a different country, although this will probably run into political problems :-/. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #317,879 by boxley 11/27/09 10:26:36 PM Reply	no tarrifs, buy parts elsewhere assemble here
Post #317,783 by static 11/24/09 6:48:51 PM Reply	That's der bunny. It's seems simplistic, but you hafta start somewhere! :-) I started with what shut factories down locally: imported products were selling for less it cost to make them here. Right. Tariffs on those imported products tackle exactly that problem. Yes, it becomes a problem when no-one is interested in re-starting local production of something that's been imported for ages. It also becomes a problem when local manufacturing needs to move forward a few decades and won't - the US car industry is the classic example. But for smaller, less expensive products, and if the tariffs are intelligently set, local manufacturing will have to compete on quality or the imports will still sell. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.

Welcome to IWETHEY!