(07-01-2018 08:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd8uiIpAy8E

Summarized:

Go back to 1944, Bretton Woods. Everybody knows about the currency agreement. But there was more to it than that. WWII was ending. Western Europe was virtually destroyed. But we needed them on our side to fight the Cold War. So we bribed them. We'll let you have a bunch of trade deals that are very favorable to you, so you can get your economies back up and running. And we will provide security for your trade routes, so you don't have to spend much on defense. In return, you'll follow our lead in the Cold War.

Problem is, it worked. And nobody had figured out what to do if we did win. I remember Ross Perot said what I was thinking, "In the post-Cold-War era, economic strength will matter more than military strength." But we didn't shift gears. We are still living with tax and trade policies that favor them over us. We're still spending way more than they are to defend their trade routes. And our world policeman label has led lots of groups like al-Qaeda to hate us.

We tied one hand behind our back from an economic competitiveness standpoint in order to win the Cold War. Trade policy gave in to defense policy. But that's not where we are any more.

So what to do? Here's my idea. Do a consumption tax. That levels a lot of the playing field by itself. It also lets us lower income taxes and take the burden of health care off employers by implementing Bismarck, making us way more attractive to investment. It also gives us enough to replace the welfare plantation with a guaranteed minimum income, which reduces inequality dramatically over time. And we balance the budget which frees up capital markets. And since it's not a tariff, it's not subject to WTO regulation, and there's no real way to retaliate. Then tell everybody they have to pick up more of the defense load, and we will help them do it.

(07-01-2018 10:24 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  A consumption/federal tax would have to be in the 12 to 15% range to work. So lets start at 12% and a person in Tenn is now paying 22% of their income just on consumption.

But lets not kid ourself....that tax will increase every few years and would be no different than in the UK where the tax stared out at 10% in 1973 and its double that. Not only doubled but taxes just about everything.

So what is not taxed? Is anyone exempted? So now a person living on $1700 a month from SS is going to lose another 12% (without any state tax) on everything they buy? Are we going to tax homes? That 25,000 dollar new car is now cost $28,000. I wonder what that does for new car sales?

So do we tax second hand sales, like used cars, or clothes, or any number of items? If not you will see a slow down in spending on new items. Lot cheaper buying used. How about food is that going to be taxed? I would think so on eating out. So now your family goes out and eats at $15 a plate dinner and that $60 is $67 and you still get to add in another 15 to 20% for the tip. So now that $15 a plate ends up costing almost $80.

I understand 12% is lower than what most of middle America is paying in income tax....but now you are paying 12% on ALL money spent which today is almost all income...very little savings. The working class gets poorer.

Then you will create a large black market on resales. Hell if something is taxed everytime its sold by the time its no longer worth anything taxes collected on it will be in the 24 to 36% range...resold 2 to 3


Without exemptions for the old and the poor it just makes both groups relying on government help.

(07-02-2018 08:31 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Crazy to me that Trump has moved Republicans to 1980s Dick Gephard style democratic positions on trade. This is an issue Reagan won... he forced the democratic party to move on the issue and now we have republicans celebrating protectionism. It's amazing to me.

(07-02-2018 08:43 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-01-2018 08:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd8uiIpAy8E
Summarized:
Go back to 1944, Bretton Woods. Everybody knows about the currency agreement. But there was more to it than that. WWII was ending. Western Europe was virtually destroyed. But we needed them on our side to fight the Cold War. So we bribed them. We'll let you have a bunch of trade deals that are very favorable to you, so you can get your economies back up and running. And we will provide security for your trade routes, so you don't have to spend much on defense. In return, you'll follow our lead in the Cold War.
Problem is, it worked. And nobody had figured out what to do if we did win. I remember Ross Perot said what I was thinking, "In the post-Cold-War era, economic strength will matter more than military strength." But we didn't shift gears. We are still living with tax and trade policies that favor them over us. We're still spending way more than they are to defend their trade routes. And our world policeman label has led lots of groups like al-Qaeda to hate us.
We tied one hand behind our back from an economic competitiveness standpoint in order to win the Cold War. Trade policy gave in to defense policy. But that's not where we are any more.
So what to do? Here's my idea. Do a consumption tax. That levels a lot of the playing field by itself. It also lets us lower income taxes and take the burden of health care off employers by implementing Bismarck, making us way more attractive to investment. It also gives us enough to replace the welfare plantation with a guaranteed minimum income, which reduces inequality dramatically over time. And we balance the budget which frees up capital markets. And since it's not a tariff, it's not subject to WTO regulation, and there's no real way to retaliate. Then tell everybody they have to pick up more of the defense load, and we will help them do it.

You make a lot of sense on this. The US sacrificed an equal playing field on trade in order to lead the war against communism and it was absolutely the correct decision. Now we have pretty much force these countries to stand on their own two feet for the sake of economic security. I'm not sure the best path forward, but I think pulling back military support from Europe is a good start. Leave enough bases and troops to maintain a defensive posture, but bring the majority of them home. The US doesn't need multiple bases in Europe to defend against Russian aggression if we aren't going to use them (see Crimea). Let Europe defend Europe, if they want a US presence they can negotiate with fair trade deals. I'd also contribute only what the US is obligated to towards both NATO and the UN in the next budget. Put the world on notice that protection comes at a price.
On a side note, I'd take the resources from Europe and distribute along the southern border and work out propositions for bases in S. America. Why couldn't the US take the same approach with Central and South America that we did with Europe after WWII? Think of the hundreds of billions saved if we could help make Central and South America more economically and politically stable.

(07-02-2018 08:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 08:43 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-01-2018 08:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd8uiIpAy8E
Summarized:
Go back to 1944, Bretton Woods. Everybody knows about the currency agreement. But there was more to it than that. WWII was ending. Western Europe was virtually destroyed. But we needed them on our side to fight the Cold War. So we bribed them. We'll let you have a bunch of trade deals that are very favorable to you, so you can get your economies back up and running. And we will provide security for your trade routes, so you don't have to spend much on defense. In return, you'll follow our lead in the Cold War.
Problem is, it worked. And nobody had figured out what to do if we did win. I remember Ross Perot said what I was thinking, "In the post-Cold-War era, economic strength will matter more than military strength." But we didn't shift gears. We are still living with tax and trade policies that favor them over us. We're still spending way more than they are to defend their trade routes. And our world policeman label has led lots of groups like al-Qaeda to hate us.
We tied one hand behind our back from an economic competitiveness standpoint in order to win the Cold War. Trade policy gave in to defense policy. But that's not where we are any more.
So what to do? Here's my idea. Do a consumption tax. That levels a lot of the playing field by itself. It also lets us lower income taxes and take the burden of health care off employers by implementing Bismarck, making us way more attractive to investment. It also gives us enough to replace the welfare plantation with a guaranteed minimum income, which reduces inequality dramatically over time. And we balance the budget which frees up capital markets. And since it's not a tariff, it's not subject to WTO regulation, and there's no real way to retaliate. Then tell everybody they have to pick up more of the defense load, and we will help them do it.

You make a lot of sense on this. The US sacrificed an equal playing field on trade in order to lead the war against communism and it was absolutely the correct decision. Now we have pretty much force these countries to stand on their own two feet for the sake of economic security. I'm not sure the best path forward, but I think pulling back military support from Europe is a good start. Leave enough bases and troops to maintain a defensive posture, but bring the majority of them home. The US doesn't need multiple bases in Europe to defend against Russian aggression if we aren't going to use them (see Crimea). Let Europe defend Europe, if they want a US presence they can negotiate with fair trade deals. I'd also contribute only what the US is obligated to towards both NATO and the UN in the next budget. Put the world on notice that protection comes at a price.
On a side note, I'd take the resources from Europe and distribute along the southern border and work out propositions for bases in S. America. Why couldn't the US take the same approach with Central and South America that we did with Europe after WWII? Think of the hundreds of billions saved if we could help make Central and South America more economically and politically stable.

We really can't do much about Crimea or Georgia or Chechnya. We have set up our expeditionary forces around aircraft carrier ready groups, and per the Montreux Convention, we can't take carriers into the Black Sea. Any air support would have to be land based and come from fairly far away. And that complicates matters quite a bit.

(07-02-2018 08:47 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 08:31 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Crazy to me that Trump has moved Republicans to 1980s Dick Gephard style democratic positions on trade. This is an issue Reagan won... he forced the democratic party to move on the issue and now we have republicans celebrating protectionism. It's amazing to me.

The opposite of "getting completely screwed over on trade" is not protectionism.

(07-02-2018 10:25 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 08:47 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 08:31 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Crazy to me that Trump has moved Republicans to 1980s Dick Gephard style democratic positions on trade. This is an issue Reagan won... he forced the democratic party to move on the issue and now we have republicans celebrating protectionism. It's amazing to me.

The opposite of "getting completely screwed over on trade" is not protectionism.

The idea that we are completely getting screwed over on trade is insane and its that old school, leftist protectionist philosophy that gets us there. The United States has consistently benefited from the declining cost of goods and technology made possible by global trade. It has allowed us surpluses in resources and great benefited economic growth. Trump has sold republicans on zero sum, economics that long ago was left behind by both parties as being a simplistic, unsupported theory. Trade deficits don't mean we're losing on trade... We're bringing in resources we have the wealth to bring in that improve our quality of life. Trump has used the Cult of personality to snooker the susceptible on an issue with little grounds in reality. He's abandoned the principals that Reagan pushed on trade and ultimately even moved the opposition party on.

(07-02-2018 08:31 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Crazy to me that Trump has moved Republicans to 1980s Dick Gephard style democratic positions on trade. This is an issue Reagan won... he forced the democratic party to move on the issue and now we have republicans celebrating protectionism. It's amazing to me.

(07-02-2018 11:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 08:31 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Crazy to me that Trump has moved Republicans to 1980s Dick Gephard style democratic positions on trade. This is an issue Reagan won... he forced the democratic party to move on the issue and now we have republicans celebrating protectionism. It's amazing to me.

Protectionism is not whats going on. Free trade is free trade. If Canada and Europe have tariffs on any of our products---then how exactly is that free trade? Trump has proposed a completely tariff free zone between the nations of the G7. Thats what free trade is. Letting our trading partner exercise protectionism while the US embraces a completely free trade model is simply is a recipe to make jobs the #1 US export.

(07-02-2018 12:13 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  The US Chamber of Commerce launched a campaign today to persuade the Trump administration to walk back his tariffs. Their website has a State-by-State interactive map to let you see how much each individual state relies on international trade and what industries in each state will be hit the hardest by Trump's tariffs and the international retaliatory tariffs.

US Chamber of Commerce

For instance, Ohio has $3.3 billion worth of exports targeted for retaliation. Of that, $2.1 billion goes to Canada.

Products hit the hardest will be retail surface-active soap, Iron/non-alloy steel coated/plated with zinc, and washing machines.

(07-02-2018 11:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 08:31 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Crazy to me that Trump has moved Republicans to 1980s Dick Gephard style democratic positions on trade. This is an issue Reagan won... he forced the democratic party to move on the issue and now we have republicans celebrating protectionism. It's amazing to me.

Protectionism is not whats going on. Free trade is free trade. If Canada and Europe have tariffs on any of our products---then how exactly is that free trade? Trump has proposed a completely tariff free zone between the nations of the G7. Thats what free trade is. Letting our trading partner exercise protectionism while the US embraces a completely free trade model is simply is a recipe to make jobs the #1 US export.

(07-02-2018 12:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:13 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  The US Chamber of Commerce launched a campaign today to persuade the Trump administration to walk back his tariffs. Their website has a State-by-State interactive map to let you see how much each individual state relies on international trade and what industries in each state will be hit the hardest by Trump's tariffs and the international retaliatory tariffs.

US Chamber of Commerce

For instance, Ohio has $3.3 billion worth of exports targeted for retaliation. Of that, $2.1 billion goes to Canada.

Products hit the hardest will be retail surface-active soap, Iron/non-alloy steel coated/plated with zinc, and washing machines.

So what? Why are people incapable of doing math. We run a massive trade deficit. Effectively, as the amount of trade decreases out GDP increases because all the crap we buy from overseas would have to be manufactured here---and the amount of stuff we send overseas is dwarfed by what we have been importing.

What we see is the strategy which will build to an eventual deal. Trump will now raise the stakes by blocking even more overseas products--but will offer to do a trade deal. Even if he doesnt not get every tariff removed---EVERY CONCESSION he DOES get leaves the US economy and its workers BETTER OFF than before. What people dont understand is there already is a trade war. We basically losty---mainly because we never even bothered to fight it. We literally gifted our trading partners that advantage. That "gift" has now expired.

(07-02-2018 12:36 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 11:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 08:31 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Crazy to me that Trump has moved Republicans to 1980s Dick Gephard style democratic positions on trade. This is an issue Reagan won... he forced the democratic party to move on the issue and now we have republicans celebrating protectionism. It's amazing to me.

Protectionism is not whats going on. Free trade is free trade. If Canada and Europe have tariffs on any of our products---then how exactly is that free trade? Trump has proposed a completely tariff free zone between the nations of the G7. Thats what free trade is. Letting our trading partner exercise protectionism while the US embraces a completely free trade model is simply is a recipe to make jobs the #1 US export.

Does free trade involve removing US Subsidies on oil and agriculture?

A tariff free trading zone in the G7 sounds all fine and dandy, but how does that work when the government hands billions of dollars in direct subsidies to corn producers?