Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Love what this CEO did. And it's paying off in spades.

http://www.upworthy.com/right-after...employees-salaries-business-is-booming?c=ufb1

 

[joecct]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

The ticking time bomb in New Jersey

 

[joecct]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Pat, as expected, is not a fan of the Trans Pacific Partnership.
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2015/05/08/on-a-fast-track-to-national-ruin-n1995971

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Pat, as expected, is not a fan of the Trans Pacific Partnership.
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2015/05/08/on-a-fast-track-to-national-ruin-n1995971

I like a fair amount of Pat's ideas. But he buried in the 'the US is only in decline because you didn't listen to me' syndrome. That is to say most of the cited maladies facing the US are largely unavoidable long term structural issues (i.e., the rise of China) and not a matter of trade choices.

 

[Rover]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

One of his more sane articles. He's right about the effect on free trade and calling out both parties for not questioning it more. I'm not opposed to free trade personally. I think it can do a lot of good. However, you HAVE to focus on USA jobs being created vs jobs being lost and frankly I'm not convinced we're a net positive in that regard for a lot these deals. I don't give a rat's arse if we can get 50 cents off of our Nike sneakers because they're now being made in Vietnam. That's not a worthwhile tradoff IMHO.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

One of his more sane articles. He's right about the effect on free trade and calling out both parties for not questioning it more. I'm not opposed to free trade personally. I think it can do a lot of good. However, you HAVE to focus on USA jobs being created vs jobs being lost and frankly I'm not convinced we're a net positive in that regard for a lot these deals. I don't give a rat's arse if we can get 50 cents off of our Nike sneakers because they're now being made in Vietnam. That's not a worthwhile tradoff IMHO.

If you want to focus on USA jobs, then maybe you should focus on the USA being more competitive in the labour market. The price of pretty much everything has been inflated to heck since we were taken off the gold standard (heck, you could use The Price is Right as a guideline), thereby resulting in demands for price floors that the companies purchasing labour do not want to pay. Yes, there's going to be backlash for the suggestion, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

One other thing to consider is Industrial Revolution II (aka the computer age). More and more, you're seeing manual jobs being replaced with computer systems, and let's face it: They don't take coffee breaks, you don't have to pay them a pension, and most of all: they don't complain. The same thing happened at the turn of the 20th century, when heavy machinery came into play. Some things will still require a human, and there isn't anything wrong with that. How many more opportunities are beginning to arise because of these technological advancements, though? Retailers are able to reach a worldwide audience on an almost infinite scale (vs. the catalog days that the small businesses couldn't really compete with), and there are more opportunities for related issues in the field, such as support and mechanics.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

American labor is very competitive above a certain education level. The problem of lost American jobs is that we have sane labor rates and environmental policies compared to India and China, so our low skilled labor is not competitive. We have three choices: (1) race to the bottom by repealing the 20th Century {the Republican model}, (2) socialize most of the cost of higher wages and environmental protection so we can retain and maybe even grow manufacturing and agriculture {the Democratic model}, or (3) let those sectors go, concentrate on higher education / higher skill work that we are most efficient at, and try to pull most of the former blue collar class into a white collar culture {the Scandinavian model}.

(1) is obviously terrible. (2) hasn't been working as it flies in the teeth of the laws of economics -- we're just not situated to do that sort of work anymore. That leaves (3), which seems almost impossible in a country where there is such a vast chasm between management and working class and a cultural disposition for the lower classes to remain proudly uneducated.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Some potentially good news.

2016 won't be the stake through the heart -- like the far right, the banksters can't be killed because they're already dead -- but it could keep them in their coffins for another few years.

 

[joecct]

Some potentially good news.

2016 won't be the stake through the heart -- like the far right, the banksters can't be killed because they're already dead -- but it could keep them in their coffins for another few years.

Would we be better off to have Savings and Loans and Commercial banking and brokerage houses all separate (but equal - with some pigs being more equal)?

The House of Morgan was good. JP Morgan Chase is double plus ungood.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

American labor is very competitive above a certain education level. The problem of lost American jobs is that we have sane labor rates and environmental policies compared to India and China, so our low skilled labor is not competitive. We have three choices: (1) race to the bottom by repealing the 20th Century {the Republican model}, (2) socialize most of the cost of higher wages and environmental protection so we can retain and maybe even grow manufacturing and agriculture {the Democratic model}, or (3) let those sectors go, concentrate on higher education / higher skill work that we are most efficient at, and try to pull most of the former blue collar class into a white collar culture {the Scandinavian model}.

(1) is obviously terrible. (2) hasn't been working as it flies in the teeth of the laws of economics -- we're just not situated to do that sort of work anymore. That leaves (3), which seems almost impossible in a country where there is such a vast chasm between management and working class and a cultural disposition for the lower classes to remain proudly uneducated.

Based upon where other countries are, as well as the scale we have to deal with (remembering the failures of the USSR), perhaps a combination of 1 and 3 is in order. There are industries that need to be kept, such as farming, which cannot survive on insane price floors, but we need not have a huge famine in this country. There is also a point, ,though, that we do need to stick to what we are competitive with. One thing I will add, though, is to address the snobbishness of the populace in believing they're above certain lines of work. There's a significant population of this country that idolizes Ashton Kutcher, but I wonder how many of them know what he did BEFORE becoming famous, and the talks he has given about not being above any sort of employment.

 

[Rover]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

As part of my Rover Manifesto, I'd do several things while acknowledging the largely correct points brought up by Kep and Flaggy (and what are the odds of THAT happening )

So, working class/blue color/manufacting jobs. What to do for a place like Baltimore for example, whose jobs I read went from 1/3rd in manufacturing in 1970 down to like 5% (and I'm sure its worse than that as the total # of jobs in Baltimore has probably shrunk over that timeframe).

1) Country needs to commit itself to natural gas to power energy consumption, INCLUDING powering cars/trucks. To that end, all trucking & bus fleets should convert over to natural gas power. This will require major infrastructure improvements country-wide as gas pipelines are laid to connect mostly interstate service stations to gas grid. Cost offset by major reduced cost of foreign oil, and natural gas is domestic product. Construction jobs = by and large blue collar work and this would affect all states.

2) Its insane most steel in the world comes from China. You can't have a military without this product, but if we ever got into a confrontation with our Chinese "friends" I'm wondering how quickly that would get cut off. Being that USA is world's policeman until wussy other countries start solving their own problems (which should happen just about, oh..NEVER) I don't expect any trade objections when we institute tax breaks to make domestic steel production cost as much as Chinese production, up to the point where we have enough production to meet our yearly needs in case of a crisis. This will create hundreds of thousands of jobs in run down sh !tty places where the environment is the least of people's problems.

3) Oil exporter once country is energy independent. This will require build up of green energy as well as nuclear plant modernization program. By doing this we conserve exportable products (primarily oil) and ream the rest of the world with expensive fossil fuels while US gets a combo of wind/hydro/solar/nuclear/natural gas to power our economy. Initial investment to ramp up these sources will create jobs, and be paid for dozens of times over when we're exporting something we don't require for our own usage. (for the record, a US+Canada energy independence is fine as well).

In one swoop I've created millions of working class jobs for the poor slobs currently toiling away at Mao Mart hoping for a minimum wage increase so they can see more money. This approach is relatively non controversial, puts the emphasis on people being left behind over the last 40 years, and does not rely on tax cuts for Mitt Romney to stimulate growth. Next time I get together with Hillary I'll be sure to get her up to speed.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

As part of my Rover Manifesto, I'd do several things while acknowledging the largely correct points brought up by Kep and Flaggy (and what are the odds of THAT happening )

So, working class/blue color/manufacting jobs. What to do for a place like Baltimore for example, whose jobs I read went from 1/3rd in manufacturing in 1970 down to like 5% (and I'm sure its worse than that as the total # of jobs in Baltimore has probably shrunk over that timeframe).

1) Country needs to commit itself to natural gas to power energy consumption, INCLUDING powering cars/trucks. To that end, all trucking & bus fleets should convert over to natural gas power. This will require major infrastructure improvements country-wide as gas pipelines are laid to connect mostly interstate service stations to gas grid. Cost offset by major reduced cost of foreign oil, and natural gas is domestic product. Construction jobs = by and large blue collar work and this would affect all states.

2) Its insane most steel in the world comes from China. You can't have a military without this product, but if we ever got into a confrontation with our Chinese "friends" I'm wondering how quickly that would get cut off. Being that USA is world's policeman until wussy other countries start solving their own problems (which should happen just about, oh..NEVER) I don't expect any trade objections when we institute tax breaks to make domestic steel production cost as much as Chinese production, up to the point where we have enough production to meet our yearly needs in case of a crisis. This will create hundreds of thousands of jobs in run down sh !tty places where the environment is the least of people's problems.

3) Oil exporter once country is energy independent. This will require build up of green energy as well as nuclear plant modernization program. By doing this we conserve exportable products (primarily oil) and ream the rest of the world with expensive fossil fuels while US gets a combo of wind/hydro/solar/nuclear/natural gas to power our economy. Initial investment to ramp up these sources will create jobs, and be paid for dozens of times over when we're exporting something we don't require for our own usage. (for the record, a US+Canada energy independence is fine as well).

In one swoop I've created millions of working class jobs for the poor slobs currently toiling away at Mao Mart hoping for a minimum wage increase so they can see more money. This approach is relatively non controversial, puts the emphasis on people being left behind over the last 40 years, and does not rely on tax cuts for Mitt Romney to stimulate growth. Next time I get together with Hillary I'll be sure to get her up to speed.

Good to see you're quite enlightened today.

#1 isn't going to happen overnight, if at all. Even if you were to take every single oil lobbyist to the back room, your point of infrastructure not being there, coupled with the number of vehicles in this country using gasoline that would have to switch over, as well as the amount of energy produced by NG vs. oil, are going to be your challenges.

You can go a long way towards #2 by answering one simple question: What caused the miners and manufacturers to shut down in the first place? The more specific you are with this answer, the longer you'll go towards finding a solution on this one.

#3: See #1, especially volume of energy production, even if you were to assume ideal weather conditions. You and I both know that rural areas might have a shot at this (if we were to take the grid lobbyists to the back room), but you're not going to have the same sort of luck when you get to much more dense areas.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

but you're not going to have the same sort of luck when you get to much more dense areas.

Well, the dense areas are only dense because they used to be manufacturing centers. Over a period of several generations labor does relocate to where jobs are. Even North Dakota attracts people if wages are high enough.

Believe me, there is nothing naturally attractive about Maryland -- it's a malarial swamp with strip malls and native stock nearly indistinguishable in culture and hygiene from Appalachia. The moment a blue collar magnet turns on somewhere in this country, Baltimore will be the size of Akron.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Well, the dense areas are only dense because they used to be manufacturing centers. Over a period of several generations labor does relocate to where jobs are. Even North Dakota attracts people if wages are high enough.

Believe me, there is nothing naturally attractive about Maryland -- it's a malarial swamp with strip malls and native stock nearly indistinguishable in culture and hygiene from Appalachia. The moment a blue collar magnet turns on somewhere in this country, Baltimore will be the size of Akron.

*looks at NYC, Vegas, LA, San Fran* You sure about that?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

*looks at NYC, Vegas, LA, San Fran* You sure about that?

I don't know what you're saying. None of those places has been creating blue collar jobs. The only real blue collar job creation in this country since the 70s has been the depressing service slavery of Crap Retail: fast food, big box, franchised commercial. That butter is spread thin all across the country in the trillion identical low density commercial spaces that mar every interstate highway off ramp and state highway intersection. Capital froze low skill labor in place so they couldn't organize and protest.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I don't know what you're saying. None of those places has been creating blue collar jobs. The only real blue collar job creation in this country since the 70s has been the depressing service slavery of Crap Retail: fast food, big box, franchised commercial. That butter is spread thin all across the country in the trillion identical low density commercial spaces that mar every interstate highway off ramp and state highway intersection. Capital froze low skill labor in place so they couldn't organize and protest.

You're stuck on blue collar jobs. I'm referring to the other two points that talk about energy, the context of which you removed from your original quotation of me.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

You're stuck on blue collar jobs. I'm referring to the other two points that talk about energy, the context of which you removed from your original quotation of me.

I'm still not tracking. I was talking about blue collar jobs. I thought you were saying that energy policy could help the rural blue collar workers but wouldn't permeate the blue collar cities, and I was arguing that those cities are transitory. If I mistook what you were saying, I'm just lost what you meant.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I'm still not tracking. I was talking about blue collar jobs. I thought you were saying that energy policy could help the rural blue collar workers but wouldn't permeate the blue collar cities, and I was arguing that those cities are transitory. If I mistook what you were saying, I'm just lost what you meant.

Then you're obviously lost. Let's start with what Rover typed for his third point:

3) Oil exporter once country is energy independent. This will require build up of green energy as well as nuclear plant modernization program. By doing this we conserve exportable products (primarily oil) and ream the rest of the world with expensive fossil fuels while US gets a combo of wind/hydro/solar/nuclear/natural gas to power our economy. Initial investment to ramp up these sources will create jobs, and be paid for dozens of times over when we're exporting something we don't require for our own usage. (for the record, a US+Canada energy independence is fine as well).

And now, let's see my full response to point #3:

#3: See #1, especially volume of energy production, even if you were to assume ideal weather conditions. You and I both know that rural areas might have a shot at this (if we were to take the grid lobbyists to the back room), but you're not going to have the same sort of luck when you get to much more dense areas.

The discussion was about energy production, and I was pointing out the inefficiencies related to the methods he is providing, while also citing the relative lack of energy quantity in alternative means from point #1. How are you supposed to power those very large areas? Sure, you have the Hoover Dam with Vegas already, but what about the rest?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

The discussion was about energy production, and I was pointing out the inefficiencies related to the methods he is providing, while also citing the relative lack of energy quantity in alternative means from point #1. How are you supposed to power those very large areas? Sure, you have the Hoover Dam with Vegas already, but what about the rest?

OK. I was lost. Carry on.

(BTW, I thought the whole idea of having an energy grid made the relative demand of each given node on the grid irrelevant as long as you have sufficient capacity for the whole? Hence the dream of a single world grid, so dirunal patterns of supply and demand offset each other and maximize efficiency.)

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

OK. I was lost. Carry on.

(BTW, I thought the whole idea of having an energy grid made the relative demand of each given node on the grid irrelevant as long as you have sufficient capacity for the whole? Hence the dream of a single world grid, so dirunal patterns of supply and demand offset each other and maximize efficiency.)

Even if you were to take the single plant lobbyists to the back room, I still question having enough energy to power the heavily dense areas. Obviously accounting for delivery loss will be a wash in the trade-off. I have no issues with interdependency over a central system, but we must unfortunately deal with the golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.