Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Bombur]

Why the U.S. Has Lost Manufacturing Jobs

By Michael S. Rozeff

January 31, 2014

The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by ending its extremely costly interventions overseas and reducing its military establishment..... the reduction in government spending .... matched by tax cuts, then the economy would be given a big leg up to adjust to productive lines of work. The U.S. is over-investing in phantom security.

The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by scrapping Obamacare and freeing up the medical sector of the economy, thereby making it more competitive and producing lower costs and higher quality.

The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by making Social Security optional for them.


.

OK cut military spending.

I think it is pretty obvious that UHC is far more efficient than the horrible Frankenstein monster that is our current system. So I agree with the general problem but there is a lot more evidence supporting UHC than there is in the idea the free market will solve our problems.

Making SS optional would just put more pressure on people to make good decisions and save for themselves.

If you want legit conservative ways to improve things look to the corporate tax code. The way it works in the US is relatively unique in that it hurts US production and favors foreign production. Other nation's tax codes do the opposite.

You can also look at Chinese manipulation of our currency. That is not really anything either side is for.

You can also look at regulations from a trade perspective. Having common regulations with Europe and Canada can help facilitate trade.

You mentioned in another post how you thought NAFTA has been beneficial to the US economy (if I remember correctly)

Are you equally impressed with the TPP,particularly its manifest secrecy?

"WikiLeaks has released the draft text of a chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, a multilateral free-trade treaty currently being negotiated in secret by 12 Pacific Rim nations.

"The full agreement covers a number of areas, but the chapter published by WikiLeaks focuses on intellectual property rights, an area of law which has effects in areas as diverse as pharmaceuticals and civil liberties.

"Negotiations for the TPP have included representatives from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, and Brunei, but have been conducted behind closed doors.

"Even members of the US Congress were only allowed to view selected portions of the documents under supervision."

WikiLeaks publishes secret draft chapter of Trans-Pacific Partnership | Media | theguardian.com

I think generally speaking NAFTA worked out ok. Trade deals generally result in very specific pressures on an economy that have to be recognized. I consider our trade relationship with China to have a much higher cost than NAFTA.

I have no problem with trade deals. I have problems with nations like China manipulating our currency. I think we can do a much better job when establishing trade deals but whatever really.

Congress would politicize everything and involving them would just slow things down as every corporation lines up to fill their pockets to fight for them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The income of the 1% is way more volatile than that of the bottom 99%. This is in large part to the way they make money (capital investment) You can see large increases in the income of the top 1% and large decreases as well.

As more and more income is concentrated in that 1% the ups and down of the economic cycle become more pronounced.

In addition the government is becoming more and more reliant on income taxes as a source of income and therefor there will be larger swings, both up and down, in tax revenues. Failure to account for this has already shaped our last/current recession and will likely have an even bigger impact on the next one unless government learns to plan better.

Your Marxist theory that wealth continues to be concentrated in the hands of the capitalists is pure bunk. Even if it were true, there's no evidence that it would cause recessions to be more severe. For one thing, the government has actually become less reliant on income taxes as a source of income. Payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes and other taxes account for the majority of government revenue. For another thing, less revenue to the government does not cause recessions. It's a symptom of a recession, not the cause. Less revenue to the government actually promotes economic growth, not a reduction in growth.

Wealth concentration is not a theory. It is either happening or it isn't.

Recessions are measured in severity based large on how large the reduction in GDP is. The more significant the loss in income the bigger the loss in GDP is everything else remaining the same.

Income taxes accounted for around 40% of tax collections in 2013 for states. In 92 it was only 31%. The trend is going to continue since the income tax is the one tax that will see natural growth, especially leading up to the next recession.

When the latest recession hit the income tax was by far the most volatile tax and the volatility was mostly due to large changes in income of the top 1% of income earners.

Government revenues are important because the government will also have to respond to the recession. If they raise taxes or cut programs the recession will be larger.

Pretty much everything you just said is wrong. I trust you understand that I consider any facts talked about here can be easily confirmed through a couple minutes of using google.

When the latest recession hit the income tax was by far the most volatile tax and the volatility was mostly due to large changes in income of the top 1% of income earners.

Yet another problem with our progressive income tax structure.

 

[OnePercenter]

Explain how these trusts reduce your income taxes.

Ask your tax guy.

I'd rather hear you prove your silly claim.

Why? You won't believe it. Ask your tax guy. Perhaps you'll save some $$$$.

 

[Bombur]

SS is supposed to be a program funded by the people that receive it. It's not supposed to be like progressive income tax where the upper income folks are forced to foot the bill for the income folks. Are you incapable of understanding that?

I agree that is the case for the majority of the "pension" plan part of SS. The problem is the transfer payment for the low end of the spectrum. I also consider disability and unemployment to be programs that should be funded with a progressive tax.

Yeah no kidding. All libtards want to command the rich to bend over and serve them.

Honestly there is either a case for the 3 programs I talked about or not. I don't really care either way but there is no way they should all rest on the shoulders of the middle class in an age of globalization.

 

[OnePercenter]

Your Marxist theory that wealth continues to be concentrated in the hands of the capitalists is pure bunk. Even if it were true, there's no evidence that it would cause recessions to be more severe. For one thing, the government has actually become less reliant on income taxes as a source of income. Payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes and other taxes account for the majority of government revenue. For another thing, less revenue to the government does not cause recessions. It's a symptom of a recession, not the cause. Less revenue to the government actually promotes economic growth, not a reduction in growth.

Wealth concentration is not a theory. It is either happening or it isn't.

Recessions are measured in severity based large on how large the reduction in GDP is. The more significant the loss in income the bigger the loss in GDP is everything else remaining the same.

Income taxes accounted for around 40% of tax collections in 2013 for states. In 92 it was only 31%. The trend is going to continue since the income tax is the one tax that will see natural growth, especially leading up to the next recession.

When the latest recession hit the income tax was by far the most volatile tax and the volatility was mostly due to large changes in income of the top 1% of income earners.

Government revenues are important because the government will also have to respond to the recession. If they raise taxes or cut programs the recession will be larger.

Pretty much everything you just said is wrong. I trust you understand that I consider any facts talked about here can be easily confirmed through a couple minutes of using google.

When the latest recession hit the income tax was by far the most volatile tax and the volatility was mostly due to large changes in income of the top 1% of income earners.

Yet another problem with our progressive income tax structure.

Which 'volatile tax' was that?

 

[Bombur]

Your Marxist theory that wealth continues to be concentrated in the hands of the capitalists is pure bunk. Even if it were true, there's no evidence that it would cause recessions to be more severe. For one thing, the government has actually become less reliant on income taxes as a source of income. Payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes and other taxes account for the majority of government revenue. For another thing, less revenue to the government does not cause recessions. It's a symptom of a recession, not the cause. Less revenue to the government actually promotes economic growth, not a reduction in growth.

Wealth concentration is not a theory. It is either happening or it isn't.

Recessions are measured in severity based large on how large the reduction in GDP is. The more significant the loss in income the bigger the loss in GDP is everything else remaining the same.

Income taxes accounted for around 40% of tax collections in 2013 for states. In 92 it was only 31%. The trend is going to continue since the income tax is the one tax that will see natural growth, especially leading up to the next recession.

When the latest recession hit the income tax was by far the most volatile tax and the volatility was mostly due to large changes in income of the top 1% of income earners.

Government revenues are important because the government will also have to respond to the recession. If they raise taxes or cut programs the recession will be larger.

Pretty much everything you just said is wrong. I trust you understand that I consider any facts talked about here can be easily confirmed through a couple minutes of using google.

When the latest recession hit the income tax was by far the most volatile tax and the volatility was mostly due to large changes in income of the top 1% of income earners.

Yet another problem with our progressive income tax structure.

A problem that can be addressed but it is not a deal breaker by any stretch.

Also the corp tax may be technically more volatile but that tax is basically just crazy and not big enough to worry about.

 

[Andylusion]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

When I look at the definition of "democracy", and look at your statement about three rich people and combined GDP of some countries........ what the heck does one have to do with the other? Nothing.

Further, who care what percentage of the assets whatever % of the people have? What difference does that make?

Yes, Capitalism does ensure that there will be inequality, but who said equality was good, or that inequality was bad? Who said you deserve anything? Does your existence on this planet promise you jack? Why? What have you done to earn what you have? Sucking air? Pooping?

The OECD is completely bonkers wrong. Inequality did not first start in the 1970s. For heaven sakes, what are you people smoking? Seriously? Did you ever read the massive difference between the Rich and the Poor, back in the 1920s? Or back in the 1800s even? Or even all the way back to the 1700s when this country was founded?

And here's the other side. What alternative do you propose? Socialism? Are you crazy?

Socialism is even more unequal. Have you read about the Soviet Union? Did you read about the private Communist party shops, that were stocked full of goods, while the citizens shops were empty? Have you read about the shops around Red Square, where the shop owners hid their goods in the back of the store behind curtains, so that common people wouldn't see the goods that Communist leaders had access to, that they did not? Or about the multi-floor villas reserved only for Communist officials. Or the yachts, available year around for Communist party members.

Here's the deal... there is no system on the face of this planet, or throughout all human history, in which there has been equality. Even in tribal peoples living in the forest.... the guy at the top of the tribe, had the bigger mud hut, and had more women to sleep with, had more food to eat, and more water to drink, and worked less than the rest of the people in the tribe.

This is universally true. All claims of an equal society somewhere are all myths, and lies.

The difference between Socialism, and Capitalism, is that the inequality in socialism is enforced by the states, and the inequality of Capitalism, is based on the individuals providing goods and services to the market.

I read the story of a man from Egypt. In Egypt past, you are born lower class, you live lower class, and you die lower class. You can't move up, no matter what you do, because there is a class system, and that's your fate. This man left Egypt, and moved to the US, where he started working as a janitor for a hospital. 10 years later, he had worked his way up, and earned promotion after promotion, until he was director of maintenance over several hospitals. That's Capitalism. He went from minimum wage, to well over six-figure income, while being an immigrant from another country, where the class system would have left him a low-wage low-class worker until he died.

So, I'll take inequality, over socialistic 'equality' any day.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ask your tax guy.

I'd rather hear you prove your silly claim.

Why? You won't believe it. Ask your tax guy. Perhaps you'll save some $$$$.

No, I don't believe you.

Prove your claim.

 

[Andylusion]

I think generally speaking NAFTA worked out ok. Trade deals generally result in very specific pressures on an economy that have to be recognized. I consider our trade relationship with China to have a much higher cost than NAFTA.

I have no problem with trade deals. I have problems with nations like China manipulating our currency. I think we can do a much better job when establishing trade deals but whatever really.

Congress would politicize everything and involving them would just slow things down as every corporation lines up to fill their pockets to fight for them.

All trade, is by it's very nature, inherently beneficial. If it wasn't beneficial, we wouldn't do the trade.

You have a car, and you want to sell it for $5,000. I have $5,000, and I want a car.

The value of your car, to me, is greater than the value of the $5,000.

The value of the $5,000, to you, is greater than the value of the car.

Thus by trading together, me giving you the $5,000, and you giving me the car, we both are better off.

Now what if you are from Canada. What has changed? Nothing. The value of the car, is greater than my $5K to me, and the value of the $5K to you is greater than the car.

We are both better off, by doing the trade.

If at any point, I was worse off doing the trade.... I wouldn't trade. If the car was not worth more to me than the $5,000, I wouldn't trade. If the $5K was not worth more to you, than the car, you wouldn't trade.

Trade by it's very nature, is inherently beneficial.

Doesn't matter if you are from Ohio, or Canada, or Mexico, or China. Makes not the slightest difference.

The only exception, is fraud, and generally that's self eliminating. If you sell me a bad car, then I likely won't buy another car from you. Your business goes broke, and you are removed from the economic process.

Now back to China, and the supposed currency manipulation.

There is no completely provable currency manipulation, anymore than the US has currency manipulation.

The only thing you can do with outstanding currency in the market, is either print more money, or stop printing money, just like the US can print more, or print less.

Years ago, China made an open clear statement, that they intended to peg the Yuan to the Dollar. And they did just that. When the US inflated their currency, the Chinese inflated theirs in equal measure, so that the value of the Yuan to the Dollar was fixed.

That is exactly what they have done. Now the government has used this, as an excuse to attack China, claiming they are "manipulating" their currency. They are not doing any such thing. Or at least they are not manipulating their currency, any more or less than we are by us printing money ourselves.

 

[Bombur]

I think generally speaking NAFTA worked out ok. Trade deals generally result in very specific pressures on an economy that have to be recognized. I consider our trade relationship with China to have a much higher cost than NAFTA.

I have no problem with trade deals. I have problems with nations like China manipulating our currency. I think we can do a much better job when establishing trade deals but whatever really.

Congress would politicize everything and involving them would just slow things down as every corporation lines up to fill their pockets to fight for them.

All trade, is by it's very nature, inherently beneficial. If it wasn't beneficial, we wouldn't do the trade.

You have a car, and you want to sell it for $5,000. I have $5,000, and I want a car.

The value of your car, to me, is greater than the value of the $5,000.

The value of the $5,000, to you, is greater than the value of the car.

Thus by trading together, me giving you the $5,000, and you giving me the car, we both are better off.

Now what if you are from Canada. What has changed? Nothing. The value of the car, is greater than my $5K to me, and the value of the $5K to you is greater than the car.

We are both better off, by doing the trade.

If at any point, I was worse off doing the trade.... I wouldn't trade. If the car was not worth more to me than the $5,000, I wouldn't trade. If the $5K was not worth more to you, than the car, you wouldn't trade.

Trade by it's very nature, is inherently beneficial.

Doesn't matter if you are from Ohio, or Canada, or Mexico, or China. Makes not the slightest difference.

The only exception, is fraud, and generally that's self eliminating. If you sell me a bad car, then I likely won't buy another car from you. Your business goes broke, and you are removed from the economic process.

Now back to China, and the supposed currency manipulation.

There is no completely provable currency manipulation, anymore than the US has currency manipulation.

The only thing you can do with outstanding currency in the market, is either print more money, or stop printing money, just like the US can print more, or print less.

Years ago, China made an open clear statement, that they intended to peg the Yuan to the Dollar. And they did just that. When the US inflated their currency, the Chinese inflated theirs in equal measure, so that the value of the Yuan to the Dollar was fixed.

That is exactly what they have done. Now the government has used this, as an excuse to attack China, claiming they are "manipulating" their currency. They are not doing any such thing. Or at least they are not manipulating their currency, any more or less than we are by us printing money ourselves.

So there is no proof except the proof and the US also does something with currency so it is ok.

LOL

I agree it is a trade. A trade that happens to hurt the US labor market. A cost that needs to be recognized and dealt with as opposed to ignored until it ends up being such a problem that the economy stagnates.

 

[KevinWestern]

But the fact of the matter IS that income inequality at a certain level is a bad thing for society and should be avoided if possible.

Low income --should be bad - for the recipient. But some folks are UNmotivated.

But "society" , by which you mean taxpayers and producers should not be adversely affected. They should be allowed to exercise their right to stand their ground and defend their wealth using deadly force if necessary.

.

Hey - I'm not arguing about the morality of it all, I'm just saying that it happens. When you have a finite amount of resources, and 90% are owned by 1 guy in a society of 100, eventually those 99 individuals are going to say "fuck it" and forcibly make the 1 guy share with the rest. This is what happens.

Even the strongest, cleverest, most powerful lion can't defend itself from 99 jealous peers. It's simply a fact of life.

 

[Andylusion]

Then why does the top 20% get 50% of the overall tax breaks?

Well... is seems rather logical to me that when the bottom 47% don't even pay tax, that more tax breaks likely benefit those who actually pay tax, than those who don't.

Equally, the people who gain more differing types of income, would also likely be able to use tax breaks designed for those types of income.

For example, if there is a tax break for getting stock options.

While some people earning $80,000 a year or less, might get some stock options as compensation, I think it's safe to say very few do.

But those earning over $200K, often get stock options and other such compensation.

Thus logically, only those getting stock options, and alternative compensation, are likely to benefit from tax breaks for such alternative compensation.

Seriously, this is a very obvious answer. I more surprised you would ask such a question.

 

[Andylusion]

I think generally speaking NAFTA worked out ok. Trade deals generally result in very specific pressures on an economy that have to be recognized. I consider our trade relationship with China to have a much higher cost than NAFTA.

I have no problem with trade deals. I have problems with nations like China manipulating our currency. I think we can do a much better job when establishing trade deals but whatever really.

Congress would politicize everything and involving them would just slow things down as every corporation lines up to fill their pockets to fight for them.

All trade, is by it's very nature, inherently beneficial. If it wasn't beneficial, we wouldn't do the trade.

You have a car, and you want to sell it for $5,000. I have $5,000, and I want a car.

The value of your car, to me, is greater than the value of the $5,000.

The value of the $5,000, to you, is greater than the value of the car.

Thus by trading together, me giving you the $5,000, and you giving me the car, we both are better off.

Now what if you are from Canada. What has changed? Nothing. The value of the car, is greater than my $5K to me, and the value of the $5K to you is greater than the car.

We are both better off, by doing the trade.

If at any point, I was worse off doing the trade.... I wouldn't trade. If the car was not worth more to me than the $5,000, I wouldn't trade. If the $5K was not worth more to you, than the car, you wouldn't trade.

Trade by it's very nature, is inherently beneficial.

Doesn't matter if you are from Ohio, or Canada, or Mexico, or China. Makes not the slightest difference.

The only exception, is fraud, and generally that's self eliminating. If you sell me a bad car, then I likely won't buy another car from you. Your business goes broke, and you are removed from the economic process.

Now back to China, and the supposed currency manipulation.

There is no completely provable currency manipulation, anymore than the US has currency manipulation.

The only thing you can do with outstanding currency in the market, is either print more money, or stop printing money, just like the US can print more, or print less.

Years ago, China made an open clear statement, that they intended to peg the Yuan to the Dollar. And they did just that. When the US inflated their currency, the Chinese inflated theirs in equal measure, so that the value of the Yuan to the Dollar was fixed.

That is exactly what they have done. Now the government has used this, as an excuse to attack China, claiming they are "manipulating" their currency. They are not doing any such thing. Or at least they are not manipulating their currency, any more or less than we are by us printing money ourselves.

So there is no proof except the proof and the US also does something with currency so it is ok.

LOL

I agree it is a trade. A trade that happens to hurt the US labor market. A cost that needs to be recognized and dealt with as opposed to ignored until it ends up being such a problem that the economy stagnates.

That's exactly right. There is no proof of some other nefarious 'currency manipulation', except that they print money, or don't print money, just like the US does.

Now I would assume that most people don't think of our government printing money, in and of itself, to be some great evil nefarious currency manipulation plot. Now if you do think that.... then we can agree that both the US and the Chinese are manipulating their currency equally.

Now if you don't think that, then neither China, nor the US, is engaged in currency manipulation.

That's all there is to it.

Trade does not happen to hurt the US labor markets. It does not. Period. It simply doesn't. And our economy has never stagnated by engaging in trade. In fact, the very opposite. When you reduce trade, inherently both the buyer and the seller are harmed. Smoot Hawley didn't end the Great Depression, and in fact, contributed to it.

Jamacia, engaged in protectionism, and end up ruined by it. Japan engaged in protectionism, at the start of the 1990s. Read up on Japan's "Lost Decade", to see how that worked out. Venezuela today, is far worse off because of their protectionism against trade. Just read about how the automobile shortage in Venezuela is so bad, that Used cars, are now selling at a higher price than new cars. The shortage of new cars, makes used cars more valuable on the market than a new car you can't get.

Protection never protects jobs, as much as it ruins jobs. I'm speaking from personal experience myself. If we engaged in protectionism today, my job, and my company, would cease to exist. No question about it.

 

[Contumacious]

[

Now I would assume that most people don't think of our government printing money, in and of itself, to be some great evil nefarious currency manipulation plot. Now if you do think that.... then we can agree that both the US and the Chinese are manipulating their currency equally.

.

That's because ignorance is bliss.

Our "currency" - is printed and manipulated by the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK - a PRIVATE ENTITY WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED.

No go forth and sin no more.

.

 

[Bombur]

All trade, is by it's very nature, inherently beneficial. If it wasn't beneficial, we wouldn't do the trade.

You have a car, and you want to sell it for $5,000. I have $5,000, and I want a car.

The value of your car, to me, is greater than the value of the $5,000.

The value of the $5,000, to you, is greater than the value of the car.

Thus by trading together, me giving you the $5,000, and you giving me the car, we both are better off.

Now what if you are from Canada. What has changed? Nothing. The value of the car, is greater than my $5K to me, and the value of the $5K to you is greater than the car.

We are both better off, by doing the trade.

If at any point, I was worse off doing the trade.... I wouldn't trade. If the car was not worth more to me than the $5,000, I wouldn't trade. If the $5K was not worth more to you, than the car, you wouldn't trade.

Trade by it's very nature, is inherently beneficial.

Doesn't matter if you are from Ohio, or Canada, or Mexico, or China. Makes not the slightest difference.

The only exception, is fraud, and generally that's self eliminating. If you sell me a bad car, then I likely won't buy another car from you. Your business goes broke, and you are removed from the economic process.

Now back to China, and the supposed currency manipulation.

There is no completely provable currency manipulation, anymore than the US has currency manipulation.

The only thing you can do with outstanding currency in the market, is either print more money, or stop printing money, just like the US can print more, or print less.

Years ago, China made an open clear statement, that they intended to peg the Yuan to the Dollar. And they did just that. When the US inflated their currency, the Chinese inflated theirs in equal measure, so that the value of the Yuan to the Dollar was fixed.

That is exactly what they have done. Now the government has used this, as an excuse to attack China, claiming they are "manipulating" their currency. They are not doing any such thing. Or at least they are not manipulating their currency, any more or less than we are by us printing money ourselves.

So there is no proof except the proof and the US also does something with currency so it is ok.

LOL

I agree it is a trade. A trade that happens to hurt the US labor market. A cost that needs to be recognized and dealt with as opposed to ignored until it ends up being such a problem that the economy stagnates.

That's exactly right. There is no proof of some other nefarious 'currency manipulation', except that they print money, or don't print money, just like the US does.

Now I would assume that most people don't think of our government printing money, in and of itself, to be some great evil nefarious currency manipulation plot. Now if you do think that.... then we can agree that both the US and the Chinese are manipulating their currency equally.

Now if you don't think that, then neither China, nor the US, is engaged in currency manipulation.

That's all there is to it.

Trade does not happen to hurt the US labor markets. It does not. Period. It simply doesn't. And our economy has never stagnated by engaging in trade. In fact, the very opposite. When you reduce trade, inherently both the buyer and the seller are harmed. Smoot Hawley didn't end the Great Depression, and in fact, contributed to it.

Jamacia, engaged in protectionism, and end up ruined by it. Japan engaged in protectionism, at the start of the 1990s. Read up on Japan's "Lost Decade", to see how that worked out. Venezuela today, is far worse off because of their protectionism against trade. Just read about how the automobile shortage in Venezuela is so bad, that Used cars, are now selling at a higher price than new cars. The shortage of new cars, makes used cars more valuable on the market than a new car you can't get.

Protection never protects jobs, as much as it ruins jobs. I'm speaking from personal experience myself. If we engaged in protectionism today, my job, and my company, would cease to exist. No question about it.

They are buying USDs. That is their currency manipulation and it is not comparable to the US printing money.

I am not suggesting we engage in protectionism, I am suggesting that China should stop engaging in protectionism.

Imbalanced trade most definitely hurts our labor market. I don't think the Chinese practice of currency manipulation will end well for China either. The best solution to the problem IMO is rising wages in China.

 

[Andylusion]

[

Now I would assume that most people don't think of our government printing money, in and of itself, to be some great evil nefarious currency manipulation plot. Now if you do think that.... then we can agree that both the US and the Chinese are manipulating their currency equally.

.

That's because ignorance is bliss.

Our "currency" - is printed and manipulated by the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK - a PRIVATE ENTITY WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED.

No go forth and sin no more.

.

Oh bull. Give me a break. The Federal Reserve is as much a "private entity" as the US Postal Service.

The Federal Reserve is controlled by congress. Even recently the Federal Reserve was pushed to do QE3, and it was well documented that people in Congress made it clear they wanted the Federal Reserve to do more stuff.

You don't see Congress sending veiled letters to the Columbus Bank, asking them to do X Y or Z. Nor do they drag the CEO of Columbus Bank, to Congress to give a statement about their operations. And nor does the President determine who the chairman of Columbus Bank is, or have a specific legislation about what Columbus Bank does. Nor can the Columbus Bank, simply ask the Treasury to print out money, and give it to them.

The concept that the Federal Reserve is "private" in any way other than by the letter of the law, is ridiculous. There is nothing "private" about them. The Federal Reserve does what the government tells them to, or the guy at the top get's his butt kicked out.

Now as to whether the Federal Reserve has been audited.... again.... it's not private. It's government. And government does not like itself being audited. Government routinely..... ROUTINELY loses money, has corruption, and all kinds of things. The US Post Office some years ago, lost over a million dollars..... They "LOST" it.

Lost. Opps.... where'd the million bucks go? I don know....

The same is true of all government anywhere doing anything. Of course the Federal Reserve doesn't give open audits. Question: Would it be any different if the Treasury Department was doing it?

Did you miss the whole NSA, collecting all phone calls, all message, by everyone everywhere? And no one knew anything. Congress itself had no idea. How many other examples would you like?

Oh but the Federal Reserve is going to be different how? Now if you want to audit the Federal Reserve, I'm all for it. But you should grasp two things:

One, any audit of a government agency, whether it's the NSA, Freddie and Fannie, or the Fed Res, those audits are going to be influenced by politics, and usually ignored. In 2004, we knew that Freddie and Fannie were cooking the books, flipping numbers, and committing fraud, and very little happened.

Two, I understand, that if the Federal Reserve didn't exist, or if the Federal Reserve was on paper as a completely public government entity............ NOTHING WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT.

If the Fed was completely public (on paper), it would be exactly the same as it is today. If the Fed was eliminated, some other agency would be doing it, and it would be exactly the same as it is today.

I promise you. 100% guarantee it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[

Now I would assume that most people don't think of our government printing money, in and of itself, to be some great evil nefarious currency manipulation plot. Now if you do think that.... then we can agree that both the US and the Chinese are manipulating their currency equally.

.

That's because ignorance is bliss.

Our "currency" - is printed and manipulated by the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK - a PRIVATE ENTITY WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED.

No go forth and sin no more.

.

the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK - a PRIVATE ENTITY

The Fed is "owned" by the government.

WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED

Except for all the times it was.

FRB: Annual Report 2012 - Federal Reserve System Audits

 

[Contumacious]

[

Now I would assume that most people don't think of our government printing money, in and of itself, to be some great evil nefarious currency manipulation plot. Now if you do think that.... then we can agree that both the US and the Chinese are manipulating their currency equally.

.

That's because ignorance is bliss.

Our "currency" - is printed and manipulated by the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK - a PRIVATE ENTITY WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED.

No go forth and sin no more.

.

Oh bull. Give me a break. The Federal Reserve is as much a "private entity" as the US Postal Service.

The Federal Reserve is controlled by congress. .

It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:

"The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act

Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 04/19/1982)

.

 

[Andylusion]

They are buying USDs. That is their currency manipulation and it is not comparable to the US printing money.

I am not suggesting we engage in protectionism, I am suggesting that China should stop engaging in protectionism.

Imbalanced trade most definitely hurts our labor market. I don't think the Chinese practice of currency manipulation will end well for China either. The best solution to the problem IMO is rising wages in China.

Buying USD is not manipulation. Many many countries buy USD.
This surprising chart shows which countries own the most U.S. debt
Japan has over $1 Trillion in USD. Are they engaged in manipulation? The European Union, owns nearly a trillion in USD. Are they engaged in manipulation?

The majority of countries around the world, have some holdings of USD, and when you compare that relative to their respective GDPs, they are all taking a significant amount.

Would you suggest the entire planet is manipulating their currency? In which case, why focus on China?

Nor can you "stop china" from engaging in protectionism. Nor should we.

No, it does not hurt our labor markets. I'm sorry, you are just flat out wrong on this.

There is ZERO evidence that trade imbalance hurt our labor markets.

Look.... it's not there. During the early to late 90s, the economy was what you would call good. Unemployment dropped almost continuously until 2001, and all during that time, the trade imbalance was increasing.

Then in 2001, the trade imbalance decline, and unemployment increased.

From 2003 to 2008, the unemployment rate dropped, while during that same time, the trade imbalance increased.

Then in 2008, the trade imbalance declined again, and unemployment went up.

So let's review. When unemployment is low, the trade imbalance is high. When the unemployment his high, the trade imbalance, is low.

This is the exactly opposite of what you are claiming.

Your statement suggests that unemployment should go up, when the trade imbalance goes up, and should go down, when the imbalance goes down.

That is not happening, and has never happened, and there's no.... as in ZERO, support for that claim. None whatsoever.

Now if you have some evidence to support your claims, give it. You would be the first to even try in the last 10 years I've been asking for it. You'd be a record holder in my book.

But for me, I've looked for evidence to support your position, because I actually used to be a protectionist myself. I believed we had to protect ourselves from bad trade. But I did something amazing... I actually looked for real evidence to support my views, and found the opposite. I haven't found anything in 10 years, to suggest what you say is true.

OH.... and by the way.... Notice also that our trade imbalance with China specifically, is a very small part of the total trade imbalance. Again, focusing on China, proves to me that this is merely the Government attempting to shift blame. China was not, and is not, the majority of our trade imbalance. Focusing on China is just as safe excuse. The real source of our economic problems, is bad socialistic policies that is harming our economy. China has nothing to do with it.

 

[Contumacious]

[

Now I would assume that most people don't think of our government printing money, in and of itself, to be some great evil nefarious currency manipulation plot. Now if you do think that.... then we can agree that both the US and the Chinese are manipulating their currency equally.

.

That's because ignorance is bliss.

Our "currency" - is printed and manipulated by the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK - a PRIVATE ENTITY WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED.

No go forth and sin no more.

.

the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK - a PRIVATE ENTITY

The Fed is "owned" by the government.

WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED

Except for all the times it was.

FRB: Annual Report 2012 - Federal Reserve System Audits

Shut the fuck up

Petition to Audit the Fed

This week, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), took up his father Ron Paul's Audit-the-Fed cause when he introduced S. 209, a bill identical to H.R. 459.

Last year, Congressman Ron Paul's Audit-the-Fed bill (H.R. 459), passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 327-98—a veto-proof majority. That bill called for a “full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States.” The bill garnered overwhelming bipartisan support even though the House Democrat Leadership opposed the bill vociferously.

Ron Paul’s bill never received a vote in the Senate during the last Congress because Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who publicly supported the bill before it passed the House, refused under pressure from the White House to allow the Senate to take up the House-passed Paul bill despite overwhelming Senate support for the bill."

.