Fair taxation.

[CultureCitizen]

Okay, a global economy and market... What do you suppose happens to them when the US declares 0% corporate taxation and a moratorium on taxation for repatriated wealth? The largest consumer-driven base in the world is offering 0% tax on corporations.... think about that. Let that idea soak in a minute... what do you think will happen to the value of US stock? What happens to the value of the dollar? The term "kicks ass" comes to mind.

Ok, let me play the devil's advocate. There will be no boom : the ultra-rich will continue moving most of their money around the globe's stocks and derivate instruments. Small businesses will beneffit from the measure and create a moderate growth. Probably the first years will be tough on gov spending as the growth catches up with the loss of revenue from corporate taxes.

Now how long until the growth catches up with the lost revenue ? Frankly , I don't know, there are many factors at play: Other countries might adopt a similar policy, a global recesion might scare investors. Or investments could come in really slowly or the price/skill combination required for some invstments might not be available or be more attractive elsewhere in spite of the tax policies. There will be growth almost certainly ,but IMHO the rate of growth is something which can't be foreseen. There lies the risk.
========================================================
Edit : Nevertheless, it is a moderate risk: Since corporate taxes represent between 10% and 15% of the government's income, in the worst case scenario it means increasing the public debt by the same amount, or cutting spending by that same percent.

 

[Boss]

Okay, a global economy and market... What do you suppose happens to them when the US declares 0% corporate taxation and a moratorium on taxation for repatriated wealth? The largest consumer-driven base in the world is offering 0% tax on corporations.... think about that. Let that idea soak in a minute... what do you think will happen to the value of US stock? What happens to the value of the dollar? The term "kicks ass" comes to mind.

Ok, let me play the devil's advocate. There will be no boom : the ultra-rich will continue moving most of their money around the globe's stocks and derivate instruments. Small businesses will beneffit from the measure and create a moderate growth. Probably the first years will be tough on gov spending as the growth catches up with the loss of revenue from corporate taxes.

Now how long until the growth catches up with the lost revenue ? Frankly , I don't know, there are many factors at play: Other countries might adopt a similar policy, a global recesion might scare investors. Or investments could come in really slowly or the price/skill combination required for some invstments might not be available or be more attractive elsewhere in spite of the tax policies. There will be growth almost certainly ,but IMHO the rate of growth is something which can't be foreseen. There lies the risk.
========================================================
Edit : Nevertheless, it is a moderate risk: Since corporate taxes represent between 10% and 15% of the government's income, in the worst case scenario it means increasing the public debt by the same amount, or cutting spending by that same percent.

You admit there will "almost certainly" will be growth and I submit that it is absolutely certain there will be growth. Any time you remove taxation on anything, you get more of it. There are not many places in the world currently offering 0% corporate taxation, and certainly not one with our consumer base. If you think capitalists worldwide would not be attracted to that like cats to catnip, you don't understand capitalism. Every major international business who doesn't already have one, would want to open their U.S. operations tomorrow if we had such a tax policy.


...the ultra-rich will continue moving most of their money around the globe's stocks and derivate instruments...

Why would they risk their money to earn taxable dividends when they can risk it to generate tax-free corporate profits? Yeah, maybe there are some who would be leary of political change and would hold out on the idea, but I bet you could bring back a lot of that offshore wealth by implementing my plan. If we managed to get half of it, that's a $10 trillion private sector stimulus plan that didn't cost us a dime.

Nevertheless, it is a moderate risk: Since corporate taxes represent between 10% and 15% of the government's income, in the worst case scenario it means increasing the public debt by the same amount, or cutting spending by that same percent.

Of course, you are using the Democrat Liberal calculations for tax revenue which state that all things remain constant over time regardless of action... a true liberal fallacy indeed. The government's income is going to increase exponentially with millions of new taxpayers employed in all these newly-created jobs. This begins the moment the bulldozers start up. As your unemployment rate plummets to unheard of lows, the demand for quality labor grows and we see significant increases in pay across the board. More pay, more taxes, more money in the economy being spent on new cars, new houses, new ATVs and boats, etc. More people going out to eat, more people going to ball games and taking vacations... all down the line, the growth of the economy begins to generate more and more economic prosperity and in turn, federal tax revenue.

Worst case scenario is to keep listening to Socialists who want to destroy free market capitalism.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Why would they risk their money to earn taxable dividends when they can risk it to generate tax-free corporate profits? Yeah, maybe there are some who would be leary of political change and would hold out on the idea, but I bet you could bring back a lot of that offshore wealth by implementing my plan.

Why keep it on risk... high short term proffit. Why do people go into casinos, which are by all account riskier than the stock market ?

Oh man , had you spent some time analyzing the COGS (cost of goods sold) in a major company you would probably have a different viewpoint.

Lets put a practical example from which I have firsthand data: A pharma company producing medicine in Mexico.
The labour costs are 2.1% of the COGS.
And income before tax is around 30% of the gross sales.
For simplicity lets asume the sale price of the product is US $100.
Tax rate in Mexico is around 30% , hence net income would be around $21.
By moving into the US the cost would rise from $70 TO us $80 even with the tax break thats $1 US more expensive with products with a lower utility margin the situation worsens.

Would this particular company move its production into the US. No , I am certain. That's what I mean when there is a degree of uncertainty regarding the speed and amount of capital that would flow.

Certainly, they could create a high-tech factory which requires less labour or a research center but these options take more time and tons of planning from the board of directors.

I like your optimism nevertheless.

 

[Boss]

Why would they risk their money to earn taxable dividends when they can risk it to generate tax-free corporate profits? Yeah, maybe there are some who would be leary of political change and would hold out on the idea, but I bet you could bring back a lot of that offshore wealth by implementing my plan.

Why keep it on risk... high short term proffit. Why do people go into casinos, which are by all account riskier than the stock market ?

Oh man , had you spent some time analyzing the COGS (cost of goods sold) in a major company you would probably have a different viewpoint.

Lets put a practical example from which I have firsthand data: A pharma company producing medicine in Mexico.
The labour costs are 2.1% of the COGS.
And income before tax is around 30% of the gross sales.
For simplicity lets asume the sale price of the product is US $100.
Tax rate in Mexico is around 30% , hence net income would be around $21.
By moving into the US the cost would rise from $70 TO us $80 even with the tax break thats $1 US more expensive with products with a lower utility margin the situation worsens.

Would this particular company move its production into the US. No , I am certain. That's what I mean when there is a degree of uncertainty regarding the speed and amount of capital that would flow.

Certainly, they could create a high-tech factory which requires less labour or a research center but these options take more time and tons of planning from the board of directors.

I like your optimism nevertheless.

Is the pharmaceutical company in your example selling their drug in the US? If so, they are subject to US corporate income taxation. Not to mention, if they are manufacturing the product abroad and shipping into the US, they are likely paying a substantial trade tariff. I don't see where you have factored any of this into your analysis.

And hey look, lots of already established capitalists who have a working model they are satisfied with, may not be inclined to change. You're not going to ever get 100% participation in any plan. I'm not really talking about already established companies with operations abroad. I'm talking more about the billionaire with the huge Swiss bank account or heavy investments in foreign security and exchange. The people who have their wealth invested abroad because US corporate taxation became too much of a burden.

0% corporate taxation is an incentive... it's not going to work 100% of the time. However, like I said before, with the US consumer market, this would be a game changer.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Is the pharmaceutical company in your example selling their drug in the US? If so, they are subject to US corporate income taxation. Not to mention, if they are manufacturing the product abroad and shipping into the US, they are likely paying a substantial trade tariff. I don't see where you have factored any of this into your analysis.

And hey look, lots of already established capitalists who have a working model they are satisfied with, may not be inclined to change. You're not going to ever get 100% participation in any plan. I'm not really talking about already established companies with operations abroad. I'm talking more about the billionaire with the huge Swiss bank account or heavy investments in foreign security and exchange. The people who have their wealth invested abroad because US corporate taxation became too much of a burden.

0% corporate taxation is an incentive... it's not going to work 100% of the time. However, like I said before, with the US consumer market, this would be a game changer.

Yes, they export to Europe and the US. They do pay taxes, but that part is irrelevant for this analysis. Trade tariffs must be low because of NAFTA.

Finally , I don't find it fair ( corporations not paying taxes) , but I can certainly see how it could work.
My only concern is that if the actual payed tax is low right now , and yet investments are not growing... so it would be worth looking at the percent of corporations that have moved offshore, even though the gross of their operations is carried out in the US... it might work, in spite of the global casino.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Finally , I don't find it fair ( corporations not paying taxes) ,

corporations pass all costs on to customers so in effect don't pay taxes and cant. They are tax collectors not tax payers. A liberal will lack the IQ to grasp this point.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

My only concern is that if the actual payed tax is low right now , and yet investments are not growing....

actual taxes paid are low but the cost of avoiding taxes is huge. Imagine you had to move to Europe and China to avoid liberal taxes here. Its an enormous disruption in efficiency for the corporation and a huge loss to workers who lose their jobs here.

 

[Boss]

Is the pharmaceutical company in your example selling their drug in the US? If so, they are subject to US corporate income taxation. Not to mention, if they are manufacturing the product abroad and shipping into the US, they are likely paying a substantial trade tariff. I don't see where you have factored any of this into your analysis.

And hey look, lots of already established capitalists who have a working model they are satisfied with, may not be inclined to change. You're not going to ever get 100% participation in any plan. I'm not really talking about already established companies with operations abroad. I'm talking more about the billionaire with the huge Swiss bank account or heavy investments in foreign security and exchange. The people who have their wealth invested abroad because US corporate taxation became too much of a burden.

0% corporate taxation is an incentive... it's not going to work 100% of the time. However, like I said before, with the US consumer market, this would be a game changer.

Yes, they export to Europe and the US. They do pay taxes, but that part is irrelevant for this analysis. Trade tariffs must be low because of NAFTA.

Finally , I don't find it fair ( corporations not paying taxes) , but I can certainly see how it could work.
My only concern is that if the actual payed tax is low right now , and yet investments are not growing... so it would be worth looking at the percent of corporations that have moved offshore, even though the gross of their operations is carried out in the US... it might work, in spite of the global casino.

Finally , I don't find it fair ( corporations not paying taxes)...

Okay, let's talk about this for a moment. Why do you think it's not fair? The corporation is not going to pay the tax you levy regardless. That cost will be passed on to the consumer in form of higher prices. Now the consumer is already paying his taxes in the form of income tax. So is it fair for him to also shoulder the burden for your vain attempts to make things more fair?

I want to take this opportunity to commend you for engaging in an intelligent conversation on this subject. It is refreshing to actually have a stimulating discussion as opposed to the usual trollery around here, and I thank you for that. Having said that, you have yet to present any real down side to what I have proposed.

It's an idea that costs absolutely nothing to implement. No fancy, pork-laden, feel-good legislation where government manipulates winners and losers, no new massive government bureaucracy to oversee things, no social entitlement program with built in funding increases paid for by taxpayers... None of that. Just the simple nature of free market capitalist forces being allowed to do what they do.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Having said that, you have yet to present any real down side to what I have proposed.

At some point someone wrote on this thread : The world is different than 40 years ago...I agree to some extent.
What I fear is the lack of ingenuity and will to invest of the ultra-rich... this is my only real concern : that the corporate tax will be dropped to zero and nothing will happen, because all that wealth will continue jumping around the globe in stocks and derivatives.

There is a lot of guesswork involved here a poll among corporations should sufice to ease my qualms, for the time being I'll keep them.

 

[Boss]

Having said that, you have yet to present any real down side to what I have proposed.

At some point someone wrote on this thread : The world is different than 40 years ago...I agree to some extent.
What I fear is the lack of ingenuity and will to invest of the ultra-rich... this is my only real concern : that the corporate tax will be dropped to zero and nothing will happen, because all that wealth will continue jumping around the globe in stocks and derivatives.

There is a lot of guesswork involved here a poll among corporations should sufice to ease my qualms, for the time being I'll keep them.

The world may be different but the principles of free market capitalism are not. These are timeless, they don't change. Ingenuity and will to invest are happening every day in spite of our tax policies and that will continue to happen. It stands to logical reason that more of it will likely happen if it's made easier to happen. The fear that it will somehow cost us precious tax revenue is simple lack of faith in free market capitalist principles we know will work.

And again... "all that wealth" is tossed out here as if wealth is a finite commodity in limited supply, and that is not the case. Wealth is constantly being created. Making it appealing for "all that wealth" to make it's way back home and create new jobs is an idea worth consideration. It costs us nothing but a change in our tax policy.

There is no guesswork here, I guarantee 99.999% of all American corporations would be fine with 0% corporate tax. The only ones who need convincing are those under the misconception that we can effectively tax corporations and improve fairness.

 

[CultureCitizen]

is simple lack of faith in free market capitalist principles we know will work.

Exactly !!!
Faith has no place in science ( ah well, maybe you were just talking figuratively). Confidence on principles, yes. Then again a poll asking "if you had a 0% tax rate what would you invest in and how much would you invest in a year in the USA" should be easy enough to create ( and ridiculously cheap).
In the end I kind of like your idea, but given the current context I don't think there is enough information to determine the outcome.

======================================================
Edit
======================================================
I could agree to such policy if : Every penny that the government loses in tax revenue is cutted from the military budget: No poll needed in that case.

 

[Dad2three]

Is the pharmaceutical company in your example selling their drug in the US? If so, they are subject to US corporate income taxation. Not to mention, if they are manufacturing the product abroad and shipping into the US, they are likely paying a substantial trade tariff. I don't see where you have factored any of this into your analysis.

And hey look, lots of already established capitalists who have a working model they are satisfied with, may not be inclined to change. You're not going to ever get 100% participation in any plan. I'm not really talking about already established companies with operations abroad. I'm talking more about the billionaire with the huge Swiss bank account or heavy investments in foreign security and exchange. The people who have their wealth invested abroad because US corporate taxation became too much of a burden.

0% corporate taxation is an incentive... it's not going to work 100% of the time. However, like I said before, with the US consumer market, this would be a game changer.

Yes, they export to Europe and the US. They do pay taxes, but that part is irrelevant for this analysis. Trade tariffs must be low because of NAFTA.

Finally , I don't find it fair ( corporations not paying taxes) , but I can certainly see how it could work.
My only concern is that if the actual payed tax is low right now , and yet investments are not growing... so it would be worth looking at the percent of corporations that have moved offshore, even though the gross of their operations is carried out in the US... it might work, in spite of the global casino.

Finally , I don't find it fair ( corporations not paying taxes)...

Okay, let's talk about this for a moment. Why do you think it's not fair? The corporation is not going to pay the tax you levy regardless. That cost will be passed on to the consumer in form of higher prices. Now the consumer is already paying his taxes in the form of income tax. So is it fair for him to also shoulder the burden for your vain attempts to make things more fair?

I want to take this opportunity to commend you for engaging in an intelligent conversation on this subject. It is refreshing to actually have a stimulating discussion as opposed to the usual trollery around here, and I thank you for that. Having said that, you have yet to present any real down side to what I have proposed.

It's an idea that costs absolutely nothing to implement. No fancy, pork-laden, feel-good legislation where government manipulates winners and losers, no new massive government bureaucracy to oversee things, no social entitlement program with built in funding increases paid for by taxpayers... None of that. Just the simple nature of free market capitalist forces being allowed to do what they do.

Recent economic research has improved our understanding of who bears the burden of the corporate income tax.


One key finding is that a substantial share of the return to corporate capital is from
“supernormal” returns, the returns to successful risk taking, inframarginal returns, and
economic rents in excess of the “normal” return (the riskless return to waiting)
.
The other key result is that international capital mobility shifts some of the corporate income tax burden on the normal return from corporate capital to labor, which is relati
vely immobile internationally. Based on these recent research findings, TPC has updated its corporate income tax incidence

For standard distributional analyses , TPC now treats 20 percent of the corporate income tax burden as falling on labor, 20 percent on the normal return to all capital, and 60 percent on the supernormal returns to corporate equity ( shareholders) .

(that's 80% for you cons who are math challenged)


\

Previously, we had treated the entire corporate income tax burden as being borne by
the total returns to all capital

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/412651-Tax-Model-Corporate-Tax-Incidence.pdf



The Treasury economists conclude that 82 percent of the corporate tax falls on capital and 18 percent on labor.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...Corporate-Income-Tax-Methodology-May-2012.pdf

 

[Dad2three]

Okay, a global economy and market... What do you suppose happens to them when the US declares 0% corporate taxation and a moratorium on taxation for repatriated wealth? The largest consumer-driven base in the world is offering 0% tax on corporations.... think about that. Let that idea soak in a minute... what do you think will happen to the value of US stock? What happens to the value of the dollar? The term "kicks ass" comes to mind.

Ok, let me play the devil's advocate. There will be no boom : the ultra-rich will continue moving most of their money around the globe's stocks and derivate instruments. Small businesses will beneffit from the measure and create a moderate growth. Probably the first years will be tough on gov spending as the growth catches up with the loss of revenue from corporate taxes.

Now how long until the growth catches up with the lost revenue ? Frankly , I don't know, there are many factors at play: Other countries might adopt a similar policy, a global recesion might scare investors. Or investments could come in really slowly or the price/skill combination required for some invstments might not be available or be more attractive elsewhere in spite of the tax policies. There will be growth almost certainly ,but IMHO the rate of growth is something which can't be foreseen. There lies the risk.
========================================================
Edit : Nevertheless, it is a moderate risk: Since corporate taxes represent between 10% and 15% of the government's income, in the worst case scenario it means increasing the public debt by the same amount, or cutting spending by that same percent.

You admit there will "almost certainly" will be growth and I submit that it is absolutely certain there will be growth. Any time you remove taxation on anything, you get more of it. There are not many places in the world currently offering 0% corporate taxation, and certainly not one with our consumer base. If you think capitalists worldwide would not be attracted to that like cats to catnip, you don't understand capitalism. Every major international business who doesn't already have one, would want to open their U.S. operations tomorrow if we had such a tax policy.


...the ultra-rich will continue moving most of their money around the globe's stocks and derivate instruments...

Why would they risk their money to earn taxable dividends when they can risk it to generate tax-free corporate profits? Yeah, maybe there are some who would be leary of political change and would hold out on the idea, but I bet you could bring back a lot of that offshore wealth by implementing my plan. If we managed to get half of it, that's a $10 trillion private sector stimulus plan that didn't cost us a dime.

Nevertheless, it is a moderate risk: Since corporate taxes represent between 10% and 15% of the government's income, in the worst case scenario it means increasing the public debt by the same amount, or cutting spending by that same percent.

Of course, you are using the Democrat Liberal calculations for tax revenue which state that all things remain constant over time regardless of action... a true liberal fallacy indeed. The government's income is going to increase exponentially with millions of new taxpayers employed in all these newly-created jobs. This begins the moment the bulldozers start up. As your unemployment rate plummets to unheard of lows, the demand for quality labor grows and we see significant increases in pay across the board. More pay, more taxes, more money in the economy being spent on new cars, new houses, new ATVs and boats, etc. More people going out to eat, more people going to ball games and taking vacations... all down the line, the growth of the economy begins to generate more and more economic prosperity and in turn, federal tax revenue.

Worst case scenario is to keep listening to Socialists who want to destroy free market capitalism.

How'd that work out under Uncle Miltie's Chile experiment again??? lol

CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST

Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted


Chile the laboratory test

 

[Dad2three]

Fortunately there is a way to test your theory in small scale. A special economic zone could be created. Companies that employ certain amount of local people from the zone could get tax exemption. It could be an option to promote development in zones which are completely depressed like Detroit or Cleveland ( Detroit is a really tough case though).

If this works in small scale I would have no objection on applying it on a larger scale.
Any caveats you can think of to applying this on a small scale ?

The problem is the politics of this idea. What representative is going to vote to send all the jobs to Detroit, other than the politicians from that district and state? In general, I don't have a problem with viable economic development programs for depressed areas, but I think that should be a completely different matter from this.

Remember, the idea here is to return money from overseas and have it invested in new business here. The more stipulations and caveats you apply, the less results you can expect. When you start applying these caveats, the opposition simply loads legislation down with so many that the bill becomes a joke. Here, Mr. Rich Guy, take your money out of securities where you are guaranteed a decent return and invest it in a slum where you'll probably lose all your money in short order, and we'll be nice enough not to charge you any taxes!

"Remember, the idea here is to return money from overseas and have it invested in new business here."


The Age of Oversupply: Overcoming the greatest challenge to the global economy

• Consequently, they save far more of their earnings than we do in the West. The result of these two things is that along with a glut of labour, the emerging economies have also created a glut of capital.
• That capital had to go somewhere, and it went to the West, where the flood of cheap money pushed down interest rates and undermined investment. This led to a debt boom and a property bubble. Remember the beleaguered mortgage lenders Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac? China had $376 billion in mortgage bonds with them when they tanked.

In short, “you can’t understand the housing bubble and the financial crisis without appreciating how the rise of the emerging nations distorted the economies of rich countries,” to put it in Alpert’s words. And therefore “the central challenge facing the global economy is an oversupply of labour, productive capacity, and capital relative to the demand for all three.”

The Age of Oversupply by Daniel Alpert Make Wealth History


US HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLED FROM 2001-2007


ALL US banking assets in the US was about $10 trillion in 2010, YOU want to flood the US with $20 trillion? Nah, THAT wouldn't create a bubble, lol

NOTHING like conservatives forgetting history like flood of cash that created the Harding/Coolidge 1920's great depression, Ronnie's S&L crisis OR Dubya's subprime.

 

[CultureCitizen]

where the flood of cheap money pushed down interest rates and undermined investment.

I am lost at this point. Shouldn't low interest rates encourage investment rather than discourage it ?
Arguably during the subprime crisis there was an investment in the construction sector ( acually an over investment which created a bubble).

And specifically (apart from the possible loss of revenue) what other disadvantages do you see to Boss's proposal ?

The trend I see , and the reason for the poll I've mentioned is that I see a trend in which labour demand tends to deviate from labour supply. Automation has advanced enormously , some factories are run with a minimal staff, but there is a high demand for more specialiced workers : engineers, health care workers, professors, researchers. Hence the tragic situation of cities like Detroit, Buffalo and Cleveland : thousands of unskilled workers are unable to find a job.

 

[Dad2three]

where the flood of cheap money pushed down interest rates and undermined investment.

I am lost at this point. Shouldn't low interest rates encourage investment rather than discourage it ?
Arguably during the subprime crisis there was an investment in the construction sector ( acually an over investment which created a bubble).

And specifically (apart from the possible loss of revenue) what other disadvantages do you see to Boss's proposal ?

The trend I see , and the reason for the poll I've mentioned is that I see a trend in which labour demand tends to deviate from labour supply. Automation has advanced enormously , some factories are run with a minimal staff, but there is a high demand for more specialiced workers : engineers, health care workers, professors, researchers. Hence the tragic situation of cities like Detroit, Buffalo and Cleveland : thousands of unskilled workers are unable to find a job.

We had money flood into the US after the dotcom burst looking for 'safe' investments, the entire subprime market in the US was $1.5 trillion



BOSS WANTS TOP BRING $20 TRILLION BACK INTO THE US? lol



Chart 1. Financial profits as a percent of total profits (five-year moving average)

The US isn't missing capital, it's missing political will to get money out of politics and the Financialization of the US the past 30+ years

Economist JM Keynes predicted a 15 hour work week.

Policy pushed by 'free marketeers' and conservatives happened to Detroit, Buffalo, etc

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
   
   

It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.


Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders

The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.


American School economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


INSTEAD WE WANT TO BENEFIT A FEW DOZEN THOUSAND 'JOB CREATORS' AT THE EXPENSE OF THE REST OF US

 

[Dad2three]

where the flood of cheap money pushed down interest rates and undermined investment.

I am lost at this point. Shouldn't low interest rates encourage investment rather than discourage it ?
Arguably during the subprime crisis there was an investment in the construction sector ( acually an over investment which created a bubble).

And specifically (apart from the possible loss of revenue) what other disadvantages do you see to Boss's proposal ?

The trend I see , and the reason for the poll I've mentioned is that I see a trend in which labour demand tends to deviate from labour supply. Automation has advanced enormously , some factories are run with a minimal staff, but there is a high demand for more specialiced workers : engineers, health care workers, professors, researchers. Hence the tragic situation of cities like Detroit, Buffalo and Cleveland : thousands of unskilled workers are unable to find a job.

Total mortgage market is about $8 trillion

Aug. 14, 2014

There was about $$11.63 trillion in total outstanding US debt

U.S. Household Debt Sinks 18 Billion to 11.63 Trillion - WSJ

WHAT do you think $20 trillion would do?

 

[CultureCitizen]

There was about $$11.63 trillion in total outstanding US debt

U.S. Household Debt Sinks 18 Billion to 11.63 Trillion - WSJ

WHAT do you think $20 trillion would do?

Then, again, it depends on how that money is invested. If it all goes into stock trades and cds, it will be a massive crisis and the US will become a third world contry.

But what about creating factories once again ? Researching into batteries and more efficient solar power. Even fusion reactors. Something as simple as a shower that recycles water could save millions in resources.
My take in this : it is good if the investment targets R&D, energy, resource conservation.

I'm not sure the older generation is ready for this car, but this is what I am thinking of when I hear the word investment:
Elio Motors The next big thing in transportation
Futuristic water-recycling shower cuts bills by over 1 000 - CNN.com
( by the by , this shower costs like a gazilion euros, the US version should be more affordable)

Too idealistic maybe ?

 

[Dad2three]

There was about $$11.63 trillion in total outstanding US debt

U.S. Household Debt Sinks 18 Billion to 11.63 Trillion - WSJ

WHAT do you think $20 trillion would do?

Then, again, it depends on how that money is invested. If it all goes into stock trades and cds, it will be a massive crisis and the US will become a third world contry.

But what about creating factories once again ? Researching into batteries and more efficient solar power. Even fusion reactors. Something as simple as a shower that recycles water could save millions in resources.
My take in this : it is good if the investment targets R&D, energy, resource conservation.

I'm not sure the older generation is ready for this car, but this is what I am thinking of when I hear the word investment:
Elio Motors The next big thing in transportation
Futuristic water-recycling shower cuts bills by over 1 000 - CNN.com
( by the by , this shower costs like a gazilion euros, the US version should be more affordable)

Too idealistic maybe ?

The US doesn't lack capital OR lack of access to it. What it lacks is willpower to stop sucking off the billionaires and 'job creators'

Again, to much credit and way to easy credit created a problem in the US in the 1880's, 1920's, 1980's and Dubya's reign of error


Gov' policy could do that 'good investment' you speak of, but we all know the GOP isn't going to allow it, and without Gov't directing it, via laws, change is slow with the 'free market'. look to how the US has some of the slowest internet access in the world, with some of the highest costs

 

[Boss]

Stop demagoguing the thread with mindless propaganda and false statistics, goofball.

No one asked you if you like the plan, we already know what you want to do.