Lets just say it: The 1% took all our fucking money! Deflation looms.

[Kulindahr]

And here is where I am at:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


If people want life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a Government should be established by the consent of the govern to secure these rights.

If a government does not insure that these rights are protected then the people should throw it off and establish a new government...

But wait, I know, I don't understand. End of discussion, you don't get it.

I'm assuming you're still whining about China. So the rest of the Declaration you quoted isn't relevant -- neither you nor I are Chinese. What is relevant is that those workers are just as entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as American workers -- no more, no less. And because that is so, they are just as entitled to the jobs companies have to offer as are American workers -- no more, and no less.

And if you want to see them throw off their chains, then you should be thrilled that American companies have provided jobs there, because it has brought them increasingly higher standards of living, made them more aware of the rest of the world, and brought them to a point where they are in fact starting to realize that the part you posted is true, and are beginning to demand actual free elections, not just rubber-stamping of what the Party offers.

So what it boils down to is that because you think Americans are more equal than others, you'd let Chinese workers rot in tyranny.

 

[Kulindahr]

The US government consumes (and thereby effectively removes) significant resources from its own economy that might otherwise lead to reduced prices and a higher standard of living for its citizens.

Not only that, but anal regulations generate higher prices that are not reflected in any productivity (they definitely don't result in any), thus hobbling the economy. This is especially true at the bottom end, where government regulations make a home cost from 20% to 40% more than it should (including improvements to a home; my friend who's turned his vast "crawl space" under the house into a basement spent more on paperwork and permits than on materials).

 

[Kulindahr]

In a truly dynamic economy, newfound efficiencies and innovation effectively reduce the costs of production, which should also reduce the cost of goods and services available in the marketplace. Ergo~ In a healthy economy, prices should naturally decrease.

This is a place where peeonme's position is silly: the US does not have a dynamic economy, but one hobbled by regulation, including a vast amount of regulation designed to give large corporations more influence and power. If he wants to oppose government economic oppression, China is hardly the place to complain about.

 

[Kulindahr]

Are you referring to building codes?

Those are just the start, but they're important because they drive up the cost of housing immensely. I include codes that require a "fully habitable domicile" on a piece of property before one is allowed to live on it, and similar regulations. But there are also the laws aimed directly at the poor, imposing fines for them trying to improve their situation -- one of my favorite examples being that someone with a $250k motor home can park it on the street while visiting friends, and even live in it, for months on end, whereas a $250 version will get a ticket for more than the value of the home in less than 48 hours.

Doesn’t that somewhat negate the concept of free trade?

No more than the Marshall Plan did after WWII -- and if it was implemented with actual free trade agreements instead of the giveaways to corporate power such as NAFTA (and moreso the proposed TPP and its companion on the Atlantic side), it would enhance free trade.

 

[Kulindahr]

This has not been the case, we have unemployment, underemployment, stagnant wages along with rising prices. The money "saved" in
lowering the cost of manufacturing has gone into the pockets of corporations and The Chinese government, miles upon miles of empty cities while the workers live in dorms.

1. We do not have a dynamic economy; the US government is one of the world's biggest impediments to free trade.

2. Money saved has in fact reduced prices for customers; what it hasn't done, thanks to greed, is increased AMerican wages as they should have done.

3. It hasn't been that long since many workers in the US lived in dorms -- though now many of them have to live in worse housing because regulations won't allow dorms these days.

 

[peeonme]

I'm assuming you're still whining about China. So the rest of the Declaration you quoted isn't relevant -- neither you nor I are Chinese. What is relevant is that those workers are just as entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as American workers -- no more, no less. And because that is so, they are just as entitled to the jobs companies have to offer as are American workers -- no more, and no less.

And if you want to see them throw off their chains, then you should be thrilled that American companies have provided jobs there, because it has brought them increasingly higher standards of living, made them more aware of the rest of the world, and brought them to a point where they are in fact starting to realize that the part you posted is true, and are beginning to demand actual free elections, not just rubber-stamping of what the Party offers.

So what it boils down to is that because you think Americans are more equal than others, you'd let Chinese workers rot in tyranny.

What it boils down to is that you hate America, you don't understand and you are silly.
See, we can both throw out insults, you don't get it blah, blah, blah.
We can argue about this forever, but I have better things to do, "more equal" really? "let them rot?" really? I care about my country more than another country, if that is a crime against humanity in your eyes, tough luck.

I think that your logic is infected with some one world doctrine that you have been brainwashed into believing, it is sad. But hell, blame the American, he is evil.

At one time America was a standard in the world, something to emulate, now it is the source of evil, [Text: Removed]

 

[mightbe]

Americans are no more evil than the Chinese. Their rise out of oppression has been assured by American investment in the country.

This happened to us. We grew, and then we started to outgrow ourselves (not logistically, but our comparative advantage decreased as the Chinese market expanded. They can out produce is at a better price.). Now we can simmer over low heat, so the best thing that we can do is not throw a fit. The health of the U.S. is dependent on China replacing us at some point. We can't handle it. Our economy can't handle us prevailing over the Chinese (for at least two fundamental reasons). This happens whenever a country moves from production to service. Things look bleak for a while.

There's no point in trying to "beat" China. That would only ensure the end of the US. Forget what you call one world bullshit. America can't survive if we try to take back our spot. It would be a Pyrrhic victory. America's best bet for continued prosperity is to go with the flow.

Chauvinism will be the end of the US. Americans aren't evil. America isn't evil (though that's debatable). To grow, we had to embrace our prowess. To continue to grow, we've named a successor (through investment) and China will dominate finances some time in the future. We are a falling superpower. The Cold War accelerated our fall (and its end just about put it into a spiral, which just happened to appear to be blissful at the time). It was a huge expenditure. It also helped grow our economy in other ways. Smaller ones. But ultimately the Cold War was a double edged sword. Now that the tension is over and the U.S. economy is exhausted (it got a second wind after the end, but it's slowing), it's time that another country come to replace our production.

It's all part of a cycle. It's not fair; it's economics. In fact, it looks shitty at this stage when we're still unsure about China. It will smoothen out once China comes into its own. It's stopped the hypergrowth and will recede somewhat as the Chinese slowly realize that they have a say in government. It will get ugly. Ultimately, I'm hopeful that the Chinese people are successful. There's a billion of them. They WILL have a voice. The best thing we can to help ourselves (and help the world in the process) is to let them find it.

 

[Kulindahr]

What it boils down to is that you hate America, you don't understand and you are silly.
See, we can both throw out insults, you don't get it blah, blah, blah.
We can argue about this forever, but I have better things to do, "more equal" really? "let them rot?" really? I care about my country more than another country, if that is a crime against humanity in your eyes, tough luck.

I think that your logic is infected with some one world doctrine that you have been brainwashed into believing, it is sad. But hell, blame the American, he is evil.

At one time America was a standard in the world, something to emulate, now it is the source of evil, [Text: Removed]

I passed on it before, but your lies about my position are out of line.

I don't know anything about any "one world doctrine" -- I do know that every individual human owns his or herself, and that that is the only foundation for human behavior.

And yes, if you want to prefer American individuals over other individuals, you are engaging in "some are more equal than others".

 

[Kulindahr]

Americans are no more evil than the Chinese. Their rise out of oppression has been assured by American investment in the country.

This happened to us. We grew, and then we started to outgrow ourselves (not logistically, but our comparative advantage decreased as the Chinese market expanded. They can out produce is at a better price.). Now we can simmer over low heat, so the best thing that we can do is not throw a fit. The health of the U.S. is dependent on China replacing us at some point. We can't handle it. Our economy can't handle us prevailing over the Chinese (for at least two fundamental reasons). This happens whenever a country moves from production to service. Things look bleak for a while.

There's no point in trying to "beat" China. That would only ensure the end of the US. Forget what you call one world bullshit. America can't survive if we try to take back our spot. It would be a Pyrrhic victory. America's best bet for continued prosperity is to go with the flow.

Chauvinism will be the end of the US. Americans aren't evil. America isn't evil (though that's debatable). To grow, we had to embrace our prowess. To continue to grow, we've named a successor (through investment) and China will dominate finances some time in the future. We are a falling superpower. The Cold War accelerated our fall (and its end just about put it into a spiral, which just happened to appear to be blissful at the time). It was a huge expenditure. It also helped grow our economy in other ways. Smaller ones. But ultimately the Cold War was a double edged sword. Now that the tension is over and the U.S. economy is exhausted (it got a second wind after the end, but it's slowing), it's time that another country come to replace our production.

It's all part of a cycle. It's not fair; it's economics. In fact, it looks shitty at this stage when we're still unsure about China. It will smoothen out once China comes into its own. It's stopped the hypergrowth and will recede somewhat as the Chinese slowly realize that they have a say in government. It will get ugly. Ultimately, I'm hopeful that the Chinese people are successful. There's a billion of them. They WILL have a voice. The best thing we can to help ourselves (and help the world in the process) is to let them find it.

Nicely said.

And the best way we can help the Chinese people find their voice is to treat them no differently than we treat anyone else. Indeed, to do any differently is to be unAmerican, because it says "ALL men are created equal", not just Americans.

 

[peeonme]

I passed on it before, but your lies about my position are out of line.

I don't know anything about any "one world doctrine" -- I do know that every individual human owns his or herself, and that that is the only foundation for human behavior.

And yes, if you want to prefer American individuals over other individuals, you are engaging in "some are more equal than others".

My god! I see the light, ok I am a believer, you win!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[opinterph]

Why the fuck should a worker from the US do better than a worker from any other country who is just as good?

All things are relative.

..and my point is the standard of relativity is the work done, not the nationality of the worker.

It is very challenging to equate the output produced by a typical Chinese worker to the output produced by a typical American or Canadian worker. Among the problems, there is significant income disparity in China.

In the United States a worker earning minimum wage in a 40-hour workweek realizes an annual income of slightly more than 15,000 USD.

An equivalent value in present international currency exchange rates between the US Dollar and the Chinese Yuan would yield somewhat more than 92,000 CNY.

Minimum wages in China vary depending upon what region the worker is located. Shanghai has the highest minimum wage, which is slightly less than 22,000 CNY annually – based upon a 40-hour workweek.

China’s low-income urban families typically spend almost half their entire budget for food.

 

[opinterph]

… the government is like any economic actor in that it is trading too. In exchange for tax revenue it provides services.

… [government] delivers value for money.

… Governments can make things more efficient, lowering costs and raising standards of living too.

In the case of the US (and other countries) government also delivers value, efficiency, et cetera in exchange for government debt.

The point I was attempting to make is that persistent government consumption in excess of tax revenue thwarts private enterprise and reduces opportunities for citizen consumption in the marketplace. Whatever quantity of resources a country possesses is ultimately finite when considered in relation to the opportunity cost associated with the time value of those resources.

 

[opinterph]

Lets just say it: The 1% took all our fucking money!

Widest income gap since the Great Depression

The 1% in China controls at least twice the percentage of total private wealth in that country than the 1% in the United States controls.

 

[opinterph]

… government regulations make a home cost from 20% to 40% more than it should

It appears to me that state and local enactment of building codes is consistent with provisions included in the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which [particularly through subsequent interpretation] allow the states to enact legislation designed to protect public health, welfare, and safety.

OTOH, I can think of places in Appalachia where such codes might be somewhat unrestrictive or even nonexistent.

 

[nafhoosier]

What a rant.

It's not uncommon for markets to dip at this time of year, and it's pretty premature to panic about deflation just because oil has fallen by a big chunk (besides, who would complain about lower gas prices?).

Investors will always be concerned about Europe and it's forever unstable economy....... The 1% have the right to take in their profits due to smart predictions of markets.

Your post reeks of hatred for the rich and successful.

Mind you, I'm all for them paying their fair share of taxes and not getting cuts and exemptions. But saying "the 1% took all our fucking money!" is wrong and displays a lack of personal responsibility.

 

[Benvolio]

In the case of the US (and other countries) government also delivers value, efficiency, et cetera in exchange for government debt.

The point I was attempting to make is that persistent government consumption in excess of tax revenue thwarts private enterprise and reduces opportunities for citizen consumption in the marketplace. Whatever quantity of resources a country possesses is ultimately finite when considered in relation to the opportunity cost associated with the time value of those resources.

I do not see that that is true. A limited amount of deficit spending is a stimulant to the economy. But it ultimately is inflationary, and I think our vast deficit spending and national debt must ultimately cause ruinous inflation in the US. If other countries and people become reluctant to accept the dollar, we may lose the ability to borrow large amounts and we may experience not only rapid inflation, but a collapse of government services and private production.We know that China and Russia are actively working to find a replacement for the dollar internationally. The only thing saving us now is that the Euro is is trouble.

 

[Benvolio]

The States have the right to enact building codes. But that power is limited by the limitation that private property may not be taken for public purpose without just compensation. When property is rendered worthless or nearly so, as for instance labeling it wetland, the government is in effect taking it and should be required to pay just compensation. The courts have been negligent is enforcing this limitation.

 

[EastMed]

In the case of the US (and other countries) government also delivers value, efficiency, et cetera in exchange for government debt.

The point I was attempting to make is that persistent government consumption in excess of tax revenue thwarts private enterprise and reduces opportunities for citizen consumption in the marketplace. Whatever quantity of resources a country possesses is ultimately finite when considered in relation to the opportunity cost associated with the time value of those resources.

Are you saying budgets should be balanced across all economic cycles?

Counter-cyclical government expenditure is an essential macroeconomic tool in periods of recession or fragile growth.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/po..._10/why_arent_the_deficit_fetishis052530.php#

 

[kallipolis]

Are you saying budgets should be balanced across all economic cycles?

Counter-cyclical government expenditure is an essential macroeconomic tool in periods of recession or fragile growth.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/po..._10/why_arent_the_deficit_fetishis052530.php#

Should be......mandatory....

 

[opinterph]

I do not see that [persistent government consumption in excess of tax revenue thwarts private enterprise and reduces opportunities for citizen consumption in the marketplace] is true.

Is it illogical?

To what extent is the economy driven by demand?

I think our vast deficit spending and national debt must ultimately cause ruinous inflation in the US.

US inflation was very high in the seventies and early eighties. Why is it currently below 2 percent?

Table of Historical Inflation Rates by Month and Year (1914-2014)​

Are you saying budgets should be balanced across all economic cycles?

Counter-cyclical government expenditure is an essential macroeconomic tool in periods of recession or fragile growth.

A limited amount of deficit spending is a stimulant to the economy.

No, I’m not saying budgets should always be balanced. I am also opposed to a Constitutional amendment to require balanced budgets. As an example, deficit spending should be used during periods of high unemployment. However, deficit spending should be curtailed (or reversed) during periods of economic boom – else, a growing national debt and associated borrowing costs become a permanent “tax” going forward.

Note: I differentiate between the costs associated with ongoing national debt and present-sense government competition for resources.