patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,205,698 comments by 14,328 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President, Stout online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 62 - 82 of 82 Search these comments
This is funny. The title of your paper is ,"WHY DID THE TARIFF-GROWTH CORRELATION CHANGE AFTER 1950?" Yet you claim tarriffs never work .
Read more than the title. The paper was given for its correlation analysis.
Fine, if you want to go strictly on the data only, I amend my statement to tariffs hurt both countries 100% of the time since 1950.
Colonialism had a unique effect on international trade. Since I don't see India, China, Korea, et al, allowing themselves to be exploited like that going forward, the data in that paper backs up my point. So I say again:
Your idea of increasing tariffs/trade barriers will hurt the US economy.
Do you amend any of your comments?
lostand confused
2012 Dec 12, 9:54pm
Your idea of increasing tariffs/trade barriers will hurt the US economy.
Do you amend any of your comments?
No it will not. We have massive trade deficits. Your own example of China with high tarriffs shows your position is wrong. Despite their high tarriffs and very high protectionism-they have had the biggest boom in known history. So there.
Conditions always change-a few centruies ago, India and China were the biggest game in town and then shifted to the west. it may be shifting back or it may be shifting to a different multi-polar world-who knows. If you don't change with the times and adjust and stick with a one policy fits all position-you will perish.
Despite their high tarriffs and very high protectionism-they have had the biggest boom in known history.
You don't understand - the analysis was performed of tariffs/trade barriers independent of all other factors. That is, China would had even greater growth without the protectionism.
This means that if we institute a protectionist trade policy, we may, or may not, have a period of growth. But the prepoderance of data and economic theory shows that this type of policy has an adverse effect on growth.
If we institute a protectionsist trade policy, growth will not be as robust as it would have been otherwise, or decline will be more severe that it would be otherwise.
There are certainly many other factors - should we continue to develop natural resources re: fracking, and the reserves are as large as some of the claims, we have the opportunity to be a net exporter of energy. This would certainly lead to economic growth - and would probably be large enough to overcome a protectionsist trade policy.
My comment was simply - your suggestion that instituting a protectionsist trade policy would help our economy is contradictory to economic theory and empirical data. The opposite has been true, especially since 1950.
lostand confused
2012 Dec 12, 11:28pm
You don't understand - the analysis was performed of tariffs/trade barriers independent of all other factors. That is, China would had even greater growth without the protectionism.
Sure . Whatever you say is right. Instead of having double digit growth, they would have triple digit growth. Conjecture at its best.
Conjecture at its best.
I don't know what else I can do - that paper clearly showed the negative correlation between tariffs and economic growth since 1950.
Triple digit growth no, but more than the realized "double digit" growth. By the way, China has had double digit growth over very short time frames, like 2006-2007, or 1992-1995.
lostand confused
2012 Dec 13, 12:04am
don't know what else I can do - that paper clearly showed the negative correlation between tariffs and economic growth since 1950.
Triple digit growth no, but more than the realized "double digit" growth. By the way, China has had double digit growth over very short time frames, like 2006-2007, or 1992-1995.
You claimed that tarriffs never help. But they do. Perhaps you can acknowledge that-as with most stuff in life-it depends.
You claimed that tarriffs never help. But they do. Perhaps you can acknowledge that-as with most stuff in life-it depends.
I amended it to say since 1950.
That said, show one instance since 1950 where implementation of tariffs helped economic growth.
lostand confused
2012 Dec 13, 12:12am
That said, show one instance since 1950 where implementation of tariffs helped economic growth
You gave the example of China- as a high tarriff country and now you ask me for an example?
You gave the example of China- as a high tarriff country and now you ask me for an example?
You can't read. China has high economic growth IN SPITE of high tariffs.
Show one instance of high tariffs CONTRIBUTING to economic growth.
Not high tariffs with high growth. China's growth has nothing to do with its protectionist tariff policies and everything to do with its supply of cheap labor and exploitation of its natural resources.
lostand confused
2012 Dec 13, 12:23am
You can't read. China has high economic growth IN SPITE of high tariffs.
Show one instance of high tariffs CONTRIBUTING to economic growth
Sure-anyone who doesn't see it your way can't be right. Now you are giving all sorts of excuses. You claim tarriffs never work. Then you amend it to say they won't work after 1950. Then you give the example of China as a high tarriff nation to back your claim. Then you say, well tarriffs don't really matter , it depends on other factors -ok now my head is spinning.
FortWayne
2012 Dec 13, 12:42am
Our economy is about as broken as NK's or Soviet Russia's actually.
Only the charity of the world is keeping things together here.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/NETEXP
Your ideology has no answer to this, childish beliefs in fantasy don't work in the real world.
Ideology of hard work and profit motivation never failed anyone. Ideology of envy and redistribution has failed many nations and crippled many economies.
Sure-anyone who doesn't see it your way can't be right. Now you are giving all sorts of excuses. You claim tarriffs never work. Then you amend it to say they won't work after 1950. Then you give the example of China as a high tarriff nation to back your claim. Then you say, well tarriffs don't really matter , it depends on other factors -ok now my head is spinning.
Your interpretation of my points further proves you cannot read. My only change was to amend to tariffs after 1950, as that is what the data supports. I was unaware of the study prior to this discussion so I amended my argument.
The rest of your post is garbage. I never claimed tariffs do not matter - I claimed tariffs do not contribute to economic growth. That you are unable to comprehend the fact that an economy may grow in spite of high tariffs is not my problem. There is not one factor that contributes to economic activity.
Unless you are willing to show support for your claim that tariffs will CONTRIBUTE to economic growth I am done with this discussion.
BobMSN
2012 Dec 13, 5:12am
Communism cannot prevail when people has freedom. That’s why only Cuba, North Korea can have communism for long time. European’s communism collapse at the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Yep, communism works only on captive customers.
Soviet style communism only works when population is terrified of being sent to a gulag to become a force of slave labor. But even that does not work for long.
Communism cannot prevail when people has freedom. That’s why only Cuba, North Korea can have communism for long time. European’s communism collapse at the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Their insecurity is best reflected in the fact that they only have 1-3 state run television network and that's it. That's the window into their insecure dark soul and a reflection of moral and spiritual bankruptcy.
lostand confused
2012 Dec 13, 6:20am
Instituting tariffs has hurt the economies of both countries involved 100% of the time it has been tried
The rest of your post is garbage. I never claimed tariffs do not matter - I claimed tariffs do not contribute to economic growth. That you are unable to comprehend the fact that an economy may grow in spite of high tariffs is not my problem. There is not one factor that contributes to economic activity.
Garbage in, garbage out. People on the extreme of the left or right constantly amuse me. They have a fixed idea, then try and fit their reality into that idea and then if caught in a situation where they can't explain it away, furiously back pedal and throw all sorts of garbage. Sigh-so predictable.
zzyzzx
2012 Dec 17, 10:29pm
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/20369056/belgium-welcomes-french-tax-exiles-minister-says#axzz2FPJrPQQs
Belgium welcomes French tax exiles
PARIS (AP) - Belgium's foreign minister says his country will welcome anyone from France who wants to follow actor Gerard Depardieu in escaping higher taxes.
Didier Reynders says Tuesday it's France's own fault if its citizens are leaving the country, and it shouldn't try to push the blame off on Belgium.
Reynders says in an interview in the French newspaper Le Figaro that France has no one else to blame. The country, he says, should "accept the consequences."
Last week Depardieu announced his intention to turn in his French passport and move to Nechin, Belgium, a village that has drawn other high-earning French residents.
lostand confused
2012 Dec 17, 10:38pm
Mind you, Belgium is no Hong Kong-where the max tax rate is 17% and there is no dividend/wealth/estate/capital gains taxes. Belgium maxes out at 50% or more of taxes.
New Renter
2012 Dec 18, 12:39am
Yep, communism works only on captive customers.
Soviet style communism only works when population is terrified of being sent to a gulag to become a force of slave labor. But even that does not work for long.
No system works for long.
Mind you, Belgium is no Hong Kong-where the max tax rate is 17% and there is no dividend/wealth/estate/capital gains taxes. Belgium maxes out at 50% or more of taxes.
Please don't confuse the ideologues with facts.
« First « Previous Comments 62 - 82 of 82 Search these comments
http://homes.yahoo.com/news/is-this-your-chance-to-pick-up-a-chateau-on-the-cheap--190653964.html
The French are fleeing. A spate of proposed tax hikes is leading hundreds of wealthy French to consider leaving the country and putting their homes on the market, real-estate agents say.
Several high-profile businessmen have already packed their bags. Former L'Oréal Chief Executive Lindsay Owen-Jones has taken up residence in Lugano, Switzerland. Belgium now counts Amaury de Sèze, who served as chairman of supermarket giant Carrefour, as a local. Nicolas Chanut, founder of French investment advisory firm Exane, moved to London.
Flush French are fleeing the new government's attempts to repair France's public finances by increasing taxes on salaries, capital gains and household wealth. Among the controversial proposals in the 2013 draft budget is a 75% tax rate on salaries higher than $1.3 million, up from less than 50% currently. "Wealthy French are not that masochistic," says Mr. Jottras.
Some aren't waiting for the new tax laws to pass, blaming their departure on what they call the government's antibusiness mentality. "Entrepreneurs have the impression that the country doesn't appreciate them," says Mr. Boichut. One of his clients with dual French and Italian citizenship is giving up his French passport in disgust, he says.