patrick.net

david1 says

It wouldn't have mattered which countries I used to compare here - you would have had a criticism - though in culture, geographic location, infrastructure, etc. these two are nearly identical. For a quick and easy argument, there are few better. The largest two differences are tariffs and size of population. I could have chosen Hong Kong and Serbia, which have similar populations, but you would have had an argument against that too.

You can't make an argument for your case, so you claim your argument is the only way and so you don't need proof. It would if you make a valid comparision. Chinese GDP has improved by leaps and bound despite their tarriffs and currency ploys-or rather inspite of it.

Now you claim Hong Kong as an example of low tarriffs, but they also have very low income taxes. It starts at 2% and the highest is 17% . Dividends, capital gains, inheritance etc is not taxed at all. Also Hong Kong does not tax income earned outside Hong KOng. Our country does all of this and is still in a massive dark hole.

Peter P says

Why are corporations more efficient than governments? Perhaps it has something to do with one dollar one vote versus one person one vote.

Your a foolish, foolish person to believe such horseshit. Gullible comes to mind.

reggie says

Excess taxes will eventually make a country become like south Africa. France is on it's way. America is next if the freeloaders get their way.

Just like under Clinton and even under Reagan when they were even higher.
How foolish are you?

121212 says

reggie says

Excess taxes will eventually make a country become like south Africa. France is on it's way. America is next if the freeloaders get their way.

Just like under Clinton and even under Reagan when they were even higher.

How foolish are you?

It is not the present state but the trend that is worrisome.

And the 250k = rich nonsense.

Poverty is not caused by failures. It is caused by successes. Meeting a low bar is much worse than missing a high one.

lostand confused says

You can't make an argument for your case, so you claim your argument is the only way and so you don't need proof.

This is funny. What do you want, a mathematical illustration on deadweight loss? I provided a link to an about.com page with a quote, you counterargued with a genetic fallacy.

Here is a nice paper summing the correlation analysis.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=high%20tariffs%20hurt%20both%20countries&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.203.4703%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=R-XIUM-rOZGB0AHZ54G4Dg&usg=AFQjCNFjYnnKfu5w3YP6RPYt9gwzRhKl0Q

if you want the theory behind the correlation, here it is. I know you will revert to another genetic fallacy with this link, but it may help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

Basically, this shows that imposing a tariff increases the market price of a good above the "free" world price. This causes an shift to the left in the supply curve. That means the market will now demand less - meaning the export nation will sell less. This also hurts the economy of the importer, as some of its consumers will no longer purchase the product at the new price. This loss of economic activity in the import nation hurts its economy because resources are not being used efficiently. Some production in this country will shift to this new "Tariff Protected" inefficient industry and away from some other unprotected efficient industry. Here is a more thorough anlysis of deadweight loss if you require.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w6852.pdf

You call me a Commie but this is essentially what Communist states have done to great detriment of their economies. So much production is focused on inefficient industries that the entire economy has become inefficient. Look at North Korea or Cuba.

So there you have it. Correlation analysis. Mathematical theory. Layperson explanantion. Historical example.

What else do you need?

david1 says

This loss of economic activity in the import nation hurts its economy because resources are not being used efficiently.

The most "efficient" solution is fire most of your people, reinstitute slavery. Or use robots or create Morlochs to fill this role. I'm not much for "make work" jobs either, but frankly there's an endpoint to the worship of perfect efficency I don't like either.

david1 says

This is funny. What do you want, a mathematical illustration on deadweight loss? I provided a link to an about.com page with a quote, you counterargued with a genetic fallacy.
Here is a nice paper summing the correlation analysis.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=high%20tariffs%20hurt%20both%20countries&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.203.4703%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=R-XIUM-rOZGB0AHZ54G4Dg&usg=AFQjCNFjYnnKfu5w3YP6RPYt9gwzRhKl0Q
if you want the theory behind the correlation, here it is. I know you will revert to another genetic fallacy with this link, but it may help you:

This is funny. The title of your paper is ,"WHY DID THE TARIFF-GROWTH CORRELATION CHANGE AFTER 1950?" Yet you claim tarriffs never work . Throwing out some big words and theories and claiming what you say is absolute fact just because you say it is-does not make it so.

david1 says

The problem isn't that they don't pay taxes, the problem is they don't make enough to pay taxes.
I am sure if you asked any one of the 47% who don't pay taxes they would gladly pay them if you doubled their income.

Really?? Like your favorite pinhead lib, Elizabeth Warren said, "...on the roads the rest of us paid for." Yup, she said it, the roads that the REST of us paid for.

Look, if a person is really disabled or elderly, fine I'm all for supporting them. But ONLY they should not be paying taxes, everyone else should pay a portion of what they earn to help the country continue to survive. No, we don't need to punish you if you succeed, afterall, if you fail (with the exception of union industries that Obama props up like GM) we don't bail you out. If I drop $250K or $1Million dollars into a company and for whatever reason it fails, I fail. Point of fact, a company that my wife just started work for about a month ago looks like it's about to go under, and there appears to be about $250K of one man's savings that will be going down with it. The government and people like you don't care, but if he had made it, THEN you want to tax him extra. Amazing, and by the way, you might want to find a better source that Warren to get quotes from, she's far from brilliant.

david1 says

Raising tax rates to Clinton-era levels

No, if you want to raise the rates, raise them for EVERYONE to what they were during that era. ALSO lower the spending (in terms of amount spent as a % of GNP) to what it was during the Clinton era. Deal???

I'm surprised Conservatives are holding up the French as an example.

Well, an example of correct behavior anyhow. NeoCon favorite jokes about the French usually include one about them surrendering or fleeing before the Germans. Everything about them is detestable apparently. I suppose RICH French people are a different matter, money is the sort of cologne that makes 'em swoon. THESE fleeing Frenchmen, man they are HOT. Aside from being beautiful and well-dressed, they are CREATORS and once they desert the country France is going to turn from Paradise into Hell on Earth overnight. In this case fleeing shows how GREAT they are.

I vaguely recall some previous instance of France's Rich & Powerful fleeing the country. How'd that work out in the long run? I forget. Did those rich folks retain their grip or did it all slip away.

They are not fleeing, just voting with their feet.

I note in the article that the 3 example rich peopler are "former CEO", and "once headed" and "founder".

So, none of these people are any longer "job creators". A handful of Crotchety Richy Rich hangs their hat on "taxes" as the reason they are leaving, instead of some other reason. From this we are supposed to deduce that France will be crippled and that all rich people will avoid the new taxes thus.

Anecdotes and supposition. We'll see how the revenue goes next year. Running an experiment is always better IMO than WAG.

Geez, more entitled whining rich people whining about tax. Geez, STFU and pay for a proper tax expert.

Melmakian says

david1 says

I am sure if you asked any one of the 47% who don't pay taxes they would gladly pay them if you doubled their income.

Then I'd say you live in an alternate reality.

Not only do people who make more get taxed more, but they lose their welfare bennies as well. Working single moms in particular.

I am not sure what the law is but I doubt that anyone can be on welfare for life at this point. Also, I believe there are some restriction such as not being able to have $2,000 in the bank account. No self respecting person will aim for such bastardly existence as if it's some sort of gold raining from the sky. So, yes I do believe that most normal people would deem a higher paying job/pay more taxes more favorable than live like a rat/pay no taxes.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

FortWayne says

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

meanwhile, here in the real world:

http://emsnews.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/happiest-nations-are-mostly-northern-socialist-nations/

does it trouble you that your worldview is entirely fraudulent, built on lies you've been told?

Bellingham Bill says

FortWayne says

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

meanwhile, here in the real world:

http://emsnews.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/happiest-nations-are-mostly-northern-socialist-nations/

does it trouble you that your worldview is entirely fraudulent, built on lies you've been told?

Somehow that North Korea place or Russia make it on that list.

FortWayne says

Somehow that North Korea place or Russia make it on that list.

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.

What does demonstrably work is whatever Germany, Sweden, Norway, and a few other countries are doing.

Not that they are perfect, but I would much rather be a random newborn in those countries than here, lemme tell you.

lostand confused says

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?

david1 says

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.

lostand confused says

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.

david1 says

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.

lostand confused says

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.

david1 says

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.

lostand confused says

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.

david1 says

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?

lostand confused says

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.

david1 says

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.

Bellingham Bill says

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.

lostand confused says

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.

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.

Peter P says

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.

BobMSN says

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.

david1 says

Instituting tariffs has hurt the economies of both countries involved 100% of the time it has been tried

david1 says

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.

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.

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.

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.

dublin hillz says

Peter P says

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.

lostand confused says

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.