Walmart

[Robert]

Moot point because most jobs are going to China...over 3 million jobs lost and counting. Even going to Mexico is about bypassing laws here in the states. This lame excuse that it's okay to exploit others because their government allows it is nothing more than self-justification of one's sins – in particular Corporate America!

According to James 2:9, partiality is sin. This principle must be also applied to business or corruption and its consequences will soon set in. Bottom line is if the world is going to attempt a global business we must all work under the same laws.

[Dr. Shane]

The jobs going overseas is raising the standard of living for those that get the jobs. I have not seen anything that shows me people working in American factories abroad were worse off after they got a job at the factory than before. Thus, sending jobs overseas is wealth redistribution. Instead of Americans paying other Americans for goods and keeping the money in the American economy, Americans pay foreigners for goods and thus spread the wealth.

[olger]

I still shop Walmart.

[there buster]

Quote:

It is a mistake to assume that, just because you have successfully fallen the first 99ft of a 100ft fall, the next 2 ft will be just the same...

The mistake is to insist we're falling, when all the evidence suggests just the opposite. More jobs, more affluence, more leisure, more buying power. . .

If the whole world could have "fallen" the same way, material poverty would be abolished.

But as to your other posts. . . .I'm intrigued. I have to have a growth removed from my head. Afterwards I'll address some of those other issues.

[Dr. Shane]

American manufacturing is growing in output but due to the growth of other sectors of our economy it is shrinking in the percentage of our economy that it makes up. Due to automation and other advancing technologies, American factories are producing more with less workers so while output is growing, the number of Americans working in the industry is shrinking.

[james423]

To me one of the biggest pushes behind the outsourcing of jobs came from CEO's who stood to make bigger bonuses as a result. Charles Tandy of the Tandy Corporation (Radio Shack, etc) started that years ago.

The New York Stock Market traders thought this was great. The other day I noticed a news article that mentioned that these same traders are noticing that their influence in the global financial markets isn't quite what it used to be - some fears were even expressed that they would start losing their jobs. Wonder why?

[there buster]

Quote:

You are making a proposal - you think that pure enterprenurial spirit will make it happen.

I mentioned more than just that, but it is a central part.

Quote:

Should we DECREASE taxing manufacturers and/or INCREASE taxing imports to level the playing field so that the incentive to import to avoid paying taxes is avoided?

Neither. The free market is an information system. When we distort the market, we give ourselves false information. Bad information leads to bad decisions.

There's no point in taxing corporations. Corporations don't pay taxes, they collect them. They write off taxes as a cost of doing business, with the result that the taxes become part of the price of their products and services. Therefore, the consumer pays the tax. And it's a regressive tax to boot. People with low incomes use almost all of their income to purchase things produced by corporations, and thus pay most of the tax. Wealthy individuals put large portions of their income into investments, etc. which are far less affected by the taxes.

Taxing imports also distorts the information used to make decisions.

Quote:

Should we continue to fund health care the way we do - all health care professionals agree the current system is absurd.

Health care professionals are not notably clever about economics.

Quote:

Should we continue to honor foolish property grants from the past? If George Washington had given his son all land west of the Mississippi, would we honor that grant today? Was it really his to give?

I really have no idea what you're talking about here. But the sanctity of contracts makes economic growth possible.

Quote:

Right now the USA does have central planning through the legal system - the liability laws, for instance, where you and I can enter into a contract and then have some random jury overturn it and award you millions of dollars in compensation because I did exactly what the contract said I would do

Having a legal system is not central planning. There are good laws and bad laws.

As to the lawsuit problem, tort reform is indeed a critical need.

To reiterate, the free market is an information system. It is not perfect or flawless, just better than any other mechanism.

Now, some will argue that free markets are immoral. But that's ridiculous. Free markets are amoral, that is, they are not and cannot be arbiters of morality.

The flip side is that markets cannot establish or maintain morality. We can outlaw prostitution, the market will tell us that because we have constrained supply, and demand remains constant, the price has gone up. That doesn't tell us whether we should outlaw prostitution or not, only what outlawing it does to the price.

When Jim Wallis tells us that "a [national] budget is a moral document," he's attempting to turn the information from a particularly constrained and distorted market into a diagnosis of morality of the whole population.

[bevin]

Quote:

There's no point in taxing corporations.

But we do it

How do you suggest the government raises money?

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Statistics also tell us that when imports go up, so do exports and when exports drop so do imports. It is simply the cycle of economic activity going up and down. Taxing imports will slow down economic activity which will impact exports too.

US companies also invest more in European Union countries than they do in China. Open, free markets promote economic activity which will help everyone. Nations that still have sweatshops need to look to their own governments to eliminate them and not blame them on international business practices.

Many of these international businesses, like Wal-Mart, do not support new government regulations in the countries that still have sweat shops. However they are acting in their own self-interest which is what the consumer demands. These governments simply need to take the required measures to protect their citizens.

Yet to put it in perspective let's consider that Country X permits sweat shops and these sweat shops pay $2/day. 3M decides to build a factory there and comes to an agreement with the government to pay the workers $3/day. The workers still end up working in sweat shop conditions but but making more money than they could in the other factories. Thus 3M saves a bunch of money on labor and the local workers get better jobs. 3M is going to produce the cheapest product they can because that is what the market demands. It is the local government or unions that must require better working conditions. That is how things changed here in the US and how they must change elsewhere.

[there buster]

Quote:

How do you suggest the government raises money?

Flat tax of 10%. Works for God.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

How do you suggest the government raises money?

I don't think there is any good answer to the best way for government to raise money which is why the tax laws seem to always be changing. Sticking close to a balanced budget and thus reducing the need for high taxes is the best course of action but runs completely against the way Washington works.

Corporations do pass their tax burden onto the consumer at every level. I do it on the projects I build. If the government were to raise taxes on building material or services it will immediately cause the cost of construction to increase. We don't pay taxes, we collect them.

In the US the wealthy class do pay the overwhelming share of the taxes which is for the benefit of the poor. Some claim that is immoral and not fair. I have listened to their arguments but I am not sure it is. Rich people didn't make their money in a vacuum and have an obligation to the society that gave them ability and opportunity to create wealth. Certainly I do not want to tax the rich so much that they are discouraged from creating wealth. But I do not think the poor man should have to contribute the same percentage of his income to taxes as does the wealthy.

[there buster]

Quote:

But I do not think the poor man should have to contribute the same percentage of his income to taxes as does the wealthy.

God got it wrong, then?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Health care professionals are not notably clever about economics.

I think we have beat up on Bevin enough. Let's not pile on.

Quote:

God got it wrong, then?

Well, 10% was for the priesthood. If we are going to build roads, maintain a military, pay for education, police force, and so many other services... I am not sure 10% will cover it.

[Woody]

Quote:

But I do not think the poor man should have to contribute the same percentage of his income to taxes as does the wealthy.

Well ... we could follow the example of the early Seventh day Adventist Church and the way they required tithe paying.

The tithe was for only members from the ages of 18 to 60 and it was 5 to 20 cents for men and from 2 to 10 cents for women "according to the ability of the donor". And for those who owned property it was 1 to 5 cents for every $100 of its value.

It appeared the GC was concerned with age and ability to pay tithe. It wasn't until 1879 that the actual ten percent policy was adopted by the GC.

They seemed to be concerned more about the person's ability to pay back then. I guess times have changed for the nation as well as the church.

[olger]

Bevin said: "[businesses] write off taxes as a cost of doing business, with the result that the taxes become part of the price of their products and services. Therefore, the consumer pays the tax. And it's a regressive tax to boot. People with low incomes use almost all of their income to purchase things produced by corporations, and thus pay most of the tax."

Olger said "He's correct."

As a business owner, I know this to be true.

Personally, I think Steve Forbes' flat tax makes a lot of sense.

olger

[bevin]

Quote:

Flat tax of 10%. Works for God.

Yeah - but they are willing donors, and (as Shane points out) this only funded a small set of items.

As Shane said, every alternative seems to have plusses and minuses.

Here are some of the choices

(a) No government - the government provides no services, hence needs no income!

( User pays - the government runs some services, and the people who need them pay for them

© Property tax - each person pays some fraction of what they possess

(d) Flat fee - each person pays the same amount

(e) Income tax - each person pays some fraction of their income

(f) Sales tax - each persons pays some fraction of what they spend

(g) Rental and sales income - the government owns some assets and either rents or sells them

And here is some of what the government can provide

(a) a civil law system

( a criminal law system

© a military system

(d) a health care system

(e) an education system

(f) an child welfare system

(g) an incompetent-adult welfare system

(h) a competent-adult welfare system

(i) a transportation system

(j) a communication system

(k) an environmental protection system

(l) a border protection system

In practise voters cause politicians to doing varying amounts of each kind of revenue gathering, and provide varying levels of each of the services.

Schemes like (for instance) "Flat tax of 10%. Works for God" need to (a) define income, ( what services they think this will fund.

Consider, for instance, a corporation called "MyClan" which pays has no employees, which organizes volunteers (my family members) doing tasks (painting other peoples houses) for money, and which (from that money) provides 3 company picnics per day, company housing, company clothing, etc. to the volunteers.

Clearly the volunteers have no income, hence pay no taxes.

Clearly we shouldn't tax corporations, because that would distort the economy and send false information.

Clearly everybody would set up one of these things right away, as soon as we switched to not taxing corporations, and hence clearly governments can not provide any services.

Such countries (where the governments do almost nothing) exist. They are the poorest on the planet.

There is a reason that they are called "corporations", and the "corp" part is the same as in "corpse". Look at

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

Corporations are actually collections of people - and should be treated legally like that.

Clearly writers specialising in conning people with touchy-feely relationship mumbo-jumbo are even worse at economics that health-care professionals.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

Yeah - but they are willing donors,

This, of course, is irrelevant. Taxation, like other government demands, is collected through the threat of violence.

Quote:

In practise voters cause politicians to doing varying amounts of each kind of revenue gathering, and provide varying levels of each of the services.

Lower levels of taxation would force real choices to be made. Families have to make such choices, so should government.

Quote:

Schemes like (for instance) "Flat tax of 10%. Works for God" need to (a) define income, ( what services they think this will fund.

Of course. So does any other system.

Quote:

Consider, for instance, a corporation called "MyClan" . . . .

No point, because something like that would be possible under any sytem. Non-profit corporations today could be set up in that way, but it would be seen a sophistry.

As someone who actually has participated in writing and administering legislation, that's where so-called "loopholes" come from. Legislation is a blunt, slow-moving instrument. Legislators get one chance to get it right, and evaders get as long as it takes to find a way around it. Later legislation deals with such abuses, but given the nature of the two parties, and the incentives, the evaders will always the advantage.

As far as the derivation of 'corporation,' yes, I know what it means. Doesn't change the reality of the effects of taxing them, which are purely regressive.

Lower, simpler taxes reduce the incentive for evasion. Nothing will eliminate it.

All this, and more, can be found in the works of the late Milton Friedman.

I'll be happy to share your evaluations of my economic ideas with one of my parishioners, who's writing his dissertation in economics. We discuss these issues regularly, and he has an excellent sense of humor.

[bevin]

Quote:

This, of course, is irrelevant. Taxation, like other government demands, is collected through the threat of violence.

Not irrelevant - because it affects how carefully you have to define people's contribution - reflected in your comment later about loop holes.

Quote:

Lower levels of taxation would force real choices to be made. Families have to make such choices, so should government.

100% agreement

I particularly object to my taxes subsidising tobacco farmers, NASA and the Arts.

Quote:

Lower, simpler taxes reduce the incentive for evasion. Nothing will eliminate it.

Also 100% agreement - US tax code is far far too complex.

Quote:

We discuss these issues regularly, and he has an excellent sense of humor.

which I have no doubt you regularly exercise :-)

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

Quote:

Health care professionals are not notably clever about economics.

I think we have beat up on Bevin enough. Let's not pile on.

I did not intend to "beat up" on bevin. I do not know what bevin does for a living. My reply was to his statement that "all health care professionals" agree. It was not personal.

Health care professionals are not economists. Agreement that current funding doesn't work is not the same thing as knowing the correct solution.

[olger]

Quote:

But I do not think the poor man should have to contribute the same percentage of his income to taxes as does the wealthy.

God got it wrong, then?

.

I heard Forbes explain his flat tax theory in Dayton, last fall. He got a standing ovation (on a University campus nonetheless).

Makes a lot of sense.

[bevin]

Quote:

Health care professionals are not economists. Agreement that current funding doesn't work is not the same thing as knowing the correct solution.

Agreed. I never claimed that they were economists or knew the correct solution.

Going back to earlier points, though - specifically taxing imports.

If we insist the factories in the USA pay their workers enough to meet specific goals, and we insist that they pay taxes into the general fund, and we insist that they meet various environmental standards - this adds a financial burden on them that is not present in some other countries.

So, as we have observed, this causes the goods produced in these factories to be more expensive to the consumer - causing the USA factory to go out of business - causing three things...

(a) The workers to find other employment - but lets assume they can

( The taxes to be lost to the general fund - but hopefully the workers new jobs will be at places that replace this

© The environmental damage to happen, since the new site is not meeting the same standards we were enforcing here. Now this would not matter if the damage was local - but often it is global...

Ed believes (a) and ( - there will always be new jobs that pay as well, and that the loss of govt revenue is acceptable. I remain to be convinced - I think that, at least in some segments of USA society, standards of living will go down - see Detroit autoworkers for the low end, New England high-tech for the high end.

The environmental issue is more challenging - because right now we are a primary polluter, because of our many low emissions sources compared to other countries few high emissions sources.

While we are the richest country and amongst the highest polluters, we can't expect other countries to do anything other than watch after their own best interests.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

in some segments of USA society, standards of living will go down - see Detroit autoworkers

Yeah, it's really tough for the whaling industry (outlawed), the buggy-whip industry, typewriter repair professionals, carburetor manufacterers, gas-light factories, steam locomotive workers--the list is nearly endless. Times change.

Whether there will always be better jobs depends upon a whole list of factors, most of which are not economic, but have economic consequences.

[bevin]

Agreed

[Robert]

....sending jobs overseas is wealth redistribution.

1] You aren't addressing the issue of unfair trade.

2] Sending jobs overseas is about making rich folks richer while exploiting the poor. Of course they will never say that, instead they'll play the self-righteous card.

3] I hope your job goes overseas and then you'll whistle a different tune.

[Robert]

The mistake is to insist we're falling, when all the evidence suggests just the opposite. More jobs, more affluence, more leisure, more buying power. . .

More McDonalds jobs! How wonderful....

Yes, more money, but mostly in the hands of the super rich who bribe Washington to create these unfair trade laws.

Watch Lou Dobbs, he can set you straight.

Rob