Senate College: Free Exchange of Ideas or Liberals Cancelling Chicken Sandwiches?

Maybe not now, but there were socialist groups who were anti-immigration in the 50s.

But, this is a proud achievement for me - got the resident left wing baiter to come out as a Marxist. Yet, I have proven this thread to be true! a college educated boy has indoctrinated someone to the Left.

*gasps*

 

Dang!

 

workers of the world America unite!

 

Make Socialism Isolationism Nationalism Marxism Consumerism Somethingism…Great Again!

 

America is great, but how could it be more greater? AIAGBICABMG

 

Socialism.

a joke.

 

That sounds good, but you would still allow foreign-based-and-founded companies to sell in the US, right?

I could see American business executives and entrepreneurs, with every intention to sell in the US, decide to found their subsidiary-company or startup in some other country first (like Canada) and then intend move in to the US, to get around this. And some of those entrepreneurs may never make their idea big enough to spread to the US, and stay in the foreign economy. So this might unintentionally hurt the US economy.

As for your response to my idea... it wouldn't be an international power like the EU or UN. It's not meant, in my mind, to be a top-down power, but a horizontal agreement between countries as sovereign equals. It would basically be NATO (but not limited to region, only limited by those requirements that are basically values, so countries like Australia and Japan can be included) if NATO countries also agreed they would only have free trade agreements with other NATO countries, and committed to sharing the same economic minimum standards and human rights. It would require unanimous consensus to change its charter. And if the US was a founding member of this Free Alliance, then we would have had to agree to the original charter. So the initial founding, and founders, would be immensely important to shape the character of the alliance. (As you probably know, I would personally like some healthcare and education requirements too... but I definitely do NOT want it to be dictated down to us by an unelected bureaucracy).

Here's another alternative I just thought of... instead of the ultimatum of compliance or not being allowed to sell, and the definition of what makes a company "American" possibly creating unintended loopholes that actually hurt our economy, how about something simpler? If a company closes down a site in the US and lays off American workers, and opens or expands a site overseas within 2 years with a similar function, then simply fine the company. Say 3-years-worth of whatever that individual's highest salary was in that company, per American worker laid off. And instead of this money going to the government, it goes directly to those workers who were laid off as taxable income. Maybe even have it so the default is that each company is forced to pay this fine whenever they lay someone off for reasons not relating to an employee's bad behavior, the government hangs on to it for 2 years, and if the company proves it didn't ship that job overseas in that period, then the company is repaid, and if not then it goes to the laid-off worker as taxable income. Basically mandating a big severance pay if the company ships the job overseas. I feel you might think this is big government, but your proposal seems kind of big-government too.

 

Erm, between FATCA and SOx, that's already the case.

J-Rod, as both an actual liberal, capitalist risk and compliance manager I'm reasonably well positioned to talk about the importance of investments; about macro-economics, and about regulation.

To argue your regulations have gone too far is absurd. One of the biggest critiques I have of Obama is that he bailed out the banking sector in 2008, a sector so full of systemic rot that it's back to the same practices it engaged in pre-bust. No realignment of risk appetites seems to have occurred, though there are some additional capital adequacy regulations in place thanks largely to the Basel III accords.

Anyone producing a service or good for consumers is competing on price. Innovation covers a lot of this - the cost of parts and the mechanisms for producing this good or service are reduced as part of the competitive landscape. Labour, therefore, becomes a flexible component - hence the offshoring of jobs. In simple terms, consumers will want to balance a number of factors when purchasing a good or service and cost is a significant part of it.

That is a natural part of progress and anyone, yourself and these "Marxists who haven't read Marx" wannabes here, should no more protest it than they should lament the sunsetting of the valuable industries of coopers, farriers and thatchers.

Concerns about the impact to domestic workers usually misses the point, which is par for the course for populists and pseudo-lefties. The worker hasn't been shafted; their industry is no longer relevant and they should be retrained. We fail in impressive ways to adequately manage this, and that's the real crime.

Taking the Trumponomics cause to heart and demanding in no uncertain terms the kind of economic nationalism that, without hyperbole and/or intended Godwin'ing of the thread, the Nazis used is not the answer. The answers are twofold, and one is monstrously complex.

1. Retain domestic workforces. When people complain about the wages in the developing world, they're broadcasting a spectacular ignorance of just about every macroeconomic concept known to man. Economies are like any other form of physical infrastructure - they need foundations. The point of contention over wage amounts is usually another way of saying "what ams PPP?" and does not consider that pre-foreign direct investments, the wages were even less. Investment in the country, for its cheap labour, leads to the creation of wealth. This is not theory, this is factual.

Case in point: http://www.economist.com/news/speci...s-larger-richer-and-more-vocal-ever-threatens

I have a subscription so if this is paywalled, let me know. But this sentence alone is a bullet to their bleeding heart nonsense: "Since 1978 more than 700m people have been lifted out of poverty. For the past four decades almost everyone could be confident that their children’s lives would be better than their own. "

Blue collar jobs that left the US left because they had died in the US, and what's really frustrating is that the workers are just ****ing playthings to Democrats and Trump. Promises to bring back jobs, or protect them going, are like shouting at an invading army to go home. Instead of finding industries that those labourers can be deployed to, they're left with promises their old life is coming back. And by promises, I of course mean, "lies."

2. Amend taxation laws to tax diverted profits - There's two things that annoy populists on both sides about multinationals. The first is that they don't understand purchasing power parity because they're either too busy feeding their victimhood anger; or they're too busy showing off trendy progressive sentiment to their echochamber friends. So they see a wage of US$2/day and assume that means the same as being paid US$2, in the US, a day.

Anyone who's travelled, which rules out most of the US lol, knows about purchasing power parity even if they don't know they know. It's the value of goods and services in another country or market. One of the things that gets people going to holiday in Croatia is that it's beautiful and cheap. Thailand, too, is beautiful and incredibly cheap. The value of currency and the cost of living is a fluid matter.

The other thing people hate then, besides labour costs and macroeconomics they don't understand, is when companies domicile their main legal entity in a low-tax jurisdiction like Ireland; treat their related bodies corporate as wholly owned subsidiaries and then "lend" IP licences and the like to those related bodies corporate in exchange for a licensing fee - diminishing or extinguishing their taxable income in a jurisdiction because the licensing fee is an operating expense.

Or, in simple terms, when Apple books all its profits from North America or Britain or Australia to the Republic of Ireland so it only pays 15% company tax.

Ireland does this because on volume alone it makes up the tax revenue and can, after its economy slumped, thrive and propser. Its citizens benefit, as does the state. The incentive for them to stop is non-existant, and that's correct.

Apple does it because they're bastards concieved by a dead bastard who died of karma.

It's not illegal, too. That's why the OECD failed to deal with it. We've just passed laws to tax your Apples and Googles at 40% of pre-licenced revenue, or if they declare the income properly in Australia, the company tax rate of 15%. But that will likely face challenges too.

In solving this problem, you are providing a solid revenue/funding base for the US which, after defence squandering, can be spent on infrastructure improvement which... could hire blue collar workers from other manual labour jobs that have vanished. And with improved infrastructure and hell, even improved workforce participation, you have an additional set of revenue streams which can fund education and Wicked Socialist Healthcare.

It sounds simple, and it kind of is, but only with a few things you don't have.

1) A competent economic manager in president
2) A vision for the future that's grounded in reality
3) A functioning legislature
4) The will to tackle profit offshorting

I mean, #4 is the closest to real you have. But #3, and its coterie of lobbyists, make #4 hard to achieve.

Nothing you've said, J-Rod, is even close to the medicine for the problems you describe.

 

You'll note the highly specific context of my attempting to rebut J-Rod's argument that his plan did otherwise rather than being a comment on current laws.

 

Yes I was actually trying to provide an agreement in support of your fruitless attempt to drag J-Rod away from full on fascist economics.

 

Oh, well, carry on then.

 

I mean, Rodonomics, a subset of Trumponomics, a subset of Reaganonomics (itself a complete failure to understand supply-side), basically promises glory days of worker wages that can fill a wheelbarrow!

 

It doesn't really matter. Rising costs due to environmental deterioration will lead to the eventual death of the international production chain and the return of jobs, although of course the administration du jour will insist that it was all thanks to them. Of course, mechanization will run rampant, as the introduction of robotics and the reduction of work positions are seen as desirable if not inevitable because the top-down point of view is the only one that matters, so unemployment will actually go up and people will run in circles blaming each other. And then we die.

 

Promises, promises.

 

yes, "you're all too stupid to see that the jobs are dying off". No, we're just arguing with someone desperately clinging to a manufacturing economy so we're attempting to show him that it's impossible to compete in that with current living standards in the western world. Of course we're not attempting to save these jobs. That's what American conservatives promise to do and that's why the rust belt keeps voting for them, because at least they're pretending to address the issue, but the so-called "psuedo-leftists" in this thread are not arguing to keep those sectors afloat. I know for a fact that pretty much everyone in this thread is left of Democrats.
And why are you trying to pretend like you're anything but a capitalist pig soaking up all of the benefits that entails?

"you don't get it these labor forces need to be exploited for their own good". Do you just completely ignore the interference of western capital in the affairs of these developing nations over the last century for their own gain or what? "well, it's not great, but before the injection of foreign capital they were all farming and eating their own **** and whatnot instead of producing iPhones for 12 hours a day for a roof over their head. that's wealth creation, baby!"
Let me stop you before you get in on the "but wealth can only be created when high-risk is incentivized". Ok. There is like, zero risk involved with deciding to offshore callcenters or whatever instead of putting them in more developed areas. But I guess you would probably know all about that and I'm sure you'll share because if there's anything you love more than haughtily explaining the system by which you are capable of procuring your James Bond watches and sexually arousing vehicles, I haven't seen you mention it. But you are the real liberal here, because you understand that there must be a wealthy class because otherwise no one would be able or willing to do anything innovative.

Before foreign injections of capital, you see, people were really very poor and now they're just very poor. Capitalism is the only mechanism capable of dragging them through the mud out of their plight. The system works. There's just nothing else for it. Labor must be patient. Capital will save them, it always has done. No patience, that's the fault of the pseudo-left. Short-sighted marxist hippies that think, stupidly, that anyone has anything except their own self-interest in mind. Yes, TRUE liberal capitalism will save us. It will save us all. And you should know, it's working out great for you, and for those currently being exploited, it will work for them as well. In a few generations or so. Until capital moves on to the next developed country, or whatever.

 

Mate I already established you don't know what you're talking about, so attempting to insert generic Other People's Ideas in support of it is redundant. You're basically ignoring history on an assumption of Western exceptionalism.

I'm actually unsure where to begin, because whilst Macroeconomics 101 would be a good springboard a history of the industrial revolution with a history of foreign direct investment, a case study on China from Nixon's visit to today, and a paper on the evolution in development economics from 1945-2005 are all equally essential.

And whilst the woke haute couture of your beliefs may provide you with comfort, I'm unsure why you're so proud of doing no research, letting other people "think" (really, feel) for you, and repeating a bunch of prefab slogans?

Any time you want to form a treasonous opinion of your very own, I'm happy to answer questions truthfully and honestly to guide you on your path.

 

She's a woman.

 

Apologies. I'll amend.

 

Ah yes. Ender 101.

1) you don't know what you're talking about
2) get your own original ideas

now let me tell you about macroeconomics some more and how, actually, the wealth gap is good.

 

The decline in global poverty can be traced to the rise of economic freedom; so, to an extent, liberal capitalism has saved us. Cato Institute did a fine study into it.

Btw, the "wealth gap" is down to a failure of central government and not the market. If governments, like the United States, do not address tax and social reforms - it has nothing to do with those pesky capitalists.

 

Thank you, Daniel.

I'm good, pig.

 

You forgot "3) what have you actually ever done to help anyone?"

 

It. was. in. the. former. post:

"Since 1978 more than 700m people have been lifted out of poverty. For the past four decades almost everyone could be confident that their children’s lives would be better than their own."

1978 is significant because it's when Deng XiaoPing started the Gǎigé kāifàng, or "reform and opening up" period of Chinese economics following the disasterous Maoist years. Not that centrally planned economies fail, of course, they're tops.

They started decentralising certain industries (agriculture, manufacturing) and courting direct foreign investment. Private sector growth, (and that carries with it increased wages), came to account for 70% of GDP by the mid 2000s. And their annualised growth rate was 9.5%.

Now before you fire off some woke af copypasta my way, again - they also lifted seven hundred million people out of poverty in this period and as a result of these reforms.

Now China was able to do this is a 30 year period because of foreign investment and cheap labour costs; not inspite of it. And being woke af, I know you spend a lot of time reading economic analysis so you'd know now the consensus is that Chinese wage growth has basically undermined China's competitive advantage; it is only able to stay competitive with places like Bangladesh because China's infrastructure - ranging from mindboggling economies of scale to logistics operations (they can have goods made and on a ship/plane faster than anyone else by a significant margin) - is the best in the world.

So yeah, I mean, not only have 700,000,000 people been lifted out of poverty but their wages have grown so much that they're no longer cheap labour. It's almost like the... economists said it would be?

But, like, exploitation. Wage gap. Materialism. You're too woke for this other stuff. The people, exploited, etc. Cliche Guevara was right, you know, it's about love.