The "RECOVERY"

[indago]

Journalist Annie Lowrey wrote for The New York Times 27 April 2014:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deep recession wiped out primarily high-wage and middle-wage jobs. Yet the strongest employment growth during the sluggish recovery has been in low-wage work, at places like strip malls and fast-food restaurants. In essence, the poor economy has replaced good jobs with bad ones.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/business/economy/recovery-has-created-far-more-low-wage-jobs-than-better-paid-ones.html?ref=todayspaper)


Wow! What a revelation! Like we didn't know that already...

[indago]

Eduardo Porter wrote for The New York Times 15 March 2016:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Voters’ anger and frustration, driven in part by relentless globalization and technological change, may not propel either candidate to the presidency. But it is already having a big impact on America’s future, shaking a once-solid consensus that freer trade is, necessarily, a good thing. ...What seems most striking is that the angry working class — dismissed so often as myopic, unable to understand the economic trade-offs presented by trade — appears to have understood what the experts are only belatedly finding to be true: The benefits from trade to the American economy may not always justify its costs. ...Wages remain low and unemployment high in the most affected local job markets. Nationally, there is no sign of offsetting job gains elsewhere in the economy. What’s more, they found that sagging wages in local labor markets exposed to Chinese competition reduced earnings by $213 per adult per year.

In another study they wrote with Daron Acemoglu and Brendan Price from M.I.T., they estimated that rising Chinese imports from 1999 to 2011 cost up to 2.4 million American jobs.

...Global trade offers undeniable benefits. It helped pull hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty... ...The Chinese export onslaught, however, left a scar on the American working class that has not healed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/business/economy/on-trade-angry-voters-have-a-point.html?ref=todayspaper)

Like we didn't know this was going to happen...

[fj1200]

The "Recovery" is not the fault of free trade or China.

The Benefits of Free Trade: A Guide For Policymakers (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2000/08/the-benefits-of-free-trade-a-guide-for-policymakers)
International trade is the framework upon which American prosperity rests. Free trade policies have created a level of competition in today's open market that engenders continual innovation and leads to better products, better-paying jobs, new markets, and increased savings and investment. Free trade enables more goods and services to reach American consumers at lower prices, thereby substantially increasing their standard of living.
Moreover, the benefits of free trade extend well beyond American households. Free trade helps to spread the value of freedom, reinforce the rule of law, and foster economic development in poor countries. The national debate over trade-related issues too often ignores these important benefits.

We've been lagging behind while the rest of the world has made themselves more competitive.

[indago]

The "Recovery" is not the fault of free trade or China.

The Benefits of Free Trade: A Guide For Policymakers (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2000/08/the-benefits-of-free-trade-a-guide-for-policymakers)



We've been lagging behind while the rest of the world has made themselves more competitive.

That is an OLD article. Get with the times...

[fj1200]

That is an OLD article. Get with the times...

Basic conservative ideas are as salient as ever. Free trade is good. Government ideas of "protection" are not.

[fj1200]

article (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/business/economy/on-trade-angry-voters-have-a-point.html?ref=todayspaper)

Like we didn't know this was going to happen...

It didn't happen in Germany:


Germany, for example, not only received a surge of Chinese imports, but also experienced an onslaught of imports from Eastern European countries after the collapse of the Soviet bloc. But it managed to maintain a more balanced trade because German manufacturers increased their exports to all these countries too, offsetting the job losses from import competition (http://www.voxeu.org/article/globalisation-and-job-biographies-german-manufacturing-workers).
Mr. Autor suggests that Americans’ low savings rate was a big part of the story, coupled with foreigners’ appetite for accumulating dollar assets, which helped keep American interest rates low and the dollar strong, in that way fueling a persistent trade deficit.But other factors were at work. Robert Gordon of Northwestern University suggested to me that Germany’s highly skilled workers were harder to replace with cheaper Chinese labor, limiting though not totally eliminating (http://ftp.iza.org/dp9194.pdf)outsourcing. Germany’s stronger labor unions also put up more of a fight.

Germany has far better export policies than we do IMO which I think explains why they didn't have the same results that we did.

[Russ]

It didn't happen in Germany:



Germany has far better export policies than we do IMO which I think explains why they didn't have the same results that we did.


Whatever Germany's export policies are, they are like the US in that they will soon get a new Chancellor/President because of borders that are too open.

[indago]

Basic conservative ideas are as salient as ever. Free trade is good. Government ideas of "protection" are not.

You didn't address the costs...

[fj1200]

Whatever Germany's export policies are, they are like the US in that they will soon get a new Chancellor/President because of borders that are too open.

Which is a completely different topic.


You didn't address the costs...

And neither did your link; there is a cost of protectionism and that cost is borne by the consumers. Your link was also premised on a static analysis and basically posited that we could have acted as if China never existed as a trading partner. Besides, nobody forced us to trade with China, they are, or were anyway, a low-cost, labor intensive producer and will excel at products that are best produced by that combination. We are a high-labor cost, capital intensive producer and should excel at products that are best produced by that combination. Unfortunately we, Congress, has enacted policies that are counter to that (ACA, Dodd/Frank, etc.) as well as failed to enact policies that will enhance that (cut corporate income tax, etc.) combination. Post WWII Europe was an economic wasteland and we helped them get back on their feet and the US was not undermined, Japan was an economic wasteland that eventually was "buying up America" and the US was not undermined. You can repeat the story with countless countries and we were not undermined. The risk is not that other countries catch up with us, the risk is that we do this to ourselves and we don't advance.

[indago]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by indago
You didn't address the costs...



(http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=805992#post805992)
And neither did your link

It was written: "The benefits from trade to the American economy may not always justify its costs"... then went on to address some of them. So, you are, again, rambling = making up some kind of strawman to argue about so that it will look like you have contributed something...

[indago]

It didn't happen in Germany:



Germany has far better export policies than we do IMO which I think explains why they didn't have the same results that we did.


Germany doesn't have "free trade agreements", as such. Germany has "a vast and half-hidden thicket of de facto non-tariff trade barriers". They call them “trade balancing measures”.


article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/how-do-other-nations-bala_b_628157.html)

[fj1200]

It was written: "The benefits from trade to the American economy may not always justify its costs"... then went on to address some of them. So, you are, again, rambling = making up some kind of strawman to argue about so that it will look like you have contributed something...

Let me know when we can discuss it rather than blather at each about "you didn't either." Nevertheless I didn't suggest that there were no costs with free trade but there are also costs with protectionism. If costs are going to be discussed they need to be raised on both sides.


Germany doesn't have "free trade agreements", as such. Germany has "a vast and half-hidden thicket of de facto non-tariff trade barriers". They call them “trade balancing measures”.

Excellent article. I didn't suggest that they had an FTA, with China for example but neither do we, though they are in one of the largest FTA regions. I merely suggested that they had better export policies than we do. As your link shows regarding the VAT, for example, that is charged on incoming products similar to domestic products but is rebated when they export said product. The US is also the only? industrialized country to not utilize a territorial tax system which greatly hinders our exports but not Germany. Some of the policies mentioned were cultural (not buying crap products) and not regulatory which is a whole different animal.

If the US has a "trade mess" then I merely suggest it's not because of our trade policies but more because of our tax and regulatory policies.

[indago]

We've been lagging behind while the rest of the world has made themselves more competitive.

Like how, for instance?

[indago]

If the US has a "trade mess" then I merely suggest it's not because of our trade policies but more because of our tax and regulatory policies.

Like, what?

[indago]

Like how, for instance?

Hmmm! No response from fj1200; must really be a tough one...

[indago]

Like, what?

Hmmm! No response from fj1200; must really be a tough one...

[fj1200]

Like how, for instance?

Lowering their corporate income tax rates for the past 40 years.


Like, what?

Moving towards a territorial tax system like the rest of the world.


Hmmm! No response from fj1200; must really be a tough one...

Yes, quite difficult. I've answered it multiple times in multiple threads.


Hmmm! No response from fj1200; must really be a tough one...

Maybe you'll remember it this time. :)

[indago]

Lowering their corporate income tax rates for the past 40 years.

Then, how do you expect this to paid?

http://www.futuretimeline.net/subject/images/us-debt-graph-2020.jpg

[fj1200]

Then, how do you expect this to paid?

The same way it's always paid. Economic growth. Real growth that creates good jobs, good jobs that are not created because of a horrible corporate tax policy.

[Drummond]

Then, how do you expect this to paid?

http://www.futuretimeline.net/subject/images/us-debt-graph-2020.jpg

Wow. Obama REALLY loves creating debts for America !! See how much steeper the trend upwards has been, under him ??

The sooner his destructiveness is reversed by a decent Conservative leader, the better !

[Black Diamond]

Wow. Obama REALLY loves creating debts for America !! See how much steeper the trend upwards has been, under him ??

The sooner his destructiveness is reversed by a decent Conservative leader, the better !

He once said that deficits (and by implication national debt) is unpatriotic. Hmmmm

[indago]

The same way it's always paid. Economic growth. Real growth that creates good jobs, good jobs that are not created because of a horrible corporate tax policy.

No good if there is no tax base...

[fj1200]

No good if there is no tax base...

:whew: Thank goodness my plan solidifies the tax base.

[indago]

:whew: Thank goodness my plan solidifies the tax base.

Which is... what?

[fj1200]

Which is... what?

What? My plan? Cutting corporate tax rates.
Solidifying the base? Creating jobs.
How do we raise Federal tax money in this country primarily? Income and payroll taxes.
Who pays those taxes? People with jobs.

You ask silly, redundant questions.

[indago]

What? My plan? Cutting corporate tax rates.

Hmmmm! Seems we tried that already... So how'd that work out...

http://i66.tinypic.com/oqzvdc.jpg

http://i68.tinypic.com/2rwsu34.jpg

http://i67.tinypic.com/5o74uu.jpg

"An Indianapolis manufacturing plant is shipping hundreds of jobs to Mexico... Indiana state officials had given nearly $530,000 of taxpayer money in training grants to United Technologies through the Indiana Economic Development Corp., but told the Indianapolis Business Journal that they are now looking for ways to get that money back."


How do we raise Federal tax money in this country primarily? Income and payroll taxes.

So, you want to lay the burden of the national debt upon the inhabitants of the States; how thoughtful of you...

[fj1200]

Hmmmm! Seems we tried that already... So how'd that work out...

So, you want to lay the burden of the national debt upon the inhabitants of the States; how thoughtful of you...

Actually we haven't. There is a difference between the statutory rate and the effective rate. Our statutory rate is the highest in the world; our effective rate also appears to be one of the highest. link (http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-corporate-effective-tax-rate-myth-and-fact). It's no reason to keep an awful corporate tax environment.

And no. You're wrong again. Citizens pay all taxes anyway, corporations are essentially pass through entities. It would be helpful for you to not state my position when you don't understand it.

More:

The Economic Benefits of Reducing the USCorporate Income Tax Rate (http://ratecoalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ey-report-economic-benefits-of-a-lower-corporate-tax-rate-2011-09-17.pdf)

An increasing number of economists and policymakers believe globalization has shifted asignificant percentage of the tax burden to labor. The US Treasury Department, for example,which for decades assumed corporate tax rates had no effect on labor, now assumes 25% of theincidence of corporate tax is borne by workers.

One implication of this view is that workers have a stake in ensuring that the US corporate taxrate is globally competitive. This research suggests looking beyond the corporate income taxsystem for the revenues needed to reduce the corporate tax rate to help attract investment to theUnited States, increase employment and living standards.

...

Others have looked to broadening the corporate tax base to finance a lower corporate tax rate.However, it is unclear how much the corporate income tax rate could be lowered throughbroadening of the corporate tax base alone. One study on corporate tax reform has suggestedthat the globalization of the world economy may provide a rationale for looking beyond thecorporate tax base for revenue to lower the corporate tax rate.26 This study suggests that thechanges in the global economy, particularly the increased mobility of capital compared to labor,have made it increasingly difficult to tax capital. This may be part of the explanation for why othercountries have lowered their corporate income tax rates.

Summary

Most other developed countries have sharply lowered their corporate tax rates over the pastseveral decades, leaving the United States with the second highest corporate income tax rateamong the 50 largest economies. Other countries continue to lower their corporate income taxrates, leaving the United States further out of step.

Lowering the corporate income tax rate would benefit the American economy by increasingemployment and Americans‟ standard of living. It would benefit workers by making the UnitedStates a more favorable place to invest by both US companies and foreign companies. Inaddition to spurring capital formation and increasing employment, a lower corporate tax ratewould also benefit Americans by improving the allocation of resources throughout the economyand increasing workers‟ productivity and living standards.

[indago]

Actually we haven't. There is a difference between the statutory rate and the effective rate. Our statutory rate is the highest in the world; our effective rate also appears to be one of the highest. link (http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-corporate-effective-tax-rate-myth-and-fact). It's no reason to keep an awful corporate tax environment.

And no. You're wrong again. Citizens pay all taxes anyway, corporations are essentially pass through entities. It would be helpful for you to not state my position when you don't understand it.

More:

The Economic Benefits of Reducing the USCorporate Income Tax Rate (http://ratecoalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ey-report-economic-benefits-of-a-lower-corporate-tax-rate-2011-09-17.pdf)

I see, the point being: you want to reduce this country to a third world nation...



.

[fj1200]

I see, the point being: you want to reduce this country to a third world nation...

:facepalm99: