Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
Research Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsResearch Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic

7 biggest economic lies by Robert Reich

Plunkey, as a person who has very little interest in the actual mechanics of economics, please explain something to me (and you can be extremely superficial here).
1. When did the corporations begin the major exodus out of this country?

2. What kept them from leaving prior to the exodus?

There has to be a relatively simple answer to this question. You seem to be well versed in facts, I'm too tired to Google.

1) I'd guess the real exodus started in the 1970's, but it was much harder to do back then due to infrastructure challenges.

Some exodus has been and will always happen. Some exodus is actually helpful when we push poor jobs out to make room for better jobs.

And global trade can also help everyone across a broad range of economic strata. It does take away jobs, but it also means people here can stretch their money much farther. When it's well balanced, people can enjoy more "stuff" at lower costs.

2) So let's instead answer the question: "What has accelerated and unbalanced the exodus?" It's being driven from both sides. First, it's easier to setup global operations than it used to. Second, increased regulation, an out of control tort system and a terrible tax policy has increased the benefit of going overseas.

The goal shouldn't be to keep every single job in the US. And also realize that it is a pain in the ass to setup global operations. If we maintain a reasonable gap where our regulations don't get out of control (like they are now) and lawsuits don't get out of control (like they are now) and our taxes don't get out of control (like they are now), we could actually keep future jobs here. As far as the jobs that have moved now, those are almost certainly gone forever.
 
that's a simple one MM, they started leaving once China started opening their labor markets. To some extent I don't have a problem with shipping the manufacturing of stupid trinkets overseas...but at this point we're losing all our manufacturing and it's gonna bite all of us, including the rich, when the dollar is excused from being the worlds reserve.

I had a conversation with a washington lobbyist a little over a year ago and he plainly stated that everyone in washington knows full well why we went to war in Iraq and it has nothing to do with oil. Hussein started move his oil with euro's, we spanked him for that cause if that caught on we're in deep shit. So basically the U.S is peacocking around the world to make sure everyone stays in line with the U.S dollar as reserve. Reason for that is that we can always print dollars, no one else can. So that puts us in a pretty cozy seat as it pertains to the global economy. If that were to change things would look very differently very quickly here in the U.S. Frightening actually if you consider that price baskets could double within a few short weeks. I guess people will have to be their own judge over whether this society could weather that storm.
 
I had a conversation with a washington lobbyist a little over a year ago and he plainly stated that everyone in washington knows full well why we went to war in Iraq and it has nothing to do with oil. Hussein started move his oil with euro's, we spanked him for that cause if that caught on we're in deep shit. So basically the U.S is peacocking around the world to make sure everyone stays in line with the U.S dollar as reserve. Reason for that is that we can always print dollars, no one else can. So that puts us in a pretty cozy seat as it pertains to the global economy. If that were to change things would look very differently very quickly here in the U.S. Frightening actually if you consider that price baskets could double within a few short weeks. I guess people will have to be their own judge over whether this society could weather that storm.

You needed a lobbyist to tell you that?
 
jobs come and go, as wages rise in China jobs are starting to move back. Same trend is expected within 5 years in India.

Get educated and work hard is my message to all.

Don't allow our economic system to push wages down, don't cater to the upper class, try to raise your lower class (more consumer dollars = bigger economy).

Bottom line you gotta produce something of value, a good, a service, something. Be productive and we'll be competitive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ceo
Plunkey, as a person who has very little interest in the actual mechanics of economics, please explain something to me (and you can be extremely superficial here).
1. When did the corporations begin the major exodus out of this country?

2. What kept them from leaving prior to the exodus?

There has to be a relatively simple answer to this question. You seem to be well versed in facts, I'm too tired to Google.

Technology and Taxes facilitate this. Poorer countries have always had cheap labor and lots of times, more natural resources (rubber, iron ore, wood etc) but gettting access and managing it was not that easy.

Now with internet, email and telecomunications and you can manage overseas operations with ease.

Then these countries got more competitive with taxes so now you have better taxes, lower cost and many times more natural resources. Throw in it is easy to manage because of modern communicationn and technology and it is a slam dunk to move operations overseas.

Reich's comments are dated as well. Bring back a 91% or even a fucking 70% tax bracket and most big rich will be on the next plane out for these very same reasons. Would you rather live in NYC and pay 70% tax or in the Caymens and pay 30% tax... hmmmmm what to do.

Lastly, everyone has to have skin in the game (pay taxes) or they do not care how much the government spends. I don't care if it is 1% but they have to realize there is consequences to government spending.

We live in different times now where one can be in Japan in 12 hrs or on a conference call to China immediately. People better wake up and quite throwing out stupid statistics from the 50's.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ceo
Technology and Taxes facilitate this. Poorer countries have always had cheap labor and lots of time more natural resources (rubber, iron ore, wood etc) but gettting access and managing it was not that easy.

Now with internet, email and telecomunications and you can manage overseas operations with ease.

Then these countries got more competitive with taxes so now you have better taxes, lower cost and many times more natural resources. Throw in it is easy to manage because of modern communicationn and technology and it is a slam dunk to move operations overseas.

Reich's comments are dated as well. Bring back a 91% or even a fucking 70% tax bracket and most big rich will be on the next plane out for these very same reasons. Would you rather live in NYC and pay 70% tax or in the Caymens and pay 30% tax... hmmmmm what to do.

Lastly, everyone has to have skin in the game (pay taxes) or they do not care how much the government spends. I don't care if it is 1% but they have to realize there is consequences to government spending.

We live in different times now where one can be in Japan in 12 hrs or on a conference call to China immediately. People better wake up and quite throwing out stupid statistics from the 50's.

Wow. Nicely said.

The sad thing is, the US still has advantages. But we can't seem to keep from shooting ourselves in the foot with regulation, taxes and lawsuits.
 
THE SEVEN BIGGEST ECONOMIC LIES

Seven Biggest Reasons why Robert Reich is full of shit

The President’s Jobs Bill doesn’t have a chance in Congress — and the Occupiers on Wall Street and elsewhere can’t become a national movement for a more equitable society – unless more Americans know the truth about the economy.

Here’s a short (2 minute 30 second) effort to rebut the seven biggest whoppers now being told by those who want to take America backwards. The major points:



1. Tax cuts for the rich trickle down to everyone else. Baloney. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both sliced taxes on the rich and what happened? Most Americans’ wages (measured by the real median wage) began flattening under Reagan and have dropped since George W. Bush. Trickle-down economics is a cruel joke.

Is it poor people who are creating jobs?

2. Higher taxes on the rich would hurt the economy and slow job growth. False. From the end of World War II until 1981, the richest Americans faced a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent or above. Under Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Even after all deductions and credits, the top taxes on the very rich were far higher than they’ve been since. Yet the economy grew faster during those years than it has since. (Don’t believe small businesses would be hurt by a higher marginal tax; fewer than 2 percent of small business owners are in the highest tax bracket.)

We live in different times with a more mobil economy. Impose a 91% tax rate right now and watch the mass exodus of rich people from the US. Fuck even Warren Buffet would haul ass.

15 yrs ago if you lived overseas, you did not get the news, newspaper, sports scores or any food you cared for. Today you can live in Singapore, have less crime rate, lower taxes, read the USA today, follow your sports on the internet while drinking a Starbucks coffee every morning.

Wake up - that had to be the most antiquated argument I have ever read.

3. Shrinking government generates more jobs. Wrong again. It means fewer government workers – everyone from teachers, fire fighters, police officers, and social workers at the state and local levels to safety inspectors and military personnel at the federal. And fewer government contractors, who would employ fewer private-sector workers. According to Moody’s economist Mark Zandi (a campaign advisor to John McCain), the $61 billion in spending cuts proposed by the House GOP will cost the economy 700,000 jobs this year and next.

Governments have never been a more efficient supplier of jobs. See comunist expirements.

4. Cutting the budget deficit now is more important than boosting the economy. Untrue. With so many Americans out of work, budget cuts now will shrink the economy. They’ll increase unemployment and reduce tax revenues. That will worsen the ratio of the debt to the total economy. The first priority must be getting jobs and growth back by boosting the economy. Only then, when jobs and growth are returning vigorously, should we turn to cutting the deficit.

Almost all enonomic theories would say this is correct and it is probably true right now as well. But if you look at the top American corportations, they are in really good shape, growing revenue, earnings and flush with cash. Why are they not expanding and hiring?

They are absolutely terrified about the US deficit and who is going to pay for it. Saving cash for when the tax man comes.

I am not totally for cutting budgets immediately but a balanced budget amendment would do more for job growth than ANY jobs program the government can put together.

5. Medicare and Medicaid are the major drivers of budget deficits. Wrong. Medicare and Medicaid spending is rising quickly, to be sure. But that’s because the nation’s health-care costs are rising so fast. One of the best ways of slowing these costs is to use Medicare and Medicaid’s bargaining power over drug companies and hospitals to reduce costs, and to move from a fee-for-service system to a fee-for-healthy outcomes system. And since Medicare has far lower administrative costs than private health insurers, we should make Medicare available to everyone.

Wrong again - both are going up so fast because they are being abused by both hospitals and patients. You can't keep spending $500k on the last two weeks of a terminally ill patient and you can't keep providing EVERYONE that walks into an emergency room with medical care.

6. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Don’t believe it. Social Security is solvent for the next 26 years. It could be solvent for the next century if we raised the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. That ceiling is now $106,800.

If we raise the ceiling, won't that also raise the payments to the people paying in more? Or do you now just get to keep paying in lots more social security but get the same benefits? Problem with social security is we are living so much longer - have to adjust for our current life spans.

7. It’s unfair that lower-income Americans don’t pay income tax. Wrong. There’s nothing unfair about it. Lower-income Americans pay out a larger share of their paychecks in payroll taxes, sales taxes, user fees, and tolls than everyone else.

Payroll taxes are not a tax - they are a prepayment of retirement benefits. In addition, lower income tend to be a higher user of governemnt services. I am not saying they should get them all for free but they do need to understand they come at a cost.

Demagogues through history have known that big lies, repeated often enough, start being believed — unless they’re rebutted. These seven economic whoppers are just plain wrong. Make sure you know the truth – and spread it on.

Unbelievable that this guys is actually a professor at one of the top universities and was our labor secretary. I guess you have to have some socialist beliefs to be Secretary of Labor.
 
Last edited:
You needed a lobbyist to tell you that?


yeah actually i had no idea Hussein was starting to move oil with euro's. At the time I didn't even really understand the full ramifications of what that meant.

It really is like a house of cards they've built here and they'll know when it's about to come down and they'll skip out of town leaving us in the ruins.
 
Top Bottom