WHAT RUINED AMERICA ?

[Haskell_Hunter]

49 minutes ago, JFC1 said:

It's not about clever--Germany, for example, has some of the world's most regulated industries and very high taxes of many types, together with perhaps the most impressive industrial base in the world. That's because those taxes protect and train workers while executive compensation and the short-term quarterly business cycle, pump n dump, accounting tricks, leverage and buy out and move offshore for .35/hr workers that has dominated US business models since the Reagan era has not been accepted to the extent we have. Your claim that they "are facts" simply shows how indoctrinated you've been to cut your own throat, unless of course you're a CEO with a sweet options package or maybe an independently wealthy investor who's never needed to work the way most people do (not saying you are, pls dont' take the wrong way). 

As someone whose first job was working on Wall St in M&A, I watched the Gordon Geckos rape American industry and workers. I'll never forget the slicked back yellow tie dudes taking a stretch limo to central PA to "help" out a medium-sized, now defunct, industrial company in Chapter 11 from which they wrenched the last millions as reorg "fees." And then they chuckled all the way back along 78 to Manhattan. This is what has ruined American industry and more; not taxes, protection for the workers, or supposed American workers' laziness. It's the unethical, robber baron ethos of our "best and brightest" as Wall St speculation has replaced hard work. That's not  solely a Repub or Democratic problem, but belongs to both sides (Goldman Sachs is pretty much straight up Dem, minus T. Cruz' wife). But this creative destruction gets its fuel and voter support from claims like the ones you make above as "facts." Uh uh. If those are facts, they are incorrect facts. 

We're not going to energize business by reducing American salaries to Bangladeshi, or even Mexican or Indonesian, levels by cutting taxes. Nor should our workers have to perish in garment district fires or all of us drink arsenic from our wells with no health insurance. How come German workers make better industrial salaries and live better than US workers but pay higher taxes, while their industries remain more competitive and the Germans don't run the deficits we do? One of the leading areas of German innovation and export is in green technologies. Interesting...so taxes funneled efficiently into R&D and academia in Germany have given them a competitive edge that multiplies and supports their industries. In the US, in contrast, we give back our taxes to the wealthiest Americans who park the $$ offshore and then convince the workers that their $$ is actually going to "illegals" (who are further enriching the business owners, in turn) That is called Ideology 101, and it passes as fact but is really fantasy for the masses.  

 

People move capital to preserve capital.  People in the US move capital off-shore to avoid taxes.

Taxes do not improve things.  You realize that the government doesn't create new goods or services, therefore, the capital they take from the economy does not expand the economy.  They do not use any kind of performance metrics in government to adjust their capital investments based on return.  There is massive and significant waste generated by government spending, including in academia.

Reducing taxes creates opportunities to reinvest in the growing economy, not the fixed economy.  Investment in the growing economy actually creates new goods and services that help expand the economy.  This is why every real-world example of socialism fails and ultimately results in hyperinflation.  If the government becomes too large %-wise in the economy, growth stalls, stops, and hyperinflation takes root.

[OldMenRule]

2 hours ago, JFC1 said:

JH, that's not what Critical Race Theory says. That's what both the Fox News/NY Post/OANN and "jump on the self-flagellating oh-poor-me liberal band wagons" renditions of critical race theory say. These interpretations of a whole set of debates are designed to rile people up and sell the media by pissing us all off, making the protagonists--whether Tucker or a BLM supporter--a bundle $$.  At its core, critical race theory simply says that the US economy has depended historically on race as a way of convincing people how to work, buy, sell, set up families, and invest in certain ways.  And the ways that we understand race are as a result related to how the economy works at any moment in time, even as the economy works also in relation to how we understand race. This means that what the concept of "race" does shifts across time, influencing us. To believe  such an obvious claim is not a stretch if you take a look at slavery, reconstruction, deep south segregation that told white workers they were "better" than the recently freed slaves and told people they couldn't marry across races, redlining in cities like Newark, gentrification in cities like Hoboken, and today the ways that Fox News as well as liberal "don't be a white racist" authors and broadcasters profit from some "thing" called Critical Race Theory, either for or against the bogeyman. Charlatans on both sides use it to advance their agendas and fatten their wallets. In each case race is at work in profits and politics, which is exactly what Critical Race Theory says. There's no reason that independent thinkers need to follow those snake oil salesmen and miss the pretty basic fact that how Americans deal with race is central to how our economy functions and how we think of ourselves as Americans. That doesn't make us all racist. It simply means that race is a fact and it gets us riled up in different ways across time. 

When people do not sincerely love the truth, they come to believe lies.

[JHbowhunter]

7 minutes ago, Haskell_Hunter said:

People move capital to preserve capital.  People in the US move capital off-shore to avoid taxes.

Taxes do not improve things.  You realize that the government doesn't create new goods or services, therefore, the capital they take from the economy does not expand the economy.  They do not use any kind of performance metrics in government to adjust their capital investments based on return.  There is massive and significant waste generated by government spending, including in academia.

Reducing taxes creates opportunities to reinvest in the growing economy, not the fixed economy.  Investment in the growing economy actually creates new goods and services that help expand the economy.  This is why every real-world example of socialism fails and ultimately results in hyperinflation.  If the government becomes too large %-wise in the economy, growth stalls, stops, and hyperinflation takes root.

Well said Tim.   In spite of how off the rails this post went, glad it's back on track and real, actual civil debate is occurring. 

[Haskell_Hunter]

1 minute ago, JHbowhunter said:

Well said Tim.   In spite of how off the rails this post went, glad it's back on track and real, actual civil debate is occurring. 

@JFC1is one of the smartest guys here.  I don't agree with everything he says, but he's always on point for a civil discussion if you are willing to meet him on civil terms.  He's passionate about his positions, and I can appreciate that because I too am passionate about a few of mine.

[Lunatic]

30 minutes ago, hunterbob1 said:

50 years ago you were what six? I grew up next to Newark, my parents my grandparents and my grandparents busted their butts!!!When I was a  kid, they'd  say sticks stones will will break your bones,but words never hurt you.

 

This was great!!!

[JFC1]

11 minutes ago, Haskell_Hunter said:

People move capital to preserve capital.  People in the US move capital off-shore to avoid taxes.

Taxes do not improve things.  You realize that the government doesn't create new goods or services, therefore, the capital they take from the economy does not expand the economy.  They do not use any kind of performance metrics in government to adjust their capital investments based on return.  There is massive and significant waste generated by government spending, including in academia.

Reducing taxes creates opportunities to reinvest in the growing economy, not the fixed economy.  Investment in the growing economy actually creates new goods and services that help expand the economy.  This is why every real-world example of socialism fails and ultimately results in hyperinflation.  If the government becomes too large %-wise in the economy, growth stalls, stops, and hyperinflation takes root.

"the government doesn't create new goods and service"?!?!??!?!  Come on, Haskell, you're much too wise to mouth that tired line without examining what you say. Whether it's specific types of loans, the internet, the atom bomb, healthcare for all, insurance products, or space ships, the government both creates and plays a key role in creating new goods and services, even if you point out the roles of subcontractors. And I'm not even touching infrastructure or legal regulation (try getting a product to mkt without some sort of protection and oversight, whether it's state troopers on 95 or the import/export bank). That said, as someone who's depended on the National Science Foundation, it's clear that the government is often a morass of waste and lost souls. But so too is private industry--among the biggest, wasteful, most bloated bureaucracies I've ever encountered in my working life were IBM at the end of the 1980s and a major Wall St. bank that financed one of  my academic projects but couldn't get a funds wire right. 

To argue that "Reducing taxes creates opportunities to reinvest in the growing economy, not the fixed economy" is to argue that the government never supports new or even experimental technologies...And then I look at all the guys here bewailing "wasted" subsidies for electric cars or solar energy or the "Green New Deal"!!!! Isn't the big critique of AOC that she's pie in the sky, science fiction, a "lightweight" and not hardnosed or knowledgeable enough? Green New Deal sure ain't the "Fixed" economy. She might be all wrong, but the facts don't support your claims. If you look at most corporate planning, it's actually a boom and bust chasing of profits in what the neighbor just made money in, rather than some brave, independent carving out of markets. That's stuff for the movies. 

So socialism ultimately results in hyperinflation...ah hah...The two regimes of hyperinflation I've lived through--BRazil and Argentina--were both under free market capitalists who wanted to emulate US and follow World Bank guidelines. That ain't socialism.  Was inflation of the US in 70s mainly the result of Johnson's liberal social policies or Johnson's blowing of the budget in Vietnam War? Most economists you ask will choose Vietnam War, and we've never had real socialism in the US. It's a bogeyman like Critical Race Theory, as opposed to Critical Bass Theory. 

"Reducing taxes creates opportunities to reinvest in the growing economy". Yeah, like the markets in champagne, caviar, cocaine and gated communities. I guess all of those do create some jobs, but there are a lot more grape pickers, egg sorters, mules, and night watchmen than in an economy where taxes are reinvested rationally to train an educated, well-paid  workforce whose health and well-being are protected by proper laws. See my comments above above Germany vs. the US. 

We can gut the state and get rid of taxes and look just like Haiti if we want

[JFC1]

41 minutes ago, hunterbob1 said:

50 years ago you were what six? I grew up next to Newark, my parents my grandparents and my grandparents busted their butts!!!When I was a  kid, they'd  say sticks stones will will break your bones,but words never hurt you.

 

This is great. Thanks for posting. I miss all in the family. 

Both Carroll O'Connor and Rob Reiner were/are big-time libs, right? 

 

[Live to Hunt]

America 🇺🇸 is ruined.  You all sound like a bunch of spoiled brats. You guys should be so thankful. Stop bitching and crying. You ain’t finding a better country. If you know one then get the hell out since this one is ruined. 

[hunterbob1]

8 minutes ago, Lunatic said:

This was great!!!

My grandmother and her second husband, he was a ,did you ever hear this? a truant officer... I think it was Wednesdays, they'd get there bowls of ice cream go on a little back screen porch, dial in the station with the knobby thing and adjust the rabbit ears. Those were the good old days!!!!!!

[JFC1]

37 minutes ago, OldMenRule said:

When people do not sincerely love the truth, they come to believe lies.

How much Critical Race Theory, or Bass Theory, have you read and who do you find most helpful? 

I prefer Ann Stoler and Cornel West for Critical Race Theory and on Bass theory--thanks again JHBowhunter--I learn a lot from Nick Karas, Fred Golofaro and John Skinner

Edited July 9, 2021 by JFC1

[Haskell_Hunter]

1 minute ago, JFC1 said:

"the government doesn't create new goods and service"?!?!??!?!  Come on, Haskell, you're much too wise to mouth that tired line without examining what you say. Whether it's specific types of loans, the internet, the atom bomb, healthcare for all, insurance products, or space ships, the government both creates and plays a key role in creating new goods and services, even if you point out the roles of subcontractors. And I'm not even touching infrastructure or legal regulation (try getting a product to mkt without some sort of protection and oversight, whether it's state troopers on 95 or the import/export bank). That said, as someone who's depended on the National Science Foundation, it's clear that the government is often a morass of waste and lost souls. But so too is private industry--among the biggest, wasteful, most bloated bureaucracies I've ever encountered in my working life were IBM at the end of the 1980s and a major Wall St. bank that financed one of  my academic projects but couldn't get a funds wire right. 

To argue that "Reducing taxes creates opportunities to reinvest in the growing economy, not the fixed economy" is to argue that the government never supports new or even experimental technologies...And then I look at all the guys here bewailing "wasted" subsidies for electric cars or solar energy or the "Green New Deal"!!!! Isn't the big critique of AOC that she's pie in the sky, science fiction, a "lightweight" and not hardnosed or knowledgeable enough? Green New Deal sure ain't the "Fixed" economy. She might be all wrong, but the facts don't support your claims. If you look at most corporate planning, it's actually a boom and bust chasing of profits in what the neighbor just made money in, rather than some brave, independent carving out of markets. That's stuff for the movies. 

So socialism ultimately results in hyperinflation...ah hah...The two regimes of hyperinflation I've lived through--BRazil and Argentina--were both under free market capitalists who wanted to emulate US and follow World Bank guidelines. That ain't socialism.  Was inflation of the US in 70s mainly the result of Johnson's liberal social policies or Johnson's blowing of the budget in Vietnam War? Most economists you ask will choose Vietnam War, and we've never had real socialism in the US. It's a bogeyman like Critical Race Theory, as opposed to Critical Bass Theory. 

"Reducing taxes creates opportunities to reinvest in the growing economy". Yeah, like the markets in champagne, caviar, cocaine and gated communities. I guess all of those do create some jobs, but there are a lot more grape pickers, egg sorters, mules, and night watchmen than in an economy where taxes are reinvested rationally to train an educated, well-paid  workforce whose health and well-being are protected by proper laws. See my comments above above Germany vs. the US. 

We can gut the state and get rid of taxes and look just like Haiti if we want

Game on!

1. Loans - the government doesn't give out loans, it subsidizes or backs them as a guarantor.  All loans are administered through private entities.
2. The Internet - yes, the Internet started out as a way to connect two nuclear missile command sites to ensure the complete destruction of life on the planet, but it did not proliferate until it was turned over to the public and companies were allowed to make investments in telecommunications, businesses, and other such things that made it...wait for it...a commercial success.  The government may have planted the seed, but it was academics and most significantly private equity that created the public internet that we know.
3. The Atom Bomb - not sure why this is a good thing, and since I don't think it is, I will concede that this is an irreversible government mistake
4. Healthcare for All - God, I hope this never happens.  The government doesn't innovate anything.  Period.  Healthcare for All reduces private investments in healthcare technology and will stagnate innovation.  It also creates a wonderful market of cronies since the government will monopolize this market.  I am 100% against it.
5. Insurance Products - Private equity funds this, not the government.
6. Space Ship - which were always built by publicly traded companies and are now being commercialized.  Thank God for that because you're seeing more innovation from the commercialization of space travel than in the past 30 years of government-funded NASA space travel.

The government may fund projects, but no department in the government has been incentivized to innovate.  In fact the opposite it true.

Hyperinflation in the US was a Jimmy Carter blunder.  The government fixed the price of oil while the world allowed it to fluctuate.  Tankers full of oil were floating outside the US waters and would not dock because they weren't going to sell oil at a reduced cost.  BOOM!  Carter-style inflation.  Government is usually the problem, not the solution.

And Critical Race Theory is fine to debate the merits of in academia, but there is not place for it as instructional material for young students.  It lacks any objective debate and has not demonstrated peer resiliency in academia.  There are countless studies across various disciplines that invalidate large swaths of Critical Race Theory.  If it can adequately defend itself, which in my opinion it cannot without invalidating reams of research, then maybe it might be considered for some curriculum.

[hunterbob1]

7 minutes ago, JFC1 said:

This is great. Thanks for posting. I miss all in the family. 

Both Carroll O'Connor and Rob Reiner were/are big-time libs, right? 

 

Negative little girl Sally Strothers, Jane Fonda etc.. early birds getting around the non-profit tax loopholes,ASPC, remember the old commercials,.

[JFC1]

Just now, Haskell_Hunter said:

Game on!

1. Loans - the government doesn't give out loans, it subsidizes or backs them as a guarantor.  All loans are administered through private entities.
2. The Internet - yes, the Internet started out as a way to connect two nuclear missile command sites to ensure the complete destruction of life on the planet, but it did not proliferate until it was turned over to the public and companies were allowed to make investments in telecommunications, businesses, and other such things that made it...wait for it...a commercial success.  The government may have planted the seed, but it was academics and most significantly private equity that created the public internet that we know.
3. The Atom Bomb - not sure why this is a good thing, and since I don't think it is, I will concede that this is an irreversible government mistake
4. Healthcare for All - God, I hope this never happens.  The government doesn't innovate anything.  Period.  Healthcare for All reduces private investments in healthcare technology and will stagnate innovation.  It also creates a wonderful market of cronies since the government will monopolize this market.  I am 100% against it.
5. Insurance Products - Private equity funds this, not the government.
6. Space Ship - which were always built by publicly traded companies and are now being commercialized.  Thank God for that because you're seeing more innovation from the commercialization of space travel than in the past 30 years of government-funded NASA space travel.

The government may fund projects, but no department in the government has been incentivized to innovate.  In fact the opposite it true.

Hyperinflation in the US was a Jimmy Carter blunder.  The government fixed the price of oil while the world allowed it to fluctuate.  Tankers full of oil were floating outside the US waters and would not dock because they weren't going to sell oil at a reduced cost.  BOOM!  Carter-style inflation.  Government is usually the problem, not the solution.

And Critical Race Theory is fine to debate the merits of in academia, but there is not place for it as instructional material for young students.  It lacks any objective debate and has not demonstrated peer resiliency in academia.  There are countless studies across various disciplines that invalidate large swaths of Critical Race Theory.  If it can adequately defend itself, which in my opinion it cannot without invalidating reams of research, then maybe it might be considered for some curriculum.

Thank you for your ideas. While I disagree with a number of them, and it seems you are unaware of how government agencies incentivize innovation and you conflate the funding or the moral value of government products with their creation/invention as you put forth in your post to which I responded, I always appreciate the intelligence and care with which you view the world. I should respond point by point, but I'm under a deadline for something called work. Actually, I'm a month beyond the deadline and about to get creamed...probably because I work for a public university?

[Michael Britt]

Attempting to take God out of the equation, you reap what you sow...

[MGHunter66]

47 minutes ago, JHbowhunter said:

Well said Tim.   In spite of how off the rails this post went, glad it's back on track and real, actual civil debate is occurring. 

Are you trying to tell me the gothic chick wasn’t a far more important facet of this thread to stay on track with compared to you fellas and your economy jargon?