Who Pays Taxes

[retro-man]

Interesting article from the American Thinker

"Then we got what we wished for: for the rich to become like us. So now we're all broke."

 

2 things: 1.) I find the author's assertions specious. Yes, the income of the poor rich may have dropped when the market tanked. No surprise there. 2.) Let's look at a longer time frame than the 2007 - 2008 that the article examines. If this article had been written 50 years ago - when individual and corporate tax rates were much higher - the discussion would have been entirely different. Back then we had an actual middle class that had actual wealth, that was the basis for the production and prosperity of the nation. If the rich had "become like us" back then, we wouldn't have been "all broke" - not by a long shot. We are "all broke" now (a point on which I can agree with the author), because we have had 30 years of free-trade supply-side orthodoxy to make us that way. Of course, if you think another 10 or 20 years of the same is just the tonic to fix it........ I don't really know what to say.

 

@jpd80: the dream of the global financial class is that rising middle class consumers in India and China will make their stock go up. The invest their dollars, roll out their Gaps and their Starbucks at new malls throughout Asia. When costs go up too much at the garment factories in China, they move production to Vietnam. It doesn't much matter to the globalist if the average American lives in abject poverty. As long as he and his family doesn't. The "good capitalist" doesn't need the workers producing his products to be able to buy them. In fact, the existence of poverty and desperation are good. He can find workers and customers anywhere in the world. Great disparity in wealth works the same way on the flow of money as differentials in barometric pressure work on the flow of wind. The art is in managing the differential to generate a profit. The good capitalist just knows where to stick his little windmill out. But any concern about his countryman in poverty? No, not much. The good capitalist has no country.

[xr7g428]

the average American lives in abject poverty

 

Retro, Where do you get this stuff? Take the gun out of your mouth, take a deep breath and get some fresh air. No one is living in abject poverty in the USA, unless they are doing so by choice or mental illness. Get a grip. Things are not great but they are nothing like they were in the depression.

[jpd80]

@jpd80: the dream of the global financial class is that rising middle class consumers in India and China will make their stock go up. The invest their dollars, roll out their Gaps and their Starbucks at new malls throughout Asia. When costs go up too much at the garment factories in China, they move production to Vietnam. It doesn't much matter to the globalist if the average American lives in abject poverty. As long as he and his family doesn't. The "good capitalist" doesn't need the workers producing his products to be able to buy them. In fact, the existence of poverty and desperation are good. He can find workers and customers anywhere in the world. Great disparity in wealth works the same way on the flow of money as differentials in barometric pressure work on the flow of wind. The art is in managing the differential to generate a profit. The good capitalist just knows where to stick his little windmill out. But any concern about his countryman in poverty? No, not much. The good capitalist has no country.

 

Great post retro and thanks for responding.

I still believe in Egalitarian capitalism - even though a lot of business executives seem to

have dropped their moral compass or maybe I'm completely out of step with modern thinking.

 

As you say, India and China will build up infrastructure outsourcing unwanted work to poorer nations.

I'm not sure what happens to the US in the long terms but if she becomes less important to

world economies by way of China and India rising up in GDP (that will take a few decades yet if at all)

that may suit the USA in a funny way, perhaps the focus turns back in on supplying the local market

again and people rediscover the scales of economy that made them great in the first place.

Edited December 13, 2010 by jpd80

[retro-man]

Retro, Where do you get this stuff? Take the gun out of your mouth, take a deep breath and get some fresh air. No one is living in abject poverty in the USA, unless they are doing so by choice or mental illness. Get a grip. Things are not great but they are nothing like they were in the depression.

There there now, read the whole sentence. And maybe the one after it. Would you - in all honesty - dispute the basic point? I am unlikely to ever take up a gun, but if I do, rest assured I will not be aiming at myself.

[mettech]

I don't understand why we have an estate tax. Taxes have already been paid on that money once. If it is mostly stocks, taxes will be paid when they are sold.

 

Why does the movement tax the money twice?

 

 

[RangerM]

"Then we got what we wished for: for the rich to become like us. So now we're all broke."

 

2 things: 1.) I find the author's assertions specious. Yes, the income of the poor rich may have dropped when the market tanked. No surprise there.

I think that was the author's point. All people have taken a hit in this last downturn. While I admit, if you take half of a millionaire's money, he's still not likely to be hurting, whereas if you take half of a lower-middle class worker's wealth/income, he's likely to be hurt more severely. BUT, the fact that the "rich" lost more (as a percentage) is ignored by many; and expecting that you're going to improve the lower-middle class worker's situation by making the millionaire's worse is misguided.

2.) Let's look at a longer time frame than the 2007 - 2008 that the article examines. If this article had been written 50 years ago - when individual and corporate tax rates were much higher - the discussion would have been entirely different. Back then we had an actual middle class that had actual wealth, that was the basis for the production and prosperity of the nation. If the rich had "become like us" back then, we wouldn't have been "all broke" - not by a long shot. We are "all broke" now (a point on which I can agree with the author), because we have had 30 years of free-trade supply-side orthodoxy to make us that way. Of course, if you think another 10 or 20 years of the same is just the tonic to fix it........ I don't really know what to say.

Consider Retro, back in the 1950s and 1960s when the middle class was riding high on their expectations of lifetime employment and accumulation of wealth (with the advantage of a decimated European industrial base), what happened?

 

Many of their children saw their parents, most with not even a high school education, buy houses, cars, vacations, and most luxuries that could be had in those days. Why did their parents expect the "good times" would always last? Why did the children think they could get away with the same level of (educational) achievement as their parents? What did they NOT see? They didn't see the rest of the world catching up. They got drunk on the advantages of a strong industrial base and an uncompetitive world market, and the hangover is hell.

 

My parents were always lower-middle class, and always instilled in me that I was always expected to achieve more than they did; and reinforced this expectation by making sacrifices so I could. Can the same be said of others?

 

Say what you want about the "wealth" of the middle class in the '50s/'60s, but it seems to me it was squandered on their own lives and (young) progeny. The baby boomers' children were given the advantage of (relatively) wealthy parents, and many (from what I can see) have squandered that advantage by riding on the achievements of their parents and ignoring the changing world around them. Many thought that college meant getting a basket-weaving degree and the jobs and income would shower upon them like manna from heaven.

@jpd80: the dream of the global financial class is that rising middle class consumers in India and China will make their stock go up. The invest their dollars, roll out their Gaps and their Starbucks at new malls throughout Asia. When costs go up too much at the garment factories in China, they move production to Vietnam. It doesn't much matter to the globalist if the average American lives in abject poverty. As long as he and his family doesn't. The "good capitalist" doesn't need the workers producing his products to be able to buy them. In fact, the existence of poverty and desperation are good. He can find workers and customers anywhere in the world. Great disparity in wealth works the same way on the flow of money as differentials in barometric pressure work on the flow of wind. The art is in managing the differential to generate a profit. The good capitalist just knows where to stick his little windmill out. But any concern about his countryman in poverty? No, not much. The good capitalist has no country.

The children of the first generation to achieve the middle-class utopia will think that things could never get worse, and will think that their lives will begin where their parents' left off.

[RangerM]

I don't understand why we have an estate tax. Taxes have already been paid on that money once. If it is mostly stocks, taxes will be paid when they are sold.

 

Why does the movement tax the money twice?

Because there are fewer people who have more than one million dollars when they die, and it feels good to stick it to the rich, even when it doesn't benefit the poor.

 

Make the estate tax apply to everyone at an equal rate of taxation, and I guarantee you'll see it voted out permanently.

Edited December 13, 2010 by RangerM

[mettech]

A major factor in the "Baby Boom Era" was due to WWII. The men (to include my father) that came back were better educated and discipline due to military training. The women were also better educated in the business world since many of them (to include my mother) worked in factories and office environments.

 

The lack of discipline and education are a major factor for the current problem with the 99 weeks of unemployment payments and food stamps and community/church charities.

 

Continued long term handouts erode a persons pride, community responsibility and discipline.

 

And the Feds are going to give another 13 weeks on top of the 99 weeks.

 

I wonder what our forefathers would think about an able person that expected and/or demanded the government and local community to support their household.

 

I also wonder what our forefathers would think of a government that allowed such behavior. Does the Roman Empire come to mind?

[RangerM]

The only reason I favor the extended unemployment benefits, that the Obama and the republicans agreed to, is because this is the first thing I've seen yet that bears any resemblance to a stimulus package.

 

The first stimulus (2008) did absolutely nothing as far as long-term growth, and all the unemployment checks (at the time) did was sustain them until a real stimulus package could be implemented.

 

Not that I think the current deal is a stimulus package, but it certainly is a hell of a lot closer than the first bill.

 

It's hard for me to expect the unemployed to be able to get themselves out of their situation when the government conspires to keep them there; with obstructive government policy (e.g. no drilling in the Gulf) and making a given situation worse (e.g. increasing discretionary spending at a time of falling revenues).

Edited December 13, 2010 by RangerM

[Imawhosure]

I would really like to know why this disagreement between Americans such as ourselves, even goes on at all.

 

Everybody here agrees that throughout most of our time, our federal government has spent more then they have ever taken in, continuously kicking the proverbial can down the road. Why would anyone want to feed the monster more, and have any tax of any kind, on anybody rise without the government cutting spending 1st? It has nothing to do with democrat or republican, it has to do with what Washington does after they are elected; and has down on, and on, and on.

 

The debate of who is better as far as party to run this country is a joke. The people who are best able to run the country are the ones who will cut spending 1st so as they are at least making an attempt to stop the cycle from continuing.

 

I tend to agree with many people that we are going to have to go further in debt to get ourselves out of this recession, and get the flow of money back to Washington and the states constant again. This is why I support the President and congress in extending the lower tax rates for all, and extending unemployment benefits in the process. On the other hand, new spending legislation should be out of the question, and massive government spending like Obamacare has to be repealed ASAP. The government is broke, so them getting more money to create jobs is fantasy. The only place these jobs are going to come from is business expansion, or new businesses being created. The government then gets its money from not only the business, but the employees who work there. It is logical, so why there is such a debate over it is crazy.

 

And many people wish to know why in rhetoric in Washington between opposing partys has become more, and more acidic. I can answer that one. Because we are finally in a real problem, and the money Washington has to give away is shrinking dramatically. Politicians lifeblood is cutting deals for their supporters, and we all know there is not enough dollars left to help both partys, and probably not enough left to even help 1 with their give-aways. So now they have to govern as they have the golden goose very sickly, and none of them are happy about it.

 

While conservatives dislike Obama on principle, he would probably have been a 2 term President if he kept his demands for spending under control. But putting in Obamacare has derailed him, and the democrats totally. Nobody in their right mind when the ship is listing and might sink, adds more rocks to the hold; but he did! That tells everyone who knows we must start at the spending side to get Americans on board for the pain, that Obama is not the answer.

 

Democrats can point to GW all they want talking about his spending. Your point is that GW was not the answer. OK, let us agree on this then, GW was not the answer because of spending. Can I have an Amen?!?!?!?! But if GW was not the answer because of his spending, then how can anyone in the next breath, claim that Obama is when he is spending massive amounts more, and they are all unfunded?

 

What you really have now is a few republicans, a handful of democrats, and virtually all the tea party who are willing to cut spending before they come to you with their hands out. If you won't vote Tea Party, then you better find more republicans and Democrats willing to do what has to be done, cause if you don't, our children and grandchildren are going to curse our names for destroying the greatest country the world has ever seen cause we couldn't get our act together and voted in people who only knew how to spend, and were to afraid of special interests to actually cut, and govern for everyones future.

[mettech]

I would really like to know why this disagreement between Americans such as ourselves, even goes on at all.

 

Democrats can point to GW all they want talking about his spending. Your point is that GW was not the answer. OK, let us agree on this then, GW was not the answer because of spending. Can I have an Amen?!?!?!?! But if GW was not the answer because of his spending, then how can anyone in the next breath, claim that Obama is when he is spending massive amounts more, and they are all unfunded?

 

 

 

Amen..!!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgd3plE6bO8

 

WELCOME to AMERICAN

Edited December 13, 2010 by mettech

[Mark B. Morrow]

 

And the Feds are going to give another 13 weeks on top of the 99 weeks.

 

No the 13 weeks does not apply to the 99ers.

 

I also wonder what our forefathers would think of a government that allowed such behavior. Does the Roman Empire come to mind?

 

The Roman Empire was also known for the huge disparity in wealth between the top and bottom and the sense of entitlement the top had to have to bottom do all the work and serve in the military to protect the "Haves".

[Imawhosure]

Metech, I watched that 60 minutes piece on TV, but thank you for posting it.

 

As far as are astute friend who wants to comment on the Roman Empire------------->do you notice that the Roman Empire no longer exists? Its liberal, overspending, take care of everyone stupidity caused it to collapse on itself. Its arts, its attitude, all contributed to it no longer being in existance.

 

Are you even remotely suggesting, we try this failed concept again? Are you suggesting we sacrifice most of our people, and our country, on failed principles that have failed continuously?

 

Most people want to come to the USA so they can have their shackles removed and they can succeed. You, on the other hand; are in the cabal of those who want to create an America where people come to for the express purpose of sitting on their proverbial fannies, and collecting for doing nothing.

 

I know that nobody can be that incompetent, without being an out an out socialist from the throwbacks of the USSR who also failed miserably, but obviously want to try it one more time. If that definition fits you, show us the way and make it work in Cuba, and maybe we will follow suit.

 

Mostly every other country in the world is moving towards how we did it as a country, and you thik it is an outstanding idea to push us in the opposite direction. Duh!!!!! The problem soley lies in the idea that you want to stop pain. If you don't put your hand in a fire, you will never know why not to put it there again. You learn, you grow, and if you have any sense, you learn to at least cope; more sense makes you succeed. Making bad decisions are not a bad thing, unless you are not punished for them. In that case, if it is easier to make bad decisions, why not continue on if there is no price to pay for it?!?!?!

 

If the right thing, was the easy thing to do, then trust me when I say everyone would make the right decisions. For those who can't make the right decisions because making the wrong decisions make it easier on them, the pain they inflict on themselves forces most of them to change course. You sir, want to take away their pain. That is no way to build a responsible society, and if you think it is, look at the history of not only the USSR, but our country too.

[retro-man]

Consider Retro, back in the 1950s and 1960s when the middle class was riding high on their expectations of lifetime employment and accumulation of wealth (with the advantage of a decimated European industrial base), what happened?

grbeck has made the same assertion many times. My usual response is to quote an article on the economy from the 1962 World Book year book (hard cover, right there on my library shelf - not cherry picked off the internet), which lists the volume of international trade at the time as 3% of GDP (at a modest surplus) - then a more recent corresponding figure (that was cherry-picked off the internets) from 2007 I think, that gave international trade as 37% of GDP (at a stupendous deficit). 11x the amount of the early 60s as a percentage of GDP. Compared to now, our economy was virtually self-contained in the early 60s. I am also fond of pointing out the healthy basic industries that existed in the various European countries and Japan even in the late 50s, early 60s, producing cars, electronics, optics, airplanes, consumer appliances, and etc.. In fact, in a different topic, I posted a rather long list of various well-known European and Japanese companies that were in full swing during the 50s, well before we started importing on a large scale.* It seems to me that this idea of American prosperity coming on the backs of bombed out European economies is greatly overplayed. In fact - while we were still riding high a few years ago, I used to hear on these forums the exact opposite complaint: that we had beggared ourselves with various "giveaways" like the Marshall Plan and the MacArthur Plan (never minding that those countries had long since, on the back of their own domestic industries, re-paid us) - not that we had made ourselves rich at the expense of those countries. I hate to demand consistency or anything, but........

 

* From that earlier post:

At 3% of GDP it's not like we were living high on the hog filling the consumer needs of a war ravaged world. On the contrary: Japan, in 1962, had Auto manufacturers Mitsubishi, Subaru, Mazda, Toyota, Nissan, and a handful of smaller manufacturers like now-defunct Ohta, and Daihatsu. This pattern is typical across the industrialized world. In 1962, Germany had Audi, Volkswagen, Mercedes Benz, Porsche, BMW, Opel, Amphicar, DKW, Ford, Glas, Gogomobil, Goliath, Gutbrod, Lloyd, MCA, Neckar, NSU, Trabant, and Wartburg. In 1962 Sweden had Saab and Volvo (independent), Holland had DAF, France had Simca, Peugeot, Renault, Citroen, Italy had Fiat, Ferrari, Maseratti, England had ..... well - you get the idea. The situation was similar in consumer goods and electronics - Philips, Blaupunkt, Bang and Olufsen, Telefunken, Grundig, Tandberg, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Sony, National (Panasonic) and on and on - not to mention our own Packard Bell, Westinghouse, Sylvania, Zenith, RCA, Magnavox, etc. etc. - all existing in the year 1962 with access largely to their own domestic consumer markets . The theory that prosperity cannot exist without huge volumes of International trade is a patent falsehood. International trade has not created gross benefit to the majority of people. It has created incremental benefit - in large volumes - to the very wealthy, who own the majority of stock in corporations that reap incremental benefits in profits by seeking the lowest labor and regulatory environments to operate in.

Edited December 14, 2010 by retro-man

[RangerM]

My point, or at the least the one I was trying to make, is that the world changed, and people either weren't prepared for it or didn't realize it could/would happen.

 

I'd say if there is one consistency throughout history (and not just death and taxes), it's change. Would you say that part of your argument is that the world should not have changed?

Edited December 14, 2010 by RangerM

[xr7g428]

Mark, Tell us again how making the rich less successful helps the poor. I want to know how the world is a better place if Bill Gates never earned more than you.

[retro-man]

My point, or at the least the one I was trying to make, is that the world changed, and people either weren't prepared for it or didn't realize it could/would happen.

 

I'd say if there is one consistency throughout history (and not just death and taxes), it's change. Would you say that part of your argument is that the world should not have changed?

A theory professor once laid an interesting concept on me: "Traditional societies are ones in which there is much change over distance, and little change over time (eg China, where there is pottery being produced - those little thick-walled teacups - that are exact copies of ones coming up from 3,000 year old archeological digs, while the ones from a village 25 miles distant would have their own pattern), while modern societies are ones in which there is little change over distance, and much change over time (e.g. plopping myself down on a hotel bed in Tokyo, turning on the TV and seeing an "Everybody in Khaki" ad for Gap - back when that ad was current - followed by one showing an Inuit tracking an Audi through the snow).

 

I think there's a happy medium. If you have to retrain yourself several times during your career - to the extent that it starts eating up what little is left of your creative, spiritual, social, and family time, and If you have to follow jobs from one part of the country to another - or one part of the world to another - to the extent that it disrupts lifelong relationships with family and friends (or makes it impossible to even form such relationships), and removes one from potentially important support networks, left to fend alone or rely on paid services in times of trouble, If you have no longer even the illusion of stability and security in your life - things that were taken for granted a generation or 2 ago, left only with a vague feeling of anxiety, like a field vole perpetually caught out in the open - then the changes that are happening are bad, we have not created a good society, and we ought to put on the brakes, or try a different direction. There is such a thing as good change, but not all change is good. Alvin Toffler had it right to an extent with "Future Shock", but he failed to question whether the "accelerated change" characteristic of third wave societies contributes to quality of life or not. My belief is that, like anything else, there is a point of diminishing returns. And we have passed it. The term "Rat Race" has been around for the better part of 100 years. It is worth revisiting the conventional wisdom that gave rise to it, and weighing it against what many are advocating (or apologizing for) here.

 

 

p.s. Nice clip on Boehner.

Edited December 14, 2010 by retro-man

[Roadtrip]

grbeck has made the same assertion many times. My usual response is to quote an article on the economy from the 1962 World Book year book (hard cover, right there on my library shelf - not cherry picked off the internet), which lists the volume of international trade at the time as 3% of GDP (at a modest surplus) - then a more recent corresponding figure (that was cherry-picked off the internets) from 2007 I think, that gave international trade as 37% of GDP (at a stupendous deficit). 11x the amount of the early 60s as a percentage of GDP. Compared to now, our economy was virtually self-contained in the early 60s. I am also fond of pointing out the healthy basic industries that existed in the various European countries and Japan even in the late 50s, early 60s, producing cars, electronics, optics, airplanes, consumer appliances, and etc.. In fact, in a different topic, I posted a rather long list of various well-known European and Japanese companies that were in full swing during the 50s, well before we started importing on a large scale.* It seems to me that this idea of American prosperity coming on the backs of bombed out European economies is greatly overplayed. In fact - while we were still riding high a few years ago, I used to hear on these forums the exact opposite complaint: that we had beggared ourselves with various "giveaways" like the Marshall Plan and the MacArthur Plan (never minding that those countries had long since, on the back of their own domestic industries, re-paid us) - not that we had made ourselves rich at the expense of those countries. I hate to demand consistency or anything, but........

 

Speaking of cherry picking, allow me to point out two relevant but important facts that you conveniently ignore:

 

1) Japan has had an export-based economy for the last 50 years or so. Where has that gotten it? Ever heard of the lost decade? Sure you have. Are you aware that Japan's Nikkie 225 index is sitting at about 25 percent of its peak -- reached in 1990? If a country's major stock market index is a leading indicator of its economy -- which it is, since it is a reflection of investor confidence in that country's industrial ability to produce -- then Japan's economy is in far worse shape than that of the U.S. There are other factors, of course, such as an aging population and huge public debt. Sounds familiar. . . .

 

2) The U.S. had TRADE SURPLUSES during all but 18 months of the horribly depressed decade of the 1930s.

 

Why are these facts important? Because they are a direct result of trade tarriffs, or barriers, or conditions, or what have you -- which you endorse.

 

It might sound counter-intuitive to you, but it's a sign of a healthy economy when parties are willing to trade with one another without your or the government's intervention.

[RangerM]

A theory professor once laid an interesting concept on me: "Traditional societies are ones in which there is much change over distance, and little change over time (eg China, where there is pottery being produced - those little thick-walled teacups - that are exact copies of ones coming up from 3,000 year old archeological digs, while the ones from a village 25 miles distant would have their own pattern), while modern societies are ones in which there is little change over distance, and much change over time (e.g. plopping myself down on a hotel bed in Tokyo, turning on the TV and seeing an "Everybody in Khaki" ad for Gap - back when that ad was current - followed by one showing an Inuit tracking an Audi through the snow).

 

I think there's a happy medium.

 

Not trying to point this at you personally, Retro, but this article is from the AP of May 14, 1966.

 

• 
  ...one youth told him: "Adults are the enemy".
  

Does it sound to you like the youth of that era (the adults of THIS era) were looking for a happy medium?

 

Of course, most young generations have every answer to every question. Thing is, the youth generation of THAT era seemed believe that not only did they have the answers, they actively rejected what had come before.

 

• 
  Another said: "We're taking over sooner or later. We have to. We're the active generation. Yours is the generation of betrayal. You started out idealistic. You wound up commercial.
  

 

That was 1966. Welcome to 2010. You're in charge.

 

Here's another article from 1964 that would seem to predict what I was talking about. Why else would kids of that era drop out if they didn't think they could get by?

 

As I was searching though archives I actually enjoyed reading far more articles than I referenced here. It's fascinating to read about the youth of that time, particularly if you read some of the editorials. If you believe what you read, it seems like A.D.D. wasn't such a recent occurrence, as much a recent diagnosis.

Edited December 14, 2010 by RangerM

[retro-man]

Speaking of cherry picking, allow me to point out two relevant but important facts that you conveniently ignore:

 

1) Japan has had an export-based economy for the last 50 years or so. Where has that gotten it? Ever heard of the lost decade? Sure you have. Are you aware that Japan's Nikkie 225 index is sitting at about 25 percent of its peak -- reached in 1990? If a country's major stock market index is a leading indicator of its economy -- which it is, since it is a reflection of investor confidence in that country's industrial ability to produce -- then Japan's economy is in far worse shape than that of the U.S. There are other factors, of course, such as an aging population and huge public debt. Sounds familiar. . . .

 

2) The U.S. had TRADE SURPLUSES during all but 18 months of the horribly depressed decade of the 1930s.

 

Why are these facts important? Because they are a direct result of trade tarriffs, or barriers, or conditions, or what have you -- which you endorse.

 

It might sound counter-intuitive to you, but it's a sign of a healthy economy when parties are willing to trade with one another without your or the government's intervention.

I have spent time in Japan during every calendar year since 1978, with the exception of 2007. I have watched their rise, and watched their fall. Let me qualify "fall" here: their "socialized" (privatized, but heavily regulated) health system is still intact, their unemployment rate is still around 5% - about half ours - my wife's widowed cousin just had a new house built, the translator that used to work for my company's meetings in Tokyo (not for me - I don't need a translator) is enjoying a week at her cabin in Nagano, and one of my struggling Architect friends from Tokyo is enjoying a trip to Paris with his wife as I type this. The other day, the exchange rate was 83 yen / $ - by far the highest I've ever seen it. It is our currency that's plummeting, not theirs. The stock market is not a measure of investors confidence in a country's industrial ability to produce. It is a measure of investors confidence in a country's ability to produce investor profits. Big difference. Most Japanese know the difference. I don't know what you read, but the mood on the ground there has never gotten as dark as it is here. And I am in almost constant contact with a variety of people there. They just look at us and cluck their tongues - same as it was in the 80s. I know some people are desperate to find somebody - anybody to point a finger at as having made a worse mess of things than we have. You won't find many candidates. Now - as for their "decline", such as it is, as I have mentioned on here many times, I have watched - over those 32 years - Japan offshore its manufacturing to low wage countries and open up their markets. I have watched them liberalize their laws to allow in big-box retailers like Costco, and global chains like Starbucks and Gap. I have watched these global players circumvent the traditional Japanese distributor networks and relationships (in fact - shoot me - I participated in it), and - rather rapidly - decimate the rich landscape of mom-and-pops that once existed there (and still does, to a much larger extent than here - don't get me wrong). That is the trend over the past 20 years. When I first went there, everything on the store shelves was made in Japan. Now, everything is made in China - just like here. Factories have been torn down, and shopping malls put up in their place. You want to know where to pin Japan's troubles, look at globalization, and the forced adoption of alien commercial practices. But their troubles still aren't as bad as ours, because they went down this path later, and reluctantly, and with savings in their accounts. There may still be time for them. We, on the other hand, are screwed. As for your comparison with the 30s - our trade at that time didn't amount to a tiny fraction of what it does now, even against a much smaller GDP. The problem in the 30s was that nobody had any money. Because somebody took it all and gave them a shiny balloon to hold instead in the roaring 20s leading up to it. Sound familiar?

 

Sorry if it seems like I'm talking past you - but I have a lot of experience on the ground there. I have come to different conclusions. I will grant you this: the export surpluses that Japan was running from the 60s up to the Asian financial crisis in the 90s were not sustainable (on a per capita basis, they have not had a surplus with us in awhile, and like us, they are running a deficit with China). But that was the lag time between us going down the globalization path, and dragging them (kicking and screaming) with us.

 

edit. Checked my figures. Seems the total volume of foreign trade in 1929 - imports and exports added together - was about 9% of GDP (higher than I thought). In the early 60s, it was about 3%. As of 2007, it was about 27%. The surplus of 1929 amounted to about 1% of GDP. The deficit of 2007 amounted to about 5% of GDP.

Edited December 14, 2010 by retro-man

[retro-man]

Not trying to point this at you personally, Retro, but this article is from the AP of May 14, 1966.

 

• 
  ...one youth told him: "Adults are the enemy".
  

Does it sound to you like the youth of that era (the adults of THIS era) were looking for a happy medium?

 

Of course, most young generations have every answer to every question. Thing is, the youth generation of THAT era seemed believe that not only did they have the answers, they actively rejected what had come before.

 

• 
  Another said: "We're taking over sooner or later. We have to. We're the active generation. Yours is the generation of betrayal. You started out idealistic. You wound up commercial.
  

 

That was 1966. Welcome to 2010. You're in charge.

 

Here's another article from 1964 that would seem to predict what I was talking about. Why else would kids of that era drop out if they didn't think they could get by?

LOL. I get your point. I'm in charge, but nobody's listening.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Mark, Tell us again how making the rich less successful helps the poor. I want to know how the world is a better place if Bill Gates never earned more than you.

 

 

Going back to the 2000 tax rate for the top 1% isn't going to make anyone poor. It is a 4% increase on adjusted Gross Income over $250,000. In fact the top 1% will still be paying less than they did in 2000 since income under the $250k threshold will be taxed at lower levels than in 2000.

 

The Bush Tax Cuts for the Top 1% didn't create any jobs here in the USA. The 8 years of the Bush Administration were great for the top but flat or worse for everyone else.

 

Look, XR7 it's not like anyone wants the rich to be poor. I certainly don't.

 

No one is suggesting a return to pre-1980 top rates of 71% or pre-1960 top rates of 91%. We still had lots of rich people in the '50s, '60s and '70s. There were rich people before Reagan. The difference is that the income dispairity was not nearly as great. Concentrating wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people is bad for the country.

 

It is hilarious that you would mention Bill Gates, since he is one of the most vocal critics of the Bush Tax Cuts, along with Warren Buffett.

 

The fact is that the cuts for the very rich don't trickle down in the economy. They are increasing the debt and deficit and do not provide a stimulus for getting the economy going. That isn't a Liberal position, it is the position of David Stockman, Reagan's Budget Director and the architect of Reagan's Trickle Down Policy.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110297/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-reagan-budget-director-david-s

[Imawhosure]

Going back to the 2000 tax rate for the top 1% isn't going to make anyone poor. It is a 4% increase on adjusted Gross Income over $250,000. In fact the top 1% will still be paying less than they did in 2000 since income under the $250k threshold will be taxed at lower levels than in 2000.

 

The Bush Tax Cuts for the Top 1% didn't create any jobs here in the USA. The 8 years of the Bush Administration were great for the top but flat or worse for everyone else.

 

Look, XR7 it's not like anyone wants the rich to be poor. I certainly don't.

 

No one is suggesting a return to pre-1980 top rates of 71% or pre-1960 top rates of 91%. We still had lots of rich people in the '50s, '60s and '70s. There were rich people before Reagan. The difference is that the income dispairity was not nearly as great. Concentrating wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people is bad for the country.

 

It is hilarious that you would mention Bill Gates, since he is one of the most vocal critics of the Bush Tax Cuts, along with Warren Buffett.

 

The fact is that the cuts for the very rich don't trickle down in the economy. They are increasing the debt and deficit and do not provide a stimulus for getting the economy going. That isn't a Liberal position, it is the position of David Stockman, Reagan's Budget Director and the architect of Reagan's Trickle Down Policy.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110297/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-reagan-budget-director-david-s

 

 

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are sooooo cash rich, they care less. You can only spend so much money in 1 lifetime, and they have faaaaar surpassed that. Good for them; and if they want to give the excess away, double good for them. But their are many who are no where near that rich, who you might consider rich, who do not want to. Legally trying to set up taking from them is no more than theft.

 

You have seen how Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet freely give their money away. Do you see them giving it to the government? Of course not! They are giving it to places that THEY feel will do a lot of good for Americas future. I do not agree with all their choices, but it is THEIR MONEY, so who am I to say what they can do with it. You should take the same approach with all the lesser rich; but still rich. If it is their money, then if they want to create more jobs for people to work at, so be it. If they want to give it to charities of their own choice, wonderful. But if the government wants to dictate where it goes; and since each and every one of us knows the government is 2 sandwiches short of a full picnic basket when it comes to dealing with money that they confiscate from everyone on this board, we should all resist on general purposes; if for no other reason.

 

We should all be ashamed that our government takes all the cash, throws into a barrel, then gives it out as they see fit. When the treasury comes up short, they find the programs that will make you notice, and claim they are short, so let them raise your taxes. What they don't tell you is--------->if they woulda lock boxed the money earmarked on the way in for each program that was taxed, the disparity would have been much smaller. In other words------->much of the money was spent on programs it was never intended for, making said programs come up much shorter than they ever would have, if that tax was earmarked soley for it.

 

Do you think that if roads were falling apart so much so that it caused damage consistently to Americans autos, that said Americans would not agree to a raise on a fuel tax to fix the roads? But Washington works different. It throws that tax into a general fund, spends it, then tells you that if you want the roads fixed, let us raise the taxes!!!!

 

We are not stupid!!!!!!!! We know how they fund their pet programs, regardless if they are dems, or repubs. This is why accountability needs be the order of the day. Put the money where it is supposed to go, and if a program comes up short, point to it and see what America thinks about raising that particular tax to fund it. If they do that, so many programs will be snuffed, our politicians would have to cry as they were thrown out. This is why the status quo will NOT change. To many people do NOT pay attention, which is exactly why we are in the shape we are in.

 

We are in serious, serious, trouble. It makes no difference if you are liberal, or conservative. It is time you educate yourselves on exactly what is going on to fool you; done by OUR politicians. If for no other reason, you should do this so as when you vote, you choose the direction our country will go in. In this manner if you choose correct, but are defeated, you have a clear conscience. It is going to take our RE-EDUCATION on politics to fix this; and if you love your children and grandchildren, may I suggest you start now instead of later. 2012 is not that far away!!!!!

 

P.S. May I humbly remind you that the lowering or stability of taxes being demonized soley because we are in debt is a red herring. We are not in congress, we did not spend that money, we did not give it away, we did not create unfunded programs. They did!

 

The theory that we have to fund everything they decided on is bogus. We need to elect people who are willing to cut spending, BEFORE they come to you for a tax hike. Yes, it is going to be a bloodbath because the gifts for nothing that are given away in this country will be grasped by the recipients. But that is where you come in. You are funding them! If you work, you are going to be taxed more! If you own a business, you are evil; even if you create jobs for the unemployed!

 

You may not want to get involved because you are to busy. Fine! But at least be registered to vote, and pay attention to what is really going on. As you can see by some of these posters, not only do they not know what is going on, as long as it is coming out of your pockets, they have no desire to actually find out.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Imawhosure

[goinbroke2]

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are sooooo cash rich, they care less. You can only spend so much money in 1 lifetime, and they have faaaaar surpassed that. Good for them; and if they want to give the excess away, double good for them. But their are many who are no where near that rich, who you might consider rich, who do not want to. Legally trying to set up taking from them is no more than theft.

 

You have seen how Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet freely give their money away. Do you see them giving it to the government? Of course not! They are giving it to places that THEY feel will do a lot of good for Americas future. I do not agree with all their choices, but it is THEIR MONEY, so who am I to say what they can do with it. You should take the same approach with all the lesser rich; but still rich. If it is their money, then if they want to create more jobs for people to work at, so be it. If they want to give it to charities of their own choice, wonderful. But if the government wants to dictate where it goes; and since each and every one of us knows the government is 2 sandwiches short of a full picnic basket when it comes to dealing with money that they confiscate from everyone on this board, we should all resist on general purposes; if for no other reason.

 

We should all be ashamed that our government takes all the cash, throws into a barrel, then gives it out as they see fit. When the treasury comes up short, they find the programs that will make you notice, and claim they are short, so let them raise your taxes. What they don't tell you is--------->if they woulda lock boxed the money earmarked on the way in for each program that was taxed, the disparity would have been much smaller. In other words------->much of the money was spent on programs it was never intended for, making said programs come up much shorter than they ever would have, if that tax was earmarked soley for it.

 

Do you think that if roads were falling apart so much so that it caused damage consistently to Americans autos, that said Americans would not agree to a raise on a fuel tax to fix the roads? But Washington works different. It throws that tax into a general fund, spends it, then tells you that if you want the roads fixed, let us raise the taxes!!!!

 

We are not stupid!!!!!!!! We know how they fund their pet programs, regardless if they are dems, or repubs. This is why accountability needs be the order of the day. Put the money where it is supposed to go, and if a program comes up short, point to it and see what America thinks about raising that particular tax to fund it. If they do that, so many programs will be snuffed, our politicians would have to cry as they were thrown out. This is why the status quo will NOT change. To many people do NOT pay attention, which is exactly why we are in the shape we are in.

 

We are in serious, serious, trouble. It makes no difference if you are liberal, or conservative. It is time you educate yourselves on exactly what is going on to fool you; done by OUR politicians. If for no other reason, you should do this so as when you vote, you choose the direction our country will go in. In this manner if you choose correct, but are defeated, you have a clear conscience. It is going to take our RE-EDUCATION on politics to fix this; and if you love your children and grandchildren, may I suggest you start now instead of later. 2012 is not that far away!!!!!

 

P.S. May I humbly remind you that the lowering or stability of taxes being demonized soley because we are in debt is a red herring. We are not in congress, we did not spend that money, we did not give it away, we did not create unfunded programs. They did!

 

The theory that we have to fund everything they decided on is bogus. We need to elect people who are willing to cut spending, BEFORE they come to you for a tax hike. Yes, it is going to be a bloodbath because the gifts for nothing that are given away in this country will be grasped by the recipients. But that is where you come in. You are funding them! If you work, you are going to be taxed more! If you own a business, you are evil; even if you create jobs for the unemployed!

 

You may not want to get involved because you are to busy. Fine! But at least be registered to vote, and pay attention to what is really going on. As you can see by some of these posters, not only do they not know what is going on, as long as it is coming out of your pockets, they have no desire to actually find out.

 

Agree 1000%

[retro-man]

More happy thoughts.