yup Marshall Plan, business cycle theory, GI bill, baby boom, etc
Printable View
yup Marshall Plan, business cycle theory, GI bill, baby boom, etc
so if you lower taxes that also requires you taking out the competition with nukes? cool .
That's just what the liberal elitest want you to think.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Besides... Reagan won WWII, and don't tell me that the dates don't add up because they do in my history book.
1. Germany took off economically when restrictions on their industrial complex were lifted.
2. Marshall Plan in terms of effectiveness has been much debated; and the long-term ramifications of the Plan (in terms of policy formation) have not been positive.
3. Japan grew without any sort of Marshall Plan intervention. Japan cut taxes and encouraged spending yes, but they also pushed their manufacturing industry.
4. Post-WWII the US had a massive industrial and production complex that could be harnessed; that does not exist today (because of the policies of free trade).
First off, they don't have the same degree of government as we do across their country, they have an income tax, 35% corporate tax, and 16% sales tax. Our businesses have more accountability. If a large influx of people started going to a warehouse size store, it would be found. The black market saves the corporate and sales rates. If we have no corporate tax, the consumption tax wouldn't be large enough to make a large black market viable.Quote:
Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar
That is how governments hurt the economy. They increase tax rates when if anything, tax rates need to be temporarily reduced. Take more money from those who earn it, and now you have even less consumption yet. Right now, we have an indirect consumption tax. We consume goods, profits are made, and revenue comes from those profits. Either way, no consumption = no revenue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drachen
I have always maintained that the government should not run a deficit except during wars or recessions. That is when we can either print more money or borrow.
The Korean War helped quite a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by L.I.T
5. Throughout history, Japan, Taiwan (Hong Kong), Korea, China, etc have prospered as we started letting them manufacture goods for us. All these decades, the USA's average citizens have been falling behind. We continue to lose manufacturing jobs and our supply and demand of the skilled working class continues to lower real wages.Quote:
Originally Posted by L.I.T
They tax consumption, we tax production. US goods effectively get taxed twice, imports goods effectively zero. We need to stop taxing production, and set a level playing field in the global market.
That it did. But, they also implemented protectionist economic policies...ironically modeled after the American System based on Hamiltonian economics and Abraham Lincolns policies.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Picking up from the quote above, I find it seriously ironic that as the US abandoned the economic system (in the 1970s) that drove them to prosperity (Hamiltonian economics/American system) in favor of free trade, Asian countries (and lately the prosperous developing nations) studied the American School and adopted it to their use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
From national experience here, in the early 1990s the Philippines adopted freely the free trade system and subsequently our manufacturing sectors collapsed. Other nations, like Japan/Korea/Malaysia, maintained Hamiltonian policies and have remained fairly stable economies.
On the bright side, for the US, they still have that massive productivity edge, so it's just a matter of them harnessing it.
Would you agree or not that overhauling our tax system from productivity based to consumption based would improve the number of our manufacturing industries?Quote:
Originally Posted by L.I.T
I am a firm believe that we can compete in the global market with such a change.
Do conservatives support the GI Bill? Just curious.
I'm sure people on both sides do. I don't know the details, I have never used any of the services available. If you would like my comment on a specific aspect of it, this could make an interesting new thread. Just give me a program specific I can look up rather than the whole thing. I'll bet I will be for some aspects, but not others.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Hmm... good idea. I'll look at posting the new GI Bill that got approved a year ago or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Why wouldn't we?
Technically, I guess you could call it an entitlement program, since taxpayer money is used to fund it. *shrug*Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
I wasn't trying to start something; I was just genuinely curious if any conservatives were against it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
"Provide for the common defense"
And I wouldn't equate the GI bill with welfare. The recipient has to make a sacrifice to their country to get it -- they have to do something more than fog up a mirror.
I agree Darrin except I think some veterans get too good a deal who may have only served a term and got out. I am all for the benefits for those who stayed in during possible military actions, and through military actions that still served honorable. I just have a feeling some get far better than they should, but i don't know enough detail either.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
I certainly find it useful myself! I already get TA from the Air Force... working on my degree, slowly but surely. And if I finish my Master's while I'm in, I believe the new GI Bill allows you to transfer it to your children.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
You can transfer whatever funds you don't use?
I think that's true, and was intended because too often, military personal become too busy to use that benefit. Stying in the service they also have a hard time putting their kids through college. I have no problem if they make the military their career, but if they only serve a term or two, I say they have no reason not to use it themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
This, plus the fact that there was so much pent-up demand in the U.S. after the war for durable goods and housing because people had actually been put to work during the war, earned money that they could not spend during the war, but were eager to do so after the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reckoning
Plus, as someone else pointed out, the post-war world-wide reconstruction was primarily a boon to American trade, in part due to the Bretton-Wood deals in which America got better trading functions than Britain (including the re-focusing on American dollar as the primary trade currency rather than the British pound), which massively helped the American economy after the war and limited the British recovery to a slow crawl. The Americans insisted on the trade deals as part of the price of the lend-lease continuance after the War for Britain so that the British people wouldn't starve. The Brits were somehow less-than-impressed with the generosity of their 'ally'.
I cannot speak specifically to the US situation (I am not as up-to-date on the complexities, but I will take a look), but I can speak from a policy perspective from this side of the pond.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
We have had some success in reworking our domestic corporate tax structure vis-a-vis manufacturing and industry with some initial success. This has involved introducing economic zone-based tax and customs incentives (for importation of equipment and certain materials for assembly). The zones have been successful in maintaining domestic focused manufacturing in country. Another aspect of the zones is a dramatic short-term reduction in gross tax rates to help the businesses transition.
We have been experimenting with a VAT (on certain items, exempted necessities and medicines for the elderly) the last few years and in the period drew down personal and corporate tax rates. Later this year, the measures come up for re-evaluation. Superficially, they have helped increase stability in the corporate world and we were able to slide through the recent economic crisis relatively unscathed. Tax receipts also increased during the VAT period with no apparent negative social consequences.
This comes with some caveats though. We have a much higher recividism rate when it comes to tax evasion, and of course our poverty situation is strikingly different from yours. Along with our ever-present corruption issues.
The key component though that has yet to be addressed is the infusion of some protectionist policies into our trade framework. I believe that this, as opposed to internal subsidizing (outside of tax incentives) will help stabilize and develop local manufacturing and the agricultural industry (for an economy like ours they are twinned pillars).
The US has transitioned almost wholly to a service/consumption based economy though. I believe that they can recreate that manufacturing and industrial complex. To start though, they will have to revisit their free-trade policies; which I can tell you from personal experience with US ambassadors is not going to be easy. However, the US reversed long-standing trade policy in the 60s and 70s, so they can do it again. They have to allow manufacturing to re-develop: this will likely involve (as you say) rejiggering the tax structure; but again, I am not sure as to whether transitioning totally to a consumption based tax system is the solution.
What I would say is that the US will have difficulty recreating their manufacturing dominance. That being said, I think the US can, and should, refocus on "knowledge based manufacturing". As in software/computer-based technology that sort of thing. The US is still the unquestionable leader in innovation. The next step is making sure that the production stays within the US.
By the way, in the Philippines in terms of policy recommendations we've changed our focus away from income distribution (which ultimately fails as we've experienced time and again) to focusing on asset inequality and redistribution (but not in the socialist take from the rich give to the poor sense). Income distribution just doesn't capture a lot of the underlying problems. In relation to what we are focusing on here, this is not breaking down the top 1% of society, but figuring out ways to uplift the bottom 50% through targeted policies, education programs and cooperative programs.
C'mon, W.C., the Japanese model was as successful as it was because we absolutely took over their country at the end of the war, refused them any expenditure for military (therefore not having to use up any of their GDP in military) goods/services, and we by God we most certainly did rebuild their economy. We didn't call it a Marshall plan but the American taxpayer most certainly paid for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Finally, the Asian economies are based on what in America would be called 'slave wages'. American labor unions prevent that from happening, and the difference in wage costs between America and Asia, or America and most third world countries, has as much to do with jobs moving overseas as any tax policy in the world.
1. Don't overlook the effect of neomercantilist policies implemented in the 1950s and a shift to an export based economy on finishing off the rapid Japanese economic improvementQuote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
2. I am a little offended by the term slave wages. I think that is the first time I have ever heard poverty and suffering cast as competitive advantage. I cannot speak to other countries, but our economy is not based on "slave wages." You are overlooking the impact of free trade policies that have decimated this country. Prior to Martial Law in the 1970s-1980s our economy was second to Japan in per capita metrics. With the advent of free trade policies in the 80s and 90s our manufacturing and agricultural industries have subsequently collapsed.
Of course the first statement off the plane by the new US ambassador was praising our "free" relationship. A not so subtle dig, that I do not take kindly too. As I tried to explain the complexities of these situations are not just tax policy or trade policy related.
But I would please ask you to not refer to the impoverished as slaves. They already suffer enough indignities as it is and do not need to be spit on by those luckier than them in life.
As someone who has dedicated his life to education and economic advocacies to help the impoverished I do not take appreciate it as well.
And thank you for reminding me why I do not venture in the Politics Forum that much.
I doubt EVAY meant it as a dig, LIT. The scare quotes may have been intended to highlight the dodginess of what for better and for worse is a commonly used cliche'.