David Frum: Wake up GOP -- Smashing system doesn't fix it

[Spurminator]

It's not only the cheaper labor. There are other factors, with taxation and regulations being two major factors.

If you weren't so short sighted as for looking for a single solution, then you might understand that all factors need to be looked at.

Even if regulations and taxes were reduced, would international labor still be cheaper?

If yes, what would be their motivation to hire more expensive American workers? Patriotism? Altruism?

[ElNono]

It's not only the cheaper labor. There are other factors, with taxation and regulations being two major factors.

Not really. Cheap labor is the major factor. Unless you can find Americans willing to work 14+ hours a day for $0.25/hour, it's simply an insurmountable factor.

If you weren't so short sighted as for looking for a single solution, then you might understand that all factors need to be looked at.

Tell me how you address the factor above?. I mean, corps like GE over here already don't pay taxes, and still move their operations to China. So tax cuts ain't going to do it (they already pay none). Even if you get rid of minimum wage, and a bunch of other regulations, you still can't live in the US making the kind of money mentioned above.

Let's hear you multiple solutions to overcome that problem...

[Spurminator]

Our patriotic job creators will hire US workers again when we stop punishing them for earning an honest living. :flag :jesusfish

[Wild Cobra]

Even if regulations and taxes were reduced, would international labor still be cheaper?

If yes, what would be their motivation to hire more expensive American workers? Patriotism? Altruism?

I've covered this before. It depends on cost vs. volume and/or weight. With small items, it favors the cost of labor. With larger items, it favors taxation. You and others seem to focus on a single solution, when in reality, there are several things that need changed together. On larger items, transportation costs are real. However, they are too often lower than our combined cost to business in taxation and regulation. Saddling corporate America with Obamacare will also export more jobs.

Lowering taxes and/or regulations is not a solution to stop importation. It will only make a positive difference to some degree. Any increase in USA production is a step in the right direction, and in that vast grey area, lower corporate taxes will make a difference for some industries.

[ElNono]

I've covered this before. It depends on cost vs. volume and/or weight. With small items, it favors the cost of labor. With larger items, it favors taxation. You and others seem to focus on a single solution, when in reality, there are several things that need changed together. On larger items, transportation costs are real. However, they are too often lower than our combined cost to business in taxation and regulation. Saddling corporate America with Obamacare will also export more jobs.

Do you have any figures to back this up?

Lowering taxes and/or regulations is not a solution to stop importation. It will only make a positive difference to some degree. Any increase in USA production is a step in the right direction, and in that vast grey area, lower corporate taxes will make a difference for some industries.

Why would USA production increase if they can't compete? People already voted with their wallets and will choose cheaper vs country almost in every case.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you have any figures to back this up?



Why would USA production increase if they can't compete? People already voted with their wallets and will choose cheaper vs country almost in every case.

If you don't understand the simplicity of what I said, then bug off. I indicate two extremes and a grey area. I do not need to show numbers and that isn't my intent, if you don't understand the effect is real, then you you don't understand scientific methodology.

As for the people voting... It goes back to an improperly informed electorate. Our media really sucks.

[ElNono]

If you don't understand the simplicity of what I said, then bug off.

You said a lot of stupid things that have no basis on reality.
So I'll take this response as "No, I have nothing to back up my contention".

That's what I thought.

I indicate two extremes and a grey area. I do not need to show numbers and that isn't my intent, if you don't understand the effect is real, then you you don't understand scientific methodology.

As for the people voting... It goes back to an improperly informed electorate. Our media really sucks.

I probably have read and understand more about economics than you do about changing parts. I'm asking you to back stuff up because reality and you rarely make a connection.

As far as media, I agree they suck. You're the epitome of a completely misinformed person.

[Wild Cobra]

You said a lot of stupid things that have no basis on reality.
So I'll take this response as "No, I have nothing to back up my contention".

That's what I thought.



I probably have read and understand more about economics than you do about changing parts. I'm asking you to back stuff up because reality and you rarely make a connection.

As far as media, I agree they suck. You're the epitome of a completely misinformed person.

LOL...

My God.

You are arguing that I have no basis to say there is a change someplace in the "grey area" between two extremes.

You expect anyone to take you seriously?

Bug off.

[ElNono]

LOL...
My God.
You are arguing that I have no basis to say there is a change someplace in the "grey area" between two extremes.

Don't move the goalposts. You made a claim and I asked you to back it up.
Can you back up what you said?

You expect anyone to take you seriously?

Unlike you, I think a good amount of people do take me seriously in here.
They might agree or not with me, but that's a different story.

So, are you going to back up your contention, or we just have to assume you're talking out of your ass again?

[Wild Cobra]

Don't move the goalposts. You made a claim and I asked you to back it up.
Can you back up what you said?

I made a claim that there is a grey area and that tax changes will make a change in some business decisions. I never quantified it. It is you who is changing the goalpost. You either agree that taxes make a difference, or you don't. Stop playing games with my words asshole. If you want to start quantifying it, then I suggest you start.

Unlike you, I think a good amount of people do take me seriously in here.
They might agree or not with me, but that's a different story.

Yep...

Other lib s!

So, are you going to back up your contention, or we just have to assume you're talking out of your ass again?

Why do I need to back up such an obvious truth?

[ElNono]

I made a claim that there is a grey area and that tax changes will make a change in some business decisions. I never quantified it. It is you who is changing the goalpost. You either agree that taxes make a difference, or you don't. Stop playing games with my words asshole. If you want to start quantifying it, then I suggest you start.

Let me refresh your memory, because now you're ranting:

I've covered this before. It depends on cost vs. volume and/or weight. With small items, it favors the cost of labor. With larger items, it favors taxation. You and others seem to focus on a single solution, when in reality, there are several things that need changed together. On larger items, transportation costs are real. However, they are too often lower than our combined cost to business in taxation and regulation. Saddling corporate America with Obamacare will also export more jobs.

Do you have any figures to back this up?

Yes or no. If you do, post them.

Why do I need to back up such an obvious truth?

If it's such an obvious truth, you wouldn't have a problem backing it up, right?

Now put up or shut up.

[Wild Cobra]

My God...

Stop being a Chump.

Again, if those simple truths are incomprehensible to you, then off.

[ElNono]

My God...

Stop being a Chump.

Again, if those simple truths are incomprehensible to you, then off.

So you can't back up your 'simple truths'. Gotcha.

[MannyIsGod]

You should just learn the word no. Its really what you're saying.

[MannyIsGod]

deregulation of industry. more individual rights, abolish the minimum wage, abolish corporate taxes and capital gains. More capitalism.

Which specific regulations? All of them? Some of them? Which ones?

Abolish minimum wage? So that people can be employed at 2 dollars an hour? Whats the point?

Abolish more taxes? Are corporations overtaxed here? HARDLY?

I just see talking points here but I see nothing to show HOW they would benefit the country at all - especially the first few examples.

[Wild Cobra]

So you can't back up your 'simple truths'. Gotcha.

I'm not going to bother finding linkable evidence that you might accept. I have seen quite a bit in my lifetime. I used to work for LSI Logic, and now they do their major production in Malaysia. I was laid off from there. I understand some of these internal corporate decision, and taxation was a major reason. I would have a hard time linking life experiences for you, and not going to look up shipping costs per cubic foot vs. taxes for you.

If you cannot accept that at some price point, any change makes a difference, then you are lost.

[Wild Cobra]

Abolish minimum wage? So that people can be employed at 2 dollars an hour? Whats the point?

I'm not against minimum wages. I myself, think they can be raised to our national benefit rather than detriment. However, we still need to have better control over imports first.

[ElNono]

I'm not going to bother finding linkable evidence that you might accept. I have seen quite a bit in my lifetime. I used to work for LSI Logic, and now they do their major production in Malaysia. I was laid off from there. I understand some of these internal corporate decision, and taxation was a major reason. I would have a hard time linking life experiences for you, and not going to look up shipping costs per cubic foot vs. taxes for you.

If you cannot accept that at some price point, any change makes a difference, then you are lost.

You should've have just said that your 'simple truth' was a personal anecdote, not backed up with anything else. Would've saved us both a few posts.

[Wild Cobra]

You should've have just said that your 'simple truth' was a personal anecdote, not backed up with anything else. Would've saved us both a few posts.

I have seen numbers. I'm not going to waste my time looking for them, especially since the internet might not have them. Tell me, is everything before 1990 to be found on internet searches? Only loser rely on linkable information for the truth in life.

[ElNono]

I have seen numbers. I'm not going to waste my time looking for them, especially since the internet might not have them. Tell me, is everything before 1990 to be found on internet searches? Only loser rely on linkable information for the truth in life.

I'm not disputing it's a personal anecdote, and take it for what it is.
And honestly, you're the master of linking to graphs and charts online. So you're only qualifying yourself there.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not disputing it's a personal anecdote, and take it for what it is.
And honestly, you're the master of linking to graphs and charts online. So you're only qualifying yourself there.

I can only do so much, and I know that undoctored history before 1990 is hard to find on the internet.

Just being a realist not willing to gamble my time like that.

How about you attempting to prove I'm wrong if you think it's so easy.

[ElNono]

I can only do so much, and I know that undoctored history before 1990 is hard to find on the internet.
Just being a realist not willing to gamble my time like that.
How about you attempting to prove I'm wrong if you think it's so easy.

Well, it's real easy. You say your anecdote is from 1990 or thereabouts (mid-80's?). Since then, we've had higher taxes and lower unemployment.
Furthermore, by stating this was well before Obamacare, you're telling me Obamacare had nothing to do with it.

One other consideration is that the world isn't what was then.
This is China's GDP growth:


Back then, China was nothing.

Proving you wrong isn't a problem. That's why I was curious to see what you based your contention on.