We need to level the playing field, instead of selective tax deal. Mutual fund managers, private equity(Essentially all the major players, the real fat cats) should pay their fair share of taxes. No more deferment of taxes, especially for multinational corporation such as google (they paid effective tax rate of 2.5%). Why should the productive rich(especially successful small businesses) pay 35% while wall street gets to pay at 15-20% long term capital gains tax rate? Make all the “Rich” pay the same tax rate! No more favoritism in Congress, I just don’t believe honest, innovative people can’t win in this country. The rest can invest, live somewhere else. In a capitalistic society, if you leave a business, someone will take it!
Responsibility in government. Need to stop the unfair abuse of taxpayer funded pension system. No more double dipping. If you work for the government, the pension will accumulate consequetively instead of concurrently. Actuary reduction for those retire before 65 of age, just like a real private insurance will pay you. No more sweetheart deals for chiefs of fire department, chief of police etc… It just hurts the younger generation of line fireman, policeofficers. It just take couple of “Star” “VIP” government officials bankrupt the pension system.
Unfortunately I think we have finally reach a point that something needs to be done. People like Bush, Charle Rangel, Barney Frank all had their day and allow this to happen. It’s time to reform.
The bottom line is U.S. trade policy. Anything short of a thorough analysis of the pros and cons of pre-1994 and current trade policy and related outcomes misses the mark. That effort needs to include a refresher on the trade deficit commission conclusions.
Instead of focusing primary attention on U.S. trade policy, we have the usual howlers screaming about the lack of jobs created during the last decade. Well, what did the howlers expect to occur with the changes in U.S. trade policy that were implemented during the mid ’90s and thereafter? They play the standard political blame cards instead of discussing changes in trade policy and resultant outcomes.
The U.S. trade model is broken from a U.S. employment perspective.
MG, additionally, we have the same howlers complaining about the lack ofreal wage increases over the same period when our trade goals were to raise the standard of living/wage level of the of the world so that they were closer to ours. Create better more prosperous trading partners.
As far as trade goes, we have this deficit component that everyone conveniently overlooks: “The point is this: out of a $44 billion dollar monthly trade deficit, $27 billion of that was for one commodity alone. Unfortunately for the U.S., it happens to be the most strategic commodity of all: OIL. Put another way, imported oil made up 62% of the U.S. monthly trade deficit. This is not an aberration – it goes on month after month, year after year. And as the price of oil goes up, so too does this problem. It is quite simply draining away the wealth of America. We are burning it up in our cars and trucks.” From here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/238920-foreign-oil-dependency-the-root-cause-of-america-s-economic-pain?source=feed
Trade policy impacts are closely linked to other policies, environmental and energy (maybe the same policy in today’s world), which have significant negative impacts on our exports as well as being the major compnent of our trade deficit.
MG, additionally, we have the same howlers complaining about the lack of real wage increases over the same period when our trade goals were to raise the standard of living/wage level of the of the third world so that they were closer to ours. Create better more prosperous trading partners. What part of raising the rest of the third world economies did they not think would stabilize or even lower ours? This too is not hard to grasp. As far as trade goes, we have this deficit component that everyone conveniently overlooks: “The point is this: out of a $44 billion dollar monthly trade deficit, $27 billion of that was for one commodity alone. Unfortunately for the U.S., it happens to be the most strategic commodity of all: OIL. Put another way, imported oil made up 62% of the U.S. monthly trade deficit. This is not an aberration – it goes on month after month, year after year. And as the price of oil goes up, so too does this problem. It is quite simply draining away the wealth of America. We are burning it up in our cars and trucks.” (My bolding) From here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/238920-foreign-oil-dependency-the-root-cause-of-america-s-economic-pain?source=feed
Trade policy impacts are closely linked to other policies, environmental and energy (maybe the same policy in today’s world), which have significant negative impacts on our exports as well as being the major compnent of our trade deficit.
In both examples that ole rule of unanticipated consequences still lives. What is amazing is the willing ignorance/denial over the causes.
“again, i dont think it is the environmentalists – they have neither the money or the power. big oil has both. all one needs to do is read robert hefner’s excellent book “the grand energy transition” to get a better feel for who the opponents of natural gas transportation are: big oil, coal, the utilities, and the railroads that transport coal. and i would add one more: the U.S. military who needs a good oil war now and again to get promotions, rationalize more troops…etc. etc. as well as the defense contractors that feed it. “
Dan, that’s the constant counter argument used by the environmentalists: “Its all the fault of Big Oil/Energy!” But, whenever the covers are actually pulled off that argument it almost always proved untrue. Environmentalists have the MSM and several governments and their agencies as their premier allies. To think they have less power is extraordinarily naive. The preponderance of money spent is on environment/green side of the equation versus the “Big Energy”.
As far as the “Foreign Oil” issue as part of our trade deficit problem, are you ignoring that fact? Are you actually saying that environmentalists are not effecting those policies? Gas, shale/sand oil, and coal policies are not environmentally driven, with little discussion/consideration of their economic consequences? Are you saying that they are not linked?
When one policy, environmentalism, is over weighted when compared to other(s), (economics; trade; research; energy, drilling; etc) then that ole rule of unintended consequences is not only supreme it may very well be the “anticipated” consequences.
and i am inclined to agree with you too. but as i remember you think the answer is to drill for oil in my daughter’s bedroom. the idea of driving smaller cars on fewer shorter trips does not appeal to you. talk about willing ignorance/denial.
One thing we actually got in the latest Bush-Obama-Pork tax cut extensions was the tax break for using oil to burn our food supply (corn ethanol production tax break extensions).
Next, some time in March we will be due to vote up the Federal debt limit cap of $14 Trillion. Otherwise they will have to shut down the government. I’m positive they will vote up the debt limit so we don’t close the United States of America, but I am also positive they will hold their votes hostage for more tax breaks!
Let me know when they get serious about something. (cutting Warren Buffet’s SS benefit doesn’t count)
imported oil made up 62% of the U.S. monthly trade deficit.
That’s a shocking stat. Libs complain about the economy, yet they restrict the most basic fundamental building block of the economy – ENERGY. They want no drilling in ANWR, no drilling in the Gulf, no drilling off Florida, no clean coal in Utah, no oil shale development, no nuclear…….
Is it because they instinctively hate the freedom that the automobile, and a rollicking economy, provide.? They want to put everyone on buses, trains or small slow electric cars? Is that why they fell so hard for the Global Warming Hoax?
find it hard to guess why it’s “shocking”. is there something magic about 62% that makes it mean something other than we use a lot of oil. and i would guess that’s not 62% of foreign trade, but a number being compared to another number… “trade deficit”… in the kind of illegitimate comparison that drives the constant right wing hysteria.
yes, i hate your freedom. that’s why i made it against the law for you to drive on sidewalks.
and every time you have to stop for a red light… or obey a speed sign… think of me laughing behind your back.
but keep in the back of your mind that i like my car too. and i would like to keep it. that means i would like to keep you from running us out of oil or air. the basic principle is use what you have wisely. don’t waste it. or you will have to do without when it’s gone.
MG, gasoline or electricity, their price doubling in the near term will be the tipping point when the Green movement is stopped. Too often when that pendulum changes direction it swings too far in the opposite direction.
coberly – “i am inclined to agree with you, but you should flesh out your point with some actual argument.”
This issue has been fleshed out in detail hundreds of times since 2005 on this blog and other econ blogs. It has been addressed by former staff members of the Clinton Administration and countless others including EPI.
The U.S. lost 44,000 manufacturing plants between 2000 and 2005. End of argument.
Now, we have an economy that doesn’t have the supposed “advantage” of excess consumer credit to prop it up. And there is very little discussion regarding what percentage of GDP and employment that such excess credit represented during the past two decades. All part of the cover up economic cycle, one of the biggest scams in U.S. economic history.
Yves Smith is generally correct that stimulus spending and tax cuts are not among the available long term solutions for the U.S. economy. There has been a great deal of discussion focusing on stimulus and other ideas to relaunch the U.S. economy, thereby driving up demand. Well, that ignores the consumer excess credit hangover problem that some haven’t grasped. The nation won’t recapture all of the previous demand, and that should signal the need for a focus on long term economic solutions. The lack of broad discussion on long term solutions is interesting. There is a lot of defended territory out there that special interests will attempt to protect, and that includes many economists who haven’t touched on the failures of current U.S. trade policy. It won’t take many more years for the curtain to be pulled back fully, exposing the academic thinking and related recommendations that created the ongoing economic mess.
and I have explained Social Security ten thousand times, but if I post a comment about it again, I feel some responsibility to tell the reader at least the gist of my argument. If they want to know more, they can ask questions or look up the citations. But you, I suggest, lose most of your potential audience by assuming they already know what you know, or are criminally responsible for not knowing it.
Meanwhile “End of argument.” means “I have stopped thinking.”
The US did develop a good informal energy policy with fewer trips, lower speeds, and smaller vehicles when gasoline went over $4.00. The net result was lower demand on gasoline. And what was the return answer? Refineries lowered capacity.
The lowered speed limits forced class 8 trucking firms to regear many of their fleet tractors. It was, in many respects, a financial disaster in their opinion.
Conservation efforts are fine, but there is a bit more to establishing a long term national energy policy.
Yves Smith nailed it on the money.
We need to level the playing field, instead of selective tax deal. Mutual fund managers, private equity(Essentially all the major players, the real fat cats) should pay their fair share of taxes. No more deferment of taxes, especially for multinational corporation such as google (they paid effective tax rate of 2.5%). Why should the productive rich(especially successful small businesses) pay 35% while wall street gets to pay at 15-20% long term capital gains tax rate? Make all the “Rich” pay the same tax rate! No more favoritism in Congress, I just don’t believe honest, innovative people can’t win in this country. The rest can invest, live somewhere else. In a capitalistic society, if you leave a business, someone will take it!
Responsibility in government. Need to stop the unfair abuse of taxpayer funded pension system. No more double dipping. If you work for the government, the pension will accumulate consequetively instead of concurrently. Actuary reduction for those retire before 65 of age, just like a real private insurance will pay you. No more sweetheart deals for chiefs of fire department, chief of police etc… It just hurts the younger generation of line fireman, policeofficers. It just take couple of “Star” “VIP” government officials bankrupt the pension system.
Unfortunately I think we have finally reach a point that something needs to be done. People like Bush, Charle Rangel, Barney Frank all had their day and allow this to happen. It’s time to reform.
That was a pretty good interview with Yves Smith.
The bottom line is U.S. trade policy. Anything short of a thorough analysis of the pros and cons of pre-1994 and current trade policy and related outcomes misses the mark. That effort needs to include a refresher on the trade deficit commission conclusions.
Instead of focusing primary attention on U.S. trade policy, we have the usual howlers screaming about the lack of jobs created during the last decade. Well, what did the howlers expect to occur with the changes in U.S. trade policy that were implemented during the mid ’90s and thereafter? They play the standard political blame cards instead of discussing changes in trade policy and resultant outcomes.
The U.S. trade model is broken from a U.S. employment perspective.
This isn’t difficult to grasp.
MG, additionally, we have the same howlers complaining about the lack ofreal wage increases over the same period when our trade goals were to raise the standard of living/wage level of the of the world so that they were closer to ours. Create better more prosperous trading partners.
As far as trade goes, we have this deficit component that everyone conveniently overlooks: “The point is this: out of a $44 billion dollar monthly trade deficit, $27 billion of that was for one commodity alone. Unfortunately for the U.S., it happens to be the most strategic commodity of all: OIL. Put another way, imported oil made up 62% of the U.S. monthly trade deficit. This is not an aberration – it goes on month after month, year after year. And as the price of oil goes up, so too does this problem. It is quite simply draining away the wealth of America. We are burning it up in our cars and trucks.” From here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/238920-foreign-oil-dependency-the-root-cause-of-america-s-economic-pain?source=feed
Trade policy impacts are closely linked to other policies, environmental and energy (maybe the same policy in today’s world), which have significant negative impacts on our exports as well as being the major compnent of our trade deficit.
MG, additionally, we have the same howlers complaining about the lack of real wage increases over the same period when our trade goals were to raise the standard of living/wage level of the of the third world so that they were closer to ours. Create better more prosperous trading partners.
What part of raising the rest of the third world economies did they not think would stabilize or even lower ours? This too is not hard to grasp.
As far as trade goes, we have this deficit component that everyone conveniently overlooks: “The point is this: out of a $44 billion dollar monthly trade deficit, $27 billion of that was for one commodity alone. Unfortunately for the U.S., it happens to be the most strategic commodity of all: OIL. Put another way, imported oil made up 62% of the U.S. monthly trade deficit. This is not an aberration – it goes on month after month, year after year. And as the price of oil goes up, so too does this problem. It is quite simply draining away the wealth of America. We are burning it up in our cars and trucks.” (My bolding) From here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/238920-foreign-oil-dependency-the-root-cause-of-america-s-economic-pain?source=feed
Trade policy impacts are closely linked to other policies, environmental and energy (maybe the same policy in today’s world), which have significant negative impacts on our exports as well as being the major compnent of our trade deficit.
In both examples that ole rule of unanticipated consequences still lives. What is amazing is the willing ignorance/denial over the causes.
“again, i dont think it is the environmentalists – they have neither the money or the power. big oil has both. all one needs to do is read robert hefner’s excellent book “the grand energy transition” to get a better feel for who the opponents of natural gas transportation are: big oil, coal, the utilities, and the railroads that transport coal. and i would add one more: the U.S. military who needs a good oil war now and again to get promotions, rationalize more troops…etc. etc. as well as the defense contractors that feed it. “
From the author in comments.
Dan, that’s the constant counter argument used by the environmentalists: “Its all the fault of Big Oil/Energy!” But, whenever the covers are actually pulled off that argument it almost always proved untrue. Environmentalists have the MSM and several governments and their agencies as their premier allies. To think they have less power is extraordinarily naive. The preponderance of money spent is on environment/green side of the equation versus the “Big Energy”.
As far as the “Foreign Oil” issue as part of our trade deficit problem, are you ignoring that fact? Are you actually saying that environmentalists are not effecting those policies? Gas, shale/sand oil, and coal policies are not environmentally driven, with little discussion/consideration of their economic consequences? Are you saying that they are not linked?
When one policy, environmentalism, is over weighted when compared to other(s), (economics; trade; research; energy, drilling; etc) then that ole rule of unintended consequences is not only supreme it may very well be the “anticipated” consequences.
MG
i am inclined to agree with you, but you should flesh out your point with some actual argument.
CoRev
and i am inclined to agree with you too. but as i remember you think the answer is to drill for oil in my daughter’s bedroom. the idea of driving smaller cars on fewer shorter trips does not appeal to you.
talk about willing ignorance/denial.
It was YOUR link Corev. The author of YOUR article.
One thing we actually got in the latest Bush-Obama-Pork tax cut extensions was the tax break for using oil to burn our food supply (corn ethanol production tax break extensions).
Next, some time in March we will be due to vote up the Federal debt limit cap of $14 Trillion. Otherwise they will have to shut down the government. I’m positive they will vote up the debt limit so we don’t close the United States of America, but I am also positive they will hold their votes hostage for more tax breaks!
Let me know when they get serious about something. (cutting Warren Buffet’s SS benefit doesn’t count)
CoRev,
imported oil made up 62% of the U.S. monthly trade deficit.
That’s a shocking stat. Libs complain about the economy, yet they restrict the most basic fundamental building block of the economy – ENERGY. They want no drilling in ANWR, no drilling in the Gulf, no drilling off Florida, no clean coal in Utah, no oil shale development, no nuclear…….
Is it because they instinctively hate the freedom that the automobile, and a rollicking economy, provide.? They want to put everyone on buses, trains or small slow electric cars? Is that why they fell so hard for the Global Warming Hoax?
sammy
find it hard to guess why it’s “shocking”. is there something magic about 62% that makes it mean something other than we use a lot of oil. and i would guess that’s not 62% of foreign trade, but a number being compared to another number… “trade deficit”… in the kind of illegitimate comparison that drives the constant right wing hysteria.
yes, i hate your freedom. that’s why i made it against the law for you to drive on sidewalks.
and every time you have to stop for a red light… or obey a speed sign… think of me laughing behind your back.
but keep in the back of your mind that i like my car too. and i would like to keep it. that means i would like to keep you from running us out of oil or air. the basic principle is use what you have wisely. don’t waste it. or you will have to do without when it’s gone.
CoRev,
Good points. Perhaps the U.S. will develop a meaningful energy policy after retail gasoline hits $5.00 in the next few years.
MG, gasoline or electricity, their price doubling in the near term will be the tipping point when the Green movement is stopped. Too often when that pendulum changes direction it swings too far in the opposite direction.
That doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything written in it!
coberly – “i am inclined to agree with you, but you should flesh out your point with some actual argument.”
This issue has been fleshed out in detail hundreds of times since 2005 on this blog and other econ blogs. It has been addressed by former staff members of the Clinton Administration and countless others including EPI.
The U.S. lost 44,000 manufacturing plants between 2000 and 2005. End of argument.
Now, we have an economy that doesn’t have the supposed “advantage” of excess consumer credit to prop it up. And there is very little discussion regarding what percentage of GDP and employment that such excess credit represented during the past two decades. All part of the cover up economic cycle, one of the biggest scams in U.S. economic history.
Yves Smith summed it up.
Yves Smith is generally correct that stimulus spending and tax cuts are not among the available long term solutions for the U.S. economy.
There has been a great deal of discussion focusing on stimulus and other ideas to relaunch the U.S. economy, thereby driving up demand. Well, that ignores the consumer excess credit hangover problem that some haven’t grasped. The nation won’t recapture all of the previous demand, and that should signal the need for a focus on long term economic solutions.
The lack of broad discussion on long term solutions is interesting. There is a lot of defended territory out there that special interests will attempt to protect, and that includes many economists who haven’t touched on the failures of current U.S. trade policy.
It won’t take many more years for the curtain to be pulled back fully, exposing the academic thinking and related recommendations that created the ongoing economic mess.
Yves Smith has captured the essence of our angst. The government has been taken over by the merchant class. Adam Smith was right, after all.
Yves Smith has captured the essence of our angst. The government has been taken over by the merchant class. Adam Smith was right, after all.
Yves Smith has captured the essence of our angst. The government has been taken over by the merchant class. Adam Smith was right, after all.
MG
and I have explained Social Security ten thousand times, but if I post a comment about it again, I feel some responsibility to tell the reader at least the gist of my argument. If they want to know more, they can ask questions or look up the citations. But you, I suggest, lose most of your potential audience by assuming they already know what you know, or are criminally responsible for not knowing it.
Meanwhile “End of argument.” means “I have stopped thinking.”
coberly,
I don’t see any AB readers asking you to explain anything another ten thousand times.
My comment focused on one issue. I didn’t need to go beyond that point.
And I don’t need your advice on what to say about any subject on Dan’s blog.
MG:
The US did develop a good informal energy policy with fewer trips, lower speeds, and smaller vehicles when gasoline went over $4.00. The net result was lower demand on gasoline. And what was the return answer? Refineries lowered capacity.
run,
The lowered speed limits forced class 8 trucking firms to regear many of their fleet tractors. It was, in many respects, a financial disaster in their opinion.
Conservation efforts are fine, but there is a bit more to establishing a long term national energy policy.