The decline of America

[Quinn]

I just stumbled on this video (courtesy of David Brooks). It provides a mesmerizing graphical illustration of what some of us have been trying to communicate about the convergence of world economies. I couldn't pull myself away from the screen for 4 minutes.

 

Fantastic, thanks!

 

It would also be nice to see a timeline of when countries had their "golden age" or world dominence. Considering that all I really know of history is from American schools, all I really know is Western Civilization.

 

----

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

Enjoyable presentation.

 

Hans's conclusion at the end of his presentation is that the world is "converging." I'm not sure what he means by that, as his dots representing different countries continue to diverge over the time period he selected, and as he illustrated by breaking out smaller areas within China, diverge within that country to a greater extent than is the case between many other countries.

[yabadabapal]

I just stumbled on this video (courtesy of David Brooks). It provides a mesmerizing graphical illustration of what some of us have been trying to communicate about the convergence of world economies. I couldn't pull myself away from the screen for 4 minutes.

 

Thank you for sharing that link. The more time I spend on BMWST I am becoming convinced it is one of the great think tanks and Im the student.

[steve.foote]

I just stumbled on this video (courtesy of David Brooks). It provides a mesmerizing graphical illustration of what some of us have been trying to communicate about the convergence of world economies. I couldn't pull myself away from the screen for 4 minutes.

 

Cool presentation technology. It does seem to support the idea that a rising tide lifts all boats. That when some countries become wealthy, others follow suit. Maybe we can learn something here.

[John Ranalletta]

It does seem to support the idea that a rising tide lifts all boats.

On a sea of debt.

 

 

[Pilgrim]

I just stumbled on this video (courtesy of David Brooks). It provides a mesmerizing graphical illustration of what some of us have been trying to communicate about the convergence of world economies. I couldn't pull myself away from the screen for 4 minutes.

 

The mechanics of presentation are fascinating but there's nothing either new or surprising in the information. Except... any mention of Russia was conspicuous by its absence.

 

This article by Fareed Zakaria in Time is pretty good, I think. Which is not to say that all the answers are there, mostly just complex explanations of why the situation is a tough one.

 

Pilgrim

[Dave McReynolds]

Suppose a group of space aliens came down and told us that it was their intention to take us over. They could easily do it with the superior weapons they had, but their morality prevented them from doing that. Instead, they offered to sell us all the consumable goods we wanted to buy from them for half of whatever we are currently paying for them, and harvest all our crops for half whatever it is currently costing us to harvest them. And the goods would be higher quality than whatever we had now, and the harvesting would be more efficient than whatever we were doing now. They would use whatever they made from selling us consumable goods and harvesting our crops to buy land from us.

 

Someone asked them the question as to how their goods were being produced, and under what conditions their workers worked to produce them. They said all the goods were being produced on Uranus and we didn’t need to worry about that.

 

Is this a deal we should take?

 

Would it be possible to employ the workers dispossessed by the space aliens to do other productive endeavors, should they be paid welfare, or is that solely the problem of the dispossessed workers, and not something the rest of us should worry about?

 

After a period of time, if the space aliens had acquired a substantial part of the world this way, do you think we would be willing to revert to the old inefficient methods of producing goods and harvesting crops, or do you think we should just continue on with the program?

 

Is this different in substance from what we are already doing?

 

[beemerman2k]

Great analogy, David. Very nice

[tallman]

So these workers get to work while sitting on their butt?

 

Good analogy indeed.

[Whip]

The problem with entire discussion is unless we first talk about how we got here, we can't fix it.

 

I ain't talking about the last ten years either. I am talking about the last 70 years.

 

 

[John Ferris]

Suppose a group of space aliens came down and told us that it was their intention to take us over.

 

Then you find out that their book " To serve Man" is a cookbook.

[Bob Palin]

The problem with entire discussion is unless we first talk about how we got here, we can't fix it.

 

I ain't talking about the last ten years either. I am talking about the last 70 years.

 

How is the economic, transportation, communication, population level of the US or the world in 1940 relevant to the situation we are in? Things are so different now that the rules and actions that did or did not work then are irrelevant.

[beemerman2k]

We have an anti-business/evil corporation attitude nowadays that didn't exist in the 40's.

 

OK, it existed perhaps among labor unions and that ilk, but today everyone wants to tax and regulate and punish corporations for being big and/or profitable. Then we want to be able to sue them for all manner of idiotic problems. What we don't realize is that the more we pile on regulations, taxes, and law suits, the more incentive we give them to locate somewhere else and to hire someone else.

 

That's a major difference between today than in times past.

[Whip]

The problem with entire discussion is unless we first talk about how we got here, we can't fix it.

 

I ain't talking about the last ten years either. I am talking about the last 70 years.

 

How is the economic, transportation, communication, population level of the US or the world in 1940 relevant to the situation we are in? Things are so different now that the rules and actions that did or did not work then are irrelevant.

 

You couldn't be more wrong. (Though we are prolly not talking about the same things so who knows.)

 

Bob, we both live on earth, but we don't live in the same worlds.

 

 

[Whip]

We have an anti-business/evil corporation attitude nowadays that didn't exist in the 40's.

 

OK, it existed perhaps among labor unions and that ilk, but today everyone wants to tax and regulate and punish corporations for being big and/or profitable. Then we want to be able to sue them for all manner of idiotic problems. What we don't realize is that the more we pile on regulations, taxes, and law suits, the more incentive we give them to locate somewhere else and to hire someone else.

 

That's a major difference between today than in times past.

 

 

That is a good start.

 

Throw in the huge redistribution of wealth that has been going.

 

The idea that the federal government can mandate the minimum wage for the people of NYC and Pecos Tx at the same time for the same amount is idiotic.

 

The very idea that our personal behavior in the name of safety can be regulated by force to protect an industry is ridiculous. (seat belts and helmets....etc.)

 

The fact that we need to finance the protection of so many country's, throughout the world, so they don't have to spend any of their own money is amazing.

 

Until we admit that the, "War of Poverty" and the "Great Society" were complete failures...

 

I can go on for a thousand words easy. Prolly get the thread locked too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bob_Minor]

 

The facts seem to say otherwise:

The Distribution of Wealth in America

 

[Whip]

 

The facts seem to say otherwise:

The Distribution of Wealth in America

 

..not relevant to my argument.

 

I think the number that has been taken from people that get a paycheck for programs that were started for the "The War on Poverty" and "The Great Society" is somewhere around 7 trillion $$.

 

 

...and we still have about the same % of peeps below the poverty line as before the programs started.

 

We have found the enemy....

 

 

 

[Bob Palin]

 

The facts seem to say otherwise:

The Distribution of Wealth in America

 

..not relevant to my argument.

:rofl:

[Antimatter]

I honestly don't see this. Corporate tax regulations are as lax as they've ever been in history. Accounting shifts allow the top industries to pay little or no tax in the US. As far as regulation, our government has been so completely captured by the corporations it supposedly 'hates', that the lobbyist for most companies actually write the rules. People do sue, but the majority of decisions are either overturned or judgments are reduced on appeal.

 

Labor unions represent such a small fraction of the working population that demonizing them is pretty pointless.

 

Right now the major corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash, and their earnings have never been higher. We have literally rigged the system so they set the rules and they determine their own taxes. How is that anti-business?

[Whip]

 

The facts seem to say otherwise:

The Distribution of Wealth in America

 

..not relevant to my argument.

:rofl:

 

 

See what I mean, Bob.

 

That is exactly the problem. I am talking about the damage done to our economy/country by taking money from peeps and doing wasteful BS with the money and you think because they have it you can take it.

 

...and it's funny to you.

 

[Whip]

Corporate tax regulations are as lax as they've ever been in history.

 

 

WTF

 

We have the highest tax rates in the industrialized world.

 

Our country is not gonna get better till we get smarter.

 

[Bob Palin]

Corporate tax regulations are as lax as they've ever been in history.

 

 

WTF

 

We have the highest tax rates in the industrialized world.

Even if that's true, which I very much doubt, nobody pays them because there are so many loopholes.

[tallman]

FWIW, the 20 years I ran my business we paid coporate taxes, tangible taxes, payroll taxes, unemployment taxes (federal and state), property taxes, etc.

Only "loophole" was depreciation of some assets and legitimate CODB.

But this is off topic.

[Whip]

Corporate tax regulations are as lax as they've ever been in history.

 

 

WTF

 

We have the highest tax rates in the industrialized world.

Even if that's true, which I very much doubt, nobody pays them because there are so many loopholes.

 

Why doubt me....????

 

"Japan has announced that it will cut its corporate tax rate by five percentage points. Japan and the United States had been the global laggards on corporate tax reform, so this leaves America with the highest corporate rate among the 34 wealthy nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development."

 

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/u-s-corporate-tax-rate-the-highest/

[Whip]

FWIW, the 20 years I ran my business we paid coporate taxes, tangible taxes, payroll taxes, unemployment taxes (federal and state), property taxes, etc.

Only "loophole" was depreciation of some assets and legitimate CODB.

But this is off topic.

 

 

It hasn't changed.

 

[Whip]

Y'all starting to get the picture.

 

We have burdened our economy/country with BS

 

If I can't explain this to my friend Killer, how is the rest of our country gonna figure it out.

 

We have created an environment where it is easier to go over seas to do bidness than in our own country. Most of us have voted for the very policies that have caused that great big sucking sound. If we don't turn back the dial and wake up...

 

We have no one to blame but ourselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[steve.foote]

Even if that's true, which I very much doubt, nobody pays them because there are so many loopholes.

 

Bob, I'm your huckleberry. I pay them - lots of them.

[steve.foote]

Bob, I'm your huckleberry. I pay them - lots of them.

 

Ass loads of them.

[FlyingFinn]

"Google’s income shifting -- involving strategies known to lawyers as the “Double Irish” and the “Dutch Sandwich” -- helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent"

 

"Google, the third-largest U.S. technology company by market capitalization, hasn’t been accused of breaking tax laws. Google’s practices are very similar to those at countless other global companies operating across a wide range of industries,"

 

"Apple, Microsoft, IBM and Oracle Corp. Those companies reported rates that ranged between 4.5 percent and 25.8 percent for 2007 through 2009."

 

Google's tax rate 2.4%, 60 Billion lost to tax loopholes.

 

--

Mikko

[Whip]

"Google’s income shifting -- involving strategies known to lawyers as the “Double Irish” and the “Dutch Sandwich” -- helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent"

 

"Google, the third-largest U.S. technology company by market capitalization, hasn’t been accused of breaking tax laws. Google’s practices are very similar to those at countless other global companies operating across a wide range of industries,"

 

"Apple, Microsoft, IBM and Oracle Corp. Those companies reported rates that ranged between 4.5 percent and 25.8 percent for 2007 through 2009."

 

Google's tax rate 2.4%, 60 Billion lost to tax loopholes.

 

--

Mikko

 

Cause of our tax rates they do as much bidness as they can in lower tax rate countries. It is our own fault.

 

Thanks for helping.

 

[russell_bynum]

Corporate tax regulations are as lax as they've ever been in history.

 

 

WTF

 

We have the highest tax rates in the industrialized world.

Even if that's true, which I very much doubt, nobody pays them because there are so many loopholes.

 

LOL.

[FlyingFinn]

"You may have heard: U.S. corporations face one of the highest income tax rates in the world, though the mention of "rate" is often enough excised, so that what comes through is the assertion that corporations pay too much in taxes. This is simply untrue if your basis for comparison is the developed world.

 

SmartMoney Article on Corporate Taxes

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

All countries have different ways of raising the money needed to run the government. Corporate taxes are higher in the Unites States than other types of taxes, but the overall tax burden is not particularly high, compared with other countries.

 

Presumably, if one were at all concerned about balancing the budget, other taxes would have to go up if the corporate rates went down. Your reply might be, well maybe spending should go down instead. That's a debatable point, but if one really wanted spending to go down, it would seem to me that the best way to get the ball rolling in that direction would be to make sure the government runs on a balanced budget by collecting enough taxes to pay the bills. Right now, I don't think the average person is that concerned about the level of government spending because he doesn't see that much of it coming out of his pocket. A lot of people aren't concerned at all, since they either pay no tax or a negative tax under the earned income credit. If the full level of spending were matched by tax collections, and if the pain were shared at all levels of the economic system, I'm sure you'd see a lot more interest in reducing spending than is the case at present.

 

Other than the fact that a lot of people have managed to opt out of our tax system, I see no particular problem with the mix of taxes we have. You could change the mix and I would probably have no problem with that, either.

[Bob Palin]

Even if that's true, which I very much doubt, nobody pays them because there are so many loopholes.

Bob, I'm your huckleberry. I pay them - lots of them.

I don't disagree that we pay a lot of taxes, I file too although since it's just me in my LLC it's not a big deal. I do hate paying double social security - reminds me of how much I actually made as a corporate lacky when I take that, profit sharing, 401K matching, dental and health insurance etc into account - it was a lot!

(where did it go? )

 

But as Mikko and Whip have pointed out there are too many loopholes that let US companies doing most of their business with US customers take their profits elsewhere for tax purposes. So rates may be high but they are not effective at the levels where it really matters to the government, and the small guys like us get to pay for that.

[Whip]

Even if that's true, which I very much doubt, nobody pays them because there are so many loopholes.

Bob, I'm your huckleberry. I pay them - lots of them.

I don't disagree that we pay a lot of taxes, I file too although since it's just me in my LLC it's not a big deal. I do hate paying double social security - reminds me of how much I actually made as a corporate lacky when I take that, profit sharing, 401K matching, dental and health insurance etc into account - it was a lot!

(where did it go? )

 

But as Mikko and Whip have pointed out there are too many loopholes that let US companies doing most of their business with US customers take their profits elsewhere for tax purposes. So rates may be high but they are not effective at the levels where it really matters to the government, and the small guys like us get to pay for that.

 

I knew we could find some common ground.

 

The country was founded on some basic principals and now we are taught to ignore em or demonize em.

 

We are all about taking risks and getting your reward. From the Pilgrims to the 49ers and the Sooners or even Henry Ford paying folks to leave the fields and move to the big city. It has always been about taking that leap of faith. I did it again a few weeks ago.

 

 

We used to look up to people that took risks and employed peeps.

 

Now we want to tax them more and call them greedy.

 

We have lost our way. If we don't realize that...

 

 

 

 

 

[Whip]

if one were at all concerned about balancing the budget, other taxes would have to go up

 

You can not balance the budget with tax increases. That is nonsense.

 

We have to out grow the spending. Cut the spending as much as you can and increase the growth is the only way.

 

We have to make doing bidness easier and more profitable. You don't do that by raising anyone's taxes.

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

You can not balance the budget with tax increases. That is nonsense.

 

We have to out grow the spending. Cut the spending as much as you can and increase the growth is the only way.

 

Well, I'm glad you've solved that problem for us. All we have to do is to cut the taxes to zero, growth will go to infinity, and our budget will be balanced!

[Bob Palin]

The country was founded on some basic principals and now we are taught to ignore em or demonize em.

I don't believe in 230 year old slave owning aristocracy's business theories, who had unlimited resources and space available to them and free or almost free labour. Fortunately times have changed.

[steve.foote]

Truth be told, we shouldn't be taxing corporations anyway. They don't actually pay them, their customers do. It's just a sleight of hand to fool the common folk.

[beemerman2k]

The country was founded on some basic principals and now we are taught to ignore em or demonize em.

I don't believe in 230 year old slave owning aristocracy's theories, who had unlimited resources and space available to them and free or almost free labour. Fortunately times have changed.

 

Well, in defense of my nation, we kinda inherited that practice from somewhere :smirk:

 

But sometimes, in response to a great evil, we will "throw out the baby with the bath water" so to speak. Freedom and free enterprise is the baby, the way it was abused in this instance is the bath water. We have awakened, corrected the problem (that's an understatement!), and we have moved on -- sorta.

[Whip]

You can not balance the budget with tax increases. That is nonsense.

 

We have to out grow the spending. Cut the spending as much as you can and increase the growth is the only way.

 

Well, I'm glad you've solved that problem for us. All we have to do is to cut the taxes to zero, growth will go to infinity, and our budget will be balanced!

 

This is why I have stayed out of this thread.

 

I can't tell if your tryin to be funny or you really believe that is what I am sayin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[leikam]

To my eyes, our budget problems stem from giving control over both taxes and expenditures to elected officials. In aggregate, they will always be inclined to spend more than they tax. Of course if we do away with this arrangement, we run afoul of "taxation without representation" and significantly undermine the ideal of a democracy. So I'm pessimistic that governments founded on our principles can ever become fiscally responsible for longer than a soundbite.

[Dave McReynolds]

The supply side theory is that if tax rates are reduced, then the economy will grow by enough that total tax collections will increase, even though the rates are lower.

 

This is probably a valid theory at times. For example, if the tax rates were 100%, reducing them to 99% would probably increase tax collections, since the entire economy would go underground and there would be no tax collections if the tax rates were 100%

 

On the other hand, if the tax rates were 1% and you reduced the rates to 0%, then tax collections would go down, for obvious reasons.

 

So there is probably some magical rate where the supply side theory works if the rate is higher than that, but it doesn't work if the rate is lower than that. Unfortunately, it is impossible to find out what that rate is, since the tax rate is not the main driving force in the economy.

 

So we have to guess. Since US tax rates are the lowest they have been in my lifetime, I would guess that further reducing them would not stimulate the economy to the extent that total tax collecions would increase. But your guess is as good as mine.

[Bob Palin]

Freedom and free enterprise is the baby, the way it was abused in this instance is the bath water.

And that baby has sailed ( ), unfettered commercial freedom is no longer appropriate in a world with limited resources and space and where people are treated with respect rather than as resources to be used to make money. (And a lot of corporations should consider that when they fashionably rename 'personnel' as 'human resources')

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

The supply side theory is that if tax rates are reduced, then the economy will grow by enough that total tax collections will increase, even though the rates are lower.

 

This is probably a valid theory at times. For example, if the tax rates were 100%, reducing them to 99% would probably increase tax collections, since the entire economy would go underground and there would be no tax collections if the tax rates were 100%

 

On the other hand, if the tax rates were 1% and you reduced the rates to 0%, then tax collections would go down, for obvious reasons.

 

So there is probably some magical rate where the supply side theory works if the rate is higher than that, but it doesn't work if the rate is lower than that.

 

See Laffer curve for more info.

[Whip]

The supply side theory is that if tax rates are reduced, then the economy will grow by enough that total tax collections will increase, even though the rates are lower.

 

This is probably a valid theory at times. For example, if the tax rates were 100%, reducing them to 99% would probably increase tax collections, since the entire economy would go underground and there would be no tax collections if the tax rates were 100%

 

On the other hand, if the tax rates were 1% and you reduced the rates to 0%, then tax collections would go down, for obvious reasons.

 

So there is probably some magical rate where the supply side theory works if the rate is higher than that, but it doesn't work if the rate is lower than that. Unfortunately, it is impossible to find out what that rate is, since the tax rate is not the main driving force in the economy.

 

So we have to guess. Since US tax rates are the lowest they have been in my lifetime, I would guess that further reducing them would not stimulate the economy to the extent that total tax collecions would increase. But your guess is as good as mine.

 

I don't agree, I think the magic number is around 30%(they have been 28%) and the cap gains should be around 10%.

 

...and we should never change em.

 

Spending should always be based on the previous years real world numbers. Everything should be a percentage not an amount.

 

In order to add something new you have to take from all others.

 

 

 

 

[Whip]

unfettered commercial freedom is no longer appropriate in a world with limited resources and space

 

Wrongo Bongo.

 

The free market will self regulate those resources.

 

We have tried it your way long enough.

 

It ain't working, unless you haven't noticed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bob Palin]

unfettered commercial freedom is no longer appropriate in a world with limited resources and space

 

The free market will self regulate those resources.

The free market will regulate those resources just the same way the current market is, by destroying jobs and leaving a trail of environmental destruction in the name of economy for the big corporations. It's not a workable model for a society that cares about its people.

[Whip]

unfettered commercial freedom is no longer appropriate in a world with limited resources and space

 

The free market will self regulate those resources.

The free market will regulate those resources just the same way the current market is, by destroying jobs and leaving a trail of environmental destruction in the name of economy for the big corporations. It's not a workable model for a society that cares about its people.

 

You are so wrong.

 

We are doing all the things you say you want and it is killing our economy/country.

 

Jobs are not being lost because of the free market it is quite the opposite.

 

There is no free market. The environmental movement is killing jobs and has created the Chinese/Asian Industrial Complex and at the same time made the earth a dirtier place.

 

It is time to rethink our entire approach. It ain't working your way. We have tried it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[steve.foote]

So I'm pessimistic that governments founded on our principles can ever become fiscally responsible for longer than a soundbite.

 

I think that is a sound arguement. If you look at the history of our finances, it turns out to be true more often than not by a large margin.