|
Post by mdub on Feb 22, 2010 22:56:55 GMT -6
Alex Jones interviews Paul Craig Roberts on outsoucing. For those unfamiliar with the subject, it's a good primer.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 23, 2010 6:18:16 GMT -6
First video.
Cap on executive pay or not, off-shoring still would have happened anyways because the biggest overhead to business is labor costs.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 23, 2010 6:22:57 GMT -6
Second comment:
Changing the way you tax corporations on where value is added to a product would act exactly like a tariff, renaming a tariff to something else is a cheesy accounting trick and add to the complexity and paperwork.
JUST SIMPLY USE A TARIFF
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 23, 2010 6:46:23 GMT -6
The plan is to put a noose around Russia? Control the Middle East so the American empire can cut oil off to China like we did to Japan in the 30's? That seems rather elaborate for a government that couldn't think long-term to save their lives.
That makes no sense whatsoever, if the "secret government" (who outsourced the jobs) wanted to weaken China then we wouldn't have given them our dual-use industries in the first place, wouldn't have made China the most favored nation. (Dual-use industries are factories that can produce cars one days and jeeps and tanks on another day).
How about it's more simple than that; greed has driven the rich to get richer by fucking the middle class. Wham bam thank you maam, no conspiracy needed.
And why were at war with the middle east? Cause politicians are rich fuckers, and rich fuckers are not nationalists, rich fuckers are globalists. Rich fuckers can't distinguish between American national or Iraqi national, they really love their Iraqi bretheren and believe in Operation Iraqi Freedom. They want non-Americans to have freedom. Where some rich fuckers see themselves as doing good for their bretheren Iraqis in this global community, other rich fuckers like the Jewish rich fuckers just like killing muslims. And there are allot of Jewish rich fuckers in Congress. They're just a bunch of rich fuckers, no conspiracy needed.
Fuck the rich.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 23, 2010 7:35:31 GMT -6
depressing, need fix.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Feb 23, 2010 23:09:06 GMT -6
that is awesome fredorbob
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 24, 2010 4:09:41 GMT -6
Second comment: Changing the way you tax corporations on where value is added to a product would act exactly like a tariff, renaming a tariff to something else is a cheesy accounting trick and add to the complexity and paperwork. JUST SIMPLY USE A TARIFF That's exactly what I thought, too. If you tax the "value added" from another country only, how does that differ from a Tariff? The VATs Britain uses work by charging European customers an additional tax on goods Europeans purchases that are not paid by Americans who buy the goods. A perfect example, as I've mentioned previously on this forum, is BOLA pitching machines. BOLA lists 2 prices for most of their products--with and without VAT. That functions like an export subsidy. If they add a VAT tax to equivalent products sold to Europe by foreigners, then that's the equivalent of a Tariff. The VAT on BOLA products is 17.5%. So BOLA products cost Europeans 17.5% more than they do US customers--thus favoring overseas sales. VATs tend to drive down the pre-VAT price for Europeans to offset the VAT addition. Thus the price in the US is even lower than it otherwise would have been, due to the price-suppressing effect of VATs. The difference between the BOLA--VAT model and outright Tariffs is that domestic customers don't have to pay more for products made in their own country. Thus the domestic market is not hampered by Tariffs, while the domestic market IS hampered by VATs. In the US, the domestic market is 80-90% of the market, and will always be the biggest consumer market for US produced goods. Meanwhile, foreign export markets only constitute 10-20% of the total market for US-produced goods. With VATs you tax both sales in the 80-90% domestic market, and the 10-20% of American purchase of imports. With Tariffs you only tax the 10-20% of American purchases that come from imports.
|
|
|
Post by mdub on Feb 24, 2010 15:16:40 GMT -6
Fredorbob, several comments on the posts you made -
Roberts said that it would be difficult to impose tariffs because of the agreements we have with countries like Mexico, China, Canada, and others. I don't know all of the details of these agreements, but perhaps there is something there that prevents our government from using tariffs against US corporations producing abroad. Roberts many be suggesting the VAT as a legal way of taxing corporations under the trade agreements we have.
I do agree that $$ is a driving force behind US foreign policy. "Defense" contractors and Neocon Zionists have tremendous influence over foreign policy. It's not just Jews - there are lots of gentiles who are either Israeli sympathizers or simply paid off to do as Israel wishes. But why is the Obama Administration trying to impose sanctions on Iran or selling weapons to Taiwan? It would certainly be more profitable to sell weapons to Iran than to impose sanctions. It's no secret that Israel and it's allies in the states have wanted America to attack Iran for a long time. Iran is the only country in the Middle East not ruled by a US- friendly gov't or a puppet. They tell blatant lies about Iran developing nuclear weapons to hide an undisclosed agenda. In 2008 our gov't backed a Georgian attack on Russian civilians in South Ossetia, so that Georgia could crush the separatist movement and be admittded into NATO. The Russians repelled the attack, and the Bush Administartion and it's captive media lied and said that Russia started it. Now, the US has resumed aid to Georgia and is trying to put missiles in Poland and Romania, aimed at Russia. Our government says that they will be used to counter Iran, but this makes no sense, as Iran has no nukes or ICBMs. Why would Iran want to start a war with Europe anyway? Ringing Russia with hostile countries has been a goal of the Neocons since the 80s. There's more to all of this than just money.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Feb 24, 2010 18:44:06 GMT -6
Existing treaties limiting tariffs are why I like 10% inspeciton of imports - paid by the importers. It's not a tariff, and we have plenty of justification, from lead in toys to dirty bombs.
GB
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Feb 25, 2010 10:29:30 GMT -6
Existing treaties limiting tariffs are why I like 10% inspeciton of imports - paid by the importers. It's not a tariff, and we have plenty of justification, from lead in toys to dirty bombs. GB Treaties come and treaties go. The Tariff is in the Constituiton ,the VAT tax isn't.
|
|