A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You don't think adding 15% to the wage element of the cost of goods affects exports?

You don't think that environmental regulations, health and safety regulations, tort liability, etc. don't add more than 15% to a company's costs, which affect its competitiveness both within the United States and in exports?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You don't think that environmental regulations, health and safety regulations, tort liability, etc. don't add more than 15% to a company's costs, which affect its competitiveness both within the United States and in exports?

I haven't added them up. Why does this affect your answer to whether or not adding 15% to wage costs has an impact?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'm not looking for perfect equalization.

Why are you so wed to a tax solely on wages, though? What elements of that tax appeal to you?

Go ask FDR why he created the system the way he did. I'm playing within the system the Democratic-Socialists created for us.

Would it make more sense to handle retirement income differently? Sure. One could easily provide a retirement supplement to everyone that's equal, funded either by an income tax or a sales tax. But we don't, and never have. Instead, we opted for a retirement system with payments that reflect earnings during your working career. And it therefore makes sense to have the taxes to fund that system paid for by earnings during your working career.

If you want to broaden FICA to non-wage income, would you also broaden the benefit calculation to incorporate non-wage income?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I haven't added them up. Why does this affect your answer to whether or not adding 15% to wage costs has an impact?

Because you're focusing on just one element of how government intervention raises the costs of producing goods, and how those increased costs affect US companies' ability to export.

I'm not saying it doesn't have an impact. Of course it does, but so do labor unions. Why not eliminate them? (And, in case you still aren't getting my point, why not eliminate anything that raises the costs of producing goods on teh ground that it hampers export competitiveness?)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
But of course child labor as an issue is just a set-up. You've conceded that we should tie restrictions on imports of some nature to achieving social goals, so you've abandoned the pure free market approach to the world.

We have laws protecting rights to organize. Do you accord the same status to such laws as to our child-labor laws? Or is there a reason these laws don't have the same status (I know Spanky's reason - unions are all evil).

Likewise, the cost of goods sold by US companies incorporates the costs of the social security system -- other country's goods do not include such costs. Should we do anything to equalize this disparity?

In principal, you're ready to restrict trade for certain purposes. How do you draw the line between different purposes?

Or, are there free-marketeers out there ready to advocate for a pure free market?

Do you think the United States has benefitted from having an internal free market?

If it could, do you think California should restrict products from other states whose minimum wage is not as high as ours? Or what about states that don't have as strict safety regulations as we do or as strict environmental laws?

That is not "fair trade" so wouldn't we better off restricting the trade until (using Ty's favorite phrase) we level the playing field? Would that benefit the workers in the other states by forcing their states to increase their minimum wage and improving their working conditions?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Go ask FDR why he created the system the way he did. I'm playing within the system the Democratic-Socialists created for us.

Would it make more sense to handle retirement income differently? Sure. One could easily provide a retirement supplement to everyone that's equal, funded either by an income tax or a sales tax. But we don't, and never have. Instead, we opted for a retirement system with payments that reflect earnings during your working career. And it therefore makes sense to have the taxes to fund that system paid for by earnings during your working career.

If you want to broaden FICA to non-wage income, would you also broaden the benefit calculation to incorporate non-wage income?

I'm making a discrete point: that the way we have chosen to fund social security has an impact on the playing field for trade, since other countries have, as a general rule (not exclusively - see England, for example), funded it from general revenues. This particular element is under our control. My point was made as an aside.

Your answer is more or less the answer most policymakers have on this point - avoid touching social security in any way shape or form and live with what we have. It's fine if that's your point. Sorry to make your head hurt by considering alternatives.


On the rest, so what would you do? Burden imports with similar costs to what our regulations cost here, subsidize exports to even the playing field, or step aside and let the market do what it will? (I know, what you really want to do is eliminate all the regulations -- undoubtedly remnants of that socialistic FDR and his gang - but assume you can't get rid of them all).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Do you think the United States has benefitted from having an internal free market?

If it could, do you think California should restrict products from other states whose minimum wage is not as high as ours? Or what about states that don't have as strict safety regulations as we do or as strict environmental laws?

That is not "fair trade" so wouldn't we better off restricting the trade until (using Ty's favorite phrase) we level the playing field? Would that benefit the workers in the other states by forcing their states to increase their minimum wage and improving their working conditions?

I think a free market is a good thing, but am not ready to sacrifice all at that particular altar.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Because you're focusing on just one element of how government intervention raises the costs of producing goods, and how those increased costs affect US companies' ability to export.

I'm not saying it doesn't have an impact. Of course it does, but so do labor unions. Why not eliminate them? (And, in case you still aren't getting my point, why not eliminate anything that raises the costs of producing goods on teh ground that it hampers export competitiveness?)

Thank you.

We make choices as to the costs we are willing to bear and those we aren't, and some items are within our control and some aren't. As I noted above, I see us as having three choices on any regulatory or other expense: (i) let it be, and let free markets do what they will; (ii) try to make that expense import neutral, by imposing charges on imports that equalize the playing field in our market; or (iii) try to make that expense export neutral, by limiting its application to goods for the domestic market.

Sometimes you don't have all three choices - for example, subsidizing exports to compete with slave labor is not a realistic option. On social security, it turns out we can make it export neutral if we choose.

I don't choose any one of the three in all circumstances. Do you?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy


On the rest, so what would you do? Burden imports with similar costs to what our regulations cost here, subsidize exports to even the playing field, or step aside and let the market do what it will? (I know, what you really want to do is eliminate all the regulations -- undoubtedly remnants of that socialistic FDR and his gang - but assume you can't get rid of them all).

No. First, I'd look for ways to reduce the burden of regulations. Sure, I might eliminate some, but I'll grant that's not realistic.

Second, I wouldn't worry about them beyond that. What export products do we produce that aren't also sold domestically? Anything that's sold domestically we should have a greatly reduced worry about, because there is an internal check in place. For example, if we think gasoline is too expensive because of regulation, well, that's a choice we've made--more regulation for environmental reasons (I realize we don't export much gas). If our export gas is more expensive, that's just a decision we've made. I just don't think undoing a system we've lived with because it hurts exports of a small portion of products is sensible.

On Social Security, I acknowledged your point. But you're putting the cart before the horse. If your issue is with SS, that's fine, but don't make it an export competitiveness issue, because that's not the primary issue.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
There are three ways I can think of to tackle issues that creates an uneven playing field, whether the issue be taxes, labor restrictions, or anything else: (i) worship the great ineffable market while sitting on your hands; (ii) change the equation on our side; or (iii) change the equation on "their" side. Sometimes we should change our equation, and social security taxes are a place where we are out of step with the rest of the world and should change the equation on our side.

Yes, I'd lower these taxes on exports.

The best way to help a country to reduce child labor and improve its working conditions are to help it grow. These problems are really more of a symptom of poverty than of government inaction. The more developed a country is the less it uses child labor and the better off the working conditions in general. And the more workers get paid. The best way we can help a country grow is to allow it to sell its products to the largest market in the world. The United States.

Free trade is the best way to help these countrys, not putting rules in the trade laws that will never be enforced.

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1120/p01s03-usec.html

I told you. Now that the elections are over, all of sudden the booming economy is a front page story

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think a free market is a good thing, but am not ready to sacrifice all at that particular altar.

You expect SD to answer your questions yet you dodge mine. Answer the question.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
On social security, it turns out we can make it export neutral if we choose.

If you can break the political log jam on social security by arguing it hampers american export competitiveness, go for it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If you can break the political log jam on social security by arguing it hampers american export competitiveness, go for it.

We need a Democratic President for that.

It's like Nixon in China.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If you can break the political log jam on social security by arguing it hampers american export competitiveness, go for it.

Have I told you lately that I love you?