|
Dean's new economic proposal (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by devonian rabbit
the creation of the internet
richard |
Hehe I'm not sure if that's the greatest pro for regulation ... it was pretty useless to the public as Darpa-Net, and I guess you can say it only exploded in popularity and usefulness when it was completely deregulated and disemninated to the public. |
|
|
| rupert |
Americans are such hypocrites. What do you call the massive increases in the defence budget, the farm subsidies, the steel subsidies other than government regulation for powerful vested interest groups. All those subsidies and government intervention mean that YOU the consumer pay more and YOU the taxpayer have your tax dollars wasted.
1 Billion dollars builds 1, just 1 Stealth Bomber, how much investment on hospitals or medicine or university funding or infrastructure funding is forgone on that 1 stealth bomber.
This talk about free markets and deregulation is pitiful. The USA is one of the most regulated and state owned countries in the world. The IMF would have a field day fireselling state-owned US assets just like it has done to so many countries in the third world for the benefit of western corporations.
WHat they really mean by free trade "is deregulation and free markets for the weak and massive subsidies and support for the rich."
The tax system in the US exists to transfer wealth from the poor and middle classes to the rich, those with power and wealth to lobby the lawmakers.
Do you really think that big business such as Lockhead Martin and Halliburton wants deregulation when they get massive profits from government contracts. They steal from you in the name of defence and you swallow it. It doesnt matter who you vote as President unless you change the electoral system. He who pays the piper gets to call the tune, and the people calling the tune are all those wealthy lobby groups the NRA, the Wall Street Investment Banks, the Military Industrial Complex, the Israel Lobby, the Christian fundamentalists.
President Eisenhower was absolutely right in his warning in his final address before leaving office. What he said would happen in america has happened. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| Rupert you do have a point indeed, I am very concerned by some of the economic policies in relation to foreign competition that the Bush administration has undertaken. Steel tariffs, Offshore businesses getting tax breaks, now the implementation of quotas on Chinese textiles, I believe that it is an attempt to appease domestic lobby groups in these particular industries. If you believe in free trade then international export and import should be competitive. |
|
|
| rupert |
| quote: | | If you believe in free trade then international export and import should be competitive. |
Absolutely. Competition is almost invariably a good thing. But the global system and the big corporations dont want that. If there really was free trade, there would be complete labour market mobility and the entirety of the worlds food production would be done in the third world not in the West.
What corporation wants competition when it can have closed markets supplying weapons to the government. Course they can easily justify this in the name of national security. Keep the people scared and they wont ask any serious questions.
What is the IMF other than a state western taxpayer subsidy or insurance policy for rich investors and the Wall Street investment banks.
When the IMF bails out a country, it doesnt benefit the people living in the country, it doesnt benefit the taxpayers in the USA who pay for the bailout. It only protects the interests of the investors. The IMF loans are there to ensure repayment of third world debt to westerners. If a western bank gets in trouble by lending to Brazil or Argentina and then its investment turns sour because of adverse market sentiment causing capital flight why should western taxpayers pay to bail them out.
It all a big scam. |
|
|
| occrider |
Come now rupert ... I agree with some of your statements but with a few others I feel that you are being extremely one sided in simplifying a very complicated issue. Well, let's start with your arguments I agree with:
- The US is extremely hypocritical when it comes to free trade. On the one hand you see it pushing for NAFTA treaties and the like in Asian markets, while on the other hand you see examples of the US imposing steel tariffs against Europe, and textile tarrifs against China ... all of which I am against. Of course you have farming subsidies as well, however, that is a problem perpetuated by the EU in which the US has no other alternative than to respond in kind ... simply reference the latest DOHA talks for source, the US has actually been pushing for less subsidies which have been stonewalled by the EU.
Now some of your issues I disagree with:
- Defense spending. Come now, that is almost ludicrous to use as an attack against free trade. You might as well attack ANY government expenditure as a violation of free trade since it is distincly apart from a free market economy. There will never be any free trade in defense industries simply because other countries will not willingly diseminate superior products to other countries! Furthermore, defense products can never become a free market good because the indivdual is not making such decisions. It doesn't matter whether you're FOR regulation or FOR deregulation, that will NEVER affect defense spending. So I have no idea what kind of case you are making with that argument.
- IMF. Please ... it's a tool for debt repayment??? I would almost label you a socialist except for the fact that you appear to be arguing for NO debt relief as opposed to any at all. We both know what would happen if these third world nations were to default on their loans ... the repurcussion on their financial markets/industries would be far worse than any restructured payment plan on their loans could ever be. If that were not the case, then they wouldn't even OPT to use the IMF. As a matter of fact, the IMF is criticized more for not issuing MORE debt relief programs than none at all. And lastly, if this is in any way directed at the US, the US has been encouraging the IMF to issue GRANTS instead of LOANS, however, such suggestions have been rejected ... but oh yes, the imf is a puppet of the US blah blah blah conspiracy ....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2055416.stm |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by rupert
The tax system in the US exists to transfer wealth from the poor and middle classes to the rich, those with power and wealth to lobby the lawmakers.
|
Actually that one was my personal favorite.
LOL! Keep it up Rupert, your a real comic genius.:p |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by rupert
Do you really think that big business such as Lockhead Martin and Halliburton wants deregulation when they get massive profits from government contracts. They steal from you in the name of defence and you swallow it.
|
the money just doesnt go "poof" and disappear. you need only look at houston and it's suburbs (clear lake) to tell that. The government contracts and grants (payed for by taxes) do eventually filter back to the economy. The housing, and commercial retails surrounding this corperate HQ's are booming, a healthy local economy is flourishing with many job opprotunities available. even the CEO's who might be stashing some of the profits are either purchasing their favorite luxory goods thus stimulating the economy, or saving and investing in future money making ideas.
| quote: | Originally posted by rupert
Absolutely. Competition is almost invariably a good thing. But the global system and the big corporations dont want that. If there really was free trade, there would be complete labour market mobility and the entirety of the worlds food production would be done in the third world not in the West.
|
i'm not quite sure about that statement, with all the corperate machinery that the US uses in it's farming ultimately saves on labour costs which would be the basic consideration in moving food productino to the third world. the american famring system has its effinceny down to almost clock work, such stability cant really be expected from developing nations.
| quote: |
What corporation wants competition when it can have closed markets supplying weapons to the government. Course they can easily justify this in the name of national security. Keep the people scared and they wont ask any serious questions.
|
i wouldn't really be in favour of an open market for weapons and ammo... kinda scary. there are some things best kept closed |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
while on the other hand you see examples of the US imposing steel tariffs against Europe, and textile tarrifs against China ... all of which I am against. |
ill agree with you that the steel tarrifs are ridiculous but i'll disagree with you on the china tarrif. luckly i pulled some knowledge about the US china relations when they had that week long conference here at my university with all the representatives and deligations from each nation. From what i understood from Powel's speech here, the textile tarrif is a reactionary measure in direct reponse to china's blockade of allowing the marketing of american technology (ie dell, microsoft) in china. |
|
|
| Renegade |
I think the tariffs have a lot to do with the currency war between the two nations as well. If what I read in the AFR was accurate, the tariffs were introduced as a retaliation for the protection/overvaluation of the Yen.
On the Dean issue, while American protectionism isn't good for the rest of the world, I don't see why the American posters are so worried about these proposals (apart from some vaguely Orwellian fear about "big-government"). The biggest problems facing the US economy are a lack of growth in the labour market and increasingly unmanagable trade deficits/foreign debt and nothing would "fix" these problems (imo) like the institution of trade barriers and tarrifs. Less incentive to import, more jobs for American workers - what's the problem (without resorting to sentimental, neo-liberal cliches)?
Also notice how Joe Lieberman was the first to blow the issue out of proportion in order to score some political points? The man's entire campaign has been centred around bashing Dean - yet Lieberman still can't get anywhere near him on the polls. In any case, I think I trust and value the judgements of "balanced-budget" Dean more than "spend-like-Reagan" Lieberman. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| rupert |
| quote: | | Defense spending. Come now, that is almost ludicrous to use as an attack against free trade. You might as well attack ANY government expenditure as a violation of free trade since it is distincly apart from a free market economy. T |
My point is the defence industry is a captive market and gives the corporation awesome opportunities for profiteering. Defence spending is subsidised by the tax payers meaning the defence corporations get a free ride, the taxpayer pays for the research to develop new technologies which almost invariably are sold to foreigners making even more profits.
It is socialism dressed up as national defence. Nobody in the USA with any pretensions to obtaining high office can question why one billion is spent on a stealth bomber or a new aircraft carrier or a useless missile defence shield without the label without being labelled unpatriotic.
And its not just the weapon makers Halliburton, Bechtel and the rest make billions off government contracts, you the taxpayer are subsidizing them. They get rich off your taxpayer money. And that is a wealth transfer, since rich people dont pay taxes.
| quote: | | IMF. Please ... it's a tool for debt repayment??? I would almost label you a socialist except for the fact that you appear to be arguing for NO debt relief as opposed to any at all. |
Yes that is exactly what I am saying. Dont ever mistake me for a socialist, I am nothing of the sort. The best thing for those countries is to be able to default on their western creditors.
I could spend all day dismembering the IMF for the frauds they are, but this thread wasnt about the IMF so I will refrain
| quote: | | but oh yes, the imf is a puppet of the US blah blah blah conspiracy .... |
The USA is the largest financier at 50% of IMF funds, to say that they dont have a say in how the IMF works is ludicrous.
| quote: | | LOL! Keep it up Rupert, your a real comic genius |
All governments throughout history exist to serve the interests of the ruling class and that has been accepted as a fact by philosophers and theorists for hundreds of years. In the USA the ruling class are the military, the big corporations and the powerful lobby groups. If you think that they dont want their pound of flesh from the government after giving those large campaign contributions then you are a fool. I suggest you read President Eisenhowers speech. Everything that he warned about has come to pass, then come back here and tell me what a comedian I am.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst...nts/indust.html
| quote: | | The housing, and commercial retails surrounding this corperate HQ's are booming, a healthy local economy is flourishing with many job opprotunities available. even the CEO's who might be stashing some of the profits are either purchasing their favorite luxory goods thus stimulating the economy, or saving and investing in future money making ideas. |
So why not cut out the middle man, why buy the stealth bomber to profit the corporation and by default the worker on the stealth bomber production line and just build new houses with the government money instead.
| quote: | | wouldn't really be in favour of an open market for weapons and ammo... kinda scary. there are some things best kept closed |
But that is what there is. The USA readily shares military technology with its allies the Europeans, the Israelis, the Saudis. The allies of today are the enemies of tommorrow. To think that enemies cant find out military secrets anyway belies past experience. Remember the Soviet Union infiltrated the Manhattan Project which was the most secret military project ever as well as infiltrating every american and british intelligence and military agency. To think that the Russians, Chinese, French and Israelis dont try and steal military secrets from the USA even to this day is extremely naieve.
| quote: | | i'm not quite sure about that statement, with all the corperate machinery that the US uses in it's farming ultimately saves on labour costs which would be the basic consideration in moving food productino to the third world. the american famring system has its effinceny down to almost clock work, such stability cant really be expected from developing nations. |
Its not just about technology and machinery. From a big picture point of view the global economy would benefit if agriculture was done in the third world, but it would take a long time to explain and I have already said too much so again I will leave that to another day. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by rupert
My point is the defence industry is a captive market and gives the corporation awesome opportunities for profiteering. Defence spending is subsidised by the tax payers meaning the defence corporations get a free ride, the taxpayer pays for the research to develop new technologies which almost invariably are sold to foreigners making even more profits.
It is socialism dressed up as national defence. Nobody in the USA with any pretensions to obtaining high office can question why one billion is spent on a stealth bomber or a new aircraft carrier or a useless missile defence shield without the label without being labelled unpatriotic.
|
That's not exactly the case. The defense department does not have free reign to do whatever it wants with its funds. It must undergo strict scrutiny from several senate intelligence committees and furthermore it is held accountable by the GAO and occassionally undergoes review. Additionally the senate can veto various pentagon projects such as the crusader artillery system that failed to get off the ground. Furthermore, the defense department doesn't just plop down a few billions and tells whatever company to spend freely, they usually enter specific industries with a product in mind. They give a variety of defense companies set specifications that need to be fulfilled and the defense companies enter design competitions. The winner is then awarded the contract, how you seem to imply this is a tool for cronyism and a transfer of wealth to to companies I don't understand. Everything cannot be simplified down to the mantra that "the rich are out to get you." There are plenty of disagreements in congress on how much should be appropriated to defense spending.
| quote: |
And its not just the weapon makers Halliburton, Bechtel and the rest make billions off government contracts, you the taxpayer are subsidizing them. They get rich off your taxpayer money. And that is a wealth transfer, since rich people dont pay taxes.
|
Perhaps in Australia the rich do not pay taxes ...
http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
| quote: |
Yes that is exactly what I am saying. Dont ever mistake me for a socialist, I am nothing of the sort. The best thing for those countries is to be able to default on their western creditors.
I could spend all day dismembering the IMF for the frauds they are, but this thread wasnt about the IMF so I will refrain
|
Their economies and industries would collapse. The second foreign investors realise that these countries do not intend to honor their debts, all foreign capital/loans would pull out. Furthermore, it is the fiscal responsibility of these nations to honor their debts and loans that they have procurred.
| quote: |
The USA is the largest financier at 50% of IMF funds, to say that they dont have a say in how the IMF works is ludicrous.
|
Well then why does the IMF not issue grants instead of loans as the US desires. My point is that the IMF, the world bank, and the wto are transparent institutions who typically act independant of any one countries wishes ... as evidenced by the latest wto's declarations of US steel tariffs as being illegal, thus giving the EU the green light to levy trade sanctions and punitive sanctions against the US.
| quote: |
So why not cut out the middle man, why buy the stealth bomber to profit the corporation and by default the worker on the stealth bomber production line and just build new houses with the government money instead.
|
Because the desired end product is not a new house for production line worker joe smith ... the desired end product is a stealth bomber.
| quote: |
But that is what there is. The USA readily shares military technology with its allies the Europeans, the Israelis, the Saudis. The allies of today are the enemies of tommorrow. To think that enemies cant find out military secrets anyway belies past experience. Remember the Soviet Union infiltrated the Manhattan Project which was the most secret military project ever as well as infiltrating every american and british intelligence and military agency. To think that the Russians, Chinese, French and Israelis dont try and steal military secrets from the USA even to this day is extremely naieve.
|
That's not how it is. Yes we share military technology with our allies and in certain circumstances military technology is stolen ... but to argue that we should embrace an open arms market because it's inevitable that someday someone is going to steal some technology is silly. That's like saying, I'm not going to paint my house because someday some kids are probably going to spray paint it and vandalize it. If the Chinese are so adept at stealing our technology, why is their nuclear weapons programs and delivery systems still decades behind ours?
| quote: | | I have already said too much so again I will leave that to another day. |
There's a quota? :) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
That's not exactly the case. The defense department does not have free reign to do whatever it wants with its funds. It must undergo strict scrutiny from several senate intelligence committees and furthermore it is held accountable by the GAO and occassionally undergoes review. Additionally the senate can veto various pentagon projects such as the crusader artillery system that failed to get off the ground. Furthermore, the defense department doesn't just plop down a few billions and tells whatever company to spend freely, they usually enter specific industries with a product in mind. They give a variety of defense companies set specifications that need to be fulfilled and the defense companies enter design competitions. The winner is then awarded the contract, how you seem to imply this is a tool for cronyism and a transfer of wealth to to companies I don't understand. Everything cannot be simplified down to the mantra that "the rich are out to get you." There are plenty of disagreements in congress on how much should be appropriated to defense spending. |
True, but you're not implying that companies like Bechtel and Halliburton didn't get special treatments and were not awarded no-bid contracts were you? Because they did. Yes, they got scrutinized for it, but they got their/our money regardless.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...7¬Found=true
| quote: | | Independent experts estimate that as much as one-third of the monthly $3.9 billion cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is going to independent contractors. |
http://www.sundayherald.com/33079
| quote: | | Halliburton’s subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root, was the first company to be awarded an Iraqi reconstruction contract by the Pentagon to cap burning oil wells, the deal is reportedly worth $500m (£320m). The contract was awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers without any open competitive bidding process thanks to federal laws allowing the negotiations to take place in secret in the interests of national security. KBR has won a string of lucrative contracts despite failing to control the cost of work in the Balkans and being fined $2m (£1.3m) following claims of fraud at a military base. KBR is also one of two contractors chosen by the Defence Threat Reduction Agency to undertake the disposal of weapons of mass destruction – if they are ever found. Since 1999, Halliburton has given 95%, or just under $700,000, (£448,000) of its political donations to the Republican party. |
Plenty of cronyism to go around for other companies over there as well.
| quote: | | Occrider:Perhaps in Australia the rich do not pay taxes ... |
http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
The rich also find ways around taxes:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...DAE0894D9404482
| quote: | | indicating that fewer than 6,000 or more than 1.1 million offshore accounts and businesses were properly disclosed and therefore legal; Manhattan district attorney, Robert M Morgenthau, citing previously secret Federal Reserve Bank data, says that more than $800 billion of American money is on deposit in just one tax haven, Cayman Islands (M) |
Or they get a little helping hand from Bush and his tax cuts:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0228-10.htm
(yes, I know, it's a liberal site, but the content has some meaning here)
| quote: | | there is the hypocrisy of President Bush recommending the elimination of the tax on dividends on the basis that tens of millions of Americans own stock – when he knows that the great majority of the stock owned by most of those Americans is in pension funds, which makes them immune from dividend taxes anyway. While he claims he is helping everyone, the benefits of his proposed cuts go overwhelmingly to the wealthy. |
| quote: | | Occrider:Their economies and industries would collapse. The second foreign investors realise that these countries do not intend to honor their debts, all foreign capital/loans would pull out. Furthermore, it is the fiscal responsibility of these nations to honor their debts and loans that they have procurred. |
Yes, it is their fiscal responsibility. But how responsible is it when the policies of the World Bank is to literally bankrupt and turn the country upside down first:
http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=12652
| quote: | Step 1 is Privatization -- which Stiglitz said could more accurately be called "Briberization". Rather than object to the sell-offs of state industries, he said national leaders -- using the World Bank's demands to silence local critics -- happily flogged their electricity and water companies.
After briberization, Step 2 of the IMF/World Bank one-size-fits-all rescueyour- economy plan is "Capital Market Liberalization". In theory, capital market deregulation allows investment capital to flow in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money simply flowed out and out. Stiglitz calls this the "hot money" cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation's reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation's own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30 per cent, 50 per cent and 80 per cent.
At this point, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step 3: Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and domestic gas. This leads, predictably, to Step 31/2: what Stiglitz calls "The IMF riot."
The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is "down and out, [the IMF] takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up" -- as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998.
Now we arrive at Step 4 of what the IMF and World Bank call their "poverty reduction strategy": Free Trade. This is free trade by the rules of the World Trade Organization and World Bank. Stiglitz the insider likens free trade WTOstyle to the Opium Wars. "That too was about opening markets," he said. As in the nineteenth century, Europeans and Americans today are kicking down the barriers to sales in Asia, Latin American and Africa, while barricading their own markets against Third World agriculture. |
Or when those countries simply can't pay off the interest fee hikes given to them, coupled with meager attempts to match their currency with the American dollar?:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/busi...,535462,00.html
| quote: | What on earth would induce Argentina to embrace the IMF's goofy programme? The payoff, if Argentina does as it is told, is that this week the IMF will lend $1.2bn in aid. This is part of an emergency loan package of $26bn for 2001 put together by the IMF, World Bank and private lenders announced at the end of last year.
But there is less to this generosity than meets the eye. The understanding also assumes Argentina will 'peg' its currency, the peso, to the dollar at an exchange rate of one to one. The currency peg doesn't come cheap. American banks and speculators are charging a whopping 16 per cent risk premium above normal in return for the dollars needed to back this currency scheme.
Now do the arithmetic. On Argentina's $128bn of debt, normal interest plus the 16 per cent surcharge by lenders comes to about $27bn a year. In other words, Argentina's people probably won't net one penny from the $26bn loan package. |
Or how about Equador? Borrowed $1.5 billion, but had a few "rules" it had to follow in order to get it's money, as well as privatize all utilities (which occurs in every IMF loan to poor countries):
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/25/087.html
| quote: | we have to turn back to 1983, when the IMF forced its government to take over the soured private debts owed by Ecuador’s elite to foreign banks. For this bail-out of US and local financiers, Ecuador borrowed $1.5 billion.
To repay this loan, the IMF dictated price hikes for electricity and other necessities. And when that didn’t drain off enough cash, yet another assistance plan required the state to eliminate 120,000 jobs.
Furthermore, while trying to meet the mountain of IMF obligations, Ecuador foolishly liberalised its tiny financial market, cutting local banks loose from government controls and letting private debt and interest rates explode.
Who pushed Ecuador into this nutty romp with free-market banking? Hint: the initials are IMF. It made bank liberalisation a condition of another berserk assistance plan. |
Or how about Rio and the wonderful world of privatization?:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/A...3846389,00.html
And some more on Argentina:
http://www.americas.org/News/Featur...esOnlyMemos.htm
Now admittedly, Palast is pretty far to the left. Still, his research on the IMF and World Bank is pretty descent stuff.
| quote: | | Occrider:Well then why does the IMF not issue grants instead of loans as the US desires. My point is that the IMF, the world bank, and the wto are transparent institutions who typically act independant of any one countries wishes ... as evidenced by the latest wto's declarations of US steel tariffs as being illegal, thus giving the EU the green light to levy trade sanctions and punitive sanctions against the US. |
My personal view on the steel tariffs is the WTO simply had no choice - what the U.S. and Bush was doing was simply illegial, period. And they simply just couldn't work around it. My point, however, is that when a country owns 51% of the World Bank (the U.S. Treasury), I think they will tend to have a great influence on their policies. And they do, to come as no surprise.
As to the rest of your writings, I got no beef with. But when it comes to WTO and IMF, I think their failures speak loudly for themselves. |
|
|
|
|
