For my Libertarian friends

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Anybody else realize the US economy is going to completely collapse in my lifetime? On the bright side you'll get to see it recover as a revitalized free market in your lifetime too.

No I won't  I drink a sh*t load.  I'll be dead just after beer becomes unaffordable.

Or illegalized.  Again. 


Edited by Epignosis - September 26 2010 at 20:47

Equality 7-2521 wrote: When the government comes for my beer, I revolt.

I will beat people to death with Nancy Pelosi.

Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: When the government comes for my beer, I revolt. I will beat people to death with Nancy Pelosi.

You forget the broad will be a bloated behemoth of scorn and collagen by then, right?

Best start lifting.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Anybody else realize the US economy is going to completely collapse in my lifetime? On the bright side you'll get to see it recover as a revitalized free market in your lifetime too.

The T wrote: A question my Libertarians:  What do you think on citizenship and residence status issued by the government? People becoming citizens of the US because the government issues them a certificate. Would you agree with this? Why does the government get to decide who is or isn't an American? Shouldn't Americans be only those born here?  Or maybe those who have lived here all their lives? Or maybe children of American citizens?

I don't really have an issue with it. Becoming a citizen entitles you to the (few) legitimate functions of the United States Government. Voting, having your rights protected by the police, benifitting from national defense. I don't really see why you should have to be a citizen to work here, except that minimum wage laws distort the market in such a way that actual citizens will be unable to find work, and that non-citizens wouldn't have to pay taxes while the rest of us do. If you eliminate the minimum wage laws and income taxes, then I say let anyone work who wants to.

The T wrote: Funny, I just thought of how extremism works against you people (and all extremists of all sides really). In the last elections, the only candidate in the GOP that I ever found likely to receive my support was Ron Paul. i liked many of his ideas. Not all of them of course, but many.  Then the tea party arrived and made me (and many others) get scared... Ron Paul is far more extreme than any of the tea party folks I've seen. Another question: under a full free market, would jobs return to America that have been taken elsewhere? Would companies once again build factories and offer service here in America instead of China and India? Why? That depends on many things. If they can operate more cheaply overseas, they will, to the benefit of their customers and our economy. In the absence of taxes or invasive government regulation, however, it is likely that far, far more businesses would want to operate in America. Not just our own, but businesses from all over the world. Why would a German firm build a factory in Germany, where it would have to pay huge amounts of property tax, when they could build it here and avoid that?

Edited by thellama73 - September 27 2010 at 11:24

The T wrote: Good points. Though I can't see how the second sentence goes in benefit of our economy when jobs that could exist here in the US are taken elsewhere.

Because the money that U.S. companies earn overseas comes back to the U.S. economy. Suppose Ford opens a manufacturing plant in Mexico, and then ships the cars back into the U.S. It can then sell them at a lower cost because of the cheap labor in Mexico and Americans benefit. Suppose Ford opens a manufacturing plant in India and sells the cars to Indians. They would only do so if they could make more money than they could in the U.S. so Ford makes more profits which will enable them to spend more on inputs, R&D or lower costs. Since Ford is based in the U.S. much of this excess will return to our economy. If it company abandons the U.S. altogether, then it doesn't really help us, but that doesn't happen very often since we're such a huge market.

ExittheLemming wrote: The T wrote: Good points. Though I can't see how the second sentence goes in benefit of our economy when jobs that could exist here in the US are taken elsewhere.  Have to agree with this objection: I got made redundant from my last job working in the Australian telecommunications industry when the firm relocated their credit dept to Mombai in India. Although I couldn't argue with the arithmetic involved (the savings to my firm's overheads were enormous) the customer's tarriffs for calls and services didn't fall - just my firm made bigger profits. As I've said before, I know squat about economics but where is the benefit to the economy here? My firm did create wealth yes, for themselves and Indians I guess (and good luck to em)

This is a common fallacy that I see committed every day. You're assuming that your firm is taking its extra profits and hiding them in a mattress or something. It doesn't work like that, the extra money gets reinvested in the economy, which ultimately benefits everyone.

ExittheLemming wrote: thellama73 wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: The T wrote: Good points. Though I can't see how the second sentence goes in benefit of our economy when jobs that could exist here in the US are taken elsewhere.  Have to agree with this objection: I got made redundant from my last job working in the Australian telecommunications industry when the firm relocated their credit dept to Mombai in India. Although I couldn't argue with the arithmetic involved (the savings to my firm's overheads were enormous) the customer's tarriffs for calls and services didn't fall - just my firm made bigger profits. As I've said before, I know squat about economics but where is the benefit to the economy here? My firm did create wealth yes, for themselves and Indians I guess (and good luck to em) This is a common fallacy that I see committed every day. You're assuming that your firm is taking its extra profits and hiding them in a mattress or something. It doesn't work like that, the extra money gets reinvested in the economy, which ultimately benefits everyone. OK, at least give me a concrete example of 'reinvesting in the economy which ultimately benefits everyone' cos like I said, this subject is really not my strong suit.

Gladly. Say your company makes $10,000 from relocating your job to India. Then let's say they spend that money on office supplies at Office Depot. Now not only is your firm richer, but so is Office Depot. But wait, some of that money doesn't go directly to Office Depot, but to the manufacturers of paper, staplers, etc. so they are richer too. Now Office Depot has enough money to open a new location. This is convenient for many people who were far away from the other locations and they save money on gasoline, as well as saving time they would have spent travelling to a more distant location, so they are also richer. Meanwhile, the stapler manufacturer passes some of its extra profits onto a steel mill, which can in turn afford to hire more workers, so the steel mill is better off and the workers who get jobs are better off. GDP rises. In Japan, some businessmen se that American GDP is rising, which means that people in America have more money to spend than they used to, so they decide that it would be a good investment to open a chain of Sushi restaurants in America, for which they have to buy land, machines and hire workers. The landlord, the machine manufacturers and the workers are now all better off.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Anytime someone in America makes more money there is a ripple effect that spreads across the entire economy. Rich people making money is GOOD for poor people!

thellama73 wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: thellama73 wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: The T wrote: Good points. Though I can't see how the second sentence goes in benefit of our economy when jobs that could exist here in the US are taken elsewhere.  Have to agree with this objection: I got made redundant from my last job working in the Australian telecommunications industry when the firm relocated their credit dept to Mombai in India. Although I couldn't argue with the arithmetic involved (the savings to my firm's overheads were enormous) the customer's tarriffs for calls and services didn't fall - just my firm made bigger profits. As I've said before, I know squat about economics but where is the benefit to the economy here? My firm did create wealth yes, for themselves and Indians I guess (and good luck to em) This is a common fallacy that I see committed every day. You're assuming that your firm is taking its extra profits and hiding them in a mattress or something. It doesn't work like that, the extra money gets reinvested in the economy, which ultimately benefits everyone. OK, at least give me a concrete example of 'reinvesting in the economy which ultimately benefits everyone' cos like I said, this subject is really not my strong suit. Gladly. Say your company makes $10,000 from relocating your job to India. Then let's say they spend that money on office supplies at Office Depot. Now not only is your firm richer, but so is Office Depot. But wait, some of that money doesn't go directly to Office Depot, but to the manufacturers of paper, staplers, etc. so they are richer too. Now Office Depot has enough money to open a new location. This is convenient for many people who were far away from the other locations and they save money on gasoline, as well as saving time they would have spent travelling to a more distant location, so they are also richer. Meanwhile, the stapler manufacturer passes some of its extra profits onto a steel mill, which can in turn afford to hire more workers, so the steel mill is better off and the workers who get jobs are better off. GDP rises. In Japan, some businessmen se that American GDP is rising, which means that people in America have more money to spend than they used to, so they decide that it would be a good investment to open a chain of Sushi restaurants in America, for which they have to buy land, machines and hire workers. The landlord, the machine manufacturers and the workers are now all better off. I could go on, but I think you get the point. Anytime someone in America makes more money there is a ripple effect that spreads across the entire economy. Rich people making money is GOOD for poor people!

I thank you and do follow the chain of mutual benefits that you outline as it does make sense.

BUT

The new credit call centre in Mumbai was stocked with fixtures, fittings and I dare say office supplies from Indian firms (cos they're cheap as chips compared to Australian suppliers) so yes, the ripple through the economy would be beneficial to everyone in India. Perhaps I'm just being thick but assuming my firm's increased profits were spent entirely overseas wouldn't the only benefit for the Australian economy be the ability of richer Indians to spend their wealth in Australia or ultimately for Indian firms to expand their operations TO Australia?