|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Jan 29, 2008 13:01
At first it seems like a political loser. The gummint would match
every dollar of exports with import vouchers. You couldn't import
without buying the vouchers from the exporters. This would force a
market oriented balance of trade. You wouldn't need to screw around
with each and every industry and congressional district.
It would drive up costs of imports and, according to Buffet, even some
domestic stuff which would be the hard part of getting it passed. If
you could convince the American public they were like a substance
abuser and needed to check into a clinic, then it might work.
Otherwise it'll be like pushing a rope. Very few in congress push
ropes.
Bret Cahill
|
| |
|
| | 48 Comments |
|
|
Author: MichaelNJMichaelNJ Date: Jan 29, 2008 15:29
On Jan 29, 4:01 pm, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:> At first it seems like a political loser. The gummint would match
> every dollar of exports with import vouchers. You couldn't import
> without buying the vouchers from the exporters. This would force a
> market oriented balance of trade. You wouldn't need to screw around
> with each and every industry and congressional district.
>
> It would drive up costs of imports and, according to Buffet, even some
> domestic stuff which would be the hard part of getting it passed. If
> you could convince the American public they were like a substance
> abuser and needed to check into a clinic, then it might work.
>
> Otherwise it'll be like pushing a rope. Very few in congress push
> ropes.
>
> Bret Cahill
This sound like a socialist scheme to control the markets by
artifically controlling supply and demand. Have you thought of the
consequences of this type of action. It is guaranteed to be
reciprocated...
|
| Show full article (1.57Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Jan 29, 2008 17:46
>> At first it seems like a political loser. �The gummint would match
>> every dollar of exports with import vouchers. �You couldn't import
>> without buying the vouchers from the exporters. �This would force a
>> market oriented balance of trade. �You wouldn't need to screw around
>> with each and every industry and congressional district.
>> It would drive up costs of imports and, according to Buffet, even some
>> domestic stuff which would be the hard part of getting it passed. �If
>> you could convince the American public they were like a substance
>> abuser and needed to check into a clinic, then it might work.
>> Otherwise it'll be like pushing a rope. �Very few in congress push
>> ropes.
> This sound like a socialist scheme to control the markets by
> artifically controlling supply and demand. �
IP laws do the same thing.
> Have you thought of the
> consequences of this type of action. �
It's almost as neat as a land value tax. See Henry George.
> It is guaranteed to be
> reciprocated by our trading partners. �
|
| Show full article (2.71Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Jan 30, 2008 03:37
On Jan 30, 10:53 am, Democracy Highlander
yahoo.com> wrote:
> When word socialist is used, you can be assured that the author is an
> fanatic "free trader at any cost".
Oh so controlled trade at any price makes more sense does it?
Free markets are fair markets. Why? Consider the alternative.
> Democracy Highlander
Why do ewe use an oxymoron as a stage name? Leftist fucking retards.
MG
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: tgtg Date: Jan 30, 2008 04:55
On Jan 29, 9:09 pm, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:>>> This sound like a socialist scheme to control the markets by
>>> artifically controlling supply and demand. �
>> Bla bla bla !!!
>> When word socialist is used, you can be assured that the author is an
>> fanatic "free trader at any cost".
>
> Buffet is without question the greatest free market trader of all time
> yet rightards call him a socialist, commie, words I never read in the
> Bible.
>
> It's positively weird.
>
> Bret Cahill
Well you are correct about that. But I have to admit I still don't get
what this system is. Who gets the voucher? The farmer who grows the
rice? The entity who makes the actual offshore sale? Don't you need a
new exchange (as in stock exchange) to handle these things?
I know, that's why Buffet is rich and I'm not....
|
| Show full article (0.84Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Fred WeissFred Weiss Date: Jan 31, 2008 04:51
On Jan 30, 10:14 pm, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:
>> Higher prices are inevitable and the most obvious.
>
> But you also get higher employment higher productivity and more money
> to pay the higher prices.
The effect of tariffs is unemployment and lower productivity - all the
time and every time. No exceptions - at least to those who can grasp
the whole of an economy, not merely one tiny segment of it (as if that
segment operated independently of the rest).
Productivity is improved - and demanded - by competition which is
deliberately reduced by tariffs. That's their purpose. "Please protect
us from competition" is the cry. Lower productivity means higher
prices. Higher prices means we have less to spend. If we have less to
spend, the result is unemployment.*
|
| Show full article (1.89Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Fred WeissFred Weiss Date: Jan 31, 2008 05:03
On Jan 31, 1:32 am, Day Brown hughes.net> wrote:
> You wanna reduce the trade deficit...
Me? No. Why?
You apparently haven't noticed that many, if not most, of the
countries with whom we have trade deficits are much, much poorer than
us, e.g. China. They are willing and eager to provide us - veritably
drown us - in cheap goods, saving us a fortune which we can then spend
on other things. What's more they are willing to finance it at low
rates, much of which will get eaten up by inflation, and thus will end
up costing us even less. Gift horse/mouth.
> India and China are producing vastly more engineers and scientists;
> course, they have much larger populations to draw from.
Oh, and here I thought that large populations were bad.
Fred Weiss
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Jan 31, 2008 08:17
>>> �Buffet was not at all upholding property rights
>>> and contracts in his proposal. By constraining imports and preventing
>>> free trade,
>> It's revenue neutral...
> You agree to pay for it
No one pays anything except importers.
> - leaving the rest of us out of it
You know how you can always opt out. Just call 1-800-FLY-4-LESS and
book a one way . . .
> - and we'll
> consider it "revenue neutral".
The gummint gets no more money than now. Even more this could nip in
the bud any of the more draconian protectionism.
Buffet looks ahead more than two weeks. He also faces reality.
The reality is the GOP is finished.
>>... like the land value tax.
> Except to landowners.
Property owners are _already_ paying _two_ taxes, one on land and one
on improvements.
|
| Show full article (0.97Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Fred WeissFred Weiss Date: Jan 31, 2008 08:43
On Jan 31, 11:17 am, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:>>>> �Buffet was not at all upholding property rights
>>>> and contracts in his proposal. By constraining imports and preventing
>>>> free trade,
>>> It's revenue neutral...
>> You agree to pay for it
>
> No one pays anything except importers.
For what crime? Why should they be penalized? Not to mention we who
then have to pay more for imported goods.
>> - leaving the rest of us out of it
>
> You know how you can always opt out.
You know you can always not have the taxes in the first place.
> The gummint gets no more money than now. Even more this could nip in
> the bud any of the more draconian protectionism.
Why not nip in the bud *any* more protectionism? Why not eliminate it
entirely?
Fred Weiss
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Democracy HighlanderDemocracy Highlander Date: Jan 31, 2008 16:06
Fred Weiss wrote:
> On Jan 30, 10:14 pm, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:
> >>> Higher prices are inevitable and the most obvious.
>>
>> But you also get higher employment higher productivity and more money
>> to pay the higher prices.
>
> The effect of tariffs is unemployment and lower productivity
> time and every time. No exceptions - at least to those who can grasp
> the whole of an economy, not merely one tiny segment of it (as if that
> segment operated independently of the rest).
This is a faith based statement driven by corporate PR and have nothing in
common with economic reasoning.
> Productivity is improved - and demanded - by competition which is
> deliberately reduced by tariffs.
|
| Show full article (2.77Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
