$9 trillion in debt

[charrison]

If you want the US to remain competitive, there are several things we must do.

Number one is increase productivity, however this will come at the expense of many low skill factory workers. Keep our workers more productive via automation and we will be able to compete with low countries.

Number 2 is we must reform our tax code. Many of those low wage countries we have to compete with also have low corporate taxes. For instance china has a 10% corperate tax, while the US has a 30% corporate tax. This is just another hurdle that keeps the US worker uncompetative. Look what happened when the US allowed US companies to repatriate monies earned by their foreign branches back to the US at a 10% rate. Tax revenues swelled when this happened. If fix our corperate tax, we should have little problem getting companies to move to the US where we have attractive tax rates and highly productive workers.

Number 3 is to reform regulation when it is excessive. Most of the low wage countries we compete against have little in terms regulation, so we should strive to keep high standards while keep the redtape to a minimum.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: rchiu
I guess you didn't read the article OP quoted. I am strongly anti-deficit, but I don't support any deficit reduction that comes at a cost of people putting their life for this country.

I see, then my apologies for directing this in reply to you. It is BoberFett and the article linked that is mislabeling the subject of the debt in a narrow view.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: rchiu
I guess you didn't read the article OP quoted. I am strongly anti-deficit, but I don't support any deficit reduction that comes at a cost of people putting their life for this country.

I see, then my apologies for directing this in reply to you. It is BoberFett and the article linked that is mislabeling the subject of the debt in a narrow view.

Not a problem, that's what the right wingers do best, mislabeling and misleading people. If the vote were only about deficit, I bet all democrats plus lots of republican with a conscience would have voted against it. But it was about providing funding to the soldiers in Iraq, and that's why only the most left wing anti-war democrats voted against it. Nothing hard to understand if you see what's really going on. Right wingers really don't have anything going for them lately, so the only thing they can do is put up smoking screens and talking some bs to make themselves feel better.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: charrison
If you want the US to remain competitive, there are several things we must do.

Number one is increase productivity, however this will come at the expense of many low skill factory workers. Keep our workers more productive via automation and we will be able to compete with low countries.

Number 2 is we must reform our tax code. Many of those low wage countries we have to compete with also have low corporate taxes. For instance china has a 10% corperate tax, while the US has a 30% corporate tax. This is just another hurdle that keeps the US worker uncompetative. Look what happened when the US allowed US companies to repatriate monies earned by their foreign branches back to the US at a 10% rate. Tax revenues swelled when this happened. If fix our corperate tax, we should have little problem getting companies to move to the US where we have attractive tax rates and highly productive workers.

Number 3 is to reform regulation when it is excessive. Most of the low wage countries we compete against have little in terms regulation, so we should strive to keep high standards while keep the redtape to a minimum.

I would add number 4, you actually produce something people in other countries want to buy.

EU countries have more expensive labor, stricter labor laws, (much) higher taxation and unions with huge contractual power, still they are managing to have a trade balance surplus, and this despite the uber-Euro.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison
If you want the US to remain competitive, there are several things we must do.


Number 2 is we must reform our tax code. Many of those low wage countries we have to compete with also have low corporate taxes. For instance china has a 10% corperate tax, while the US has a 30% corporate tax. This is just another hurdle that keeps the US worker uncompetative. Look what happened when the US allowed US companies to repatriate monies earned by their foreign branches back to the US at a 10% rate. Tax revenues swelled when this happened. If fix our corperate tax, we should have little problem getting companies to move to the US where we have attractive tax rates and highly productive workers.

Interesting item on CNBC the other day. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but because of deductions, it has the 2nd lowest burden of taxes of those same countries.

However, it may be overly complicated which could be a sore spot.

As for automation, I would rather automate (at one time I wouldn't have said that) and keep the factories in the US with a skilled (more skilled anyway) crew to run and service the machinery than to outsource and lose the entire factory. My company, even with all of the automation, is now down to two plants in the US that run production. That's down from 10 just a few years ago.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison
If you want the US to remain competitive, there are several things we must do.


Number 2 is we must reform our tax code. Many of those low wage countries we have to compete with also have low corporate taxes. For instance china has a 10% corperate tax, while the US has a 30% corporate tax. This is just another hurdle that keeps the US worker uncompetative. Look what happened when the US allowed US companies to repatriate monies earned by their foreign branches back to the US at a 10% rate. Tax revenues swelled when this happened. If fix our corperate tax, we should have little problem getting companies to move to the US where we have attractive tax rates and highly productive workers.

Interesting item on CNBC the other day. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but because of deductions, it has the 2nd lowest burden of taxes of those same countries.

However, it may be overly complicated which could be a sore spot.

As for automation, I would rather automate (at one time I wouldn't have said that) and keep the factories in the US with a skilled (more skilled anyway) crew to run and service the machinery than to outsource and lose the entire factory. My company, even with all of the automation, is now down to two plants in the US that run production. That's down from 10 just a few years ago.

The 8 that were closed, were they just closed, moved or just consolidated?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: charrison
If you want the US to remain competitive, there are several things we must do.

Number one is increase productivity, however this will come at the expense of many low skill factory workers. Keep our workers more productive via automation and we will be able to compete with low countries.

Number 2 is we must reform our tax code. Many of those low wage countries we have to compete with also have low corporate taxes. For instance china has a 10% corperate tax, while the US has a 30% corporate tax. This is just another hurdle that keeps the US worker uncompetative. Look what happened when the US allowed US companies to repatriate monies earned by their foreign branches back to the US at a 10% rate. Tax revenues swelled when this happened. If fix our corperate tax, we should have little problem getting companies to move to the US where we have attractive tax rates and highly productive workers.

Number 3 is to reform regulation when it is excessive. Most of the low wage countries we compete against have little in terms regulation, so we should strive to keep high standards while keep the redtape to a minimum.

I would add number 4, you actually produce something people in other countries want to buy.

EU countries have more expensive labor, stricter labor laws, (much) higher taxation and unions with huge contractual power, still they are managing to have a trade balance surplus, and this despite the uber-Euro.

The US is a top exporter of goods, so we do make goods other countries want.

And by the way I dont see a trade imbalance as a negative thing. If you look at when the US has run trade supluses it has been during bad economic times here.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: charrison
If you want the US to remain competitive, there are several things we must do.

Number one is increase productivity, however this will come at the expense of many low skill factory workers. Keep our workers more productive via automation and we will be able to compete with low countries.

Number 2 is we must reform our tax code. Many of those low wage countries we have to compete with also have low corporate taxes. For instance china has a 10% corperate tax, while the US has a 30% corporate tax. This is just another hurdle that keeps the US worker uncompetative. Look what happened when the US allowed US companies to repatriate monies earned by their foreign branches back to the US at a 10% rate. Tax revenues swelled when this happened. If fix our corperate tax, we should have little problem getting companies to move to the US where we have attractive tax rates and highly productive workers.

Number 3 is to reform regulation when it is excessive. Most of the low wage countries we compete against have little in terms regulation, so we should strive to keep high standards while keep the redtape to a minimum.

I would add number 4, you actually produce something people in other countries want to buy.

EU countries have more expensive labor, stricter labor laws, (much) higher taxation and unions with huge contractual power, still they are managing to have a trade balance surplus, and this despite the uber-Euro.

The US is a top exporter of goods, so we do make goods other countries want.

And by the way I dont see a trade imbalance as a negative thing. If you look at when the US has run trade supluses it has been during bad economic times here.

Of course the US is a top exporter. It's the largest economy in the world. I meant improving this aspect to improve the trade balance. The US exports very little compared to what it imports.

Positive trade balances were often associated with poor state of the economy because when the economy is bad private consumption falls, and imports fall accordingly.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tango

Of course the US is a top exporter. It's the largest economy in the world. I meant improving this aspect to improve the trade balance. The US exports very little compared to what it imports.

Positive trade balances were often associated with poor state of the economy because when the economy is bad private consumption falls, and imports fall accordingly.

oh Really?

In June 2007, U.S. exports of goods and services grew by 11.2 % over June 2006 to $134.5 billion, while
imports increased 3.8 % to $192.7 billion.
? The largest export markets for U.S. goods in the first half of 2007 (with percent increase over the first half
2006) were Canada ($121.9 billion, up 4.4%), Mexico ($67.0 billion, up 0.7 %), Japan ($31.4 billion, up 8.7
%) and China ($30.5 billion, up 18.8 %).
? Exports comprised 11.5% of U.S. GDP in the second quarter of 2007. To put in historical terms, exports were
9.4 % of U.S. GDP five years earlier (Q2 2002), and 5.0% 40 years ago (Q2 1967).
? Exports of goods and services grew 11.0% in the first half of 2007 to $779.2 billion, including a 10.7% gain
in goods exports on a balance of payments basis to $549.7 billion and an 11.5 % gain in services exports to
$229.5 billion.

There is a 30% delta between value of imports and exports, but i would not call our exports very little as you do. Exports are growing faster than imports. Exports are taking up a larger share of gdp than prior years/decades.

The manufacturing picture is not bleak as you want to paint it.

linkage

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tango

Of course the US is a top exporter. It's the largest economy in the world. I meant improving this aspect to improve the trade balance. The US exports very little compared to what it imports.

Positive trade balances were often associated with poor state of the economy because when the economy is bad private consumption falls, and imports fall accordingly.

oh Really?

In June 2007, U.S. exports of goods and services grew by 11.2 % over June 2006 to $134.5 billion, while
imports increased 3.8 % to $192.7 billion.
? The largest export markets for U.S. goods in the first half of 2007 (with percent increase over the first half
2006) were Canada ($121.9 billion, up 4.4%), Mexico ($67.0 billion, up 0.7 %), Japan ($31.4 billion, up 8.7
%) and China ($30.5 billion, up 18.8 %).
? Exports comprised 11.5% of U.S. GDP in the second quarter of 2007. To put in historical terms, exports were
9.4 % of U.S. GDP five years earlier (Q2 2002), and 5.0% 40 years ago (Q2 1967).
? Exports of goods and services grew 11.0% in the first half of 2007 to $779.2 billion, including a 10.7% gain
in goods exports on a balance of payments basis to $549.7 billion and an 11.5 % gain in services exports to
$229.5 billion.

There is a 30% delta between value of imports and exports, but i would not call our exports very little as you do. Exports are growing faster than imports. Exports are taking up a larger share of gdp than prior years/decades.

The manufacturing picture is not bleak as you want to paint it.

https://publish.doc.gov/s/grou...tent/prod01_003264.pdf">linkage</a>

Hum... where did exactly call US exports "very little"?

I was just referring to this:

http://www.earth-policy.org/Up...2_USBalanceofTrade.GIF

and this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...6/USTrade1991-2005.png

(I already linked these in the first post)

The problem is not the size of US exports. It's the imbalance between exports and imports.

 

[child of wonder]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Are you Democrat faithful embarassed yet?

Craig? Senseamp? The rest of you bleating sheep? What do you have to say for your messiahs now?

We know Republicans are crooked. They don't even attempt to hide it anymore. But you Democrats have been had and you can't even see it. Only one Democrat senator voted no to expanding our debt ceiling by another $1 trillion. (Your heroes Hilary and Obama couldn't even be bothered to vote on the issue. Flip flop. Flip flop. Ooooo, campaign money!) Most of the House voted Yes as well.

Now I'll just kick back and watch the sheep herd in and tell me how awful Republicans are. Spin. Dodge. Deflect. Baaaaa.

PS I'm quite proud of my representative (Keith Ellison) who voted No. Mr. Ellison, a Muslim, is more of an American than 95% of our "leaders".

I'm not a Democrat or Republican but I have to raise this point --

were you equally as upset when the Republican controlled Congress voted to increase the national debt to $9 trillion in May of 2003?

Link

 

[charrison]

To quote you

The US exports very little compared to what it imports.

A 30% delta does not mean we export very little.
We are dealing with 2 very large numbers, so it is easy to make a graph that makes things look bad.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison
If you want the US to remain competitive, there are several things we must do.


Number 2 is we must reform our tax code. Many of those low wage countries we have to compete with also have low corporate taxes. For instance china has a 10% corperate tax, while the US has a 30% corporate tax. This is just another hurdle that keeps the US worker uncompetative. Look what happened when the US allowed US companies to repatriate monies earned by their foreign branches back to the US at a 10% rate. Tax revenues swelled when this happened. If fix our corperate tax, we should have little problem getting companies to move to the US where we have attractive tax rates and highly productive workers.

Interesting item on CNBC the other day. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but because of deductions, it has the 2nd lowest burden of taxes of those same countries.

However, it may be overly complicated which could be a sore spot.

As for automation, I would rather automate (at one time I wouldn't have said that) and keep the factories in the US with a skilled (more skilled anyway) crew to run and service the machinery than to outsource and lose the entire factory. My company, even with all of the automation, is now down to two plants in the US that run production. That's down from 10 just a few years ago.

The 8 that were closed, were they just closed, moved or just consolidated?

There was some consolidation but most was simply moved to Mexico with some of the tube milling (making of the tube) sent to China and shipped to the US. Mexican plant operations have grown tremendously over the last few years with the square footage about .75 to 1 for the plants shut down. It's hard to beat $0.80 per hour labor charge vs the $10 plus benefits of the US worker (The $10 is what we paid operators in the US).

Edit: Apologies to the OP for going off topic. Just answering the man's question.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison
To quote you

The US exports very little compared to what it imports.

A 30% delta does not mean we export very little.
We are dealing with 2 very large numbers, so it is easy to make a graph that makes things look bad.

This is true, however imports have been rising much faster than exports for some time with little to change that in the near future (with the exception of the new Boeing planes coming online).

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: charrison
To quote you

The US exports very little compared to what it imports.

A 30% delta does not mean we export very little.
We are dealing with 2 very large numbers, so it is easy to make a graph that makes things look bad.

Well, yeah. Compared to imports from an historical perspective it's a small number. Not a small number in absolute terms.

The graph looks bad because historically surpluses and deficit in the trade balance were very small (as you see in the almost flat curve during the '60s to mid '70s).

 

[Hacp]

TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison
To quote you

The US exports very little compared to what it imports.

A 30% delta does not mean we export very little.
We are dealing with 2 very large numbers, so it is easy to make a graph that makes things look bad.

This is true, however imports have been rising much faster than exports for some time with little to change that in the near future (with the exception of the new Boeing planes coming online).

By the stats I just posted exports are rising about 4x faster than imports.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: charrison
To quote you

The US exports very little compared to what it imports.

A 30% delta does not mean we export very little.
We are dealing with 2 very large numbers, so it is easy to make a graph that makes things look bad.

Well, yeah. Compared to imports from an historical perspective it's a small number. Not a small number in absolute terms.

The graph looks bad because historically surpluses and deficit in the trade balance were very small (as you see in the almost flat curve during the '60s to mid '70s).

And 40 years ago exports were 5% of gdp, today they are 12% of gdp. The graph does not even come close to telling the entire store.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison
To quote you

The US exports very little compared to what it imports.

A 30% delta does not mean we export very little.
We are dealing with 2 very large numbers, so it is easy to make a graph that makes things look bad.

This is true, however imports have been rising much faster than exports for some time with little to change that in the near future (with the exception of the new Boeing planes coming online).

By the stats I just posted exports are rising about 4x faster than imports.

That may be a more recent trend but the trade deficit graphs show a different story (especially from the late 90's to about 2006).

Also, as I mentioned earlier, a weak US dollar will do that for you - increasing exports while slowing imports.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: charrison
To quote you

The US exports very little compared to what it imports.

A 30% delta does not mean we export very little.
We are dealing with 2 very large numbers, so it is easy to make a graph that makes things look bad.

Well, yeah. Compared to imports from an historical perspective it's a small number. Not a small number in absolute terms.

The graph looks bad because historically surpluses and deficit in the trade balance were very small (as you see in the almost flat curve during the '60s to mid '70s).

And 40 years ago exports were 5% of gdp, today they are 12% of gdp. The graph does not even come close to telling the entire store.

No but we were talking about debt, not the general state of the economy. Trade deficits concur to Current Account deficits, which generate debt.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: charrison
To quote you

The US exports very little compared to what it imports.

A 30% delta does not mean we export very little.
We are dealing with 2 very large numbers, so it is easy to make a graph that makes things look bad.

Well, yeah. Compared to imports from an historical perspective it's a small number. Not a small number in absolute terms.

The graph looks bad because historically surpluses and deficit in the trade balance were very small (as you see in the almost flat curve during the '60s to mid '70s).

And 40 years ago exports were 5% of gdp, today they are 12% of gdp. The graph does not even come close to telling the entire store.

No but we were talking about debt, not the general state of the economy. Trade deficits concur to Current Account deficits, which generate debt.

Trade deficits do not generate debt. This is like saying you are indebted to your local grocery story, because they never buy anything from you.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: charrison
To quote you

The US exports very little compared to what it imports.

A 30% delta does not mean we export very little.
We are dealing with 2 very large numbers, so it is easy to make a graph that makes things look bad.

Well, yeah. Compared to imports from an historical perspective it's a small number. Not a small number in absolute terms.

The graph looks bad because historically surpluses and deficit in the trade balance were very small (as you see in the almost flat curve during the '60s to mid '70s).

And 40 years ago exports were 5% of gdp, today they are 12% of gdp. The graph does not even come close to telling the entire store.

No but we were talking about debt, not the general state of the economy. Trade deficits concur to Current Account deficits, which generate debt.

Trade deficits do not generate debt. This is like saying you are indebted to your local grocery story, because they never buy anything from you.

No. It is like saying that if you have a hardware store and your brother has a grocery store, and you agree to trade goods, but you buy much more groceries than he buys nails and hammers, then you'll incur in debt, which is true.

Being trade balance part of the current account obviously it's one of the relevant parameters when discussing a country's debt.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: charrison
To quote you

The US exports very little compared to what it imports.

A 30% delta does not mean we export very little.
We are dealing with 2 very large numbers, so it is easy to make a graph that makes things look bad.

Well, yeah. Compared to imports from an historical perspective it's a small number. Not a small number in absolute terms.

The graph looks bad because historically surpluses and deficit in the trade balance were very small (as you see in the almost flat curve during the '60s to mid '70s).

And 40 years ago exports were 5% of gdp, today they are 12% of gdp. The graph does not even come close to telling the entire store.

No but we were talking about debt, not the general state of the economy. Trade deficits concur to Current Account deficits, which generate debt.

Trade deficits do not generate debt. This is like saying you are indebted to your local grocery story, because they never buy anything from you.

That's true but an imbalance must be satisfied one way or another. Either the money flows back in the form of "lending" from other nations or they invest (buy our assets) in our country. Of course, we could simply print more money but the inflation that would occur would cause more issues than it solved. If one of the above did not play out, you would simply run out of money.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Hacp
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL!

At least you're finally being honest about what you are.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: child of wonder
I'm not a Democrat or Republican but I have to raise this point --

were you equally as upset when the Republican controlled Congress voted to increase the national debt to $9 trillion in May of 2003?

Link

Yep. Any other questions?