America is closing for business, does anyone really care?

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by bennyhill, Jul 26, 2011.

  1. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you really think borrowing money will "help" the economy? Can you give a clear simple logical explanation (that does not involve circular logic) for why this would be the case? Why would borrowing money now help the economy now more than it would hurt the economy when the money eventually has to be paid back?

    I say the solution to the economic problem is instituting a land value tax and a natural resource tax, the proceeds of which would then be equally distributed to all people. So someone who only owns a little land would effectively not pay any tax.

    People are unable to work because they are not allowed to use the land and natural resources (forests, fertile farm land, fresh water) whose ownership is concentrated among a few wealthy individuals.
     
  2. tksensei

    tksensei Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    8,980
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Great thinking, Mugabe.
     
  3. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, do not want to confiscate the land. That does not work. Free markets are an important component for efficient use of land. Just want to tax individuals that own more than their fair share of land.

    Using land is a god-given right. It is wrong to suppose that all the land completely belongs to all the private owners and that no one else has any right to it. Whether or not the private owners had to work hard to buy the land, all people have an inherent right to the land, whichever way society chooses to practically manifest that right.
     
  4. tksensei

    tksensei Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    8,980
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Private property is private property. The very notion of democracy depends upon understanding that.
     
  5. Joe Six-pack

    Joe Six-pack Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    10,898
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You admit to being a socialist now?

    P.S. the DNC is a lot more conservative than you give them credit for.
     
  6. bennyhill

    bennyhill New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    tksensei

    Privat property is not necessarily privat property. If the city, state or government wants your land to expand on an airport, or build a highway your land is gone! Mineral rights, I dont think you owne the land under your house either. They can steal your land in interest of the "General Welfare". Isnt that something?
     
  7. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What is your "correct" understanding of the Constitution?
     
  8. austrianecon

    austrianecon Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    871
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0

    It's a bit more complicated then that. It has to be for "Public use", not for General Welfare specifically.

    Kelo v. City of New London sent shock waves around the abuse of Government in the eminent domain category. The city condemned property and forced out citizens so the city could give the property to a developer, who only had to pay $1 a year to the city. The State and the City spent $78 million in all, to this day that property has not been developed as Pfizer merged with Wyeth and decided to close the research facility before their 10 year tax break was up, allowing Pfizer to cut it's tax burden. With that facility gone, there was no reason to build homes or shopping mall in the area.

    Ironically, the NYT's editorial board cheered on the city so did other liberal newspapers who thought it was for the "general welfare".

    Since then 20 some states have passed laws restricting eminent domain, meaning States and cities can not take land for economic reasons such as gaining bigger tax revenues.

    President Bush signed Executive Order 13406 which outlaws "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken" which was the case in New London, CT.
     
  9. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But the party was confiscated according to the "general welfare" term in the Constitution - so it has to be OK. Except, that wasn't what "general welfare" meant then. Got to love revisionist.....

    Reference to Executive Order 13406, big gooberment is big gooberment - doesn't matter if a D or R follows their name.
     
  10. tksensei

    tksensei Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    8,980
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Eminent Domain is a singularity within a democratic system. In any case, the 'owner' must at least be compensated.
     
  11. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't recall the purpose of Eminent Domain being to increase the tax collection - oh, wait, that company decided not to use that propery after all - tax payers paid for that property and then no new taxes.

    Their bad......
     
  12. austrianecon

    austrianecon Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    871
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Never said it wasn't, nor was it right..
     
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I tend to think positively of the Americans and believe their constitution doesn't demand economic irrationality
     
  14. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sound bites and no details.....
     
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You didn't respond to my comment. If you can't just say so
     
  16. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I can't respond to your comment. It was lacking enough information to understand why you believe constitution demands economic irrationality.

    .
     
  17. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was being sarcastic - I agree with you.
     
  18. bennyhill

    bennyhill New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    America is still in business! Awesome, Obama must be some kind of president. Hes even better than Bill Clinton. Obama is Americas great "white hope".
     
  19. macaroniman

    macaroniman New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not our elected as they have given cart blanch to Wall street and banking to steal from the American taxpayer and aid and abet these monsters. read this and vomit.http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...wall-street-crimes-20110817?link=mostpopular3
     
  20. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It blows my mind that we get more investigative journalism out of the Rolling Stone than little papers like the NY Times, or the entire TV new agencies.
     
  21. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with most of your post but I have seen no serious/valid GOP plans to meet this crisis .. (with the exception of Ron Paul but his idea to not support the stimulus was too extremist .. I do like many of his other ideas though)

    Worse .. the GOP track record in relation to debt is hideous.

    That said .. I have not seen anything from the DNC either.
     
  22. Economus

    Economus New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2011
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the problem is employment, the solution is to increase aggregate demand, in order to provide employers a reason to hire people.

    The GOP's plan is to decrease aggregate demand.

    Yes really.


    Perhaps after some time, once the alleged fear among Wall Street "JOB-CREATORS" (aka aristocrats) goes away, because they have confidence in the tea party's ability to bring the government back to the good ol' Gilded Age, they will start spending the gigantic piles of money they have accumulated in this recent period of extremely low labor-costs.

    How long will that take?

    You realize that the plan of the GOP will directly increase unemployment until this unlikely scenario takes place?

    That is the plan of the GOP is it not?

    How long will it take after we pull the plug on America? The government stops helping, then the aristocrats realize they no longer have to live in fear, then they start hiring extremely fast, even though there is no demand for their products.

    How long does that scenario take? Ten years of +10% unemployment?
     

Share This Page