Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: "Buy American Subsidies" Proposal 53
For any patriotic congresscritter who wants to take up the cause:
"Buy American Subsidies" Act of 2009
Whereas, other countries in the WTO have been complaining about first-world agricultural subsidies,
Whereas, the depression is getting bad enough that entire industries have been offshored in the last 40 years,
Whereas, The United States can no longer feed our population, clothe out population, or provide 100% of the consumer goods our population wishes to purchase,
And Whereas other countries in the WTO have enacted import-only tariffs,
Be it enacted that:
Section 1: All federal subsidies must be for domestic production only. Any corporation or individual receiving such subsidy must place a sticker labeled "Buy USA Subsidy" on all goods, and all people purchasing such goods must be residents of the United States and Protectorates. All retailers retailing such goods must restrict purchase of such goods to residents of the United States and Protectorates.
Section 2: The agricultural subsidies will be renamed and expanded to "Buy USA Subsidy", and shall be sufficient to make up for the difference in manufacturing cost between the United States and the cheapest example of the same product on the world market.
Section 3: "Buy USA Subsidy" stickers and subsidies will be available only to businesses hiring US Citizens and "Permanent Resident" card holders as verified by the Social Security Administration's E-Verify program.
Section 4: "Buy USA Subsidy" stickers and subsidies shall be available only to businesses that have verified that their full supply chain of all goods is traced back to the producers of natural resources in The United States and it's protectorates.
Section 5: The Department of Commerce shall start an advertising campaign encouraging consumers to purchase products with the "Buy USA Subsidy" sticker.
Good Luck (Score:2)
Subsidies aren't the most popular form of protectionism, because they cost the government money. All taxpayers end up doing the subsidizing, regardless of whether they purchase the good or not. A tariff, on the other hand, only costs those who purchase the imported good. All those collected tariff duties go right back into the government coffers; you can lower other taxes. A subsidy costs money; you have to raise other taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
And since the World Treason Organization has banned tariffs for the United States but lets every nation in the European Union have VAT taxes that get refunded for domestic purchase and exporters, we're left with nothing OTHER than internal market subsidies.
It's pretty much down to either this or actually start treating international corporation CEOs for what they really are- enemies of the state.
Re: (Score:2)
And since the World Treason Organization has banned tariffs for the United States but lets every nation in the European Union have VAT taxes that get refunded for domestic purchase and exporters, we're left with nothing OTHER than internal market subsidies.
Or, we just pull out of the WTO, and do whatever we want. If your goal is to eliminate most international trade by making it unprofitable, what do we gain from being in the WTO at all? Why not just pull out, and impose steep tariffs? Retaliatory tariffs are of no concern, because you've stopped trading with the rest of the world anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, we just pull out of the WTO, and do whatever we want. If your goal is to eliminate most international trade by making it unprofitable, what do we gain from being in the WTO at all? Why not just pull out, and impose steep tariffs?
I've tried suggesting that- especially given the data that international trade has done the United States a good deal of harm and very little good in the last 40 years (if we were a single corporation, we'd be bankrupt- out total debts far exceed the meager sales we ge
Re: (Score:2)
Net balance we're a loser when it comes to world trade, but individually there are winners.
We're the winner in international trade. We import more than we export. That means there are more goods in the US than there were before, year after year.
Why would we ever want to export more than we import?
We just stop subsidizing the exports, and start subsidizing those people willing to limit themselves to a domestic market.
Where do we get the hundreds of billions of dollars to subsidize domestic production? The government has to get it from somewhere.
In addition to that, we actually help the WTO reach their stated ends- because as third world nations "develop" to the point of having our labor/environmental laws and equivalent costs hidden therein, the subsidy goes away[...]
With your subsidies, US products will cost the same as imports, correct? So, most Americans will choose to buy the domestically manufactured goods, for nationalistic reasons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We're the winner in international trade. We import more than we export. That means there are more goods in the US than there were before, year after year.
And for that- we're more dependent upon the outside world, and we're shipping out natural resources for others to make into goods.
Why would we ever want to export more than we import?
So that we can have jobs to feed, clothe, and shelter our families.
Where do we get the hundreds of billions of dollars to sub
Re: (Score:2)
And for that- we're more dependent upon the outside world[...]
Yes, we are more interdependent. That's a good thing. It's a lot harder to go to war, when the people you are fighting are your partners. A war between China and the US would be economically devastating to us both.
Why would we ever want to export more than we import?
So that we can have jobs to feed, clothe, and shelter our families.
But if we're exporting more than we import, we have less food, clothing, and shelter to buy.
Where do we get the hundreds of billions of dollars to subsidize Chinese production through our trade deficit? We print it up of course.
Not at all. When we import from China, they end up with piles of USD. Some of that goes to buy other dollar-denominated goods, like oil. But, all of it comes back into the US eventually; it has to. But the
zimbabwe (Score:1)
..uhh..we *are* headed down the zimbabwe model of trying to printing press-inflate- our way to prosperity. Which is exactly what lead to the problems today, so their mastermind solution is more of the same, on steroids, crack and mashing the turbo button. In all the biz news headlines and stuff. Just because we haven't hit the inflationary levels of zimbabwe doesn't mean it isn't the same exact model.
Inflation-adding more currency units into circulation that can be represented by produced wealth, this makes
Re: (Score:2)
Just because we haven't hit the inflationary levels of zimbabwe doesn't mean it isn't the same exact model.
We don't have anything close to the same model. Zimbabwe is just printing money; that's all. We don't do that. Sure, the Federal Reserve could decide to just start printing money. But they don't. The FOMC buys and sells assets (mostly Treasuries) to inflate or deflate the currency. We don't just print money whenever we want more. Zimbabwe does. It's a huge difference.
Inflation-adding more currency units into circulation that can be represented by produced wealth, this makes the currency units be worth much less, the more you do it, the less they are worth, although it is fun to think you are "richer" because the numbers are larger. Can be used to con people into taking on more debt than they could ever possibly repay, and is used to fund very questionable investments at times (sub prime mortgages, over valued stocks, dotcom websites with zero profit model, etc).
Think about it: inflation makes it easier to repay debt. If your interest rate isn't tied to inflation (like a fixed-rate mortgage), inflation
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have anything close to the same model. Zimbabwe is just printing money; that's all. We don't do that. Sure, the Federal Reserve could decide to just start printing money. But they don't. The FOMC buys and sells assets (mostly Treasuries) to inflate or deflate the currency. We don't just print money whenever we want more. Zimbabwe does. It's a huge difference.
If you think a treasury bond is still an asset, you missed this story [economicpopulist.org] earlier this year.
Think about it: inflation mak
Re: (Score:2)
If you think a treasury bond is still an asset, you missed this story earlier this year.
What does that story have to do with its status as an asset? Unless the Federal Government stops paying them back, they're an asset.
Until, of course, the pyramid scheme falls- at which point massive deflation sets in.
I never said inflation was a good thing, in general; only that it could be beneficial for some people. Its net-effect on the economy is always negative.
Re: (Score:2)
What does that story have to do with its status as an asset? Unless the Federal Government stops paying them back, they're an asset.
At 0% with 3% inflation, the Federal Government has effectively stopped paying them back. Gullible children again.
I never said inflation was a good thing, in general; only that it could be beneficial for some people. Its net-effect on the economy is always negative.
As is any other monetary system- the effects of myths (lies) told to gullible c
Re: (Score:2)
At 0% with 3% inflation, the Federal Government has effectively stopped paying them back.
Only if you believe that real inflation is at 3%. The people lining up to buy the bonds obviously disagree. You think real inflation is higher than the interest paid? Don't buy the bonds.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you believe that real inflation is at 3%. The people lining up to buy the bonds obviously disagree. You think real inflation is higher than the interest paid? Don't buy the bonds.
Only an idiot believes that deflation can't be defeated with massive increases in M1 supply.
Re: (Score:2)
Only an idiot believes that deflation can't be defeated with massive increases in M1 supply.
Normally that's true. But when there is a massive deleveraging happening at the same time, you have to increase M1 to normally inflationary levels, just to keep deflation in check. Or do you think the massive drop in asset prices is just an illusion?
Re: (Score:2)
Normally that's true. But when there is a massive deleveraging happening at the same time, you have to increase M1 to normally inflationary levels, just to keep deflation in check.
True, and when you finally defeat that deflation, the M1 money doesn't just disappear- you suddenly have a month of hyperinflation.
Or do you think the massive drop in asset prices is just an illusion?
All price systems are an illusion, but in this case, it's an illusion with a purpose. But it's te
I think it is higher (Score:1)
I also think they (they being the crooked central bankers/investment bankers/government sock puppets from the previous two cartel, the economic hijack and coup leaders) telegraphed what was going to happen when they changed their publishing as regards the M3, and I remember writing about it, here and elsewhere, as a "headsup, bad news coming" sort of thing. I tend to trust the smart guys at shadowstats for much closer to reality figures for such things (albeit second hand, I don't have a subscription).
As to
Re: (Score:2)
True, and when you finally defeat that deflation, the M1 money doesn't just disappear- you suddenly have a month of hyperinflation.
Well, they bought assets to make the money in the first place. They'll just sell them back to remove that money from the system. If they do it quickly enough--quite tough to do, I'll admit--there won't be any inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
And I'll freely admit- I'm in the process of "having come to a similar realization", moving towards "making a similar transition". Within the year, I'll have divested both of the stocks in their fake banks and every loan except for one. And I plan on having a lot of my bases covered with respect to energy, food usage, shelter, and clothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they bought assets to make the money in the first place
But those assets aren't "real"- they're just paper and might not be able to be sold back.
They'll just sell them back to remove that money from the system.
Well, for other reasons that doesn't actually remove the money from the system. The government is equally a part of the system.
If they do it quickly enough--quite tough to do, I'll admit--there won't be any inflation.
Only confiscatory ta
Re: (Score:2)
But those assets aren't "real"- they're just paper and might not be able to be sold back.
They are as real as any other debt. And, with the present financial crisis, there has been no shortage of demand for an investment backed by the government. You can see evidence of this increased demand by looking at their low interest rates. If there wasn't much demand, the government would have to offer higher rates.
Well, for other reasons that doesn't actually remove the money from the system. The government is equally a part of the system.
Well there's the trick. The Federal Reserve can remove money from the system. They can print it; and they can destroy it.
Only confiscatory taxes can do that.
No, taxes only redistribute the total amount of money, from the taxpaye
Re: (Score:2)
They are as real as any other debt
Well, that's the problem behind the whole current mess: Debt isn't real.
And, with the present financial crisis, there has been no shortage of demand for an investment backed by the government.
Of course not- because they don't know what you and I know: that the FED itself is insolvent and worthless, and that "Full Faith and Credit of the US Government" is just a lie like everything else in this economy.
You can see evidence
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's the problem behind the whole current mess: Debt isn't real.
How does that logic work on your bank?
Why isn't debt real? A borrower and a lender work out an arrangement where the lender gives the borrower money today, in exchange for more money at some time in the future. What's imaginary about that?
Of course not- because they don't know what you and I know: that the FED itself is insolvent and worthless, and that "Full Faith and Credit of the US Government" is just a lie like everything else in this economy.
No, the Fed possesses real assets, in the form of Treasury bonds. Those bonds are issued by the government, and are backed by its taxing power. And the taxing power of the government is backed by the production of the US economy. Where's the big lie?
Oh they can, yes. But only by taking it out of circulation entirely, and for that you need taxes.
How does taxing take mo
Re: (Score:2)
How does that logic work on your bank?
It doesn't- which is why I'm in the process of severing all ties with them. Interesting however-they're not my bank. They just bought my bank- and every other bank I deal with. My bank no longer exists. Which is why I'm in the process of getting myself out of the whole mess- never to trust a banker again.
Why isn't debt real?
Because it has no atomic structure.
A borrower and a lender work out an arrangement where the
Re: (Score:2)
Because it has no atomic structure.
Neither does love, hope, excitement, fear, greed, or pride. Are those imaginary too?
Well, the illusion of time for one thing.
The illusion of time?
But the whole thing is just a work of fiction between the borrower and the lender- should one of them die it has no reality.
Well, that's risk. That's why the lender usually charges interest.
Which is why they are fiction- the government has no taxing power.
What?
Which, net, has not produced anything for the last 40 years.
I better stop relying on my imaginary house to shelter me, my imaginary car to get me anywhere, and all the imaginary food in my refrigerator to feed me. Thank God you told me none of those things had actually been produced.
Because all of its assets are based, ultimately, on the productive capacity of the US Economy, which has been negative for 40 years now.
Yeah, it's pretty much a desolate waste-land around here.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we are more interdependent. That's a good thing. It's a lot harder to go to war, when the people you are fighting are your partners. A war between China and the US would be economically devastating to us both.
No, it wouldn't. They have 4x our population to fall back on. And if you think it's prevented war, you haven't noticed the trade war that they've been winning.
But if we're exporting more than we import, we have less food, clothing, and shelter to buy.
No, we just
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, they conquor us by buying us instead of with guns and bombs. Either way, we lose that vaulted freedom you like so much.
Even though the Chinese are investing more and more money in the US, the US economy is growing faster, on average. So, even though they end up owning more of the US in dollars, they have less as a percentage.
And we have lost no freedom. All of those Chinese investments have to remain on our shores. They can't take real-estate back to China, nor stocks or bonds. If it ever came to an all-out war, between the US and China, we could easily nationalize all of the assets they own. And, they would walk away with
Re: (Score:2)
Even though the Chinese are investing more and more money in the US, the US economy is growing faster, on average.
The US economy, for the grand majority of it's citizens, has been shrinking (wage inflation
And we have lost no freedom.
When a man who earns $36/hr can't even get health insurance without having his family starve, we've lost freedom. See my more recent journal entry defining liberty.
All of those Chinese investments have to remain on our shores.
B
Re: (Score:2)
The problem being that wealth is just a myth- a scam for the gullible and greedy.
Wow. You ought to tell that to all the people in Africa, dieing of starvation. They'll be so relieved to hear that.
But, I guess other than those, wealth is a myth.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. You ought to tell that to all the people in Africa, dieing of starvation.
They're dying of starvation because of the myth, and because of incredibly stupid resource allocation, not a lack of resources.
Life expectancy is not a myth.
Correct, but it's not linked to wealth either; there are primitive tribes all over the world that have no concept of wealth but life expectancies over 80 years.
Infant mortality rates are not a myth.
Yes, but also not li
Re: (Score:2)
The computer you're reading this on, with its billions of microscopic components is not a myth.
Also not linked to wealth, it's basic components can be built out of the sand found worldwide.
Wow, you should head the OLPC project then. If you can build a computer from nothing but sand, you should start your own chip fab then. You could make a lot of money, if you don't have to spend any on multi-billion dollar facilities. You could put Intel out of business.
The only people who bother to do that are the ones who have already bought into the myth instead of simply gathering the food that grows EVERYWHERE.
Yeah, all those starving people are just too stupid to gather all that abundant food. Look at the entire history of humanity, and you'll see that those hunter-gatherers existed in tiny numbers, compared to the 6 billion people on the planet t
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you should head the OLPC project then. If you can build a computer from nothing but sand, you should start your own chip fab then. You could make a lot of money, if you don't have to spend any on multi-billion dollar facilities. You could put Intel out of business.
And I'd want to exactly why? The purpose of having an economy is so that the most people are able to work and support themselves.
Yeah, all those starving people are just too stupid to gather all that abundant food. L
Re: (Score:2)
And I'd want to exactly why?
Well, I don't care if you put Intel out of business. I was trying to point out the fact that a computer requires so much more than sand. There are billions of dollars in R&D, and billions of dollars in production facilities you have to factor into the cost of the computer. Even that number leaves out the trillions of dollars in social infrastructure--roads to transport materials, schools to train your engineers, the accumulated scientific understanding of the processes involved, and the relative wealth
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I don't care if you put Intel out of business. I was trying to point out the fact that a computer requires so much more than sand. There are billions of dollars in R&D, and billions of dollars in production facilities you have to factor into the cost of the computer.
Ah, but those billions of dollars are nothing more than imaginary price markers. They aren't "real", they have no physics.
Even that number leaves out the trillions of dollars in social infrastructure--roads t
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but those billions of dollars are nothing more than imaginary price markers. They aren't "real", they have no physics.
They are only "imaginary" in the sense that miles and yards are "imaginary". They are an arbitrary unit of cost, just as miles are an arbitrary unit of distance.
The point is, there is a cost associated with the infrastructure necessary to the production of a computer. There are factories that need to be built and R&D which needs to be done. All of those resources you dedicate to the production of a computer are no longer available for other pursuits. That is the cost of a computer.
Most people find it co
Re: (Score:2)
They are only "imaginary" in the sense that miles and yards are "imaginary". They are an arbitrary unit of cost, just as miles are an arbitrary unit of distance.
Yes. They are an abstraction- no real value.
The point is, there is a cost associated with the infrastructure necessary to the production of a computer.
Only because we've chosen to measure a cost beyond the mere atoms in it.
There are factories that need to be built and R&D which needs to be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Only because we've chosen to measure a cost beyond the mere atoms in it.
Because there is more to the cost of a good than the constituent atoms. The pattern in which those atoms are arranged plays just as important a role, as the existence of those atoms. It takes energy, time, and knowledge to turn the atoms in sand, oil, and ore, into your computer. You haven't created any new atoms, or destroyed any. But, you have added something to the value of the good.
It doesn't make sense to talk about the "cost" of a good, unless you factor in the cost of rearranging those atoms into the
Re: (Score:2)
Because there is more to the cost of a good than the constituent atoms. The pattern in which those atoms are arranged plays just as important a role, as the existence of those atoms. It takes energy, time, and knowledge to turn the atoms in sand, oil, and ore, into your computer. You haven't created any new atoms, or destroyed any. But, you have added something to the value of the good.
But only a provable amount, no more.
It doesn't make sense to talk about the "cost" of a good, unle
Re: (Score:2)
You can if you're moving faster than light. [...] You can if you use the sand in the mirror image on the other side of the universe. [...] And under current quantum physics, it doesn't exist.
Wow. How about you let me know when you can actually do any of that stuff. Oh, you can't? Well, then what I said about opportunity cost still holds true. And it will until we invent devices to harness the power of your "physics". Until then, you're only spouting ignorant nonsense.
Depends what you mean by less. First I have to accept your idea that the six dollars an hour can't be 5 billion dollars an hour after hyperinflation.
Well, if the six dollars per hour turned into 5 billion dollars per hour, that means inflation turned one dollar into $833,333,333 over that period of time, right? So the computer, instead of costing $400, costs $333,333,333,333. T
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It just occurred to me- I'm arguing a single right way for everybody, and you're arguing both sides of the same coin.
If it's good for the Chinese to be exporting more than they import, why isn't it good for the United States to export more than we import?
Conversely, if China would lose their entire economy by importing more than they export- why do you think we can have anything other than slavery by importing more than we export?
Logically, your ideas don't make any sense- you're cla
Re: (Score:2)
If it's good for the Chinese to be exporting more than they import, why isn't it good for the United States to export more than we import?
You misunderstand my position. We import exactly the amount that we export. It's only that what we export is not captured in import/export statistics. When we sell the Chinese stocks, bonds, real-estate, and government debt, we are exporting investments. Both countries produce what they are best at: the Chinese make cheap manufactured goods, and we produce a stable, liquid, and transparent market.
Indeed, it is impossible for a country to import more than it exports. But we don't do that.
Re: (Score:1)
Yup, they sell us cheap junk and we sell them our country and our children's future. Awesome deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, they sell us cheap junk and we sell them our country and our children's future. Awesome deal.
But, if worse comes to worse, and our current system happens to be unsustainable, none of those assets we sold them can ever truly leave our shores. The money they make from holding our debt or investing in our markets, is all US dollars. They can't spend it anywhere else.
Of course, I don't think the current system is unsustainable, so it will never come to that. And someday, the Chinese economy will be as strong, stable, and efficient as ours, and we'll be buying their stocks and debt; the same as we do to
Re: (Score:2)
But, if worse comes to worse, and our current system happens to be unsustainable, none of those assets we sold them can ever truly leave our shores. The money they make from holding our debt or investing in our markets, is all US dollars. They can't spend it anywhere else.
Except of course, the Middle East, The Principality of Morrocco, Cuba, The Cayman Islands, and several other tax havens around the world.
Of course, I don't think the current system is unsustainable, so it will neve
Re: (Score:2)
Except of course, the Middle East, The Principality of Morrocco, Cuba, The Cayman Islands, and several other tax havens around the world.
Think about it for a minute, just to realize how illogical you're being. If people take dollars overseas, and those dollars never return to US shores, then they have effectively removed them from circulation. We truly got something for nothing. We paid for imported goods with them, and we'll never have to accept them as payment for any of our goods or services. That's the best possible outcome. You obviously didn't think this argument through.
Re: (Score:2)
Think about it for a minute, just to realize how illogical you're being. If people take dollars overseas, and those dollars never return to US shores, then they have effectively removed them from circulation.
No they haven't, because the US economy isn't in a vacuum.
We truly got something for nothing.
Only if you're admitting that money is a myth.
We paid for imported goods with them, and we'll never have to accept them as payment for any of our goods or servic
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so Theft and Fraud are the best possible outcome of Capitalism....maybe it's YOUR argument that you didn't think through.
No. I was pointing out how ridiculous your premise was. You were the one who thought that there were massive quantities of USD which never come back to the US. I was taking your premise to the logical conclusion. Since the conclusion is obviously false, the premise cannot be true.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I was pointing out how ridiculous your premise was. You were the one who thought that there were massive quantities of USD which never come back to the US. I was taking your premise to the logical conclusion. Since the conclusion is obviously false, the premise cannot be true.
The conclusion is not obviously false, because the real winners in global trade are not countries, but international corporations (an entity which should be globally illegal to begin with). And since they're all for a fre
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand my position. We import exactly the amount that we export. It's only that what we export is not captured in import/export statistics. When we sell the Chinese stocks, bonds, real-estate, and government debt, we are exporting investments.
In other words, instead of exporting, we're basically giving up on democracy and selling the country to a foreign power with a different set of values. And you consider that good?
Both countries produce what they are best at: the Chi
Re: (Score:2)
I've tried suggesting that- especially given the data that international trade has done the United States a good deal of harm and very little good in the last 40 years (if we were a single corporation, we'd be bankrupt- out total debts far exceed the meager sales we get from "export"). The only way this has been hidden is behind financial separation of importers from exporters. Net balance we're a loser when it comes to world trade, but individually there are winners.
If you factor out oil imports the export vs. import picture for the US looks much better.
The flip side of that is if you stop oil and gas imports you have the mother of all energy shocks.
Another issue is the economies of the US and certain countries (esp Canada) are so entwined that trying to separate them would be like trying to separate the economy of New York and New Jersey.
Re: (Score:2)
If you factor out oil imports the export vs. import picture for the US looks much better.
Well, I already had to a large extent- I was thinking more of the finished goods vs. natural resources market.
The flip side of that is if you stop oil and gas imports you have the mother of all energy shocks.
Yes, which is why a domestic subsidy seems to me to be the way to go on this as well- if say solar, wind, and wave generators were subsidized to be as cheap per kw as gasoline, you'
Hmmm (Score:2)
Wrong problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, trying to avoid the Smoot-Hawley problems (the subsidies would be domestic and thus actually be *removing* the current agricultural subsidies that are seen worldwide as protectionist on the part of the United States). In addition to that, as costs rise in the third world, the subsidies go away- after all, if the difference in manufacturing cost between you and your cheapest competitor is nil, then you don't need a subsidy do you?
But the reason "why don't we simply restore Bretton Woods?"