Home › The Lodge
Green Mt Boy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,076 Senior Member
Bannon's Ideas
Green Mt Boy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,076 Senior Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-wh-strategist-vows-a-daily-fight-for-deconstruction-of-the-administrative-state/2017/02/23/03f6b8da-f9ea-11e6-bf01-d47f8cf9b643_story.html?utm_term=.6d1637a646f6
It seems to me his ideas are more about pride (as he sees it) and resentment than things that will actually make most peoples' lives better. Maybe protectionism will slow the decline in rust belt old industry manufacturing for a little while, but that will be at the expense of consumers' purchasing power. Sure, industry will like it when the EPA is rendered toothless, and maybe do a little better, but people will suffer from the resulting environmental degradation.
What is in his ideas that will actually improve most peoples' lives?
It seems to me his ideas are more about pride (as he sees it) and resentment than things that will actually make most peoples' lives better. Maybe protectionism will slow the decline in rust belt old industry manufacturing for a little while, but that will be at the expense of consumers' purchasing power. Sure, industry will like it when the EPA is rendered toothless, and maybe do a little better, but people will suffer from the resulting environmental degradation.
What is in his ideas that will actually improve most peoples' lives?
Replies
Nothing at all.
The Washpost link wouldn't open for me, but here's an interesting one that might open for others.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/world/europe/bannon-vatican-julius-evola-fascism.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
One possible example: I guess a lot of people are going to feel good about things such as the reversal of the transgender bathroom rules for two reasons. 1) Small government types like Sherb and Steven (but not necessarily them) will like it because they felt it was an egregious overreach. 2) Bigots who are afraid of 'chicks with ****' will feel, I don't know, safe I guess?
But yeah, none of the adherents to the second position above are seeing the forest for the trees. They are the ones who, when polled, think Trump is awesome and they are taking back the country, whatever the hell that means.
Yes it was.
The WaPo article was about his remarks at CPAC, the recent big pow pow of conservatives. Basically he talked about economic nationalism, which sounds pretty much to just be protectionism, and deconstructing the administrative state, which sounds like getting rid of regulatory bureaucracies and a general anti media attitude. He is also big on ethno nationalism, i.e., America is just for white people. Not seeing how any of that will actually make peoples' lives better.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I remember when it was OK to damage consumers' purchasing power to support manufacturing jobs...that was like in 2005 when a Republican administration was pro-free trade.
Trump gets elected and suddenly, the laws of economics matter.
I've always supported free trade, in principle. Devil is in the details.
Bill Clinton did NAFTA, so it isn't like Ds are just discovering the benefits of free trade.
From the LA Times: "The strongest support in the House came from Republicans, who cast 132 votes for the trade plan and 43 against it. Among Democrats, 102 voted for the agreement and 156 opposed it. The one independent in Congress voted against the plan."
The theory is ok in principle, but how would you apply it under GATT? I do not think we are ready to abolish state sales taxes in favor of a national VAT, because it is VATs that such a tax would, in theory, balance. Adding sales tax on top of a border adjustment tax would invite retaliation.
BTW - Ford might welcome such a tax. I read that all its pick-ups are made here while all the others sold here are sourced about 25% and upwards from Mexico.
First, the BAT isn't a VAT, it's an income based tax. Business still pay tax on income (as would individuals). However, under BAT, businesses can deduct export sales revenue from income but not the cost of imports.
Second, destination based adjustability is allowed under the WTO.
The problem with the BAT in the House Plan as developed by Alan Auerbach of the University of California (an admittedly gratuitous reference to my alma mater...Roll on you Bears!) is that it allows for the deduction of wages paid to American workers. This is a no-no.
The answer is to institute a negative payroll tax. Payroll tax is not addressed under WTO agreements.
NAFTA was the brainchild of the Reagan admin......finished by George the first.......Clinton just got lucky and signed it
The "unfairness" complaints I have heard included adding VAT to U.S. imports, the BAT would counter that. Not the only thing, of course, and I have not read the actual proposal you referenced (didn't even realize it existed), only the Trumpeted 25%. I'll try to look it up.
The theoretical argument is that the dollar would appreciate so much that the tax would be offset by the stronger dollar - leaving both importers and exporters in unchanged positions. However, the lower corporate tax on income would make our companies better off. The effect on oil companies, and, other importers of commodities priced in dollars, is to say the least, complicated.
The assumption about a rising dollar is just theory though, that's why a transition period should be included.
Mike
Funny I don't remember that time. Especially when you consider the last two free trade agreements were advocated by Democratic Presidents. I would say that we should not give tax incentives to companies that move jobs overseas however.
Anybody that thinks that taxes and regulations are the reason why jobs are going to countries where the labor force gets paid $2 a day however, is being very foolish. You could put a 35% tax on those imported goods and there would be plenty of profit without raising prices even one penny.
But he didn't veto it.
Funny. I'm pretty sure that I was told the laws of economics aren't real laws because economics isn't a real science...
And Hillary turned on TPP.
The DLC weren't Democrats
There are a couple of other interesting wrinkles in the plan. For non-financial firms, interest expense would no longer be deductible. However, equipment purchases would be immediately deductible for tax purposes. That really gets at this idea that companies should be expanding rather than levering to buy back stock since there would be no tax arbitrage from borrowing.
Mike
So the Democratic Leadership Council were not Democrats? Interesting.
As did Trump.
It is your side that is stating that if we eliminate taxes and regulations that these jobs will magically return. So who is saying the laws of economics are not real?
Tax breaks have not lead to job increases in the last 20 years or more.
This is my point of course. Trump says one thing, Dems have to argue another, despite the fact that everything he says about trade is music to the labor union PACs.
The only change in the corporate tax rate since Reagan was an increase under GB1
Your's is the party that has been blocking infrastructure spending and investment in new technologies for the new century. We are never again going to lead the world in the production of televisions and air conditioners, despite Trump's promises and the gullibility of the people of Kansas.
Abandoning TPP will not save a single American job.