How then, do we move backwards? How does a society, with most of the people having no clue of future events, move from being dependent on a vast and intertwined network of goods and services produced by the indigenous people of whereever, to a local resource and renewable energy based society, and do so in the timeframe available (20-30 years using the most liberal extimates, 10-20 with resonable estimates, 5-10 with worst case scenarios), all the while prices on everything increasing, world politics getting more militaristic, governments continuously reducing civil liberties, shortages of goods on the market and weather patterns resembling bad Hollywood movies?
Will our economy survive continuous Oil/Energy decline?
Yes
13%
[ 36 ]
No
64%
[ 167 ]
maybe (see comments)
13%
[ 35 ]
I don't know
7%
[ 20 ]
Total Votes : 258
Author
Message
nero Light Sweet Crude
Joined: May 22, 2004 Posts: 1415 Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 12:31 pm Post subject:
monteQuest wrote:
I'm not advocating the govt issue debt to the central bank. Read my last post to WhiteCrab. I am saying the govt should spend the money into existence for its own needs 10%, while the Fed does the rest.
And I'm saying that's effectively what it does! I really don't see what is the importance of these fictitous debts and assets on the books of the government and central bank respectively. You want to wipe them off the respective ledgers for some reason, but I don't see what that gets you.
Joined: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 2063 Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 1:53 pm Post subject:
Quote:
So you admit your position is not backed by any evidence.
Yes. I confess. I do not have the evidence.
Quote:
Even the pessimists put the gas peak in 2020, 16 years from now. That's 16 years of leeway, where the economy can grow based on NG and other non-peaking sources. What do you think we're going to be doing all that time? Making out our wills?
I think we will begin to power down. Hopefully in a orderly manner.
Quote:
That's an awfully big "I don't think". I think we need a little more substantial proof than that before everybody panics. Where does your pessimism come from?
From watching humans screw each other over on a daily basis.
Quote:
Do you have any reasoning at all to support it? All those sources have massive untapped reserves which will not be peaking for a very long time.
Massive untapped reserves that our economy is not designed to run on at the moment. Can a transition happen successfully? Yes, it's possible.
Quote:
Why wouldn't we tap them, when not doing so is suicide?
Interesting choice of words. Why haven't we started now? When would be a good time to start? Should we wait for the oil crisis? From my prospective the USA is a weapon of mass consumption. We going to wait for the crisis and then it will be too late. Hopefully Europe will fair better. _________________ "Peak oil isn't more than an interesting industry factoid and doesn't have anything to do with the hysterics speculated on ad nauseum around here!" ReserveGrowthRulz
I'm not advocating the govt issue debt to the central bank. Read my last post to WhiteCrab. I am saying the govt should spend the money into existence for its own needs 10%, while the Fed does the rest.
And I'm saying that's effectively what it does! I really don't see what is the importance of these fictitous debts and assets on the books of the government and central bank respectively. You want to wipe them off the respective ledgers for some reason, but I don't see what that gets you.
Quote:
And I'm saying that's effectively what it does!
Yes, but with an interest attached. I'm saying creating debt free money by spending it into the economy, not lending it.
If the Federal govt did not continued to raise the debt ceiling, the issue of some debt would be quite acceptable. But when this debt grows so large as to put the world economy at risk, especially when the dollar is the currency of account, there needs to be a monetary policy change. In effect, we are exporting a level of financial terrorism to the rest of the world. They continue to support our ridiculous debt only because if they didn't, we would collapse, taking them with us. No other country can operate like this. Only us, because of the dollar hegemony. If you can't see that as a continuing problem, then I anything I say will be meaningless statement. I'm not an economist, and I don't know exactly what the best policy would be. Do you agree that the current monetary policy world-wide is not working? What do you suggest as a replacement? _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 3:06 pm Post subject: Peak-Oil vs Peak-Water & The Limits to Growth.
JohnDenver quote:
Quote:
That's an awfully big "I don't think". I think we need a little more substantial proof than that before everybody panics. Where does your pessimism come from? Do you have any reasoning at all to support it? All those sources have massive untapped reserves which will not be peaking for a very long time. Why wouldn't we tap them, when not doing so is suicide?
John, I can appreciate your 'why not" approach to this, and I know there has been great controversy over whether or not other fossils fuels or technological advances will prevent a hard-landing or prevent an economic collapse. It is also apparent that we can not know the answers to these questions with any degree of certitude, as William F. Buckley would say. However, we can draw some parallels from other “peak situations” that may give us some insight as to what is probable and what is possible. For example, we are finding it ever-increasingly difficult to provide potable water, and to have enough arable land to sustain even a modicum of a decent living standard all across the world. Obviously, some places are not at a crisis yet, while others are in a dismal situation.
Drawing a parallel to oil, let’s say, that suddenly we no longer have a cheap easy supply of liquid fresh water. Ok, we know that we can distill water from the atmosphere, and we can use a desalinization process to extract fresh potable water from sea water, which is 97% of all the water on earth. Can be done. The technology is there, but is it even thinkable that even with local small-scaled processes along with huge desalinization plants that we could ever replace the demand for water on a global scale in time to overt a disaster? Like oil, we use water for such stupid purposes as flushing our toilets, watering lawns, and growing cotton and alfalfa in the desert! Sure, we could cut out those wasteful uses, but think of the broad socio-economic ramifications of doing so, much less finding an alternative water source in the meantime. Well, you say, that comparison doesn’t hold water, (no pun intended.) Don’t think so? Check out this link:
I think you will find the similarity of the challenges shockingly similar.
Another issue is arable land. Among the many factors that influence food production—including government policies, personal income and inequitable land distribution—the availability of arable land is crucial.
Quote:
When he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, Green Revolution architect Norman E. Borlaug warned that recent advances in agricultural technology had produced only a "temporary success" that could at best merely buy time over the following 30 years to slow dramatically the growth of world population.43
At that time the rate of that growth was peaking at 2 percent annually, and population size had just passed 3.7 billion, up from 1.6 billion as the 20th century began. Today, the population growth rate has slowed, to about 1.6 percent annually. Yet because the world’s population has added 2 billion more people in the past quarter century, even the lower growth rate still adds nearly 90 million people each year—16 million more than were added in 1970. And there are only five years remaining of the three-decade "breathing space" Borlaug described.
In order for all of us here to properly address the peak-oil issue, and how and what we can do about it, we need proper perspective. Don’t get me wrong. I will be the first to admit I don’t have all, or maybe any of the answers, but I wouldn’t be on this site if I didn’t think there was a wealth of knowledge and insight to be had already. Just trying to maybe broaden our horizons. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Dear Monte, I liked, but am unable to take as hypothetical, your overview using water supply as a 'peak' issue. As you're clearly aware, it is in reality one of the critical limits to a global society's survival, since the 'mining out' of the aquifers in numerous countries together with increasingly unstable rainfall patterns directly threatens global food security.
The dependence of economic growth on rising energy usage is to me an issue of investor confidence. I wouldn't invest in a deeper borehole to water my commercial crops, let alone invest in any energy-intensive business, if I've got information that energy costs are heading into turbulence within the payback period.
Similarly I wouldn't invest in any developments in areas prone to intensifying destructive weather events, not simply through fear of loss of earnings but potentially of loss of assets' insurability, and hence the overnight loss of their collateral value.
Given that the Bush regime has now formally acknowledged that man-made Global Warming and resulting Climate Change began over fifty years ago, the issue of climatic destabilization can no longer be ignored by the intelligent investor. What has yet to be recognized is the exponential rate at which that destabilization is intensifying.
Given the steady decline of the sustainable energies' global market share since the '70s to their present level, and the cosmetic scale of present investment in them, if ASPO is correct in positing peak oil in 2008 there seems to me little chance of avoiding a fundamental collapse of investor confidence.
Moreover, given the difficulties of mounting a major investment program in innovative technologies during the resulting depression, and the probable collapse of the petro-dollar, I see little prospect of global economic growth being resumed this side of the bankrupting of America.
Dear Monte, I liked, but am unable to take as hypothetical, your overview using water supply as a 'peak' issue. As you're clearly aware, it is in reality one of the critical limits to a global society's survival, since the 'mining out' of the aquifers in numerous countries together with increasingly unstable rainfall patterns directly threatens global food security.
The dependence of economic growth on rising energy usage is to me an issue of investor confidence. I wouldn't invest in a deeper borehole to water my commercial crops, let alone invest in any energy-intensive business, if I've got information that energy costs are heading into turbulence within the payback period.
Moreover, given the difficulties of mounting a major investment program in innovative technologies during the resulting depression, and the probable collapse of the petro-dollar, I see little prospect of global economic growth being resumed this side of the bankrupting of America.
Backstop, I agree 100% with all your points. Every word. What I was trying to convey was the paralleling challenges that water scarcity raises are similar, in that it would require, as you say, 'a major investment program in innovative technologies" to make it happen. Too many people here seem to think it will be as easy as going to Home Depot, buying the "fix" on a credit card and taking it home. The rate, magnitude, and economy of scale seems to elude them. Where is the capital investment going to come from? And I'm not so sure peak-water is a hypothethical. But then again I wasn't trying to tie it to economic growth with regard to consumer confidence, but rather as a yard stick to help measure the difficulty of peak-oil and the transition. Did you read the water link and see the challenge list? Change the word water to oil, and it is a mirror. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: May 22, 2004 Posts: 1415 Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 9:23 pm Post subject:
[quote'"MonteQuest"]If the Federal govt did not continued to raise the debt ceiling, the issue of some debt would be quite acceptable. But when this debt grows so large as to put the world economy at risk, especially when the dollar is the currency of account, there needs to be a monetary policy change. In effect, we are exporting a level of financial terrorism to the rest of the world. They continue to support our ridiculous debt only because if they didn't, we would collapse, taking them with us. No other country can operate like this. Only us, because of the dollar hegemony. If you can't see that as a continuing problem, then I anything I say will be meaningless statement. I'm not an economist, and I don't know exactly what the best policy would be. Do you agree that the current monetary policy world-wide is not working? What do you suggest as a replacement?[/quote]
You seem to be confusing the fiscal and monetary policy. The size of the fiscal deficit of the government or the absolute size of the entire government debt is a separate issue from how money is created in a modern monetary system. The debt held by the central bank that will never be repaid is only a small fraction of the the government debt. For the purposes of default risk you can subtract off this central bank held debt from the total debt since the central bank has no interest in having the debt repaid.
I do not believe there is a dollar hegemony* and I don't believe that any problems associated with the current over valuation of the american dollar has anything to do with the mechanics of how the monetary system operates.
Note: * hegemony is too strong a word. The american government does receive benefits from the fact it controls the dominant currency in the world.
You seem to be confusing the fiscal and monetary policy. The size of the fiscal deficit of the government or the absolute size of the entire government debt is a separate issue from how money is created in a modern monetary system. The debt held by the central bank that will never be repaid is only a small fraction of the the government debt. For the purposes of default risk you can subtract off this central bank held debt from the total debt since the central bank has no interest in having the debt repaid.
I do not believe there is a dollar hegemony* and I don't believe that any problems associated with the current over valuation of the american dollar has anything to do with the mechanics of how the monetary system operates.
Note: * hegemony is too strong a word. The american government does receive benefits from the fact it controls the dominant currency in the world.
No, I understand the system very well. In 2003 alone, the foreign reserves held by Asian central banks grew by a third to $1.9 trillion—$1 of every $4 the U.S. government owes alone. America has to attract approximately $1.7 billion a day from foreign lenders and investors to finance this debt. Many people fear that such immense U.S. wealth in foreign hands could boomerang if, for example, the assets are unloaded abruptly in a deliberate attempt to destroy the American economy. 80% of our debt comes from foreign investors, or the central banks. $3.7 trillion owed as of last look, all expected to be paid back. They are US held securities.
Where are you getting your fiqures?
The US doesn't benefit from having the dollar the "currency of account?" It's not the dominant by default, but by design (Bretton woods 1994). I posted this earlier on another thread.
Quote:
Imagine this: You are deep in debt and have very little money in the bank. But every day you write a check to cover your expenses. Your checks are worthless but they keep buying stuff because those checks you write never reach the bank. You have an agreement with the oil merchants (OPEC) that they will accept only your checks as payment for one thing everyone wants, and must have—oil.
This means everyone must hoard your checks so they can buy the oil they need. Since they have to keep a stock of your checks, they use them to buy other stuff too. You write a check to buy a TV, the TV shop owner swaps your check for oil, that seller buys some vegetables at the fruit shop, the produce man passes it on to buy bread, the baker buys some flour with it, and on it goes, round and round—but never back to the bank where it would bounce. You have generated a huge debt on your books, but so long as your checks never reach the bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received your TV for free!
This is the position the U.S.A. has enjoyed for 30 years—it has been getting a free world trade ride for all that time. It has been receiving a huge subsidy from everyone else in the world. And as our debt grew, we printed more dollars (wrote more checks) to keep trading.
So you are telling me that this is just ducky? No changes? Continue the staus quo? _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
You seem to be confusing the fiscal and monetary policy. The size of the fiscal deficit of the government or the absolute size of the entire government debt is a separate issue from how money is created in a modern monetary system.
No, I understand the difference between debt and "money supply". M1, M2, M3, etc. These control the amount of currency in supply. Debt is a separate issue. The world’s portfolio managers are overweight in dollar assets and have a natural incentive to diversify out of dollars into euros and yen and other Asian currency assets and emerging economy assets. This forces the Fed to increase the money supply to compensate for declines in the value of the dollar resulting from those sales due to the monetary exchange rate. For example, if a dollar depreciates 50%, it is now worth $.50 in relation to other currencies. So, to compensate the FED has to create, or borrow into existence another $1 to be able to buy the same amount of goods or services.
So, what do you about this higher cost of capital ? It’s a cost that cannot be offset by Federal Reserve rate policy. We find ourselves with a $500 billion dollar yearly deficit, a $600 billion dollar trade deficit, the lowest interest rates in 45 years, coupled with a huge tax cut, and the economy sputters along, no real growth. No problem for you?
Again, you avoid stating what you would do to fix it? Nothing, everything is fine? If that is your answer, then this exchange is over as far as I am concerned. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Sorry, typo. That was Bretton Woods, July of 1944 when the US dollar was set as the currency of account. Later OPEC agreed to set all oil sales in dollars. Last month OPEC announced it would withdraw a million barrels of crude a day from the market because of the weakening value of the dollar. OPEC sells oil for dollars and the oil-producing countries are losing revenue as the dollar continues to erode. Because oil-producing countries purchase much of their goods and services from the EU, their purchasing power deteriorates. Every nation needs to get dollars to import oil, some more than others. This means their trade targets dollar countries, above all the U.S. Because oil is an essential commodity for every nation, the Petrodollar system, which exists to the present, demands the buildup of huge trade surpluses in order to accumulate dollar surpluses.
There is your dollar hegemony. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: May 22, 2004 Posts: 1415 Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 10:59 pm Post subject:
Quote:
No, I understand the system very well. In 2003 alone, the foreign reserves held by Asian central banks grew by a third to $1.9 trillion—$1 of every $4 the U.S. government owes alone. America has to attract approximately $1.7 billion a day from foreign lenders and investors to finance this debt. Many people fear that such immense U.S. wealth in foreign hands could boomerang if, for example, the assets are unloaded abruptly in a deliberate attempt to destroy the American economy. 80% of our debt comes from foreign investors, or the central banks. $3.7 trillion owed as of last look, all expected to be paid back. They are US held securities.
Where are you getting your fiqures?
Hey your figures here are proving my point for me. My point being that the amount of the federal debt held by the american central bank
is only a fraction of the overall federal debt. (The foreign central banks are the same as private individuals and expect ot be paid back as you correctly point out) I was trying to point out to you a problem with your proposed solution for fixing the mechanics of the monetary system. You are now starting to talk about the imbalances of the international monetary system which is really another (related) subject. I mostly agree with you on this subject so there isn't much to say there
Quote:
So, what do you about this higher cost of capital ? It’s a cost that cannot be offset by Federal Reserve rate policy. We find ourselves with a $500 billion dollar yearly deficit, a $600 billion dollar trade deficit, the lowest interest rates in 45 years, coupled with a huge tax cut, and the economy sputters along, no real growth. No problem for you?
Yes I find it quite an intractable problem, especially since it means I find it very hard to find a safe place to park money. We are on common ground there.
Quote:
Again, you avoid stating what you would do to fix it? Nothing, everything is fine? If that is your answer, then this exchange is over as far as I am concerned.
I DO think there is nothing wrong with the current mechanism of how money is created. Your talk about the problem being the fact that money is debt based hasn't been convincing, in part as I have been attempting to point out to you because there is very little difference between your solution and what is currently occuring. I don't know if you have understood this or not.
With respect to what I would do to fix the problem, thats a very large question. Obviously being only a private citizen there is little I can do, but now if I was the "American government" I feel there is really only one thing that can be done immediately. Raise taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit. A second long term project would be to modify the current global economy to prohibit corporate entities from owning other corporate entities (especially across borders). I think multinational corporations are evil. They reduce the incentive to innovate by allowing a company to shop for the lowest cost work force, lowest cost tax regime and lowest cost labor and environmental standards.
Joined: May 22, 2004 Posts: 1415 Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 11:40 pm Post subject:
Monte since dollars can be acquired on the open foreign exchange market, there is no real need for a particular country to have a trade surplus with america to acquire dollars. Even if we look at it as a simplified three party system of China, Suadi Arabia and America there is no need for China and SA to have a large trade surplus with america. China and SA could trade exclusively with each other in dollars while ignoring the americans. In this hypothetical case the americans don't have a current trade deficit (imports and exports = zero) and the chinese and saudis trade between themselves with dollars they initially acquired many years ago. Now if the amount of trade increases then the amount of US dollars in circulation between China and Saudi Arabia has to increase and so America gets some free imports by selling some more dollars into international circulation.
Hey your figures here are proving my point for me. My point being that the amount of the federal debt held by the american central bank
is only a fraction of the overall federal debt. .
Ah, central bank to you was the FED! Ok, yes the FED debt is a non-starter.
Quote:
I DO think there is nothing wrong with the current mechanism of how money is created. Your talk about the problem being the fact that money is debt based hasn't been convincing, in part as I have been attempting to point out to you because there is very little difference between your solution and what is currently occuring. I don't know if you have understood this or not.
Yes, I do. Here's where my issue with it comes into play:
Quote:
From the time of the Bretton Woods monetary conference in 1944, until 1968, when French President Charles deGaulle requested of President Lyndon Johnson that the paper dollars he held be converted to gold, the dollar was premier, as it had plenty of gold backing it, or so everyone thought. It was President deGaulle who very astutely realized that America was monetizing their debt to finance the Vietnam War and he wanted his dollars in gold before the gold window was closed. By the time he converted in June of that year, our gold reserves had dwindled from $30B in 1944 to less than $10.5B. It was, however, President Richard M. Nixon who closed the gold window on August 13, 1971, thus changing the nature of the world monetary system forever and perhaps signaling the "countdown to a world currency."
The world's monetary system was transformed from accountability, based on the amount of gold a given country had in its treasury and the amount of paper currency it was printing, to no accountability other than the good opinion of the other countries around the world. This set the stage for the eventual evolution (now currently taking place) of all the world currencies into one. When America went off gold, the rest of the world followed, so that by 1973, with the exception of Switzerland, all of the world was trading in paper.
For America, the results of divorcing gold from the dollar resulted in instant double-digit inflation. Although many would have liked to blame our hyperinflation on the oil shortages, which also occurred at that time, the fact is that America had devaluated its currency (which had been convertible to gold) and now our gold reserves had been depleted by more than sixty-five percent, with no conversion to gold. The only virtue people could see in the American dollar was their faith in those managing the country's finances. That faith, just like good bank credit, was based on prudent management of finances. The American economy appears to be buckling as a result of historically high federal and trade deficits, rising interest rates, large tax burdens and bad financial judgment.
Quote:
I DO think there is nothing wrong with the current mechanism of how money is created. Your talk about the problem being the fact that money is debt based hasn't been convincing, in part as I have been attempting to point out to you because there is very little difference between your solution and what is currently occuring. I don't know if you have understood this or not.
With the creation of the FED in 1913, the means to loan enormous sums to the government, a method to repay the debt (income tax), and an escape from taxation for the wealthy, (foundations), all that remained was an excuse to borrow money. History has shown us that nothing drives a government more deeply into debt than major war and the bankers concerned saw to that.
Like I said, a little debt is even necessary, but what do you do when the debt reaches this point? In the real world, you declare bankruptcy. How about no govt tax on income, but a flat tax at the point of sale? This would get the rich out from under the foundations. What if money was created and spent into the economy based upon the economic productivity? Or spent for infrastructure with no usury attached?
Quote:
I think multinational corporations are evil. They reduce the incentive to innovate by allowing a company to shop for the lowest cost work force, lowest cost tax regime and lowest cost labor and environmental standards.
Yes, outsourcing is a problem, but isn't this a product of global competition? As long as the US had no one to compete with , everything was ok. In order to stay competitive, if one company finds cheap labor, don't you have to as well? And as countries like China and India develop, is it wrong for them to work for less and produce the same quality of goods and services? the US has taken more than it's share and has set it up as a standard of living. It would be pure folly to imagine that to continue to be the case. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Monte since dollars can be acquired on the open foreign exchange market, there is no real need for a particular country to have a trade surplus with america to acquire dollars. Even if we look at it as a simplified three party system of China, Suadi Arabia and America there is no need for China and SA to have a large trade surplus with america. China and SA could trade exclusively with each other in dollars while ignoring the americans. In this hypothetical case the americans don't have a current trade deficit (imports and exports = zero) and the chinese and saudis trade between themselves with dollars they initially acquired many years ago. Now if the amount of trade increases then the amount of US dollars in circulation between China and Saudi Arabia has to increase and so America gets some free imports by selling some more dollars into international circulation.
Yes, but by doing so they devalue their money against the market. All countries that buy oil have to use dollars to buy it, period. No choice in the matter. To avoid currency devaluations they must have a large amount on hand. But rather than stack it in a vault, they buy US securities with it and fund our debt. We have a trade deficit because we spend those debt dollars we borrow on imports now, and don't save for the future. Down to 1.3 %.
No rebound ability, ever increasing cost of capital, no growth, and no end in sight to the debt spiral. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: May 22, 2004 Posts: 1415 Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:09 am Post subject:
Quote:
Ah, central bank to you was the FED! Ok, yes the FED debt is a non-starter.
Being Canadian sometimes I mess up when trying to talk American.
Quote:
Like I said, a little debt is even necessary, but what do you do when the debt reaches this point? In the real world, you declare bankruptcy. How about no govt tax on income, but a flat tax at the point of sale? This would get the rich out from under the foundations. What if money was created and spent into the economy based upon the economic productivity? Or spent for infrastructure with no usury attached?
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the whole "usury" issue. A flat tax on all consumption isn't a bad idea we've got that here in Canada and it's universally hated although it brings in alot of cash for the gov. One thing that is done here to make the tax more progressive is to provide a rebate on this sales tax for the very poor. It comes as a quarterly deposit to their bank account based on the income they declared in the previous year.
Quote:
Yes, outsourcing is a problem, but isn't this a product of global competition? As long as the US had no one to compete with , everything was ok. In order to stay competitive, if one company finds cheap labor, don't you have to as well? And as countries like China and India develop, is it wrong for them to work for less and produce the same quality of goods and services? the US has taken more th
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
We going to wait for the crisis and then it will be too late. Hopefully Europe will fair better.
