5 ms·

man, maybe the US shouldn't have let the supply chain move to asia so our upper 10% could get rich and especially our upper 1% could get really rich and especia

man, maybe the US shouldn't have let the supply chain move to asia so our upper 10% could get rich and especially our upper 1% could get really rich and especially especially our upper .1% could get super-duper rich, oh well, too bad nobody said that back then and were laughed off the national stage

disgruntledphd2 2y ago
Ross Perot said it, but he was considered crazy.
- recursivedoubts 2y ago
  i member
duxup 2y ago
I'm not convinced the supply chain moving isn't just ... how it was going to play out. I don't think you need a conspiracy to discover cheap labor is a place to do manufacturing.
- recursivedoubts 2y ago
  specific people with specific names pushed offshoring it isn’t secret
  - duxup 2y ago
    Does “pushing” matter if it actually works regardless?
    - recursivedoubts 2y ago
      Does pushing for slavery matter if it works regardless?
      - duxup 2y ago
        I think that's a different situation.
        recursivedoubts 2y ago
        check out the conditions in third world factorys
ethbr1 2y ago
> too bad nobody said that back then and were laughed off the national stage It was a loud and varied contingent around 2000. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests#Organizations_and_planning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests#Or...
tock 2y ago
The US could just tax the rich more and spread the extra wealth gained through offshoring. But no.
- Jensson 2y ago
  That is basically what tariffs are, it taxes the wealth gained by offshoring. When you do that offshoring no longer provides you with cheaper goods and you get the current imminent downturn. Other than that it is very hard to tax profits generated in another country.
  - wyldfire 2y ago
    > Other than that it is very hard to tax profits generated in another country. But it's easy to tax personal wealth. It's new and different to tax wealth instead of income but it's not totally unreasonable IMO. EDIT: also, the highest income tax rate in the US has dropped significantly since the 1950s. Maybe that was what made America great then?
    - Jensson 2y ago
      > But it's easy to tax personal wealth. No, it just means personal wealth moves abroad.
      - wyldfire 2y ago
        Is it? What if you hold shares in US traded equities? Can you still be a major shareholder if you somehow transfer that to an entity in another country? And maybe a mutual taxation reciprocity agreement with other like minded countries could defeat those games?
Sabinus 2y ago
Maybe they shouldn't have, but the reasons were: It'll make America richer. It'll encourage world peace. (It's hard to go to war with a country you trade with a lot) The disadvantages of this were that high labour manufacturing left America and the poor had less jobs, and most of the wealth went to the elites and blue states. Funnily enough the politics of the red states was what prevented the (from free trade, in total greater) wealth from being spread around because it's apparently communism.

disgruntledphd2 2y ago

Ross Perot said it, but he was considered crazy.

recursivedoubts 2y ago
i member

duxup 2y ago

I'm not convinced the supply chain moving isn't just ... how it was going to play out. I don't think you need a conspiracy to discover cheap labor is a place to do manufacturing.

recursivedoubts 2y ago
specific people with specific names pushed offshoring it isn’t secret
- duxup 2y ago
  Does “pushing” matter if it actually works regardless?
  - recursivedoubts 2y ago
    Does pushing for slavery matter if it works regardless?
    - duxup 2y ago
      I think that's a different situation.
      - recursivedoubts 2y ago
        check out the conditions in third world factorys

ethbr1 2y ago

> too bad nobody said that back then and were laughed off the national stage It was a loud and varied contingent around 2000. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests#Organizations_and_planning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests#Or...

tock 2y ago

The US could just tax the rich more and spread the extra wealth gained through offshoring. But no.

Jensson 2y ago
That is basically what tariffs are, it taxes the wealth gained by offshoring. When you do that offshoring no longer provides you with cheaper goods and you get the current imminent downturn. Other than that it is very hard to tax profits generated in another country.
- wyldfire 2y ago
  > Other than that it is very hard to tax profits generated in another country. But it's easy to tax personal wealth. It's new and different to tax wealth instead of income but it's not totally unreasonable IMO. EDIT: also, the highest income tax rate in the US has dropped significantly since the 1950s. Maybe that was what made America great then?
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > But it's easy to tax personal wealth. No, it just means personal wealth moves abroad.
    - wyldfire 2y ago
      Is it? What if you hold shares in US traded equities? Can you still be a major shareholder if you somehow transfer that to an entity in another country? And maybe a mutual taxation reciprocity agreement with other like minded countries could defeat those games?

Sabinus 2y ago

Maybe they shouldn't have, but the reasons were: It'll make America richer. It'll encourage world peace. (It's hard to go to war with a country you trade with a lot) The disadvantages of this were that high labour manufacturing left America and the poor had less jobs, and most of the wealth went to the elites and blue states. Funnily enough the politics of the red states was what prevented the (from free trade, in total greater) wealth from being spread around because it's apparently communism.