4 ms·
>"In the US, we have the ability for everybody to be employed - if we required that everything that is sold here be made here. That would instantly improve ever
by dylanjermiah 11y ago
>"In the US, we have the ability for everybody to be employed - if we required that everything that is sold here be made here. That would instantly improve everyone's quality of life."
No. There are already enough limitations on international trade.
Trade allows the transference of the creation of products or services to other countries which are more efficient with their own resources. Allowing both parties to focus on what they're good at. Benefitting both parties to the highest degree.
>"But perhaps the biggest advantage is that it would allow us to stop the hiding of profits offshore and using derivatives - literally trillions in profits are being extracted and hidden pre-tax."
They're not 'hidden' if you know about it. The company has a responsibility to their shareholders to use their scarce resources in the most efficient manner, that means moving their money to the area where the government forcibly takes the least.
>"I would argue that every country should consider their own citizens first - and only after everyone has gotten to some reasonable standard of living should we consider outsourcing, offshoring, and foreign workers. Ironically, we could do much more for everybody in the world if we first fix the corruption in our own economy."
Please specifically define "reasonable standard of living". If a country only used the resources which are inside its borders they would not be able to produce a large amount of the goods and services which we currently enjoy, it is not feasible to grow all crops, produce all goods and provide all services within the confines of a countries border.
- MrTonyD 11y agoWhere do I start? Do you really believe Niall Ferguson when he says that all trade is good trade? But let me address the hidden money issue. I worked for one multi-billionaire who set up offshore "parts" manufacturing to act as a middle man supplier to offshore companies. He inflated the costs to the company so that he and the other executives could extract billions. At another company offshore "services" were set up to do various fake consulting engagements. We are talking billions and billions for the executives. There were literally mazes of offshore companies through different countries, with many different classes of stock - owned by various groups of executives, bankers, and competitors (as payments for helping kill common competitors or dropping products to create effective monopolies in market segments.) So maybe you really believe the things you're saying...they are the standard propaganda. But I've been working with the guys who have figured out how to legally hide their money - so I know better.
- dylanjermiah 11y agoYou haven't adressed any of the points I made, please take another look at them and address them individually. Your anecdote was hazy, unspecific and irrelevant.
- MrTonyD 11y agoThis is just a comment section - not an economics class or a tutorial on offshore stocks and derivatives and their potential applications. If you find my comments irrelevant you should just ignore them - I'll do the same for you.
- dylanjermiah 11y agoIn other words, you'd rather spit out a meaningless incoherent story than bother to address and of the points I made.