NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
I'm completely with you. I can't understand Kurtster's worldview without seriously heavy doses of cynicism. My last company was funded by Russian Oligarch. I never met the guy, but did deal with his henchmen uh... managers.  If this guy was an indication of the general archetype, I don't think we have a lot to worry about unless there is a nickle on the ground, then they will knock you out of the way to grab it.

 kurtster wrote: 

"If as Trump states, the USA is the only or one of a couple of countries that has no border import tax, then why are we the only one and why is deciding to do so, wrong ?"
Because this kind of border-adjustment tax could have very large, far-reaching and backfiring consequences.


A Tax Overhaul Would Be Great in Theory. Here’s Why It’s So Hard in Practice.


...

The tax has a feature called “border adjustment,” under which exports are not taxed but imports are. That, at first glance, may seem to penalize companies that import goods, like retailers, and subsidize those that export, like makers of jumbo jets. But economists believe the change in the tax code would lead to shifts in the currency markets that offset those moves, namely to a sharp rise in the value of the dollar compared with other currencies.

...
 
A 25 percent rise in the value of the dollar, the most widely used currency on the planet, would have enormous consequences. Supporters think the dollar will rise that much if the plan is enacted — indeed, it must happen, to avoid sticking Americans with much higher prices for imported consumer goods.

But according to calculations by Michael J. Graetz, a Columbia law professor, a currency shift of that scale implies that Americans who hold foreign assets would lose $6.1 trillion, and foreign holders of assets in the United States would gain as much as $8.1 trillion. Meanwhile, because the dollar is the world’s benchmark currency, many businesses and governments outside the United States borrow in it, especially in emerging-market countries where confidence in the domestic currency is low.

 That means that a steep run-up in the value of the dollar generally makes those debts more onerous, and causes big trouble for countries including China, South Korea and Turkey. Consider that the Asian financial crisis in 1998, the Latin American crisis in 2001 and an emerging markets slump in 2015 all had their roots in debt problems and a spike in the dollar.

What’s more, global markets in oil and other commodities are priced in dollars, so a dollar spike could unleash hard-to-predict reactions from commodity producers. Oil would become much more expensive, and oil price shocks have helped set off recessions in the not-too-distant past.

Perhaps the most irony-rich consequence of such a tax overhaul — which would, presumably, be signed by President Trump — would be the damage to the tourism and education sectors in the United States. These businesses would have a serious problem, unlike conventional exporters — companies that ship things overseas, say.

For the exporters, the disadvantages caused by a run-up in the dollar would just cancel out the advantage received from changes in the tax system. But businesses that are not exporting anything across the border would suffer from the damage of a more expensive dollar without receiving advantages from border adjustment.

As Stan Veuger of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, that applies to any organization that serves a large number of foreign customers within the United States’ borders. Think of, say, a Trump international hotel, or amusement parks like Disney World, or any American university that bolsters its finances with foreign enrollment at full-price tuition.

All of these sectors would see their prices rise because of the dollar run-up, without any countervailing tax benefit. 


An example of how it could damage the retail  fashion industry in the US:

Trump’s Unfashionable Tax Idea



...We employ about 30 people directly, and dozens more indirectly as freelancers and sales representatives. Entrepreneurs like us should be ecstatic over the pro-business rhetoric coming out of the White House and Congress. But we’re not, because they are considering unfair tax-code changes that, if put in place, could hurt businesses like ours — and millions of American consumers.

The proposal in question is the border adjustment tax...

...

A border adjustment tax would “adjust” our tax bill by no longer allowing deductions on imports.

...Let’s look at how this would play out for a typical fashion designer in New York City. Her 20-employee company has $10 million in annual sales; her cost of goods sold is $4 million; and expenses like payroll and rent are $5 million. That leaves her company with a tidy pretax profit of $1 million, which is then subject to federal, state and local taxes. But with the border adjustment, her company’s imports will now be subject to tax — assuming she imports 100 percent of her goods, that would raise her tax base from $1 million to $5 million, even though she isn’t making any more money. Based on the proposal, her tax bill would in all likelihood exceed her profits.

Our fashion designer has three options. She can shut her doors — and I know many people in the industry who, already skating on thin profit margins, probably will. She can start buying domestically — an option for some, but again, domestic supply chains in textiles and other sectors are spotty and expensive.

Her third option is to pass on the cost to consumers, and that’s what most businesses will probably do. These wouldn’t be small increases; in many industries, imported goods are one of the biggest expenses. If the tax passes, consumers will have to get used to paying a whole lot more for shoes and shirts.

...

Supporters of a border adjustment tax say it levels the playing field for exporters. By allowing profits from foreign sales to be excluded from income taxes, the tax is a countermeasure, they argue, to the value-added taxes that American manufacturers face in other countries. But that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how a V.A.T. works — it’s a consumption tax on all goods consumed within a country, charged to domestic manufacturers and importers alike. It does not pick winners and losers, or put import-reliant companies at a disadvantage.

The tax’s proponents also argue that encouraging domestic consumption — which, put differently, means sending fewer dollars overseas — would drive up the value of the dollar, making imports cheaper and offsetting the higher tax bill. If it were only that easy. Many factors other than trade affect the value of our currency, including interest rate differentials and expectations, geopolitical concerns and domestic policies. A stronger dollar might help a little, but as a business owner, I wouldn’t bet on it.

 

 

Also, check out this article, which touches on the havoc a border-adjustment tax could have on various types of companies, including auto manufacturers, with complex international supply chains. 
Counting the Winners and Losers From an Import-Based Tax

 

 black321 wrote: 
I don't think this will be the case.  If as Trump states, the USA is the only or one of a couple of countries that has no border import tax, then why are we the only one and why is deciding to do so, wrong ?  Its just catching up with everyone else and leveling the field.  If we have to pay a tax on our goods coming in, then it should be a two way street, right ?  This is the point Trump had been making during his campaign, how we have the worst negotiators in the world when it comes to making trade deals.  Fair trade is a two way street.

That said, I do not want a VAT of any kind established in the USA.  Perhaps the threat of a border tax will get other countries to rescind their border tax on our goods coming into their country.  And it would be done through bilateral trade negotiations.  One on one negotiations with individual countries.  Things seem to be working well with Canada for example where we have a trade balance between the two countries and an estimated $2 billion a day in goods and services move back and forth between the two countries.

You think we can live forever with a $500 billion annual trade deficit with China ?  We pay tax going in there but they don't pay anything coming in here ?  We need to turn these things around.  We already are in a trade war and losing our collective arses the way things are set up.

Trump spoke of currency manipulation extensively during his campaign.  Currency manipulation is also a form of tariffs if you look at it closely.  China keeps the value of its currency down artificially in order to keep the prices of their exports down and the cost of imports high so that they do not compete with their domestic products.  The whole flippin world is walking all over the USA in terms of trade, with the exception of Canada.  This has to end.

And a side bar to all of this.  I know that automation is taking away manufacturing jobs more than anything else here.  That said, if we reinvest here and make our manufacturing state of the art, it will give us a 20 year edge over everyone else who upgraded in the last part of the 20th century and whose facilities are now wearing out and becoming less competitive.  These things run in cycles.  Its the USA's turn to reinvest, and even if we don't export a lot, our own domestic market is big enough to sustain itself with the bonus of keeping the dollars spent on goods here at home instead of being shipped overseas to enemies and competitors.  These dollars kept here at home will be re spent here on our own interests further advancing ourselves.  And not to the detriment of anyone overseas, since no one (not enough) buys our exports in the first place because they are so bloody expensive and taxed to death at the port of entry.

 

There is a joke that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, two old Communist Party members come across each other on the street...

Boris: "Hi Nikolai. Everything the Party told us about Communism turned out to be lies."

Nikolai: "Oh yes...but unfortunately everything the Party told us about the evils of Capitalism turned out to be true..."

 kurtster wrote: 
globalization is oppressive as you say, exploits societies and labor with less rigorous regulations (lowest $ cost)...yet, I would argue in the long run, these societies eventually grow up (perhaps unionize), and develop a middle class (middle class part is even happening in China).  Attempting to turn off this spigot and start some type of trade war will not be productive for anyone...any trade tax would be a very risky experiment for the US consumer.  It's not the best system, but the best one we got.  But US/Euro companies could do a better job at self policeing their sources, and the conditions these local folks operate under. 

Russian govt is pretty well off (saw a recent estimate of Putins wealth in hundreds of billions), but not its people. 

 kurtster wrote: 
I honestly don't know how to communicate with you. It's like you live on an entirely different planet. 

Global GDP has risen ginormously in recent years. F'ing billions have been lifted out of poverty. And you call this oppressive?  
Central banking cartel??  They can hardly get their own business straight. They are tinkering with a machine no one really can predict. This doesn't make them a cartel. Most central banks are struggling to steer between recession and inflation, with varying degrees of failure.

Russia does have a low level of public debt... along with a whole host of other developing nations. Its per capita GDP is only 26k, rank 52. 
Putin is a 19th century tsar living in the 21st century. His country will never flourish while a bunch of oligarchs cream all the profits and invest them in questionable schemes overseas.

Russia a threat?  I don't think so. Putin possibly, like any crazy demagogue. But Russia per se?  No. They belong in Europe. They just haven't realised it yet. If they got rid of their dictator, installed modern institutions and business practices they could be a flourishing developing economy. Can't see it happening under the current leadership.  

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
The oligarchs need globalization.  The Central Banking system needs globalization.  Globalization as it is presently established is oppressive and caters to the lowest common denominator rather than finding ways to raise it.

Russia is under pressure to fall into line with the big global central banking cartel and take on debt it doesn't need.  Its debt is currently 17% of GDP, while ours is over 100%.  Russia also has one of the largest physical reserves of gold in the world.  They can stand on their own two feet rather well.  You seriously underestimate Russia.

Putin recently stated that Russian military equipment has finally been battle tested and is up to snuff.  That is one big advantage the USA used to have.  We were constantly using ours in live fire circumstances.  Syria was Putin's long wanted live equipment test more than anything else.  

Again, I believe that you seriously underestimate Russia and its capabilities, needs and desires. 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
  The birth of the Ostrich Party!?!? 

 kurtster wrote:

 
When he meets with business leaders, what policy is being implemented? 

Governing is about setting policies that impact favorably across-the-board.  Meeting with, and or calling, business leaders is fine, if it leads to policies that prove fruitful.  Making individual "deals" with individual  businesses falls short.

     

 kurtster wrote: 
Grief, where on earth do you source your information from?  Russia is a backwards struggling agrarian economy whose industry cannot cut it on the world stage and never could, with the exception perhaps of the Kalashnikov.. Check out how much European hardware is installed in your US military. You might be surprised to find out how much of it is French. If Russia lost its oil and gas export market to Europe it would collapse within months. 

But all of this military braggado is really really stale. We live in a global world. None of us can turn the clock back. Business needs globalisation. Pretending otherwise is sticking your head in the sand.  No one, not even Putin or the Chinese can escape the cruel dictates of the international marketplace. The biggest army in the world won't help you there.  

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
The US built up its armed forces for one purpose initially, to fight WW II.  It kept growing to protect itself and primarily Europe (the standing army part) from the USSR during the Cold War.  Europe was and still is incapable of defending itself from Russia, should there ever be a need.

Let's remember how the USA got involved in Libya most recently.  We were dragged in by the French mostly and the rest of the EU, because we alone possessed the necessary military capabilities needed to invade Libya, to keep that sweet Libyan crude flowing to the EU, who were the only users of that particular flavor of crude.  It didn't help that Obama and Clinton were more than willing to help with their regime change agenda in that area of the world.  An agenda which has made the world a much worse thing than before.  

And not overkill when we consider what's happening in the South China Sea.  I suppose Europe assumes its the USA's problem and not it's own and should not worry about it cuz the USA will take care of it at its own expense.

 kurtster wrote: 
Kurtster, you are only confirming to me that what you actually believe in ("greatest set of rules for governing ever written") is right on the money, but you seem blind to the fact that Trump is the biggest threat to precisely what you want to protect. And where does this American exceptionalism come from? American values were born in the EUROPEAN enlightenment. They are not the sole domain of the US. Virtually all western states and a whole lot of other ones besides espouse exactly the same values:

Freedom of speech, right to a fair trial, equality before the law, a set of recognised human rights, democratic government with checks and balances, etc. all the goodies I think you support. 

As far as Europe's safety and prosperity being built on the back of the US taxpayer, that is not exactly right either. Both the UK and France have their own nuclear deterrent that is not and never has been paid by the US taxpayer. The US maintains a gigantic military but nobody ever asked it to. And the sheer size of it is overkill given the threats facing the rest of the world. So you can't blame this on the other members of NATO. Secondly, the US has had a lot of support from allies for ventures that are at best questionable and many a non-US solider has been killed in action for campaigns initiated by the US. 
It is not a one-way street and never has been.

 kurtster wrote: 
There's what you say, and then there's reality.

How Trump spent his first month in Office, by the numbers 
As Navy seal William Owens was fighting for his life, Trump was promoting himself on Twitter, absent from situation room

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
All this talk about tribalism.  I mean wtf, really.  Is there something wrong with wanting to preserve a society based in principle on the greatest set of rules for governing ever written ?

It exists no where else on this planet.  Why does everyone want to tear it apart ?   It is clear that the USA is at odds with nearly every other country on this planet.  The USA has so over extended itself in the world that unless it regroups and recalculates it will surely fade away and all the worthy principles it was founded on will die with it.

Take NATO, its been made clear that Trump finds it worthy, but only if everyone else ponies up what they agreed to upon joining.  Europe's safety and prosperity has been built on the back of the American taxpayer since WW II, which we did not start.  

Its time to stop the looting of the USA by the ungrateful.  If that constitutes tribalism, then so be it. 

Globalism is good for everyone, except the USA as it is presently conceived.  The NWO is not a CT.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
No.  Just taking a shot at a line is all, with all the rhetoric in play.

I do however see the EU as a socialist entity.

in fact that is precisely what I mean..  Trump fails on your benchmarks.

Trump and more particularly Bannon are socialists in YOUR sense of the word and give a shit about individual rights. Everything they espouse is an archaic tribalism that belongs back in the dark ages. It's an either with us or against us attitude in which the individual in any meaningful sense of the word has no place.

 kurtster wrote: 
huh?  You think I'm a socialist?  I thought that was Bannon.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Isn't putting the individual first against all the tenets of socialism ?  Sorry, couldn't pass that up ...

Yes, we do live in interesting times. 

 kurtster wrote: 
keep gloating Kurtster. I still think Trump is going to fail even using YOUR benchmark of success, but hey, I may be wrong. I hope he does create some economic stimulus and give the economy  a boost. I just hope it is not at huge opportunity cost (environmental damage etc.)

On my benchmarks, he has already failed appallingly: no consistency, no respect for the value of the individual, let alone their rights, no respect for the gains won by the environmental movement, virtually no accountability and he tops off all of this with being a pathological liar.  It would require a huge sea change for me to change that assessment of him. But I still wait patiently - I bet the Republicans are just waiting for him to cock up big time and then they'll install Pence, which will be a mistake because his fanbase will feel robbed and feel his policies didn't have a  chance to be properly tested.

Whatever. We live in interesting times.

 

 meower wrote: 
I still like to think its in our interest.

Howze everyones' 401K's doing ?  Any complaints ?