Bernie Sanders for President...

[Stavros]

...I don't think it's a legitimate object of U.S. policy to increase the economic prosperity of Mexico...

Why then did the USA, Canada and Mexico sign the North America Free Trade Agreement in 1992-1994?

[broncofan]

Why then did the USA, Canada and Mexico sign the North America Free Trade Agreement in 1992-1994?

I think the idea was mutual benefit. Although we would prefer Mexico to be prosperous, I don't think it's the explicit goal of our economic policy to ensure it if it comes at our expense (I haven't looked at the effects of NAFTA, some might argue that was the result of it, I'm not sure it was the reason we entered into the agreement). It must have been sold as a boon to all, and that wealth is not a zero-sum game...and it does not have to be.

[xxx617]

Sanders calls himself a 'Democratic Socialist' but on the basis of what he said he is not a socialist of any description other than his own, but is a 1960s Democrat who believes in Big Government of the kind one associates with LBJ and the War on Poverty. He uses resentment at the super-rich to peddle the policy which would re-structure taxation to be more equitable across income groups, but cannot explain how, if at all, this would in any way create jobs. Yes, the spread of income in Sweden, Norway and Denmark might be fairer than it is in the USA, but that is not what either sustains or creates jobs in those countries, and the long term issue in the USA, as most of the candidates did acknowledge, is that over the last 12 (if not more than that) years, wages have stagnated relative to other costs, while over the last 30 years it is the loss of jobs indeed entire industries to overseas markets and the corresponding decline in heavy industry and sources of work for a mass of low or unskilled workers that has caused such trauma to the US economy.

We have the same arguments in this country and while I think the rich and super-rich should pay more tax, I don't think it makes much difference to job creation, investment patterns or business start-ups, if people are given more money they will be spending it on drawing down their debt, paying off their mortgage and so on.

What constitutes a fair share for the ultra rich? I have asked a few Bernie supporters this Q, and the response I get is that "it just needs to be more." The top 10% makes up 70% of the tax revenue in this country and the people in the poverty bracket pay a disproportionate amount. If Bernie's tax plan were to be implemented I believe it would hurt the middle class the most.

I agree with your point on him being a LBJ type and how he uses resentment. He plays to people's envy, just like Trump plays to the anger.

The spread of income in the Nordic countries is also misrepresented. Sweden, for instance, had a very prosperous pass. After they deregulated their economy in the late 19th C. real wages increased by 25%/decade from 1860-1910 and public spending was below 10%. These are staggering figures. Also, they managed to avoid wars and they have a small population. All of these factors in addition to free trade lead to better economic equality, not a 100% increase in gov't spending in the 70s-80s. Their 'socialism' only held them back, they went from the 4th richest nation to the 14th (1975-2000). An important thing to remember is that even during their peak of gov't spending they still had free trade.

As it pertains to wages and loss of jobs I believe the three main factors are taxation, the minimum wage, and the Federal Reserve.

1.More taxation means less savings for individuals and less opportunity for companies to create jobs and invest in technology that bolster productivity.

2. Of course there will be less jobs when it is illegal to hire people below a certain level.

3. You cannot centrally plan a FREE system and devalue the dollar 98% and expect a good outcome.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=xxx617;1644296]What constitutes a fair share for the ultra rich? I have asked a few Bernie supporters this Q, and the response I get is that "it just needs to be more." The top 10% makes up 70% of the tax revenue in this country and the people in the poverty bracket pay a disproportionate amount. If Bernie's tax plan were to be implemented I believe it would hurt the middle class the most.

I agree with your point on him being a LBJ type and how he uses resentment. He plays to people's envy, just like Trump plays to the anger.

The spread of income in the Nordic countries is also misrepresented. Sweden, for instance, had a very prosperous pass. After they deregulated their economy in the late 19th C. real wages increased by 25%/decade from 1860-1910 and public spending was below 10%. These are staggering figures. Also, they managed to avoid wars and they have a small population. All of these factors in addition to free trade lead to better economic equality, not a 100% increase in gov't spending in the 70s-80s. Their 'socialism' only held them back, they went from the 4th richest nation to the 14th (1975-2000). An important thing to remember is that even during their peak of gov't spending they still had free trade.

As it pertains to wages and loss of jobs I believe the three main factors are taxation, the minimum wage, and the Federal Reserve.

1.More taxation means less savings for individuals and less opportunity for companies to create jobs and invest in technology that bolster productivity.

2. Of course there will be less jobs when it is illegal to hire people below a certain level.

3. You cannot centrally plan a FREE system and devalue the dollar 98% and expect a good outcome.[/QUOTE

Although I agree with a lot of what you say, I don't believe the rate of taxation determines job creation, if that were the case how did the US economy grow when taxes were far higher in the 1950s and 1960s than they are now? Job losses under the Reagan administration through out-sourcing and off-shoring took place at a time of tax cuts and colossal Federal government expenditure, surely a contradiction? Yet many Americans continue to think Reagan -the architect of decline- was a great President.

As for the 'free market', look at steel in the UK. China has flooded the world market with steel so that its costs have fallen so low it doesn't make economic sense for anyone else to make it, yet the Chinese steel industry is government, not market regulated.

I think the 'Sanders socialism' is a re-run of the Great Society programme and the War on Poverty, and looks quite different from the socialist policies of Congressional representatives of the early 20th century, Victor Berger and Meyer London who make Sanders look like a TEA Party Republican. How times have changed!

[xxx617]

Although I agree with a lot of what you say, I don't believe the rate of taxation determines job creation, if that were the case how did the US economy grow when taxes were far higher in the 1950s and 1960s than they are now? Job losses under the Reagan administration through out-sourcing and off-shoring took place at a time of tax cuts and colossal Federal government expenditure, surely a contradiction? Yet many Americans continue to think Reagan -the architect of decline- was a great President.

As for the 'free market', look at steel in the UK. China has flooded the world market with steel so that its costs have fallen so low it doesn't make economic sense for anyone else to make it, yet the Chinese steel industry is government, not market regulated.

I think the 'Sanders socialism' is a re-run of the Great Society programme and the War on Poverty, and looks quite different from the socialist policies of Congressional representatives of the early 20th century, Victor Berger and Meyer London who make Sanders look like a TEA Party Republican. How times have changed!

The rate of taxation is not the main determining factor in job creation, but to dismiss it completely would be reckless of us. For example, look at the Smoot-Hawley Tariff...it raised tariffs almost 60% on thousands of items...and what did the world do in response? The French shut us out and we also saw retaliation from other countries like Spain where they raised the tariff on American made cars so high it would be 100% certain none of our automobiles would be sold there.

Then we were given the Revenue Act of 1932, which was the largest peacetime tax increase up until that point. Generally, entrepreneurs will not seek out private investment when taxes become unbearable and they can stash their wealth in tax free g bonds and offshore accounts.

To address your statement about the 50's and 60's the tax code was much different then and changed in 1986. There were MANY loopholes that made it so those in the top bracket paid no where close to those percentages. Prosperity in the 1960's can be attributed to Federal Reserve policy which was inflationary. The money supply was much greater than in the 50s, which lead to a misallocation of resources and we paid for it in the 70's.

We agree on Reagan..no good.

Look at China's economy..they are in a dangerous bubble and they keep lowering interest rates to try and inflate the air back in. However, I'll take the long position and say they'll eventually turn things around, they want into the IMF basket, and I'm guessing it will happen fall 2016.

[Stavros]

The rate of taxation is not the main determining factor in job creation, but to dismiss it completely would be reckless of us. For example, look at the Smoot-Hawley Tariff...it raised tariffs almost 60% on thousands of items...and what did the world do in response? The French shut us out and we also saw retaliation from other countries like Spain where they raised the tariff on American made cars so high it would be 100% certain none of our automobiles would be sold there.

Then we were given the Revenue Act of 1932, which was the largest peacetime tax increase up until that point. Generally, entrepreneurs will not seek out private investment when taxes become unbearable and they can stash their wealth in tax free g bonds and offshore accounts.

To address your statement about the 50's and 60's the tax code was much different then and changed in 1986. There were MANY loopholes that made it so those in the top bracket paid no where close to those percentages. Prosperity in the 1960's can be attributed to Federal Reserve policy which was inflationary. The money supply was much greater than in the 50s, which lead to a misallocation of resources and we paid for it in the 70's.

We agree on Reagan..no good.

Look at China's economy..they are in a dangerous bubble and they keep lowering interest rates to try and inflate the air back in. However, I'll take the long position and say they'll eventually turn things around, they want into the IMF basket, and I'm guessing it will happen fall 2016.

I think in economic history at any one time one factor, such as taxation, may appear to be more influential than other -interest rates, for example- whereas one has to stand back and look at all the indicators, and on that economists, famously, never agree.

The Smoot-Hawley Act is one example, for while it is true that as a result of protectionist measures by 1932 the tariff on imports subject to duty had risen to 59.1%, it has been argued this was a cumulative consequence of other factors rather than the Smoot-Hawley Act in itself which is estimated to have increased tariffs by 40-48%, in price terms a rise of 6%. In fact, Douglas Irwin has argued the problem was that with the fall in the rate of imports, which had fallen 15% before he act was passed, the Act itself only reduced imports by about 4-6%, it was other factors in the years to 1932 which made the economic situation worse, such as falling production in the USA, and deflation.

There has been, and probably will continue to be arguments for and against protectionist measures -the USA has yet to repeal the Jones Act which is another example of protectionist legislation that has been on the books since the 1920s. The Conservative Party tore itself apart over the Corn Laws in the 19th century, again over Tariff Reform in the early 20th century just as, since the 1990s it has periodically turned against itself over the UK's membership of the EU, contrasting 'free trade' to European regulation -while cheerfully dismissing the Single Market Act and its four fundamental freedoms -of labour, goods, services and capital- apparently because freedom is not absolute and they want to limit, if not completely halt, the free movement of labour which does make one wonder what they think capitalism is.

The taxation issue is thus probably too subtle to pin down. The 1970s when the top rate of tax was around 70% saw the birth of both Microsoft (1975) and Apple (1976) at a time when people with money to invest you might think would have turned to safe investments, so clearly rates of taxation alone do not determine investor behaviour.

What this does is to caution us against neatly dividing Republican and Democrat parties on key issues such as slavery-v-abolition, big government-v-minimal govt, high taxes -v-low taxes. At the time Smoot-Hawley was an interventionist policy of the Republicans when the pre-Roosevelt Democrats were the party of free trade, something Mr Sanders may or may not know, or care about as the case may be.

It is a pity that none of the candidates in the US election are debating what it means to work, how work has changed in the last 25 years, what the full impact of technology is going to be over the next 25 years, and related issues. Just picking away at taxes, spending and welfare misses the point while it exposes the lack of imagination all round.

[nitron]

He'll never get elected, because that's what we deserve ,maybe by accident things will improve. We've been lucky so far.

[Stavros]

I have not seen broadcasts of the Democratic Forum, but I note this from a report in this morning's Guardian newspaper online in which it reports-
In a rare moment touching on foreign policy, Sanders, who opposed both the Gulf war and the Iraq war, argued against the Obama administration’s decision to put troops on the ground in Syria to combat Isis. “I don’t want to see us sucked into a quagmire in which there may be no end,” he said. Instead, the Vermont senator argued that regional allies like Saudi Arabia should take a larger role in fighting the terrorist group
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...mocratic-forum

I think I might have mentioned it before but I find it hard to believe that anyone would recommend that Saudi Arabia become more involved when it has been one of the key states responsible for the extension of the conflict in Syria, and is currently engaged in a bombing campaign in Yemen that has murdered thousands of people and displaced something like 70,000 people in a country where over a million are refugees from the Horn of Africa. I wonder where Sanders gets his intelligence from, as there seems to be so little of it on this issue. In the unlikely event of him becoming President, one can only hope he hands foreign policy decisions to someone who knows the region, as he clearly does not. Sanders is also passing the buck and dodging the role that the USA could play, as a deal-maker in diplomacy, not least as the Russian option looks like it is going to drag that country into the kind of conflict Putin (I assume) believed he could avoid.

Sanders ignorant on the Middle East, Ben Carson ignorant on the Pyramids. Why has this region been such a blind spot for aspiring Presidents when everyone who wants the job must know that it will be one of the top ten issues in their In Tray from day one?

[Ben]

Bernie Sanders calling himself a socialist: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/socialism/

[AshlynCreamher]

Bernie Sanders calling himself a socialist: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/socialism/

The National Socialist Party has been reborn with with Old-Man Sanders as the Mein Fuhrer - why am I no surprised?

Now all you Looney liberals can have wet dreams all day long about combatting Global Warming, saving the whales and defend a woman choice to murder/slaughter her unborn child because this defenseless life isn't really considered a life until after 36 months yet at the same time, an organism on Mars is definitely life!