J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP
Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.
This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
add to the GDP.
The effect is indirect.
Only in the sense that government can apply more- or less
force to make the private sector produce less- or more.
The government itself is a consumer unbound by the rules
of supply and demand AND one which has the legal use of
force at its disposal.
But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".
Comes under "promote the general welfare".
No sir:
1) That statement is in the Preamble. It is not a foundation of
law. It carries all the weight of some Hollyweirdo getting
up at an awards ceremony and saying "I love you all". We
understand the sentiment but do not take it literally.
2) In James Madison's own words, the 'general welfare' was
not to be understood to be a carte blanche for the Feds
to do whatever they wanted. As he pointed out (sorry, do
not have the precise cite), that such an interpretation would
completely undermine the "enumerated powers" doctrine that
drives the whole Constitution.
Step Three
----------
Instantiate a flat tax like the Fair Tax via a Constitutional
Amendment that forbids the institution of *any* other kind of tax.
So no protective tariffs on foreign trade even if other countries
do
enact such tariffs?
Right. Tariffs are yet another attempt to "manage" economics.
So it's OK for the Chinese to charge a 30 percent tariff on American
goods imported into China but we have to let them bring theirs into
the US without the same disadvantage? Sorry, but there's a difference
between "managing economics" and "levelling the playing field".
You live in a world of illusion. No government has enough juice to
actually control economics short of using violent force. In the
scenario you describe, markets would seek to be efficient and would
punish such bad behavior by the Chinese pretty effectively. After all,
if people in the US could not get their goods sold overseas, they
would lack the resource to buy the even very cheap Chinese goods.
Tariffs these days are primarily political and policy pressure tools,
not meaningful economic levers (no matter what Carter, Bush, Clinton,
Bush seem to think).
The "Fair Tax" proposal seems to be a 23% sales
tax, which is a "soak the poor" scheme.
Go reread it. It does no such thing. It rebates *everyone* the
amount of money a "poor" family would pay in taxes. This means
the truly poor pay no taxes.
I see. Sounds simple, but now it's yet another "soak the rich"
scheme.
No it's not. It's a "pay in proportion to what you spend" scheme.
The more you spend, the more "sales tax" you pay. If you don't
spend it, this creates working capital for market action. If you
do spend it, you fund your nation. Simple, effective, and fair.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/