UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

You talk to one of the 700,000 factory workers who lost a job and they hate NAFTA. But without it, there'd be 33 million illegals here lowering our wages instead of 11 million.

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

Thank you, yes I've seen this one and similar ones before and it's been criticized because all the GOP controlled congress that talked BHO to extend the tax cuts didn't stimulate any job creation. Instead, like as the proof shows, the businesses keep the cash rather than hire a worker because they don't believe there's any sales demand anyways.

But I wonder if you read what I wrote because I didn't disagree that tax cuts are not a good fiscal tool rather, combining it with government spending cuts (which is what happened) is a big waste. Because sequestration and austerity signals business that a slow down will worsen and they don't want to waste their tax savings on making a job. They'd rather buy more of their own stock (to make it rise and coerce more buyers) or pay down debts with the tax savings when a slowing economy is predicted for the next four quarters.

CounterRevolutionary

Uncle Jesse writes: "To stimulate an economy, a government will cut tax rates while increasing its own spending, and to cool down an overheating economy, it will raise taxes and cut back on spending. When yunz talk about cutting taxes and cutting spending, it makes no sense at all, from a fiscal economic policy. What you propose is a myth that doesn't work. It sounds good to the public but when ever it is implemented, it fails miserably with a huge deficit because taxes are cut and a recession because spending is cut."

Because it is so easy to spend other people's money, the government is not cost driven. The government throws the market into an upward spiral of unaffordability. We simply do not need all of these government "services." By "subsidizing" student loans, college is unaffordable. Meanwhile, a hundred bureaucrats are hired to manage every one hundred dollars. The overhead is phenomenal. It reaches the proportion of the Clinton Foundation's charity, 10% to the suffering peons, 90% for the top-heavy administration.

Hiring government bureaucrats to do a job is not cost efficient.
* The government manages education, the cost goes up, the quality goes down. Our government pays the highest sum of money per pupil in the world and gets the least results.
* The government manages the energy supply, the cost of transportation and food skyrocket.
* The government manages health insurance, the cost of insurance skyrockets and medical care skyrockets.
* The government manages rent control, and the cost of building apartments skyrockets.

Under socialism, the cost of living goes up, the quality of living goes down. Remember the breadlines in the Soviet Union?
Centralized planned economies do not work. Some bureaucrat 3,000 miles away has no idea of what is happening locally.

Government corruption is way out of control with no consumer oversight. Look at the Federal Reserve Bank draining Fort Knox dry to spark the Great Depression. That was a government run on the government banks. Look at the corruption in the Federal Housing Authority Bank and the mortgage lenders in Fannie and Freddie! Look at the corporate cronyism in the Export Import Bank, Overseas Pacific Investment Corporation (Enron propped up by Bill Clinton), and the World Bank, just for starters. Whoever controls the money controls the company. Better the consumer control the money and the economy than unelected bureaucrats.

The Health Department, Department of Education, EPA, Department of Energy and FDA are failing us miserably. Class action lawsuits will straighten up the quality of life far more efficiently than corrupt bureaucrats on the dole. Congress is to pass the laws, the Executive Branch is to enforce the laws. No more. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

We need to erase the 645 government bureaucracies and return this power to the consumers. The cost of living will come down, the quality of life will go up. The consumer must manage the market.

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

Yes, that's always a nice incentive but notice how it attracts an employer from one state to another and the net job nationwide is zero (creates jobs in incentive state, eliminates jobs in the moved-from state).

CounterRevolutionary

Uncle Jessie writes: "Yes, that's always a nice incentive but notice how it attracts an employer from one state to another and the net job nationwide is zero (creates jobs in incentive state, eliminates jobs in the moved-from state."

Wrong again. Some states offer much more opportunity for economic growth due to lower taxes, right to work labor laws, and better resources, access to transportation, or a skilled workforce.

When a communist government deliberately cripples its own population to subjugate them, then it is high time to overthrow that government. There is no opportunity to create growth under socialist dictatorships. The same government that cripples us is incapable of curing us. We need a reality check, Mr. Jesse.

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

There's an extra amount of hyperbole in your write up, don't you think just a little bit? A hundred bureaucrats for a hundred dollars, really? Student loans have been around since the 60's and the monies are loaned, paid back with interest. I don't know what subsidy program you are referring to. Maybe the proposed community college thingy? That will increase competition of the community college and lower the cost of the private college.

All of these agencies are required to have a website explaining what usefulness is being done for the citizen. Take a look at some of them. I like the one the EOE had this past summer where a cashier was fired for drinking orange juice. She is diabetic, had an insulin reaction and was about to pass out. No lawyer would take the case but a government lawyer heard the story and sued on her behalf, won the case and the business had to pay her lost wages plus 200K. All over a 99 cent OJ.

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

I don't believe moving the thread into communism or socialism is beneficial but, go ahead. I agree that communist governments and socialist dictatorships are inefficient compared to the capitalist economic system. All's I was writing is that when an employer goes from one state to another, the taxes are lower and the wages are lower too because they don't relocate the workers, they hire new minimum wage workers. But some times they do re-hire skilled workers from the old factory if they volunteer to move on their own dime. BTW, that has nothing to do with NAFTA.

CounterRevolutionary

Oh, Gawd, Cut the drama. This story is not credible. One glass of orange juice out of 320 million people is not going to drive me to the nanny-state or labor union representation for justice.

https://fee.org/articles/student-loan-subsidies-cause-almost-all-of-the-increase-in-tuition/
Student Loan Subsidies Cause Almost All of the Increase in Tuition
Alex Tabarrok Monday, December 21, 2015

In a new NBER paper, "Accounting for the Rise in College Tuition," Grey Gordon and Aaron Hedlund create a sophisticated model of the college market and find that a large fraction of the increase in tuition can be explained by increases in subsidies.

“With all factors present, net tuition increases from $6,100 to $12,559. As column 4 demonstrates, the demand shocks — which consist mostly of changes in financial aid — account for the lion’s share of the higher tuition.

Specifically, with demand shocks alone, equilibrium tuition rises by 102%, almost fully matching the 106% from the benchmark. By contrast, with all factors present except the demand shocks (column 7), net tuition only rises by 16%.

These results accord strongly with the Bennett hypothesis, which asserts that colleges respond to expansions of financial aid by increasing tuition.

Remarkably, so much of the subsidy is translated into higher tuition that enrollment doesn’t increase! What does happen is that students take on more debt, which many of them can’t pay."

“In fact, the tuition response completely crowds out any additional enrollment that the financial aid expansion would otherwise induce, resulting instead in an enrollment decline from 33% to 27% in the new equilibrium with only demand shocks. Furthermore, the students who do enroll take out $6,876 in loans compared to $4,663 in the initial steady state…. Lastly, the model predicts that demand shocks in isolation generate a surge in the default rate from 17% to 32%. Essentially, demand shocks lead to higher college costs and more debt, and in the absence of higher labor market returns, more loan default inevitably occurs.

Sound familiar? Some of these results appear too large to me and the authors caution that they need to assume a lot of monopoly power to solve their model so the results should be taken as an upper bound. Nevertheless, the Econ 101 insight that subsidies increase prices (even net for those who are not fully subsidized) holds true."

What we have is a corrupt system of government bureaucrats promoting more of their like, an educated elite of communist indoctrination, deliberately dividing us into aa two class society. We need more trade schools, more apprentice ships, more charter schools, and an end to Common Core, not more college indoctrinated socialists. College degrees today do not reflect the work skills necessary for an industrialized manufacturing economy.

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

Thank you for sharing but I find it unlikely to nil that there is a group of evildoers out there who are anti-industrial or that a loan is a subsidy or that capping the interest that can be charged for a student loan is going to crash the system with unaffordable tuition.