Health care law ruled constitutional

[xile]

That just doesn't make sense from an Economic perspective.

A live example: Hong Kong has no real natural resources, it has no trade barriers and yet it doesn't suffer from unemployment.

How does it not make sense. We have tariffs on goods coming in from india and china that protects our farmers here in america by raising the price of incomign food so that people buy american goods which is now cheaper because of the now increased price on foreign goods. If we don't have tariffs, then the now cheaper crops and foods coming in put our farmers out of business because noone is buying their stuff because it's now more expensive, so not only are our farmers unemployed but our country is now sending tons of its food money directly to indian farmers. Consumers in the country face a higher price because of tariffs but preserve jobs in america and keep the money circulating in this country as opposed to going out of the country.

[Daelak]

Alot of the things the government puts in place are good, like tariffs on goods. I would find it hard to believe that the U.S. could compete with the ridiculously low prices of most crops in india and china because of their incredibly low labor costs, i suppose it's possible, but all would happen if we didn't have some of those tariffs would be (assuming their goods are cheaper) that all that money would go straight out of America.

Well instead of goods that are leaving this country, as it was post WWII to the 1980's, it is now labor. Actually, we do not have any tariffs no longer due to the multitude of free trade agreements. In my opinion, I think the US fumbled over 40 years (1940s-1980s) of absolute advantage in the global marketplace for a shallow, credit-based consumer economy that is rearing its ugly head. We should of established a renewable energy policy in the 70's during the oil crisis to wean us off foreign oil, but the power structure was against it. We should of established a national STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) program for high schoolers after we landed on the moon, but instead we have less representation in Congress than EVER. In the end, we as Americans are to blame because we have been propped up for 30 years on credit. We have no made any legitimate investments in our citizens or our industries to be leaders in the 21st Century.

[Deleted]

How does it not make sense. We have tariffs on goods coming in from india and china that protects our farmers here in america by raising the price of incomign food so that people buy american goods which is now cheaper because of the now increased price on foreign goods.

Yes, but that means that Americans have to pay more for the goods, which means there are less resources left over for other things. Furthermore, the US is thus wasting precious labour on inefficient production of certain farm goods, when it could just import those goods cheaper and produce something else.

Using your logic, I take it would be even better if we put up tariffs for imports from other States? Other states have pesky farmers who can farm for lower costs, which means that the unemployment in our State would be higher right? So putting tariffs on out-of-state products would help the employment in our State. Heck, why leave it there? Why not just put trade barriers around your city/town? I mean, sure you may increase employment in that particular industry that is protected, but the overall employment and wealth would certainly decrease.

[cymraeg13]

Wrong. The judiciary may not be involved with, nor interfere in, the ADMINISTRATION of the law. A judge may invalidate all or portions of the law based on constitutional or other grounds...but a judge cannot unilaterally determine certain numbers, costs, application or other administrative issues. That's not how it works. Since you don't understand how the system works, stop panicking.

your original statement was:

only Congress - or a body to which Congress has lawfully delegated power - can alter the law

Striking down a particular law is certainly an alteration of the law, just ask the besieged citizens of Arizona who are forbidden from enforcing the immigration laws our federal government willfully refuses to. Now you are adding additional qualifiers.

Right, because Afghanistan isn't "taken over" now? Hmm...news to me.

Well it might be, but I don't think it's by us.

It was a right given for a specific purpose - a well regulated (and armed) militia. That purpose has been frustrated, thus, the right should be too. If the government wants to maintain the right, but do away with the purpose, amend out the Militia Clause. That's even easier than the alternative - taking away guns.

The meaning of militia is simply an armed citizenry, and the purpose of the second amendment was to keep said militia as a hedge against governmental authority - hence far from "frustrated".

[Wells]

"The besieged citizens of Arizona"?

[Syantaa]

Fun fun fun, more taxes for everyone!

[Sunseeker]

Fun fun fun, more taxes for everyone!

Yes, a few hundred a year for a service that covers a lot in place of several hundred a month for a service that doesn't actually cover anything.

I'm totally down for paying less for more.

[xile]

Yes, but that means that Americans have to pay more for the goods, which means there are less resources left over for other things. Furthermore, the US is thus wasting precious labour on inefficient production of certain farm goods, when it could just import those goods cheaper and produce something else.

Using your logic, I take it would be even better if we put up tariffs for imports from other States? Other states have pesky farmers who can farm for lower costs, which means that the unemployment in our State would be higher right? So putting tariffs on out-of-state products would help the employment in our State. Heck, why leave it there? Why not just put trade barriers around your city/town? I mean, sure you may increase employment in that particular industry that is protected, but the overall employment and wealth would certainly decrease.

So i had to go but i'll continue as to why tariffs are a good thing. Americans have to pay more because of tariffs and in turn spend less on other things yes that's true, but the problem is multi-fold. If you get rid of all tariffs you decreased prices for tons of americans but at the same time just cost hundreds of thousands of americans if not millions of americans their jobs because they can not compete with the low prices of the other countries, which ultimately would result in a huge loss in demand. They can't compete not because of inefficent production but because of the fact that even our minimum wage here is considered high in many places of the world including india, china, and brazil. We can not possibly compete with them because just from a pay rate it is significantly more costly, despite the fact that many times we are much more efficient. Even if in theory the money saved by all those americans increases the demand relative to when the tariffs were in place, despite the fact that tons of americans lost their jobs, they will now be most likely buying goods that come from out of america which just sends billions out of this country, because other countries offer goods at much cheaper prices. The only way to stop some major influx of money out of the U.S. would be to greatly increase our exports of more specialized advanced technologies that countires like india and china can't manufacture as cheaply as we can. While this is possible you're still faced with a major influx on a global level economically that can't really be predicted that accurately. At the end of the day tarrifs protect american jobs by keeping money and jobs in this country, because as a country there is no way that we can compete with other countries that have much lower prices due to our significantly higher wages (even though the like 8 dollar minimum wage is considered bare minimum here).

tldr; if you get rid of tarrifs, money flies out of america because even though demand of goods might possibly increase more than the relative drop that would be caused by the mass unemployment of millions due to an influx of cheap foreign consumer goods, at the end of the day that possible increase in demand would be filled most likely by countries that can offer exceptionally cheap goods and not the U.S. which would ultimately end in more job less because most of American production that relies on human labor can not keep up with lower prices of foreign countries due to higher wages.
in

[Pert]

So i had to go but i'll continue as to why tariffs are a good thing. Americans have to pay more because of tariffs and in turn spend less on other things yes that's true, but the problem is multi-fold. If you get rid of all tariffs you decreased prices for tons of americans but at the same time just cost hundreds of thousands of americans if not millions of americans their jobs because they can not compete with the low prices of the other countries, which ultimately would result in a huge loss in demand. They can't compete not because of inefficent production but because of the fact that even our minimum wage here is considered high in many places of the world including india, china, and brazil. We can not possibly compete with them because just from a pay rate it is significantly more costly, despite the fact that many times we are much more efficient. Even if in theory the money saved by all those americans increases the demand relative to when the tariffs were in place, despite the fact that tons of americans lost their jobs, they will now be most likely buying goods that come from out of america which just sends billions out of this country, because other countries offer goods at much cheaper prices. The only way to stop some major influx of money out of the U.S. would be to greatly increase our exports of more specialized advanced technologies that countires like india and china can't manufacture as cheaply as we can. While this is possible you're still faced with a major influx on a global level economically that can't really be predicted that accurately. At the end of the day tarrifs protect american jobs by keeping money and jobs in this country, because as a country there is no way that we can compete with other countries that have much lower prices due to our significantly higher wages (even though the like 8 dollar minimum wage is considered bare minimum here).

tldr; if you get rid of tarrifs, money flies out of america because even though demand of goods might possibly increase more than the relative drop that would be caused by the mass unemployment of millions due to an influx of cheap foreign consumer goods, at the end of the day that possible increase in demand would be filled most likely by countries that can offer exceptionally cheap goods and not the U.S. which would ultimately end in more job less because most of American production that relies on human labor can not keep up with lower prices of foreign countries due to higher wages.
in

You still have it wrong.

Tariffs raise the cost of imports, this helps US producers of those imports, but harms everyone downstream from those producers. For example, if you levy a tariff on foreign chicken imports, you help US chicken farmers, but you drastically raise the prices for companies in the US that need chickens for their businesses. Distributors, restaurants, supermarkets, street vendors, etc are all hurt, just to prop up producers, a minority of the "chicken economy."

Since it would clearly be cheaper for all involved to simply remove the tariff and buy chickens on the world market, the jobs created in the chicken farming industry are by definition inefficient. That labor would be much better allocated elsewhere. A nice illustration of this concept would be the industrial revolution. We used to need everyone farming in order to create enough food to feed us. Technological advances allowed us to re-allocate labor from farming to other jobs, like those in factories, creating products that we wouldn't otherwise have had.

We could send everyone back to the farms, but why?

Of course, the end consumer suffers as well, since the products they're purchasing are more expensive with tariffs in place.

[xile]

You still have it wrong.

Tariffs raise the cost of imports, this helps US producers of those imports, but harms everyone downstream from those producers. For example, if you levy a tariff on foreign chicken imports, you help US chicken farmers, but you drastically raise the prices for companies in the US that need chickens for their businesses. Distributors, restaurants, supermarkets, street vendors, etc are all hurt, just to prop up producers, a minority of the "chicken economy."

Since it would clearly be cheaper for all involved to simply remove the tariff and buy chickens on the world market, the jobs created in the chicken farming industry are by definition inefficient. That labor would be much better allocated elsewhere. A nice illustration of this concept would be the industrial revolution. We used to need everyone farming in order to create enough food to feed us. Technological advances allowed us to re-allocate labor from farming to other jobs, like those in factories, creating products that we wouldn't otherwise have had. Your entire view is based on the idea that jobs would be allocated somewhere within the country that would be better use, the problem with that is that there's not a need currently for those jobs, and even if there would be with the increased demand those jobs would be in other foreign countries that offer cheaper goods due to lower wages.

We could send everyone back to the farms, but why?

Of course, the end consumer suffers as well, since the products they're purchasing are more expensive with tariffs in place.

You're implying that we somehow actually have the market that needs to have these other jobs that altogether require a different skill set and usually much more advanced work. Point is, i don't see how people are going to argue that by eliminating those jobs that american farmers and production works in american have would help period, yes it's cheaper for some people, but in the end all cheap consumer goods that would reap the benefits of these tarrif removals would come from foreign sources, and as currently shown our demand isn't nearly high enough in the areas that require those "higher" levels of work as is why would it get any better, when the increased demand because of cheaper supplies would just be supported by foreign markets.

My question is how possibly would jobs be created for those millions of americans that lose their jobs because of tariff removals, yes there would be an increase in demand due to more money due to cheaper goods, but in a world with no tarriffs where countries with cheaper wages can import goods to the U.S. the money would go straight out of the country employing foreign workers instead of workers here. The only chance that the U.S. would then have to create jobs would be in markets of higher technology and the obvious answer is that not people who work in production and farming have anywhere the knowledge to perform those jobs, and even if they do the market for those jobs isn't exactly needing a whole lot of people.

[Pert]

You're implying that we somehow actually have the market that needs to have these other jobs that altogether require a different skill set and usually much more advanced work. Point is, i don't see how people are going to argue that by eliminating those jobs that american farmers and production works in american have would help period, yes it's cheaper for some people, but in the end all cheap consumer goods that would reap the benefits of these tarrif removals would come from foreign sources, and as currently shown our demand isn't nearly high enough in the areas that require those "higher" levels of work as is why would it get any better, when the increased demand because of cheaper supplies would just be supported by foreign markets.

My question is how possibly would jobs be created for those millions of americans that lose their jobs because of tariff removals, yes there would be an increase in demand due to more money due to cheaper goods, but in a world with no tarriffs where countries with cheaper wages can import goods to the U.S. the money would go straight out of the country employing foreign workers instead of workers here. The only chance that the U.S. would then have to create jobs would be in markets of higher technology and the obvious answer is that not people who work in production and farming have anywhere the knowledge to perform those jobs, and even if they do the market for those jobs isn't exactly needing a whole lot of people.

You may not see it, but I've run out of ways to explain it to you. I gather that your ideal US is a totally insular country that doesn't trade with the outside? I suppose we could all just move back to farming and mining.

[Deleted]

I think the problem you're having is that you forget that the dollars that are paid for the imports will eventually come back by foreigners buying US goods. And if they do not come back into the US economy, that means that the people of the US will gain as from their perspective the dollars will simply be removed from circulation. That means deflation will increase the value of all the remaining dollars.

The US does not have to be able to compete in certain industries where Indians or the Taiwanese can do it at a fraction cost of the US wages. It's a great opportunity for the US, as it allows us to delegate all the monotone and mundane tasks to them. This frees up labour in the US to produce more highly specialized goods, because the fact is that US labour is alot more skilled. They do the basic tasks overseas, we do the thinking of how to make these processess more efficient.

Xile, just open up an economics book. It will be shown with graphs and shit there. It's pretty simple really. Tariffs have no place unless you 1) Want to Wage trade war 2) Want to make sure a specific industry stays at a certain size in the US (e.g. for national security reasons) 3) You want to raise revenue 4) Want to prop up a certain industry because their lobbyists paid a visit to you

In each of these cases the result will be a less prosperous nation. In certain circumstances it can be acceptable, for example for national security reasons. As a means to raise revenue it's not very good though.

[cymraeg13]

"The besieged citizens of Arizona"?

http://www.thecypresstimes.com/artic..._TO_HELP/30124

[Wells]

http://www.thecypresstimes.com/artic..._TO_HELP/30124

Any article that starts "Arizona is under siege from the liberal left for practicing sovereignty" is not one worth reading.

[Barnabas]

What judge in their right mind would say obamacare is constitutional? It's full of so many tax increases it's mind boggling. Let's take the Medical Device Excise Tax, for example. The companies that make these devices are gonna have to mitigate the tax somehow. They will likely fire people and/or raise prices. The real estate tax is troublesome also. None of the figures adjust for inflation so it'll eventually be problematic for more people as time goes on. There's even more taxes for everyone else including hospitals, grabs for revenues at drugs. I don't think the government is capable of running anything right. Look at medicare right now and be honest. Do you really want the government managing your health care still?

[Wells]

It's full of so many tax increases it's mind boggling.

This has nothing to do with its constitutionality, even if it were true.

Look at medicare right now and be honest.

You mean the single payer system that is more efficient than private care while dealing with the hardest to insure and health care intensive segments of the populace?