1 minute ago, nigelforbes said:

Probably more so than from somebody who hadn't even been born yet!

Look, I'd love to bicker with you for a while but as I said previously, this is not about cars, it was merely a reply to the question you asked.  You couldn't find it in yourself to get back on topic, could you, for the second time of asking.

Apparently, neither can you.

And apparently you believe that a partisan in the thick of things is a reliable source.

And could you please get back on topic?

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Apparently, neither can you.

And apparently you believe that a partisan in the thick of things is a reliable source.

And could you please get back on topic?

Back on the list you go for a few weeks, byee.

5 minutes ago, nigelforbes said:

Back on the list you go for a few weeks, byee.

Thanks for the passive aggressive response. Your loss.

1 hour ago, nigelforbes said:

I was in Detroit in the 60's and 70's, yes I saw much of those things first hand as a GM employee. And yes, I do blame the unions, sorry, but the UAW crippled the industry with their excessive demands, everyone in Detroit understands that, whether the rest of America does is debatable. The big three were still drilling their body panels to fit trim strips whilst the Japanese glued them on and didn't suffer from rust. The Japanese were building unit body construction which made them lighter with better gas mileage, the big three loved their chasis's, and so on. But fundamental redesign and retooling on that scale takes R&D expense and time, Chrysler certainly didn't have either and Ford did purely by luck.

Two points:

 

1.  One of the "excessive demands" of the unions was for health care, a cost most of the car industries outside the US didn't have to worry about because their countries had universal health care in some form or another.  The US's stubborn refusal to provide health care like every other rich country has put all of our industries at a competitive disadvantage.

 

2.  I looked but could not find information on how much the US car industry was spending on R&D and how much on marketing.  I'll wager far more went  into marketing, while the reverse was true in Japan.  Japan didn't have to spend much on marketing in the US, it let the quality of the product speak for itself.  Not so Detroit.

 

I remember that the car industry did have ample money for marketing and lobbying.  Its response to foreign competition was a big "Buy American" campaign.  That was money that could and should have been spent on improving their product.

 

This is only peripherally related to the topic in that it illustrates how many of the country's problems are self-inflicted.  Biden is trying to improve US competitiveness by improving infrastructure; not only roads and power but human infrastructure such as health and education.  It's the kind of spending that responsible elected officials do even though most of the pay-off won't be apparent until several elections down the road.  Republicans are more interested in instant gratification actions, such as tax cuts, with no regard to the long-term consequences.

Some countries are now going to the Yuan instead of the US dollar. If this starts to grow with more countries going to different currencies instead of the reserve currency, the USA dollar will be in a whole new world of hurt with  it's debt of 33 trillion dollars.. Biden better wake up soon before it's too late.

1 minute ago, vandeventer said:

Some countries are now going to the Yuan instead of the US dollar. If this starts to grow with more countries going to different currencies instead of the reserve currency, the USA dollar will be in a whole new world of hurt with  it's debt of 33 trillion dollars.. Biden better wake up soon before it's too late.

China has restrictions on convertibility. Yuan is an internal currency anyway, Renmimbi is their external currency. It will never be a reserve currency while there are restrictions on convertibility.

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Republicans are more interested in instant gratification actions, such as tax cuts, with no regard to the long-term consequences.

The tax revenue went up and the IRS already shows the tax cuts hurt did not help the top 1%.  The problem in the USA is not that it collects too little tax, it spends too much. The top 1% pay more in total taxes than the bottom 90%. 

 

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The US's stubborn refusal to provide health care like every other rich country has put all of our industries at a competitive disadvantage.

Now as to health care your response is non-sensicle.  It is as if somehow if the government pays for health care 'IT IS FREE"  No it is not.  It just shifts the cost to the taxpayer instead of the the employer. 

If there is one thing that is true, anytime the government is placed in charge of something don't expect it to be cost effective.  The employer will work hard to keep healthcare costs down.  The government doesn't care.  The bureaucrats have no incentive.  They are spending someone elses money, on someone else.  Case in point.  is social security.  Social Security taxes were first collected in January 1937, with workers and employers each paying one percent of the first $3,000 in wages and salary.  That rate is now 6.2% on the first $147,200.  So the rate went up by 620% and the taxable maximum went up at the same time by 490%.  AND THE SYSTEM IS BROKE.  THERE IS NO MONEY IN SOCIAL SECURITY.  It has all been spent, and the trust fund has only IOU (treasury bonds) in it.  A bond is a promise to pay the bondholder back.  So the U.S. Treasury s promising to pay social security the money that it borrowed from it.  That is like your left pocket promising to put back the money it took from the right pocket. 

https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-pays-more-taxes-bottom-90-percent/

5 minutes ago, vandeventer said:

Biden better wake up soon before it's too late.

You could have stopped this sentence at Better Wake Up. 

1 minute ago, Longwood50 said:

The tax revenue went up and the IRS already shows the tax cuts hurt did not help the top 1%.  The problem in the USA is not that it collects too little tax, it spends too much. The top 1% pay more in total taxes than the bottom 90%. 

 

Now as to health care your response is non-sensicle.  It is as if somehow if the government pays for health care 'IT IS FREE"  No it is not.  It just shifts the cost to the taxpayer instead of the the employer. 

If there is one thing that is true, anytime the government is placed in charge of something don't expect it to be cost effective.  The employer will work hard to keep healthcare costs down.  The government doesn't care.  The bureaucrats have no incentive.  They are spending someone elses money, on someone else.  Case in point.  is social security.  Social Security taxes were first collected in January 1937, with workers and employers each paying one percent of the first $3,000 in wages and salary.  That rate is now 6.2% on the first $147,200.  So the rate went up by 620% and the taxable maximum went up at the same time by 490%.  AND THE SYSTEM IS BROKE.  THERE IS NO MONEY IN SOCIAL SECURITY.  It has all been spent, and the trust fund has only IOU (treasury bonds) in it.  A bond is a promise to pay the bondholder back.  So the U.S. Treasury s promising to pay social security the money that it borrowed from it.  That is like your left pocket promising to put back the money it took from the right pocket. 

https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-pays-more-taxes-bottom-90-percent/

Haha, you keep bashing this old canard. It's got nothing to do with the tax rate paid by each income quintile.

30 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

The tax revenue went up and the IRS already shows the tax cuts hurt did not help the top 1%.  The problem in the USA is not that it collects too little tax, it spends too much. The top 1% pay more in total taxes than the bottom 90%. 

 

Now as to health care your response is non-sensicle.  It is as if somehow if the government pays for health care 'IT IS FREE"  No it is not.  It just shifts the cost to the taxpayer instead of the the employer. 

If there is one thing that is true, anytime the government is placed in charge of something don't expect it to be cost effective.  The employer will work hard to keep healthcare costs down.  The government doesn't care.  The bureaucrats have no incentive.  They are spending someone elses money, on someone else.  Case in point.  is social security.  Social Security taxes were first collected in January 1937, with workers and employers each paying one percent of the first $3,000 in wages and salary.  That rate is now 6.2% on the first $147,200.  So the rate went up by 620% and the taxable maximum went up at the same time by 490%.  AND THE SYSTEM IS BROKE.  THERE IS NO MONEY IN SOCIAL SECURITY.  It has all been spent, and the trust fund has only IOU (treasury bonds) in it.  A bond is a promise to pay the bondholder back.  So the U.S. Treasury s promising to pay social security the money that it borrowed from it.  That is like your left pocket promising to put back the money it took from the right pocket. 

https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-pays-more-taxes-bottom-90-percent/

No source for your claim about tax revenue.

 

While it is true that someone has to pay for healthcare, the fact remains that when governments do it through tax revenues it reduces the burden on their businesses.  In the US that burden rests squarely on businesses, which puts them at a competitive disadvantage internationally.

 

Also, the scattershot approach to paying for healthcare in the US results in the US spending significantly more on healthcare than any other wealthy nation.  https://www.statista.com/statistics/268826/health-expenditure-as-gdp-percentage-in-oecd-countries/

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO one doesn't have to be a Trump supporter to believe that Biden isn't very good at his job.

Hows it going on that "unite the US" thing he was talking about?

And exactly how well did Trump unite the USA?

4 hours ago, vandeventer said:

Some countries are now going to the Yuan instead of the US dollar. If this starts to grow with more countries going to different currencies instead of the reserve currency, the USA dollar will be in a whole new world of hurt with  it's debt of 33 trillion dollars.. Biden better wake up soon before it's too late.

Thailand and China have a swap agreement in place to settle trade bills, instead of using USD. 

 

"The Bilateral Swap Arrangement allows for the exchange of local currencies up to 70 billion yuan ($10.83 billion) or 370 billion baht ($12.31 billion) for a period of five years, starting from Dec. 22, 2020, it said in a statement here ($1 = 6.4639 Chinese yuan renminbi) ($1 = 30.06 baht)."

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/thailand-economy-cenbank-idUSL4N2JJ1T3

50 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

The tax revenue went up and the IRS already shows the tax cuts hurt did not help the top 1%.  The problem in the USA is not that it collects too little tax, it spends too much. The top 1% pay more in total taxes than the bottom 90%. 

 

Now as to health care your response is non-sensicle.  It is as if somehow if the government pays for health care 'IT IS FREE"  No it is not.  It just shifts the cost to the taxpayer instead of the the employer. 

If there is one thing that is true, anytime the government is placed in charge of something don't expect it to be cost effective.  The employer will work hard to keep healthcare costs down.  The government doesn't care.  The bureaucrats have no incentive.  They are spending someone elses money, on someone else.  Case in point.  is social security.  Social Security taxes were first collected in January 1937, with workers and employers each paying one percent of the first $3,000 in wages and salary.  That rate is now 6.2% on the first $147,200.  So the rate went up by 620% and the taxable maximum went up at the same time by 490%.  AND THE SYSTEM IS BROKE.  THERE IS NO MONEY IN SOCIAL SECURITY.  It has all been spent, and the trust fund has only IOU (treasury bonds) in it.  A bond is a promise to pay the bondholder back.  So the U.S. Treasury s promising to pay social security the money that it borrowed from it.  That is like your left pocket promising to put back the money it took from the right pocket. 

https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-pays-more-taxes-bottom-90-percent/

They pay a higher share of taxes than before because they have a higher share of income than before.

And the RCEP trade agreement forms the biggest trade group designed not to use USD to settle export bills. The group comprises 15 countries and a third of the worlds population.:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Comprehensive_Economic_Partnership

2 hours ago, vandeventer said:

Some countries are now going to the Yuan instead of the US dollar. If this starts to grow with more countries going to different currencies instead of the reserve currency, the USA dollar will be in a whole new world of hurt with  it's debt of 33 trillion dollars.. Biden better wake up soon before it's too late.

A few countries. No country governed by sane people is going to seriously engage with a currency that isn't allowed to float freely. And Xi's propensity to meddle in financial and economic matters he clearly doesn't understand, isn't going to promote its use.

40 minutes ago, placeholder said:

A few countries. No country governed by sane people is going to seriously engage with a currency that isn't allowed to float freely. And Xi's propensity to meddle in financial and economic matters he clearly doesn't understand, isn't going to promote its use.

Well, given that the world seems to be led by the insane to a large degree, we had better watch out! The USD is already being bypassed as a form of payment by some countries and this trend is likely to continue. The BRICS alliance, plus recent partners, seem to be interested in an alternate form of digital currency. Whatever happens, it needs to be remembered that all previous dominant fiat currencies eventually failed and lost their status.

 

https://blockchain.news/news/brics-alliance-considers-creating-new-currency

   

32 minutes ago, placeholder said:

A few countries. No country governed by sane people is going to seriously engage with a currency that isn't allowed to float freely. And Xi's propensity to meddle in financial and economic matters he clearly doesn't understand, isn't going to promote its use.

Once the ball starts rolling other countries kick in, like India dealing in the rupee instead of the US dollar.

https://www.timesnownews.com/business-economy/economy/rupee-to-replace-us-dollar-india-wants-nations-facing-dollar-crunch-to-settle-trade-payments-in-rupee-article-99187766

8 hours ago, Pink Mist said:

In reality it was Reagan who put the US on it's current path. Prior to Nixon the world was already changing, but things grew and so things changed in the US and worldwide. Under Biden the US has been adding jobs back into the economy, but it is not 100% his doing.

Doesn't surprise me if it was Reagan. Just another thing he did that wasn't a good idea. I have no idea why people think he was so great. IMO he was a rotten actor too.

31 minutes ago, placeholder said:

A few countries. No country governed by sane people is going to seriously engage with a currency that isn't allowed to float freely. And Xi's propensity to meddle in financial and economic matters he clearly doesn't understand, isn't going to promote its use.

 De-USD or De-Dollarization is picking up.  A number of Countries in "Global South" are looking into this trend to dilute of USD.  The process will take years/decade ( less than 2 decades ).

  Many are thinking of pricing and transactions free of USD, and not necessarily of using RMB.

This is not just about RMB/Yuan and Xi, 

 

 

Currently,  fund are seriously moving from the Western Financial Institutions to Singapore and Hong Kong.  This is another thing --- less trust to the Swiss institution and less trust to the West. 

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Doesn't surprise me if it was Reagan. Just another thing he did that wasn't a good idea. I have no idea why people think he was so great. IMO he was a rotten actor too.

Disagree (not about the acting). Nixon removed the gold backing for the USD and that was the start of the decline.

7 hours ago, nigelforbes said:

The automobile industry is a good example. The unions brought the likes of Chrysler and Ford to their knees in the 1970's because overseas cost of production and quality standards were so much higher. By the time the US auto. industry responded to that threat it was too late, overseas labor and production costs undercut domestic costs and the US lost market share,

and yet, by the time of the financial crisis of 2007 we had the spectacle of CEOs of auto companies turning up on their private jets to beg for a bail out. So, some people were doing just fine in the US auto industry.

Memory isn't that great now, but I'm pretty sure that did happen. Tell me if I'm wrong.

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and yet, by the time of the financial crisis of 2007 we had the spectacle of CEOs of auto companies turning up on their private jets to beg for a bail out. So, some people were doing just fine in the US auto industry.

Memory isn't that great now, but I'm pretty sure that did happen. Tell me if I'm wrong.

Well yes, lots of things changed in the 40 years between what I described and what you now mention!

12 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Disagree (not about the acting). Nixon removed the gold backing for the USD and that was the start of the decline.

Originally I was referring to Nixon allowing China to join the world financial "club". I'd prefer it had China been left to rot. At least we might be making stuff ourselves if China hadn't been cheaper.

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Originally I was referring to Nixon allowing China to join the world financial "club". I'd prefer it had China been left to rot. At least we might be making stuff ourselves if China hadn't been cheaper.

I don't think that much could have stopped China's rise in terms of manufacturing power. 

A post without a credible, verifiable link, or source has been removed.

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Disagree (not about the acting). Nixon removed the gold backing for the USD and that was the start of the decline.

How Did the Gold Standard Contribute to the Great Depression?

A number of complex factors helped to create the conditions necessary for the Great Depression—adherence to the gold standard was just one of those factors.

 

President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s decision to take the United States off the gold standard may have helped to ease the worst effects of the Depression. 

 

Great Britain became the first to drop off the gold standard in 1931.

 

But the United States didn’t abandon gold for another two years, deepening the pain of the Great Depression.

 

https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-gold-standard-contribute-to-the-great-depression

A post with excessive usage of ALL CAPS has been removed as there is no need to SHOUT:

 

5. Do not post text with all capital letters or with over-sized fonts, all bold font, non-standard fonts, colored fonts or unusually large emojis. Do not use emojis or any other form of graphics in the title of your poll or topic.

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO one doesn't have to be a Trump supporter to believe that Biden isn't very good at his job.

Hows it going on that "unite the US" thing he was talking about?

Yes Biden is not helping me feel warm and friendly with the goons who smeared sh*t on my nation's capitol, tried to kidnap and murder elected representatives, maimed capitol police and killed one, etc.  
How would you unite us? 

38 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

How Did the Gold Standard Contribute to the Great Depression?

A number of complex factors helped to create the conditions necessary for the Great Depression—adherence to the gold standard was just one of those factors.

 

President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s decision to take the United States off the gold standard may have helped to ease the worst effects of the Depression. 

 

Great Britain became the first to drop off the gold standard in 1931.

 

But the United States didn’t abandon gold for another two years, deepening the pain of the Great Depression.

 

https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-gold-standard-contribute-to-the-great-depression

How did you figure I was talking about the Great Depression?

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Disagree (not about the acting). Nixon removed the gold backing for the USD and that was the start of the decline.

 

4 hours ago, candide said:

They pay a higher share of taxes than before because they have a higher share of income than before.

In addition to which this doesn't really capture how the rich get richer. Most of their wealth is tied up in investments and is only subject to capital gains tax when and if they sell. If someone rich dies not only is no capital gains tax paid on the inheritance but it gets even worse. The base of the investment is reset at the time the assets are inherited. This is called a step-up basis This is how it works, Let say Mr Smith buys an asset for 25 dollars and when he dies it's worth 200 dollars. Should the inheritor ever sell this asset, she will only be taxed on the increase in value above $200. The $175 difference between the time Mr. Smith bought it and the time he died doesn't count.

 

Another way the rich avoid paying income tax is to borrow against assets. So the cash they realize counts as a loan. So not taxable. And the interest on the loan comes to far less than an income tax would be.