Someone explain to me

Hel_Books said:
And they tell you a barista making a living wage will bring the free market system to disaster while billionaires not paying taxes is no big thing.

The value of what your contribution to society is thru your labors has a direct bearing on your expected compensation. It's not exactly a participation trophy. :)
Indeed! But I was pointing out that when billionaires avoid paying taxes (or when they squeeze the wages of the less fortunate) they are most definitely NOT contributing to society!
 
Indeed! But I was pointing out that when billionaires avoid paying taxes (or when they squeeze the wages of the less fortunate) they are most definitely NOT contributing to society!
What about trickle down?
Hence the Trump quote about the system is broken. :)
 
Hel_Books said:
Indeed! But I was pointing out that when billionaires avoid paying taxes (or when they squeeze the wages of the less fortunate) they are most definitely NOT contributing to society!

What about trickle down?
Hence the Trump quote about the system is broken. :)
Except Trump is breaking the parts of your system that actually work. Or worked before he came along.
 
Hel_Books said:
Except Trump is breaking the parts of your system that actually work. Or worked before he came along.

Tariffs? What parts? :)
Wasn't the whole idea off GATT and the WTO that free trade brought prosperity (which it did) and protectionism causes economic chaos (as we've seen).

The economy of the USA left everyone else in the dust over the last half century (remember when the Japanese were going to be the kings of the hill?). Trump is looking to kill that and maybe cede economic leadership to China.
 
Wasn't the whole idea off GATT and the WTO that free trade brought prosperity (which it did) and protectionism causes economic chaos (as we've seen).

The economy of the USA left everyone else in the dust over the last half century (remember when the Japanese were going to be the kings of the hill?). Trump is looking to kill that and maybe cede economic leadership to China.
It was certainly good for Germany and SKorea. The results aren't in. :)
 
Hel_Books said:
Wasn't the whole idea off GATT and the WTO that free trade brought prosperity (which it did) and protectionism causes economic chaos (as we've seen).

The economy of the USA left everyone else in the dust over the last half century (remember when the Japanese were going to be the kings of the hill?). Trump is looking to kill that and maybe cede economic leadership to China.

It was certainly good for Germany and SKorea. The results aren't in. :)
In comparison, the USA economy has done quite well.
USA per capita GDP increased from $12,575 in 1980 to $90,026 in 2025
Germany's increased from $12,182 to $60,496
South Korea's increased from $1,745 to $36,227
 
In comparison, the USA economy has done quite well.
USA per capita GDP increased from $12,575 in 1980 to $90,026 in 2025
Germany's increased from $12,182 to $60,496
South Korea's increased from $1,745 to $36,227
"Most economic analyses conclude that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) had only a modest direct impact on the overall US per capita GDP, adding roughly $400 per person annually. While US per-capita GDP grew significantly following the agreement, economists attribute this growth primarily to broader technological advancements and general domestic economic policy rather than the trade deal alone." :)
 
Hel_Books said:
In comparison, the USA economy has done quite well.
USA per capita GDP increased from $12,575 in 1980 to $90,026 in 2025
Germany's increased from $12,182 to $60,496
South Korea's increased from $1,745 to $36,227

"Most economic analyses conclude that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) had only a modest direct impact on the overall US per capita GDP, adding roughly $400 per person annually. While US per-capita GDP grew significantly following the agreement, economists attribute this growth primarily to broader technological advancements and general domestic economic policy rather than the trade deal alone." :)
If you'll read my earlier posts, you'll see I was referring to the GATT and WTO. But you're right, free trade agreements among North American nations did contribute.

Technological advances and economic policy did have a part in everybody's economic progress, but when I wrote that free trade brought prosperity to the USA, you wrote, "It was certainly good for Germany and SKorea." By that omission, did you mean free trade DIDN'T benefit the USA?

By the numbers, it does appear that the USA did quite well through free trade. Trump's tariffs look to take your country, and the world economy, backwards.
 
If you'll read my earlier posts, you'll see I was referring to the GATT and WTO. But you're right, free trade agreements among North American nations did contribute.

Technological advances and economic policy did have a part in everybody's economic progress, but when I wrote that free trade brought prosperity to the USA, you wrote, "It was certainly good for Germany and SKorea." By that omission, did you mean free trade DIDN'T benefit the USA?

By the numbers, it does appear that the USA did quite well through free trade. Trump's tariffs look to take your country, and the world economy, backwards.
Won't know the results for years. :)
 
Hel_Books said:
If you'll read my earlier posts, you'll see I was referring to the GATT and WTO. But you're right, free trade agreements among North American nations did contribute.

Technological advances and economic policy did have a part in everybody's economic progress, but when I wrote that free trade brought prosperity to the USA, you wrote, "It was certainly good for Germany and SKorea." By that omission, did you mean free trade DIDN'T benefit the USA?

By the numbers, it does appear that the USA did quite well through free trade. Trump's tariffs look to take your country, and the world economy, backwards.

Won't know the results for years. :)
If you make your policies go backwards, it stands to reason your economic numbers will go backwards too. You're ALREADY seeing higher inflation.
 
Back
Top