[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=CA renter]
We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).[/quote]

Wow! Some historical perspective is in order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act

“The main goal was to protect American jobs and farmers from foreign competition, especially after the global economy entered the first stages of the Great Depression in late 1929. ”

—snip—

” Threats of retaliation began long before the bill was enacted into law in June 1930. As it passed the House of Representatives in May 1929, boycotts broke out and foreign governments moved to increase rates against American products, even though rates could be increased or decreased by the Senate or by the conference committee. By September 1929, Hoover’s administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners, but threats of retaliatory actions were ignored.”

“In May 1930, the greatest trading partner, Canada, retaliated by imposing new tariffs on 16 products that accounted altogether for around 30% of U.S. exports to Canada. Canada later also forged closer economic links with the British Commonwealth. France and Britain protested and developed new trade partners. Germany developed a system of autarky.”

“Both Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley were defeated for reelection in 1932, the controversial tariff being a major factor in their respective losses.”

Do we need to risk this again? Surely there are easier ways to fix our problems than that….

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=CA renter]
We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).[/quote]

Wow! Some historical perspective is in order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act

“The main goal was to protect American jobs and farmers from foreign competition, especially after the global economy entered the first stages of the Great Depression in late 1929. ”

—snip—

” Threats of retaliation began long before the bill was enacted into law in June 1930. As it passed the House of Representatives in May 1929, boycotts broke out and foreign governments moved to increase rates against American products, even though rates could be increased or decreased by the Senate or by the conference committee. By September 1929, Hoover’s administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners, but threats of retaliatory actions were ignored.”

“In May 1930, the greatest trading partner, Canada, retaliated by imposing new tariffs on 16 products that accounted altogether for around 30% of U.S. exports to Canada. Canada later also forged closer economic links with the British Commonwealth. France and Britain protested and developed new trade partners. Germany developed a system of autarky.”

“Both Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley were defeated for reelection in 1932, the controversial tariff being a major factor in their respective losses.”

Do we need to risk this again? Surely there are easier ways to fix our problems than that….

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=CA renter]
We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).[/quote]

Wow! Some historical perspective is in order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act

“The main goal was to protect American jobs and farmers from foreign competition, especially after the global economy entered the first stages of the Great Depression in late 1929. ”

—snip—

” Threats of retaliation began long before the bill was enacted into law in June 1930. As it passed the House of Representatives in May 1929, boycotts broke out and foreign governments moved to increase rates against American products, even though rates could be increased or decreased by the Senate or by the conference committee. By September 1929, Hoover’s administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners, but threats of retaliatory actions were ignored.”

“In May 1930, the greatest trading partner, Canada, retaliated by imposing new tariffs on 16 products that accounted altogether for around 30% of U.S. exports to Canada. Canada later also forged closer economic links with the British Commonwealth. France and Britain protested and developed new trade partners. Germany developed a system of autarky.”

“Both Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley were defeated for reelection in 1932, the controversial tariff being a major factor in their respective losses.”

Do we need to risk this again? Surely there are easier ways to fix our problems than that….

[enron_by_the_sea]

I am apparently getting 4.25% conforming 30-year fixed with ~0 closing cost (APR ~ 4.27%)

Free money everyone, hurry get yours…

[enron_by_the_sea]

I am apparently getting 4.25% conforming 30-year fixed with ~0 closing cost (APR ~ 4.27%)

Free money everyone, hurry get yours…

[enron_by_the_sea]

I am apparently getting 4.25% conforming 30-year fixed with ~0 closing cost (APR ~ 4.27%)

Free money everyone, hurry get yours…

[enron_by_the_sea]

I am apparently getting 4.25% conforming 30-year fixed with ~0 closing cost (APR ~ 4.27%)

Free money everyone, hurry get yours…

[enron_by_the_sea]

I am apparently getting 4.25% conforming 30-year fixed with ~0 closing cost (APR ~ 4.27%)

Free money everyone, hurry get yours…

[enron_by_the_sea]

My son speaks excellent English and does pretty well academically. SDUSD classifies him as English learner because we filled the enrollment form saying that our (& his) mother tongue was not English. I am sure there are many kids like that in the ESL group.

We have neighbors who are in identical situation as us, except that they filled that form saying that the mother tongue was English. Their kid is not classified as ESL.

[enron_by_the_sea]

My son speaks excellent English and does pretty well academically. SDUSD classifies him as English learner because we filled the enrollment form saying that our (& his) mother tongue was not English. I am sure there are many kids like that in the ESL group.

We have neighbors who are in identical situation as us, except that they filled that form saying that the mother tongue was English. Their kid is not classified as ESL.

[enron_by_the_sea]

My son speaks excellent English and does pretty well academically. SDUSD classifies him as English learner because we filled the enrollment form saying that our (& his) mother tongue was not English. I am sure there are many kids like that in the ESL group.

We have neighbors who are in identical situation as us, except that they filled that form saying that the mother tongue was English. Their kid is not classified as ESL.

[enron_by_the_sea]

My son speaks excellent English and does pretty well academically. SDUSD classifies him as English learner because we filled the enrollment form saying that our (& his) mother tongue was not English. I am sure there are many kids like that in the ESL group.

We have neighbors who are in identical situation as us, except that they filled that form saying that the mother tongue was English. Their kid is not classified as ESL.

[enron_by_the_sea]

My son speaks excellent English and does pretty well academically. SDUSD classifies him as English learner because we filled the enrollment form saying that our (& his) mother tongue was not English. I am sure there are many kids like that in the ESL group.

We have neighbors who are in identical situation as us, except that they filled that form saying that the mother tongue was English. Their kid is not classified as ESL.

[enron_by_the_sea]

I am really confused reading the article and the subsequent discussion.

can someone clarity if this will be a tax on
(a) capital gain after selling the house or,
(b) equity realized after selling the house.

They are not the same things. e.g. if I buy a house for 500K putting 100K down and sell for 600K the next day, then my capital gain will be 100K but equity realized from sale will be 200K

[enron_by_the_sea]

I am really confused reading the article and the subsequent discussion.

can someone clarity if this will be a tax on
(a) capital gain after selling the house or,
(b) equity realized after selling the house.

They are not the same things. e.g. if I buy a house for 500K putting 100K down and sell for 600K the next day, then my capital gain will be 100K but equity realized from sale will be 200K

[Author]

Posts