You said previously that higher interest rates solely "WILL" cause inflation. Now that I've pointed out Japan as an example that contradicts you, you have to bring in culture as another factor. While I agree our culture is different from theirs, my point is that higher interest rates doesn't NECESSARILY increase inflation.
Interest rates *will* cause inflation means interest rates will increase the inflationary forces on prices relative to lower interest rates. It doesn't mean that if interest rates in Japan are lower than in the United States that the Yen will depreciate faster than the dollar. But if interest rates were to lower for central banks in either, the inflationary forces will tend to increase. Japan might have to half their interest rates, hypothetically, to achieve only a 5-10% increase in price indecies whereas a corresponding change might yield a 15% price increase for things denominated in dollars.
The assertion that because Japan has low-ish (comparable to the United States) interest rates and Japan has low amounts of inflation means that lower rates don't cause inflation is incorrect in this regard. What should be asked is if we compared two Japans, which one would tend to experience more currency inflation.
Buying domestic doesn't have to come with a higher cost if imported stuff is made more expensive. Thus if imported stuff is made more expensive, more consumers will naturally generally buy the cheaper domestic wares.
Of course buying domestic won't cost more imports are subject to tariffs and duties. But both will cost more than imports which are not. These displaced funds would then be unavailable to patronize other wares made by domestic producers.
So I've heard that by the book argument before during my economic courses during college. Lets factor in generous subsidies from foreign governments.
If foreign governments subsidize certain industries, whose wares we import, they do so through tax revenues. Those are monies taken from their economy not available to patronize their own services.
Let's look at it another way. If another country taxes its citizens to provide us with cheaper than market products, why would we think that is bad? That's literally being given money. Mobilize and restructure to take advantage of this.
Look at our history for proof. Tariffs have helped American manufacturing grow ever since the founding of the nation. Are you saying the rise of America to a world power through domestic manufacturing at the end of the 19th century (in such a short time) would have been possible without tariffs?
Are you saying the rise to power is solely or partly attributable to protectionism policies? How would American History played out with less or no protectionism? That is, quite frankly, a fallacy of false cause.
By that reasoning, getting cut and scraped learning to snowboard has led to my current riding ability. And if I get cut and scraped more in the future it would advance my riding ability even more.
Its kind of hard for people to be exercising it with their best judgement when they are continuously fed a bunch of misinformation through FOX and other extremely nutty outlets. FOX even won the right in court to broadcast misinformation without punishment because it was judged to be free speech.
Agreed, Fox isn't that good of a news outlet. What does this have to do with anything?
I didn't say you have to be a Democrat to support it, that's just one of the reasons why I choose to be a Democrat.
It implies exclusivity by reductive logic, since supporting that idea isn't exclusive to being a Democrat. I wouldn't say I bought a Ford because I wanted a car with wheels, would I?
Mandating certain government programs to help the disenfranchised is a lot better than just letting the disenfranchised depend solely on the charity of the common citizen because (no disrespect to the charitable work you've done) the generosity of citizens is not alike and if a citizen just decides right then and there not to do any charitable work, the disenfranchised got nothing if there is no government programs. Again, one of the reasons why I'm a Democrat.
Which people are disenfranchised, though? What amount of help do they need? What is help? I find the problem with public charity (i.e. welfare) to be, that the definition of what those things are is constantly in flux and will always slide toward full redistribution of everything and state ownership is achieved.
There was an article I read the other day about free cell phones available to the "needy" in Philadelphia. On one hand, I support welfare at the State level since this is fully Constitutional and well within the means of a State to control. On the other hand, I find this to be despicable. I put myself through college to get where I am today and did so without the use of a cell phone, a car or many luxuries. Is a cell phone something people should be given? Is it really something people need and can't get by without? Or is it more of a convenience and luxury.
This is an example of the sliding effect I'm speaking about.